Friday, March 29, 2013

2013 MLB Season Predictions

Baseball still exists? Could have fooled me. But I still get excited for opening day, and since we're close, it's time to make 2013 season predictions. Last year, I predicted the World Series correctly! I have no clue if I can make it two in a row, but I'll try.

NL East: 1.) WSH 2.) ATL 3.) PHI 4.) NYM 5.) MIA

Capsule: The NL East is a division of consistent winners, from the Braves to the Phillies, with only a Mets blip in the middle. This is the Nats division now, as they are the class of the NL. The Braves are, as usual, wild card contenders. The Phillies could either be really bad, or really surprising, depending on how healthy they stay. The Mets and Marlins might as well think about 2014.

NL Central: 1.) CIN 2.) STL 3). MIL 4.) PIT 5). CHC

Capsule: At least the Reds won a playoff game last year. I have a feeling they'll win a series this time around. The Cardinals, despite injury problems already, will still contend for a wild card on the back of Adam Wainwright. The Brewers and Pirates are good, but not great. (Here's hoping the Pirates finally finish over .500)

NL West: 1.) SF 2.) LAD 3.) ARZ 4.) SD 5.) COL

Capsule: One thing the Dodgers will learn this season is that free spending money on stars doesn't guarantee you success, and losing the division out to the Giants might teach them that. I've read that San Diego could be this year's Oakland: low budget team with a good nucleus that could surprise. I don't see it, but they'll be annoying to play against.

AL East: 1). TB 2.) TOR 3.) NYY 4.) BAL 5.) BOS

Capsule: Baseball's toughest division continues to earn that mantle, and this year might be the toughest yet. I want to pick Toronto to win the division, but can't (see above about the Dodgers). The Yankees will have a horrific start to the season because of injuries and lack of hitting, but they'll rebound by mid-season. The law of averages will hit the O's in full force this year, even if I want them to keep winning.

AL Central: 1.) DET 2.) Everybody Else (Kidding)- CHW 3). KC 4). CLE 5.) MIN

Capsule: Detroit is better than they were last year, and all they need is a closer to be World Series favorites. The rest of the division is left to push the Tigers, and I think the White Sox are best suited to, even if KC and Cleveland will do so in spurts.

AL West: 1.) LAA 2.) OAK 3.) TEX 4). SEA 5.) HOU

Capsule:  The Angels offense is terrifying. Their pitching behind Jered Weaver might also be. I can't see any way a team with this much offense misses the playoffs 2 years running, though. I'm not gonna doubt the A's anymore, and the Rangers will take their lumps this year while their prospects develop. And, I hope Astros fans enjoy those new uniforms, because those are much better looking than anything on the field will be this season.

NL Wild Cards: 1.) ATL 2.) LAD
AL Wild Cards: 1.) OAK 2.) TOR

NLDS: 1.) WSH over 4.) ATL
            2.) CIN over 3.) SF

NLCS: 1.) WSH over 2.) CIN

ALDS: 1.) DET over 5.) TOR
            3.) TB over 2.) LAA

ALCS: 1.) DET over 3.) TB

2013 World Series: Nationals over Tigers in 6

Awards Predictions:

NL MVP: Joey Votto
AL MVP: Mike Trout (Go crazy, stat geeks)
NL Cy Young: Clayton Kershaw
AL Cy Young: Felix Hernandez
NL Rookie of the Year: Oscar Taveras- St. Louis
AL Rookie of the Year: Jurickson Profar- Texas
NL Manager of the Year: Bruce Bochy
AL Manager of the Year: Joe Maddon

Monday, March 25, 2013

On "Safe" Drafting

It's still March, but the NFL draft is well in the minds of most fans right now, since it's only one month away. Mock drafts come out seemingly every minute, and rebuffs to those mock drafts follow suit. Some groups of fans often seem jaded by draft failures of the past, and seem scared of every player linked to their team. They want to play it "safe", by drafting the #1 guy on Mel Kiper's board, or the "Best Available Player". It's time to throw that notion away, because there is no such thing as drafting "safe". It's time to dispel theories of the past, and understand why teams draft the way they do.

With the amount of draftniks filling the internet, and people like me having free reign to throw their two cents in, fans get unnecessarily nervous about the draft and certain players, not just out of perception, but because of old failures. "Safe" players are often the fallback option, and fans are hesitant to embrace players that have inherent risks attached with drafting them, such as QB's. The 2013 Draft is a perfect example, since there are no sure-fire (bad term) starting QB's at the top of the draft, and the strength of the class is on the offensive and defensive lines. "Safe" players are often offensive lineman, who seem to pan out more than they don't. But even when you draft these "safe" players, they have just as much bust potential as the next Tim Couch, Akili Smith, or Ryan Leaf.

Offensive lineman busts in the draft are not hard to find, and most of those players are "safe" picks. Even though Jake Long was a very solid offensive line player for the Dolphins for 5 seasons, would Dolphins fans rather have him, or Matt Ryan knowing what we know now? Taking the "safe" player doesn't always guarantee the right result, and the future of the Miami Dolphins would be very different if they had taken Ryan over Long. The following year, the Rams selected Jason Smith from Baylor with the second overall pick. He's currently unemployed and was traded to the Jets for Wayne Hunter. That's not a good sign. Injuries and competition from Roger Saffold hurt his Rams career, and he will be known as a bust. And, then there is the king of offensive lineman busts...

Tony Mandarich:

That video, from NFL Films' Top 10 Draft busts, talks about Mandarich, his hype, and how he was the "can't miss prospect", before showing Reggie White toss him around like a rag-doll. To make it even worse, look at the players taken around him in the 1989 Draft. "Safe" doesn't always mean solid.

But this does distract from the larger point of fans being risk averse when watching their team draft. With risk, there is the possibility of failures, but also the possibility of massive success. From that video, Troy Aikman could have been considered somewhat risky, but he turned out to be a Hall of Fame player. If a team is unwilling to take risks, their drafts will suffer. Look at the Cincinnati Bengals drafts of the 1990's and early 2000's as an example, or even recent Jacksonville Jaguars drafts. They were risk averse, and look at the fortunes of the teams that came out of that. Not willing to pull the trigger is often far worse than pulling it.

The NFL draft is tricky, and finding the right players to fit schemes, particular skill sets, and avoided character problems is very hard. But being sucked into "safe" drafting, or drafting the "best available player" is not safe at all. The examples from history are too numerous to count, and for every success story, there is a bust right next door. So, for fans who are tetchy about their team drafting Geno Smith, Ziggy Ansah, or any player that has a modicum of risk:

"A ship is always safe at the shore, but that's not what it was built for."

Video Credit to NFL Films for Top 10 NFL Draft Busts

Thursday, March 7, 2013

Shameless Plug Post

I wrote something for Awful Announcing recently, and you should go read it. You can do that here: Have fun kids.

Monday, March 4, 2013

ESPN's Bottomless Pit of Debate

The Chicago Blackhawks streak of 22 straight games with a point to start the 2013 NHL Season is highly impressive. The Miami Heat's current streak of 14 straight wins is very impressive as well. Both have their own unique qualities that make them strong in their own right. Comparing them however, is pointless, since at their cores they are entirely different streaks with different set-ups and payoffs. Leave it to ESPN to have to compare these streaks and debate which one is "better". Leave it to ESPN to also get Stephen A. Smith to chime in when he clearly knows nothing about hockey... Quite frankly Stephen A., there haven't been ties in the NHL since 2004, and there has been a team in Columbus since 2000 (the fact that they suck meaning they aren't visible non-withstanding). But this is not about him knowing nothing about hockey. This is not about ESPN as a whole knowing very little about hockey. So if you will, let us "embrace debate" when talking about ESPN "embracing debate".

Everything in sports needs to be compared to something else now, thanks to ESPN "embracing debate". So, when something in the hockey world crosses over to mainstream attention, such as the Blackhawks domination of the Western Conference, we must compare it to another streak in order to get people to care about it. By comparing, they incite debate on which is better, even when they probably shouldn't. ESPN's hockey coverage has been sliced and diced by the hockey and sports media world on the internet, so there is no need to explain why ESPN's hockey coverage smells of being dragged to church when you're a kid when you'd rather sleep in. But when ESPN has to debate something hockey related, they clearly don't have the wherewithal to do it successfully, unless they have Barry Melrose debate himself. ESPN's own problem of needing to debate and compare everything put them in that mess this morning, not ESPN's hockey ignorance.

If the First Take crew decided to debate Lionel Messi's calendar year of 2012 with Lebron James' 2011-2012 season, we all know who would win that debate. We also know that the soccer blogs on the internet would tear the two talking heads to shreds for not knowing anything about Messi, La Liga, or the world of soccer. If blissful ignorance is the medicine of the day for ESPN when dealing with sports like soccer and hockey, then be consistent with that stance if something becomes big enough in those sports to cross over into the mainstream consciousness. Since ESPN can't do that, for fear of even more flack, they need to either drop the debate pretense, or hire people that can properly do the debate justice, and not just kowtow to popular beliefs.

Many people have written about ESPN's identity crisis in the past year, mainly due to First Take being a festering pile of worthless nonsense that has ruined a companies identity. Debate stems from comparison, and comparison is the only way to get the die-hard, and even casual fans of niche sports to pay attention to a network that doesn't give their game the proper due. It's unfortunate that when ESPN has to cover those sports, they don't have the proper resources to do so, making situations like what happened with Stephen A. Smith and hockey ties inevitable. The worldwide leader either has to educate their waterspouts of debate on sports like hockey and soccer, or just push them off to the side when the comparison between that sport and either basketball or football comes up.

When ESPN's debate and comparison fetish crosses over with sports they don't cover nearly, bad results are, and will be, the norm. Either fans of hockey and soccer will have to shut their mouths when their sports are covered and debated like crap, or hope that ESPN changes their tune on debate or hires people who know the sport better than Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless do. But there's a better chance of Republicans and Democrats passing a national budget than that.

ESPN's debate musical chairs will continue, but when the music stops, what will be in the crossfire next? Remember, it's not the sport, it's the debate that's the problem.