Colts made the right call

There has been a lot of debate about the Colts coaching staff deciding to rest players during Sunday’s loss to the Jets. Writers all over the country derided the Colts leadership, basically saying they don’t know what they’re doing. The reasoning follows three predominant paths:

1. They had a chance a perfection. Nobody remember who won the Super Bowl in 1983, but everyone remembers the 1972 Dolphins. You denied your team a chance at immortality.
   
2. You’re messing with the team’s rhythm. These guys have been on a major roll, and you’re not preparing yourself properly for the playoffs.
   
3. You hurt other teams playoff chances by letting the Jets beat your scrubs. Shame on you for disturbing the competitive balance.

For No. 1, my strongest rebuttal is the 2007 Patriots. Remember them? 16-0 in the regular season, but eventual Super Bowl losers. Will they be an historic team 15 years from now? As a football team, your top priority should be winning the Super Bowl. You can’t control immortality, so you do whatever you think is best for your team. Jim Caldwell and Bill Polian did what they thought was best for their team. Are they wrong? Well, history will judge them on whether they win the Super Bowl or not.

No. 2 makes sense to me. The Colts have young WRs who could benefit from more in-game reps with Peyton Manning. And the defense is somewhat green, and could use polishing. But they played 2+ quarters. I really don’t think it will hurt rhythm that much.

No. 3 is purely ridiculous. Why should the Colts care about if who makes the playoffs (besides them)? That’s Houston’s or Jacksonville’s problem. The Colts have no obligation to keep their players in the game to be more ‘fair’ to someone else’s playoff chances.

This debate rages almost every season about this time. I don’t think it really matters that much. Coaches and GMs should do what they think is best. I would have probably done exactly what the Colts did, but I wouldn’t be revved up if they did it the other way.

NFL Thoughts

Week 16 is in the books, so it’s time to look to Week 17 and the playoffs. Here are some not so random NFL thoughts.

AFC
Over the past decade, the AFC has been represented in the Super Bowl by the following teams: Titans, Ravens, Patriots (4), Raiders, Steelers (2), Colts. Outside of this group, only the Broncos and Chargers have made it to the AFC Championship game. So much for parity.

That group has really been dominated by the Patriots, Steelers and Colts. Each of those teams is in a very different spot as we head into Week 17.

Patriots – New England wins this season: Eagles, Redskins, Giants, Bills (twice), Falcons, Ravens, Titans, Buccaneers, Dolphins, Jets, Panthers, Jags. Loses: Bengals, Jets, Broncos, Colts, Saints, Dolphins. The Pats have beat some good teams, but they haven’t beat a quality opponent on the road since Week 1 in Philly. They only lose to good teams (except for maybe that Dolphins loss), but there are only good teams in the playoffs. I really want them to do well, to believe in the Pats magic, but I can’t talk myself into it.

Colts – Is it possible that this is the worst 14-1 team in history? I’m probably overstating, but I see a flawed team. I see a prolific passing game matched with the least productive running game in the NFL. And it’s not just total yards: the Colts are averaging 3.6 yards per carry. Yikes. I also see a mediocre defense. Do I think this team is destined to make the Super Bowl? No. Would I bet against them? Maybe.

Steelers – Yes, they seem to be suffering from a Super Bowl hangover. That’s only natural. And despite loses to the Bears, Chiefs, Raiders and Browns, they can still make the playoffs. I have a new tie-breaker for the NFL: a bunch of loses to some of the league’s crappiest teams should keep you out. Some commentators say they wouldn’t want to face this group in the playoffs. If I’m the Pats, Colts or Bengals, I hope to.

Other AFC thoughts:
· The Chargers are going to disappoint again this postseason because a lack of a running game. LDT has not been good, and Sproles is not the answer.
· I think the team to watch is the Bengals (can’t believe I just wrote that sentence). Balanced, weapon-filled offense, a solid defense, and they haven’t collapsed like other teams headed to the playoffs. This could be the year the Bengals potential is filled.
· Mark Sanchez will be a very good NFL QB, but he’s not there yet.
· I’m glad the Titans will not make the playoffs. Teams on a roll like that are not good WC round opponents.

NFC
The playoff picture (at least who’s in) is set. Now it’s a week jockeying for seeds and a first-round bye, because the Vikings are really trying to give it away. Here are some players/coaches to watch.

Brett Favre/Adrian Peterson/Brad Childress – I can’t decide if the Vikings are well coached or not. All last night I was screaming at the TV each time a big play happened, and AP wasn’t on the field. I cursed with Favre as they sent in the ‘big’ personnel package to give the ball to Chester Taylor on a sweep at the goal line. I don’t know what to make of these guys. Favre is still good for 1-3 really bad decisions a game, AP is a monster who can’t hold onto the ball, and Childress (and his staff) still haven’t figured out the right balance between the deep passing game and using AP to pound opponents into the ground. And it’s Week 16. Crazy.

Tony Romo/Aaron Rodgers – The Cowboys and Packers are flawed teams. The Cowboys are inconsistent on both sides of the ball, and the Packers are banged up and struggle to protect the QB against elite pass rushers. But these two QBs are very good (with good offensive weapons), and could easily get hot and lead a team to the Super Bowl. I believe we’ll see one of these guys in the NFC Championship.

Donovan McNabb/Andy Reid – Could this be the year? They are quietly flying under the radar, as the Saints and Vikings struggle. There’s no reason they couldn’t get to the Super Bowl against the other flawed NFC elite, especially if they get a bye. I’m not picking them (yet), but I think this could be the year McNabb and Reid take the huge monkey off their collective back and take their place as one of the best QB-coaching combos of all-time.

Other NFC thoughts:
· I still think the Saints are the team to beat, but they can’t get in those huge holes in the playoffs. Brees is playing the best QB in the league right now.
· The Cardinals won’t make it out of the first round. (Of course, I said the same thing last year.)
· The Washington situation is extremely entertaining for all non-Washington fans. A coach possible doing an f-you with one of the worst fake punts in the history of football? The same coach holding out the best DT in football on key short-yardage plays? Clinton Portis? Fanatastic. Unless you’re a Washington fan.

Don't aruge: The BCS Sucks

I recently had a Facebook post about the BCS which started quite a bit of debate. I am not a fan of the BCS. In my mind, you either return to the old bowl system (which is about tradition) or you go to a real playoff system. To me there’s no in-between, as this BCS system is really about enriching the ‘elite’ conferences and keeping Congress out of its backyard, not crowning a champion or protecting tradition.

But my friends and family made some interesting arguments, which I will completely smash.

Tradition. Think about the children!
Argument: College football is steeped in tradition. Rose Bowl. Orange Bowl. Fiesta Bowl. These conjure up memories of glory past. And the bowl system enables so many teams to end the season with a win. It’s actually a great way to end the FBS football season.

My take: Crap, crap, more crap. There’s not more tradition. The Rose Bowl still pits the Pac-10 champ versus the Big Ten champ – as long as neither of them is in the BCS championship game. Where else is there tradition? There’s so many bowls now, unless you’re a sportwriter or an avid gambler, it’s unlikely you’d be able to name even half of them. Unless you think we really need to protect the tradition of the Eaglebank Bowl. Thirty-three bowls; more than half of the FBS plays in a bowl. It means nothing anymore.

Playoffs? We don’t need no stinkin’ playoffs
Argument: Lots of sports (like some Euro soccer leagues), golf, tennis, etc. don’t have a playoff champion. They may not even name a champion. Why do we even need a ‘true’ champion in the FBS? The BCS and the bowls are a better way than a playoff.

My take: This one is intriguing, but I don’t buy it. I couldn’t find another NCAA sanctioned sport that doesn’t have a champion (including tennis and golf). Don’t think we can use pro golf and tennis as good comparisons because they’re individual sports, and they have champions of certain events, so it’s not as if they rate people via sportsmanship.

Euro soccer is an interesting example. Let’s take the EPL. The champion is determined by which team earns the most points by season’s end, points earned via wins and draws. If the world’s most popular soccer league, does it, which can’t FBS football?

Well, for lots of reasons. First, there are 20 teams in the EPL, not 120. And the champion of the EPL goes onto the UEFA Champions League, which is a tournament, which also leads to UEFA Super Cup. So, there’s not really a good soccer example.

The regular season will cease to be good you idiot!
Argument: Playoffs dilute the regular season. Look at the NBA or NHL. The regular seasons exist purely to determine playoff seeds, and with half the league making the playoffs, what does the regular season matter? And NCAA Division I basketball is another good example, with 64+ teams making the tournament. The regular season is merely a prelude.

My take: I completely agree that the NBA and NHL regular seasons are not as meaningful as they should be. 82 games to determine playoff seeding? Give the best teams a bye or something. And NCAA basketball lets in too many teams. I would prefer 32, or maybe 40-something with top teams getting a bye.

But if you have a 24-team tournament (see my solution below), only 20% of the FBS would make the playoffs. That seems reasonable to me. And many games at the end of the regular season would be determining playoff participation, which is much more compelling than who goes to the Capital One Bowl.

The solution
But the FBS? There are 120 teams. If you made a 24-team tournament (or something like that), the regular season might have even more meaning than today. Think about this format:

• Each conference in the gets a big, even the Sun Belt. That’s 11 automatic bids.
• Thirteen teams get at-large bids, which could be selected using a system similar to the BCS system or picked by a committee. No conference could have more than three teams in the playoffs. Seeding is then done, 1-24
• The top eight seeds (which can be at-large), get byes.
• The rounds go like this
  o Bye round: seeds 9-24, with 9 playing 24 and so forth. Top seed hosts. (First week of December)
  o Round of 16: 8 top seeds vs. 8 bye round winners, matches determined by seed (Second week of December)
  o Quarterfinals: Remaining 8 teams play, matches determined by seed, at 4 pre-determined sites (Third week of December)
  o Semi-finals: Remaining 4, matches determined by seed, at two predetermined sites (New Year’s Day)
  o Championship: Jan. 8 at a pre-determined site (unless it falls on a Sunday)
  

What might it have looked like this year? Here we go.

• Twelve automatic bids: Georgia Tech (ACC); Texas (Big 12); Cincinnati (Big East); Ohio State (Big Ten); East Carolina (Conference USA); Central Michigan (Mid-American); TCU (Mountain West); Oregon (Pac-10); Alabama (SEC); Troy (Sun Belt); Boise State (WAC)
• Thirteen at large bid (picked using BCS rankings): Florida (SEC); Iowa (Big Ten); Virginia Tech (ACC); LSU (SEC); Penn State (Big Ten); BYU (Mountain West); Miami (ACC); West Virginia (Big East); Pittsburgh (Big East); Oregon State (Pac 10); Oklahoma State (Big 12); Arizona (Pac 10); Nebraska (Big 12)
• Seeds (I picked, mainly using the BCS rankings, but adjusted the top. And I was lazy and put the small conference champs at the bottom.):
  o 1. Alabama, 2. TCU, 3. Texas, 4. Cincinnati, 5. Boise State, 6. Florida, 7. Oregon, 8. Ohio State, 9. Georgia Tech, 10. Iowa, 11. Virginia Tech, 12. LSU, 13. Penn State, 14. BYU, 15. Miami, 16. West Virginia, 17. Pittsburgh, 18. Oregon State, 19. Oklahoma State, 20. Arizona, 21. Nebraska, 22. East Carolina, 23. Central Michigan, 24. Troy
• First round would look something like this: Troy @ Georgia Tech; Central Michigan @ Iowa; East Carolina @ Virginia Tech; Nebraska @ LSU; Arizona @ Penn State; Oklahoma State @ BYU; Oregon State @ Miami. Some really cool games in here.

Just writing about this makes me giddy. How cool would this have been? Instead of playing for the meaningless Las Vegas Bowl title, BYU and Oregon State could have been playing several weeks ago to see who would battle Boise State in the Round of 16. Good golly! Anyone who has a problem with this needs to get their pulse checked. This would make the FBS season freakin’ awesome! And at the end, we would have only one undefeated team (if any) and a champ.

Let’s make happen people!

State of the Sox

I will start off by saying that I am a fan of the recent moves. I love Jason Bay, but not at the dollars and contract length being bandied about. I’m a huge Matt Holliday fan, but not at Teixiera-like money. And I’ve always been a big fan of Mike Cameron (power pat, good OBP, great defense), so I’m happy to see him join the Sox.

I’m a little mixed on John Lackey. He’s definitely a good pitcher, and I think he should still be good in 5 years. But $80 million good? I’m not sure. To me (like Beckett), he’s really a No. 2 pitcher who sometimes moonlights as a No. 1. But Lester is the No. 1 in Beantown, and Beckett and Lackey will be Nos. 2a and 2b.

I discussed my view of the Scutaro signing in my last post.

So how do the Sox look if the season started today?

Position Players
C Victor Martinez (+ offense, - defense)
1B Casey Kotchman (- offense, + defense)
2B Dustin Pedroia (+ +)
3B Kevin Youkilis (+ +)
SS Marco Scutaro (+ +)
LF Mike Cameron (+ +)
CF Jacoby Ellsbury (+ +)
RF JD Drew (+ +)
DH David Ortiz (-)

Bench
C Jason Varitek (- -)
INF Jed Lowrie (- -)
Jeremy Hermida (- +)

I’ve read a lot of naysayers say how much worse this lineup looks without Bay. I don’t see it that way. Cameron is an awesome defender, Bay wasn’t very good. Yes, Bay is the superior hitter (better on-base skills), but the difference is not that drastic.

Still not sure what Varitek is doing on this team. He’s a defensive liability, and he can’t hit anymore. Yes, he owns a catcher’s mitt, but I would have preferred a minor leaguer with an arm. Or at least a catcher who can hit.

Starters
Jon Lester
Josh Beckett
John Lackey
Dice K
Clay Buchholz

Bullpen
Papelbon
Okajima
Daniel Bard
R. Ramirez

The bullpen is still a work in progress, but the rotation is awesome! Dice K and Buchholz may become trade bait, but I’ll take the Boston top 3 over any group in baseball.

If you follow the hot stove rumor mill, Kotchman is unlikely to start the season at 1B (meaning the Sox will go after a 1B or 3B). I’m not a huge fan of any of the names being bandied about besides Adrian Gonzalez, who I don’t think is coming without parting with Ellsbury. Adrian Beltre is not much of an upgrade over a lineup with Kotchman, so I wouldn’t touch that.

What I do think the team needs is a bat or two for the bench. Hermida isn’t a great hitter. Not sure who’s a good fit, but there should be some bargain veterans that can fit that role between now and spring training.

I am very optimistic about next year. I am totally cool with the pitching/defense team model. The goal is to score more runs with the other team. Doesn’t matter if the score is 11-6 or 2-1. Let’s just knock the Yankees of that perch baby!

Red Sox get a SS

Let's get this out of the way first: Marco Scutaro is not a great hitter. He has been below league average every year of his career before 2009, but was one of the better hitting shortstops in MLB in 2009. (Stats.) He's also 33 (my age) which isn't old in real life, but could be old in baseball terms.

Depending on your fielding metric of choice, Scutaro has been either very good, or at least above average, since he started playing SS frequently in 2005. Paired with Pedroia, it should make for a solid double play partnership. And since the Red Sox SSs sucked in the field last season, this should be a huge upgrade.

So overall I think this is good. A 2-year contract is reasonable, as is the salary. I also prefer this to moving Pedroia over to SS, a position he hasn't played regularly in years. I would have been OK with that, but that only shifts the hole in the infield, it doesn't solve it.

Now the Sox just need to find a LF and some more arms for the bullpen...

Red Sox Hot Stove: Position Player Needs

Are the Red Sox planning a spending spree? That's Peter Abraham's question from the GM meetings.

I have no idea what the Red Sox are planning. But here are my thoughts, position by position.

Catcher - This looks pretty clear cut. Victor Martinez will be the No. 1 catcher, and if Jason Varitek wants to be the back-up, the option is out there. The question is why. Varitek really provides no true value at this point. His hitting is bad, and his defense has deteriorated a lot. The Sox need a young or veteran catcher who's great defensively, with a rocket arm.

First Base - Yooouuuuuuuk! Martinez will play here as well.

Second Base - Mighty Might

Third Base - Mike Lowell looks like the incumbent, but his defense is slipping badly. Worth keeping? Sure. But we need a good back-up plan. Youk will likely play here when Martinez is playing 1B.

Shortstop - This is the big hole. Last year we started with Lugo, Lowrie and Green as the back-up. Green, unfortunately, got most of the ABs. Now we have an oft-injured Lowrie as our best option. I was hopeful we'd deal for J.J. Hardy, but the Twins beat the Sox in that 'sweepstakes.' At this point I would go for defense first, even at the expense of offense.

LF - Matt Holliday is the answer. I like Jason Bay, and would be happy with his return. But his defense is not good, and he's a future DH. But Holliday is basically the same bat but with a glove. Will it break the bank? You bet. But the Sox do not have a good internal alternative, so it's Holliday, Bay or a trade. I pick Holliday.

CF - My wife's favorite player, Jacoby Ellsbury.

RF - J.D. Drew, who is totally underrated right now by Sox fans. Is he a great hitter? No, but he's a very good one, and his defense is good as well. I'm fine penciling in Drew everyday.

DH - Big Papi has had two non-Papi years in-a-row. In 2009, he was an average hitter, which is unacceptable at DH for a team with money. Could he bounce back to his decent 2008? Sure, but I think the Sox need a back-up plan in case Big Papi falters. Jeremy Hermida could be that. He could play LF and Bay (if he re-signs) could move to DH. Lars Anderson, if he starts well in 2010, could be the bat. The Sox need to be ready if Ortiz is not the old Papi.

Bench - Hermida was an interesting edition. As Theo said at the time, there is upside here. At age 23 in 2007, Hermida had a very good season. He's been a below average hitter since then, but he is a plus defender. If Lowrie isn't the starting SS, he'd be a pretty good back-up infielder (if he's healthy). He can play SS and 3B well, and I bet 2B or 1B wouldn't be beyond him. They need another power bat off the bench, a Matt Stairs-type who can hit for the SS or back-up catcher.

Batman vs. Batman

Recently I watched both The Dark Knight as well as the 1989's Batman. I've been wanting to watch Batman since Batman Begins came out in 2006, but hadn't had the chance. And when I saw The Dark Night, I really wanted to compare the two Jokers. Everyone was on the Heath Ledger bandwagon (I was as well), but in 1989 everyone was the on the Jack Nicholson bandwagon.

So here is my uber-geeky attempt to compare the two films. Enjoy.

Leading Lady vs. Leading Lady
This comparison is like asking me if I would rather watch a never-ending loop of the romatic scenes in Twilight or The Lake House; do I really have to pick? Kim Basinger is absolutely awful in this movie except for maybe 1 or 2 scenes. Maggie Gyllenhal is similarly bad. Yes, I know, everyone thinks she's great. But she over-acts almost everything, and there was a clear lack of chemistry between her and Bale. (Not surprising, seeing that he's a big jerk.) Winner: TDK, only because Bassinger sucked worse.

Alfred vs. Alfred
Though Michael Gough is very good in Batman, Michael Caine is awesome in his limited role in TDK. He's awesome in everything. Whether it's playing an eccentric isolationist in Children of Men, or a funny pageant coach in Miss Congeniality. He always delivers. Winner: Sir Michael Caine, by a hair.

Director vs. Director
Again, I thought Christopher Nolan would easily come out on top, but Tim Burton was closer than I thought. Batman is an awesome film, and very well done. Infusing it with Prince music is annoying 20 years later, but made some sense at the time. Still, Nolan's vision has lifted superheroes movies beyond just comic book/action fare. Winner: TDK, but closer than you think.

Gotham vs. Gotham
In Burton's vision, Gotham is a surreal city infusing a 1950s style (fedora hats everywhere) with a 1980s vibe (Prince music and selected modern amenities). The buildings, the streets, the people, all seem to come from a combination of eras. His Gotham is haunting, beautiful and very comic book-esqe.

Nolan's version is a dark, post-modern city. Filmed mostly in Chicago, Gotham looks gritty and real, from a car chase under a an overpass bridge, to the hospital Joker blows up. Like Burton, it seems like Nolan eyes every detail to make sure the city supported his gritty, dark tale.

Winner: Batman. Burton's vision is more distinctive and feels more like Gotham to me. TDK's Gotham feels too much like Chicago.

Batman vs. Batman
Before I re-watched Batman, I would have given it to Christian Bale hands down. He brought a coolness to Bruce Wayne and a dark menacing to Batman. But I had forgotten how well Michael Keaton did. His Bruce Wayne isn't a classic, flamboyant playboy, but more nuanced and subtle, as his his Batman.

I know this will go against modern sensibilities, but Keaton was better. Winner: Batman

Joker vs. Joker
This is the big one. Heath Ledger rightfully received major accolades for his performance as the Joker. After watching it a second time, it's hard to believe this is the same guy who's breakout performance was 10 Things I Hate About You, and then received acclaim for Brokeback Mountain. Ledger played the Joker as a more modern Joker, in no way related to the 1950s Joker, a complete physcopath.

Jack Nicholson's performance was similarly acclaimed in 1989. His Joker was a combination of his classic, crazy persona and a classic Joker. The result is a dark, funny character, who, while not as dark as Ledger's Joker, is hardly someone you'd want to bring home to mom, unless you're a Manson.

But Nicholson's Joker was Nicholson with make-up and a few good one-liners. A fantastic performance, but it was an entire level behind Ledger, who is now the iconic Joker and the ultimate superhero villain performance, surpassing the greats (including Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor in 1978's Superman, and Ian McKellen's Magneto in the X-Men movies). Verdict: Heath Ledger is the Joker.

Overall
Batman was a great film. I've watched it probably 15 times, and I've never gotten sick of it. There's nothing glaringly wrong with the film except Bassinger and the fact that it spawned three awful sequels. (Everyone knows Patrick Stewart should have been Mr. Freeze, not Arnold! Where's my Delorean?)

The biggest gripe I have with TDK is that it is too dark. Was it a great film? Yes, but I don't think it was as good as Batman Begins, and when I left it after seeing it the first time, I left feeling depressed, not pumped. And when I leave a superhero movie, I want to be pumped.

But I can't ignore how good of a film TDK was; it's so well done, and I enjoyed it more the second time, especially with the expectation of the film's melancholy tones.

But what separates the two films is Heath Ledger. His performance makes TDK Batman's superior, if only by a little. And I would take either of these films over anything I saw in the theater this year. (That's right, G.I Joe, I'm talking about you.)

World Series Preview

My original playoff predictions were way off. So much for the Sox-Rox World Series. But I did a much better job in the LCS round, even picking the right number of games per series. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and again.

As far as this matchup is concerned, the bullpens are the key. Both teams have potent bats, both teams have some good starters. Both are decent defensive teams, according to Baseball Prosepectus' team defensive efficiency rating.

So the difference is the bullpen. I give the Yanks the edge their because of Mariano Rivera, but I don't trust Joba. I think Hughes will be OK.

The Phillies bullpen is an enigma. Brad Lidge has pitched well in the postseason, but he was awful all season long. So do you trust a streaky closer who has had dominant stretches in the past and has pitched well over the last 1 week+, or do you look at the season?

I think Lidge will implode against the tough Yankees lineup. There really isn't an easy out in the group, and if Teixiera starts hitting, there isn't a better 1-2-3-4 combo in baseball than Jeter-Damon-Tex-ARod. If Lidge has to pitch to that group, watch out. We could see some massive moonshots.

I don't trust the Phillies bullpen, even if the Yanks have some question marks. Yanks in 6.

But really it doesn't matter to me. As my brother recently said on Facebook that you're picking between two evil forces. I agree. I have never routed for a Philadelpia team, and I certainly would only root for the Yankees if they were playing Minions of Satan. So I'm not particularly thrilled with this matchup.

Winning more important than being macho

The Baltimore Ravens started out 3-0. They had good wins over the Chiefs, Chargers and Browns. Many commentators were wondering if the emergence of Joe Flacco combined with a potent defense could make them a big-time contender in the AFC.

Then the Patriots game happened. The Ravens fell 27-21, with a couple of roughing the passer calls and a dropped Derrik Mason pass sunk formerly undefeated Baltimore.

And then the idiot Ravens arrived. Ray Lewis and other Ravens opened their mouths and called out the refs, the NFL rules, and Tom Brady. They took no blame themselves.

The next week they lost to the Bengals 17-14, and a big reason was a late hit by Lewis on Chad Ochocinco, which extended a game-winning Cincinnati drive. He led with his helmet and popped Chad late in the helmet. A completely stupid move that was a big reason why they lost.

That game was followed by a heart-breaking 33-31 loss to Favre and the Vikings.

The season is hardly lost as they come out of a week 7 bye. They play the Broncos this week, and a victory would put them at 4-3 and in decent shape to make the playoffs. But the road would have been much easier if they went into the buy at 4-2 or 5-1.

I think they got what they deserved for whining after the Patriots game. Should they have been upset? Yes, most defensive players think the QB rules are lame. But their comments sounded like a bunch of fans on talk radio, not players who should be more interested in winning than looking like tough guys. And they went on all week about how they would hit even harder in the next game.

And then Lewis kills his team by being a 'tough guy' and laying out Ochocinco in stupid fashion. Last time I checked, the goal of the NFL is to win games, not impress your friends with your machismo. Lewis got exactly what he deserved -- a loss for a very stupid decision at a key point in the game.

Will the Ravens make the playoffs? I don't think so. They have a tough schedule, and the defense isn't as good as it has been. They could get hot, and Flacco is very good. But they will be hard pressed to overcome the their own need to be macho instead of winners.

MLB Playoffs: LCS Thoughts

OK, I suck at predicting the MLB postseason. My World Series match-up of the Rox and Sox flopped in a total of seven playoff games. So much for that.

So I'll take another shot at this.

Angels v. Yankees

The Yanks look scary good, as much as I don't want to admit it. I don't trust their starters after CC, but the lineup is awesome and it will be difficult to to score on the NY bullpen after the 7th inning with Joba, Hughes and Mariano.

But the Angels are on a roll, and that lineup can score runs in any way. I still think you can pitch to Vlad and Torii Hunter, but Kendry Morales is good, and the lineup is scary when Napoli catches.

Prediction: Yanks in 6

Phillies v. Dodgers

I don't trust the Dodgers. Can't really put my finger on it, but I don't think see them beating the Phillies. I wouldn't pitch to Manny with Loney behind him, and I think the lineup can be put in check by good pitching.

For Philadelphia, Cliff Lee looks awesome, and I think the other starters will be good enough. The Achilles heel is the bullpen. I wouldn't let any one of those guys pitch to Manny no matter what. Lidge actually shouldn't even be pitching batting practice to Joe Torre.

Prediction: Phillies in 5

World Series Prediction: Yanks in 7

And if you think I'm trying a reverse jinks, I'm certainly not above such behavior. Yankees sucks!

MLB Playoff Preview

If you didn’t watch or see the highlights of the awesome Twins-Tigers play-in game (or as I like to call it ‘The Game For the Opportunity to Get Swept by the Yankees’), then you’re an idiot. (Sorry, poor Office reference.) Seriously though, that game encapsulated why I love playoff baseball: the drama, the unpredictability, the crazy fans. Only two post-season events are better: playoff NHL hockey, and the WNBA playoffs.

So without further ado, my MLB playoff preview in the form of the player on each team that will make or break that team.

Yankees – CC Sabathia
As goes the big guy, so go the Yanks. Truth be told, CC was very good this year, though not quite the stud he was in 2008 or 2007. But the biggest question mark for him is his postseason record: 5 starts, 2-3 record, an ERA of 7.92, and walking nearly 8 batters per nine innings.

What’s up with that? Is it a sample size issue? Is he a choker? I don’t believe the last could be true – the guy carried the Brewers into the playoffs on his large back last season. I just think he’s been overworked the past two seasons, and this year he threw 230 innings, which is the fewest he’s thrown since 2006. I think he pitches well for the Yanks.

Angels – Scott Kazmir
Kazmir was a shell of himself this year, though he has a 1.73 ERA in 6 starts after being traded by the Rays. I think that trade crazy – why give up on a 25-year old lefty he strikes out a batter per inning?

I think if Kazmir shuts down the Sox, the Angels have a chance to overcome the ‘curse of the rally monkey.’ If not, I think the Sox cruise to another playoff victory

Twins – Jason Kubel
No one is going to pitch to Joe Mauer (if they’re smart). The only pitcher on the NY staff that should mess with Mauer is Mariano Rivera. Everyone else should stay away.

So Kubel is going to likely hit with men on. If he can make the Yankees pay, then the Twins have a shot. If not, at least the Twins gave us that awesome 163rd game.

Red Sox – Victor Martinez
V-Mart has been carrying the Sox in a lot of different ways. He’s hit 336/405/507 since the Aug. 1 trade (which was highway robbery, by the way). If he hits, we win.

This is especially true if they keep Varitek out of the lineup. I love the guy, but his defense is sub-par now, and his hitting sucks. This is the lineup I want to see: Martinez at C, Youk at 3B and Kotchman at 1B. Defensively and offensively, I think this is the best lineup. Sure, put Youk at 1B and Mike Lowell at 3B, I’ll buy that too. Just keep Tek out of the lineup.

Phillies – Jimmy Rollins
J-Roll had his worst offensive season since 2002. Though still a plus defender, he had his worst defensive season since 2005. But he hits in a lineup with Ryan Howard and Chase Utley, so he still scored 100 runs, pretty remarkable for a guy with a sub-.300 OBP. If he hits, I think they cruise.

Dodgers – Manny Ramirez
Seems obvious right? But Manny is a streaky player (insert PED jokes here). But over the course of his career he’s hit 286/399/550 in the playoffs (378 ABs). If he hits like that, Dodgers will win. If not, I think they will struggle to score runs.

Cardinals – Matt Holliday
Much like Mr. Kubel with Mauer, Holliday must hit behind King Albert. He is the best hitter on the planet, and I think Joe Torre is smart enough to put Pujols on an open first base when prudent (which is almost always). Holliday will hit with runners on base. And I believe that whomever has the better series (Holliday or Manny) will lead his team into the NLCS.

Rockies – Starting pitchers
Yes, a somewhat whimpy pick, but follow me here. This is actually a sneaky good pitching staff, with above average starters throughout. If Ubaldo Jiminez and Co. can shut down Philly’s lineup, I think this is your best bet for an upset in the first round. I like their pitching, I like their lineup. I think they are a better team than the 2007 bunch that rolled into the World Series. And yes, this is foreshadowing.

Predictions:
ALDS
Red Sox over Angels in 4
Yankees over Twins in 3

NLDS
Cardinals over Dodgers in 4
Rockies over Phillies in 5

ALCS
Red Sox over Yankees in 6
Rockies over Cardinals in 7

World Series
Red Sox over Rockies in 6

And yes, I’m a complete homer.

State of the Cougars: September

I'm sure some BYU fans consider this season a failure already. After the win over Oklahoma, it was natural to see this as a non-BCS team's best chance to be in the BCS-title game. And it could have been BYU's best season since 1996, and its first unbeaten season since 1984.


But the season hasn't changed that much for me. Lost in the euphoria of the OK win was the fact that the Cougars were still unlikely to finish the season undefeated. The FSU game worried me (though I thought we'd win), and Utah and TCU are both very good teams. And there's the inevitable let-down game where a good team struggles against a lesser opponent (see USC losing to Washington).

Offense
I love Max Hall. He may be the most confident/cocky QB we've had since Ty Detmer. He believes he can make any throw at anytime.

But that's also his problem. Sometimes I wish he would throw it away instead of throwing the picks. His numbers this year aren't very good. Yes, his completion percentage is high (67%), but he has 8 picks to go with his 8 TDs. Yes, he's averaging almost 300 yards, his passing efficiency is 150+, but if he doesn't get more accurate (from an INT perspective), we may see him throw away a big game.

The biggest problem in passing game though is lack of consistency at WR. Besides Pitta, who can Hall depend on? The announcers on Saturday said Jacobson was on the same level with Austin Collie. Sorry man, Jacobson is fast, but he's not even close. He's very inconsistent. And after Jacobson the consistency is almost zero.

The running game will be fine. Unga looked awesome against CSU. I know everyone was high on Kariya and Di Luigi after the OK game, but they are back-ups. Unga is needed for the long-term health of the offense.

Defense
The defense played the game of their life against the Sooners. It's been a mixed bag since. They got beat up by the speed of FSU, and CSU had more success than they should have.

As usual, my biggest problem with the defense is speed at LB and below-average play in the defensive backfield. I really like Brian Logan, but man taller receivers pick on him and there's nothing he can do about it. The LBs have played well, especially against the run.

Special Teams
Is it possible for BYU to have a decent kick-off team? Less than 20 yards, really? Bad field position hurts both the offense and defense.

The Mtn and DirectTV
I hate DirectTV. Don't dare tell me you're not carrying Versus because Comcast is greedy. I don't care. Get it done. I switched over to your stupid service just to get BYU football, and then two of the biggest games of the year (FSU and TCU) I can't see at home. Let me make the choice and pay a little extra. On top of that, I won't be able to watch the NHL this year. Curse you DirectTV! Curse you!

Overall, I love having the Mtn and getting to see the all the BYU games while living in Wisconsin. But here are some improvements they could make:

• I want all games in HD. I know, I know. I sound like a whining 3 year-old. But I've gotten used to watching football in HD and it's hard to go back.
• Get rid of Todd Christensen. He's awful. We need some good announcers. Come on guys. Go find somebody who doesn't suck and makes observations I couldn't make.
• The half-time studio show is painful. Why do you need three awkward guys? Just go down to one awkward guy until you find a good group.

I realize this will likely get better with time; the Big Ten Network is having similar growing pains.

RISE AND SHOUT!

Don't want to be like Mike

A friend of mine once said that the differences between Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant was: 1) MJ was a better player; and 2) MJ was better as portraying himself as lovable to his adoring public.

I disagreed with my friend at the time, claiming that MJ was a nicer guy and a better teammate, though not an example for human behavior in either of those areas. After watching MJ's Hall of Fame induction speech, I've changed my mind. The only question now is whether MJ is a bigger jerk than Kobe, just that much more talented and a better actor (who also was never accused of rape).

MJ came off in the speech as a bitter, tired aging man who dislikes everyone. As Rick Reilly points out, he dissed anyone who might personally care about him, including his kids and family.

So it leads me to one of three conclusions: 1) He's always been a jerk; 2) He became a jerk over time; and 3) He's not really a jerk, his speech just made him sound like one. I believe it's somewhere between No. 1 and No. 2. There are plenty of stories about his demanding behavior as a teammate, and we know he's a compulsive gambler. Most of what I've read about the man points to a conceeded jerk, and his speech reinforced that.

I don't know if that makes him a bad teammate or not. But in retrospect, he certainly looked like one by how he spoke.

But I can say this for sure: He was a total jerk in his speech, and showed no class, especially compared to David Robinson. Maybe we all want to be like Mike, but we'd rather have our kids grow up to be like David.

Heroes lives, Terminator dies

Last year I had two favorite shows in traditional fall-winter season: Heroes and Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. (My two favorite shows on TV, Psych and The Closer, both come in the 'off-season' and are on cable, while Heroes and Terminator appeared on NBC and Fox respectively.) But I had very different relationships with each show.

Heroes was the fulfillment of a life-long dream. Super heroes have never been done particularly well on live-action television, with the possible exception of The Incredible Hulk (1978). The Flash (1990) I loved at the time, but I was 14 and would have loved anything attached to comic books.

So I watched Heroes 2006 debut with eager anticipation. I absolutely loved the first season. Compelling characters, comedy, cool powers, good acting. It worked oh so well, until the season finale, which was a little bit of a mess. It wasn't bad, it just wasn't very good.

And the bleeding continued into Season 2, which was interrupted by the writer's strike. That season was a mess. Nothing made sense, and they messed with every character so much (especially Sylar) that you had no idea who the characters were. That was kind of the point for Season 2, but it didn't work.

Season 3 was also flat. The basic plot was fine; but the individual elements of the plot fell flat. But then the last three episodes before the finale picked up. Sylar was gaining steam. The government conspiracy was falling apart. I was starting to enjoy it again.

Then came the finale. It was awesome. Cool conclusions, and cool character fulfillment. But the ending took a quick right turn into Suckville. Sylar was transformed into Nathan Petrelli? What? This was there only option? Nobody saw tragedylooming behind this decision? I decided then and there I may finally ditch this show after three years.

And then I saw the trailers for Season 3. They looked awesome. So yes, I will be watching tonight, eagerly anticipating again.

Why have I stuck with this show for three years when only a handful of episodes have caught my attention? Because it should be everything I want in television. It should be compelling drama. It should have great characters. It should have cool action. But the show rarely delivers on any of this. But I am still looped in because of the tease: it's a premise I want to see succeed, and enough episodes have delivered to not turn me off completely.

Terminator's debut in 2007 was totally different. I started watching because I liked the first two movies, and I love the premise, but I wasn't entirely sold on it. The first few episodes were OK, but the violence turned my wife off and I was getting a little bored. Then something happened: I began to care about the characters, and each episode was compelling. And my wife was so intrigued she came back and enjoyed the show almost as much as I did.

So here I was watching the Season 2 finale last spring, thinking that the show might survive despite low ratings. First, it was a very good show. Second, with the Terminator: Salvation movie coming in the summer, this might give Fox the juice to keep it going. And third, it was an awesome show!

But then two things happened to doom the show. First, the season finale sucked. It really did. I loved every episode of Season 2, except that one. They changed everything by throwing John Connor into the future, and it took the air out of the narrative. Second, Terminator: Salvation wasn't very good. The cinematography was awesome, but the story was pretty lame. So Terminator was not renewed at Fox, though there are rumors of a TV movie/mini-series to finish things off for the fans. Don't hold your breath.

So here I sit. The better show was canceled and Heroes will probably just tease me again and leave me flat. Maybe I should just rent some DVDs if 24 and Mad Men and call it good.

NFL Preview

For my NFL season preview, I will not bother you with reams and reams of data. I will not give you my sleeper fantasy picks (I’m keeping those for my own fantasy domination). I shall also not give you my gambling secrets, because I don’t gamble. What I will give you is almost completely baseless picks and some teams who I think will surprise for better or for worse.

Playoff Picks
NFC
Giants (East)
Green Bay (North)
Carolina (South)
Arizona (West)
Chicago (WC)
Dallas (WC)

AFC
New England (East)
Baltimore (North)
Tennessee (South)
San Diego (West)
Pittsburgh (WC)
Houston (WC)

WC Round
Chicago @ Arizona
Dallas @ Giants
Pittsburgh @ San Diego
Houston @ Baltimore

Divisional Round
Chicago @ Green Bay
Giants @ Carolina
Pittsburgh @ New England
Baltimore @ Tennessee

Conference Championships
Giants @ Green Bay
Baltimore @ New England

Super Bowl
Green Bay vs. New England

Surprises
Indianapolis – I don’t think this is the end of the line for Peyton Manning, but I think the transition to a new coach and the tough division will result in Peyton watching his brother’s playoff games from a luxury box.

Minnesota – I make no apology for not picking them for the playoffs. For two seasons I have believed the Vikes would be a Super Bowl team if they could fix their QB problem. Unfortunately, it’s not 1999, and Favre sucks. You read that right. Favre sucks.

San Diego – As a Pats fan, two teams scare me going into the playoffs: San Diego and Baltimore. And then I remembered something: Norv Turner is still the coach of the Chargers. Then I’m not so scared anymore.

Green Bay – I am drinking the green and gold Kool Aid man. I like the defense to improve, I think Aaron Rodgers makes the leap, and I don’t think Chicago or Minnesota is as good as advertised. Good luck in the Super Bowl fellas, unless you play the Pats.

Detroit – The Lions won’t go 0-16 again. But 2-14 is not out of the question, as well as 1,345 sacks of Matthew Stafford. Hope you have good insurance dude.

Denver – Josh McDaniels started flirting with other girls while he had a pretty good one in Jay Cutler. I don’t think his relationship with Kyle Orton ends well. And yes, I’m pretty sure this analogy would really creep Cutler out.

New England – I think Tom Brady is going to cut through the NFL this year like never before. I think the defense will be much improved (even without Richard Seymour). Is this a complete homer pick? Absolutely, but say hello to Super Bowl #4 boys!

BYU: As Good as it Gets

It's hard to describe the feelings I had after BYU's stunning 14-13 victory over No. 3 Oklahoma. It had been a long day, and I didn't start the DVR until just before 10pm here in Wisconsin. But man was I excited. I compare it to a lesser version of when the Red Sox won the 2004 World Series. It's been a long-time coming, and BYU has fared poorly against top competition for a long time.

It also got me thinking about my favorite BYU victories of all time. In chronological order:

1984: BYU beats Michigan and wins the National Championship. This is the first BYU game I clearly remember, and made Robbie Bosko my hero. I kept a poster of him on my wall for two years after that.

1990: BYU beats No. 1 Miami. I was inexplicably at a church dance, and then heard the end of the game on the radio on the drive home. I've never had so much fun on a car ride.

1996 Texas A&M and Cotton Bowl. I would mention these, but I was on my mission and didn't see them.

2001 BYU late comeback victory over Utah. Brandon Doman was one of my favorite players, and I just knew he was going to win this one. Interesting side note: I was in the stands for this one with my wife Kathleen. She threw out her back in the third quarter, and we had to take her to first aid. I watched a good portion of this game on a small TV in a room in the bowels of Cougar Stadium. I finished watching the game in the aisle. My wife may not feel the same, but I have very fond memories of that game.

2006 BYU last-second victory over Utah. Two words: Johnny Harline.

Where does this victory over OU rank? Right up there with these absolutely. The defense was awesome, and Max Hall delivered when he had to.

What does this mean for this season? Everything and nothing. If BYU runs the table, this will be viewed as the catalyst that launched a potential BCS-champion squad. If we drop the next two against Tulane and Florida State (I think we will win both), then this becomes an interesting footnote in a good season. Oh, and don't forget tough games against TCU and Utah, luckily both in Provo.

But regardless of what happens over the next couple of months, I will always remember sitting there on my couch, quietly fist pumping (my wife and daughters were sleeping), dreaming of what this season could become.

The Truth of the Steroids Era

The steroids issue lingers in baseball like a public appearance of Britney Spears. It’s really not that interesting, but no one can stop talking about it.

After David Ortiz’s name was revealed to be on the list of 2003 ‘offenders’, I was honestly shocked at the response. People were asking me whether Boston’s titles in 2004 and 2007 were now tainted with cheaters Big Papi and Manny on the team. No, I said. I was offended that someone in the know was leaking confidential information and that the leak had not been discovered and prosecuted. No one seemed at all interested in that discussion.

I have reflected a lot on this issue since the McGwire-Sosa 1998 homerun chase. I thought at the time that both were using something, especially Sosa. That now seems likely to be the case. And my response ever sense has been, so what? At the time, it wasn’t against the rules and wasn’t tested for. MLB didn’t have a truly meaningful drug policy until 2005. Think about that. Seven years after McGwire and Sosa chased Maris, the powers that be finally did something to stop it.

I am in no way endorsing cheating. I wish these drugs had never entered professional sports, but they did, the leagues, players, fans and media looked the other way, and now it’s just an era we have to deal with. So get over it. Do you want to stop being a baseball fan? Fine, walk away, your call. Do you want to hate McGwire, Clemens, Manny, Canseco, etc., for the rest of your life? Be my guest. But it’s a massive waste of energy.

So without further ado, here are the greatest myths of the ‘steroid era.’

It Taints the Champions (any team with ‘proven cheaters’)
How is this even rational? Yes, I’m a Boston guy, so of course I want my team’s recent positive history to stick. But unless someone can tell me that Boston and New York had more ‘cheaters’ than everybody else, the playing field was even. Just because the Pirates sucked doesn’t mean they didn’t have PED users.

It Taints the Records
Total crap as well, it just reframes them. When MLB raised the mounds in 1968, ERAs fell through the floor. Do we ‘raise’ Bob Gibson’s 1.12 ERA? Heck no, but as we look at the time period, we just know that was part of the reason. Yes, you say, but Gibson had the same advantage as everyone else, and that’s true. But we have had spitballers (aka cheaters) throughout baseball history, and we had players popping uppers since the late 1960s. So in order for it to taint the records, we’d have to go back and look at all ‘cheaters’, not just steroid users. And then it becomes ridiculous. Bill Simmons does a great job exploring that in a recent column.

What is does taint are the individuals. McGwire, Manny, the Rocket, Giambi, Big Papi, Bonds. All these guys will forever be connected to this era, and not in a good way, fair or unfair. If they used, it was ethically wrong, no doubt, and likely caused harm to ‘clean’ players. They should be labeled as users.

But let’s lay off the legal argument. Besides a misguided and wasteful federal investigation of Bonds, buying these drugs is not a huge deal for the government. If it was, they would crawling around clubhouses looking for users. Luckily they have better things to do.

They Don’t Deserve to be in the Hall of Fame
As J. Jonah Jameson would say: “Crap, crap, double crap.” A Hall of Fame without Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, etc., is a joke. You’re going to exclude the greatest player of my lifetime (Bonds) because he has been accused of taking PEDs but never tested positive or was convicted of anything? Come one. Get off the self-righteous soapbox.

This is where I get really revved up. The sportswriters pointing the finger are hypocrites. Where was the investigative journalism? Where was the scandal? You guys profited off this, got raises, sold books, and watched your popularity soar and now want to point the finger? That indignation would have felt sincere in 1989 (when the Fenway crowd chanted ‘steroids’ at Jose Canseco). It feels hallow now. Any writer who doesn’t vote for Bonds will prove themselves a fool.

Could you ding a borderline guy like Palmeiro? Sure. Could you devalue people because of the inflated era? Absolutely. But keeping some of the best players in baseball history out of the sport’s shrine for breaking a rule that didn’t exist is stupid.

The World Will End if Jeter Tests Positive
Gene Wojciechowski recently wrote that if Derek Jeter tested positive, baseball would die. Come on dude, not even the man every sportswriter and sportscaster wants to father their children could bring down America’s Pastime.

First off, I would be surprised if Jeter tested positive. But holding up any of these guys (Griffey, Ripken, Jeter) as non-users is ridiculous. I don’t believe they used anything, but would it shock me? No. They are highly competitive men trying to gain every edge.

The name that should scare everyone isn’t Jeter but Jordan. There has been no basketball PED scandal yet, but that doesn’t mean the sport was clean. You don’t think the hyper-competitive Jordan wouldn’t have looked for every advantage, especially during his comebacks? Now a revelation like that would rock the sports world. A Jeter admission wouldn’t even bring down the Yankees (unfortunately).

It Taints Memories
Well, this one is very individual. For me it just changes them. I remember working as a waiter in 1998 when McGwire hit No. 62. I had a pager at the time, and my roommate Keith paged me with a simple message: 62. I cheered out loud. I told my section, and everyone clapped.

If McGwire’s numbers are tainted by his non-denial, so be it. It changes my perspective on that moment, but it doesn’t change the joy of that baseball memory. And Manny testing positive does nothing to dim my memories of 2004 and 2007. You can choose to have it change your memories, but I’m going to keep mine as is.

Should have kept Smoltz

John Smoltz looked good in his Cardinals debut, and Brad Penny is getting lit up like a Christmas tree, and will be skipped in the rotation, at least once. I questioned whether this was the right decision at the time because I didn't like the alternatives.

Now Smoltz is on the Cardinals, and he pitched very well, striking out 9 batters, including 7 in-a-row in his St. Louis debut. Is his remarkable 'resurgence' a factor of pitching against a weak Padres team (11th in the NL in scoring on the road), or was he really a better pitcher this season than his stats showed?

Smoltz departure didn't exactly generate tears in Beantown. To the contrary, I think most fans wanted him gone. He had not done what John Smoltz is supposed to do: dominate the opposition, or at minimum, keep the Sox in the game.

But as I wrote previously, his periphiral numbers (Ks, BBs, HRs) were in line with his fine 2007 season, except for greater tendency to give up the long ball, but that had stopped in his last few starts with Boston. Erik Manning at Fangraphs thinks Smoltz is far from done.

The Red Sox should have kept Smoltz, and not just because of this gem against San Diego. They should have kept him because, even if he's old, he had pitched well last season and his results were very likely to change for the better. And without great alternatives (one-pitch Penny, a 23-year-old with only indepent league Japanese experience, and a host of other young arms), there was no reason to terminate the relationship so quickly. If the Sox miss the playoffs by a game or two, this is a decision that could haunt Theo & Co.

How long was Groundhog Day?

The Wolf Gnards blog digs into just how long Bill Murray's character relived the same day in the awesome movie Groundhog Day. (Beware: this is only for us geeks). Great analysis on a question I've pondered many time.

My take? Twenty-seven years, like the original script called for. I don't think it could have been much less.

Calipari: The ultimate dodger

In 1996, Jim Calipari led UMass to the Final Four, the best tournament run in school history. But according the NCAA, that run does not exist because of scandal.

In 2008, Calipari led Memphis to the championship game before falling to Kansas. And again, the Tigers run no longer exists according to the NCAA, due to several infractions, including a bogus SAT score for star Derrik Rose.

And yet Calipari got off scott free in both cases. After UMass, he jumped to the NBA for three seasons with the New Jersey Nets, including a playoff run in 1998. And he's now the coach at Kentucky.

Calipari may or may not have done anything wrong in his two college coaching stops before UK. He certainly has never been legitimately implicated in anything. But this smells rotten to me. It appears as if Calipari fostered (or at least tolerated) a culture of corruption at both institutions. In the case of Memphis, they knew what they were getting. As did UK, which apparently was aware of the NCAA investigation when it hired Calipari a few months ago.

What does this mean for college basketball? Likely little. The sport has weathered much larger scandals than this. But it is further confirmation that winning is king in college sports, not integrity and academics.

Nats do the right thing

My brother Marc is one of only 12 known Washington Nationals fans in the world -- and two of his sons help comprise the other 11. In June, I recommended that the Nats not draft all-world pitching prospect Stephen Strasburg out of San Diego State. I was wrong. They made the correct choice and it seems to have legitimized the Nationals franchise -- at least that's the hope.

Besides his piece above on what the Strasburg signing means to the Nationals, Boswell also had a great piece on Sunday counting down the negotiations.

I'm convinced that Boswell and Marc were right, and that I was wrong. Signing Strasburg for less than $16 million isn't exactly a bargain, but it was much lower than what many commentators were predicting.

I misread Strasburg and Boras. I thought the super-agent was going to use this as his own personal Judgement Day. He was going to force the Nationals to pay a price similar to what Strasburg might get if there was no draft, and if Washington didn't play, they would walk over to independent league baseball. But apparently Strasburg wanted to make this work, and Boras was content to let him. I have often lambasted Boras about being more about himself than his clients. In this case he abandoned his wage war against MLB and did what, I believe, was in the best interest of Strasburg's career.

So hats off to the Nats for making this work. And it gives all 12 of those Nats fans something to look forward to in 2010.

On DVD: Push surprises

Push movie review (on DVD)

Score: 8/10

Where has this movie been hiding? Its scores on Flixster and Rotten Tomatoes are not good -- either by fans or critics. But I found it to be a slick, stylistic combination of NBC's Heroes (a better version) and the Bourne movies. I enjoyed it more than almost any movie I've seen this summer (in theaters or on DVD), and it did a better job of capturing my vision of what superhero entertainment can do than Heroes or the most recent X-Men and Spider-Man movies.

What worked: First off, some great action sequences. Toward the end there's a fight scene between two Movers, wacking each other with telekinetic punches. And because it's in Hong Kong, most of the backgrounds were stunning and eary. The acting was also above average (hats off to Chris Evans), and the story was tight, though somewhat confusing at times. And I can't say enough about the style -- just a great combination of camera work and editing.

What didn't work: The story was a little confusing -- but I think it was meant to be. Following all the different 'super-folk' was a little difficult at the beginning, and could have been very hard if you aren't well-versed on the genre. The ending also left it wide open for a sequel (that's not likely to happen) so some of the biggest plot elements were left untied.

I did want to address the criticism I've heard that this is a rip-off of Heroes and X-Men. First, nothing can be a rip-off of Heroes. I enjoy the show, but there's nothing particularly original in its storyline; it's borrowing heavily from decades of comic book lore. Second, I didn't find it much like the X-Men films and only marginally like the comic books. Yes, it too borrowed from comic book themes and powers, but I don't really rate that as a crime. It's a genre flick, and I'm fine with that as long as the story and characters are interesting, which they were.

Who would want to see it. This is a tough one. It got panned by a lot of comic book fans, but I thought it was good in that context. It's also a very good action flick, with more drama and character development than most. It is pretty violent, and it contains underage drinking, so those are some of the warning signs.

Closing credits. As you can tell, I wish I would have seen this sooner. I might buy this on DVD -- it was highly entertaining, and I suspect has good re-watchability. In my mind, Push has taken its place in the top 8 superhero movies of all-time.

On DVD: Hancock delivers

Hancock movie review (on DVD)

Score: 7/10

As I've mentioned before, I am a sucker for a good superhero movie. I had wanted to see Hancock in the theater, but never got to it. I rented it from RedBox the other night, and then watched it last night.

I was pleasantly surprised. (A 7 on my scale means I would have been OK with seeing it in the theater and I recommend it.) I was ready to be disappointed, but I wasn't. It was a flawed film, but it had enough good for me to recommend it.

What worked. As usual, I like Will Smith. Even playing an anti-hero like Hancock, his charisma carries the day. Jason Batemen and Charlize Theron were not as good, but both did a good job. The story was tight, though it did deteriorate into major cheese toward the end. The action scenes were above average. There is a lot of great comedy in here too.

What didn't work. Compared to much of the other superhero fare, the special effects were sub-par. And as mentioned early, the story went from highly interesting to a little cheesy, but both of those things are forgivable. My major issue was how crude Smith's character is at the beginning. That diminished my enjoyment of the film.

Who would want to see it. Superhero junkies. Action film fans. As mentioned above, if crude language offends, you would likely pass, and this is not a movie for kids.

Closing credits. As mentioned earlier, I recommend the movie with a few caveats. Wish I had seen it in the theaters.

Buy low: JJ Hardy

If I were a team in need of an everyday short (memo to Theo Epstein) I would be trying to make a waiver deal for JJ Hardy, who was demoted to AAA by the Brewers in favor of uber-prospect Alcides Escobar, who has a .762 OPS in in AAA as a 22 year-old.


Hardy is having a bad year, hitting 229/300/367, all below his career norms. Just last year he was one of the best hitting shortstops in baseball, and he provides good defense. He's also 26. The suitors will probably line up, but demoting him probably hurt his trade value. He was in a prolonged slump, with his OPS at its lowest level since May 6.


There's only a few teams with shortstops who are better than how Hardy performed in 2007-08. Some smart team is going to gobble in up, and though the Brewers may be better long-term with Escobar, they likely damaged the return they could have received for Hardy.


Honestly, this purge smells like a with hunt to me. I don't think this makes the Brewers better in 2009, and not sure about 2010. Odd move from Doug Melvin.

Panic Nation

You would have thought it was 2003 or something. Red Sox Nation seems to be in full panic mode, especially if you watched the Tigers game last night. The Fenway Park crowd was almost silent in the 8th and 9th innings, a marked departure from close games earlier in the season. The 6-game losing skid left the fans shell-shocked.

But is there cause for such despair? Maybe if this was 2003, and the 'curse of Dan Shaughnessy' was still in full bloom. But this current regime (Francona and Epstein) have won two world series and only missed the playoffs once. This has been, by many measures, the most successful franchise of the decade. The 'wo-is-me' attitude is beginning to annoy me. We don't have to act like insufferable Yankee fans, but can't we at least have a little swagger and not go into panic mode with each losing streak.

But to be fare, things have changed in the last week. The losing streak changed Boston's chances at the postseason, no matter how you slice it. If you look at the playoff odds report at Baseball Prospectus, you'll see the Sox playoff chances have dropped 22 points since last week. They still have about a 50/50 shot of making the playoffs. But the Yankees now look like a lock to make the playoffs, and the Rangers and Rays are looking to take Boston's wildcard spot.

A week ago everyone was worried about the starting rotation. Now everyone's worried about an anemic lineup. But I'm not worried so much about the offense. With the addition of Victor Martinez, and better performance from Bay and JD (which I expect), scoring runs won't be the issue. My big question is who will provide solid innings after Beckett and Lester. The enigmatic Penny? The baffling Dice-K? The old knuckleballer? Paul Byrd? This is not painting a pretty picture.

Potentially more disastrous is the defense. Again referencing Baseball Prospectus, the Sox are second-to-last in baseball in defense. Last year the Sox were 5th. From my observation, the team is suffering defensively at SS, LF, RF (when Drew isn't in the lineup), 3B (when the limited Lowell is in the lineup) and catcher (when it comes to the running game). To me, this is the biggest problem. Kotchman was a nice pickup for this reason; Youk can play third and Kotchman (a very good gloveman) can play 1B when defense is needed.

The Rios Contract
I'm a little stunned the White Sox took on Alex Rios' contract. You can get the takes of Rob Neyer and Keith Law through these links. Yes, by adding Rios and Peavy they get two potential All-Stars without giving up a ton, and they're likely better options than anything that will hit the 2010 free agent market. But there's still almost $70 million on Rios' contract, and Peavy may not be the same pitcher outside of Petco and after his injury. Ken Williams never rests (which is good), but Rios' bat has declined every year since 2006, and though he's a plus defender (and will be moved back to CF by all accounts), I'm not sure the White Sox won't be regretting this decision in 2011.

On DVD: Finding a Vantage Point

Vantage Point movie review (on DVD)

Score: 7/10

I was looking for a good action/drama release this weekend, and we settled on getting Vantage Point from the RedBox. Good call. It was action-packed, had an interesting premise, and was executed well on almost all fronts. (A 7 on my scale means I would have been OK with seeing it in the theater and I recommend it.)

What worked: Really cool premise. Viewing an event from several different perspectives makes for interesting story telling. The last time through it got a little repetitive, but overall it worked. Dennis Quaid was really good, as was Forest Whitaker, who was almost too good for this movie. Most of the other actors did a very good job. The action sequences were very well done, and the story held together (until the end)

What didn't work: The story went into unreal land at the end. Usually I'm cool with that, but the storytellers set up a very 'real' world over the first 60 minutes, and entered a more traditional action world at the end, which hurt the movie. Also, William Hurt (who plays President Ashton) and his advisers have the worst scene in the movie discussing the geopolitics of terrorism. Not their fault -- the scene just wasn't written well, and it's a key scene.

Who would want to see this: Moviegoers who like a movie that's mostly action but has plenty of drama mixed with a few twists and turns.

Closing credits: If you haven't seen this, go rent it. It's worth the price, and it's the kind of movie that sticks with you for a couple of days. A great film? No, but better than most and very entertaining.

The Fall of John Smoltz

I hated to see John Smoltz leave the Red Sox. I was very hopeful that Smoltz would prove to be the third starter in a power big three (joining Beckett and Lester). He turned out to be a bust. How bad was he? An ERA over 8, and his fastball was getting destroyed, marking only the second time in his career when his fastball wasn't a plus pitch (according to Fangraphs), and the only other time was last year.

If I just use my eyes, I thought he was done several starts ago. He wasn't fooling batters his second and third time through a lineup, and as Dave Roberts said on NESN during Smoltz's last start, he was doing a great job of throwing strikes, but was missing his spots within the zone.

The numbers tell a slightly different story. Of the three things pitchers have the most control over, he was well within career norms on two. He was striking out batters, and he was being very stingy with the base on balls. But he was giving up a lot of home runs, 1.8 per 9, more than double his career rate. His rate of flyballs turned into home runs was a 50% increase of his career.

Why the problem with the longball? Well, he hadn't given up a HR since July 30 at Texas, and had gone four starts (only one of which was a good start) without giving up a homer. During that same stretch, he walked 4 batters in 20 innings. So were the home runs pitching in hitters parks (Fenway, Baltimore, Texas, Yankee Launching Pad), or did he suddely lose his ability to keep it in the yard.

A lot of his struggles, again according to the numbers I have, were bad luck. His Batting Average on Balls in Play (BABIP) was a huge .390, up 100 points on his career numbers. Most research has shown that pitchers don't have a lot of control on that number. Could it be the poor defense behind him? Maybe, but other Sox starters have kept their BABIP at career levels (including Beckett).

So was it the right decision to designate Smoltz for assignment? I would say yes, if the Sox had a lot of options. But when signing Paul Byrd to a minor league contract is one of the solutions, color me skeptical.

Did Sox management make the right decision? Maybe. But I think I would rather have a struggling Smoltz where the light might have come on, versus the other options.