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.)