Baseball
* Bert Blyleven and Roberto Alomar earn Hall Of Fame Honors. For those who follow this site my love for stat is pretty evident. It may surprise you to know that when it comes to the Hall Of Fame numbers shouldn't be the end all be all. To me the Hall Of Fame is about your place in the game during your playing career. For example Don Mattingly was a Top 5 player in the game from 1984-1989 making 6 All-Stars and finishing in the Top 10 in MVP Voting 4 Times and winning one. Injuries limited Mattingly's production from 90-95 therefore his career numbers pale in comparison to say Tony Perez. In my opinion Don Mattingly is more of a Hall Of Fame player than Tony Perez. Is this process correct? Likely not. Something should be said for a player who has a solid 15-20 year career. As the game has changed over the years it is becoming harder to determine what is or what isn't Hall Of Fame caliber on numbers alone. To me Roberto Alomar is a Hall Of Famer, 12 All Star Games in 17 years and 5 times in the Top 10 in MVP voting. Alomar was also the best 2B of his time both offensively and defensively. Blyleven on the other hand is a stat compiler. Many have said the Blyleven was a dominate pitcher and his career marks would suggest he had more on days than off. However over his 22 year career Blyleven made only 3 All-Star teams and finished in the Top 10 in Cy Young voting only 4 times and never higher than 3rd. Bert "Be Home" Blyleven, as Chris Berman coined him, certainly had a fine career but his Hall Of Fame admission only opens the door for other borderline players farther down the line.
* It appears that the Steroid Era is going to make the already questionable process even more clouded. I understand the outrage with steroids. Though I don't subscribe to the Red Letter approach of many voters, I can understand the unwillingness to support the player. The only problem can you without a doubt determine if a said player did and didn't cheat? On this years ballot known sinners Rafael Palmerio and Mark McGwire received 11% and 19.8% of yes votes respectively. On the other hand Jeff Bagwell received 41.7% his first time on the ballot. Did I miss something here? In 710 career Minor League At Bats Bagwell hit 4 HR's. During his first 3 seasons Bagwell averaged 19 HR's per 162 games over the next 11 season Bagwell averaged 39 HR per 162 games. Could Bagwell have simply been a late bloomer when it comes to power? Absolutely. Could Bagwell have sampled the Juice and in return have his most productive years? I think the answer should be yes. The point is with all these players who played during this time for everyone you know did it their is likely 20 or 30 that you don't. If they are Hall Of Fame worthy, such as McGwire, let them in put steroid era player on the plaque and let personnel opinion be the judge. Is this process fair, absolutely not, but to me to have a Hall Of Fame without Mark McGwire is more of a travesty than the omitting of Pete Rose.
* As the BCFP season prep has begun a couple of things stuck out to me when reviewing team rosters.
- The Phillies could really threaten the record for wins in a season of 116. The rotation is likely the best in MLB history, the offense, though another season older, should still be a Top 5 to 10 unit in the league and the bullpen which is often maligned but statistically rather solid leave the Phillies with more answers than questions. The NL only has about 10 teams including the Phillies that could be good and only the Marlins appear to be threats in the East. The Astros, Pirates, Padres, and Diamondbacks all appear to be terrible. Taking all this into consideration assuming the Phillies can remain healthy a 120 Win season could be in the works.
- The Red Sox will run away with the AL East. The Yankees don't appear to be a playoff team barring a blockbuster pitching acquisition. The Rays are in another rebuilding mode offensively and will need their pitching to be top of the league to have any chance. The O's should be much improved but if Jeremy Guthrie is your ace than you have troubles. And the Jays much like the O's should have little problems scoring stopping the opponents could present troubles.
- The AL East may still be the best division in baseball from Top to Bottom but the most tightly contested race will be in the most improved division in baseball, the NL Central. Last year the Cardinals and Reds battled it out but in the offseason the Brewers and Cubs both took significant steps in closing the gap. No team in the division is void of questions heading into the season and injuries always play a big part but all things considered I could see any of the four teams winning the division and given the parity it wouldn't surprise me if 90 Wins will be enough.
College Football
* Andrew Luck bypasses the NFL draft to return to Stanford. As a college football fan I will enjoy seeing Luck attempt to lead Stanford to once unthinkable places. From a financial standpoint Luck likely cost himself Millions upon millions of dollars. Barring a terrible injury Luck will still be the top selection next year but with the new CBA one of the items that both party's seem to want to correct is the rookie wage scale. Therefore come the 2012 draft their will likely be a cap on what players can command. No more Sam Bradford's becoming the highest paid player at his position without ever taking a snap. Luck would likely signed a 60 Million dollar deal had he came out. Though the amount has yet to be determined you would figure after the CBA adjustments you are looking at a 15-20 million dollar deal. Luck seems to have his head on straight and will likely have a solid career allowing him to really cash in at some point however I guarantee his Great-Great-Great Grandchildren will be bitter.
NFL Playoffs
* Saints and Colts both fall in opening round. To me both losses can be lumped together as both followed the same script. To often times both offenses settled for FG's rather than TD's and defensively neither team put up much of a fight defensively. No doubt many will cry for playoff reseeding based on record. These people will point to Seattle's home field advantage to explain the Saints loss. It wouldn't have mattered where the Saints played on Saturday, had they given the same effort on defense then the results would have been the same. For the Colts the result shouldn't be suprising. Outside of a recent four game winning streak this team didn't appear to be much of a threat come playoff time. You cannot expect to beat good teams if you are unable to stop them and all season that had been a issue with the Colts it was no different on Saturday.
* I understand the argument for playoff reseeding but I don't choose to embrace it. The NFL has used the same system since the inception of playoff football and outside of this season their has been little outrage. To me the odds of another division winner with a losing record aren't very high and if it does happen then so be it. For every solid team with a good record you reward there would be another team that would have built a solid record by playing in a weaker division or feasting on the leagues worst.
* If we want to solve problems with today's game how about addressing the Tuck Rule. If a QB pump fakes a pass and doesn't throw it and while bringing the ball back into his gut the ball is striped it's a fumble people not a forward pass. If it looks like a fumble and the QB reacts to it as it was a fumble then it should be a fumble.
* Cam Cameron gets plenty of credit for his handling of Joe Flacco and the relative success of the Ravens offense. With that said it may just be me but shouldn't this offense be much more explosive. They have good WR depth a multi-dimensional back in Rice and several RB options behind him. Over the course of a typical contest they compile enough points to win more often than not but their always seems to be a 4-6 possession drought at sometime during the game which often times lets teams hang around when they could easily put them away. It happened again on Sunday but the D forced so many TO's it didn't become a issue. I'm sure at some point in the playoffs it will.
* Punch the Packers ticket to the Super Bowl. The Packers have the best defense in the NFL in my opinion and are so athletic. On offense Starks appears to be a legit RB threat and if the Packers can get a running game mixed in with the passing attack this offense will be the best in the NFC. The Falcons physical style is a tougher matchup than what the Eagles do and playing at Atlanta only makes the challenge more daunting. I like the Packers to edge out the Falcons but regardless whoever wins that contest will be the NFC representative in the Super Bowl.
5 comments:
Funny, you used the exact opposite reasoning in your argument regarding whether or not Pete Rose was a Hall of Famer.
Did you change your mind?
First off, Andrew Luck is from a well-to-do family. He is a trust funder, and they have 'old' money. his great great greats are going to have nothing to be bitter about, they are always going to have money. Plus, he is going to have a college degree from stanford. He and his are always going to be well off.
Secondly, how is Mark McGwire more worthy than Pete Rose? They both broke baseballs rules and lied. THey are the same, regardless of which rule they broke. Your double standards here are worthy of NCAA type retardation.
Your stance on the NFL playoffs/Seattle in them is astounding. You manage to contradict every stance you take whether it be on reasons Rose shouldn't be in the hall as pointed out by Ironton, to the logic and argument you use with the NFL Playoffs and the logic you attempt to use being Pro BCS.
Could someone please find anywhere that I claimed Pete Rose shouldn't be a HOF. My stance on Pete was only that he wasn't the Top 20 player of All time that many portray him as. Go back and read the post I believe I even specifically stated that Rose should be in the Hall of fame. In MY opinion I believe McGwire was more of a superstar than Rose to others maybe not. This backlash indicates to me that my thoughts and opinions have become the gospel to it's followers. For that I can only say Thank You.
Nobody ever really knows what you are saying because your stance changes so much Burt. I wouldn't call it gospel, more like rhetoric.
The problem isn't whether you believe he should be in the HOF or not. The problem is that you used the same reason to reach two completely polar conclusions.
Consistent good play, over many years.... is better and worse than stellar play for a few seasons according to you. It's called doublethink.
Post a Comment