Okay, Here We Go!

Posted on October 7, 2009 by bry

It is time for the Phillies to start their World Series title defense.  And, it starts today.  Playoff baseball is fantastic, and if you didn’t remember how great it was, all you needed was to watch that game last night.  I texted Doogan after it ended and said something like “Not that I’m prone to hyperbole, but that may have been the best baseball game I have ever seen.”  But, there is more today, and more for the rest of the month.  So, let’s get to a quick preview of today’s action.

NLDS, Game 1:  Rockies at Phillies, Ubaldo Jimenez vs Cliff Lee
Apparently, there is a 35-mile per hour wind blowing straight out–mostly to rightfield.  The Phils have the experience, but don’t forget that the Rockies won the NL pennant just two years ago.  It’s hard to believe that this is a matchup between the past two NL pennant winners, but it is.  (Random note:  I like the Lee choice in Game 1 because I think that, if need be, I would have more confidence in him on three days rest in Game 4 than I would Hamels.  And, that way, Hamels can be available on full rest for Game 5.)

Keys for the Rockies:

  • Take pitches, work pitch counts, get into the Phillies bullpen
  • Keep the ball in the yard, especially with this wind, against a potent lineup
  • Don’t let starter, Jimenez, get rattled

Keys for the Phillies:

  • Pile on if they get ahead and put this young pitcher and young team away early, if given the opportunity
  • Field the ball and don’t give any free outs
  • Have confidence down in the pen

The Final Word: 
I think that the Phils will win Game 1 behind Cliff Lee.  They may even knock Jimenez out in the first two or three innings, which would be very important, not only for today’s game, but also for tomorrow.

ALDS, Game 1:  Twins at Yankees, Duensing vs. Sabathia
I have heard talk that this may be the biggest underdog in the history of the MLB playoffs.  I am not ready to go that far, but clearly the Bronx Bombers would be heavy, heavy favorites in this series even if their opponents hadn’t just won an emotional 12-inning game, 1,500 miles away, 21 hours before today’s first pitch.

Keys for the Twins:

  • Play the underdog, “nothing-to-lose” card
  • Shake off the fatigue from last night without losing any of the momentum that the big win has given them
  • Get at least five innings from Duensing (who had an ERA over 4.00 in AAA this year) to save an already spent ‘pen

Keys for the Yankees:

  • Put this team away early–don’t let them hang around
  • Work the count, wait for mistakes
  • Don’t be afraid to turn to the ‘pen in the late innings if Sabathia appears to tire

The Final Word:
Obviously, you have to think that the Yankees will win this game.  However, baseball always seems to be very bizarre.  I’m not “picking” the Twins because, well, I’m not an idiot.  But, I am saying that if they can get 5+ innings from Duensing and someone can close the game (be it a tired Nathan or someone else), they can shock the world today.

NLDS, Game 1:  Cardinals at Dodgers, Carpenter vs. Wolf
It is strange that the worst team (by record) in the NL playoffs is the overwhelmingly popular pick to win the NL pennant, while the best team (by record) is basically an afterthought.  Yes, the Cardinals have an incredible 1-2 punch in the rotation and the lineup, but when it comes to the full team, the Dodgers are clearly the deeper team.

Keys for the Cardinals:

  • Get guys on base for the big boppers in the middle of the lineup
  • Get deep into the game with Carpenter, avoiding too many innings from a struggling bullpen
  • Overcome the recent struggles and regain some confidence

Keys for the Dodgers:

  • Take advantage of scoring opportunities against Carpenter
  • Jump on the Cardinals middle-relievers (and possibly the closer, Franklin)
  • Avoid Wolf vs. Pujols in situations that can really hurt

The Final Word:
Obviously, Carpenter is a more accomplished and flat-out better pitcher than Wolf.  And, neither team is exactly “peaking” here in October.  The Carpenter-Wainwright and Pujols-Holliday combinations are brutal, but if the Dodgers can neutralize the middle of the Cards order (not exactly an easy thing to do), will St. Louis be able to generate any runs?  Either way,  you have to pick the better pitcher, even against a deeper lineup.

Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

First Ever BSB Podcast: MLB Playoff Preview

Posted on October 6, 2009 by Doogan

phils howardReaders, BSB has stepped into the next frontier of sports coverage: audio!  Bry and I have recorded the first BSB Podcast, and it’s available for streaming or download at the following link:

http://broadstreetbelievers.podbean.com/

In the podcast, we preview the upcoming MLB playoffs, give our predictions for each series (all the way through the Fall Classic) and break down the pitching questions the Phils face as they prepare to defend their title.  Check it out!

If and when we do more of these things, we’ll post the link again here on the “mother ship”.

Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Baseball Quick Hits Heading Into the Final Weekend

Posted on October 3, 2009 by Doogan

heltonSome news and thoughts as the regular season comes to a close:

-The four NL playoff teams are set in stone, but the first-round matchups are still impossible to predict.  With two games left, the four teams are all within two games of each other.  Three teams (the Phillies, Dodgers, and, amazingly, Rockies) still have a shot at the top seed.  We know the Phillies will be playing the Dodgers or Rockies (we’ve known that for about a month), but we don’t know who will have home-field advantage, in either case.  I think it’s pretty important that the Phils have a strong showing this weekend, because I don’t want to play a Rockies team coming off a sweep of the Dodgers to take the division, or play the Dodgers without home-field advantage.  With wins today and tomorrow, the Phils can guarantee themselves a good position for the NLDS.

-With that in mind, the Phils are sending Cole Hamels to the hill for today’s game.  They haven’t announced this, but this pretty much means that Hamels will not be starting Game 1 of the NLDS on Wednesday.  The team has suggested that they might limit his pitches today, but I don’t think it makes sense to have him start Game 1 out of his normal routine of four days off, and I think the team knows this.  If it had been my decision, Cole would have pitched on Friday night and been in line to go in Game 1, but now that he’s pitching today, I think it would be a pretty bad move.  It looks like Cliff Lee will get the ball on Wednesday.

-Some really bad news about the bullpen yesterday:  J.C. Romero is done for the season and Chan Ho Park will be out at romeroleast until the NLCS.  The team couldn’t be sure what they would get from Romero anyway, but he was such a huge part of the ‘pen last year and, really, such a huge part of the World Series title.  Assuming the Phils put eleven pitchers on the roster for the NLDS, it will likely be the following: Lee, Hamels, Joe Blanton, Pedro Martinez, J.A. Happ, Brad Lidge, Ryan Madson, Scott Eyre, Brett Myers, Chad Durbin, and Clay Condrey.  Tyler Walker and Sergio Escalona are other bullpen options.  If the team decides that Happ will be in the rotation, then Escalona would have to be considered to add another lefty to the ‘pen, alongside Eyre.

Tagged , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Hey Doogan, What About This Idea? (Tell Me I’m Crazy)

Posted on October 2, 2009 by bry

So, Doogan and I started this blog a couple of years ago.  The idea was fueled by the rationale that, “Hey, we email each other with stupid sports questions and comments and random opinions anyway, we don’t we just start a blog and post what we would otherwise be emailing each other?”  So, that was the design.  No set content.  No set “tone.”  Just pretty much exactly what we would be debating over email, only in more of a public forum, so that we could have others join in the debate, as well, if they want.  If not, no harm done.

Well, Doogan posted a commentary last week that was a microchasm of our idea.  He posted his response to the Peter Gammons idea of changing the playoffs.  It struck me as something from the “old days.”  If this had happened three years ago, that post would probably still have been written only it would have been received as an email in my inbox (maybe with fewer punctuation marks and no pictures).  And, in turn, I would have responded, so I guess I will do it here–only I will actually use capital letters, since this is a “public forum.”

Doogan, you make a couple great points, and I agree with you that Gammons’ suggestion doesn’t really help.  But, let me throw out a truly radical idea that might be just crazy enough to work.  See what you think:

So, when people talk about about changing the baseball playoffs, they usually bring up a variety of things:

  1. The lack of any pennant races.  This is an argument that many people–especially Gammons–have perpetuated around this year because, well, it’s convenient THIS year.  As you said in your post, this year is different than most (if not, all) the other years of the wild card, in that there are no races.  But, for the sake of argument, let us defer to the “experts” and say that baseball could be helped by a change to the playoff format that would create more pennant races.
  2. The lack of any advantage for a team to win their division.  Basically, the Yankees are going to finish a far better season than the Red Sox, and have a very small advantage in the short postseason.  Even more so, the Red Sox catch a break considering that they are in the playoffs, without winning their division, and do not have to face the Yankees in Round One, while the Tigers, who are going to win their division, will play the Yankees.  I kind of agree with this point (though I get the argument that the Red Sox are better than the Tigers, but that doesn’t necessarily have to be true about the wild card).
  3. Not enough teams are still in the playoff hunt come September.  This has been a big argument against baseball for a long time now.  It’s sort of the opposite of the NBA, in that more than half of the NBA teams qualify for the playoffs, so every team is it, just about, whereas, only 8 MLB teams make it, so usually more than half of the teams’ seasons are over by the middle of August.  Not sure this is a huge issue for me–the purist–but I completely see the argument, both for the sport’s popularity and the individual teams’ revenues.
  4. You have these two extra days before the playoffs start, why not use them?  This is part of Gammons’ argument, right?  Or, at least, he says move the season up to start on a weekend and use this last weekend as a playoff round.  This is not a big issue, but it can certainly be addressed.  And, we all know that Turner Broadcasting is not going to change from their Wednesday start day, for TV purposes.

When people talk about keeping the playoffs as they are, they use a variety of reasons to defend the current system, such as:

  1. Baseball is unique in the fact that it is a very long season and the playoff structure has always rewarded the best teams–over the long-haul.  This is completely true, though I think the wild card has certainly put a damper on this (not necessarily a bad thing).  But, there is definitely something to be said for the purist opinion of rewarding the teams that played the best over a 162-game sample of play.
  2. The baseball pennant races are fantastic because they involve the best teams playing for something down the stretch.  No other sport has this–some of the best teams still fighting it out at the end of the regular season.  Again, the wild card has taken a little bit of steam out of this argument, too, but it still pretty much rings true.  Two years ago, the Rockies and Padres were two of the better teams in baseball and they were fighting the whole month of September.  Last year, the White Sox and Twins both won 88 games and were in a fight for their playoff lives.  Each of the last two years, the Phillies and Mets were both excellent teams that had to beat out one another just to earn a chance to play in October.  In the NBA, the last playoff spots are all being fought over by a couple of .500 teams, who are probably just playing for the right to be swept in the first round.  The best teams put it in cruise control for the last quarter of the season because the only thing left to fight for is seeding.  This is even true in the NFL.  The best three or four teams usually don’t even play their starters in Week Seventeen because they have the playoffs locked up.  Not true in baseball.
  3. The playoffs already run into November, you cannot extend them.  Unlike football, which can be played in any conditions, or basketball, which is played indoors, baseball HAS to be played in relatively decent weather conditions.  It’s already iffy to play games in any northern city in late October, so even a week later might make your championship decided under conditions that negatively change the contest.

Well, Mr. Doogan, I think that I have an idea (albeit extremely radical and probably will be laughed away the moment I publish this) that solves all four problems mentioned above without affecting (and maybe even enhancing) the good things often cited about the existing playoffs.  And, neither camp is at all against drama and intrigue, which I think are both increased by my idea in the regular season and the playoffs.  What do you think?

Instead of one wild card team in each league, Peter Gammons suggested two wild card teams.  I–despite being a purist–am suggesting THREE wild card teams in each league.  Bare with me…

Each league has six playoff teams–three division winners and three wild cards.  The division winners will be seeded 1-3, by record.  The wild card teams will be seeded 4-6, by record.  The division winners will not have to play until we are down to ONE wild card team, so the playoff structure, once each league’s wild card is decided will be exactly the same as it is now.  The only difference is how we select the 4th participant.

What happens is the 5-seed will play the 6-seed on Monday in a one-game playoff.  The winner of this game will play the 4-seed on Tuesday in a one-game playoff.  The winner of Tuesday’s game will qualify as the wild card (as it exists today), starting Wednesday or Thursday.  (Or, of course, if you want to take Gammons idea, you can).  And, since travel seems like it could be an issue, I figure all one-game playoffs will be played at the home ballpark of the 4-seed. 

Sounds confusing?  Maybe.  Sounds stupid?  Definitely…at first, because it involves one-game playoffs, which are so stupid for baseball.  But, stop and give it some thought–and give me a chance to explain myself here.

For simplicity’s sake, let us look at this year’s standings and use the actual records as examples.  Here is how the two leagues would be, under my crazy format (assuming today’s standings hold up at the end of the weekend):

NATIONAL LEAGUE:
1. Dodgers
2. Phillies
3. Cardinals
4. Rockies
5. Braves
6. Giants

AMERICAN LEAGUE:
1. Yankees
2. Angels
3. Tigers
4. Red Sox
5. Rangers
6. Twins

So, what would happen is that, after the games on Sunday, the Rangers and Twins would fly to Fenway Park and play one game Monday night.  The winner of that game would play the Red Sox the next night, with the Yankees awaiting that winner for the Division Series in the Bronx.  Likewise, in the NL, the Braves would play the Giants in Coors Field on Monday night, with the Rockies to face the winner on Tuesday.  Then, the Dodgers would await Tuesday’s winner for the NLDS in LA.

Now, this still might sound pretty dumb, but let me give some reasons why it might just be crazy enough to work:

It enables wild card teams to qualify, but, gives them a much harder path.  This format definitely addresses the concern about giving teams a postseason advantage for winning their division over the 162-game season, and penalizes the wild card teams for not winning their divisions.

It opens up the playoffs to more teams.  Obviously, with 6 teams in each league, more teams will have something to play for.  And, it would do this without eliminating the races that currently exist.

It has the possibility to create intense pennant races between teams that, otherwise would not be in races.  For example, just think how big the Yankees-Red Sox series last weekend would have been, if the division winner didn’t have to worry about a one-game elimination (where you lose, regardless, because you burn a pitcher…much more on that in a minute).  And, even better, think about this weekend’s Dodgers-Rockies series.  How big would it be?  The Dodgers are currently two games up in the division, but both have clinched playoff spots, so it doesn’t really matter.  But, if the alternative was having to play Tuesday, this series would be HUGE.

In fact, this format would create pennant races for just about every seed.  Think about the implications for each seeded team.  The only spots that do not really have much of a difference are 5-6 (no difference, at all, actually) and 2-3 (the only difference being home-field in the DS).  But, there is a stark advantage (much more than currently exists) for being the top-seed, in that you get to play a team that just had to play, at least one game, maybe two.  And, there is obviously a difference between division-winner and wild card (which currently doesn’t exist).  And, of course, there would be a heated race for 6th.  If this was in place this year, this weekend would be incredibly complex. 

In the NL, not only would the Dodgers and Rockies be playing each other for the division (a big deal), but the Phillies and Cardinals would be involved, fighting for that #1 seed.  Though, the Rockies-Dodgers loser would be assured the 4-seed (and, thus, a day off on Monday and a home game on Tuesday), there would be a pretty interesting battle for the last two spots, with the Braves and Giants both one game ahead of Florida.

Now, the AL would not be quite as interesting, but there would be a lot more intrigue than the current amount: ZERO.  The Tigers and Twins would still be battling for the division, but even if the Tigers win, the Twins would need to keep winning to get in, as a wild card.  The Red Sox would be the wild card “hosts,” and the Rangers would be the 5-seed, but that last spot would be incredibly contentious, as the Twins, Mariners, and Rays would all be in a dogfight.

And, the best part about this is the strategy that will be involved in managers’ selections of starting pitchers, and what the different implications would be to having to play these extra games.  For example, the last couple seeds may be down to the wire to get in, and then they have to play a one-game playoff for their season (who knows what pitchers will be available).  Then, they have to play another game, against a team that had the day off.  Then, the winner of that game will start a five-game series against the #1 seed that has had two days off to set their rotation.  I think it would be FASCINATING.

Yes, I am a purist.  And, yes, I get the fact that even five-game series are not true tests of the best teams, let alone a ONE-GAME SERIES.  But think about how exciting and intriguing it would be.  College baseball does the one-game thing all the time.  Plus, the purist in me kind of likes it because second-place teams shouldn’t even be in the playoffs, so let them struggle to EARN their way in.  Honestly, we would have this coming weekend of intrigue and intensity and then we have this for playoff week:

  • Monday 4:15 – Coors Field – one game, do-or-die, between the Braves and Giants
  • Monday 8:00 – Fenway Park – one game, do-or-die, between the Rangers and the Twins
  • Tuesday 4:15 – Coors Field – one game, do-or-die, between the Rockies and the winner of Monday’s Braves-Giants game
  • Tuesday 8:00 – Fenway Park – one game, do-or-die, between the Red Sox and the winner of Monday’s Rangers-Twins game
  • Wednesday – business, as usual, with the wild card teams, having been decided the night before, on either their second or third pitchers, but at least they’re in “The Dance,” right?

Is it weird?  Yes.  Is it unconventional and radical?  Most definitely.  Could it work?  I kind of think so.

Tell me I’m crazy.

Posted in Tell Me I'm Crazy | Tagged | 5 Comments

Fascinating Week Three Upcoming – Random Thoughts on Last Week

Posted on October 1, 2009 by bry

I wrote the below post before this week’s games, and there was, as expected, plenty of intrigue.  Below, in italics, are some quick notes on each game, so scroll down to the italics parts to see how I saw the intrigue play itself out.  Expect another intriguing Week Four this weekend…more on that later. 

There are many reasons why the NFL is the most popular sport in this country.  It relates to everyone from the casual fan who just likes an action-packed sport to the die-hard football junkie that understands blocking schemes and coverage packages and everyone in between.  Its athletes are so varied that they can be relatable to most sports fans likes–whether you like the hard-hitting linebackers, the fleet-of-foot wide receivers, the strategic quarterbacks, or the tough and gritty linemen.  But, most of all, I think that the NFL is king because of its schedule structure.  Obviously, the 16-game schedule is a major factor, as each NFL game is the equivalent of 5 NBA games or 10 MLB games, in terms of proportion of a team’s schedule.  But, also, the playoff structure is just about perfect, with just enough teams to keep most teams alive, while providing sufficient rewards for the top seeds, so that no one cruises (like about a dozen NBA teams every March and April).  So, just imagine if, every week, every MLB team played ten meaningful games in the span of about 7 hours.  That is the NFL.  And, because of this phenomenon, each week is jam-packed with drama, intrigue, and excitement. 

Week Three is no exception.  In fact, it may be even more interesting than usual–which is saying something.  Let us look at each game, independently, because it is just about now when early-season questions are answered, mid-season questions begin to form, and the seeds of the all-important late-season questions are planted.

Early games:
Kansas City (0-2) at Philadelphia (1-1)
Let us start with the Birds.  For many reasons.  First of all, Michael Vick is back.  That is going to be the national story about this game–without a doubt.  However, I think that is only a minor factor in the intrigue of this game.  First of all, this is a game that undoubtably favors the Eagles.  It is at home, against a clearly inferior opponent.  So, unlike last week, when the Birds faced arguably a better team, Kevin Kolb has to WIN the game this week.  Simply putting up gawdy passing yardage numbers will not be enough if he doesn’t lead the team to a win.  Also, it should be an interesting game for the defense to see if last week they just got beat by a phenomenal offense or if there really are some question marks here.  The Chiefs were in both of their first two games against Baltimore and Oakland, so they might not be competely terrible.  Plus, their $60-million quarterback is getting healthier.

The only quarterback in NFL history to throw for 300+ yards in each of his first two starts?  Kevin Kolb?  Seriously?!?  Now, call me Mr. Negativity, but is this bad for the future of the Eagles?  Maybe it’s great.  Maybe we have a bonafied backup and future starter.  But, maybe we just think we do–which, I would argue, is worse than knowing that you do not.  Plus, it is not like McNabb is the most emotionally stable QB to ever play.  Either way, the team is in the bye at 2-1…and the Chiefs look TERRIBLE.

Continue reading →

Tagged | Leave a comment

Cimorelli’s Question of the Day

Posted on October 1, 2009 by bry

Are you more confident about the Phillies playoff chances than you were last year at this time?

Posted in Questions of the Day | Tagged , | 1 Comment

“Just Get in the Tournament”

Posted on September 30, 2009 by bry

This line, as odd as it may seem considering his situation every year, has been uttered multiple times by Yankees GM Brian Cashman, in response to various questions ranging from “Are you worried about how your team is playing heading into the playoffs?” to “How much do you concern yourself with winning the division if you have already clinched at least a wild card?”  “Just get in the tournament,” is his line.  And, that is what the Phillies, with a win or a Braves loss, will do tonight.

Are they “peaking” at the “right time” (or however the cliche goes)?  No, most certainly not.  Are they the best team in the National League?  Maybe, but probably not.  Are they sound in the areas deemed most important to postseason success?  Definitely not, at least when talking about the bullpen.  But, are they in the tournament?  Yes.  And, with what the baseball playoffs have become over the past decade or so, Cashman is right when he says the only thing that matters is “getting into the tournament.”

Let us look back at this decade’s baseball champions and see what Cashman is talking about:

  • 2000 Yankees:  When you think about it, you probably think, like I did, “what a great team that was.”  They had won three of the prior four championships, and featured a core of the game’s elite players.  But, what if I told that they only won 87 games, and that every other playoff team that year plus the Cleveland Indians, who didn’t make it, won three more games than the Yanks?  There was also a lot of talk about just how awful the Yanks were playing heading into the playoffs.  And, they got in the tournament and won.
  • 2001 Diamondbacks:  This was a very good team, but certainly not the favorites (winning fewer games than both the Astros and Cardinals) and, most definitely, not without their question marks.  They had acquired Schilling in midseason and after the top two pitchers, they really had no one.  And, need I remind you of the name Byung-Hyun Kim?  Yes, he was their closer.  But, they got into the tournament.
  • 2002 Angels:  A wild-card team that was led by David Eckstein and those stupid Rally Monkeys.  Not exactly a recipe for over-confident fans, huh?  Oh, and you might say, “Yeah, well they did have a dominant closer in Francisco Rodriguez.”  And, you would be right–he was dominant in the playoffs.  But, entering the 2002 playoffs, he had ZERO career saves, and was only 20 years old.  But, they got into the tournament.
  • 2003 Marlins:  Another wild-card team that finished ten games behind the Braves in the NL East.  Yes, they were playing great ball in the second half, but do you think anyone on September 30, 2003, would say “You know who I’m picking to win it all?  The Marlins.”  Probably no one other than the 14 die-hard Marlins fans.  And, maybe Brian Cashman, who realizes that it’s all about getting into the tournament.
  • 2004 Red Sox:  They had not won in 86 years (in case you forgot) and lost the division to the Yankees–a division title they probably should have won, but limped through September and ended up as the wild card.  But, they got in.
  • 2005 White Sox:  Here is where is starts to get even better.  The White Sox took the lead of the AL Central in late-April and never looked back–sort of.  They did lead for almost the entire season, but if you don’t recall, they almost choked away the division to the Indians in the final month.  They had a questionable closer, no momentum, and no pedigree.  But, what did they do?  They got in the tournament.
  • 2006 Cardinals:  This might be the absolute best example of the point I’ve been trying to make for far too long here.  The Cardinals won 83 games in the regular season.  They BARELY held on to a division and avoided the “worst collapse of all-time,” as all the sports writers dubbed it as it was happening.  They were also called the “worst playoff team ever.”  Oh, and their closer?  It was Jason Isringhausen up until mid-September when he blew his 10th save and was replaced as the closer.  The Cards turned to a rookie starter to be their closer (Adam Wainwright, meet JA Happ) and the rest is history (including a nasty, nasty curveball that Mets fans probably remember all too well).  They got in the tournament, and despite all their warts and baggage, they won it all.
  • 2007 Red Sox:  Probably the best (or one of the best) team in the league, but they didn’t exactly finish strong either.  Plus, they had a closer, who was a starter in the minors, in only his second season as a closer.  But, they got in the tournament.
  • 2008 Phillies:  It is great to think of all of this happening to these other teams.  The White Sox and Red Sox breaking their long streaks of ineptitude.  The Cardinals winning 83 games, but somehow winning the title.  The D-Backs winning their first.  The Marlins winning their second (having NEVER won the division).  But, that is just stuff that happens somewhere else.  Not in Philadelphia, right?  Wrong.  Last year, for those who don’t know, the Phillies won the World Series.  And, trust me, they were not the favorites going into the playoffs.  But, what they did was exactly what they are about to do this year–THEY GOT IN THE TOURNAMENT.

So, let us not worry ourselves with closers or slumping offenses or breaking-down starting pitchers.  Let us not worry about 1964 or Mitch Williams or anything like that.  Let us celebrate the next Phillies victory as if they accomplished EXACTLY what they needed to accomplish through the 162-game season.  They, like seven other teams will, won the regular season.  There are 8 winners and 22 losers, and with one more win, the Phillies will assure themselves a place as one of those winners.  They will, simply put, get in the tournament.

Tagged , | 5 Comments

Don’t Change the MLB Playoffs

Posted on September 24, 2009 by Doogan

gammonsPeter Gammons is one of the best sports journalists of his time, and he seems like a pretty cool dude too, but I have to disagree with his suggestion that the MLB should consider expanding the playoffs to 10 teams.  His basic argument is that baseball has been lost amid the start of football season this year, with no one paying attention because the only pennant race is between the Tigers and Twins in the AL Central.

First of all, let me say that I’ve always liked the addition of the Wild Card in 1995.  I’m not an anti-change purist.  It’s added a lot to the excitement of September and it’s made it more fair for teams that play in tough divisions, like the AL East.  But adding another wild card to each league is going too far.  Baseball teams play a grueling, marathon season of 162 games, and to further dilute the season by opening up more playoff spots just seems like a bad idea. 

Under the proposal Gammons talks about, the two wild card teams from each league would play each other in a best-of-three “play-in” series.  That’s better than giving two teams a bye or something like that, but it’s still problematic.  We’ve all seen how anything can happen in a best-of-five series, what would a best-of-three be like?  Not that I like to defend the Red Sox, but right now they’re 7 games ahead of the Rangers.  Should they really have to put their season on the line in a best-of-three series against a team that they were that much clearly better than over 162 games?  I say no.

Beyond those reasons though, the notion that September baseball isn’t exciting enough is just plain wrong.  As Gammons says in the article, “…this may be an overreaction to a September in which there are essentially no races.”  Yes, Peter, that’s what it is.  Maybe it’s just because I’m a Phillies fan, but I seem to remember PLENTY of excitement in September this decade.  To confirm, I went back and looked at the standings with 10-15 games left over the last four seasons.  In that time, there were 24 division titles won, and exactly half of them were still up for grabs at that point of the season.  Of the 8 Wild Cards won in that span, 5 of them were still undecided.  So clearly, the lack of drama this September is a pretty rare occurence.  The system is working well, let’s leave it exactly how it is.       

Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Cimorelli’s Question of the Day

Posted on September 23, 2009 by bry

Who is a better matchup for the Phils in the Division Series–the Rockies or the Dodgers?

Posted in Questions of the Day | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Is It Possible to Know Any LESS About an NFL Team After Two Games?

Posted on September 23, 2009 by bry

Now, I know it’s only two weeks into the season, so no fanbase really knows anything about their team (and I do cringe at the knee-jerk reactions that take place this time of year), but some fanbases are pretty sure about certain aspects of their teams, and just about all of them have, at least, some impression of their teams.  Saints fans are pretty sure that their team has a potent offense.  Jets fans are pretty certain that their defense is stout.  Fans of the Bucs, Rams, and Chiefs are probably pretty confident that their teams stink.  All three Jacksonville fans are probably convinced that their team is heading for Los Angeles sooner rather than later.  But, what do we Eagles fans know?  Anything?  I’m not sure we even have any impressions of our team after two games.

So, the Eagles have split their first two games against Carolina on the road and New Orleans at home.  Sounds perfectly logical.  It is what I would have predicted.  Given these opening games, no matter who they shook out, 2-0 would have been fantastic and 0-2 would have been relatively scary.  So, the record is not surprising–and goes along in telling us nothing.

The defense looked very, very good Week One against what should be a pretty good Carolina offense–Jake Delhomme notwithstanding–particularly at home.  The Panthers were 12-4 last year and 8-0 at home, and they have every offensive starter back from a year ago.  The defense forced seven turnovers and, aside from a touchdown on the opening drive, basically pitched a shutout.

Then, the defense looked very, very bad Week Two against New Orleans.  Now, is it simply the fact that, right now, no one is going to stop Drew Brees and Company in decent conditions?  Or, are there problems with the defense?  The linebackers that looked SO good against the Panthers looked just as bad against New Orleans.  After the first game, you would say that Stewart Bradley’s loss was not big.  After the New Orleans game, you are lamenting that loss.

So, is the defense good and New Orleans is just great (the Saints did score 45 in Week One)?  Is the defense bad and Carolina just had a bad day (Delhomme did turn it over 6 times against a bad Arizona defense in the playoffs last year, and the Panthers did just lose to Atlanta this week)?  Or, do we know nothing about the defense and its new coordinator, new/old middle linebacker, and brand-spanking-new free safety (a guy who has never played safety in his life and is replacing the best free safety of my lifetime)?

And, what if I told you that we know even less about the offense than we do about the defense?  Even in racking up 38 points against Carolina with the first-string QB in there, I don’t think we learned anything about this offense in Week One.  When you get the benefit of SEVEN turnovers, you better put up 30+ points.   But, do any of these numbers jump out at you:  Westbrook, leading rusher with 64 yards.  McNabb, leading passer with 79 yards.  Brent Celek, leading receiver with 37 yards.  Here are their 4 scoring drives (not including the punt return TD and fumble return TD):

  • 3 plays, 6 yards, FG–set up by an interception
  • 1 play, 9 yards, TD–set up by interception
  • 10 plays, 69 yards, TD
  • 3 plays, 10 yards, TD–set up by interception

So, in a 38-point “exposion,” the offense had ONE scoring drive of more than 3 plays…ONE.  But, you can’t fault them for the great field position handed to them by the Panthers.  So, I am, by NO means, criticizing the offensive performance in Week One, I am just saying that we didn’t really learn anything about them.

Then…Week Two.  Kevin Kolb actually looked decent in the first half.  And, he did throw for 391 yards.  But, do we know anything about him?  I think the only thing we learned is that he might not be totally awful.  And, then there is Brian Westbrook.  Is he the Westbrook of old?  Probably not.  But, how close is he?  I cannot believe he is done, though we haven’t learned anything to the contrary in the first two weeks.  In fact, much less the entire rest of the team…we haven’t learned anything.

And, I’m guessing that we won’t still won’t know anything until it is nearly Halloween.  The Eagles should be able to get a W against Kansas City, at home, regardless of the quarterback this week.  Then, they have their bye in Week Four, before playing a terrible Tampa Bay team at home and then travelling to Oakland on October 18.  There is a chance that we learn something from the Oakland game, but maybe not.  Chances are the first time we can actually say, for sure, that this team is -fill in the blank- will be Monday, October 26, after a game at Washington.  And, we/they better figure out quick just who they are because that game is followed by back-to-back home games against the Giants and Cowboys followed by road trips to San Diego and Chicago.  And, it just doesn’t ever lighten up, either, as the following week is Washington at home then Atlanta on the road before finishing up at the Giants, home to San Fran and Denver and, finally at Dallas.  So, heading into that Washington game, it is imperative that whether or not was “know” anything, this team had better be at the very least 3-2, and it may actually be necessary that they are 4-1 because this division will not let up.

A COUPLE OF OTHER EAGLES NOTES:

  • Currently, the three Eagles quarterbacks that did not start against the Saints (and probably won’t against KC, either) have combined for twelve Pro Bowl appearances.  The starter, obviously, has been to zero.  McNabb-5, Garcia-4, Vick-3.
  • Goodbye, Shawn Andrews.  It doesn’t take a detective (or, more appropriately, a psychiatrist) to read between the lines of Andrews’ Twitter page and discern that the guy is definitely not going to ever play for the Eagles again, and probably won’t ever play football again.  I genuinely feel for Andrews, and completely believe that there is something emotionally/psychologically wrong with the man.  I sincerely hope that he works at it and gets his life straightened out.  All that being said, it is blatantly obvious that, regardless of his skill level, he is not the type of person you want with you in the “trenches.”
  • With all this Shawn Andrews drama (which ended last week with his being placed on the IR for the seasons), it begs the question of why did the Eagles decide to move both Andrews brothers from their natural positions?  I know they believed Shawn to be a future tackle, but he was a Pro Bowl guard, while Stacey was a decent tackle.  AND, the big kicker is that they couldn’t possibly be certain that Shawn was going to produce this year.  So, why open yourself up to a hole at tackle???  Now, because of that “switch,” Stacey is playing an unfamiliar position, and Winston Justice is the first-string right tackle.  Kind of botched that one, huh?
  • Another thing that I was harping in the offseason is why did they not pick up a veteran running back while they could be brought in and taught the offense?  I don’t think Westbrook is done, but you cannot possibly think that he’ll give you 250 carries this year, right?  And, I like LeSean McCoy, but why not go get an Edge James or Warrick Dunn or someone?  I don’t think it’s too late, either.  Reggie Brown is useless and teams aren’t even offering a seventh-round pick for him.  Bite the bullet and drop Brown and go get another running back.
  • Now, I’m not going to criticize too much because I trust the Eagles evaluation of older players and when they are through, so have to cut the some slack on that front.  But, it is a bit ironic that Quentin Demps is so far in the doghouse that he’s not even being considered for the starting free safety position.  It remains to be seen whether the departure of my favorite all-time Eagle is going to hurt the Eagles in the clubhouse, but I think that it’s clear that, whether or not Brian Dawkins can still play, the Birds have a pretty big hole at the position he used to so admirably fill.  Macho Harris is a cornerback–and always has been.  That is not saying he cannot become a solid NFL safety, but it’s obvious that he’s not there yet.
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments