Quick Update

     Hey guys.  This is just going to be a quick update with what's going on and future plans for the blog.  Last Monday started school for me, and obviously that's taking up a lot of time.  Between school, homework, learning to drive, and personal time, there isn't much time left over.  So, I probably won't be able to write as much as I have been over the summer.
     However, that doesn't mean this blog is dead.  Far from it.  I still hope to get out around two blogs per week.  In addition, I am excited to announce that starting next week, I will have a weekly NFL podcast that will include my predictions for the upcoming games, along with my thoughts on the biggest news in the NFL for that week.  Some weeks I'll have special guests on the podcast as well to give their opinions.  These should hopefully come out around Friday or Saturday each week.
     Overall, expect the blogs at a less frequent pace, but they'll still come out whenever I have time and something to write about.
     Thanks for reading,
     Connor
   

Evaluating the U.S. National Basketball Team

     Yesterday following their 112-86 scrimmage victory against Puerto Rico, the U.S. Men's Basketball Team trimmed its roster down to the 12 players who will represent the U.S. in the 2014 FIBA Basketball World Cup, which begins on August 30, and is being held in Spain.  While the American team is a strong favorite in the 24 team tournament which has a similar format to the FIFA World Cup, but is the U.S. team really as much of a lock as many Americans would want to believe?

     The US has been placed in Group C, which includes round robin play with the Dominican Republic, Turkey, Finland, New Zealand, and Ukraine.  While it seems impossible for the U.S. to not finish top four in this group, and advance to the knockout stage along with the top four teams from Groups A, B, and D, it isn't as clear whether or not they will breeze through games against top teams such as Spain, Argentina, Lithuania, and Brazil.  

     Let be clear about this.  This is no dream team.  The 1992 Olympic Team starring Hall of Famers like Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, and Magic Johnson would most likely be able to beat this team.  This is because many of the most talented American players will not be competing, a topic I discussed earlier today.  http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/08/should-americas-best-basketball-players.html  I may have been a little harsh on some of the players who did make the team when I claimed how this team is not near as good as it could be.  However, the team still does have a wide variety of very talented players, and certainly no scrubs.
     Here is the full list of players on the team.  Derrick Rose, Kyrie Irving, Stephen Curry, Klay Thompson, DeMar Derozan, James Harden, Rudy Gay, Kenneth Faried, Anthony Davis, DeMarcus Cousins, Andre Drummond, and Mason Plumlee.

     It shouldn't come as a surprise that the team really shines with its guards, specifically the point guards.  This FIBA World Cup will be especially important for Derrick Rose, as he seeks to prove that he is poised for a successful comeback campaign in the 2014-15 NBA season.  Alongside Kyrie Irving, another strong slasher, and splash brother Stephen Curry, the backcourt is where the team is poised

to really shine. 

     Transitioning into the shooting guards, James Harden leads the way here.  He has recently claimed to be the best player in the league.  I don't know about that, but he's certainly a strong person at this position who will get the job done.  Joining him as a young but talented DeMar Derozan and the other splash brother, Klay Thompson.  Now while skilled, these backups aren't the best, and in terms of team depth would've really benefited by someone like a Paul George.  Too bad he's injured.  Overall, however, this is a solid group.

     This is where the positives stop in my opinion.  Once you pass the guards, the rest of the team looks very weak in comparison to the guards, and in my opinion this is due just as much to poor roster cuts as it is a relatively weaker talent pool available.

     There is only one small forward on this team, and only one power forward.  If these were, say, Kevin Durant and Carmelo Anthony, there would be less of a problem.  However, that isn't the case.  Who we have are Rudy Gay and Kenneth Faried.  Now these are good players.  Rudy Gay, while never on a particular good team, has been a consistent 18-20 point scorer throughout his career, and has been snubbed from a few all-star games.  Faried is a big time rebounder and hustle player who is one of the leaders of the Denver Nuggets.

     These guys are what you want out of backups on something like a Team USA.  So, ideally to combat this, you would want some depth in these positions.  Maybe cut someone like DeMar Derozan, or Mason Plumlee (you'll be hearing him later).  I would personally include someone like Chandler Parsons or Gordon Hayward to give a little extra at these positions.  If one of them gets into foul trouble, there will be trouble either trying to play small or big.

     Now big men is where I'm really not that happy.  Two words really sum it up.  Mason Plumlee.  (I guess you didn't have to wait that long).  The U.S. team has decided to go with four centers.  It's pretty obvious that they're trying to match up good with Spain.  Spain will be the biggest competitor for the U.S.  In the backcourt they have Ricky Rubio, Jose Calderon, and Rudy Fernandez.  In the front court, they have (get ready) Pau Gasol, Marc Gasol, and Serge Ibaka.  All six have played in the NBA, and all but Fernandez currently play in the NBA.

     Are you nervous?  I am.  This is a highly skilled team which can rival the U.S.  However, I think we're going about it wrong trying to match up with the Spanish side.  In short, we don't need FOUR CENTERS.  DeMarcus Cousins and Andre Drummond are the best we're going to get in terms of centers, since Dwight and Kevin Love aren't on the team, and we don't have the Gasols.  Anthony Davis can I am also fine with, because he also plays power forward, and complements Faried nicely.  However, the problem is Mason Plumlee.  I honestly believe the only reason he's on the team is because he went to Duke, and Coach K is the coach of the U.S. National Team.  Mason, if you're reading, I apologize.  You're a decent player, but you're too young and not near good enough to be one of the top 12 players in the entire U.S.  You only average seven points and four rebounds and didn't even play 20 minutes per game in your only NBA season.  Why you got in as a fourth center we will never use when we could get Parsons or Hayward is beyond me.

     Now enough complaining.  I can't change the team at this stage, and Coach K knows a lot more than I do.  Back to the important question: will Team USA win the 2014 FIBA Basketball World Cup?  Despite their potential struggles with teams like Spain, I still see them as the clear favorites, and expect them to win.  But will it be a walk in the park?  No.  There are many good teams around the world, and they are only getting better as time passes.  Basketball is no longer just a sport for the USA to dominate.  They have to work for these Olympic gold medals and FIBA titles, but in the end they still have the best talent, at least for now.

Should America's Best Basketball Players Participate in the World Cup?

     Who do you think of when asked who the top players in the NBA are?  LeBron James?  Kevin Durant?  How about Kobe Bryant, Carmelo Anthony, Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, or Kevin Love?  You know all these people.  They are some of the best players in the world, and play on basketball's biggest stage, the NBA.  Here's two things they all have in common.  Firstly, they are all from the U.S., and secondly, none of them will be representing team USA in the FIBA World Cup, which begins on August 30th.
     It seems like most top players are worried about the risk of injury in playing internationally during the offseason.  While their fears seem to be a little more substantiated by the recent freak injury to Paul George, is this really a valid reason for not participating in competitions such as the Olympics and FIBA World Cup?
     I say no.  Why has basketball been growing so rapidly into a global game?  Why have numerous leagues sprung up around the world?  How is it that 21 of the 60 players drafted in the 2014 NBA Draft came from foreign countries, including three of the top five picks?  All of this has resulted from the top players becoming known on a global scale.
     Much of this has to be attributed to the 1992 Dream Team that took gold at the Olympics in Barcelona, Spain.  The team was full with the best players in the world, and many of the greatest of all time.  Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, and Magic Johnson led a team where most players ended up as Hall of Famers.  I wasn't alive to see them in 1992, but based on video I've seen, these guys were incredible to witness.  Described as the greatest sports team ever assembled and the most dominant team ever, the team romped through the Olympics, winning each game by an average of 44 points,  and having a ton of fun along the way.  Most importantly, the world took notice.
     Mesmerized by the men they saw, other countries began seriously playing basketball and forming great teams of their own, while none has ever become near as great as that team that started it all.  This had led to what we have now, a global game that's only becoming more popular by the year.  However, now most top players aren't playing internationally, disappointing the high expectations set by the Dream Team, who could most likely dominate the current U.S. national team.
       I find this to be a big issue.  I believe that to continue the international spread of the game, and to increase appeal to the NBA in other countries, the best players need to be playing in the World Cup.  Maybe it isn't the biggest event in the United States (for reasons I'm still trying to figure out), but for most countries in the world, it is the biggest basketball event.  These top players need to take it seriously.
     I doubt there has ever been a soccer player who has decline an opportunity to play in the FIFA World Cup.  It is an honor, and an ability to take pride in your country and make a name for yourself in the biggest global sporting event besides the Olympics.  It baffles me how some American players don't see it this way.  All the healthy top foreign players are participating.
     I understand also that one of the main goals of the U.S. team is to train young players and give them much needed experience.  This is great for these players, but hurts the global view of the game of basketball.  Imagine a modern day Dream Team, with a starting five that looks like this.  Chris Paul, Paul George, LeBron James, Kevin Durant, and Dwight Howard.  Wouldn't that be a sight to see?  It would be similar to an NBA all-star team where the players actually tried.  This would bring more attention to the FIBA World Cup in the U.S., as well as globally.  This needs to happen.
     It's not like the World Cup is every year, either.  There won't be another one until 2019, and that's five years away (it's usually four but FIBA didn't want to overlap with FIFA).  For many of these top players, this would be the last World Cup they could participate in before being surpassed by the up and coming superstars of the future.
     Most NBA players are playing basketball in the offseason anyway.  Why not support your country while doing it?  That's a change I want to see come 2019.
     Thanks for reading,
     Connor

Wins Aren't a Good Stat for Evaluating Pitchers

     The most well-known statistic in baseball for pitchers is the win-loss record.  It's not hard to see why.  The stat shows how many times a team wins or loses a game with that pitcher being on the mound.  On ESPN or any other sports programming network, it's the first stat used when previewing the pitchers of an upcoming baseball game, usually listed before a pitcher's ERA (earned run average).  Any casual observer to the game would typically assume that this stat would be the best indicator of how good a pitcher is, similarly to how a record is used to show how good any team is.  However, the stat is misleading, and should be noted, but not taken as the and all be all of stats when determining how good a pitcher is.

     The reasoning behind it isn't that difficult to understand.  A player wins a game if their team isn't winning when they begin pitching, their team is winning when they stop pitching, and then the team goes on to hold the lead and win the game.  The issue with this is that while the pitcher can do his best to allow as little runs as possible, he has no control over how the opposing pitcher performs, especially in the AL which uses the designated hitter, or DH.  So for example, let's say both pitchers play the full game.  One allows two runs, a great outing.  However, the other pitcher only allows one. Despite having a great game, the first pitcher takes a loss.  Despite how good a pitcher might be, if he's on a team that doesn't score, or is up against a good pitcher, or just gets unlucky, he just doesn't always come up with a record that suits his skill as a pitcher.   

     That was just an example.  However, similar situations take place all the time in baseball.  Here are just a few real life examples.  For people who aren't familiar with baseball, a pitcher's ERA is the number of earned runs he allows for every nine innings he pitches.  The average is a little over four, and an elite pitcher has an ERA of under three.

     First off is Jeff Samardzija.  In his time with the Cubs this season before being traded to the A's, he went 2-7.  Ouch.  The casual observer would write him off as a bad pitcher who should be begging for a job.  But then look at his ERA.  It was 2.83, or what I would call elite.    In Samardzija's first eight starts, he had an 0-3 record and a 1.62 ERA.  However, the Cubs had only given him 1.88 runs of run support per game, and that had left him winless.  

     Next is the case of Wily Peralta, a Brewers pitcher.  I actually saw this on SportsCenter a few days back and it's part of what inspired me to write this.  Peralta went 4-5 in April and May, with an ERA of 2.73.  However, since then he's gone 11-2, with only a 3.80 ERA, over a full point worse.  Why?  In April and May he received an average of 2.6 runs of support per game, where since he's received 6.1 runs per game.  He had nothing to do with that, but it's making his record appear like he's a star.

     However, the best example of why wins are deceiving comes from today, when David Price threw a one-hitter, allowed no earned runs, and lost.  How is that possible?  Well, a batter reached first on an error, and then went all the way home to score off the only hit that Price allowed, so the run wasn't earned.  The Rays lost 1-0, and since Price was pitching when the Rays' run was scored, he gets a loss, despite throwing a one-hitter.

     So now hopefully having established how inconsistent records can be, now the question becomes what is the best stat for evaluating pitchers.  Some people like stats like strikeouts or strikeouts over walks.  I disagree.  While I admit that throwing a high percentage of strikes is essential for good pitchers, it really doesn't make much difference how a pitcher gets his outs.  Therefore if a pitcher throws a strikeout for every out, but also has an ERA of 7.00, he isn't a good pitcher, no matter how many strikeouts he has.

     If you want to know what some actual MLB pitchers think is the best stat for evaluating pitchers, you should read this article as I found it to be pretty interesting.  http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/players-view-the-best-stat-to-evaluate-pitchers/.  One thing I noticed is how 1/4 of the players asked answered by saying innings pitched.  This intrigues me.  I agree that a pitcher's ability to pitch deep into a game is important, as it keeps the bullpen rested and allows pitchers to really assert themselves.  However, I wouldn't go so far as to call it the most important stat.      

     Now by this point it might seem obvious to you that I like ERA.  I do.  I think that it's pretty difficult to come up with a better stat for measuring how good a pitcher is than how many runs he allows.  However, there might be one, and that's WHIP.  Again, for non-baseball people, this stands for walks + hits allowed per inning pitched.  This basically means that besides batters who are hit by a pitch, WHIP is the amount of batters who get on base per inning a pitcher pitches.  

     It's a tough decision as to which is better and they both have pros and cons.  ERA shows how many runs a pitcher allows, but doesn't show guys who are left on base (LOB).  WHIP is the opposite, showing all guys who reach base, but not a total of runs.  Either way, I say these are the best stats for pitchers, and are both much better than wins.

     Thanks for reading,

     Connor

How Important is the NFL Preseason?

     The NFL preseason takes place annually during the month of August, typically lasting the four weeks before the NFL regular season begins.  While generally seen by NFL teams as a great opportunity to evaluate their players and select who makes each team's 53 man roster,  fans have varying opinions on whether or not anything that happens during the preseason actually matters.  There are the fans that see the NFL's preseason as a great time to see the new rookies play and make sure everything looks good before the season starts, just as many, if not more people see it as a needless waste of time that could be spent on more, real football games.  The NFL is considering shortening the preseason to only two games, and extending the regular season to eighteen, which has caused much debate on the subject.  So just how important is the preseason after all?  More specifically, should it be shortened or stay at its current length?
     The question most fans want answered about the preseason is a pretty simple one: do preseason wins translate to regular season wins?  Disappointingly, the answer is no.  A team that does good in the preseason doesn't have a significantly better chance of making the playoffs or winning a Super Bowl.  Many people like to bring up how the winless 2008 Detroit Lions won all four of their preseason games.  However, I don't think that people should expect a correlation in preseason wins to regular season wins just based on the nature of the preseason.  Starters play maybe one quarter in most games, and if they're even slightly injured, they don't play at all.  Even in the third preseason game, starters never really play into the second half.  It's less about trying to win as it is seeing how different players play together and what plays and formations work best.
     Should fans be disappointed by poor performance and losing during the preseason?  While it might be natural to become disappointed, and fans inevitably are happier when their team is winning, error should be expected in the preseason.  No one takes on another team for the first time in over half a year and immediately should be expected to dominate.  The preseason is really about giving your starters enough experience for them to feel comfortable with their abilities, and devote the rest of time to testing out young players in a variety of situations.
     Some people claim that the risk of getting injured makes preseason games naturally less competitive than a regular season game.  I think it's absurd to liken the preseason to something like the Pro Bowl, where players purposefully don't give it 100%.  The Pro Bowl doesn't matter.  Preseason games matter.  I can see the argument that some starters might not give it their all, but honestly how many starters have jobs so safe that they could give no effort in the preseason and expect to remain an undisputed starter in the regular season?  I would say very few.  Most players are giving it all they've got in the preseason, especially guys fighting for roster spots.  For these players, which are at least 50% of players, and probably more, each snap is a chance for them to prove themselves and perform well enough to accomplish their dream of making an NFL roster.  They're holding nothing back, because if they do they'll find themselves out of the league and with nowhere to go.  Plus, go look at injury reports.  Guys get injured in the preseason just as much as the regular season.
     The deal is, regardless of reasoning for shortening the preseason, players need all four games to be effectively evaluated.  It's unlike baseball, where everyone who starts besides pitchers typically plays the whole game.  It's unlike the NBA where by preseason it's basically known who will be on the team opening day.  These players play a quarter per game, or the equivalent of one to one and a half games of action per preseason.  That's not even counting the fact that offensive players are on the bench for  defense and vice-versa.  The average player is on the field for under a full game's worth of time during preseason.
     The preseason may feel long and mostly unnecessary to many fans, because it is a long preseason when compared to the length of the regular season.  In the NBA and NHL, each team plays 7-8 preseason games, making the preseason slightly under 10% of the games of the regular season.  In the MLB, each team plays around 24-30 games, or around 15-19% of the games every team plays in the regular season.  For football the ratio is 4-16, so the preseason is 25% the length of the regular season, by far the highest in the big 4 sports.  However, due to each player's limited playtime, and all the different players, schemes, routes, plays, formations, coverages, etc. tested by each NFL team during the preseason, the four games are absolutely necessary for each team to have a good sense of what they're doing for when the games really matter.
     Let's think about what happens in a two game preseason.  The starters end up getting more reps in each game because it is mandatory that they get enough in game action so that they're ready for the regular season.  The time they play in four games currently, they play in two.  Teams are rushed to try out all their new plays and ideas they've been practicing in training camp, and the rapid changes and experimentation mean that offenses can't get into a rhythm, and come across as sloppy.  Third stringers get less time to play, and don't have enough chance to prove themselves. Therefore, undrafted players are always cut.  Think about that.  Here's a few notable undrafted players.  Kurt Warner, Warren Moon, Adam Vinatieri, Dick "Night Train" Lane, Jeff Saturday, Wes Welker, and Tony Romo.  We're talking pro bowlers, Super Bowl Champions, even Hall of Famers.  Not even to mention late round picks such as Tom Brady who would probably be cut in this scenario as well.  I realize this was an over exaggerated example, but my point is clear.
     Most likely, some people within the NFL would like to extend the regular season and shorten the preseason simply because of money.  Obviously, more money is made in ticket sales and TV views, and publicity during the NFL season rather than the preseason.  It seems that the endless pursuit of money is controlling the future of football more than anything else.
     So, is the preseason important?  Of course it is.  The four preseason games are instrumental in a team's preparation for the upcoming season.  Allowing players to prove themselves and feel more comfortable with the playbook, the preseason must be used effectively by teams that want to be successful.  Preseason success isn't in the win loss record, but rather in the experience and knowledge gained by both the players and coaching staff.
     Thanks for reading,
     Connor
   
 
   
   

Why the Little League World Series is Great

     A few days ago started this year's Little League World Series, marking the 75th anniversary of the little league.  A lot of people skip over this competition, seeing it as dumb, but I guarantee to you that you'll enjoy watching what is the largest youth sports competition on the globe.
     A big reason for watching in my book is just seeing all the enthusiasm from the young ball players.  These kids come from all around the world, united by the game of baseball.  There are teams from North and South America, the Caribbean, Europe, Asia, and Australia, and regardless of country, skin color, or language, everyone has a blast.  Every strikeout is met with big smiles and cheers that you just don't typically see at the professional level.  Seeing the happy faces on kids who hit home runs are big reminders of how much fun it is being a kid and that love at first sight many people feel when being exposed to sports for the first time.  That pure joy and passion for the game are unmatched anywhere but Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
     There are also quality players in the Little League World Series this year.  These are some of the best 11-13 year olds in the world, and man do some of them know how to hit and pitch!  The first day was ruled by Pierce Jones of the Jackie Robinson Little League from Chicago, who went 4-4, hitting not one, not two, but three home runs and a triple against Washington.  Then yesterday two pitchers showed some serious stuff.  Mo'ne Davis, a 13 year old girl from Pennsylvania stole the show, pitching a two hit shut out against Tennessee.  This was an incredible performance, yet it was matched in the very next game by Japan's Takumi Takahashi, who threw a one-hitter against a very strong Venezuela team in a 1-0 victory.
     Then there are the games themselves.  It's relatively high-quality baseball.  Sure, there are wild pitches and errors a little more frequently then the MLB, okay maybe a lot more frequently, but it keeps the games unpredictable and exciting.  Every game really means something since it's only a double-elimination tournament.  It's intense, and the pressure is always on, even if the kids do a good job of not being phased by it.
     Lastly, there are some great stories that come out of the Little League World Series every year.  Two girls are playing this year, the aforementioned Davis and Canada's Emma March.  We have had quite the contrast in size of players, as well.  Czech Republic's Lukas Maly is only 4'6" and weighs only 71 pounds, where Puerto Rico's Erick Figueroa is 6'4" and 229 pounds, over three times the weight of Maly, and the same size as the Boston Red Sox' David Ortiz.  Then there are the facts about the players given during their at-bats.  Chicago's Trey Hondras talks to girls before games for good luck, and Tennessee's Blake Money has a little brother named Cash.
     The Little League World Series is a great time for all who are a part of it, and it's a lot of fun to watch on TV.  If you've got nothing to do, why not watch a game?
     Connor

Why the "One and Done" Rule Needs to Go

      In 2005, then NBA commissioner David Stern passed what would be at the time called Article X, something now known as the highly debated "One and Done" rule.  Originally intended as a way to prevent high school basketball players from going straight the NBA, which it has done, many unforeseen effects of the rule have harmed the college game.  It is for these reasons which I will go on to state that I believe the NBA's One and Done rule should be modified for the benefit of both the NCAA and the NBA.

     So what's written in this controversial rule anyway?  Basically, the rule states that to be eligible to enter the NBA Draft,

a prospect must be at least 19 years old and have graduated from high school at least one year prior to the draft.  This means most top players play one year of college before declaring for the draft, or alternatively some players choose to play overseas for a year before going to the draft, such as Brandon Jennings and currently Emmanuel Mudiay.

     The first, and possibly biggest  problem that results from players spending only one year in college is the creation of super teams.  Every year all the best talent goes to mainly Kentucky, Kansas, and Duke.  While some other schools steal some top talent as well, every year the same teams top the pre-season polls and can just rotate their star freshman every year once some go to the NBA.  Kentucky's coach John Calipari spent $200,000 on plane trips recruiting in just a few months in 2013, planning to recreate a team of freshman phenoms.  And guess what?  He got his team.

     Another issue with the One and Done rule was that it leads to a lower level of competition overall in college basketball.  If every top 10 draft pick left after one year of college, and most of them do, that means every year in college basketball there are only 1/4 of the best players there would be in the game if everyone played for years.  This means there are less good players in the game, and a system like this would increase the amount of schools with standout players, which would make the college basketball season even more exciting than it already is.  If the NCAA could make an already great and unpredictable game even more so, it would only help the marketability of the game.

     An argument I think many people overlook regarding this rule is this: even casual NFL and NBA fans know the top guys.  Everybody knows about Tom Brady and Peyton Manning, Kobe Bryant and LeBron James.  However, when every top player leaves the NCAA every year, people have to relearn the names of the stars, and some people just don't like that, and in turn are drawn away from the game.  For instance, last year the spotlight was on five freshman: Andrew Wiggins, Jabari Parker, Joel Embiid, Julius Randle, and Tyler Ennis.  All are now in the NBA, and everyone has to learn the stories of all the new freshman. Even I don't know some of the guys I'll be writing about in a few months.

     Perhaps the last of the big arguments for modification of Article X is that while there aren't as many people who get in trouble with the law as say, the NFL, players need time to mature as people before being signed for millions of dollars in their rookie deals alone.  This time will be well spent with skilled college coaches teaching prospects and developing their games so there isn't as much time wasting teaching fundamentals and developing young talent when players can immediately make an impact if they truly enter the NBA prepared.

     The reason why I believe the change is coming soon is that both NBA comissioner Adam Silver and NCAA president Mark Emmert agree that the rule needs to be changed.  Adam Silver believes players need to be two years removed from high school and 20 years old while Emmert believed in taking it one step further, making minimum age 21 and requiring players to be three years removed from high school.  Either way, the change is for the better.  

     Mark Cuban believes that if no change is made, going straight into the D-League would be a better option to the NCAA.  I see this as similar to the minor league baseball system, and agree that a change needs to be made.  If this can be done correctly, I would be interested to see how this ends up.  However, I don't see this happening in the future.

     The general idea here is that the NFL requires its players to be out of high school for three years before going to the NFL, and the MLB either has players go to the minors or be in college for three years.  If the NFL and MLB both use well established systems, why shouldn't the NBA?

     The One and Done rule is outdated, and needs to be changed to benefit both the NCAA and the NBA.  I believe this will happen soon.

     I hope you guys like these basketball posts during the offseason.  There's more to come!  Thanks for reading!

     Connor

   

     

Stop Talking So Much About Tiger Woods!

     It's about time we get something straight.  Tiger Woods isn't hitting 18 majors.  Sure, he might win another someday, but that day isn't soon.  The Tiger Woods we all knew, the most dominant player in the history of golf is gone.  These past few days only solidified that fact.  Hopefully this major, and every other major of the last six years has proven this fact.

     For all of you living under rocks the past few days, Tiger Woods shot two consecutive 74s at the PGA Championship at Valhalla.  Woods finished +6, in a tie for 117th place, and missed the cut by five strokes.  In fact, I don't think it's humanly possible for one to have turned on a TV or used the internet in any way over the last few days without finding this out.  Because it's everywhere.

     I understand that Tiger Woods used to be a real big deal.  He's one of the greatest two or three golders to have ever been born.  He was consistently the best player in the game for over a decade.  The issue is, we've been waiting for about five years for the Tiger that dominated the game of golf for so long to really re-establish himself by winning his 15th major.  He has come close a few times, but for a guy so historically great, close really isn't good enough.

     I recognize that Tiger Woods has done a lot for golf.  I mean, he basically put it back on the map.  He took a sport which really wasn't that popular and made it something millions looked at every week.  He's kind of like Michael Phelps in a way.  No one really follows every swimming race, but during World Championships, and especially the Olympics, everyone wants to watch Phelps swim.  Even now, ESPN seems to follow every competitive race Phelps is in since he ended his retirement.

     Tiger is a peculiar case.  Much of that is due to his inconsistency of late. Following his leave of absence in late 2009 and his subsequent divorce with Elin Nordegren, Tiger struggled mightily, failing to win a tournament in 2010 or 2011, finishing 72nd and 135th in the PGA Tour Money Leaders rankings in those years, respectively.  Tiger then looked like his old self, winning eight tournaments in 2012 and 2013.  In those years he finished 2nd and 1st in the money.  Despite strong finishes, he didn't win a major.  So despite his strongest years of the new decade, the media saw Tiger's big years as failures.

     Why?  Because Tiger needs to catch Jack Nicklaus.  Or at least that's what everyone says.  The most overused statistic in all of sports is probably this one.  Majors: Jack Nicklaus - 18, Tiger Woods - 14.

     Everyone seems so fixated on 18 majors, this magical number that Tiger must hit to become the greatest ever.  Guess what?  It's not easy becoming the G.O.A.T.  Through all the stress and injuries, Tiger has had a near invisible 2014. Only competing in  seven events, Tiger has been cut four times, and has a top finish of 25th.  He's 217th in money this year.

     So I understand Tiger has a legacy to live up to.  I get the fact that he's the most famous golfer alive and the easiest to talk about.  But come on guys, there's 155 other guys in the field!  Can't we talk about someone else?

     The attention this guy draws is completely ridiculous for a guy who hasn't done anything this year.  Plus, he's hurt.  He's falling in the rankings, and has been irrelevant this entire year.  Every single SportsCenter walks you through every Tiger missed putt, every shanked drive, and then says, "By the way, Sergio Garcia leading," or something similar.

     This new Tiger isn't someone I want to hear about.  He isn't doing anything important.  When I check ESPN or PGA.com, or tune in to the tournament, I want to know how the leaders are doing, not one guy who wasn't even supposed to be in contention this week.

     I want to know about Rory McIlroy, Jason Day, Jim Furyk, Phil Mickelson, and other guys who are playing great golf this week, not a guy who missed the cut by five strokes.  

     When Tiger Woods manages to be in contention in the weekend of a tournament, by all means show him to me.  But for now, you can just briefly mention what round he shot and that he missed the cut and be done with it.  Give the attention to the guys that deserve it.  Right now, that's not Tiger.

     Thanks for reading,

     Connor

Are the Cavaliers Title Favorites?

     Over this NBA offseason, another Big 3 has been formed.  When Lebron announced his return to Cleveland, it seemed that the whole sports world stopped.  Everyone was in awe of the fact that the king had returned home.  Heat fans burned jerseys, and Cavs fans seemed to completely forget how angry they were four years ago, and accept LeBron with hopes of actually winning a title.  Immediately, the NBA title odds inflated the Cavs' title chance to 4-1, ahead of both the Spurs (5-1) and the Thunder (6-1).

     Then today, the world stopped again. Everyone then went crazy about a deal which we basically knew would happen eventually.  The Cavaliers did something almost unthinkable.  They traded away the last two #1 overall picks, Andrew Wiggins and Anthony Bennett, and their first round pick in 2015 for Kevin Love.  It's a very controversial move, under interesting circumstances.  They have a rookie coach, and a whole bunch of talent.  Updated title odds give them 5-2 odds at a title, which equates to 40% odds.  All this news and press coverage boils down to one simple question:  Are the Cleveland Cavaliers title favorites?

     They certainly believe they are, it's completely obvious that they want to win now.  Any other mindset and they would've kept Andrew Wiggins, who obviously has tons of potential and could be a star in the league, along with a first rounder next year.  If they weren't trying to win a championship, Lebron wouldn't have come home.  Fans have the right to expect a title.  Most of that just comes with LeBron.  As a general rule, any Lebron James led basketball team is supposed to win a title.

     Cavaliers fans see the situation this way.  The Cavs went to the NBA finals, and went to five straight conference semifinals with LeBron as their only really good player, so now that LeBron has Kyrie Irving and Kevin Love, a big 3 full of guys that could all be potential hall of famers if they can win a couple titles together.

     So are the Cavs and their fans delusional or should they be expected to win the title?  The short answer is this.  They should be title favorites, as they are the best team in the league.  I'm not happy to say this as someone who to put it nicely, isn't a LeBron fan, but they look like a team to be feared.

     There's a lot of reasons why.  First off, I think the Big 3 itself is underrated.  Why?  The Timberwolves and Cavaliers haven't been relevant in the last few years.  This means that people haven't gotten many chances to see  just how good they are.  Kevin Love is the best scoring big man in the league.  He can score from the post, mid range, and the 3.  He's a guy who's lead the league in rebounding.  He's a guy that as long as he's healthy fan go 22-25 points and at least 12 boards.  He's averaged 15 boards a game before.  Kyrie Irving is a guy who's a very good ball handler, averages 20 and 6 assists, and is still growing.  He's only 22 years old.

     Age is a huge benefit to this team.  Unlike LeBron's Heat, where you could definitely see the age with guys like Ray Allen, Shane Battier, and especially Dwyane Wade.  Look at the Cleveland Cavaliers.  Even in the "Big 3", Irving is 22 and Love is only 25.  Other key contributors for the team will be Tristan Thompson, 23, and Dion Waiters, 22.  This is a team that is young and talented.

     These guys aren't just the big 3.  They are good around the board.  As I've already said, Waiters and Thompson will be strong this year and in the years to come.  Anderson Varejao is a guy I think is really underestimated.  When healthy, which I admit isn't often enough, he's a double double type player.  Plus, he's good friends with LeBron.  And let's not forget the Miami Heat sharpshooters from 3 moved to the Cavs.  Mike Miller and James Jones know how to shoot the ball, and are scary when on a roll.  

     What we're essentially looking as is a young, versatile, backcourt with a high potential, LeBron, good shooters, and three big guys who will combine to be make one of the league's best rebounding teams.  That sure sounds good to me.  

     Now the question becomes this: where are the weaknesses?  The first one that comes to mind is defense.  They don't have a true lockdown defender, although they have a few solid guys.  A big time shot blocker is something could really add the finishing touches to the frontcourt.  Additionally, the backcourt isn't that deep.  Matthew Dellavedova and John Lucas III aren't the best backup point guards, and Mike Miller and James Jones aren't too special at anything besides shooting.

     Is this the best team ever?  Of course it isn't.  We haven't even seen these guys play together before.  However, in an east that is horrendously weak, they should have no problems taking the #1 seed in the conference.  Teams like the Wizards and Bobcats might be good in the future, but not really huge threats now.  The Pacers have really disappeared from contention without Paul George and Lance Stephenson, and the Heat without LeBron isn't the same Heat.  The Bulls stand the best chance of taking the Cavaliers down, but they aren't as talented.  

     Let me clarify something.  They may not be the NBA's best team, but they have the greatest chance to win the title come next June.  I wouldn't pick them on 5-2 odds, but I still give them a 60% chance at the eastern conference, and about a 50% chance in the finals if they make it that far.  That basically means I'm giving the Cavaliers a 30% chance to win it all next season.  The West has the Spurs, Thunder, Clippers, and others, but  only one of them can advance to the finals, lowering their chances at the title.

     I may not be a LeBron James fan, and I don't like the concept of manufacturing a super team, but I can't discount that this team looks really good.  Only time will tell if they can live up to that expectation.

     Thanks for reading,

     Connor

NFL Changes Part 2: My Ideas for the NFL

     Around a week ago I talked about rule changes Roger Goodell has proposed in the past, and why I don't think any of them are actually good for the NFL.  If you haven't already read that, you should.  Here's a link to that post.  http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/07/nfl-changes-part-1-roger-goodells-ideas.html?m=1. 

     This is the second part of that original post, and now I will be sharing some of my ideas for rule changes that would improve the NFL.  These are my personal opinions, and many of these probably won't happen, at least not immediately, but I still see them as beneficial nonetheless.  Here are five changes the NFL should make.

     First off is something that's just seemed obvious to me for years.  The nfl has a big problem with spotting the football.  In a game where the location oft the ball needs to be so precise, why are the refs allowed to eyeball where the football is from yards away?  What about plays such as quarterback sneaks where there is a pile of players and the ball is nowhere to be seen?  How on Earth can the refs be so sure that someone isn't moving the ball a few feet in either direction under the pile?  The NFL needs to have a way to check exactly where the ball is on plays where it isn't obvious.

     Another think that irks me is when your team converts a long third down pass or scores a touchdown near the sidelines, only to have it be ruled an incomplete pass due to some sketchy ruling that the player didn't "maintain possession."  Can somebody please tell me what this means?  You must have complete control of the ball even when touching the ground for a pass to be complete.  Seriously?  Is total control of the ball and a knee down not good enough?  There are too many instances where this rule ends up disallowing something common sense calls a catch. This rule needs revising.  When you touch a knee or a forearm to the ground with the ball, that's a catch.  Period.

     This next one won't really affect the game in anyway, but still I find important. Bring back celebrations!  Why can't a player spike the ball?  Why can't Jimmy Graham dunk the ball through the uprights?  Last time I checked the NFL stood for National Football League, not the No Fun League.  Some people call it unsportsmanlike, but that really isn't the case.  When you score, you celebrate.  This is like banning all goal celebrations in soccer.  As long as no offensive gestures are being made, celebrate to your heart's content.  Just not for too long, that's excessive celebration, and a fifteen yard penalty.  Thanks, No Fun League.

     That brings us to challenges.  There is no good reason for giving a team a limited amount of challenges.  So what if a team loses a challenge.  That doesn't mean they can't have any more.  If it looks like a ref made a wrong call, a team should be able to challenge.  Here's how this works.  A ref makes a questionable call.  A coach then motions to the ref, and briefly explains his case.  Then the ref contacts an extra group of three or four officials not on the field who have access to replays from every angle.  By the time they are contacted they should have already seen a few replays, so a call is quickly made.  This takes about a minute and the right call is made.

     Overtime rules are in need of some changing as well.  Previously, first score won the game.  Now, a touchdown wins the game, but if a team scores a field goal on their first possession, the opposing team gets a chance to score.  A touchdown by them wins the game, a field goal sends the game to sudden death, or next score wins.  This is too complicated and doesn't make sense.  I believe each team should get a possession no matter what.  I suggest two potential easier solutions.  The first solution is kicking the ball off to one team, and giving each team one possession to score.  Whoever scores more points on one drive wins, and if it somehow remains tied after two drives, eliminate the ability to punt.  The second option won't happen, but I believe it still makes more sense.  Just play a 5th quarter.  If you want, make it only 8 or 10 minutes, but just play OT.  If it's tied at the end of that, go to sudden death.

     Who knows if and when any of these rules are actually accepted.  All I know is that they should be.

     Thanks as always,

     Connor 

The NFL is BACK!

     It's been a long offseason.  However, there's never really a break in the NFL.  February was spent trying to figure out how the Broncos fell apart in the Super Bowl.  March was filled with analysis of the combine and pro days, as well as free agency.   April was full of mock draft after mock draft until you got sick of mock drafts.  May was the draft and analyzing every pick.  June was time for OTAs.  July was training camp.  No matter how big these events felt at the time, they mean nothing now.  Why?  Because now it's football season.

     I just watched the Hall of Fame game from Fawcett Stadium in Canton, Ohio.  Man, all I can say is that it feels great to be watching football again.  Now there's only about a month until the season starts, and it's time to see the rookies take the field for the first time, and how each team's offseason acquisitions and losses will affect the team.  You see the starters, but also the third stringers.  It's a great idea.  I know I'd like to see my backup quarterback play just in case the starter goes down.

     Who better to play in the game than my New York Football Giants and the Buffalo Bills, two great franchises who just yesterday celebrated the Hall of Fame induction of two of their all-time greats, Michael Strahan and Andre Reed.  This game was for them.

     There's also a benefit in playing in the Hall of Fame game.  I believe a fifth preseason game gives much needed extra experience in seeing how the team performs and making the correct cuts in the preseason.  

     While the game wasn't pretty, it was great to see a real NFL football game again.  Each side made a huge error.  On the Giants side, Eli Manning fumbled on the second drive of the game.  As a Giants fan, that moment reminded me of the beginning of last season, something Big Blue can not have happen again if they want to make the playoffs.  However, the drive that followed proved to be a good one as Eli looked back to form as the Giants put six on the board.

     For the Bills, the interception thrown by Jeff Tuel right before halftime was a real missed opportunity.  However, it was a decent outing from Tuel and he looks like a solid backup.  Plus, he did have a nice 13 yard scramble.  

     In the end, Big Blue came out with a 17-13 victory in a game that really could've gone either way.  Here's five things I took away from the NFL's  first preseason game.  

     1) The NFL's extra points from the 20-yard line looked ridiculous.  I've already written about this, but come on.  The 37 yard extra point was longer than a Bills field goal in this game.  It just doesn't look right, and I hope this change doesn't happen. 

     2) The Giants will have a better running game this year than last.  Perhaps Eli's biggest issue last season was that he was forced into so many 3rd and longs due to the lack of a running game.  Rashad Jennings was a solid back, and Andre Williams really looked like a high potential player.  How did the NCAA's leading rusher slip to the fourth round of the draft anyway?  He has a good combo of size and speed that should benefit the Giants for years to come.

     3) The Bills have a good group of receivers.  A total of 11 guys caught passes for Buffalo today.  And that doesn't even include the fourth pick in the draft, Sammy Watkins.  Robert Woods had a very good game, and Watkins was able to display his speed, even if he didn't end up on the stat sheet. 

     4) EJ Manuel failed to impress.  The second year QB went only 2-7 for 19 yards in two series.  Two of his passes we're batted down by Jason Pierre-Paul and Mathias Kiwanuka.  I don't believe the QB job is up for grabs, but Bills fans will want to see a better showing from their man, and fast.

     5) It's great to be back.  It's really hard to describe the feeling of watching a football game.  There's something so special about it, and it's a feeling that's hard for me to describe.  But man, it feels good.

     Happy preseason and go Big Blue,

     Connor

Take 5: Ping Pong Rally, Poker Busts, Drew Brees and more

     I'm finally back.  It took a a while but I had some things I needed to take care of.  Anyways, today's a new kind of post.  I call it take five.  What I'm doing is taking five viral stories from around the web and giving my opinion.  Most of the stories aren't big enough to warrant their own blog entry but I still have opinions on them that I would like to give out.  First off is a strange situation that arose in the aftermath of the Red Sox - A's trade.  

     If you've turned on Sportscenter or went on to practically any sports website recently, you've heard about the trade that sent Jon Lester to the A's and Yoenis Cespedes to the Red Sox.  The funny thing is, however, that the A's we're giving out free Cespedes shirts to the first 10,000 fans to arrive at the ballpark for Saturday's game.  That's right: the guy that doesn't play for them.  The A's have also now decided to make up for it by giving out Josh Donaldson shirts in addition to the Cespedes shirts.  I think this is hilarious, and a great way for some A's fans to get some free shirts.  Plus, they have a great story to tell and will be known as one of the last 10,000 people to ever get an A's  Cespedes jersey.

     Next up is Drew Brees.  He's been in the news recently for claiming that he hopes to play until he reaches age 45.  He's gotten a lot of feedback from people who think he's joking and who believe it isn't possible.  After all, George Blanda is the only QB that's ever reached 45, and that was a long time ago.  Just think about how Brett Favre was in the league forever and kept coming back for one more year.  And he was only 41 when he retired!  So yes, people have the right to be skeptic.  But as for me, I'll definitely be rooting on Drew.  He's 35, and he's still a top-5 quarterback in a league full of great QB's.  He isn't showing too many signs of slowing down, and injury hasn't been a huge concern.  He isn't a mobile quarterback, and isn't hit frequently.  In terms of situations, the cards are definitely more in his favor than someone like RG3.  I don't think he will make it, but stranger things have happened.  He's truly an elite QB, and if he can remain elite until he hits 40, he has as good a chance as anyone.

     If you haven't seen the 41 shot table tennis rally in the last few days, you're probably living under a rock.  You're really missing out.  This is an incredible point, with crazy back and forth play that simply has to be seen.  Every time you thought the point would end, there would be an incredible save.  This really leads into a point I've been wanted to make.  Table tennis deserves more recognition for being a sport that takes practice and skill, rather than just a party game.  I personally find table tennis incredibly fun to watch, and I have watched it during the 2008 and 2012 Summer Olympic Games.

     Are there any poker fans out there?  If you enjoy playing hold em with some friends once in a while like I do, you were probably astonished when you saw what happened in the $1,000,000 buy-in World Series of Poker Big One for One Drop, the most expensive tournament offered by the WSOP.  For those who aren't familiar, Connor Drinan went all in with pocket aces, and was immediately called...with pocket aces.  This basically assures a split pot, but not this time.  Even the players involved laughed it off.  After all, there was a 96% chance this would end in a split pot.  However, four hearts appeared among the five community cards, giving Cary Katz the knockout, and Drinan the title of worst bad beat in poker history.  The stakes were at their biggest, and he lost holding the same cards as his opponent.  It's almost inconceivable.  Almost.  And I thought my three of a kind losing to a straight was bad.  This guy just lost $1,000,000.  Now he has to try to figure out how it all went wrong.

     Lastly, the play I can only refer to as the crotch flop.  There are so many things wrong with this I don't even know where to start.  In the match between New York Red Bulls and Real Salt Lake in the MLS, there was some sort of argument which led to Jamison Olave hitting Olmes Garcia in the crotch area.  What followed was something any soccer fan could probably expect: an exaggerated fall and an even more exaggerated rolling on the ground, which led to Garcia getting yellow carded for flopping.  Wow.  First of all, it's practically law that putting your hands near another man's stuff is just wrong.  But hitting him there?  It's like the MLS equivalent of Luis Suarez's bite.  Garcia definitely exaggerated, but come on.  I know the ref probably didn't see the original incident, so I hope the MLS looks back at this and somehow punishes Olave.  There really isn't a correct word to describe this.  It's just wrong, and against man-code.  Period.

     That brings this first take five to a close.  Do you want to see more of this? I am always appreciative of comments or suggestions for future posts.

     Thanks for reading,

     Connor