End Times in Miami?

So it's been quite a while since my last post and my excuse is that I've been very busy. In the past month I've moved from Ohio to Colorado and started a new job with the Craig Daily Press. For all my Eastern Time Zone readers, that means the posts are going to be coming across the horn later at night. Apologies for that. But with internet newly installed in my apartment, I'm ready to get back to doing some serious posting. It just so happens that I'm coming back during a particularly interesting time in sports.

There will be tennis posts to come. The Euro Soccer Championships will be thrilling, but they can wait. The New York Mets are enjoying success I could not have imagined at this point in the year, but it's still early in baseball. There has been an inordinate amount of news coming out of the Atlantic 10 this summer, and we'll get there soon enough. But I'm somewhat ashamed to admit that my interests match up with those of ESPN; that is to say, I want to talk about the Miami Heat.

If you have an excellent memory, you'll recall that I wrote about the Heat in one of my most recent posts. I talked about not being worried about the Heat, because they're just too talented to lose to most of the teams in the NBA when the games really matter. I continued to feel that way when the Indiana Pacers took a 2-1 lead on the Heat, and Miami won the next three games. I still didn't worry when the Celtics came back to tie the Eastern Conference Finals 2-2. Even Bosh-less, the Heat have way more talent than Boston. But now, there is nothing but worry for the Heat, because they are a game down and have to win in Boston to stay alive. Not impossible, but not feeling likely right now.

So how did this happen? How did Miami go from overwhelming favorite to the brink? Was it because we (I) overestimated them? I don't think so. They are the same team as last year (probably a bit better), the loss of Bosh notwithstanding. While I've battled the "inability to close" idea that ESPN and others have propagated since last season, it keeps coming true. But I think the term "close" is the wrong one. No one can close a game better than the Miami Heat when they have an eight point lead. They play loose and are unstoppable on offense, like normal. As a result, teams can't get any closer down the stretch.

But when Miami is in a two or three-point game, or losing by a few, the offense just doesn't seem to flow as freely. Dwyane Wade and Lebron James' drives to the basket don't even seem as smooth. They play a forced, rough style of basketball. During a normal part of any game, the layups are beautiful, inventive and always seem to drop. At the end of a close one, though, something is missing (couldn't find a video of Garnett blocking James down the stretch of game 5, but that's a good example. Just a basic, straight-line drive to the basket. That's not going to work in the NBA most times.) And it's not just better defense.

This is very interesting, because Wade and James have proven many times in the past that they are capable. Lebron James is the same guy that went for 47 against the eventual champion Boston Celtics in game 7, and single-handedly beat the Detroit Pistons in two overtimes in 2007. But in years past, he hasn't been there. He is still as dominant as ever, but isn't dominating at the right time, or at least not dominating enough to make that "right time" not matter.

Will that come back? Game 6 in Boston would be a good place to start.

NFL Divisional Playoffs. Wheeling, dealing and concealing

After last week's 2-0 in the NFL playoffs, including just about nailing the Saints-Lions score, I'm feeling good. So I'm probably due for a 1-3 spot this weekend, but here come some picks anyway...

Saints at 49ers
Bill Barnwell of Grantland.com made a pretty strong case as to why this game is going to be closer than many people think, and he even picked San Francisco to come out on top in the game. But as convincing as the numbers Barnwell displayed are, I'm not buying into them. The 49ers are going to be relying on Alex Smith to win them this game. Alex Smith, with no postseason experience, who until this year had been bad (and then was merely serviceable in 2011). Nah, I'll go with Drew Brees, despite him and the Saints offense being significantly worse on the road than at home. I know, I know, the Saints blew it last year against the Seahawks in a similar situation: favored team on the road. But this Saints group is rolling way better than last year's.
Saints 30-49ers 17

Broncos at Patriots
Last week even though I didn't write about it, I picked the Steelers to beat the Broncos, because I figured their defense was good enough to hold the Broncos under 10 points, and even their depleted offense would be good enough to score in double digits. Obviously, most of that was incorrect. The Broncos turned out to have an excellent offensive game plan, the Steelers defense was porous, and they couldn't overcome their injuries. This week, though, it is the Broncos who are missing more players, against a team that has already beaten them 41-23. Neither Brian Dawkins nor Eric Decker will be playing Saturday night for the Broncos, which means Denver will be without one of its key players on both sides of the ball. Add that to the fact that this is being played in Foxborough, where the Patriots seldom lose, in what will be cold weather, and it's just too tough to make the call that the Broncos will do it again.
Patriots 35-Broncos 17

Texans at Ravens
A month and a half ago I wrote the Ravens were my end-of-season Super Bowl pick, because when they play in important games and play hard, they are dominant. And while we still haven't seen the Ravens go up against one of the NFL's great offenses from this year, there's no reason to back off them this week. Everyone in Baltimore is healthy, and they'll be playing against a team in Houston that is anything but healthy. Andre Johnson still isn't 100 percent, Mario Williams is gone and, oh yeah, TJ Yates is their starting quarterback. This one seems too good to be true.
Ravens 31-Texans 14

Giants at Packers
And now for the game I want to write nothing about, because I feel like no matter how I write it, I will be jinxing/correctly dooming the Packers into a loss. When I think about this game, I'm terrified. Not because this game is shaping up to be a repeat of 2007 for the Giants (play the best team late the in regular season, barely lose, tear it up after that point, meet the Packers in the playoffs, beat them in 2007). Really, I'm terrified because one's favorite team can always go out in the blink of an eye in the NFL playoffs. There is no series to come back in. And any team can put together a solid performance. But really, the Packers should win this game. Greg Jennings is back, the other receivers were excellent in his absence, and I think James Starks and Ryan Grant are primed to deliver 40-ish rushing yards apiece, which is plenty to ensure that the Packers' offense is having a good day.
Packers 34-Giants 21

A duo of playoff trios?

We're past all the bye weeks in the NFL; from here on out, every team will play in each of the next six weeks, and their playoff fates will be decided. The final third of this year's season presents a very unique playoff scenario: a real chance to have three teams representing the same division on both sides of the playoff bracket. A funny coincidence that adds to the potential rarity of this situation is that both divisions happen to be the North division in their respective conferences. As the standings sit today, post week-11 results, the Packers, Bears and Lions would all make the playoffs from the NFC North, and the Steelers, Ravens and Bengals would all make the playoffs from the AFC North.

Now, how rare is this, really? Turns out, it's happened once before, in 2007. That year the Cowboys, Giants and Redskins all made the playoffs from the NFC East while the Colts, Jaguars and Titans all made the playoffs from the AFC South. Despite the fact this has happened so recently, it is the only instance I was able to uncover of this happening. Will it happen a second time this year? Unfortunately, probably not.

At 6-4, the Bengals are the least likely of the AFC North teams to make the playoffs, especially having lost their first matchup against both the Steelers and Ravens despite being competitive in both games. Standing in their way for the wildcard spot other than the one the Ravens are assumed to get are the Jets (5-5), Titans (5-5), and Broncos (5-5). The other AFC West teams have an outside shot at a playoffs spot as well. Unfortunately for Cincy, their schedule closing out is pretty tough. They still have games in Pittsburgh, and at home against Houston and Baltimore. If they don't win their other three games and at least one of those, their playoff chances are kaput at 9-7. According to ESPN's playoff machine, the only filter in which the Bengals will make the playoffs is if home teams win the rest of the season (not very reliable). The Jets look like the best bet to make the playoffs, with a weaker schedule than the other teams involved, and a team that really should be the best of the group (but often hasn't been, as evidenced by that Thursday night loss to Denver). Their only remaining game against a team with a winning record will be at home against the Giants. The Jets do have to get through two trap games at Philly and at Miami to close the season, but bet on seeing them still playing come January.

As for the NFC playoffs picture, it is a bit more murky. You can write the Packers and 49ers into the 1 and 2 seeds right now, assuming a key player does not get injured in the next few weeks. The Saints look like a good bet to win the South, and either the Cowboys or Giants ought to claim the East division. That leaves the Cowboys/Giants loser (currently both 6-4), Bears, Lions and Falcons, with a way-way-way outside shot for the Eagles, Buccaneers and Seahawks. The Lions and Bears are the best two teams in that group, and that is why they have the best records of that group at 7-3 each. Unfortunately, both teams are dealing with injuries right now. The Lions haven't had Jahvid Best for three weeks, and the Bears just lost Jay Cutler for the rest of the regular season (or maybe not, the doctors say he might be back sooner. I have no idea what the hell is going on with all of that nonsense. I don't even get why a broken thumb requires surgery. Can't you just set it and take it easy for several weeks? Someone who knows more than me about this, enlighten me please). That leaves a huge question mark, especially for the Bears, who still have to travel to Oakland, Denver, and Green Bay before the year is over. Can they win those with Caleb Hanie? He played decent in the playoffs game last year, but it was mostly the Bears defense that dominated. They are going to have to really step up for a six-game stretch now.

The Best injury doesn't concern me for the Lions quite as much as their schedule does. Detroit still has two games to play against Green Bay as well as games at New Orleans, at Oakland and home against San Diego. I don't think 9-7 will cut it this year for a wildcard in the NFC, so the Lions will have to finish 3-3. With those teams comprising five of their six remaining games, it will not be easy.

Meanwhile, the Falcons have a tough remaining schedule as well traveling to New Orleans and Houston, as well as a game at Carolina that should be tough, given that the Panthers play just about everybody tight. The big advantage Atlanta has is they beat Detroit in week seven. If the Falcons can manage to finish the season at 10-6, they would likely beat out the Lions for a playoff spot (or obviously the Bears could just disintegrate making that tiebreaker meaningless. The point is an NFC North team would be gone.)

As for the Giants and Cowboys, they still have to play each other twice. The Giants' other games are much tougher, with matches against Green Bay and at the Jets still to play. The Cowboys' toughest remaining game aside from the Giants ones figures to be a home game against Philadelphia. Dallas is certainly the favorite to win the division right now, but I don't see the second place team in the division being a factor for the playoffs. It is extremely unlikely both of these teams make it to 10-6, and if they do, the Lions have a tiebreaker on the Cowboys due to their head-to-head win in week 4.

In the NFC, three from the North in the playoffs is still very much in play. It appears to rest on the shoulders of Caleb Hanie and whether he can keep the Bears afloat. He and Matthew Stafford both have a game's advantage on the field. They need to treat the rest of this season like both men should be treating every snap in a game: protect the ball, protect the lead, don't turn it over, play a steady, solid game. Their teammates are good enough to get them the rest of the way there.

Major MLB Moves

Alliteration aside, there are some crazy changes coming to Major League Baseball.

ESPN.com is reporting that the Houston Astros will be moving to the AL, two more wildcard spots will be added to the playoffs, and interleague play will be extended, all within the next two years. This is all coming on the heels of the sale of the Astros being finalized, and is going to make baseball look lot different, but not necessarily better.

The Houston Astros will be moving to the AL. This one actually makes sense. What doesn't make sense is why one more team hadn't been in the American League for all this team. I never understood why the AL had 14 teams to the NL's 16. It really didn't work out well for interleague play, during which two NL teams would still be playing a regular game. It was just weird. Now, theoretically, the MLB can schedule 15 interleague matchups at a time. Presumably, the Astros will join the currently-four member AL West, and that will be a good division for them, potentially creating a rivalry between them and the Rangers (if the Astros can improve a lot, obviously) in the future.

Fast forward really quickly to the third thing I mentioned, the extension of interleague play. This is the only real negative aspect of the Astros moving to the AL: it forces the MLB's hand in having interleague play throughout the season. An odd number of teams in each league (15) won't work for having all the games be AL-AL and NL-NL. Still, this is a small and necessary evil. More interleague play will not effect the outcome of the season for teams. Baseball will still be a sport in which if you are winning more than your division opponents, you will beat them to the postseason.

The second move doesn't make as much sense to me. One more wildcard spot will be added to each side of the playoffs, giving us 10 total teams to make the playoffs. While the idea of adding more teams to the playoffs is exciting to me, thinking about creating a fair playoff system for five teams on one side of the bracket makes my head hurt. Evidently, it made the MLB bigwigs' heads hurt as well, because supposedly the most likely playoff scenario is to have the two teams from each league that do not win their division (the two wildcard teams) play a one-game, winner-take-all playoff, and then the rest of the playoffs looking like they do now. Basically, its the same as the NCAA's former "Opening Round game" between the 64 and 65-seeds of the tournament.

Unfortunately, baseball is the worst game imaginable to have one game decide so much, and the reason for that is simple: in every other sport, everyone a coach expects to play in a playoff series would play in game one. In baseball, that is not the case. In baseball, the most important player on the field on a given day is the pitcher, and only one of them can play at a time. A one-game playoff would not prove anything about which team was better. And this is different than deciding which team will make it to the playoffs when two teams finish with the same record at the end of the season. In the new format, both teams would have been deemed playoff teams; in the old one, neither of them were. In the old format, it was considered a regular season game; in the new one, its a postseason game. And to let so much ride on which team has a better ace, or which pitchers is feeling better that particular day, or which infielder makes an error on that particular day, is ludicrous. To make matters worse, the team that won the series would be at a significant disadvantage heading into their divisional round matchup. Presumably, they would have started their ace in the play-in game, and then would not be able to start him twice in a five-game divisional series. It would effectively be a penalty game for "being good enough to make the playoffs, but not good enough to win your division."

"We believe after a lot of study and a lot of thought that the addition of two wildcards will really help us in the long run," was what commish Bud Selig had to say of the move. And while the thought of Selig thinking for a long time about anything makes me nervous, I agree with him in this case. Just not if he's going to make a joke out of bringing those extra two teams in by screwing them and the other wildcard teams over.

Baseball Playoffs

After such a thrilling end to the regular season, the baseball playoffs have really flown under the radar so far. Perhaps that is partially because the MLB has lost its two biggest-market teams in the Divisional series with the Yankees and Phillies making early exits. Perhaps it's because the United States is happy football is back. Maybe it's even a little bit due to AMC transitioning from people with big problems in the Southwest to people with big problems in the Southeast.
It's a shame, too, because these playoffs have been excellent. Three of four division series went the maximum five games, the Yankees/Tigers and Cardinals/Phillies game fives were both nail-biters (with the former setting a cable TV ratings record).
Maybe Phils and Yanks gone things are looking bleak for baseball as it tries to contend with a football TV schedule that between college and the pros now covers five nights a week, as well as battling for viewers with Barney's love triangle in "How I Met Your Mother." Don't let that scare you off, though. The remaining baseball games should be awesome.
Every game should be exciting because each of the remaining four teams (Brewers, Cardinals, Tigers and Rangers) all make their mark at the plate, not from the mound. Think about it. Between the four teams, there is exactly one great pitcher (Detroit's Justin Verlander), and he hasn't even been great in these playoffs. With teams that rely more on their offense than their pitching to win games, plenty of 8-7 or 13-11 type games should be on the horizon. With mediocre pitching from start to finish (the Rangers appear to have the only reliable bullpen with Alexi Ogando and Neftali Feliz closing things out), comebacks will always be available, especially to teams that boast hitters like Prince Fielder, Albert Pujols, Josh Hamilton and Miguel Cabrera.
Maybe the baseball playoffs have lost their most recognizable teams, but don't let that deter you from tuning in to these games the rest of the way. They figure to just continue the great run of games baseball has been having since the end of September.

Devastastion, thy name is baseball

Is there anything worse than quitting?
(If you're struggling to come up with the answer, it is No)
Here we are, with what is in my opinion the major flaw of baseball's obscenely long season--almost every team has to eventually decide to give up. By season's end, there are at most 6-7 teams from both leagues that are still playing hard.
That's because it's pretty obvious in baseball when you're out of it. For example, the Pittsburgh Pirates knew they were out of it about 10 games into the season (okay, maybe it took 15). From that point on, they have stopped playing as hard, only trying for a win when they are with a run or better in the eighth inning.
That is a fact of every sport though. The doormats stop playing and start dumping guys as soon as possible to prep for next year. What's weird about baseball is that can happen 100 games into the season.
Take the New York Mets, for example. They headed into the All-star break eight games above .500, in second place in the NL East by 4.5 games and a half game out of the wild-card. Just 11 games into the second half, though, the Mets have stopped trying to make it to the playoffs.
They started things with 1-3 series in San Francisco, then lost their first game at the woefully bad Arizona Diamondbacks. Then they brought back Ollie Perez, the surest sign of all that they were not concerned with a playoff run.
Make no mistake: Ollie is one of the worst pitchers in the majors. I've never seen a guy with as little control as him. If he inherits runners on first and second with two out, there is as strong a chance of him walking in a run as there is of him getting out of the inning.
So the Mets bringing him back up was their way of waving the white flag. We quit. They aren't going to use Ollie, seeing as he's their third best left-handed reliever. There aren't going to be many situations that call for him.
Essentially, it is a situation of the organization placing him on the roster because they don't believe they will contend, and they won't have a mult-million dollar player in the minor leagues.
How about this though: if you're going to call up Ollie from now on, or do anything else that signifies the team is done for this season, at least be fair to the fans. Lower ticket prices. If you aren't playing hard, why should they pay full price? At least tell the fans you are finished, and let them know you'll be gearing up to go all-out next year.
Just don't pull this "We've got our pitcher back and that's a good thing" routine. It's not a good thing. It's a bad thing. If you're gonna pull this kind of stunt, own up to what it is: giving up.