Say it ain't so. There are big trade rumors about where the Indian's C.C.Sabathia will be dealt. What!? The Indians get off to an average first half and that's it? Trade the defending AL Cy Young Award? To the Yankees?!
The Indians were one win from the World Series last year, meaning, one win from winning it all (No way the NL could be the AL last year). 8 months later after some big injuries and you are going to trade your best player?
This is the trend in baseball for more and more teams. Win now. No time to build. And if you have experience winning recently, then there is no time to lose.
The Indians are not even out of it yet. The AL Central is playing mediocre this year - 85 wins could take it. DON'T TRADE C.C.!
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Another questionable baseball rule
Here is a head-scratcher concerning official statistics. A starting pitcher cannot receive a Win unless he pitches at least 5 innings, but a reliever can get one out a receive the win.
Consider this scenario:
Orel Hershiser pitches for the Dodgers and his offense gives him an early 10-0 lead to work with. He pitches 4 2/3 innings and with a runner on first the manager decides to pull his starter and give him some rest. Alejandro Pena comes in for relief. Pena immediately picks the runner off first for the final out of the 5th inning. Tim Leary comes in to pitch the 6th inning and finishes the game.
Hershiser pitches 4 2/3
Pena pitches 1/3
Leary pitches 4
The win goes to Pena who didn't even throw a pitch!
Consider this scenario:
Orel Hershiser pitches for the Dodgers and his offense gives him an early 10-0 lead to work with. He pitches 4 2/3 innings and with a runner on first the manager decides to pull his starter and give him some rest. Alejandro Pena comes in for relief. Pena immediately picks the runner off first for the final out of the 5th inning. Tim Leary comes in to pitch the 6th inning and finishes the game.
Hershiser pitches 4 2/3
Pena pitches 1/3
Leary pitches 4
The win goes to Pena who didn't even throw a pitch!
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Women's Basketball Paradox
Last night in the NCAA Women's basketball championship Tennessee beat Stanford to win it all. I didn't watch the game, but I know many did on ESPN and the arena was sold out.
In fact, for the women's game, NCAA is the pinnacle. But once they get drafted by the WNBA, where they play for money, the arenas are no longer filled; in fact the arenas a very much empty. I know many college sports are AS popular as their professional counterparts, but I can't think of another sport where the popularity of the amateur/college sport dwarfs the professional counterpart.
What is it that WNBA stands for? A friend of mine suggested: "We Need Better Athletes"
In fact, for the women's game, NCAA is the pinnacle. But once they get drafted by the WNBA, where they play for money, the arenas are no longer filled; in fact the arenas a very much empty. I know many college sports are AS popular as their professional counterparts, but I can't think of another sport where the popularity of the amateur/college sport dwarfs the professional counterpart.
What is it that WNBA stands for? A friend of mine suggested: "We Need Better Athletes"
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Bracket Improvement
A suggestion to improve the near flawless NCAA mens basketball tournament:
About eight years ago the bracket was expanded to incorporate 65 teams. Since one more conference was awarded an automatic bid, the committee decided they didn't want that small conference team to take the place of a big name school. So they make the 2 smallest schools play a game before the tournament starts. The loser of this game does not even get to play in the actual tournament even though they received an automatic bid.
So, what they could do is declare who the last 2 bubble teams were to get into the tournament without an automatic bid. Since they didn't even win their conference these 2 teams should play the "play-in" game before the tournament.
Sure, these big school bubble teams (like this year's Arizona squad) are better than the small time "play-in" school (like this year's Coppin St). So instead of having Coppin State play Mount St. Mary's in a "play-in" and having the winner take the #16 seed to play #1 North Carolina, have Arizona play Kentucky (2 bubble teams this year) and have the winner take the #12 seed and play the #5 seed.
Reward a conference champion and make a bubble team play the pre-tournament game.
About eight years ago the bracket was expanded to incorporate 65 teams. Since one more conference was awarded an automatic bid, the committee decided they didn't want that small conference team to take the place of a big name school. So they make the 2 smallest schools play a game before the tournament starts. The loser of this game does not even get to play in the actual tournament even though they received an automatic bid.
So, what they could do is declare who the last 2 bubble teams were to get into the tournament without an automatic bid. Since they didn't even win their conference these 2 teams should play the "play-in" game before the tournament.
Sure, these big school bubble teams (like this year's Arizona squad) are better than the small time "play-in" school (like this year's Coppin St). So instead of having Coppin State play Mount St. Mary's in a "play-in" and having the winner take the #16 seed to play #1 North Carolina, have Arizona play Kentucky (2 bubble teams this year) and have the winner take the #12 seed and play the #5 seed.
Reward a conference champion and make a bubble team play the pre-tournament game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
