The Philadelphia 76ers will face off tonight against the Detroit Pistons, and while the game is surely not significant in terms of playoff positioning, it will definitely get a whole lot more attention than any other game featuring two teams with a combined record of 41-103. Why is that the case? Because the 76ers will be on the verge of setting the all-time record for the longest losing streak not only in NBA history, but in the history of any of our four major professional sports. Philadelphia has lost 26 consecutive games, and right now they are tied with the 2010-2011 Cleveland Cavaliers for the longest losing streak ever. The last time the 76ers won a game was January 29th. To put that into some kind of perspective, the last time the 76ers won a basketball game was BEFORE THE SUPER BOWL, and it seems today like the Super Bowl was a long time ago.
On February 20th, after losing their ninth straight game (by 29 points), the 76ers traded away their best player, Evan Turner, and ended up with a bunch of second round draft picks spread out over the next few years. Clearly, the return for their best player was, at best, very bad. Since that trade, the 76ers have gone on to lose another 17 straight games, and they will be staring history straight in the face tonight against the Pistons. Despite the Pistons being 20 games below .500, they are still 5.5 point favorites over Philadelphia, and at this point, it seems like there is not too much hope for Philadelphia. However, history often times brings out the best in players, and in the case of the 76ers, they will be on the cusp of making history tonight, so maybe it will bring out the best in the team.
Once again though, the "team" is where the problem lies. When you look at the players the 76ers are putting on the floor on a nightly basis, it is easy to understand why they have been so putrid this year. Names like Henry Sims, Arnett Moultrie, Hollis Thompson, and Byron Mullens are near or at the top of their depth chart, and only the most ardent NBA fans would recognize those names. One could argue that the best player on the team has actually never played a game in the NBA. The 76ers drafted Nerlens Noel knowing that he would miss significant time due to a torn ACL, and at best, they can hope that he will make his NBA debut some time before the season ends, although with only 10 games remaining to play, that has to still be an unlikely scenario. The best player they are putting on the floor right now is Michael Carter-Williams, a rookie out of Syracuse. Carter-Williams was a very good player in college, but he is certainly not on the level of a team leader in the NBA, especially with this being his rookie season. In time, he could grow into a nice role player in the league, but I have a hard time believing that he has the capability to be a star. Therefore, it is actually easy to see why the 76ers have been a prime example of futility in 2014. The team they are fielding at this point in the season is nowhere close to NBA-caliber, and they are at a considerable disadvantage each and every night.
At first glance, it would be easy to blame the players for the futility of the 76ers, but I completely disagree with that notion. The players are out there each and every game giving their best effort. They just don't have the quality to compete with their opponents. It is not the fault of the players. They are victims in this case. The next in line to place the blame on would be the head coach, Brett Brown. Coaches are praised when their teams are playing well, and frowned upon when their teams are playing poorly, so it would seem easy to blame Brown for Philadelphia's historically bad streak. Again, doing so would be a mistake. This is Brown's first head coaching job in the NBA, so why would he want to fail? He is leading the team on a daily basis, and he is looking out for his players and himself, and trying his best to succeed, but he is simply not being supplied with the pieces he needs to succeed. So, in my opinion, the blame falls on the people who are supposed to be supplying him with those pieces, the management of the team. Whether it is General Manager Sam Hinkie, owners Josh Harris and David Blitzer, CEO Scott O'Neill, or, most likely, a combination of all of them; those are the men to blame. They have made a concerted effort to continually put a sub-par team on the floor, and they have been extremely successful in doing so.
I liken the situation in Philadelphia to the one in the movie "Major League." The owners were actually cheering for the team to lose. While their motivation might be, in theory, correct (a shot at drafting a potential superstar this year), I still believe that it is unfair to the players on the team, as well as the fans. The 76ers will have two of the first 11 picks in the upcoming draft, as well as four picks in the second round, so they will have a lot of chances to get multiple future building blocks when the draft comes in June. This is also a draft featuring multiple players who have the potential to be NBA stars, so Philadelphia will most likely have a shot to get multiple star prospects. However, I feel like they are still going about it the wrong way. They are clearly tanking on purpose, and it is unfair to the players, the coaches, the fans, and the league in general.
This is certainly not the first time an organization has seemingly "tanked" during the end of a season, and while it seems like a problem that may be unsolvable, I have to turn to a radio personality to find an answer. ESPN Radio's Mike Greenberg, half of the "Mike & Mike" radio duo, brought up a scenario that, in my opinion, could actually solve this problem. His proposal was to give the first overall pick in the draft to the team with the best record that did not qualify for the playoffs.
As of today, with nine games remaining to play, the Dallas Mavericks have a record of 43-30, and are a half game behind the Phoenix Suns for the eighth and final playoff spot in the Western Conference. They are fighting for their playoff lives, and the entire organization is doing its best to put a winning team on the floor. If the Mavericks do make the playoffs, even as the eighth seed in the West, they will be elated. If they miss the playoffs, they will be devastated, but feel as though they are only a piece or two away from a better season in 2014-2015. They are playing out the season to the final minute, and they should be rewarded for doing so. With a very formidable backcourt of Jose Calderon and Monta Ellis, as well as one of the top scorers in NBA history, Dirk Nowitzki, the Mavericks are certainly a good team. The biggest weakness of their team is probably at the center position, and with a young, budding star like Joel Embiid ready to be drafted, they would be able to go from "almost" to "definitely" in just a year. Therefore, they would be rewarded by playing hard for the entire season, and they would also be rewarded by having the top pick in the draft, and the ability to cross the threshold from non-playoff team to playoff team. The remaining picks in the draft would go to the non-playoff teams with the best regular season record to the teams with the worst regular season record, and then all the playoff teams would follow that. That would mean the 76ers would have the 13th pick in the draft, and not the first. They would still pick before the playoff teams, but they would not be rewarded with the first pick by tanking and trying to fail in the previous season. Doing this might bring about teams that were horrendous for years and years, but it would at least give everyone an incentive to put the best team on the floor that it could each and every game, and each and every year.
The NBA might not like Mike Greenberg's proposal, but I certainly do. We would certainly not see any more historically bad losing streaks, and would not see teams composed of unknown players. It would make each and every game of the regular season count, and not only would that bring about more attention from the organizations, but it would also bring about more attention from the players, coaches, and fans, and there is certainly no way that that could be bad for the league. The players on the 76ers are going out and giving it their all each and every game, and they should be rewarded for doing so, not punished.
Daily Nets Update: With 11 games left to play, the Nets are 2.5 games behind the Toronto Raptors in the Atlantic Division, and 1.5 games behind the Bulls for fourth in the conference. Getting home court advantage in the first round of the playoffs would be great, but no matter who they play in the first round, I think this is still a team that could at least get into the second round of the playoffs.
Daily Rangers Update: A five game winning streak ended last night in Calgary, and the Rangers remain fifth in the Eastern Conference. A first round matchup with either Tampa Bay or Montreal seems inevitable, so hopefully the Rangers can finish out the season strong and go into the playoffs with some much needed momentum.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: Opening Day (in the United States) is only two days away, and the Diamondbacks will put Brandon McCarthy on the mound to face off against Madison Bumgarner and the San Francisco Giants. There has been more devastating news for the pitching staff, as David Hernandez will now need Tommy John surgery, just like Patrick Corbin, who underwent the surgery not long ago. The news of those two injuries has obviously weakened both the starting rotation and the bullpen, but it is still March, and that means every team believes it can win the World Series. Let's Go Diamondbacks!
Saturday, March 29, 2014
Thursday, March 13, 2014
A history lesson in honor of Opening Day
With the beginning of the Major League Baseball season now officially less than 10 days away, I think it is time to start seriously thinking about baseball. Sure, there is time for a preview still left, but before we know where we are going, we need to know where we came from, right? Baseball, more than any of our other major sports, is a game defined by numbers. Wins, strikeouts, home runs, batting average; there are plenty of ways to determine how great players are and were, and the most common way to do so is by using numbers such as these. We know what numbers constitute greatness, and we can connect plenty of famous names to plenty of famous numbers. However, we also overlook a whole lot of things when we look at baseball's past.
As I said, we need to know where we came from before we know where we are going, and in this piece, I am going to look back at some of the most neglected and forgotten names and numbers of all time.
Each and every baseball game begins with the ball in the hands of the pitcher, so let's start there. Usually the number one measure of starting pitchers is their number of wins. In the current state of the game, winning 20 games in a season is considered a gallant feat, and there is no doubt that doing so does deserve plenty of acclaim. The 300 win plateau is considered to be a true mark of greatness for pitchers. 24 pitchers have won 300 or more games during their career, but I think most current baseball fans would be hard-pressed to name even half of those 24 pitchers.
There are the men who have done it within the past decade: Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, Roger Clemens, and Tom Glavine. Then, there are famous names like Nolan Ryan, Tom Seaver, and Cy Young. After that, the names become far less common.
Cy Young won his 300th game in 1901; 113 years ago. Today, that seems like an eternity. However, he was not the first man to reach the 300 win plateau. Have you ever heard names like Kid Nichols, Pud Galvin, Charles Radbourn, Tim Keefe, or John Clarkson? Odds are, you most likely have not. All five of those men won their 300th game before Cy Young did. In fact, Cy Young debuted in the big leagues in 1890. By that time, Pud Galvin had already won 300 games. He won his 300th in 1888, and would finish his career with 365 wins.
As far as those other names, there are two in particular that I would like to look at. Most players in the last half-century have won their 300th game at, in baseball terms, a very old age. Tom Glavine was 41 years old when he won his 300th game. Roger Clemens was also 41. In terms of professional athletes, 41 years old is the equivalent of ancient. It gets even more unbelievable when we look at Phil Niekro and Randy Johnson. Both of those men were 46 years old when they won their 300th game.
With those numbers in mind, let's look back at some of those other names I mentioned, and let's start with Kid Nichols. To most fans, Kid Nichols is an unknown name. His last season as a major leaguer was 1906, and at that time, baseball was not even close to what it is today. Nichols won his 300th career game on July 7, 1900. Was he 41 like Clemens? No. Was he even older than that? 46, like Niekro? No. He wasn't even close to those ages. Nichols was only 30 years old when he won his 300th game. To put that into perspective, when Roger Clemens was 30 years old, he had won 152 games. When Tom Glavine was 30 years old, he had won 139 games. When Phil Niekro was 30 years old, he had won only 54 games. When Randy Johnson was 30 years old, he had won 88 games. The difference is unbelievable. Nichols' closest competitor, Clemens, had won just over half the amount of games at age 30 in comparison to Nichols. Despite the stunning difference, these numbers also are a prime example of another reason that baseball in the 19th century was vastly different than baseball in the 21st century.
After the age of 30, Nichols won 61 games. After age 30, Clemens won 202 games. After age 30, Glavine won 166 games. After age 30, Johnson won 215 games. After age 30, Niekro won 264 games. The difference is glaring. Why then, is there such a stark difference? It is because the game of baseball has changed tremendously over the past century and a half. Kid Nichols is a fine example of how the game has changed, but I would also be remiss without mentioning another member of the 300 win club, Charles Radbourn.
In order to keep our names in perspective here, I would like to compare Radbourn to Clemens, Glavine, Johnson, and Niekro. Clemens won his 300th game in 2003, 19 years after his big league debut. Glavine won his 300th game in 2007, 20 years after his big league debut. Johnson won his 300th game in 2009, 21 years after his big league debut. Niekro won his 300th game in 1985, also 21 years after his big league debut. When did Radbourn win his 300th game? In 1891, only 11 years after his big league debut. The difference, once again, is staggering.
Radbourn's career may have been short lived, but it was by no means obsolete. In 2013, the league leader in games started was Adam Wainwright. He started 34 games. In 1884, Charles Radbourn won 59 games. FIFTY NINE. Radbourn started 73 games that season. He had 73 complete games. In this day and age, finishing any game in which you start is considered outstanding. In 1884, finishing any game you started was considered marginal. It was not about getting a decision, it was about finishing the game (no matter how long it lasted), or coming up short.
Once again, let's put that in the perspective of our more modern day stars. The best two year wins stretch of Clemens' career? 44 games. How about Glavine? 42 games. Johnson? 45 games. Niekro? 36 games. That means over the span of one season, Radbourn won more games than any of our other 300 game winners did in two seasons.
What we see when we look at these numbers is not only an austere contrast in the game today and the game over a century ago, but we also are reminded of names that have been forgotten over the course of history. The game of baseball has grown and evolved, and we should all be grateful to have witnessed its development. However, we should also never forget the origins of the game, because if not for the forebears like Nichols and Radbourn, we would likely have no historical perspective on just how good the pitchers of our modern age have really become.
I know that I began with a mention of the entirety of the early history of baseball, but what I ended up writing was only a slight glimpse into the history of the greatest pitchers in the history of the game. I promise that I will follow this up in the near future with another lengthy history of the game's most formidable hitters, because like I said before, we cannot predict where we are going without knowing where it is that we came from.
Daily Rangers Update: The Rangers will play in Minnesota tonight against a formidable Wild team. As has been the case for quite some time now, a win or a loss both go a long way in deciding postseason positioning. Let's Go Rangers!
Daily Nets Update: The Nets beat the Miami Heat last night, their third win against Miami in three matchups this season. With 19 games to play, the Nets are in serious contention for home-court in the first round of the playoffs. Next up is a trip to Washington on Saturday. The Nets are only a 1/2 game ahead of the Wizards in the standings, so once again, this is another extremely important game.
Daily Giants Update: The Giants re-signed Jon Beason, Stevie Brown, and Peyton Hillis, and also added Geoff Schwartz, Rashad Jennings, and a few others. The biggest offseason splash involving the team has probably, sadly, been the departure of Justin Tuck. The Eagles and the Cowboys have made big splashes in the free agent market, and we have some work to still do, but in the NFL, nothing matters until the games count, and we are still far away from that happening.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: Archie Bradley is getting hit today, which has not been the case thus far during spring games. However, he has looked very good aside from this afternoon, and I still am impatiently waiting for his official big league debut. With only nine days until Patrick Corbin takes the mound in Australia against the Dodgers, it is seriously time to start pondering the first month of baseball. Let's Go DBacks!
As I said, we need to know where we came from before we know where we are going, and in this piece, I am going to look back at some of the most neglected and forgotten names and numbers of all time.
Each and every baseball game begins with the ball in the hands of the pitcher, so let's start there. Usually the number one measure of starting pitchers is their number of wins. In the current state of the game, winning 20 games in a season is considered a gallant feat, and there is no doubt that doing so does deserve plenty of acclaim. The 300 win plateau is considered to be a true mark of greatness for pitchers. 24 pitchers have won 300 or more games during their career, but I think most current baseball fans would be hard-pressed to name even half of those 24 pitchers.
There are the men who have done it within the past decade: Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, Roger Clemens, and Tom Glavine. Then, there are famous names like Nolan Ryan, Tom Seaver, and Cy Young. After that, the names become far less common.
Cy Young won his 300th game in 1901; 113 years ago. Today, that seems like an eternity. However, he was not the first man to reach the 300 win plateau. Have you ever heard names like Kid Nichols, Pud Galvin, Charles Radbourn, Tim Keefe, or John Clarkson? Odds are, you most likely have not. All five of those men won their 300th game before Cy Young did. In fact, Cy Young debuted in the big leagues in 1890. By that time, Pud Galvin had already won 300 games. He won his 300th in 1888, and would finish his career with 365 wins.
As far as those other names, there are two in particular that I would like to look at. Most players in the last half-century have won their 300th game at, in baseball terms, a very old age. Tom Glavine was 41 years old when he won his 300th game. Roger Clemens was also 41. In terms of professional athletes, 41 years old is the equivalent of ancient. It gets even more unbelievable when we look at Phil Niekro and Randy Johnson. Both of those men were 46 years old when they won their 300th game.
With those numbers in mind, let's look back at some of those other names I mentioned, and let's start with Kid Nichols. To most fans, Kid Nichols is an unknown name. His last season as a major leaguer was 1906, and at that time, baseball was not even close to what it is today. Nichols won his 300th career game on July 7, 1900. Was he 41 like Clemens? No. Was he even older than that? 46, like Niekro? No. He wasn't even close to those ages. Nichols was only 30 years old when he won his 300th game. To put that into perspective, when Roger Clemens was 30 years old, he had won 152 games. When Tom Glavine was 30 years old, he had won 139 games. When Phil Niekro was 30 years old, he had won only 54 games. When Randy Johnson was 30 years old, he had won 88 games. The difference is unbelievable. Nichols' closest competitor, Clemens, had won just over half the amount of games at age 30 in comparison to Nichols. Despite the stunning difference, these numbers also are a prime example of another reason that baseball in the 19th century was vastly different than baseball in the 21st century.
After the age of 30, Nichols won 61 games. After age 30, Clemens won 202 games. After age 30, Glavine won 166 games. After age 30, Johnson won 215 games. After age 30, Niekro won 264 games. The difference is glaring. Why then, is there such a stark difference? It is because the game of baseball has changed tremendously over the past century and a half. Kid Nichols is a fine example of how the game has changed, but I would also be remiss without mentioning another member of the 300 win club, Charles Radbourn.
In order to keep our names in perspective here, I would like to compare Radbourn to Clemens, Glavine, Johnson, and Niekro. Clemens won his 300th game in 2003, 19 years after his big league debut. Glavine won his 300th game in 2007, 20 years after his big league debut. Johnson won his 300th game in 2009, 21 years after his big league debut. Niekro won his 300th game in 1985, also 21 years after his big league debut. When did Radbourn win his 300th game? In 1891, only 11 years after his big league debut. The difference, once again, is staggering.
Radbourn's career may have been short lived, but it was by no means obsolete. In 2013, the league leader in games started was Adam Wainwright. He started 34 games. In 1884, Charles Radbourn won 59 games. FIFTY NINE. Radbourn started 73 games that season. He had 73 complete games. In this day and age, finishing any game in which you start is considered outstanding. In 1884, finishing any game you started was considered marginal. It was not about getting a decision, it was about finishing the game (no matter how long it lasted), or coming up short.
Once again, let's put that in the perspective of our more modern day stars. The best two year wins stretch of Clemens' career? 44 games. How about Glavine? 42 games. Johnson? 45 games. Niekro? 36 games. That means over the span of one season, Radbourn won more games than any of our other 300 game winners did in two seasons.
What we see when we look at these numbers is not only an austere contrast in the game today and the game over a century ago, but we also are reminded of names that have been forgotten over the course of history. The game of baseball has grown and evolved, and we should all be grateful to have witnessed its development. However, we should also never forget the origins of the game, because if not for the forebears like Nichols and Radbourn, we would likely have no historical perspective on just how good the pitchers of our modern age have really become.
I know that I began with a mention of the entirety of the early history of baseball, but what I ended up writing was only a slight glimpse into the history of the greatest pitchers in the history of the game. I promise that I will follow this up in the near future with another lengthy history of the game's most formidable hitters, because like I said before, we cannot predict where we are going without knowing where it is that we came from.
Daily Rangers Update: The Rangers will play in Minnesota tonight against a formidable Wild team. As has been the case for quite some time now, a win or a loss both go a long way in deciding postseason positioning. Let's Go Rangers!
Daily Nets Update: The Nets beat the Miami Heat last night, their third win against Miami in three matchups this season. With 19 games to play, the Nets are in serious contention for home-court in the first round of the playoffs. Next up is a trip to Washington on Saturday. The Nets are only a 1/2 game ahead of the Wizards in the standings, so once again, this is another extremely important game.
Daily Giants Update: The Giants re-signed Jon Beason, Stevie Brown, and Peyton Hillis, and also added Geoff Schwartz, Rashad Jennings, and a few others. The biggest offseason splash involving the team has probably, sadly, been the departure of Justin Tuck. The Eagles and the Cowboys have made big splashes in the free agent market, and we have some work to still do, but in the NFL, nothing matters until the games count, and we are still far away from that happening.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: Archie Bradley is getting hit today, which has not been the case thus far during spring games. However, he has looked very good aside from this afternoon, and I still am impatiently waiting for his official big league debut. With only nine days until Patrick Corbin takes the mound in Australia against the Dodgers, it is seriously time to start pondering the first month of baseball. Let's Go DBacks!
Sunday, March 9, 2014
The case for the Shockers
Since the calendar has turned to March, that means only one thing in the world of sports: March Madness. While in my eyes, the World Cup is the most exciting tournament in the entire world, the NCAA Tournament is not far behind. The first two weekends of the tourney are full of basketball, basketball, and more basketball. Stars are born, spectacular finishes are the norm, and unpredictability abounds.
What makes the tournament so special is not just the spotlight that shines on young players across the country, but the teams that come out of obscurity to knock off the big name teams. It is guaranteed to happen, and the tournament is so special because even though we know it will happen, we are still shocked every time it does. Whether it was Richmond beating Syracuse in 1991 to become the first #15 seed to ever beat a #2 seed, Princeton beating defending national champion UCLA in 1996, or Florida Gulf Coast beating Georgetown last year, the upsets seem to come fast and furious during the first weekend of the tournament. However, while those upsets are thrilling, the team celebrating their stunning victory often times loses soon after, and fades back into obscurity to the casual college basketball fan.
In the recent past though, we have seen some of those upset-minded teams advance much further in the tournament than we ever have before. Little known George Mason University, a #11 seed, advanced all the way to the Final Four in 2006, and knocked off some big name competition along the way. Virginia Commonwealth, also a #11 seed, marched all the way to the Final Four in 2011, after their at-large selection to be in the tournament in the first place was seriously questioned by many people. 2011 was also the second consecutive year that previously little known Butler University advanced to the national championship game. They lost both times they got there, but the fact that they made it that far, especially in consecutive seasons, was a huge accomplishment. Last season, we saw the aptly named, #9 seed Wichita State Shockers advanced all the way to the Final Four, shocking many people along the way. Only about an hour ago, Wichita State won the Missouri Valley conference tournament, and by doing so, earned an automatic berth to the NCAA Tournament. However, their NCAA Tournament status in 2014 is a whole lot different than it was in 2013.
By beating Indiana State this afternoon, Wichita State moved its record to 34-0. The only other team to win its first 34 games of the season was the UNLV Runnin' Rebels in 1991, but that record included games in the NCAA Tournament. The Rebels eventually lost their 35th game to Duke in the Final Four. So that means that Wichita State will be entering the tournament with a better record than any other team has. They are certainly not flying under the radar now. With Selection Sunday now officially one week away, the question is no longer if the Shockers will be in the tournament, but it is how high they will be seeded.
Wichita State is currently ranked second in the country in both the AP Poll and the Coaches Poll. Florida is #1 in both polls, and Arizona is third in both. Barring any unexpected losses (which are possible since, don't forget, it is March) in the early round of the SEC and Pac-12 tournaments, I think Florida and Arizona will be #1 seeds going into the official tourney. The ACC Tournament will likely decide the third of four #1 seeds. Duke is currently ranked fourth in the country, Virginia is ranked at #5 (although they did lose this afternoon to an unranked Maryland team), and Syracuse is ranked at #7. It is highly unlikely that all three of those teams will slip up early in the ACC Tournament, and if one of those three win the conference, I think, in all likelihood, that team will also be a #1 seed. Then, there are the Shockers.
Florida played six teams that were ranked at the time of the game, and their only two losses came against Wisconsin and UConn, both of whom are still ranked in the Top 25 right now. The fourth ranked Duke Blue Devils played seven games against ranked opponents, Virginia had five such matchups, and Syracuse had seven. The first argument against Wichita State being a #1 seed in the NCAA Tournament is the fact that they played zero games against nationally ranked opponents. The Shockers won multiple games by large margins over teams like Loyola, Drake, and Emporia State. They did, however, beat Saint Louis, and while the Billikens were unranked when they played Wichita State, they are currently ranked 17th in the nation. Still, the fact remains that Wichita State's schedule was far less challenging than the schedules of Florida, Duke, Virginia, and Syracuse. There is though, one team that I have not yet mentioned as far as schedule strength goes, and that is the Arizona Wildcats.
At 28-3, Arizona seems to be a near lock to secure a #1 seed in the tournament, thanks in large part to playing in a "major" conference. However, when we look at their schedule, we see a whole lot of names, but not very many numbers next to those names. How many games have the Wildcats played against ranked opponents? One. Have they beaten anyone who was unranked at the time of the game, but is ranked now? No. The ranked team they did play though, was Duke, and the Wildcats did win that game, which looks just as impressive now as it did on November 29. Arizona's three losses came against Oregon, California, and Arizona State. While at least two of those teams will probably make the field of 64, none of them are exactly juggernauts. So why is it then, that Arizona is considered by most to be a near lock to be a #1 seed? I'm not too sure, but playing in a major conference, as opposed to a mid-major conference like Wichita State does certainly plays a huge factor in it.
When one thinks of college basketball powerhouse conferences, the Missouri Valley Conference surely is not the first one to come to mind. That is why teams from the SEC, Pac-12, and ACC will all be #1 seeds in 2014. That still does not diminish what Wichita State did this season. In my mind, people who immediately write off the Shockers based solely on their conference are foolish. It is even more foolish when we look at the roster of the Shockers. Nearly all of the players who have played significant minutes this year were on the team last year, and that team reached the Final Four. Along the way in 2013, the Shockers beat Pittsburgh (who at the time was a Big East team, but this year is a member of the ACC), Big 10 member Ohio State, and gave eventual national champion, and Big East champion Louisville, its closest game of the entire tournament in the Final Four. Louisville won that game 72-68. If a team from a major conference followed up a Final Four appearance with a 34-0 season, they would unquestionably be a #1 seed, and anyone who thought otherwise would be laughed at. However, because in this case the team is from a mid-major conference, people still feel the Shockers are unworthy of a #1 seed. In my eyes, that should be laughed at.
In 2014, Wichita State has become to college basketball what Boise State was to college football only a few seasons ago. Boise State never got a chance to play for a national championship (thanks to the bowl system, which will FINALLY be gone in the upcoming season), but the Broncos proved they could play with the big boys when they beat the Oklahoma Sooners in the Fiesta Bowl in 2007, in what was undoubtedly one of the greatest college football games to ever be played.
No matter where the Shockers end up seeded a week from today, they will go into the tournament saying all the right things, put their seed aside, and play whoever is put in front of them. Also, unlike Boise State, the Shockers do have a chance to play for the national championship. So does their seed going into the tournament really matter as much as some might think? Probably not. Nonetheless, I think that they do in fact deserve to be the first Missouri Valley Conference team to be ranked as a #1 seed in the NCAA Tournament since Larry Bird's Indiana State team in 1979. The 2014 Wichita State Shockers do not have a player with the star power of Larry Bird, but 34-0 speaks for itself. Put Wichita State in the tournament with the advantages of a top seed, because their 2014 resume is thus far unblemished.
Daily Rangers Update: Henrik Lundqvist won his 300th career game this afternoon at Madison Square Garden, and the Rangers blanked the Detroit Red Wings, 3-0. Because of the extremely tight nature of the NHL standings each and every year, with 17 games left to play, the Rangers could legitimately end up anywhere from the third seed in the East to out of the playoffs entirely. Six of the team's next seven games will be on the road, with the lone home game coming against a very good San Jose Sharks team. The upcoming schedule will not do the Rangers any favors, so they need to continue to raise their level of play and consistently play well each and every night they take the ice.
Daily Nets Update: After getting their record to above .500 for the first time all season, Brooklyn dropped their last game to the Celtics, and they are currently 30-30. With under six minutes to play in the second quarter, the Nets currently have a double digit lead against a bad Sacramento Kings team. If they can keep their foot on the gas tonight, the first place Toronto Raptors will visit Barclays Center tomorrow night with the Nets having a chance to cut Toronto's lead in the division down to 2.5 games. 22 games to play, and still a whole lot of possibilities for the Nets.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: The DBacks are in the ninth inning of a tie game with the San Diego Padres right now, and their season officially begins in Australia in 13 days. Brandon McCarthy has looked very good thus far on the mound, and Martin Prado has been hitting the cover off of the ball at the plate. Archie Bradley won his second start yesterday, and has still not surrendered a run in his two appearances. We still may not see him on the Opening Day roster, but if he keeps pitching as well as he has been, it will be impossible for the team to keep him out of the rotation for very long in 2014.
Daily Giants Update: Not a lot of news right now, but free agency begins this week, and the Giants will likely be pretty active. Hakeem Nicks was in the news over the past few days, and it appears he will not be back with the team for next season. That means that the Giants will need a #1 caliber outside receiver. There are some pretty nice names that will be available, but I'm not too sure that any of them will be as good as Nicks was over the course of his entire tenure with the Giants. The team has needs at multiple positions, and the upcoming week will be the first step in filling those holes.
What makes the tournament so special is not just the spotlight that shines on young players across the country, but the teams that come out of obscurity to knock off the big name teams. It is guaranteed to happen, and the tournament is so special because even though we know it will happen, we are still shocked every time it does. Whether it was Richmond beating Syracuse in 1991 to become the first #15 seed to ever beat a #2 seed, Princeton beating defending national champion UCLA in 1996, or Florida Gulf Coast beating Georgetown last year, the upsets seem to come fast and furious during the first weekend of the tournament. However, while those upsets are thrilling, the team celebrating their stunning victory often times loses soon after, and fades back into obscurity to the casual college basketball fan.
In the recent past though, we have seen some of those upset-minded teams advance much further in the tournament than we ever have before. Little known George Mason University, a #11 seed, advanced all the way to the Final Four in 2006, and knocked off some big name competition along the way. Virginia Commonwealth, also a #11 seed, marched all the way to the Final Four in 2011, after their at-large selection to be in the tournament in the first place was seriously questioned by many people. 2011 was also the second consecutive year that previously little known Butler University advanced to the national championship game. They lost both times they got there, but the fact that they made it that far, especially in consecutive seasons, was a huge accomplishment. Last season, we saw the aptly named, #9 seed Wichita State Shockers advanced all the way to the Final Four, shocking many people along the way. Only about an hour ago, Wichita State won the Missouri Valley conference tournament, and by doing so, earned an automatic berth to the NCAA Tournament. However, their NCAA Tournament status in 2014 is a whole lot different than it was in 2013.
By beating Indiana State this afternoon, Wichita State moved its record to 34-0. The only other team to win its first 34 games of the season was the UNLV Runnin' Rebels in 1991, but that record included games in the NCAA Tournament. The Rebels eventually lost their 35th game to Duke in the Final Four. So that means that Wichita State will be entering the tournament with a better record than any other team has. They are certainly not flying under the radar now. With Selection Sunday now officially one week away, the question is no longer if the Shockers will be in the tournament, but it is how high they will be seeded.
Wichita State is currently ranked second in the country in both the AP Poll and the Coaches Poll. Florida is #1 in both polls, and Arizona is third in both. Barring any unexpected losses (which are possible since, don't forget, it is March) in the early round of the SEC and Pac-12 tournaments, I think Florida and Arizona will be #1 seeds going into the official tourney. The ACC Tournament will likely decide the third of four #1 seeds. Duke is currently ranked fourth in the country, Virginia is ranked at #5 (although they did lose this afternoon to an unranked Maryland team), and Syracuse is ranked at #7. It is highly unlikely that all three of those teams will slip up early in the ACC Tournament, and if one of those three win the conference, I think, in all likelihood, that team will also be a #1 seed. Then, there are the Shockers.
Florida played six teams that were ranked at the time of the game, and their only two losses came against Wisconsin and UConn, both of whom are still ranked in the Top 25 right now. The fourth ranked Duke Blue Devils played seven games against ranked opponents, Virginia had five such matchups, and Syracuse had seven. The first argument against Wichita State being a #1 seed in the NCAA Tournament is the fact that they played zero games against nationally ranked opponents. The Shockers won multiple games by large margins over teams like Loyola, Drake, and Emporia State. They did, however, beat Saint Louis, and while the Billikens were unranked when they played Wichita State, they are currently ranked 17th in the nation. Still, the fact remains that Wichita State's schedule was far less challenging than the schedules of Florida, Duke, Virginia, and Syracuse. There is though, one team that I have not yet mentioned as far as schedule strength goes, and that is the Arizona Wildcats.
At 28-3, Arizona seems to be a near lock to secure a #1 seed in the tournament, thanks in large part to playing in a "major" conference. However, when we look at their schedule, we see a whole lot of names, but not very many numbers next to those names. How many games have the Wildcats played against ranked opponents? One. Have they beaten anyone who was unranked at the time of the game, but is ranked now? No. The ranked team they did play though, was Duke, and the Wildcats did win that game, which looks just as impressive now as it did on November 29. Arizona's three losses came against Oregon, California, and Arizona State. While at least two of those teams will probably make the field of 64, none of them are exactly juggernauts. So why is it then, that Arizona is considered by most to be a near lock to be a #1 seed? I'm not too sure, but playing in a major conference, as opposed to a mid-major conference like Wichita State does certainly plays a huge factor in it.
When one thinks of college basketball powerhouse conferences, the Missouri Valley Conference surely is not the first one to come to mind. That is why teams from the SEC, Pac-12, and ACC will all be #1 seeds in 2014. That still does not diminish what Wichita State did this season. In my mind, people who immediately write off the Shockers based solely on their conference are foolish. It is even more foolish when we look at the roster of the Shockers. Nearly all of the players who have played significant minutes this year were on the team last year, and that team reached the Final Four. Along the way in 2013, the Shockers beat Pittsburgh (who at the time was a Big East team, but this year is a member of the ACC), Big 10 member Ohio State, and gave eventual national champion, and Big East champion Louisville, its closest game of the entire tournament in the Final Four. Louisville won that game 72-68. If a team from a major conference followed up a Final Four appearance with a 34-0 season, they would unquestionably be a #1 seed, and anyone who thought otherwise would be laughed at. However, because in this case the team is from a mid-major conference, people still feel the Shockers are unworthy of a #1 seed. In my eyes, that should be laughed at.
In 2014, Wichita State has become to college basketball what Boise State was to college football only a few seasons ago. Boise State never got a chance to play for a national championship (thanks to the bowl system, which will FINALLY be gone in the upcoming season), but the Broncos proved they could play with the big boys when they beat the Oklahoma Sooners in the Fiesta Bowl in 2007, in what was undoubtedly one of the greatest college football games to ever be played.
No matter where the Shockers end up seeded a week from today, they will go into the tournament saying all the right things, put their seed aside, and play whoever is put in front of them. Also, unlike Boise State, the Shockers do have a chance to play for the national championship. So does their seed going into the tournament really matter as much as some might think? Probably not. Nonetheless, I think that they do in fact deserve to be the first Missouri Valley Conference team to be ranked as a #1 seed in the NCAA Tournament since Larry Bird's Indiana State team in 1979. The 2014 Wichita State Shockers do not have a player with the star power of Larry Bird, but 34-0 speaks for itself. Put Wichita State in the tournament with the advantages of a top seed, because their 2014 resume is thus far unblemished.
Daily Rangers Update: Henrik Lundqvist won his 300th career game this afternoon at Madison Square Garden, and the Rangers blanked the Detroit Red Wings, 3-0. Because of the extremely tight nature of the NHL standings each and every year, with 17 games left to play, the Rangers could legitimately end up anywhere from the third seed in the East to out of the playoffs entirely. Six of the team's next seven games will be on the road, with the lone home game coming against a very good San Jose Sharks team. The upcoming schedule will not do the Rangers any favors, so they need to continue to raise their level of play and consistently play well each and every night they take the ice.
Daily Nets Update: After getting their record to above .500 for the first time all season, Brooklyn dropped their last game to the Celtics, and they are currently 30-30. With under six minutes to play in the second quarter, the Nets currently have a double digit lead against a bad Sacramento Kings team. If they can keep their foot on the gas tonight, the first place Toronto Raptors will visit Barclays Center tomorrow night with the Nets having a chance to cut Toronto's lead in the division down to 2.5 games. 22 games to play, and still a whole lot of possibilities for the Nets.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: The DBacks are in the ninth inning of a tie game with the San Diego Padres right now, and their season officially begins in Australia in 13 days. Brandon McCarthy has looked very good thus far on the mound, and Martin Prado has been hitting the cover off of the ball at the plate. Archie Bradley won his second start yesterday, and has still not surrendered a run in his two appearances. We still may not see him on the Opening Day roster, but if he keeps pitching as well as he has been, it will be impossible for the team to keep him out of the rotation for very long in 2014.
Daily Giants Update: Not a lot of news right now, but free agency begins this week, and the Giants will likely be pretty active. Hakeem Nicks was in the news over the past few days, and it appears he will not be back with the team for next season. That means that the Giants will need a #1 caliber outside receiver. There are some pretty nice names that will be available, but I'm not too sure that any of them will be as good as Nicks was over the course of his entire tenure with the Giants. The team has needs at multiple positions, and the upcoming week will be the first step in filling those holes.
Sunday, March 2, 2014
The thrill of outdoor hockey
Today was the final day of what the National Hockey League deemed the "Stadium Series," which was a series of games played outdoors this season in Los Angeles, New York, Vancouver, and Chicago. In 2008, the NHL played its first "Winter Classic," an outdoor game between the Buffalo Sabres and Pittsburgh Penguins. Thanks to the unmitigated success that the game was, the NHL then decided to play a Winter Classic game each and every year from then until now, but 2014 has been the first year of the "Stadium Series," and I have to say that I am not a fan of the idea.
Now don't get me wrong, it isn't that I am not a fan of outdoor NHL hockey. I actually love the idea. I have watched every Winter Classic game, and the 2014 version was unbelievably successful for a multitude of reasons. The games have been held in historically significant stadiums like Wrigley Field, Fenway Park, and, in 2014, Michigan Stadium a.k.a. The Big House. It has become the NHL's answer to the monopoly that college football has held on New Year's Day. January 1 is usually all about college football, but the NHL's Winter Classic has become a truly worthy rival in the ratings war. In 2014, the NHL even moved its game into the University of Michigan's home stadium, and what it got was the best Winter Classic game yet.
The Big House gets its name for exactly the reason one would expect; it is a gigantic stadium, with a capacity of over 100,000. The 2014 Winter Classic, a game that featured the Detroit Red Wings battling the Toronto Maple Leafs, set an NHL record attendance of 105,491. To put that into perspective, there are only two NHL arenas with capacities of over 20,000 (the Bell Centre in Montreal and the United Center in Chicago). That means that the 2014 Winter Classic saw an attendance of over five times the amount of any other game this season. The game was also watched by almost four and a half million people on television, making it easily the most successful Winter Classic we have seen thus far, and I loved every minute of it.
I watched the game from start to finish, and even though I am not a fan of Toronto or Detroit, I was thrilled to be able to see the two teams play. Both teams wore throwback jerseys, the goaltenders wore wool hats on top of their masks, and the snowfall during the game only added to the allure of the event. I heard nothing but positive things about the game, and I thought the NHL was to be commended for putting on such a great show. In my mind, the day was perfect for not only the league, but the game of hockey in general. So many of the league's players grew up in cold weather towns, playing the game outdoors, and the Winter Classic is a great way to bring back the feelings of hockey in its purest form. The fans loved it, the players loved it, and according to attendance and ratings numbers, the entire sports world loved it. However, as is often the case with things that are so successful, I think we are beginning to get a serious case of "too much of a good thing."
In 2008, the Winter Classic was a once yearly, unique event. It was a day that players, fans, executives, and everyone close to the game of hockey could look forward to. Once a year, we could all enjoy outdoor hockey. Yet, in 2014, the NHL has begun to get greedy, and played a series of games outdoors. Doing so might bring about higher attendance and viewership for those games, but in my opinion, it is also seriously taking away from the singularity and uniqueness of the Winter Classic.
Of the four major sports in the United States, the NHL is clearly lagging behind the NFL, NBA, and Major League Baseball in pretty much every category. Attendance, ratings, jersey sales, and anything else you can think of. The NHL is definitely number four when it comes to our four major sports. So, as a business, the league certainly cannot be faulted for attempting to turn a successful idea into a whole lot of extra money. Therefore, from the business perspective of things, I understand what the league is doing with the Stadium Series. However, as a fan of the game, I really wish that the league makes sure that 2014 is the first and last year of the Stadium Series.
The Winter Classic has become a signature event of the NHL. For better or worse, it has reached the point that it is even more anticipated than the Stanley Cup Finals. The only way to keep it as such is to make sure it remains alone and incomparable. Thanks to the success of Thanksgiving Day games, the NFL has turned Thursday games into a norm, and games on Thursdays have become scorned by not only players and coaches, but fans as well. Seeing a Thursday night game on the schedule brings about far more groans than cheers now in NFL circles.
The NBA had success with Christmas Day games because watching a basketball game on December 25th was a nice way to spend an hour or two with family and friends while celebrating the Christmas holiday. When the league turned one game into a marathon of games all day, it took away from the singularity of the day's game for not only the fans, but the players as well. Members of two teams missing Christmas celebrations was fine, but when it turned into eight or ten teams playing on the 25th, I am sure that seeing your team on the schedule for Christmas Day became somewhat disappointing for the thousands of players and staff who are unable to celebrate the holiday with family and friends.
Major League Baseball played an Opening Day overseas a few years ago in an attempt by the league to globalize the game. It began as somewhat of a success, but with the Diamondbacks and Dodgers opening the season a week before the "official" Opening Day, multiple players have voiced their displeasure with having to travel to Australia to play regular season games. The NHL is doing exactly the same thing with their Winter Classic, and I really hope that they don't ruin the great thing they have going.
January 1st has become a day that the country can celebrate hockey in its truest form. The uniqueness of the day is a sight to behold, and I have fallen in love with the Winter Classic. However, I just beg the league not to ruin the great thing they have going by watering down the game with a growing series of other outdoor games each year. I understand what the league is trying to do from the business perspective, but as a hockey fan, I really hope that the NHL isn't biting off more than they can chew and turning the Winter Classic into a boring and overblown outdoor game that isn't as truly unique as it should be.
Daily Rangers Update: The Rangers came out of the Olympic break with a great win over a very good Chicago Blackhawks team, but they fell to the Flyers yesterday. The puck drops at Madison Square Garden in just under 30 minutes against the Boston Bruins, and the Rangers are in a very tight battle for playoff positioning in the Eastern Conference. With 21 games left to play, there is still a whole lot to be decided before we reach the postseason.
Daily Nets Update: Coming off a win against the lowly Milwaukee Bucks, the Nets are only one game under .500, and seem to be well positioned to make the postseason. Seeding is far from determined though, and the red-hot Chicago Bulls will visit Barclays Center tomorrow night. The Pacers and the Heat are clearly the class of the Eastern Conference, but after that, only six games separates the three seed and the eight seed, and the Nets are right in the middle of that mix.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: I'm still not sure about this, but I think Spring Training games probably have less of a bearing on the regular season than NFL preseason games, but it is pretty close. The bottom line is, neither of them matter much at all. That is why Arizona's 3-2 Spring Training record right now means next to nothing. It is still too early for a frontrunner to have emerged in the battle for spots at the back end of the rotation, as well as the battle between Didi Gregorious and Chris Owings at shortstop. The squad will be split tomorrow, with the biggest news of the day clearly being the spring debut of Archie Bradley against the Colorado Rockies. I still don't think Bradley will win a spot in the rotation out of Spring Training, but I am expecting to see him sometime in 2014, and tomorrow night will mark the beginning of his journey to the bigs.
Now don't get me wrong, it isn't that I am not a fan of outdoor NHL hockey. I actually love the idea. I have watched every Winter Classic game, and the 2014 version was unbelievably successful for a multitude of reasons. The games have been held in historically significant stadiums like Wrigley Field, Fenway Park, and, in 2014, Michigan Stadium a.k.a. The Big House. It has become the NHL's answer to the monopoly that college football has held on New Year's Day. January 1 is usually all about college football, but the NHL's Winter Classic has become a truly worthy rival in the ratings war. In 2014, the NHL even moved its game into the University of Michigan's home stadium, and what it got was the best Winter Classic game yet.
The Big House gets its name for exactly the reason one would expect; it is a gigantic stadium, with a capacity of over 100,000. The 2014 Winter Classic, a game that featured the Detroit Red Wings battling the Toronto Maple Leafs, set an NHL record attendance of 105,491. To put that into perspective, there are only two NHL arenas with capacities of over 20,000 (the Bell Centre in Montreal and the United Center in Chicago). That means that the 2014 Winter Classic saw an attendance of over five times the amount of any other game this season. The game was also watched by almost four and a half million people on television, making it easily the most successful Winter Classic we have seen thus far, and I loved every minute of it.
I watched the game from start to finish, and even though I am not a fan of Toronto or Detroit, I was thrilled to be able to see the two teams play. Both teams wore throwback jerseys, the goaltenders wore wool hats on top of their masks, and the snowfall during the game only added to the allure of the event. I heard nothing but positive things about the game, and I thought the NHL was to be commended for putting on such a great show. In my mind, the day was perfect for not only the league, but the game of hockey in general. So many of the league's players grew up in cold weather towns, playing the game outdoors, and the Winter Classic is a great way to bring back the feelings of hockey in its purest form. The fans loved it, the players loved it, and according to attendance and ratings numbers, the entire sports world loved it. However, as is often the case with things that are so successful, I think we are beginning to get a serious case of "too much of a good thing."
In 2008, the Winter Classic was a once yearly, unique event. It was a day that players, fans, executives, and everyone close to the game of hockey could look forward to. Once a year, we could all enjoy outdoor hockey. Yet, in 2014, the NHL has begun to get greedy, and played a series of games outdoors. Doing so might bring about higher attendance and viewership for those games, but in my opinion, it is also seriously taking away from the singularity and uniqueness of the Winter Classic.
Of the four major sports in the United States, the NHL is clearly lagging behind the NFL, NBA, and Major League Baseball in pretty much every category. Attendance, ratings, jersey sales, and anything else you can think of. The NHL is definitely number four when it comes to our four major sports. So, as a business, the league certainly cannot be faulted for attempting to turn a successful idea into a whole lot of extra money. Therefore, from the business perspective of things, I understand what the league is doing with the Stadium Series. However, as a fan of the game, I really wish that the league makes sure that 2014 is the first and last year of the Stadium Series.
The Winter Classic has become a signature event of the NHL. For better or worse, it has reached the point that it is even more anticipated than the Stanley Cup Finals. The only way to keep it as such is to make sure it remains alone and incomparable. Thanks to the success of Thanksgiving Day games, the NFL has turned Thursday games into a norm, and games on Thursdays have become scorned by not only players and coaches, but fans as well. Seeing a Thursday night game on the schedule brings about far more groans than cheers now in NFL circles.
The NBA had success with Christmas Day games because watching a basketball game on December 25th was a nice way to spend an hour or two with family and friends while celebrating the Christmas holiday. When the league turned one game into a marathon of games all day, it took away from the singularity of the day's game for not only the fans, but the players as well. Members of two teams missing Christmas celebrations was fine, but when it turned into eight or ten teams playing on the 25th, I am sure that seeing your team on the schedule for Christmas Day became somewhat disappointing for the thousands of players and staff who are unable to celebrate the holiday with family and friends.
Major League Baseball played an Opening Day overseas a few years ago in an attempt by the league to globalize the game. It began as somewhat of a success, but with the Diamondbacks and Dodgers opening the season a week before the "official" Opening Day, multiple players have voiced their displeasure with having to travel to Australia to play regular season games. The NHL is doing exactly the same thing with their Winter Classic, and I really hope that they don't ruin the great thing they have going.
January 1st has become a day that the country can celebrate hockey in its truest form. The uniqueness of the day is a sight to behold, and I have fallen in love with the Winter Classic. However, I just beg the league not to ruin the great thing they have going by watering down the game with a growing series of other outdoor games each year. I understand what the league is trying to do from the business perspective, but as a hockey fan, I really hope that the NHL isn't biting off more than they can chew and turning the Winter Classic into a boring and overblown outdoor game that isn't as truly unique as it should be.
Daily Rangers Update: The Rangers came out of the Olympic break with a great win over a very good Chicago Blackhawks team, but they fell to the Flyers yesterday. The puck drops at Madison Square Garden in just under 30 minutes against the Boston Bruins, and the Rangers are in a very tight battle for playoff positioning in the Eastern Conference. With 21 games left to play, there is still a whole lot to be decided before we reach the postseason.
Daily Nets Update: Coming off a win against the lowly Milwaukee Bucks, the Nets are only one game under .500, and seem to be well positioned to make the postseason. Seeding is far from determined though, and the red-hot Chicago Bulls will visit Barclays Center tomorrow night. The Pacers and the Heat are clearly the class of the Eastern Conference, but after that, only six games separates the three seed and the eight seed, and the Nets are right in the middle of that mix.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: I'm still not sure about this, but I think Spring Training games probably have less of a bearing on the regular season than NFL preseason games, but it is pretty close. The bottom line is, neither of them matter much at all. That is why Arizona's 3-2 Spring Training record right now means next to nothing. It is still too early for a frontrunner to have emerged in the battle for spots at the back end of the rotation, as well as the battle between Didi Gregorious and Chris Owings at shortstop. The squad will be split tomorrow, with the biggest news of the day clearly being the spring debut of Archie Bradley against the Colorado Rockies. I still don't think Bradley will win a spot in the rotation out of Spring Training, but I am expecting to see him sometime in 2014, and tomorrow night will mark the beginning of his journey to the bigs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)