Tennis Blasphemy - I Don't Like Nadal vs. Djokovic Matches

Well, no real need for an introduction - the title says it all. I dread Nadal/Djokovic finals. I don't deny the rivalry. I don't deny that they have some scintillating rallies and that they go through spurts where the level of play is remarkable. What I do deny is that they have so many "epic" finals with some of the highest quality matches you'll ever see. That's simply not the case no matter what the sensationalist announcers who have no memory beyond the most recent five matches they've seen as to what is the greatest match they have ever seen.

Here's my biggest qualm: the length of a match does not translate to the caliber of a match. There are a number of reasons for this. One, long rallies do not always equate to good rallies, and two, the length of time for a match does not mean that the entire duration was spent playing. To touch on the first point, long rallies do speak to consistency and endurance. There's no doubt that these men are the two fittest players on tour, and to have these prolonged rallies without making errors is certainly not something to be overlooked. Sometimes there are spectacular points, but other times the points may just be defensive, with no one wanting to take an offensive chance in the rally, so it just keeps going. While each of these players are certainly capable of some good offensive tennis, their primary styles are trying to make the opponent break by playing relentless defense from the back of the court. When you have two guys who won't make as many unforced errors as the rest of the tour quite as quickly, it does lead to longer points. Sometimes it is good, sometimes it isn't, but it's simply repetitive. I completely understand how some may not like watching big servers like John Isner or Ivo Karlovic where the point is typically over in three shots or less. Neither type of match is particularly diverse. The matches with baseline rallies have more tactical elements to them, but by and large, when you have two players whose styles both default back to defensive baseline play by nature, it's still not as exciting as people seem to portray it. Matches between Djokovic and Federer have been far more entertaining with Federer more of an offensive, precision style baseline attack, and both players are more prone to employing change of pace tactics like coming into the net to catch an opponent off guard. Likewise, when you have a power player versus a finesse player, it makes for more compelling tennis, in my opinion.

When watching a Djokovic and Nadal match, there's almost always a constant ebb and flow in the level of play. I have long felt this sentiment about there matches, but typing this while watching the French Open final really is a prime example. You have moments where each can look completely disengaged in some of their matches. You have moments today where Djokovic gifts away five straight games with a slew of unforced errors that aren't even close to the lines. For every brilliant rally, there are three average to underwhelming ones. The matches' unforced errors outnumber winners, and those don't even contemplate forced errors that could easily be considered shots the player would ordinarily make. The periods of significant drop off in play are accentuated due to the fact that there is less variety in other potential matchups. Somehow, it seems a little more bearable if a player hits a blistering forehand wide down the line when going for an outright winner than seeing a shot that was pushed long on a ball that was right in the center of the court.

The other element, as I mentioned, is that the length of time of the match does not translate to the amount of time played. These two players take some of the most time between points of any two men on tour. I believe it was their longest ever Australian Open final that hey played where the average amount of time between points was above the legally permitted amount of time by ten seconds. When you subtract all of the time that should never have occurred in the first place from the total match time, it shaves about an hour off of the total match time. That's an hour of us watching Nadal fix his wedgie or Djokovic bounce a ball before a serve an inordinate number of times. I completely get that after a particularly long rally that the chair umpire has good reason to overlook a time violation, but I've watched points during this match in particular where there is a serve, a return unforced error, and a length of time between points that exceeded 20 seconds. Certainly these men are not cut in the mold of Roger Federer or Andy Roddick, both of whom would ordinarily take well under the allocated amount of time to return to the service line for another serve. A match with the same number of points between those two pairings will have a 60-90 minute difference over the span of five sets solely from the amount of time spent between points, not the points themselves. That's a staggering difference. Assuming the level of tennis is the same between the two matches, wouldn't you want to have all of that tennis packed into a shorter period of time? I certainly would!

Undeniably, these are the two greatest in the sport of tennis right now. As such, we can fully expect more finals between the two in their already most contested of all time rivalry. They absolutely deserve to contest these matches, and I am not taking that away from them. Still, you'll have to excuse me if you see me rooting for some Djokovic vs. Wawrinka or Nadal vs. Tsonga finals instead of this matchup, which has lost its luster in my eyes.

French Open Predictions

Okay, so I am a little late, as matches started today, but I just didn't get to writing about the French Open yesterday. Historically I have filled out brackets much like how most people do for the NCAA basketball tournament. I haven't done so in a while, but I still formulate outcomes and scenarios in my head. Let's take a look at what's in store:

Rafa's quarter:
Rafa has been tabbed with having a difficult draw, and it's true that it isn't exactly a cakewalk. He's the king of clay, though, and the greatest ever at Roland Garros. That said, he's as vulnerable as he's ever been on this surface coming into the event, having a run of some surprising losses this clay court season. He should destroy Ginepri in the first round, followed by a potential second round matchup with Dominic Thiem, a very nice young player. He doesn't have what it takes at this point to trouble Nadal, though. He has a potentially dangerous fourth round competitor in Nicolas Almagro, a great clay court player who actually defeated Nadal this year on the surface. I don't believe he has what it takes to do that in a best of five setting, but it makes for some interesting intrigue. Waiting for him in the quarters should be David Ferrer, so Nadal has likely the most difficult quarterfinal match of the top four seeds. Grigor Dimitrov is in this part of the draw as well, but he's got a tricky road that he just won't be able to maneuver. Ivo Karlovic is probably the worst first round opponent a person can draw for a non-seed, so he had that misfortune, and Ferrer is simply a bull on clay that he's not quite going to be able to take down, should he make it that far. No upsets here, Nadal comes through.

The Stanimal's Quarter:
Stanislas Wawrinka has followed up his incredible Australian Open run with a very lackluster set of results. Historically a very good clay court player, Stan did not have a good spring on the dirt, and he draws a tough quarter, one I don't think he makes it through. It's always tough to play a Spaniard in the first round, and Garcia-Lopez is no slouch on clay. He could have another Spaniard in Feliciano Lopez followed by a very difficult fourth round match. The match I am looking forward to is a potential third round clash between Gael Monfils and the enigma that is Fabio Fognini, probably the most hated player on tour. The two played an incredible match several years back that went five sets and was mired in a little bit of controversy. In what may have been the match ending the latest ever at the French Open, Fognini clamored for play to be halted in the fifth set. Monfils wanted to continue on, and eventually the match was suspended at 5-5 in the fifth due to lack of light. Fognini ended up claiming the match 9-7 the following day. He followed this up in 2011 with a controversial win in which he was accused of inappropriately getting treatment for cramps. Barely able to move, he pulled out the victory and received a chorus of boos after the match. He withdrew from the quarterfinals due to injury in what may have been a more political than physical move. Needless to say, the huge fan favorite Monfils will be taking on the villain Fognini. I really felt like Monfils could make a huge run here; he always plays his absolute best in front of the home crowd, as he loves the attention of the grand stage and the home crowd. His ankle and his fitness are a question mark, though. He was in good form early in the year, but is a not 100% Monfils able to take on the likes of people like Fognini and Wawrinka? Probably not, but what fun are predictions if you don't call a few upsets? The bottom of the quarter feature a slew of clay courters, the unfulfilled promise of Richard Gasquet, and Andy Murray, who has not been the same since his back surgery. As far as I'm concerned, this eighth of the draw is wide open, with Kohlschreiber having as good a chance as any to escape. Coming off a clay court title last week, he could carry that momentum into the French. This is a strange quarter in that there's a ton of talent but a real lack of results for the group on clay in 2014. This is as wide open as it gets, and I'm just going to go with Monfils as a fun pick to advance. He looked okay in his dance off, after all.

Federer's Quarter:
The draw gods were smiling on Federer this year. You don't get a much easier draw than the one he had. The only person that could even trouble him before the quarterfinals is a firing on all cylinders Ernests Gulbis. On the top half, you have Tomas Berdych as the highest seed, certainly a very capable clay court player. The Robredo is a very intriguing player in this portion of the draw. Age seems to not play a role in his ability. Truly a great competitor, he's capable of beating anyone in the quarter. Roberto Bautista Agut is another guy who could muddy the waters in this quarter, but I don't see it happening. Ultimately, I like Federer to come through this quarter with a victory over Berdych in the quarters, although it wouldn't at all surprise me to see Robredo make a quarterfinal run and even beat Federer, as he did last year at the US Open.

Novak's Quarter:
Fresh off of a victory in Rome over Nadal, Djokovic will be tested in this tournament. Let's see, clay courters in the first two rounds, constant under-achieving yet still dangerous Marin Cilic potentially in the third round, Tsonga on home turf who can beat anybody on any given day potentially in the fourth round, and his quarterfinal match is a bit of a question mark. I don't like Raonic's chances here. I think Gilles Simon knocks him off in the third round. Were Kei Nishikori 100% healthy, I'd certainly pick him, hands down, to be Djokovic's quarterfinal opponent, and while I still think he has a shot, I am not so confident in his health to hold up over the course of some potentially grueling matches against guys who will make him work. I like Simon to make a run to the quarters before he ultimately bows out to Djokovic.

In the semis, Rafa should easily dismiss my fun underdog in Monfils, and a semifinal between Federer and Djokovic should prove a bit more competitive. I see Federer jumping out to an early lead before his level of play falling like he is very prone to, and Novak wins in four sets. In the finals, we have another "epic" match between two players who commit a time violation between every single point. It's not that I don't enjoy their matches, but over the course of five sets, you can only tolerate so much ball bouncing, shorts adjusting, hair touching activity and long baseline rallies with relatively few winners before it grows a little stale. Previously I had calculated if you took all the time the two spend above the time violation mark over the course of their five set French Open final, it added about another hour to the total match time. That's a lot of wasted time. But I digress, these two will battle it out, and I think that this time, someone finally solves Nadal in a French Open final, giving Djokovic a career Slam of his own. Now there's nothing left to do but to sit back, watch some tennis, and see all my predictions go wrong!

Men's Tennis: Greatest of All Time Debate

One of the often discussed/argued sports topics of discussion revolve around which player is the greatest to ever play a particular sport. First off, I want to remove one group of participants from the discussion. There are those who state there is no point in discussing the greatest player of all time. You can't ever compare players across eras, and we'll never have a definitive answer on who is best. That's 100% correct, but who cares? Part of the beauty of sports is not the sporting events themselves, but the discussion surrounding them. We'll never know how Babe Ruth would hit against Randy Johnson. We'll never know how Wilt Chamberlain would fare in today's hyper athletic NBA. Part of the fun is speculating, taking relevant facts and tidbits into consideration, and making an assertion that others can support or refute. No, we'll never know the actual truth, but it's fun to discuss it, so that's just what I am going to do.

With Roger Federer's reign of supreme dominance in the mid 2000s, the talk of tennis greatest of all time appeared it was going to be an easier and easier argument to make. Roger was less man and more machine in those days, easily dismissing the players he faced in nearly every match, making many look foolish in the process. "The Maestro", as he was called for his beautiful precision game and graceful movement on court, is largely responsible for the elevation of the sport; his reign of supremacy forced oncoming players to elevate their levels of play, and yet Federer always seemed to have a switch he could flip to take his game to a level no one else possessed. Or no one until a man named Rafael Nadal came around, at least. Rafa was the first of a number of supremely talented and driven young guns ready to burst onto the scene, followed shortly thereafter by Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray. These three men have significantly muddied the waters in the greatest of all time discussion, not necessarily staking a claim for themselves yet, quite so early in their careers, but due to their results against Federer. Nadal is the obvious one, as he has by and large owned Federer due to a game that is Roger's kryptonite, a stubbornness by Federer to change his style of play early on in the rivalry when Nadal's game was far less developed and well rounded than it is today, and a preponderance of matches on clay, where it is very difficult to argue against Rafa for being the greatest of all time on that surface.

So let's take a step back from these four men and talk about the argument of the GOAT as a whole. What makes someone the greatest? Is it purely in the numbers? If so, which numbers? Total titles? Major titles? Wins overall? Is it measured by dominance over the field? Weeks at number one in the world? Does one have to excel on all surfaces? Is it better to have a short term level of supreme success or a long term level of great success? These are all questions that people have varying opinions on, which inevitably lead to differences in opinion on who is the greatest of all time. What also muddies the water is crossing of eras, as is the case in all sports. Tennis went from a game that was played with wooden racquets entirely on grass courts to one with graphite racquets, all sorts of new string technology, and a myriad of court surfaces including multiple types of clay, multiple types of hard, grass, and previously even carpet, and surfaces are found both indoors and outdoors. The game is also more globalized than ever, with players coming out of more and more countries than ever before. The game evolved from on where the goal was to try and move forward towards the net more often than not to one where players rarely stray from the baseline due to the evolution of racquet technology. Tennis is perhaps one of the harder sports to compare across eras because of the technology changes, surface changes, and the fact that it is an individual sport with one on one matches and ever fluctuating levels of competition.

So who are the names that regularly find their way into the discussion? Well, there are more than I am going to list, but the main culprits that seem to come up repeatedly are Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras, Roger Federer, and Rafael Nadal is creeping in on the discussion as well.

Laver has won two calendar year Grand Slams, an unmatched feat. He is considered by many, not all, to be the best player of his time. What makes evaluating this hard is he played both before and after the Open Era and at a time when tennis was mixed between amateur and professional ranks, complicating matters on participation in tournaments. Tournaments had fewer matches and not nearly the same level of competition back then, and in my personal opinion, I don't see how he makes the cut due to these facts.

Bjorn Borg was as relentless as of a competitor as they came. His superior athleticism and grit won him a total of 11 Grand Slam events, all at the French Open and Wimbledon. Borg retired young at the age of 26 due to burnout (more mental than physical, although he lived a fast lifestyle), and he often didn't make the trip down to Australia for the Australian Open (as was common in his time). Borg is statistically the most dominant Grand Slam player in terms of winning percentage, and had he played a longer career and more events, he certainly would have had several more titles to his name. He was a baseline player in a time when there were not really baseline players, and this alone makes him a very compelling argument that he was a revolutionary talent and very well could be the greatest to ever play. How much does he get knocked for not having a lengthy career to continue to amass titles, though?

Pete Sampras, before Roger Federer came along, was the leader in Grand Slam titles, and probably the single most dominant force Wimbledon has ever seen. His weeks spent ranked number one and his overall number of Grand Slam titles cemented him as the greatest in the eyes of many. Sampras really had no rivals that were largely successful against him, either. He's got probably the greatest second serve of all time, and he probably could have continued his success had he abandoned his 85 sq. inch racquet when the rest of the tour went to 90-100 sq. inch racquets (many players never elect to make a big transition in racquets like this due to the difficulty). The argument against him is that he was not a great player on clay, and he never had good success at the French Open. To be lacking in one area of the game when there are other well rounded players at similar levels of greatness diminish his standing a bit. Additionally, with Federer stealing away a number of his records, including Grand Slam titles, and Nadal poised to tie and then overtake the Grand Slam mark himself, his biggest arguing point is gone.

Moving forward to the current era, Roger Federer is now considered by many to be the greatest ever. The reasons listed at the opening of the analysis only partially tell the story. When looking at the list of records and marks Federer holds, it's dumbfounding. If not the greatest of all time, he is certainly the most consistently great of all time. His marks of consecutive finals, semifinals, and quarterfinals in Grand Slam events demonstrate a remarkable run of simply not ever having a bad day. All great players have that bad day where they lose to someone they'd beat 19 times out of 20, but for years in the events that mattered most, Federer didn't. The semifinals mark in particular is one I simply cannot imagine falling. The knock on Federer is twofold: he dominated during a "weak" era of competition, and how can you be the greatest ever when your main rival owned you? First of all, the notion that he dominated a weak era is a bit unfair. The game is more global than ever before and is deeper than ever before, making it more likely to get knocked out in the earlier rounds, something Federer rarely ever did. I also don't think that gives players like Hewitt, Roddick, and Safin, among others, their due. When you look at some of the players Federer toppled en route to a Grand Slam title and compare to some of the people Sampras knocked off, there are many cases where Sampras probably had an easier path. Certainly, the accomplishments of Nadal and Djokovic winning their titles over the past few years are more impressive a task, as there is a glut of top end talent in the years around the turn of the decade.

As for Nadal's dominance of Federer, that one becomes harder and harder for me to dismiss. I initially stood by there not being any shame in the lopsided record against the greatest of all time on clay, and it's not Roger's fault Rafa couldn't advance to hard court finals earlier in his career when Fed would always be waiting for him. That only carries so much merit, though. What really stands out in my mind is that Federer was always perceived as a supreme mental player, and Nadal single handedly ruined that. Not only did Federer lose his edge, but it became a weakness. When you look at the leads he has blown, the break point opportunities missed, the inexplicable errors, and a stubborn determination to not change his game in order to try and prove no one could beat him from the baseline, it really is staggering to think how many more titles he could have. Had he pulled out that epic five setter in Rome, maybe the entire fabric of tennis is different. Maybe his confidence has that extra little boost he needed to not crumble under pressure. But that didn't happen, and when you compare Federer's record against Nadal, a lopsided record, Murray, a slight edge to Murray and one that figures to grow as Federer ages, and Djokovic, a slight edge to Federer with Djokovic in his prime and Federer in the twilight of his career, the head to head numbers really don't suggest Federer being as dominant as his overall numbers. Now, I want to say, this is extremely harsh nitpicking. Anyone who denies Federer's greatness is either bitter or delusional. Still, these results leave just enough doubt to make someone hesitant crowning him the all time greatest.

Finally, and the jury is still largely out on him, is Rafael Nadal. Nadal is no slouch with 13 Grand Slam titles, can claim to be the greatest of all time on clay, and also has multiple Slams on both grass and hard courts. Easily one of the fiercest competitors of all time, the question with him has never been the results, but the health. Having already missed significant time due to injury, the question is how many more titles does he realistically have in him with Djokovic being a top rival now, Murray coming into his own (or at least he was before his back surgery), and some of the next wave of young talent starting to figure things out and making their way towards and into the top 10. Suppose he cannot stay healthy, though, look at where he ends up even today! All the Grand Slams, the myriad of Masters Series titles, well more than Federer. His greatness started at a much younger age, and despite playing second fiddle to Federer for years, his stranglehold over their head to head careers gives him a little bit of a boost in his all time standing. Do his career accolades, when you dig deeper into the list, stack up against Federer's? Maybe not in all categories, but when you look at his winning percentages, his titles, and his all surface game that he never quite gets enough credit for, he's at least within shouting distance. As of right now, I don't think he quite gets the nod to be the greatest of all time. I do think, however, that he still has at least a couple of more Slams in him and some more fight in him yet; the man has never stopped finding ways to improve his game. He used to be a purely relentless defensive baseline player. No serve, no net game, just ridiculous range and a loopy topspin forehand. Now his serve is respectable, he is solid at net, can play a more offensive style game, and he's still as fit and relentless as ever. I think he is the type of player that can reinvent himself to suit his declining physical abilities to add some additional longevity to his career.

So, did I leave the picture hazy enough for everyone? I didn't even mention a lot of others who could be thrown in the mix, either. Now, I did say that part of the fun is going out and making a case for one person. I don't want to back off of that. My feeling is I really have to give it to Federer at this point, with the sense that Nadal will overtake him in the coming years, and that Borg probably would hold the spot had he continued his career. Feel free to make a case for someone else; I am all ears!

"You Sold Out"

In the time I have spent on baseball message boards in the past, I have always found that I do not get along with Yankees fans. This seems unusual given I am a Yankees fan myself, but I wouldn't call the Yankees fanbase a very sensible one. Aside from all of the bandwagoners, the fanbase has a great deal of unreasonable and unappreciative fans. There are those who would run the franchise like they were playing a video game, there are those who criticize prospects who do not immediately succeed and run them out of town, then complain when we never have prospects come up through the system, and there are many who are simply never satisfied. When Robinson Cano returned to the Bronx in a Mariners uniform, he met jeers of "You sold out!" from the crowd.

Let's think about that one for a second. The Yankees fans are criticizing someone for taking more money to go to another team. Let's ignore the fact that there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and that they all would do the same thing when presented the same situation. These are the YANKEES. Have they looked at their roster. C.C. Sabathia is a sellout. Mark Teixeira is a sellout. Brian McCann is a sellout. Jacoby Ellsbury is a sellout in the worst way, leaving the rival Red Sox for the Yankees (albeit he was not exactly treated warmly by their fanbase). Go down the list of players over the years. How do the Yankees get their free agents? They throw more money their way than the next team. To criticize him, well, pot, meet kettle. No, Cano was not someone that was ever going to be the face of the franchise. Despite him being the best player on the team, he still was in Derek Jeter's shadow. People didn't like his lack of hustle, and fans grew weary of his October disappearing act. It still doesn't change his MVP caliber play year in and year out for the team that earned him the offer he got with the Seattle Mariners.

I get that fans are going to jeer opponents, but what they are doing to Cano is unfair. The guy was a great player for the Yankees, and the Yankees, quite frankly, weren't interested. Yes, he had a nice seven year offer from them, and a pretty sensible one from the team's perspective. It's hardly something that people would take as disrespectful. It's what they did after that really changed things. They offered Jacoby Ellsbury an enormous contract of a similar size and amount, and Ellsbury is not in Cano's league as a player. Center field was also not a position of huge need for the Yankees, which they had to know since they had Carlos Beltran on their radar and several outfielders already under contract. Then they offered a five year contract to a player on the downswing at the catcher position, the only real position they have promising talent in the minors at. THEN they offered a contract (including the posting fee) in the same amount of Cano's to a pitcher who has never thrown a pitch in the big leagues. What they did afterwards was a message that they didn't value Cano. No, a ten year contract for any player at that age doesn't make much sense. It's a bad contract, for sure. But so is Ellsbury's, and so is McCann's. You kind of lose credibility for making a smart decision when you follow it with two dumb ones (and those weren't the only two dumb ones, either). So put in this context, why are fans booing him when the team didn't really want him?

At the end of the day, the fanbase will do as it pleases. They pay their hard earned money to go to the games, and it's up to the players to tune them out and not let it impact them. I would have hoped for better from the fans, but I am not surprised. This is a fanbase whose opinions change as often as the wind changes direction. When people show their disgust when I say I am a Yankee fan, I can't blame them, and it's due in large part to the fact that I share the same disgust for so many of the fans of the team. He'll never read this, but for what it's worth, Mr. Cano, thanks for all the great years in pinstripes, and I wish you success with the Mariners.

Major League Baseball 2014 Predictions: NL West

Finally I finish off my regular season preview. It's a few days into the season, but I hardly think this makes a difference over the span of 162 games, especially considering I have been trying to avoid looking at the results of games aside from the Yankees' lackadaisical 0-2 start. The NL West is a solid division with the powerhouse Dodgers leading the way and deceptive depth from top to bottom.

1. Los Angeles Dodgers
2. San Francisco Giants
3. Colorado Rockies
4. Arizona Diamondbacks
5. San Diego Padres

What more needs to be said about the Dodgers? They throw around more money than the Yankees, they have the best starting pitcher in baseball in Clayton Kershaw, and they back him up with a formidable rotation. They have plenty of offensive talent even without Matt Kemp, who at this point is one of the biggest teases in baseball. Yaisel Puig has the tools of Vladimir Guerrero in his prime and the brain of Manny Ramirez. Harnessing him will prove difficult, but he's a phenomenal talent who is already great and has a tremendously high ceiling. They have to manage the circus-like atmosphere more than they do the performance on the field, as that is the only thing that can derail them from a playoff spot.

The Giants can never seem to string a few good years together in a row, but they are due for a rebound year. Their biggest challenge will be overcoming a weak back of the rotation with Tim Lincecum and Ryan Vogelsong weighing down a stellar front three of Cain, Bumgarner, and Hudson. Brandon Belt has gotten better each year in the big leagues, and if he makes another good jump this season, he will be one of the best first basemen in baseball. At the very least, he should make modest progress at a minimum and help make a formidable middle of the order presence with Buster Posey, Hunter Pence, and a very slimmed down Pablo Sandoval. If Sandoval's trimmer frame helps keep him healthy and allows him to elevate his game, that will be a huge gain for the Giants, as the guy can flat out hit regardless. This is a very dangerous team if the cards fall right for them.

I really don't have much justification for the Rockies here other than a gut feeling. Their pitching was atrocious last year, and their best pitcher is on the DL right now. They took a flier on the oft-injured Brett Anderson who formerly showed some tremendous ability. If he puts together a full season, which is a huge if, he could provide a huge boost to this team. I am going to guess that happens. Their other oft-injured star, Troy Tulowitzki, also hopes to stay healthy and anchor an imposing middle of the order with Michael Cuddyer, who certainly has taken a liking to Coors Field, Carlos Gonzalez, and Wilin Rosario, one of the best catchers in the game who is relatively unknown to the casual fan. If they can get some progress out of their young pitchers, which it's hard to imagine being worse than last year, I think them staying in the hunt until after the All Star break is possible.

I'd like to put this team last simply because of all the bonehead roster moves they have made the past few years, but I just cannot do it. Paul Goldschmidt is that good, and he will put this team on his back at points of the season in order to keep them out of the division cellar. Losing Patrick Corbin to injury hurts and makes trading away a stud young pitching prospect for a low batting average, high strikeout power hitter who is a liability on defense look all the more foolish. There were better ways to infuse power into the lineup, which is still pretty mediocre. Martin Prado didn't even come close to outperforming Chris Johnson last year, let alone come close to warranting giving up the overrated but for some reason immensely valued Justin Upton. Didi Gregorious, thought to be a trade that would potentially give the Diamondbacks their answer at shortstop, has made no progress with the bat and starts the season in AAA. Like I said, they made some really questionable trades.

The Padres ended last year with a team ERA that was a quarter of a run worse than the NL average. That's pretty bad for a team that plays in Petco Park. They have Andrew Cashner who should continue to improve, and they have a few other guys that could have better seasons than last year, but I wouldn't call them a pitching rich team at the big league level. They trot out a very pedestrian outfield, have a huge disappointment at first base in Yonder Alonso, and it remains to be seen how Everth Cabrera bounces back after being suspended 50 games last year. Chase Headley should play better than he did last year, but I think it's pretty obvious that the Padres should have sold high on him and stocked up more for the future. The bullpen of this team is a real strength, though, so if the starters can get through the fifth or sixth inning, they are going to give themselves a lot of chances, which will win them a few games.

Wild Card Game: Giants over Reds
NLDS: Giants over Dodgers, Cardinals over Nationals
NLCS: Giants over Cardinals
World Series: Giants over Tigers

The Giants are a team that have some great pieces and have a knack for getting hot at the right time, which is what the playoffs are all about. This isn't a high probability pick, but what is the fun in a Dodgers/Cardinals vs. Red Sox/Tigers prediction?

Major League Baseball 2014 Predictions: NL Central

Arguably the best division in the National League, the Central showcases one of the NL favorites to win the pennant in the Cardinals, a Pirates team that exorcised their demons and made the playoffs last year, a very strong pitching team in the Reds, and a Brewers team that is capable of making a run. While this division might not have some of the suspense of the other divisions on who wins it, as I feel the Cardinals will ensure this doesn't come right down to the end of the season, it will produce some great baseball.

1. Cardinals

2. Reds

3. Brewers

4. Pirates

5. Cubs

The Cardinals really need little explanation. They can pitch, they can hit, they're a deep team, and they've got a good combination of youth and experience. They do play in a tough division, and injuries can always rear their ugly heads, but I don't see much that can derail this team. They have the best catcher in baseball in Yadier Molina leading the team who not only excels offensively, but is heads and shoulders above the competition defensively. Post PED Jhonny Peralta may not pan out for them, but they managed all last year in the infield with Pete Kozma and Daniel Descalso, so I think they can manage. Losing Carlos Beltran hurts, but their outfield defense gets a boost with Peter Bourjos in center, and if Matt Adams can play like he did last year, they'll get another good bat in the lineup with him at first and Allen Craig moving to the outfield.

Last season had to be a letdown for the Reds. They came in with high expectations and fell short, much to the benefit of the Pirates. They were rather unlucky, though, as they sported a great run differential, one that ordinarily would result in a better record than they achieved. They had a scary spring training injury with Aroldis Chapman getting drilled by a line drive, and their disabled list resembles a roster in and of itself. The Reds are like the Rays of the NL, though. They have pitching to spare, and despite being down five pitchers, they have the arms to hold keep them in the hunt. Joey Votto doesn't get the attention of Miguel Cabrera or Mike Trout, but this guy gets on base like it's nobody's business. The X-Factor for them will be Billy Hamilton. While people excitedly wonder if he can steal 100 bases, I wonder if he will even reach base 150 times.

No, still no Pirates. It pains me to put the Brewers here simply because of my disdain for Ryan Braun, but I genuinely think this is a better team than the Pirates. Their starting rotation is adequate, they have a pretty good offense with power and speed in the outfield and a good hitting catcher in Jonathan Lucroy, and if Jean Segura can put up a year like he did last year, I cannot see them finishing lower than third place. Aramis Ramirez seems to manage to put up respectable numbers when he is healthy, and while this could be a dropoff year for him, they have some guys that have the potential to pick up the slack. This team might end up being a little too reliant on power hitting without enough high on base guys, but I think the team finds a way to win games and exceeds expectations.

It doesn't feel good to shift the Pirates back to fourth, but I see last season as more of a fluke than anything. They have a GREAT young outfield and will for years to come, but their pitching really outperformed expectations, and they were actually very far behind the Reds in run differential. Translation: they had some luck. With the likes of Wandy Rodriguez and Edison Volquez in the rotation, that's a guarantee for some regression relative to their 2013 success. Their defense certainly plays a role in their pitching success, but ultimately I just don't think they have the arms or the on base percentage to make last year's run a reality again this year.

Can we just mark this down as another year without a World Series ring? They've got a couple of nice players on the Major League roster, but this team is in full on rebuild mode, and it will pay off for them within the next couple of years. More than anything, they really have to be frustrated not knowing what Starlin Castro is going to pan out like. They had to be hoping he'd be the premier young shortstop in the game right now, and he simply isn't paying the dividends they thought he would. It's easy to forget he's still only 24, so there's still time for him.

Major League Baseball 2014 Predictions: NL East

I now turn my attention to the National League as I try to hurriedly finish my predictions before we get too far along into the season. All the hours at the office don't make it easier, but the excitement of baseball being back should be enough to get me to continue to write. The NL East isn't particularly strong, and it only got worse with two of the Braves' starters scheduled for Tommy John surgery before the season even started. This is a division that should be very exciting come 2015 when the Mets get Matt Harvey back to accompany some of the other phenomenal young up and coming starters in their system, and the Marlins will be on the upswing as well in their perpetual ebb and flow of rebuilding and surging. But it's 2014 now, and here's what I anticipate:

1. Washington Nationals
2. Atlanta Braves
3. Philadelphia Phillies
4. New York Mets
5. Miami Marlins

The Nationals are loaded with pitching, and with the Braves getting hit with the injury bug, that should be enough for Washington to safely win the division. Bryce Harper is a trendy MVP candidate, and after seeing what Mike Trout has done at such a young age, it's far from unreasonable to expect one of the most talented ballplayers of the past few decades to perform on that level. Adam LaRoche absolutely needs to play better this year, which he should do, not because I think he is great, but because he does seem to up his game playing in a contract year. At the end of the day, this team is too good and too deep to disappoint two years in a row, particularly in a weak division.

The Braves begin the season with three pitchers on the 15 day DL and three pitchers on the 60 day DL. Talk about starting out in the hole. They were able to mitigate some of the damage by sweeping up Ervin Santana late in the winter free agent period, but any team that has Aaron Harang in the rotation definitely has some room for improvement. They still have the best closer in baseball at the back end to ensure that when they are ahead late in the game, it will stay that way, which is one good thing they have going for them. The downside is they are counting on the Upton brothers to deliver for this offense. As they were quick to find out, they are wasting $17 million a year on one of the most worthless hitters in baseball to man center field. It's nearly impossible to have a worse season than B.J. Upton had last year, but I still fully expect him to have a bad year while his brother Justin and Jason Heyward continue to underachieve. Chris Johnson will be hard pressed to replicate his year last year, too, so when you look at their lineup in total, it's pretty underwhelming. They make it to the second spot merely because of the weak division.

Try to name the Phillies who are not past their prime. It's hard, isn't it? When you look at this roster, it's tough to think how little it's changed over the past six years. That does not bode well for a baseball team 99 times out of 100. If there is a fountain of youth and this team found it, they'd be immensely dangerous, but with this team injuries are a when, not an if, and they are just strapped for flexibility. Their top of the rotation is still strong and they have guys who will get hot in spurts, but there just isn't enough to this team to make a race for a playoff spot. This is a last place team in 2 or 3 other divisions.

As I alluded to before, the Mets in their rebuilding process have gone full steam after pitching, and their time will be in the near future. For now, though, they are sans young phenom Matt Harvey and instead will rely on the least fit performance enhancing drug user you've ever seen, Bartolo Colon. Offensively, the team's construction seemed to try and put as many low batting average, low on base percentage, high strikeout power guys next to each other as possible; expect a lot of solo home runs from this team. There's just a shortage of major league ready talent here.

The Marlins have a young rotation that other GMs are envious of. Headed by Jose Fernandez and also featuring the likes of Jacob Turner, Henderson Alvarez, and Nate Eovaldi, this is a team that had some great potential in the rotation. No, not all four of them are top of the rotation guys, but with the oldest of the bunch being 24, they certainly have time to continue to elevate their games and have 2-3 pan out. Unfortunately, that's about the best thing to say about this team. The lineup is horrible outside of Giancarlo Stanton and Jarrod Saltalamacchia. This is a team that couldn't muster an OBP of .300 last year and couldn't even drive in 500 runs. Even with moderate improvement from some of their younger players, that is such a horrible starting point that it doesn't give them much to be optimistic about.

Major League Baseball 2014 Predictions: AL West

The American League West should be a fun one this year. It's a division that has a little bit of everything. You've got a good deal of talented, young pitching in the division, and teams with very different roster construction. To me, this is a race that is going to come down to the last day or two of the season, and probably the hardest division for me to try and pick (save for the Astros as a lock for last place).

1. LA Angels
2. Oakland Athletics
3. Texas Rangers
4. Seattle Mariners
5. Houston Astros

It's hard to believe that a team that has $500 million tied up in three players is considered a surprise pick at the top of this division, but I think that this is a year that things click for them. Albert Pujols is doing well this spring and with a clean bill of health, he will be out with a chip on his shoulder and something to prove. I don't think there is any way that Josh Hamilton lives up to his contract, but he cannot possibly be worse than he was last year. And oh, by the way, they have the best player on the planet in Mike Trout. I think David Freese is a nice candidate to rebound to his previous level of performance after a down year last year. This pick does depart from my conventional tendency to favor pitching, as they are not a deep pitching team and will require some good performances from Hector Santiago and Tyler Skaggs (what a steal of a trade that was for them this offseason). I think what helps their chances is I believe they are the team out of the top three in the West that is best constructed to take the most games from Seattle and Houston, which may ultimately be the deciding factor.

Oakland year in and year out makes Moneyball work better than most people would ever expect. This is a good, deep team, but unfortunately for them, when you have to start tapping into your depth before the first game of the season even starts, it puts you at a little bit of a handicap. Injuries this early on to their starting pitching are unfortunate, but they are one of the few teams that can plug the holes fairly well. The lineup, anchored by John Donaldson, has some solid, but unspectacular players. They have a lot of guys that know how to get on base, but with a team that doesn't feature a particular high batting average team, there is the potential that some of those runs they managed to plate last year don't get plated this year. They are a team that needs to win close games, and Jim Johnson in the closer's role doesn't make me feel comfortable they'll win as many as they need to win the division.

When I look at the infield that Texas will trot out this year, I wonder how I put them third in the AL West. Ultimately what I see that I don't like is the way they jerk around their pitchers. This indecision makes me wonder if everyone is on the same page there. Typically when there is this rotating door of starters, people moving from the rotation to the bullpen and back again, it just doesn't lend to a nice continuity on the field. With Yu Darvish banged up to begin the year, they are already in a hole with their top of the rotation not stacking up to others in the division. Behind him, they really have a lot of question marks, too. Any team hoping to be a contender with Tommy Hanson in the rotation has some holes. Ultimately, with OBP fiend Shin Soo Choo getting on base in front of Prince Fielder and Adrian Beltre, this team will score some runs, but I think they will fall short with some of their players failing to live up to Texas' expectations.

Seattle made a splash by signing Robinson Cano to a 10 year contract this winter. What they didn't do is address plenty of other areas of need. Before even playing a game for the Mariners, Cano acknowledged they need another bat in the middle of the order. This is a lefty heavy lineup that doesn't have a ton of great hitters by any stretch of the imagination, and doling out a ton of cash for one of the better hitters in baseball isn't going to fix the rest of the spots in the lineup. Furthering their woes, Seattle starts with two of their starters on the disabled list, so their area of strength on the team is banged up right out of the gate. Of course, they have King Felix anchoring the rotation, and they have some good young starters here, so they should pitch pretty well once they return to full health. Much like his entire career, though, Felix is going to struggle to win games due to a lack of run support, and if he isn't winning games, you know the other four starters won't be either.

Houston has another painful year in store for them, but on the bright side, they have managed to build up their farm system, and a resurgence shouldn't be too far away. Couple that with the fact that they have an Angels team with some enormous contracts on the books limiting their flexibility and an A's team that is always in the process of flipping players before they get a big contract somewhere, and their rise to the top of the division could be faster than usual. For this year, though, they simply won't pitch or hit enough to compete.

AL Predictions:

Wild Card Game: Yankees over Athletics
ALDS: Tigers over Yankees, Rays over Angels
ALCS: Tigers over Rays

Major League Baseball 2014 Predictions: AL Central

The AL Central is not what you would call the strongest division in baseball. There are some intriguing teams and players in the division, and Kansas City is looking to try and break their longest in MLB drought from the postseason, but from top to bottom, this is not a division that stacks up with most others. Here's how I think it will shake out:

1. Detroit Tigers
2. Kansas City Royals
3. Chicago White Sox
4. Cleveland Indians
5. Minnesota Twins

The Tigers are one of those teams that routinely coast through the regular seasons underperforming for their ability, but then start to hit their stride come playoff time. In any other division, they'd pay for this, but in the Central, they can get away with it. While I don't expect Max Scherzer and Anibal Sanchez to replicate their successes of last year, I expect Justin Verlander to rebound from what was a down year by his standards. The team improved defensively and in its versatility at the expense of some power by shipping Prince Fielder to Texas in exchange for Ian Kinsler, and plugging in Nick Castellanos at third base. They still have the best hitter in baseball in the lineup in Miguel Cabrera, some other good hitters before and after him, a good rotation, and a better bullpen than they have had in years. They won't win the division by as much as they should, but they'll still get there.

I almost felt like none of these teams deserved the number two spot. The Royals, while they have a team that is a trendy pick due to their stacked core of athletic position players, just don't get me as excited as everyone else. They have a lack of power, and a real lack of starting pitching. While they trot out a good defense that really helps their starting pitching, it still doesn't take away that the pitching is very mediocre after James Shields. Yordano Ventura is an X-Factor here, and he could be the deciding factor that pushes them to a playoff run, but I still think there is a lot that has to go right for this team to succeed. I will always give the benefit of the doubt to a team that has better pitching than hitting, which is not the case for the Royals due to their rotation.

The White Sox are a team I think will surprise. They have one of the best pitchers in baseball in Chris Sale, a strong number two in Jose Quintana, and some respectable arms at the back end of the rotation. They have a lot of breakout candidates on this team, and while a perfect scenario for them where they have a number of things go right and make a run is unlikely, I really feel as though enough of them will perform well for them to stay competitive and make the other teams at the top of the division nervous. Jose Abreu should be a good masher in the middle of the order, Avisail Garcia has a world of potential, and the the remainder of their outfield has a good chance of making some solid contributions. They have veteran presence in the clubhouse, and I just get a good feeling about this team.

The Indians, in my opinion, will take a step back this year, mainly because I think the White Sox have more sure things in their rotation. Justin Masterson appears to have progressed well, but his career has been up and down, so there's no telling if he can continue his more recent success. McAllister at the number two slot shouldn't excite anyone, either. Danny Salazar should have a good year, but he'll likely have his ups and downs. The batting order should improve a little with Carlos Santana taking over third base and Yan Gomes taking over catching duties, but it remains to be seen how well he will play there defensively over the course of a season. Their position players, by and large, seem closer to their ceilings, which given how middle of the pack they were in many categories last year, doesn't bode well, in my opinion.

Any team trotting out Ricky Nolasco on opening day is pretty much destined to be a bottom dweller in the standings. Their rotation is amongst the worst in the league, and their offense was pedestrian, to be kind, last year as well. The only thing they really have to play for is being better than the Astros in the American League this year, and I'd argue they'll only do that because they play in a much weaker division. The best thing about Minnesota baseball this year will just be the fact that it is no longer zero degrees outside.

Major League Baseball 2014 Predictions: AL East

First off, yes, it has been a while since I have posted. Work has been stressful to say the least, I've had housing things to take care of, had a business trip, and have just been exhausted overall. All that aside, I know I need to write more, and what better to write about than the upcoming Major League Baseball season? I'll have a separate piece for each division, and I'll start with what is thought by most to be the best in baseball, the American League East.

AL East:
1. Tampa Bay Rays
2. New York Yankees
3. Boston Red Sox
4. Baltimore Orioles
5. Toronto Blue Jays

As always, this is a brutal division and should make for a good race. I have the Rays winning this year, though it is really just a toss up. As always, their starting pitching is really good and really deep. They have several guys in the minors that would be in the starting rotation on most other Major League teams. I think Wil Myers will have a good sophomore season, which will hopefully give them more of a middle of the order presence. The thing the Rays have lacked over the years is a masher in the middle of the order, and while I still don't think they have it, they're good enough to overcome it with pitching and defense. One can't help but wonder if they hadn't made the curious move of passing over FSU's Buster Posey, an in state guy at their biggest position of need, in the draft if this team would have a World Series championship by now.

The Yankees obviously spent a ton of money in the offseason to avoid consecutive seasons out of the playoffs, but this team still has its holes. They have one of the weakest infields in all of baseball, both offensively and defensively. Even if Jeter has a bounce back year (I just don't see it), he's still going to be a liability in the field. With band-aids such as Brian Roberts and Kelly Johnson, the Yankees are really hoping they can catch lightning in a bottle. While they doubtlessly have talent, a good, deep outfield, and a pitching staff that could end up as one of the best in the American League, the infield will ultimately be their achilles heel. I also doubt C.C. Sabathia will rebound and the Yankees' number one position in the rotation will have among the worst stats in baseball relative to other number ones.

Two years ago Boston was last in the East. Last year they were World Series champs. I think these seasons were both anomalies, and this year they will float back to a middle ground. One thing that the Sox are always able to do is assemble a team that is well suited to their home park, and without looking at any statistics to back up this guess, I feel like they have to have one of the best home field advantages in baseball. This team is strong in leadership and is well rounded, but I don't see how their pitching can possibly replicate their performance of last year. They could have the comeback player of the year in Grady Sizemore, and if he stays healthy (doubtful), he could be one of the best stories in baseball this season.

I felt the Orioles were a pretty safe bet for this spot until they went out and signed Nelson Cruz and Ubaldo Jimenez. Chris Davis won't replicate his 2013 season, but he doesn't need to with a lineup that should prove to be one of the best, if not the best, in baseball. As always, pitching is a big question mark for them, and I simply am not a believer in Jimenez as an ace. To me, this is a team that will probably have a torrid run at some point in the season, but inconsistency and a lack of depth will be their downfall. If their pitching exceeds expectations this year, though, they could easily be the AL East champs.

In another division, this team could make a run at a playoff spot, but they just won't get it done in the East.
Their trade to become the Marlins 2.0 was one that set this team back big time. That summer they banked on severely injury prone players that made up the core of a last place team and signed a knuckleballer to play in a dome. Definitely not one of their better offseasons. They have plenty of guys capable of putting up a great offensive season, but due to injuries and inconsistency, they are never able to do it all in the same year. They simply don't have the pitching to stack up in this division. Ricky Romero's great season from several years ago seems further away than it was. What happened to that guy?

NFL PAT Discussion

The NFL's seemingly continuous mission to take Special Teams out of the game of professional football continues this offseason with discussion about modifying or eliminating entirely the extra point. I am not a traditionalist in that if something doesn't make sense or there is a sensible change to make, that it shouldn't be made because of "tradition". This, however, is not one of those items. Roger Goodell essentially asserts that the point after kick is boring and almost an automatic. I've seen numerous ideas floated, both from the league and from fans, on what changes should be made to the kicking game.

1. Eliminate the PAT and make touchdowns worth seven points, but a point is lost if a two point conversion is failed.
2. Move back the PAT spot of the kick
3. If the kicking game is to be made more exciting, make longer field goals worth more points.

So what are my thoughts on this? Well, I think the argument that eliminating the extra point because it is nearly automatic, and that the NFL is always looking for ways to make the game "more exciting", is ridiculous. First of all, nearly automatic is not automatic; the fact of the matter is that a handful of PATs are missed every year. Is it enough to matter? Well, it depends on what "matter" means. Statistically speaking, the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of a successful attempt, so the majority of the time the result might be wholly unexciting. But what happens in that one in a hundred attempt where it is missed? To me, the excitement of a blocked PAT or a muffed snap that results in a failed attempt is tremendously exciting. So you mean to tell me that making a touchdown worth seven points and removing the roughly one percent chance of an exciting play adds excitement to the game? Let's see a 99% chance of being boring or a 100% chance of being boring, which one is worse? Just imagine a game being decided on a PAT. Imagine a holder pulls a Tony Romo and flubs the snap in a big moment. Can you picture the excitement/furor in a stadium were that to happen? Oh wait, you don't have to use your imagination:

No, this wasn't a PAT, it was a field goal, but it was attempted from the same spot as a PAT, and it had the same impact. Now, tell me Mr. Goodell, how is eliminating the PAT making the game more exciting?

As for several of the other ideas, I will first dismiss the fantasy football driven "longer field goals worth more points" idea as asinine. It works in fantasy football because a kicker's merits are a kicker's merits. In an actual game, it is a team sport and a long field goal, while impressive from a kicker's perspective, rewards an offense for being unable to move the football. One offense moves the ball from their own 20 to the opposing one yard line, then gets stopped and kicks a field goal for three points. They moved the ball 79 yards. Another offense moves the ball from their own 20 to the opponent's 36 yard line and kick a 53 yard field goal for five points. They moved the ball 44 yards, 35 fewer than the other team, and they get two more points? Absurd. As for moving back the PAT, does that mean you also move back the two point conversion attempt? If so, all you are doing is further discouraging the two point conversion, a play I am sure the NFL deems more "exciting". So how is making this play less frequent making the game more exciting? It isn't. It also makes a point after attempt more difficult than a short field goal. If that seems counterintuitive, it's because it is. It really leads to one thing, which is addressed next.

The guy I come out liking the most in all this is Justin Tucker, the kicker for the Baltimore Ravens. He calls it like it is; the NFL is phasing out kickers. He points out the double standards in their reasoning. The NFL wants the game to be more exciting, yet they move the kickoff up five yards. Kick returns are one of the most exciting plays in the NFL, and by increasing the number of touchbacks, they just reduced the number of exciting plays. The rationale behind it is player safety, which may hold some merit. What if longer kicks are more likely to result in injuries because there is more effort made to block it? Is the comparison valid? Well, I'd say the reduced risk of injury on kickoffs is quite a bit greater than the reduced risk of injury on kicks from these two examples, but it does highlight that the NFL does have its own agenda here. Perhaps Tucker's best quote is, “I don’t think it’s necessary to change the game every couple of years to make it more exciting. It’s plenty exciting. If you want it to be more exciting, TV timeouts could be a little shorter and we could actually play some football.” So NFL, how do you like them apples? 

What do you all think: should the NFL phase out the PAT?

The Demise of United States Tennis

This post will definitely illustrate that I am more blogger than expert on the topics I write about more often than not. I am fairly young, 25 years old, and didn't get into tennis until I was 17. That gives me a very limited frame of reference to work with on the tennis front historically, but it doesn't mean I don't have opinions on the state of tennis in the United States. It's no secret to tennis fans that the USA has been mired in a slump on the men's side of the professional tour. The USA has had Serena Williams carrying the country on her back on the woman's side, and Sloane Stephens has shown that she has all the potential to be a force at the top of the women's game, though certainly nowhere near the level of Serena. In general, though, interest in tennis has waned compared to levels it has been in the past, and the men don't have anyone in sight that has a shot at the top 5 in the next few years, let alone a number one. Fans here remember the days where we had champions like Sampras, Agassi, McEnroe, Chang, Connors, et al. I have heard many different contributions to the discussion as to why we are struggling so much, but the two big things that stand out to me: athlete engagement and style of play.

Athlete engagement is a huge piece to the whole equation. One argument is that if our best athletes played the sport, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Sure, if LeBron James happened to be working on his serve instead of his jumper, maybe he'd be number one in the world right now. I don't so much concur simply because freakish athleticism isn't commonplace at the LeBron James level on the tour from any country, and it historically hasn't been. There is a great lack of engagement in the sport as a whole, though. There are several factors that contribute to this, and I think that media presence, rather, lack thereof, is high on that list. Today we live in a high speed age with internet streaming and thousand of channels, but it comes at a cost. For hardcore fans, it has enabled access to more tennis than ever possible in the past, but it has cut out a large number of the more casual viewers. You go from a large number of people having a little access on common channels to fewer people have a ton more access because the average viewer isn't going to spend extra money for the tennis channel. And, of course, big television companies and cable providers want to milk every penny they can, so you see more and more coverage on the tennis channel and less and less everywhere else. Tennis flat out gets bumped from ESPN programming for just about anything, too: fishing, NASCAR, talk shows, college cheerleading, spelling bees, poker, you name it, it's televised instead of tennis. Certainly visibility is not what it once was.

Along the lines of the technology we have available, kids have more things to occupy their time with aside from sports. Growing up today in a country with a great deal of disposable income, kids have their handheld games, computers, video games, etc. That's not to say children don't still enjoy sports, but there's not quite the same need for it as before. Due to the prevalence of the football and basketball video games, too, there's perhaps more gravitation to those sports than tennis than before as well. You certainly cannot say the same about tennis video games. I don't think this point can be understated. In a prior post I mentioned how playing Madden 2000 was what got me into football. Personal anecdote aside, though, I don't think it is too much of a stretch to assert that technology does play a big role.

Style of play is pretty important as well. The game is now pretty well dominated by baseliners, particularly balanced baselines that have the ability to play defensive tennis. That is not to say that Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray or Roger Federer don't have brilliant offensive games, but all four of them have been able to keep themselves afloat in matches playing defense when their offensive games are not clicking. These men are tremendously fit and well suited for long rallies where consistency is key. Surfaces have become more homogenized in the past several years as well. Wimbledon plays much more slowly than it did in the 90s, and hard courts have slowed a little bit as well. Indoor carpet has vanished and replaced with indoor hard courts, which granted are still fast, but they don't have the same bounce. String and racquet technology is suited towards more spin and higher margin shots, and it really makes passing shots so much easier, preventing net players from being more prevalent like they used to be. All things considered, the style of play is less conducive towards aggressive play than it has been for some time, and the American strategy on court has more or less been to bash serves and forehands and play aggressively. Sure, a guy can get hot and go on a run, but it doesn't bode well over the course of a season, and it's certainly been the case in the results that the steady, more defensive players like David Ferrer have been able to excel with great consistency as opposed to more offensive players with less of a physical style, like Richard Gasquet, for example. It takes some time to adjust training strategy and player development to cycle its way through the game, so it stands to reason that it may been some time before you really see a change in tactics by US players.

Of course, we have to give credit where credit is due; other countries have had players working their tails off, and the game is deeper than ever before with more countries becoming more and more prevalent in the sport. I give these people all the credit in the world. It still does not take away from the decline of US tennis due to our own circumstances. I don't know what, if anything the USTA can do to reverse the trend. Certainly they are trying some things to increase engagement, and I believe they are working, but other countries don't have to try these gimmicks to drum up interests, and I feel the gap will continue to widen between other countries and the USA. There's a danger of it becoming a self-fulfilling cycle - there are no major American men's players that youngsters want to grow up emulating, so fewer kids go out trying to be Pete Sampras. Hopefully we will start to see the trend reverse, and not for the US's sake, but for tennis's sake; there can never be too many dynamic players on the tour!

What are your thoughts on the US decline in tennis?

Sour Grapes at the Olympics

Ah, the Winter Olympics. It's a time of year where millions of people become obsessed with sports they didn't follow at all the prior four years. Make no mistake about it: I am one of those people and couldn't be happier to come down with Olympic fever. When you couple the dedication and athleticism of these people with compelling personal stories, you have all the makings of what I, and so many others, consider good entertainment. From the USA's perspective, there have been some great achievements, from Nicole Pikus Pace coming out of retirement following a miscarriage and putting together an inspired skeleton run to take home a silver medal, to Bode Miller's emotion fueled Olympics, to so many others, we don't lack for human interest stories. As with any Olympic games, there is also no shortage of drama and controversy, as is seemingly inevitable, especially in some of these sports. I want to preface this by saying athletes are entitled to vocalize whatever they'd like, and sometimes candor is appreciated in a sport where giving safe, by the book answers are norm. There's also the fact that in the USA, we cover USA athletes more than those of other countries, so what the athletes say here might not be materially different than other countries. Nevertheless, I can't help but feel the USA comes out with egg on its face because more and more athletes are not handling losing with the grace we tend to expect and appreciate of world class athletes.

The poster child for this, for me, is Shani Davis. Davis perhaps has earned the right to say whatever he likes; he is a record setting athlete in his sport and clearly will go down as one of the greatest speedskaters we've seen. That said, following the 1500 meter event I was disappointed that the suit issue was still to blame. This event was skated with their old suits, not the newer, perhaps poorly designed suits that were thought to create drag on the skaters. His comment was that the damage had already been done. That's right, merely putting on those bad suits ensured that even when switching back to the old suits, they still couldn't win. I get that the USA has a strong team, and that there was some mental anguish associated with these suits, but you look pretty immature to put up yet another dud of a race without the suits that had been blamed and still say it wasn't your fault. Davis had not made the podium at several other low altitude events with the old suits leading up to the Olympics either. He is clearly a better high altitude skater, and to blame the suits seems like a cop out. We can generally respect a disappointing showing if it is handled with grace, credit is given to the opponent, and you move forward with the results being a lesson for the future. Davis opted to make excuses, even if they have some degree of truth to them (although I think his case is weak), now the whole team sort of has that "guilt by association", despite the fact not all the skaters blamed the suits.

Moving onto figure skating, this one is different from the case of Davis. I can easily argue both sides of the Ashley Wagner discussion, and I might lean more to her defense, personally. Here's the thing: everything she said is true. Figure skating is probably the most corrupt sport in the Olympics, as it seems there is always conspiracy, rigging of results, etc. There's an immensely flawed scoring system, and it's not intuitive. To the average viewer, they can, for the most part, figure out watching any of the halfpipe events who scored well or not. If an athlete crashes, their score is basically a throw out. Granted, figure skating is different in that you have one run, so it isn't appropriate to instantly throw someone in last for a mistake, all but requiring a nearly flawless run for a good score, but the system basically says "give yourself the hardest program possible, even if you cannot execute it because it's better to fall on a hard trick than land an easier one". It makes for bad television; the men's program was awful, as you just saw fall after fall. Everything Wagner said is absolutely true. Unfortunately for her, she is a lightning rod of sorts in the media. Her selection to the Olympics was thrown under fire due to her one poor showing (these people are now saying who is she to criticize people who fall when she wasn't penalized for it, ignoring the fact that she was selected for her body of work, not because her falls were overlooked), and she's become an internet meme sensation due to her expressiveness on the ice. Wagner wears her heart on her sleeve, no doubt. In so many ways I find it refreshing, and it is bold for her to put herself out there. She's good natured about it, too, creating a Valentine's Day card of her own making light of one of her faces people have been posting about. I just wonder if now was the time for her to say something. I think what might have been a better PR move for her is to let the public make the criticism (which they have, in light of the backlash that Sotnikova was seen hugging one of the judges not long after her Olympic gold). Yuna Kim, in contrast to Wagner, took the high road and said her job is not to judge, so she had no comment. I can't help but think that type of deflection would help Wagner more than her very vocal stance, which certainly brings her more scorn from the international community, and even here in the US. "Just another whiny, entitled American".

Ted Ligety, in my mind, falls somewhere between Davis and Wagner. He criticized the slalom course setup as "borderline unsportsmanlike". Now, the results support his assessment; nearly half of all participants could not complete the course. Think about that. Thirty-four of the absolute best in the sport could not complete this course. That is absurd and does highlight that the course was... unique, to say the least. Ligety is spot on with his assessment that it rewards playing it safe and merely not crashing rather than highlighting some more of the dynamic runs these guys are capable of putting up. Ligety is not the the only critic of the course, either. That said, who said the intent of the sport is to make courses play into the strengths of any one type of skier? They all ski the same course; it is not like figure skating where the outcome is largely subjective. Everyone gets a similar chance (not same because the conditions of the course change over time after people ski), and it is up to the athlete to execute. Further, his criticism appears to be more whiny than constructive because he did not earn a medal in any event. He performed worse than his peers irrespective of individual setting the course for an event, so it does certainly come off as more of an excuse than anything. His contention may indeed have merit, but again, this is a situation where he was better served to let others do the talking. Somehow I doubt he would have been critical of the course had he made his way onto the podium.

It is unfortunate for the US as a country to have us framed in a negative light. It further perpetuates the stereotype (perhaps a true one to some extent) of American entitlement. Maybe our athletes don't care. Maybe our athletes just are more candid and vocal. But in the global eye, I feel a bit disappointed that our athletes couldn't act with a little more restraint and exhibit more textbook sportsmanship. Personally, I value sportsmanship in any sport, but to me it is particularly important in individual sports, and athletes need to hold themselves to a slightly higher standard. Maybe it just comes as a little bit of a shock to me as a person who follows tennis, a sport where the level of sportsmanship is considerably higher than many other sports. In the end, what has been said cannot be unsaid, and perhaps US athletes can try to be a little more mindful of the manner in which they communicate or elect not to communicate their opinions on matters.

First Non-Introductory Post

In life, the only things that are certain are death and taxes. Well, a third that isn't too much of a stretch is that there is plenty of news (or things that are turned into news) in the arena of sports. There are no shortage of topics to weigh in on: any of the numerous Sochi Olympics storylines, Michael Sam coming out and projecting to be the first openly gay player in the NFL, the Jon Martin bullying case, and so many more. My choice, though, will make sense in light of my first post in this section. I want to write about Derek Jeter's announcement to call it a career following the conclusion of the 2014 season.

Jeter has been as much a fixture in my life as just about anyone and anything else. For 19 years there were few things I knew for certain. I basically knew my parents were there for me no matter what, and I knew that Derek Jeter would be standing between second and third base when the Yankees took the field. I was six years old when he made his major league debut, seven when I first saw him in Spring Training, and eight when he helped lead the Yankees to the first of four World Series titles in a five year span. While Tino Martinez was originally my favorite Yankee, due in part to his batting stance and in part to the fact that Gonna Fly Now, the theme from Rocky, was the music he selected to play as he came to bat, over the years that shifted to Jeter as other players came and went. Jeter was not a perfect player, but there are so many things that made him special, particularly in this day and age.

First, you have his on field performance. The numbers, by and large, speak for themselves. Yes, to some extent they are a reflection of his longevity; he has compiled a lot of impressive stats because he has played so many seasons. These stats are not solely a reflection of tenure, though. Make no mistake about it: he has been a great player over the last 19 years. Offensively he piled up the hits and got on base like few others could, and in his prime he had a very underrated opposite field power. He could and did steal bases, took walks, and could do anything you needed him to. Bunt, hit and run, drive a double into the gap, you name it, he could do it. Defensively I think his actual performance exists somewhere in the middle of "Gold Glove" and "atrocious according to sabermetrics". Sabermetrics still have a bit of subjectivity on the defensive side, and while there's no denying Jeter didn't have the best range, I still will point out the flaws in UZR as they have massive fluctuations from year to year, and they also have dependencies on other factors that are not contemplated in the statistic. Depending on the point of his career, I would say that Jeter occupied the above average to below average classification with a propensity to make all of the routine plays, fewer of the higher caliber plays, but always managed to fit an absolutely spectacular play in there somehow. The 2001 miracle flip in the ALDS to possibly save their season against Oakland is the first to come to mind.

Much was made about comparing him to other shortstops of his time, and some argued there was never a single season where he was the best shortstop in the league. That might be true, but there are multiple factors to take into consideration. First off, it is impressive that part of the reason for this is that Jeter spans two generations of big league shortstops. He was one of the best in the game during the renowned Jeter/Nomar/A-Rod/Tejada debate, and he was one of the best in the game when the next generation of Tulowitzki/Ramirez/Andrus players came along. His prime was in the first of those two groupings, and instantly what stands out is to performance enhancing drug issue. A-Rod is as authentic as a Ken doll, Miguel Tejada had been caught using PEDs, and while Garciaparra never has been caught, some believe he was a user, hence his body breaking down and his rapid decline at a relatively young age. I won't make that assumption, but I do know that his statistics were heavily influenced by Fenway Park, as is the case for nearly all right handed hitters. His home/road splits over the time period varied dramatically over the time period, whereas the same cannot be said for Jeter as a Yankee. The fact that Jeter's numbers were what they were, independent of where he played, without (presumably) the aid of performance enhancing drugs, all while exhibiting a propensity to stay on the field (he had a freak injury or two prior to the last few years, but he would never be considered injury prone like Garciaparra), you can probably paint his statistics in the most favorable light of the bunch.

When talking about "greatness", there is usually some qualities beyond pure numbers that factor into the discussion, too. This is an area where Jeter stands out to me. First and foremost, the coolest thing as a fan is to grow up with a player, and in the free agency age, that is very rare. Seldom will you find a player spend his entire career with a single team. Historically this was not always the case due to the lack of free agency in the past, but what is historically rare is the length of the tenure with one team. Jeter will become only the 18th player in MLB history to spend his entire career with one team with a tenure of 20 years or more. That is an impressive feat no matter how you look at it, but one that true baseball fans will appreciate. That he did it on the biggest stage in New York is just icing on the cake. That segues nicely into another intangible; the guy kept his nose clean. It's pretty well documented that Jeter has dated numerous models over the years, but he always managed to stay out of the limelight off the field. He never got in trouble, he never did anything stupid or put his selfish desires in his personal life ahead of his profession. There was one isolated incident where he went out on the town for his birthday, missed curfew, and the late George Steinbrenner, true to form, called him out on it in the papers. How was the situation handled? The two starred in a Mastercard commercial making light of the incident. You don't spend 20 years in New York with as clean of a record as Jeter in this day and age, yet somehow he did it. Perhaps the "he played the game the right way" talk is overblown, but in a time where so few athletes really make good role models, wouldn't you want your kid to emulate Jeter ahead of so many other athletes of today? In a way, he doesn't just represent the Yankees, he represents America's pastime, the part of the game that a father shared with a son, and a time when a family could go to a game without spending half a paycheck to do it. He reminds us of the perfect, romanticized view of baseball in a day and age where headlines are dominated by steroid use and other controversy.

With Jeter's impending exit, so goes the last of the Yankees' "Core Four" that comprised such a significant component of their turn of the century dynasty. He's the final cog to leave, it it was close that era of Yankee history completely. While his ability is diminished, the loss of his presence and his legacy is still a significant occurrence not just for the Yankee organization, but for baseball in general. It is unclear who is next in line for the shortstop position for the Yankees in 2015, but one thing is for certain: he has some mighty big cleats to fill.

Sports Sentiment

If you are to look at all of my talents and interests, it's pretty clear that my mind is my greatest asset, the creative arts have won my greatest admiration and esteem, but sports will always be my first love. Baseball was the favorite sport of my youth. It seems like half my childhood was spent in my backyard, throwing up a whiffle ball or a tee ball and hitting it, pretending I was a major league baseball player. I was a Yankee through and through; I listened to to their games on the radio every night on AM 620 or AM 1010 (AM 620 later changed to AM 820). Anyone who questions why I am a Yankee fan despite not growing up in New York (we didn't have a home team when I was a kid, and my dad was from New York), I challenge them to tell me knowing the radio stations you listened to a baseball team on is the behavior of a bandwagon fan. I grew up with the "Core Four", I got to see my favorite players in Spring Training, and I experienced the magic of playoff baseball in the prime of my youth.

Apart from baseball, I was fond of sports in general. I shot a basketball every day at recess with a friend in the first grade. When I changed schools, recess was held out on a soccer field, so soccer was the sport I played for four years of recess. Ages ten and eleven saw me loving basketball, shooting a pretty arc over the telephone line in the driveway for a corner three over and over and over. Age twelve saw my interest turn to football, as the cerebral elements of the game appealed to me. There is a cerebral element to any sport, but football was a game that I got into playing the Madden football video game series. It combined sport with strategy; any other sport to that point I saw as "you just play it", but Madden had you selecting a play from a playbook for each snap. It combined athleticism with intellect, strategy for jocks, if you will. That's what really got me hooked, and it probably occupied the role of favorite sport role for a good five years or so. I played volleyball in 8th grade, but around this time I started to really have problems with the tumor in my foot, and the constant inflammation it caused made it difficult to play sports at the level I wanted. This prompted me to try golf, which ultimately proved to be too expensive to sustain.

One sport is conspicuously absent to this point: tennis. This highlights a bit of a theme in my life. My hobbies and interests deviate dramatically from my upbringing and youth influences. Much like photography, and music, tennis was nowhere to be found as something I was introduced to. My first tennis memory was watching the French Open final between Guillermo Coria and Gaston Gaudio. I don't really recall being that engaged in it, but it was entertaining enough for me to watch. It wasn't until a year later, though, that someone turned it from something to watch on TV to something that captivated me. That someone was Roger Federer. Tennis no longer seemed like glorified Pong to me; Federer took the sport and turned it into art. I didn't understand everything that was going on at the time, but I just knew it was beautiful. Tennis also seemed like a good sport to play. I thought it would be cheap (wrong), and it was something you only needed one other player to play rather than rounding up a group of people to play. For my 17th birthday, a friend of mine bought me a tennis racquet, and the rest is history. To quote my primary tennis buddy over the years, "if I didn't know you, I'd think you were really good at tennis". I look the part, I talk the part, and I simply just don't play the part. That's fine, though, as at the end of the day, it's a sport I received no training in and did not take up until I was 17. Nothing to be ashamed of there.

There are times where I wonder if I had not grown up with sports if I'd be better with my other hobbies, that I'd be happier and have fewer things to try and juggle in my life, and that more concentrated focus would lead me to be a better and more accomplished person in photography (or something else, I suppose). Wondering what could have been, though, ultimately accomplishes nothing. I cannot deny what has been such an integral part of my life regardless, but to think back over the years and recall all of the memories, I feel that hypothesizing is meritless. I understand not everyone likes sports, but it does hold such a profound power that captivates the masses. Aside from the inherent beauty of tempering the body and mind to achieve a physical pinnacle, team sports take such a profound unifying role in society. Irrespective of the salaries professional athletes make or the egos some may have, there are few other outlets that bring people together like sport. A single event brings complete strangers together and makes them brothers and sisters for a few hours. In trying times, a sporting event has proved time and time again to be a source of strength and inspiration for people to band together and persevere. Be it imagery of former President Bush throwing out the first pitch at a Yankee game several days after the 9/11 attacks, to images of children playing basketball among the debris and wreckage following a typhoon in the Philippines, there are countless instances of sports being the catalyst to recovery for so many people around the globe. I cannot imagine life absent this presence of emotion, and I think that is primarily what I hope to channel in this section of the blog.