Looking back through the decade, from Y2K through 2005 and into the latter portion of 2009, there have been many great teams that have dominated the sporting world. Some stand out for that one perfect, triumphant season. While others show ultimate dominance - a decade worth of consistency.
To crack a list of "top 5 best teams", one must meet certain criteria. Most importantly, a championship trophy/ring/banner shall of been hoisted in some fashion during the decade. Multiples are even better. Secondly, there should be a clear pattern of consistent success every year. Consistency within an organization's management team down through the coaching staff and on to the field of play. These are the characteristics that generally make up successful franchises.
With these points in mind, here are my top five professional sports franchises for the decade that just was ...counting down ...
5. Indianapolis Colts - no team in the history of the National Football League has won more games (115) in a 10 year span than the Colts. They feature, some would argue, the games best quarterback who may someday break every passing record known to man. The Colts are the epitome of consistency - winning at least 12 games every year for the past seven and winning their division every year except 2008. Several years they have flirted with a perfect season, most recently 2009. To secure their place on this list, the Colts needed a Super Bowl title. In 2006, they got just that - beating the Chicago Bears.
4. New York Yankees - you want consistency? It's downright scary how consistent the team from the Bronx has been this decade. They won the American League's Eastern division in 8 of the 10 years, while making the playoffs every year except 2008. The Yankees have made 4 World Series, winning 2 of them - most recently in 2009 when they defeated the Philadelphia Phillies. They were a few outs away from winning their 3rd in 2001, but lost to the Arizona Diamondbacks in heart breaking fashion. In 10 years, New York has compiled a .597 winning percentage - winning almost 1000 games during the span.
3. Los Angeles Lakers - despite 2 lean years in the middle of the decade, the Lakers still added three more championships to their trophy case, positioning them right behind the Boston Celtics for most in NBA history. Over the 10 years, the Lakers have averaged over 50 wins per year (that includes a year when they won 34 games). The Lakers are always in the middle of a best team of the decade discussion. They were led by Shaquille O'Neill during the earlier years, and now by Kobe Bryant who most recently in 2008-2009 led the Lakers to their 15th title.
2. New England Patriots - the quintissential definition of consistency. During the last 10 years, the Patriots have won 113 games, 7 AFC East titles and 3 super bowl championships. A fourth title was within their grasp in 2007, however 1 Eli Manning prayer pass completion to David Tyree's helmet later the Pats had lost. In the same season, the Patriots set multiple records. Featured among the list included a perfect 16-0 regular season, 50 touchdown passes by Tom Brady, 23 touchdown receptions by Randy Moss, and the highest single season point total. Many would argue that the Patriots are led by the games best quarterback and head coach. Both of which are guaranteed Hall of Famers someday.
1. San Antonio Spurs - they are the New England Patriots of the NBA. All the Spurs have done this decade is win, including 3 championships over a 5 year span from 2003 to 2007. They have averaged a mind boggling 58 wins per season and feature a 2-time league MVP, Tim Duncan. However, some would argue they are boring - they feature a bunch of guys who epitomize the team aspect. In a league full of chest bumping, self-promoting dominant superstars looking for their next highlight on ESPN, the Spurs throw out selfless, team players such as Manu Ginobli and Tony Parker. Together, the San Antonio Spurs have dominated the NBA on a consistent basis unlike any other team in professional sports.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Monday, December 28, 2009
Indianapolis Colts = Loser Mentality
You want to know why the Colts, although winning more games than anyone in the NFL over a 10 year span (115), have only won 1 Super Bowl during this time frame? Look no further than what just happened at Lucas Oil Stadium against the New York Jets. With a perfect season staring them square in the face, the Indianapolis Colts decide to mail it in. With a cushy 15-10 lead in the 3rd quarter, out comes Peyton Manning, Reggie Wayne and the rest of the Colts regulars. WITH A PERFECT SEASON IN REACH, THEY TAKE OUT THEIR BEST PLAYERS? FOR EXTRA REST? PLEASE!
Only 1 team in the history of the NFL has ever gone an entire season undefeated - the 1972 Miami Dolphins still stand the test of time. They went a perfect 17-0. Of course, that record almost fell in 2007 when the New England Patriots fell 2+ minutes short of 19-0. Add the Colts to the long list of teams who came close, but in the end fell short for various reasons.
In the case of the 2009 Colts, new head coach Jim Caldwell decided to put the "bigger picture" before all else. He thought it best, in the long term, for his players to receive the rest they need and he thought they deserved. Never mind the fact the Colts have wrapped up home field advantage and a first round bye. That's right - a bye week. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't coaches typically rest up guys during a bye week? I don't understand. The only "bigger picture" being painted in Indianapolis is "Welcome to Loserville".
I don't care what some of the so called experts say (perhaps they are Peyton loyalists), sitting out the Jets game showcased an utter loser mentality. Haven't the Colts learned their lesson? In two previous seasons, when they were faced with similar decisions (play or sit?), they decided to sit their guys. In the end, it came back to bite them in the form of a 1st round playoff loss and another wasted season.
With so much to play for - NFL history, personal pride and accomplishment, and the respect of your players - Jim Caldwell, head coach of the Indianapolis Colts, took the loser approach. With one of the greatest quarterbacks in the prime of his career, why continue to waste successful seasons? Take a page out of the 2007 Patriots playbook - play for history and go for it all. You never know how many chances you'll have.
Only 1 team in the history of the NFL has ever gone an entire season undefeated - the 1972 Miami Dolphins still stand the test of time. They went a perfect 17-0. Of course, that record almost fell in 2007 when the New England Patriots fell 2+ minutes short of 19-0. Add the Colts to the long list of teams who came close, but in the end fell short for various reasons.
In the case of the 2009 Colts, new head coach Jim Caldwell decided to put the "bigger picture" before all else. He thought it best, in the long term, for his players to receive the rest they need and he thought they deserved. Never mind the fact the Colts have wrapped up home field advantage and a first round bye. That's right - a bye week. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't coaches typically rest up guys during a bye week? I don't understand. The only "bigger picture" being painted in Indianapolis is "Welcome to Loserville".
I don't care what some of the so called experts say (perhaps they are Peyton loyalists), sitting out the Jets game showcased an utter loser mentality. Haven't the Colts learned their lesson? In two previous seasons, when they were faced with similar decisions (play or sit?), they decided to sit their guys. In the end, it came back to bite them in the form of a 1st round playoff loss and another wasted season.
With so much to play for - NFL history, personal pride and accomplishment, and the respect of your players - Jim Caldwell, head coach of the Indianapolis Colts, took the loser approach. With one of the greatest quarterbacks in the prime of his career, why continue to waste successful seasons? Take a page out of the 2007 Patriots playbook - play for history and go for it all. You never know how many chances you'll have.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
What about Jason Bay?
Am I missing something? Why are the Boston Red Sox against signing Jason Bay? What does the man have to do to get some love? Since coming over from the Pittsburgh Pirates in the Manny Ramirez trading deadline deal back in 2008, he has been a steady force for the Red Sox. In his year and a half in Boston, Bay hit 45 home runs, drove in over 150 runs and scored more than 125 runs in approx 200 games.
In 2009, Jason Bay was only 1 of 19 major league ball players who hit at least 30 home runs and drove in over 100 runs and he was only 1 of 9 players who also scored more than 100 runs. That is elite company. Yet the Sox do not value him. In turn the Sox have, what appears to be, turned over the left field duty to 36 year old Mike Cameron - a great defensive outfielder, but let's face it, he's not Jason Bay at the plate. He's been a bit of a rally killer the past few years - striking out way to much for a guy with his speed.
I am puzzled at the lack of apparent interest in Bay and the decision to move on with Cameron and a bit of Jeremy Hermida on the side. The Sox came into the offseason clearly with a need to upgrade their offense. Priority number 1 was to resign Bay and then add a power hitter on top of him. Now they appear to have closed the door on Bay. Bay produced in the year and a half he was here and it was clear to a lot of Red Sox nation that he was capable of putting up his averages (30 HRs, 100 RBIs, 100 runs scored) over the next 4+ years. He would have solidified left field and the middle of the lineup. The Sox did not want to go there.
Maybe there is more to come (Adrian Gonzalez?) and the Cameron signing will make more sense. But as of now, I'm confused. I wish the Red Sox had signed Jason Bay for 2010 and beyond. Maybe they still will ...
In 2009, Jason Bay was only 1 of 19 major league ball players who hit at least 30 home runs and drove in over 100 runs and he was only 1 of 9 players who also scored more than 100 runs. That is elite company. Yet the Sox do not value him. In turn the Sox have, what appears to be, turned over the left field duty to 36 year old Mike Cameron - a great defensive outfielder, but let's face it, he's not Jason Bay at the plate. He's been a bit of a rally killer the past few years - striking out way to much for a guy with his speed.
I am puzzled at the lack of apparent interest in Bay and the decision to move on with Cameron and a bit of Jeremy Hermida on the side. The Sox came into the offseason clearly with a need to upgrade their offense. Priority number 1 was to resign Bay and then add a power hitter on top of him. Now they appear to have closed the door on Bay. Bay produced in the year and a half he was here and it was clear to a lot of Red Sox nation that he was capable of putting up his averages (30 HRs, 100 RBIs, 100 runs scored) over the next 4+ years. He would have solidified left field and the middle of the lineup. The Sox did not want to go there.
Maybe there is more to come (Adrian Gonzalez?) and the Cameron signing will make more sense. But as of now, I'm confused. I wish the Red Sox had signed Jason Bay for 2010 and beyond. Maybe they still will ...
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Patriots are at a cross road ...
It's December 13th and the Patriots find themselves at 7-5 and at a pivotal point in their season. They can go either way -- continue going south or right the ship and kick in a typical Patriot playoff push. This past week has not been an easy one. Four prominent players were late for an 8am team meeting - Adalius Thomas, Randy Moss, Gary Guyton, and Derrick Burgess - and immediately sent home by Bill Belichick. Was it a move to flex his power and prove a point or was it simply 4 players (out of 61) who were not willing to put in the extra time and effort as Belichick demanded to begin the week?
Regardless of the answer, the Patriot dynasty and reign of dominance is teetering on a cliff right now. They are 1-5 on the road, with their only win coming in London against the lowly Tampa Bay Bucs. Essentially they have yet to win on the road, whereas you compare that to their 3 super bowl teams road records ... 5-3, 6-2, and 6-2. The ability to win on the road in a hostile environment, especially during the playoffs is not only paramount, but it has been a Patriot staple since Belichick took over in 2000.
Something is not right at the moment with the Patriots. Off field issues with Adalius Thomas appeared to come to an ugly head this week. He publically mocked and riduculed Belichick's decision to send him home. If you are going to critize Bill in public to the media, you may as well pack your bags. For Adalius, his suitcase zipper appears to be closing quickly. He is inactive for today's key game against the Carolina Panthers - meaning he'll be a spectator like the rest of us. I would be shocked if he makes it to January, despite the monster contract he signed. It's safe to say, Adalius Thomas has been a bust. He was clearly a product of the players (Ray Lewis, Ed Reed, et al) and system of the Baltimore Ravens.
On the field, the Pats are all over the map. Problems with their secondary has been well documented - from their age to the poor performances. It's not humane, however, to expect a defensive back to closely guard an NFL receiver for the amount of time the Pats are allowing. Their is zero pass rush. QB stallworths like Chad Henne are able to stand in the packet and survey the field. Eventually a receiver will get open. When your best pass rusher is Tully Banta-Cain ...Houston, Err New England, we have a problem. Derrick Burgess? Hello?
On the flip side, the Patriots offense has become as predictable as it is boring. Needless to say, the days of Charlie Weis and Josh McDaniels clearly are no longer. Remember when 7 or 8 different Patriots would catch balls? Remember when the Patriots took what a defense gave them? Remember throwing the ball to the tight end? Look, they have 2 dynamic receivers in Moss and Welker, but clearly they miss that 3rd option. Jabar Gaffney was a perfect outlet for Brady. They thought they had that replacement when they signed Joey Galloway. Oops. Now, apparently it's Sam Aiken. Why every defensive coordinator does not simply take Randy out of the game is beyond me. When Moss is limited in production, the Patriots offense struggles. Or perhaps the key is to double Wes and try to make a clearly uninterested Randy Moss beat you. Did you ever think that day would come?
With all of their issues, I still believe the Patriots can make a run. However, it must start against Carolina. At 4pm today, we'll know for sure if the off field problems will be too much to handle. Perhaps they can't overcome the losses of key veterans such as Rodney Harrison, Richard Seymour, Tedy Bruschi and Mike Vrabel. Or perhaps they just aren't as good this year. We'll know for sure at 4pm.
Regardless of the answer, the Patriot dynasty and reign of dominance is teetering on a cliff right now. They are 1-5 on the road, with their only win coming in London against the lowly Tampa Bay Bucs. Essentially they have yet to win on the road, whereas you compare that to their 3 super bowl teams road records ... 5-3, 6-2, and 6-2. The ability to win on the road in a hostile environment, especially during the playoffs is not only paramount, but it has been a Patriot staple since Belichick took over in 2000.
Something is not right at the moment with the Patriots. Off field issues with Adalius Thomas appeared to come to an ugly head this week. He publically mocked and riduculed Belichick's decision to send him home. If you are going to critize Bill in public to the media, you may as well pack your bags. For Adalius, his suitcase zipper appears to be closing quickly. He is inactive for today's key game against the Carolina Panthers - meaning he'll be a spectator like the rest of us. I would be shocked if he makes it to January, despite the monster contract he signed. It's safe to say, Adalius Thomas has been a bust. He was clearly a product of the players (Ray Lewis, Ed Reed, et al) and system of the Baltimore Ravens.
On the field, the Pats are all over the map. Problems with their secondary has been well documented - from their age to the poor performances. It's not humane, however, to expect a defensive back to closely guard an NFL receiver for the amount of time the Pats are allowing. Their is zero pass rush. QB stallworths like Chad Henne are able to stand in the packet and survey the field. Eventually a receiver will get open. When your best pass rusher is Tully Banta-Cain ...Houston, Err New England, we have a problem. Derrick Burgess? Hello?
On the flip side, the Patriots offense has become as predictable as it is boring. Needless to say, the days of Charlie Weis and Josh McDaniels clearly are no longer. Remember when 7 or 8 different Patriots would catch balls? Remember when the Patriots took what a defense gave them? Remember throwing the ball to the tight end? Look, they have 2 dynamic receivers in Moss and Welker, but clearly they miss that 3rd option. Jabar Gaffney was a perfect outlet for Brady. They thought they had that replacement when they signed Joey Galloway. Oops. Now, apparently it's Sam Aiken. Why every defensive coordinator does not simply take Randy out of the game is beyond me. When Moss is limited in production, the Patriots offense struggles. Or perhaps the key is to double Wes and try to make a clearly uninterested Randy Moss beat you. Did you ever think that day would come?
With all of their issues, I still believe the Patriots can make a run. However, it must start against Carolina. At 4pm today, we'll know for sure if the off field problems will be too much to handle. Perhaps they can't overcome the losses of key veterans such as Rodney Harrison, Richard Seymour, Tedy Bruschi and Mike Vrabel. Or perhaps they just aren't as good this year. We'll know for sure at 4pm.
Yankees add Curtis Granderson
The New York Yankees, fresh off their first World Series title since 2000, show why they may be the team to beat in 2010. As a Red Sox fan it pains me to say this, but the Yankees are becoming an franchise that is run with brains and not just a wallet. Gone are the days of George Steinbrenner doing anything and everything to win the World Series. Barren farm systems and mismatched major league rosters appeared to be the case during this most recent title drought.
Don't get me wrong, the Yankees can flex their financial prowess like the giant Godzilla they are. Case in point, last offseason the Yankees outspent the ENTIRE American League for free agents by a whopping $265 million. But again, they now spend wisely on guys who make sense for their ballclub.
This past week, at the winter meetings in Indianapolis, the Yankees finalized a 3-team deal involving the Arizona Diamondbacks and the Detroit Tigers. The end result was 28-year old, All-star center fielder Curtis Granderson. The kicker, from my perspective, is that they Yankees did not touch their major league base. In order to obtain Granderson, they dealt Austin Jackson, their top outfield prospect; Phil Coke, a left handed relief pitcher; and Ian Kennedy, a once promising starting pitcher who is coming back from injuries. All of their major chips - Joba Chamberlain, Phil Hughes, and Jesus Montero - are still in play should they wish to make another major move. Perhaps Roy Halladay?
Curtis Granderson will make the Yankees better, and frankly that's a bit scary. He hit 30 home runs at Comerica Park (not your typical hitter friendly ball park). It is not going over the top to assume he'll slug 40 at the launching pad known as new Yankee stadium. I'll add that only two other Yankee center fielders in their history have ever belted more than 35 home runs in a year -- Joe Dimaggio and Mickey Mantle. Yikes. Granderson brings alot to the table - he plays great defense, he is a tremendous base runner, and he's well liked in the clubhouse.
As a Red Sox fan, I am worried on two levels. First, the World Series champs (our biggest division rival) got even better. Second, on a larger scale, the Yankees appear to be matching the smarts with their George Costanza sized wallet. That's a scary, scary thought.
Don't get me wrong, the Yankees can flex their financial prowess like the giant Godzilla they are. Case in point, last offseason the Yankees outspent the ENTIRE American League for free agents by a whopping $265 million. But again, they now spend wisely on guys who make sense for their ballclub.
This past week, at the winter meetings in Indianapolis, the Yankees finalized a 3-team deal involving the Arizona Diamondbacks and the Detroit Tigers. The end result was 28-year old, All-star center fielder Curtis Granderson. The kicker, from my perspective, is that they Yankees did not touch their major league base. In order to obtain Granderson, they dealt Austin Jackson, their top outfield prospect; Phil Coke, a left handed relief pitcher; and Ian Kennedy, a once promising starting pitcher who is coming back from injuries. All of their major chips - Joba Chamberlain, Phil Hughes, and Jesus Montero - are still in play should they wish to make another major move. Perhaps Roy Halladay?
Curtis Granderson will make the Yankees better, and frankly that's a bit scary. He hit 30 home runs at Comerica Park (not your typical hitter friendly ball park). It is not going over the top to assume he'll slug 40 at the launching pad known as new Yankee stadium. I'll add that only two other Yankee center fielders in their history have ever belted more than 35 home runs in a year -- Joe Dimaggio and Mickey Mantle. Yikes. Granderson brings alot to the table - he plays great defense, he is a tremendous base runner, and he's well liked in the clubhouse.
As a Red Sox fan, I am worried on two levels. First, the World Series champs (our biggest division rival) got even better. Second, on a larger scale, the Yankees appear to be matching the smarts with their George Costanza sized wallet. That's a scary, scary thought.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Red Sox sign SS Marco Scutaro
Another year, another shortstop. Ever since July of 2004 when Theo Epstein dealt away Nomar Garciaparra, the Red Sox have essentially had a revolving door at shortstop. We have seen the likes of Pokey Reese, Orlando Cabrera, Edgar Renteria, Alex Gonzalez, Julio Lugo, Jed Lowrie and Nick Green come and go and not one has been able to stick. Lowrie is still around, but he has yet to prove he is both durable and dependable enough for an entire season. So Theo took another shot to hopefully end the revolving door for the next two or three years ...at least until their star shortstop prospect, 19-year old Jose Inglesias, is ready.
Enter Marco Scutaro. The 34-year old ex-Toronto Blue Jay and Oakland Athletic brings his game to Fenway in 2010. He is coming off a career year in 2009 where he batted .284 with 12 home runs and 60 RBIs along with career highs in on-base percentage (.379) and slugging percentage (.409). He is considered an above-average fielder, so his bat brings more value than does his glove.
I'm somewhat neutral on this signing - leaning a bit more towards the positive side of the spectrum. Scutaro has only been an everyday player the past 2 seasons, prior to which his career was primarily as a utility player for both the A's and Blue Jays. However, perhaps his case is one of late bloomer. I do believe he has the chance to very productive at Fenway. He has tremendous plate discipline and is able to hit the ball to all fields with a bit of pop at times. No doubt Theo fell in love with his plate discipline, as that's an almost prerequisite to get paid with the Sox. Take pitches at a high rate, make pitchers work, and you may have a job with the local 9.
You'll most likely see Terry Francona insert him near the bottom of the lineup - perhaps 8th or 9th. In Toronto, he was their leadoff guy, so the pressure to get on base was extreme. To me, this makes his year last year that much more impressive. I am confident in two things related to the Scutaro signing -- #1 he should make us all forget previous shortstop signings (see Julio Lugo and Edgar Renteria) and #2 he should be a perfect bridge to the future of Jose Inglesias.
Let's hope Theo finally has a shortstop signing he can call a success. Based on the fact Marco took less money to come here and win a championship bodes well for all parties included. Now if only Marco can make it past year one of his contract ...
Enter Marco Scutaro. The 34-year old ex-Toronto Blue Jay and Oakland Athletic brings his game to Fenway in 2010. He is coming off a career year in 2009 where he batted .284 with 12 home runs and 60 RBIs along with career highs in on-base percentage (.379) and slugging percentage (.409). He is considered an above-average fielder, so his bat brings more value than does his glove.
I'm somewhat neutral on this signing - leaning a bit more towards the positive side of the spectrum. Scutaro has only been an everyday player the past 2 seasons, prior to which his career was primarily as a utility player for both the A's and Blue Jays. However, perhaps his case is one of late bloomer. I do believe he has the chance to very productive at Fenway. He has tremendous plate discipline and is able to hit the ball to all fields with a bit of pop at times. No doubt Theo fell in love with his plate discipline, as that's an almost prerequisite to get paid with the Sox. Take pitches at a high rate, make pitchers work, and you may have a job with the local 9.
You'll most likely see Terry Francona insert him near the bottom of the lineup - perhaps 8th or 9th. In Toronto, he was their leadoff guy, so the pressure to get on base was extreme. To me, this makes his year last year that much more impressive. I am confident in two things related to the Scutaro signing -- #1 he should make us all forget previous shortstop signings (see Julio Lugo and Edgar Renteria) and #2 he should be a perfect bridge to the future of Jose Inglesias.
Let's hope Theo finally has a shortstop signing he can call a success. Based on the fact Marco took less money to come here and win a championship bodes well for all parties included. Now if only Marco can make it past year one of his contract ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)