By Phil Soon, 2L

In one form or another, instant replay technology has become commonplace in almost every American professional sports league. College basketball and the NBA have replay systems to determine whether a player gets off a shot before time expires; the NFL and college football have systems to review fumbles, completions, and ball spots; and professional tennis uses replay to determine if a ball lands in or out of bounds. In 2008, Major League Baseball finally implemented an instant replay system, becoming the last major American sport to adopt replay while generating a great deal of debate among fans over its scope and role.

Given the prevalence of video replay throughout professional sports, the availability of high-definition replay systems, and a number of potential benefits, wouldn’t expanding replay in MLB be an easy decision? Any fan of Major League Baseball can recall an instance when a play that should’ve been called the other way stood, costing his or her team a game or series. Split-second plays, close tags, and foul balls test the limits of an umpire’s senses, and the sheer size of a baseball field guarantees that umpires will not always be in an ideal position to make a ruling on a rapidly unfolding play. Bad calls have the potential to affect games, division races, and especially the playoffs. Currently, instant replay is used to determine home run calls, whether a baseball actually leaves the playing field, and instances of spectator interference, and it has proven itself to be an invaluable tool. The system’s debut in the MLB playoffs helped decide Game 3 of the 2009 World Series, revealing that an apparent fourth-inning double by Alex Rodriguez was actually a two-run homer in an 8-5 Yankees win. High-definition cameras and digital technology allow multiple views of each play, leading some to demand that the league extend the scope of the current system to balls and strikes, outs, and base-running. None of these plays are covered under the current replay system, but many fans agree that an expanding the system would be in the best interest of the game.

While these factors certainly make it seem that baseball should follow the lead of the NBA, NFL, and others, baseball’s unique history and role in America complicates things. Many Americans consider baseball to be the country’s “pastime,” with an old-fashioned tradition and mystique rooted in the country’s collective consciousness. Baseball is a simple game, unchanged in many ways since the times of Cobb, Ruth, Gehrig, and countless others, and those who value baseball’s tradition have a deep aversion to any drastic changes. The league’s 2008 decision to adopt replay technology generated a great deal of debate, and the fact that MLB was the last major American sport to adopt instant replay is no minor coincidence. Baseball purists place great value on the traditional relationship between umpires and game play, and many believe that extending replay’s scope to additional aspects of the game would venture too far. In their eyes, expanding the system too far might cause unnecessary, disruptive delays in game play, upsetting the natural flow, momentum, and rhythm of the game and straying too far from baseball’s natural, simple traditions.

Instant replay has undeniably made a difference during its brief time in MLB, but as with so many things, there isn’t a clear, definitive answer to the debate over its scope. Baseball will always have its purists, technology will continue to advance, and public opinion will change. With high-definition TV becoming standard in American homes, increasingly sophisticated sports coverage, and the growing use of TiVo and home DVRs, missed calls and umpiring errors will come under increased public scrutiny, and pressure for expanding replay will likely increase. If properly implemented, an expanded replay system has the potential to help guide umpires’ decisions, ensuring that errors are corrected before they irrevocably affect a game, play, or series.

Major League Baseball should strike a balance, using replay to ensure that the right call is made at the right time while preserving the traditions that make the game so special. Instant replay has proven its value in the playoffs and regular season, and a well-defined system with clear limits would limit criticism and promote accessibility among casual fans. Instead of adopting a challenge system like football, the flow of the game could be preserved by limiting review to situations where umpires find it necessary to make the correct call. Replay should not apply to judgment calls like balls and strikes, but other plays lend themselves to review. Although differing strike zones among umpires have the potential to change the course of a ballgame, they reflect the way the game has been played since its inception. Many of the game’s greatest pitchers built their reputations on their ability to dominate batters by manipulating the strike zone, and extending review to balls and strikes would unfairly diminish basic skills like working a count, framing pitches, and expanding the strike zone. On the other hand, plays like outs, catches, foul balls, and other plays rely on simpler judgments, and both fans and the game would benefit from allowing them to be subject to replay. Striking a balance would let umpires retain their final decision-making authority and make the correct call at crucial times, especially when circumstances might prevent them from doing so. No matter what side of the debate you may find yourself on, convincing arguments exist on both sides, and Major League Baseball will eventually need to address them one way or the other. As fans, we can only hope that they make the right call.

As is the way of things, another year of college football is upon us. Sure, the games that matter are still quite a ways off, but that glorious thing that is spring ball has arrived. This is a great time of year for college football fans.

It is a time when many fans are filled with hope and confidence that the players moving up the ranks this spring will lead their teams to the Promised Land in the fall. It is a time to look both at the season left behind and the season up ahead. It is also a great time for prognostication.

Gone are the seniors from everyone’s favorite teams. One of the highlights of spring ball is the debate and anticipation over who will step up and take over for the players who have departed.

Gone off to the NFL draft is Tim Tebow. If you are a Florida fan, you probably miss him. If you are not, you are probably glad you won’t have to hear about him anymore. I mean, was it necessary for coverage of college football to include asking players if they are still virgins? Really?

Just arriving are new coaches. How will Tommy Tuberville fare as the new head coach at Texas Tech? Will Brian Kelly have more success at Notre Dame than Charlie Weis? How will the controversial Lane Kiffin fare as the new head coach at USC?

I could write forever on these questions and many more like them. However, due to space restrictions, I’ll settle on writing about one area of debate and prognostication: My top five teams for the upcoming season and the reasons I picked them. I bet you didn’t see THAT coming. . . . Here we go.

#5 - IOWA HAWKEYES

Why? – Iowa won 11 games last year with a really good defense and an offense that was decimated by injury. Their two losses were by a total of 10 points. For 2010, they bring back nearly their entire defense. They also bring back their quarterback and seven total starters on offense. In college football terms, the Hawkeyes return intact with a year’s more experience. If their offense can stay healthy, there’s a lot to like with this team that was so close last year.

#4 – OKLAHOMA SOONERS

Why? – This is another team that had a very good defense and an offense that was decimated by injury. The Sooners lost four games by a total of 12 points despite so many missing players on offense. The silver lining to having players like Sam Bradford and Jermaine Gresham miss their last season is that the next players in line get to play. The Sooner offense returns pretty much everyone, and the defense is mostly intact. Like Iowa, this team was very close last year, so if they can stay healthy this year, there’s a lot to like.

#3 – NEBRASKA

Why? – You should be seeing a pattern here. Nebraska is yet another team that, like Iowa and Oklahoma, had a dominant defense and really struggled on offense due primarily to injury, but still got very close to a big year. Nebraska lost three games by just one point, including the Conference Championship game to Texas on a last second field goal following a controversial clock ruling. Next year should see a healthier and more experienced offense. I have Nebraska at #3 because they had the best defense of the three teams I’ve listed so far, and because they have a favorable schedule. Nebraska gets to play Texas in Lincoln next year. That controversial ending to the last game Nebraska played against Texas might just come up.

#2 – BOISE STATE

Why? – The Broncos are here because they have earned it. Boise State has played in a BCS game twice in the past three seasons and won both times. I’m a big believer in returning experience as a way to judge teams. Well, Boise State has 21 returning starters, out of 22, for 2010. They went undefeated last year. Enough said.

#1 – OHIO STATE

Why? – In the Rose Bowl, this team played one of those speedy-type teams that usually give them fits, and they won when they played Oregon, and they finally got over their BCS curse. The Buckeyes bring back 15 starters from last year’s team, including nine on offense. If Ohio State had a weakness last year, it was on offense. Well, by bringing back nine starters, including their quarterback, they should be improved and more experienced, and the Buckeyes always play strong defense.

On a final note, this article is the last entry for my two-year college sports column. It has been my pleasure to contribute to The Commentator, and I hope that everyone who has read my articles has found them enlightening and entertaining. - Matt

I was very excited for Easter Sunday this year. Yes, I love Easter egg hunts just as much as the next 25-year-old kid. But, I was just itching for baseball season to start. Listen quietly and just off the horizon you can hear the pop of a baseball off a wooden bat and the snap of a ball into a stiff leather glove. Sunday, April 4 was the beginning of the 2010 baseball season, and since it is never too early to debate lineups or discuss starting rotations, I give you, my loyal readers, my take on the 2010 Los Angeles Dodgers.

The 2009 season held visions of déjà vu for Dodger fans. Again, the Dodgers had high expectations. Again, the Dodgers won the National League West. Again, the Dodgers swept their opponent in the National League Division Series. Again, the Dodgers seemed destined to achieve great things. But, again Jonathon Broxton couldn’t get Matt Stairs out, and again the Dodgers lost to the Phillies four games to one in the National League Championship Series.

In 2010, the Dodgers will practically field the same team. However, this year Matt Stairs is now a San Diego Padre! But, for the Dodgers to advance further in the playoffs this season, they will have to do it just like they did last year, with a patient and deep offense, solid starting pitching, and a lights-out bullpen.

Offensively, the Dodgers will have the same lineup as they did last year. Fortunately, Andre Ethier and Matt Kemp are a year older, and fans hope they will build on last year’s success. Conversely, Rafael Furcal, Casey Blake, and Manny Ramirez are another year older, and fans hope they can delay their entrance into the twilight of their stellar careers.

The Dodgers lineup will likely feature Furcal leading off, and then some combination of Kemp, Ethier, and Ramirez. Following them will be James Loney, Blake, Russell Martin and whoever plays second base. Yes, sorry Vin Scully, your favorite “O-Dawg” (Orlando Hudson) won’t be in Dodger Blue this year. Assuming Ronnie Belliard weighs in at 209 pounds during spring training (future contracts exam hypo?), his contract becomes guaranteed, and he will share playing time with youngster Blake Dewitt at second base. The only minor changes from 2009 will be Dewitt and Belliard platooning at second base; also, look for Ramirez, Furcal, and Blake to be treated like they are made out of tissue paper — lots of days off – to rest them for the pennant race and playoffs.

In the offseason, the Dodgers signed Reed Johnson. Johnson is known for his ability to crush left-handed pitching, his defensive ability in the outfield, and his studly goatee. Look for Johnson to play frequently when Ramirez sits and occasionally for Ethier when the Dodgers face a tough left-handed pitcher. In the offseason the Dodgers also signed utility player Jamey Carroll. Carroll is known for his pleasant personality (awarded the “Good Guy Award” the last two years while in Cleveland), his ability to play every infield position, and his ability to get on base. When Carroll isn’t baking cookies for road trips, look for him to get a few starts in place of Furcal and Blake.

Pitching-wise, the Dodgers will miss Randy Wolf and his 200 innings and 3.23 ERA. Otherwise, the guys who received the majority of the starts last year, Chad Billingsley, Clayton Kershaw, Hiroki Kuroda and playoff hero Vicente Padilla, are coming back to the take the hill in 2010. The fifth starter’s spot will likely look like a revolving door, with many arms taking a turn for the team.

The Dodgers desperately need Billingsley and Kershaw to put on their “man pants” and lead this staff. Kuroda has shown an ability to pitch well but is frequently injured. Padilla’s track record reminds me of what the women looked like at my undergrad Cornell; pretty average but at times, and in the right light, can have exceptional performances.

Like 2009, when the Dodgers had the lowest bullpen ERA in all of baseball, the bullpen should again be a real asset for the Dodgers in 2010. Every key reliever is returning, meaning Joe Torre needs only 5 to 6 innings from his starting pitcher. After that Torre can use Ramon Troncoso, Ronald Belisario, Hung-Chih Kuo, and George Sherrill to bridge the gap to the big horse, Jonathan Broxton.

It is a well known fact that every rose has its thorn. While the 2010 Dodgers are far from perfect, they are still a very talented and experienced team. In addition, none of their divisional opponents made significant off-season moves which could make them the favorite. Therefore, the Dodgers start the season as the early favorites to win the National League West. However, again the Dodgers will see a lot of Matt Stairs. “Play Ball!”

One bright spot, in what has been a relatively gloomy offseason for your Los Angeles Dodgers, is that GM Ned Colletti was able to agree to contractual terms with all nine arbitration-eligible players: Matt Kemp, Jonathon Broxton, Andre Ethier, George Sherrill, Hung-Chih Kuo, James Loney, Jason Repko, Chad Billingsley, and Russell Martin.

Per Major League Baseball’s Collective Bargaining Agreement with Major League Baseball Players’ Association, all players with between three and six years of service time can have their salary determined through the arbitration process if they fail to come to terms with their respective teams. The arbitration process is in place to reward older players by ensuring their salaries are comparable to similar players with analogous service time and statistics. Therefore, after their third year in the league, players are no longer required to accept whatever salary their team deems is adequate. Instead, they get a chance to argue in front of an independent arbitrator that they are worth $X because Joe Shmoe, with similar statistics and service time, received or was rewarded $Y by Team Z at this stage in his career.

Sounds great doesn’t it? Not so fast. Since players have been allowed to use the arbitration process to pursue higher salaries, the teams have won the majority of the time. This is because the player’s team is allowed to argue the player’s flaws and portray an image that he is actually worth less than he thinks because he is more comparable to Joe Blow (above Joe Smoe’s less talented and therefore less financially rewarded cousin).

The truth of the matter is that neither side really wants to go to arbitration. The team does not want to spend the resources coming up with statistical arguments that demean its employee, the player who is actually present during the hearing. Remember, the team still controls the player for at least another year and, therefore, risks the possibility of upsetting him and then having to work with the player for the next seven months at a minimum. Guys, imagine that if for Valentine’s Day you told your girlfriend you gave her only one rose instead of the 12 she wanted because you felt she wasn’t as good as your buddy’s girlfriend who he gave 12 roses to the year before. Then to eloquently prove your point, you compare and contrast the girls with charts and graphs. Now imagine being forced to coexist with your girlfriend for the next seven months, or even three years! Yes, now you get it!

Players want to avoid arbitration because baseball arbitration is unique in that it is a zero-sum scenario. This means that the arbitrator is forced to pick either the player’s salary number or the team’s. Therefore, after a hearing, the player is either earning the salary he proposed or is living off of whatever salary the team proposed. Therefore, knowing that history is not on their side, players like to negotiate and settle somewhere in the middle of the proposals. Players are then content knowing they had some input in their salary and, while they are earning less than they desire, they are earning more than if they would have lost their hearings.

While the fact the Dodgers were able to avoid arbitration hearings with all nine of their eligible players is a minor headline, it is significant in a few ways. One, it determined the overall shape of the team’s payroll earlier than waiting for the hearings in February. Therefore, the Dodgers were able to resign Ronnie Belliard and Vicente Padilla in the last week because they knew how much of the 2010 budget remained. Two, the Dodgers signed Kemp, Ethier, and Broxton for two years. While this gives the players job security, it also makes sure the Dodgers avoid this process next year and allows them to know how much salary to allocate to these core players in 2011. Finally, every Dodger can report to Spring Training in a few weeks in a pleasant mood and begin the journey to a World Series Championship!

Written by Matthew McConnell, 3L Writer/Editor

Later this year, the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in American Needle v. NFL, a case some have described as the “Super Bowl of sports litigation” and a possible “Armageddon” for the business, marketing and structure of sports in America. Put simply, American Needle is the most significant court case in modern U.S. sports history, with far-reaching ramifications for the marketing, business, and structure of the NFL, NBA, MLB, and the rest of the nation’s professional leagues.

In December 2004, American Needle, Inc., a manufacturer of NFL-licensed hats, caps, and merchandise, filed an antitrust case against the NFL, claiming that the league illegally deprived the company of its market share through an illegal, monopolistic restraint on competition. American Needle, along with several other licensees, had produced hats, T-shirts, and other apparel containing NFL trademarks and logos for decades. However, in response to declines in merchandising revenue during the 1990s, the NFL granted Reebok the exclusive right to manufacture NFL-licensed merchandise, eliminating American Needle and its fellow licensees. Faced with the loss of its main revenue stream, American Needle commenced litigation against the NFL and its 32 member teams, claiming that Reebok’s exclusive manufacturing license was an illegal “contract, combination . . . or conspiracy,” as defined by Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Antitrust claims have historically been a common form of litigation against the NFL and other professional sports leagues, but the American Needle case is different. After a trial court and court of appeals ruled in favor of the NFL, American Needle succeeded in a request for review by the U.S. Supreme Court. In a surprising turn of events, the NFL came out in support of the case, asking the justices to render a far more expansive, far-reaching judgment and grant the league total immunity from all forms of antitrust scrutiny. The justices heard oral arguments on January 13, and a definitive ruling is expected in June.

The legal doctrine at the center of American Needle is known as “single entity.” If the Court rules that the NFL is a single, unified entity, rather than a group of 32 separate, competing businesses (or teams), the landscape of American sports will undergo a drastic transformation. The issue before the Supreme Court’s justices is not simply whether the NFL/Reebok exclusive licensing arrangement is legal under antitrust law, but whether such an arrangement should be exposed to any antitrust scrutiny at all. A positive ruling for the NFL would grant it complete immunity from Section 1 scrutiny, while a loss would open up its business and conduct to considerable legal scrutiny. If the NFL succeeds, league violations of American antitrust law will be impossible to establish, given that a single, unified entity cannot “combine, contract or conspire” with itself under the language of the Sherman Act. While the NFL itself has conceded that it does not resemble a traditional single entity firm with a single owner, it contends that the league is only profitable and viable through cooperation among its teams. The NFL believes that this interdependence makes the league a single entity and that each and every agreement made by the league and its teams - free agency, salary cap rules, player contract scales, game schedules, etc. should be exempt from Section 1 scrutiny.

What Will the Court Decide?
At this point, nobody besides the justices themselves knows how the Supreme Court will rule. The NFL and other sports leagues have repeatedly tried (and failed) to be recognized as a single entity, and judicial precedent certainly has revealed lower courts’ reluctance to grant absolute immunity in such matters. Nevertheless, the final decision in the single entity debate will rest upon the views of the Supreme Court’s nine justices. In similar antitrust cases, the Court has generally held that individual, interdependent competitors may still be considered separate entities capable of harmful competition and Section 1 violations. In oral arguments, Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Scalia and Sotomayor seemed unconvinced that the NFL’s broad single entity argument was distinguishable from these prior cases, with Justice Breyer specifically noting the NFL’s failure to adequately explain why individual NFL teams’ need for cooperation makes them a single entity.

A reasonable conclusion is that the NFL is indeed a joint entity, comprised of individual teams collaborating and cooperating to produce professional football. Sports franchises compete and contract with each other for coaches, executives, and players, as well as advertising, merchandise, and revenues. Agreements made by individual teams certainly have the potential to harm competition. The NFL itself was formed by a group of preexisting independent teams in the 1920s, contradicting the league’s assertion that teams cannot exist or have value independently. Success by the NFL would signal a sea change in American sports leagues as we know them today. Team owners could attack free agency, prevent player movement and curtail salaries, and systems like college football’s BCS would enjoy increased protection from legal challenges. Lockouts, strikes, and labor disputes might become increasingly more common, and teams would have increased freedom to raise the prices of tickets, merchandise, and apparel.

Realistically, it’s unlikely that the NFL will win a decisive victory, but “Armageddon” might be closer than you’d like to believe.

Written by Phil Soon, 2L Day Staff Writer

The theme for this issue of The Commentator is health. In honor of that my column will deviate away from rankings, oddities and prognostications of college football and focus on the impact of injuries on the game. It’s with no small amount of irony that I’m writing this article on Nov. 20. I’ll digress on that later.

Injuries are simply a huge factor in every college football season. This season is no different. Football is a physical game. Other than the benchwarmers, there’s really nobody who makes it through a season without some bumps, bruises, and soreness.

The truly unfortunate minority are those players who suffer major injuries, such as those that require surgery and end those players’ seasons. Those are the types of injuries that have the biggest effect on the season, but also on those players’ futures. Most, if not all, players in major college football have dreams of playing in the NFL. Major injuries can hinder or even derail those dreams. So, in honor of this edition’s topic, here’s a look at how some big name players and big name teams have been affected by major injuries.

Everyone who knows me can tell you without hesitation where this is going. Of course I’m starting with Oklahoma. Unfortunately, that’s not because of any personal bias. The plain truth is that Oklahoma lost last year’s Heisman Trophy winner, Sam Bradford, and an All-American tight end, Jermaine Gresham, before the end of their first game. Both players fell to injuries that ultimately required surgery.

Both of those players were projected as first-round NFL draft picks, but both opted to return to school. Bradford returned after his initial shoulder injury but played less than two games before re-injuring the same shoulder and opting for surgery. Gresham was injured before the first game and never even saw the field for a single play.

Both players have had their potential draft prospects for next year suffer due to their injuries. That may cost them both a lot of dollars in guaranteed money. Their injuries also left huge holes to be filled for Oklahoma’s offense, which was already suffering from a lot of attrition from graduation. Its offense has consequently struggled this season.

Oklahoma does not have any kind of monopoly on injuries though. The list of schools that have had their seasons take a bad turn due to injury is lengthy. USC is a good example. Its starting quarterback, Matt Barkley, was unavailable for its road game against Washington. The back-up struggled in his place, which contributed to a tough loss to a team with a bad record.

The Iowa Hawkeyes are another good example. Theirs was a dream season. The Hawkeyes were undefeated and one win away from a Rose Bowl berth and a conference championship. Of course, that one win was a road trip to Columbus to play Ohio State. Iowa lost that game in overtime. It was a tough loss.

Considering that they lost in overtime, it’s a safe assumption that they could have won if they had their starting quarterback. Unfortunately they did not. He was injured in their prior game, and so Iowa lost in overtime with its backup quarterback and will not go to the Rose Bowl. Devastating.

Now, as bad as it might sound to have a team’s season or a player’s NFL hopes derailed by injury, we can at least take solace in how much better things are now than they were in the past. That brings me back to today’s date.

One hundred years ago today Harvard played Yale for the college football championship. Yes, times have changed. In that game, Harvard won 8-0 and completed the season having given up zero points for the year. Back then there were few pads and fewer helmets. Spectators at the game described the bloodied faces of every lineman for both teams. At least, however, nobody died.

It may seem odd to think of a football game and say to yourself that it was good that nobody died, but in the 1909 season 26 players died from in-game injuries. After the season there were rule changes that helped curb such brutality. That season ended 100 years ago today.

Written by Matthew Welde, 3L Senior Staff Writer

Lakers’ starting power forward Pau Gasol was injured in the offseason while playing for the Spanish national basketball team and has been out for the beginning of the season due to a hamstring injury. The effects of Pau Gasol’s injury go beyond the fact that the Lakers have been without their second-best player up to this point in the season. The fact that Gasol can not play affects the Lakers in a variety of ways. First it forces Lamar Odom to start and does not allow him to come off the bench and be the best player on the Lakers or the opposing team’s second unit. Second, it forces the Lakers to play D.J. Mbenga or Josh Powell at backup power forward or center and forces them to play more minutes than they would like, and the Lakers are not as good of a team when they are forced to play either more than a few minutes instead of giving those minutes to Gasol, Bynum or Odom.

Powell has played well, but the Lakers would be better off with him playing fewer minutes.
With Gasol being out, it also takes one of the best passing big men out of the game and eliminates a player that can team with Odom to create one of the most dynamic big men combinations in the league, if not the most versatile. Defensively,, the Lakers are also missing Gasol for both his rebounding and shot blocking ability. He is an underrated defender and rebounder, and his presence on the defensive side of the ball is sorely missed because when he and Bynum are on the court, it is difficult for opposing teams to attack the basket with any success. The Lakers need Gasol to come back and come back healthy in order for them to repeat last year’s season, but at this early point in the season, it is not time for Laker fans to panic because he will come back with more than enough time to build chemistry and head in to the playoffs with some momentum.

Written by Alexander Mehdipour, 2L Staff Writer

Ben Sheets has a good chance if he takes an incentive-laden deal. Photo courtesy of Matthew Schnell.

The Dodgers are in a very perplexing position this offseason. They have a nucleus of talented young players and very few holes to fix. Going into next year, the Dodgers need to add a couple of starting pitchers, a second baseman, and a couple of bench players. However, general manager Ned Colletti’s job is going to be much more difficult. Anybody who has been following TMZ knows that the owners of the Dodgers, Frank and Jamie McCourt, are experiencing a messy public divorce. This column has always been devoted to hard-hitting statistical economic analysis and, in true fashion, will not divert into the kind of substance that readers used to be able to find in this paper’s former Variety section. However, rumor has it Colletti has been told to make only cash neutral transactions until the divorce is finalized. Therefore, his hands are tied, and barring a financial bailout from Pres, Barack Obama, Colletti will not be able to add salary to next year’s roster. However, lucky for him, I have contributed my two cent towards how to fix the starting rotation.

Have: Clayton Kershaw, Chad Billingsley, and Hiroki Kuroda

Possible Internal Options: James McDonald, Scott Elbert, and Ramon Troncoso
Interesting Realistic External Options: Edwin Jackson, Randy Wolf, Ben Sheets, Rich Harden, Erik Bedard, Vicente Padilla, Jon Garland, Doug Davis, Justin Duchscherer,
The Dodgers’ strength last year was their pitching staff. However, it was the failure of the Dodgers starting pitching to pitch deep into games that doomed their World Series chance. The Dodgers have an ace in the making in Clayton Kershaw, a very talented Chad Billingsley and, when healthy, a very effective Hiroki Kuroda. Therefore, Colletti does not need to turn water into wine here. He just needs to add some capable arms that can keep the Dodgers in games, give them a chance to win, and get the bullpen the ball in the later innings.
If the rumors are true, and the Tigers are willing to trade Edwin Jackson for George Sherrill, Colletti should have made this trade yesterday. Jackson, a former Dodger prospect, is only 26 and had a breakout year last year in the tougher American League. The Tigers reportedly want Sherrill to be their closer next year. I like Sherrill, but if you can acquire a starting pitcher who will give you 200 above average innings for a relief pitcher who will only you around 70 of the same quality, you pull the trigger and don’t think twice. The cherry on the cake is that Jackson and Sherrill will earn the same salary in 2010.

Ben Sheets is interesting. He missed all of 2009 due to injury but was outstanding in 2008. If he is willing to take an incentive-laden deal, I would take a flyer on him. Erik Bedard and Rich Harden can be electric, but they are also rarely healthy. Randy Wolf had a career year but is approaching his mid-30s and is supposedly looking for a 3 year deal. If Wolf is willing to discuss reasonable money for two years, Colletti should listen to him because he eats up innings and is a grinder. In the postseason, it seemed like Vicente Padilla was sent from a divine hand to save the Dodgers’ season. However, statistics show he is just an average pitcher (4.33 career ERA), and I am not too excited about him. Doug Davis is intriguing. He is an above-average left hander and eats up innings. However, while watching him pitch, I just wonder how he gets it done with his repertoire of slow junk. Justin Duchscherer was outstanding in 2008 (2.54 ERA in the American League) but like others was hurt all of 2009. Jon Garland is capable of pitching 7 to 8 innings every start, but he will also give up close to 4 runs.

Result: Dodgers need at least one of McDonald, Elbert, or Troncoso to develop into a starter from within the organization. Look for Elbert to stay in the bullpen, especially if Sherrill is traded. If Sherrill is traded, hopefully Jackson is back in Dodger Blue. Colletti needs to do his homework and monitor the recoveries of Bedard, Sheets, and Duchscherer. If promising, he should entice one or two of them to pitch in Dodger Blue. Then sign an innings eater like Davis, Padilla, or Garland.

While at any time during the season the Dodgers will have four to five starters in the rotation, fans need to remember it often takes seven or eight arms to start 162 games. Case and point, in 2009, 11 different pitchers started a game for the Dodgers. Therefore, when going into the season, it is pivotal to have a rotation in place and know the contingency plan . . . and the contingency plan to that contingency plan and so on.

Written by Matthew McConnell.

MMA. Photo courtesy of thenailbiter.com

By Eric Bonholtzer

Mixed martial arts, or MMA, is one of the fastest growing sports, earning millions each year and having a plethora of fans worldwide clamoring to watch each match. Yet, despite the success of the sport, there is still a grueling fight going on for mainstream acceptance. That battle is now being carried to the legislature, as some states refuse to license the sport, forcing fans to cross state lines if they want to attend an MMA event. While boxing is sanctioned across the nation, some states are reluctant to allow MMA events within their borders. Among the few states still holding out on granting approval are New York, Massachusetts, Michigan Maryland, South Carolina, and West Virginia, with the legislative assembly currently in session in North Dakota with the outcome of MMA licensing to be decided shortly.

Many MMA enthusiasts in America are disappointed that fans in London and Dublin have an easier time attending an Ultimate Fighting Championship event than those in Detroit or Boston, when the “Land of the Free and Home of the Brave” is the birthplace of the UFC. However, while MMA is not legally sanctioned in several states, proponents of the sport are taking the fight out of the cage and straight to the legislature to fix that. Pennsylvania is one of the latest states to come on board the MMA train, as lobbyists have been pushing for the legalization of the sport for years now, and in February, the state approved MMA regulation. Given the green light, the UFC wasted no time and held an event there shortly afterward. But the process of getting sanctioning for the sport was long and arduous, taking more than 19 months in Pennsylvania alone, as voters had to first pass draft regulations allowing MMA events in the state. They did so in July 2007, and the rest of the complex legal process involved getting approval by the House and Senate Committees, the office of attorney general and the Independent Regulatory Review Commission. These entities had to decide on all matters regarding MMA including how the events would happen and who was eligible to compete. While this kind of legislative debate is beneficial, as it ensures the safety of both participants and spectators, the chief concern of MMA proponents is the debate surrounding the dangers of the sport, and they work diligently to combat this stereotype.

Nowhere is this battle for understanding more prevalent than in New York, where despite a history of intense lobbying, MMA is still nowhere near sanctioning, and the primary reason seems to be the stigma attached to the sport. One of the most staunch opponents to sanctioning is New York assemblyman Bob Reilly who, despite a love of football and boxing, is avidly opposed to legalizing MMA, often referring to it as harmful to society and comparing the sport to dog fighting. However, his opposition is quick to point out that Madison Square Garden routinely holds boxing events, a sport that has had more than its share of in-the-ring injuries and deaths, while MMA’s most serious injuries are fractures or lacerations. Despite these arguments, there is still a tough road ahead for the UFC in the states that continue to rally against sanctioning. But the UFC is tenacious, being very active in the legislatures in New York, Massachusetts, and other holdout states, and if there is anything that the UFC knows, it’s how to put up a good fight.

Matt Kemp, Courtesy of dizbuster319 via Flickr

By Matthew McConnell

So the 2009 Dodgers’ season did not have a happy ending. That means it’s back to the drawing board as the front office start starts laying the ground work for next season. However, the Dodgers are in a unique position because they have very few holes to fill. The Dodgers have a young nucleus of talented players in which GM Ned Colletti should build around by adding a couple of starting pitchers and a second baseman. These are the top five guys from 2009 who will play pivotal roles in the 2010 Dodgers’ quest for a World Series.

1. Andre Ethier

Before the season began, manager Joe Torre compared Ethier to his former All-Star Paul O’Neil. For my non-baseball savy readers, O’Neil was Torre’s right fielder during the Yankees’ Championships in ’96 and ‘98-2000. Like Ethier, he was left-handed, could hit, and was never afraid to show frustration (see record for most water coolers thrown onto field.) While Ethier has always carried himself like O’Neil, most Dodger fans figured we would have to wait a few years until he produced like him. However, in 2009 Ethier did his best O’Neil impression and led the Dodgers in homeruns (31) and runs batted in (106) while also serving up six electrifying walk-off hits. Ethier hasn’t even turned 28 yet and is entering the prime of what has the potential to be a stellar career. Just to compare, O’Neil never hit 30 homeruns in a season and didn’t drive in 100 or more runs until he was 34.

2. Clayton Kershaw

When most of us were 21, we were clowning around our college campus celebrating the fact we could finally drink legally. What was Clayton Kershaw doing when he was 21? Oh nothing special. I mean he only led ALL National League pitchers in opponents batting average against (.200), had the fifth lowest earned-run average (2.78), the fifth highest strikeouts per 9 innings pitched (9.74), and second lowest homeruns per 9 innings pitched (.37). Case in point, Kershaw went toe-to-toe with Cardinal’s ace Adam Wainright in game 2 of the NLCS and only allowed 1 run over his first 6 innings pitched. Days later in game 1 of the NLDCS, he held the Phillies to zero runs through the first 4 innings. Last year Kershaw was simply one of the best pitchers in the National League, despite the fact he was the third-youngest player in the league! Once Kershaw conquers his control problems (third in walks allowed and sixth in wild pitches) and pitches into the seventh inning of games, he will be a true “ace.”

3. Matt Kemp

Kemp’s nickname is appropriately “The Bison.” No, not because he went to SW, silly. It is because he is big, fast, and strong. In 2009, Kemp slugged 26 homeruns and drove in 101 runs while playing stellar defense in centerfield. Centerfielders are supposed to be scrawny guys who steal bases. While the Bison is not scrawny, he was third in the National League in stolen bases (34). Once Kemp develops better plate discipline, he will become one of the elite players in the game and form a dynamic duo with Ethier in the outfield. Also, Kemp is only 25 and still entering the prime of his career.

4. Jonathon Broxton

Big Jon (6-feet-4-inches and 290 pounds) is an intimidating closer. In 2009 he ranked sixth in the National League in saves and led all relief pitchers with 114 strikeouts. To cap off his remarkable season, he allowed less than 1 base runner per inning pitched. Because Broxton has blown two straight NLCS game 4s to the Phillies, some critics focus on Broxton’s failures as a closer. That isn’t fair, nor accurate, because more often than not Broxton is one of the premier closers in the game and strikes fear into the hearts of opposing hitters. If Broxton ever conquers his fear of Matt Stairs, or the Canadian slugger gets deported, Broxton has the potential to lead the Dodgers to the World Series. He is also only 25 and should only become more dominating.

5. Chad Billingsley

It was a tale of two seasons for Billingsley. At the All-Star break, he was the Dodgers’ “Ace” and arguably one of the top three pitchers in the National League (3.34 earned-run average and was selected to the All-Star team). However, Billingsley fell apart in the second-half of the season (5.20 earned run average) and wasn’t even given a chance to start in the postseason. Have no fear Dodger fans. In 2007, a left-handed pitcher on the Indians had a 5.38 earned-run average through his first 16 starts, was optioned down to the minor leagues, and eventually left off the Indians’ postseason roster. This lefty came back in 2008 and had an amazing season as he won the American League Cy-Young Award. That pitcher is the Phillies’ Cliff Lee, who pitched an absolute gem against the Dodgers in game 3 of the NLCS. Moral of the story is you do not give up on young talented pitchers too early. Billingsley is only 25, has a career earned-run average of 3.55 and throws hard with a good breaking ball.