Thursday Debate: Who should be the AL Cy Young?

For the second straight Thursday Debate, let's focus on the AL Cy Young race, because there are lots of good candidates here. Much like the NL MVP race, any number of guys could reasonably win.

As mentioned a week or so ago, I like CC Sabathia to win the AL Cy Young Award. In my mind, with his peripheral numbers and league-leading amount of innings pitched, he is the best choice for this award.

But there are certainly a lot of other viable candidates. A brief rundown of them:

John Lackey - Led the league in ERA. Also had 179 K against only 52 BB.

Fausto Carmona - 2nd in the AL in ERA. Was GREAT at inducing groundballs. Sort of like a younger Chien Ming-Wang with more upside.

Johan Santana - Had a down year (relatively speaking) but still had nearly a 5:1 K:BB ratio.

Josh Beckett - Led the AL in DIPS among starters. Like Santana, a great K:BB rate.

Dan Haren - Was the leading candidate at the Break, and still had a fine year even though he tailed off a little bit. Third in the AL in ERA.

Erik Bedard - Might have been my Cy Young choice had he not gotten hurt towards the end of the year. Ridiculous K/9 rate.

Vote with your conscience.

Who should be the AL Cy Young?
	CC Sabathia
	Johan Santana
	Fausto Carmona
	Josh Beckett
	Erik Bedard
	Dan Haren
	John Lackey
	Other

Thursday Debate: Who should be the NL MVP?

I touched on this a few days ago, but it's really pretty fascinating how many viable candidates there are for the NL MVP this year. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if any of a number of guys won the award, and I think there are viable arguments to be made for about 5 players, which is extremely rare.

My vote was Hanley Ramirez, as I obviously do not subscribe to the theory that a player has to be on a winning team to be an MVP candidate, because in my mind it makes no difference how good a player's team is when looking at an individual award. Other people have vastly different opinions on this, which makes for some pretty good debate.

Also, I was forced to bring back Thursday Debate due to popular demand (and by that 2 people that I personally know said I should bring it back)... not that that's a bad thing.

But I really am interested to see what you guys think... who should be the NL MVP? And why? Please vote, and leave a reason or two in the comments. I think the results could be really interesting.

Who should be the National League MVP?
	Hanley Ramirez
	David Wright
	Jimmy Rollins
	Matt Holliday
	Prince Fielder
	Albert Pujols
	Chipper Jones
	Chase Utley
	Miguel Cabrera
	Other

Thursday Debate: Who is the top Fantasy QB?

I know it's not Thursday, but with fantasy football starting up, and the NFL preseason already technically underway, I thought it was an interesting question. Plus, I have some ulterior motives, as I need to do some research for my own fantasy drafts anyway (wow, that sounds geeky).

As with any league, a lot of this is dependent on what type of scoring system you use. Some leagues award more points for TDs, other more points for yards, or completions, etc. Most leagues are a little bit different, so you have to tailor your strategy to the point strategy of your league. But hopefully you know that already.

The way I see it, there are really 4 Quarterbacks that stand out above the rest, fantasy wise. They are Peyton Manning, Carson Palmer, Drew Brees, and Marc Bulger. You could make an argument for Tom Brady (especially with the extra weapons the Pats have this year) or maybe Donovan McNabb, but in my mind those 4 are the best fantasy QBs heading into the year.

First, Peyton Manning. He is the model of reliability. For one thing, he has never missed a game in his NFL career. That's helpful. But he always throws for a lot of yards, throws a lot of TDs, and has a good completion percentage. He probably won't match the 2004 numbers ever again, but he's a good bet for around 30 TDs and somewhere around 4000 yards.

Next is Carson Palmer, who is might be the most talented QB physically. He has a rocket arm and is very accurate. He was 5th in the NFL in passing yards last year, has a good completion %, and was top 5 in the NFL in YPA. Also, he continues to have great weapons outside with Chad Johnson and TJ Houshmanzadeh.

The guy that emerged last year was Drew Brees, who thrived under Sean Payton. He led the NFL in passing yards last year while throwing 28 TDs and completing 64% of his passes. And with the news that the injury to LT Jammal Brown is not serious, there is no reason to think he can't repeat those numbers again. The talent at the skill positions is superb and Sean Payton is one of the top offensive minds in the NFL.

Last is Marc Bulger, who I think should explode even more this year. He was 3rd in the NFL in passing yards last year, and he finished with a 3:1 TD:INT ratio. Also, like Brees, he is working for a great offensive coach in Scott Linehan. As long as Bulger has been healthy, he's been a consistent 4000+ yard passer.

But how to rank them? I would probably go like this (again, depending a lot on what type of scoring system you use):

1. Peyton Manning
2. Carson Palmer
3. Marc Bulger
4. Drew Brees

How would you rank them?

Who is the best Fantasy QB?
	Peyton Manning
	Carson Palmer
	Marc Bulger
	Drew Brees
	Other

Thursday Debate: Who is going to win the NL West?

We have a little feature on here called Thursday Debate... today we look at who is going to win the NL West.

For the record, the standings currently look like this:

LA Dodgers: 56-46, -
SD Padres: 54-46, 1 GB
Arizona Diamondbacks: 54-48, 2 GB
Colorado Rockies: 51-50, 4.5 GB
SF Giants: A long way back

So it would appear to be a 4-team race right now and should wind up being one of the most interesting stories as we wind down the year. At the All-Star break I was pretty strongly on the Padres bandwagon to win the division, but now I'm a lot less sure.

First off let me say that even though Arizona is right in the race, I stand by my thoughts that they will slowly drop out. They've just had great luck in 1-run games, and that doesn't tend to hold up. Their pythagorean record is 48-54, which suggests that they should be closer to San Fran than to the top of the division. They might continue to overplay the pythagorean record if The Big Unit can stay healthy and some of their young guys can start hitting better, but I wouldn't bet on it.

I also don't think the Rockies have much of a chance. They've played well, but they are what they are... a .500 team. They have a nice, young core, but I don't see them competing with the Dodgers or Padres.

Which leaves those 2 teams... I still think it is a 2-team race between the Dodgers and Padres. Both teams are very solid, and either of them could win the Wildcard if they don't win the division. The Dodgers are obviously 1 game up in the standings, while the expected records (based on run differential) suggests the Padres are a little bit better.

I think this is a race that will come down to just a couple of games between them... I wouldn't put any money on it because I think any type of injury of string of bad luck can change the tide. The teams are pretty even. However, if I had to choose, I would stick with the Padres for now... their pitching is a little better, and I think their lineup is getting better (and the addition of Bradley should help. So I'll take San Diego, but I'm not too confident about it right now.

Who do you think will win the NL West?

Who will win the NL West?
	LA Doders
	SD Padres
	Arizona Diamondbacks
	Colorado Rockies

Thursday Debate: Who is the best MLB GM?

We have a weekly feature on here called Thursday Debate... today it's time to look at who is the best General Manager in the MLB.

It's an interesting debate that's highly subjective, because every GM is in a different position. Payroll, owners, competing teams, even luck can all have huge impacts on the performance of certain GMs. But in my mind, there are a few guys that stick out above the rest. They are:

Billy Beane (Oakland) - If you've read Moneyball, you know all about Beane. If you haven't, well, you really should. Beane consistently does more with less perhaps better than anyone else in baseball. He doesn't have a whole lot of resources in Oakland, but the A's are always competitive and usually in the playoffs. In all ihonesty, he hasn't done great with trades recently, but he's a master at picking up the right free agents and does a good job with the farm system.

The biggest complaint I've seen about him is that his teams typically don't perform that well in the playoffs. Well, the playoffs are mostly a crapshoot. In a 5 or 7-game series, the best team definitely does not always win. That's not really the GM's fault.

Terry Ryan (Minnesota) - As a Twins fan, I follow Ryan closer than any other GM. First, his strengths. He runs a great minor league system and constantly replenishes the Major League team with Minor League talent. Almost every important players on the Twins is homegrown. Second, he's great at making small deals. You may remember him making a certan deal with San Francisco, but that's just part of it. He's made lots of small deals for guys like Jason Bartlett, Carlos Silva, Nick Punto, etc. Also, he got Johan Santana in the Rule 5 Draft, and that alone should put him high on the list.

But that's not to say he doesn't have his weaknesses. His free agent signings in recent years have left something to be desired. He likes to keep the young guys down on the farm as long as possible, and that leads him to sometimes going with a lot of veterans that shouldn't be starting. Last year, guys like Tony Batista and Juan Castro got a lot of playing time. This year, it was guys like Ramon Ortiz and Sidney Ponson. That's not good.

John Schuerholz (Atlanta) - If nothing else, just look at all of those division titles in a row. Sometimes people will say he just had some luck in having Maddux, Glavine, and Smoltz, but you can't win that much with only a few pitchers. He did a very good job with the farm system, free agents, and everything else. And again, the Braves might only have a couple of World Series rings to show from all of those division titles, but the playoffs are a crapshoot.

Theo Epstein (Boston) - We all know he was the guy that was the GM when they finally broke the drought. He tends to use a more stats-oriented approach, and that's something I like. But I kind of wonder how he would do with a team that had a lesser payroll. He's made quite a few mistakes, but he can help cover that up because the Sox spend lots and lots of money. GMs like Billy Beane and Terry Ryan don't have that luxury.

Kevin Towers (San Diego) - I think he's one of the more under appreciated GMs but you have to respect what he's going in San Diego. They've been in the playoffs the past couple of years (with a pretty young team) and look to have a good shot again this year.

Dave Dombrowski (Detroit) - Dombrowksi is another guy who I think is a little underrated, as he has had a lot of success in both Florida and now Detroit. In Florida he won 1 World Series and basically built a large portion of the 2003 team that won the World Series. In Detroit he took a team that lost 119 games in his first year, and turned it into what it is now... a team that won the AL Pennant last year and looks like pretty strong contenders once again. Plus, with a young pitching staff the future appears to be bright.

Mark Shapiro (Cleveland) - Shapiro did a really nice job rebuilding the Indians and turning them into what looks like they will be perennial contenders. They've got a nice, young nucleus that is mostly locked up, and should be mainstays near the top of the AL Central for years.

Omar Minaya (New York Mets) - I personally am not a huge fan of his as a GM, but he's done a nice job. He's made some pretty solid FA pickups in New York that got them deep into the postseason last year and back atop the division right now.

Walt Jocketty (St. Louis) - The Cardinals are struggling this year but Jocketty has had a lot of success in past years. Obviously the Cardinals won the World Series last year, and they were mainstays in the playoffs before that.

Another guy to consider is Brian Cashman, but it's just hard to judge him because we don't know how many of the moves are his and how many are George Steinbrenner's. Josh Byrnes from Arizona is another guy that could wind up on this list in another couple of years, as the DBacks have a nice farm system in place.

If pressed, I think I would choose Billy Beane as the top GM, followed (in order) by Terry Ryan, John Schuerholz, Dave Dombrowksi, and Kevin Towers.

But who do you think is the best? Vote and then give me your reasons in the comments. Please.

Who is the best MLB GM?
	Billy Beane - Oakland
	Terry Ryan - Minnesota
	John Schuerholz - Atlanta
	Theo Epstein - Boston
	Dave Dombrowksi - Detroit
	Mark Shapiro - Cleveland
	Walt Jocketty - St. Louis
	Omar Minaya - New York
	Kevin Towers - San Diego
	Other

Thursday Debate: Who is the best CF ever?

We have a little feature on here called Thursday Debate... today we look at who is the best CF ever?

With all the talk over the All-Star break from guys like Joe Morgan and Dusty Baker about how Willie Mays is the best player ever (or at least the best living player), it begs the question, is he even the best CF ever? He was great, but it's not like he's without competition here.

The way I see it, there are 3 candidates for the title of the best CF ever: Willie Mays, Ty Cobb, and Mickey Mantle. In a perfect world, Negro Leaguer Oscar Charleston would deserve a mention as well, but it's just impossible to compare.

So it's between Mays, Mantle, and Cobb. First, a look at Willie Mays, perhaps the premier defensive player ever. The "Say Hey Kid" was also very consistent at the plate, and stayed consistent for a long time, which is how he wound up with 660 HR. His OPS+ is 156, though that was hampered a bit by the last couple of seasons in his career, when he was over 40 and not quite the player he once was. But he did lead the NL in OPS 5 times during his career, during which he won 12 straight gold gloves. So it's safe to say that he was a premier defensive player while being one of the biggest offensive threats of his generation.

Next is Mickey Mantle, who played around the same era as Willie Mays. His career counting numbers don't look as good, but that's mostly because he did not play as long as Mays. In his prime, he might have been the best hitter of his generation not named Ted Williams. He had great patience at the plate (career .421 OBP) while hitting for a lot of power (he was in the top 3 in the AL in SLG for 11 of 13 straight years). His OPS+ of 172 places him 6th all-time.

Last, there's Ty Cobb, who is a bit harder to compare because he played a good portion of his career in the Deadball Era. But he was an incredible pure hitter with lots of speed. While he didn't hit a lot of HR, nobody did, and he still lead the AL in SLG for 6 straight years (and 8 times overall in his career). His .366 career AVG is best ever, and his .433 OBP is 9th all-time. He also stole almost 900 bases in his career. The Georgia Peach's OPS+ of 167 is 10th all-time.

So what does this all mean? First, these were all exceptional players... when I made my list of the 10 best MLB players ever, they were all ranked in the top 10. No one is really a bad choice.

I will say this, I think Mantle had the best peak of any of them, but he just didn't have the longevity that Cobb or Mays did. So I would probably put him 3rd there. After that, it's almost a pick'em. You could probably make convincing arguments in favor of Willie Mays or Ty Cobb being the best player ever, let alone best CF ever. But if I had to choose, I think I would go with Willie Mays. Best defensive CF ever, and he wasn't too shabby as a hitter either.

Who would you choose? Why?

Who is the best CF of all-time?
	Willie Mays
	Ty Cobb
	Mickey Mantle

Thursday Debate: Would you take Greg Oden or Kevin Durant?

I've got a little feature on here called the Thursday Debate... today, let's look at who you would rather have on your team, Greg Oden or Kevin Durant?

This is the question that has been on everyone's mind for quite a while, and an issue I even looked at more than 4 months ago. I compared Oden to Alonzo Mourning and Durant to Dirk Nowitzki, but neither of those accurately sums up these guys' games.

With Kevin Durant, you have one of the most versatile offensive weapons ever to come into the NBA. That's not even exaggerating. He has a great touch from the outside, and with his height can get the ball off against almost any defense. He also has a quick first step and can get to the basket and finish. If that's not enough, he's also got a developing postup game in case you try to guard him with someone smaller.

But he's got a lot more to his game than just his scoring ability. He's unselfish with the ball. He's got great instincts and solid athleticism, which allowed to be in the top 5 in rebounds per game as a freshman. He also has long arms, which can make him a defensive force as that part of his game matures. He is a complete player, and can do things offensively we haven't seen before in one player.

Oden is the opposite. His defensive game is farther along than his offensive game, and his offensive ceiling is probably a little lower. But defensively he shines. I think that once he gets drafted he will immediately become one of the top 5 defensive centers in the NBA. He is extremely athletic, quick, and has great shotblocking instincts. I really think he compares to a Bill Russell or Dikembe Mutombo as far as his defensive ability.

Offensively, he is definitely coming along, as we saw in the title game against Florida. It's very clear he wasn't at 100% all year long, and has been mentioned, I think this will help in the long run. He has become very adept with the left hand and showed he can finish with the right as well. He is raw on the post, but showed the quickness and athleticism that makes me think he can be an elite offensive center as well.

There is no doubt that these are both special players... barring injury, I can't see either of them disappointing or being busts. In my mind, Oden will be a 20-25 PPG scorer and one of the best defensive centers ever. I think Durant will be a 25-30 PPG scorer and eventually be a very good defensive player as well. If I had the choice, I still think I would take Greg Oden, because I think his defense just makes him a little more valuable.

But who would you take?

Who would you rather have on your team?
	Greg Oden
	Kevin Durant

Thursday Debate: Should the NBA Playoff Format be Changed?

We have a little thing on this blog I like to call Thursday Debate... I ask a question, give my opinion, and then see how everyone else feels about it. Today we have the most popular sports topic right now... should the NBA playoff format be changed?

As we suffer through the Cleveland/San Antonio series, which is taking place a couple of weeks after the peak of the postseason (the Phoenix/San Antonio series), I think it's very appropriate to ask the question: should the NBA playoff format be changed?

The common thought (and the thought of David Stern) (and to quote Bryan L.) is that changing things would be a long-term solution to a short-term problem. But is it really just a short-term problem?

The NBA has been dominated by the West for the past 10 years... the only 2 titles won by teams in the East since the 1998 Bulls were the Pistons in 2004 (over the self-destructing Lakers), and Dwyane Wade beating the Mavs last year. Other than that things have been dominated by the West.

And really, it seems to me that the balance of power won't be shifting for a while The East has LeBron and Wade, two of the brightest young stars in the NBA. They also have no power teams, an abnormal amount of bad GMs, and bad luck in the draft. The West has teams that look like they can reasonably compete for a title for the next few years (Phoenix, Dallas, San Antonio), and the two best players coming into the league will be headed out West.

Or another way to put, from Bill Simmons (love him or hate him), who said the point more succinctly than I just did:

1. Once the league's reckless (repeat: reckless) expansion pushed the number of teams past the mid-20s, it became too easy for one conference to be stacked with elite teams. David Stern has argued multiple times that this stuff evens out over time, but clearly, that's not true. We've had much better teams in the West for nearly a full decade; in eight of the past 10 seasons, the best two teams played before the Finals, and in four of those seasons, they played before the conference finals. Um ... that's not a major flaw in the system?

We saw this imbalance from 1980 to 1989, when there were always 3-4 great teams in the East (the Celtics, Sixers and Bucks dominated the first half, then the Celtics, Pistons, Bulls, Hawks and Cavs took turns in the second half) and the Lakers whupped up a different underdog in the Western finals almost every year. But here was the big difference: Because the league hadn't killed itself with expansion and there were so many salary cap loopholes, the Lakers were always really good. They went nine-deep with two franchise players (Magic and Kareem), an All-Star (Worthy), great role players and a rotating cast of accomplished veterans passing through for a ring. Because such a great/memorable/entertaining team was carrying the West in the '80s, nobody cared that the conferences were unbalanced. Now? We care. We don't have Magic's Lakers to salvage things.

2. Once upon a time, the NBA created conferences to cut down on everyone's travel -- not just to save expenses but to save the bodies of its players (all of whom were flying coach). Even now, it's a reasonable strategy for the regular season. But for the playoffs? Not nearly as reasonable. Everyone's flying around in charter jets, for God's sake! If we adopted the 2-3-2 format for every playoff series -- which should happen, anyway -- travel time and days would be cut back. So you can't play the "too much traveling" card. Not in 2007.

3. There's a rigid predictability to the playoffs every spring that we don't necessarily need. For instance, one of the reasons the Mavs-Warriors series was so much fun was because it came out of nowhere. Shouldn't we be searching for that "what a goofy matchup!" variable every spring? Why do we want to subject ourselves to a solid decade of Cavs-Bulls or Cavs-Heat series in the East? Isn't the unpredictability and randomness part of what makes March Madness so great?

On the other hand, some people like tradition. I myself was in that boat for a long time, but after a string of the NBA Finals not coming close to matching the excitement from earlier rounds, I think it's time for a change. Tradition is nice, having the two best teams meet in the NBA Finals is even better.

What are your thoughts? If you were in charge, would you change the playoff format? And I'd love to hear in the comments what'd you would change it too?

Should the NBA Change its Playoff Format?
	Yes
	No

Thursday Debate: Should the MLB All-Star Game "Count?"

There's a little segment on here called The Thursday Debate... today we look at whether or not the All-Star game should "count."

It's not that hard to see why Bud Selig and the MLB came up with the rule that the League that won the All-Star game would have home-field advantage in the World Series. After the tie game a few years back, the All-Star game ran the risk of becoming irrelevent, like so many other All-Star games do.

But the question here is, do you like the rule? Should the MLB All-Star game really mean anything?

Again, I understand why the rule is in place. It makes sure that the game remains relevant and makes sure that the players have something to play for. But still, I have some problems with the rule.

One, the fans vote in the starters. In and of itself, I have no problem with this. The All-Star game is something for the fans, and the fans should be able to vote into the game who they want. That is why, even though the best players are not always starting, I don't really have a problem with them voting in the starters.

But if the game is really going to count, shouldn't the best players be playing? If the game is going to decide who has home-field advantage in the World Series, does it make sense to not have the best players out there?

Secondly, why should the fact that Michael Young (team not in the playoffs) hitting a 2-run triple to win the game mean that the American League got homefield advantage? Why are players who might have no part in the World Series decide this?

So as you can tell, I like the All-Star game, and I like fans voting for the All-Star game, but I don't like the fact that it actually counts for something.

But what do you think? Should the MLB All-Star game count? Place your vote and leave your reasons in the comments.

Should the MLB All-Star Game count?
	Yes
	No

Thursday Debate: Jose Reyes or Hanley Ramirez?

There's a little segment on here called Thursday Debate... today we look at which SS you would rather have on your team, Jose Reyes or Hanley Ramirez?

Based on media hype, this race isn't even close... Jose Reyes is the guy that gets the most publicity and is more well known (if you don't believe me, check out the All-Star voting totals, where so far Reyes is first among NL SS and Ramirez is not in the top 5). But both are under 25 and doing fantastic things for their teams.

But who is better?

First, a look at last year's numbers. Both were fantastic and have some awards to prove it, as Reyes was an All-Star and Ramirez was the NL Rookie of the Year. Jose Reyes batted an even .300 with a .354 OBP, but also showed solid power and a .487 SLG, as he had a very good 66 XBH (30 2B, 17 3B, 19 HR). This was good for an OPS+ of 118. He also stole 64 bases with an excellent 79% success rate. He had 6.27 RC/27.

Ramirez was no slouch either. All he did was bat .292 with a nearly identical (to Reyes) .353 OBP and .480 SLG, as he had 74 XBH in 2006 (46 2B, 11 3B, 17 HR). This was good for a 116 OPS+. He wasn't quite as good of a base stealer as Reyes, but he did steal 51 bases with a 77% success rate. He had 6.00 RC/27.

So looking at the numbers, at least offensively, they were nearly identical in value, though Reyes was maybe slightly better with the extra stolen bases.

In 2007, however, Ramirez has been better so far in my opinion. Both have been awesome, but here are their numbers:

Jose Reyes - 311 BA/395 OBP/474 SLG/869 OPS/136 OPS+/28 SB (84% success), 7.02 RC/27
Hanley Ramirez - 317 BA/392 OBP/510 SLG/902 OPS/144 OPS+/15 SB (78% success), 7.16 RC/27

From the looks of things, Ramirez is hitting for more power than Reyes, and Reyes is again stealing more bases. If you look at RC or OPS+, Ramirez has the slight edge, while Reyes holds a slight edge in VORP.

Age is nearly a wash, as Reyes is only about 6 months older than Ramirez.

If given a choice, I think I might have to take Hanley Ramirez. Reyes creates a little more havoc on the basepaths, but I think Ramirez might have a little more power. He has shown it this year, and he had a little more power in the Minors than Reyes did. At the very least, the two are really, really awesome and really close in value. Reyes may get the most publicity, but Ramirez is one of the best young talents in the MLB.

Who would you choose? Please cast a vote and then your reasons in the comments.

Who would you rather have on your team?
	Jose Reyes
	Hanley Ramirez

Thursday Debate: DH or no DH?

This is another part in the continuing segment on Complete Sports called Thursday Debate. Today let's look at whether or not you like the DH.

The MLB question... do you like the DH or not? Purists will likely say the DH is bad, while non-purists like the boost that the DH brings.

Another thing that I have found is that whether or not you like the DH depends a lot on what your favorite team is and what style of baseball you grew up watching. If you are a fan of a team in the AL and have mostly watched American League games, I think you are more likely to enjoy the DH. If you are a fan of an NL team and mostly have watched National League games, I think you might prefer the pitchers batting.

Certainly it's easy to appreciate both styles of play. In the NL, there is a bit more strategy involved, with things like double switches, whether to pinch hit for the pitcher or not, etc. In the AL, there is an increase in offense and more of a threat 1-9 in the order.

I think I generally follow the guideline I set forth earlier. I am a fan of the Minnesota Twins, and have basically grown up watching American League baseball. As such, I like the DH. For me, I'd rather see a DH bat rather than a pitcher try to flail away at the plate.

I can certainly see how you would prefer it the other way, but for my money I'll take the DH.

But what about you? Do you like the DH? I'd be really interested to see your vote and see your reasons in the comments.

Which do you like better?
	DH
	No DH

Thursday Debate: Should Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw have been suspended?

I've got a new thing on here called the Thursday Debate... since it's Thursday, we have another one. Funny how that works.

This has really been talked and talked about, but I thought it might be interesting to pointedly ask the question and add the poll at the end... should these two guys have been suspended for Game 5?

In my opinion, I think the suspensions were warranted. Both players clearly violated the rule, and they should be suspended for it. They both obviously knew about the rule... and for those that claim that it's just a natural reaction and they couldn't stop themselves, well, I would argue that everyone else on both benches was able to.

Let me also mention that I don't like the rule... I think and I hope it will be revised some in the offseason. But that's not the point. The rule is in place, and you can't amend that rule just because the guys are important to the Suns and it's a great series that was greatly affected by the suspensions.

Also, I didn't really see the Tim Duncan thing as being comparable at all. People are saying that if Amare and Diaw are suspended, why wasn't Duncan? Well, Duncan took 2 steps towards a teammate on the ground during a non-altercation... I didn't see that as at all similar to the Suns players running 20+ feet towards an altercation.

In my opinion, the rule is flawed, and the fact that the suspensions wound up having an effect sucks... but, I agree with the decision to suspend them. Fact is, the rule is in place, they violated the rule, and bending the rules just because it's a great series is a dangerous precedent. So basically, I think this was the lesser of two evils.

But I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments and in the poll.

Should Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw have been suspended?
	Yes
	No

Thursday Debate: Who is the 2nd best PG in the NBA?

I've got a new segment on here called Thursday Debate... this is the 3rd installment.

This is an interesting debate... who is the 2nd best PG in the NBA? Obviously this is assuming that we can all agree that Steve Nash is the best PG. I may not be high on Nash as MVP, but there's not much doubt in my mind that he is the premier PG in the NBA for different reasons.

So who is #2? The way I see it there are 7 candidates:

Tony Parker: Parker isn't a great scorer, but he has become a highly efficient offensive player. He doesn't take a lot of outside shots (only 38 attempts on the year), preferring to do most of his damage inside the lane. This has been a real effective thing for him, as he has shot over 50% each of the last 2 seasons.

Deron Williams: These playoffs have sort of been his coming out party, but he's been doing this type of stuff all season long. He finished 2nd in the NBA in assists with 9.3 per game, and also averaged over 16 PPG. He's also a pretty decent rebounder for a PG and a very good defender, and is developing a more consistent jumpshot. He has the quickness, vision, and all-around game to one day very soon be the best PG in the NBA.

Baron Davis: The playoffs has definitely been Davis' re-coming out party, as everyone sort of forgot about him for a couple of years. Honestly he's a threat to get injured at any time, but we've all seen what type of talent he has. He's quick off the dribble, has a very quick jumpshot, and like these other guys is a good passer. The other part of his game that's so good is his defense. He has shown that when he's healthy he is one of the best defenders at the PG position in the NBA.

Jason Kidd: He's getting older but he is still extremely effective. He's not a great shooter, but he's got a decent 3-point shot and he's pretty quick off the dribble. But more importantly is everything else that he does. He's probably the second best passer in the NBA, he's a great rebounder (over 8 per game this year!), and he's one of the best defensive PGs in the NBA.

Chauncey Billups: He wasn't quite as good this year as he was last year, but obviously he's still real good. The great thing about Chauncey is that even though he plays 36 minutes per game at PG, he only turns the ball over twice per game. That's fantastic, especially combined with the 7+ assists per game. Throw in the superb 3-point shooting and clutch performances, and he's a good candidate.

Gilbert Arenas: He's the best scorer on this list, but doesn't quite do as much as some of these other guys. He turns the ball over a relatively high amount of times compared to his assists, and he's not a great defender. But he's a solid shooter... and most importantly he gets to the line a lot. He averaged nearly 10 FT attempts per game which is one of the big reasons he's such an effective scorer.

Chris Paul: He's a guy that will probably always be compared some to Deron Williams because of the draft position, and he has not disappointed in his 2 years. He's extremely quick which allows him to get to the basket effectively. He was hurt some this year, but he was ridiculously good when he played. He averaged over 17 points per game to go along with 8.9 APG. He's also a pretty good rebounder with over 4 per game. His 3-point shot improved from 28% to 35% this year... if he can continue that he'll virtually be unstoppable.

This is extraordinarily tough choice that I have a hard time making. I would probably take Chris Paul right now, just because of his great all-around game... the shooting is coming along, quickness with the ball, great vision, and quick hands defensively. In only his second year, he has quickly moved up the charts.

But there is obviously room for disagreement here with lots of great choices. Who's your choice?

Who is the 2nd best PG in the NBA?
	Tony Parker
	Deron Williams
	Baron Davis
	Jason Kidd
	Chauncey Billups
	Gilbert Arenas
	Chris Paul
	Other

Thursday Debate: Should Bert Blyleven be in the Hall of Fame?

I'm starting up a new segment here on Complete Sports called the Thursday Debate. This is the second installment, and deals with the question of whether or not Bert should be in the HOF.

Just for giggles, I'm going to give you the stats of 2 pitchers... one is in the Hall of Fame and generally regarded by sportswriters as one of the best pitchers of all time. The other is not in the Hall of Fame.

Player A: 324-292 overall record (.524 winning %), 3.19 ERA (3.57 was the League ERA over the same time period), 112 ERA+, 1.25 WHIP, 5714 K in 5386 IP, 2.04 K/BB ratio, 3.07 postseason ERA

Player B: 287-250 overall record (.534 winning %), 3.31 ERA (3.90 was the League ERA over the same time period), 118 ERA+, 1.20 WHIP, 3701 K in 4970 IP, 2.80 K/BB ratio, 2.47 postseason ERA

As you probably guessed, Player B was Bert Blyleven, who is still not in the HOF. Player A is Nolan Ryan, certainly an excellent pitcher, but also one of the most overrated pitchers of all-time.

If you look closely, I'm not sure Ryan is a better pitcher than Blyleven. When Ryan was on, he was great (strikeout record, 9 no-hitters), but he also has thrown more BB than anyone else ever. Ryan has the lower raw ERA, but he did it in a time where ERAs were generally lower, which results in a better ERA+ (ERA in relation to the League with 100 as the average) for Blyleven.

In the end, Nolan Ryan was the better strikeout pitcher and gave up less HRs than Blyleven, while Blyleven had much better control while still maintaining good strikeout dominance (higher K/BB ratio than Ryan. Both were very dominant when they were on their game... Ryan had 61 career shutouts, Blyleven had 60.

But there should be no need for this discussion. Both guys belong in the Hall. So how is Bert Blyleven, one of the top 20 or 30 pitchers EVER not in the Hall of Fame yet? Your guess is as good as mine. Bottom line, Bert Belongs.

Do you agree? Vote in the poll and/or post your argument in the comments. It seems almost universal among fans that Bert should be in, but apparently the voters don't agree.

Should Bert Blyleven be in the Hall of Fame?
	Yes
	No

Thursday Debate: Pedro Martinez or Sandy Koufax

I'm planning on starting up a feature on here called Thursday Debate... I'll look at both sides of a sports debate, give my take on it, and then put up a poll and let you decide.

For this first edition, I thought it'd be interesting to take a look at which pitcher had the better peak... Pedro Martinez or Sandy Koufax. To clarify, by peak I generally mean at least 4-7 years. For Sandy Koufax, that was 1962-1966. For Pedro Martinez it was 1997-2003. These are the years I'll focus on.

In many cases, I find that your opinion to this question will say a lot about how you view baseball. If you are more of an "old-school" fan that prefers to base most of their judgements on what they see, you'll probably go with Sandy Koufax. If you are more "sabermetrically" inclined and place greater emphasis on the statistical side of the game, you'll probably go with Pedro Martinez.

Comparing across eras is so difficult in baseball because even though the rules are the same, lots of things change. That is why it is especially important to compare these guys against their peers.

From 1962-1966, the league ERA in Sandy Koufax's league was about 3.29. From 1997-2003 in Pedro's league the ERA was about 4.65. So right there we begin to see the huge difference between the eras. In simple terms, Koufax pitched in the greatest pitching era of all-time, while Pedro pitched in one of the greatest hitters eras of all time.

Now let's take a look at some of the numbers for each.

Pedro Martinez (1997-2003)
- 1408 IP (201 per season)
- 2.55 ERA (ERA+ of 215)
- 252 K per year
- 11.28 K/9
- 45 BB per year
- 5.6 K/BB

Sandy Koufax (1962-1966)
- 1377 IP (275 per season)
- 1.99 ERA (ERA+ of 168)
- 289 K per year
- 9.46 K/9
- 63.2 BB per year
- 4.57 K/BB

What does this all mean? Well, the first thing is that Koufax pitched a lot more innings. But then, that was the norm back then, which makes it less impressive (in comparison). Still obviously a plus for Koufax though. Koufax has the lower raw ERA, but as the ERA+ shows Pedro's was a lot more impressive compared to his era.

Other numbers suggest that Koufax had a little better control, but Pedro made up for that by striking almost 2 more batters per 9 innings and having a better K/BB ratio.

Postseason numbers also play a role... in 3 postseason series Martinez was 3-0 with a 1.13 ERA. In 3 postseason series Koufax went 4-2 with a 0.94 ERA. So Koufax had more chances, but both guys were incredible.

Anyway, putting it all together, in my opinion Pedro Martinez had the best peak of any pitcher ever. He was more dominant when compared to his peers than Koufax, and that puts him in front for me. Also, if pressed, I'd probably say Pedro's 2000 season was the best pitching season ever.

But enough about me... what do you think? Vote in the poll and leave your reasons in the comments?

Which better had a better prime?
	Pedro Martinez
	Sandy Koufax