The Talkin' Baseball series on this blog has proven to be quite the hit. I've enjoyed all four interviews immensely, but the most recent interviewee, blue@orange, thought it was time for me to answer a few questions of my own. Check out the most recent post under his Blue@tangerine screenname, and you'll see that I am now the subject of a Talkin' Baseball interview!

Are you curious how I became a fan? Why I root for both the Cubs and the White Sox? It's all there! Check it out!

He may be the man of a thousand screen names, but he's most commonly known to all of us here at the FOX Sports blogs as blue@orange. He's been a fan of the New York Mets through 40 years of ups and downs, from the Amazin' era of the late 60's to the Oh-So-Close era of today, and he proudly sports their colors in word form. If there's anyone here we should be talkin' Mets with, it's this guy. Read on to find out which famous Met manager he finds vastly overrated, what his first priority will be when he becomes Commissioner of baseball and more.

1. Where did it all begin? How and when did you become a baseball fan?

I was 5 years old in 1969, Dad was a Mets fan. I guess he decided that was the best time to introduce me to the game. We watched the games on an old black-and-white TV, and I can still picture it clearly in my mind. I didn't get it then as I did later, my father staring at the TV saying over and over, "I can't believe they did it." Great memory.

2. Of all the baseball games you've attended, which one is your favorite?

11-year-old little leaguer in, I think, 1975. I grew up in a neighborhood packed full of kids my age who did nothing but play sports, and back there baseball was king, whether wiffle ball in the streets, softball or baseball at the park at our school. In the summer we played every day, and we always pretended to be our favorite players. I had the head-first Pete Rose down to a science. In my town we had a summer rec program that included 4-5 trips a summer to the Vet to see Philly games (damn, why couldn't Flushing be closer?). We, for a dollar, would be packed into 2 or 3 buses and head to those Bob Uecker seats, the yellow ones at the top in right-center.

It was a day game, Phillies/Reds. One of the older kids found a way to get to the lower level, but this included hopping off a 6-foot railing onto an escalator that was still turned on and going up. Well, those of us with the grapes made the jump. I and about 8 others had the grapes. We broke into groups, and the guys I was with headed to these box seats behind the Reds' dugout, so close to the on-deck circle that Pete Rose had to hear me yell, "Hey Charlie Hustle, get a hit!" It was all I could think of at the time. I know he heard me, because he turned around and smiled.

That lasted all of 2 innings before we were rudely ushered back upstairs, only to wait 'til the coast was clear and head right back to that escalator. We headed for the bullpen this time. You could hang over the railing and look down on the pitchers warming up, and those guys were great, they would actually talk to you. The bullpens were set up between the outfield walls and the back wall of the stadium, perfect for that echo effect. The ball would hit the mitt and it sounded like a cannon going off. Rudely interrupted for a second time, we spent the rest of the game in our nosebleed seats. Seeing guys like Bench, Rose and Schmidt that close for the first time was just awe-inspiring.

3. How much do you hate the Florida Marlins?

I don't, nor do I hate the Phils or the Braves, though I pretend to. Rivalries are great for the game. It adds another element, makes things interesting. But I do hate the Yanks.

4. Other than 1969 or 1986, which was your favorite Mets team?

The current one. Wright, Reyes and Beltran are quickly becoming part of my all-time favorite list. Actually, I love them all, even the cellar-dwellers of the 70's. You remember, Dave Kingman, John Milner and them. They made the 80's that much more rewarding.

5. Who were the best and worst Met managers you ever saw?

Best, Gil Hodges, PERIOD. Student of the game, disciplinarian, and his players loved him. Just listen to Tom Seaver rave about the guy, or just look at the ballclub he won with. He got more out of old-timers and role players than anyone ever in the game's history. '69 was more Gil than anything else.

Worst, you know I'm goin' Willie Randolph. Don't even need to explain.

How 'bout this one? Davey Johnson. Yup, I said it. Polar opposite of Hodges. Had the best team in the 80's. No discipline. He seemed to just put this talented team on autopilot. If I'm wrong, why didn't the Mets win 2 Series in oh, 4 attempts? They won one by the skin of their teeth and that was it. Nope, Johnson did less with more.

6. I'll name some names and you tell me what comes to mind. It can be a thought, a memory, or whatever you want.

Ed Kranepool= Steady Eddie. Was a Met forever. Best pinch-hitter of all time in my book. Trivia: What pinch-hitter holds the highest average for one season? Ed Kranepool, close to .490 as I remember.

Jerry Koosman= Koosman? You kiddin'? So far in this series you've passed by Tony Gwynn, Yastrzemski, Schmidt, the greats that we've all wanted to talk about. You throwin' me a bone, or did you drop the ball, 'cause the Koos is in my top 5 Mets easy. If there's no Koosman, there might not be a miracle. Seaver lost Game 1, Koosman won the first and last game for the Mets in the '69 series. He also (if memory serves) staved off elimination against the A's in '73 with a win in Game 6. He never stopped tryin'. Had his best year, 21 or 22 wins, as part of those cellar-dwellers I spoke of. Best #2 starter the Mets ever had. Loved the Koos.

Ron Hodges= Jerry Grote got old, Duffy Dyer didnt pan out, and Hodges was our capable backstop for 3 or 4 years. I got less to say about him than his bat had to say.

Lee Mazzilli= Fan favorite, great utility player and another in a long line of great Met pinch-hitters. Believe it or not, I'd like to see this guy get another shot, a real shot at managing the Mets.

Doug Sisk= Where's he at these days? He'd have fit right into last year's bullpen: devastating sinker that was hardly ever seen near the strike zone.

Mackey Sasser= He was the Duffy Dyer to Gary Carter. As Dyer was supposed to be the next Grote, Sasser was supposed to be the next Carter. Same result, basically. The one thing that sticks out about Sasser was the hiccup in his throw back to the mound. It looked like he was pump-faking the pitcher. Pretty funny.

Bobby Jones= What happened to him? He was pretty good. Not a flame-thrower, but a good curve that was so slow it was like an offspeed pitch. Almost no-hit the Giants in the Playoffs in 2000. Damn Jeff Kent! Guy was good for win totals in the teens every year, and for the life of me I can't remember what happened to him.

Butch Huskey= Mid-90's role player for 2 or 3 years. Played everywhere but pitcher and catcher, I think. I guess he was there just waiting until the Mets got a real 3rd baseman.

Edgardo Alfonzo= Think he's still playin' minor league ball in the area? I dont know. This one leaves all Met fans scratching their heads. He was so good for about 2 years and then just got so bad so fast it made our heads spin. Kinda like Andruw Jones, he just lost it.

7. If you could undo any trade in Mets history, which one would it be?

It's not what you're thinkin', not Nolan. The Mets had Seaver, Koosman and Matlack. Ryan had control problems at that point and had asked the Mets to trade him. I dont believe in hindsight. No, but I got a tie for my worst. #1, Juan Samuel for Lenny Dykstra? To the Phillies? No way, that one killed me. #1A, David Cone for Jeff Kent? Cone went on to glory with the Yankees, OUCH, and Kent went on to give his best years to the Giants, DOUBLE OUCH. Honorable mention? Scott to Houston almost cost us in '86, Kazmir, Isringhausen...I better stop, the list is long.

8. What do you think of all the alternate uniforms the Mets have these days? Do you like them or do you think the Mets should stick with their traditional look?

As Keith Hernandez always says, "Bring back the pinstripes!!!"

9. Are you going to miss Shea Stadium?

I'm holding my answer until after my first trip to Citi Field.

10. What changes would you make if you were in charge of Major League Baseball?

I've often discussed on this blog my disgust of the DH. I hope one never makes it to the Hall. When I finally get the vote and become the Commissioner, losing the DH will be a top priority. The money is a hard issue and I don't pretend to have the answers, but there's got to be a way to help the smaller market teams. I just don't know what it is.

11. What does 2009 hold for the Mets?

Gee, thanks man? I see only two ways this can go: a trip to the Series or another heartbreaking collapse. They're just too good a team to drop from the picture altogether at this point, but they are the same team who I thought would win it all the last 3 years runnin'.

12. To sum things up, tell us what the game of baseball means to you.

You know Ian, The first thing that comes to mind is when you and I tried to convince Lisa and others of the greatness of this game and we were told it was boring and took too long. If you get the game, you enjoy all the little things like 3-2 count and the batter knows he's gettin' a fastball, but when he gets the change his knees buckle and the bat never moves. OR you're down 1 run in the 5th, 2 outs, man on 2nd, your pitcher (other than the 1 run early) has settled in and is well under the pitch count, but you want the run, what do you do? OR some of my favorite nuances of the game, Beltran takes the field, any field, and the gaps in right and left center that you thought were there are now gone because he's the best. I could watch the game for that alone. OR David Wright goin' deep behind the bag for that grounder that's sure to be a base hit, but Dave's got a cannon and Delgado is a human vacuum, go back to the dugout son, you're out. I love it all. Guys who can paint the corners like Glavine, it's high art to me. Getting the game Ian, the 6-4-3 double plays or watching that shut down closer do his thing. Knowing the game, not just the K's and home runs, That's what it's all about to me now.

 

Awesome stuff, Blue! If you want to read more of blue@orange's thoughts about sports, there are several monikers by which he is known. Collect them all! Have a safe and happy new year, everyone!

Back when baseball's postseason awards were announced, there was some outrage that Albert Pujols beat out Ryan Howard for the National League MVP. While Howard had the edge in the counting stats, the rate stats favored Pujols by a wide margin. Fortunately, the voters got it right. At the time though, I was curious about where Howard's stats ranked among Major League first basemen, so I compiled a list to see for myself. While it confirmed that Howard wasn't the MVP, it also made me curious about what the rankings for other positions would look like. With January approaching and "year in review" stuff all over the place, I thought it would be interesting to share the results I found for each position in baseball.

Before we look at them, I should establish what my criteria were. First of all, catchers and infielders had to play at least 850 innings at one position, and outfielders had to play at least 750. The standards for outfielders are lower because I found that they tend to get shifted around more than infielders do. If a guy split time between two positions but played enough innings to qualify at one of them, his stats are counted just as they would be if he'd played only the one.

What's the reason for the minimum-inning requirement? As this project evolved, I decided it would be a good way to determine the best player in baseball at a given position for one specific season, not just the best general players based on career accomplishments or pure talent. For instance, if someone asked you who the best third baseman in the National League was, who would you say? David Wright? A good choice, but was he the most productive this year?

Do my criteria penalize guys who didn't quite play enough innings or guys who split time between two positions? Sure, but I figure there needs to be some minimum requirement to be in the argument for the best at a given position. If you disagree with my criteria, there are other (probably better) lists out there.

Each position section will show the eligible players ranked by Adjusted OPS+. If you don't know what Adjusted OPS+ is, it's a general measure of how far above or below average the sum of a hitter's on-base and slugging percentages is, adjusted for ballpark factors and the opposition he faced. 100 is average, 150 is 50% above average, and 50 is 50% below average. If you're interested in further explanation, Baseball-Reference (the source of these statistics) goes into more detail. Don't take these tables to be a definitive best-to-worst ranking. They're more a guideline of offensive productivity.

In each section I'll make my pick for the best player at each position in each league, as well as all of Major League Baseball. The OPS+ will be a big factor, as will other things, like walk-drawing ability (I place more value on OBP than slugging) and defense. Most of the defensive ratings will come from the website for the Dewan Fielding Bible.

Enough talking! You want to see the results! Here they are:

Catcher

This one's pretty clear-cut. Joe Mauer was the AL's best offensive catcher and Brian McCann was the NL's best. McCann isn't outstanding defensively, but Mauer is one of the premier defensive catchers in baseball, making him my MLB pick. Ryan Doumit, Kelly Shoppach and Geovany Soto ranked third through fifth in OPS+, which is pretty good considering they were all in their first years as full-time players. None of the NL catchers just behind McCann offensively are especially better defensively, so he's my pick for the NL's top backstop.

AL: Joe Mauer
NL: Brian McCann
MLB: Joe Mauer

First Base

Here's the one that started it all, and Albert Pujols was clearly a mile ahead of the competition. Throw in his great defense and there's no question he was baseball's best first baseman in 2008. Lance Berkman really flew under the radar, despite a monster season of his own. Mark Teixeira finished the year in the AL, but he didn't play enough innings there to qualify as the junior circuit's best first baseman. The next player down the list in OPS+ is Kevin Youkilis, and since he's a pretty good fielder himself, I'd say he's the man for the AL spot. Ryan Howard put up some big power numbers, but his OPS+ was right in the middle of the pack with Joey Votto.

AL: Kevin Youkilis
NL: Albert Pujols
MLB: Albert Pujols

Second Base

It's not even close in the NL. Chase Utley was the best offensive and defensive second baseman (+47 according to the DFB), making him my MLB pick as well. Dustin Pedroia won the AL MVP, but Ian Kinsler had a higher OPS+ and was more of a threat on the basepaths. Second base is an important defensive position though, so it can't be judged completely on offense. According to the Fielding Bible, Pedroia was a strong +15, while Kinsler was an awful -15. As much as I'd like to give this spot to a fellow Ian, I'm going to have to give it to the little guy from Boston.

AL: Dustin Pedroia
NL: Chase Utley
MLB: Chase Utley

Third Base

Both Chipper Jones and Alex Rodriguez had a sizable OPS+ lead over the next third basemen in their respective leagues, and Jones' +9 in the DFB makes him my MLB pick. David Wright also had an outstanding season, but it was no match for these two.

AL: Alex Rodriguez
NL: Chipper Jones
MLB: Chipper Jones

Shortstop

Hanley Ramirez wins the MLB and NL spots by a landslide, and we have an interesting situation in the AL. The best by OPS+ is Jhonny Peralta, who's not known for his strong fielding, and the next one down the line is Derek Jeter, whose fielding is at -12 in the DFB. If Mike Aviles had played about 100 more innings at short, his +15 fielding and 122 OPS+ would've taken this spot easily. There really weren't any outstanding AL shortstops that met my criteria this year. As odd as it seems based on his reputation, I'm going to have to give this one to Peralta.

AL: Jhonny Peralta
NL: Hanley Ramirez
MLB: Hanley Ramirez

Left Field

Cases like this are why there's an MLB pick. Manny Ramirez (bad fielding and all) was clearly the best left fielder in baseball, but he didn't play enough innings to qualify in either league. Fortunately, he'll be recognized. Two guys named Carlos are next on the list, and Quentin certainly deserves the AL spot. While Carlos Lee has a four-point lead over Matt Holliday in OPS+, Holliday stole bases at an incredible rate, was better at drawing walks, and had a +11 DFB rating. I have to give Holliday the edge here.

AL: Carlos Quentin
NL: Matt Holliday
MLB: Manny Ramirez

Center Field

Carlos Beltran was only slightly ahead of Nate McLouth in OPS+, but the canyon between them in defensive ability gives Beltran the NL center field spot. Josh Hamilton had the best OPS+, but his defense wasn't that great, and Grady Sizemore was a much better base stealer. Since center field is an important defensive position, I'm giving this one to Sizemore.

AL: Grady Sizemore
NL: Carlos Beltran
Overall: Carlos Beltran

Right Field

Yep, that's Ryan Ludwick leading the way. This guy came out of nowhere to put up a 150 OPS+, which outpaced the rest of baseball's right fielders by a good amount. J.D. Drew has a slight lead over Nick Markakis in OPS+, but Markakis' defense is +12, and his 17 outfield assists are pretty dang impressive. Three guys may have a higher OPS+, Brian Giles may have a higher DFB rating, and Drew might be better at drawing walks, but Markakis is more well-rounded than any of them, making him my MLB pick.

AL: Nick Markakis
NL: Ryan Ludwick
Overall: Nick Markakis

To recap:

AL team:

C: Joe Mauer
1B: Kevin Youkilis
2B: Dustin Pedroia
3B: Alex Rodriguez
SS: Jhonny Peralta
LF: Carlos Quentin
CF: Grady Sizemore
RF: Nick Markakis

NL team:

C: Brian McCann
1B: Albert Pujols
2B: Chase Utley
3B: Chipper Jones
SS: Hanley Ramirez
LF: Matt Holliday
CF: Carlos Beltran
RF: Ryan Ludwick

MLB team:

C: Joe Mauer
1B: Albert Pujols
2B: Chase Utley
3B: Chipper Jones
SS: Hanley Ramirez
LF: Manny Ramirez
CF: Carlos Beltran
RF: Nick Markakis

Agree? Disagree? Think my criteria were too strict? Feel free to let me know.

Way back in the days of yore (September), I made my predictions about how the NFL's final standings would look. Since I'm far from an expert on football, I predicted that most of my predictions would be wrong. How wrong were they though? Let's take a look.

Note: I only predicted the order of standings and who'd win the Wild Cards, not actual team records.

AFC East:

My prediction:

1. New England Patriots
2. New York Jets*
3. Buffalo Bills
4. Miami Dolphins

Actual:

1. Miami Dolphins (11-5)
2. New England Patriots (11-5)
3. New York Jets (9-7)
4. Buffalo Bills (7-9)

Well, I'll be ding-danged. I sure didn't see this coming. The Dolphins won the division and the Patriots didn't even make the Playoffs. Of course, none of us could've known that Tom Brady would be injured in Week 1, and I doubt many of us thought the Dolphins would go from 1-15 to the Playoffs in just a year. The Jets didn't win that Wild Card spot I predicted, and the only reason the Bills were semi-respectable was because they got off to a good start.

Personally, I'm happy with this outcome. I was rooting for the Bills, since they're the only team in this division that hasn't won a Super Bowl, but the Dolphins were my second choice. I don't think anyone outside of New England likes the Patriots anymore (especially not a Boston-hater like me), and Brett Favre is certainly on my "Ten Least-Favorite NFL Players" list. Now the offseason soap opera begins. I love the possibility that the last two plays of Favre's career could be an interception and an illegal forward pass, but I'm not going to kid myself: the guy will never go away. I'm sure the Packers are laughing now that someone else has to deal with their old headache.

AFC North:

My prediction:

1. Pittsburgh Steelers
2. Cleveland Browns*
3. Baltimore Ravens
4. Cincinnati Bengals

Actual:

1. Pittsburgh Steelers (12-4)
2. Baltimore Ravens (11-5)*
3. Cincinnati Bengals (4-11-1)
4. Cleveland Browns (4-12)

I got a division winner right! Of course, the Steelers were the obvious preseason pick, and my prediction of the Browns getting a Wild Card spot was waaaaaay off. The Bengals avoided my last place prediction by virtue of a tie, and I certainly underestimated the Ravens, who made it back to the Playoffs.

I hate the Steelers, but it's not terribly crushing to see a team you hate win when you were expecting it all along. I've always felt some sympathy for the city of Cleveland, and that was probably part of the reason I predicted a Playoff spot for the Browns. Too bad it wasn't to be. The Ravens are one of those teams that never gets any respect from the media, so I guess I'm happy to see them in the Playoffs. The only thing anyone will remember about this year's Bengals is the whole "Ocho Cinco" saga.

AFC South:

My prediction:

1. Indianapolis Colts
2. Jacksonville Jaguars
3. Houston Texans
4. Tennessee Titans

Actual:

1. Tennessee Titans (13-3)
2. Indianapolis Colts (12-4)*
3. Houston Texans (8-8)
4. Jacksonville Jaguars (5-11)

Once again, I was dead wrong. Rather than last place, the Titans finished on the opposite side of the standings. I know they made the Playoffs last year, but I doubt anyone thought they'd finish with the NFL's best record. The Colts made the Playoffs as usual, but they were only a Wild Card, not the division winner. The Texans got off to a bad start, but other than that they were pretty good this year. I got their placement in the standings right. The Jaguars were a popular preseason Playoff pick, but I was right about them not making it. Of course, I didn't see them ending up in last place.

I'm cool with these results. Only the Colts have won a Super Bowl in this division, and I actually like them, so I could root for any of these teams in the Playoffs. The Titans are built like a classic Bears team: defense, running game and mediocre quarterback. I'm not sure how good their chances are of making the Super Bowl, but they've had a season to remember. I'm glad the Colts made it. It's good to see the Manning-Dungy legacy continue, and I like how there's no evil Brady-Belichick counterpart that could possibly defeat them in the AFC. I kind of hate the Texans right now for knocking my Bears out of the Playoffs. That Andre Johnson is one incredible receiver. No offense to any Jaguar fans, but I find them a little boring. I'd be fine with them winning the Super Bowl, but I don't miss them too much if they're not in the Playoffs.

AFC West:

My prediction:

1. San Diego Chargers
2. Denver Broncos
3. Oakland Raiders
4. Kansas City Chiefs

Actual:

1. San Diego Chargers (8-8)
2. Denver Broncos (8-8)
3. Oakland Raiders (5-11)
4. Kansas City Chiefs (2-14)

Hey, I got an entire division right! That obviously makes me an expert, so for a small fee I'm willing to advise any of you on which teams to bet on. The Chargers had a hard-luck season, with only one of their losses being by as many as nine points. Not many teams make the Playoffs who were 4-8 at one point, but the Chargers managed to do just that, thanks to a late surge and the Broncos' weak defense. I was surprised that the Broncos managed to be in first place all season, but their offense was better than it looked at first glance. The Raiders didn't significantly improve despite all their offseason moves, and it was obvious the Chiefs weren't going to be any good from the beginning.

Since the Chargers are my AFC team, you can bet I'm glad to see them make the Playoffs. I know they're only 8-8, but as long as they're in they have as much opportunity to win the Super Bowl as anybody else. The Broncos are another team I sort of like, but they've already had their moment in the sun. The Raiders are one of those teams most people either love or hate, and since they've had their share of historical success, I've found it can be fun to hate on them. Of course, it's not as fun when they're being run into the ground by a senile owner who seems to have forgetten the value of good linemen. The Chiefs are another team that doesn't inspire much passion either way.

NFC East:

My prediction:

1. Philadelphia Eagles
2. New York Giants*
3. Dallas Cowboys*
4. Washington Redskins

Actual:

1. New York Giants (12-4)
2. Philadelphia Eagles (9-6-1)*
3. Dallas Cowboys (9-7)
4. Washington Redskins (8-8)

Well, they didn't win the division like I predicted, but the Eagles did make the Playoffs. The Giants proved that last year was no fluke, as they actually bettered their record. Everybody and their mother had the Cowboys in the Playoffs, many even pegging them to win the Super Bowl, so I figured I had to give them at least a Wild Card berth in my predictions. I sensed that there was something missing though, and it looks like I was right. Along with the Redskins, I got their placement in the standings correct.

The Redskins are my favorite team in the NFC East, so I was rooting for them to come out on top. Of course, my diehard Redskins fan friend didn't think they had a chance, and it looks like his doubts were justified. Maybe next year. I'm glad the Cowboys are out of the Playoffs, since it means all the drama surrounding the team won't be taking center stage. I hate the Giants, so they're the NFC "villain" in my book. I'd love to see Philadelphia make it back to the Super Bowl, but I'm not sure they have what it takes.

NFC North:

My prediction:

1. Minnesota Vikings
2. Green Bay Packers
3. Detroit Lions
4. Chicago Bears

Actual:

1. Minnesota Vikings (10-6)
2. Chicago Bears (9-7)
3. Green Bay Packers (6-10)
4. Detroit Lions (0-16)

Well, I got the winner right. I actually had my own team, the Bears, finishing last, but instead they just barely (Bearly?) missed the Playoffs. Go ahead and deduct a few points from my "evaluation skills" score. The Packers weren't as good as I thought they'd be, and the Lions were far worse that I expected. Seriously, 0-16? To think they got off to a 6-2 start last year before finishing 7-9. I thought they'd at least be 4-12 or something.

Since the Bears far exceeded my expectations, I'm proud of them for staying in the race all year. It was disheartening watching Andre Johnson drag defensive backs into the end zone with him in the Bears' final game, but there are several good young guys on this team to give us Bears fans hope for the future. It was fun seeing the Packers lose, even if Aaron Rodgers did show some promise. Hopefully the defense will stay injured next year. I felt bad for the Lions, though it was nice getting some wins from them. Now that Matt Millen's gone, things can only get better in Detroit. The Vikings probably won't go very far in the Playoffs, but they have enough talent that they probably deserved to win this division.

NFC South:

My prediction:

1. Carolina Panthers
2. New Orleans Saints
3. Tampa Bay Buccaneers
4. Atlanta Falcons

Actual:

1. Carolina Panthers (12-4)
2. Atlanta Falcons (11-5)*
3. Tampa Bay Buccaneers (9-7)
4. New Orleans Saints (8-8)

OK, I'm tempted to gloat a little here, but I won't. When the Saints seemed to be everyone's pick to win this division, I took the Panthers. Like the Cowboys, something just seemed to be missing with New Orleans, and the Panthers looked like a more complete team to me. I hadn't counted on the Buccaneers and Falcons being so good, particularly the latter. The Falcons' Wild Card berth represents a truly impressive turnaround. In the wake of the Michael Vick and Bobby Petrino incidents, who thought they'd be a contender, especially in this division? I know the Buccaneers made the Playoffs last year, but they were a mediocre team even then, so I didn't expect much from them this year.

I know I usually root for teams with a history of losing, but I think some of the media hype surrounding the Saints got on my nerves and made me root against them a little this year. I guess you could say I don't hate the Saints (other than Reggie Bush), I just like their divison rivals better. I'm mainly rooting for the Panthers in the NFC, since I think they're the team with the best chance of knocking off the Giants. Of course, I wouldn't mind seeing the underdog Falcons do it either. That'd make a great story. There's not much to say about the Buccaneers except that Jon Gruden finally led them to two straight winning seasons.

NFC West:

My prediction:

1. Seattle Seahawks
2. Arizona Cardinals
3. St. Louis Rams
4. San Francisco 49ers

Actual:

1. Arizona Cardinals (9-7)
2. San Francisco 49ers (7-9)
3. Seattle Seahawks (4-12)
4. St. Louis Rams (2-14)

Gee, I sure bungled this division. I figured the Seahawks had it wrapped up like always, but the Cardinals, everyone's favorite dark horse, finally raised their game this year. The 49ers proved to be a much better team under former Bear Mike Singletary, and the Rams took their crappiness to new levels.

It's good to see the long-suffering Cardinals finally get a division title. It's a shame they couldn't have done it with a stronger team, since this one doesn't have a real shot at winning anything. It seemed like a shocker earlier this season when the Rams beat the Cowboys. In the context of how the Cowboys' season ended up, the impact has been lessened. As much as I hate the 49ers, I'm glad to see Mike Singletary getting a shot as an NFL head coach. Judging by the press conference he gave after the Vernon Davis incident, I think we'll be seeing him in a Coors Light commercial before too long. I wish the Seahawks had beaten the Steelers in the Super Bowl three years ago, since it looks like this group's window of opportunity is finally closed.

I think these Playoffs are going to be the best we've seen in a while. Only two teams I hate are in it (Steelers and Giants), and more than half of them have yet to win a Super Bowl (Eagles, Cardinals, Falcons, Panthers, Vikings, Chargers and Titans). There's so much potential here for something good that I'm actually somewhat excited. Maybe this time I won't have to boycott the Super Bowl!

Many sports fans (myself included) have grown to hate Boston because of the general obnoxiousness that followed the recent successes of the Patriots, Red Sox and Celtics. "At least the Bruins still stink," we haters told ourselves. Not so anymore. The Bruins are currently leading the Eastern Conference with 52 points, the second-highest total in the NHL. If the Bruins win the Stanley Cup this year, Boston would become the first city to pull off a single-decade quadrifecta. It would also be the closest thing to sports fan hell that exists on this earth.

The Pirates signed catcher Ryan Doumit to a three-year extension. Are you familiar with him? His 128 OPS+ this year was third in the Majors among catchers who caught at least 850 innings. That placed him behind only Joe Mauer and Brian McCann, and ahead of notables like Geovany Soto and Russell Martin. If you haven't heard of him, you probably will soon enough.

Who would've guessed that the Falcons would have more wins than the Cowboys after 15 games? With Atlanta's final game at home against St. Louis and Dallas' final game on the road in Philadelphia, the odds are pretty good that the Falcons will also finish with a better record than the Cowboys.

I hope Mark Teixeira signs with the Nationals. Every time there's a premier player on the market it's just assumed that one of the mega-budget teams is going to get him. Smaller-budget teams need to have something to hope for.

Alex Brown is the man.

Who I'm rooting for in NFL Week 17: Falcons over Rams, Bills over Patriots, Lions over Packers (sorry, all you people who want the Lions to go 0-16, but I have to root against the Packers), Bears over Texans, Giants over Vikings, Panthers over Saints, Browns over Steelers (Cleveland needs some bragging rights after the miserable season they've had), Buccaneers over Raiders, Ravens over Jaguars, Dolphins over Jets, Eagles over Cowboys, Redskins over 49ers, and Chargers over Broncos. Any matchup I didn't mention I have no preference about. We'll be left with a Patriot-less, Jet-less, Cowboy-less Playoffs. The Dolphins would go from 1-15 to winning their division, and the Bears and Chargers, my two favorite teams in each conference, would win their divisions. The NFC East, which looked so dominant early on, would produce only one Playoff team, while the NFC South would produce three. Hey, a guy can dream, can't he?

How about those Blackhawks?