An Analysis of Strength of Schedule for NFL 2012

The NFL released its schedule yesterday, which seems to draw a ton of interest despite everyone's slate of opponents already known.

Everyone is thirsting for WHEN teams are playing, with everyone looking to see how often their team gets prime-time games and if they are on special dates (i.e. Thanksgiving or Christmas).

However, the one thing that annoys me to no end is when people will complain about one team's schedule being easier than others, despite the fact that 14 of the 16 games are already pre-determined (the normal 6 division games + playing one set division in each conference - 4 games each). The reason teams who have great records (i.e. Packers and Patriots) end up having the "easiest" schedule is because they don't have to face themselves, yet their divisional opponents have their 15-1/13-3 records counted against their own schedules twice.

This is one of but many things that people need to be educated on when it comes to this. An analysis of strength of schedule (no particular order):

1. For the most part, Strength of Schedule is combination of luck and strength of division. Why does New England have one of the easiest schedules next year? Check their division--no one finished better than 8-8. Also, check the divisions that they were already pre-assigned to: NFC West (aside from San Fran, same situation--no one better than 8-8) and the AFC South (weighed down by crappy Jaguars and Colts). Remember - 14 of EVERY TEAM'S 16 game schedule is already decided based on division and a rotating division in each conference. The only two games that are decided based on previous year's record - you play the equivalent place teams of the two divisions within your conference that you do not play already. Many times, the record of those teams isn't enough to offset the bad teams already on your schedule.
2. Having an "easy" schedule does not equate to success. This should go without saying, but some people need to be reminded that the NFL changes greatly from year to year, with many teams making strong pushes and sharp declines out of nowhere. For example, any team who had the Colts on their schedule last year looked to be facing a 10-6 team from 2010, only to have Peyton Manning out for a year en route to a 2-14 season. Similarly, the 49ers went from 6-10 to 13-3 -- with many other examples in between on both extremes that show that looking at last year's record to see how tough this year's schedule will be is like using a compass to gauge the temperature.
   
   Some examples of teams with tough schedules entering 2011 who did well: Detroit (tied for 3rd hardest schedule entering 2011 with six other teams at 133-123) went from 6-10 to 10-6 and their first playoff berth in ages. Houston (opponents 132-124 in 2010) did the same and won their first division title in franchise history.
   
   The teams with the hardest schedules (Carolina at 142-114 and Buffalo at 137-119) didn't make the playoffs (both finished with 6 wins), but both teams finished with more wins than the year before (Carolina tripled their win total while Buffalo went from 4 to 6).
   
   The teams with the easiest schedules entering the year (Arizona, Baltimore, San Francisco & Washington in Top 4) had mixed results, showing no particular pattern between how a team will do based on their opponent's record from last year.
3. Obviously, the point of the season that you play an opponent is important...but you can't tell me that a team has an easy schedule solely based on when you play a team. A guy I follow on Twitter made the argument that the Jets' schedule is killer out of the gate while the Patriots' toughest games are at home against the Niners and Texans. As I've stated before (and can't state enough) that 87.5% of your games are already pre-determined, so to figure out a way to make it so that the "good" teams you play throughout the season are spread out (so you're not stacking the deck against a team as this one Twitter follow of mine suggested w/ the Jets) is idiotic at best.
   
   If your "easy" games out of the gate get you to a 2 or 3-0 record, does that improve your chances of making the playoffs? Sure, but if you're a true playoff team, you're going to find a way to beat the good/great teams (no matter where they come up on the schedule) on occasion while dominating the crap teams (let's say 65-70% - just to pull a number out of my ass). Let's say that you start a season with 4 teams who made the playoffs last year (2 at home, 2 on the road) - a 2-2 start isn't a bad first quarter of the year, 1-3/0-4, and it probably means you're not a good team to begin with. You can't use schedule as an excuse.
   
   I do admit that timing of certain games will help a team win or lose a game or two that would have otherwise resulted in the opposite outcome - due to injuries, player development, weather, etc. But to say that the Patriots have a cakewalk of a schedule (compared to the Jets, who only have two different opponents) is really just saying that the Patriots are better than them and the difference between the different teams they face isn't much.
4. Strength of schedule entering a year is not what it will be when the year is done.  Using the 2010 records of opponents and how their opponents actually fared can look like mirror images when the year is over.
   
   Take a look at the chart below. A total of 10 teams saw their opponent's record change by more than 7 total wins, meaning that their average opponent increased or decreased their win total by 0.5 wins or more. There are plenty of reasons for a team's projected strength of schedule changes from preseason to actual season, many of them having to do with the improvement/decline of their own team and the improvement/decline of their opponents. When it comes to the decline of an opponent, a team obviously cannot control that - just take advantage of it.
   
   Out of these 10 teams, six of them resulted in easier schedules (with the Patriots, Saints, Texans and Packers making it to the playoffs) - some may blame their weakened divisions for that, others may say the divisions became weaker BECAUSE of these teams. The four teams who had their schedule toughened by 10+ games from 2010 to 2011 (Cleveland, St. Louis, Tampa Bay & Minnesota) were among the league's worst teams in the league, so they may have contributed to their own tough schedule due to their suckiness.
5. If we use 2011 final Strength of Schedule and compare it to the 2012 version entering the year...here are some teams that could be looking at drastic changes in wins/losses:
   
   Buffalo Bills go from a 133-123 schedule to a 121-135 schedule. If it plays out as such, I could see them getting up to 8 wins.
   
   Baltimore goes from 122-134 to 134-122. Could mean a two-game decrease in wins if it plays out that way (10-6 record in 2012).
   
   Indy goes from 138-118 to 128-128. Much of this is a product of going from playing first-place AFC teams in every division to last-place. A marginal improvement to 4-5 wins could be in order.
   
   Dallas actually had one of the easiest schedules last year (119-137) and failed to take advantage of it, so their opponents which sport 129-127 in 2012 could actually make for a dip in wins for America's team.
   
   Aside from Green Bay, everyone else in the NFC North (even Detroit) looks to make improvements if the 2012 schedule strength means anything. By no means are the Packers a lock to repeat as NFC North champions.
   
   San Fran (13-3) and Arizona (8-8) will play tougher schedules, while the Rams, who had by far the most difficult schedule in 2011 (151-105 is 8 games harder than any other team in the league), should improve by at least a couple games.
   
   Obviously, all of the above scenarios do not take health or other things into account. A team losing its starting QB (like Packers or Patriots) would throw everything completely off the rails.
6. You're probably wondering...how can Brian dismiss the strength of schedule, yet use an example above to see what teams could improve or decline next year? I don't think strength of schedule is a completely useless tool - it gives you an idea of how tough of opponents that you will have if the team plays similarly to the year before, which is often not the case. I do think some teams are consistent enough (consistently good and bad) from year to year, where looking at their record could prove to be useful in projecting expectations. But those teams that fluctuate 4+ wins year in/year out don't really help the SOS model all that much when predicting how your team will do next year.

Table of Strength of Schedule from end of 2010 for the 2011 season, how it changed as 2011 played out, and how much team improved/declined in win total. Strength of schedule for 2012 gathered from http://www.nflschedulesupersite.com/2012-nfl-strength-of-schedule/

	2010 Win/Loss	2011 Win/Loss	Difference	Net Team Wins	Playoffs?	2012 Schedule
AFC East
New England	129-127	115-141	-14	-1	yes	116-140
NY Jets	133-123	128-128	-5	-3	no	126-130
Miami	130-126	129-127	-1	-1	no	127-129
Buffalo	137-119 (2)	133-123	-4	2	no	121-135
AFC North
Balt	117-139	122-134	5	0	yes	134-122
Cincy	121-135	126-130	5	5	yes	128-128
Cleveland	126-130	136-120	10	-1	no	135-121
Pitt	121-135	126-130	5	0	yes	128-128
AFC South
Tennessee	125-131	121-135	-4	-3	no	123-133
Indy	133-123	138-118	5	-8	no	128-128
Jax	132-124	128-128	-4	3	no	128-128
Houston	132-124	116-140	-16	4	yes	121-135
AFC West
Denver	133-123	133-123	0	4	yes	139-117
San Diego	133-123	132-124	-1	-1	no	133-123
KC	133-123	131-125	-2	-2	no	126-130
Oakland	126-130	129-127	3	-1	no	127-129
NFC East
Dallas	129-127	119-137	-10	2	no	129-127
Washington	121-135	122-134	1	-1	no	125-131
NY Giants	126-130	133-123	7	-1	yes	140-116
Philly	129-127	125-131	-4	-2	no	132-124
NFC North
Green Bay	130-126	116-140	-14	5	yes	120-136
Minnesota	132-124	143-113	11	-3	no	131-125
Chicago	128-128	135-121	7	-3	no	126-130
Detroit	133-123	137-119	4	4	yes	126-130
NFC West
San Fran	119-137	114-142	-5	7	yes	125-131
Seattle	125-131	131-125	6	0	no	129-127
Arizona	113-143	120-136	7	3	no	131-125
St Louis	122-134	151-105	29	-5	no	134-122
NFC South
New Orleans	130-126	113-143	-17	2	yes	129-127
Atlanta	126-130	123-133	-3	-3	yes	125-131
Tampa Bay	127-129	141-117	14	-6	no	124-132
Carolina	142-114 (1)	129-127	-13	4	no	130-126

A Model Citizen (Blog 200)

For my 200th blog, I am very proud to make it as self-centered as I possibly can.

What do I talk about....my bowling abilities? Nah - nothing to write home about lately.

My amazing gambling wins of the past couple months? This has been better than my bowling, especially with March Madness, but still, not the topic I care to discuss.

Rather, it's something that I can't talk about off the top of my head...wait, actually, I can.

This 5'9", 215 pound mutt will be (drumroll please)......a hair model. That's right, yours truly will be showing off his amazing haircut in front of the employees and bosses of Red 7 Salon, the place where my beautiful girlfriend works.

From my understanding, I get to walk like I am on a runway, showing off the haircut that Jen's co-worker Lindsey (who is completing her initial 15-month program) recently gave me. I must say, it's a sharp haircut that I've gotten quite the compliments. Luckily, nothing that the girlfriend has to beat any women up for (at least at this point).

I will be one of seven different hairstyles on display at Lindsey's show - and the only male participant. As if I needed more of an ego boost.

I hope a video or some pictures of this surfaces sooner rather than later and I can show everyone how terrific of a hair model I am. Hopefully, it will be a better modeling job than George Costanza's hand modeling career on Seinfeld.

The real question now becomes - is there any way I can put this into my resume....especially without looking like a complete tool? I doubt it, but I can only imagine what kind of conversations would come from potential future employers about the brief modeling career.

Wish me luck as I grace the stage of Red 7 Salon and show off my amazing catwalk skills.

Also, thanks for everyone inspiring me to keep writing the past 200 blogs. I hope to keep going with this into the future years in some form.

Save the Best for First: The Beauty of Baseball's Opening Day

Even though I don't get into baseball as much as I used to when I was a five-year old boy playing catch with his dad, I still find a great appreciation to Opening Days, particularly home openers. Something about the grass starting to show its green color in the Spring sun, about the sound of baseballs echoing in the catcher's mitt, there's nothing quite like it.

I am heading to the Sox opener and hope to enjoy all these sounds and sights from my 500 level seats. Not the best seats, but any seat on opening day is a great seat.

There's plenty of excitement spread out across my two social networking sites, and with good reason. Even though not much is expected out of the White Sox this year, the concept of Opening Day allows you to be delusional, if only for 3 hours and 9 innings.

A few beers to be consumed, bratwursts to be digested and hopefully, a White Sox winner are all in the horizon. Happy Opening Day to US Cellular Field baseball. May everyone enjoy it and the rest of the season. Hopefully, our squad will surprise us this season.

Stupid-stision: The Myth of the Madden Curse and Other Curses

(some Stevie Wonder to start the blog - can't beat it)

When you read my blog on a daily basis (because I'm sure you all do), what's your way of reading it? Do you do a lap around the block or eat a couple slices of pineapple beforehand? Do you walk upstairs backwards and then turn your TV to Channel 44? Sounds silly, doesn't it?

It's no different than how people are with sports, but both athletes and fans alike have their own superstitions and routines that they do before they watch their team play or before they play in the big game. I guess I see the reason that athletes do it - as they are the ones playing and sometimes you have to be in the right frame of mind mentally to play at your highest level, screwed up routine be damned.

But for fans? It seems absurd that people would eat the same meal every Sunday an hour before their team kicks off "because otherwise, the team will lose!" Yes - your team will be cursed if you don't eat that three-egged omlette with a side of wheat toast. Two eggs? Might as well wait for victory next week.

I write about curses and superstition on the eve of the new Madden cover for the 2013 version of the video game being announced. This year, fans are able to vote for the cover, with the finalists being Aaron Rodgers, Patrick Willis, Calvin Johnson and Cam Newton, with Newton having the inside edge in my opinion. If Newton gets voted as the cover boy, does that mean he will be "cursed"? To many, it does - as there is a supposed "Madden Curse" that has plagued just about every cover athlete since there's been an athlete on it. I'm here to debunk this myth and help you get your heads out of your asses.

Here's the list of Madden cover athletes (since 2001, when the cover started featuring someone other than the rotund announcer)

2001 - Eddie George; 2002 - Daunte Culpepper; 2003 - Marshall Faulk; 2004 - Michael Vick; 2005 - Ray Lewis; 2006 - Donovan McNabb; 2007 - Shaun Alexander; 2008 - Vince Young; 2009 - Brett Favre; 2010 - Troy Polamalu + Larry Fitzgerald; 2011 - Drew Brees; 2012 - Peyton Hillis


While many of these athletes underperformed in the year that they were the featured guy on the cover, many of them had good reasons. Remember that the year on the cover is what year that season's Super Bowl is played, not the regular season itself.

For the 2000 season - Eddie George actually played well - 403 carries for 1509 yards and 14 touchdowns. Like many running backs (especially some on this list), when you have that many carries, a deterioration is likely to occur in the following years.

In 2001, Daunte Culpepper was entering his second full year as the Vikings starting QB, but saw his numbers dip from 3937 yards, 33 TDs and 16 interceptions to 2612/14/13 as the Vikings limped to a 5-11 record. Culpepper missed the final five games of the year with a knee injury and continued to have crappy years until 2003-2004, when he averaged 4,000 yards, 32 TDs & only 11 picks. Hardly a curse of a career by any means.

2002 was the first year Marshall Faulk didn't register 1000 yards rushing since 1996, but like Eddie George, had plenty of mileage on his legs entering that year (over 2000 carries entering the season). The Rams went from Super Bowl runner-ups to a 7-9 record and missing the playoffs. However, this was NOT because Marshall Faulk was on the cover.

2003 - Michael Vick got hurt in the preseason and didn't return until Week 13. His curse thereafter was self-inflicted in the form of dog fighting. Again, not a product of the Madden curse.

2004 - Ray Lewis was named to his 7th Pro Bowl. He got hurt the next year, but has continued his All-Pro career ever since.

2005 - Donovan McNabb was on pace to easily eclipse his career high in yards before getting injured in November and playing only 9 games (2507 yards), with the Eagles going 4-5 in those starts. He did this in spite of having Terrell Owens as a distraction throughout the year. Some say the Madden curse causes injuries: I say it's 260 pound linebackers doing the job.

2006 - Shaun Alexander: See George and Faulk. Too many miles on the legs to be effective at this point in his career.

2007 - Vince Young. Not sure why he was a cover boy. Probably had a lot to do with his feats the year before while leading Texas to the BCS Championship over USC in thrilling fashion. I'd say this was less of a curse than it was a poor decision to put Young on the cover. Despite his 9 TD to 17 interception ratio, the Titans somehow made the playoffs.

2008 - Brett Favre played his first year outside of Lambeau Field and struggled through injuries as the Jets went 9-7 and missed out on the playoffs in Favre's only year. Playing through injuries was a staple of Favre's career, but it seemed more noticeable this particular year. By this year, many had already began accepting the Madden Curse as fact. I simply say it was Favre being Favre and having one of his several mediocre seasons in the latter half of his career.

2009 - Troy Polamalu got hurt in the season opener, missed a few games, then came back and got hurt again; meanwhile, Fitzgerald played in all 16 games, amassing 97 catches, 1092 yards and a league-high 13 receiving TDs. I'll say the cover was 50% here.

2010 - En route to another Pro Bowl, Drew Brees led the Saints to an 11-5 mark, the year after they won the Super Bowl. It was the 5th year in a row he threw for 4300+ yards, but he did have a career-high 22 picks. As many of you remember, the Saints were upset in the first round by the 7-9 Seahawks, the first team ever to make the playoffs with a losing record.

2011 - I have no clue why Peyton Hillis was even allowed on the cover.  His 2010 season wasn't terrible (1177 yards rushing, 13 total TDs), but I wouldn't say it's the pedigree of a cover boy. Needless to say, to keep everyone who believes in the curse believing, Hillis flamed out, playing in only 10 games while getting half the yards and a third of TDs from the year before.

In my opinion, many of these guys who were deemed "curses" should have never been cover guys in the first place, whether it be because of the decline in skill (for the running backs as noted) or just not talented enough to be cover guys in the first place (Young and Hillis). In a sport as physical as football, injuries are inevitable. Believe in curses all you want, but these guys get hurt just like 100% of football players at some point.

The same curse junk is applied to the Sports Illustrated cover, but when you run a magazine 52 weeks a year, there will be times when you feature a guy who will then lose a big game or a big tournament - it's sports. Do you know who has been featured on the cover of that the most times? Michael Jordan. Heard of him?

Let's not get carried away with curses and superstitions, whether it be in sports or daily life. Your diet or choice of clothing isn't going to change any sports outcome.

Now finish whatever thing it is you do when you read my blog, blink three times and close this browser.

None-and-Done: Why the NBA Needs to Let Preps Go Pro Again

The moment Kentucky won the NCAA crown, plenty of critics of the "one-and-done" voiced their displeasure with how the Wildcats recruitted a bunch of kids who were likely only going to play one year in college (thanks to the NBA's rule requiring high schoolers to wait a year to join the NBA*). I imagine that some of these people don't watch college basketball all that closely. I have a few problems with the one-and-done rule, but they're not the same as everyone elses.

*Most players will go to college for a year, but can opt to play overseas for a year - Brandon Jennings did this in 2008-09 before playing for the Milwaukee Bucks

My view is that the NBA should not be able to put any rule on someone going to college, especially when it's a kid who has clear NBA talent right out of high school (i.e. LeBron).

1. Other sports allow high school kids to get drafted. While the NFL requires players to be three years removed from high school to be draft-eligible, the MLB & NHL allow high school kids to be drafted in their amateur drafts. Each team may have its own views on drafting high schoolers (some may prefer high schoolers for their "upside" while others may prefer college kids' experience, who are a little more battle-tested after facing (and presumably dominating) peers of amateur status). Just because a team has the opportunity to draft a high schooler doesn't mean they have to.
   
   The main reason the NFL has a three-year wait is the size and speed of its athletes, who are clearly superior to their 18-19 year old counterparts and need those 3 years to develop into NFL-type bodies. While there is a learning curve for the NBA that one can gain from college experience, I don't think college is necessary for high school players who have NBA talent. Teams who draft high schoolers could also send them to the NBA Developmental League, their version of the minor league systems that hockey and baseball employ.
   
   Somewhat of an aside, but why isn't there an uproar every year about these sports above when it comes to no college/little college experience? I don't know if race is a small part of it, but it could be. Is it because we care more about college basketball as a country than college baseball and college hockey? Perhaps. If anyone has a reason for this (or a reason for your own hatred of one-and-done college basketball), please let me know.
2. The NBA has overblown the "high school kids fail" angle. Before Kevin Garnett started the wave of high school players being drafted by NBA teams, not too many players took that leap. Instead, many found 3-4 years of college to be a great preparation opportunity for the pros. Once he made the leap, other top high school players said, "Why not me?"
   
   After Garnett (1995 draft), there have been 38 players who went straight from high school to the pros (source: Wiki). Out of those 38, eight of them have made an All-Star Game (Kobe, Jermaine O'Neal, McGrady, Rashard Lewis, Amare, LeBron, Dwight Howard & Andrew Bynum). Of the remaining 30, there have been some solid players (Al Harrington, Tyson Chandler, Kendrick Perkins, Al Jefferson, Josh Smith, JR Smith, Monta Ellis). Some may think others on the list are solid contributors, too. If you're just to use the list of people I mentioned, that's 15 of 38 legitimate pros that went from prep-to-pro. Not a bad ratio if you ask me.
   
   I don't want to hear the BS that GMs have made too many mistakes on high school kids. Guess what? They also make horrible draft choices on guys who actually have gone to college. Michael Olowokandi anyone?  How well did Adam Morrison's three years at Gonzaga help the Bobcats analyze his skill set? Same for Hasheem Thabeet and the Grizzlies. Fact is: drafts are inexact sciences for every sport. For every Kobe Bryant, there's two Leon Smiths. If you don't know much about Smith, I might suggest looking him up. Talk about a waste of talent.
3. The NBA's one-year wait disturbs the college experience. If you make a kid who knows he will be a professional basketball player in one year go to school against his will, do you really think he's gives a rat's ass about his scholarly experience? (Note, this is all just opinion - I have no facts to back this up - just trying to get into the mind of one of these players). Do you think that he is going to show up for all of his classes and get a 3.8 GPA, only to leave for the NBA after one year?
   
   More power to the guys who do this, but I imagine those guys are among the small percentage of those who go out of their way to care about their education for that 9 month period. Why should money be wasted on that kid's "scholarship" when everyone knows he is just there for basketball and for one year? Why don't we just cut the crap and say these kids are there just to play basketball (you know, like the NBA)? If a kid wants to miss out on a college experience, it's their loss. But it should also be their choice. If you make a kid go to school and go to class, don't you think he has a greater chance of being a distraction than the average student?
4. We live in a free society (allegedly). Let's act like it. It's quite the general statement, but we live in a country that preaches freedom of choice. This includes the right to choose to go to college or not. If you present the plusses of going to college to a stud player and he still doesn't want to go, then screw it - let him make his own choice. If his NBA career becomes a failure at that point, then it's his problem to deal with.

I don't think making kids stay in college longer (some people suggest 2 years of college should be mandatory) should be an answer. Forcing them to stay there a year longer, when most of them I(i.e. the talented preps who want to go pro ASAP) probably don't even want to be there for one year,  doesn't make sense.

One of the best alternative solutions I saw was on a post from my friend Nick, which suggested teams who draft high school players owning the rights to a player, while allowing the player to play college ball. Here's the link to it - it makes sense.

I don't know if they'll ever change the one-and-done rule in college basketball, but if they do, I hope they change it back to the none-and-done, where high schoolers have the right to explore their careers. If one of the main points of college is to figure out your career, then what would be the point of these kids (who know what they want to do) going to school for two semesters?

MLB - Bold Predictions 2012

With baseball about to start, it's about time to make some predictions. I made some in my MLB preview last month, so here's some more.

• Adam Dunn will hit 30+ HRs once again - As my friend Nick mentioned to me yesterday, Dunn's numbers in 2011 could not have been predicted by anyone who studies baseball statistics for a living. His season really came out of nowhere, and for someone at his age (entered 2011 as a 31 year old), a sudden drop-off in numbers is quite rare. I'm dismissing the possible "steroids" angle that many suspect when numbers drop off drastically. Instead, I believe his appendix issue to start the year (where he had to have a surgery after the first week of the season) carried over into the season, which resulted in numbers that would have made 99% of major leaguers get demoted or booted out of baseball altogether. I believe we will see a happy medium between the 40 HR Dunn from the decade preceding 2011 and the craptacular version we saw last year.
• There will be at least one team who wins their division with division odds greater than 10/1 - Candidates for this include the NL Central (Cubs 21/1, Pirates 30/1, Astros 135/1), NL West (Padres 18/1), NL East (Mets 55/1), AL East (Blue Jays 12/1, Orioles 110/1) and AL Central (White Sox 12/1, Royals 14/1, Twins 17/1, Indians 90/1). All odds are from 5dimes. AL West odds are not available since two of their teams already played, but I'm willing to guess the two teams who did play (Athletics + Mariners) were both over 10/1. That means over 40% of teams are considered long shots to even make the playoffs. However, there's almost always one team that overachieves (i.e. Diamondbacks). I wouldn't be shocked (based on percentages) that it would be a team in the AL Central. The Tigers have a strong offense, but have a very suspect defense and some average arms behind last year's Cy Young/MVP Justin Verlander. 
• The Nationals will be in a predicament in September. This first part is a big assumption. I have the Nationals pegged as a Wild Card team. Right now, they seem to be this sport's version of the Detroit Lions, where many experts are projecting postseason play for the first time in a long time. So what's going to be the issue? Two words: Stephen Strasburg. After coming off of Tommy John surgery, Strasburg is on a 160-innings pitched limit. I'd assume that includes the post season. If he stays healthy and doesn't miss a start...let's say he averages 6 innings a game. That would put him at 27 starts, assuming they go with a 5-man rotation the whole year. That would put them around the first or second week of September. Seems strange to make a guy your opening day starter but also cap his innings. The fan pressure may be too much to bench him for the year. I'm hoping (if they stick with this limit) that they skip his spot in the rotation several times and give a spot start to a minor leaguer. If they aren't in the division or wild card races, then shutting him down will be much easier to do.
• By the end of 2012, Chris Sale will be the White Sox best starting pitcher - We've seen what he can do in the bullpen. The Sox certainly didn't draft him to be in the bullpen though, so Adios to Buehrle, and a Hello to Sale. Expect corny Internet and newspaper headlines involving the southpaw's last name. For all of those syndicate newspapers that read my blog, here are some....you're welcome: Epic Sale; Setting Sale; At a Sale's Pace; Working on the Sale Road.
  
  Ok, I admit some of those are bad - but then again, so are a lot of headlines I read every day.
• The Marlins will win the World Series - I know Cubs fans feel depressed every time someone other than them wins it all, but even the White Sox, who almost moved to Florida in the mid 90s, have to feel a little ill that a team that has been around for less than 20 years already has two titles. If my prediction is correct, it would be 3. The Marlins aren't a huge underdog (20/1 odds puts them with the 8th best odds), but I consider it a bolder proclamation than saying the Yankees will win it all. As I mentioned in my MLB preview, I like their rotation, like their overall lineup better than anyone else in their division (Phillies included). I'd take the 20/1 odds but my friend who gives me access to the 5dimes site said our accounts are going to be shut down at the end of the NBA playoffs.
• *Future Prediction...The Cubs Will Win a World Series Before the White Sox Win Another - I am sold on Epstein as a winner and think he will get the North Siders going in the right direction a lot quicker than Kenny Williams will the White Sox. Epstein helped push Boston over the edge in 2004 and then again in 2007, mainly by building up their minor league system. Pieces they didn't use (i.e. Hanley Ramirez) were traded for pieces that helped win them World Series (i.e. Josh Beckett). I think a focus on better scouting, which involves some Sabermetrics (for those not in the know, think of the movie Moneyball), and not a heavy reliance on free agency (although every good team needs some good free agent signings) will help bring the Cubs back to the playoffs in the next 2-3 years. As far as the White Sox go, to put it in a baseball analogy, I've seen enough of Kenny Williams to know that he has swung and missed more than he has connected. I'd like to see a new GM in town in the next couple years.