America Should Appreciate Its Patriots

After Tom Brady engineered both game-tying and game-winning drives in last week's AFC Championship game, it was inevitable that the quarterback and his team's greatness would once again be cheapened by the general public.

At age 41, Brady racked up 348 yards through the air, in sub-20 degree temperature en route to a road victory in one of the toughest places to play in all of sports, Arrowhead Stadium. It was perhaps his finest playoff performance and accomplishment in a non-Super Bowl. How could we miss this?

Wait. We did. Instead of admiring and attempting to make sense of the all-time great's newest wonder, the conversation dominating social media and talk radio revolved around the NFL's overtime rules.

Current rules allow for each team to get a touch of the ball in overtime IF the first team to start with the ball doesn't score a touchdown. It's a tremendous improvement from the previous rules that would allow the first team with possession to win on a long field goal. In those circumstances, a kick returner could break off a nice return, and all it might take for a win is a pair of first downs and a 50-yard kick.

No, with today's rules, if you lose the coin toss and have to start OT on defense, there's plenty of hope for you. All you need to do is keep your opponent from moving 75 yards down the field and into the end zone. Hold your opponent to a field goal, and you'll get the ball with a chance to win the game.

The Chiefs' defense was well aware of this, and the stakes were very clear: get a stop, and you're in the Super Bowl. They failed.

Had the roles been reversed in this case, do you actually think this would become a topic the media would have hotly debated all week? If the Chiefs started OT with the ball, and America's sweetheart Patrick Mahomes led his team down the field for the game-winning six, would we actually care that the Patriots didn't get a chance on offense?

I don't think we would.

Because of their dominance, America looks at the Patriots differently than it looks at every other team. For the last 19 years, football fans have attempted to diminish their success any way they can. Spygate. Deflategate. The tuck rule. "Cheatriots" has become a popular (and unclever) Twitter diss from the haters.

On their way to building one of the greatest empires in sports history, the Patriots have left a trail of broken hearts, crushing the hopes and dreams of fans of teams across the NFL landscape. Since the start of the new millennium, they've ended the seasons of 16 different NFL franchises. That's half of the league.

Chances are, if you're reading this, the Patriots are your own personal Regina George (they're life-ruiners - they ruin people's lives!), without the nastiness, and your team has been victimized by their reign at one point or another. My Steelers have lost three separate AFC Championships to New England (2001, 2004 and 2017), so I never thought I'd one day be writing an article telling football fans that the Patriots are not worth the hate, and that we should instead be grateful for what the Patriots have brought to football, yet here we are.

I'm not going to attempt to protect other teams and athletes from hate. The Yankees have more money than any other Major League team. NBA super-teams like the Warriors and formerly the Miami Heat, have been built upon two or three star players opting not to compete against each other, and instead to join up and bully everybody else. This has created a significant competitive imbalance in the NBA, one that may be hurting the league's viewership. Some teams that are hated play the game dirtily or kick their opponents when they're down. Not the Patriots.

Despite what you might think, the Patriots are one of the least dirty teams in the NFL. Year in and year out, they're consistently one of the least penalized teams. No, that isn't because they are 'helped by the refs'; they are one of the most disciplined teams that refuses to push the boundaries of play on the field. The Patriots don't dare the refs to blow the whistle as other teams might; teams that commit borderline defensive or offensive holding nearly every play, because in actuality, if a penalty is assessed on every play, the game would become unwatchable. The Patriots don't draft players that commit dumb, late or cheap penalties. The organization has never been linked to bounties. Their players rarely engage in smack talk; in fact, that is the opposite of the Belichick way.

Belichick is despised by fans and media members alike because of his crusty, un-warm persona. In press conferences, he's not a zany character and he doesn't provide much information to the press. He's often compared to the the evil emperor Palpatine in Star Wars. But when Gregg Popovich does the same? He's treated as a media darling.

Unlike the NBA and MLB teams mentioned, the Patriots are on an equal playing field with their counterparts. The construction of the sport disallows a team to become dominant by virtue of three players. The NFL's hard cap puts every team on an equal playing field, and the NFL makes it even more difficult to sustain success because first place teams play first place schedules.

Let me be clear: I'm not asking you to root for the Patriots in the Super Bowl. You're probably tired of them. You want to see something new, and that's understandable. You want to see a new story and see other players get their first taste of a championship. I get that.

What I am asking of you is to not allow your distaste towards the Patriots taint the lens you see the game through with an unhealthy and irrational bias because so far. I'm asking you to be thankful for what the Patriots have brought to the sport, because whether you like it or not, the Patriots have been good for football.

Whether the Patriots win or lose, they generally deliver ratings and exciting games. Last week's AFC Championship scored 53.9 million viewers. There is a big difference between the Patriots' dominance and the Warriors' dominance. The NBA Finals has had the same two teams playing in them for the last four years. This would be acceptable if the games were compelling. For the most part however, the Warriors' owned the Cavaliers 15-7 through the four series combined. Even the highly touted 2016 series that the Cavs won in 7 only featured one game decided by single-digits. The Patriots on the other hand, have produced very tight games in all of their Super Bowl appearances.

Since the start of the 2000 NFL season, there have been 18 Super Bowls played. The Patriots have played in eight of those games, and all eight have been extremely close, one-score games. If you were to rank the ten best Super Bowl games from between 2000-now, you'd probably have all eight of those Pats games in the top 10. Here's what my top 10 would (roughly) look like:

1) Super Bowl 42- Giants 17, Patriots 14 (Tyree catch)
2) Super Bowl 51- Patriots 34, Falcons 28 (28-3 comeback)
3) Super Bowl 49- Patriots 28, Seahawks 24 (Butler pick)
4) Super Bowl 43- Steelers 27, Cardinals 23 (Santonio Holmes catch)
5) Super Bowl 46- Giants 21, Patriots 17 (Manningham catch)
6) Super Bowl 36- Patriots 20, Rams 17 (Brady's first Super Bowl-winning drive)
7) Super Bowl 52- Eagles 41, Patriots 33 (Nick Foles!)
8) Super Bowl 38- Patriots 32, Panthers 29
9) Super Bowl 39- Patriots 24, Eagles 21
10) Super Bowl 47- Ravens 34, 49ers 31

Outside of the top 10 that I've listed, there's only been one other one-score game (Super Bowl 45; Packers 31, Steelers 25) during this stretch, a game that is easily interchangeable with no. 10 on our list. Almost every Patriots Super Bowl has had a defining moment that will stick in our minds for the rest of time. The Tyree catch. The Butler pick. The Manningham catch. The 28-3 comeback/Edelman catch. The Vinatieri kick vs. the greatest show on turf.

I honestly had completely forgotten that the difference in the Ravens-9ers game was just a field goal. The defining moment in that game? The power outage. Even some of the close games we've had that haven't featured the Patriots haven't been very memorable.

Out of the ten Super Bowls this millennium that haven't featured the Patriots, only three have been one-score games. The others? Well, they haven't been particularly pretty. Here are a few samples:

Super Bowl 50- Broncos 24, Panthers 10
Super Bowl 48- Seahawks 43, Broncos 8
Super Bowl 41- Colts 29, Rex Grossman 17
Super Bowl 40- Steelers 21, Seahawks 10
Super Bowl 37 (Gruden Bowl)- Buccaneers 48, Raiders 21
Super Bowl 35- Ravens 34, Giants 7

As much as you may say that you hate watching the Patriots, would you honestly choose to watch a replay of one of these lopsided games over one of the Brady classics? You probably wouldn't. At least I hope you wouldn't.

We are watching one of sports' greatest movies before our eyes. Depending on how you see it, it may be a drama, it may be a comedy, it may be a thriller, or it may be a horror film – but do yourself a favor and don't leave the theater until the credits roll. Because once it's over, you likely won't see anything like it again.

I have no idea who is going to win Super Bowl 53, but I can almost certainly bank on one thing: the Patriots will once again deliver a classic.


Follow me on Twitter @TheJackVita.
(Image via Boston.com)

Podcast: Conference Championships, Bachelor and Celebrity Big Brother Talk with Rachel Gerhardt

Rachel Gerhardt stops by the podcast to talk about NFL officiating and overtime rules, the Conference Championship games from the previous weekend, Cubs Convention, The Bachelor, and Celebrity Big Brother.



YouTube version:

Tweet Jack your thoughts!
Jack's twitter: @TheJackVita

Subscribe to the podcast on iTunes! And you'll never miss an episode. You can also follow "Press On Sports" on Spotify, subscribe to the podcast YouTube channel, or subscribe on whatever platform you get your podcasts on.

https://pressonsports.podbean.com/mf/play/fsxbds/Press_On_Sports_1_25_Rachel_G.mp3
(Photo via USA Today)

Two Players Hall of Fame Voters May Have Overlooked

I'm not going to waste your time debating the Hall of Fame cases of former baseball players that have had their names linked to PED use since their playing days.

Every argument that could be made for or against the Cooperstown enshrinement of the likes of Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and company has already been made somewhere. The topic has been tirelessly debated for the last 15-20 years, long before the release of the 2007 Mitchell Report and the book Game of Shadows was released to shelves in 2006. Chances are, you've already formed your opinion on this subject and it cannot be swayed, and that's fine.

But has the annual discussion revolving around these polarizing figures prevented us from looking closer at the Hall of Fame cases from other fringe HOF'ers?

This year, two terrific players from the 2000s hit the ballot for the first time. Neither received more than 5 votes and both are now off the ballot moving forward.

Should they both have gotten in on the first ballot? Probably not. But the careers of Lance Berkman and Roy Oswalt should at least warrant some future consideration. We've seen many players start on the ballot with a low vote percentage, only to gain momentum over the years and make a push towards the top as baseball writers look closer at their careers.

Let's start with Roy Oswalt.

Listed at 6-foot-0 (but could have likely been 5-9 or 5-10), this right-hander was often perceived as undersized and wasn't picked until the 23rd round of the 1996 draft out of junior college. He burst onto the Major League scene at 23 years-old in 2001, going 14-3 in his rookie campaign with a 2.73 ERA and 1.06 WHIP.


In his first ten seasons (2001-2010), he was about as dominant as any starting pitcher from his era. He posted a sub-3 ERA in five separate seasons, and only had one season with an ERA higher than 3.55. He was top 6 in Cy Young voting on six different occasions. With the Astros, Oswalt delivered several gritty playoff performances, including two starts in the 2005 NLCS where he held a 100-win Cardinals team to just two runs and eight hits over 14 innings, which propelled the Astros to their first ever World Series appearance and earned him NLCS MVP honors.

A string of injuries began to derail Oswalt's career in his mid-30s, and by 2014 he had retired from baseball. Oswalt exited the game with 163 wins and a lifetime ERA of 3.36, two points lower than the career ERA of first ballot HOF'er Roy Halladay.

Oswalt was likely penalized because his career did not contain the same longevity that his counterparts' did. Soon to be inducted Halladay and Mike Mussina stuck around for 16 and 18 years respectively. Halladay was an obvious first ballot choice; a one of a kind pitcher that won two Cy Youngs, threw a perfect game, and delivered a no-hitter in a playoff game. Mussina, however, gradually rose from 20% from his first year on the ballot to just over the needed 75% five years later. If given the same opportunity, Oswalt could have experienced a similar jump over time.

Berkman's case is even more interesting. As pointed out by the Twitter user @RGBIII, Berkman and 2019 Hall of Fame class member Edgar Martinez's career numbers aren't very far off from each other.

.293/.406/.537
336 HRs
1905 hits
1234 RBI
144 OPS+
52.1 WAR
15 years

.312/.418/.515
309 HR
2247 hits
1261 RBI
147 OPS+
68.4 WAR
18 years

One player got into the hall today and the other fell off the ballot

— RGBIII (@RGBIII) January 23, 2019 

In addition to what @RGBIII notes, both players had a .400+ career OBP. Martinez was a seven-time All-Star; Berkman garnered six All-Star selections. Berkman was top 5 in MVP voting four times. Martinez was only finished top 10 in MVP votes twice. Berkman was even the best position player on a team that reached the World Series, and later won a World Series as a key piece for the Cardinals (batting .301 on the season with 31 homers and 94 RBI's).

Martinez received 85.4% of the vote. Berkman received 1.2%.

The distinct difference between Berkman and Martinez is that Berkman played a defensive position, while Martinez had the luxury of DH-ing for over half his career. The status of designated hitter has stained the resumes of several prospective Hall of Famers in the past for the reason that designated hitters are perceived to hold an advantage over non DHs. The threat of injury in the field is entirely eliminated, and they can't be subjected to criticism from the public for weaknesses in the field. That player is never going to be in a situation where a ball can roll through his legs and cost his team the game. DH's are able to play longer into their careers due to their role not being as physically demanding. Martinez's career is very unique because his batting average, OBP., SLG, and OPS all went up in the second half of his career (when he became a full-time DH) from the first half (when he primarily played in the field). Both parts of his career were very strong, however.

For me, personally, I've never had a big issue with DH's making the Hall, but the baseball writers have. So to see an 85% gap between these two players was startling to say the least.

To be clear, I am in no way saying that Berkman was better than Martinez, and that one should be in the Hall and the other shouldn't. What I don't understand however is what exactly the baseball writers are looking for, because sometimes the voting patterns are inconsistent. Given the statistics and evidence that we have, you would not expect there to be that big of a perspective gap between two excellent players. Unfortunately for Berkman, there is.

Perhaps Berkman was hurt by the fact that even in his heyday, he was overshadowed by other stars at his position, some in bigger markets. In the late 2000's, the NL Central boasted of an outstanding crop of first baseman, including Berkman, Albert Pujols, Prince Fielder, Derrek Lee and Joey Votto.

Perhaps Oswalt and Berkman were victims of playing in a smaller market in Houston. Bigger market teams like the Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers typically receive more attention, and typically play on prime-time more often than teams like Cincinnati and San Diego.

Whatever the reason was, I wish the voters had taken a closer look at Oswalt and Berkman. Perhaps the Veterans Committee will someday.


Follow me on Twitter @TheJackVita.
(Images via Baseball-Reference and Houston Chronicle)

Podcast: 2018-19 NFL Playoff Preview with Jordan Morandini

Jack and Jordan get you set for NFL playoff action, discuss what went wrong for the Steelers and Vikings and where the Vikings can go from here. Jack weighs on a disappointing year from the Steelers. Then, they break down all of the first round matchups, make NFL awards picks, talk fun Super Bowl locations, and look ahead at potential playoff matchups and dark horses.

YouTube version:

Tweet us your thoughts!
Jordan: @RealJMorandini
Jack: @TheJackVita

Subscribe to the podcast on iTunes! And you'll never miss an episode. You can also follow "Press On Sports" on Spotify, subscribe to the podcast YouTube channel, or subscribe on whatever platform you get your podcasts on.





Download link: https://pressonsports.podbean.com/mf/play/hzxpnn/POS_NFL_Playoff_Preview_2019.mp3

(Photo via USA Today)