"Impressive and Unnecessary" - What ha... happened?

This week we ask "What ha... happened?" The internet was scoured for a crazy sports photo or GIF and someone must try to explain it. Seesaw Sports asks what ha... happened? Monday: Opening statement. Friday: Rebuttal.

Real photos. Real results. But what in the heck happened?

Read the full post on BuzzChomp HERE.

All-Star Shakeup in the NBA

NBA All-Star weekend is fun, but w/ so many great ideas for improvement, where to begin? New Dunks, new events; we rank all the crazy options in our ‪#‎NBA‬ ‪#‎Sports‬ ‪#‎Debate‬ ‪#‎TGIF‬

Read the full post on Buzzchomp HERE

The Sochi Olympics get Red Hot

The Sochi Olympics get Red Hot
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (2-14-14)


Seesaw Sports is now on Buzzchomp. Find the post HERE. Go subscribe to keep up in future weeks as we transition away from blogger. Thanks.

[Part one - Sochi Olympics Fever 2014]



TODD:

What excites me most about the Olympics? I already do moguls well, so scratch that one off the list.

I think I could ski the 2 mile downhill course, although my time might be around 15 minutes rather than 2 minutes. I would want to try ski jumping though. Just the thought of soaring through the air for such a great distance seems majestic and awesome. It's also better than the halfpipe or slopestyle courses too because I wouldn't have to worry about spinning and flipping for a score; just float to victory.

And land. Landing is important.

I've watched a bit of the speed skating and figure skating. It seems like it would be cool to be able to skate so well, but I would have no interest in putting that skill to those ends.

When it comes down to it, isn't watching the Olympics (either winter or summer) more fun when you just get a taste of something? No one likes to sit down and watch an entire event, qualifying rounds through the finals. Even snowboarding and skiing which, as you pointed out, are the best to watch, are not fun all the way through, especially women's.

Poor scheduling job by NBC this year. There's no way they should ever air a men's slopestyle event before a women's event. The men go down, pulling off triple corks and 1440's. Then we see the women do a shaky 540 and swing their arms all the way to the landing and she qualifies for the finals immediately.

For events still to come, really the only thing on my agenda is to catch some of the hockey but, again, I don't plan on watching an entire game at any point, let alone the entire tournament. That's just the nature of the beast with Olympic sports. If the sport itself was good enough, it would be popular outside of the 4-year environment. It also isn't helping that all of the results are shared online throughout the day, before the event in question is even shown on television. No wonder The Walking Dead crushed the Olympics in TV ratings the other night.


DAN:

The Walking Dead crushed the Olympics because it is amazing. That had nothing to do with the Olympic TV product, nor NBC's manner in airing the festivities and events.

I can't take credit for my view point, as I heard Colin Cowherd wax poetic on the subject earlier this week, but I wholeheartedly agree that there is nothing wrong with the tape delay. You just said yourself that its not fun to sit and watch an entire Olympic event unfold. Its best served in bits and pieces, multiple servings from a sports buffet. Well NBC is attempting to provide just this to its viewing audience, editing down the long events, the boring parts, into a watchable show that could in fact be tolerated for the entire time. What you want is the Red Zone Channel equivalent of the Olympics. This would be the perfect thing to air on the NBC Sports network, boosting its ratings in the process, but NBC knows you will watch no matter how they air it or when.

Am I in the minority in wanting something different from the Olympics? I know they add new events every time and the whole thing is very serious for the athletes, but as you pointed out, none of these events are interesting outside of the Olympic games. Taking that as more or less a fact, the Olympics should really take a page from the X-games book and hype up the coolness factor by one hundred. One of the coolest X-game events is the snowmobile jumps. Why is that not an Olympic event? And they have the shooting event on cross country skiis, but why not let the snowboarders shoot things while going off jumps?

Its time to think outside the box and create some events that show new, unique skill sets. Its hard enough for all the countries around the equator to compete in the winter games, having no snow and all, so why not branch out and really make things interesting. Tubing? Snow ball fights? Tug of war? All of these things are fair game. A skill is a skill and I want to add a splash of color to the current black and white version of the games.


TODD:

Of course the edited version is preferable, but the Red Zone comparison is only apt if, on the actual Red Zone station, they showed you all the touchdowns that you had already seen written about that morning.

I'm not sure about many things in life, but I can be sure that Finland would crush it in Olympic snowball fighting.

[If you missed Part one - Sochi Olympics Fever 2014]

Masahiro Tanaka and Fantasy Baseball 2014 - part two

Masahiro Tanaka and Fantasy Baseball 2014 - part two

by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (2-7-14)

[Part one - Mike freaking Trout]

[Starting next week Seesaw Sports will be moving to Buzzchomp - You'll find posts both here and there for a week or two as we transition our readers. Thanks!]



TODD:
There is certainly no arguing that Andrew McCutchen or Freddie Freeman feel like safer picks than elite starters from last year like Scherzer and Sanchez. That is always a given; batters are safer. However, the point of the theory was that if you were able to grab the top starting pitchers, you'd be okay if one or two missed because your lineup would still be in fine shape. The overall dominance of Mike Trout across all scoring categories would allow for "fill-in" batters later on.

It would be a less comfortable way of drafting. There is no doubt about that. I guess it would be hard to pull the trigger on the likes of Felix Hernandez and Cliff Lee and Stephen Strasburg when so many other players seem much safer and reliable in those early rounds.

Speaking of questionable pitchers, where are you taking Masahiro Tanaka this season in fantasy? He will not technically be the New York Yankees' ace, but he will be in spirit. Or they at least need him to be. So is he an ace fantasy pitcher? He doesn't appear to be the strikeout maven that Yu Darvish is. And the possibility exists that he will bomb completely in the major leagues. So where would you take him and at what point is he too rich for your blood and you know he won't be appearing on any of your fantasy teams?


DAN:
I'm all for drafting uncomfortably, but pinning down a draft strategy that requires you to practically dislike your first four or five picks because of uncertainty alone feels wrong. I forced myself last season to not draft any pitching early. The jury is out on whether it was a successful strategy or not, but it was really hard. Doing the opposite feels nearly impossible, but with a player like Mike freaking Trout, its not completely in left field. (Did you enjoy my corny baseball pun? Did asking you about it and pointing it out completely ruin the joke? Was it already ruined from the start?)

I love that you brought up Mr. Tanaka. The newest addition to the Yankees' starting rotation is a much safer pick in my opinion than Yu Darvish was. The main reason here, when Darvish came up the Rangers were good, but not a team that won in spite of its pitching. The Yankees have been a team, for the last few seasons, that wins games in spite of its pitching. Last year was a bit more balanced, but overall their lineup has compensated for off nights by the pitching staff. Hence the consistent high win totals. So even if he is an average pitcher, a la Ivan Nova, he will get victories and do well in several statistical categories.

For some perspective, in an auction league I paid $17 for Yu Darvish in his rookie season. I thought he would be damn good and was right on the money. I wasn't going to pay higher than $22 for him, he was unproven, but he definitely warranted a solid bid with all his upside. So where does that leave Masahiro Tanaka? He has the potential to be a great number two for the Yankees and an ace on many other teams. I don't see him surpassing CC Sabathia or even Pineda's ceiling with New York, but that only improves his fantasy value. If he's the number two or three pitcher, he'll be facing other team's two and three guys. That's great news for your fantasy wins total. I think I've finally gotten around to a real answer for your question.

In a snake draft (obligatory Booo from a big fan of auctions) I would take Tanaka anywhere in round seven and below. He is not a top five pick, but snatching him in the seventh round before anyone else does seems warranted. I love the consistency and upside of Japanese pitchers and its a risk well worth taking. In an auction draft (obligatory cheers) I'd pay up to $15 bucks for him, maybe a little higher. I don't love him like I did Yu Darvish, but he is a Yankee. The mid level pitchers go in the twenty dollar range, so reaching for a rookie at fifteen bucks seems solid to me. I'd be shocked if I had to pay that much, but he's a big name and they come at a price.


TODD:
Chasing wins in fantasy baseball is a flawed and dangerous tactic. There is little correlation between a team a pitcher plays for and his ability to grab a win. There is also an even lower connection between a pitcher being great and his ability to be elite in the wins category. There is just too much out of his control.

The stat that is easily predictable is strikeouts. And with Tanaka, his strikeout potential seems to be considerably lower than Darvish. With that said, I believe your estimate is still low!

Being a big-time news story, playing for the Yankees and all the rest, Tanaka is incredibly hyped up. Although he is coming over as a worse prospect than Darvish was according to scouts, he may be a bigger deal. I can see him going earlier in snake drafts than you mentioned and for more dough in auctions. Of course, I'm with you. I'll stay away from Tanaka in all leagues unless he becomes a bargain...which won't happen. I would much rather get my hands on a known commodity at that price and take a chance on someone cheaper later in the draft.

[If you missed Part one - Mike freaking Trout]

NBA All Stars: Should fans decide - part two

NBA All Stars: Should fans decide - part two
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (1-31-14)

[Part one - All Star teams collide]



TODD:
I have to address the more important issue now, Kobe Bryant. His inclusion in the starting lineup of the NBA All-Star game bothers me for myriad of reasons. This is a fan vote of course, but that doesn't mean the fans deserve it.

What is happening here is the NBA is turning into the MLB. Either the game counts or it doesn't. And what I mean is not literally whether who wins the All-Star game matters in basketball like in baseball. But the game acknowledgement does. A player making an All-Star game is historic. It matters for the legacy of a player, as well as the story of the league.

As you pointed out, Kobe's run of All-Star invites will continue. This will mark his 16th selection in his 18-year career. When it comes time to determine Hall of Fame resumes and where a player stands in the pantheon of his sport, All-Star games are often referenced. When next generation's Bill Simmons releases The Book of Basketball Part Two and tries to determine who is the better Laker between Kobe and Magic Johnson, the All-Star game appearances will come up. And you know what? In forty years, no one is going to remember that Kobe's 2014 selection was a joke and a debacle. It will just be an appearance like any of the others.

I guess my problem with the fan vote is that they are too stupid to be given this kind of power. There are only three solutions. Here they are, in order of practicality from "impossible" to "why is this not already the case?!?":

1. Lessen the historical value of a player making an All-Star game. Value All-NBA team selections instead and phase out the worth of the All-Star game appearance itself.

2. Don't let fans vote. Fans are, by definition, biased and crazy.

3. Give the fans a crop of players to vote from for the starting lineups. A player such as Kobe Bryant would not be eligible since he's barely played this season.

Tell me why number three wouldn't work.


DAN:
I'm glad you acknowledged the ridiculousness of options one and two. There are very few benchmarks to compare players between generations. All Star game appearances is one of the best, disregarding the obvious caveat where a player past his prime continues to get voted in. And we have to let the fans vote. The All Star game is just a show. There is little to no defense played, so it is literally (spoken a la Rob Lowe's character from Parks and Recreation) a fun event for the fans to enjoy. They should get to see who they want, with one caveat that you very nicely addressed in option three.

I really like the idea of giving the fans a specific ballot, but leaving Kobe Bryant off entirely would be a HUGE mistake by the NBA. The All Star voting is international. The NBA wants to grow the sport internationally. Kobe Bryant is the most popular and most famous NBA player internationally. See the problem? He got voted in because the world still loves him and probably doesn't even realize he's been injured, or doesn't care. I know this speaks to a different issue, but the NBA has to market its most popular players and Kobe Bryant is up there in the top three, if not number one.

It would however be easy for the NBA to get the final All Star voting results, look at them and rule that a player must have played in at least 50% of his team's games this season to be a starter. The player can still be on the All Star team, but they can't be considered a starter if they've played less than half of his team's games. This is not a particularly unfair rule and still leaves voting in the hands of the fans. Let them vote in all the hurt guys they want, but they won't be named a starter because they've been injured or suspended.

Did I solve your problem?


TODD:
That fails to solve the problem of a player's career resume being bumped up by faulty selections. The fact that a player is actually "starting" the game is irrelevant to me. Kobe Bryant did not deserve to be named an All-Star this season. Thus, he should not have been on the ballot if we can't trust fans to actually make that distinction.

This event is not supposed to be a popularity contest. It is supposed to reward the players who are having the best season. Otherwise, Jeremy Lin should just be starting point guard for both teams. Let him switch sides at halftime.

[If you missed Part one - All Star teams collide]

NFL Pro Bowl Draft Recap - part two

NFL Pro Bowl Draft Recap - part two
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (1-24-14)

[Part one - The fake Pro Bowl Draft]



TODD:
The actual Pro Bowl draft took place Wednesday night, although it was taped in Hawaii so it wasn't night time. Instead, the players were nestled in a beach getaway, lounging underneath tents, waiting to be called. It was...kind of ridiculous.

When Jerry Rice or Deion Sanders made a selection, that player would make their way to the stage, receive a lei garland and get interviewed. I was surprised when I found out the actual picking process was going to be televised. I had assumed they would televise some sort of studio show where they announced all the selections and then discussed them. No sir. This was a three-hour barrage of uncomfortable interviews, awkward moments and boredom. Fortunately I suppose, there was a mini-draft held Tuesday where special teams players and interior linemen were peddled away to each side. So at least we were spared the punter interviews.

Of course, the draft itself is still a fascinating premise and, I suppose, that is only intensified by the players being there in person to feel slighted.

According to ESPN, Robert Mathis was in the "green room" for a long while and witnessed other players growing increasingly upset at not having been picked. We can only hope this will make for an actual good game on Sunday.

The other interesting wrinkle was the order players were selected. Apparently Team Deion selected Andrew Luck with its first pick on Wednesday. Then, it took Cam Newton with its second pick! Why, you ask? Well because the two coaching staffs of the teams are the Indianapolis staff and the Carolina staff respectively. Deion took Luck to work with his own people and then snatched Cam so he would be going against the Panthers coaches.

Overall though, the process seemed pretty innocuous. Each team grabbed some defensive guys early, as was my strategy. Although, because of injuries and Super Bowl commitments, a number of the top skill players are not playing in the Pro Bowl, so that may have steered the captains away from those positions at first.

Checking out the rosters, it seems that Team Rice is a bit better on paper. Of course, they don't play games on paper!! Although, it is the Pro Bowl, so maybe they should.


DAN:
I'm kind of disappointed in this whole draft charade. It had so much potential on paper! But like the actual Pro Bowl, this draft was nothing short of lack luster and drawn out.You know what needed to happen for the Pro Bowl Draft to be fun and interesting? The NFL needed to televise our version of a draft. We got it right!

First off, let them pick teams regardless of who is going to participate. Not having Peyton Manning or Tom Brady in the draft ruins half the fun. And how awesome would it have been for Jerry Rice to draft Tom Brady and then find out a day later, or at the end of the draft even, that he'd been replaced by Alex Smith? That is television gold. A complete missed opportunity.

Second, don't pick your full rosters on TV. They did do a pre-draft of the positions most fans don't care about. That's kind of alienating and unnecessary. Just draft a starting roster on camera and do your backups in rapid fire mode during a commercial break. Also, I know that the players are spending the week in Hawaii, but don't make them sit there. Most went through that hell once already, during the actual NFL Draft before their rookie seasons. The honor is in being selected to the Pro Bowl, but now you take that away by making them squirm on national TV because Deion Sanders snubbed you. No one likes to be last picked. Come on man!

The Pro Bowl Draft could be a perfect 90 minute television event. Show film of each guy as he's selected. Let the captains debate on camera who they are taking and then reveal the name like on 'Wheel of Fortune' or something. But making it like the actual NFL Draft? Seriously? Someone is getting fired over this. I'm calling it now.

[If you missed part one - Our own Fake Pro Bowl Draft]

NCAA College Basketball: Remaking the game - Part two

NCAA College Basketball: Remaking the game - Part two
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (11-15-13)

[Part one - League of Children]



TODD:
I don't think you quite understand the term "win-win." It is not a win for college basketball that this is happening. Sure, this one season they will have transcendent freshmen all over the nation. But what about next year? This draft class is a once-in-a-decade type deal, maybe even more rare than that. And is this one year in college actually helping the growth of these guys once they turn pro? I haven't seen the statistics but I wonder how much better the one-and-dones have been as compared to the guys who were coming straight from high school years ago. Obviously both groups have huge successes and huge failures but overall, both the NBA and NCAA make us think this is working. I'm not sold.

To your point that college basketball has become a proving ground for future pros, this is both correct and wrong. It is correct factual, in that it is actually happening. It is wrong morally though, in that it should not be happening.

Many have suggested an MLB-type declaration situation to solve this problem. A prospective pro coming out of high school can either enter his name in the draft right away or, if he decides to go to college, he must stay three years. I like this solution on the surface but it wouldn't have saved college basketball. Remember how eight of the top eleven draft picks are incoming college freshmen? Well, with that draft rule in place, all eight of those guys would have entered the 2013 NBA draft. So instead of having one year of them, the NCAA would have gotten none.

The only solution is to go all-out and throw our cards on the table. College basketball is an inferior product; everyone should agree on this, even the staunchest defenders. No one can argue the basketball being played on the court is better at the collegiate level than at the pros. That would be ludicrous. So why not adopt the 'high school or three years' draft rule with a caveat? Anyone entering the NBA draft out of high school plays their first year of basketball in the NBDL, the developmental league. Right now the asset that is the D-League is being wasted. A player dropped down to it is deemed a disaster or a failure. Remove the galling stigma attached to the NBDL by making it a young man's learning league. All the best 18 year olds in the world will be learning on the fly against guys just short of NBA talent. This would be better for them than a year of college. It would also be better for the NBA by avoiding the flood of high schoolers who aren't ready for the professional ranks just yet that occurred when the old draft rules were in place.

But what about college basketball you ask? Well, CBB gets dumbed down because there is no win-win option here. It loses the elite talent that would otherwise play one season. But what it gains is better: players coming who want to be there, want to learn and want to play for a school. It will grow consistency and the overall product on the floor will be better, even if the top level is slightly worse. College basketball is never going to be as exciting or athletic or as powerful as the NBA game; why try to force it?


DAN:
There is no way to force an NBA level product out of college basketball. There is not nearly enough talent to go around. If there were THAT many NBA level players, we'd have 100 teams in the NBA. So we can safely throw that hope, prayer, ignorant folly out the window. And you're right, improving the NBDL by having draft picks who skip college spend a year there will ultimately hurt the college game. It would also take a huge effort on the part of the NBA to make this work. Can you name me a single D-League player or team? Where are they, who is playing and when do they even play? I have no idea. Talk about a lot of money needed to sell an invisible product. I'm chucking that idea in the trash too. I'm also against forcing three years of college upon someone obviously ready to make millions of dollars. Trashing it!

I love your ingenuity, your willingness to change and find a new model that can potentially elevate both the NBA and college basketball. But I think you're avoiding the obvious. If a player wants to be in college, stay in college, and play for his school for two, three, four years, there is absolutely nothing stopping him. These elite freshman don't have to enter the draft after one year of college basketball. They are choosing to. They have a choice. And you know why all eight of them will most likely make the choice to leave, because all of us in the public and the media would consider them stupid to say in college. Take your money when its on the table. Don't risk injury. Blah, blah, blah. They would get lambasted for going back. Andrew Luck practically did, but because college football is held in such high regard and there is less money in the NFL draft now, it wasn't deemed such a bad decision.

I agree, having the freshman earn their stripes against NBA bench players is better for their careers than playing in college. But the glaringly obvious truth you've missed is that college basketball has changed. The whole reason you want to 'fix' things is because you can remember a time when it was great. When players played in college and rivalries were real and school spirit meant something. That era is dead. Money and a booming NBA killed it. Accept this fact and move on.... Are you good now? Tears all dry? Cool, now we can have a real debate.

NCAA basketball can be improved. The quality of play has been reasonably consistent over the last ten years. The best coaches have excellent teams and the superstar players stand out when they exist. They are the anomaly. We have at the very most, ten of them sprinkled over fifty or more schools every year. Remove them from this equation. I think the biggest thing holding back the college game is a lack of scoring. They've made strides to address this, but more should/can be done. The best parts of March Madness are when a game gets tight down the stretch, with under two minutes to play. Those games are often 60 to 55 or something ridiculous like that. You get your 70 and 80 point games, but do you see the problem? NBA games are 90 and 100 point affairs. Scoring 80 or less is a fire-able offense. I think some rule changes are in order! Good thing the NCAA already made some. I smell debate.

Let's first address the changes made heading into this college basketball season. You're the perfect man for this job. Did the NCAA do enough with the current changes? I realize we have yet to see the full results, but they only did tweaking as far as I'm concerned; was it enough? I want to increase scoring and remove the annoyance of two minutes at the end of a game taking nearly thirty minutes of my time. Cut that down to ten or fifteen and I'm good. And I'm not talking small changes like shortening the shot clock. That's a good start, but we need BIG game changers. What about adding a line at NBA three point range that would count for four points? Or removing time outs in the first half entirely, except for injury. Light a fire under college basketball.


TODD:
Your complete dismissal of my D-League idea is very pigheaded of you. My idea solves the one problem you touched on. No one knows anything about the NBDL or follows it in the least. This will change instantly if all the best NBA rookies play there. Every season, half a dozen or so D-League guys get called up to the majors. Now, people will follow the progress of their team's top rookie as well as hear about/watch some other potential rotation players that might be on the way as well. The only downside to this is logistically; the NBDL is not setup like minor league baseball. NBA teams do not all have D-League affiliations...yet.

Your defense of the current rule is also disappointing. You stood by it claiming these guys have a choice; they don't have to leave after one year. That statement is obviously true, but the top players do not have a choice when they want one: coming out of high school. At that point, their control in the matter is squished, as they are not allowed to enter the NBA draft even if they want to and are ready to. So why not actually give them the choice when they graduate from high school? Either enter the NBA or go to college with the intent on staying for a few years and learning. There's your choice.

But since you killed off old college basketball, I am glad you brought up the rule "changes." Changes is in quotes because the biggest alteration wasn't really a change to any rule, just an emphasis on enforcing an old rule correctly. No more hand checking or arm bars or two hands on an offensive player. No more slowing down offensive player movement and progress. No more wild running through the lane in basketball, the equivalent to running a gauntlet machine in football practice. This was obviously smart and necessary. It will increase scoring in two distinct ways: more free throws while guys get used to the whistles and better shots on offense since ball handlers can't get checked and held as much.

However, the NCAA did absolutely nothing to help that last two minutes business you mentioned. This is the real killer of all basketball games to be honest, pro included. And there is really no simple fix; anything would be drastic. You could get rid of some of the timeouts available, but that would change the entire coaching philosophy of final possession basketball. You could penalize intentional fouls more harshly, but this would almost completely remove the possibility of late-game comebacks. I think the only change that could even occur would just be a simple shortening of timeouts. Make them all 30 seconds, or even 20 seconds. Or allow a timeout to be used as an advance of the ball to mid-court, like in the NBA, but have there be no stoppage of time at all. These are just small nuanced switches that could be implemented. As sad as it sounds, I see no feasible move that could fix the problem without changing the sport.

I know people would be up in arms, but how would you feel about limiting (or eliminating) timeouts near the end of games? It would reduce a coach's usefulness almost to zero and force the players themselves to make calls and adjustments in the final seconds. It would make things more interesting I assume, but interesting can be both good and bad.


DAN:
I admire your D-League idea, but do we really follow players in baseball through the minors? Really? We keep track of the absolute top prospects when they are close to being called up, but we don't follow their performance, only the date in which they will make their major league debut. And how many minor league games are televised? If the idea is to showcase the rookies, we need to be able to watch them. And we need to care about the teams they play for. This is by no means impossible, just a larger mountain than I was prepared to climb.

On the flip side, I'm all for any rule change that can speed up the dreaded thirty minutes of thirty seconds of play at the end of games. If eliminating, or limiting, time outs accomplishes this, then hell yes! I honestly believe that for regular season college basketball to be interesting to the national public, something drastic must be done. March Madness has held its own, thanks to gambling, but its by no means safe. Change the damn sport. Without top level talent, year in and year out, its going to die anyways.

[If you missed Part one - League of Children]