Because that is the only reason why Scott would predict that Jets quarterback Mark Sanchez will break into the ranks of the NFL's top 10 passers in 2012. Before last season, Manning famously declared that he considered himself to be in the same class as Tom Brady and backed it up with a Super Bowl win over Brady's Patriots in February. Now, Scott is hoping that his proclamation will ring true for another New York quarterback.

The problem is that, save for a similar problem with interceptions, Sanchez is not in Manning's class — and he won't be among the league's top 10 quarterbacks this fall.

That's not to say that there haven't been positive signs for Sanchez supporters — his touchdowns thrown, completion percentage and yardage totals have all increased in each of his three seasons in the league — but rather that there are too many good passers for Sanchez to leapfrog if he is to join the upper echelon of NFL quarterbacks.

The last nine Super Bowls have been won by six quarterbacks — Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger, Peyton Manning, Eli Manning, Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers. It's hard to see Sanchez being better than any of them in 2012 unless Peyton Manning's neck and arm don't hold up.

Then you compare Sanchez with the next tier of NFL QBs — guys like Matthew Stafford, Tony Romo, Matt Ryan, Philip Rivers and Matt Schaub — and it's pretty apparent that Sanchez probably doesn't belong in that discussion either. Though Sanchez has had success in the playoffs, winning four road playoff games against the likes of Peyton Manning and Tom Brady, it's fair to think that the other members of this group could have accomplished what Sanchez did with the Jets' defense backing them up.

That's eleven guys already, and we haven't even mentioned Cam Newton, Michael Vick, Jay Cutler or rookies Andrew Luck and Robert Griffin III. Could Sanchez be better than some of these guys in 2012? Maybe. But it would take quite an improvement for him to play better all of these players and two guys from the groups above.

One thing that indicates Sanchez may indeed improve this season is his rising completion percentage, which has gone from 53.8 percent as a rookie to 56.7 last season. Accuracy is tremendously important in today's NFL, and though Sanchez ranked just 28th in the league in completion percentage last season — again showing that he still has work to do — the fact that he has continued to improve is encouraging.

However, simply improving on that one stat will do little to quiet Sanchez's critics. The biggest thing the 25-year-old needs to work on right now is his consistency. Last season, Sanchez looked great in completing 26 of 44 passes for 335 yards and two touchdowns in a season-opening victory over Dallas. But with the Jets closing in on a playoff spot late in the season, Sanchez faltered badly, throwing seven interceptions over the final three games, all Jets losses.

Sanchez had interceptions in 12 of the Jets' 16 games last season, with multiple interceptions in five of them. Only four players threw more picks last year than Sanchez's 18. Clearly, that is another area in which Sanchez has struggled.

Of course, Sanchez could silence his critics by getting the Jets over the hump and taking them to their first Super Bowl since 1969. It's not an unreasonable thought, as Sanchez has already taken New York to two AFC Championship Games, but it's becoming more and more important to have an elite passer in today's NFL.

Consider that the only quarterbacks to have reached the Super Bowl over the last five years were the six quarterbacks on that first list, plus the retired Kurt Warner, who was a pretty fair player in his own right. It's nearly impossible to get to the Big Game with a subpar quarterback these days (2006 Chicago Bears excepted), so to even reach the Super Bowl, Sanchez will likely have to play at an elite level.

Unfortunately for Jets fans, Sanchez's performance over the last three seasons has not suggested that he will be able to jump even into the league's top 10 quarterbacks, let alone the elite club of quarterbacks who have taken their team to a Super Bowl

The fact of the matter is that, in 47 regular season starts Sanchez has shown to be, at best, a league-average quarterback. Even if he were to improve from last season, there are too many quality passers in the NFL for Sanchez to justifiably rank in the top 10.

Sanchez had better hope that he plays better in 2012, though, if not for the Jets' sake, than for his own. Tim Tebow awaits.

But while you will get reasons touting each athlete's superiority — Phelps supporters point to his 18 gold medals, while Bolt backers argue, correctly, that track and field has never seen someone like Bolt — in reality it's impossible to compare the two Olympians.

Phelps competes in a sport that offers more opportunities for medals than any other. On a team with strong relays, like the United States, the right swimmer has the opportunity to medal in eight or more events. Indeed, Phelps has twice taken home eight medals in a single Olympics.

For Bolt to do the same would require him to add five events to his current schedule. Even if he were to add the long jump, an event he's never done, the 400 meters and the 4×400 meter relay — which would be almost impossible considering the amount of heats involved and the fact that sprinters recover slower than swimmers — he'd still be two events short of Phelps. Since Bolt is unlikely to take up the shot put any time soon, the chances of him ever catching up to Phelps in the medal camp are slim.

Yet, despite his record medal haul, Phelps has never exuded the same air of invincibility as Bolt. He was certainly favored in many of the events in which he won gold medals, but he has had his share of close calls, in particular his 0.01-second victory over Serbia's Milorad Cavic in the 100 meter butterfly in Beijing.

Bolt, on the other hand, has never been involved in a close race in a major final since he burst onto the scene at the 2008 Olympics. He won both the 100 and 200 handily in world-record times in Beijing and followed that up with even more dominant victories at the 2009 World Championships in Berlin, again breaking both world records. He won the 200 at worlds last year, and has also been part of the victorious 4×100 meter relay squad at each of the last three global championships, setting two world records along the way.

Bolt faced doubts entering London after losing to countryman Yohan Blake at the Jamaican Olympic trials, but Blake is no joke, as he's the second-fastest man in history at 200 meters, behind only Bolt. Those doubts proved to be unfounded, though, as Bolt handily dispatched all comers in both the 100 and 200 in London.

All of this, combined with his unthinkable world records — unheard of times of 9.58 seconds for the 100 and 19.19 second for the 200 — makes Bolt an almost mythical figure. There has been another Michael Phelps — his name was Mark Spitz — but there has never been another Usain Bolt.

However, this does not necessarily mean that Bolt is the "greater" Olympian. Bolt has won every event available to him in two Olympics, but should Phelps be penalized for adding events to his schedule that he knows he is not guaranteed to win in order to pursue a record medal haul?

Questions like these are why there will never be an answer to the Bolt-Phelps debate. Even if we could agree on what criteria constitutes "the greatest" — and that seems impossible — how can we compare two athletes in two sports with such different structures? Olympic swimming is about swimming as many events as possible, cleaning up in your specialty and hoping everything breaks right in the relays. Track and field athletes only run one, sometimes two individual events, and only the sprinters run in relays.

Someone like Al Oerter never gets mentioned in the conversation with Bolt or Phelps because he only competed in one event, the discus throw. Never mind that Oerter dominated the event for over a decade, winning four straight gold medals in an era before the world championships. Oerter shouldn't be penalized for having one elite skill; greatness is greatness.

So when we're looking at athletes like Bolt and Phelps, let's just agree that both are once-in-a-generation talents that are the best at what they do. It's not that it doesn't matter who's better — we just have no way of determining the answer.

Photos via Facebook/Usain Bolt: 2012 Is Here and Facebook/Michael Phelps Fans

But the team faltered badly down the stretch, losing 11 of its next 12 en route to a 19-43 finish that dropped the Pirates to fourth in the NL Central, 24 games behind first-place Milwaukee.

No playoffs. No winning season. No progress.

You can’t help but compare last year’s Pirates squad to this year’s bunch, who, at 60-44, have a four-game cushion in the NL wild card standings. But whereas last year’s success seemed like more of a fluke than anything, there are concrete reasons for the 2012 version’s success. Andrew McCutchen has played like an MVP, racking up an absurd line of a .373 batting average, .432 on-base percentage and .632 slugging percentage while Pedro Alvarez, the No. 2 pick in the 2008 draft, is finally living up to his potential with 21 home runs.

The pitching has been solid, too, as former castoffs James McDonald and A.J. Burnett — given up on by the Dodgers and Yankees, respectively — have been formidable at the top of the rotation. New addition Wandy Rodriguez figures to provide a boost as well.

There’s no doubt that the Pirates are better positioned to succeed this season, but if they cannot hold on and claim a playoff berth, then 2012 will end the same way 2011 did — as a failure.

Pittsburgh’s offense has raked so far in the second half, but take away McCutchen, Neil Walker and Garrett Jones, and no Pirate regular has an average above .235 or an OBP above .297. There’s no guarantee that any Pirate apart from McCutchen will continue to hit in 2013 or beyond, and with the current composition of the pitching staff, Pittsburgh will need to have an above-average offense to contend in the future. Even if phenom Gerrit Cole lands in the bigs next season, there’s no guarantee that he’ll be effective right away.

That’s why it’s so critical for the Pirates to seize the opportunity at hand. They have one of the game’s best players and play in a beautiful ballpark, and their fans would like nothing better than to be watching playoff baseball come October. But if Pittsburgh blows its four-game lead in the wild card, they will have shown that they still cannot conquer their biggest problem from 2011: the inability to play an entire season (Red Sox fans might know a thing or two about that, too).

The Pirates are not the Nationals, a team with a great young core poised to contend for several years. They’re a team on the knife’s edge — a successful 2012 could pave the way for the future, but another collapse could be a killer for a team that hasn’t seen success of any kind in 20 years.

The good news for Pirates fans is that Pittsburgh is far better prepared to sustain its early momentum in 2012 than it was in 2011. Even better, McCutchen is signed to a team-friendly contract through 2018.

However, when measuring a team’s progress, one of the most important indicators is whether a team has corrected its problems from the year before. Pittsburgh was in good position to make the playoffs in 2011. So, should they miss the playoffs — again — the Pirates cannot consider 2012 anything but a failure.

Even if the Angels can overcome a four-game deficit and catch the Texas Rangers in the American League West — thereby avoiding a one-game wild card playoff — their fate will likely be determined by how well they are playing in late September and October, not by what they've accomplished during the rest of the season. In baseball — and indeed, in every American pro league — regular-season success is becoming less and less important, with any team capable of getting hot and winning it all once the postseason rolls around.

Just look at the most recent champions in the four major sports. The St. Louis Cardinals clinched the National League wild card on the final day of the season last year and entered the playoffs with the worst record of the eight playoff teams. But they upset the Phillies — who led all of baseball with 102 wins last season — as well as the Brewers and Rangers en route to a surprising World Series title.

Like the Cardinals, the New York Giants had to wait until the season's final day to clinch their spot in the NFL playoffs. They went just 9-7 in the regular season, with two losses to the lowly Redskins. But they were a different team in the playoffs, dominating the Falcons 24-2 in the wild card round before routing the seemingly invincible 15-1 Packers 37-20 on the road in the divisional round. We all know what happened from there.

The Los Angeles Kings may be one of the unlikeliest champs in any pro sport in American history, entering the playoffs as the Western Conference's eighth seed before reeling off a dominating 16-4 postseason run to win their first Stanley Cup.

And even the Miami Heat — who were one of the favorites to win the NBA title before the season began — only finished with the league's fourth-best regular-season record.

The play of the Giants and Kings, in particular, demonstrated how meaningless regular-season records truly are. New York looked like a completely different team in the postseason, and though it played close games in the NFC Championship Game and Super Bowl, it looked downright dominant in its first two playoff games. If you asked someone who only watched the Stanley Cup playoffs who the NHL's best team was, they would say the Kings, without hesitation. Yet that team bore little resemblance to its regular-season self.

But back to baseball, since that's where this discussion started. In the wild card era (since 1995), the team with the top regular-season record has won the World Series just three times. The Phillies finished with the best record in each of the past two seasons but have no World Series appearances to show for it. Yet they did manage a title in 2008, when they finished with just the fifth-best record in the majors.

The point of all this is to show that a seven-game series is no indication of which team is truly better. It's not a huge problem as far as determining a champion is concerned — a seven-game series is fair to both sides, which is the biggest requirement of a championship event — but it's simply too small a sample size to make a judgment on who is the better team.

Adding Greinke was a great move for the Angels and will particularly hurt division rival Texas, which was looking to bolster its rotation following a spate of injuries, including the loss of Colby Lewis for the remainder of the season. It's reminiscent of when the Phillies snuck in and signed Cliff Lee prior to the 2011 season — instead of joining the Rangers, a Cy Young winner ended up with a team that already had a pair of outstanding pitchers. Of course, the Angels also employ Wilson, a former Ranger, which would make a playoff matchup between the teams a sight to see.

But despite a now dominant rotation and a lineup that boasts stars Albert Pujols, Mike Trout and Mark Trumbo, it would be foolish to label the Angels as World Series favorites. Really, that title no longer exists — for any team — because who wins the World Series is so often determined by how a team plays for a two-to-three week stretch at the end of the year.

The Angels are well-positioned for a playoff run, and no team will want to face a rotation of Weaver, Wilson and Greinke in a short series. But all the Greinke trade does is preserve the Angels' status as a team capable of contending for the title if they get hot at the right time.

Usually, it's an ERA around 3.00 and a couple of strong outings in the postseason. And it's that consistency that makes him so valuable to the Phillies — as well as the host of teams who would like to add him to their rotation before the July 31 trading deadline.

But the Phillies aren't thinking trade right now, despite being 11 games back of the second wild card spot in the National League. Instead, they're trying to lock up Hamels long-term and are willing to offer the lefty $130 million over six years to keep him in Philadelphia, according to CBSSports.com's Jon Heyman.

That's the right decision, even though Hamels would fetch a nice package of prospects if the Phillies were to entertain trade offers.

Aside from a hiccup in 2009, when he went 10-11 with a 4.32 ERA, Hamels has been arguably the most consistent pitcher of the past five years outside of teammate Roy Halladay. Disregarding 2009, he has won between 11 and 14 games in every season since 2008 — including this one — with an ERA between 2.79 and 3.09 each year. He also boasts career averages of 8.5 strikeouts per nine innings and a 3.8 strikeout-to-walk ratio, both of which rank him near the top of the majors in that span.

His numbers in the postseason are even better. Again disregarding 2009, Hamels is 6-2 with a 1.72 ERA in nine postseason starts. He collected NLCS and World Series MVP honors in 2008 as the Phillies captured their first title since 1980.

He's also extremely durable, having started at least 32 games in each of the past four seasons, a number he is on pace to match again in 2012. Alhough $130 million is a hefty price to pay, Hamels has proven that he is worth it. Hamels' relative youth means that he would be 34 by the end of the contract — certainly not old for a pitcher.

Furthermore, the amount the Phillies are offering is fairly close to the five-year, $112.5 million extension (with a $21 million sixth-year option) that Matt Cain signed with the Giants in April. Cain is just one year younger than Hamels and the pair's numbers are pretty similar, so it makes sense that Philadelphia would offer a similar per-year figure to what Cain got from the Giants.

Although Hamels has been listed as one of the biggest names who may be dealt at the deadline, it doesn't appear that the Phillies have any interest in that option, and general manager Ruben Amaro Jr. really shouldn't be thinking of trading any of his major pieces just because Philly is out of contention this season. Chase Utley and Ryan Howard have missed a combined 163 games, and Roy Halladay just returned after missing a month and a half with a shoulder injury. With those key contributors absent, it's no surprise that the Phillies have dropped off.

At its core, this is still the same team that has won the last five NL East titles and that led MLB with 102 wins last season. The offense may be declining, but with Halladay, Hamels and Cliff Lee atop the rotation, it doesn't need to be great for the Phillies to contend for a World Series title.

Of course, signing Hamels would be a major hit to the team's payroll — between Halladay, Hamels and Lee, Philly would have more than $66 million tied up among three players — but owner David Montgomery has always been willing to spend, and Philadelphia ranks second in payroll in 2012 at $175 million, behind only the Yankees.

In the end, an extension is probably in the best interests of both parties. Hamels gets paid, and the Phillies are able to continue fielding a team built around three of the game's best pitchers.

Every four years, the nation tunes in to the Summer Olympics to watch a few marquee events, such as the men's 100-meter final. Apart from that, the sport goes largely unnoticed by the casual sports fan. But every so often, an athlete such as Carl Lewis comes along, making people want to follow the sport more than once every four years.

Track and field is lucky right now to have such an athlete in Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt, who burst onto the scene with three gold medals — and three world records — at the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing. Bolt followed that up with three more golds at the 2009 World Championships in Berlin, lowering the world records in the 100 meters (9.58 seconds) and 200 meters (19.19 seconds) to numbers that were unthinkable prior to his emergence. Add in the Jamaican's exotic celebrations and his love of partying, and you've got a man capable of carrying the sport.

However, thanks to a controversial rule change that took effect two years ago, there's a chance that Bolt — and his training partner/rival Yohan Blake, the defending world champion — won't be able to run in the 100-meter final in London on Aug. 5.

Starting in 2010, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) changed its false start policy to one strike and you're out. That means that if a star like Bolt false starts once — even in a preliminary round — he would be out of the competition. The rule has been near-universally panned by critics, and for good reason — it just might be the dumbest rule in sports.

The rule change initially came about for a couple of mostly honorable reasons. Previously, the rule had been that the first false start by any athlete was charged to the field, with all subsequent false starts resulting in the offending runner's removal from the competition. But some runners had tried to take advantage of the system, either by trying to predict when the starting gun would fire — thereby getting a better start — or by deliberately false starting to increase the likelihood that one of their opponents would then false start and eliminate themselves.

The old system also led to delays after a false start, which put off television audiences. The thinking was that by enforcing harsher penalties, fewer athletes would be inclined to false start, resulting in a smoother broadcast. Instead, it has led to controversy.

The main problem with the rule is that it has the potential to prevent the sport's biggest stars from competing in the biggest races. With three rounds of qualifying and a final, athletes like Bolt have four chances to be disqualified in the 100 meters.

Those who don't think that such a scenario is possible need only look back to last year's world championships in Daegu, South Korea, where Bolt was disqualified from the men's 100-meter final for false starting. Not only did it rob a worldwide audience of the chance to see Bolt, but it prevented Bolt from squaring off against Blake, who many thought was capable of defeating his fellow Jamaican. Blake won the race but quickly became an afterthought as the attention focused on Bolt.

The other issue is that the rule is unfair to competitors who have spent four years preparing for a race that lasts less than 10 seconds. It's too harsh to negate all that hard work because of one false movement.

Most sports' governing bodies like to say that no athlete is bigger than the sport, but for a fringe sport (at least in the U.S.) like track and field, the main way the sport can become popular — read: make money — is by embracing stars like Bolt. Track and field has done this to a point, but by leaving open the chance that Bolt could be immediately disqualified for merely twitching in the starting blocks, the sport is not maximizing his potential.

Now, after Blake defeated Bolt at both the 100 meters and 200 meters at the Jamaican championships, the rivalry between the two training partners has a chance to be one of the dominant stories of the Olympics. It would be a shame if the two men were prevented from putting on a show because of a dumb rule.

Photo via Facebook/Usain Bolt

Twenty-three months after Strasburg underwent Tommy John surgery, Nationals general manager Mike Rizzo and manager Davey Johnson understandably want to protect the former No. 1 overall pick, who, at just 23 years old, projects to be the ace of their rotation for years to come.

But as the Nationals' season shifts more and more from "feel-good story" to "legitimate World Series contender," it may not be feasible for Washington management to bench one of the most dominant pitchers in the National League. The World Series hasn't come to the nation's capital since 1933, and with a drought like that on the line, D.C.-area fans will be clamoring for their prize pitcher to remain in the rotation.

So far in 2012, Strasburg has made 18 starts, pitching on the normal four days' rest and putting up an impressive 10-4 record to go with a 2.66 ERA and a league-leading 135 strikeouts. But he's also thrown 105 innings to this point. It should also be noted that none of these outings has lasted longer than seven innings, with the average hovering just under six. At his current rate, Strasburg would be able to make nine more starts before reaching the 160-inning limit.

Rizzo and Johnson have a few options going forward. None of them are ideal, but things rarely work out perfectly when you're running a Major League Baseball team.

Option one would be for Washington to keep doing what it has been doing — sending Strasburg out every five days and pulling him from the game early — and calling Strasburg's season quits as soon as he hits 160 innings, no matter what. The drawback to the approach is obvious — Strasburg would quickly reach his limit and be left unable to help the Nationals in the playoffs.

Option two would be to skip a start here or there and be even more judicious with how many innings Strasburg pitches in each start. The problem is that it would take Strasburg out of his rhythm and, even if Strasburg gets skipped a couple times in the rotation, he would still likely run up against the innings limit before the postseason begins.

The third option would be to let Strasburg pitch until he gets close to the allotted 160 and then use him in high-leverage situations late in the regular season or postseason out of the bullpen, much in the same way the Rays used David Price in their run to the 2008 World Series. It's not uncommon for a starter to take on a bullpen role in the playoffs, but this option again sees Strasburg surpass the 160-inning limit with some extremely high-intensity postseason pitches thrown in there as well.

Of course, there are a multitude of ways to manage Strasburg's innings, but the approach that the Nationals take will likely feature aspects of one of the three options outlined above. Ideally, Washington could tell Strasburg to take a month off and resume pitching in late August, but such an approach is simply not feasible. It should also be noted that none of these options take into consideration Strasburg's opinion. But it's a safe bet that, because he's a major league pitcher, Strasburg will want to pitch as much as possible to help his team win.

The best choice here is probably option No. 2, since it keeps Strasburg's arm fresh while still allowing him to help the team down the stretch. But once the playoffs roll around — and with the way the rest of the Nationals' rotation is pitching, they will — Washington needs to shift its priorities from protecting its investment to winning a championship. Obviously, the Nationals want Strasburg to remain healthy, but nothing is certain in sports, which is why Strasburg needs to pitch in the playoffs.

Ideally, Strasburg would end the regular season at around 150 innings (having skipped the requisite number of starts while keeping his outings short) and once the playoffs begin, he would pitch like any other member of the rotation. That means that Strasburg would pitch the whole game if he's feeling it — winning a playoff game is just too important.

The Nationals could ameliorate things by preventing Strasburg from pitching on short rest in the playoffs — but if a Game 7 of the NLCS or World Series rolls around, Strasburg has to be an option out of the bullpen on two or three days' rest. You can't deny a player of his caliber the chance to live out his childhood dream because of an arbitrary innings limit.

In the end, it comes down to one question: Do the Nationals — and Strasburg — want to risk his long-term health for a chance at the franchise's first World Series title?

Washington's management may be inclined to say no, but for Strasburg, the answer is probably yes. That doesn't mean that Johnson throws Strasburg out there as much as possible, but he has to be okay with Strasburg throwing 170, or even 180 innings if that's what it takes for the Nationals to win the World Series. Just as in poker, Washington can't win big without betting big first.

While the safe bet would be a steady chorus of "Youuuuuks," there will probably be a few fans in attendance who will boo the 33-year-old infielder. And that would be a shame.

Youkilis' departure from Boston wasn't smooth — he had gripes with Sox management, particularly manager Bobby Valentine — but the underlying reason for his exit was a baseball one: Will Middlebrooks was performing and Youkilis wasn't. But Youkilis really hasn't done anything that merits him getting booed on Monday.

No one likes it when players argue with management, but Youkilis still gave it his all when he was out there on the field. Professional athletes want to be in the lineup as much as possible, and it is only natural that Youkilis was upset with not knowing where, or if, he would be playing every day after six years as a starter.

Youkilis wrote a letter to Red Sox Nation on Sunday, and it was clear that he treasured his time in Boston. He called his final game as a member of the Red Sox on June 24 "the most emotional day of my life on the baseball field," which is saying a lot considering that Youkilis won two World Series during his time in Boston.

Youkilis never took shots at the Boston fans, and his effort and intensity on the field never wavered at any point during the whole saga. Those are the two main reasons a fanbase could justify booing a returning athlete, so it does not make sense to boo Youkilis on Monday — or, for that matter, Ray Allen when he returns as a member of the Heat this fall.

Though Allen joined a hated rival, he, like Youkilis, treated the Boston fans with class in his departure, taking out a full-page ad in the Boston Sunday Globe to thank his supporters. It's understandable that fans are unhappy that Allen joined the Heat, but his decision to sign elsewhere should not immediately nullify the five outstanding years he gave the Celtics.

Think about how you would greet Allen 20 years from now if you saw him on the street. Would you go up to him and immediately lambast him for joining the Heat for the final few years of his career? Or would you thank him for his service to the team, the memorable playoff runs and the 2008 NBA championship? If you do the former, you're probably the also kind of person who got the "does not play well with others" report cards in kindergarten.

Even someone like Johnny Damon shouldn't have been booed in his return to Boston. Yes, he joined the Yankees in 2006, but he was also an integral part of the team that ended the Red Sox' 86-year title drought just two years earlier. Does he really deserve to be booed because he's wearing a different piece of laundry?

The only case where booing a player in his return is acceptable is when the player in question does something to truly rouse the anger of a fan base. Holding a television special a month after tearing off your jersey after your team's final game — as LeBron James did in 2010 — qualifies. You'd also be excused for booing Roger Clemens when he returned to Fenway as a member of the Blue Jays in 1997. Players who immediately rededicate themselves and regain their old form after coasting by while appearing to be washed up are worthy of scorn.

But apart from these two types of cases — disrespecting the team and the fanbase and failing to give one's best effort — and short of committing any off-field crimes, most returning athletes should be cheered for what they meant to their old team when they were around.

Most people would prefer to be remembered for their redeeming qualities, not the mistakes they've made. Don't we owe athletes the same respect?

Twenty years after NBA players debuted at the 1992 Barcelona games, Stern has indicated that he will try to limit Olympic participation to players younger than 23. This would also apply to participation in the FIBA World Cup, the quadrennial tournament formerly known as the FIBA World Championship.

Stern is employed by the league and his sole job is to act in the best interest of the league's owners. So it should come as no surprise that he wants to keep the NBA out of the Olympics. The owners want to protect their investments — the players — and don't profit when they suit up for Team USA. They would rather see them rest over the summer than risk injury by playing in major tournaments every two summers.

In this respect, Stern does have a point. Blake Griffin — who just signed a five year, $95 million extension — was forced to leave Team USA on Thursday after sustaining a torn meniscus in his left knee in practice. And the man who stepped into the squad to replace him, Anthony Davis, sprained an ankle during Team USA tryouts earlier this summer.

Stern cannot be faulted for the stance he's taken, but that does not change the fact that it's completely wrong.

The main reason that Stern's proposal is a bad idea is because it would eliminate any chance of declaring an official world champion in basketball. American fans have a tendency to overvalue their domestic leagues. The Miami Heat may refer to themselves as "world champions," but that's not really true. There are many other professional leagues across the globe, as well as the Olympics and World Cup. Winning one's domestic league should not automatically allow a team to call itself the world champion.

Fortunately, we have the Olympics, where, for the past 20 years, every country has sent its strongest team to determine the true world champions. Yes, the United States has won four of the five gold medals during that time, but the level of play has improved drastically since 1992.

The U.S. won the first two gold medal games by an average of 29 points. But Team USA won by an average of just 10.5 points in the gold medal games in 2000 and 2008, and only managed to take the bronze medal in 2004 despite a roster that included Tim Duncan, LeBron James and Allen Iverson. And that doesn't even include a sixth-place showing at the 2002 World Cup or a third-place finish at the 2006 World Cup — both with rosters full of NBA stars.

There are other reasons why NBA players should continue to play in the Olympics, however. If Stern were to block NBA players from the Olympics, he would have used the International Olympic Committee in a manner similar to how a normal person might use a paper towel — he got what he wanted from them, and then threw them away. Stern wanted to use the Olympics as a means to grow the NBA internationally, and once the Dream Team won the gold medal in 1992, basketball did indeed explode overseas.

The NBA has felt the effects with international stars such as Dirk Nowitzki, Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker, and now that the league is strong enough to support itself in overseas markets, Stern has no reason to send players to the Olympics to market his stars. While it's hard to feel sorry for the IOC — an organization that knows a thing or two about exploiting people — withdrawing his players just 20 years after they debuted wouldn't be a very classy move on Stern's part.

The USA is probably the best team in the world right now, but the outcome of the Olympic basketball tournament is not a foregone conclusion. Every other nation sends its strongest team but without American pros, the tournament would lose its legitimacy. What Stern is proposing would turn Olympic basketball into the equivalent of Olympic soccer. And no one, not even diehard soccer fans, cares about the Olympic soccer tournament.

The Olympics and World Cup are basketball's only chance to crown an official world champion. Why would anyone want to lose that?

The 2010 season was lauded as the Year of the Pitcher, as five pitchers threw no-hitters in the regular season — with Roy Halladay turning the trick again in the playoffs — while baseball saw its lowest average ERA (4.07) since 1992. There have been five no-hitters in 2012 as well, and the average ERA (4.01) is pretty darn close to what it was two years ago.

But the similarities don't end there. Not only have there been five regular-season no hitters in 2012, but two of them have been perfect games — again, the same as in 2010.

Umpiring decisions in no-hitters or near no-hitters have also been a common theme. In 2010, Armando Galaragga was robbed of a perfect game after Jim Joyce blew a call at first base on what would have been the game's final out. In 2012, several games were impacted by questionable calls, notably Philip Humber's perfect game on April 21, Johan Santana's no-hitter on June 1 and R.A. Dickey's one-hitter on June 8.

The MVP races may have changed a bit since 2010, but the favorites in each league — Josh Hamilton in the American League and Joey Votto in the National League — have a familiar feel to them. After all, they both won the award two years ago. With almost every team having played its 81st game, now is as good a time as any to take a look at the MVP race in a little more detail, as well as the candidates for baseball's other major awards. 

MVP

AL: Josh Hamilton, Texas Rangers, CF

Hamilton leads the AL in slugging percentage (.636), on-base plus slugging (1.032) and RBIs (74), is second in home runs (26) and ranks in the top eight in batting average (.316) and on-base percentage (.386). No other player combines Hamilton's power and pure hitting ability, and though he plays in a hitter-friendly ballpark and bats in the middle of a loaded Rangers lineup, that doesn't change the fact that Hamilton has been the AL's best player through the first half of the season.

And then, of course, there were the events of May 7-13, one of the greatest hitting weeks the game has ever seen. During that seven-game stretch, Hamilton batted .467 with a 1.963 OPS to go with nine home runs and 18 RBIs, including an MLB record-tying four jacks against Baltimore on May 8.

Hamilton's closest competition — and it is close — is the Angels' Mike Trout. Still just 20 years old, Trout has been phenomenal in 2012, leading the league in hitting (.343) and steals (23) and ranking top-10 in slugging and OBP. He's also proven more than capable with the glove, making the defensive play of the year against the Orioles on June 27. The edge goes to Hamilton for now, since he's performed at a high level for longer — Trout didn't debut until April 28 — but this race certainly bears watching during the season's second half.

NL: Joey Votto, Cincinnati Reds, 1B

Votto lacks the power of Hamilton, but he makes up for it with incredible walk numbers, making him the majors' most difficult out (.469 OBP). He also leads the NL in slugging (.628), doubles (34) and walks (60) and has the Reds in the thick of the NL Central race after they posted a losing record last season. Votto's also a great defender — he won the Gold Glove at first base last season — and he's been on an absolute tear over the last month-plus, hitting .416 since May 25. 

There are some other worthy candidates in the NL — Carlos Beltran and David Wright have both been huge parts of their teams' success, and defending MVP Ryan Braun leads the league in homers (23), ranks second in RBIs (59) and third in slugging (.597), but until Votto stops playing like he is right now, it's his award to lose. 

Cy Young Award

AL: Chris Sale, Chicago White Sox, LHP

This might be the closest race in baseball. Unlike in 2011, when Justin Verlander was the runaway choice for this award, there are a number of deserving candidates this season. Right now, three guys stand above the rest — Sale, Verlander and the Angels' Jered Weaver.

Sale has been tremendous in his first season as a starter, boasting a 10-2 record and ranking second in the AL in ERA (2.19) and third in WHIP (0.95). His 98 strikeouts rank well ahead of Weaver's 68, but behind Verlander's league-leading 128. However, Verlander has made three more starts than Sale, and their strikeouts per nine innings totals are almost identical (8.68 for Verlander vs. 8.59 for Sale). Verlander has the stronger strikeout-to-walk ratio (4.27 to 3.92), but Sale has a stronger FIP (Fielding Independent Pitching), 2.58 to 2.94. 

Then there's Weaver, who ranks behind the two flamethrowers in strikeout-related categories but leads the league in ERA (2.13) and WHIP (0.94). Victories don't mean a ton as far as starting pitchers are concerned, but for those interested, Weaver's record is 9-1, compared to 9-5 for Verlander. He's also got something that neither of the other candidates have — a no-hitter, thrown against the Twins on May 2.

Depending on what criteria you want to use, you could make a case for any of the three. Because of Sale's strength in all categories (instead of Verlander's relative strength in strikeouts and Weaver's relative strength in ERA/WHIP), the White Sox lefty gets the slight nod at this point.

NL: R.A. Dickey, New York Mets, RHP

The 37-year-old knuckleballer is more than just a feel-good story — he's been the best pitcher in the National League this season. Dickey leads the NL in WHIP (0.93), strikeouts (123) and wins (12), and his 2.40 ERA ranks fifth.

Perhaps his most impressive feat, though, has been his ability to do this while controlling a seemingly uncontrollable pitch. Dickey has walked just 26 batters in 120 innings and has allowed only nine home runs, incredible feats, considering the unpredictable nature of the knuckleball. What makes Dickey so unhittable is that he throws the pitch at a speed of around 80 miles per hour — the speed of a typical changeup. There's not much a hitter can do when a ball with wicked late movement comes in that fast.

Dickey is far from a lock to hold on to the award, though. Matt Cain has also been brilliant this season, and the advanced stats suggest that Zack Greinke and Stephen Strasburg have pitched even better than their stellar numbers indicate.

Rookie of the Year

AL: Mike Trout, Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, LF

We've already covered Trout — check out the AL MVP section above — but here are a few numbers to show just how dominant he has been compared to his fellow rookies. Trout is hitting 45 points higher than the next highest rookie and has almost twice as many steals as the second-ranked player. He also ranks first in walks, doubles, triples, home runs, OBP, slugging and OPS. Really, no one else is even close.

The race for second place includes the Twins' Scott Diamond (7-3, 2.62 ERA), the Red Sox' Will Middlebrooks (.298, 10 HR, 37 RBI) and the Tigers' Quintin Berry (.295, .392 OBP, 12 steals). Foreign imports Yu Darvish of the Rangers (10-5, 3.59 ERA, 117 strikeouts) and Wei-Yin Chen of the Orioles (7-4, 3.64 ERA) have also been impressive

NL: Wade Miley, Arizona Diamondbacks, LHP

Miley's 9-4 record and 2.87 ERA make him the clear choice in the NL so far. The 25-year-old lefty has also posted a 1.06 WHIP and is holding opposing hitters to just a .226 batting average.

The Brewers' Norichika Aoki is building a case for recognition, hitting .300 with a .363 OBP and 13 doubles, as is the Rockies' Jordan Pacheco, who leads all NL rookies with a .301 average. It's hard to give the award to anyone other than Miley at this point, though.

Manager of the Year

AL: Buck Showalter, Baltimore Orioles

What Showalter has done with the Orioles this season is nothing short of amazing. One of the game's most underrated managers, Showalter has taken a team that finished 69-93 in his first full season last year and made them into playoff contenders in baseball's most competitive division. Baltimore's record stood at 44-37 entering play on Thursday, with the Orioles sitting 1.5 games ahead of the Indians for the AL's second wild card spot. The Orioles' young stars, such as Adam Jones and Matt Wieters, are finally breaking out, and Showalter has received strong efforts on the mound from Chen and Jason Hammel.

In his first stop as a major league manager, Showalter turned around a faltering Yankees squad, but was fired in 1995, a year before they won the World Series. He did the same thing in his second go-round, in Arizona, leading the Diamondbacks to a 100-win season in just their second year of existence. But he was fired in 2000 — and again, his former team would go on to win the World Series the following year. Showalter is hoping that this time, he'll be able to stick around long enough to finish the job.

A few other candidates are worthy of mention, particularly the Indians' Manny Acta and White Sox rookie manager Robin Ventura, both of whom have their teams contending in the AL Central.

NL: Don Mattingly, Los Angeles Dodgers

The Dodgers seemed doomed for failure as 2012 began, with a messy ownership situation casting a shadow over the team. But in late March, an ownership group headed by Mark Walter that included Magic Johnson agreed to buy the team from Frank McCourt for a record $2.15 billion, ensuring a bright future for the team. No one expected the success to come this soon, however, and Mattingly deserves much of the credit for that.

L.A. entered Thursday's play at an NL West-leading 46-37, thanks to the success of the team's pitching and a lineup consisting mostly of castoffs. A.J. Ellis, Chris Capuano and 38-year-old Bobby Abreu are all among the players who have defied the odds to find success for the Dodgers in 2012. But Mattingly's most impressive feat has been keeping the Dodgers in first place without his best player, Matt Kemp, the MVP runner-up a year ago who has been limited to just 36 games.

Several other managers have found unlikely success this season, notably Davey Johnson with the Nationals, Terry Collins with the Mets and Clint Hurdle with the Pirates. But none have done as much with as little as Mattingly.

Los Angeles ranks 22nd in the majors in runs scored and has been shut out in four of its last five games, including all three in a sweep by the Giants at AT&T Park earlier this week. That was enough to drop the Dodgers out of first place in the National League West for the first time since April 10.

Now, with the trade deadline approaching, the Dodgers have made an offer for Astros first baseman Carlos Lee, with the slugger needing to decide whether he wants to waive his partial no-trade clause and move to L.A., according to MLB.com's Brian McTaggart. But will Lee solve the Dodgers' offensive woes?

The Dodgers surprised everyone by jumping out to the majors' best record after two months on the strength of a rotation bolstered by reigning Cy Young Award winner Clayton Kershaw and a resurgent Chris Capuano. But Los Angeles' best hitter, Matt Kemp, has already missed 42 games this season and is likely sidelined until at least the All-Star break.

The Dodgers have missed Kemp's production dearly. Lee would address one of the team's problem areas — first base — where incumbent James Loney has underperformed, hitting just .236 with a .303 on-base percentage. Loney also has very little power, with a career single-season high of just 15 home runs. He's hit just two this season, tied for 36th among major league first basemen. Lee has hit five in 2012, below his career average, but his other numbers (.290 BA, .342 OBP) show that he would be a clear upgrade over the slumping Loney.

At 36, Lee is no longer in his prime, but while he's never been known as a great defensive first baseman, he does have the ability to play the outfield as well. Lee's contract is up at the end of the season, though, and the Dodgers are smart to move on him now, because he'd be an appealing option for another club in need of offense. The Dodgers have gotten a big year from their pitching staff, whose 3.34 team ERA ranks second in MLB. But with inconsistent starters Aaron Harang and Capuano, there's no guarantee that the pitching performance will carry over to next season, so general manager Ned Colletti should move for Lee while the team is still in contention.

Still, it will take more than the addition of Lee for L.A. to move past pitching-rich San Francisco in the NL West. Two Dodgers regulars, shortstop Dee Gordon and third baseman Juan Uribe, rank among the worst hitters in the majors at their positions. Gordon, who bats leadoff for the Dodgers, is hitting .225 with a .276 OBP, while Uribe is even worse at .208 with a .252 OBP. If Los Angeles doesn't upgrade at least one of those positions at the trade deadline, it's going to continue to have trouble scoring runs.

One possible solution could be Lee's teammate, former Red Sox infielder Jed Lowrie. Lowrie traditionally plays up the middle but has also seen extended time at third base, and he's been hitting now that he's finally healthy for an entire season (so far). Lowrie's .349 OBP, .490 slugging percentage and 14 home runs would be appealing to the Dodgers, but they may have to surrender a lot to the Astros if they want to receive both Lowrie and Lee.

If the Dodgers can somehow land both Lee and another bat — be it Lowrie or another infielder — they'll have everything they need to contend in October. But if they come up short in their efforts to land another hitter, their lack of offense at a few key positions could come back to bite them down the stretch.

Reports surfaced Saturday morning that Kevin Garnett intends to re-sign with the Celtics for multiple years.

Although the Celtics only have four players under contract for next season besides Garnett, the 36-year-old former MVP was viewed by many as the domino that would determine how the rest of the Celtics' roster turned out. With Garnett returning, Rajon Rondo signed through 2015 and Paul Pierce almost certain to retire as a Celtic, Boston has an appealing core for prospective free agents.

Targets for general manager Danny Ainge will likely include Ray Allen, Mickael Pietrus and Brandon Bass, who's due for a raise after making $4 million last season.

The market for Allen's services is expected to be competitive, but if Boston cannot re-sign him, they will still have some cap space left to pursue other quality free agents. The Celtics are finally free of the contracts of Rasheed Wallace and Jermaine O'Neal, whose cap figure totaled $13 million last season, even though Wallace retired two years ago and O'Neal appeared in just 49 games over the past two seasons.

Bass has already said he'd like to re-sign with the Celtics, and Garnett's return solidifies that notion. Should Bass agree to terms with the C's, they would return the core of a squad that came closer than anyone to toppling the champion Miami Heat this spring. Add in a healthy Avery Bradley and Jeff Green — should he re-sign — as well as additional frontcourt help in new draft picks Jared Sullinger and Fab Melo, and the Celtics' chances in 2013 may actually be better than they were in 2012.

When Garnett landed in Boston following a trade with the Minnesota Timberwolves in 2007, most fans and experts assumed that the Celtics would have a three-year window to win a championship with a core of Garnett, Pierce and Allen. Boston appeared in the NBA Finals twice during that stretch, winning it all in 2008. But the emergence of Rondo and the ability of the Celtics' Big Three to ward off Father Time allowed the Celtics to come within one game of their third Finals appearance in 2012, and the C's will fancy themselves contenders in Garnett's sixth year with the team next year.

Garnett had his best showing in the playoffs since 2008 last season, averaging 19.2 points and 10.3 rebounds per game while shooting 49.7 percent from the field and 81.3 percent from the free throw line. His performance, particularly on the defensive end, silenced critics who claimed that Garnett was no longer up to the task in the playoffs after playing Chris Bosh to a draw in the Celtics' loss to the Heat in 2011.

Although Garnett's return comes with the knowledge that his 36-year-old body is in danger of breaking down — he's played in 1,380 games and logged 50,600 minutes in a 17-year career — keeping him in green is the best plan Ainge could have followed. Rebuilding processes can be long and arduous in the NBA. If Garnett had left, the Celtics would still have been a fringe playoff team with Pierce and Rondo — not nearly bad enough to bottom out and receive a high draft pick. Even if Ainge had gone into full-scale rebuilding mode, trading Rondo and/or Pierce, there's no guarantee that the Celtics would have received the lottery luck needed to land a young superstar — just ask the Warriors or Raptors.

So, Garnett's return is really in the best interest of all parties. He gets the chance to remain with a competitive team in a city that adores him, while the Celtics are able to stay in the championship hunt for a few more years.

Someday, age will catch up to Garnett and his body will betray him. But until that day comes, let the good times roll in Boston.

Scott Brooks

Thunder brass have begun to have internal discussions with other candidates — including Jeff Van Gundy and Phil Jackson — should they be unable to reach an agreement with Brooks, according to ESPN.com's Marc Stein.

Still, the candidate who makes the most sense is the man the Thunder already have, and Oklahoma City would be wise to lock up Brooks even if it means committing an extra year or a little more money.

Since taking over Oklahoma City midway through the 2008-09 season, Brooks has led the team to a 174-125 record and three playoff appearances. The Thunder's win percentage has improved during every season of Brooks' tenure, as has their playoff outcome — from a first-round exit in 2010 to a loss in the conference finals in 2011 to this year's Finals defeat to the Heat. Each of those times, the Thunder was eliminated by the eventual NBA champion. It doesn't make sense for the Thunder not to bring back Brooks and risk destroying the close-knit atmosphere general manager Sam Presti has spent the past five years cultivating.

Brooks is not a tactical genius like the Bulls' Tom Thibodeau, but he has done an admirable job managing one of the league's youngest rosters and his four key players — Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, James Harden and Serge Ibaka — none of whom are older than 23. In particular, Brooks has helped diffuse the potential Durant-Westbrook feud that threatened to derail the team, and now both players appear to be pulling in the same direction on the court.

Brooks has, at times, been criticized for his substitution patterns, notably benching Westbrook during entire the fourth quarter of Game 2 of last year's Western Conference Finals against the Mavericks and again drawing criticism for sending Westbrook to the bench during a key third quarter stretch in Game 3 of this year's Finals against the Heat. But there is a method to his madness: The Thunder won that game against the Mavericks — their only victory of the series — on the strength of their bench play in the fourth quarter. In that case, Brooks decided to stick with what was working, and he was rewarded for it.

Many in the media also spoke out about Brooks during the Thunder's Western Conference Finals encounter with the Spurs this year, arguing that he played the plodding Kendrick Perkins too much against San Antonio's faster big men, among other lineup missteps. Brooks once again silenced his critics, as the Thunder adjusted their strategy after losses in Games 1 and 2, putting ace defender Thabo Sefolosha on Spurs point guard Tony Parker and switching defenders on Spurs pick and rolls. The result was four straight victories against a team that hadn't lost previously for a month and a half.

Brooks may still lack the in-game tactical chops of someone like Gregg Popovich, but on a team with as much young talent at the Thunder, he doesn't have to do too much to be successful. His biggest task will be managing egos and ensuring that the team continues to play hard, two things he's been pretty good at over the past four years. Although the potential for disaster lurks beneath the surface with Westbrook, Brooks has defended his point guard's style of play, and the two look ready to move forward. That's the best way to approach a guy like Westbrook who, although prone to the occasional bad decision, more than makes up for it with his athleticism and playmaking abilities.

Although the Thunder were outclassed by the Heat, you can't blame Brooks for failing to stop the NBA's most dominant player from delivering a virtuoso performance in the NBA Finals. Oklahoma City will be plenty motivated next season, and it must be restated that Brooks has improved his team's playoff outcome in each of his three full seasons. After losing in the NBA Finals, there's only one more step to take. It would be foolish to bring in anyone else and threaten that progress.

Thirty-nine years of evidence suggests that the Baseball Writers Association of America — the committee that votes on the AL MVP — thinks the answer to this question is no. But just because the BBWAA believes something doesn't make it right. Remember, this is the same group that consistently fails to elect surefire Hall of Famers — such as Cal Ripken Jr. or Tony Gwynn — to the Hall of Fame unanimously because some of its members hold on to stubborn beliefs such as "no one should be voted in on the first try."

Since the AL adopted the designated hitter in 1973, no full-time designated hitter has won the MVP award. Three players — Jim Rice in 1978, Don Baylor in 1979 and Juan Gonzalez in 1996 — have seen significant time at the position the same year they won the MVP. But none played the majority of their games at the position, the closest call being Baylor's 65 appearances at DH in '79. Players representing every other position on the diamond have won the award since '73, including three relief pitchers. So why does the designated hitter get overlooked?

The thinking goes that a designated hitter has only one job: to hit. He doesn't play defense, so for him to be more valuable than a position player, his performance at the plate should be significantly better. The problem with this logic is that even when a designated hitter has had a season statistically superior to a position player, he often gets shafted when it comes to MVP voting. 

One of the best examples comes from 2006, and one of the main guys who lost out was none other than Ortiz. That year, the Twins' Justin Morneau won after putting together a line of 34 home runs and 130 RBIs to go with a .321 batting average, .375 on-base percentage and .934 on-base plus slugging. A good season to be sure, but Morneau's Wins Above Replacement was 4.0, just 19th among AL players.

Ortiz, on the other hand, had much better power numbers than Morneau (54 home runs, 137 RBIs, both tops in the AL) and, although his batting average was just .287, his OBP (.413), OPS (1.049) and WAR (5.5) were all considerably better than Morneau's.

So why did Ortiz miss out? Well, the fact that Ortiz played on a third-place team while the Twins won their division certainly helps, although Minnesota won just 10 more games than Boston. But the biggest reason was likely because Morneau played first base and Ortiz didn't, a deal-breaker for most MVP voters. Apparently the voters don't understand that Ortiz, like most designated hitters, doesn't just twiddle his thumbs on the bench when he's not hitting. He watches video of his at-bats or takes extra swings in the batting cage — you know, things that will help him become a better player and help the team win games.

Ironically, Ortiz may not have even been the best designated hitter that year. The Indians' Travis Hafner also put up phenomenal numbers despite missing 33 games. Pronk hit 42 homers, drove in 117 runs and led the league in OBP (.439), slugging percentage (.659) and OPS (1.097) to go with a 5.7 WAR.

Another reason why designated hitters should be able to win the award is because of another position that has won in the past: pitcher. Since 1973, five pitchers have won AL MVP. Three of them — Rollie Fingers, Willie Hernandez and Dennis Eckersley — were relief pitchers. Yet, no matter how effective they are, relievers only tend to pitch for an inning or two at most while playing a fraction of their team's games. The three MVP relievers averaged just over 65 appearances per season — and yet the designated hitter is the one penalized for not playing enough.

There's no doubt that Eckersley was great when he won the award in 1992. He was 7-1 with a 1.91 ERA and 51 saves along with a 0.91 WHIP and 93 strikeouts in 80 innings pitched. But was he really better than a designated hitter like Dave Winfield, who that season had a stat line of 26 homers, 108 RBIs and averages of .290 BA, .377 OBP and .867 OPS? Winfield may have been less dominant, but he had a far greater impact on the game than Eckersley, as he notched 670 plate appearances in 156 games. Eckersley, meanwhile, faced just 309 batters and appeared in only 69 games. Both of their teams won their divisions and finished with identical 96-66 records. But Winfield was undoubtedly more valuable to his team because he played a bigger part in those victories than Eckersley did.

There's a similar argument to be made against starting pitchers, who play just one of every five games — although it can be argued that they have by far the biggest impact in those games (but that's a whole other debate). Ultimately, though, the fact that any pitcher can win the award is the biggest reason why a designated hitter should be able to as well. If a player — like Ortiz or Hafner in '06 or Justin Verlander in '11 — is dominant enough and has the numbers to back it up, it shouldn't matter what position they play when it comes to MVP voting.

Green-Ellis joined the Patriots after going undrafted out of Mississippi in 2008. He left the Patriots this past offseason, signing a three-year deal with the Bengals in March after rushing for 1,675 yards and 24 touchdowns over the past two seasons.

The Patriots will now look to four players — Joseph Addai, Stevan Ridley, Shane Vereen and Danny Woodhead — to replace Green-Ellis' production. And even though fans may want to see one player emerge as a consistent, every-down back, it's in the Patriots' best interest to use a running back by committee approach.

At this point in their careers, none of the Pats' four main running backs have the skill set to perform as an every-down back. That doesn't mean they can't help the Patriots win — just look at how Darren Sproles helped the Saints last season in a complementary role — but the Patriots would be best served deploying them in different situations.

Addai was the Colts' featured back as a rookie in 2006, but he hasn't been used in that role since 2009. When the Colts drafted Donald Brown that same year, Addai became expendable, and Indianapolis released him in March while they were cutting ties with the Peyton Manning era. Addai averaged just 3.7 yards per carry last year without Manning to ease the pressure in the backfield, and it appears that he's not the same player that found success early in his NFL career. Still, Addai knows how to play in a winning system — Patriots fans may recall his touchdown that sent the Colts to the Super Bowl at the Pats' expense in 2007.

Ridley showed flashes of potential last season, notably rushing 10 times for 97 yards and a touchdown during a Week 4 win at Oakland, but he landed in Bill Belichick's doghouse at the end of the season and did not see action in either the AFC Championship game or the Super Bowl. He started in only one of his three seasons at LSU, and it would be unlikely to see Ridley dropped into the starter's role without more experience at the NFL level.

Vereen, a second-round pick a year ago, saw action in just five games in 2011 after being buried on the depth chart. Like Ridley, he started just one full year in college, mostly due to the fact that he shared the backfield at Cal with Jahvid Best, a first-round draft pick in 2010 now with the Detroit Lions. Vereen could see more playing time this season, but again, the chances of him becoming an every-down back are low.

Woodhead hasn't put up huge numbers in two seasons in New England, but he fits perfectly into the role of backup running back, as teams have to account for him on the ground and on passing routes out of the backfield. Woodhead caught a touchdown in Super Bowl XLVI, and while he'll never be counted on as a full-time starter, Belichick has taken a liking to him and will almost certainly continue to use him in a part-time role.

But just because none of these players are ready to be a full-time running back in 2012 does not mean that the Patriots are in trouble. More and more NFL teams are moving toward a two-back system to keep their backs fresh and limit injuries, and the Patriots have had success with this approach in the past. Even when Green-Ellis was around, he surpassed 200 carries just once with New England. Going back further, the Pats won the Super Bowl in 2003 with Antowain Smith and Kevin Faulk splitting time at running back, and they almost made the Super Bowl three years later with Corey Dillon and Laurence Maroney sharing the running back duties. The time is right for New England to utilize this approach again.

Addai, Vereen and Woodhead all are capable of catching the ball out of the backfield, so the Patriots may elect to use Ridley as the main ball carrier and bring in another back in passing situations. But really, each back's versatility means that every player can rotate through roles if necessary.

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter who's toting the ball out of the backfield — as long as he doesn't mess up Tom Brady and the Patriots' dynamic passing attack, New England is going to have success. That's why Green-Ellis was so successful in New England — he didn't fumble once in four seasons in Foxborough and allowed Brady to do his thing without seeking the spotlight.

The Pats will be best served using a committee approach in the backfield, but it's going to be the play of Brady and the much-maligned defense that determines whether New England will be able to return to the Super Bowl in 2012.

Photo via Flickr/Beth_Hart

The 40-year-old Ramirez, who broke into the majors in 1993, still wants to play, but does it make sense for any team to sign him at this point?

Interested teams would have to deal with several risks. First, Ramirez has already violated MLB's drug policy twice. One more failed test, and he's looking at a lifetime ban. In addition, Ramirez hasn't seen extended action at the major league level since 2010, so it's fair to question at what level Ramirez would return if he does catch on with a club. Even if he did make an MLB roster, there's doubt that he could stay healthy from now until October — remember, he's 40 years old and hasn't played a full season's worth of games since 2008.

Finally, there's the question of Ramirez's quirky personality, which has worn thin on more than one organization. The Red Sox put up with it back when he was hitting 40 home runs a year, but as he's gotten older, Ramirez' leash has grown shorter. He's played a total of 29 MLB games for his last three teams, and his next club would be his sixth in five seasons.

Although he did hit .302 in 17 games at Oakland's Triple-A affiliate in Sacramento, the Athletics released him because they said he would not be receiving a call-up anytime soon. For a 30-35 team carrying Coco Crisp (.194 batting average, .256 on-base percentage) and Josh Donaldson (.153 BA, .160 OBP), to keep him in the minors suggests that Oakland wasn't impressed by whatever it saw from Ramirez.

Still, Ramirez is one of the premier hitters of his generation — even if that generation is pretty old at this point — and that may convince some club to take a chance on him. A return to the Red Sox may provide the chance to heal some old wounds, but the reality is that Boston doesn't need him. The outfield at Fenway is already crowded as it is, and when Jacoby Ellsbury and Carl Crawford come back from the disabled list, there simply won't be room.

So who would be a good fit?

Baltimore is one team that could use him. The Orioles are down to one starting outfielder after Endy Chavez joined Nick Markakis on the disabled list on Thursday, and Ramirez would fit in with the O's offensive-minded approach. Even if his skills have declined, it's worth taking a flier on Ramirez. He won't cost much — he was slated to make just $500,000 with Oakland — and if he doesn't pan out, he can be released. No harm, no foul. And Ramirez's upside is promising to a team like Baltimore who, even when Chavez and Markakis return, still needs another bat off the bench. Ramirez can also be helpful as a designated hitter.

If he doesn't sign with the Orioles, plenty of other teams could use Ramirez's help. The Indians, Tigers, Blue Jays, Mets and Pirates could all use more depth in the outfield, and Ramirez offers a potential solution to those problems without the need to surrender a prospect in return.

This isn't to say that Ramirez is a sure thing — in fact, he's about as far from a sure thing as possible — but there's no reason for a club on the fringe of contention to take a chance on him. He's a classic high-upside pickup and if he starts acting up, he can be cut quickly before he has a chance to poison the clubhouse.

Photo courtesy of Facebook/Manny Ramirez

With the NBA Finals, Stanley Cup Finals and the U.S. Open, the first half of June alone is better than almost every other sports month. Throw in events like the Belmont Stakes, a biannual soccer tournament — either the FIFA World Cup or UEFA European Championships — Major League Baseball interleague play and the College World Series, and it almost becomes unfair.

Does any other month stand a chance? Here’s a look at the challengers, as well as the reasons why June beats them all.

A few months can be eliminated right off the bat. July and August are hands-down the worst sporting months of the year. Aside from the Olympics every four years and a couple of golf majors, all they’ve got going for them is baseball — and even then, it’s the least exciting part of the season. Baseball still seems new in April and May, but the pennant races don’t heat up until September. Even with the July 31 trade deadline, there’s not much drama to be had in the dog days of summer.

November can likewise be taken off the list due to lack of drama. No sports have playoff games in November, and aside from college football, no sport’s regular season is really heating up at that time. September is the same way — MLB pennant races are in full swing, but the game’s best drama is saved for October. NFL kickoff weekend is fun, but you know what’s better? NFL wildcard weekend, which doesn’t come until January.

December is a slightly tougher omission due to NFL division battles, but, again, there are no playoff games in December — unless you count every ridiculous non-BCS bowl game, which you shouldn’t.

Every sports fan loves the first weekend in February because of the Super Bowl. But after that, it’s three weeks of midseason NBA and NHL games and the Daytona 500. Even with the NBA All-Star Game, that’s a pretty brutal stretch.

May is a nice month sports-wise, with the Kentucky Derby, the Indianapolis 500 and a full slate of NBA and NHL playoff games. But it’s really just a toned-down version of June, which features the championship series in both the NBA and NHL.

So, what’s left?

January is great if you’re a football fan, with college bowl games and the BCS Championship as well as the NFL playoffs. But there are only five NFL playoff game days in January, and with the two-week gap between the conference championships and the Super Bowl — which isn’t even played in January — the end of the month can drag on forever.

March features the most exciting three weeks in American sports in the NCAA men’s basketball tournament. But June exceeds that, boasting the world’s top sporting event — the World Cup. Even if you prefer March Madness to the beautiful game, June’s depth — with the NBA and Stanley Cup Finals — makes it no contest.

October puts up the stiffest competition so far, with the MLB playoffs and the NFL’s regular season. The NFL is great, but it’s not enough to propel October past the only month with two championship series in major sports.

So it comes down to April and June. April has a legitimate case to be the best — between the NCAA basketball championship game, the Masters, NBA and NHL playoffs, and MLB’s Opening Day, it’s got a little bit of everything. Add in the NFL Draft, and April covers all four of the major sports.

Yet June has a counter for almost everything. Instead of the NCAA basketball championship game, it has the College World Series. June still has the NBA and NHL playoffs, but the games mean much more than those played in April. In place of the Masters, there is the U.S. Open, and instead of one draft, June has three, as the NBA, MLB and NHL drafts all fall during the month. Opening Day baseball might be more fun than interleague baseball, but April has no answer for an event like the World Cup or European Championships, leading to a knockout blow for June.

So, as we hit the midway point of the best month on the sporting calendar, soak it up and enjoy the games. It doesn’t get any better than this.