Did the NFL Use and Lose Michael Sam?

Michael Sam’s NFL career may effectively be over, really before it even began and I can’t help but feel as if it came off as a stunt perpetrated by the NFL. Sam, a defensive end who had a standout career at the University of Missouri and was named SEC Defensive Player of the Year last season, was cut by the St. Louis Rams, the team that drafted him in the final round of this year’s draft, after the Rams final preseason game. Sam played well during the preseason, but the Rams were too stacked at the defensive line position to be able to hold on to him.

The Rams likely knew this the moment they selected Sam late in the draft, much later than he had initially been projected to go, which may prove the move was a hometown discount to score points with Mizzou fans, and make the NFL look like a non-bigoted, more progressive, open league especially on the heels of the Miami Dolphins/Richie Incognito bullying scandal last season.

When it didn’t look like a team would draft Sam and the Rams swooped in last second and saved the day I was immediately skeptical and wondered aloud if the NFL had called in a favor. This is quite the accusation, I know, but one I’d never put past the league and one we’ll likely never know for sure.

Before I get in too deep I should say that I think Michael Sam, as a gay athlete, playing in the NFL would be a great and important thing for the NFL, professional sports and the future of our society as a whole. I was rooting for his success. But, I don’t believe a player should make the NFL on anything but his own skill and merits. So, this isn’t so much a diatribe against the Rams, again stacked at Sam’s position, as it is against the NFL itself.

I knew when the Rams had cut Sam on Saturday, August 30 that he would not be claimed by any other organization in the league. I knew this because of the anonymous general managers who thought he would mean trouble for NFL locker rooms, and Tony Dungy’s dumb comments, and ignorant statement’s by players like Miami Dolphins defensive back Don Jones, and the fact that no other team even remotely expressed interest in Sam throughout this spring’s draft. I knew Sam wouldn’t get a shot in the NFL because NFL locker rooms have more respect for manslaughterers, dog brutalizers, wife beaters, racists, bullies, drug abusers and egomaniacs. Their transgressions aren’t locker-room “cancers,” but a homosexual athlete is just too much.

And, on Sunday, August 31, it was announced that no team had claimed Sam. The Rams still have an opportunity to place Sam on their 10-man practice squad, which would be better than nothing and they might, but it also means that Sam’s dream of becoming a NFL player may never come to light. And, I think that’s wrong because I know Sam is talented enough to play in the NFL. I know this because Sam was considered the best defensive player in the SEC, generally considered the toughest and best conference in college football. *The SEC Defensive Player of the Year should virtually be a lock to make one of the on average 288 roster spots dedicated to defensive lineman in the NFL. For those arguing Sam is too small to play defensive line in the NFL and would have to be a linebacker there are on average 224 linebackers in the NFL and a SEC Defensive Player of the Year caliber athlete should be able to make that switch as we’ve seen it from lesser lauded athletes.

I think Michael Sam was essentially used by the NFL for good press and a profit. He’s been one of the most talked about players in the league since he was drafted and his jersey was the seventh highest selling in the league, according to ESPN’s Darren Rovell.

Some would say the NFL doesn’t need any more press, but when the biggest stories of the last year involving the league have all been negative – concussions, Incognito, Ray Rice, Redskins racist name – don’t you think the NFL wanted a really good story? And, yes, I know the NFL is a billion dollar industry of its own and doesn’t “need” money off of Michael Sam jersey sales, but we also know the NFL is greedy. Why else would the league be asking musicians and pop artists to pay to play the Super Bowl halftime show? 

No, the NFL doesn’t “need” the money, but you’d never know it based on their business practices.

The NFL made a lot of good news and money off of Michael Sam and unfortunately he hasn’t gotten the same out of them; not much more than a glorified 15 minutes of fame. Hell, he didn’t even end up with his Oprah Winfrey Network docu-series– bowing to the fears and requests of the Rams.Yet, the Atlanta Falcons are on television once a week on HBO’s “Hard Knocks.”

I can’t help but feel Sam got used and in some ways those fans hoping for something a little different from the NFL did too. Maybe to show that the NFL isn’t that greedy or that they weren’t just profiting off of Sam they should offer all those snookered into buying Sam jerseys a refund or exchange. It may sound crazy or ridiculous to refund jerseys when the fans knew Sam might not make a NFL roster, but we’ve recently seen precedence for doing just that when the Cleveland Cavaliers offered fans refunds or exchanges for Andrew Wiggins jerseys after drafting the collegiate star first overall in the NBA Draft and then trading him months later for superstar Kevin Love.

It may seem simple for the NFL and the Rams to give some money back for Sam jerseys, but it would also go a long ways in saying it wasn’t just a rouse for attention and money.

That would be a step in the right direction, but it still wouldn’t do anything in giving hope to any gay athletes hoping one day to make it to the biggest stage of professional sports. 

*Here are the last 10 SEC Defensive Players of the Year and the round they were drafted in ...

Michael Sam (7th), Jarvis Jones (1st), Morris Claiborne (1st), Patrick Peterson (1st), Rolando McClain (1st), Eric Berry (1st), Glenn Dorsey (1st), Patrick Willis (1st), Demeco Ryans (2nd), David Pollack (1st)

To Say Redskins or Not Say Redskins ... That Is the Question.

The controversy surrounding the Washington Redskins team nickname is the sports controversy that just won’t die and with good reason. The name is offensive. There’s no denying it. If you deny it I have to question your intentions. There’s no denying it because the term “Redskin” by definition is a racial slur.

Go on, look it up in the dictionary, both dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster.com have the word defined as “offensive” and “disparaging.” The same words you’ll see if you also look up the word “nigger” in the same dictionaries.

Nobody in their right mind would defend a team nicknamed the N-words, so why do so many attempt to defend the Redskins nickname?

Some are taking a stand against the offensive team nickname. In an Associated Press article on Monday (August 18), CBS NFL analyst Phil Simms, who will cover almost twice as many NFL broadcasts as the next guy this season thanks to CBS’ partnership with the NFL Network on Thursday Night Football, and NBC’s NFL commentator Tony Dungy both said that they were certainly leaning toward not using the nickname on telecasts this season due to its offensiveness.

Simms and Dungy would join a growing list of media opting not to use the Washington nickname. Among others refusing to use it are ESPN’s Keith Olbermann (who’s gone on many a crusade against the name on his ESPN2 show), Bill Simmons, Tony Kornheiser, NBC’s Bob Costas and Cris Collinsworth, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and MMQB.com’s Peter King. Entire media publications like Slate.com, San Francisco Chronicle and Kansas City Star have banned the nickname, as well.

Then there are those journalists like Simms’ CBS broadcasting partner Jim Nantz, Fox’s Troy Aikman and CBS’ Solomon Wilcots who will continue to refer to the team as the Redskins because it’s the team’s name and it’s not their business to take a stance on. Nantz was quoted directly as saying “it’s not my job to take a stance.”

I understand the stances of both sides here.

In fact, the decision to use the word “Redskins” in both print and on my sports podcast, Basement Sports, is one that I’ve thought of a few times recently, even though like Simms who was quoted as saying, “I never really thought about it, and then it came up and it made me think about it. There are a lot of things that can come up in a broadcast, and I am sensitive to this” it’s something until recently I hadn’t put too much thought into either.

I believe the word “Redskins” is offensive. As I said earlier, you really can’t deny this by its very definition. So, this makes me want to side with Simms, Olbermann, Costas and others.

But, I also see Nantz’s point when he says it’s not his job as an objective and unbiased broadcaster to take a stance on the team’s name.

It’s probably something I’m going to have to take a little longer to think about before making a decision on the Washington team name for myself, but I will say that’s with each and every passing day I’m leaning toward a boycott of the team name, despite the fact that it inserts my opinion on the name into whatever it is I’m doing.

I think the Redskins nickname is one that is probably eventually going to change, but I don’t believe it’s going to be anytime soon. Change is a slow movement, and for some reason it always seems just a little slower when it involves the NFL.

Stewart Involved in Deadly Racing Incident, Should Remove Himself from Watkins Glen Race

I’ll start by saying it’s hard to report on news that’s so recently breaking and more importantly an incident that’s details surrounding it are murky at best.

But, let’s start with what little facts we know.

On Saturday night, three-time NASCAR champion Tony Stewart was involved in an incident during a dirt track sprint car race at Canandaigua Motorsports Park in Ontario County, New York in which 20-year old driver Kevin Ward was killed.

The two were competing against each other in the race when Stewart made contact with and wrecked Ward. An angry Ward exited his wrecked car and attempted to confront Stewart on the track. Stewart’s car made contact with Ward and threw him some distance across the track. Ontario County Sheriff Philip C. Povero announced that Ward was pronounced dead on arrival at a local hospital.

Povero said “this is an ongoing investigation of an on-track crash” and according to USA Today indicated that Stewart was cooperative with authorities and there were no charges pending at this time.

According to Charlotte Observer reporter Jim Utter on Twitter at 2:04 a.m.: “Sources close to Stewart say at this time, Stewart still plans to compete in Sunday’s [NASCAR Sprint Cup Series] race at Watkins Glen International.”

This is basically were the facts end for the time being.

The incident set fans ablaze on Twitter debating whether or not Stewart intentionally or accidentally hit Ward. Shortly before the announcement of Ward’s death, video of the incident was uploaded onto YouTube, which further incited the online debate. I decided not to review this video due to the graphic nature of its content. Shortly after Ward’s death was announced the video was removed.

Without seeing the video or knowing all of the facts surrounding the incident I can’t make a sound judgment on whether or not I believe Stewart had intent on hitting Ward, but eyewitness reports from both at the track and those who did view the video seems to suggest that Stewart gunned his engine upon approaching Ward which caused his car to swing out and hit Ward.

Whether Stewart intended to hit Ward or whether other reckless actions on either driver’s part ultimately led to the unfortunate death are to be determined at a later date, but what I do know is that Stewart should not be competing in today’s NASCAR Sprint Cup race at Watkins Glen.

According to Sheriff Povero: “[Stewart] is very upset and confirmed his continuing cooperation.”

If Stewart is truly “very upset” I believe he should remove himself from the race that is set to begin in just hours. It doesn’t look good for Stewart or NASCAR for him to be competing in a race while simultaneously being investigated in the death of a local dirt track racer from an incident the night before.

Ideally Stewart will announce later this morning that he is going to remove himself from the race, but if he doesn’t NASCAR really should think about asking him or forcing him to step aside for the time being out of respect for Ward and his grieving family.

Just Another Tainted Home Run Record

A friend of mine was watching an Atlanta Braves telecast a few days ago and texted me the daily trivia question from the broadcast. The question said Chipper Jones hit 433 career homers under manager Bobby Cox, which player has the most career home runs under one manager?

The first answer that popped into my head was Albert Pujols under Tony La Russa. Pujols hit 445 homers with La Russa as his manager, but that wasn’t the correct answer. Some other player/manager combinations that popped into my head were Babe Ruth and Miller Huggins, which ranks second all-time on the list with 467 homers, and Jimmie Foxx and Connie Mack, who combined for 302.

Then the correct answer hit me. I texted my friend, “I figured out the answer, but I don’t like it.” He responded: Mark McGwire and Tony La Russa? I said, “Yep.” He responded with an expletive, obviously not liking the answer much himself.

Mark McGwire hit a record 494 home runs under La Russa’s management, which is 85 percent of his career total. When you think about it the answer is actually quite simple, because Big Mac played the majority of his career under La Russa in both Oakland and St. Louis.

My friend and I didn’t care much for the answer though because those numbers were obviously tainted with McGwire’s use of performance enhancing drugs throughout his career. That wasn’t all we despised, but more so the fact that it seems nearly every important home run record in baseball is tainted.

Most career home runs tainted by Barry Bonds. Most single season home runs tainted by Bonds, after previously being tainted by McGwire. Most career grand slams tainted by Alex Rodriguez. Most Major League Baseball stadiums homered in tainted by Sammy Sosa. Most consecutive seasons with 30-plus homers a tainted tie between Bonds and A-Rod.

If you are a big baseball fan, like I am, you probably consider the home run to be the most majestic thing in all of sports and for the longest time baseball home run records like Roger Maris’ 61 homers in a single season or especially Hank Aaron’s 755 homers for a career were the greatest records in sports. The most treasured records in sports. Then came the steroid era and Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Rodriguez and numerous others just utterly and thoroughly trashed and made a mockery at of these sacred records. It’s something a baseball purist like me can’t get over and probably never will. And, when I see the answer to a trivia question on yet another big home run record is tainted it steams me a bit.

Oddly enough one of the greatest baseball home run records for most in a single game (four) has been done by 16 different players and none of them, at least to my knowledge, has ever been accused of using performance enhancing drugs. So, for now maybe most home runs in a game remains the purest of all of the great home run records in baseball history.

Bobby, Tommy & Greg

Names I used to hear so much in my youth

In my dreams, my fantasies and on television

Bobby, Tommy, and Greg

Played a huge role in the sports fan I am today

Played a huge role in the man I am today

With every dazzling pitch, every precise decision

So many smiles, so many cheers, and even tears of joy

Enshrined right where they ought to be

With names like Aaron, Mays, Ruth, and Robinson

Heroes from the past mingling with heroes from my past

Someday soon to be joined by John and Chipper too

In Cooperstown the halls where legends never die

It's Time to Stop Villainizing Baseball Players Without Real Proof

Last night I was enjoying some of the best sluggers in the game of baseball like two-time champ Yoenis Cespedes, Giancarlo Stanton and Jose Bautista competing in the Home Run Derby and following along with what experts were saying about the derby on Twitter.

Shortly after Toronto Blue Jays slugger Jose Bautista put on quite the show by hitting 10 homers in the first round I saw a tweet from ESPN’s Max Kellerman more than insinuating that Bautista was or had been at one time a performance enhancing drug user. This isn’t an opinion that’s rare; back when Bautista went from unknown to 50-plus homer guy in 2010 it was an opinion that was quite prevalent among people, just as it was last year when Chris Davis of the Baltimore Orioles also went from relatively unknown to a 50-plus homer guy.

Kellerman seemed so certain that Bautista was a PEDs user because he went from a 15 homer a year guy at age 25-28 to 54 homers at age 29 and 43 homers at age 30, when Kellerman was certain his numbers should’ve been on the decline instead of a sharp and dramatic rise.

Kellerman’s flat out accusation of Bautista as a cheater irritated me because the slugger has never failed a drug test. I will also add that Bautista looks the exact same now as he did when he was a 15 homer a year player for the Pittsburgh Pirates, whereas Bonds, McGwire and Sosa all got noticeably bigger. But, I’m not sure how high and mighty I can really get on the topic, because I can understand the skepticism of a player going from 15 homers a year to 50-plus, because I was somewhat skeptical of Chris Davis last season.

A home run jump of nearly 40 home runs in a season’s span seems like something that should be accusatory because it seems so unlikely and borderline impossible, but then again we have seen players before who hit late maturity growths or made minute changes in their swing that resulted in becoming almost completely different players. The problem is it’s hard to determine these changes from performance enhancing drug induced changes and they also seem a little less likely to result in such mass differences.

Still, the accusations of Kellerman rubbed me the wrong way and I can’t help but thinking that players like Bautista and Davis deserve to be treated fairly and innocent until proven guilty. Bautista and Davis have never failed steroid tests, so why should we treat them as cheats? 

Maybe it’s because we’ve been made so skeptical of home run inflations by proven cheaters like Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa who saw home run numbers fly to astronomical rates with the help of steroids that we just can’t trust the game and it’s most glamorous play anymore.

I understand why someone would look at Jose Bautista’s career and scratch and shake their head. I really do. But, I think it’s time to stop publicly slandering or defaming someone who’s never been attached to cheating before … especially when we’ve allowed players who have been connected with performance enhancing drugs and are cheaters, like Nelson Cruz, to start right beside them in the All Star Game. 

You Report Back on How That Paint is Drying, I'll Just Be Here Watching the World Cup

How's that paint drying coming along? 

The 2014 World Cup has been going on for around three weeks now and I’ve already lost track of exactly how many times I’ve heard people say in many different ways that they find the sport to be boring or uninteresting. Not only that, but that can’t seem to understand how anybody else would find the sport either exciting or interesting.

I’m here to tell all of those people complaining about the World Cup with statements like “I’d rather watch paint dry” to shut up and go watch some paint dry.

Now, I’m not what you would call a soccer fan. It’s not something I’ve watched a whole lot in my life and I don’t particularly find it to be one of the more exciting sports, but I have enjoyed the little snippets of games that I’ve caught during this World Cup, particularly the penalty kick shootouts between Brazil and Chile and Costa Rica and Greece.

But, I can understand how soccer fans feel when they’re bothered with statements about how one of their favorite sports is boring, because like them I am a rather huge fan of other fringe sports like auto racing and golf.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to defend my fandom of both auto racing and golf from people who either didn’t understand it or, in most cases, never wanted to. I find that most people who claim they don’t like a sport or that it’s boring have never actually taken the time to watch the sport. This is obviously ignorant, but ignorance has never stopped anybody from running their mouths off whenever they see fit.

Basically what it boils down to is that people should just let other people enjoy whatever sports they enjoy. Why do you feel the need to try to convince us that soccer or auto racing or golf or anything else is boring? We’re not going around trying to make you feel bad about yourself or stupid because the only sport you seem to see fit for watching is American football.

So, you think soccer is boring? That’s fine. You have the right to that opinion, but spouting it every two seconds during the World Cup is a nuisance and doesn’t do anything more than make you look like an idiotic fool. You may get away with that in the good old US of A, but take a little trip to Brazil or Germany or England or practically anywhere else in the world and tell ‘em that. Then make sure you have a nice pair of sunglasses to hide that black eye they’re going to give ya.  

Fifteen Years Later: Payne Stewart, Phil Mickelson and the Moment That Made Me Love Golf

This month marks the 15^th anniversary of one of the greatest major golf tournaments I’ve ever seen; the 1999 U.S. Open at Pinehurst in North Carolina, where next week’s Open also takes place. It also marks the anniversary of the very first golf tournament that I have any recollection of ever seeing.  Thus, that tournament played a big role in my golf fandom today. Looking back, and until this week that’s not something I’ve ever done, it’s also maybe the most tragic tournament I’ve ever seen, as well.

I don’t remember too many particulars. I can’t give a detailed hole-by-hole remembrance. What I do remember was I was an 11-year old boy watching from my living room in small Oakland, Ark. I remember the key players: a 42-year old funny looking veteran with two previous major titles under his belt and an exciting, young golfer who’d yet to win a major and would go five more years before he did. The vet was Payne Stewart, 1989 PGA champ and 1991 U.S. Open champ. He was funny looking because of his throwback attire featuring knickers, high socks and ivy newsboy cap. His look, along with infectious personality made him a fan-favorite. The youngster was Phil Mickelson, also a fan-favorite, which he still is to this day, thankfully with five major titles now to his legacy.

I remember this tournament almost more for its storyline than I do for the shots or winner – even though both are unforgettable. I remember Stewart and Mickelson being in a tight fight for the entire fourth round, and Mickelson having to worry about the possibility of an 18-hole playoff on Monday, because his wife, Amy, was going to give birth to their first born at any moment. I remember the final hole, where Stewart had a 15-foot par attempt to win his second U.S. Open, after taking the lead with a birdie on the previous hole, and the dramatics of the situation knowing that if he didn’t sink it there would be a Monday playoff. I remember Stewart sinking the putt and his celebration with his arm stretched out straight in a fist pump and one of his legs thrust into the air behind him. One of the all-time great golf images, in my opinion. Then, what I remember most was Stewart embracing Mickelson after the match and telling Mickelson that even though he’d lost the U.S. Open what he was about to experience with the birth of his first child would be so much greater. The greatest moment of his life, in fact, and by the way, this all took place on Father's Day. It’s a moment that I’m sure brought tears to the eyes of many watching and still will today in remembrance. 

Part of why this event is capable of bringing tears to the eyes 15 years later has to do with what happened just four months after Stewart was crowned U.S. Open champion. On Oct. 25, 1999 I was watching one of the local Springfield, Mo. television stations, Springfield was not only the city of my local television networks, but also Payne Stewart’s hometown, when they interrupted regular programming with the tragic news that a plane carrying Payne Stewart and five others had crashed in nowhere South Dakota. Despite the plane crashing in South Dakota, the National Transportation Safety Board later declared that Stewart and the others on the flight had actually died shortly after takeoff in Orlando, Fla. of hypoxia from a loss of cabin pressure.

Stewart’s death was one of the earliest memories I have of losing a great and beloved champion of a sport I loved. And, looking back on the 1999 U.S. Open that occurred 15 years ago and the tragic death of Stewart that followed just four months later I can’t help but think that without that day and that great battle between Stewart and Mickelson and the sportsmanship and greatness of humanity shown by the vet and the young gun afterward that I might not be the golf fan I am today. Turns out I owe an awful lot to the great Payne Stewart. I’m just glad that a 15^th anniversary of a great sporting event and the sport’s return to Pinehurst next week could remind of that fact.    

Kurt Busch Attempts to Become Second Driver to Complete All 1,100 Miles of 'The Double'

In my opinion, one of the greatest and rarest feats in sports is to attempt “The Double,” racing in the Indianapolis 500 and NASCAR’s longest race of the season the Coca Cola 600 at Charlotte Motor Speedway in the same day.

“The Double” is an extremely rare thing because of the short amount of time between the end of the Indianapolis 500 and the beginning of the Coca Cola 600. It’s also incredibly difficult because few drivers actually have experience in both the open wheel racing world of IndyCar and the stock car world of NASCAR. Novice sports fans might think all motor racing is the same or at least similar, but there are numerous differences between the two.

In the 1960s and 1970s the Indianapolis 500 and Coca Cola 600 were run on different days and allowed drivers to compete in both events rather easier than it would be to do today. Still it wasn’t a frequent occurrence. Cale Yarborough was the first NASCAR driver to attempt both races in the same year in 1968 finishing 41^st at Charlotte on May 28 and 17^th at Indianapolis on May 30^th and 31^st, as the event was completed over two days due to rain.

Jerry Grant, Lee Roy Yarbrough and Donnie Allison would also compete in both races in the same year in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s, with Allison having the best of luck winning the NASCAR race in 1970 and then finishing an incredible fourth in the Indy 500 six days later; To this date that’s the best combined finish of a NASCAR driver running both races.

In the mid-‘70s the races started being held on the same day, the Sunday before Memorial Day and drivers were forced to choose between the Coke 600 and Indy 500, with most NASCAR drivers tending to stick to their day job.

“The Double” started in 1994 when John Andretti, a former open wheel driver making his way in NASCAR, announced he would attempt both races on the same day. Andretti would go on to post a tenth place finish at Indy, but blew an engine at Charlotte and finished 36^th. Andretti would go on to run many more Coca Cola 600s and a few more Indy 500s, but never again on the same day.

In 1999, Tony Stewart started his first of what would be two ‘Double’ duties. He would find success finishing ninth at Indy and fourth at Charlotte in his rookie season in the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series becoming the first driver to post a top 10 in both races on the same day. However, Stewart wasn’t able to complete the 1,100 miles between the two races as he didn’t finish on the lead lap at Indy.

Stewart would later do “The Double” again in 2001 and would become the first and to this date only driver to complete all 1,100 miles in the duo races finishing sixth in the Indy 500 and third in the Coke 600. It remains the standard performance for drivers running both races and would be the last time Stewart would run “The Double.”

Robby Gordon tried the “The Double” more than anyone else competing in both races on the same day four different times (2000, 2002, 2003 & 2004). The closest Gordon would come to finishing all 1,100 miles was missing it by a single lap when he finished 16^th at Charlotte in 2002 one lap down. He ran eighth that year in the Indianapolis 500.

In the nine seasons since Gordon’s last attempt in 2004 there hasn’t been a driver attempt “The Double,” with many of those years the feat being impossible because of the start times for both races. However, this year 2004 NASCAR champion and current Stewart-Haas Racing driver Kurt Busch is going to run “The Double” attempting to complete all 1,100 miles by running an Andretti Autosport car in the Indianapolis 500 before flying to Charlotte for the Sprint Cup race.

Busch’s attempt at “The Double” may actually be the most impressive of the four drivers to attempt both races on the same day because unlike Andretti, Gordon and Stewart, who all got their start in open wheel racing, Busch has never had experience in open wheel cars or racing. Unlike Andretti, Gordon and Stewart, Busch has never even started an IndyCar race.

Busch has shown promise in Indy practice and qualified in the top half of the field. He’ll start Sunday’s race in 12^th position. However, he did wreck his car earlier this week in practice, but will retain that starting spot.

Busch has surprised many these last couple of weeks and could continue to do so on Sunday during the Greatest Spectacle in Racing. He’s already proven that his talent as a racecar driver surpasses his full-time career in stock car racing. Will he become just the second guy to complete the entire ‘Double’ by finishing all 1,100 miles in the same day? That’s to be seen. If I had to guess I’d say he likely won’t accomplish that feat having no prior experience in IndyCar racing. However, I know his attempt at all 1,100 miles on Sunday is going to be a blast to watch and something that the Indianapolis 500, open wheel racing and motorsports in general could really use to help infuse some new excitement into the sport.

Marco Andretti Listed as Favorite in Indianapolis 500, but Why?

Oddsmakers have had their say for the driver most likely to win the 98^th running of the Indianapolis 500 on Sunday, May 25. According to the World Features Syndicate, Marco Andretti is the favorite at 5-1 odds to win the Greatest Spectacle in Racing at the famed Indianapolis Motor Speedway.

My only question is have the oddsmakers ever watched the IndyCar Series?

Marco Andretti has largely been a disappointment in his eight seasons in the IndyCar Series. He only has two career wins in 139 races (one in his rookie season of 2006 at the road course in Sonoma and one in 2011 at the short track in Iowa). He’s also never finished better than fifth (2013) in the championship standings.

For those race fans that may be more familiar with NASCAR than open wheel racing, Marco Andretti is basically the equivalent to Martin Truex Jr.

However, the Indianapolis 500 has statistically been one of Andretti’s best tracks. He has a respectable 12^th place average finish in the race with top five finishes in half of his eight Indianapolis 500 starts. Marco’s best finish in the Indianapolis 500 is second place, which he accomplished in his rookie race of 2006 narrowly losing to Sam Hornish Jr. in the second closest finish in Indy 500 history. He has come close again with two third place finishes in 2008 and 2010 and a fourth place finish last season.

Still Marco’s good runs at Indianapolis aren’t exactly reason for him to be considered the favorite given his overall career numbers and some of the other drivers in the field.

Penske Racing’s Helio Castroneves, a 6-1 favorite, is a three-time winner of the Indianapolis 500 (2002, 2003 & 2009) and is looking to become just the fourth driver (A.J. Foyt, Al Unser Sr. and Rick Mears) to win the coveted race four times. Castroneves will be starting the race from the second row on the grid, the same row as Andretti.

If anybody should be the favorite for the Indianapolis 500 it’s Castroneves.

But, also in the mix for the Indianapolis 500 victory lane milk is the reigning champion Tony Kanaan, who up until his fan-favorite win last season was one of the greatest drivers in the sport’s history to never win its biggest race. Kanaan always gets around the Brickyard well and with the monkey finally off of his back he’s raring to make it two in a row. He’s only a 15-1 favorite though, probably because his Ganassi Honda qualified in mid-pack.

Also, a guy who should be among the favorites is Ed Carpenter who drives and owns the fastest car from qualifying, having won the pole position for the second consecutive year. Carpenter has never won the race, but has turned the fifth most laps at the track among active drivers and has a trio of top 10 finishes to his name. Like Andretti, Carpenter only has two career wins, but those have come in the last three seasons in likely lesser equipment than Andretti’s Andretti Autosport ride and at the extremely high speed tracks of Kentucky and Fontana. Carpenter is an 8-1 favorite.

Marco Andretti wasn’t even the fastest Andretti Autosport car in qualifying, being bested by his teammate James Hinchcliffe, who’ll start the race second after overcoming a concussion just a week previously in the inaugural Grand Prix race at Indy. Hinchliffe is also an 8-1 favorite.

Then you’ve got the guys who’ve been here before like Scott Dixon, the sport’s reigning champion who won this race in 2008. In fact, Dixon has some of the greatest success at Indy – in 11 career races he’s only finished outside of the top 10 three times and has five top five finishes. His average Indy 500 finish is a terrific eighth place. Like Carpenter and Hinchcliffe, Dixon is an 8-1 favorite.

Judging by his career statistics, his competition and his qualifying runs it doesn’t appear that Marco Andretti should really be considered the favorite to win the race. So, why is he?

It’s because of his name and the story.

There isn’t a more famous name in open wheel racing than Andretti. There isn’t a more famous race in open wheel racing than the Indianapolis 500. But, despite this fact the Andretti name has been known more over the years for its failures and bad luck at the great race than its successes. Mario Andretti won the race very early in his racing career in 1969, but the Andretti name has had a gigantic goose egg in the win column there since. Mario, his sons Michael and Jeff, his grandson Marco and his nephew John have run the race 68 times combined with that lone victory. Not only do they have the low win percentage at the track, but the bad things that have happened to many of them at the track, particularly when they had the best car or best shot at winning have led to the famed “Andretti Curse.”

Everybody wants a good story, even the oddsmakers. Marco Andretti winning the Indianapolis 500 this Memorial Day weekend and snapping a curse that goes back 45 years would be one helluva great story.

However, the reasoning for being the “favorite” just doesn’t add up. Marco Andretti could very well go out there on Sunday afternoon and make me eat my words by winning the race, and more power to him, but if you want a real favorite take Castroneves or Dixon. Marco hasn’t earned that title.   

Snubbed: Terry Labonte Should Have Been Inducted Into 2015 NASCAR Hall of Fame Class

The 2015 NASCAR Hall of Fame class was announced on Wednesday, May 21 and the sixth Hall of Fame class is the first to be comprised entirely of former drivers. Former champions Bill Elliott, Joe Weatherly and Rex White received the call, as did 26-time winner Fred Lorenzen and Wendell Scott, the first and to this day only African-American driver to ever win a race in NASCAR’s premier series.

All five inductees are no doubt Hall of Famers. But, there is one snub – who like Bill Elliott was on the ballot for the first time this year – that I thought should’ve been a no-brainer selection on the first ballot. That person is two-time champion Terry Labonte.

I think Elliott, Weatherly and Scott are all no-brainers for different reasons and would have included all three on my ballot had I had a vote. However, I don’t think the selections of White or Lorenzen were merited over Labonte.

It seems rather strange for a one-time champion in White to get the call over a two-time champion in Labonte, especially when White has only six more career wins. But, the reason likely lies in the fact that White is the sport’s eldest champion at 84 and the voting committee wanted him to have a chance to be inducted while he was alive. Labonte is merely 57 and actually still competes in the occasional Sprint Cup Series race, despite having been retired full-time for nearly a decade. This is a reasonable explanation as to why White was chosen over Labonte, but I don’t necessarily feel the age of a nominee should be a deciding factor over racing resume.

The selection of Lorenzen over Labonte is more curious. Lorenzen is not a champion of the sport, but that likely has much to do with the fact that he didn’t run a full season schedule in an era where many drivers did the same. Lorenzen also only has four more career wins than the two-time champion. The case for Lorenzen’s induction over Labonte has to do with his importance in the sport as a very popular driver, his incredible winning percentage (including winning half of the 16 events he entered in 1964) and like White the committee might have wanted to induct him before his death. Lorenzen is 79 and living in an assisted living facility.    

I think Labonte’s two championships alone should have gotten him inducted over White and Lorenzen. With the induction this year of Weatherly this leaves Labonte as the only multiple time champion in NASCAR history who is eligible for Hall of Fame induction that hasn’t been inducted.

Terry Labonte’s career is truly mesmerizing. His first race came in 1978 and he has raced at least once in every single NASCAR season since (that’s a 37 year span), including as recently as just a few weeks ago at Talladega Superspeedway. At one point Labonte was the sport’s “Iron Man” for most consecutive races with 655, before the record was later broken by Ricky Rudd and eventually Jeff Gordon.

His first championship came in 1984 in the prime of Dale Earnhardt and Darrell Waltrip winning championships and his second title came in 1996 in the midst of one of the sport’s greatest runs ever by Jeff Gordon. This means Labonte won titles in the prime years of likely three of the five greatest NASCAR drivers of all-time. The 12 year span between championships is also the longest between titles in NASCAR history, by quite a margin, which shows how consistent of a driver Labonte was for a long time. Labonte finished in the top 10 in the season’s end points standings 17 times in his career (in 26 full seasons); including a top 10 season finish in four different decades.

If you need more evidence as to how Labonte was snubbed in being left out of the 2015 NASCAR Hall of Fame class you need look no further than his three closest peers who have recently been inducted. In the last three years Rusty Wallace, Dale Jarrett and Bill Elliott have all been inducted into the NASCAR Hall of Fame, all on their first year on the ballot, despite each having one fewer career championship than Labonte. The one thing all three drivers have in their favor is 10-plus more wins in their careers than Labonte (Wallace and Elliott doubled Labonte’s career win totals). But, doesn’t championship rings usually determine an athlete’s greatness more than anything else in almost every sport?

I’m not saying that Labonte is an all-time better driver than Wallace, Jarrett or Elliott, by any means, but what I am saying is that his resume and hardware is proof that he should’ve received the same treatment by the Hall of Fame voting committee as that trio of legends.

Terry Labonte is going to be a future NASCAR Hall of Famer. This is a fact and thus might make this entire piece much ado about nothing in the eyes of many. But, when you’re the sport’s greatest eligible champion and you have to wait another year while arguably inferior candidates are chosen ahead of you that’s a disservice to your career and legend. I hope and believe that Terry Labonte will be a member of the 2016 NASCAR Hall of Fame class in Charlotte, but in my book he’s already been enshrined. 

Hoping Instant Replay Doesn't Eject the Ejection from Baseball

Throughout the first few weeks of the 2014 Major League Baseball season the biggest discussion topic in the game has been the installation of instant replay into the game. It hasn’t gone as smoothly as the league would have preferred it too with many of the replays taking too long – some upwards of five minutes – and others being blown despite rather obvious replays.

These are obvious problems facing MLB, but I’m sure the system will take time to work out its kinks. I can’t remember how it was when the NFL instituted its instant replay, but I highly doubt it was a 100 percent smooth transition. Hell, today instant replay in football still isn’t perfect.

My biggest worry about instant replay coming into this season was actually that it would cut down on one of the most exciting moments or things in all of sports … the baseball ejection. Maybe it’s because I grew up loving the Atlanta Braves and their MLB all-time leader in career ejections manager Bobby Cox, but I absolutely love watching managers (and even players) arguing their heads off with an umpire and the impending will-they-or-won’t-they be tossed dramatics that ensue. Sure, some of these arguments lasted as long as it does to review an instant replay, but they were far more interesting and exciting to watch.

I thought my theory that instant replay would cut down on these exciting ejections in baseball was well on its way to being proven. Through the first two weeks of the season there had only been two ejections in the entire game: Chicago Cubs manager Rich Renteria and Texas Rangers shortstop Elvis Andrus. I don’t have statistics to tell me the average number of persons who normally would have been ejected in a two week span, but I can tell you with almost 100 percent certainty it would have been more than two.

I think this theory will ultimately prove to be right. At the end of the season it’ll interesting to see how many fewer ejections there will have been in 2014 as compared to 2013. However, this week has shown me that the highly exciting act of ejection may never be taken from the game completely. Through yesterday there have already been at least five ejections in the game this week, and likely there have been others that I’ve missed. Part of the reason for this is that ball and strike calls, which can’t (and never should be) reviewed will always lead to arguments between managers/players and umpires. Also, the introduction of instant replay in MLB has led to an automatic ejection for any manager who comes out to argue a reviewed call – which led to quick hooks for both Boston Red Sox manager John Farrell and Texas Rangers manager Ron Washington earlier this week.

This gives me at least slight hope for the ejection, which should never be ejected from the game.  

Using Sports Expert Advice to Fill Out Brackets is 'Bracket Plagiarism'

As we embark this week on one of the year’s most popular and anticipated sporting events, the NCAA men’s college basketball tournament or March Madness I have stumbled upon an idea or opinion that I apparently have been on the minority side of and never knew it.

Every year during the days that precede the beginning of March Madness I, like many millions of other Americans, find a bracket of the matchups and fill it out to compete with a group of others doing the same. I fill the bracket out without the help of television or Internet experts telling me who to pick and this has served me quite well in the past leading me to win multiple brackets. I’m not a risky bracket picker. I pick very few upsets, maybe fewer than most. Sometimes this bites me, but I’d rather be bitten by a 15-seed upsetting a 2-seed or a 14-seed upsetting a 3-seed than going for broke or against the odds and not having it play out. This is my strategy for trying to win. But, no matter what my picks are mine 100 percent of the time without any influence from other individuals. The only influences I’ll use are obvious things like seeding, records and other basketball statistics.

I believe this is the only right way to pick a bracket. This is a thought that until this week I believed that I shared with the majority of people who fill out brackets.

Apparently it’s not.

I posed the question of whether or not it was wrong to use expert advice to fill out a bracket on my sports podcast’s Facebook page and the majority response was that it’s not wrong to do so. I was shocked.

To me it would seem obvious that using experts on ESPN or YahooSports.com or any other sports television network or website would be essentially cheating.

Why do I consider this cheating?

It’s cheating because it’s passing off the knowledge or opinion of somebody else as your own. When you fill out a bracket in competition against other people it should be completely yours. Using advice from outside sources effectively makes any potential win or gain from your bracket not completely yours and thus isn’t as much of an accomplishment as winning your bracket tournament on your own accord would be.    

Some people may not give a damn about that, especially if they are playing for money (something I personally do not do). They may consider a win a win and using all means necessary to receive monetary gain fair game. I have no way of stopping people from doing this, barring getting my entire bracket group of people together the minute after the brackets are unveiled to make their picks immediately.

But, I definitely view using others’ advice to fill out your bracket to be a cheap and unfair way to compete in a bracket tournament. I liken it to Googling answers during a trivia competition. You are passing off knowledge as your own that isn’t. Some people may not agree with this comparison, but I don’t understand how they could deny it.

Using experts to help fill out your bracket is essentially plagiarism. You are using the ideas and thoughts of others for your own use. It very well may be considered commonplace when it comes to filling out your March Madness bracket to use outside help, but it’s wrong.

So, if you’re like I and you fill out your bracket on your own good for you. It’s the only right way to do so and if you win you’ll truly have all of the bragging rights and pride that comes with the accomplishment of beating everybody else. But, if you use outside help to fill out your bracket and win you don’t really have the right to gloat, because it’s just as much Jay Bilas’ and Dick Vitale’s and Doug Gottlieb’s and any other experts’ bracket just as much as it is your own. And, if you happen to win money doing that, well, those experts really deserve a cut.  

Bull Riders Just Might Be the Toughest Athletes Around

Last Saturday night I had the pleasure of attending the PBR (Professional Bull Riders) Velocity Tour event at Verizon Arena in North Little Rock. The Velocity Tour is kind of like the minor leagues for the PBR Tour with a bunch of young guns trying to reach the summit of their sport. I had never watched a PBR event in person and hadn’t even so much as watched more than a few minutes of one on television. However, I always had a great respect for bull riders, commonly referred to as cowboys, because what they do is obviously spectacular and something that I could never imagine myself doing. A lot of my respect for the sport of bull riding, despite never having much knowledge or viewing of it, likely comes from all of the great rodeo country music songs I grew up loving by artists like Garth Brooks, George Strait and Chris LeDoux who really do capture the romance and beauty of a cowboy riding a bull. And, it’s a romance and beauty that is so quick, so over in a matter of seconds that it’s really hard for the brain to almost comprehend. Eight seconds of almost anything seems like nothing. Hell, eight seconds occur seven and a half times every single minute. But, I’m betting that eight seconds on a bull for some of these cowboys can seem like an eternity, with that massive beast bucking and twisting and turning wanting nothing more than to fling the cowboy from his back and then stomp his brains out for having the audacity to attempt to ride him. It’s likely the most thrilling eight seconds in sports. And, it’s something that I don’t believe gets enough attention, enough respect from sports fans around the country. I understand that bull riding might not be everybody’s cup of tea, hell, I previously stated here that I’d never given it too much thought, but do yourself a favor and watch just a bit of this on television or even better, like I did, in person and you’re going to find out that when it comes to tough as nails athletes, there might not be any tougher than those cowboys who make a living trying to best hell-fire in the encasing of a 2,000 pound bull.  

Is Yadier Molina a Hall of Famer?

The other day at work a co-worker of mine told me rather certainly that St. Louis Cardinals catcher Yadier Molina would be a future baseball hall of famer. I gave a “are you kidding?” laugh, chalked it up to him being a Cardinals homer and said there was no way Molina had a shot at being a hall of famer.

I texted my friend Bobby, the smartest guy I know (other than myself, of course) when it comes to baseball, that my co-worker floated the idea of Molina as hall of famer. Bobby’s reply frankly stunned me. He texted: “Very likely if he continues to play like he has over the past few seasons … but, I wouldn’t call it a guarantee.” Even the name Yadier Molina and the words “very likely hall of famer” in the same sentence dumbfounded me.

I figured if Bobby thought there was a shot I might as well look into it a little further.

The best way to determine whether or not Molina is a future hall of famer is to, of course, compare him to hall of fame players at his position. There has to be some caveats, though, for the comparisons to be fair or ring true. For instance, hall of fame catchers before the modern era of baseball who played in the dead ball era before 1920 couldn’t be thrown into the mix, because the lack of offense from that era would skew the numbers. This eliminates hall of fame catchers like Roger Bresnahan and Ray Schalk.

That leaves us with 10 hall of fame catchers who’ve played the game of baseball since 1920. Those catchers are (in order of induction): Mickey Cochrane, Bill Dickey, Gabby Hartnett, Roy Campanella, Yogi Berra, Rick Ferrell, Ernie Lombardi, Johnny Bench, Carlton Fisk and Gary Carter.

Let’s start with the average age of these hall of fame catchers when they played their last full season (100 games or more) as a catcher. Because of the wear and tear of the catcher position, which hasn’t changed all that much over the years (although it may in the future with the elimination of running over catchers at home plate), the average age a hall of fame catcher plays to is only 35, and that number was actually skewed a little higher than it should be by freak of nature Carlton Fisk, who was an everyday catcher until the age of 43 (the next closest hall of famer at the age of his final full-time season as catcher was Ernie Lombardi, who was six years Fisk’s junior at the end). If you were to take Fisk out of the equation (a reasonable thing to do given his six extra years is a whopping total) the average age of a hall of fame catcher at his final full-time season would be a full season earlier at age 34.

Yadier Molina is currently 31 years old and will turn 32 during the halfway point of the 2014 MLB season. Based on the standards for his position we have to believe Molina only has four or five (and five is likely a stretch) years remaining as a full-time catcher. In fact, Molina (who’s likely seen the most playing time of any catcher over the last decade) is already starting to show some wear and tear when it comes to injuries, even if his offensive numbers have climbed over the last few years.

So, what are the average offensive numbers for a catcher in the baseball hall of fame?

The average hall of fame catcher gets around 1,882 base hits in his career in 6,593 at-bats, giving him an average of .285. This is almost identical to Molina’s career average of .284 (1,183 for 4,165) after nine full seasons. Now, Molina’s average is likely to fall a few percentage points over the late years of his career (as you’d expect from any major leaguer), but likely won’t fall below .280, which would give him a higher career average than hall of famers like Johnny Bench (.267) and Carlton Fisk (.269). I expect Molina to finish his career with a batting average akin to hall of fame catchers. I also suspect that he will have around the same amount of career hits as the average hall of famer. Molina has averaged 127 hits per season for his career and giving him four to five more seasons of everyday play would put him around 1,691 to 1,818 for his career, certainly not hall of fame averages for any other position, but for a catcher it’ll do.

Everybody who’s seen baseball over the years knows that Molina is not a power hitter, but even though catcher is historically not a power position the average hall of fame catcher hit long balls at a higher rate than Molina. The average hall of fame catcher hit 246 career home runs and this number is skewed drastically by Rick Ferrell (often considered the most egregious hall of fame selection, and one made by the veteran’s committee and not Baseball Writers Association of America) who’s 28 career homers are tied with shortstop Ozzie Smith for the least of any position player hall of famer whose career came after the dead ball era. The next lowest hall of fame catcher in home runs was Mickey Cochrane (who had his career drastically cut short by injury), who hit a huge 91 more homers than Ferrell. Without Ferrell’s measly total, the average for a hall of fame catcher becomes 270 (more than a season’s worth of homers than it is with Ferrell). If you exclude Ferrell and add the numbers of Mike Piazza and Ivan Rodriguez, who should be no-brainer hall of famers and likely one day will be, the average goes to 289. You may say Piazza and Rodriguez played during an era of inflated numbers, but both are generally considered to have been clean (and I won’t make accusations otherwise) and Piazza’s 427 homers (most ever by a catcher) aren’t alarmingly more than Bench’s 389 or Fisk’s 376. Rodriguez’s 311 (over a longer than average career) would only be ranked sixth among hall of famers if he were currently inducted.

After nine seasons, Molina has 89 career homers, or an average of 10 per season. Homers could (maybe should) go down with age, but we’ll give Molina 40 to 50 more for his career giving him a total of 129 to 139. If you account for the fact that Cochrane was already out of the league due to injury by Molina’s current age, Molina would have the fewest homers of any catcher if he were to be inducted.

How about RBI?

The average for hall of fame catchers is 1,116 RBI, which would also go up slightly if you threw in Piazza and Rodriguez’s numbers. Molina is currently sitting at 546 RBI for his career. He averages 59 RBI a season. Using his career averages I foresee Molina finishing his career with around 782 to 841 RBI. This means that Molina would finish his career with around 300 fewer RBI than the average hall of fame catcher, which might not seem like a lot, but you have to realize that’s at least four to five seasons for a catcher of hall of fame status.

Now, you might be thinking that Molina’s last few seasons (the ones according to Bobby he’d have to maintain to be a hall of famer) are higher than his career averages and that would be correct. However, the numbers don’t jump drastically enough to make up for 300 fewer RBI and 150 fewer home runs, and it isn’t even close. Also, almost no player in Major League Baseball maintains his career high averages toward the end of his career.

It’s not a prerequisite for a hall of fame catcher to have won a Most Valuable Player award, but the majority have (60 percent). It would seem unlikely at this point in his career and given the average numbers of MVP players that Molina would ever win a MVP. Even if he did, it wouldn’t matter because of many of the other reasons listed in this piece.

Molina has also rarely if ever been considered the best overall catcher in the game during his career. That honor has typically gone to Joe Mauer for much of Molina’s career and Molina has had to battle with Brian McCann and recently Buster Posey to even be considered the best in his own league. This is something that hall of fame voters look at as hugely significant, and every hall of fame catcher (with the likely exception of Rick Ferrell) was considered the best at their time in baseball or at least their league.

Offensively, Yadier Molina isn’t a hall of fame catcher. If Ted Simmons couldn’t make the hall of fame with career numbers of .285 (the average for a HOF catcher), 248 homers (two higher than the current average) and 1,389 RBI (way above the average and second most among all catchers in MLB history) than no way can Molina. In fact, Simmons finished his career with the most hits in baseball history by a catcher with 2,472 (Ivan Rodriguez since passed him) and didn’t even sniff the hall of fame, receiving less than four percent of the vote in his only year on the ballot and falling off. Based on his numbers, Simmons should be a no-brainer hall of famer and he trumps Molina in every category but defense.

Ah, there it is … defense.

Molina has never been known for his offense, but has as long as he’s played been considered the premiere defensive catcher and game-caller in the league.

Let’s start with game-caller. Do you think hall of fame voters would even for one second take game-calling into consideration? I hope you’re not thinking hard on this, because it wouldn’t even cross their mind (whether it should or not).

So, down to defense (which both my co-worker and Bobby thought would be the thing to tip Molina into possible hall of fame territory).

Yadier Molina’s defense is at hall of fame level, in my opinion. He may be the greatest defensive catcher to ever play the game. There really aren’t too many ways to quantify this, though, and hall of fame voters aren’t spending too much time on defense anyway. Basically what you have to go by here are number of Gold Gloves won and defensive WAR (wins above replacement), despite the fact that I’m not a huge fan of Sabermetrics.

Molina currently has six Gold Glove wins. Johnny Bench finished his career with 10 Gold Gloves. Ivan Rodriguez finished his career with 13 Gold Gloves. If Molina were to win the Gold Glove every year until the end of his career (which, I believe, many would say is unlikely especially when he ages) he would finish with around nine or 10. This puts him at Bench’s level and a few behind Rodriguez. Gold Gloves may not always be the best argument or representation of defense, but it’s one of the few defensive aspects hall of fame voters are going to pay attention to. Even then it doesn’t matter a whole lot, just ask Keith Hernandez what his 11 Gold Gloves or Jim Kaat what his 16 Gold Gloves did for them, and they both have more impressive numbers respectively when it comes to their positions than Molina does overall.

When it comes to defensive WAR, Molina is currently behind both Bench and Rodriguez (that along with the Gold Gloves tells us that Molina is likely only the third best defensive catcher of all-time currently, if that, because I’ve only included data from HOFers and those that should be). Molina’s career averages show that he could likely pass Bench in this category, but shouldn’t reach Rodriguez’s total. This means that it’s very unlikely that Molina will retire as the greatest defensive player to ever play his position.

But, what if he did retire as the greatest defensive player to ever play his position?

The chances of Molina’s induction into the hall of fame would still be slim-to-none. Ozzie Smith is the only player in baseball’s modern era that made the hall of fame mostly on the basis of his defense, but even still Smith had nearly 2,500 base hits and stole 580 bases (which ranks him in the top 25 all-time). Being the best defensively simply doesn’t make one a hall of famer. I use Keith Hernandez as my example. He’s considered to be the greatest defensive first baseman by far, and has the hardware to show it. He was also talented with the bat hitting .296 for his career, with over 1,000 RBI and 2,000 hits. He also won the 1979 National League Most Valuable Player. He never got more than 10.8 percent of the vote.

Yadier Molina is a great player, one of the best of his era at least defensively and is a generally likable person (which could help come voting time), but he’s not going to get anywhere near the 75 percent needed to make the hall of fame if guys like Hernandez and Simmons are only getting 4-to-11 percent.    

Molina is going to fall into the category of very good baseball player and likely one of the 25 greatest to ever play his position when his career comes to an end, but he’ll have to settle for that and not induction into Cooperstown.