The best thing for baseball? Parity.

Every year during the dog days of summer, my interest in baseball heightens. For a two week period when the daily high temperatures reach close to 100 degrees, I will sit down and watch multiple baseball games. At no other point during the year will I be able to sit and watch an entire baseball game without becoming bored. This year, however, may be different.

The reason? Parity.

The separation of "contenders" and "pretenders" occurs somewhere during the month of July, when those teams with legitimate playoff chances begin to distance themselves from those "flash in a pan" teams. As we approach that stretch of this season, it is easy to argue that 19 of 30 teams still have a shot at reaching the playoffs. Only 11 teams are 8.5 games or more behind first place in their respective divisions. Furthermore, there are zero teams with a minus-100 or worse run differential. Last year at this time, there were three. The "bad" teams are getting better, and the "best" teams aren't quite as good.

Major League Baseball has been dominated by teams that can spend millions and millions of dollars on top players. The phrase "buying a championship" is uttered in the same sentence with Yankees and Red Sox almost on a daily basis. But the Giants proved last year that parity is growing in baseball, and this season has confirmed that parity is indeed a trend.

The two most intriguing beneficiaries of this trend have to be the Pittsburgh Pirates and the Seattle Mariners. The Pirates have such a rich history of success and Hall of Fame players, yet many people couldn't tell you the last time the team made the playoffs (1992). Heck, many people couldn't tell you the last time the Pirates even had a chance to make the playoffs.

This year is different. Pittsburgh is three games out of first place in the Central Division, with only a minus-11 run differential. Three games back. As I type this, it's hard for me believe it. Even I have gotten used to the futility of the Pirates. Last year at this time, they were 17 games back with a minus-182 differential. Pittsburgh is a feel-good story waiting to happen - the entire country knows how bad they have been, and there's not a single person (outside of maybe St. Louis, Milwaukee, or Cincinnati) that doesn't want the Pirates to stay in the hunt for the remainder of the season.

The Seattle Mariners are similar to the Pirates, but with one added twist. Ichiro Suzuki is going to go down as one of the greatest hitters to ever play the game. He is a first-ballot Hall of Famer. Yet, the Mariners have stunk for the better part of a decade, and most of the country forgets just how good Ichiro is. The same can be said for Felix Hernandez, although his winning of the 2010 Cy Young award has brought him closer to household-name status. Even with two of the best players in baseball, Seattle has had trouble generating team success since their last playoff appearance in 2001.

Last year at this time, the Mariners were 14 games out of first place. This year, they are only three games back. Their run differential has shrunk from minus-68 to minus-11. They are the feel-good story of the American League, but more because of their current roster rather than their Hall of Fame alumni. Ichiro can be looked at the same way Dirk Nowitzki was looked at a few months ago - an aging superstar trying to cement his legacy by winning a championship.

So as the month of July begins, I will be holding my breath. I'll cautiously look at the boxscores in the newspaper each day. As the temperature rises, I will be hoping that the Mariners and Pirates and all of the other low-payroll teams can stay in the hunt and challenge the "big-spending" teams. If that happens, my annual two week baseball-watching period may just have to increase.

The Curious Case of Bobby Lou

The Boston Bruins won the Stanley Cup last night, dominating game 7 of their series with the Vancouver Canucks 4-0. The Bruins physicality and depth ultimately wore the Canucks down, and goaltender Tim Thomas was an absolute wall for Boston.

Another factor that contributed to the outcome of the series was the inconsistency of Vancouver goalie Roberto Luongo. In games 1, 2, and 5 (in Vancouver) Bobby Lou surrendered only two goals against. In games 3, 4, and 6 (in Boston) Luongo allowed 15 goals.

The fact that someone could be so meteorically good one night and so terrible the next is a conundrum that ultimately motivates us to watch sports. On any given night, something remarkable could and probably will happen - especially in the NHL Playoffs. Luongo's inconsistency was an intriguing reason for neutral fans to tune in to the Stanley Cup Playoffs even before the Canucks reached the final (he was shaky in their opening round series against Chicago before regaining his form in the conference semis and finals.)

What is fascinating to me is the thought process of Bobby Lou after getting shelled in games 3 and 4. Did he say to himself "alright, I gotta do better than that, I'm capable of playing alot better" or did he say "welp, that sucked, good thing we have the home-ice advantage"?

The mind of LeBron James can be examined the same way. Was James trying to give himself a pep-talk in-between games of the NBA Finals? Did he let the insane amount of pressure affect his mood and ultimately forget about enjoying the moment? Did he underestimate the Dallas Mavericks?

Rory McIlroy can be viewed similarly. McIlroy went into Sunday at Augusta with a lead that quickly evaporated en route to a final round 80 that left many wondering when/if he could regain his confidence. Now, Rory is once again in the driver's seat - this time at the U.S. Open. I would be fascinated to read his mind and know what he's thinking - does he acknowledge the pressure, or attempt to brush it off and ignore it? Does he think back to his collapse at the Masters, or pretend it never happened?

We could continue this discussion an dive into the topic of psychology for hours. But ultimately, Roberto Luongo's inconsistent focus and play on the ice contributed to Vancouver coming up short. The real point of this discussion is the mental toughness that is required to play professional sports. To be a professional means to not only exhibit physical gifts, but also display a mind that can handle an extremely high level of pressure and stress. Luongo obviously came up short in the mental aspect of the Stanley Cup Finals.

Much like LeBron and Rory, I fully expect Bobby Lou to recover and become a stronger, more capable athlete mentally. Time will tell if that happens sooner rather than later. The real question - whether such growth will result in championships - remains to be seen.

NFL Draft Recap - which QB will become a star?

Every year, too much emphasis is placed on which quarterback will be selected first and which team will select said QB. Football is a 22-man game, and it is my belief that no one person can take a team from 0-16 to the Super Bowl without loads of help from his co-workers.

That being said, we consume ourselves in analyzing the "top-rated" quarterbacks and reviewing "projections" to determine (within our own minds) if it would be wise for our favorite team to draft a quarterback. More often than not, we find ourselves thinking how cool it would be if the top-rated QB were to be selected by our favorite team.

This year, Cam Newton enhanced this thought process by leaps and bounds. His physical size and ability is insane, but his personality and mental capabilities are suspect. I cannot recall a prospect with so much potential in both directions - potential to be a perennial All-Pro, and the potential to be the next JaMarcus Russell.

So I started to think...is it really a good idea to draft a quarterback in the first round? Is there really such a thing as a "can't miss" prospect at the quarterback position? Wouldn't it be better to minimize risk by waiting until a later round to select a signal caller?

I did some research. Comparing the first round QB selections since 2005 with the fourth round QB selections since 2005, the numbers are obvious (the fourth round is the middle round of the draft, so I figured it would be a good measuring stick):

2005 first round selections: Alex Smith, Aaron Rodgers Jason Campbell

2006 first round selections: Vince Young, Matt Leinart, Jay Cutler

2007 first round selections: JaMarcus Russell, Brady Quinn

2008 first round selections: Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco

2009 first round selections: Matt Stafford, Mark Sanchez, Josh Freeman

2010 first round selections: Sam Bradford, Tim Tebow

Compare the names above to these...

2005 fourth round selections: Kyle Orton, Stefan LeFors

2006 fourth round selections: Brad Smith

2007 fourth round selections: Isaiah Stanback

2008 fourth round selections: none

2009 fourth round selections: Stephen McGee

2010 fourth round selections: Mike Kafka

When looking at these names side by side, its easy to see that the fourth rounders are pale in comparison to the first rounders. Sure, I get what you're thinking...these guys are fourth round draft picks - they aren't supposed to be THAT good. And I agree, these guys aren't that good, and they support the theory that maybe you really do have to draft a QB early to get results.

The bigger conclusion I can draw from this is that just about every year, at least one really good quarterback is drafted in the first round. In 2005, it was Aaron Rodgers. In 2006, it was Jay Cutler. In 2007...well, ok...let's just forget about 2007. In 2008, it was both Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco. In 2009, it was a tie between Matt Stafford, Mark Sanchez, and Josh Freeman. In 2010, it was Sam Bradford.

What intrigues us now is the debate over Cam Newton, and whether he will be the best of the 2011 first round selections. Will he live up to the hype? Or will Jake Locker be the best of 2011? Will Blaine Gabbert emerge the quickest? Will Christian Ponder step in and be a success story with the Vikings?

If history is any indication, one of the above questions is guaranteed to be answered with a resounding "yes."