DENVER -- It was a source of pride for Damian Lillard and the Portland Trail Blazers the way they held their composure with the officials in a heated series against the Oklahoma City Thunder.

In some ways, they believe that's why they won the series. They kept their cool. They maintained their focus and concentrated on themselves and no one else.

In Monday's 121-113 Game 1 loss to the Denver Nuggets, Lillard conceded that the Blazers might have gotten distracted at times.

"I think it was a little bit more of that, probably more than we needed," he said. "Maybe we needed to not say as much. Any time you see guys wanting it that bad, you're going to say stuff sometimes, but we might've had a little too much of that tonight."

Lillard was more animated and agitated with the officials in this game than he was at any point in the previous series, showing frustration after not getting calls driving to the rim. The Blazers also were visibly frustrated with some of the calls that went Nikola Jokic's way as he scored 37 points, including going 12-of-12 from the free throw line.

After Game 4 against the Thunder, Lillard said he told his team not to talk to anyone unless they were wearing black and gray jerseys, and the Blazers held true to that through Game 5.

Officiating has been under intense scrutiny this postseason, boiling over in Game 1 of the Western Conference semifinal series between the Houston Rockets and Golden State Warriors that had both teams upset after Golden State's win. Chris Paul was ejected with four seconds left. Game officials have ejected 12 players from games this postseason, equaling a record set in 1994 and 2003. The playoffs have averaged 6.3 ejections in 28 seasons since ejections were first tracked in the 1991-92 postseason. There were only three ejections in last year's playoffs.

"It was a little bit of a heated game when it came to the whistle for us. We'd say something when something needed to be said," Lillard said. "Nobody got a tech, so it wasn't anything disrespectful. But when your season is on the line, you've got to be willing to challenge what's happening out there and try to put your team in the best position to win."

Lillard led the Blazers with 39 points, and for a minute, it felt like a "Dame Time" moment was on its way. One possession after he hit a straightaway 3 to cut the Nuggets' lead to nine with 2:23 left, Lillard rolled off a high screen some 30 feet from the basket and was clear to launch another. Everyone in the building felt it; it was about to be a two-possession game with two minutes to go, and Lillard was ticking.

Instead, Gary Harris stopped the clock, chasing down Lillard's 3 and blocking it from behind. Two more Jokic free throws 20 seconds later, and the Nuggets had Game 1 in hand.

It didn't help Lillard's frustration with the amount of attention the Nuggets gave him basically anytime he had the ball. They made it a priority to try to get the ball out of his hands, trapping and blitzing him on pick-and-rolls.

"I think it was more similar than I thought [it would be]," Lillard said of Denver's defensive approach compared to OKC's.

The Nuggets picked Lillard up full-court at almost all times, using multiple defenders -- Malik Beasley, Torrey Craig and Harris -- to hound him. Lillard finished with six turnovers, and the Blazers had 18 as a team -- two areas they thought were significant factors in their losing Game 1.

"That was a huge part of it. I know I had six myself," Lillard said. "As much as I have the ball, I'm responsible for valuing possessions. On the road, against a team that plays much faster, much better at home, especially when they get out in transition and shoot 3s and get the ball moving, just gave them too many opportunities. Twenty-three points off turnovers, that's always going to hurt you."

Scott Foster, the referee most reviled by the Houston Rockets, has been assigned to call Game 2 of the Western Conference semifinals against the Golden State Warriors on Tuesday night.

Foster, a 25-year NBA veteran, has not worked a Rockets game since James Harden publicly criticized him after the superstar fouled out of Houston's Feb. 21 loss to the Los Angeles Lakers. Harden, who was fined $25,000 by the NBA the next day, declared then that Foster should not be assigned to any more Rockets games because of his personal issues with the team.

"It's lingering, and it's something that has to be looked at for sure," said Harden, who described Foster as "just rude and arrogant" when interacting with players. "For sure, it's personal. For sure. I don't think he should be able to even officiate our games anymore, honestly."

The NBA assigns officials for the first four games of a series before the series begins, but does not announce which officials are working until the morning of each game.

There was already an intense focus on officiating in the Rockets-Warriors series, due primarily to Houston's complaints about missed foul calls on several Harden 3-point attempts during Golden State's 104-100 win in Game 1.

As Harden mentioned in February, Foster officiated two of the Rockets' losses to the Warriors in last season's West finals. That includes a 101-92 loss in Game 7, the subject of a report by the Rockets sent to the league office and obtained by ESPN that argues that incorrect calls and no-calls cost the Rockets an estimated 18.6 points.

Foster also officiated the Rockets' lone loss to the Utah Jazz in last season's West semifinals.

Harden isn't the only Rockets star who has gone public regarding his problems with Foster. Chris Paul mockingly referred to Foster as "the man" and "who they pay to see" after Foster called Paul for a technical foul in a January 2018 Houston win over the Portland Trail Blazers. Paul also complained then about Foster's unwillingness to communicate with players. The league office did not announce a fine for those comments.

Paul, who also fouled out of the Feb. 21 loss to the Lakers and was assessed a technical foul by Foster for arguing a call with 33 seconds remaining in the game, said then that he had met with the league regarding his issues with the referee.

"I don't know what else to do," Paul said.

According to ESPN Stats & Information, Foster issued 18 fouls (personal or technical) in the Feb. 21 game -- 12 against the Rockets and six against the Lakers. Seven of the fouls against the Rockets, who blew a 19-point lead in the second half, occurred in the fourth quarter. Houston did not attempt a free throw in the final 20 minutes of the game, compared to 17 free throws for the Lakers during that span.

Editor's note: The following excerpt from the new book "SprawlBall: A Visual Tour of the New Era of the NBA," by ESPN NBA analyst Kirk Goldsberry, has been updated and edited for length and clarity.

As the second round of the NBA playoffs kicks into high gear, the most star-studded series features two unprecedented MVPs in James Harden and Stephen Curry. Both players leveraged the power of the 3-point shot more than any superstars in league history.

Consider these factoids:

• Prior to 2015-16, no NBA player had ever made 300 3-pointers in a single season. That season, Curry sank 402.

• At age 29, Harden is already the all-time leader in unassisted 3-point makes.

Curry and Harden are the definitive superstars of the moment, and 3-point prowess is their signature weapon. But as the NBA leans more and more into the 3-point era, it leans less and less into everything else. Not everyone is smitten. Just ask Gregg Popovich.

"There's no basketball anymore, there's no beauty in it," Popovich said back in November. "Now you look at a stat sheet after a game and the first thing you look at is the 3s. If you made 3s and the other team didn't, you win. You don't even look at the rebounds or the turnovers or how much transition D was involved. You don't even care."

Pop is right. Not only has the analytics era of the NBA dramatically reshaped shot selection across the league, but shooting is by far the most important component of winning games. Teams with a higher effective field goal percentage (eFG%) than their opponents won 81 percent of their games during the regular season, and they're winning 90 percent of them in the playoffs.

When most of us talk about how analytics has changed hoops, we hone in on the dramatic increases in 3-point scoring. But in a zero-sum game, if you're doing a lot more of one thing, you must be doing less and less of something else. The rapid rises in perimeter shooting necessarily come at the expense of other basketball behaviors. As we continue to be increasingly seduced by the 3, what parts of basketball are we leaving behind?

The NBA has now had the 3-point shot for a longer time than it has not. With the exception of a brief three-year window in the 1990s when the league moved it in, the line has remained in the exact same position. In fact, the current configuration of the NBA court has been in place longer than any previous configuration. For many us, 3s are losing their luster. The shooters are too good and too comfortable, and the shots are too common.

Consider this crazy stat: During the 2018- 2019 regular season, NBA shooters made 27,955 3-point shots. That's more than they made during the entire 1980s (23,871).

Historically, the league has demonstrated an impressive willingness to change its rulebook and its playing surface to keep game play diverse and interesting. In 1947, when the league outlawed the zone defenses that were stagnating flow, one of the main defensive tactics in the sport disappeared.

In 1950, to reduce roughness and deliberate fouling, the league added jump balls after every made free throw that occurred in the last three minutes -- as opposed to simply giving possession to the fouling team after the free throw.

In 1951, the so-called Mikan rule drastically changed the appearance of NBA courts by doubling the width of the lane from six feet to 12 feet, primarily to reduce the unprecedented post-up dominance of George Mikan. Thirteen years later, in 1964, the league widened the lane again, to 16 feet, this time to reduce the post-up dominance of Wilt Chamberlain.

Is it time for a Mikan Rule to reduce the dominance of the 3? Let's explore some ways to change the thing, beyond the simplest adjustment of moving the line back -- a logical idea with precedents in college basketball, the WNBA, and even in the NBA itself.

Custom lines

Warning: The following idea has often been ridiculed as the dumbest thing I ever proposed. However, a few people have told me it's brilliant. I present it again here, and will let you decide for yourself:

What if every team in the NBA could draw the 3-point line wherever they wanted?

Ever since the inception of the sport, basketball courts have been the same shape with equal dimensions no matter what city you played in. This consistency separates the sport from baseball and soccer, which both have different dimensions in different arenas.

When you walk into Fenway Park for the first time, you are greeted by the famed Green Monster, the left-field wall that is one of the most iconic images in baseball. Now imagine the same thing in basketball. What if different NBA teams had different dimensions on their 3-point lines?

For generations, Major League Baseball teams have accounted for park factors as they assemble their rosters. The Red Sox love right-handed power hitters who can take advantage of the Green Monster, and the Yankees love left-handed power hitters who can exploit the short porch in right field at Yankee Stadium. What if basketball teams could do the reverse? What if every season each NBA team delineated its own 3-point line based on the strengths and weaknesses of its roster?

Where would Golden State put its line? What about Houston? You might think that Golden State would put their line closer in to get more 3s; however, their shooters all thrive from deep. Curry, Kevin Durant and Klay Thompson all hit from 25-plus feet with relative ease. By drawing their line at, say, 26 feet, they would emphasize their skills while challenging their opponents to swim in the deep end.

Other teams might choose to move the line closer or to feature asymmetries that keep opponents off-balance.

What if a team didn't want a 3-point line at all on its home court? This might be the choice of a team with a dominant shot blocker, like Rudy Gobert of the Utah Jazz. Having no 3-point line would force opponents to beat them near the basket rather than from beyond the arc.

That would be the most drastic option. But if dispensing with the 3-point line altogether is too extreme, the league could easily institute some geometric constraints on the delineation of these lines. For example, the line would have to be no closer than 22 feet and no farther away than 30 feet at all locations, or the lines would have to be symmetrical and identical on both ends of the court.

The data-driven line

Here's an interesting fact: An average NBA field goal attempt is worth almost exactly one point. What a magical analytical convenience! This one-point average is very helpful as we compare and contrast efficiency across teams and players, not to mention shot types.

But what if we used that baseline to optimize the placement of the 3-point line? What if the actual shooting and scoring abilities of NBA players informed the layout of the league's playing surface? For generations, the league has adjusted its playing surface as a way to make sure the game remains as entertaining and competitive as possible. In the so-called Moneyball era, when every team in the league has begun to leverage data to strategize, the league itself has opportunities to do the same thing.

The invention of the 3-point line made 33.33 percent a sort of magical number in NBA analyses. Anyone who can make a third of their 3s can turn 3-point shots into one point on average. It's the same as making half of your 2s. But as a generation of shooters has warmed up to long-range shooting, NBA shooters are making 36 percent of their triples, and specialists regularly convert over 40 percent of them. That's the same as making 60 percent of your 2s.

That slight increase in efficiency and the major increase in the population of players who can achieve that efficiency at high-volume levels are two defining drivers of the SprawlBall era.

For individual players, these efficiency upticks may seem small, but at the league level they're massive. When a whole population of shooters are sinking 36 percent of their 3s, the economic behaviors of shot selection at the population level completely change. There was a time when 3-point shots weren't the smartest jump shots on the floor for most shooters in the league. That time is gone now. Also, we now have data and analyses capable of mapping out with great precision where NBA shooters make and miss. These maps should inform how and where the league places its 3-point line.

It's a logical approach based on the guiding principle that shots get harder with distance (duh!) and field goal percentage decreases. Using contemporary shooting data, we can estimate where the line would have to be for the league to convert exactly one third of its 3-point attempts.

Consider the 2017-18 season. By studying league averages at different shot distances, we can hone in on where the league as a whole made about one-third of its 3s. As you can see here, the shortest 3s -- those short ones in the corners -- went in over 39 percent of the time:

But the graphic doesn't answer this key question: Where would the line have to be so that the cumulative set of NBA 3-point tries would go in 33.33 percent of the time? That's a hard question to answer, but by studying the nearly 70,000 non-heave 3-point tries from 2017-18, we can make an estimate. During the 2017-18 season, excluding heaves, NBA shooters made exactly 33.33 percent of their 3s from beyond 25.773 feet, a distance almost exactly two feet beyond the current line.

So why not place the line there?

One cool thing about this approach is that we could refresh it annually. As shooters change, so could the line. Why not conduct this survey and delineation process after every season? Every summer we could look at the previous season's data and redraw the line based on empirical data. We could forever make 3s worth about one point around the league. Everybody's 3-point percentage would suffer, but the league's best shooters would still be valuable. In fact, they might be way more valuable.

As the shot got farther out, players who could hit it 37 percent of the time would remain among the most prized commodities in the league. And make no mistake, Curry would still be among the most valuable players in the NBA. In 2017-18, 36 shooters tried at least 100 3s from beyond 25.773 feet, but only one converted more than 40 percent of them. Curry made a ridiculous 43.6 percent of 172 3s from beyond that hypothetical data-driven line. His ability to be that good from that far out would make him stand out even more than he currently does in the sea of basic bros hitting 40 percent or better from the conventional distance.

As it currently stands, many of the league's most active spot-up guys are only marginally efficient, and moving the line back two feet would make them even less so. Suddenly the population capable of making 3s efficiently would decline, and the league would have to restore attention to the 2-point areas and the players who could succeed there. Nikola Jokic may have to give up his stretchy ways and bang around the blocks more often. Some 3-point specialists would lose playing time, fadeaways would rise again, and the diversity of shot selection would surge. Some midrangers would be cool again -- at least for some players. Many 3-point shots would be dumb shots. And it would all be due to analytics.

Man, Daryl Morey bitten by his own snake.

The corner 3

Ray Allen's incredible 3-point shot in Game 6 of the 2013 NBA Finals was arguably one of the great shots in league history. But here's the thing: That place where Ray took the shot from -- that little spot along the baseline where the 3-point line is straight -- is generally regarded as the "smartest jump shot on the floor."

In fact, that place might actually be the silliest shot on the floor. The corner 3 is based on an analytical loophole, a seemingly minor decision in 1961 that now influences almost every half-court possession in the NBA.

If you watch the game these days, you'll see almost every team station at least one, often two, players in the remote corners of the offensive chessboard. The rooks in the corners are a signature part of the SprawlBall era. All they do is stand around waiting for shot opportunities that usually don't come. So most of the time 20 to 40 percent of offensive players in the NBA are just standing around picking dandelions like little league right fielders. But unlike 10-year-old outfielders, who rarely affect the game, even when these rooks don't get a look, they influence most possessions by stretching out defenses and preventing help defenders from helping. They keep defenses honest, and they accomplish all of this by standing still.

The stationary rooks in the corners effectively turn many NBA possessions into three-on-three. The cornermen and their defenders are reduced to bit players -- unless of course one of the rook's defenders dares to play help defense on a driving player after a ball screen. In that case, a future corner 3 happens via the drive-and-kick.

But is this interesting? Is it good for the league to place such a high value on two stationary shooting specialists camping out in the corners? Maybe, who knows. But one thing is for sure: Outside of dunks and layups, rooks in the corners are yielding the cheapest points on the chessboard, and the numbers leave little doubt that the league is now chock-full of guys who can drain these shots at such high rates that teams would be crazy not to station them every time down the floor. Moreover, the ability to make that shot is now a prerequisite for almost every off-ball player in the NBA. But does anyone go to NBA arenas to watch these guys stand still in the corners?

One simple way to bring more movement back into the game and breathe more life into the 2-point area is to make it a little harder on these loitering bros along the baseline. Drawing a consistent 23.75-foot 3-point boundary wouldn't completely eliminate baseline triples, but it would get rid of the loophole 3 -- the corner triple with a shot distance of between 22 and 23.75 feet.

Loophole 3s not only account for a vast majority of all corner tries, but they're also the league's favorite 3-point shooting location by a landslide:

So what would happen if we eliminated the loophole 3?

1. By shrinking the spot-up habitat for corner-3 shooters, we'd make their lives harder and their shots longer. Womp, womp. In turn, that would disincentivize loitering. A consistent 23.75-foot arc would easily fit within the current court. However, it wouldn't leave much room for spotting up. These tall fellas with big feet would have to slide up or down along the arc before they could find enough space to comfortably spot up, and even then they'd need more balance, more skill, and better offensive timing to generate corner 3s. This simple change could make the game more exciting and the NBA's shot economy more fair.

2. The most annoying side effect might be a lot more foot-on-the-line moments. This would mean more tedious reviews, which nobody would like. Incidentally, we could also widen the court from 50 to, say, 54 feet, but that would cause major nightmares for every arena manager in the league and force them to reconfigure their entire seating plan.

3. We would see a slight reduction in shooting efficiency from the corner.

4. We would incentivize other kinds of behavior on the offensive end. Fewer rooks, more bishops, knights, etc. How do we create the perfect blend of perimeter action, slashing drives, post-up actions, and fast breaks? That's a hard question, but one way to reduce loitering on the perimeter is to enact the same rules the league has applied to interior players. For instance, what if we simply added the three-second rule to the corner-3 zone? We could encourage movement on the perimeter and discourage all that standing around.

Allow goaltending on 3s

Many of the NBA's first major rule changes were aimed directly at Mikan. Defensive goaltending was added in the 1950s to prevent Mikan from blocking shots right before they went into the hoop. Prior to Mikan, goaltending wasn't an issue, in part because no players could do it. But Mikan could do it, he did do it, and he quickly became the most ferocious defender the NBA had ever seen because of that ability. So the NBA outlawed it, and perhaps no rule change in the history of the game has done more to devalue big men.

What if we revisited that rule change and let defenders block 3-point shots on their way down?

This may sound crazy -- and it might be -- but goaltending was legal before it wasn't. And speaking of crazy, so was adding a freaking 3-point shot, which was yet another way the league intentionally devalued big men. By allowing goaltending on 3s but not on 2s, we would breathe some life back into the center position and into the 2-point area.

It would be just like Kevin Garnett swatting those after-the-whistle jumpers, but in regulation. Every time a shooter got ready to release a 3, there would be a flurry of activity near the basket as offensive guys and defenders toiled not just for rebounding position but also for shot-blocking position. Suddenly open 3s would be much harder to come by.

Offensive bigs would have to position themselves to box out potential shot blockers. Catch-and-shoot specialists would have one more thing to worry about before they fired off a jumper. It would be exciting, and it would make catch-and-shoot specialists a lot less dominant than they are now.

Just as Tom Brady has to worry about a lineman deflecting passes at the line of scrimmage and free safeties intercepting them downfield, 3-point goaltending would place a similar onus on Eric Gordon and immediately bring back the relevance of height and athleticism in the NBA.

But would those 3-point blocks be too easy? Some rules would have to apply, such as not being able to simply put your arm through the rim and block every shot that comes near it. Still, if the league found a decent way to sanction goaltending, how many 3s would get swatted? Ten percent? Thirty-three percent? Seventy-five percent? It's hard to say. Maybe we could pilot the idea in the G League to get the bugs out, but it's clear that such a change would add a lot of risk to every potential 3-point attempt.

In today's NBA, catch-and-shoot guys are among the most potent offensive threats on the floor, despite the fact that their signature play is arguably the least risky way to score. As revolutionary as 3-point shooting may seem, from a basic economics perspective, it's actually very conservative. But if goaltending were allowed, these guys would feel real pressure and have tougher decisions to make. Suddenly they'd have to gauge whether the downward arc of their ball could beat the bigs in a race to the rim.

You could imagine an incredulous Jeff Van Gundy: "What was Gordon thinking? He shot that ball even though Gobert was clearly in the basket area!"

Not only would shooters have tougher decisions on their hands, but the value of athletic centers like Clint Capela and Gobert would return. Smallball wouldn't make as much sense, and jump shooters wouldn't be so potent. The game could float back above the rim.

Illustrations by Aaron Dana. Excerpted from SPRAWLBALL: A Visual Tour of the New Era of the NBA by Kirk Goldsberry. Copyright © 2019 by Kirk Goldsberry. Reprinted by permission of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

Some perspective: On this date a year ago, the Los Angeles Dodgers were 12-16, fourth in the National League West and a whopping eight games behind the division-leading Arizona Diamondbacks. Meanwhile, the New York Mets were 17-9 and enjoying the view from the top of the NL East. So yes, it is early and things can change -- a lot -- but there's still plenty to learn from the first month of the MLB season.

With that in mind, we asked ESPN.com's Eddie Matz, Sam Miller, Jeff Passan and David Schoenfield to hand out some awards, look into some of the biggest disappointments and try to sort out the early blips from the season-long trends of April baseball.

Jump to ...: April winners | First-month losers | April blip or 2019 trend?

Revisit our preseason predictions: Division, playoff, World Series picks | Awards picks| Bets we'd make

Winners

If we were handing out April Champions T-shirts, which clubhouse would we be passing them out in?

Passan: Considering they've lost the past two actual championships, the Dodgers warrant some sort of overall title that extends beyond the National League pennant. Whatever April hangover has befallen the Boston Red Sox has skipped the Dodgers, who survived most of the month without Clayton Kershaw, and without Good Walker Buehler, to post the most wins and the second-best record and run differential in the NL. Cody Bellinger had the best April of anyone in baseball by a good margin -- and come the inevitable regression, the Dodgers have the depth, at the major league level and with minor league reinforcements, to make their lead stand up.

Schoenfield: The Seattle Mariners are playoffless since 2001, so leading the division at the end of April would be a nice surprise, especially given they traded away all their best players from 2018. Then I remembered they were in first place in mid-June last year, and the Texas Rangers clobbered them 15-1 and 14-1 over the weekend, so let's go with the St. Louis Cardinals, who lead a tough division while playing the second-toughest schedule so far (only the Milwaukee Brewers have played a tougher schedule, and that's because they had to play the Cardinals 10 times).

Matz: It has to be the Tampa Bay Rays. No matter which lens you use -- wins and losses, run differential or the good ol' fashioned eye test -- the Rays look like a very good baseball team. So good, in fact, that they were able to survive Blake Snell's freak foot injury, winning eight of 13 games without their ace.

Miller: It's undeniably the Rays. But the Minnesota Twins deserve maybe an April Champions visor, or maybe a pair of novelty April Champions socks. Other than the Rays, no team has increased its playoff odds more than the Twins, who entered Sunday with the third-best record in baseball, the third-best run differential and the second- or third-best offense in baseball.

Who are your April MVPs?

Passan: Cody Bellinger in a rout -- and that's with Christian Yelich also tying Alex Rodriguez and Albert Pujols for the most home runs ever before May 1. How good has Bellinger been? His slugging percentage by itself is higher than the OPS of Bryce Harper, Fernando Tatis Jr., George Springer, Josh Donaldson, Carlos Correa, Alex Bregman and Mookie Betts. And Mike Trout in a rout, because it rhymes, but also because it's true.

Schoenfield: Yelich has had one of the greatest Aprils we've ever seen. But it's only the second-best April in the National League this year as Bellinger has edged past him (plus, Bellinger hits home runs on the road). In the American League, Trout is getting on base more than he ever has, but it seems to be happening in a vacuum because the Angels mostly stink so far. Hunter Dozier actually led the AL in wOBA heading into Monday, but, well, he plays for the Royals, who are even worse than the Angels. So I guess it's Trout.

Matz: To paraphrase Ira and Barry from "City Slickers"... scoop of Trout, scoop of Bellinger, don't waste my time.

Miller: WAR would tell us Bellinger and Trout, but I often barely trust single-season defensive metrics, let alone single-month. So I'll give Yelich the ever-so-slight nod over Bellinger based on the timeliness of his hits, and Trout the nod over Tim Anderson based on the Troutliness of his.

Who are your April Cy Youngs?

Passan: Cheers to Marcus Stroman, who in a season that could well see 7,000 home runs has spent an entire month without allowing one. His 1.43 ERA reflects that and illustrates how the not-definitively-but-definitely-kinda-maybe-probably-is-juiced ball penalizes pitchers. Stroman's brother in heavy sinkerdom is his award-winning NL counterpart: Cincinnati's Luis Castillo, who, like Stroman, has a ground ball rate over 50 percent. At 1.23, Castillo's ERA is even better, and he has yielded just one homer in 36⅔ innings and is punching out more than 10.5 per nine.

Schoenfield: I'd consider Trevor Bauer, except he just gloated about "dominating" the Astros in a game in which he walked six batters and struck out three. Please. So the slight edge goes to a hard-throwing Tampa Bay starter who has taken his game to the next level -- not 2018 Cy Young winner Blake Snell, but Tyler Glasnow and his 1.75 ERA and sudden ability to throw strikes. Luis Castillo of the Reds has picked up from his strong second half and crushed so far, with a 1.23 ERA and just one home run in 36⅔ innings.

Matz: Stroman hasn't allowed a home run yet and has been generally brilliant, so he gets my AL vote. In the NL, I'm going to give it to Padres rookie Chris Paddack, even though his workload is a bit light relative to the other contenders. I mean, it's hard to ignore it when a guy allows 10 hits in his first five starts.

Miller: After a month we still see big discrepancies between the best ERAs and the best FIPs, but Luis Castillo and Trevor Bauer have each been great by both what-happened and what-should-have-happened measures.

Losers

Which team has been the biggest disappointment so far?

Passan: Non-Red Sox division, it has to be the Washington Nationals. The star power on the team is undeniable: Max Scherzer, Juan Soto, Anthony Rendon, Stephen Strasburg, Patrick Corbin, Trea Turner. That's a quarter of a roster with true All-Star-caliber talent. And just like last year, when they were the league's biggest disappointment, the Nationals are languishing around .500, waiting for a run to rescue them from doldrums that have become too common.

Schoenfield: Certainly the Red Sox, not just because of their record, but because of some putrid all-around baseball. Heading into Monday, only the Baltimore Orioles and Miami Marlins had a worse run differential, and Boston is somehow 0-6 in games Chris Sale has started.

Matz: Of the three teams that rank at the bottom of the majors in run differential, two were expected to be awful (O's, Marlins) and the other is ... the defending champs??? The Red Sox earn this dubious distinction, and it's not even close.

Miller: It's the Red Sox as surely as the other answer was the Rays, but outside of the AL East it's probably the Angels. They started the season as real wild-card contenders; they end April with a 1-in-25 chance of making the playoffs, and probably a 7-in-8 chance of having Mike Trout lead the league in WAR but lose out in the MVP voting.

Which player off to a slow start are you most concerned about for the rest of the season?

Passan: Miles Mikolas was so good in his return from Japan last year, the Cardinals tacked on four years to his contract, guaranteeing him $77 million between the beginning of this season and the end of 2023. Between Mikolas' strikeout rate (5.03 per nine innings, dead last among 89 qualified starters) and his home run rate (2.12 per nine, or 86th of 89), it's either a really bad month or the spark that sets those many, many millions on fire. The key: Mikolas' slider, which was one of the best in baseball last year and has been one of the worst this season.

Schoenfield: Speaking of Chris Sale, he has been a little better his past couple of outings. After getting just two swing-and-misses on his fastball through his first four outings, he has had six in each of his past two starts. Still, we're waiting for that first CHRIS SALE game where he proves the shoulder is OK and that he can still crank the fastball up above 95 and when opponents have no chance against him. Until we see that, there has to be some worry.

Matz: Corey Kluber. A control freak his entire career, Kluber boasted the lowest walk rate in the American League each of the past two years. This season, he's walking more than four batters per game, more than triple his clip from 2018. Color me concerned, with a capital C -- just like the one on the Indians' caps.

Miller: I've spent the past month trying to talk myself out of being worried about Jose Ramirez, who as recently as early as last August was probably one of the best half-dozen players in baseball. Players that good don't turn bad overnight, not in their mid-20s, not without a good reason, and I know that Ramirez hasn't, either. But he has now hit .161/.281/.220 in his past 295 plate appearances, a half-season's worth of at-bats as one of the worst hitters in baseball, a half-season with four home runs. I'm very excited for him to prove that players as good as him don't turn bad overnight, but for now, yes, concerned.

April blip or 2019 trend?

Chris Sale has a 6.30 ERA

Passan: The 6.30 is a blip. The struggles are a trend. Is that an unreasonable answer? Sale's arm has been through a lot, and the idea that it's going to be pumping 96 mph fastballs regularly isn't entirely reasonable. At the same time, Sale's competitiveness is legendary, and he'll figure out the problem(s), adjust and iterate, even if that means evolving into something he has never been.

Schoenfield: What's halfway between blip and trend? Blrip? That's kind of how I feel about Sale. He keeps saying, "I have to do better." It's just odd for a pitcher who has been so absolutely dominant to suddenly struggle like this. Maybe the slow spring training in which he hardly pitched was a factor. It has been cold and wet in the Northeast. Maybe it's a slight mechanical tweak.

Matz: Trend. Slow starts for pitchers are always way more alarming than slow starts for position guys because, more often than not, there's an underlying injury to blame. Especially when that pitcher is Chris Sale. After missing much of the second half last season with shoulder issues, his velocity and K rate are down, while his WHIP and home run rate are up. Way up.

Miller: More confounding than the velocity drop is the velocity fluctuation: His average fastball this year, by start, has been 93, 90, 92, 96, 93, which doesn't tell a story I can really grok. That 96 gives me just enough faith that it's mechanics, not injury, and so blip.

Kris Bryant is hitting .229 with three home runs

Passan: Good-year blip. He's still Kris Bryant, he still has that same swing, he still hits the ball hard. Others are free to doubt that. Just won't see it here.

Schoenfield: Trend. He did hit two home runs over the weekend, but he has pulled only one home run all season and his hit chart swings heavily to right-center and right field -- telltale signs of a hitter without the bat speed to pull the ball on a consistent basis. And most home runs still come when you pull them. So I'm worried something still isn't right with the shoulder.

Matz: Big ol' blippety-blip. Bryant's strikeout-to-walk ratio is significantly healthier than his career rate, which bodes well. Also, he has never shown a lot of power in March/April: His 2.7 percent HR rate prior to May is well below his 4.6 percent mark in all other months combined. Deep breath.

Miller: Blip. He's hitting the ball as hard as he did in his good years, and much harder than he did in his injury-stunted 2018 season.

Cody Bellinger and Christian Yelich are the two best hitters in the NL

Passan: Trendier than ... Googles April 2019 trends, sees them, is horrified, feels old, chooses not to include because it would be obvious he Googled. Much love to Anthony Rendon, Nolan Arenado, Freddie Freeman and others, but Belly and Yelly are the capital-D Dudes of this moment.

Schoenfield: I'm a total sucker for hot starts. Of course, Yelich has been hot since the second half of last season, so this isn't a complete shocker. Bellinger hit 39 home runs as a rookie in 2017, and while his sophomore campaign was a bit of a disappointment, he has come in focused and locked in -- he has cut his strikeout rate in half from last year. I'll buy them as the two best hitters in the NL.

Matz: Blapril trip. I'd put Yelich in that group any month of the year. And long term, Bellinger might join him. But for now, I'd rank guys such as Anthony Rendon, Freddie Freeman and Paul Goldschmidt (to name a few) ahead of Belly.

Miller: The NL hasn't had the tier of clear superstars that the AL has the past couple of years, but Yelich and Bellinger are in the top tier in the NL.

The Mariners lead the league in runs and home runs

Passan: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. (One for each of their 59 home runs so far, which deserve homage but ain't gonna hold up.)

Schoenfield: Blip. It has been fun, though. Daniel Vogelbach forever.

Matz: Trick question. The only reason the M's lead the league in runs and bombs is because they've played more games than any other team. (Remember that whole Japan thing?) Going by rates, the Twins are home run kings and the Rangers lead in scoring. So ... blip.

Miller: The response to every "Is [this April thing] real?" question should start with, "Well, look, the Mariners lead the league in runs and home runs, so ..."

GAFFNEY, S.C. — The World of Outlaws Morton Buildings Late Model Series kicks off a busy month of May this Friday and Saturday at Cherokee Speedway and Lavonia (Ga.) Speedway, with South Carolina-native Chris Madden hoping some home cooking is what he needs to put himself in victory lane for the first time this season.

A two-time series runner-up, Madden did a final tune-up last weekend to prepare for the busy month ahead, finishing second at Smoky Mountain Speedway on Friday and third at Dixie Speedway the very next night.

This Friday, May 3, he’ll have what he would consider his best chance at getting his first World of Outlaws win this season at Cherokee Speedway — his home track.

“The biggest thing about racing around home, to me, is my fan base,” said Madden, who’s race shop is located in Gaffney. “That’s where I’m from, and it gives [my fans] an opportunity to come out and see not only me but the other guys that travel around with us. They get to see all of us race and it’s pretty exciting to have one of the ultimate, elite racing series come into our hometown. It’s a pretty big deal to me, and I’m just proud to be a part of it.”

The field will be extremely competitive. While veteran racers like Madden have been battling on the tour for a number of years, several rookies have been learning lessons quickly and applying them in local and regional competition when not on the road.

Showcasing how far they’ve come since joining the series in February, the rookie-of-the-year class bagged a total of three wins in two days last weekend.

Ricky Weiss kicked things off last Friday night with a win at Smoky Mountain Speedway, while Cade Dillard picked up his second super late model win of the year at his home track of ShowTime Speedway in Many, La.

Finally, Kyle Hardy scored a victory on Saturday night at the Winchester (Va.) — his first of the season for Viper Motorsports and Barry Wright Race Cars.

Earlier in April, several more of the series veterans scored good finishes in preparation for this month’s action, too.

Chase Junghans, who currently sits tied for third in series points, picked up a win at Davenport (Iowa) Speedway on April 19 — his first of the season aboard the ShopQuik No. 18. Championship leader Brandon Sheppard also continued his incredible hot streak by scoring another pair of back-to-back podium finishes at Atomic Speedway on April 11 and Hagerstown Speedway on April 13.

COLUMBUS -- The cannon is a lie.

There's a hand-crafted replica of a 1857 Napoleon cannon, once called "the best gun for all round field service" in the Civil War, that rests on two large wheels in Section 111 of Nationwide Arena. It fires at the start of Columbus Blue Jackets home games. It fires after they score. It fires after their home victories. Only it doesn't fire. It flashes, and it smokes. The "BOOM" emanates from the rafters through a concussion charge. The cannon firing is merely perception.

David Baker predates the cannon by a decade, as it arrived in 2007 and he became a Blue Jackets season-ticket holder on day one in 1997. The president of the Jacket Backers, the official booster club of the team, he's had the unique experience of witnessing both the "everything" and the "nothing" in the franchise's previously ignominious history.

Until 2017, coach John Tortorella's first full season with Columbus, the Jackets made the playoffs twice in 15 years of existence: a meek sweep at the hands of the Detroit Red Wings in 2009 and a spirited but ultimately fruitless six-game loss in 2014 to the Pittsburgh Penguins, currently their only semblance of a rival.

There have been some moments of individual glory -- goalie Sergei Bobrovsky winning the Vezina Trophy twice, former goalie Steve Mason winning the Calder Trophy, Rick Nash's goal-scoring title in 2003-04, which he shared with two other players -- but not many. Despite their futility, the Jackets' draft history saw top-10 picks that were outright busts (Alexandre Picard, Nikita Filatov), eventual trade fodder (Jakub Voracek, Ryan Johansen) and Nash, the face of the franchise for nine laborious seasons until the pressure reached a boil in 2012 and a contentious trade to the New York Rangers ended his tenure in Columbus.

And that's not even getting into the off-ice stuff: The shadow of Ohio State blocking out attention. The infantilizing "Lumbus" nickname for the franchise on social media. Oh, and that time they attempted to introduce a new mascot that resembled that 1857 Napoleon, only to scuttle it quickly because everyone thought it resembled a phallus.

(The cannon, again, was a lie.)

Every season had a flicker of optimism for the fans, some smoke ahead of the fire. But the "boom" was never there.

"I think our fans have been tremendously loyal. And we have sucked some games. In certain situations, they wanted to get behind us and we have laid an egg," said Tortorella.

If Baker's being honest about it, he doubted if he'd ever see playoff success in Columbus.

"It has been a tough road. The excitement of having a NHL team lasted for the first five to seven years but it wore off quickly after that. To see the team not getting any better was hard. I did lose faith in the organization and thought at times they would never make the playoffs or be good. Then we make the playoffs and there is a glimmer of hope until the rug is pulled out from under us again," he said.

But not this time. This time, the Blue Jackets swept the Tampa Bay Lightning in the first round, shocking a team that tied the NHL record for most regular-season victories. The Jackets had never won three playoff games, let alone a series. They now return home for Game 3 of their series against the Boston Bruins, tied 1-1.

"It seems a little unreal doesn't it? Uncharted territory," said Sara Chapman, also a Jackets season-ticket holder since day one.

"When Game 4 [of the Lightning series] ended, the noise was deafening in Nationwide Arena. People were crying around me. It was a very emotional moment that seemed to last for days," said Baker.

To finally achieve the postseason victories that had eluded the franchise since the moment those first fans put their deposits down, honesty was the only policy. At least in the Columbus Blue Jackets dressing room.

"If you want to say those meetings helped, I think they did," said defenseman Seth Jones.

Someone's going to earn their doctorate in psychology one day for a case study on the 2018-19 Blue Jackets.

The season began with modest expectations. The Jackets had made the playoffs in two straight seasons, falling to Pittsburgh in five games and then Washington in six games, after taking a 2-0 series lead on the road last year. Both of those opponents would go on to win the Stanley Cup.

But everything about this Blue Jackets team was overshadowed by the fate of two players: Bobrovsky, the 30-year-old franchise goalie with an apparent allergy toward postseason success; and forward Artemi Panarin, 27, the dynamic scoring winger acquired from the Chicago Blackhawks in June 2017. The worst kept secret in the NHL was that both were likely to leave the Jackets as unrestricted free agents in the summer of 2019. The season, then, was a countdown clock to the trade deadline to see what Columbus GM Jarmo Kekalainen decided to do with them.

So the Jackets decided to talk about that.

"Earlier in the year, it was something in our locker room that wasn't positive. It was kind of in the way of things. During camp there were a lot of media questions and everything. So we sat down as a team and had a meeting about it -- coaches and players. These guys ... it's their right to do what they want to do. I think it was an issue at the start of the season, but I don't think it is anymore," said Jones.

Behind locker room doors, the Jackets would joke about the players' next destinations. They'd laugh about the latest rumors. Comedy, with a pinch of nihilism, was the right formula.

"We had some truthful talks. Ever since training camp, it seems like," said Jones. "It's been an interesting year for all of us. We've all grown through a lot of it, because a lot of us have never been in this situation before. I'm not even talking about the playoffs. I'm talking about what happened throughout this season. I think it's great for how young we are."

What happened later in the season was that the countdown clock hit zero. Kekalainen had to decide whether to keep Panarin and Bobrovsky or deal them. On Feb. 25, the day of the NHL trade deadline, the Jackets were barely in playoff position, with their 73 points just two points away from being on the outside of the bubble.

"You discuss every scenario. We just came to the conclusion that we've got a Panarin. We've got a Bobrovsky. These are really good players. Why don't we just go for it here?" said John Davidson, the Blue Jackets' president of hockey operations.

And went for it they did, not only keeping their stars but acquiring four more players: forwards Matt Duchene and Ryan Dzingel, as well as defenseman Adam McQuaid and goalie Keith Kinkaid. None of these players is signed past this season.

"The reason we were able to do it was because we gave up picks for players. Some of these players might stay, some of them might not. We don't know yet. However, our young players we drafted and signed ... we have a good group. A really good group," said Davidson.

That's the managerial approach to "all-in." For the players in the dressing room, the reaction was different.

"I think our team felt a little pressure ... I don't know if it was pressure, but at the trade deadline there was so much attention on us being all-in. I think sometimes when players aren't used to being put into a position where you're supposed to win, it's a different kind of pressure," said Tortorella.

They didn't respond well to that pressure, going 5-7-1 in the 13 games after the trade deadline, culminating in a humbling 4-1 loss at the lowly Edmonton Oilers on March 21 during a Western Canadian swing. "We went into Edmonton, and we laid an egg. We lost again, and we were brutal. I mean, brutal," said Davidson.

Something had to change.

It was time for more honesty.

The Jackets had two days between their game at Edmonton and their next game at Vancouver. Management held meetings. Coaches held meetings. Players chatted with each other about how to change course.

The day before the game, at the University of British Columbia, the players and coaches held a closed-doors meeting. Whatever was said there, it's now become the stuff of legend.

"The players and the coaches had a meeting that was an all-out meeting. As raw as it can be. As honest as it can be. John Tortorella ... I don't care what people think of him, he's the most honest guy with everything. You want honest? He's your coach. This was a cleansing-type meeting," said Davidson.

"It was nice to hit the reset button as a team. We had some talks about what we thought we were. Put it all out there. And we came a little bit closer together in that road trip," said Jones, who said the meeting was uncomfortable in the best of ways. "That's a big part of leadership. A big part of the room taking over for itself. It's everyone holding each other accountable and to a certain standard."

Davidson and the other members of the management team weren't in that meeting, but they were in the stands watching the practice after that meeting.

"That was by far the best practice they had all year. Whatever was discussed in that room was weighing on these guys. How that got cleared is their business. Their department. They took care of it. In my opinion, at that moment, we were either going to go north or we were going to go south. We've gone north ever since. That was the turning point for us," he said.

The Jackets would beat Vancouver, and win seven of their next eight games to make the playoffs. They'd sweep the Lightning out of the postseason. They earned the split they needed in Boston.

Tortorella watched the team galvanize in front of him. It was during the Tampa series that he realized how locked in they were.

"I'm standing behind the bench, and I'm listening to the bench and I don't have to say a word, because it's coming from them. Hearing guys screaming at each other about back-checking. For a coach to see that is really cool," he said.

Jones said the "chemistry off the ice is the best I've been a part of" in the NHL, and credited his coach with the semi-annual airing of grievances that helped lead the Jackets to their best postseason in franchise history.

"I think Torts helps that. He's never going to bulls--- you. He's never going to tell you what you want to hear. And he encourages you to do the same. We should be able to do that with any other teammate, and not just with Torts," he said.

Nick Foligno, the Jackets' captain and a Columbus mainstay since 2012, said it was all a matter of separating the "real issues" from the noise.

"We've addressed things that need to be addressed in this room, but all the other stuff is just noise. We've dealt with it. Throughout my time here, we've made deals throughout the season where we 'should have' won the Stanley Cup. And then you have years where no one's expecting anything out of you and you have a 100-something-point season. You go through things. And as the core group has gone on here, you realize that it's all just noise," he said. "You just have to have a belief in the room. That has to be manifested by everybody and bought into by everybody. It's a big part of our success."

Not just success, but an unprecedented amount of it for the franchise.

Honestly, who among us thought the "all-in" trade-deadline thing would work? Not could, but would?

Honestly, who among us thought that goalie Sergei Bobrovsky, previously a playoff pariah, would have a .930 save percentage and 2.01 goals-against average in six postseason games, five of them wins?

Honestly, who thought they'd get past Tampa Bay? Or claim a legitimate shot at winning the Stanley Cup this season if they advance past Boston?

"That's a burden that's been here. Not winning a round. I'm thrilled for the people that grinded through this," said Tortorella.

"I'm not a big touchy-feely guy, who starts talking about 'all the people.' The people have been fantastic. Since I've been here, they've just been fantastic. I'm thrilled that they get to taste this. We're hoping to keep on progressing here to make this into a full-fledged hockey town. I'm not going to look back to the past of the organization, but for us to gain respect in the league, we have to keep getting into the playoffs and find a way to be successful."

Isn't that the truth?