The Corporate Olympics

In 1984, Los Angeles completely changed the Olympic Movement.  By financing the Games with private and corporate funding, as well as using existing venues and infrastructure, LA showed that you can host the Olympics and actually make a profit.  That model became a template that future Olympic host cities followed.  In 1984, Los Angeles will completely change the Olympic Movement again.  And once again, it'll be by the use of corporate dollars.

The 2028 Olympics will be the first with venue naming rights.  The Honda Center in Anaheim, home of the Ducks during hockey season, will be hosting Olympic volleyball...when it will be called the "Honda Center."  The temporary squash venue in the Universal Studios parking lot, meanwhile, will be called the "Comcast Squash Center at Universal Studios."  Comcast, of course, is NBC's parent company.  (It's also worth noting that LA28 and NBCUniversal are working together to coordinate Olympic sponsorships.)

This is obviously a historic change, and it's being done with the IOC's full support.  Honda and Comcast are just the first two naming rights sponsors to be announced, but you'd have to figure there will be plenty more.  Other qualifying LA28 partners will be able to keep their name on existing venues, while up to 19 temporary venues will also have naming rights on offer, with participants in the IOC's existing The Olympic Partner program getting first dibs.

A few key clarifications were also made.  The first is that existing venues will either keep their regular name or, should a naming-rights deal with that company not be reached, be given a generic one like in Olympics past.  So, there's no chance three of LA's most iconic venues--Dodger Stadium, the LA Coliseum and the Rose Bowl--will suddenly have corporate names during the Olympics.  Nor will SoFi Stadium be referred to as (for example) Coca-Cola Stadium.  It'll either be SoFi or "2028 Stadium" (the temporary Olympic name it was given on the competition schedule that was released last month).

This isn't a requirement, either.  I don't know why a venue naming-rights sponsor would pass on the opportunity, but, if the price is too high or they can't come to an agreement with the organizers, they have the assurance that some other corporation won't be able to come in and slap their name on the venue during the Olympics.  If they don't want to do it, it'll just be the generic name that would've been used anyway under the previous rules where corporate venue names can't be used.

Existing IOC rules about maintaining a clean field-of-play will still apply, as well.  Which means no sponsor names or logos on the playing surface.  I've always loved that about the Olympics.  The field of play has nothing on it but simple, Olympic branding.  That will continue.  Although, this does presumably mean they won't need to cover up the scoreboard (assuming it has the sponsor's name/logo on it) or, more importantly, cover up the venue's name on the outside.

It's been a long-standing and well-known rule that corporate names aren't allowed by the IOC or FIFA.  This is a practical and reasonable provision to protect IOC and FIFA sponsors.  It prevents free advertising for a non-IOC/FIFA sponsor or, worse, for the competitor of an IOC/FIFA sponsor.  Although, the result is an often ridiculous generic name for the venue ("Dallas World Cup Stadium," anyone?) that will only be used on TV and in anything printed.  People attending the event will still refer to the venue by its actual name or nickname, regardless of what its "official" name during the competition is.

That's a point LA28 President Casey Wasserman was quick to emphasize.  Gymnastics will be at the Lakers' and Kings' home arena (which I will always call "Staples Center," even though that's not its name anymore).  People aren't suddenly going to start calling it "Downtown Gymnastics Arena" during the Olympics just because that's the name the IOC is using.  Ditto about all the NFL stadiums being used at next year's World Cup.

I do wonder, though, how Toyota (an IOC sponsor) feels about its competitor, Honda, getting a naming rights opportunity during the Olympics.  Assuming the IOC will continue allowing venue naming rights moving forward, this is a question that will have to be answered.  Sometimes there's no conflict.  Delta is the Official Airline of Team USA, so it won't be an issue for the Delta Center to keep its name when the Winter Games return to Salt Lake City in 2034.  But what will happen when there is one?  Or will this be a situation like the NFL/NBA, where team sponsors are often different than the league sponsors.

Still, while this is a somewhat surprising development, it's also something that feels like it was a long time coming.  And inevitable.  Venue naming rights aren't a phenomenon exclusive to the United States or even North America.  I'd argue that more sporting venues around the world than not have corporate names.  It's rare to not have multiple venues at an Olympics referred to by a generic name for those two weeks (there's always at least one).

And, from the sounds of Wasserman's comments in the release, it appears this isn't a one-time thing, either.  LA's in a unique position in that these Olympics are being completely privately funded without any governmental support.  That's why these corporate partnerships are so important.  They're a necessary extra revenue source.  That extra revenue won't just benefit the LA Games.  It'll benefit the entire Olympic Movement.

They wisely won't let it get out of control, either.  Giving the corporations that already have naming rights to the facilities the first opportunity to keep them during the Olympics is a reasonable accommodation.  I'd argue that it makes things even more worthwhile for them, especially since they wouldn't otherwise see any benefit from such a major event being held in the venue.  If they pass (and I'm not sure why any of them would), it's not like it'll be open bidding.  That corporate free-for-all could lead to a financial windfall, but this gives existing Olympic sponsors more bang for their buck, which gives corporations more incentive to be an Olympic sponsor.

Broadcast rights are the biggest source of IOC revenue.  That doesn't figure to change.  Individual Olympic host cities don't reap much of a benefit from that, though.  When it comes to the cost of running the Games, they're mostly on their own.  Which is why corporate sponsorships are so necessary.  And venue naming rights are a far more lucrative opportunity for both the sponsor and the organizing committee alike.  There's money to be had in naming rights.  Which is why they've been sold at virtually every major league venue (and many college venues) in the U.S.

Don't be surprised if this is the start of a trend, either.  You know FIFA saw this announcement and thought about how much more money they could've made had they allowed Met Life, SoFi, AT&T, etc., to keep their names on their venues during the World Cup (for an additional price, of course).  So, while the LA28 Olympics will be the first with venue naming rights, they won't be the last.  And World Cup venue naming rights will almost certainly follow.

The Upcoming Hall of Fame Conundrums

Now that the Baseball and Pro Football Hall of Fame induction ceremonies are both in the rearview mirror, it's time to start looking ahead to January and February, when the Classes of 2026 will be announced.  I'm curious to see how the voting will go in each.  Because both sports are heading into a very interesting few years...for completely opposite reasons.  Baseball doesn't have a clear-cut first-ballot Hall of Famer on the horizon.  Football has so many that it's going to create a logjam it'll take years to clear.

Let's start with baseball.  Ichiro was as clear-cut a first-ballot Hall of Famer as there can be.  The next one to hit the ballot is Albert Pujols in 2028, followed by Miguel Cabrera in 2029.  The next three ballots not only don't feature a clear-cut first-ballot candidate, there's a question of if anybody will get in on any of them.  While that scenario is unlikely, it does mean that we'll probably have smaller classes with guys who've been waiting a while coming up over the next few Hall of Fame elections.  

The Pro Football Hall of Fame, meanwhile, most decidedly does NOT have the same problem!  First-year eligible candidates for the Class of 2026 include Drew Brees, Larry Fitzgerald, Frank Gore, Phillip Rivers and Jason Witten.  That could be a Hall of Fame class right there.  (And, while coaches are a different category voted on separately, Bill Belichick is also eligible for the first time in 2026.)  Then you have Ben Roethlisberger, Rob Gronkowski and Adrian Peterson (among others) in 2027.  And, in 2028, two of the spots are already taken by first-ballot locks--J.J. Watt and some guy who played quarterback for the Patriots and won a bunch of Super Bowls.

Not all of those guys will get in on the first ballot.  And those who don't will then roll over into the next year, making those ballots even more loaded than they already will be.  Which means some of these players who otherwise would've been first-ballot locks will end up waiting multiple years before they finally get that knock on their door and give that speech while wearing their gold jacket.  Not to mention the backlog that already exists, and it's conceivable that there could be years where all 15 finalists eventually end up making the Hall of Fame.

Complicating matters even more in football is how they have a maximum class size, so they're already limited in the number of players who can be inducted in a given year.  And, as we saw this year, they changed the voting system and having the maximum number of inductees is no longer guaranteed.  So, if they don't have a maximum class, that increases the backlog even more.  Which is both good and bad.  Because, while some players will have an extra long wait, it does guarantee that we'll have some outstanding Pro Football Hall of Fame classes in the coming years.

This isn't the first time this has happened in baseball.  From 2010-13, a total of four players were voted in by the writers, including a shutout in 2013.  Then three players were elected on the first ballot in each of the next two years (five of the six were starting pitchers).  After the shutout in 2013, the writers elected a total of 22 players in the next eight classes before another shutout in 2021, then only one player voted in by the writers in both 2022 and 2023.  They've elected three in each of the last two years.  It might be three total over the next three.

Once we hit 2028, though, it'll again be an onslaught of first-ballot locks.  Yadi Molina could easily get in on the first ballot with his buddy Pujols.  Zack Greinke is also eligible for the first time in 2029.  And, let's not forget who else is coming up the pipeline pretty soon.  While they haven't retired yet, Justin Verlander, Max Scherzer and Clayton Kershaw are all nearing the end of their careers.  If they all retire together, that'll be one outstanding Hall of Fame class!  (It's also possible they may be the last three starting pitchers elected to the Hall of Fame for quite a while.)

Going back to the years between the two times the writers didn't select anybody, those large classes could've easily been bigger.  Because Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Alex Rodriguez, Mark McGwire, etc., were all on those ballots, too.  The Steroid Era players created quite a backlog, especially because voters are limited to 10 selections.  That backlog only started clearing up after the Steroid Era players exhausted their eligibility.  Now, we're at the point where there's no longer a backlog.  The list of candidates simply isn't as strong.  Although, it also means that players who've been waiting a while stand a better chance of getting in.

In football, it's the exact opposite.  The list of finalists for the Hall of Fame will be so good that we'll see players waiting years who otherwise would've been first-ballot locks.  Take next year for example.  They're not putting in five first-ballot guys.  Fitzgerald will get in.  Brees probably will too.  The others may end up all having to wait.  How long is the question.  Because the candidates coming up behind them are equally strong.

Football's coming up on a backlog similar to the one baseball had when the Steroid Era guys were still on the ballot.  The next three years will be stacked.  In 2029, Aaron Donald joins the fray, but after that, it clears up a bit.  (If Aaron Rodgers retires after this season, he'll become eligible in 2031.)  Still, though, simply because of the quality of the field, some guys might not be getting in until then at the earliest.  And I'm talking about obvious sure-fire guys like Frank Gore and Ben Roethlisberger.  I haven't even mentioned the second-tier Hall of Fame-quality players like Andrew Whitworth, Luke Kuechly, Clay Matthews and Adam Vinatieri.  Plus all the guys who are already eligible and haven't gotten in yet. 

These stand to be loaded classes.  Football's maximum of five doesn't seem to be changing, so we're already guaranteed to see some otherwise first-ballot locks not get in on the first ballot.  Which is guaranteed to shock some of their supporters.  And, as much as I criticize the Pro Football Hall of Fame voters and the way the voting is conducted, I don't envy them and the task they have in front of them over the next few years.  Separating some of these candidates will be close to impossible.  And, I fear, will result in split votes.  Which will mean not enough reach the 80 percent required for election.  Which will mean we get classes that aren't the maximum.  Which will mean those quality candidates end up staying on the ballot for another year...when they'll be joined by a whole new group of quality candidates.  

Baseball's "softer" ballots coming up in the next few years, meanwhile, are good news for those borderline candidates who've been on the ballot for some time.  Things bode well for Carlos Beltran and Andruw Jones to get over the 75 percent threshold.  You'd also have to think someone like Chase Utley may see his vote total shoot up dramatically.  Would they stand to make such a leap with an Ichiro or an Albert Pujols or a Miguel Cabrera on the ballot?  Seems doubtful.

Since the online tracker has become a regular part of the Baseball Hall of Fame election, people have wondered why/how writers can vote for a guy one year and not the next or start voting for someone after years of not voting for him.  This is why/how.  Because it's not about whether a player is a Hall of Famer or not.  It's about how they compare to the other candidates up for election that year.  Sometimes the quality of the field is so good that you have Hall of Famers with absolutely no chance at induction.

We had that in baseball for quite a few years.  Now, baseball's entering a lull while football's Hall of Fame voters will have an impossible task on their hands.  The quality of the Pro Football Hall of Fame candidates will be so good that they can't get it wrong.  Which all but guarantees someone will think they did.  All because somebody they thought should be a first-ballot lock will end up having to wait an extra year.  Or two.  Or three.

Olympic Sports' NCAA Future

We're about a week away from the start of the 2025-26 NCAA season, the first where student-athletes will be receiving direct payments from their school's Athletic Department (in addition to their NIL deals).  It's up to the Athletic Departments to decide which athletes will get paid and how much, but the expectation is that most of it will be funneled into football and men's and women's basketball.  Which, along with new scholarship limitations, has people legitimately worried about the future of some Olympic sports at the highest level of the NCAA.

The scholarship thing may actually have the biggest impact.  In the past, the NCAA had scholarship limits.  For the most part, full scholarships were only offered in football and basketball.  Other teams were given a certain number of athletic scholarships that they could spread across the roster however they saw fit.  The result was a lot of partial scholarships, which would often be combined with academic scholarships to cover the full cost of attendance.  That's no longer the case.

Under the terms of the House settlement, there are no more partial athletic scholarships.  All scholarships must be full rides.  The previous scholarship limits have been replaced by roster limits.  There's a maximum number of players teams can have on the roster.  They can't carry the fourth goalie or the extra bullpen catcher since those guys now require scholarships.  No more walk-ons (who every school wants since they're paying full tuition).

This is obviously going to have a huge impact on so many sports.  Particularly men's sports since schools will still need to meet all Title IX requirements.  Division I baseball, for example, will have a maximum roster size of 34 players starting this season, all of whom will be on full scholarships.  The previous limit was 40.  So, teams will have at least six fewer players each.  Likely more than that since some of the 40 were either on partial scholarships or walk-ons.

That's great news for the Division II and III programs where those players will transfer.  However, it means Division I baseball will look extremely different.  As will every other sport that will have significantly smaller rosters.  And we've already seen some of those reductions (which affect some women's programs, too).

Washington State's track & field team has eliminated sprint and field events and will be a distance-only program moving forward.  This applies to both the men's and women's teams, and is a direct result of the House settlement.  Washington State has decided to take its limited scholarships and reduced roster and focus on the distance events.  With Washington State no longer sponsoring their event (which was the entire reason they came to the school in the first place), a number of the Cougars' sprinters, jumpers and throwers have already transferred.  Which is a trend that we'll likely continue to see as schools and programs shift their focuses.

Expect other track & field programs to follow Washington State's lead.  Sure, there will still be the schools like Oregon, Arkansas and Texas that see the value in a comprehensive track & field program and continue to emphasize all four areas of the sport.  There are others, though, that will determine that it's not feasible to do so with limited scholarships and roster sizes.  And, as a result, they'll end up doing exactly what Washington State did and focus on just the distance events (cross country has its own scholarships that are separate from track & field, and a distance runner can get a cross country scholarship while a jumper can't.)

Track & field and swimming are the two sports with the greatest percentage of international athletes.  While there are international athletes in every sport, it's the individual sports of track & field and swimming where they're most prominent.  The field at the NCAA Championships is usually the same quality as what you'll see at the World Championships or Olympics (with an equally diverse number of countries represented).  Many of them go immediately from wearing their NCAA uniform to competing for their nation on the continental or global stage, then back again. 

These international athletes were already receiving full scholarships, so that won't change.  But will we see fewer of them coming over and being given those scholarships with limited rosters?  Especially since that means an American won't be receiving that scholarship?  So, it's not just American student-athletes who are being affected. 

International athletes help programs win at the NCAA level, so there will still be a significant number who come over.  I have a feeling it won't be as many, however.  There will always be a place for those difference-makers who are good enough to compete on the world stage.  With limited exceptions, they may end up being the only ones competing in the NCAA for American universities pretty soon, though.  And that may be where the House settlement is felt the most.

One of the NCAA's greatest attributes is how it's such a good development system for so many Olympic sports.  Not just Team USA.  There are so many Olympians from so many countries who compete in the NCAA in a given year.  Every four years, the NCAA and its member schools proudly proclaim the number of Olympians, the countries they're representing and their sport.  And rightfully so!  Just as they've got every reason to be proud should any of those athletes win a medal.

While I've only mentioned track & field and swimming, the same applies for the other Olympic sports.  Whether it's fencing, gymnastics, rowing, wrestling, triathlon, beach volleyball or diving, there's a good chance somebody currently competing in the NCAA either was an Olympian in Paris or will be in LA.  Some go on to become Olympians in another sport.  And the U.S. National Team in virtually every team sport is made up of athletes who first competed in the NCAA.  There are plenty of non-American team-sport Olympians, too.

It's a legitimate concern that this Olympic feeder system will take a hit because of the new NCAA rules.  Olympic sports aren't revenue-generators.  Does that mean those programs will become expendable as NCAA institutions need to reconsider their finances to cover direct payments to athletes?  We've already seen plenty of big-time schools cut or reduce programs for budgetary reasons.  It would be shocking if there weren't more.  Which will mean fewer opportunities for those student-athletes.  Which, in turn, impacts the entire sport at the NCAA level.

Football and basketball players will be the biggest beneficiaries of the direct payments to athletes.  Everyone just takes that fact for granted.  You know schools will find a way to take care of their most successful programs outside of those two sports, too (LSU baseball, Penn State women's volleyball, Oklahoma softball, for instance).  But, the fear is that will be at the expense of Olympic sports athletes.  I'm sure some schools will figure out a way to compensate everyone, whether they play football or golf.  But there are likely others who won't.  And, if that happens, who's getting short-changed?  Because you know it won't be football or basketball!

ESPNFL

The long-teased inevitable deal between the NFL and ESPN is finally official.  ESPN now owns NFL Media, including NFL Network and NFL RedZone.  The NFL, meanwhile, is now an equity partner in the NFL, with the biggest league of them all owning a 10 percent stake in the Worldwide Leader.  It's a massive deal to say the least.

As soon as the deal was announced (and long before it was official), the biggest concern most fans had was what would happen with RedZone.  Don't worry.  They made sure to make it known RedZone isn't going anywhere and neither is Scott Hanson.  The only thing that's changing with RedZone is now that it's Disney-owned, it'll be included with the other Disney channels in carriage negotiations with cable providers.  Which is actually a pretty big win for the NFL.

ESPN, of course, is also launching its own standalone streaming service later this month (for $30 a month!).  They needed content for that streaming service.  Now they have access to the NFL Films library, as well as more NFL games.  (Plus a whole slew of WWE events that they also just picked up.)  Does that make it worth $30 a month?  That's what both sides are banking on.

NFL Films itself, however, will still be owned by the league.  So will NFL.com and NFL+, the league's direct-to-consumer streaming platform (which, I'm assuming, is so that they can retain those rights to stream games internationally).  NFL Fantasy, meanwhile, shifts under the ESPN umbrella.  The interesting thing, though, is that some of this falls under a second non-binding agreement, which presumably means the NFL can license more or less content to ESPN and NFL Network as it sees fit.  ESPN is also moving into NFL Network's former studio space in LA (which is probably why they got rid of their own LA studio a few months ago).

Another aspect of the deal involves actual NFL game coverage.  ESPN gained three more games, all of which it will sublicense to NFL Network.  They'll also move four games from their current package to NFL Network.  This presumably puts an end to the Monday Night Football doubleheaders and the simultaneous games on ESPN and ABC.  (I'd imagine the ABC simulcasts will stay, especially since Super Bowl LXI will air on ABC in 2027.)  Likewise, the ESPN+ exclusive game will be going away.

There are seven games per season on NFL Network.  This season, the in-house package includes the five international games in Europe and a Saturday afternoon doubleheader in Week 17.  Nothing was mentioned about additional games on NFL Network, though.  Just that ESPN games were being shifted over there.  And four ESPN games that are being moved, plus the three additional ones, gives you a full NFL Network package of seven games.  They just won't be all on Sunday mornings and Saturday afternoons.

That's notable because it leads right into the NFL's likely desire to add another media partner during its next media rights negotiations.  They've already sold single games to every streaming service imaginable, and they've created windows such as the Black Friday game (Amazon Prime) and Christmas doubleheader (Netflix), and this is the second year they're having a Week 1 game in Brazil, which will be broadcast on YouTube.

Everybody wants a piece of the NFL action, but there's only so much inventory to go around.  And carving out a new package for a new partner wasn't exactly going to be easy.  By moving some of ESPN's games to NFL Network, though, covers the NFL Network allotment while opening up a small package that the league will now be able to sell separately.  That likely means the Sunday morning international games in Europe will be their own separate package for potential new partners to bid on while everyone else (assumingly) maintains their current packages.  Another media partner, obviously, means more money for the league.

While I'm sure there are many details that remain to come out, it seems likely that we'll see NFL Network personalities on ESPN and vice versa.  Rich Eisen, who was at ESPN for years before joining NFL Network, has already teased that he's "coming home."  Although, it wouldn't be surprising if NFL Network, which eliminated most of its studio programming well in advance of the pending merger, simply phased out all original non-game content and all NFL Network personnel officially shift to ESPN.  That would free up their analysts to do college games on the ESPN networks, too, and increase the number of people who can appear on their studio shows.

In a separate deal, ESPN signed a multi-year extension of its NFL Draft rights, which now run until 2030.  What I'm curious about is how this new relationship affects NFL Network's coverage of the Draft.  They've always produced their own.  Will it just be a simulcast of ESPN's broadcast moving forward?  Ditto about the Pro Football Hall of Fame induction.  And how about the events like the Combine that air only on NFL Network?  I'm assuming that's where they'll continue to air on linear TV, while also available on ESPN's streaming service.

With ESPN and the NFL now literally in bed with each other, it's a reasonable question to wonder how that will impact the network's coverage of the league moving forward.  ESPN has made assurances that it'll "maintain its journalistic integrity" and "cover the league fairly," while also insisting that the NFL didn't make any demands regarding ESPN's approach.  I guess we'll find out, but I just can't really see ESPN being critical of the NFL.  (Although, I can also see them being overly critical just to prove their point that they won't take it easy on the league.)

What this almost certainly means, though, is that we'll see even more NFL coverage on ESPN, especially with the streaming service launching.  There are only so many hours in the day.  Only 72 hours of content can air on linear TV across ESPN, ESPN2 and NFL Network on a given day.  But they can put an endless supply on the streaming service.  And that endless supply includes 28 regular season NFL games, plus the draft, plus some preseason inventory.  It's a lot of football.  Which is something people have a seemingly endless appetite for.  ESPN and the NFL are confident that will continue to be the case.

We all knew this deal was coming.  So, it's not exactly a surprise that they finally made it official.  The details of the deal are fascinating, though.  Both the NFL and ESPN clearly benefit from this expanded relationship.  It could completely change the landscape, too.  The NFL was the first league to launch its own network.  Now they've sold it and become partners with ESPN, instead.  Will the other leagues, all of which have their own network now, follow the NFL's lead again?

All of this needs to be approved and signed off on before the merger can officially go into effect, so it'll still be several months at least before everything is finalized.  Which means nothing will be different for the 2025 season.  That timing works out fine for ESPN, though.  Because, assuming everything's in place in time for next season, the first year of their expanded relationship with the NFL will coincide with their first Super Bowl.  Which, I'm sure, was just a coincidence.

Love For the Lefties

It's been a week and a half since the Baseball Hall of Fame induction, and something they said at the end of the broadcast has really stuck with me.  CC Sabathia and Billy Wagner are just the 19th and 20th left-handed pitchers to be elected.  They're the first lefties to be inducted together since Sandy Koufax and Lefty Gomez in 1972.  (The only other time two lefties went in together was in 1947, Lefty Grove and Carl Hubbell.)

That's really a mind-boggling stat if you think about it.  There are 351 Hall of Famers.  Only 20 (not counting Babe Ruth) are left-handed pitchers.  That's a little over 5 percent.  And that number might not become 21 until Clayton Kershaw gets in (unless Tommy John is elected by the Eras Committee before then).

The more I thought about it, though, it did make sense.  I never realized it until it was mentioned, but there really are that few.  Every time I tried to roll through the list of Hall of Fame lefties in my head, I didn't even get to all 20.  The most I could rattle off top of my head was only about 15.

Being a Baseball Hall of Famer is a pretty exclusive list.  Being a left-handed pitcher in the Baseball Hall of Fame is really exclusive!  How do those lefties compare to each other though?  Well, like most things, it's entirely subjective.  The list has already been narrowed down to 20 for us, though, so we can narrow it down from there.

10. CC Sabathia: While most people agreed that CC was a likely Hall of Famer when he retired, not many thought he'd get in on the first ballot.  Well, he did.  And I'd venture to say that he's the 10th greatest lefty immortalized in Cooperstown.  CC pitched for 19 years and put up statistics we may never see again.  He had 250 wins and 3,000 strikeouts.  He was the best pitcher in baseball for Cleveland, then won a World Series as the Yankees' ace.  Perhaps most impressively, Sabathia completely changed his pitching style later in his career and was just as successful as his overpowering early days.

9. Lefty Gomez: I'm not sure Lefty Gomez gets enough credit for how good he was.  Yes, he pitched on those great Yankees teams of the 1930s that were loaded with offensive stars (Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Bill Dickey, Joe DiMaggio, etc.).  But someone had to pitch, and Lefty Gomez was the ace of those staffs.  He went 6-0 in the World Series and his career winning percentage was .649.  Gomez started the first three All*Star Games and five of the first six (he also had the first RBI in All*Star Game history).

8. Tom Glavine: We may never see a pitching staff like the one the Braves had during their 90s dynasty again.  Three Hall of Fame starters, all of whom were elected in their first year of eligibility.  Glavine was there first.  He endured the losing seasons before Atlanta got really good.  So, it was only fitting that he threw eight innings of one-hit ball in the Game 6 clincher of the 1995 World Series and was named World Series MVP.  It was with the Mets, though, that Glavine earned his 300th win.

7. Carl Hubbell: Any baseball fan knows what happened in the 1934 All*Star Game.  Carl Hubbell, pitching in his home park, struck out five Hall of Famers in a row.  At one point, he posted 24 consecutive wins for really good New York Giants teams of the 1930s.  Hubbell was a two-time NL MVP and who knows how many Cy Youngs he would've won had that award existed then?

6. Whitey Ford: Whitey Ford is the greatest pitcher in Yankees history.  Period.  End of sentence.  He's the franchise's all-time leader in wins (236) and has the fourth-best winning percentage (.690) in Major League history.  He also holds numerous World Series pitching records and was a six-time champion during one of the Yankees' most dominant eras.  Ford's career ERA of 2.75, meanwhile, is the third-lowest in the live-ball era.

5. Lefty Grove: Probably the first truly great left-handed pitcher and just the second lefty elected to the Hall of Fame, Grove was the ace of Connie Mack's Philadelphia Athletics that won back-to-back World Series in 1929 & 1930.  In a three-season span from 1929-31, he went a ridiculous 79-15!  Grove led the AL in ERA a record nine times, in strikeouts seven times and in wins four times.  He was the first left-hander to reach the 300-win mark.

4. Warren Spahn: Spahn & Sain and Pray for Rain.  That was the mantra if you went against the Braves in the 40s and 50s.  His 363 wins are the sixth-most in history, most all-time by a lefty, and the most by any pitcher who wasn't born in the 1800s.  He also had more than 2,500 strikeouts, which was the most-ever by a lefty at the time of his retirement and is still fifth on that list.

3. Steve Carlton: An argument could be made that Steve Carlton should be in the No. 1 spot.  For me he's No. 3.  He wasn't just the best lefty of his era (with all due respect to Ron Guidry), he was arguably the best pitcher PERIOD in the 70s and early 80s.  Carlton won a World Series early in his career with the Cardinals, then was the ace of that legendary 1980 Phillies team.  His 329 wins and 4,136 strikeouts are both second-most all-time among left-handers.

2. Randy Johnson: When you think of dominant pitchers, Randy Johnson's name is one of the first to come to mind.  For starters, he scared the crap out of you.  Just ask John Kruk or that bird (well, actually, you can't ask the bird).  The Big Unit threw a perfect game at 40.  He won four straight Cy Youngs.  He came out of the bullpen in Game 7 of the 2001 World Series on no days' rest and earned the win.  And, oh yeah, he's second all-time in strikeouts.

1. Sandy Koufax: There could only be one for the top spot.  Sandy Koufax only played 12 years and retired at 30.  Just imagine how insane his numbers would've been had he played longer!  He was THE dominant pitcher of his era and is arguably the greatest pitcher ever (left-handed or right-handed).  Three Cy Youngs, an MVP, four no-hitters (including a perfect game), four World Series rings and two World Series MVPs.  And, again, his counting numbers would be so much higher had he pitched into his 30s.

On Top of the Swimming World (Sort Of)

The World Swimming Championships just concluded and the United States led the way in both gold medals (9) and total medals (29).  Just like at the Paris Olympics.  Yet, despite winning the Best Team trophy, the meet was considered a disappointment for the Americans.  Just like at the Paris Olympics.

Michael Phelps and Ryan Lochte were very pointed in their criticism on social media, and Rowdy Gaines said basically the same thing on the broadcast throughout the meet.  Rowdy gave the team's effort a grade each night, and, especially on the first few nights, that grade wasn't good.  It got higher as the meet went on and the U.S. collected more medals, but his overall impression still wasn't great.  He was also quick to note, however, that there's still plenty of time until the LA Olympics.  And that it's not all negative.

There were plenty of reasons for the Americans' troubles in Singapore.  A big one is the fact that a majority of the team was sick with acute gastroenteritis at early in the week.  The timing of the illness obviously wasn't ideal, as it affected swimmers' training and recovery schedules.  Some medal contenders had to withdraw from their primary events because of their sickness.  As they recovered later in the week, the performances improved.  This is not an excuse, mind you.  It's merely an explanation.

And, just like in Paris, there were some events where the Americans just got beat.  The United States finished with 11 silver medals.  In four of those events, the gold medalist set a championship record.  In two others, the gold medalist was either Summer McIntosh or Leon Marchand, the two dominant swimmers in the world right now.  And another was an American sweep.  So, it's not crazy to think that some of those silvers easily could've been gold...which would've made the medal table look very different.

It's also important to note that this was the fourth consecutive year with a World Championships.  There was both an Olympics and a Worlds last year.  A lot of top swimmers already sit out the post-Olympics Worlds, and that was especially the case this year.  So, Team USA was missing a lot of its biggest stars.  Especially on the men's side.  Which means the team was weaker than it otherwise would've been.  Which, again, is not an excuse.  

With all that being said, however, the criticism of the team was entirely valid.  Especially with a home Olympics coming up in three years.  And the team's performance in Singapore was lackluster.  By any other standard, that effort at the World Championships would've been considered a success.  We're not talking about any other standard, though.  We're talking about what's come to be expected from USA Swimming.  Which isn't what we saw in Singapore.  Or Paris.

At the Olympics last year, the American men won a total of two gold medals and, notably, didn't get an individual gold until Bobby Finke set a world record in the 1500 freestyle--literally the last individual event of the meet!  At this year's World Championships, you know how many total gold medals the American men won?  One!  Luca Orlando in the 200 butterfly.  That's it. 

They didn't even win a relay, the first time that's ever happened.  In fact, they only won two bronzes in the three relays and were off the podium altogether in the 4x200 freestyle.  And, in the medley relay, they only got the bronze because of a crazy anchor leg by Jack Aleksy that moved the U.S. from fifth to third.  It's not just that they didn't win any of the relays, either.  It's that instead of going into the relays among the favorites, the consensus was that they'd be lucky just to medal--which turned out to be prophetic.

That's just the tip of the iceberg, though.  There was a grand total of one American finalist in the three men's backstroke events.  The backstroke.  An event that the U.S. used to dominate!  There were multiple events where the American men didn't even reach the semifinals!  Not winning medals is one thing.  Even not making the final is somewhat understandable.  But, at the very least, you should be able to get out of the prelims.

Things weren't much better in the breaststrokes.  The U.S. also failed to medal in any of the men's breaststroke events.  Of the six swimmers in the three events, only two even made the semifinals (they'd both make the final).  The 200 butterfly, where Urlando won gold, was the only non-freestyle event where the U.S. had multiple finalists.  Of the 17 individual men's events, seven didn't have an American finalist.

If you think this was exclusive to the men's team, think again.  The U.S. set the world record in the mixed medley relay while winning gold in Paris.  It's an event where you'd expect the U.S., at the very least, to be on the podium.  But in Singapore, the "A" team (perhaps consisting of, say, Regan Smith, Josh Matheny, Gretchen Walsh and Jack Aleksy) didn't even get the chance.  Because the "B" team that swam in the prelims ended up 10th.  Unacceptable!

Fortunately, outside of the mixed medley relay, the struggles were mainly limited to the men's team.  The women won six individual golds and set a world record in the medley relay (which clinched the top spot ahead of Australia on the gold medal table).  Of the 20 women's events including the three relays, the U.S. won at least one medal in 17 of them, including two medals in all three backstrokes.  And, in the three where they didn't, the top American was fourth once and fifth twice.

So, things are not as dire as they seem.  The women's team was strong in Paris, was strong in Singapore, and figures to remain strong in the leadup to LA.  The men's team, however, struggled in Paris and struggled again in Singapore.  That's two major global championships in a row in back-to-back summers where the U.S. men failed to live up to the standard that's expected of them.  And, for the men's team, the clock is ticking until the 2028 Olympics, which are just three short years away.

Maybe this is just a lull.  American fans got spoiled by Michael Phelps and Ryan Lochte, then Caeleb Dressel.  The best men's swimmers in the world right now, however, aren't American (although, they do train in the U.S. with American coaches).  But, with the LA Games approaching, the American men need to get out of this lull fast.  Otherwise, things will get uglier than they already are.

A Busy Deadline

Wow!  There was a lot of movement at the Trade Deadline!  By a lot of teams!  Two unexpected reunions (Carlos Correa to Houston, Eugenio Suarez to Seattle) were the headliners, but that's just the tip of the iceberg.  So many contenders decided to go for it.  Teams that aren't contenders became buyers (Cincinnati?!).  Some teams decided to both buy and sell.  And some guys we fully expected to be on the move stayed exactly where they were when the day began.

This was also one of the strangest Trade Deadlines for me.  A few years ago, I was at a Yankees-Diamondbacks game on the day of deadline.  Zack Greinke started for Arizona, then was traded mid-game during a rain delay.  That has nothing on what happened this year, though!  I was at the Yankee game again.  There was a rain delay again.  When they came back from the rain delay, Tampa Bay took Jose Caballero out of the game...because he had been traded to the Yankees during the rain delay!

The Yankees were one of the busiest teams at the Deadline.  They'd already addressed their glaring holes by trading for Ryan McMahon on Amed Rosario before adding Austin Slater and Caballero.  Everyone knew they still needed help in the bullpen, the most glaring weakness on the team.  And boy did they add to the bullpen!  During the rain delay, they closed deals for David Bednar (who they've long coveted), Camilo Doval and Jake Bird, a clear upgrade over the parade of crappy relievers they'd been trotting out there.

While the Yankees definitely improved, I can't say it was a complete win because they didn't land a starter.  Luis Gil is coming off the IL, so that could be viewed as similar to a Trade Deadline acquisition.  But a postseason rotation of Max Fried, Carlos Rodon, Marcus Stroman and Gil still doesn't seem like enough, even with a significantly improved bullpen.  Despite that, I'd still have to consider them "winners" at the Deadline since they became a better team.

So, who else are the Trade Deadline winners?  Well, nobody is a bigger winner than the Seattle Mariners.  They were the winners in the Eugenio Suarez Sweepstakes, and they also got Josh Naylor from Arizona in a separate deal.  That gives the Mariners a pretty lethal lineup to go with their already solid starting rotation.  After these moves by the all-in Mariners, it's not a stretch to see Seattle catching Houston in the AL West!

Speaking of Houston, the Correa deal is an absolute shocker.  He'll play third base in the short term while Isaac Paredes is out and his contract runs through 2028, so it sure looks like this reunion is for the long term, as well.  And, with Correa effectively replacing Paredes, plus the low-key additions of Ramon Urias and Jesus Sanchez, as well as the pending returns of Jeremy Pena and Yordan Alvarez, the Astros aren't exactly conceding the AL West to the Mariners.

And, while we're at it, let's throw Texas in the mix!  The Rangers are tied with Seattle for the last wild card spot and can be a scary opponent for anybody in October should they get there.  They were the ones to land Arizona starter Merrill Kelly, whose postseason experience they saw first-hand in the 2023 World Series.  A rotation of Nathan Eovaldi, Jacob deGrom and Kelly is pretty good in a short series!  Especially since Texas also made upgrades to its already solid bullpen in Danny Coulombe and Phil Maton.

Then there's San Diego.  The Padres always keep it interesting at the Deadline.  That's for sure!  Their already strong bullpen was made even better with the addition of Mason Miller, but they didn't stop there.  Two starters (J.P. Sears and Nestor Cortes), a left-handed bat (Ryan O'Hearn), a backup catcher (Freddy Fermin) and the left field problem that they've had all year (Ramon Laureano).  Is it enough to pass the Dodgers?  Probably not.  Is it enough to make them a playoff team (an entertaining one at that)?  Definitely.

Like the Yankees, New York's other team had some glaring issues that needed to be addressed.  The Mets did just that.  Their bullpen has been a mess outside of Edwin Diaz.  Enter Ryan Helsley, Tyler Rogers and Gregory Soto!  They've been lacking a center fielder all season.  Enter Cedric Mullins!  Considering how good the Mets already were, upgrading their two most significant areas of need makes them legitimate World Series contenders.

It's also easy to see the Phillies holding off the Mets.  Because Philadelphia got the thing it needed the most--a closer.  The Phillies got a good one, too, in the Twins' Jhoan Duran.  They also increased their outfield depth with the addition of Harrison Bader.  The Phillies already boasted an incredibly strong starting rotation, and the top of their lineup is as good as anybody's.  The NL East race is gonna be fun!

There is one NL East team that would have to be considered a Deadline loser, though.  Atlanta.  The Braves made it very clear that they no longer have a use for Marcell Ozuna and they were looking to trade him.  Yet Ozuna is still on Atlanta's roster.  So is Raisel Iglesias.  Meanwhile, Rafael Montero isn't.  Other than that, the Braves didn't really do much of anything (other than trading for Carlos Carrasco).  Maybe they're banking on being competitive next year (which isn't a terrible strategy).  This year, they already had no chance of catching the Mets and Phillies.  Being quiet at the Deadline sure didn't increase them.

One seller that surprised me was San Francisco.  The Giants weren't that far out of it a week ago.  Then they went on a six-game losing streak and waived the white flag.  Not only did they ship out Doval, they also sent Mike Yastrzemski to Kansas City.  The Giants, who made a big all-in splash with the Rafael Devers trade, gave up on the 2025 season six weeks later by trading away their closer and right fielder.

Most of the other teams that did the selling were expected.  Arizona, obviously, was the biggest seller with the most significant names being shipped out.  (As well as a smaller deal that sent Shelby Miller and Jordan Montgomery to the Brewers.)  In addition to Mullins and the moves they'd already made, Baltimore shipped Charlie Morton to the Cubs.  Minnesota's not catching Detroit, so the Twins traded their moveable pieces, but, oddly, kept Joe Ryan.  And I'll give Cleveland a pass for not moving Emmanuel Clase since he became impossible to trade after everything about the gambling came out.

Of course, only two teams will end up making it to the World Series, and only one of those two will win it.  And that'll ultimately be what decides who had a successful Trade Deadline and who didn't.  It's also a given that not all of these trades will work out, while others will be the exact missing piece that a team needed.  So, even though it's way too early to judge, there are plenty of teams that have plenty of reason to feel better about their World Series chances tonight than they did this morning.