Overused, Overexposed and, Inevitably, Injured

The Yankees seem to be snapping out of their annual June swoon.  I say "annual" because it's certainly gotten to that point.  With the exception of 2023, when they sucked for the entire season, it's the same story every year.  They're good in April and May, awful in June and July, get their groove back in August, then go on a tear in September (in 2023, the September tear is the only reason they finished above .500). 

Why am I bringing this up?  Because the script is eerily similar each season.  They stop hitting for a little while, then, once they remember how to hit, the pitching becomes the problem.  The bullpen specifically.  Through a combination of overuse, injuries and a bunch of guys who, frankly, just aren't that good, June is usually when the bullpen becomes an issue.  Not just for the Yankees.  It's a situation that all good teams face at this point in the season.  Because they all do the same thing!

There's a direct correlation, too.  All managers have their handful of relievers that they trust in big spots.  That leads to those relievers being overused.  Then, when there's an injury to someone in that group, the number of relievers the manager trusts becomes smaller, which results in even more overuse.  And that overuse leads to overexposure, which leads to the reliever getting hit.  Or, even worse, that overuse leads to an injury and the whole cycle repeats itself.

I don't want to single out Aaron Boone because he isn't the only manager who does it, but his recent overreliance on Mark Leiter, Jr., is a prime example of what I'm talking about.  Mark Leiter, Jr. is a middle reliever.  He simply isn't good enough to be one of those trusted guys.  However, with Fernando Cruz (who is one of those guys) out with an injury, Leiter became somebody who Boone went to quite often, even though his performance didn't warrant it.  Even though Leiter continually wasn't getting the job done, Boone kept going to him.  That's on the manager just as much as it's on the pitcher.

Then we found out the reason for Leiter's struggles.  He'd essentially been pitching on a broken leg for two weeks!  Leiter suffered the injury covering first base during a game in Cincinnati at the end of June.  But, instead of doing anything about it, he kept pitching.  To disastrous results!  And where did he ultimately end up?  The injured list!  Two weeks too late!

Injuries are inevitable over the course of a six-month-long season.  Everyone understands that.  But some of these injuries are avoidable.  Especially injuries to relievers.  When they're overused, they become fatigued.  In addition to making them less effective, pitching while fatigued makes those relievers more susceptible to injury.  Whether it's to their arm, shoulder or leg, we've seen so many relief pitchers go on the injured list for extended periods of time because of something that was a direct result of pitching too much.

Of course, the way baseball is played nowadays hasn't helped, either.  The amount of bullpen usage (and how those relievers are utilized) simply isn't sustainable over the course of an entire season.  Especially for teams with postseason aspirations who'll be asking their top 2-3 relievers to pitch in high-pressure situations for a seventh month.  All of those pitches thrown in April and May add up.  Especially when the same pitcher is used over and over again, giving the league plenty of opportunities to see him.

It all comes back to how starting pitchers are being groomed in the lower levels now.  With a few exceptions, starters aren't expected (or allowed) to throw more than 100 pitches.  Once they get to 100, they know their day is done.  And that's if they even get to 100.  A lot of fourth or fifth starters get taken out at the first sign of trouble or as soon as they complete the second time through the lineup, even if they're at only 65-70 pitches.

An average of 15 pitches an inning is generally considered to be a reasonable estimate.  That would put a starting pitcher at 105 pitches over six innings, at which point you could expect the game to be turned over to the bullpen.  That's three innings out of the bullpen minimum.  If the starter averages 20 pitches an inning, that'll only get him through five.  Which means you're asking the bullpen to get 12 outs.  And that doesn't even include "bullpen games" when you're literally trying to piece together the entire game using nothing but relievers.

If your starter's only giving you six innings a night, that means you're using the bullpen for 1/3 of the game.  Every game.  You can't do that for 162 games.  If you try, your relievers WILL get hurt and WON'T be as effective.  Especially if the manager only trusts the same handful of guys in certain situations.

And, don't forget how pitchers are being taught to pitch at the lower levels.  It's all about velocity and maximum effort on every pitch.  They're trained to go all-out for short spurts of only 20-25 pitches.  Doing that two days in a row can be taxing, but is certainly doable.  These are professionals, after all.  Their bodies are trained to do just that.  Doing it repeatedly 3-4 times a week with only a day or two off in between is a very different ask, however.  That's what leads to injuries.

So, it really comes down to how much length teams get from their starters.  Which is why the de-emphasis on starting pitching is so ridiculous!  Because everyone understands the value of good starting pitching and how important it is.  That's why starters are often the No. 1 priority for teams in the winter and at the trade deadline, and that's why those starters end up getting signed to big-money contracts.  Shouldn't you want them pitching as long into the game as possible?  Six innings shouldn't be considered a "good" start.

Bullpen use has become such a significant part of the game that the graphic with all of the relievers' names and how many pitches they've thrown over the past several days is common on every broadcast.  You inevitably have the announcer rattle off the list of who isn't available because of the number of times they've been used or the number of pitches they've thrown.  And there's always that sense of dread when the starter gets hurt or knocked out of the game early when only the little-used middle relievers haven't been overused are available.  Or the sense of giddiness when the starter does give them length on a day when the bullpen is short.  Or, better still, how excited they get after an off day when, obviously, no relievers were used.

Teams will always need and use their bullpen.  I'm not suggesting they shouldn't.  But the amount of bullpen usage in April and May has a direct impact on the rest of the season.  So, those lulls in performance, whether they happen in June or later in the year, shouldn't be unexpected.  They should be predictable.  It's a long season, after all.

Olympic Bid Process Changing?

In 2005, five major world cities were finalists to host the 2012 Olympics--London, Paris, Madrid, New York and Moscow.  Twelve years later, the competition to host in 2024 became a battle of attrition that was eventually whittled down to just two--Paris and Los Angeles.  The IOC wanted them both and did what they could to make sure of it, so they had the historic double awarding of Paris 2024 and LA 2028.

That came on the heels of a 2022 Winter Games race that saw everybody drop out except Almaty, Kazakhstan and Beijing, and a 2026 Winter bid race that was similarly lukewarm.  Which says nothing about the 2030 Winter Games, which they were begging countries to host before France finally stepped up and agreed to host them in the Alps.  All of which was a symptom of what we've seen over the past decade since the Sochi Games.  The Olympics were considered too expensive and not worth it, so Western nations were saying "thanks, but no thanks" before even starting the bid process.

Former IOC President Thomas Bach said that the system created "too many losers," so the entire bid process was revamped.  The IOC formed a "Future Host Commission," which hand-picks cities for each edition and presents them to the full IOC membership for little more than a rubber stamp.  This process has also rubbed a lot of people the wrong way.  It secured Olympic hosts for the next decade, but it was also highly secretive.  Most significantly, it took away the one real perk of being an IOC member--the ability to choose the Olympic host city.

Don't be surprised if the IOC members end up getting that perk back fairly soon.  During her first few days in office, IOC President Kirsty Coventry had one-on-one meetings with various stakeholders, and the bid process was a topic brought up in many of those meetings.  Specifically, IOC members want to be a part of the process.  Even if it's not voting on a preferred candidate, they want to have input and engagement.

When Coventry was finished with those meetings, one of her first orders of business was to hit the "Pause" button on the Future Host Commission.  She acknowledged the concerns of the IOC members and will set up a working group to look into those issues.  They don't necessarily want to go back to the old way (with the members deciding between multiple finalists), but they don't like the new way, either.  The working group will try and find that solution.

Whatever solution they come up with will have a direct bearing on the race to host the 2036 Games, which are the next Olympics yet to be awarded.  India had been considered one of the favorites, but there are plenty of other countries that are interested.  Doha is the most obvious, and Germany has also expressed its interest in either 2036 or 2040 (although, an Olympics in Germany on the 100th anniversary of World War II is a terrible idea for multiple reasons).  Budapest is another.  So is Istanbul.  As well as several cities in Africa and Asia.

Point is, it's shaping up to be quite a race to host the 2036 Olympics.  Under the old way, that race could've been over before it even started if the Host Commission decided that India was their "preferred candidate."  (Which is funny, because so many people thought Doha was a lock for 2036 for so long.)  India may still end up hosting, but it's not a guarantee by any means.  These other cities have seen their chances greatly improve, especially since the timeline will also change.

The timeline was the biggest concern brought up regarding the bid process.  When Brisbane was awarded the 2032 Olympics in 2021, it blindsided everybody.  Other potential bidders thought the process was just getting started, only to find out it was already over.  The 11 years' lead time was also questioned.  Why the rush?  Meanwhile, France was just awarded the 2032 Winter Games last summer.  They only have five and a half years to prepare.  Is that enough time?

Until the Paris-LA double-awarding, the Olympics were always awarded seven years out.  If that system was still in effect, the 2032 Games wouldn't have been awarded until sometime this year.  When the change was made to the Future Host Commission, though, they eliminated that rigid seven-year timeline, which gave them the flexibility to award an Olympics any time that "makes sense" for the IOC and the host city.  That's how we got Brisbane being awarded the 2032 Games three years before the Winter Olympics that will take place two and a half years earlier!

A lot can happen in a decade.  We've already seen a ton of changes to both LA 2028 and Brisbane 2032's Olympic plans, as well as other unforeseen circumstances.  While the enthusiasm to host the Olympics may be there in the beginning, there's no guarantee the political climate and public opinion will be the same a decade later when it's actually time for the Olympics.  The elected leaders probably won't be the same and might have different priorities.  Which is to say nothing about the financial commitment involved!

Likewise, French Alps 2030 is way behind in their preparations.  This isn't exactly their fault, seeing as they were only chosen as the host less than a year ago.  But 2030 will be here before they know it, and there are legitimate questions about whether they'll be ready.  Fortunately, they don't need to build anything, but the point remains.  They only have five and a half years to prepare for a major international sporting event, while the host city that follows them--Salt Lake City 2034--will get almost a full decade.

There's a happy medium between too little lead time (French Alps 2030) and too much (Brisbane 2032).  Spoiler alert: that happy medium is the seven years it used to be until the 2019 changes to the bid process.  Whether they go back to seven years or decide on something else (split the difference and do nine?), it will definitely have an impact on the 2036 bid race.  Under the old rules, we probably could've expected India to officially get the 2036 Games sometime this year (or on the eve of the Milan Cortina Games in February at the latest).  Now, we're all gonna have to wait, which is music to the ears of the other bid cities that could now be considered "contenders."

It's also important to note that this doesn't affect any of the future Games that have already been awarded.  Olympic hosts thru 2034 were set a year before Kirsty Coventry took office.  The next Olympics that don't yet have a host are in 2036, which is 11 years from now.  That means there's no need to rush anything.  They've got plenty of time to examine the bid process and make any necessary changes while still having a fair race for 2036 (and giving the chosen city plenty of lead time before the Games).  And it'll certainly have an impact on 2038 (where Switzerland is in "privileged" dialogue with the IOC).

Regardless of what ultimately ends up happening, change is coming to the Olympic bidding process.  IOC members wanted their voices to be heard and to be better educated about the most important part of their job--deciding where the Olympics will be.  Whether they get the ability to actually vote on host cities back remains to be seen, but the fact that Kirsty Coventry listened to them and has shown willingness to revamp the process represents major progress.  Progress that wouldn't have been possible under Thomas Bach.

Joe Brackets All*Stars, 2025

It's funny how every sport keeps tinkering with its All*Star Game except for baseball.  Sure, they've made changes to the uniforms and done things like that span where they had the All*Star Game deciding home field advantage in the World Series, or the ridiculous extra innings home run derby that I hope never actually comes to pass.  But, the basic format of a regular game between a team from the American League and a team from the National League has remained the same for almost a century.

Meanwhile, Roger Goodell decided the Pro Bowl was stupid and turned it into the incredibly dumb "Pro Bowl Games."  The NHL decided the 4 Nations Face-Off was better than the All*Star Game and wants to do that instead.  And the NBA All*Star Game is such a mess that they can't figure out what they want to do.  There are no such problems in MLB, though.  The All*Star Game remains the marquee event it's always been.

This year's Midsummer Classic is set for Atlanta, which was controversially stripped of the 2021 All*Star Game.  It seems like they might've dodged a bullet there, though.  The 2021 All*Star Game was the first where they wore the league uniforms instead of their team uniforms.  After four years of fans hating it, they've finally switched back to what they should've been doing all along.  The league uniforms on Monday, team uniforms for the All*Star Game itself on Tuesday.  Just like it used to be before 2021.  They'll still wear the special All*Star Game hats, but one thing at a time.

So, who's headed to Atlanta?  We already know the starters, a great change that was made a few years ago.  And, ever since that change was made, the fan-voted starters have typically been excellent.  There haven't been many cases where somebody who truly isn't deserving ends up starting.  And, in the past, there's virtually no way Jacob Wilson would've been chosen as the AL's starting shortstop over Bobby Witt, Jr.

There are really only two starters who could be considered "questionable" this year.  One is Ronald Acuna Jr., but that's an exception people were willing to make since he's the franchise player for the home team, and he likely would've had All*Star numbers had he not been injured at the start of the season.  So, pretty much no one has an issue with Ronald Acuna Jr.'s selection (plus, there needs to be a Brave).

The other is Orioles DH Ryan O'Hearn, but that's more a result of the situation than anything else.  Rafael Devers would've been the AL's starting DH if he hadn't been traded to the Giants in the middle of June.  With Devers taken out of the equation, it was down to Ryan O'Hearn and Ben Rice.  O'Hearn ended up getting the nod, which is really just "whatever."  And, like Acuna, he takes care of the Oriole.

What I'm curious to see is who'll end up being the pitchers in both leagues.  The American League starting pitchers, in particular, have been so dominant that there are several locks (Tarik Skubal, Max Fried, Garret Crochet).  But how many team reps will end up filling out the pitching staff, and whose spots will they take?

In the National League, it's a similar problem.  There have been so many good starting pitchers this season that somebody deserving's gonna have to be left off the All*Star roster.  And that doesn't even include Spencer Schwellenbach, who you'd have to figure would've been on since he plays for the Braves, but obviously isn't able to pitch with a broken elbow.

With three Tigers starting and potentially a fourth in Skubal, Detroit will be well represented.  That's what happens when you have the best record in baseball.  Ditto with the Dodgers and their three starters.  Here's who I see joining them in Atlanta...

AMERICAN LEAGUE
C: Cal Raleigh (SEA), Logan O'Hoppe (LAA)
1B: Vladimir Guerrero Jr. (TOR), Jonathan Aranda (TB)
2B: Gleyber Torres (DET), Brandon Lowe (TB)
SS: Jacob Wilson (ATH), Jeremy Pena (HOU), Bobby Witt Jr. (KC)
3B: Jose Ramirez (CLE), Alex Bregman (BOS), Miguel Vargas (CWS)
OF: Aaron Judge (NYY), Riley Greene (DET), Javier Baez (DET), Jarren Duran (BOS), Steven Kwan (CLE), Julio Rodriguez (SEA)
DH: Ryan O'Hearn (BAL), Yandy Diaz (TB)
SP: Garret Crochet (BOS), Tarik Skubal (DET), Hunter Brown (HOU), Framber Valdez (HOU), Max Fried (NYY), Carlos Rodon (NYY), Jacob deGrom (TEX)
RP: Aroldis Chapman (BOS), Josh Hader (HOU), Carlos Estevez (KC), Jhoan Duran (MIN), Andres Munoz (SEA)

NATIONAL LEAGUE
C: Will Smith (LAD), Hunter Goodman (COL)
1B: Freddie Freeman (LAD), Pete Alonso (NYM)
2B: Ketel Marte (ARZ), Brendan Donovan (STL)
SS: Francisco Lindor (NYM), Elly de la Cruz (CIN), Trea Turner (PHI)
3B: Manny Machado (SD), Eugenio Suarez (ARZ)
OF: Ronald Acuna Jr. (ATL), Pete Crow-Armstrong (CHC), Kyle Tucker (CHC), Andy Pages (LAD), Kyle Stowers (MIA), Jackson Chourio (MIL), James Wood (WSH)
DH: Shohei Ohtani (LAD), Kyle Schwarber (PHI)
SP: Matthew Boyd (CHC), Yoshinobu Yamamoto (LAD), Freddy Peralta (MIL), Cristopher Sanchez (PHI), Zack Wheeler (PHI), Paul Skenes (PIT), Nick Pivetta (SD), Robbie Ray (SF), Sonny Gray (STL)
RP: Trevor Megill (MIL), Edwin Diaz (NYM), Robert Suarez (SD)

While there will undoubtedly be some pitchers who need to be replaced since they'll be pitching on Sunday, the number of All*Stars who may to get dropped because of injury is, fortunately, limited.  That's why I didn't name any replacements on my rosters.  The only player who could potentially fall into that category is Alex Bregman, who I can see sitting out the All*Star Game even if he is back in the Red Sox lineup by then.  If he does have to be replaced, I'd say the Royals' Maikel Franco would be the choice.

As for the lineups, I'm curious to see what Aaron Boone and Dave Roberts end up doing.  Roberts especially.  Ohtani's his leadoff hitter, but Acuna also bats leadoff and is the home team's representative, so does he get the nod instead?  And who bats ninth with all 1-4 hitters?  Boone, meanwhile, doesn't have a leadoff hitter, but I think that might be a little easier to figure out.  Here's what I think the lineups might look like:

AL: Torres-2B, Judge-RF, Ramirez-3B, Guerrero-1B, Raleigh-C, Greene-LF, Baez-CF, O'Hearn-DH, Wilson-SS
NL: Acuna-RF, Lindor-SS, Ohtani-DH, Freeman-1B, Machado-3B, Tucker-LF, Smith-C, Marte-2B, Crow-Armstrong-CF

Boone really can't go wrong with any of his starting pitching options.  He could go with his own guy, Fried, who's a former Brave (and might not get the warmest ovation in Atlanta) is pitching on either Friday or Saturday, so he'll be lined up.  Skubal should also be lined up after pitching on Friday or Saturday, and he's obviously the reigning Cy Young winner who's having the dominant first half for the best team.  It just seems too obvious.  Tarik Skubal should be your AL starter.

Last year, Torey Lovullo tabbed Paul Skenes to start.  I don't see him starting this year.  Instead, I'm going with Zack Wheeler.  For two reasons.  One, he's been the best pitcher in the National League in the first half.  Two, the Phillies deserve to have a starter.  And Wheeler, like Fried and Skubal, will pitch on either Friday or Saturday and be lined up for an All*Star Game start.

Afternoon Soccer

Throughout the Club World Cup, the complaints have mostly been about the empty seats in the stadiums and the questioning of some match times.  Which is silly because part of the reason certain matches were scheduled for the afternoon is because that's primetime in Europe.  (And, in fairness, people weren't gonna show up for some random game on a Tuesday in Atlanta whether it was scheduled for 9 pm or noon.)  It isn't just the empty seats at the midday matches that has drawn criticism.  It's also the temperature.

In fact, FIFPRO, the pro soccer players' union, brought up its concerns about next year's World Cup directly to FIFA.  Specifically, they're concerned about the heat in certain cities and don't want afternoon games scheduled there if it can be avoided.  The Club World Cup has had some hot games that required hydration breaks in places like Cincinnati (which isn't a World Cup host) and Philadelphia, and six of the World Cup host cities have been deemed "high-risk" for extreme heat.  Those six cities shouldn't surprise anyone: Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Kansas City, Miami and Monterrey.  Newsflash: it's hot in the South in the Summer!  What do they expect?

Among the many reasons those "concerns" are silly is because of the location of the last World Cup.  It was in freakin' Qatar!  A place so hot that they had to reschedule the entire tournament to November-December!  And the 2014 World Cup was in Brazil, with games being played in the middle of the freakin' Amazon rainforest in Manaus!  So why is Summer heat in the United States (which is nothing new) suddenly such a problem?

I also find it funny that three of the six cities that were mentioned as particularly "high-risk" have indoor stadiums!  And the heat is a big reason why they do!  So, yes, it'll be hot outside in Atlanta, Dallas and Houston, but the games in those cities will be played under a roof in climate-controlled settings.  Which means you can play there really anytime.  If you want to stay away from a noon start in Miami, fine.  That makes sense.  But a noon start in Atlanta really shouldn't be a problem (I'm assuming they won't schedule a game at 11 AM local time in either Texas city).

Their concerns can't really be with the thought of afternoon games in general, because that's just asinine if it is!  Of course there's going to be afternoon games!  There are in every World Cup.  There has to be when scheduling four games a day every day for three weeks.  Especially since afternoon in the United States is primetime in Europe.  Would they rather play the 9:00 game and have it start in the middle of the night back home?  Because that's exactly what the European team in the United States or Mexico's group will have at least once.

Another important thing to remember is that the U.S. is unlike most European countries in that it has multiple time zones.  In the 2022 World Cup, all the stadiums were so close to each other that it really didn't matter where a game was being played.  It could be scheduled whenever.  In 2026, that won't be the case.  Only the games on the East Coast can be in that early slot. 

On June 19, for example, the games are being played in Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Seattle that day.  The United States is playing in Seattle, which will be the 9:00 game.  (I'm assuming they'll do 12/3/6/9 for start times, but it could also be 1/4/7/10.)  They're not scheduling a game in San Francisco for 9:00 in the morning, so the only options for the noon game are Boston and Philadelphia.

A better example might actually be June 18.  The games that day are in Atlanta, LA, Vancouver and Guadalajara.  But here's the catch--the games in Vancouver and Guadalajara are Canada and Mexico home games.  And, since LA's on the West Coast, guess what that means...the early game is in Atlanta!  There's no way around it.  But, again, why is that an issue when Mercedes-Benz Stadium is a dome?

It's worth noting, too, that no game times have been announced yet.  We know which cities will have games on a particular day, but they won't determine the times until after the draw is made in December.  You can rest assured that the three host countries and likely Brazil and Argentina will almost certainly have either 6:00 or 9:00 Eastern starts regardless of where they're playing.  Either way, no matter what the start time is, it's probably gonna be hot (unless you get a game on the East Coast that starts at 9:00).

You know the other reason why all of this complaining about game times is silly?  Because what we've long suspected has pretty much been confirmed.  The final will be at 3:00 in the afternoon.  That was obvious from the beginning, and the Governor of New Jersey has all but announced it, even though it's not yet official.  And it's hot in the middle of the afternoon in New Jersey in July!  But, you know what?  They ain't rescheduling the final for the evening and an inconvenient time for European television.  (And, would they rather it be in LA with a noon local start time like in 1994?)

Although, I am curious about what the game times for the semifinals will be.  Because there's a conflict for that first semifinal on Tuesday that I don't think many people have considered, but is very real.  For all that's been made about NBC having a busy February with the Winter Olympics, Super Bowl and NBA All*Star Game all going on concurrently, FOX will be just as busy in July with the World Cup and MLB All*Star Game, which is being played in Philadelphia next year for obvious reasons.

The World Cup semifinal on that Tuesday is in Dallas.  Jerry World has a roof, so playing an afternoon game wouldn't be a problem.  So, I can easily envision a 3:00 Central kickoff, which would give them plenty of time even if there's extra time and a shootout to finish the game and be off the air before heading to Philadelphia for the All*Star Game at 7:30 (and could easily be pushed back to 8:00 if need-be).  Then you also schedule the Wednesday semifinal in Atlanta (which, again, also has a roof) for 4:00.

That would obviously be the most convenient thing for European TV, and playing the semifinals in the afternoon would make sense since the final will also be in the afternoon.  But it's also hard to imagine them not scheduling the World Cup semifinals at night.  And, if they do, what about the All*Star Game?  Because it's also hard to envision MLB pushing the All*Star Game back to July 21, which would be awfully late!

They'll figure it out with MLB regarding the All*Star Game.  I'm sure those conversations have already started.  But, either way, there will be afternoon games during the World Cup.  To suggest there shouldn't be is simply ridiculous.  Especially since there would be just as much, if not more, complaining if it was the other way around.  If all of the games were scheduled for the evening, European fans wouldn't be happy the games are in the middle of the night their time.  You can't have it both ways!  It's one or the other.  It's either the afternoon locally or the middle of the night back home.

Times Are A-Changin at Wimbledon

Tradition-rich Wimbledon is making what could be considered a seismic shift this year.  No, they didn't go to a Sunday start.  Wimbledon is now the only Grand Slam that doesn't start on Sunday, and that won't be changing anytime soon.  (After all, they only just started playing on the middle Sunday a few years ago.)  This change that was made is nearly as unthinkable as that, though. 

The finals will start two hours later.  Instead of the 2 PM local time start that has been used at Wimbledon forever, this year, they'll begin at 4 PM.  "Breakfast at Wimbledon" won't start at 9.  It'll start at 11.  And the reason for the change is because they think the later start will result in a bigger American audience, which I think is very interesting.  (And, if I had to guess, the 9:00 thing probably wasn't as much of an issue as the 6:00 in the morning on the West Coast thing was.)  So, "Breakfast at Wimbledon" has become "Brunch at Wimbledon."

It's not crazy to think that the American audience could very well see one of their own playing for the ladies' championship on Finals Weekend.  The first two Grand Slam tournaments this year have been won by American women--Madison Keys in Australia, Coco Gauff last month at Roland Garros.  And it was at Wimbledon where Gauff first burst onto the scene, upsetting Venus Williams in the first round and going all the way to the round of 16 in her 2019 debut.  Interestingly, though, that's the furthest she's ever advanced at Wimbledon.

Gauff hasn't been blessed with the easiest draw, either.  Vika Azarenka in the second round, Sofia Kenin in the third round, Iga Swiatek or Elena Rybakina in the quarters.  All four are Grand Slam champions.  Rybakina has won Wimbledon and is arguably the best grass court player of the bunch.  So, Gauff's got her work cut out for her.

World No. 1 Aryna Sabalenka, meanwhile, has lost both of those American-won Grand Slam finals in 2025.  She's only played Wimbledon twice in the last five years, but made the semifinals each time.  There was no tournament in 2020 because of COVID, Belarusians weren't allowed to participate in 2022, and she was injured last year.  But, her game translates so well to grass that you have to think it's only a matter of time before she lifts the Wimbledon trophy.

I'd even venture to say that Sabalenka comes into Wimbledon as the favorite.  She has a much friendlier draw than Gauff.  Sabalenka gets British favorite Emma Raducanu in a potential third-round match that seems destined for Centre Court, but none of the seeds in her section should scare her.  Elina Svitolina, Paula Badosa, Madison Keys, Jasmine Paolini, Zheng Qinwen.  Sabalenka should be favored against any of them.

After the French Open final, Sabalenka created some controversy by saying that she lost because of her own mistakes more than anything else.  Am I the only one who doesn't have any problem with that?  People suggested she was being disrespectful to Gauff by not giving her any credit, but that's not the way I interpret her comments at all.  Sabalenka was criticizing herself and basically saying she didn't play well enough to win.  I don't think it was meant as a knock on Gauff in any way.  More was made of the whole thing than it needed to be.

Although, it does make for a great setup if we get another Sabalenka-Gauff final at Wimbledon.  It seems more likely that Sabalenka will get there than Gauff, however.  I just think Gauff's draw is too tough, and grass is her weakest surface.  So, who'll make the final from the bottom half of the draw, then?  I actually really like Rybakina's chances, and her winning a second career Wimbledon title isn't out of the question.

There's another change taking place at Wimbledon this year that will be noticeable.  It's the first Wimbledon since Andy Murray's retirement.  Plans are in the works for an Andy Murray statue on the grounds, and he's more than earned it.  Fear not, though.  The next great British player to follow in Murray's footsteps has already arrived on the scene.  Jack Draper.  He'll inherit that third match on Centre Court spot.

To think that Draper can make a Murray-type run may be a bit of a stretch, though.  He's never been past the second round in three previous appearances, but that's not the reason why I don't like his chances.  It's because he's in the same section of the draw as Novak Djokovic, then the winner has a potential semifinal against Jannik Sinner.  Draper's not beating both of them.

If Djokovic is going to get Grand Slam title No. 25, Wimbledon might be his best bet.  The seven-time champ is the best grass-court player out there, and he's made the final at six consecutive Wimbledons (four straight titles, then back-to-back losses to Alcaraz).  And, keep in mind, this has been a "down" year for Djokovic and he's still reached the semifinals at both Grand Slams.  Who beat him in both of those semifinals?  Jannik Sinner.  Do we have a third Sinner-Djokovic Grand Slam semifinal this year coming up at the end of next week?

For the last year and a half, Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz have been trading Grand Slam titles.  Sinner's won the three hardcourt events.  Alcaraz has taken the three in Europe.  They played that epic, five-and-a-half-hour French Open final, where Alcaraz won his second straight title.  Now he goes for his third straight Wimbledon.  It was Alcaraz who ended Djokovic's reign in that five-set epic in 2023.  He's already proven to be the next great Wimbledon champion, following in the line of Sampras, Federer and Djokovic.

So, there are three pretty clear favorites on the men's side.  And it really would be surprising if somebody other than Alcaraz, Sinner or Djokovic wins the title.  Of the three, I'd have to give Alcaraz the slight edge not just because he's the two-time defending champion.  Assuming that Djokovic-Sinner semifinal happens, the winner will then have to turn around and face Alcaraz.  Alcaraz, meanwhile, only needs to face the winner of that match.  That could make a big difference.

We've also seen a resurgence of the American men.  There were two American quarterfinalists at Roland Garros for the first time in 30 years, which has to give them plenty of confidence heading into Wimbledon, where you always feel their chances are stronger.  Tommy Paul and Ben Shelton suffered the unfortunate draw of being in Sinner's quarter, but don't be surprised if Taylor Fritz and/or Frances Tiafoe makes a run.

Don't count out Daniil Medvedev, either.  He's been a semifinalist in each of the last two years, and he has a favorable draw in the quarter that doesn't feature any of the three favorites.  His seed is No. 3 Alexander Zverev, who's still waiting for that first Grand Slam title.  It won't come here.  Grass is Zverev's weakest surface, and, even if he does get to the semis, he's not beating Alcaraz and Sinner/Djokovic back-to-back.

In the end, though, I think that despite all the changes, I think this Wimbledon will follow a very similar script to years past.  Alcaraz beats Djokovic in the final for the third year in a row.  Although, Sinner's had Djokovic's number in Grand Slam semifinals this year, so a repeat of the French Open final wouldn't surprise me at all.

NHL Labor Peace Guaranteed

It's a miracle!  The NHL and NHLPA agreed on a new CBA without first going through a lockout!  Not only that, they came to an agreement with 15 months remaining until the current CBA expires!  It's a change that's, in the words of Gary Bettman, "completely refreshing."  We know there will be labor peace in the NHL through the 2029-30 season (which also means NHL participation in the 2030 Olympics is guaranteed).

As was previously reported, one of the things included in the new CBA was the addition of two regular season games.  Starting in 2026-27, teams will play an 84-game regular season and the preseason will be reduced to a maximum of four games.  An additional stipulation regarding the preseason was added, as well.  Veterans who've played more than 100 games can only appear in a maximum of two preseason games.  That's a little vague, however.  Does it mean 100 games in the previous season or 100 games total? 

There's obviously a big difference.  If it's the first one, that's fine.  Only the four teams that reach the conference finals can get to 100 games in a season and they obviously play later than everyone else, so it makes sense to give their veterans a little bit of a break.  If it's the second, that's dumb.  Every player who's been in the league full-time for two or more years will have played in at least 100 games.  Who's left to play in preseason games, then?  And, they'll have to make room for exceptions.  For example, if somebody's coming back from an injury, he (and his team) may want to play in all four preseason games (or at least three) just to get back in playing shape.

With the addition of those two regular season games, that also likely means the season will start earlier.  Right now, the season starts in the second week of October.  Those two games will probably add an extra week, but they're evidently discussing starting as early as late September.  That would, hopefully, mean the regular season ends earlier (even with the February break for the Olympics/World Cup) and the playoffs start earlier, which, in turn, means the Stanley Cup is handed out before late June (which everyone agrees is way too late).

Another feature of the new CBA is that it'll reduce contract lengths.  Players will be able to re-sign with their current team for a maximum of seven years or six years if they leave as a free agent, down from eight and seven.  What's interesting is that since this rule doesn't take effect until the CBA is signed and ratified, players can still sign eight-year deals until then.  Which is exactly what the Panthers and Conn Smythe Trophy winner Sam Bennett did.  How many other players will do the same thing between now and when the new CBA kicks in?

Major League Baseball and the Los Angeles Dodgers should take note of this next stipulation.  No deferred salary.  Teams have been increasingly doing that in recent years to soften the cap hit.  They won't be able to do that anymore.  A five-year, $25 million contract will count $5 million against the cap each season.

Speaking of counting against the cap, they've also fixed the long-term injury reserve loophole.  I call this the "Golden Knights Rule" since Vegas was experts at exploiting it.  Players on long-term IR don't count against the salary cap.  Playoff games don't either.  So, teams could put a few players on long-term IR, which would give them enough cap space to load up at the trade deadline.  Then, once the postseason started, all of those guys on long-term IR would suddenly be miraculously healed from their injuries and ready to go for the playoff run.

That loophole has been closed.  Moving forward, teams will have to be cap-compliant throughout both the regular season and playoffs.  The final language that'll ultimately end up in the CBA is unknown, but it was an issue mentioned by both sides, so it'll be in there.  Which, frankly, it needs to be.  Because, as the players and owners both agreed, the fact that teams were able to do that was ridiculous!

They've also made changes to the EBUG (emergency backup goalie).  These are the guys who are always that feel-good story.  A teacher or Zamboni driver or accountant who played college hockey, but hasn't suited up in years and would be on-call just in case one of the teams needed a last-minute goaltender that night.  It normally includes just getting an actual NHL jersey with his name on it and getting to dress in an NHL locker room, but we've occasionally seen EBUGs get into the game and have some highlight moments.

Once the new CBA is signed, the EBUG will look totally different.  I'm not even sure we'll be able to call it an EBUG anymore.  That's because teams will be required to carry one, who'll be allowed to practice and travel with the team.  Again, the details won't be released until the CBA is official, but it sounds like they're creating a spot for a third, practice squad goalie who can only be activated if there's an injury to one of the two primary goalies (similar to a practice squad quarterback in the NFL).  So, just as it was bye-bye LOOGY when MLB instituted the three-batter minimum, it looks like it'll be bye-bye EBUG (at least in its current form).

With the league and the NHLPA agreeing to the CBA details on the same day as the NHL Draft, a notable provision regarding the NHL Draft was also included.  Teams will now only retain a player's draft rights until he turns 22.  It doesn't matter whether he's coming from the NCAA, Juniors, Europe or somewhere else, whatever team drafts him maintains his rights until he's 22.  Previously, where they were drafted from was taken into account.  Moving forward, it'll be strictly based on age, which is much easier for everybody.

This next one might not seem that significant, but it was important enough to include in the CBA.  There will no longer be dress codes on the road.  Players can still wear suits if they choose.  They'll just no longer be required.  We've already seen similar rules loosened in other sports in this post-COVID world.  The NHL is simply catching up with the times.  It'll be interesting to see how much this changes things and what type of personal style we might see from players (just imagine if somebody like P.K. Subban had been allowed to walk into the arena wearing whatever he wanted!).

And, we already knew this, but the salary cap will be going up by nearly $10 million a year in each of the next three seasons.  It'll be $95.5 million next season, then $104 million in 2026-27 (the first year of the new CBA) and $113.5 million in 2027-28.  Along with that, the minimum salary will also be going up.  By the end of the new CBA in 2029-30, all players will be making at least $1 million per season for the first time.

All of this is good news.  And the most amazing part is how all of this came together so quickly and easily.  It's a great sign that there's so much agreement between the players and the owners.  What's most important, though, is that a league that's had three lockouts in the past 20 years is guaranteed labor peace until 2030.

Expanded Schedule? Yes. Expansion? No.

The NHL and NHLPA are in the midst of negotiations for the new CBA, and one of the things on the table is expanding the regular season from 82 games to 84.  This has been discussed for the past few years and seems likely to happen.  Along with that would be a reduction of the preseason, which is currently at six games per team (and I'd imagine will drop to four games each).

Adding two games to the regular season makes sense for practical purposes.  After Seattle joined the league, teams had two division games taken away so that they could play the Kraken twice.  As a result, there are two division opponents that teams only play three times a season while playing each of their other division rivals five times.  Teams don't like that imbalance and would prefer to play everybody in their division the same number of times.  So, going to 84 games would give teams those two division games back while still accounting for the two games against the Kraken.

While expanding the schedule is a smart, logical idea, expanding the league is not.  Now, the NHL doesn't appear to be actively considering expansion, but that hasn't stopped fans and potential ownership groups in places that want NHL teams from suggesting that the league should expand to their city.  It shouldn't.

One of the cities that seems particularly keen on getting an NHL expansion team is Atlanta.  Some in the Atlanta camp have even suggested that it's a done deal.  It isn't, nor should it be.  Because the NHL has already put a team in Atlanta twice...and they both moved to Canada!  Why do they think the third time would be the charm?  Or, why not cut out the middleman and just put the team in Quebec City right away so that it saves a step when Atlanta inevitably fails again? 

Part of the momentum for this "the NHL should expand" push is because of the Arizona Coyotes.  Technically, the Coyotes didn't move to Utah.  Officially, the Mammoth are considered an expansion team and the Coyotes are "inactive."  Their owner was even promised a new franchise if he won the land auction to build an arena.  And, since 33 teams wouldn't have been practical long-term, a resurrected Coyotes likely would've had an expansion partner to get the league back to an even number (albeit an awkward one) of 34.

However, there's an important point regarding the Coyotes that's worth mentioning.  The land auction was cancelled, so the new arena's not happening.  As a result, the owner has abandoned his attempts to revive the franchise.  He relinquished the franchise rights and intellectual property back to the NHL.  So, the Coyotes aren't coming back.  While it's not official yet, the franchise has effectively folded.  And, if Arizona's not returning to the NHL, there's no need for a 34th team to join the league with them.

All of the expansion proponents agreed that 33 and 34 were both clunky numbers, so 36 became the common thought.  That obviously works out the best math-wise since it would be six divisions of six and 18 teams per conference.  But that's the only place where the math works out.  Whether it's 82 or 84 games, figuring out the schedule would be a challenge.  And, more importantly, the NHL doesn't need four more teams!  There's a lot of talent out there, but are there 100 NHL-caliber players who aren't currently in the league?

Atlanta and Phoenix also seem to be the only cities mentioned as potential NHL expansion locations.  We've already established that Phoenix ain't happening!  And Atlanta won't be joining the NHL by themselves.  So, where's the second team then?  (Atlanta and Phoenix are also connected in an indirect way since they were both the Winnipeg Jets--with the original Jets leaving Winnipeg for Phoenix and the current Jets moving to Winnipeg after their past life as the Atlanta Thrashers.)

Quebec City is also a one-time NHL city that has sought to return as an expansion franchise.  They even built a new arena in Quebec City several years ago.  There was even talk after the Golden Knights joined the league that Quebec might get the other expansion team, which, obviously, ultimately went to Seattle.  So, yes, there's interest in a revived Quebec Nordiques.  NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman has even acknowledged that.  However, he also made it clear that there's no timetable for anything expansion-related, so there's just as much wishful thinking on Quebec's part as Atlanta's.

So, OK, you're going to Atlanta and Quebec.  That's the clunky, awkward 34.  How are you getting to 36?  Salt Lake City's no longer an option now that they have the Mammoth.  And, unless another owner emerges and they can find a suitable arena site, neither is Phoenix.  So, where are you putting those other two teams?

Houston is the only other city that seems even remotely realistic.  It's the largest city in the country that doesn't have a team in all four major men's pro sports, but had a successful AHL team for years.  Houston's obviously a big enough market and an NHL team could obviously share the Rockets' arena.  It could be a natural in-state rival for Dallas, too.  But how much interest is there in a Houston hockey team?

And that's really it.  Outside of Quebec, there aren't really any Canadian cities that would make sense.  There's been talk about Hamilton, but they're not putting a team in a city that's literally in between Buffalo and Toronto!  That doesn't exactly bring the NHL to a new market or back to a former market.  (And how many people in Hamilton would actually drop the Leafs to root for an expansion team instead?)

Likewise, are there any other random cities in the U.S. outside of those I've already mentioned that could be considered viable potential NHL markets?  What would those even be?  Milwaukee (never been mentioned)?  Kansas City (been floated as a relocation option for some teams)?  Charlotte (do we need another team in the South)?  Indianapolis (never been mentioned)?

NHL expansion may sound great in theory to those who are proponents of it.  But, in reality, it wouldn't make logical sense for so many reasons.  The NHL currently has 32 teams.  That's tied with the NFL for the most among the major North American men's pro leagues.  Sorry, Atlanta, but it doesn't need to get any bigger.

The Bach Years

As the world celebrated Olympic Day, the IOC officially marked a transition.  After 12 years in office, Thomas Bach's tenure as IOC President came to an end and Kirsty Coventry formally stepped into the role.  Coventry has already made history as the first female IOC President and the first from Africa.  Bach, meanwhile, leaves a complicated legacy.

In fairness, the biggest issue Bach had to deal with was something nobody could've foreseen.  The COVID-19 pandemic hit in March 2020.  The Japanese organizers wanted to cancel the Tokyo Games entirely.  Bach wouldn't have it.  Instead, they were postponed a year and held in empty venues with major precautions put in place.  But they took place.  That was the important thing.

From a business perspective, it was important for the Tokyo Games to happen.  The IOC could've afforded missing an Olympics, but some of the international sporting federations (which rely on IOC funding) couldn't.  And, had the Games been cancelled, the IOC wouldn't have gotten the sponsorship and broadcast revenue that is the major source of their funding.  It was Bach's responsibility to do everything in his power to make sure his business was protected.  And that meant staging the Games.  So, the Games went on.

It wasn't just about business for Bach, though.  He was a West German athlete who had to miss the 1980 Games because of the boycott.  He knows what it's like for an athlete to lose that opportunity, which they work their whole lives for and they may only get once.  This was a global pandemic, not a boycott, but he didn't want another generation of Olympians to have that same experience.

That the Tokyo Games happened at all was a major win for Bach.  The fact that they took place successfully made it that much better.  Then there was another COVID-impacted Olympics six months later in Beijing.  Two Olympics were successfully held in the midst of a global pandemic.  That's no small feat.

Those Beijing Games were the third straight Olympics in East Asia, and Bach had to navigate the tense geopolitical situation that came with being in China.  Which was nothing compared to dealing with the nation that was a thorn in his side throughout his entire presidency.  Russia (aka OAR, aka ROC).  And it was his handling of Russia that will end up defining Bach's presidency.

After Russia hosted the 2014 Winter Games in Sochi (the first Olympics of Bach's presidency), the details of their state-sanctioned doping operation came to light.  Russia's too important powerful a country to completely ostracize from world sports, but he also couldn't do nothing.  And, again, Bach knew what it was like for athletes to miss out on an Olympics for reasons beyond their control, which he didn't want for Russian athletes, either.  So, the solution was that the Russian Olympic Committee would be suspended, but individual Russian athletes would be allowed to compete without their flag or national colors.  Which is what gave us OAR in PyeongChang and ROC in Beijing.

Then, as soon as Russia's doping suspension ended, they invaded Ukraine.  That was a direct violation of the Olympic Charter, so Bach could be more forceful in his punishment.  But he still maintained his position that it wasn't fair for Russian athletes who have nothing to do with it to suffer because of the actions of their government.  So, a limited number of Russian athletes (with stricter standards than before) were allowed to compete in Paris as neutral athletes.

He was in a no-win situation with the entire Russia thing.  Bach couldn't come down too hard, but he also couldn't do nothing.  The solution had to be navigated delicately and obviously wasn't going to please everybody.  What he came up with, though, was the fairest to both sides.  It's not ideal, but neither is the situation.

And you can't talk about Russia without talking about doping as a whole.  Doping is always going to be a major issue that any IOC President has to deal with.  Bach was no different.  There was the Kamila Valiyeva situation in Beijing, which took nearly two years to resolve.  Then there was the Chinese swimmers in Paris, who were controversially allowed to compete despite previous failed doping tests that some felt had been covered up.  And, of course, the female boxers in Paris and the questions regarding transgender athletes that will carry over into the Coventry Presidency.

Meanwhile, Bach's signature achievement was his Olympic Agenda 2020, a strategic roadmap for the future of the Olympic movement.  That included a complete overhaul of the bid process, which he felt took too long, had gotten too expensive and led to "too many losers."  Now, instead of cities bidding against each other, the IOC enters into a targeted dialogue with potential hosts before designating a candidate to move forward.  It's what led to the historic double-awarding of Paris 2024 and LA 2028 in 2017 and resulted in the Olympics having host cities locked in for the next decade.

Another goal of Olympic Agenda 2020 was sustainability.  Part of the reason the Olympics became so expensive was because cities were spending millions of dollars on sporting venues to use only during the Olympics with no planned post-Games use.  Bach wanted cities using temporary or existing venues (even if they're located outside the country) and to only build when absolutely necessary and there was an actual plan for future use. 

That came to fruition at the Paris Games, which followed through on the Olympic Agenda 2020 initiatives in such a glorious way!  I don't even think Bach could've envisioned how incredible it would turn out, and credit certainly belongs to the Paris organizers, too.  But, they set a new standard for future Olympic hosts to follow, using existing venues (including some non-traditional ones) and the city itself to form an incredible backdrop.  Not every city is Paris.  Everyone gets that.  But Paris was an example of exactly what Bach was looking for with Olympic Agenda 2020.

Paris was proof of concept for Olympic Agenda 2020.  It was also proof that a Western city can host the Games without breaking the bank, and has already encouraged plenty of other potential Olympic hosts to consider a bid.  That's a stark contrast to Bach's early tenure, when nobody wanted to host the Olympics.  Just as significantly, Paris was the reset that the Olympic Movement needed.  And a great way for Thomas Bach to go out.

There's no denying the impact that Thomas Bach left on the Olympic Movement.  Despite the IOC President being limited to 12 years in office, some of his supporters wanted him to run for another four-year term.  Bach vowed not to do that and leave office when his term ended, which was June 23, 2025.  It's not a secret that Kirsty Coventry was his preferred successor, either.  He had been grooming her to take over for him and made it very clear that he wanted her to win the election.  Which she did.

Now the IOC Presidency has officially changed hands.  Kirsty Coventry is the IOC President and Thomas Bach is the Honorary President for Life.  Whether she continues his policies or does things her own way remains to be seen (my guess is it'll probably be a combination of some sort, at least to start), but one thing is certain.  Thomas Bach left some big shoes for Kirsty Coventry to fill.

Next Retired Numbers (Basketball, Part II)

As the NBA wraps up its 2024-25 season with Game 7 between the Thunder and Pacers, it's the perfect time to wrap up my series with the next retired numbers for each franchise.  The NBA's Western Conference was perhaps the most difficult of all.  That's because most of them have already retired the numbers of their most significant players.  So, you'll end up seeing a lot of active players on this list as a result.

Mavericks: 13 Steve Nash-Neither Steve Nash nor Jason Kidd has had his number retired by the Mavericks, so it really could be either one.  I'm going with Nash because he was just as responsible as Dirk for the Mavericks' turnaround from an also-ran into a playoff team.  You could argue that his contributions were bigger in Phoenix (where he was a two-time MVP), but the Suns have already retired his number.  Dallas hasn't.  Yet.

Nuggets: 15 Carmelo Anthony/Nikola Jokic-This is one of those situations where the next retired number should honor two players.  Carmelo Anthony's place in Nuggets history is undisputed.  So is Nikola Jokic's.  There would be no argument against retiring either's number.  But, since their number is the same, that makes it a really easy call.  When Jokic is done, retire it for both of them.

Warriors: 30 Stephen Curry-Is there any doubt about this one?  Steph Curry completely changed the trajectory of the Warriors franchise.  Before he arrived, they hadn't won a championship in 40 years.  With Curry, they became a dynasty.  He's also the best shooter in NBA history and has been the face of the franchise for most of his career.  Steph's jersey retirement ceremony will be scheduled as soon as he hangs it up.

Rockets: 13 James Harden-It's crazy to think that Harden was a role player/sixth man until he went to Houston, where he became a star.  Howard was an All-Star every season he was a Rocket, won three consecutive scoring titles and was the MVP in 2017-18.  I do think he'll need to be elected to the Hall of Fame in order to have his number retired like the other seven Rockets whose numbers are retired.

Clippers: 2 Kawhi Leonard-The Clippers are the only team in the NBA that hasn't retired any numbers.  I'm actually shocked by that because Steve Ballmer strikes me as the type of owner who's definitely a fan first.  It also means he can choose any player in franchise history.  Since the Clippers' history isn't particularly memorable, though, I think a current guy is the most likely candidate.  If they make their first-ever Western Conference Finals appearance in the next few years, that could seal it.

Lakers: 23 LeBron James-Honestly, it would be shocking if LeBron doesn't have his number retired by all three of his teams.  And, believe it or not, he just completed his seventh season with the Lakers.  He became the NBA's all-time leading scorer while wearing a Lakers uniform and led them to their most recent championship (in the bubble in 2020).  Hollywood loves its stars, and LeBron has fit in perfectly.  One of the greatest players in NBA history, one of the most famous franchises in all of sports, it wouldn't make much sense NOT to retire his number, frankly.

Grizzlies: 12 Ja Morant-Pau Gasol's number has been retired by the Lakers, but not the Grizzlies.  Memphis has, however, retired Marc Gasol's number.  The Grizzlies could easily rectify that and have both brothers' numbers retired, but I also get the feeling that if they wanted to retire Pau's, they would have already.  So, I'm going with their current star Ja Morant.

Timberwolves: 21 Kevin Garnett-With all due respect to Anthony Edwards and Ricky Rubio, neither one should have their number retired by the Timberwolves before Kevin Garnett.  Frankly, his number should be retired already.  He spent the majority of his career in Minnesota and was the Timberwolves' franchise player when they won their only division title in 2003-04.  The Timberwolves' only retired number is No. 2 for Malik Sealy, who was killed in a car accident in 2000.  Garnett was Sealy's best friend.  It would only be appropriate for their numbers to hang next to each other in the Target Center rafters.

Pelicans: 3 Chris Paul-That whole thing with the Hornets/Pelicans history is confusing, but, fortunately, they have two players from the New Orleans Era who'd qualify for number retirement.  Chris Paul and Anthony Davis.  It's really a situation where you can take your pick.  I'm going with Paul even though his time with the franchise was shorter because he endured the whole tumultuous New Orleans/Oklahoma City/back to New Orleans thing.  He was their first true star player (and is still going strong at age 40).

Thunder: 35 Kevin Durant-I'm not entirely sure how it works with the Thunder.  Do the Sonics' retired numbers count?  Or are those being held for when/if the NBA returns to Seattle?  Either way, there are enough players who've been with the team since its move to Oklahoma City to qualify.  You could do Russell Westbrook or Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, but Kevin Durant was the first of those Thunder players and he spent the first nine years of his career with them.  So, as much as he may be persona non grata with the franchise now, he still gets the nod.

Suns: 1 Devin Booker-Phoenix has been pretty good about retiring numbers.  Which means it's probably a safe bet to say an active player will be the next to have the honor.  And it would be shocking if that isn't Devin Booker.  He's the Suns' all-time leading scorer and led them to their first NBA Finals appearance in nearly 30 years in 2021 (then immediately flew to Tokyo and won an Olympic gold medal with Team USA).

Trail Blazers: 11 Arvydas Sabonis-How has Arvydas Sabonis not had his number retired yet?  Sure, he didn't make his debut until he was 30 and only played seven seasons in Portland, but he's just as important for what he represents.  He was one of the first European players to come over to the NBA and find success.  Let's not forget the Blazers were good then, too.  They made the playoffs every year of his career.

Kings: 15 DeMarcus Cousins-Can you name anybody else who's played for Sacramento over the last 20ish years?  Didn't think so!  Things haven't been good for the Kings for a while, although they did win the division title two years ago.  So, because of the simple lack of other options, DeMarcus Cousins is getting the nod.

Spurs: 1 Victor Wembanyama-Everybody from the Spurs' dynasty era who should have his number retired already has.  And, since I'm talking about numbers here, that means Gregg Popovich is out.  Which leaves us with Victor Wembanyama.  I'm not saying he deserves it yet.  Not even close.  I'm saying he's the most likely candidate among Spurs players who haven't yet had their number retired.

Jazz: 27 Rudy Gobert-Unfortunately, the first thing people will think of when Rudy Gobert's career is over will probably be the whole thing with him touching all the microphones before coming down with COVID and causing the 2019-20 season to be suspended.  He's clearly so much more than that, though.  Gobert won three Defensive Player of the Year awards in Utah, and the Jazz won three division titles during that span.

Next Retired Numbers (Basketball, Part I)

I've done the next retired numbers for each of the other three sports, but it completely slipped my mind that I hadn't done basketball yet!  So, with the NBA Finals set for a Game 7, I figured now was the perfect time to do it.  As a reminder, some of these are incredibly obvious.  Others not so much.  Others have multiple candidates.  But the whole point was to choose one number for each team for a player (active or retired) who hasn't had the honor yet.  Whether it's realistic or not isn't relevant.  That's not the point of this exercise.

Hawks: 42 Kevin Willis-All five players who've had their numbers retired by the Hawks are in the Hall of Fame, so they may be waiting until Kevin Willis is inducted.  While his case for the Hall of Fame is borderline at best, his place in Hawks history is not.  Willis played his first nine years in Atlanta during a time when the Hawks were really good.  He was a big reason why.  Beyond that, Willis was beloved by the fans.  Sometimes that plays in.  As it should.  Number 42 was also worn by Al Horford in Atlanta, so it could be a joint retirement ceremony for both of them.

Celtics: 20 Ray Allen-A lot of numbers have been retired by the Celtics.  For obvious reasons.  In fact, they have as many retired numbers as the Yankees!  So, they aren't shy about adding numbers to that banner hanging in TD Garden.  Outside of active players, the only seemingly obvious candidate is Ray Allen, who had some of his best seasons during his five years with the Celtics, where he anchored a championship team alongside Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce, whose numbers are both already retired.  (Fun fact: 20 is the only number between 14-25 that's not retired and still available in Boston.)

Nets: 11 Brook Lopez-For all the big-name players the Nets have brought in over the past 10 years, it's Brook Lopez who stands out as the most impactful.  He's currently on the Bucks, but spent the first nine seasons of his career with New Jersey/Brooklyn and is the Nets' all-time leading scorer.  Lopez is also their all-time leader in blocks.

Hornets: 15 Kemba Walker-The Hornets are a confusing franchise.  Between the original Hornets, the Bobcats and the current Hornets, they've only retired one number.  No. 13 for Bobby Phills.  Not Larry Johnson.  Not Alonzo Mourning.  Not Muggsy Bogues.  So, there are options.  The one I'm going with, though, is their all-time leading scorer (regardless of iteration or name).  Kemba Walker.

Bulls: 13 Joakim Noah-Derrick Rose's No. 1 will be retired next season, and they have several "honored numbers" in their Ring of Honor.  I'm considering all of those to be retired (even if unofficially) and not counting any of them.  Which leaves me with Joakim Noah.  Is he anywhere near the level of Jordan and Pippen?  Absolutely not.  But, then again, not many players are.  Noah played his first nine years in Chicago and won a Defensive Player of the Year with the Bulls.

Cavaliers: 23 LeBron James-From the Department of "Duh!"  The Cavs will retire LeBron's number approximately two seconds after he retires.  In fact, when he decides to hang it up, I wouldn't be surprised if he signs a one-day contract with Cleveland just so he can retire with them.

Pistons: 33 Grant Hill-Why hasn't Grant Hill's number been retired by the Pistons yet?  Yes, it felt like he played forever and he jumped around at the end.  But the first six years of Grant Hill's career when he was healthy and playing in Detroit, he was one of the best players in the entire freaking league!  Before the ankle injury that changed his entire career, Hill was a five-time All-NBA selection on Pistons teams that weren't very good.

Pacers: 0 Tyrese Haliburton-Indiana has plenty of candidates.  Mark Jackson, Rik Smits, Jermaine O'Neal, Paul George, Ron Artest/Metta World Peace/Whatever He's Calling Himself Right Now.  I'm not sure any of them will have their number retired before Indiana's current star, though.  Especially if the Pacers win Game 7 for their first NBA championship.  Haliburton came in 2022 and has led Indiana to the Eastern Conference Finals and NBA Finals in the last two seasons.  He's only 25, so he'll be their franchise player for the next decade.

Heat: 6 LeBron James-As we all know, the first time LeBron left Cleveland, he "took his talents to South Beach."  In his four years with the Heat, Miami went to the Finals every season and won a pair of championships.  And the No. 6 he wore in Miami has been retired league-wide for Bill Russell anyway, so he's already the last Heat player ever to wear the number.  Don't be surprised if LeBron has his number retired by all three of his teams.

Bucks: 34 Giannis Antetokounmpo-There's no doubt that Giannis has already done enough to warrant having his number retired by the Bucks when his career is over.  Especially if he stays in Milwaukee.  As it is, he's probably going down as perhaps the third-best player ever to wear a Bucks uniform, behind only Oscar Robertson and Kareem.  Two-time MVP, Defensive Player of the Year, NBA's 75th Anniversary Team, led the team to its first title in 30 years, and there's likely still more to be added before he's done.

Knicks: 7 Carmelo Anthony-Every player whose number has been retired by the Knicks is in the Hall of Fame.  Melo will check that box this year.  During his seven-year tenure, the Knicks only won one playoff series.  But that was one more than they had since Ewing left and one more than they would until they actually became good again a few years ago.  Melo was a superstar playing on some bad teams.

Magic: 12 Dwight Howard-Shaq's number 32 is the only one that has been retired in Orlando.  He isn't the only dominant center who they've drafted No. 1 overall, though.  Howard won three straight Defensive Player of the Years and led the Magic to the 2009 NBA Finals.  He's also the franchise's all-time leader in points, rebounds and blocks.  It didn't end great, but, based on the numbers and what he meant to the franchise, Dwight Howard's number should join Shaq's in the rafters.

76ers: 21 Joel Embiid-Philadelphia drafted Embiid during that period known as "the Process" when they were tanking to build for the future.  The plan was to build around him.  So far, it's working.  He's a two-time NBA scoring champion and has won an MVP.  Of course, it hasn't led to a championship yet, but it has resulted in seven consecutive playoff appearances, so building around Embiid sure seems like it was a good call!

Raptors: 7 Kyle Lowry-Vince Carter was the first, and so far, only, Raptor to have his number retired.  And rightfully so for all he's meant to the franchise.  As for who should be next, it's really a toss-up between Kyle Lowry and DeMar DeRozan.  I'm going with Lowry for his six consecutive All-Star selections and the role he played in Toronto winning its first championship in 2019.

Wizards: 2 John Wall-Gilbert Arenas is far too controversial, so he's out.  Michael Jordan would be for the name rather than for what he did with the franchise.  You could make an argument for Bernard King.  You can make a better argument for John Wall, who they took No. 1 overall in 2010, spent a decade in Washington, and is the Wizards' all-time leader in both assists and steals.

People Will Come

There are two major international soccer tournaments going on in the United States right now.  Attendance hasn't been very high at either one.  That has drawn plenty of criticism from skeptics who are worried about what that means for next year's World Cup.  Spoiler alert: It means nothing.  The World Cup will be sold out and likely set an attendance record (just like the 1994 World Cup in the United States).

I can tell you the reason why the stands will be full at the World Cup while they aren't at either the Club World Cup or the Gold Cup.  It's actually very simple.  People care about the World Cup.  They don't care about the Club World Cup or the Gold Cup.  And, seeing as World Cup ticket prices will likely be astronomical, if fans can only afford to go to one, it's pretty obvious which they'll choose.

This isn't the first time soccer people have called out the attendance at games in the U.S.  The U.S. Men's National Team isn't even immune to it.  At the CONCACAF Nations League in March, there were a lot of empty seats at SoFi Stadium for third-place game between the United States and Canada.  But, again, that's because people didn't care.  It was the third-place game of the CONCACAF Nations League!  And it was being played at SoFi Stadium (which has 70,000 seats) in March (when there are a lot of other things going on that are more likely to get people's attention).

That's the thing that the non-American fan still doesn't get.  Americans show up for big events.  But we can't come to all of them.  There's so much going on that you have to pick and choose.  Look at last year's Copa America.  People came to that.  The Club World Cup?  Not so much.  And playing the games in 70,000-seat football stadiums doesn't help matters, either, since even 25,000 still looks empty.

Let's call a spade a spade here, too.  FIFA severely misjudged the enthusiasm for the Club World Cup.  Ticket prices were way too high at the beginning and they were selling the entire stadiums instead of sectioning them off (which they eventually started doing so that the stadiums look less empty on TV).  They were never going to sell 70,000 tickets in Atlanta regardless of who was playing!  Next year at the World Cup, they will.  Because it's the World Cup.

Atlanta was singled out for its attendance because that was the site of the Chelsea-LAFC game on Monday.  That game kicked off at 1:00 in the afternoon on a workday.  Not just a workday, a Monday.  People weren't taking off work at 1:00 on a Monday to go to a Chelsea-LAFC game.  (I haven't seen the attendance figures for the entire tournament, but I'd figure a majority of the 1:00 midweek kickoffs have been sparsely attended for the same reason.)

While it's hard for European fans to grasp that since they live and die by these football clubs, for Americans, it's just two random teams.  Baseball and the other football are the sports where American fans are die-hards who'll travel to any game, anywhere, any time.  Two random soccer teams at 1:00 on a Monday, though?  I actually think that 25,000 was a pretty good attendance number (even though FIFA likely fudged it).

And the criticism directed towards the fact that LAFC was playing in Atlanta instead of LA was really more a sign of ignorance than anything else.  It's complaining for the sake of complaining from someone who didn't even care enough to know the actual reason, which is actually pretty simple.  LAFC was the last team to qualify for the tournament, winning a play-in game a few weeks ago.  And they only got in as a replacement.  The schedule had already been made when LAFC qualified.  So, it's not like they could just up and move a game from Atlanta to LA at the last minute just so they could play a "home" game (which wouldn't have even been at their home field since it likely would've been at SoFi Stadium).

It's not limited to the Club World Cup, either.  The Gold Cup is always played in the United States.  The stadiums are always empty at games that don't involve either the United States or Mexico.  Canada opened the tournament with a home game in Vancouver, and even that one drew only 25,000.  CONCACAF is at least playing the Gold Cup at some soccer-specific venues with smaller capacities, so the optics are better with fewer empty seats.

Although, even if the low attendance in the massive football stadiums doesn't look great, using them is serving a practical purpose.  Every American venue being used for next year's World Cup is an NFL stadium.  They need to have a test event beforehand.  That was the entire point of playing the Club World Cup in the U.S.  So, as much as anything else, they're using it to make sure everything's good to go for next summer.

Which is why, ultimately, I doubt FIFA cares about how many empty seats there are at the Club World Cup.  Would they like the stadiums to be full?  Sure.  But people have been skeptical of the event from the start, and they saw the early ticket sales, so I don't think they were expecting full houses.  And, who knows?  Maybe once the tournament gets to the knockout rounds, there will be more fans in the stands.

So, no, the attendance (or lack thereof) at the Club World Cup says more about the Club World Cup than it does about American soccer fans.  It's not general apathy.  It's apathy towards the event.  And, since this isn't a soccer-mad country and there are plenty of other options, people are staying away.  Playing in NFL stadiums at 1:00 in the afternoon sure isn't helping matters, either.  (I'm assuming they gave the European teams most of those early games since it's primetime there.)

Popular European clubs like Real Madrid, Bayern Munich and Inter Milan simply aren't enough to move the needle.  Neither are superstar players like Lionel Messi.  Not when there are also so many random teams from Africa and Asia and so many of the games are blowouts.  And not when the reception to the Club World Cup was already lukewarm at best.

Next summer, it'll be a different story.  The World Cup is the World Cup.  There's no doubt that fans will show up in droves and the stadiums will be full.  FIFA is counting on it.  That's one of the reasons why they wanted to go back to the U.S. in the first place.  The 1994 World Cup set attendance records, and soccer wasn't even that popular a sport in the U.S. 30 years ago!  Now it is.

Non-Olympians

The NHL and IIHF have announced the first six players on each country's roster for February's Olympics.  The NHL, of course, is returning to the Olympics in Milan for the first time in 12 years.  In 2018, the players wanted to go, but the owners said no.  Then they worked it into the CBA and the NHL players were set to go in 2022, but they had to pull out because of COVID-related scheduling issues. 

As a result of that 12-year absence from the Olympics, there's a group of hockey players who would've been locks for their respective national teams in either 2018 or 2022 (or maybe both) that will end up never having been Olympians at all.  Twelve years is a long time, yet they'll have gone the entire prime of their careers missing out on that opportunity.  Some of them may still be selected for their nation's roster in February, but there's no guarantee of that.  And, if they don't make the team in 2026, the chances of their playing in 2030 are slim to none.

One name I immediately thought of was Jonathan Quick.  Had the NHL played at the 2018 Olympics, he likely would've been the starting goalies for the U.S.  However, Quick was Ryan Miller's backup in 2014, so he doesn't count as non-Olympians.  Same with Marc-Andre Fleury, who won a gold medal as Roberto Luongo's backup in 2010 (yes, he's that old!).  These 10 players, though, completely missed out because of the NHL's taking two Olympics off.

Johnny Gaudreau (USA): Obviously, the reasons for this one are tragic.  You can bet Johnny Hockey would've been in the mix for the Olympic roster, and you can tell how much his absence is felt.  His jersey hung in the USA locker room at the Four Nations Face-Off and was draped over the championship trophy at the World Championships.  There's no question he would've been on both the 2018 and 2022 Olympic rosters.

Chris Kreider (USA): Kreider was on the American roster at the Four Nations, but was a healthy scratch in the first two games.  It's highly unlikely that he'll make the 2026 Olympic team.  The 2021-22 season, meanwhile, was the best of his career, so he almost certainly would've been on the roster in Beijing had the NHL participated.

Seth Jones (USA): There's still a chance Seth Jones could be selected to Team USA for the 2026 Olympics.  But he wasn't on the Four Nations roster even as an alternate, so you've got to think he'll need to do something special to earn a spot on the Olympic team.  That wasn't the case in 2022, when he was actually one of the first players named to the roster while the NHL was still planning on going.  It would be brutal if that's the closest he ends up coming to being an Olympian.

Kris Letang (CAN): How crazy is it that Kris Letang hasn't been on a Canadian National Team since the 2007 World Juniors?  I get that Canada is deep and that he's never been one of the best defensemen in the NHL, but you'd have to think he would've been selected to at least one of those two Olympic teams (almost certainly 2018).  In 2026, he's got no chance.

Claude Giroux (CAN): Claude Giroux is another one whose prime corresponded to the span between NHL Olympic appearances.  He was controversially left off Canada's roster in 2014 despite being a Hart Trophy finalist that season.  Four years later, he was one of the best damn players in the NHL!  There's no doubt he would've been on the team in 2018, and it's not a stretch to say he would've made it in 2022, as well.  In 2026, Giroux likely won't even be considered.

Taylor Hall (CAN): Yes, Taylor Hall is still playing in the NHL.  He won the Hart Trophy with the Devils in 2017-18, so you'd have to think he would've been on Canada's Olympic roster that year.  That was obviously when he was at his peak.  Hall's career has cratered since then to the point that he's not even in the discussion for 2026, and likely wouldn't have been in 2022, either.

Jonathan Marchessault (CAN): Would Marchessault have been on Canada's roster during his breakout season with the expansion Golden Knights in 2017-18?  Probably not.  Would he have made it in 2022?  Not a guarantee, but I think yes.  He'd established himself by then.  And that was likely his only chance to make a Canadian Olympic team, too.  While I think Marchessault could be in the running for Milan, I doubt he'll ultimately be selected.

Braden Holtby (CAN): It's not crazy to think that Holtby might've been Canada's starting goalie in 2018.  He was arguably the best goalie in the NHL then, winning the Vezina in 2015-16, allowing the fewest goals in the league in 2016-17, and leading Washington to the Stanley Cup in 2017-18.  At the very least, he would've been one of the three goalies on their Olympic roster that year.

Pekka Rinne (FIN): I know what you're thinking.  "How was Pekka Rinne not on Finland's Olympic roster in 2014?"  Because he was injured, that's why (although, he did lead Finland to silver at the World Championships later that year).  Meanwhile, in 2017-18, when he would've been Finland's unquestioned Olympic starter, he won the Vezina.  Rinne's retired now, and his replacement in Nashville, Juuse Saros, also replaced him as Finland's starting goalie.

Nikita Kucherov (RUS): This one gets an asterisk since Nikia Kucherov would certainly be on Russia's roster (or whatever we're calling Russia these days) in 2026 if they were allowed to participate.  Just like how he absolutely would've been on OAR's gold medal-winning team in 2018 and ROC's 2022 roster.  Although, he'll be 36 and presumably still playing at a high level in 2030, so it wouldn't surprise me if he finally makes his long-awaited Olympic debut in the French Alps.

Of course, the opposite is also true.  Those players who did participate in the 2018 and 2022 Olympic hockey tournaments wouldn't have gotten that opportunity had the NHL gone to either PyeongChang or Beijing.  So, the NHL players' loss was their gain.  Still, though, you can't help but wonder might've been for the NHL players who lost what might've been their only chances to play in the Olympics.

The Negro Leagues Museum

One of the reasons I wanted to check Kansas City off the list of stadiums I've visited (other than because I'm trying to get to all 30) is because the Negro Leagues Museum is also in Kansas City.  I finally got to make that trip, and it was well worth it!  The Negro Leagues Museum has long been considered a must-see for baseball fans, and it's easy to see why.  It's definitely something that any baseball fan will appreciate.  And they'll almost certainly learn something, too.  (Including why the museum is in this specific location.  They didn't randomly choose Kansas City.  It's two blocks from the exact spot where the Negro National League was formed in 1920.)

My favorite part of the museum is a very cleverly set up "baseball game" with 12 bronze statues of Negro League legends (all of whom are in the Hall of Fame).  There are nine fielders playing each position, as well as a batter and an umpire.  You can only access the "field" at the end of your visit, though.  The 12th statue, meanwhile, is one of the first things you see.  It's Buck O'Neil, the manager, looking through the window.

Every Negro Leagues player who's been elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame has a locker with a jersey from his Negro Leagues team.  There are plenty of blank lockers in the exhibit, too, so they've got room for those who are elected in the future.  There's also a display of baseballs signed by Negro Leagues players.  And, something that I think is very cool, Gold Gloves.  In 2012, Rawlings awarded nine career Gold Gloves to Negro Leagues players.  They're all on display.

Jackie Robinson obviously gets his due.  And rightfully so.  His MLB debut wasn't just an important moment in baseball history.  It was one of the biggest moments in American history.  But what about the first Black player on each of the other 15 original teams?  As a part of the Jackie Robinson exhibit, the Negro Leagues Museum tells their stories.

Larry Doby, of course, was the first Black player in the American League, making his debut with Cleveland only a few weeks after Robinson in 1947.  His Negro Leagues team was the Newark Eagles, whose owner, Effa Manley (the first and, so far, only woman to be elected to the Hall of Fame), negotiated Doby's contract with Bill Veeck.  Manley was torn, though.  She understood the importance of Black players in the Major Leagues, but she also knew that it would likely mean the end of the Negro Leagues, which were among the most successful Black businesses in the first half of the 20th Century.

Effa Manley isn't the only woman who played a prominent role in Negro Leagues history.  Not even close.  In fact, three women played in the Negro Leagues.  Connie Morgan, Mamie Johnson and Toni Stone.  That's something I never would've known had I not visited the museum!  Each of them has a bronze bust recognizing her unique place in baseball history.

Another innovation that came about because of the Negro Leagues was night baseball.  Kansas City Monarchs owner J.L. Wilkinson realized that people couldn't attend games during the afternoon while they were at work, so he purchased a lighting system that the Monarchs would travel with so that they could play night games.  He'd also rent out the lights to other teams.  This was in 1930, five years before the first night game in the Major Leagues.

As soon as you enter the lobby, there's a map and timeline depicting the history of the Negro Leagues, marking the locations of the teams, as well as who was in each of the various leagues in a given year.  Then, James Earl Jones narrates a video before you walk into the museum itself, which goes through the early history of Black baseball prior to the Negro Leagues, including the well-known stories of Moses Fleetwood Walker and Branch Rickey's Ohio Wesleyan team, leading up to the creation of the Negro National League in 1920.

In 1933, the first East-West All-Star Game was organized by Pittsburgh Crawfords owner Gus Greenlee (another one of the most influential and significant Negro Leagues owners).  The game was played in Chicago at Comiskey Park, two months after the inaugural MLB All*Star Game in the same ballpark.  It quickly became the signature event of the Negro Leagues season and would be played every year until 1962, almost always in Chicago, usually at the end of the season.  The Negro World Series was held sporadically (there were only 11 in history), so the East-West Game was the only annual spotlight event for Negro Leagues players.

They also acknowledge the unfortunate sign of those times and some of the conditions that those players had to endure during segregation, especially in the South.  It's actually pretty crazy how they would go on barnstorming tours of Japan and Latin America and receive better treatment than they got at home.  There are also some cool stories that came out of that, though.  The Monarchs once refused to play if the team wasn't allowed to eat in the restaurant (which reminds me so much of that scene in Green Book).  The restaurant owner relented.  The Crawfords bought their own bus, both to make travel easier and to guarantee they had a place to stay.  The craziest part of these stories?  How many of the same people who refused them service also bought tickets for the game.

Negro League stars were just as big in Black communities as Major League stars were in White communities.  And there are plenty of photos of African American celebrities from the day such as Lena Horne and Joe Louis throwing out the first pitch at Negro Leagues games.  Jesse Owens was a regular (exposing the hypocrisy of cheering for Black athletes at the Olympics while segregating them at home).  He'd usually participate in some sort of promotional race, as well.

And, of course, there's an entire exhibit dedicated to Satchel Paige.  He's arguably the most famous Negro Leagues player and, without a doubt, the greatest pitcher in Negro Leagues history.  He was also quite a showman!  Satchel Paige was the biggest draw in the Negro Leagues and was the headliner of the barnstorming tours against Major League players.  (Major Leaguers were prevented from wearing their team uniforms in these barnstorming games, so they formed their own "All-Star" teams to go against Paige's team of Negro Leaguers.)  It's widely assumed that if Satchel Paige were younger, he, not Jackie Robinson, would've been the one to break the color barrier. 

No man has done more to preserve the history of the Negro Leagues than Buck O'Neil.  So, it's only fitting that there's also an area dedicated to O'Neil.  Arguably the star of the Ken Burns Baseball documentary, O'Neil was instrumental in getting the museum off the ground and served on its Board of Directors until his death.  His family donated memorabilia to the museum in 2012, 10 years before he was, at long last, inducted into the Hall of Fame.

Throw in all of the jerseys and hats representing the various Negro Leagues teams, and you have such an authentic, loving tribute to an important era in baseball history with a story that needs to be told.  The Negro Leagues Baseball Museum does that and then some!  If you're ever in Kansas City (and even if you aren't), it's well worth the trip.