Midseason MLB Superlatives

Baseball season has reached the All*Star Break.  There have been some surprises, but the teams at the top of the standings aren't that unexpected.  And we have about 20 teams who think they have a realistic shot at the playoffs, which should make for an interesting trade deadline.  That's for later in the month, though.  Right now, let's focus on who'd receive the major awards for the first half of the season.

AL MVP: Aaron Judge, Yankees-Imagine where the Yankees would be without Aaron Judge!  His first half numbers this season are better than they were two years ago, when he hit an AL-record 62 home runs.  You could make an argument for Gunnar Henderson, Bobby Witt Jr., or even Juan Soto, but there's no denying that Aaron Judge is on pace for another record-breaking year.  That's why I think he has a slight edge over the others.  Because, again, imagine the Yankees without him.

AL Cy Young: Tarik Skubal, Tigers-The names in the mix for AL Cy Young at midseason certainly aren't those you would've expected.  Take the Tigers' Tarik Skubal, who I'd argue is the current favorite.  His career record entering this season was 23-27.  This year, he's 10-3.  He leads the AL in ERA and WHIP, is second in batting average against, and third in both wins and strikeouts.  So, yeah, he's been good.

AL Rookie: Ceddanne Rafaela, Red Sox-Boston hasn't quite taken the Houston/Baltimore approach of completely tanking just to stockpile high draft picks, but there's no denying that the Red Sox have developed some really good young talent.  Ceddanne Rafaela is one of them.  He's been excellent in both center field and at shortstop, and he's the most productive No. 9 hitter in baseball.  Rafaela is either first or second among AL rookies in virtually every offensive category.

AL Manager: Stephen Vogt, Guardians-Stephen Vogt retired as a player after the 2022 season.  He then spent one year as a coach in Seattle before taking over in Cleveland, his first managerial job at any level.  All he's done so far is lead the Guardians to the best record in the American League at the break.

AL Comeback Player: Carlos Rodon, Yankees-Remember how bad Carlos Rodon was last year?  This season, he's certainly had his moments.  But, more often, he's looked like the pitcher that the Yankees spent all that money on.  Especially in April and May, there was talk of Rodon being on the All*Star team.  That obviously didn't happen, but his bounce back season may prove that his contract might not have been a huge bust after all.

NL MVP: Shohei Ohtani, Dodgers-Switching leagues has done nothing to affect Shohei Ohtani's brilliance.  If anything, being in a lineup with Mookie Betts and Freddie Freeman has made him more productive!  He's leading the National League in hits, homers and runs scored, all by a wide margin.  If Ohtani's second half is anything like his first half, he's well on his way to a third career MVP award.  This time, though, he'll also get to play in October.

NL Cy Young: Zack Wheeler, Phillies-There are any number of candidates for the NL Cy Young right now.  But I'm going with the best pitcher on the best team.  Wheeler's second in the National League in ERA, has a WHIP below 1.00 and is holding his opponents to a .192 batting average.  He's also got more than a strikeout an inning.  The Phillies are 11-8 in his starts (Wheeler is 10-4), but two of those losses were in 10 innings, and one of them was 1-0!

NL Rookie: Jackson Merrill, Padres-Paul Skenes has been a sensation, will start the All*Star Game, and could very well end up being named NL Rookie of the Year.  At the break, though, I'm giving the edge to the Padres' Jackson Merrill, a converted infielder turned All*Star center fielder.  He leads all National League rookies in hits, home runs and RBIs, and he's second among NL rookies in batting average.

NL Manager: Pat Murphy, Brewers-People expected the Phillies, Dodgers and Braves to be good.  Very few people thought the Brewers would be leading the Central, though.  Especially after Craig Counsell left Milwaukee for the division rival Cubs.  The Cubs are currently in last place.  The Brewers, meanwhile, have the third-best record in the NL behind new manager Pat Murphy.

NL Comeback Player: Chris Sale, Braves-As it turns out, all he needed was to get out of Boston!  Because the Chris Sale who pitches for the Braves looks like the Chris Sale who pitched for the White Sox.  He's 35 years old and pitching in the National League for the first time in his career, but you sure wouldn't know it.  If the rotation had allowed for it, it would've been easy to envision him starting for the National League on Tuesday night.

For all the good, there's also been plenty of bad.  And I'm not just talking about the Yankees in April and May compared to the Yankees in June and July.  I'm talking about the players who've been truly bad.  So bad, in fact, that they've earned first half accolades of their own.

AL LVP: Jose Abreu, Astros-Abreu actually had some competition here from DJ LeMahieu and Kevin Kiermaier.  His season was far worse than either of theirs, however.  So bad, in fact, that it saw him get sent down at the end of April before he was released in mid-June.  It looks like Abreu's age caught up with him.  In 35 games, he hit a whopping .124 with two homers and seven RBIs.  Quite a fall for a guy who was still pretty productive as recently as last season's playoffs.

AL Cy Old: Griffin Canning, Angels-For some reason, the Angels insist on sending Griffin Canning out there.  I can't begin to guess why.  He's 3-9.  He has the second-worst ERA among qualified AL pitchers.  His WHIP and batting average against are both among the worst in the American League.  He's given up 18 home runs in 19 starts.  He only strikes out just over six hitters per nine innings.  I know he isn't the reason the Angels suck, but he's not exactly helping, either.

NL LVP: Tim Anderson, Marlins-It wasn't too long ago that Tim Anderson was really good.  He certainly fell off the cliff very rapidly.  The Marlins took a flier on Anderson after the White Sox declined his option, but he was just as bad in Miami.  After 65 games with a .214 average, no home runs and just nine RBIs, he was designated for assignment and ultimately released on July 5.

NL Cy Old: Patrick Corbin, Nationals-Washington isn't very good.  I get that.  And because the team isn't very good, Nationals pitchers will take a lot of losses.  I get that, too.  But Patrick Corbin's 1-9 record isn't the reason why he gets the nod here.  It's his .305 batting average against, 1.54 WHIP and 5.57 ERA, all of which are the worst in the National League.  I do give him credit for going out there every five days and taking his lumps, though.

Mostly Live From Paris

I always find it funny when people don't care about something at all when it's announced, then have all kinds of things to say about it weeks or even months later after they suddenly decide they care.  NBC announced its primary broadcast strategy for the Paris Olympics more than a year ago--with the Games in Europe, live coverage all morning and afternoon, with a "reimagined" primetime show featuring highlights and replays (I don't know why this bears repeating every time there's a European Olympics, but live coverage during primetime is not possible because of the time difference).

Anyway, NBC unveiled its detailed daily schedule for the entire Olympics (which is, of course, subject to change), and it inevitably drew a share of derisive articles mockingly congratulating NBC for not showing the Olympics "plausibly live" (aka, on tape delay).  While I get that the interest has only increased over the past few weeks as the Olympics get closer, that's not exactly breaking news.  It's also not something new.  The last three Olympics were in Asia, so it's easy to forget, but NBC made the move to mostly-live in 2016 (when the Games were in Rio, which is only an hour ahead of the East Coast).  And they started showing the Opening Ceremony live in Tokyo.  The only real difference here is that this Olympics is in Europe.

It's been 10 years since the last European Olympics.  A lot has changed between then and now.  (For starters, the 2014 Winter Games were IN Russia, now Russia isn't even allowed to compete!)  In this era of streaming (with every event available on Peacock and NBCOlympics.com), NBC knows they have to make everything available live.  Which is something they started doing even when they were "holding" events for broadcast later.  In 2014, they showed the figure skating live during the day on NBC Sports Network before airing it again on tape-delay in primetime.

At the last three Olympics, the time difference was a major issue.  Since Asia has reverse time zones, they were able to show stuff live in the U.S. during primetime because it was the next morning.  The daytime show had to be on tape delay, though, because they didn't have a choice.  It was the middle of the night!  (And, for the record, they did show it all live on cable.)

Also, I hate to burst this bubble, but there will still be tape-delayed events during NBC's coverage of the Paris Games (and not just on the primetime and late night shows).  There was never not going to be!  They can only show one event at a time, and there's stuff that'll be live on cable while something else is on NBC, then shown again on NBC after that other event is over.

Even before they announced the detailed schedule, it was easy to anticipate that they'd tape delay some stuff.  The morning sessions in swimming start at 5 a.m. Eastern each day.  NBC's daytime block isn't starting until 9 a.m. after the Today Show.  The swimming finals will be shown live at 2:30 p.m.  They have to show that day's prelims sometime before the finals, which means they're getting shown on tape delay sometime between 9-2:30.

There's also an advantage to tape-delayed coverage that the critics like to ignore.  It can be edited.  When you're broadcasting live, there's a lot of down time you need to fill.  Yes, that can be the perfect time for one of NBC's sappy athlete profile pieces or to swing over and check out another event.  But how often is that filler exactly that?  Trying to fill time before the next heat.  If you're on tape delay, though, you can cut all of that dead time out and just make it look like it went right from one heat to the next.

Swimming morning sessions can also get incredibly long, with multiple unseeded heats between swimmers who have absolutely no shot of advancing to the semifinals.  By tape delaying the morning swimming sessions, they'll be able to cut out those unseeded heats and only show the three or four relevant seeded heats of each race.  It makes for a much more manageable time frame.

NBC is primarily using the broadcast network for its linear coverage from Paris.  That means all of the marquee events will be on NBC.  Except they can only show one thing at a time.  So, if there are two events that they want to show happening simultaneously, one will have to be tape delayed.  That's just a simple fact.

USA, meanwhile, will be the primary cable home and have 24-hour coverage.  That, obviously, means not everything on USA will be live, either!  USA's primetime schedule during the Olympics, in fact, will be mainly replays of one of the American teams in a team sport...and they'll continue to replay stuff until 4/5 a.m. when the first events of the next day get underway!  And some of the stuff that airs on USA during those early-morning hours will be shown again on NBC once their coverage window begins.

The big difference here, really, is that this is the first Olympics taking place in Europe since NBC moved to the primarily live strategy.  In London (when they showed plenty of live events during the day, just like they will in Paris) and Sochi, it was still the old way, when tape delay was more accepted (even though they drew plenty of criticism for it then, too).  So, yes, this will be a different experience.  But is it, really?

This year's Olympic broadcast schedule isn't all that dissimilar than what NBC did 12 years ago in London.  In 2012, they had Dan Patrick & Al Michaels tag-teaming daytime coverage...which was all live.  As was the morning coverage.  And primetime, again, has to be tape delayed when the Olympics are in Europe.  The main difference between now and the London Games is that the marquee events will end up being on NBC twice...once live during the day, then again on tape delay during primetime.

In the past, their focus was on the primetime show, which is why they held events to be shown then.  That strategy has shifted.  In 2018, NBC started airing the East Coast primetime show live across the country.  This year, it won't be (because there's no need), but the afternoon show is.  Today will be on at its normal time everywhere, though, so the Mountain and Pacific time zones will join in progress, then get an extra hour (Mountain) or three hours (Pacific) tacked on at the end.  That will all be on tape delay (the day's events will be over by then).

Now, the emphasis is more on the live coverage, which seems to be what people want.  I'm actually very curious to see how this strategy works out.  Will people still tune into the primetime show knowing it will be vastly different than what they're used to?  I don't even know what to expect in primetime!  What I do know, though, is that the daytime show will be the focus in a way it never has before.

European Olympics are unique in that everything is done by 7 p.m. Eastern.  Four years from now, it'll be vastly different.  LA is, obviously, three hours behind the East Coast, so the Olympic day won't even get started until about 10-11 a.m. Eastern, and the primetime show will be almost entirely live.  So will the late night show for that matter!  Then the Olympics are in Brisbane, which is essentially another Games in Asia time-difference-wise.  So, NBC's programming strategy for Paris, whether it's successful or not, will be very different than its programming strategy for LA.

Americans have gotten used to watching sporting events from Europe live during the morning and afternoon.  NBC is aware of that, and aware of the general attitude that people would rather watch something live than on tape delay.  So, in Paris, that's exactly what they'll do.  For the most part.  Completely live was never going to happen...and that's OK!  Because NBC is giving people what they want with its mostly-live Olympic coverage from Paris.

NBA Expansion Candidates

The NBA's new TV contract is finally all but signed, sealed and delivered.  We've long known the basics.  ESPN/ABC will remain the league's primary TV partner, but have fewer games in the new package, which sees NBC return to the fold and Amazon Prime join as a third partner.  TNT has had the NBA for years, but will be out unless it exercises its option to match one of the other bids (which doesn't seem likely).

What we didn't know was the value and length of the deal.  Well, it's an 11-year, $76 billion contract that will begin with the 2025-26 season.  And, with that all locked in and the NBA's financial status for the next decade now clear, the salary cap should see healthy annual increases.  The NBA can now also move on to other priorities, the biggest of which is expansion.

Expansion has been on the NBA's radar for a while.  Adam Silver hasn't been shy about the league's desire to expand, but didn't want to do anything until the media rights deal was signed.  Now that it is, I wouldn't be surprised if we hear about NBA expansion being a go pretty soon.  Silver has even mentioned potential candidates, two of which are incredibly obvious.

Las Vegas.  For a long time, it looked like the NBA would be the first major league to put a team in Las Vegas.  That honor went to the NHL instead, and I think it's safe to say the Golden Knights have been a resounding success.  They've since been joined by the Raiders, with the A's heading there in 2028.  And let's not forget the Las Vegas Aces, the two-time defending WNBA champions.  It's the NBA on the outside looking in.

That initial hesitancy about placing a team in Las Vegas has long since faded.  And you know they played the semifinals and final of the NBA Cup at T-Mobile Arena for a reason.  The NBA knows the golden opportunity staring them in the face.  It would be a shock if an NBA expansion team is placed anywhere but Las Vegas.

Seattle.  Likewise, it would be shocking if the other expansion team wasn't placed in Seattle.  It's still kind of raw for fans in the city that the Sonics, one of the NBA's first expansion teams in 1967, moved to Oklahoma City.  It's also crazy to think that was 16 years ago!  People have been waiting for the Sonics to return pretty much since they left, and this is the NBA's chance to follow through.

One of the main reasons the Sonics moved (arguably the main reason) was their arena.  They needed a new one, but couldn't get the funding for it.  That's no longer an issue.  Their old arena was torn down and completely rebuilt for the Kraken, and the Storm also play at Climate Pledge Arena.  Returning to Seattle would give the NBA a chance to right what many still perceive as a wrong.  And they know that the fanbase is there to support a revived Sonics franchise, as well.

Are Las Vegas and Seattle the obvious, safe options?  Yes.  But there's a reason for that.  And, yes, the NHL just expanded to both Las Vegas and Seattle within the last decade, so the NHL would essentially be "copying" them.  They're also the most logical choices, though, which is why they seem to be the most likely.  For argument's sake, though, let's assume they aren't locks.  What other cities could be under consideration?

Kansas City.  Kansas City built a downtown arena that opened in 2007, hoping to lure either an NBA or NHL team.  That obviously hasn't happened yet, but it does regularly host the Big 12 Tournament and NCAA Tournament.  Kansas City does have a history with the NBA, though.  The Kings played there for 14 years (splitting home games with Omaha for part of that time) before moving to Sacramento.

St. Louis.  If not Kansas City, why not go to the other side of Missouri in St. Louis?  St. Louis also has a history with the NBA as the former home of the Hawks, and the St. Louis Spirits were one of only two ABA teams still existing at the time of the merger that didn't join the NBA (although, their owners got a share of the TV revenue until 2014).  The Blues' arena, the Enterprise Center, hosts the Missouri Valley Conference Tournament every year.

Montreal.  I've seen some suggestions that the NBA might want to go to an international destination with an expansion team.  Why not place a second team in Canada, then, and place a team in Montreal?  They'd have a natural rival in Toronto, and you know they'd automatically dislike the Celtics, too.  The Bell Centre has the largest seating capacity in the NHL and can seat over 22,000 for basketball.

Vancouver.  Or, if you want a second Canadian team, how about trying again in Vancouver?  The Grizzlies didn't work there for a lot of reasons, but it could certainly be worth trying again.  Although, if you're bringing back the Sonics, would you want your other expansion team to be so close?  Especially since the Sonics would be reviving their rivalry with the Blazers, so it wouldn't exactly be Canucks-Kraken.

Mexico City.  Adam Silver has specifically mentioned Mexico City in the past.  It would definitely be bold.  It would make the NBA the first American pro league to establish a franchise South of the border, so this time they'd be the first league looking to establish a permanent hold in a vast, untapped market (the NFL and MLB have both played regular season games in Mexico City).  Would it be too bold of a move, though?

You could also make an argument for a city like Nashville or even a Louisville, but, really, the two obvious candidates are obvious for a reason.  The NBA could announce it's expanding tomorrow and Las Vegas and Seattle would be ready to welcome teams in 2025-26.  When/if the NBA expands, it would be shocking if it's to anywhere other than those two cities.

It's Not Better

Every Olympic year, when someone doesn't make the team at the Track & Field Trials, the critics come out, taking issue with the cutthroat selection method where the top three make the team and that's it (that's not always the case, but for the sake of this discussion, let's say it is).  Either perform on the day or you don't make the team.  It's unambiguous and straightforward.  There's no controversy surrounding the selections.  

That hasn't stopped those critics from calling the system "unfair" to potential Olympic medalists who end up getting left home.  Of course, I'd counter that argument with the fact that that's the entire point!  Everyone has an equal chance of making the team.  Letting the athletes decide the team themselves is actually the fairest method possible, especially since there are so many events where the U.S. has more than three athletes with the Olympic standard, making it impossible to choose otherwise.

While a vast majority of people agree that the selection process at the U.S. Olympic Track & Field Trials works perfectly and doesn't need to be changed, there will always be those calls to tweak the system.  The most common preference I've seen among those who favor a change would be doing something similar to what they do in Great Britain.  The top two finishers at the British Trials automatically make the team, while the third spot is decided by a selection committee.  A system that is ripe for controversy!

This year's British Olympic track & field team selection is all the proof you need that their system is, in fact, not better.  Because there were plenty of questionable choices (and non-choices) by the selection committee.  That ambiguity does not exist at the U.S. Trials, where the subjectivity is taken out of it.

The British team was announced last week, and UK Athletics has been under fire pretty much ever since.  The athletes themselves have been among the most vocal is their displeasure with how everything went down.  Actually, "disgust" is probably more appropriate than "displeasure."  Some of those athletes who've been screwed over have opted to retire rather than represent Great Britian, while others have encouraged those athletes who can to switch their allegiance to another country.  Still others have said they're "ashamed" to represent British Athletics after this fiasco.

Countries are limited to three entrants per event in Olympic track & field, provided they meet the qualifying criteria.  World Athletics has a target number of athletes for each event.  Roughly half the field is made up of those with the Olympic qualifying standard (which grants an athlete automatic entry as long as they're selected by their nation), with the rest of the field filled based on the world rankings.  The qualification period ended on June 30 (which was the last day of the U.S. Olympic Trials), after which nations and athletes knew whose world rankings were high enough to earn an Olympic place.

World Athletics purposely made the Olympic standard tougher for the Paris Games than it did for Tokyo because they didn't want the whole field to only be athletes with the standard.  They wanted the world rankings to come into play.  UK Athletics, however, had its own standard for making the Olympics, which, for some reason, was actually harder than the one set by World Athletics.  As a result, some British athletes who had the Olympic standard were left off the team because they didn't meet the arbitrary harder British standard.

It's worth noting here that we aren't talking about events where more than three Brits had the World Athletics standard, either.  Discus thrower Jade Lally would be in based on her world ranking, but isn't going to Paris because she didn't meet the British selection criteria.  Instead, Great Britain won't be entering anybody in the event.  Same thing in the men's steeplechase, where both Phil Norman and Zak Seddon would've made it, yet neither was chosen (for the same reason as Lally, because they didn't meet the standard set by UK Athletics).

They did it the other way, too.  Jake Wightman, the 2022 World champion in the men's 1500 meters, withdrew from the British Trials with an injury.  That didn't stop them from naming him to the team in the 800 (at the expense of third-place finisher Elliot Giles).  Even Wightman described the selection as throwing him a "lifeline."  

UK Athletics has been on the defensive since the team for Paris was announced, and UK Athletics Chair Ian Beattie published an article where he tried to justify the federation's reasoning.  His explanation, frankly, rings hollow.  The argument he made was essentially, these athletes have little to no chance at making the final in their event, so why bother?  He talked about "inspiring the nation" and said those athletes wouldn't do that.  He also claims that a larger team can "dilute the level of support given to our genuine medal contenders" and that it could have a demotivational effect.  Maybe he can explain to me how someone not making the women's discus final has any impact on the men's 1500-meter runners.  Because I don't get that thought process at all!

Great Britain only wants athletes who are capable of making the final and placing in the top eight.  This isn't me saying this.  Beattie point blank said it in his attempt to justify their position.  If they don't feel an athlete can make the top eight, they didn't select them for the team.  

On some level, you have to applaud them for wanting to send the best, most competitive team possible.  But their selection process is highly questionable.  These athletes are otherwise qualified according to the sport's international federation, only for their own national federation to say that isn't good enough.  That line of thinking is completely backwards!  You should want to send the largest team possible to a global championship.  At the very least, you shouldn't be intentionally making your team smaller by leaving qualified athletes home.

Those athletes who weren't chosen because of the UK Athletics criteria are understandably (and justifiably) angry about it.  Norman, who was just 0.15 seconds off the UK Athletics standard, called them out for essentially saying he's "not good enough."  Lally, meanwhile, had the best mark by a British women's discus thrower in 40 years, but fell 5 centimeters short of the country's standard, so she got left home, too, a decision that she described as "killing" the sport.

Some people would still probably argue that they prefer the British system.  If you were to ask the Brits, though, they'd most likely say that they like the American way better.  It's not arbitrary and it takes the politics out of it.  Most importantly, there's no controversy around it.  No one has to answer questions why certain athletes made it while others didn't or justify the process.  You either make the team or you don't.  It's plain and simple.  And it's all up to you.

2024 Joe Brackets All*Stars

I must admit, the current system of MLB All*Star voting has grown on me.  Ever since they introduced it a couple years ago (I think it was 2021 when they came back from the COVID cancellation in 2020), I've grown to like it more and more.  One of things I like the best is how, for the most part, the fans get it right now.  There are far fewer questionable starters who only got voted in because fans of their team just voted for everybody whether they deserved it or not.  Now, people actually need to pay attention, and the player who should be starting at his position usually ends up doing so.

Another thing that I like about it is how we know the starters ahead of time.  They always do that in the NHL and NBA, but MLB always made us wait until the entire team was announced, and that sometimes made it hard to pick the rest of the All*Stars because an undeserving starter might've swept in to take somebody else's spot.  That's no longer an issue.  Now, we know the starters ahead of time and have a few days to figure out the reserves based on that.

We're also getting a lot more variety in the selection of All*Star starters.  Of the 18 players chosen to start by the fans last season, only two of them won the fan vote again this year.  And Shohei Otani, of course, switched leagues, so Aaron Judge was the only player to be voted in representing the same league both years.  (Judge missed last year's All*Star Game due to injury, so Ohtani will be the only player who actually started in 2023 to start again in 2024, and both lineups will feature nine different starters than last season.)

Last year, the AL starting lineup was dominated by Texas Rangers.  They went on to win the World Series, which means they'll be represented this year by manager Bruce Bochy.  And, with this year's game in Arlington, he'll become the first manager to manage the All*Star Game in his home park since Bobby Cox in 2000.  As for the number of Rangers players who'll join him, I don't think that number will be too high.

And, I must say, the All*Star Game uniforms have got to go!  I know they won't because it was Nike's new thing that they introduced in 2021, and it's basically MLB's version of the City Connect (you know my feelings on those!), but this year's are particularly awful!  At the very least, can we go back to the old way where they wear their league uniforms for the Workout Day and Home Run Derby on Monday and their team uniforms in the All*Star Game itself?

Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest!  This year's NL uniforms are far less bad, but I feel bad for whoever makes the AL squad has to wear those monstrosities straight out of the mid-80s (kind of like the Padres' City Connects!).  And that should be a lot of Baltimore Orioles.  With good reason.  They've got Rutschman and Henderson each making the first of what should be many All*Star starts, and they'll figure to have a few teammates join them.

The AL roster, in fact, should feature several teams with multiple All*Stars.  That's more a consequence of there being several really bad AL teams than anything else.  As a result, I think there will be a higher amount of token team reps than usual.  Which is bad news for some potential All*Stars (especially pitchers) who'll end up not being selected because they had to be bumped for an Angel, White Sok or A.

In the National League, it may be a similar situation, although not as bad.  We've already got 3/4 of the Phillies infield and 2/3 of the Padres outfield, and I would imagine Jackson Merrill will make it 3-out-of-3.  Those two and the Dodgers should make up the bulk of the multi-All*Star teams.  So, with all that in mind, I present the 2024 Joe Brackets MLB All*Stars...

NATIONAL LEAGUE
C: *William Contreras (MIL), Will Smith (LAD)
1B: *Bryce Harper (PHI), Freddie Freeman (LAD)
2B: *Ketel Marte (ARZ), Luis Arraez (SD)
SS: *Trea Turner (PHI), Elly de la Cruz (CIN), Francisco Lindor (NYM)
3B: *Alec Bohm (PHI), Ryan McMahon (COL), Matt Chapman (SF)
OF: *Christian Yelich (MIL), *Jurickson Profar (SD), *Fernando Tatis Jr. (SD), Teoscar Hernandez (LAD), Bryan Reynolds (PIT), Jackson Merrill (SD)
DH: *Shohei Ohtani (LAD), Marcell Ozuna (ATL)
P: Raisel Iglesias (ATL), Chris Sale (ATL), Shota Imanaga (CHC), Tyler Glasnow (LAD), Gavin Stone (LAD), Tanner Scott (MIA), Ranger Suarez (PHI), Paul Skenes (PIT), Robert Suarez (SD), Sonny Gray (STL), Ryan Helsley (STL), Dylan Floro (WSH)

AMERICAN LEAGUE
C: *Adley Rutschman (BAL), Salvador Perez (KC)
1B: *Vladimir Guerrero Jr. (TOR), Josh Naylor (CLE), Yandy Diaz (TB)
2B: *Jose Altuve (HOU), Marcus Semien (TEX)
SS: *Gunnar Henderson (BAL), Bobby Witt Jr. (KC)
3B: *Jose Ramirez (CLE), Jordan Westburg (BAL), Rafael Devers (BOS)
OF: *Aaron Judge (NYY), *Juan Soto (NYY), *Steven Kwan (CLE), Jarren Duran (BOS), Riley Greene (DET), Willi Castro (MIN)
DH: *Yordan Alvarez (HOU), Ryan O'Hearn (BAL)
P: Corbin Burnes (BAL), Craig Kimbrel (BAL), Garrett Crochet (CWS), Tanner Bibee (CLE), Emmanuel Clase (CLE), Tarik Skubal (DET), Ronel Blanco (HOU), Seth Lugo (KC), Carlos Estevez (LAA), Clay Holmes (NYY), Mason Miller (OAK), Andres Munoz (SEA)

During the starters announcement on ESPN, they had a rather lively debate about how the lineups should be constructed.  It really is hard to go wrong in the All*Star Game, but it is valid.  Does the NL have Ohtani lead off?  Talk about a way to start the All*Star Game!  (In 1981, Pete Rose insisted on leading off for the National League so that he'd be the first batter after the strike.)  And does the AL go with their old standby Jose Altuve or reward Gunnar Henderson for the first half he's put together?

Here's how I think Torey Lovullo and Bruce Bochy should make out their lineup cards...
NL: Marte-2B, Ohtani-DH, Harper-1B, Bohm-3B, Tatis-RF, Yelich-CF, Contreras-C, Profar-LF, Turner-SS
AL: Altuve-2B, Soto-RF, Judge-CF, Guerrero-1B, Ramirez-3B, Rutschman-C, Alvarez-DH, Henderson-SS, Kwan-LF

As for the starting pitchers, so much more always goes into that discussion.  It's not just performance taken into account, but when they last pitched, their turn in the rotation, whether their team wants them to throw, etc.  Last year, we ended up with two good choices in Gerrit Cole and Zac Gallen.  I don't think there's an obvious starter on either side, but both managers have a pair of good options to choose between.

In the NL, I've got it down to Chris Sale and Paul Skenes.  It turns out Sale just needed to get out of Boston!  His career has been revived in Atlanta, and he's probably the leading candidate for NL Comeback Player of the Year.  But Skenes has been nothing short of electrifying since his call-up in May.  The No. 1 overall pick last year is much more than Livvie Dunne's boyfriend.  His All*Star selection will be well-deserved and, should he start, it would be warranted.

If you'd asked me in May who the AL's starting pitcher would be, I would've said another rookie--the Yankees' Luis Gil.  Gil has fallen back to Earth big time, though, and, as you could see, I don't even have him making the team.  Instead, I think the start should come down to Corbin Burnes and Seth Lugo.  Although, a strong case could also be made for Garrett Crochet, who was the White Sox' Opening Day starter despite having never started a game in his Major League career prior to this season.

Sale is lined up to pitch Monday, which means he'll probably also go on Saturday.  Skenes pitched on Friday, so he'll make a midweek start for his final start before the All*Star break.  And that's why I'm going with Paul Skenes as my National League starting pitcher.  Likewise, Lugo should be lined up after a Saturday start to only go once during the week next week.  Kansas City deserves to have a starter after the first half they've had, too, so Seth Lugo is my choice to start the All*Star Game for the American League.

The Caitlin Clark Effect

There's no denying the impact that Caitlin Clark has had on the sport of women's basketball.  Ratings for the NCAA Tournament skyrocketed during Iowa's back-to-back runs to the Championship Game.  And it wasn't just Iowa.  It led to increased interest in women's college basketball across the board.

Clark's popularity is without question, but some wondered whether the attention she generates would carry over into the WNBA.  Through the first half of her rookie season, all indications are that the momentum she's created isn't going down at all.  Quite the opposite, actually.  The Caitlin Clark Effect is real.  She's done just as much to increase interest in the WNBA as she did for women's college basketball.  The proof is in the numbers.

Caitlin Clark is so popular, in fact, that she evidently impacted other sports without even trying.  The UFL just concluded its first season and, while the league was happy with its TV numbers, the in-stadium attendance figures were disappointing.  Oddly, Daryl Johnston, the UFL's Executive VP of Football Operations, said Clark was one of the reasons.  Since, apparently, the WNBA and spring football are going after the same target audience.  The Caitlin Clark Effect is THAT powerful!

What Johnston said is obviously ridiculous, but there are other, more tangible, numbers that show just how popular Clark is.  Voting for the WNBA All*Star Game just concluded.  Clark, not surprisingly, was the leading vote-getter with more than 700,000 votes.  Last year's leading vote-getter was A'ja Wilson of the Las Vegas Aces...with 95,860!  The top five vote-getters in 2023 received 391,639 total votes.  This year, Clark got nearly double that by herself.  Overall, there was a 600 percent increase in the amount of votes cast this year compared to last year.

The WNBA's TV ratings are also higher than they've ever been.  Clark ended up on the Indiana Fever because they were terrible last year, which is how they got the No. 1 pick in the WNBA Draft.  Because they have Clark, though, most of the Fever's games have ended up on national television...which has proven to be a wise decision.  Again, the Caitlin Clark Effect.

They also loaded up on Indiana's games that they knew would be the biggest ratings-generators early in the season.  The Fever's first four games were against either the Sun or Liberty (two of the best teams in the league), and they've already played both teams three times.  They've also played the Chicago Sky, who have a highly-touted rookie of their own in Angel Reese, three times, and the most recent of those games on June 25 averaged 2.25 million viewers, making it the most-watched WNBA game in 23 years.

Whether that ratings success continues into the second half of the season is anyone's guess.  Clark and Indiana won't be featured on national TV nearly as much after the Olympic break, when the WNBA will also be competing with the start of the NFL and college football seasons.  They'll also hope to keep this momentum going after a month off, although, the U.S. winning another Olympic gold could certainly help provide a boost.

That Olympic break actually starts with the WNBA All*Star Game, which is set for July 20, less than a week before the Opening Ceremony in Paris.  We'll get our first look at the Olympic team during the WNBA All*Star Game, too, since in Olympic years, the matchup is Team USA vs. Team WNBA.  There were a lot of people who thought Clark should be on the Olympic team, so you know people will tune in to see her play against Team USA instead.

One of her teammates on Team WNBA will be Angel Reese.  The rivalry between the two has been brewing since Reese's LSU team beat Clark's Iowa squad in the 2023 National Championship Game, and it's only grown since they moved to the WNBA with Indiana and Chicago.  They'll be the faces of the WNBA for the next decade, and their rivalry certainly hasn't hurt the hype.  This is the first time they'll be teammates (although, you'd have to figure they'll both be Team USA regulars moving forward, as well).  And I think a lot of people may tune in just to see the two of them playing together.

While Clark has definitely been a huge factor in the WNBA's increased popularity, it wouldn't be fair to give her all the credit.  Because it's not just her.  Fellow rookies Reese and Cameron Brink (who, unfortunately, is out for the season after tearing her ACL) have helped, too.  And, while the rookies brought people in, it's the talented players who were already in the league who've kept those newfound fans watching.

Although, as much as they claim otherwise, Reese and Brink aren't the draw Clark is.  Most WNBA teams play in smaller venues than their NBA counterparts.  The demand for tickets to see Caitlin Clark is so high, though, that several teams have had to move their home game against Indiana to the NBA venue.  The Fever played the Aces in Las Vegas the other day in front of 20,000 fans at a sold-out T-Mobile Arena (many of whom were wearing No. 22 Fever or Iowa jerseys).

Indiana has gone from the second-lowest attendance in the league to the highest.  The Fever have drawn over 15,000 for every home game and have sold out the 17,274-seat Gainsbridge Fieldhouse five times this season.  Not surprisingly, they also lead the WNBA in road attendance.  Indiana has outdrawn the Liberty, who rank second in the WNBA in attendance, by 3,000 fans per game.  They were drawing fans despite starting the season 1-7 (a direct result of playing so many games against Connecticut and New York early).  Now they're winning!

Those attendance figures can be attributed almost entirely to Caitlin Clark.  Last year, only two WNBA teams, the Aces and Mercury, had an average attendance over 9,000.  Most WNBA games not involving the Fever don't even draw that many fans.  And teams certainly aren't moving games to larger venues when they play other opponents.  That may change in the future.  Hopefully it will.  But, right now, it's only Caitlin Clark and the Indiana Fever who are doing that.

This hopefully is just the beginning for the WNBA.  ESPN has even talked about potentially sharing the WNBA Finals with another network for the good of the league if it means they can get more in rights fees.  That likely wouldn't have been possible if not for Caitlin Clark.  The impact she's had on the WNBA in half of one season is immeasurable.  And it only figures to increase.  From in-arena attendance to TV ratings, the Caitlin Clark Effect is real.

Time For a Change

When the U.S. Men's National Team was poised to rehire Gregg Berhalter after the 2022 World Cup, I was all for it.  Even after all that stuff with the Reynas airing his dirty laundry came out, I still felt he was the right man for the job and that certainly shouldn't have disqualified him (especially after the details of what actually happened emerged).  I no longer feel that way.  Not after what happened in Copa America.

While it's not the low of failing to qualify for the 2018 World Cup, it's pretty close.  Nobody thought the United States would win the Copa America.  Getting out of a group that included Uruguay, Panama and Bolivia was the bare minimum people were expecting.  Instead, the Americans lost two games and managed to do something that had never happened before.  For the first time in 20 global/regional international tournaments they've hosted, they failed to get past the group stage.

That stat is bad enough.  What makes it worse, though, is what this Copa America meant to the U.S. Men's National Team.  It's less than two years until the United States hosts the 2026 World Cup.  This World Cup won't be like the 1994 World Cup.  People are expecting the U.S. to make some noise two years from now.  This was the biggest tournament the team will play in before that.  It was supposed to be the test of how they stack up against the top South American teams heading into the biggest tournament in U.S. soccer history.  Not only did it not go well, it was a total embarrassment!

It isn't just that they lost.  It's how.  After a great opening win over Bolivia, everything turned when Tim Weah got a (deserved) red card in the 18th minute against Panama.  The U.S. is better than Panama.  They know this.  Panama knows this.  But Panama's also a familiar opponent, made the game ugly, and took advantage of playing with an extra man for the better part of the final 70 minutes.

So, instead of the Uruguay game being essentially meaningless and only deciding seeding, it became a must-win.  While Uruguay is a good team, it was definitely a winnable game, and the U.S. started off well.  However, they generated no offensive chances until the end (when they were down a goal and had to press the issue).  No matter how well you play defensively, you can't win if you don't score.  It's that simple.  It was a must-win game, but they showed little to no urgency and at no point did you think the goal they needed (which eventually became the two goals they needed) would come.

Once again, the U.S. men fell to a highly-ranked opponent.  They've proven they can beat the other CONCACAF teams (the loss to Panama notwithstanding).  What they haven't done in Berhalter's tenure is beat a top team from Europe or South America.  In a pre-tournament friendly, they got their butts kicked 5-1 by Colombia, but did earn a draw against Brazil in their next game.  If the U.S. wants to be taken seriously as a contender on the world stage, they need to win those games.  Or, at the very least, be competitive against those teams.  That hasn't happened.

Since Berhalter's rehiring, the results simply haven't been there.  The team's record is right around .500 over the past 12 months, and the wins haven't exactly come against a who's who of the top teams in FIFA (Oman, Uzbekistan, Canada, Trinidad & Tobago).  They won the CONCACAF Nations League Finals in March (big freakin' deal!), but their only other win in 2024 was the Bolivia game in Copa America.  Meanwhile, they got smacked by Colombia and had a loss to Slovenia in January, in addition to the losses to Panama and Uruguay.

You can't say it's because of a lack of talent, either.  By all accounts, this is the best group of players the U.S. Men's National Team has ever had.  They're pretty much all based in Europe playing for some of the top clubs in the world, and, for the most part, actually playing.  Now, they aren't the "golden generation" as some want to claim since they haven't done anything to earn that title (which will always belong to the Landon Donovan/Clint Dempsey teams anyway), but the players are certainly good enough to hang with the world's best.

Berhalter seems to have the support of the locker room, too.  During the whole Reyna saga, the players publicly declared that they wanted him back, and they all seem to genuinely like him.  Even after they fizzled out of the Copa America, they had Berhalter's back.  But what else would you expect them to say...especially right after the game? 

And, frankly, the fact that the players like him so much may be part of the problem.  How much accountability is there in the locker room?  Have they gotten too complacent?  As Carli Lloyd said during the postgame, the women's players hated their coaches when she played for the National Team.  But you know what?  They got results.  So, whatever they were doing was obviously working.  And does it really matter if the players like their coach as long as the team wins?

You can't exactly get rid of the players, either.  Sure, you can make changes to the lineup or go to a different tactical formation, but the players themselves aren't the problem.  You aren't replacing Christian Pulisic or Tyler Adams with someone better.  Because that person doesn't exist.  So, it's up to the coach to get the best out of the talent he's got on the roster (and there's plenty of it).

Which brings me back to the coaching.  Jurgen Klinsmann got the boot in 2016 after a pair of disastrous results in World Cup qualifying.  He was replaced by Bruce Arena, who only lasted until the end of that unsuccessful qualifying campaign.  So, it's not unprecedented for U.S. Soccer to dismiss a coach based on the team's poor performance.  And that's exactly what the 2024 Copa America was.  Actually, scratch that.  It wasn't just a poor performance.  It was a terrible, embarrassing performance.

Fans of the U.S. Men's National Team deserve better than the display they saw at Copa America.  Sure, there were a bunch of other factors that had a direct bearing on the results (terrible officiating is right there at the top of the list), but the bottom line is they failed.  The team didn't get the job done on the biggest stage they've had since the Qatar World Cup and the only big stage they will have until they host the next World Cup.

The performance at Copa America did nothing to inspire confidence heading into the only home World Cup for a generation.  Keeping Gregg Berhalter as the team's manager wouldn't do anything to restore that confidence, either.  In fact, it would just be doubling down on something that clearly isn't working.  So, there really seems to be only one logical solution.  The U.S. Men's National Team needs a change at the top.  Immediately.