Man, a lot of stuff happened today. And LA was at the center of a good amount of it. First, they officially agreed to a deal to host the 2028 Olympics (which we all knew was going to happen). Then the Dodgers, who were already the best team in baseball, got a whole lot better. They're going to be playing in October. We already knew that. That's not enough for the Dodgers. Their trades for Yu Darvish and two relievers today made it perfectly clear that they expect to be playing until the end of October.
Last season, we saw the Cubs go all-in as they attempted to break their 108-year curse. It worked, as Aroldis Chapman's left arm carried them to their first World Series title since 1908. The Dodgers' wait hasn't been quite that long. But for a team that's accustomed to winning, 29 years without even playing in the World Series is a long time. As one of their players said last week, "We're tired of seeing highlights from 1988 on the scoreboard." Well, the chances of 2017 highlights being played on the Dodger Stadium scoreboard, which were already good, have gone up exponentially.
Clayton Kershaw is the best pitcher on the planet. LA hasn't lost a game that he started since early May. But, Kershaw's way of proving that he actually is human is to go on the DL with back problems. That's where he currently is. The Dodgers insist he'll be fine for the playoffs, and they have no reason to rush him back before he's ready. But, unless you're the 2014 Giants, you can't win the World Series with one pitcher. Especially not one who isn't 100 percent.
Did the Dodgers need to get insurance behind Kershaw? Maybe. Their offense is so ridiculous that their starting pitching just needed to be good enough. But there are injury concerns with the other guys, too. Enter Yu Darvish. He was expected to be one of the highest-profile starters on the move, but I don't think anyone saw the Dodgers coming. Yet they swooped in at the 11th hour, giving themselves a solid No. 2 behind Kershaw and proving to everyone that they're all-in to win this year.
If this team had one flaw, it was the bullpen. The Dodgers' pitching between the starters and Kenley Jansen was suspect at best. So they took care of that problem, too. In fact, they took care of it twice. They got a pair of lefty set up guys--Tony Watson from Pittsburgh and Tony Cigriani from Cincinnati. Suddenly that bullpen just got a lot more formidable. And now they have the lefties to counter Bryce Harper and Daniel Murphy for a potential NLCS matchup against Washington.
Speaking of the Nationals, they, like the Dodgers, have had nothing but playoff disappointment in recent seasons. And like the Dodgers, their biggest area of need was the bullpen. They knew it, which is why they struck early to get Oakland's Ryan Madson and Sean Doolittle. And today they made their bullpen that much better by getting Twins All-Star closer Brandon Kintzler.
I'm not saying the Dodgers and Nationals are on a collision course for the NLCS. Playoff baseball is too unpredictable to make that claim. But they're head-and-shoulders above the rest of the National League (sorry, Cubs), and the only team I can see beating one is the other.
Meanwhile, in the American League, it's hard not to like what the Yankees have done. That trade with the White Sox improved an already solid bullpen. But as good as that bullpen is, they weren't going to do any winning in October with the starting rotation the way it was. You can't say that anymore. Sure, Gray to the Yankees had seemed inevitable for weeks. That doesn't change the fact that this trade (and the trade for Jaime Garcia, which now gives them six starters) has made the Yankees, who haven't won a playoff game in five years, the favorites in the AL East.
In fact, I'd even venture to say that they're the favorites in the entire American League. Yes, Houston has been the best team in the AL all season. But the Astros didn't really do anything to improve themselves, and their starting pitching is a major question mark. And, as we've seen time and again, it's hard to outslug everybody in the playoffs.
Which brings me back to the Dodgers. They can easily outscore you (their run differential of +185 is easily the largest in baseball). But pitching is what wins in October. Their pitching was already good (they're the only team that's allowed fewer than 400 runs this season). Now it's a whole lot better. And, it's more than just Kershaw.
Like the 2009 Yankees, last year's Cubs were so much better than everybody else that it would've been a shock if they didn't win the World Series. The 2017 Dodgers have entered that territory. They can go 26-31 the rest of the way and still win 100 games!
The World Series is more than two months away, but the Dodgers fully expect to be there. And who can blame them? They were already the best team in baseball. Now they're even better.
Monday, July 31, 2017
Saturday, July 29, 2017
Obscure Sports of the World Games
Part of my excitement for the launch of the Olympic Channel a few weeks ago was the opportunity to watch the World Games for the first time. I knew what the World Games were, but I'd never seen many of the sports that make up the program, so I was curious to see them. And it's definitely a mixed bag.
The World Games were first held in 1981 and are the "Olympics for non-Olympic sports." In fact, current Olympic sports such as badminton, beach volleyball, triathlon and rugby were first featured in the World Games, and I think the IOC requires World Games inclusion before a sport can be considered for the Olympics (although I'm not sure surfing and skateboarding have ever been in the World Games).
Sport climbing, for example, will make its Olympic debut in Tokyo, and we got a sneak peek of the sport in Wroclaw (the site of this year's World Games). Likewise, karate, which has been a staple of the World Games program, will be featured in the Olympics for the first time in Tokyo. So, this could very well have been the final World Games appearance for both sports, since once a sport's in the Olympics, it's no longer in the World Games, making their status uncertain for 2021 in Birmingham, Alabama (yes, the next World Games are in Birmingham, Alabama).
Although, Olympic inclusion doesn't completely eliminate a sport from the World Games program. Rhythmic gymnastics is in both. In the Olympics, there's a team event and an individual all-around. Those two events aren't in the World Games, but individual event finals (think the apparatus finals in regular gymnastics) are. Same thing with trampoline. The individual event is in the Olympics, so it's not in the World Games, but plenty of other trampoline events are.
Archery, meanwhile, features in both Games, although it's completely different versions of the sport. In the Olympics, it's straight shooting at the target 70 meters away. In the World Games, the targets are really small, I have no idea how far they are, and there are like trees and stuff in the way. It's kinda like the way hunting with a bow & arrow must've been.
There are also the sports (like sport climbing) that would be great fits in the Olympic program, but are biding their time in the World Games until then. Like squash, which I've advocated for, and roller speed skating (roller figure skating is part of the World Games, too, but probably much farther from Olympic inclusion).
As for the rest of the World Games sports, they're definitely a mixed bag. There's a bunch that you could see possibly being in an Olympics someday if they opened them up to more sports, but seem destined (at least for the time being) to have the World Games be their ultimate showcase. Some are pretty cool, some are downright strange (if not really stupid). And there are variations of existing Olympic sports.
So what sports are featured in the World Games? Acrobatics. Billiards, a bunch of different types. Orienteering, which is basically being given a map and sent running through the city. Kickboxing. Water skiing/wakeboarding. "Air sports," a general grouping that includes parachuting and other events that involve a plane. Canoe polo (which is a misnomer, since it's played in kayaks). Power lifting factors body weight into the final score, an idea that Olympic weightlifting would be smart to adopt.
One of my favorite World Games sports is beach handball (yes, for the obvious reason). There's one element of the sport I don't understand, though. They play two timed "sets," and if the teams split the sets they go to a shootout. But if the "sets" are timed, why not just call them "halves" and use the cumulative score to determine the winner?
Beach handball isn't the only team sport in the World Games. There's also roller hockey and ultimate frisbee (which is called "flying disc"). They even had a football tournament, but that's not an official World Games sport, and women's lacrosse is making its debut this year. Floorball is pretty much floor hockey. Fistball actually looks pretty cool. The easiest way to describe it is volleyball where you can only punch it (one bounce is allowed) played outdoors on a field that's probably similar to the size of a lacrosse field.
Then there's korfball. Korfball definitely qualifies as one of the strangest sports I've ever seen. It's kinda like basketball, except the hoop doesn't have a backboard and is in the middle of the court (where a lacrosse goal would be). Oh, and the teams are coed.
But korfball isn't the only World Games sport that left me scratching my head. I'm just as confused about lifesaving. Now, when I heard lifesaving was in the World Games, I figured it was the type Australians are good at where you run out into the ocean and do various lifesaving skills in open water. But no. This takes place in a pool. It's essentially regular swimming, except they swim to one end of the pool, pick up a mannequin and bring it back. Or the "obstacle race" involves swimming under a flag in the water. Why not just do regular swimming (which I can also say about the World Games sport of finswimming)?
Nevertheless, it's definitely been fun watching the World Games. If nothing else, it's been worthwhile seeing some of these sports for the first time. I've gained a new appreciation for some, and may even find myself rooting for them to be added to the Olympic program in the future. (Let's not get carried away, though. I'm not planning a trip to Alabama for the World Games four years from now.)
The World Games were first held in 1981 and are the "Olympics for non-Olympic sports." In fact, current Olympic sports such as badminton, beach volleyball, triathlon and rugby were first featured in the World Games, and I think the IOC requires World Games inclusion before a sport can be considered for the Olympics (although I'm not sure surfing and skateboarding have ever been in the World Games).
Sport climbing, for example, will make its Olympic debut in Tokyo, and we got a sneak peek of the sport in Wroclaw (the site of this year's World Games). Likewise, karate, which has been a staple of the World Games program, will be featured in the Olympics for the first time in Tokyo. So, this could very well have been the final World Games appearance for both sports, since once a sport's in the Olympics, it's no longer in the World Games, making their status uncertain for 2021 in Birmingham, Alabama (yes, the next World Games are in Birmingham, Alabama).
Although, Olympic inclusion doesn't completely eliminate a sport from the World Games program. Rhythmic gymnastics is in both. In the Olympics, there's a team event and an individual all-around. Those two events aren't in the World Games, but individual event finals (think the apparatus finals in regular gymnastics) are. Same thing with trampoline. The individual event is in the Olympics, so it's not in the World Games, but plenty of other trampoline events are.
Archery, meanwhile, features in both Games, although it's completely different versions of the sport. In the Olympics, it's straight shooting at the target 70 meters away. In the World Games, the targets are really small, I have no idea how far they are, and there are like trees and stuff in the way. It's kinda like the way hunting with a bow & arrow must've been.
There are also the sports (like sport climbing) that would be great fits in the Olympic program, but are biding their time in the World Games until then. Like squash, which I've advocated for, and roller speed skating (roller figure skating is part of the World Games, too, but probably much farther from Olympic inclusion).
As for the rest of the World Games sports, they're definitely a mixed bag. There's a bunch that you could see possibly being in an Olympics someday if they opened them up to more sports, but seem destined (at least for the time being) to have the World Games be their ultimate showcase. Some are pretty cool, some are downright strange (if not really stupid). And there are variations of existing Olympic sports.
So what sports are featured in the World Games? Acrobatics. Billiards, a bunch of different types. Orienteering, which is basically being given a map and sent running through the city. Kickboxing. Water skiing/wakeboarding. "Air sports," a general grouping that includes parachuting and other events that involve a plane. Canoe polo (which is a misnomer, since it's played in kayaks). Power lifting factors body weight into the final score, an idea that Olympic weightlifting would be smart to adopt.
One of my favorite World Games sports is beach handball (yes, for the obvious reason). There's one element of the sport I don't understand, though. They play two timed "sets," and if the teams split the sets they go to a shootout. But if the "sets" are timed, why not just call them "halves" and use the cumulative score to determine the winner?
Beach handball isn't the only team sport in the World Games. There's also roller hockey and ultimate frisbee (which is called "flying disc"). They even had a football tournament, but that's not an official World Games sport, and women's lacrosse is making its debut this year. Floorball is pretty much floor hockey. Fistball actually looks pretty cool. The easiest way to describe it is volleyball where you can only punch it (one bounce is allowed) played outdoors on a field that's probably similar to the size of a lacrosse field.
Then there's korfball. Korfball definitely qualifies as one of the strangest sports I've ever seen. It's kinda like basketball, except the hoop doesn't have a backboard and is in the middle of the court (where a lacrosse goal would be). Oh, and the teams are coed.
But korfball isn't the only World Games sport that left me scratching my head. I'm just as confused about lifesaving. Now, when I heard lifesaving was in the World Games, I figured it was the type Australians are good at where you run out into the ocean and do various lifesaving skills in open water. But no. This takes place in a pool. It's essentially regular swimming, except they swim to one end of the pool, pick up a mannequin and bring it back. Or the "obstacle race" involves swimming under a flag in the water. Why not just do regular swimming (which I can also say about the World Games sport of finswimming)?
Nevertheless, it's definitely been fun watching the World Games. If nothing else, it's been worthwhile seeing some of these sports for the first time. I've gained a new appreciation for some, and may even find myself rooting for them to be added to the Olympic program in the future. (Let's not get carried away, though. I'm not planning a trip to Alabama for the World Games four years from now.)
Thursday, July 27, 2017
Rejecting Relegation
As I sit here watching the Gold Cup final, I can't help thinking about the news announced the other day about MLS, the league that provides many of the players on the national teams in the Americas. It was the talk of the sports media world when it became public. MLS rejected a $4 billion TV deal, which would've quadrupled the league's current deal with ESPN and FOX.
Why? Because the new deal would've required promotion and relegation, which made it a non-starter for MLS. FIFA has long called for MLS to institute a promotion/relegation system like every other top-flight league in the world, and MLS has continually rejected the notion. But this was the strongest statement yet that promotion/relegation isn't happening in MLS anytime soon...likely ever.
It's worth noting here that there were definitely ulterior motives behind this promotion/relegation mandate. The offer was made by the international media company MP & Silva, which just happens to own Miami FC, which currently plays in the NASL. And with MLS poised to award David Beckham an expansion team in the city, Miami FC's chances of joining MLS would appear to be slim to none. Unless, of course, they were to earn promotion from the lower league.
MLS could've just given Silva a flat "No," but was actually pretty diplomatic in its response. For starters, the current TV contract doesn't expire until 2023, so we're talking six years down the road. And, regardless, ESPN and FOX have an exclusive window to renegotiate the rights before they can even be opened up to other bids. That and, as the MLS VP for communications pointed out, the league deals directly with the networks in negotiations, not third parties...before throwing in at the end, "We are not in a position, nor are we interested, in engaging with Mr. Silva on his proposal."
So, in my eyes, this was nothing more than a blatant attempt by Silva to draw attention to himself. He's a disgruntled NASL owner who's frustrated his team can't get into MLS. He's trying to make them out to be the bad guys, but the explanation offered by MLS is beyond reasonable. In fact, it kinda makes him look like an idiot. If nothing can change until six years from now at the earliest, why even bring it up? Unless it's for self-serving purposes?
Of course, there are plenty of other reasons MLS has no interest in implementing a promotion/relegation system. Perhaps the most obvious is that there are two leagues that could be considered "Triple A." Would you promote a team from the NASL or the USL? Or both? (Although, you could always relegate two and promote one from each.)
There are also expansion plans in the works for MLS, beyond just Beckham's Miami team. Their goal is to have 28 teams by the end of the decade, which would make MLS the largest top-flight league in the world. With expansion fees at $150 million apiece, four additional teams means an extra $600 million to spread among the existing owners. Promotion and relegation wouldn't just make potential owners less willing to pay that expansion fee, it would decrease the existing franchise values (how much to English clubs lose in a given year when they're relegated from the Premier League?).
Besides, just because a team plays in the NASL doesn't mean they can't eventually join MLS. The Montreal Impact started as an NASL team. So did the Vancouver Whitecaps. So did the Portland Timbers. So did Minnesota United. And some of the cities under consideration for expansion (St. Louis, Nashville, Indianapolis) are being considered mainly because they have successful second-tier teams.
The main reason why MLS refuses to even consider a promotion/relegation system, though, is because they don't need to. After 20 years, they've found their place as the fifth major professional North American sport. Sure, there are the people who prefer the Premier League and deride MLS as "second-rate" compared to European leagues, but there's no denying MLS has found a business model that works...and has no need to mess with it!
In fact, Silva's proposal is, in a way, a great compliment to MLS. Just think, MLS was created primarily as a condition of the U.S. getting the World Cup. Now, 20 years later, its place on the North American sports scene is secure and it's so financially stable that the league just keeps growing. MLS is so stable that potential owners are chomping at the bit to join the party. Who ever could've seen that coming?
Why? Because the new deal would've required promotion and relegation, which made it a non-starter for MLS. FIFA has long called for MLS to institute a promotion/relegation system like every other top-flight league in the world, and MLS has continually rejected the notion. But this was the strongest statement yet that promotion/relegation isn't happening in MLS anytime soon...likely ever.
It's worth noting here that there were definitely ulterior motives behind this promotion/relegation mandate. The offer was made by the international media company MP & Silva, which just happens to own Miami FC, which currently plays in the NASL. And with MLS poised to award David Beckham an expansion team in the city, Miami FC's chances of joining MLS would appear to be slim to none. Unless, of course, they were to earn promotion from the lower league.
MLS could've just given Silva a flat "No," but was actually pretty diplomatic in its response. For starters, the current TV contract doesn't expire until 2023, so we're talking six years down the road. And, regardless, ESPN and FOX have an exclusive window to renegotiate the rights before they can even be opened up to other bids. That and, as the MLS VP for communications pointed out, the league deals directly with the networks in negotiations, not third parties...before throwing in at the end, "We are not in a position, nor are we interested, in engaging with Mr. Silva on his proposal."
So, in my eyes, this was nothing more than a blatant attempt by Silva to draw attention to himself. He's a disgruntled NASL owner who's frustrated his team can't get into MLS. He's trying to make them out to be the bad guys, but the explanation offered by MLS is beyond reasonable. In fact, it kinda makes him look like an idiot. If nothing can change until six years from now at the earliest, why even bring it up? Unless it's for self-serving purposes?
Of course, there are plenty of other reasons MLS has no interest in implementing a promotion/relegation system. Perhaps the most obvious is that there are two leagues that could be considered "Triple A." Would you promote a team from the NASL or the USL? Or both? (Although, you could always relegate two and promote one from each.)
There are also expansion plans in the works for MLS, beyond just Beckham's Miami team. Their goal is to have 28 teams by the end of the decade, which would make MLS the largest top-flight league in the world. With expansion fees at $150 million apiece, four additional teams means an extra $600 million to spread among the existing owners. Promotion and relegation wouldn't just make potential owners less willing to pay that expansion fee, it would decrease the existing franchise values (how much to English clubs lose in a given year when they're relegated from the Premier League?).
Besides, just because a team plays in the NASL doesn't mean they can't eventually join MLS. The Montreal Impact started as an NASL team. So did the Vancouver Whitecaps. So did the Portland Timbers. So did Minnesota United. And some of the cities under consideration for expansion (St. Louis, Nashville, Indianapolis) are being considered mainly because they have successful second-tier teams.
The main reason why MLS refuses to even consider a promotion/relegation system, though, is because they don't need to. After 20 years, they've found their place as the fifth major professional North American sport. Sure, there are the people who prefer the Premier League and deride MLS as "second-rate" compared to European leagues, but there's no denying MLS has found a business model that works...and has no need to mess with it!
In fact, Silva's proposal is, in a way, a great compliment to MLS. Just think, MLS was created primarily as a condition of the U.S. getting the World Cup. Now, 20 years later, its place on the North American sports scene is secure and it's so financially stable that the league just keeps growing. MLS is so stable that potential owners are chomping at the bit to join the party. Who ever could've seen that coming?
Monday, July 24, 2017
Switch BP Times
With the Yankees headed back home for the first time since the All*Star Break, I got to thinking about something that was discussed a lot during the Home Run Derby, where Aaron Judge put on a show. Aaron Judge puts on a show during batting practice everyday. Yet Yankees fans never get to see that show unless they go to a road game.
It's a long-standing baseball practice that the home team hits first in batting practice. This is standard across the Major Leagues, and I'd imagine it's the same in the Minors. What I'm not sure of is whether or not it's a rule that the home team has to go first. But I wouldn't imagine Because it doesn't really make that much sense.
In college baseball, it makes complete sense that the home team takes batting practice first. The visiting team is most likely traveling by bus from either their campus or a hotel. By taking batting practice second, they have extra travel time and no long break between BP and the game.
I would imagine that travel considerations are part of the reason Major League Baseball has kept that traditional order of home team first/road team second. (Although, how many road teams are traveling any further than from a hotel to the ballpark these days?) It's also very familiar to the players, who have their pregame routines that they've become comfortable with. Are those good enough reasons to stick with the status quo, though?
Major League Baseball is evidently looking into the batting practice order and considering a change. Which they should. Because Aaron Judge isn't the only player who puts on a show during BP. There are plenty of sluggers who do. Except they're doing it in empty stadiums. Even the fans who come early to check out BP don't get to see them. Because they're doing it before the gates open!
Fans aren't coming to the ballpark early to watch the visiting team take batting practice. They don't care who the guys on the other team are. They just want a baseball. But if you switched the order and had the home team bat second (just like in the game), my prediction is that the number of people who come early to watch BP would at least double. And they wouldn't just be trying to catch a home run ball, either. They'd be there to watch the Aaron Judge Show. Or the Giancarlo Stanton Show. Or the (insert hometown slugger here) show.
The Yankees understand the ridiculous desire their fans have to watch Aaron Judge take batting practice. That was one of the reasons they had the "BP Block Party" earlier this season, where they opened the gates an hour earlier so that fans could, among other activities, watch the Yankees take BP. Of course, it started to rain, so the BP part of the BP Block Party ended early, but the idea is one that more teams should embrace.
When I told my dad about the BP Block Party and everything they were doing, he told me about how much fun he used to have when he was a kid and would do the same thing. Except they did it all the time back then. The game started at 2:00 and they opened the gates at 11:00, meaning the hometown fans would get to watch Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris and Yogi Berra take batting practice every day. Nowadays, the only batting practice you get to see is the other team.
A simple solution would be to just to do what they did back then and open the gates an hour earlier. However, it's a lot to ask of the fans to spend three hours at the ballpark before the game even starts (even if it does mean you'll have significantly more beer sales). There's no reason to open the gates early, though. Not when there's an even better solution out there.
Baseball is for the fans. And the fans don't want to just hear the stories about the majestic bombs Aaron Judge hits in batting practice. They want to see them for themselves. Right now, they can't do that. But if Baseball simply switched the batting practice times and had the home team hit second, after the gates open, they'll be able to. And it'll be a win-win for everybody.
It's a long-standing baseball practice that the home team hits first in batting practice. This is standard across the Major Leagues, and I'd imagine it's the same in the Minors. What I'm not sure of is whether or not it's a rule that the home team has to go first. But I wouldn't imagine Because it doesn't really make that much sense.
In college baseball, it makes complete sense that the home team takes batting practice first. The visiting team is most likely traveling by bus from either their campus or a hotel. By taking batting practice second, they have extra travel time and no long break between BP and the game.
I would imagine that travel considerations are part of the reason Major League Baseball has kept that traditional order of home team first/road team second. (Although, how many road teams are traveling any further than from a hotel to the ballpark these days?) It's also very familiar to the players, who have their pregame routines that they've become comfortable with. Are those good enough reasons to stick with the status quo, though?
Major League Baseball is evidently looking into the batting practice order and considering a change. Which they should. Because Aaron Judge isn't the only player who puts on a show during BP. There are plenty of sluggers who do. Except they're doing it in empty stadiums. Even the fans who come early to check out BP don't get to see them. Because they're doing it before the gates open!
Fans aren't coming to the ballpark early to watch the visiting team take batting practice. They don't care who the guys on the other team are. They just want a baseball. But if you switched the order and had the home team bat second (just like in the game), my prediction is that the number of people who come early to watch BP would at least double. And they wouldn't just be trying to catch a home run ball, either. They'd be there to watch the Aaron Judge Show. Or the Giancarlo Stanton Show. Or the (insert hometown slugger here) show.
The Yankees understand the ridiculous desire their fans have to watch Aaron Judge take batting practice. That was one of the reasons they had the "BP Block Party" earlier this season, where they opened the gates an hour earlier so that fans could, among other activities, watch the Yankees take BP. Of course, it started to rain, so the BP part of the BP Block Party ended early, but the idea is one that more teams should embrace.
When I told my dad about the BP Block Party and everything they were doing, he told me about how much fun he used to have when he was a kid and would do the same thing. Except they did it all the time back then. The game started at 2:00 and they opened the gates at 11:00, meaning the hometown fans would get to watch Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris and Yogi Berra take batting practice every day. Nowadays, the only batting practice you get to see is the other team.
A simple solution would be to just to do what they did back then and open the gates an hour earlier. However, it's a lot to ask of the fans to spend three hours at the ballpark before the game even starts (even if it does mean you'll have significantly more beer sales). There's no reason to open the gates early, though. Not when there's an even better solution out there.
Baseball is for the fans. And the fans don't want to just hear the stories about the majestic bombs Aaron Judge hits in batting practice. They want to see them for themselves. Right now, they can't do that. But if Baseball simply switched the batting practice times and had the home team hit second, after the gates open, they'll be able to. And it'll be a win-win for everybody.
Friday, July 21, 2017
Basketball Everyday
Did I miss something? When did basketball become the American version of European soccer? Is there something in ESPN's NBA contract that requires them to have some sort of basketball game on 365 days a year? Because that's literally the only reason I can think of why a new ridiculous summer basketball tournament pops up every week...and ESPN treats each one like it's the freakin' NCAA Tournament!
Now, I know a lot of you are probably thinking this, so I'll get it out of the way up front. This has nothing to do with my not liking the NBA. I enjoy the sport of basketball. I just don't need to watch it 12 months a year. Especially when it's not even good basketball.
And is there really so little on in the summer that ESPN needs to cover the NBA Summer League like it's the actual regular season (which is only slightly less meaningless than the Summer League)? Seriously, why am I seeing NBA Summer League scores on the freakin' ticker before baseball scores?! Why am I seeing basketball scores at all in the middle of July? Unless it's some sort of international FIBA tournament, any basketball game played during the summer is, frankly, pretty irrelevant. And anybody who doesn't think that is simply fooling themselves.
Let's start with the NBA Summer League. Why does ESPN care so much? It's essentially the NFL preseason, except worse, because the starters aren't even there. It's literally the guys they just drafted like a week before, some unsigned free agents, and a bunch of players "trying out" who are only there because they need to fill out their rosters. You're basically watching the NBA D-League. Yet ESPN would have you believe these are make-or-break games. Why else did we get those constant Lonzo Ball updates?
The NBA Summer League at least has a legitimate purpose. It's the first opportunity coaches have to work with their rookies, and it gives the rookies their first real taste of the NBA game, even if it is the Bud Light version. It's like OTAs in the NFL. Except you know the difference between OTAs and the NBA Summer League? The NFL knows no one wants to watch OTAs, so they don't put them on TV!
However, I haven't found an actual purpose for either The Basketball Tournament or that new Allen Iverson 3x3 thing. The Basketball Tournament especially. As far as I can tell, the sole reason that thing exists is to give an extra 15 minutes to former college players who couldn't let go and move on with their lives. It's their chance to prove that they're still "basketball players." It's their NBA.
It's an ego thing. Nothing more. And the fact that it's on ESPN only exacerbates the problem. Now you're getting those 15 minutes on a national stage. And, who knows, maybe an NBA scout will be watching, see you can still play, and offer you a shot. That scenario, of course, is highly unlikely. But I have no doubt there are guys playing in these tournaments who think that.
"Basketball players" can be found everywhere. How many people out there have absolutely no talent, but think they can play in the NBA? Well dude, I've got news for you. You might be a star in those pickup games in the park against 40-year-olds, but if you've never played competitively at any level (or you were "on the team," but just sat on the bench), you're not going to the NBA!
ESPN isn't helping these people in any way. In fact, they're only making things worse by giving them this avenue to "show off" their talents. Just like it's not helping the former pros or former college players who are desperately trying to stay relevant (or become relevant again).
I could be wrong. People might actually watch these games, and I bet there are even people who actually care. The ratings could justify their existence and explain why we have a new tournament every week. I also have no idea what the attendance at these things is. Maybe I'm totally off base and there's a large enough percentage of the population that these events actually make money.
But there's no denying ESPN is trying too hard to make these events a "thing." We've long known that ESPN is obsessed with the NBA, but maybe it's just basketball in general that our friends in Bristol are obsessed with. That's the only explanation I can think of as to why they're trying to give America a year-round sport, whether it wants one or not.
Now, I know a lot of you are probably thinking this, so I'll get it out of the way up front. This has nothing to do with my not liking the NBA. I enjoy the sport of basketball. I just don't need to watch it 12 months a year. Especially when it's not even good basketball.
And is there really so little on in the summer that ESPN needs to cover the NBA Summer League like it's the actual regular season (which is only slightly less meaningless than the Summer League)? Seriously, why am I seeing NBA Summer League scores on the freakin' ticker before baseball scores?! Why am I seeing basketball scores at all in the middle of July? Unless it's some sort of international FIBA tournament, any basketball game played during the summer is, frankly, pretty irrelevant. And anybody who doesn't think that is simply fooling themselves.
Let's start with the NBA Summer League. Why does ESPN care so much? It's essentially the NFL preseason, except worse, because the starters aren't even there. It's literally the guys they just drafted like a week before, some unsigned free agents, and a bunch of players "trying out" who are only there because they need to fill out their rosters. You're basically watching the NBA D-League. Yet ESPN would have you believe these are make-or-break games. Why else did we get those constant Lonzo Ball updates?
The NBA Summer League at least has a legitimate purpose. It's the first opportunity coaches have to work with their rookies, and it gives the rookies their first real taste of the NBA game, even if it is the Bud Light version. It's like OTAs in the NFL. Except you know the difference between OTAs and the NBA Summer League? The NFL knows no one wants to watch OTAs, so they don't put them on TV!
However, I haven't found an actual purpose for either The Basketball Tournament or that new Allen Iverson 3x3 thing. The Basketball Tournament especially. As far as I can tell, the sole reason that thing exists is to give an extra 15 minutes to former college players who couldn't let go and move on with their lives. It's their chance to prove that they're still "basketball players." It's their NBA.
It's an ego thing. Nothing more. And the fact that it's on ESPN only exacerbates the problem. Now you're getting those 15 minutes on a national stage. And, who knows, maybe an NBA scout will be watching, see you can still play, and offer you a shot. That scenario, of course, is highly unlikely. But I have no doubt there are guys playing in these tournaments who think that.
"Basketball players" can be found everywhere. How many people out there have absolutely no talent, but think they can play in the NBA? Well dude, I've got news for you. You might be a star in those pickup games in the park against 40-year-olds, but if you've never played competitively at any level (or you were "on the team," but just sat on the bench), you're not going to the NBA!
ESPN isn't helping these people in any way. In fact, they're only making things worse by giving them this avenue to "show off" their talents. Just like it's not helping the former pros or former college players who are desperately trying to stay relevant (or become relevant again).
I could be wrong. People might actually watch these games, and I bet there are even people who actually care. The ratings could justify their existence and explain why we have a new tournament every week. I also have no idea what the attendance at these things is. Maybe I'm totally off base and there's a large enough percentage of the population that these events actually make money.
But there's no denying ESPN is trying too hard to make these events a "thing." We've long known that ESPN is obsessed with the NBA, but maybe it's just basketball in general that our friends in Bristol are obsessed with. That's the only explanation I can think of as to why they're trying to give America a year-round sport, whether it wants one or not.
Thursday, July 20, 2017
Who Else Will Move?
The other day, I looked ahead towards the baseball trading deadline by examining what I thought were the biggest needs for some contending teams. Well, the ball started rolling almost immediately, with Jose Quintana switching Chicago teams and the Nationals addressing their bullpen needs by getting Ryan Madson and Sean Doolittle from Oakland, then the Yankees pulled off that blockbuster with the White Sox, bringing Todd Frazier and David Robertson to the Bronx.
That was just a start. There's still two weeks left until the deadline. You know plenty of other guys are getting moved. But who? Well, there are several names that I feel pretty confident will move. Where they might go is another question.
Sonny Gray, A's: He's probably the best starting pitcher you know is being shopped. Houston would like to add a starter, but I don't see Oakland trading him within the division. That leaves the Yankees as the other best fit and, in my opinion, Gray's most likely destination. The Yankees already needed a starter, and Michael Pineda needing Tommy John surgery made that need even more pressing. And, with the haul of prospects acquired in last year's trades, they have the players to make the deal worthwhile for the A's.
Brad Hand, Padres: Something tells me Hand is going to end up in Boston. Outside of Craig Kimbrel, the Red Sox bullpen is not very good (neither is their lineup for that matter). If they're going to have any shot at making a run deep into October, adding a reliever is a must. And there are worse options than an All-Star lefty setup guy.
Pat Neshek, Phillies: Speaking of All-Star setup guys... Neshek brings additional value because he has all that postseason experience with the Cardinals. I'm assuming the Phillies won't let the Nationals anywhere near him, but I do think Neshek will likely stay in the National League. They already don't lose, but just imagine how much more unbeatable the Dodgers would be if they could plug Neshek in there between the starters and Jansen.
Jay Bruce, Mets: They aren't going to make the playoffs and they have like six starting outfielders, which means the Mets are probably going to deal at least one of them. And Bruce, who they got as a quasi-rental last year, seems like the most likely candidate. His contract is up at the end of the year, so Bruce would be one of those two-month rentals. I would've said Arizona before they got J.D. Martinez. But he got hit by a pitch in the hand in his first game with the Diamondbacks, so an outfielder might be back on the table for them.
Yonder Alonso, A's: Who doesn't need a lefty power bat off the bench? I think this one could be the surprise. I have a feeling Alonso will be traded. I just have no idea where. That's why I see a team coming out of nowhere and snatching him up. For some reason, I see Colorado being the ones to make that move. Or Milwaukee.
Matt Adams, Braves: Freddie Freeman moved to third so that Adams could stay at first. Who does that help, though? The Braves aren't good, Freeman's not a third baseman, and Adams can't play defense. He's the second coming of Adam Dunn. He should be DHing for an American League team. If Kansas City decides they're in it and choose to be buyers rather than sellers, I can see Adams helping them out down the stretch, then potentially taking over at first next year if Hosmer leaves as a free agent.
Mike Moustakas, Royals: However, if the Royals fall out of it, it's very realistic to envision them unloading some of their pending free agents. And Boston has coveted Mike Moustakas for months. Especially now that Todd Frazier's in New York, the Red Sox could panic and give up too much for Moustakas. Although, if he were to go to the Red Sox, that wouldn't necessarily be a rental. Since you know they're gonna go after him hard in the offseason wherever he finishes 2017.
Darren O'Day and/or Brad Brach, Orioles: Baltimore's got an abundance of relievers, and I can see the Orioles unloading at least one of them at the deadline. Cleveland's trade for and brilliant use of Andrew Miller was one of the primary reasons why they got to extra innings of Game 7 of the World Series last year. Can lightning strike twice with either Brach or O'Day?
Aaron Sanchez, Blue Jays: Out of all the Blue Jays starters, Sanchez seems like the most likely to be dealt (assuming they trade any of them at all). Yes, they'd probably get more for Marcus Stroman, but we all know how much the Blue Jays love their wannabe shortstop, so that's probably not happening. Sanchez, who's a free agent after the season and making only half a million though...that's a different story. He's the one you can easily see heading to Houston.
Melky Cabrera, White Sox: Believe it or not, the White Sox still have some players left on the roster! It might not be for long, though, since Melky Cabrera might be the next one to move. Especially since he's a proven postseason contributor. And a switch hitter. A team like Washington could certainly use him.
I have a feeling there's going to be a lot of wheeling and dealing going on over the next two weeks. Last year, we saw the Cubs and Indians both get to the World Series on the strength of their deadline moves (with a little help from the Yankees). Can somebody do the same this year? It's gonna be really interesting to see.
That was just a start. There's still two weeks left until the deadline. You know plenty of other guys are getting moved. But who? Well, there are several names that I feel pretty confident will move. Where they might go is another question.
Sonny Gray, A's: He's probably the best starting pitcher you know is being shopped. Houston would like to add a starter, but I don't see Oakland trading him within the division. That leaves the Yankees as the other best fit and, in my opinion, Gray's most likely destination. The Yankees already needed a starter, and Michael Pineda needing Tommy John surgery made that need even more pressing. And, with the haul of prospects acquired in last year's trades, they have the players to make the deal worthwhile for the A's.
Brad Hand, Padres: Something tells me Hand is going to end up in Boston. Outside of Craig Kimbrel, the Red Sox bullpen is not very good (neither is their lineup for that matter). If they're going to have any shot at making a run deep into October, adding a reliever is a must. And there are worse options than an All-Star lefty setup guy.
Pat Neshek, Phillies: Speaking of All-Star setup guys... Neshek brings additional value because he has all that postseason experience with the Cardinals. I'm assuming the Phillies won't let the Nationals anywhere near him, but I do think Neshek will likely stay in the National League. They already don't lose, but just imagine how much more unbeatable the Dodgers would be if they could plug Neshek in there between the starters and Jansen.
Jay Bruce, Mets: They aren't going to make the playoffs and they have like six starting outfielders, which means the Mets are probably going to deal at least one of them. And Bruce, who they got as a quasi-rental last year, seems like the most likely candidate. His contract is up at the end of the year, so Bruce would be one of those two-month rentals. I would've said Arizona before they got J.D. Martinez. But he got hit by a pitch in the hand in his first game with the Diamondbacks, so an outfielder might be back on the table for them.
Yonder Alonso, A's: Who doesn't need a lefty power bat off the bench? I think this one could be the surprise. I have a feeling Alonso will be traded. I just have no idea where. That's why I see a team coming out of nowhere and snatching him up. For some reason, I see Colorado being the ones to make that move. Or Milwaukee.
Matt Adams, Braves: Freddie Freeman moved to third so that Adams could stay at first. Who does that help, though? The Braves aren't good, Freeman's not a third baseman, and Adams can't play defense. He's the second coming of Adam Dunn. He should be DHing for an American League team. If Kansas City decides they're in it and choose to be buyers rather than sellers, I can see Adams helping them out down the stretch, then potentially taking over at first next year if Hosmer leaves as a free agent.
Mike Moustakas, Royals: However, if the Royals fall out of it, it's very realistic to envision them unloading some of their pending free agents. And Boston has coveted Mike Moustakas for months. Especially now that Todd Frazier's in New York, the Red Sox could panic and give up too much for Moustakas. Although, if he were to go to the Red Sox, that wouldn't necessarily be a rental. Since you know they're gonna go after him hard in the offseason wherever he finishes 2017.
Darren O'Day and/or Brad Brach, Orioles: Baltimore's got an abundance of relievers, and I can see the Orioles unloading at least one of them at the deadline. Cleveland's trade for and brilliant use of Andrew Miller was one of the primary reasons why they got to extra innings of Game 7 of the World Series last year. Can lightning strike twice with either Brach or O'Day?
Aaron Sanchez, Blue Jays: Out of all the Blue Jays starters, Sanchez seems like the most likely to be dealt (assuming they trade any of them at all). Yes, they'd probably get more for Marcus Stroman, but we all know how much the Blue Jays love their wannabe shortstop, so that's probably not happening. Sanchez, who's a free agent after the season and making only half a million though...that's a different story. He's the one you can easily see heading to Houston.
Melky Cabrera, White Sox: Believe it or not, the White Sox still have some players left on the roster! It might not be for long, though, since Melky Cabrera might be the next one to move. Especially since he's a proven postseason contributor. And a switch hitter. A team like Washington could certainly use him.
I have a feeling there's going to be a lot of wheeling and dealing going on over the next two weeks. Last year, we saw the Cubs and Indians both get to the World Series on the strength of their deadline moves (with a little help from the Yankees). Can somebody do the same this year? It's gonna be really interesting to see.
Monday, July 17, 2017
Opening Weekend for the Olympic Channel
In news that will shock no one who reads this next sentence, I was very excited for the launch of the Olympic Channel over the weekend. In fact, I actually called my cable company during the week to make sure that I got it (I do). And, despite some initial glitches (it was just a black screen for the first few hours), I'm impressed by what I've seen so far.
This isn't the first time the USOC has attempted to launch an Olympic Channel. Comcast and the USOC were ready to launch way back in 2009, but they met a ton of resistance from the IOC. That's putting it mildly. The IOC was not happy at all, and a lot of people think that was one of the things that led to Chicago's embarrassing first-round defeat in the race for the 2016 Games (which obviously went to Rio).
So what's the difference now? The IOC is on board. They have their own Olympic Channel, and they actually encouraged NBC to launch an American version. Branded as "The Home of Team USA," the Olympic Channel promises to show a number of sports that you ordinarily wouldn't see on TV outside of the Olympics. (The fact that NBC already had the rights to many of these events certainly helped.)
For example, if you had told me that I'd be sitting at home on a Saturday afternoon watching men's synchronized diving just because I could, my reaction would've been "Yeah, right." But there I was on Saturday, watching the men's synchronized springboard at the World Championships. There's been a steady helping of the Aquatics World Championships on the Olympic Channel over the network's first few days. They've shown diving, water polo and synchronized swimming, and they'll have the morning prelims when swimming starts over the weekend.
The swimming finals will be on NBC and NBCSN, which was a point NBC Olympic executives were sure to make. The major events that you would expect to see on regular TV still will be. That means your World Championships in swimming and track & field. What we're seeing on the Olympic Channel is the niche stuff that the casual fan won't make it a point to watch. Case in point, they showed a preliminary round water polo game between Greece and Spain this afternoon. When would you have seen any preliminary round game, even one involving the U.S., at the water polo World Championships before the Olympic Channel came around?
It wasn't just the water sports, though. They've been showing the Paralympic track & field World Championships, and I've watched two U.S. women's volleyball matches. That Olympic Channel launch special has been on about half a dozen times a day, too (I give them credit for doing 24 hours without infomercials, though). I've also seen on the program guide for this weekend the World Games, which are the Olympics for non-Olympic sports. Did any of you even know that such a thing existed?
Yes, most of this stuff is content NBC acquired when Universal Sports went out of business. Since then, they had been showing most of it on the now-defunct Universal HD, which primarily showed reruns of broadcast shows and movies when it didn't randomly have the NBC Sports events. They never really fit there. But that's exactly the type of programming that the Olympic Channel was made for. And there are plenty of Olympic fans who will soak up the year-round content.
And some of that year-round content looks pretty intriguing. In addition to the sports coverage, they'll have Olympic documentaries, both from the IOC's vast library and ones that they've produced themselves. And, perhaps most excitingly, past Olympics. The 2008 Opening Ceremony is on sometime this week, and they're going to show all eight games from the Dream Team in late August. Who could possibly not be excited about that?
Although, their archived Olympic coverage is somewhat limited, which is the only "problem" I have with that. This isn't NBC's fault since they only own the rights to Games they've covered, but how cool would it be to see the Miracle on Ice or the 1984 LA Games? Likewise, one of their documentaries will be on the 20th anniversary of the Nagano hockey tournament, the first one featuring NHL players (irony of that is not lost, especially since NBC carries the NHL), but they can't show any of those actual games since the 1998 Olympics were on CBS.
How the Olympic Channel is going to be used during the Olympics themselves remains to be seen. Again, they stressed that the whole point is to promote Team USA between Olympics. Although, with the PyeongChang Winter Games coming up in February, we'll find out soon. My guess is that it'll either be some type of overflow channel for hockey (think the soccer/basketball subchannels last year in Rio) or they'll have studio analysis.
What I am sure about is that they won't show live event coverage on the Olympic Channel (unless they do use it as an overflow hockey channel). Not with the amount of money NBC spends to be the Olympic rights holder.
However they decide to utilize the Olympic Channel in PyeongChang and Tokyo and beyond really doesn't matter. That's not the point of the channel. The point of the channel is to keep Team USA relevant beyond those two weeks every other year. And so far, it's working. It's only been three days, but so far, so good.
This isn't the first time the USOC has attempted to launch an Olympic Channel. Comcast and the USOC were ready to launch way back in 2009, but they met a ton of resistance from the IOC. That's putting it mildly. The IOC was not happy at all, and a lot of people think that was one of the things that led to Chicago's embarrassing first-round defeat in the race for the 2016 Games (which obviously went to Rio).
So what's the difference now? The IOC is on board. They have their own Olympic Channel, and they actually encouraged NBC to launch an American version. Branded as "The Home of Team USA," the Olympic Channel promises to show a number of sports that you ordinarily wouldn't see on TV outside of the Olympics. (The fact that NBC already had the rights to many of these events certainly helped.)
For example, if you had told me that I'd be sitting at home on a Saturday afternoon watching men's synchronized diving just because I could, my reaction would've been "Yeah, right." But there I was on Saturday, watching the men's synchronized springboard at the World Championships. There's been a steady helping of the Aquatics World Championships on the Olympic Channel over the network's first few days. They've shown diving, water polo and synchronized swimming, and they'll have the morning prelims when swimming starts over the weekend.
The swimming finals will be on NBC and NBCSN, which was a point NBC Olympic executives were sure to make. The major events that you would expect to see on regular TV still will be. That means your World Championships in swimming and track & field. What we're seeing on the Olympic Channel is the niche stuff that the casual fan won't make it a point to watch. Case in point, they showed a preliminary round water polo game between Greece and Spain this afternoon. When would you have seen any preliminary round game, even one involving the U.S., at the water polo World Championships before the Olympic Channel came around?
It wasn't just the water sports, though. They've been showing the Paralympic track & field World Championships, and I've watched two U.S. women's volleyball matches. That Olympic Channel launch special has been on about half a dozen times a day, too (I give them credit for doing 24 hours without infomercials, though). I've also seen on the program guide for this weekend the World Games, which are the Olympics for non-Olympic sports. Did any of you even know that such a thing existed?
Yes, most of this stuff is content NBC acquired when Universal Sports went out of business. Since then, they had been showing most of it on the now-defunct Universal HD, which primarily showed reruns of broadcast shows and movies when it didn't randomly have the NBC Sports events. They never really fit there. But that's exactly the type of programming that the Olympic Channel was made for. And there are plenty of Olympic fans who will soak up the year-round content.
And some of that year-round content looks pretty intriguing. In addition to the sports coverage, they'll have Olympic documentaries, both from the IOC's vast library and ones that they've produced themselves. And, perhaps most excitingly, past Olympics. The 2008 Opening Ceremony is on sometime this week, and they're going to show all eight games from the Dream Team in late August. Who could possibly not be excited about that?
Although, their archived Olympic coverage is somewhat limited, which is the only "problem" I have with that. This isn't NBC's fault since they only own the rights to Games they've covered, but how cool would it be to see the Miracle on Ice or the 1984 LA Games? Likewise, one of their documentaries will be on the 20th anniversary of the Nagano hockey tournament, the first one featuring NHL players (irony of that is not lost, especially since NBC carries the NHL), but they can't show any of those actual games since the 1998 Olympics were on CBS.
How the Olympic Channel is going to be used during the Olympics themselves remains to be seen. Again, they stressed that the whole point is to promote Team USA between Olympics. Although, with the PyeongChang Winter Games coming up in February, we'll find out soon. My guess is that it'll either be some type of overflow channel for hockey (think the soccer/basketball subchannels last year in Rio) or they'll have studio analysis.
What I am sure about is that they won't show live event coverage on the Olympic Channel (unless they do use it as an overflow hockey channel). Not with the amount of money NBC spends to be the Olympic rights holder.
However they decide to utilize the Olympic Channel in PyeongChang and Tokyo and beyond really doesn't matter. That's not the point of the channel. The point of the channel is to keep Team USA relevant beyond those two weeks every other year. And so far, it's working. It's only been three days, but so far, so good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)