Going into the US Open, there's only one storyline that matters. Serena Williams completed her second "Serena Slam" at Wimbledon and heads to New York, where she's the three-time defending champion, looking to finish off the first calendar-year Grand Slam in 27 years. Serena's already on the short list for greatest player of all-time, and if she can pull this off, it would further cement her claim for that title.
Not to get ahead of ourselves, but if Serena does win seven matches here, we would've been witness to one of the most historic years in sports history. American Pharoah ended the 37-year Triple Crown drought, and now Serena Williams has a chance to end the 27-year Grand Slam drought. There were many people that had doubts we'd ever see either one again. Now we might see both in the same year. And the feats might be completed 11 miles apart.
As Serena chases history, the pressure's only going to mount with each match. She obviously knows that. But I doubt it'll have any effect. In fact, in a weird way, she had more pressure going to the US Open last year. She hadn't won a Slam all year, having been upset early in each of the other three, and was still sitting on 17, one shy of tying Chrissy and Martina's career total. What a difference a year makes! Now she's at 21, one away from tying Steffi Graf. And it was Graf, of course, who had that last Grand Slam in 1988 (when she added an Olympic gold medal, too, which is obviously something Serena can't do this year).
Serena's such a heavy favorite, that it will be considered an upset if anybody else wins the tournament. When she's on her game, she's unbeatable. She's been unbeatable for the better part of the last two years. And on the off chance she does actually lose, it'll be early. At Wimbledon it was the third round where she played the British girl, had the crowd against her and came back to win 7-5 in the third. Then she played Venus in the fourth round and it wasn't close. Neither was the quarter, semi or final.
The whole tennis world is rooting for her to do it. Every match she plays will be a must-watch. And that Thursday night semifinal against Sharapova will be the ticket of the tournament, even if we all know what the result of that one will be. As for who she might play in the finals, I kinda like Caroline Wozniacki to set up a rematch and be the only thing between Serena and history.
They definitely didn't do Serena any favors with the draw. The top half is definitely tougher. She could have to play, in succession, Sloane Stephens, Madison Keys, Venus and Maria just to have her date with history. But when you're trying to do something that hasn't been done in a generation, it's not supposed to be easy. I said before Wimbledon that winning there would be the hard one. If she won Wimbledon, there was no way she was losing here I said two months ago. Now that she has, I really believe that.
And you don't have to be a Serena Williams fan to want to see it. How many chances will we have to witness a Grand Slam? Steffi was the last one to even attempt one when she did it in 1988. As a fan of the sport, it's something I've never seen and may never see again. Of course I'm hoping she does it.
Just imagine for a second if Novak Djokovic hadn't been upset by Stan Wawrinka in the French Open final. Then we'd be going into the US Open with a chance at not just one calendar-year Grand Slam, but two. Djokovic can still make history of his own here, though. He's looking to become the first man to reach the finals at all four Slams since Roger's incredible run of 10 straight Grand Slam finals.
Speaking of Federer, he hasn't been to a US Open final since Juan Martin Del Potro ended his five-year winning streak in 2009 (that was the first of the six consecutive Monday finals). Last year was his chance to add another US Open title to his resume. He played that second semi after Djokovic lost to Nishikori, only to get upset himself by eventual champion Marin Cilic. Federer enters this year's US Open in almost the exact same situation. He lost to Djokovic in the Wimbledon final and looked great during the summer hardcourt series, capped by a win over Djokovic in Cincinnati last week. But he, of course, has Tomas Berdych, his own personal foil, in his quarter of the draw. Roger can't get away from that guy.
Federer and Nadal have never played at the US Open, and they can't this year until the finals. Clay Boy is seeded eighth, so he was likely going to have to play one of the other three in the quarters. It ended up being Djokovic, the man he's played in three of the last five finals here. They also met in the quarters in Paris, where Nadal finally lost a French Open match. Will the result be the same at Flushing Meadows?
I think so. Novak Djokovic is the best hardcourt player on the planet, and it's hard to believe he's only won the US Open. His record in US Open finals is somehow 1-4, and he had that semifinal loss to Nishikori last year. An interesting sidebar about last year's out-of-left-field final between Nishikori and Cilic is that Nishikori has used those points to jump up to No. 4 in the rankings (but it also means he's got a lot of points to defend), while Cilic has been battling injuries all year. Cilic is seeded ninth, and they could actually meet in the other quarterfinal on the top half of the draw.
On the bottom half you've got Wawrinka and Murray, as well as Federer. Andy Murray finally got that first Grand Slam title here three years ago, and he's always around late at the US Open. Wawrinka, meanwhile, used a semifinal appearance here in 2013 to really start his ascendance to the top of the rankings. That would be a very fun quarterfinal matchup. With Federer-Berdych, I wonder if it's something that's in Roger's head. Because if it is, that's not good.
If Federer didn't have to play Berdych, I'd have him penciled right on through to a rematch of the Wimbledon final against Djokovic. But with so much uncertainty surrounding that match, I can't do that. Instead, I'll say it's Murray. Although, if Federer plays someone else or beats Berdych in the quarter, I like him to win the semi, too. Either way, it's not going to matter. Novak Djokovic will remind us all that he's also having a pretty good year (although not quite as good as Serena's) with his third Grand Slam title of 2015.
Even though this US Open is really all about Serena, I'd be amiss not to mention the changes to the tournament this year. No more Connors-Krickstein at rain delays. After 47 years on CBS, ESPN is the exclusive broadcaster this year. That also means the schedule changes the USTA promised the players will take effect. Both genders now get a day off between the semis and finals. They added a Thursday night women's semifinals session, with the men's semis now during the day on Friday, and the finals moved back to Saturday/Sunday. So, hopefully, the tournament will actually end on Sunday for the first time since 2008. Provided the rain cooperates.
Sunday, August 30, 2015
Thursday, August 27, 2015
Let Her Do the Double In Rio
Allyson Felix just won her first World Championship in the 400 meters. Already the best women's 200-meter runner on the planet, she decided not to run that event in Beijing because she'd never won the 400 at Worlds (she was second on the lean to Amantle Montsho, who's currently serving a doping ban) and, with the way the schedule was set up, she had to pick one or the other.
The 200 semifinals were also held on Thursday night, little more than an hour before the 400 final. For all intents and purposes, it was impossible to do both. Which is utterly ridiculous! If the World Championships are supposed to be a showcase for the world's best athletes (especially with less than a year until the Olympics), then why are they being forced to choose an event instead of doing two, especially if winning a medal in both is possible? Imagine if they'd made it so that Usain Bolt couldn't win three gold medals by scheduling the 200 and 4x100 on the same day!
Felix wasn't the only athlete affected by this scheduling. The men had the same 200-400 situation. And on the first day of the Championships, there were three finals. Two of them were the men's marathon and men's 10,000 meters. While it's becoming rarer, it's not unheard of for a long distance runner to enter both events...which is only possible when they're roughly a week apart! Obviously anybody who might've been thinking about doing both couldn't. Same thing with the 1500-5000 double on the men's side.
Am I the only one who finds this scheduling counterproductive? Yes, more and more track & field athletes are specializing in a single event these days. But not all of them. The sprinters and multi-eventers aren't the only ones capable of doing two different events. Jasmine Todd made the U.S. team in both the 100 and long jump, and Marquis Dendy made it in both the long and triple jumps. Queen Harrison has been on the U.S. Worlds team in both the 100 and 400 hurdles, which is incredibly difficult. And how many events did Jenna Prandini do at the NCAA Championships? I don't even remember anymore.
One of the reasons for this problem is that the schedule doesn't allow them to focus on more than one event. All of the invitational meets in Europe are one day, so you're obviously not going to do multiple events there. But at the World Championships and Olympics, which both take place over a nine-day period, there's no reason not to stagger the similar events. And not just for the stars. In fact, maybe there'd be more stars if somebody other than Usain Bolt was able to win multiple gold medals at a championship meet.
Staggering the schedule wouldn't really be that difficult, either. The 100 is always at the beginning of the meet and the 4x100 relay is always at the end, which means the 200 is sandwiched in the middle. That's fine. But it's not hard to set it up to do the 200 and 400, as well. Three rounds of the 400 on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. A day off on Monday. The heats of the 200 on Tuesday morning, the semis on Tuesday night, and the final on Wednesday. Thursday off and the relay over the final weekend.
Using that logic, it's not hard to stagger the distance events in the same way. If you want to have some variety and have the men's 800 with the women's 1500, then vice versa, that's not a problem. In fact, you'd have to do it that way. With the men's marathon always on that final Sunday of the Games, the men's 10,000 would have to be early, which also means the 5000 would have to be after the 10,000. Which means the 1500 would have to be early so that it's before the 5000. And the 800 would have to be later in the meet for the 800-1500 double. The steeplechase can really be whenever, since steeplechasers generally don't do another event. Same thing with the two sprint hurdles, but just in case a hurdler is ambitious enough to try it, don't have any round of the 100/110 and 400 hurdles of the same gender on the same day.
Since the women's marathon is a week before the men's, the women's schedule would almost have to be reversed. Marathon, 800, 5000 early in the week, 1500 and 10,000 later in the week. With the field events, it's less of an issue. You just have to make sure the long and triple jumps aren't on the same day, and the same thing with the shot put and discus.
Sure, athletes that want to enter multiple events might have to sacrifice some recovery time to go right from one to the other, but that would be their choice. Point is, they should at least have the option of making that decision themselves instead of having it made for them.
For a sport in need of transcendent stars (Bolt's planning on retiring after either the Rio Olympics or the 2017 World Championships), they're not helping themselves. Swimming and track & field aren't the same sport, so it's not an apples to apples comparison, but the reason Michael Phelps was able to win eight gold medals at the Olympics seven years ago was because the schedule allowed it. And his successful quest of 8 for 8 in '08 helped Phelps become a household name.
But the IAAF has shot itself in the foot by not allowing for a similar storyline. Sure, Bolt's won three golds at each of the last two Olympics, but only the sprinters (and the occasional distance runner like Mo Farah that does the 5000-10,000 double) have the ability of winning multiple medals. I'm not saying things would change that drastically if the schedule allowed it. But it's stupid not to let other athletes try and see if they can become the next Bolt by winning multiple Olympic gold medals.
Track's biggest stars have always been sprinters, mainly because they're the ones who win multiple medals. Before Bolt there was Carl Lewis, and you can even go all the way back to Jesse Owens. But the other name that immediately comes to mind is Michael Johnson, who pulled off the 200-400 double in Atlanta, setting an incredible world record in the 200 that looked like it would stand for a long time until Bolt decided otherwise.
Johnson made it known that he wanted to go for the 200-400 double in Atlanta and, since the Games were in the U.S., the schedule was adjusted so that he could. But what everyone forgets is that France's Marie-Jose Perec pulled off the same double on the women's side.
IOC President Thomas Bach said earlier in the week that the schedule can be adjusted if Allyson Felix wants to go for the double in Rio. (Personally, I think the pre-Olympic Worlds should have the same schedule as the Olympics will, but that's a whole different can of worms.) But they shouldn't have to adjust the schedule. It should just be like that already. I'm glad they're willing to do the right thing and give Allyson Felix a shot at double (or triple, or quadruple) gold in Rio, but they shouldn't need to. The original schedule should be set up so that it's possible for everybody. And not just the sprinters.
The 200 semifinals were also held on Thursday night, little more than an hour before the 400 final. For all intents and purposes, it was impossible to do both. Which is utterly ridiculous! If the World Championships are supposed to be a showcase for the world's best athletes (especially with less than a year until the Olympics), then why are they being forced to choose an event instead of doing two, especially if winning a medal in both is possible? Imagine if they'd made it so that Usain Bolt couldn't win three gold medals by scheduling the 200 and 4x100 on the same day!
Felix wasn't the only athlete affected by this scheduling. The men had the same 200-400 situation. And on the first day of the Championships, there were three finals. Two of them were the men's marathon and men's 10,000 meters. While it's becoming rarer, it's not unheard of for a long distance runner to enter both events...which is only possible when they're roughly a week apart! Obviously anybody who might've been thinking about doing both couldn't. Same thing with the 1500-5000 double on the men's side.
Am I the only one who finds this scheduling counterproductive? Yes, more and more track & field athletes are specializing in a single event these days. But not all of them. The sprinters and multi-eventers aren't the only ones capable of doing two different events. Jasmine Todd made the U.S. team in both the 100 and long jump, and Marquis Dendy made it in both the long and triple jumps. Queen Harrison has been on the U.S. Worlds team in both the 100 and 400 hurdles, which is incredibly difficult. And how many events did Jenna Prandini do at the NCAA Championships? I don't even remember anymore.
One of the reasons for this problem is that the schedule doesn't allow them to focus on more than one event. All of the invitational meets in Europe are one day, so you're obviously not going to do multiple events there. But at the World Championships and Olympics, which both take place over a nine-day period, there's no reason not to stagger the similar events. And not just for the stars. In fact, maybe there'd be more stars if somebody other than Usain Bolt was able to win multiple gold medals at a championship meet.
Staggering the schedule wouldn't really be that difficult, either. The 100 is always at the beginning of the meet and the 4x100 relay is always at the end, which means the 200 is sandwiched in the middle. That's fine. But it's not hard to set it up to do the 200 and 400, as well. Three rounds of the 400 on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. A day off on Monday. The heats of the 200 on Tuesday morning, the semis on Tuesday night, and the final on Wednesday. Thursday off and the relay over the final weekend.
Using that logic, it's not hard to stagger the distance events in the same way. If you want to have some variety and have the men's 800 with the women's 1500, then vice versa, that's not a problem. In fact, you'd have to do it that way. With the men's marathon always on that final Sunday of the Games, the men's 10,000 would have to be early, which also means the 5000 would have to be after the 10,000. Which means the 1500 would have to be early so that it's before the 5000. And the 800 would have to be later in the meet for the 800-1500 double. The steeplechase can really be whenever, since steeplechasers generally don't do another event. Same thing with the two sprint hurdles, but just in case a hurdler is ambitious enough to try it, don't have any round of the 100/110 and 400 hurdles of the same gender on the same day.
Since the women's marathon is a week before the men's, the women's schedule would almost have to be reversed. Marathon, 800, 5000 early in the week, 1500 and 10,000 later in the week. With the field events, it's less of an issue. You just have to make sure the long and triple jumps aren't on the same day, and the same thing with the shot put and discus.
Sure, athletes that want to enter multiple events might have to sacrifice some recovery time to go right from one to the other, but that would be their choice. Point is, they should at least have the option of making that decision themselves instead of having it made for them.
For a sport in need of transcendent stars (Bolt's planning on retiring after either the Rio Olympics or the 2017 World Championships), they're not helping themselves. Swimming and track & field aren't the same sport, so it's not an apples to apples comparison, but the reason Michael Phelps was able to win eight gold medals at the Olympics seven years ago was because the schedule allowed it. And his successful quest of 8 for 8 in '08 helped Phelps become a household name.
But the IAAF has shot itself in the foot by not allowing for a similar storyline. Sure, Bolt's won three golds at each of the last two Olympics, but only the sprinters (and the occasional distance runner like Mo Farah that does the 5000-10,000 double) have the ability of winning multiple medals. I'm not saying things would change that drastically if the schedule allowed it. But it's stupid not to let other athletes try and see if they can become the next Bolt by winning multiple Olympic gold medals.
Track's biggest stars have always been sprinters, mainly because they're the ones who win multiple medals. Before Bolt there was Carl Lewis, and you can even go all the way back to Jesse Owens. But the other name that immediately comes to mind is Michael Johnson, who pulled off the 200-400 double in Atlanta, setting an incredible world record in the 200 that looked like it would stand for a long time until Bolt decided otherwise.
Johnson made it known that he wanted to go for the 200-400 double in Atlanta and, since the Games were in the U.S., the schedule was adjusted so that he could. But what everyone forgets is that France's Marie-Jose Perec pulled off the same double on the women's side.
IOC President Thomas Bach said earlier in the week that the schedule can be adjusted if Allyson Felix wants to go for the double in Rio. (Personally, I think the pre-Olympic Worlds should have the same schedule as the Olympics will, but that's a whole different can of worms.) But they shouldn't have to adjust the schedule. It should just be like that already. I'm glad they're willing to do the right thing and give Allyson Felix a shot at double (or triple, or quadruple) gold in Rio, but they shouldn't need to. The original schedule should be set up so that it's possible for everybody. And not just the sprinters.
Monday, August 24, 2015
Core Four Weekend
Over the weekend, the Yankees retired a pair of numbers, their second and third this year and the 20th and 21st in franchise history. The 22nd will obviously be Derek Jeter's No. 2 within the next year or two.
A lot of Yankee haters out there like to complain that the Yankees have too many retired numbers and joke that they'll eventually have to start using triple-digits. (In fact, one of my theories for not having names on the jerseys is so that when they get a new player, they can just give him the number of the guy who just left.) Yes, they have retired a lot of numbers. The most of any team in professional sports. But if you consider the fact that they've won 27 World Series, have had numerous dynastic eras featuring multiple championships in a row, and some of the biggest names in the history of the sport have worn Yankee Pinstripes, it's really not a lot at all. I'd actually argue that there could be a few more.
When people make their comments about the number of digits on the wall (there are so many that they ran out of room and had to put the three from this year on the back of the center field wall, facing away from the field), I generally respond with a question. Who would you take off? Sure, Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle and Joe DiMaggio are on a different level than, say, Elston Howard, but that's why only four Yankee players have monuments.
Even the biggest Yankee Haters in the world would have no argument about Derek Jeter, Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe DiMaggio, Mickey Mantle, Yogi Berra, Whitey Ford, Casey Stengel or Mariano Rivera. They're obviously all-time greats. That's 10 of the 22. But there's a valid reason why each of the other 12 is on the wall. Teams establish their own criteria for retiring numbers (the Nets retired Drazen Petrovic's No. 3 after he was killed in a car crash, for example). So who are we to arbitrarily assign our own standard and say someone "doesn't deserve it" when the team itself and their fans clearly think otherwise?
The reason I'm bringing this up is because the two numbers the Yankees retired this weekend are vastly different. The second Andy Pettitte retired for the final time, everyone knew No. 46 was going on the wall. There's no debate about his place in Yankees history. Pettitte's a borderline Hall of Fame candidate based on his postseason resume alone. He probably won't make it to Cooperstown, so having his number retired by the Yankees is probably the greatest baseball honor he'll ever receive.
Some people were quick to point out that Pettitte is the first "drug cheat" to have his number retired by a team (which is not true, because the Diamondbacks retired Luis Gonzalez's number earlier this year). All that tells me, though, is that haters gonna hate. Yes, Pettitte was named in the Mitchell Report. But he was also one of the few to be upfront about it. He admitted it, said he took HGH only one time so that he'd recover from an injury more quickly, and apologized. His explanation was plausible and believable, which is why I think nobody questioned him about it further. Pettitte then resumed his career and his performance was no different. Obviously some will never forgive and always label him a "cheat," but one transgression shouldn't (and didn't) cloud his career.
Andy Pettitte wasn't just one of the greatest pitchers in franchise history, he was the ace of a dynasty. During his first nine-year stint with the Yankees from 1995-2003, they went to six World Series and won four. Most importantly, he was a part of the "Core Four," the quartet that defined that era for so many Yankees fans.
Now, the Yankee retired numbers can really be broken up into three categories. There are the all-time greats (Ruth, Gehrig) and the all-time Yankee greats. That's where Pettitte falls. Pettitte's catcher, Jorge Posada, in the third group, the borderline players that those who complain about "too many" retired numbers like to question.
Most of us only remember the Jorge Posada from the end of his career, when he was relegated to DHing and got grumpy about it during his final season. But in his prime, he was a phenomenal offensive catcher. The numbers Posada put up were ridiculous. And the fact that he was still the primary catcher on that 2009 championship team when he was 37 years old (two years after having a career year at 35 in 2007) speaks to Posada's consistency and longevity.
Posada was also a member of the "Core Four," which is probably what put him over the top in the number retirement discussion. If he wasn't a part of that group, his number retirement ceremony likely never would've happened. But the other three (Jeter, Rivera and Pettitte) were all definitely getting their numbers put on the wall. And it's not the Core Three. It's the Core Four. Posada was just as important a part of that quartet as the others. They weren't going to retire three numbers and not the fourth.
As for the "overabundance" of retired numbers recently (three this season, five in the last three years, plus five Monument Park plaques), there are several reasons behind it. First and foremost, it's an obvious ploy to sell tickets. But it's also because all of those guys are from the same era. With the exception of Goose Gossage, everybody the Yankees have honored over the past three seasons was a part of that 90s dynasty that won four championships in five years. It's just the way things have cycled. Could they have staggered them a little more so that it didn't seem like they were doing them all at once? Sure. But if they were going to do it all anyway, what difference does when make?
If it seems like a lot in a short period, it is. But after Derek Jeter Day, whether it's next year or 2017 or whenever, the Yankees aren't going to have one of these in a while. Maybe they'll decide that a 21 would look nice on the wall next to all the others from that team, but other than Paul O'Neill, is there really any viable candidates on the horizon?
It's also worth noting that until the recent surge, the Yankees had only retired a total of two numbers in the 20 years between Reggie Jackson (1993) and Mariano Rivera (2013), Don Mattingly in 1997 and Ron Guidry in 2003 (which was exactly 12 years to the day before Pettitte). And Mattingly, of course, played almost his entire career during that famous playoff lull from 1981-95. So, no, the Yankees aren't overdoing it with the retired numbers. And if you think they are, do you think the same thing about the Montreal Canadiens or Boston Celtics or Los Angeles Lakers?
Having a permanent place in the history of any team is a special thing. Now just imagine if that team is the most famous franchise in all of sports. The Core Four's place in Yankees history was already secure. They're not going to be all together in Cooperstown. Putting all four of them together in Monument Park for eternity isn't a bad alternative, though. So, do Andy Pettitte and Jorge Posada belong on the wall? Yeah, they do.
A lot of Yankee haters out there like to complain that the Yankees have too many retired numbers and joke that they'll eventually have to start using triple-digits. (In fact, one of my theories for not having names on the jerseys is so that when they get a new player, they can just give him the number of the guy who just left.) Yes, they have retired a lot of numbers. The most of any team in professional sports. But if you consider the fact that they've won 27 World Series, have had numerous dynastic eras featuring multiple championships in a row, and some of the biggest names in the history of the sport have worn Yankee Pinstripes, it's really not a lot at all. I'd actually argue that there could be a few more.
When people make their comments about the number of digits on the wall (there are so many that they ran out of room and had to put the three from this year on the back of the center field wall, facing away from the field), I generally respond with a question. Who would you take off? Sure, Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle and Joe DiMaggio are on a different level than, say, Elston Howard, but that's why only four Yankee players have monuments.
Even the biggest Yankee Haters in the world would have no argument about Derek Jeter, Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe DiMaggio, Mickey Mantle, Yogi Berra, Whitey Ford, Casey Stengel or Mariano Rivera. They're obviously all-time greats. That's 10 of the 22. But there's a valid reason why each of the other 12 is on the wall. Teams establish their own criteria for retiring numbers (the Nets retired Drazen Petrovic's No. 3 after he was killed in a car crash, for example). So who are we to arbitrarily assign our own standard and say someone "doesn't deserve it" when the team itself and their fans clearly think otherwise?
The reason I'm bringing this up is because the two numbers the Yankees retired this weekend are vastly different. The second Andy Pettitte retired for the final time, everyone knew No. 46 was going on the wall. There's no debate about his place in Yankees history. Pettitte's a borderline Hall of Fame candidate based on his postseason resume alone. He probably won't make it to Cooperstown, so having his number retired by the Yankees is probably the greatest baseball honor he'll ever receive.
Some people were quick to point out that Pettitte is the first "drug cheat" to have his number retired by a team (which is not true, because the Diamondbacks retired Luis Gonzalez's number earlier this year). All that tells me, though, is that haters gonna hate. Yes, Pettitte was named in the Mitchell Report. But he was also one of the few to be upfront about it. He admitted it, said he took HGH only one time so that he'd recover from an injury more quickly, and apologized. His explanation was plausible and believable, which is why I think nobody questioned him about it further. Pettitte then resumed his career and his performance was no different. Obviously some will never forgive and always label him a "cheat," but one transgression shouldn't (and didn't) cloud his career.
Andy Pettitte wasn't just one of the greatest pitchers in franchise history, he was the ace of a dynasty. During his first nine-year stint with the Yankees from 1995-2003, they went to six World Series and won four. Most importantly, he was a part of the "Core Four," the quartet that defined that era for so many Yankees fans.
Now, the Yankee retired numbers can really be broken up into three categories. There are the all-time greats (Ruth, Gehrig) and the all-time Yankee greats. That's where Pettitte falls. Pettitte's catcher, Jorge Posada, in the third group, the borderline players that those who complain about "too many" retired numbers like to question.
Most of us only remember the Jorge Posada from the end of his career, when he was relegated to DHing and got grumpy about it during his final season. But in his prime, he was a phenomenal offensive catcher. The numbers Posada put up were ridiculous. And the fact that he was still the primary catcher on that 2009 championship team when he was 37 years old (two years after having a career year at 35 in 2007) speaks to Posada's consistency and longevity.
Posada was also a member of the "Core Four," which is probably what put him over the top in the number retirement discussion. If he wasn't a part of that group, his number retirement ceremony likely never would've happened. But the other three (Jeter, Rivera and Pettitte) were all definitely getting their numbers put on the wall. And it's not the Core Three. It's the Core Four. Posada was just as important a part of that quartet as the others. They weren't going to retire three numbers and not the fourth.
As for the "overabundance" of retired numbers recently (three this season, five in the last three years, plus five Monument Park plaques), there are several reasons behind it. First and foremost, it's an obvious ploy to sell tickets. But it's also because all of those guys are from the same era. With the exception of Goose Gossage, everybody the Yankees have honored over the past three seasons was a part of that 90s dynasty that won four championships in five years. It's just the way things have cycled. Could they have staggered them a little more so that it didn't seem like they were doing them all at once? Sure. But if they were going to do it all anyway, what difference does when make?
If it seems like a lot in a short period, it is. But after Derek Jeter Day, whether it's next year or 2017 or whenever, the Yankees aren't going to have one of these in a while. Maybe they'll decide that a 21 would look nice on the wall next to all the others from that team, but other than Paul O'Neill, is there really any viable candidates on the horizon?
It's also worth noting that until the recent surge, the Yankees had only retired a total of two numbers in the 20 years between Reggie Jackson (1993) and Mariano Rivera (2013), Don Mattingly in 1997 and Ron Guidry in 2003 (which was exactly 12 years to the day before Pettitte). And Mattingly, of course, played almost his entire career during that famous playoff lull from 1981-95. So, no, the Yankees aren't overdoing it with the retired numbers. And if you think they are, do you think the same thing about the Montreal Canadiens or Boston Celtics or Los Angeles Lakers?
Having a permanent place in the history of any team is a special thing. Now just imagine if that team is the most famous franchise in all of sports. The Core Four's place in Yankees history was already secure. They're not going to be all together in Cooperstown. Putting all four of them together in Monument Park for eternity isn't a bad alternative, though. So, do Andy Pettitte and Jorge Posada belong on the wall? Yeah, they do.
Friday, August 21, 2015
World Championships Picks (Women)
Yesterday I took a look at what I think will happen during the World Championships on the men's side, and today it's time for the women. Just like the men's meet, there's going to be plenty of great head-to-head matchups in the women's events. I also think this could be a record haul for the United States. The American team is loaded, and there are medal chances in a number of events that you wouldn't normally expect. From Emma Coburn in the steeplechase to Jenny Simpson and Shannon Rowbury in the 1500
We've also got Allyson Felix running the 400 instead of the 200, where Oregon senior Jenna Prandini is the U.S. champ. Prandini's one of many new faces that's invading Beijing for Worlds, but we'd better get used to them. Because we'll probably see at least some of them next year in Rio. And and Worlds for years to come.
Now for the projections...
100: Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce (JAM), Blessing Okagbare (NGR), Tori Bowie (USA)
SAFP is the defending champ in both the 100 and 200, but she's decided to only run the 100 here. She also won the 100 at the last major meet to be held in Beijing. It should be a golden return to the Bird's Nest for the 2008 Olympic champion.
200: Dafne Schippers (NED), Shaunae Miller (BAH), Murielle Ahoure (CIV)
With Fraser-Pryce and Felix both deciding not to run the event, the 200 is going to be wide open. And I think the person who'll go bursting through that door is Dafne Schippers, the former heptathlete turned top sprinter in Europe. She's the best in the field, so she should add a World Championship to her European title.
400: Allyson Felix (USA), Christine Day (JAM), Christine Ohurougu (GBR)
One of the reasons Felix decided to run the 400 is because she's never won it at Worlds. The only other time she ran the 400 was in 2011, when she was edged at the line by Botswana's Amantle Montsho (who's currently serving a doping ban). Felix made the U.S. team at the expense of Francena McCorory, who has the fastest time in the world this year, knocking out the likely winner. As a result, I think Felix adds another World title, and first in the 400, adding to the speculation about whether or not she'll try to double in Rio.
800: Eunice Sum (KEN), Selina Buchel (SUI), Alysia Montano (USA)
There are so many women that have run sub-2:00 this season, that this is going to be a wide open race. Since Sum is the only one in that group under 1:57, I guess that makes her the nominal "favorite." Alysia Montano has come close to medaling at the last two Worlds, and this time I think she will get bronze. If Ajee Wilson was healthy, gold would've been possible for her.
1500: Genzebe Dibaba (ETH), Jenny Simpson (USA), Shannon Rowbury (USA)
Genzebe Dibaba set the world record a few weeks ago, so it's really a question of if anyone will be anywhere close to her. Simpson has gone gold-silver at the last two World Championships, Rowbury won bronze in 2009, and which one will be the top American is another intriguing question.
5000: Almaz Ayana (ETH), Viola Kibiwot (KEN), Mimi Belete (BRN)
It's possible that Dibaba will double, and if she does, it's not a stretch to say she'll win double gold. But I'm not sure she's actually going to run both, so I'm going with her countrywoman Almaz Ayana.
10,000: Geleta Burka (ETH), Vivian Cheruiyot (KEN), Alemitu Heroye (ETH)
The top four seeds are all Ethiopian, and I can definitely see a sweep as possible. American Shalane Flanagan is the top-seeded non-Ethiopian, and she won bronze (soon to be upgraded to silver) in this event at the Beijing Olympics.
Marathon: Sairi Maeda (JPN), Mare Dibaba (ETH), Mariya Konovalova (RUS)
Mare Dibaba has the fastest time in the world by more than two seconds, but, like I said with the men, marathons are unpredictable, so I don't think a victory is by any means guaranteed.
Steeplechase: Hiwot Ayalew (ETH), Habiba Ghribi (TUN), Emma Coburn (USA)
If the World Championships had been last year, there's no doubt Coburn would've won the first-ever American medal in the women's steeplechase. It's not a lock this year, but I still think it's likely she'll end up on the podium. She probably won't challenge for gold, though.
100 Hurdles: Dawn Harper Nelson (USA), Sharika Nelvis (USA), Tiffany Porter (GBR)
Sally McLellan broke her wrist on a nasty fall at a Diamond League meet in June and is out for the season. That means the 100 hurdles will likely be won by an American. Which one is anybody's guess. Tiffany Porter, whose husband Jeff, won silver in the men's 110 hurdles at the 2013 Worlds, could crack the podium. So could her sister, Cindy Ofili, the NCAA champion at Michigan.
400 Hurdles: Zuzana Hejnova (CZE), Shamier Little (USA), Kori Carter (USA)
Shamier Little is one of the up-and-coming stars in track & field. She's already won the NCAA, U.S. and Pan Am titles this year, and a World Championships medal seems likely. I think defending champ Zuzana Hejnova will take the gold here, but the Olympic gold next year will be Little's to lose.
High Jump: Anna Chicherova (RUS), Ruth Beitia (ESP), Maria Kuchina (RUS)
Oh man, am I looking forward to the women's high jump! This is gonna be a great competition. We've finally got all of the world's best healthy and in one place. You could really put the top 8-10 names in a hat, pull out three, and they could easily be your medalists. The women's high jump is that deep.
Pole Vault: Yarisley Silva (CUB), Nikoleta Kyriakapolou (GRE), Jenn Suhr (USA)
Two years ago, Yelena Isinbayeva's win in the women's pole vault was probably the defining moment of the Moscow Worlds. She isn't competing this year, but the event isn't lacking anything without her. After Silva, the rest of the top five are separated by two centimeters, so the battle for silver and bronze will be intense.
Long Jump: Tianna Bartoletta (USA), Brittney Reese (USA), Christabel Netty (CAN)
Brittney Reese seemingly wins every major championship in the women's long jump, but I think that streak's about to end. Bartoletta's been the world's best all year, and by a wide margin. Since Reese is a massive big meet performer, I'll give her the silver.
Triple Jump: Ekaterina Koneva (RUS), Caterine Ibarguen (COL), Olga Saladukha (UKR)
Koneva has won silver at the last two major championships (2013 Worlds, 2014 Euros). This time I see her finally climbing to the top step of the podium.
Shot Put: Gong Lijiao (CHN), Cleopatra Borel (TTO), Christina Schwanitz (GER)
Valerie Adams has dominated the women's shot put for longer than I can remember. But she's out injured, so somebody else gets to win a World Championship this year. And Gong might be China's best hope for a gold medal on the women's side.
Discus: Sandra Perkovic (CRO), Denia Caballero (CUB), Dani Samuels (AUS)
In the discus, it'll probably be two different competitions. Perkovic vs. Caballero for the gold, and everyone else battling each other for bronze.
Hammer Throw: Anita Wlodarczyk (POL), Betty Heidler (GER), Wang Zheng (CHN)
Wlodarczyk is one of the biggest favorites of the meet. She set a world record that wasn't ratified this year, then went out a couple weeks later and officially broke the mark. That throw was 81.08 meters. Heidler has the second-best mark in the world this year--75.73.
Javelin: Kim Mickle (AUS), Sunette Viljonen (RSA), Barbora Spotakova (CZE)
Little did I know, American Kara Winger actually has a real shot at a medal here. She enters Worlds with the third-best mark in the world this year.
Heptathlon: Brianne Thiesen-Eaton (CAN), Jessica Ennis-Hill (GBR), Katarina Johnson-Thompson (GBR)
One of the most anticipated events will take place over the first two days of the meet--the battle of the hypens in the heptathlon. The Eatons are looking for an unprecedented husband-wife multi-event double, and they could easily do it. Because Brianne's chances of winning are just as good as Ashton's.
20 Kilometer Walk: Liu Hong (CHN), Lu Xiuzhi (CHN), Svetlana Vasilyeva (RUS)
Just like the men's walk, a 1-2 Chinese sweep is definitely a possibility here. Especially with the Russians, who are typically very strong, embroiled in the doping controversy.
4x100 Relay: Jamaica, United States, Russia
On the men's side, the U.S. has finally figured out a way to beat Jamaica in the 4x100. But in the women's relay, I just think the quartet the Jamaicans throw out there will be better than the American foursome. And Jamaica will have the stronger anchor leg in Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce.
4x400 Relay: United States, Jamaica, Great Britain
McCorory didn't qualify for the open 400, but she's in Beijing to run on the relay, which she'll likely anchor. Russia won this event in Moscow, but won't have a home crowd behind them this time. As a result, I think we go back to normal, with McCorory or Allyson Felix or whoever bringing home an American victory.
We've also got Allyson Felix running the 400 instead of the 200, where Oregon senior Jenna Prandini is the U.S. champ. Prandini's one of many new faces that's invading Beijing for Worlds, but we'd better get used to them. Because we'll probably see at least some of them next year in Rio. And and Worlds for years to come.
Now for the projections...
100: Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce (JAM), Blessing Okagbare (NGR), Tori Bowie (USA)
SAFP is the defending champ in both the 100 and 200, but she's decided to only run the 100 here. She also won the 100 at the last major meet to be held in Beijing. It should be a golden return to the Bird's Nest for the 2008 Olympic champion.
200: Dafne Schippers (NED), Shaunae Miller (BAH), Murielle Ahoure (CIV)
With Fraser-Pryce and Felix both deciding not to run the event, the 200 is going to be wide open. And I think the person who'll go bursting through that door is Dafne Schippers, the former heptathlete turned top sprinter in Europe. She's the best in the field, so she should add a World Championship to her European title.
400: Allyson Felix (USA), Christine Day (JAM), Christine Ohurougu (GBR)
One of the reasons Felix decided to run the 400 is because she's never won it at Worlds. The only other time she ran the 400 was in 2011, when she was edged at the line by Botswana's Amantle Montsho (who's currently serving a doping ban). Felix made the U.S. team at the expense of Francena McCorory, who has the fastest time in the world this year, knocking out the likely winner. As a result, I think Felix adds another World title, and first in the 400, adding to the speculation about whether or not she'll try to double in Rio.
800: Eunice Sum (KEN), Selina Buchel (SUI), Alysia Montano (USA)
There are so many women that have run sub-2:00 this season, that this is going to be a wide open race. Since Sum is the only one in that group under 1:57, I guess that makes her the nominal "favorite." Alysia Montano has come close to medaling at the last two Worlds, and this time I think she will get bronze. If Ajee Wilson was healthy, gold would've been possible for her.
1500: Genzebe Dibaba (ETH), Jenny Simpson (USA), Shannon Rowbury (USA)
Genzebe Dibaba set the world record a few weeks ago, so it's really a question of if anyone will be anywhere close to her. Simpson has gone gold-silver at the last two World Championships, Rowbury won bronze in 2009, and which one will be the top American is another intriguing question.
5000: Almaz Ayana (ETH), Viola Kibiwot (KEN), Mimi Belete (BRN)
It's possible that Dibaba will double, and if she does, it's not a stretch to say she'll win double gold. But I'm not sure she's actually going to run both, so I'm going with her countrywoman Almaz Ayana.
10,000: Geleta Burka (ETH), Vivian Cheruiyot (KEN), Alemitu Heroye (ETH)
The top four seeds are all Ethiopian, and I can definitely see a sweep as possible. American Shalane Flanagan is the top-seeded non-Ethiopian, and she won bronze (soon to be upgraded to silver) in this event at the Beijing Olympics.
Marathon: Sairi Maeda (JPN), Mare Dibaba (ETH), Mariya Konovalova (RUS)
Mare Dibaba has the fastest time in the world by more than two seconds, but, like I said with the men, marathons are unpredictable, so I don't think a victory is by any means guaranteed.
Steeplechase: Hiwot Ayalew (ETH), Habiba Ghribi (TUN), Emma Coburn (USA)
If the World Championships had been last year, there's no doubt Coburn would've won the first-ever American medal in the women's steeplechase. It's not a lock this year, but I still think it's likely she'll end up on the podium. She probably won't challenge for gold, though.
100 Hurdles: Dawn Harper Nelson (USA), Sharika Nelvis (USA), Tiffany Porter (GBR)
Sally McLellan broke her wrist on a nasty fall at a Diamond League meet in June and is out for the season. That means the 100 hurdles will likely be won by an American. Which one is anybody's guess. Tiffany Porter, whose husband Jeff, won silver in the men's 110 hurdles at the 2013 Worlds, could crack the podium. So could her sister, Cindy Ofili, the NCAA champion at Michigan.
400 Hurdles: Zuzana Hejnova (CZE), Shamier Little (USA), Kori Carter (USA)
Shamier Little is one of the up-and-coming stars in track & field. She's already won the NCAA, U.S. and Pan Am titles this year, and a World Championships medal seems likely. I think defending champ Zuzana Hejnova will take the gold here, but the Olympic gold next year will be Little's to lose.
High Jump: Anna Chicherova (RUS), Ruth Beitia (ESP), Maria Kuchina (RUS)
Oh man, am I looking forward to the women's high jump! This is gonna be a great competition. We've finally got all of the world's best healthy and in one place. You could really put the top 8-10 names in a hat, pull out three, and they could easily be your medalists. The women's high jump is that deep.
Pole Vault: Yarisley Silva (CUB), Nikoleta Kyriakapolou (GRE), Jenn Suhr (USA)
Two years ago, Yelena Isinbayeva's win in the women's pole vault was probably the defining moment of the Moscow Worlds. She isn't competing this year, but the event isn't lacking anything without her. After Silva, the rest of the top five are separated by two centimeters, so the battle for silver and bronze will be intense.
Long Jump: Tianna Bartoletta (USA), Brittney Reese (USA), Christabel Netty (CAN)
Brittney Reese seemingly wins every major championship in the women's long jump, but I think that streak's about to end. Bartoletta's been the world's best all year, and by a wide margin. Since Reese is a massive big meet performer, I'll give her the silver.
Triple Jump: Ekaterina Koneva (RUS), Caterine Ibarguen (COL), Olga Saladukha (UKR)
Koneva has won silver at the last two major championships (2013 Worlds, 2014 Euros). This time I see her finally climbing to the top step of the podium.
Shot Put: Gong Lijiao (CHN), Cleopatra Borel (TTO), Christina Schwanitz (GER)
Valerie Adams has dominated the women's shot put for longer than I can remember. But she's out injured, so somebody else gets to win a World Championship this year. And Gong might be China's best hope for a gold medal on the women's side.
Discus: Sandra Perkovic (CRO), Denia Caballero (CUB), Dani Samuels (AUS)
In the discus, it'll probably be two different competitions. Perkovic vs. Caballero for the gold, and everyone else battling each other for bronze.
Hammer Throw: Anita Wlodarczyk (POL), Betty Heidler (GER), Wang Zheng (CHN)
Wlodarczyk is one of the biggest favorites of the meet. She set a world record that wasn't ratified this year, then went out a couple weeks later and officially broke the mark. That throw was 81.08 meters. Heidler has the second-best mark in the world this year--75.73.
Javelin: Kim Mickle (AUS), Sunette Viljonen (RSA), Barbora Spotakova (CZE)
Little did I know, American Kara Winger actually has a real shot at a medal here. She enters Worlds with the third-best mark in the world this year.
Heptathlon: Brianne Thiesen-Eaton (CAN), Jessica Ennis-Hill (GBR), Katarina Johnson-Thompson (GBR)
One of the most anticipated events will take place over the first two days of the meet--the battle of the hypens in the heptathlon. The Eatons are looking for an unprecedented husband-wife multi-event double, and they could easily do it. Because Brianne's chances of winning are just as good as Ashton's.
20 Kilometer Walk: Liu Hong (CHN), Lu Xiuzhi (CHN), Svetlana Vasilyeva (RUS)
Just like the men's walk, a 1-2 Chinese sweep is definitely a possibility here. Especially with the Russians, who are typically very strong, embroiled in the doping controversy.
4x100 Relay: Jamaica, United States, Russia
On the men's side, the U.S. has finally figured out a way to beat Jamaica in the 4x100. But in the women's relay, I just think the quartet the Jamaicans throw out there will be better than the American foursome. And Jamaica will have the stronger anchor leg in Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce.
4x400 Relay: United States, Jamaica, Great Britain
McCorory didn't qualify for the open 400, but she's in Beijing to run on the relay, which she'll likely anchor. Russia won this event in Moscow, but won't have a home crowd behind them this time. As a result, I think we go back to normal, with McCorory or Allyson Felix or whoever bringing home an American victory.
Thursday, August 20, 2015
World Championships Picks (Men)
It's almost that time! A time that comes around once every other year. The Track & Field World Championships are about to start. The world's finest return to Beijing for the first time since the 2008 Olympics, which are best remembered as Usain Bolt's coming-out party. This time Bolt returns to Beijing hoping to strike lightning again, but he'll face some stiff competition from Justin Gatlin. The two haven't squared off over 100 meters in two years. That's entirely too long. And their battle in Beijing should be one of the highlights of the meet.
We've also got the report of those failed drug tests from 2005 and 2007 lingering over the World Championships, with the worry that they'll name names and it'll be names of those competing in Beijing. Hopefully the competition is so good that we're talking about doping for only the first couple days before the stories of the Championships take over.
Since track & field is my favorite Olympic sport, I always have an interest in the World Championships, and the intensity is amped up that much more in the pre-Olympic Worlds. With less than a year to go until the Olympics, what happens in Beijing could be a great indicator of what we'll see next year in Rio.
With 47 events spread over nine days, there's a lot of track & field on the horizon. My preview will be split up into two parts. Today, picks for the men's events, with a breakdown of some of the key ones (or the ones I'm looking forward to the most). Tomorrow, I'll do the same thing with the women.
100: Justin Gatlin (USA), Usain Bolt (JAM), Keston Bledman (TTO)
The long-anticipated Bolt-Gatlin showdown comes at the scene of Bolt's greatest triumph. I think the reason they haven't raced each other is because Bolt has been ducking Gatlin. He knows he'll beat him.
200: Usain Bolt (JAM), Alonso Edward (PAN), Justin Gatlin (USA)
In the 200, it's a different story. It's Bolt's baby, and he's still the best in the world over the distance.
400: LaShawn Merritt (USA), Kirani James (GRN), Wayde Van Niekerk (RSA)
Isaac Makwala of Botswana has the best time in the world this year, but Merritt and James are the battle-tested veterans. One of them will come out on top.
800: David Rudisha (KEN), Nijel Amos (BOT), Mohammed Aman (ETH)
No, Nick Symmonds won't be running. There was no chance he's gonna medal anyway. Everybody's here this time, which wasn't the case when Symmonds won silver two years ago in Moscow.
1500: Asbel Kiprop (KEN), Taoufik Makhloufi (ALG), Nick Willis (NZL)
Really a toss-up here. Kiprop's the favorite and has the top time in the world this year, but there's really like five or six guys in the mix for the medals.
5000: Dejen Gebremeskel (ETH), Yomif Kejelcha (ETH), Hagos Gebrhiwet (ETH)
Four of the top five seeds are Ethiopian, so I can definitely see a sweep here. The real question is whether American Ben True can medal.
10,000: Mo Farah (GBR), Paul Tanui (KEN), Geoffrey Kamworor (KEN)
Farah has evidently been cleared of any wrongdoing, but I think it's a mistake to let Alberto Salazar coach him in Beijing. Nevertheless, the top three in this event are a cut above the rest of the field.
Marathon: Wilson Kipsang (KEN), Ghirmany Ghebreselassie (ETH), Stephen Kiprotich (UGA)
As usual, what's going to happen in the marathon is anybody's guess. Way too many variables at play to make a pick with any certainty, but I'll take 2014 New York City Marathon winner Wilson Kipsang.
Steeplechase: Brimin Kiprop Kipruto (KEN), Ezekiel Kemboi (KEN), Evan Jager (USA)
American distance running is the best its ever been. As evidence by the fact that Evan Jager is the No. 2 seed and favored to win a medal in this typically Kenyan-dominated event.
110 Hurdles: David Oliver (USA), Omar McLeod (JAM), Aleec Harris (USA)
Defending champion David Oliver is the best in the world. It's not even close. I'll be shocked if he doesn't win again.
400 Hurdles: Bershawn Jackson (USA), Michael Tinsley (USA), Javier Culson (PUR)
Can the Americans sweep? And which one will win the gold? This is one of the strongest events for the American team, but I like Pan Am silver medalist Culson to break through for bronze.
High Jump: Muttaz Essa Barshim (QAT), Bohdan Bondarenko (UKR), Zhang Guowei (CHN)
Barshim and Bondarenko had one of the great duels at the 2013 World Championships. While the men's high jump hasn't been anywhere near as hot this year as it was then, I'm looking forward to the two of them going at it again...with Zhang also thrown into the mix.
Pole Vault: Renaud Lavillenie (FRA), Raphael Holzdeppe (GER), Shawn Barber (CAN)
Yelena Isinbayeva set a world record in the women's pole vault in Moscow. Will Lavillenie set one on the men's side in Beijing? Amazingly, he's never won a World Championship. That should change here.
Long Jump: Jeff Henderson (USA), Marquis Dendy (USA), Greg Rutherford (GBR)
Henderson won at Pan Ams and has the best jump in the world this year. He's the best of a not-spectacular field.
Triple Jump: Pedro Pablo Pichardo (CUB), Christian Taylor (USA), Will Claye (USA)
This has taken over from the high jump as the hottest men's field event. Triple P against a quartet of Florida Gators. It's probably between Pichardo and Taylor for gold, with the other three Americans fighting for bronze.
Shot Put: David Storl (GER), Joe Kovacs (USA), Asmir Kolasinac (SRB)
For some reason, David Storl always seems to come up big at the World Championships. This is an event traditionally dominated by the Americans, but Storl somehow manages to win every time.
Discus: Piotr Malachowski (POL), Jason Morgan (JAM), Christoph Harting (GER)
Robert Harting is injured and not here, but his brother Christoph will have a chance at upholding the family name. Problem is Piotr Malachowski has been the best in the world this year by a wide margin.
Hammer: Pawel Fajdek (POL), Krisztian Pars (HUN), Dilshod Nazarov (TJK)
If there's a bigger favorite on the men's side than Pawel Fajdek, I don't know who it is. This guy has dominated the hammer throw for so long now, I don't even remember the last time somebody else won something,
Javelin: Keshorn Walcott (TTO), Julius Yego (KEN), Tero Pitkamaki (FIN)
Oh, how the times have changed. Kenya and Trinidad & Tobago are the top two seeds in the javelin. The best shot the Europeans, the event's traditional powers, have is for bronze.
Decathlon: Ashton Eaton (USA), Trey Hardee (USA), Damian Warner (CAN)
Ashton Eaton hasn't completed a decathlon since Moscow. That doesn't really matter, though. He's head and shoulders above everyone else. And that includes Trey Hardee and Damian Warner.
20 km Walk: Wang Zhen (CHN), Yusuke Suzuki (JPN), Chen Ding (CHN)
China's best chance at winning a gold medal on the men's side is probably in the 20 km walk. Wang, Chen and Cai Zelin all have a shot at the gold, and a medal sweep is possible.
50 km Walk: Matej Toth (SVK), Hirooki Arai (JPN), Aleksandr Yargunkin (RUS)
Toth has the best time in the world this year by almost six seconds. Think about how long that is in the race walk! With most of the Russians who could've challenged him involved in the doping controversy, he should have a 50 km leisurely stroll through the streets of Beijing.
4x100 Relay: United States, Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago
I don't want to sound overly optimistic, but I think the U.S. has finally found the secret to beating Jamaica in the 4x100. They beat them at the World Relays in the Bahamas in May, and if they follow the same formula, a World Championships victory won't be too far behind.
4x400 Relay: United States, Bahamas, Jamaica
To say that the United States has dominated this event over the years would be an understatement. With all four Americans likely to make the final of the individual 400, as well as 400-hurdlers who are just as capable in the relay, it shouldn't be any different in Beijing.
We've also got the report of those failed drug tests from 2005 and 2007 lingering over the World Championships, with the worry that they'll name names and it'll be names of those competing in Beijing. Hopefully the competition is so good that we're talking about doping for only the first couple days before the stories of the Championships take over.
Since track & field is my favorite Olympic sport, I always have an interest in the World Championships, and the intensity is amped up that much more in the pre-Olympic Worlds. With less than a year to go until the Olympics, what happens in Beijing could be a great indicator of what we'll see next year in Rio.
With 47 events spread over nine days, there's a lot of track & field on the horizon. My preview will be split up into two parts. Today, picks for the men's events, with a breakdown of some of the key ones (or the ones I'm looking forward to the most). Tomorrow, I'll do the same thing with the women.
100: Justin Gatlin (USA), Usain Bolt (JAM), Keston Bledman (TTO)
The long-anticipated Bolt-Gatlin showdown comes at the scene of Bolt's greatest triumph. I think the reason they haven't raced each other is because Bolt has been ducking Gatlin. He knows he'll beat him.
200: Usain Bolt (JAM), Alonso Edward (PAN), Justin Gatlin (USA)
In the 200, it's a different story. It's Bolt's baby, and he's still the best in the world over the distance.
400: LaShawn Merritt (USA), Kirani James (GRN), Wayde Van Niekerk (RSA)
Isaac Makwala of Botswana has the best time in the world this year, but Merritt and James are the battle-tested veterans. One of them will come out on top.
800: David Rudisha (KEN), Nijel Amos (BOT), Mohammed Aman (ETH)
No, Nick Symmonds won't be running. There was no chance he's gonna medal anyway. Everybody's here this time, which wasn't the case when Symmonds won silver two years ago in Moscow.
1500: Asbel Kiprop (KEN), Taoufik Makhloufi (ALG), Nick Willis (NZL)
Really a toss-up here. Kiprop's the favorite and has the top time in the world this year, but there's really like five or six guys in the mix for the medals.
5000: Dejen Gebremeskel (ETH), Yomif Kejelcha (ETH), Hagos Gebrhiwet (ETH)
Four of the top five seeds are Ethiopian, so I can definitely see a sweep here. The real question is whether American Ben True can medal.
10,000: Mo Farah (GBR), Paul Tanui (KEN), Geoffrey Kamworor (KEN)
Farah has evidently been cleared of any wrongdoing, but I think it's a mistake to let Alberto Salazar coach him in Beijing. Nevertheless, the top three in this event are a cut above the rest of the field.
Marathon: Wilson Kipsang (KEN), Ghirmany Ghebreselassie (ETH), Stephen Kiprotich (UGA)
As usual, what's going to happen in the marathon is anybody's guess. Way too many variables at play to make a pick with any certainty, but I'll take 2014 New York City Marathon winner Wilson Kipsang.
Steeplechase: Brimin Kiprop Kipruto (KEN), Ezekiel Kemboi (KEN), Evan Jager (USA)
American distance running is the best its ever been. As evidence by the fact that Evan Jager is the No. 2 seed and favored to win a medal in this typically Kenyan-dominated event.
110 Hurdles: David Oliver (USA), Omar McLeod (JAM), Aleec Harris (USA)
Defending champion David Oliver is the best in the world. It's not even close. I'll be shocked if he doesn't win again.
400 Hurdles: Bershawn Jackson (USA), Michael Tinsley (USA), Javier Culson (PUR)
Can the Americans sweep? And which one will win the gold? This is one of the strongest events for the American team, but I like Pan Am silver medalist Culson to break through for bronze.
High Jump: Muttaz Essa Barshim (QAT), Bohdan Bondarenko (UKR), Zhang Guowei (CHN)
Barshim and Bondarenko had one of the great duels at the 2013 World Championships. While the men's high jump hasn't been anywhere near as hot this year as it was then, I'm looking forward to the two of them going at it again...with Zhang also thrown into the mix.
Pole Vault: Renaud Lavillenie (FRA), Raphael Holzdeppe (GER), Shawn Barber (CAN)
Yelena Isinbayeva set a world record in the women's pole vault in Moscow. Will Lavillenie set one on the men's side in Beijing? Amazingly, he's never won a World Championship. That should change here.
Long Jump: Jeff Henderson (USA), Marquis Dendy (USA), Greg Rutherford (GBR)
Henderson won at Pan Ams and has the best jump in the world this year. He's the best of a not-spectacular field.
Triple Jump: Pedro Pablo Pichardo (CUB), Christian Taylor (USA), Will Claye (USA)
This has taken over from the high jump as the hottest men's field event. Triple P against a quartet of Florida Gators. It's probably between Pichardo and Taylor for gold, with the other three Americans fighting for bronze.
Shot Put: David Storl (GER), Joe Kovacs (USA), Asmir Kolasinac (SRB)
For some reason, David Storl always seems to come up big at the World Championships. This is an event traditionally dominated by the Americans, but Storl somehow manages to win every time.
Discus: Piotr Malachowski (POL), Jason Morgan (JAM), Christoph Harting (GER)
Robert Harting is injured and not here, but his brother Christoph will have a chance at upholding the family name. Problem is Piotr Malachowski has been the best in the world this year by a wide margin.
Hammer: Pawel Fajdek (POL), Krisztian Pars (HUN), Dilshod Nazarov (TJK)
If there's a bigger favorite on the men's side than Pawel Fajdek, I don't know who it is. This guy has dominated the hammer throw for so long now, I don't even remember the last time somebody else won something,
Javelin: Keshorn Walcott (TTO), Julius Yego (KEN), Tero Pitkamaki (FIN)
Oh, how the times have changed. Kenya and Trinidad & Tobago are the top two seeds in the javelin. The best shot the Europeans, the event's traditional powers, have is for bronze.
Decathlon: Ashton Eaton (USA), Trey Hardee (USA), Damian Warner (CAN)
Ashton Eaton hasn't completed a decathlon since Moscow. That doesn't really matter, though. He's head and shoulders above everyone else. And that includes Trey Hardee and Damian Warner.
20 km Walk: Wang Zhen (CHN), Yusuke Suzuki (JPN), Chen Ding (CHN)
China's best chance at winning a gold medal on the men's side is probably in the 20 km walk. Wang, Chen and Cai Zelin all have a shot at the gold, and a medal sweep is possible.
50 km Walk: Matej Toth (SVK), Hirooki Arai (JPN), Aleksandr Yargunkin (RUS)
Toth has the best time in the world this year by almost six seconds. Think about how long that is in the race walk! With most of the Russians who could've challenged him involved in the doping controversy, he should have a 50 km leisurely stroll through the streets of Beijing.
4x100 Relay: United States, Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago
I don't want to sound overly optimistic, but I think the U.S. has finally found the secret to beating Jamaica in the 4x100. They beat them at the World Relays in the Bahamas in May, and if they follow the same formula, a World Championships victory won't be too far behind.
4x400 Relay: United States, Bahamas, Jamaica
To say that the United States has dominated this event over the years would be an understatement. With all four Americans likely to make the final of the individual 400, as well as 400-hurdlers who are just as capable in the relay, it shouldn't be any different in Beijing.
Monday, August 17, 2015
Everyone Gets a Trophy
Steelers linebacker James Harrison caused a bit of a stir on social media when he posted a picture of his kids' participation trophies on his Instagram account and said he was sending them back. This, of course, drew the inevitable mixed reaction. Some people were outraged that he would do such a thing. But, for the most part, people tended to agree with Harrison and show their support.
The participation trophy is unique to American youth sports, and it has a long history. They're designed to make the kids feel good. A "reward" for good effort. Not everyone can be the MVP, but even the worst player on the team is just as important. The important part is just to do your best. At least that's the rationale behind the existence of the participation trophy.
But the problem with them is that you don't need to do anything to get one. You don't even need to be good. All you need to do is show up. So what exactly did you do to "earn" it? The heart is obviously in the right place. Youth sports aren't about winning and losing. They're about having fun, making friends and learning things like teamwork. But at what point does it become about winning and losing?
I'm not a parent and I respect the parenting styles of those who don't share my opinion, but I definitely agree with James Harrison on this one. The participation trophy sends the wrong message and devalues other awards. Imagine being on a youth sports team and being named MVP...and you get the same trophy as the last kid on the bench. Winning the MVP is obviously an achievement. But how is a 9-year-old supposed to know that? All he sees is everybody getting the same thing.
Harrison himself might've said it best. This is what he wrote on Instagram underneath the picture: "I came home to find out that my boys received two trophies for nothing, participation trophies! While I am very proud of my boys for everything they do, and will encourage them till the day I die, these trophies will be given back until they EARN a real trophy. I'm sorry I'm not sorry for believing that everything in life should be earned and I'm not about to raise two boys to be men by making them believe that they are entitled to something just because they tried their best...cause sometimes your best is not enough, and that should drive you to want to do better...not cry and whine until somebody gives you something to shut u up and keep you happy."
His point is exactly right. As you grow up, you don't automatically get an award for trying. You have to work for it. Sometimes you're going to try your best and somebody else's best will be better. And if that happens, they deserve to get a trophy over you. Just like if you do better than them, you wouldn't want them getting the same award you got. Learning how to lose graciously is part of life, too. So is dealing with disappointment. Participation trophies don't do that. They send the wrong message by telling everyone they're good enough.
I don't remember the age at which I stopped receiving participation trophies, but I do know I definitely got some throughout my Little League baseball and basketball careers (and I wasn't good at either sport). I don't remember how I felt when I got those meaningless trophies, either. At the time, I probably thought it was so cool that I got a trophy.
But now that I'm an adult and work in sports, I know what it takes to actually "win" a trophy. I see it everyday. And the thrill of winning a championship is something that can't be described. You were the best. The trophy or ring or banner is tangible proof of that. I've been involved with championship teams, but I've never received a championship ring myself. And I can't wait until I get one!
Second place is often the worst feeling in sports. In team sports at the Olympics, the silver medal goes to the loser of the gold medal game. It's a consolation prize that no one wants. And it's motivation. That silver medal is often used as fuel to go out, work hard, and move up to the gold the next time. How many of those athlete features does NBC run during each Olympics where that's the exact storyline?
There's an episode of the sitcom Yes, Dear where this debate is the whole plot. A kid gets a trophy for finishing last in the school Olympics and his dad, not knowing the kid is standing behind him, makes fun of the trophy. "Outstanding? Yeah, he was out standing there as the fast kids went by." The next week, the kid finishes third and gets another trophy. After he brings it home, he tells his dad that he heard him and he was right. He wanted to win a trophy that he earned.
That's the entire point. Participation trophies aren't a bad thing. They're completely well-intentioned. But they're also counterproductive. There's a big difference between getting a trophy just because and getting a trophy because you won something. Want proof? Look at the winning team during a trophy presentation. Then look at the losing team.
The participation trophy is unique to American youth sports, and it has a long history. They're designed to make the kids feel good. A "reward" for good effort. Not everyone can be the MVP, but even the worst player on the team is just as important. The important part is just to do your best. At least that's the rationale behind the existence of the participation trophy.
But the problem with them is that you don't need to do anything to get one. You don't even need to be good. All you need to do is show up. So what exactly did you do to "earn" it? The heart is obviously in the right place. Youth sports aren't about winning and losing. They're about having fun, making friends and learning things like teamwork. But at what point does it become about winning and losing?
I'm not a parent and I respect the parenting styles of those who don't share my opinion, but I definitely agree with James Harrison on this one. The participation trophy sends the wrong message and devalues other awards. Imagine being on a youth sports team and being named MVP...and you get the same trophy as the last kid on the bench. Winning the MVP is obviously an achievement. But how is a 9-year-old supposed to know that? All he sees is everybody getting the same thing.
Harrison himself might've said it best. This is what he wrote on Instagram underneath the picture: "I came home to find out that my boys received two trophies for nothing, participation trophies! While I am very proud of my boys for everything they do, and will encourage them till the day I die, these trophies will be given back until they EARN a real trophy. I'm sorry I'm not sorry for believing that everything in life should be earned and I'm not about to raise two boys to be men by making them believe that they are entitled to something just because they tried their best...cause sometimes your best is not enough, and that should drive you to want to do better...not cry and whine until somebody gives you something to shut u up and keep you happy."
His point is exactly right. As you grow up, you don't automatically get an award for trying. You have to work for it. Sometimes you're going to try your best and somebody else's best will be better. And if that happens, they deserve to get a trophy over you. Just like if you do better than them, you wouldn't want them getting the same award you got. Learning how to lose graciously is part of life, too. So is dealing with disappointment. Participation trophies don't do that. They send the wrong message by telling everyone they're good enough.
I don't remember the age at which I stopped receiving participation trophies, but I do know I definitely got some throughout my Little League baseball and basketball careers (and I wasn't good at either sport). I don't remember how I felt when I got those meaningless trophies, either. At the time, I probably thought it was so cool that I got a trophy.
But now that I'm an adult and work in sports, I know what it takes to actually "win" a trophy. I see it everyday. And the thrill of winning a championship is something that can't be described. You were the best. The trophy or ring or banner is tangible proof of that. I've been involved with championship teams, but I've never received a championship ring myself. And I can't wait until I get one!
Second place is often the worst feeling in sports. In team sports at the Olympics, the silver medal goes to the loser of the gold medal game. It's a consolation prize that no one wants. And it's motivation. That silver medal is often used as fuel to go out, work hard, and move up to the gold the next time. How many of those athlete features does NBC run during each Olympics where that's the exact storyline?
There's an episode of the sitcom Yes, Dear where this debate is the whole plot. A kid gets a trophy for finishing last in the school Olympics and his dad, not knowing the kid is standing behind him, makes fun of the trophy. "Outstanding? Yeah, he was out standing there as the fast kids went by." The next week, the kid finishes third and gets another trophy. After he brings it home, he tells his dad that he heard him and he was right. He wanted to win a trophy that he earned.
That's the entire point. Participation trophies aren't a bad thing. They're completely well-intentioned. But they're also counterproductive. There's a big difference between getting a trophy just because and getting a trophy because you won something. Want proof? Look at the winning team during a trophy presentation. Then look at the losing team.
Sunday, August 16, 2015
Brady vs. The NFL Getting Dirty
Am I the only one who absolutely loves the judge in the Brady vs. Goodell case? This guy's awesome. He, in not so many words, told them how stupid this entire thing is and how ridiculous it is that it's gotten to this point. And, by encouraging them to settle (which seems unlikely), he also indirectly told them that if he has to actually issue a ruling, neither side is going to like it.
Unfortunately, neither Brady or Goodell is budging, so the settlement ain't happening. Brady refuses to accept a suspension of any length and won't admit any guilt. That doesn't work for Goddell, who would probably agree to a reduced suspension if Brady wasn't so stubborn in his defiance. Of course, by settling, Goodell would be acknowledging that he overreached, which would be an incredible blow to his absolute authority and open the door to any player that doesn't like his NFL discipline challenging it in court. Still, compared to the alternative of the suspension being completely nullified, I think he'd probably take that.
Even though the judge told both sides to tone down the rhetoric, that hasn't stopped Brady's lawyers from taking shots at the NFL. They've called the whole thing a "smear campaign" and called Goodell's original written ruling a "propaganda piece" and said it showed "a clearly biased agenda, not an effort at fairness and consistency." How exactly is that toning down the rhetoric?
The Patriots' nonchalant, care-free attitude to the whole thing isn't helping either. They said that Brady wouldn't play in the first preseason game against the Packers, which was played in Foxboro the day after Brady was in New York for the first round with the judge. Yet there he was on the field, playing the entire first quarter. Was this Brady and Kraft saying a big "F.U." to Goodell? The Patriots to Goodell: "He's gonna play now, and he's gonna play in the first regular season game, too. And there's nothing you can do about it."
Now, even without a possible suspension looming, what's the point of Tom Brady playing the entire first quarter in the first preseason game (unless they were trying to stick it to the NFL)? Under normal conditions, we probably wouldn't have seen Brady at all in that game. And putting him in there really seemed counterproductive. Assuming the suspension sticks, whether it's reduced or upheld doesn't really matter. Either way, Brady will miss the first game. So, wouldn't you want Jimmy Garoppolo to start the game and play with the first team offense against Green Bay's first team defense, neither of which was going to be in there very long?
Neither side looks very good here. Brady's trying to salvage whatever's left of his Golden Boy image, but unless you live in New England, that's already long gone. To paraphrase Shakespeare, "the gentleman doth protest too much methinks." He reminds me of Roger Clemens with his continued defiance and cockiness about it. Clemens was found not guilty in federal court, but there isn't a person out there who doesn't think he took something during his playing career. Same thing with Brady. We don't know what he did, but we're pretty sure he's guilty of something.
Meanwhile, Goodell needs the suspension to stick to maintain any sense of credibility he has in these cases. He already had Bountygate voided and Adrian Peterson's suspension overturned. And after initially screwing up so badly on Ray Rice, a judge told him he couldn't suspend Rice again for the same thing. Goodell needs the judge to say he's right on this one. Otherwise, he can expect to do this again anytime he tries to levy discipline that the player being suspended doesn't like.
No matter what, there aren't any winners here. Brady's no longer the Golden Boy. And he's not going to get the complete vindication he's looking for. Sure, if he doesn't like the judge's ultimate ruling, he can appeal again, but when will it finally be enough? The public is already sick of this entire thing. No one wants it dragged into 2016. Except for maybe Brady's lawyers. Keep those billable hours piling up.
Both sides want this over with by September 4, which is a week before the Patriots play the Steelers in the NFL's opening game. By strongly encouraging the sides to settle, the judge is not-so-subtly telling them that he doesn't want to make a decision. I do give him credit for taking it seriously, though. Because if I was a judge and this case was brought into my courtroom, I'm not sure I'd be able to. It's so stupid.
Brady and Goodell will both be back in court on Wednesday. This time there might be witnesses, too. So who knows what new details are going to emerge? Either way, I think this will ultimately be decided by the judge, and it will likely resemble the settlement he's been urging the sides to make all along. The fine stays and the suspension is cut from four games to two. Hopefully that'll be enough to appease Goodell and Brady will be smart enough to waive the white flag. But we all know that's unlikely to happen. Get ready for Tom Brady to play the entire 2015 season only to miss the first four games of 2016. Because, unfortunately, it looks like that's where we're headed.
Unfortunately, neither Brady or Goodell is budging, so the settlement ain't happening. Brady refuses to accept a suspension of any length and won't admit any guilt. That doesn't work for Goddell, who would probably agree to a reduced suspension if Brady wasn't so stubborn in his defiance. Of course, by settling, Goodell would be acknowledging that he overreached, which would be an incredible blow to his absolute authority and open the door to any player that doesn't like his NFL discipline challenging it in court. Still, compared to the alternative of the suspension being completely nullified, I think he'd probably take that.
Even though the judge told both sides to tone down the rhetoric, that hasn't stopped Brady's lawyers from taking shots at the NFL. They've called the whole thing a "smear campaign" and called Goodell's original written ruling a "propaganda piece" and said it showed "a clearly biased agenda, not an effort at fairness and consistency." How exactly is that toning down the rhetoric?
The Patriots' nonchalant, care-free attitude to the whole thing isn't helping either. They said that Brady wouldn't play in the first preseason game against the Packers, which was played in Foxboro the day after Brady was in New York for the first round with the judge. Yet there he was on the field, playing the entire first quarter. Was this Brady and Kraft saying a big "F.U." to Goodell? The Patriots to Goodell: "He's gonna play now, and he's gonna play in the first regular season game, too. And there's nothing you can do about it."
Now, even without a possible suspension looming, what's the point of Tom Brady playing the entire first quarter in the first preseason game (unless they were trying to stick it to the NFL)? Under normal conditions, we probably wouldn't have seen Brady at all in that game. And putting him in there really seemed counterproductive. Assuming the suspension sticks, whether it's reduced or upheld doesn't really matter. Either way, Brady will miss the first game. So, wouldn't you want Jimmy Garoppolo to start the game and play with the first team offense against Green Bay's first team defense, neither of which was going to be in there very long?
Neither side looks very good here. Brady's trying to salvage whatever's left of his Golden Boy image, but unless you live in New England, that's already long gone. To paraphrase Shakespeare, "the gentleman doth protest too much methinks." He reminds me of Roger Clemens with his continued defiance and cockiness about it. Clemens was found not guilty in federal court, but there isn't a person out there who doesn't think he took something during his playing career. Same thing with Brady. We don't know what he did, but we're pretty sure he's guilty of something.
Meanwhile, Goodell needs the suspension to stick to maintain any sense of credibility he has in these cases. He already had Bountygate voided and Adrian Peterson's suspension overturned. And after initially screwing up so badly on Ray Rice, a judge told him he couldn't suspend Rice again for the same thing. Goodell needs the judge to say he's right on this one. Otherwise, he can expect to do this again anytime he tries to levy discipline that the player being suspended doesn't like.
No matter what, there aren't any winners here. Brady's no longer the Golden Boy. And he's not going to get the complete vindication he's looking for. Sure, if he doesn't like the judge's ultimate ruling, he can appeal again, but when will it finally be enough? The public is already sick of this entire thing. No one wants it dragged into 2016. Except for maybe Brady's lawyers. Keep those billable hours piling up.
Both sides want this over with by September 4, which is a week before the Patriots play the Steelers in the NFL's opening game. By strongly encouraging the sides to settle, the judge is not-so-subtly telling them that he doesn't want to make a decision. I do give him credit for taking it seriously, though. Because if I was a judge and this case was brought into my courtroom, I'm not sure I'd be able to. It's so stupid.
Brady and Goodell will both be back in court on Wednesday. This time there might be witnesses, too. So who knows what new details are going to emerge? Either way, I think this will ultimately be decided by the judge, and it will likely resemble the settlement he's been urging the sides to make all along. The fine stays and the suspension is cut from four games to two. Hopefully that'll be enough to appease Goodell and Brady will be smart enough to waive the white flag. But we all know that's unlikely to happen. Get ready for Tom Brady to play the entire 2015 season only to miss the first four games of 2016. Because, unfortunately, it looks like that's where we're headed.
Friday, August 14, 2015
10 Not In the Hall of Fame Who Belong
I saw that USA Today article yesterday with the list of players that they don't think belong in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. I tried to avoid actually reading it, but so many people were saying stuff about it that I eventually felt compelled. Needless to say, I don't agree with all of the "overrated" Hall of Famers on their list. Troy Aikman and Cris Carter certainly belong, and if Ray Guy was an "average" punter, I don't know what a good, let alone great, punter is then. I completely agree with Warren Moon, Andre Tippett and Curtis Martin, though.
Anyway, all of this got me thinking about something that has actually been on my mind since the actual enshrinement ceremony on Saturday night. For all the players who already have gold jackets and a bust in Canton (Brett Favre and the other guys who get inducted next year will bring it over 300), there are plenty that could and maybe should be that have gotten lost in the shuffle over the years. You know how long I argued for Ray Guy's election before he finally took his rightful place last year. Now that Guy is in, I can go on a crusade for other veterans I feel have been snubbed.
Now, this list isn't going to include players I think are likely to get inducted in the near future. That means Marvin Harrison and all those other recently-retired guys who the committee is in the midst of cycling through. My guess is Harrison goes in with Favre next year. They won't make him wait for Peyton. So, this list of 10 goes a little further back, and includes the players I think have been overlooked long enough.
1. Jim Marshall: Jim Marshall is best known for the "Wrong Way Run," one of the most famous bloopers in NFL history. On Oct. 25, 1964, he recovered a fumble and returned it 66 yards into the wrong end zone, resulting in a safety for the 49ers instead of a Vikings touchdown. I think that's what's kept him out of the Hall of Fame for so long, which is a shame. Because Marshall deserves a place. Along with Hall of Famers Alan Page and Carl Eller, he was a member of that feared "Purple People Eaters" defense that went to four Super Bowls in the '70s. Oh yeah, and he set records for consecutive games played (282) and consecutive starts (270), while playing defensive end, and set an NFL record with 30 fumble recoveries to go along with 127 sacks, second-most in Vikings history. If not for the "Wrong Way Run," Jim Marshall would be in the Hall of Fame already.
2. Roger Craig: It completely boggles my mind that Roger Craig doesn't get more Hall of Fame support. He's the forgotten member of the 49ers dynasty. I mean, seriously, what didn't he do? He was the first running back ever with 1,000 yards rushing and receiving in the same season (and only Marshall Faulk has done it since), is one of three running backs ever to lead the NFL in receptions (92 in 1985), and, as Peter King pointed out in 1993, is the only player ever named to the Pro Bowl at both fullback and halfback. Oh yeah, and he played in the postseason all 11 years of his career, is the only running back to compile 100 yards receiving in a Super Bowl (and was the first person to score three touchdowns in a Super Bowl), and was the NFL Offensive Player of the Year in 1988. I seriously don't get it. What am I missing? Roger Craig's a Hall of Famer to me.
3. Kent Hull: Four players from those great Bills teams from the early '90s are already in the Hall of Fame, and they'll probably remain the only four Hall of Famers from those teams for a while. I'd argue there are several others from those squads that are Hall of Fame-worthy, but perhaps none more so than the late Kent Hull. The center on those teams, he anchored the offensive line that let Jim Kelly operate the K-Gun and Thurman Thomas run wild for all those years. He played 11 years in Buffalo, was a team captain, and started 121 consecutive games from 1986-93, including all four Super Bowls.
4. Jim Plunkett: Ken Stabler's Hall of Fame candidacy was obviously a hot topic when he passed away a few weeks ago, but the Raiders quarterback I think is more deserving of a place in Canton is Jim Plunkett. He's the only eligible quarterback to start and win two Super Bowls that isn't yet in the Hall of Fame. I'm not saying that winning the Super Bowl should automatically get you a bust (Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson were both Super Bowl-winning starting quarterbacks), but winning two in a four-year period should warrant further consideration. Plunkett's career numbers aren't great (he had more interceptions than touchdowns, and is career completion percentage is just over 50 percent) and he was never elected to the Pro Bowl. But, he went 8-2 in the playoffs during his career, and the 1980 Raiders became the first wild card team to win a Super Bowl, with Plunkett earning MVP honors in the win over the Eagles.
5. Ottis Anderson: One of the most underrated players in NFL history, Ottis Anderson played for the St. Louis Cardinals for most of his career, which is probably why he didn't have greater notoriety. He rushed for 1,000 yards five times in his first six seasons and didn't in 1982 only because of the strike. That season, the Cardinals made the playoffs for the only time in a 24-year span from 1975-98. He's the franchise's all-time leading rusher. Anderson then moved on to the Giants, where he won a Super Bowl ring in 1986 (scoring a touchdown). He then became the starter, won Comeback Player of the Year honors in 1989 and was MVP of Super Bowl XXV. He's one of only four running backs in NFL history to score a touchdown in two different Super Bowls and win a Super Bowl MVP. When he retired, Anderson was seventh all time in rushing TDs and eighth in rushing yards, and he's still 18th (TDs) and 26th (yards).
6. L.C. Greenwood: Yes, there are a lot of members of the Steel Curtain defense already in the Hall of Fame. Doesn't mean there are more that could be. Before he died, L.C. Greenwood said that he wouldn't be upset if he weren't elected because he felt all the Steelers already in the Hall represent the entire team. But that doesn't mean L.C. Greenwood and his gold shoes don't deserve a bust alongside Mean Joe Greene, Jack Lambert, Jack Ham and the others. He was a six-time Pro Bowler and two-time All-Pro who was on the NFL's All-Decade Team for the 1970s. Greenwood wasn't as celebrated as his Steelers teammates, but he was just as vital to the dynasty's success.
7. Andy Russell: Another Steel Curtain member noticeably absent from Canton is Andy Russell. He retired in 1976, so he was only there for two of them, and certainly wasn't as in your face as the two Jacks (Lambert and Ham) on either side of him. But Russell was there for the lean years that preceded the Steelers' dynasty and was actually their defensive captain during the first two Super Bowls. Russell was also a seven-time Pro Bowler, First Team All-Pro in 1975 and three-time Second Team All-Pro. I don't think all 11 Steel Curtain starters should be in the Hall of Fame, but I would like to see two more.
8. Jake Scott: Safety is one of the most underrepresented positions in the Hall of Fame. There are only seven full-time safeties (not counting guys like Ronnie Lott and Rod Woodson who started as corners, then moved in later in their careers) who've been elected, and there likely won't be another until Ed Reed gets in. But I'd argue that Jake Scott should. Part of that "No-Name Defense" (maybe that's the problem, they don't know who he is), he was only other player in Dolphins history to wear No. 13 (some guy named Marino did, too). Nine seasons, five consecutive Pro Bowls, two All-Pro selections (1973, 1974), 49 career interceptions. He was the MVP of Super Bowl VII, recording two interceptions to cap Miami's perfect season. Scott then had two fumble recoveries in Super Bowl VIII, as the Dolphins defended their title.
9. John Taylor: John Taylor wasn't Jerry Rice. Everybody knows that. But he was John Stallworth to Rice's Lynn Swann. They were both made better because the other was so good (kind of like Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne). Taylor was even more valuable because he was also the 49ers' punt returner. He actually holds Super Bowl records for most punt return yards and highest average. But another Super Bowl play is his greatest legacy--the 10-yard TD catch with 23 seconds left to win Super Bowl XXIII. Taylor ended up winning three rings in San Francisco and was a two-time All-Pro return man. His receiving numbers would've been greater if he was the No. 1 receiver on his team, but when you're the No. 2 receiver behind Jerry Rice, that's not really a knock.
10. Joe Jacoby: Lastly, we've got Joe Jacoby. Russ Grimm is the only member of that vaunted "Hogs" offensive line that already has a bust, and I'd like to see Jacoby get one, as well. He held down right tackle for 13 seasons, through all four starting quarterbacks and all three Super Bowl wins. In two of those games, the Redskins set Super Bowl records for rushing. They had 276 yards as a team in Super Bowl XVII, then broke that mark with 280 against the Broncos in Super Bowl XXII. Jacoby was a four-time Pro Bowler and two-time All-Pro, and he was on the 1980s All-Decade Team.
There are obviously plenty of others who could also be on this list, but these 10 I wouldn't think twice about. Hopefully the Hall of Fame's doors are eventually opened for all of them.
Anyway, all of this got me thinking about something that has actually been on my mind since the actual enshrinement ceremony on Saturday night. For all the players who already have gold jackets and a bust in Canton (Brett Favre and the other guys who get inducted next year will bring it over 300), there are plenty that could and maybe should be that have gotten lost in the shuffle over the years. You know how long I argued for Ray Guy's election before he finally took his rightful place last year. Now that Guy is in, I can go on a crusade for other veterans I feel have been snubbed.
Now, this list isn't going to include players I think are likely to get inducted in the near future. That means Marvin Harrison and all those other recently-retired guys who the committee is in the midst of cycling through. My guess is Harrison goes in with Favre next year. They won't make him wait for Peyton. So, this list of 10 goes a little further back, and includes the players I think have been overlooked long enough.
1. Jim Marshall: Jim Marshall is best known for the "Wrong Way Run," one of the most famous bloopers in NFL history. On Oct. 25, 1964, he recovered a fumble and returned it 66 yards into the wrong end zone, resulting in a safety for the 49ers instead of a Vikings touchdown. I think that's what's kept him out of the Hall of Fame for so long, which is a shame. Because Marshall deserves a place. Along with Hall of Famers Alan Page and Carl Eller, he was a member of that feared "Purple People Eaters" defense that went to four Super Bowls in the '70s. Oh yeah, and he set records for consecutive games played (282) and consecutive starts (270), while playing defensive end, and set an NFL record with 30 fumble recoveries to go along with 127 sacks, second-most in Vikings history. If not for the "Wrong Way Run," Jim Marshall would be in the Hall of Fame already.
2. Roger Craig: It completely boggles my mind that Roger Craig doesn't get more Hall of Fame support. He's the forgotten member of the 49ers dynasty. I mean, seriously, what didn't he do? He was the first running back ever with 1,000 yards rushing and receiving in the same season (and only Marshall Faulk has done it since), is one of three running backs ever to lead the NFL in receptions (92 in 1985), and, as Peter King pointed out in 1993, is the only player ever named to the Pro Bowl at both fullback and halfback. Oh yeah, and he played in the postseason all 11 years of his career, is the only running back to compile 100 yards receiving in a Super Bowl (and was the first person to score three touchdowns in a Super Bowl), and was the NFL Offensive Player of the Year in 1988. I seriously don't get it. What am I missing? Roger Craig's a Hall of Famer to me.
3. Kent Hull: Four players from those great Bills teams from the early '90s are already in the Hall of Fame, and they'll probably remain the only four Hall of Famers from those teams for a while. I'd argue there are several others from those squads that are Hall of Fame-worthy, but perhaps none more so than the late Kent Hull. The center on those teams, he anchored the offensive line that let Jim Kelly operate the K-Gun and Thurman Thomas run wild for all those years. He played 11 years in Buffalo, was a team captain, and started 121 consecutive games from 1986-93, including all four Super Bowls.
4. Jim Plunkett: Ken Stabler's Hall of Fame candidacy was obviously a hot topic when he passed away a few weeks ago, but the Raiders quarterback I think is more deserving of a place in Canton is Jim Plunkett. He's the only eligible quarterback to start and win two Super Bowls that isn't yet in the Hall of Fame. I'm not saying that winning the Super Bowl should automatically get you a bust (Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson were both Super Bowl-winning starting quarterbacks), but winning two in a four-year period should warrant further consideration. Plunkett's career numbers aren't great (he had more interceptions than touchdowns, and is career completion percentage is just over 50 percent) and he was never elected to the Pro Bowl. But, he went 8-2 in the playoffs during his career, and the 1980 Raiders became the first wild card team to win a Super Bowl, with Plunkett earning MVP honors in the win over the Eagles.
5. Ottis Anderson: One of the most underrated players in NFL history, Ottis Anderson played for the St. Louis Cardinals for most of his career, which is probably why he didn't have greater notoriety. He rushed for 1,000 yards five times in his first six seasons and didn't in 1982 only because of the strike. That season, the Cardinals made the playoffs for the only time in a 24-year span from 1975-98. He's the franchise's all-time leading rusher. Anderson then moved on to the Giants, where he won a Super Bowl ring in 1986 (scoring a touchdown). He then became the starter, won Comeback Player of the Year honors in 1989 and was MVP of Super Bowl XXV. He's one of only four running backs in NFL history to score a touchdown in two different Super Bowls and win a Super Bowl MVP. When he retired, Anderson was seventh all time in rushing TDs and eighth in rushing yards, and he's still 18th (TDs) and 26th (yards).
6. L.C. Greenwood: Yes, there are a lot of members of the Steel Curtain defense already in the Hall of Fame. Doesn't mean there are more that could be. Before he died, L.C. Greenwood said that he wouldn't be upset if he weren't elected because he felt all the Steelers already in the Hall represent the entire team. But that doesn't mean L.C. Greenwood and his gold shoes don't deserve a bust alongside Mean Joe Greene, Jack Lambert, Jack Ham and the others. He was a six-time Pro Bowler and two-time All-Pro who was on the NFL's All-Decade Team for the 1970s. Greenwood wasn't as celebrated as his Steelers teammates, but he was just as vital to the dynasty's success.
7. Andy Russell: Another Steel Curtain member noticeably absent from Canton is Andy Russell. He retired in 1976, so he was only there for two of them, and certainly wasn't as in your face as the two Jacks (Lambert and Ham) on either side of him. But Russell was there for the lean years that preceded the Steelers' dynasty and was actually their defensive captain during the first two Super Bowls. Russell was also a seven-time Pro Bowler, First Team All-Pro in 1975 and three-time Second Team All-Pro. I don't think all 11 Steel Curtain starters should be in the Hall of Fame, but I would like to see two more.
8. Jake Scott: Safety is one of the most underrepresented positions in the Hall of Fame. There are only seven full-time safeties (not counting guys like Ronnie Lott and Rod Woodson who started as corners, then moved in later in their careers) who've been elected, and there likely won't be another until Ed Reed gets in. But I'd argue that Jake Scott should. Part of that "No-Name Defense" (maybe that's the problem, they don't know who he is), he was only other player in Dolphins history to wear No. 13 (some guy named Marino did, too). Nine seasons, five consecutive Pro Bowls, two All-Pro selections (1973, 1974), 49 career interceptions. He was the MVP of Super Bowl VII, recording two interceptions to cap Miami's perfect season. Scott then had two fumble recoveries in Super Bowl VIII, as the Dolphins defended their title.
9. John Taylor: John Taylor wasn't Jerry Rice. Everybody knows that. But he was John Stallworth to Rice's Lynn Swann. They were both made better because the other was so good (kind of like Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne). Taylor was even more valuable because he was also the 49ers' punt returner. He actually holds Super Bowl records for most punt return yards and highest average. But another Super Bowl play is his greatest legacy--the 10-yard TD catch with 23 seconds left to win Super Bowl XXIII. Taylor ended up winning three rings in San Francisco and was a two-time All-Pro return man. His receiving numbers would've been greater if he was the No. 1 receiver on his team, but when you're the No. 2 receiver behind Jerry Rice, that's not really a knock.
10. Joe Jacoby: Lastly, we've got Joe Jacoby. Russ Grimm is the only member of that vaunted "Hogs" offensive line that already has a bust, and I'd like to see Jacoby get one, as well. He held down right tackle for 13 seasons, through all four starting quarterbacks and all three Super Bowl wins. In two of those games, the Redskins set Super Bowl records for rushing. They had 276 yards as a team in Super Bowl XVII, then broke that mark with 280 against the Broncos in Super Bowl XXII. Jacoby was a four-time Pro Bowler and two-time All-Pro, and he was on the 1980s All-Decade Team.
There are obviously plenty of others who could also be on this list, but these 10 I wouldn't think twice about. Hopefully the Hall of Fame's doors are eventually opened for all of them.
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
LA to the Rescue
Well, it only took a few weeks after the embarrassment of the Boston bid for the USOC to get its act together and find a new bid city for the 2024 Olympics. It looks like they're close to officially announcing that Los Angeles will step in as the American bidder. During the initial domestic race, in which LA finished second to Boston, many experts said LA should win and were surprised when Boston was chosen. Then, after Boston fell apart, the USOC was in the unenviable position of putting together another bid at the 11th hour. LA seemed like the only logical place that would work on short notice. Fortunately, they were up for the challenge.
If the U.S. hadn't bid at all after the Boston debacle, the IOC would NOT have been very happy. Thomas Bach made that abundantly clear during the 2022 vote in Kuala Lumpur. So, the USOC had no choice but to put forth a replacement bid. And it just so happens that the replacement bid is going to be a much better one than the original choice.
Many feel it's the U.S.'s "turn" to host an Olympics, but with Toronto likely entering a race that already includes three very strong bids from Europe (which won't have hosted the Games in 12 years), there's no guarantee. But LA stands a much better chance than Boston ever would have. And if the U.S. hadn't bid at all, it would've been even worse than New York and Chicago's losses for 2012 and 2016.
For all the problems Boston had with public and governmental support, LA has none of that. Mayor Eric Garcetti has already agreed to cover any cost overruns, but predicts there won't be any. Depending on who you ask, public support in Southern California is somewhere around 70 percent. LA prides itself on being "America's Olympic City" and claims it could host the Olympics tomorrow if asked (the scary thing is they probably could). Need an example supporting this? How about the Special Olympics World Games, which just concluded in LA and were a rousing success?
Back in January when the USOC was down to its four finalists, I supported San Francisco over LA because I didn't think it was fair for LA to host three times when so many other American cities have never gotten the chance to host the Olympics. Eight months later, I've changed my stance. The three time thing isn't an issue for the IOC. London 2012 was spectacular, and two-time host Paris is one of the other contenders for 2024. Besides, LA is the ones that stepped up to the plate when Boston balked. That shows me how important it is to them and how much they want to host the Olympics again. San Francisco and Washington kind of just moved on after Boston was selected initially.
LA's proposed budget is only $4.5 billion. Why so low? Because all of the necessary infrastructure is already in place. No need to build roads or train lines or venues that will see little-to-no post-Games use. And maybe you've heard of this place called LAX?
In addition, how many world-class athletic venues have been built in LA in the last 10 years? There's likely going to be more soon, too. If Roger Goodell gets his way, LA will have two NFL teams, both with brand new stadiums, within the next five years. And USC has already committed I think $70 million to renovating the Coliseum. They're also proposing a new soccer stadium next to the Coliseum for the new team that's supposedly replacing Chivas USA in MLS. They'd maybe need to build a swimming stadium and an athletes' village, but that's about it.
One of the most brilliant things the organizers of the 1984 Olympics did was make use of existing facilities, which were scattered all around Southern California. That model fits perfectly into the IOC's Agenda 2020. And you know that we'll see most, if not all, of those facilities again, as well as all of the new ones (basketball at Staples Center, volleyball at USC's Galen Center). If they wanted to, they could even hold the entire soccer tournament entirely in the greater LA area (finals at the Rose Bowl, Home Depot Center, new MLS stadium, one of the new football stadiums, UCLA's Drake Stadium, maybe a stadium in Anaheim).
It's not a stretch to say that Los Angeles saved the Olympic Movement in 1984. After the Munich Massacre, Montreal going bankrupt and the Moscow boycott, nobody wanted to host (LA ran unopposed), thinking the benefits didn't outweigh the risks/costs. LA changed that. They were a glorious Games that revived the Olympic Spirit. Beyond that, they made money! With corporate sponsorships and the use of existing venues, they set the model that other Olympic cities would follow for the next 30 years.
The IOC is not in the same dire straits it was 30 years ago. They were stuck with Beijing vs. Almaty for 2022 because the other cities were scared off by Sochi's $51 billion price tag, which is an incredibly misleading number, and the Athens Games are at least part of the reason for Greece's financial situation. Then there are the organizational problems with Rio and Japan's constant changing of its Olympic Stadium plans. But there's no doubt that the IOC and the Olympics will survive, which was not the case back then.
Likewise, the USOC would've survived if LA hadn't stepped up to bid for the 2024 Games. But it would've done some massive damage to the USOC's relationship with the IOC, which it took years to rebuild. So, once again, it really is LA to to rescue. We're still two years away from finding out where the 2024 Olympics will be. But we know the U.S. will at least be in the running when the winner is named. Thanks to Los Angeles.
If the U.S. hadn't bid at all after the Boston debacle, the IOC would NOT have been very happy. Thomas Bach made that abundantly clear during the 2022 vote in Kuala Lumpur. So, the USOC had no choice but to put forth a replacement bid. And it just so happens that the replacement bid is going to be a much better one than the original choice.
Many feel it's the U.S.'s "turn" to host an Olympics, but with Toronto likely entering a race that already includes three very strong bids from Europe (which won't have hosted the Games in 12 years), there's no guarantee. But LA stands a much better chance than Boston ever would have. And if the U.S. hadn't bid at all, it would've been even worse than New York and Chicago's losses for 2012 and 2016.
For all the problems Boston had with public and governmental support, LA has none of that. Mayor Eric Garcetti has already agreed to cover any cost overruns, but predicts there won't be any. Depending on who you ask, public support in Southern California is somewhere around 70 percent. LA prides itself on being "America's Olympic City" and claims it could host the Olympics tomorrow if asked (the scary thing is they probably could). Need an example supporting this? How about the Special Olympics World Games, which just concluded in LA and were a rousing success?
Back in January when the USOC was down to its four finalists, I supported San Francisco over LA because I didn't think it was fair for LA to host three times when so many other American cities have never gotten the chance to host the Olympics. Eight months later, I've changed my stance. The three time thing isn't an issue for the IOC. London 2012 was spectacular, and two-time host Paris is one of the other contenders for 2024. Besides, LA is the ones that stepped up to the plate when Boston balked. That shows me how important it is to them and how much they want to host the Olympics again. San Francisco and Washington kind of just moved on after Boston was selected initially.
LA's proposed budget is only $4.5 billion. Why so low? Because all of the necessary infrastructure is already in place. No need to build roads or train lines or venues that will see little-to-no post-Games use. And maybe you've heard of this place called LAX?
In addition, how many world-class athletic venues have been built in LA in the last 10 years? There's likely going to be more soon, too. If Roger Goodell gets his way, LA will have two NFL teams, both with brand new stadiums, within the next five years. And USC has already committed I think $70 million to renovating the Coliseum. They're also proposing a new soccer stadium next to the Coliseum for the new team that's supposedly replacing Chivas USA in MLS. They'd maybe need to build a swimming stadium and an athletes' village, but that's about it.
One of the most brilliant things the organizers of the 1984 Olympics did was make use of existing facilities, which were scattered all around Southern California. That model fits perfectly into the IOC's Agenda 2020. And you know that we'll see most, if not all, of those facilities again, as well as all of the new ones (basketball at Staples Center, volleyball at USC's Galen Center). If they wanted to, they could even hold the entire soccer tournament entirely in the greater LA area (finals at the Rose Bowl, Home Depot Center, new MLS stadium, one of the new football stadiums, UCLA's Drake Stadium, maybe a stadium in Anaheim).
It's not a stretch to say that Los Angeles saved the Olympic Movement in 1984. After the Munich Massacre, Montreal going bankrupt and the Moscow boycott, nobody wanted to host (LA ran unopposed), thinking the benefits didn't outweigh the risks/costs. LA changed that. They were a glorious Games that revived the Olympic Spirit. Beyond that, they made money! With corporate sponsorships and the use of existing venues, they set the model that other Olympic cities would follow for the next 30 years.
The IOC is not in the same dire straits it was 30 years ago. They were stuck with Beijing vs. Almaty for 2022 because the other cities were scared off by Sochi's $51 billion price tag, which is an incredibly misleading number, and the Athens Games are at least part of the reason for Greece's financial situation. Then there are the organizational problems with Rio and Japan's constant changing of its Olympic Stadium plans. But there's no doubt that the IOC and the Olympics will survive, which was not the case back then.
Likewise, the USOC would've survived if LA hadn't stepped up to bid for the 2024 Games. But it would've done some massive damage to the USOC's relationship with the IOC, which it took years to rebuild. So, once again, it really is LA to to rescue. We're still two years away from finding out where the 2024 Olympics will be. But we know the U.S. will at least be in the running when the winner is named. Thanks to Los Angeles.
Sunday, August 9, 2015
FIFA's Nonsensical World Rankings
I've never understood the FIFA World Rankings. Teams move up and down with seemingly no rhyme or reason, and teams that are clearly better than others are ranked below them. The fact that this ranking system makes absolutely no sense was once again brought to my attention by loyal blog reader Steve Misevic, who informed me that the United States moved up five places after finishing fourth at the Gold Cup, and World Cup champion Germany somehow dropped behind Belgium to third in the world. (And Argentina stayed No. 1 despite losing the Copa America final.)
Belgium's good, but they're not the second-best team in the world. And they're definitely not better than Germany. Germany won the World Cup last year! There hasn't been a major tournament since then, and all of the European teams (except France) are currently in the midst of qualifying for Euro 2016. So where'd Belgium get all these extra points from? And speaking of France, since they don't have to qualify for Euro 2016, they don't have qualifying games to count for their world ranking. As a result, they've dropped to 23rd in the world. Albania is 22nd! Need I say more.
Yet, for some reason, FIFA relies almost exclusively on these rankings (instead of using common sense) as a means of seeding teams for its various tournaments, which is completely absurd. They used the July rankings to seed the teams for European qualifying for the 2018 World Cup. That meant Romania and Wales were seeded, while Italy and France weren't. Switzerland, which for some reason got seeded at the actual World Cup last year, is now down to 18th in the world and wasn't seeded, either. But since the world ranking is how they determined who'd be in what pot in the draw, they ended up with Spain and Italy in the same group. Same thing with France and the Netherlands and Portugal and Switzerland. Meanwhile, this is the makeup of another European qualifying group: Wales, Austria, Serbia, Ireland, Moldova, Georgia. One of those six nations is guaranteed a spot in the World Cup.
Last year, of course, I let it be known how stupid I thought it was that the Netherlands (which lost in the finals of both the 2010 World Cup and Euro 2012) and Italy weren't seeded at the World Cup, yet Belgium and Switzerland were. And because they weren't seeded, the Dutch, who ended up finishing third, had to play Spain, which was still the top team in the world at the time, in the opening game. If the purpose of the world rankings is to prevent the top teams from facing each other until the later rounds, how does this happen? Clearly there's a flaw in the system.
Perhaps the biggest problem with the FIFA rankings is that they're incredibly complicated. I was only able to get about halfway down the explanation on Wikipedia before getting extremely confused. From what I was able to gather, though, they go back four years on a weighted system, with more recent results counting more than, say, a 2013 friendly. They also weigh it based on your opponent and what confederation you're in (which is inherently unfair to teams from Oceania, the lowest-ranked confederation). And, of course, what type of match it is also comes into play (World Cup qualifiers count more than friendlies, for example). The only part that I was able to get that was straightforward was the "result" points, which are basically the same as they are for a regular game (the only exception is that you only get two points for a shootout win and you get one for a shootout loss).
There are so many problems with the rankings it's hysterical. For starters, teams are actually indirectly penalized for hosting a tournament. Your points count 2.5 for qualifying matches. Yet, since they don't have to qualify and, thus, don't play any qualifiers, the only international matches that the host can count are friendlies, which count as 1.0 points. That's why France's ranking has dipped to 23, and why Brazil was only ranked 10th going into last year's World Cup.
And teams have found the way to manipulate the system to their benefit. There's no minimum number of matches required, so you can play as few or as many friendlies as you want. Switzerland's being seeded in the 2014 World Cup is a prime example of this. They only played three friendlies in the entire year leading up to the World Cup, all easy wins against lower-ranked opponents. Had they played any more, they wouldn't have been seeded. That's the same way Romania got seeded for 2018 qualifying. The Romanians have played a grand total of one friendly in the last year.
The way I see it, there are easy fixes to these problems. And it would make the whole system a lot simpler in the process. For starters, you eliminate the regional strength multiplier. There's absolutely no reason why European teams should get extra credit for playing other European teams or Oceania teams have it held against them when they play other teams from Oceania, especially since they usually don't have a choice (who else are they gonna play in the Oceania Championships?).
Next, I get rid of the bonus points for beating a team that's ranked higher than you. I get the idea behind it, but the rankings are always in flux. It's also a stretch to call it an "upset" when fifth-ranked Brazil beats fourth-ranked Colombia in Sao Paulo. Most people would expect Brazil to win that game. Why should they get extra ranking points if they do win it? Home/away results used to be included in the system, but FIFA took that out of the criteria in 2006. With good reason. The "quality win" points should be the next to go.
FIFA also really needs to institute some sort of minimum games rule. Depending on the year and what type of regional/global tournament (or qualifying for those events) they might be entered in, national teams have a variable number of "official" games to play. That's not going to change. But FIFA can require them to play a certain minimum number of friendlies. You can play more, but if every nation was required to play, say, at least four friendlies a year, you'd avoid things like Switzerland and Romania manipulating the system to their benefit by not playing.
Lastly, I'd take a page out of tennis' book. In tennis, they have different levels of tournaments, which are worth different amounts of points. The grand slams obviously count the most. It should be the same in soccer. Winning the World Cup should count the most, then winning the Confederations Cup, then winning your regional championship. I'm not saying qualifying and friendlies aren't important, but it's absurd that the World Cup doesn't count more than it does.
Under the current system, FIFA gives you four times the points for a win/draw in the World Cup, three for the Confederations Cup or continental cup, and 2.5 for qualifying. So, a win in the World Cup adds 12 points to your world ranking, a Copa America win adds nine, and a win in qualifying for one of those events is 7.5. But those points are only weighted based on your results. Your actual place in the tournament is irrelevant, which is ridiculous.
If you go 0-3-0 in the World Cup, you don't get any points. The sheer fact that you played in the World Cup should count for something. Again bringing it back to tennis, you get one ranking point for a first-round loss in a grand slam, with it going up for each round (Novak Djokovic got 2000 for winning Wimbledon). And in tennis, points only stay on your ranking for a year.
One of the few things about FIFA's current ranking system that works is the result points. But performance points have to be added in there, too. For the World Cup, I'd have it be something like this: Group play-50 points, Round of 16-75 points, Quarterfinals-100 points, Fourth place-125 points, Third place-150 points, Second place-250 points, Champion-400 points. Plus your result points, like you receive now. Those automatically stay on your ranking until the next World Cup, but the minimum you get would be 50 for simply being in the tournament.
For the Euro or other continental tournament it would be: Group play-25 points, Round of 16 (Euro only)-40 points, Quarterfinals-50 points, Semifinals (if no third place game)-80 points, Fourth place-75 points, Third place-100 points, Second place-150 points, Champion-250 points.
Using the bonus point system I just proposed, Germany would've received 476 points for winning the World Cup (400 for winning the tournament, 12 for each of their six wins, four for the draw with Portugal). Argentina would have 520 performance points after its second-place finishes at the World Cup (318) and Copa America (202).
Teams should be rewarded for a good performance at a major tournament. That's the whole point of world rankings, isn't it? To determine the best teams? Unfortuantely, the FIFA World Rankings don't currently do that. Maybe when the new president takes over, he'll do something to fix that.
Belgium's good, but they're not the second-best team in the world. And they're definitely not better than Germany. Germany won the World Cup last year! There hasn't been a major tournament since then, and all of the European teams (except France) are currently in the midst of qualifying for Euro 2016. So where'd Belgium get all these extra points from? And speaking of France, since they don't have to qualify for Euro 2016, they don't have qualifying games to count for their world ranking. As a result, they've dropped to 23rd in the world. Albania is 22nd! Need I say more.
Yet, for some reason, FIFA relies almost exclusively on these rankings (instead of using common sense) as a means of seeding teams for its various tournaments, which is completely absurd. They used the July rankings to seed the teams for European qualifying for the 2018 World Cup. That meant Romania and Wales were seeded, while Italy and France weren't. Switzerland, which for some reason got seeded at the actual World Cup last year, is now down to 18th in the world and wasn't seeded, either. But since the world ranking is how they determined who'd be in what pot in the draw, they ended up with Spain and Italy in the same group. Same thing with France and the Netherlands and Portugal and Switzerland. Meanwhile, this is the makeup of another European qualifying group: Wales, Austria, Serbia, Ireland, Moldova, Georgia. One of those six nations is guaranteed a spot in the World Cup.
Last year, of course, I let it be known how stupid I thought it was that the Netherlands (which lost in the finals of both the 2010 World Cup and Euro 2012) and Italy weren't seeded at the World Cup, yet Belgium and Switzerland were. And because they weren't seeded, the Dutch, who ended up finishing third, had to play Spain, which was still the top team in the world at the time, in the opening game. If the purpose of the world rankings is to prevent the top teams from facing each other until the later rounds, how does this happen? Clearly there's a flaw in the system.
Perhaps the biggest problem with the FIFA rankings is that they're incredibly complicated. I was only able to get about halfway down the explanation on Wikipedia before getting extremely confused. From what I was able to gather, though, they go back four years on a weighted system, with more recent results counting more than, say, a 2013 friendly. They also weigh it based on your opponent and what confederation you're in (which is inherently unfair to teams from Oceania, the lowest-ranked confederation). And, of course, what type of match it is also comes into play (World Cup qualifiers count more than friendlies, for example). The only part that I was able to get that was straightforward was the "result" points, which are basically the same as they are for a regular game (the only exception is that you only get two points for a shootout win and you get one for a shootout loss).
There are so many problems with the rankings it's hysterical. For starters, teams are actually indirectly penalized for hosting a tournament. Your points count 2.5 for qualifying matches. Yet, since they don't have to qualify and, thus, don't play any qualifiers, the only international matches that the host can count are friendlies, which count as 1.0 points. That's why France's ranking has dipped to 23, and why Brazil was only ranked 10th going into last year's World Cup.
And teams have found the way to manipulate the system to their benefit. There's no minimum number of matches required, so you can play as few or as many friendlies as you want. Switzerland's being seeded in the 2014 World Cup is a prime example of this. They only played three friendlies in the entire year leading up to the World Cup, all easy wins against lower-ranked opponents. Had they played any more, they wouldn't have been seeded. That's the same way Romania got seeded for 2018 qualifying. The Romanians have played a grand total of one friendly in the last year.
The way I see it, there are easy fixes to these problems. And it would make the whole system a lot simpler in the process. For starters, you eliminate the regional strength multiplier. There's absolutely no reason why European teams should get extra credit for playing other European teams or Oceania teams have it held against them when they play other teams from Oceania, especially since they usually don't have a choice (who else are they gonna play in the Oceania Championships?).
Next, I get rid of the bonus points for beating a team that's ranked higher than you. I get the idea behind it, but the rankings are always in flux. It's also a stretch to call it an "upset" when fifth-ranked Brazil beats fourth-ranked Colombia in Sao Paulo. Most people would expect Brazil to win that game. Why should they get extra ranking points if they do win it? Home/away results used to be included in the system, but FIFA took that out of the criteria in 2006. With good reason. The "quality win" points should be the next to go.
FIFA also really needs to institute some sort of minimum games rule. Depending on the year and what type of regional/global tournament (or qualifying for those events) they might be entered in, national teams have a variable number of "official" games to play. That's not going to change. But FIFA can require them to play a certain minimum number of friendlies. You can play more, but if every nation was required to play, say, at least four friendlies a year, you'd avoid things like Switzerland and Romania manipulating the system to their benefit by not playing.
Lastly, I'd take a page out of tennis' book. In tennis, they have different levels of tournaments, which are worth different amounts of points. The grand slams obviously count the most. It should be the same in soccer. Winning the World Cup should count the most, then winning the Confederations Cup, then winning your regional championship. I'm not saying qualifying and friendlies aren't important, but it's absurd that the World Cup doesn't count more than it does.
Under the current system, FIFA gives you four times the points for a win/draw in the World Cup, three for the Confederations Cup or continental cup, and 2.5 for qualifying. So, a win in the World Cup adds 12 points to your world ranking, a Copa America win adds nine, and a win in qualifying for one of those events is 7.5. But those points are only weighted based on your results. Your actual place in the tournament is irrelevant, which is ridiculous.
If you go 0-3-0 in the World Cup, you don't get any points. The sheer fact that you played in the World Cup should count for something. Again bringing it back to tennis, you get one ranking point for a first-round loss in a grand slam, with it going up for each round (Novak Djokovic got 2000 for winning Wimbledon). And in tennis, points only stay on your ranking for a year.
One of the few things about FIFA's current ranking system that works is the result points. But performance points have to be added in there, too. For the World Cup, I'd have it be something like this: Group play-50 points, Round of 16-75 points, Quarterfinals-100 points, Fourth place-125 points, Third place-150 points, Second place-250 points, Champion-400 points. Plus your result points, like you receive now. Those automatically stay on your ranking until the next World Cup, but the minimum you get would be 50 for simply being in the tournament.
For the Euro or other continental tournament it would be: Group play-25 points, Round of 16 (Euro only)-40 points, Quarterfinals-50 points, Semifinals (if no third place game)-80 points, Fourth place-75 points, Third place-100 points, Second place-150 points, Champion-250 points.
Using the bonus point system I just proposed, Germany would've received 476 points for winning the World Cup (400 for winning the tournament, 12 for each of their six wins, four for the draw with Portugal). Argentina would have 520 performance points after its second-place finishes at the World Cup (318) and Copa America (202).
Teams should be rewarded for a good performance at a major tournament. That's the whole point of world rankings, isn't it? To determine the best teams? Unfortuantely, the FIFA World Rankings don't currently do that. Maybe when the new president takes over, he'll do something to fix that.
Friday, August 7, 2015
If You Don't Want to Represent Your Country, Then DON'T!
As we approach the track & field World Championships at the end of the month, the U.S. team headed to Beijing is all but finalized. Athletes earned their spots with a top-three finish at Nationals in June, but August 9 is the cut-off date to achieve qualifying marks if they didn't already have them. A vast majority of the team has known they're going to Worlds for more than a month now, but those that needed to "chase" a mark have until Sunday to get it or they're not going to China (and someone who didn't make the team, but has the standard could possibly go in their place).
Representing your country is a dream. For most, being on Team USA is a lifelong goal and is obviously the highest honor any athlete can achieve. All of these athletes take up track & field with one goal in mind--wearing the red, white and blue at the Olympics. Rio's still a year away, but wearing the USA singlet at the World Championships is the next best thing. There are plenty of athletes who would kill to be on the National Team just once. Apparently Nick Symmonds isn't one of them.
Symmonds is a two-time Olympian who won the silver at the 2013 World Championships in the 800 meters. He won his sixth National Championship in June, earning a place on his fourth consecutive World Championships team. Except Symmonds isn't officially on the team yet and might not be going to Beijing. Why? Because of a dispute between him and USA Track & Field.
After making the National team, athletes go through something called "processing," where they get their USA uniforms, do all the necessary paperwork, etc. They're then sent a congratulatory letter in the mail along with all their USA gear. I've seen a number of pictures on social media of athletes who are so excited to receive their USA gear (especially if it's their first time on a National team). That's when it becomes real that they're actually going to wear the red, white and blue.
Another part of the Team USA processing is signing a document agreeing to wear the provided USA apparel at all "official team functions." If you don't sign it, you can't be on the National team. And this is where Symmonds has a problem. USA Track & Field is sponsored by Nike, which obviously provides all of the official team apparel. Symmonds is sponsored by Brooks, a competing shoe company. (It should be noted here that Symmonds was sponsored by Nike until he was dropped in 2013.) He argues that he'll be going against his Brooks contract by wearing Nike gear (which I highly doubt, seeing as that would prohibit him from wearing a USA jersey) and also wants clarification of what an "official" team function is. He also claims that USA Track & Field told him to leave any non-Nike-branded gear at home, which USATF officials dispute.
There are plenty of athletes on the U.S. team who are sponsored by a different shoe company. Athletes representing Adidas, New Balance, Saucony, Asics, Oiselle and even other Brooks athletes have qualified for Worlds. As far as I can tell, they all have no problem with a seemingly simple request from USATF and Nike to not promote a competing brand while representing the Nike-sponsored U.S. National Team. This isn't new, and Symmonds himself has signed it plenty of times before (which he now claims he never did). Requiring the athletes to sign a document with this non-competition clause doesn't seem that unreasonable. How dare they want you to wear official USA gear while representing the USA!
This sort of stuff happens all the time in all different sports. The best example was probably the 1992 Olympics, where the USA Basketball "Dream Team" draped the American flag over the Reebok logo on their Team USA jackets because Michael Jordan and several of the others were sponsored by Nike. Reebok makes all of the NFL uniforms and the NBA has an exclusive deal with Adidas, while many of the players have personal endorsement contracts with competing companies. Yet that didn't stop LeBron James (Nike) or Stephen Curry (Under Armour) from wearing Adidas uniforms in the NBA Finals.
Just two weeks ago, in fact, two American sprinters were prevented from running on a Team USA relay at a Diamond League meet because they aren't Nike athletes and their contracts say that they're not allowed to wear a different apparel company's uniform except in the World Championships or Olympics. How is that any different? Where was the uproar about that?
Since this story first broke yesterday, USATF has gotten nothing but bad press. That was exactly Symmonds' goal. He's the "victim," while USATF is portrayed as the big, bad bully. As a result, he's drummed up plenty of support for taking a stand against an "unfair" policy. Well, count me among the group that has the contrary opinion.
When you qualify for the World Championships or the Olympics, you're representing yourself, but you're also representing your country. And when the front of the jersey says "USA," that's Exhibit A of "the name on the front is more important than the name on the back." Apparently not to Nick Symmonds. This is the definition of selfishness. He's putting himself above the team (Team USA mind you) and letting the world know. Symmonds has even threatened a lawsuit if they keep him off the team (I'm not sure how he thinks that would make the situation any better moving forward).
For all his talent, I've never been able to embrace Nick Symmonds. Mainly because this isn't the first time he's done something like this. This is just the latest example of Nick Symmonds wanting to hear himself talk. He made a point of letting everyone know that he has to cover up his tattoo (which he sold as advertising) at U.S. Nationals and the Olympics. And in 2013, when Worlds were in Moscow, he spoke out against Russia's anti-gay law and dedicated his medal to all of his gay and lesbian friends. If there's a controversial topic, he's got an opinion on it. (And he's usually the one making the topic controversial in the first place.)
If you don't want to wear the USA singlet, Nick, that's your problem. Because there are plenty of other people who'd be more than willing to take your place. It's an honor to represent your country. Not a right.
Representing your country is a dream. For most, being on Team USA is a lifelong goal and is obviously the highest honor any athlete can achieve. All of these athletes take up track & field with one goal in mind--wearing the red, white and blue at the Olympics. Rio's still a year away, but wearing the USA singlet at the World Championships is the next best thing. There are plenty of athletes who would kill to be on the National Team just once. Apparently Nick Symmonds isn't one of them.
Symmonds is a two-time Olympian who won the silver at the 2013 World Championships in the 800 meters. He won his sixth National Championship in June, earning a place on his fourth consecutive World Championships team. Except Symmonds isn't officially on the team yet and might not be going to Beijing. Why? Because of a dispute between him and USA Track & Field.
After making the National team, athletes go through something called "processing," where they get their USA uniforms, do all the necessary paperwork, etc. They're then sent a congratulatory letter in the mail along with all their USA gear. I've seen a number of pictures on social media of athletes who are so excited to receive their USA gear (especially if it's their first time on a National team). That's when it becomes real that they're actually going to wear the red, white and blue.
Another part of the Team USA processing is signing a document agreeing to wear the provided USA apparel at all "official team functions." If you don't sign it, you can't be on the National team. And this is where Symmonds has a problem. USA Track & Field is sponsored by Nike, which obviously provides all of the official team apparel. Symmonds is sponsored by Brooks, a competing shoe company. (It should be noted here that Symmonds was sponsored by Nike until he was dropped in 2013.) He argues that he'll be going against his Brooks contract by wearing Nike gear (which I highly doubt, seeing as that would prohibit him from wearing a USA jersey) and also wants clarification of what an "official" team function is. He also claims that USA Track & Field told him to leave any non-Nike-branded gear at home, which USATF officials dispute.
There are plenty of athletes on the U.S. team who are sponsored by a different shoe company. Athletes representing Adidas, New Balance, Saucony, Asics, Oiselle and even other Brooks athletes have qualified for Worlds. As far as I can tell, they all have no problem with a seemingly simple request from USATF and Nike to not promote a competing brand while representing the Nike-sponsored U.S. National Team. This isn't new, and Symmonds himself has signed it plenty of times before (which he now claims he never did). Requiring the athletes to sign a document with this non-competition clause doesn't seem that unreasonable. How dare they want you to wear official USA gear while representing the USA!
This sort of stuff happens all the time in all different sports. The best example was probably the 1992 Olympics, where the USA Basketball "Dream Team" draped the American flag over the Reebok logo on their Team USA jackets because Michael Jordan and several of the others were sponsored by Nike. Reebok makes all of the NFL uniforms and the NBA has an exclusive deal with Adidas, while many of the players have personal endorsement contracts with competing companies. Yet that didn't stop LeBron James (Nike) or Stephen Curry (Under Armour) from wearing Adidas uniforms in the NBA Finals.
Just two weeks ago, in fact, two American sprinters were prevented from running on a Team USA relay at a Diamond League meet because they aren't Nike athletes and their contracts say that they're not allowed to wear a different apparel company's uniform except in the World Championships or Olympics. How is that any different? Where was the uproar about that?
Since this story first broke yesterday, USATF has gotten nothing but bad press. That was exactly Symmonds' goal. He's the "victim," while USATF is portrayed as the big, bad bully. As a result, he's drummed up plenty of support for taking a stand against an "unfair" policy. Well, count me among the group that has the contrary opinion.
When you qualify for the World Championships or the Olympics, you're representing yourself, but you're also representing your country. And when the front of the jersey says "USA," that's Exhibit A of "the name on the front is more important than the name on the back." Apparently not to Nick Symmonds. This is the definition of selfishness. He's putting himself above the team (Team USA mind you) and letting the world know. Symmonds has even threatened a lawsuit if they keep him off the team (I'm not sure how he thinks that would make the situation any better moving forward).
For all his talent, I've never been able to embrace Nick Symmonds. Mainly because this isn't the first time he's done something like this. This is just the latest example of Nick Symmonds wanting to hear himself talk. He made a point of letting everyone know that he has to cover up his tattoo (which he sold as advertising) at U.S. Nationals and the Olympics. And in 2013, when Worlds were in Moscow, he spoke out against Russia's anti-gay law and dedicated his medal to all of his gay and lesbian friends. If there's a controversial topic, he's got an opinion on it. (And he's usually the one making the topic controversial in the first place.)
If you don't want to wear the USA singlet, Nick, that's your problem. Because there are plenty of other people who'd be more than willing to take your place. It's an honor to represent your country. Not a right.
Wednesday, August 5, 2015
One Year Til Rio!
We've reached the one-year-to-go mark until the 2016 Rio Olympics! I can't wait until the first Olympics in South America! This year is either gonna go by really quick or seem like it takes forever (maybe both).
Over the next year, there's gonna be a lot of talk about Rio's preparedness for the Games and the state of the polluted water (which some say is a major issue, but the International Sailing Federation has said is OK and the triathletes had no issue with at the test event last week). Then there's the thing that's a topic of conversation heading into every Olympics--who's going to be the final torchbearer. At each of the last three Olympics (Vancouver, London, Sochi), it's actually been more than one person. Will Rio continue that trend?
The obvious name is the most familiar Brazilian sportsman in history. That would be the great Pele. Pele is a worldwide icon, and he's been an incredible ambassador for not just soccer, but all of sport. Pele would be a fine choice, and I'm sure he's going to have some sort of major role at the Opening Ceremony. But I don't think it'll be as the final torchbearer. Soccer is Brazil's passion and Pele is a legend, but with his age (75 next summer), recent health problems, and the fact that he was never an Olympian make me think someone else will receive the honor.
So who will it be? Well, Brazil actually has many more options than you might think. They've won double-digit medals at the last five Olympics (including an all-time high 17 in London), and 20 of their 23 golds all-time have come since 1980. Specifically, Brazil has had a lot of success in team sports, mainly volleyball, so it wouldn't surprise me to see a volleyball player (beach or indoor) among those final torchbearers at the Maracana during the Opening Ceremony. Maybe Ricardo and Emanuel, three-time medalists on the beach, will carry it together.
Whether or not Ricardo and Emanuel will actually compete at home in Rio remains to be seen, but there are plenty of Brazilian athletes who you can expect to see and will be medal contenders. Will one of them get a Cathy Freeman moment?
Someone that might is Fabiana Murer, the 2011 World Champion in the women's pole vault who was also the gold medalist when Rio hosted the Pan Am Games in 2007. There's probably going to be more pressure on Murer than any other Brazilian athlete in Rio. Brazil's medal chances in track & field will be few and far between. And the chances at gold in track & field will be even less. Enter Fabiana Murer. Especially after a disappointing showing in London, Murer will want to perform in front of her hometown fans.
Meanwhile, swimmers Cesar Cielo and Thiago Pereira have the chance of winning multiple medals at home. Same thing with gymnast Arthur Zanetti. Cielo, especially, would be an excellent choice. He's a three-time medalist from Beijing and London, and could probably win just as many medals in Rio. But since swimming and gymnastics are the Olympics' traditional first week sports, an active swimmer or gymnast seems incredibly unlikely.
I don't think it'll be a current athlete no matter what, though. I've got it narrowed down to a list of seven retired Brazilian Olympians who I think should be in line for the honor of lighting the cauldron.
Up first is Gustavo Kuerten, the three-time French Open champion who was the first South American man ever to be ranked No. 1 in the world. It won't be him, but Guga is still one of the most recognizable Brazilian sports figures there is, so he, like Pele, I expect to be involved in the Ceremony in some way. It won't be as the final torchbearer, though.
Two Olympic track & field medalists could definitely be in line for the honor. The first is the legendary Joaquim Cruz. He won the gold in the 800 in Los Angeles and silver in Seoul, and is still one of just five men in history to run the 800 in under 1:42. He lit the cauldron at the Rio Pan Am Games. Do they double-dip or give someone else a chance? Someone like Vanderlei de Lima, perhaps. If you remember, de Lima was leading the marathon in Athens when a crazy fan ran onto the course and pushed him into the crowd late in the race. He recovered to win the bronze, then was awarded the Pierre de Coubertin Medal for sportsmanship by then-IOC President Jacques Rogge.
Sailing gives us two more viable options. Torben Grael competed in six Olympics from 1984-2004 and won five medals (two gold, one silver, two bronze), which is tied for the most by any Brazilian athlete all-time. The man he's tied with? The great Robert Scheidt. Like Grael, Scheidt is a five-time medalist in sailing. Unlike Grael, he might be competing on home waters in Rio. It would be Scheidt's sixth Olympics. He was the Brazilian flag bearer in Beijing.
Brazil's flag bearer in London was Rodrigo Pessoa, who's competed in equestrian at every Olympics since 1992. Pessoa won gold in individual jumping in 2004 and twice won bronze in team jumping. Rio would be his seventh Olympics, the record for a Brazilian athlete. Oh, and did I mention he's from Rio?
If that was the complete list of candidates, I'd say Pessoa, Scheidt and Cruz were the clubhouse leaders to light the cauldron. But none of them would be my choice. My choice would be someone significantly taller. Someone who was a five-time Olympian, but never a medalist. That doesn't diminish his career at all, though. Because he might be the greatest basketball player in history.
In five Olympics, Oscar Schmidt played in 38 games and scored 1,094 points, an average of 28.8 per game. He was the leading scorer in three of his five Olympic appearances and averaged a ridiculous 41.9 points per game in Seoul in 1988. However, despite having arguably the greatest basketball player in Olympic history, Brazil was never able to get past the quarterfinals.
Just to throw some more numbers out there, Oscar scored almost 50,000 total points in his career if you combine club and national team games. He also played professionally for 30 years!
Oscar Schmidt never got that Olympic moment with his team. So with the Olympics coming to Brazil for the first time, I'd give him the honor of all honors. Oscar Schmidt is one of the greatest Olympians in history never to win a medal. But his legacy is greater than that of any other Brazilian Olympian. That's why I think he's the only choice to light the Olympic cauldron in the Maracana one year from now (almost to the minute).
Over the next year, there's gonna be a lot of talk about Rio's preparedness for the Games and the state of the polluted water (which some say is a major issue, but the International Sailing Federation has said is OK and the triathletes had no issue with at the test event last week). Then there's the thing that's a topic of conversation heading into every Olympics--who's going to be the final torchbearer. At each of the last three Olympics (Vancouver, London, Sochi), it's actually been more than one person. Will Rio continue that trend?
The obvious name is the most familiar Brazilian sportsman in history. That would be the great Pele. Pele is a worldwide icon, and he's been an incredible ambassador for not just soccer, but all of sport. Pele would be a fine choice, and I'm sure he's going to have some sort of major role at the Opening Ceremony. But I don't think it'll be as the final torchbearer. Soccer is Brazil's passion and Pele is a legend, but with his age (75 next summer), recent health problems, and the fact that he was never an Olympian make me think someone else will receive the honor.
So who will it be? Well, Brazil actually has many more options than you might think. They've won double-digit medals at the last five Olympics (including an all-time high 17 in London), and 20 of their 23 golds all-time have come since 1980. Specifically, Brazil has had a lot of success in team sports, mainly volleyball, so it wouldn't surprise me to see a volleyball player (beach or indoor) among those final torchbearers at the Maracana during the Opening Ceremony. Maybe Ricardo and Emanuel, three-time medalists on the beach, will carry it together.
Whether or not Ricardo and Emanuel will actually compete at home in Rio remains to be seen, but there are plenty of Brazilian athletes who you can expect to see and will be medal contenders. Will one of them get a Cathy Freeman moment?
Someone that might is Fabiana Murer, the 2011 World Champion in the women's pole vault who was also the gold medalist when Rio hosted the Pan Am Games in 2007. There's probably going to be more pressure on Murer than any other Brazilian athlete in Rio. Brazil's medal chances in track & field will be few and far between. And the chances at gold in track & field will be even less. Enter Fabiana Murer. Especially after a disappointing showing in London, Murer will want to perform in front of her hometown fans.
Meanwhile, swimmers Cesar Cielo and Thiago Pereira have the chance of winning multiple medals at home. Same thing with gymnast Arthur Zanetti. Cielo, especially, would be an excellent choice. He's a three-time medalist from Beijing and London, and could probably win just as many medals in Rio. But since swimming and gymnastics are the Olympics' traditional first week sports, an active swimmer or gymnast seems incredibly unlikely.
I don't think it'll be a current athlete no matter what, though. I've got it narrowed down to a list of seven retired Brazilian Olympians who I think should be in line for the honor of lighting the cauldron.
Up first is Gustavo Kuerten, the three-time French Open champion who was the first South American man ever to be ranked No. 1 in the world. It won't be him, but Guga is still one of the most recognizable Brazilian sports figures there is, so he, like Pele, I expect to be involved in the Ceremony in some way. It won't be as the final torchbearer, though.
Two Olympic track & field medalists could definitely be in line for the honor. The first is the legendary Joaquim Cruz. He won the gold in the 800 in Los Angeles and silver in Seoul, and is still one of just five men in history to run the 800 in under 1:42. He lit the cauldron at the Rio Pan Am Games. Do they double-dip or give someone else a chance? Someone like Vanderlei de Lima, perhaps. If you remember, de Lima was leading the marathon in Athens when a crazy fan ran onto the course and pushed him into the crowd late in the race. He recovered to win the bronze, then was awarded the Pierre de Coubertin Medal for sportsmanship by then-IOC President Jacques Rogge.
Sailing gives us two more viable options. Torben Grael competed in six Olympics from 1984-2004 and won five medals (two gold, one silver, two bronze), which is tied for the most by any Brazilian athlete all-time. The man he's tied with? The great Robert Scheidt. Like Grael, Scheidt is a five-time medalist in sailing. Unlike Grael, he might be competing on home waters in Rio. It would be Scheidt's sixth Olympics. He was the Brazilian flag bearer in Beijing.
Brazil's flag bearer in London was Rodrigo Pessoa, who's competed in equestrian at every Olympics since 1992. Pessoa won gold in individual jumping in 2004 and twice won bronze in team jumping. Rio would be his seventh Olympics, the record for a Brazilian athlete. Oh, and did I mention he's from Rio?
If that was the complete list of candidates, I'd say Pessoa, Scheidt and Cruz were the clubhouse leaders to light the cauldron. But none of them would be my choice. My choice would be someone significantly taller. Someone who was a five-time Olympian, but never a medalist. That doesn't diminish his career at all, though. Because he might be the greatest basketball player in history.
In five Olympics, Oscar Schmidt played in 38 games and scored 1,094 points, an average of 28.8 per game. He was the leading scorer in three of his five Olympic appearances and averaged a ridiculous 41.9 points per game in Seoul in 1988. However, despite having arguably the greatest basketball player in Olympic history, Brazil was never able to get past the quarterfinals.
Just to throw some more numbers out there, Oscar scored almost 50,000 total points in his career if you combine club and national team games. He also played professionally for 30 years!
Oscar Schmidt never got that Olympic moment with his team. So with the Olympics coming to Brazil for the first time, I'd give him the honor of all honors. Oscar Schmidt is one of the greatest Olympians in history never to win a medal. But his legacy is greater than that of any other Brazilian Olympian. That's why I think he's the only choice to light the Olympic cauldron in the Maracana one year from now (almost to the minute).
Monday, August 3, 2015
Baseball In New York Is Fun Again
Summer in New York hasn't felt like this in quite a while. The Yankees and Mets are both in first place in August for the first time since 2006, and there's a buzz in this city about both of its baseball teams. Football training camps just opened and that's an afterthought right now. Because New York is currently a baseball town.
As is obvious to pretty much everybody, I'm a Yankees fan. But I'm not one of those Yankees fans who hates the Mets. I hate the Red Sox. I have no ill-will towards the Mets. Sure, they entertain me with their "only the Mets" moments (Mets fans know what I mean), which sometimes seem more frequent than not. Take this week. Two perfect examples. Wednesday night, Wilmer Flores is crying on the field when he finds out he's been traded to the Brewers, only to have the Mets back out of the trade and Flores remain on the team (and hit the game-winning homer on Friday). Then on Thursday, they went to a rain delay with two out in the top of the ninth and a 7-5 lead instead of just playing in the rain for five minutes. When they came back out 45 minutes later, a three-run homer made it 8-7 Padres, then the Mets went down in the bottom of the ninth after another three-hour rain delay.
Perhaps it's because of these Mets moments that it's so much fun to watch them win. It's a reward for their fans, who stick with the Mets through all of this. Mets fans are one of the most loyal bunches in all of sports. And they're also some of the most passionate. That's one of the coolest things when the Mets are winning. The sellout crowd at Citi Field looked phenomenal on national TV last night! It was like the glory days of Shea Stadium all over again.
I have no doubt that the support they receive from their crazy fans (who are coming out in droves this season) is one of the reasons why the Mets are so good at home. Mets fans deserve the chance to finally watch this team win.
The Yankees are much more used to winning. But after two straight years out of the playoffs, there's much more of an appreciation for what Joe Torre's dynasty did. Winning is not something to take for granted, which Yankees fans finally understand. And that's where the appreciation for this year's team comes in. This year's Yankees have the swagger that was missing during the Mariano and Jeter Retirement Tours.
They've suddenly become likable, too. And I think a lot of that has to do with A-Rod. During the last two playoff-less years, he was the one making headlines for all the wrong reasons. This year, he's not just behaving himself, he's healthy. And productive. So is Mark Teixeira. Best of all, the guys all like each other, which is obvious in the way they play and has rubbed off on everyone. They're having fun again. Maybe that's why they're winning.
That's another thing making the 2015 baseball season so special in the Big Apple. Both teams are fun to watch. For completely different reasons. The Yankees are playing typical Yankees baseball. The Bronx Bombers are back, crushing three-run homers and outscoring their opponents behind starting pitching that's sometimes somewhat suspect. And if they've got the lead late, look out. Good luck trying to hit Betances and Miller.
It's the complete opposite in Queens. The Mets have starting pitchers coming out the wazzu. Everyday is either "Harvey Day" or "De Grom Day" or "Thor Day" (I think Syndergaard is Thor, but it might be De Grom). Then they need a spot start and get Stephen Matz driving in three runs while also pitching seven innings in his Major League debut.
With that rotation, the Mets have something special. It's easy to get excited about. Problem is, they couldn't hit. Until last week. Yoenis Cespedes is the piece the Mets were missing. They've had the pitching all year. Now they've got the offense to back it up. Suddenly we're not hearing even the most optimistic of Mets fans talking about their "potential." They're legitimately good, which is on full display.
Imagine what the atmosphere's going to be like at Citi Field when these two first-place teams meet in the Subway Series in mid-September. That's going to be a Subway Series like no other. Well, at least unlike any since the 2000 World Series.
There's still two months left in the season, so a lot can still happen. But with the way things are going now, there's no reason not to think that they won't both make the playoffs, something that hasn't happened in nine years. And who knows? Maybe there will also be a Subway Series in October. Wouldn't that be something?!
As is obvious to pretty much everybody, I'm a Yankees fan. But I'm not one of those Yankees fans who hates the Mets. I hate the Red Sox. I have no ill-will towards the Mets. Sure, they entertain me with their "only the Mets" moments (Mets fans know what I mean), which sometimes seem more frequent than not. Take this week. Two perfect examples. Wednesday night, Wilmer Flores is crying on the field when he finds out he's been traded to the Brewers, only to have the Mets back out of the trade and Flores remain on the team (and hit the game-winning homer on Friday). Then on Thursday, they went to a rain delay with two out in the top of the ninth and a 7-5 lead instead of just playing in the rain for five minutes. When they came back out 45 minutes later, a three-run homer made it 8-7 Padres, then the Mets went down in the bottom of the ninth after another three-hour rain delay.
Perhaps it's because of these Mets moments that it's so much fun to watch them win. It's a reward for their fans, who stick with the Mets through all of this. Mets fans are one of the most loyal bunches in all of sports. And they're also some of the most passionate. That's one of the coolest things when the Mets are winning. The sellout crowd at Citi Field looked phenomenal on national TV last night! It was like the glory days of Shea Stadium all over again.
I have no doubt that the support they receive from their crazy fans (who are coming out in droves this season) is one of the reasons why the Mets are so good at home. Mets fans deserve the chance to finally watch this team win.
The Yankees are much more used to winning. But after two straight years out of the playoffs, there's much more of an appreciation for what Joe Torre's dynasty did. Winning is not something to take for granted, which Yankees fans finally understand. And that's where the appreciation for this year's team comes in. This year's Yankees have the swagger that was missing during the Mariano and Jeter Retirement Tours.
They've suddenly become likable, too. And I think a lot of that has to do with A-Rod. During the last two playoff-less years, he was the one making headlines for all the wrong reasons. This year, he's not just behaving himself, he's healthy. And productive. So is Mark Teixeira. Best of all, the guys all like each other, which is obvious in the way they play and has rubbed off on everyone. They're having fun again. Maybe that's why they're winning.
That's another thing making the 2015 baseball season so special in the Big Apple. Both teams are fun to watch. For completely different reasons. The Yankees are playing typical Yankees baseball. The Bronx Bombers are back, crushing three-run homers and outscoring their opponents behind starting pitching that's sometimes somewhat suspect. And if they've got the lead late, look out. Good luck trying to hit Betances and Miller.
It's the complete opposite in Queens. The Mets have starting pitchers coming out the wazzu. Everyday is either "Harvey Day" or "De Grom Day" or "Thor Day" (I think Syndergaard is Thor, but it might be De Grom). Then they need a spot start and get Stephen Matz driving in three runs while also pitching seven innings in his Major League debut.
With that rotation, the Mets have something special. It's easy to get excited about. Problem is, they couldn't hit. Until last week. Yoenis Cespedes is the piece the Mets were missing. They've had the pitching all year. Now they've got the offense to back it up. Suddenly we're not hearing even the most optimistic of Mets fans talking about their "potential." They're legitimately good, which is on full display.
Imagine what the atmosphere's going to be like at Citi Field when these two first-place teams meet in the Subway Series in mid-September. That's going to be a Subway Series like no other. Well, at least unlike any since the 2000 World Series.
There's still two months left in the season, so a lot can still happen. But with the way things are going now, there's no reason not to think that they won't both make the playoffs, something that hasn't happened in nine years. And who knows? Maybe there will also be a Subway Series in October. Wouldn't that be something?!
Sunday, August 2, 2015
Impact of the Deadline Deals
Well, this MLB Trade Deadline was certainly different than what we've seen in recent years. The biggest buyers were the Mets, Blue Jays, Royals and Astros, while the Tigers found themselves as sellers. So is the double-edged sword of the second wild card. More teams are "in" it and looking to make a move, but fewer teams are willing to give up pieces. Maybe we'll see some action in August, although I'm not sure how many big names will actually clear waivers.
There was at least one somewhat major move in each division, though, so the next two months will definitely be impacted by the moves we've seen in the past couple days. Yet still only 10 teams can make the playoffs, so a lot of these trades will end up being for naught (although some are for both this year and the long-term).
No team was busier at the deadline than Toronto. The Blue Jays got the starter they needed, and it was a front-line guy in David Price. They also swapped Jose Reyes for Troy Tulowitzki, who has more power, but is injured all the time. When healthy, Tulo's probably a little better, but I think I'd rather have Reyes. They replaced Reyes as the leadoff guy with Ben Revere, and made some lower-level acquisitions also. Meanwhile, the first-place Yankees pretty much stood pat. Not getting a starter like many expected, and not pulling the trigger on Craig Kimbrel or Aroldis Champan, although they were evidently in on both. Dustin Ackley is the only new Yankee, and that barely counts as an "impact" move. Baltimore added Gerardo Parra, while Tampa Bay and Boston did nothing significant.
Toronto is a much better team today than they were last week. And they now definitely look like a playoff team. However, I don't think they'll catch the Yankees in the AL East. One of the reasons the Yankees didn't do anything was because they feel comfortable with the team they have (although with Michael Pineda on the DL, I bet they're now rethinking not going after a starter). One of the reasons I think this is because the Yankees and Blue Jays still have 13 games against each other. Toronto's probably going to need to go something like 9-4 in those 13 games to pass the Yankees, and Price will get, at most, four starts against them. But don't get me wrong. I do think the Blue Jays will be in the wild card game.
In the AL Central, the two teams that were in the playoffs last season took very different tactics at this year's trade deadline. With Miguel Cabrera out (and now J.D. Martinez joining him on the DL), the Tigers were losing ground quickly. So, knowing that they were probably going to lose Price and Yoenis Cespedes as free agents, Detroit decided to get something for them. The Tigers have come to terms with the fact that their streak of four straight years winning the division is likely over. The team that's going to win the AL Central is Kansas City. The Royals want to get back to the World Series, but knew they weren't going to without a front-line starter. Enter Johnny Cueto. It's a perfect fit. With Cueto in that No. 1 starter role, I can easily see the Royals back in the World Series. Ben Zobrist is a perfect addition, too. He can play left until Alex Gordon gets back, then take over for Omar Infante at second. As for the Twins, I'm surprised they didn't do anything.
I'm not sure exactly what to make of what happened in the AL West. The Astros, apparently, tried to get Price and he said "No," so they added Scott Kazmir to the rotation instead. Then, after that crazy situation involving Carlos Gomez and the Mets, they ended up with the former Brewers center fielder. Gomez is a great addition to the lineup and a great defender in center field. It also means George Springer doesn't have to rush back from his broken wrist. The Angels got Shane Victorino and David DeJesus to flank Mike Trout in the outfield, but their rotation took a big hit with C.J. Wilson's injury. With Jered Weaver out, too, I'm not sure Anaheim's pitching will hold up. Speaking of pitching, how did Cole Hamels end up in Texas? The Rangers are out of it, and they're not going to climb back in it. They've got to be looking towards the future and a rotation headlined by Hamels and Yu Darvish next season.
The Mets were aggressive at the deadline, too. In fact, along with Toronto, they're the team that has improved the most since the All-Star Break. The Wilmer Flores-Carlos Gomez thing was an absolute disaster, but I'm sure right now they're happy they've still got Flores. And Yoenis Cespedes was a major coup. That's the bat in the middle of the lineup they've needed all season (and I think they'll have a good chance of signing him long-term). If David Wright can come back and you can pair him with Cespedes to go along with that pitching, I think we'll definitely see the Mets in the postseason.
Whether or not the Mets can win the division is still up in the air, but they're definitely well-equipped to challenge the Nationals the rest of the way. Jonathan Papelbon was surprising considering they already had Drew Storen, but the lights-out bullpen is a method that many teams (2013 Cardinals, 2014 Royals) have ridden to the World Series recently, so they didn't exactly do a bad thing by strengthening their bullpen. This race will go right down to the wire, but Washington is still better than the Mets, so I think they'll hold them off in the division.
Speaking of never having too much pitching, St. Louis has been planning for the postseason since May. The Cardinals strengthened their bullpen with Jonathan Broxton and Steve Cishek, and they gave up hope on Matt Holliday by trading for Brandon Moss from Cleveland. There's no reason to think the Cardinals won't win the division or continue their NLCS streak (it is their year to win the pennant, after all). Pittsburgh didn't do anything to help their chances of getting out of the wild card game. Outside of Joakim Soria and Michael Morse, they didn't really do much. They probably know they won't catch the Cardinals, so they might be positioning themselves to host the Wild Card Game. That's why I'm surprised the Cubs didn't do anything. They needed to, and they didn't. They're not going to make the playoffs.
Everybody knows that the Dodgers are the best team in the NL West (sorry, Giants fans) and that they have the best 1-2 in baseball. Problem is, after Kershaw and Greinke, it's a Triple-A rotation. Not anymore. Mat Latos and Alex Wood are definitely better than anything they had. I would've liked to see them address the bullpen, too, but they definitely needed a starter, and they got two. Throw in Jose Tabata, and they've got another left-handed outfielder who they'll only use as a pinch hitter. The Giants strengthened their rotation, too, with the addition of Mike Leake. Otherwise, San Francisco stood pat, as they try to break the trend and actually make the playoffs in an odd-year. Another team having an odd year is San Diego. The Padres made a splash with all their offseason moves, but when it became clear they were going to be this year's 2012 Marlins/2013 Blue Jays, many thought they'd be sellers. Instead, the deadline passed with Craig Kimbrel and Justin Upton still Padres. Interesting.
So, some teams definitely got better, some definitely got worse, and for some teams, their smartest move might've been the one they didn't make. And as a result of what happened at the trade deadline, I think we'll see the Yankees, Royals and Astros win their divisions, with Toronto and Anaheim playing in the AL Wild Card Game. In the NL, Washington, St. Louis and the Dodgers will win their divisions, and the Wild Card Game will be Pirates-Mets. But we've still got a month until rosters have to be set, so there's still plenty of movement that's possible. And who's knows what kind of effect those trades might have? Check back with me in a month.
There was at least one somewhat major move in each division, though, so the next two months will definitely be impacted by the moves we've seen in the past couple days. Yet still only 10 teams can make the playoffs, so a lot of these trades will end up being for naught (although some are for both this year and the long-term).
No team was busier at the deadline than Toronto. The Blue Jays got the starter they needed, and it was a front-line guy in David Price. They also swapped Jose Reyes for Troy Tulowitzki, who has more power, but is injured all the time. When healthy, Tulo's probably a little better, but I think I'd rather have Reyes. They replaced Reyes as the leadoff guy with Ben Revere, and made some lower-level acquisitions also. Meanwhile, the first-place Yankees pretty much stood pat. Not getting a starter like many expected, and not pulling the trigger on Craig Kimbrel or Aroldis Champan, although they were evidently in on both. Dustin Ackley is the only new Yankee, and that barely counts as an "impact" move. Baltimore added Gerardo Parra, while Tampa Bay and Boston did nothing significant.
Toronto is a much better team today than they were last week. And they now definitely look like a playoff team. However, I don't think they'll catch the Yankees in the AL East. One of the reasons the Yankees didn't do anything was because they feel comfortable with the team they have (although with Michael Pineda on the DL, I bet they're now rethinking not going after a starter). One of the reasons I think this is because the Yankees and Blue Jays still have 13 games against each other. Toronto's probably going to need to go something like 9-4 in those 13 games to pass the Yankees, and Price will get, at most, four starts against them. But don't get me wrong. I do think the Blue Jays will be in the wild card game.
In the AL Central, the two teams that were in the playoffs last season took very different tactics at this year's trade deadline. With Miguel Cabrera out (and now J.D. Martinez joining him on the DL), the Tigers were losing ground quickly. So, knowing that they were probably going to lose Price and Yoenis Cespedes as free agents, Detroit decided to get something for them. The Tigers have come to terms with the fact that their streak of four straight years winning the division is likely over. The team that's going to win the AL Central is Kansas City. The Royals want to get back to the World Series, but knew they weren't going to without a front-line starter. Enter Johnny Cueto. It's a perfect fit. With Cueto in that No. 1 starter role, I can easily see the Royals back in the World Series. Ben Zobrist is a perfect addition, too. He can play left until Alex Gordon gets back, then take over for Omar Infante at second. As for the Twins, I'm surprised they didn't do anything.
I'm not sure exactly what to make of what happened in the AL West. The Astros, apparently, tried to get Price and he said "No," so they added Scott Kazmir to the rotation instead. Then, after that crazy situation involving Carlos Gomez and the Mets, they ended up with the former Brewers center fielder. Gomez is a great addition to the lineup and a great defender in center field. It also means George Springer doesn't have to rush back from his broken wrist. The Angels got Shane Victorino and David DeJesus to flank Mike Trout in the outfield, but their rotation took a big hit with C.J. Wilson's injury. With Jered Weaver out, too, I'm not sure Anaheim's pitching will hold up. Speaking of pitching, how did Cole Hamels end up in Texas? The Rangers are out of it, and they're not going to climb back in it. They've got to be looking towards the future and a rotation headlined by Hamels and Yu Darvish next season.
The Mets were aggressive at the deadline, too. In fact, along with Toronto, they're the team that has improved the most since the All-Star Break. The Wilmer Flores-Carlos Gomez thing was an absolute disaster, but I'm sure right now they're happy they've still got Flores. And Yoenis Cespedes was a major coup. That's the bat in the middle of the lineup they've needed all season (and I think they'll have a good chance of signing him long-term). If David Wright can come back and you can pair him with Cespedes to go along with that pitching, I think we'll definitely see the Mets in the postseason.
Whether or not the Mets can win the division is still up in the air, but they're definitely well-equipped to challenge the Nationals the rest of the way. Jonathan Papelbon was surprising considering they already had Drew Storen, but the lights-out bullpen is a method that many teams (2013 Cardinals, 2014 Royals) have ridden to the World Series recently, so they didn't exactly do a bad thing by strengthening their bullpen. This race will go right down to the wire, but Washington is still better than the Mets, so I think they'll hold them off in the division.
Speaking of never having too much pitching, St. Louis has been planning for the postseason since May. The Cardinals strengthened their bullpen with Jonathan Broxton and Steve Cishek, and they gave up hope on Matt Holliday by trading for Brandon Moss from Cleveland. There's no reason to think the Cardinals won't win the division or continue their NLCS streak (it is their year to win the pennant, after all). Pittsburgh didn't do anything to help their chances of getting out of the wild card game. Outside of Joakim Soria and Michael Morse, they didn't really do much. They probably know they won't catch the Cardinals, so they might be positioning themselves to host the Wild Card Game. That's why I'm surprised the Cubs didn't do anything. They needed to, and they didn't. They're not going to make the playoffs.
Everybody knows that the Dodgers are the best team in the NL West (sorry, Giants fans) and that they have the best 1-2 in baseball. Problem is, after Kershaw and Greinke, it's a Triple-A rotation. Not anymore. Mat Latos and Alex Wood are definitely better than anything they had. I would've liked to see them address the bullpen, too, but they definitely needed a starter, and they got two. Throw in Jose Tabata, and they've got another left-handed outfielder who they'll only use as a pinch hitter. The Giants strengthened their rotation, too, with the addition of Mike Leake. Otherwise, San Francisco stood pat, as they try to break the trend and actually make the playoffs in an odd-year. Another team having an odd year is San Diego. The Padres made a splash with all their offseason moves, but when it became clear they were going to be this year's 2012 Marlins/2013 Blue Jays, many thought they'd be sellers. Instead, the deadline passed with Craig Kimbrel and Justin Upton still Padres. Interesting.
So, some teams definitely got better, some definitely got worse, and for some teams, their smartest move might've been the one they didn't make. And as a result of what happened at the trade deadline, I think we'll see the Yankees, Royals and Astros win their divisions, with Toronto and Anaheim playing in the AL Wild Card Game. In the NL, Washington, St. Louis and the Dodgers will win their divisions, and the Wild Card Game will be Pirates-Mets. But we've still got a month until rosters have to be set, so there's still plenty of movement that's possible. And who's knows what kind of effect those trades might have? Check back with me in a month.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)