The Major League Baseball season is a grind. Everyone knows this. They play 162 games in 182 days and, if they're lucky, get three off days a month. The travel is brutal. To make matters worse, sometimes it doesn't make sense either.
Because of a three-hour rain delay at the start, last night's Yankees-White Sox game didn't start until 10:00 local time in Chicago. The game ended just after 1:00 a.m. The Yankees then had to get on a plane to Houston. They landed at 6:30 a.m. and had a game against the Astros just over 12 hours later. That's unacceptable.
There were a bunch of factors that came into last night's situation--the main one being that it was the last game this season between the Yankees and White Sox--but starting a game at 10:00 when one of the teams has to travel simply should not happen. Especially when the teams have a common off day later in the season, which the Yankees and White Sox do (August 7). But instead of rescheduling the game, they made the asinine decision to sit around three hours before playing.
Now, the lack of rest seemed to have little to no impact on the Yankees. But if they'd been blown out, you easily could've seen why (and that would've been a completely reasonable explanation). And the fact of the matter is certain teams (them being one) get put in this situation over and over again. Rain delays happen. I get that. But why are they always scheduled for night games on travel days anyway?
I say this about the Sunday night game all the time, and it should apply to all games where one or both teams is playing the next day in a different city. Why do you think every Sunday game except the one is in the afternoon? Why do you think there are so many day games on Thursdays? Not only is it more considerate, it gives you the chance to sit through a rain delay and still have an opportunity to get the game in at a reasonable hour.
In fact, how many times have you seen a game rained out in the morning simply because one or both teams needed to get out of town? And most of the time when that happens, it's a scheduled afternoon game! Yes, there are different factors, and the forecast can often have a lot to do with it. But there's a big difference between sitting through a rain delay for the first game of a series on Friday night and sitting through one on a day when you already know you're hopping on a plane immediately after the game and getting in late.
Yes, sometimes you have to wait it out. If it's the last game of a series, a doubleheader isn't an option. And if there's no common off day, rescheduling it could be a nightmare. If you do have one, I can understand wanting to preserve it. But is preserving an off day really that important if it means you're starting the game at midnight? (I also say this about long rain delays in the seventh or eighth inning of games.)
It really should be a rule that you're required to play a day game on a travel day unless you have a day off. I'd even be willing to let it go if the travel is short (you can go from New York to Boston or LA to San Francisco or something like that). But there's no reason a team should be playing a night game, then traveling, getting into a city at 3-4 a.m. and playing that night. Especially when only one team is traveling. (And I'm sure the home team would enjoy getting a rare night off at home, too.)
At the Union's request, there will be three additional off days built into the schedule starting next year. That's a positive step (even though the Thursday Opening Day will be very weird). It should alleviate some of these problems, but probably not all of them. That's why common sense needs to come into play.
Playing the Yankees or the Red Sox or the Cubs during the week shouldn't mean you automatically play all night games. Teams do it for attendance. I get it. Those are marquee opponents and you want to sell as many tickets to those games as possible. But fans will come to those games anyway, especially if it's their only visit to the city. The popular teams need to stop being punished for being such a big draw. They need to be able to play a day game on getaway day every once in a while.
Friday, June 30, 2017
Wednesday, June 28, 2017
Mixing Things Up
As evidence by some of the additions to the Olympic program for the 2020 Tokyo Games, the IOC's latest obsession is clearly mixed gender team events. I kinda get it. Mixed events don't add any athletes, and, for the most part, they're kinda cool. It just seemed a little odd that they chose to add some mixed events and not others, and some of the ones they added came completely out of left field.
For example, swimming has the mixed 4x100 freestyle relay and the mixed 4x100 medley relay at the World Championships, but they only added the mixed freestyle to the Olympics. Why not both? Likewise, they added a mixed 4x400 relay in track & field (even though the IAAF doesn't seem to want any part of it), but not a mixed 4x100. Neither one of those events is in the World Championships, but the mixed 4x400 was featured at this year's World Relays.
What surprised me was that they didn't add mixed synchronized diving. When they said that the IOC was looking to increase the number of mixed events on the Olympic program, I figured those were both shoo-ins. They have both springboard and platform mixed synchro, and I'm actually looking forward to watching both at the World Championships next month. Diving is still considered one of the marquee Olympic sports, and adding the two mixed synchro events would've increased diving's total to 10 gold medals.
I have no problem with the mixed events that came about organically. No one bats an eye about mixed doubles in tennis. Having mixed doubles in badminton and table tennis is essentially the same thing. Singles, doubles and mixed doubles makes complete sense in each of those sports.
Some of the sports that had mixed team events added just leave me scratching my head, though. A judo mixed team event? How exactly does that work?
Why stop there? I can think of plenty of sports that you can create a mixed event in. I was joking with a friend the other day that they should add mixed beach volleyball, then I thought about how awesome that would actually be. Just imagine for a second how much NBC would love that!
That's a more extreme (and slightly ridiculous) example, but, if they wanted to, they really could make a mixed event in pretty much any sport, whether it already exists or not. They've got a mixed team competition in judo. Why not all the combat sports? Wrestling, taekwondo, boxing, heck, even karate (which I hope is a one-and-done Olympic sport), let all of them have a mixed team event. Who cares if it makes sense?
How about weightlifting? It wouldn't be too hard. Just combine the total amount of weight lifted by each one. Archery would be really easy. They already have a team competition. You just make it a man and a woman instead of all one gender. Same thing with fencing. The men go against the men and the women go against the women, but it's all part of the same team competition.
Or gymnastics? I'm sure they could figure out some sort of mixed team event, even if it's just like the figure skating team event where the men do their events, the women do their events, and the scores are just added together. Same thing with some of the new sports. In sport climbing, times could simply be added together. So could scores in surfing.
Rowing? Throw them in the same boat. They already do that at the Paralympics. Same thing with canoe/kayak. Obviously not singles, but you could easily do a two-person boat with a man and a woman. Sailing already has a bunch of mixed events, although I'm not sure any are currently on the Olympic program (they've changed so many events in so many sports since Rio that it's hard to keep track). And equestrian doesn't have to worry about it, since they've never separated riders by gender to begin with.
It's really only the team sports that would cause problems. Men's and women's team sports are simply too different, and I don't think there's anyone clamoring for putting them all on the same field. Although, it would be possible to feature mixed 3x3 basketball games, as long as the male-female breakdown is even between the teams.
There's nothing wrong with mixed events. They generate camaraderie between athletes, and they're usually pretty entertaining. I'm just not sure how necessary it is to jam them down sports federations' throats, though. Again, some mixed events came about organically and seemed like natural additions to the program. But there are plenty of others that seem forced. And I'm not sure if they'll actually accomplish the IOC's goals. Especially because they don't really seem necessary.
For example, swimming has the mixed 4x100 freestyle relay and the mixed 4x100 medley relay at the World Championships, but they only added the mixed freestyle to the Olympics. Why not both? Likewise, they added a mixed 4x400 relay in track & field (even though the IAAF doesn't seem to want any part of it), but not a mixed 4x100. Neither one of those events is in the World Championships, but the mixed 4x400 was featured at this year's World Relays.
What surprised me was that they didn't add mixed synchronized diving. When they said that the IOC was looking to increase the number of mixed events on the Olympic program, I figured those were both shoo-ins. They have both springboard and platform mixed synchro, and I'm actually looking forward to watching both at the World Championships next month. Diving is still considered one of the marquee Olympic sports, and adding the two mixed synchro events would've increased diving's total to 10 gold medals.
I have no problem with the mixed events that came about organically. No one bats an eye about mixed doubles in tennis. Having mixed doubles in badminton and table tennis is essentially the same thing. Singles, doubles and mixed doubles makes complete sense in each of those sports.
Some of the sports that had mixed team events added just leave me scratching my head, though. A judo mixed team event? How exactly does that work?
Why stop there? I can think of plenty of sports that you can create a mixed event in. I was joking with a friend the other day that they should add mixed beach volleyball, then I thought about how awesome that would actually be. Just imagine for a second how much NBC would love that!
That's a more extreme (and slightly ridiculous) example, but, if they wanted to, they really could make a mixed event in pretty much any sport, whether it already exists or not. They've got a mixed team competition in judo. Why not all the combat sports? Wrestling, taekwondo, boxing, heck, even karate (which I hope is a one-and-done Olympic sport), let all of them have a mixed team event. Who cares if it makes sense?
How about weightlifting? It wouldn't be too hard. Just combine the total amount of weight lifted by each one. Archery would be really easy. They already have a team competition. You just make it a man and a woman instead of all one gender. Same thing with fencing. The men go against the men and the women go against the women, but it's all part of the same team competition.
Or gymnastics? I'm sure they could figure out some sort of mixed team event, even if it's just like the figure skating team event where the men do their events, the women do their events, and the scores are just added together. Same thing with some of the new sports. In sport climbing, times could simply be added together. So could scores in surfing.
Rowing? Throw them in the same boat. They already do that at the Paralympics. Same thing with canoe/kayak. Obviously not singles, but you could easily do a two-person boat with a man and a woman. Sailing already has a bunch of mixed events, although I'm not sure any are currently on the Olympic program (they've changed so many events in so many sports since Rio that it's hard to keep track). And equestrian doesn't have to worry about it, since they've never separated riders by gender to begin with.
It's really only the team sports that would cause problems. Men's and women's team sports are simply too different, and I don't think there's anyone clamoring for putting them all on the same field. Although, it would be possible to feature mixed 3x3 basketball games, as long as the male-female breakdown is even between the teams.
There's nothing wrong with mixed events. They generate camaraderie between athletes, and they're usually pretty entertaining. I'm just not sure how necessary it is to jam them down sports federations' throats, though. Again, some mixed events came about organically and seemed like natural additions to the program. But there are plenty of others that seem forced. And I'm not sure if they'll actually accomplish the IOC's goals. Especially because they don't really seem necessary.
Monday, June 26, 2017
An Age-Old Question
The NBA Draft age limit has once again become a hot topic of discussion. Everyone agrees that the current system isn't working, but nobody can agree on what the solution should be, though. The owners want to raise the age limit to 20. The Union wants it lowered to 18. The only thing they agree on is that the one-and-done culture doesn't help anything.
Even the big-time college coaches are speaking out against the current rules. John Calipari, who has benefited the most from one-and-dones, said he wouldn't be opposed to a change where players can once again enter the NBA directly out of high school. Mike Krzyzewski has never been a big fan of the one-and-done (although Jahlil Okafor did win him a National Championship in his only year at Duke). He'd like to see something similar to the "baseball rule."
Except here's why the "baseball rule" wouldn't work in basketball. In baseball, you're not taking these guys that you draft out of high school and putting them directly in the Major League. Most draft picks, no matter how old they are, start in either Rookie or Short-Season A ball. For the most part, it's going to take at least three years for even the most polished prospects to reach the Majors. Even guys who are drafted out of college and are more developed will likely spend at least a year or two in the Minors.
In basketball, there's no built-in development system like there is in baseball. Sure, you have the D-League, but players who declare for the draft don't want to play in the D-League. The money and the exposure simply aren't there. Until they are (or until the D-League becomes an actual development system), that's not a viable option. So you either have to pay these guys ridiculous amounts of money to sit on the bench or leave them undrafted.
By the "baseball rule," Coach K may be referring to draft eligibility. In baseball, you have the opportunity to get drafted twice (three times actually). You can get drafted out of high school. If you sign, that's it. If you don't sign and go to college, you have to wait three years before you can be drafted again after your junior season (the third time would be after your senior year, when you don't have any options left).
It's also three years in the NFL. You don't have to play three years of college football, but you have to be out of high school three years in order to be eligible for the draft. This has been the case in the NFL (which has no development league) for years, and, with the exception of a few challenges, nobody really seems to have an issue with it. Even though the average football career doesn't even last four years.
Hockey's format is unique, and it might be the model that would work best for basketball. If you take a look at a college hockey roster, you'll see a ton of NHL logos or abbreviations on it. That's because NHL teams retain a player's rights until 30 days after he leaves college. So, that player can choose to go to college without having to worry about how it'll effect his draft status.
And college hockey is a great development system, so it makes sense that they'll want to play there (while getting a free education) instead of in Juniors or the AHL. We've also seen plenty of examples where players sign right after their college season ends and immediately make it to the NHL. Chris Kreider went right from Boston College to the Rangers, making his NHL debut in the 2012 playoffs and scoring five goals before ever playing in a regular season game. Then this year there was a guy who scored for the Wild in his NHL debut the day after playing in North Dakota's NCAA Tournament loss.
That system makes a lot of sense, and there's no reason why something similar couldn't be implemented in the NBA. I'm not saying it would work if you tried to do it the same way because it definitely wouldn't. But there are definitely elements of the NHL format that would work.
I think some sort of hybrid between the NHL and MLB methods could be the solution. Maybe you drop the year in college requirement to be drafted, but at the same time tell players that they're free to both sign an NLI and declare for the draft. If they're a LeBron-like talent and the team that drafts them feels they can cut in the NBA right away, they're free to sign. Otherwise, they have the option of taking that scholarship and playing in college for two years while the NBA team that drafted them retains their rights.
Everyone wins in this scenario. The risk for the NBA teams is much less. The college coaches know that if they do get a guy, they have him for at least two years, making it a lot easier on them in recruiting. And for the players, they have a couple of options. They can sign and make money right away or go to college and know they have an NBA job waiting for them. In fact, this might incentivize more guys to play college basketball, which would improve that product exponentially.
Is this the right answer? I don't know. Is there a right answer? Maybe not. But nobody seems to like the current system and something needs to be done. And I don't see anybody else offering suggestions for how to fix it.
Even the big-time college coaches are speaking out against the current rules. John Calipari, who has benefited the most from one-and-dones, said he wouldn't be opposed to a change where players can once again enter the NBA directly out of high school. Mike Krzyzewski has never been a big fan of the one-and-done (although Jahlil Okafor did win him a National Championship in his only year at Duke). He'd like to see something similar to the "baseball rule."
Except here's why the "baseball rule" wouldn't work in basketball. In baseball, you're not taking these guys that you draft out of high school and putting them directly in the Major League. Most draft picks, no matter how old they are, start in either Rookie or Short-Season A ball. For the most part, it's going to take at least three years for even the most polished prospects to reach the Majors. Even guys who are drafted out of college and are more developed will likely spend at least a year or two in the Minors.
In basketball, there's no built-in development system like there is in baseball. Sure, you have the D-League, but players who declare for the draft don't want to play in the D-League. The money and the exposure simply aren't there. Until they are (or until the D-League becomes an actual development system), that's not a viable option. So you either have to pay these guys ridiculous amounts of money to sit on the bench or leave them undrafted.
By the "baseball rule," Coach K may be referring to draft eligibility. In baseball, you have the opportunity to get drafted twice (three times actually). You can get drafted out of high school. If you sign, that's it. If you don't sign and go to college, you have to wait three years before you can be drafted again after your junior season (the third time would be after your senior year, when you don't have any options left).
It's also three years in the NFL. You don't have to play three years of college football, but you have to be out of high school three years in order to be eligible for the draft. This has been the case in the NFL (which has no development league) for years, and, with the exception of a few challenges, nobody really seems to have an issue with it. Even though the average football career doesn't even last four years.
Hockey's format is unique, and it might be the model that would work best for basketball. If you take a look at a college hockey roster, you'll see a ton of NHL logos or abbreviations on it. That's because NHL teams retain a player's rights until 30 days after he leaves college. So, that player can choose to go to college without having to worry about how it'll effect his draft status.
And college hockey is a great development system, so it makes sense that they'll want to play there (while getting a free education) instead of in Juniors or the AHL. We've also seen plenty of examples where players sign right after their college season ends and immediately make it to the NHL. Chris Kreider went right from Boston College to the Rangers, making his NHL debut in the 2012 playoffs and scoring five goals before ever playing in a regular season game. Then this year there was a guy who scored for the Wild in his NHL debut the day after playing in North Dakota's NCAA Tournament loss.
That system makes a lot of sense, and there's no reason why something similar couldn't be implemented in the NBA. I'm not saying it would work if you tried to do it the same way because it definitely wouldn't. But there are definitely elements of the NHL format that would work.
I think some sort of hybrid between the NHL and MLB methods could be the solution. Maybe you drop the year in college requirement to be drafted, but at the same time tell players that they're free to both sign an NLI and declare for the draft. If they're a LeBron-like talent and the team that drafts them feels they can cut in the NBA right away, they're free to sign. Otherwise, they have the option of taking that scholarship and playing in college for two years while the NBA team that drafted them retains their rights.
Everyone wins in this scenario. The risk for the NBA teams is much less. The college coaches know that if they do get a guy, they have him for at least two years, making it a lot easier on them in recruiting. And for the players, they have a couple of options. They can sign and make money right away or go to college and know they have an NBA job waiting for them. In fact, this might incentivize more guys to play college basketball, which would improve that product exponentially.
Is this the right answer? I don't know. Is there a right answer? Maybe not. But nobody seems to like the current system and something needs to be done. And I don't see anybody else offering suggestions for how to fix it.
Saturday, June 24, 2017
The Useless Video Assistant Referee
This year's Confederations Cup marks the first time FIFA is using video replay at a major tournament. There's a separate video official, who can call down to the referee if they feel a play warrants a second look. The referee then stops the game and checks the video, but it's up to his discretion and his discretion alone whether or not the play warrants anything additional.
With group play all but finished, we've already seen the VAR come into play a couple times. And it's proven to be completely useless. If this is what we have to look forward to at the World Cup, they might as well not even bother.
The first incident involving video review was the ugly fight during injury time of the Mexico-New Zealand game on Wednesday. This got nasty pretty quickly, and I can see where the officials didn't catch everything that happened. That's exactly what the video replay system is for. Except the video replay was a complete failure. Actually, scratch that. It wasn't the video replay that was a complete failure. It was the official who was a complete failure.
It's obvious on the video that multiple red cards should've been issued. I counted at least two on each team (one for the Mexican guy that knocked the New Zealand player down to start the whole thing, one for the New Zealand guy who responded by putting him in a choke hold, another to the guy that body slammed the New Zealand player, and one for the New Zealand guy who headbutted someone). There might've even been more than those four, as well as potentially some yellows (including one for the tackle on Mexico No. 5 that led to the whole melee).
So, after looking at the video, what does the lead referee decide to do? Not a damn thing! Several obvious red card offenses, and what does he give out? Three yellows, two of which were for the original foul and the New Zealand player's reaction. He watches the video, sees all of the same replays as everyone else, and determines nobody did anything wrong. Seriously?! And this guy is supposedly one of the best officials in the world?
To make matters worse, he completely killed the flow of the game with the stoppage. The players were standing around not doing anything. All they wanted to do was restart the game (which only had about a minute left). But every time you thought they would resume play, he blew his whistle to track down another guy to give him a meaningless yellow card (while, again, letting the most egregious offenders go unpunished).
Instant replay, in all sports, is designed to correct obvious mistakes or be used as an aid for identification, etc. People had been clamoring for its introduction into soccer for years, especially after some blatantly bad (and easily correctable) calls either cost teams World Cup berths (Ireland) or advancing in the World Cup (England). So its implementation was welcomed by many, even if there were concerns that replay stoppages would cause too much of a disruption to the pace.
Next year's World Cup will be the first one that uses both goal line technology and instant replay. The Confederations Cup was designed to be a test run so that the system operates as smoothly as possible when the games matter the most. Well, if the group stage of the Confederations Cup is any indication, there are a lot of kinks that need to be worked out. Because it's embarrassing how badly the referee handled the Mexico-New Zealand brawl.
There have been a few other uses of replay during the Confederations Cup, but in those situations I think the officials handled it properly. Russia was somewhat controversially not awarded a penalty kick in its loss to Mexico, but that was a judgment call on the field, and I can see where the official didn't change his mind. He at least went over and looked at it, but I wouldn't say he missed it--unlike the Mexico-New Zealand referee.
I also wonder what the purpose of the VAR is if the only thing they can do is suggest the referee take a look. In baseball, the replay umpire is the one that makes the call. Same in hockey. In tennis, they show the replay on the screen in the stadium for everyone to see. In football (the other kind), it's the referee's decision, but they only do a review if a coach challenges or the call comes from upstairs.
Maybe that's part of the solution. If the replay official determines the play is worth taking a look at, he should be able to give the referee some input. After all, he's the one who thought it should be reviewed in the first place.
Above all, the point of instant replay is getting it right. And I think we can all agree that hasn't happened so far. Hopefully next summer, they will. Because you'd hate to see a team's World Cup ended because the official still got it wrong after looking at the replay. The best teams in the world deserve better than that.
With group play all but finished, we've already seen the VAR come into play a couple times. And it's proven to be completely useless. If this is what we have to look forward to at the World Cup, they might as well not even bother.
The first incident involving video review was the ugly fight during injury time of the Mexico-New Zealand game on Wednesday. This got nasty pretty quickly, and I can see where the officials didn't catch everything that happened. That's exactly what the video replay system is for. Except the video replay was a complete failure. Actually, scratch that. It wasn't the video replay that was a complete failure. It was the official who was a complete failure.
It's obvious on the video that multiple red cards should've been issued. I counted at least two on each team (one for the Mexican guy that knocked the New Zealand player down to start the whole thing, one for the New Zealand guy who responded by putting him in a choke hold, another to the guy that body slammed the New Zealand player, and one for the New Zealand guy who headbutted someone). There might've even been more than those four, as well as potentially some yellows (including one for the tackle on Mexico No. 5 that led to the whole melee).
So, after looking at the video, what does the lead referee decide to do? Not a damn thing! Several obvious red card offenses, and what does he give out? Three yellows, two of which were for the original foul and the New Zealand player's reaction. He watches the video, sees all of the same replays as everyone else, and determines nobody did anything wrong. Seriously?! And this guy is supposedly one of the best officials in the world?
To make matters worse, he completely killed the flow of the game with the stoppage. The players were standing around not doing anything. All they wanted to do was restart the game (which only had about a minute left). But every time you thought they would resume play, he blew his whistle to track down another guy to give him a meaningless yellow card (while, again, letting the most egregious offenders go unpunished).
Instant replay, in all sports, is designed to correct obvious mistakes or be used as an aid for identification, etc. People had been clamoring for its introduction into soccer for years, especially after some blatantly bad (and easily correctable) calls either cost teams World Cup berths (Ireland) or advancing in the World Cup (England). So its implementation was welcomed by many, even if there were concerns that replay stoppages would cause too much of a disruption to the pace.
Next year's World Cup will be the first one that uses both goal line technology and instant replay. The Confederations Cup was designed to be a test run so that the system operates as smoothly as possible when the games matter the most. Well, if the group stage of the Confederations Cup is any indication, there are a lot of kinks that need to be worked out. Because it's embarrassing how badly the referee handled the Mexico-New Zealand brawl.
There have been a few other uses of replay during the Confederations Cup, but in those situations I think the officials handled it properly. Russia was somewhat controversially not awarded a penalty kick in its loss to Mexico, but that was a judgment call on the field, and I can see where the official didn't change his mind. He at least went over and looked at it, but I wouldn't say he missed it--unlike the Mexico-New Zealand referee.
I also wonder what the purpose of the VAR is if the only thing they can do is suggest the referee take a look. In baseball, the replay umpire is the one that makes the call. Same in hockey. In tennis, they show the replay on the screen in the stadium for everyone to see. In football (the other kind), it's the referee's decision, but they only do a review if a coach challenges or the call comes from upstairs.
Maybe that's part of the solution. If the replay official determines the play is worth taking a look at, he should be able to give the referee some input. After all, he's the one who thought it should be reviewed in the first place.
Above all, the point of instant replay is getting it right. And I think we can all agree that hasn't happened so far. Hopefully next summer, they will. Because you'd hate to see a team's World Cup ended because the official still got it wrong after looking at the replay. The best teams in the world deserve better than that.
Thursday, June 22, 2017
U.S. Nationals Picks
We've officially reached the start of summer, which means World Championships in Summer Olympic sports are right around the corner. All the fun gets started this weekend with the U.S. Track & Field Championships, which will set the team for August's World Championships in London.
The top three advance, as long as they have the qualifying standard. Unlike the Olympics, though, they don't need to have the standard before the end of Trials. Athletes that finish in the top three but don't have the standard will have roughly a month to try and get it before their spot is offered to someone else. As a result, we won't know the finalized team until the end of July.
Also unlike the Olympics, there are byes into the World Championships. Defending World Champions (of which there aren't many in the U.S.) are given a bye in that event. So are the overall winners of the 2016 Diamond League, provided they don't do the same event as the defending World Champion (countries can only get a maximum of one wild card per event). All these athletes have to do to receive their wild card is show up at U.S. Nationals and run a round--in any event.
There are nine Americans who meet these criteria, so it's safe to say the United States will be represented by four athletes in each of those events. One of which is the women's 100 meter hurdles, an event in which Keni Harrison set a world record last year a week after not even making the Olympic team, where three different Americans swept the medals. Same thing with Cassandra Tate. She has a bye in the women's 400 hurdles as the Diamond League winner, but didn't make the Olympic team (where the U.S. went 1-3). Those are by far the two deepest events at Nationals, and we're going to see potential World medalists left at home.
Some of the other Americans with byes might use this as an opportunity to do some other events at Nationals. Allyson Felix and LaShawn Merritt both have byes in the 400, so they can run just the 200 at Nationals and still double at Worlds. Likewise, Tianna Bartoletta has a bye in the long jump, so she can focus on the 100 and, at the very least, being on the U.S. relay.
I also think we might see a little bit of a changing of the guard, as there are some really talented collegians looking to make the U.S. team. I can easily see some of them medaling in London, as well. But they'll have to knock off the veterans, some of whom are making one last go round as they attempt to qualify for one final U.S. team.
So, yeah, we're gonna have some fun in Sacramento. I'm listing my projected top three in each event, regardless of whether or not they already have the standard, and including the wild card entrant in the events where the U.S. gets that extra bid.
MEN
100: Justin Gatlin, Christian Coleman, Trayvon Bromell, Ronnie Baker (relay), Cameron Burrell (relay), Tyson Gay (relay)
200: Christian Coleman, Ameer Webb, LaShawn Merritt
400: LaShawn Merritt*, Fred Kerley, Gil Roberts, Michael Cherry, Tony McQuay (relay), Vernon Norwood (relay), David Verburg (relay)
800: Donovan Brazier, Clayton Murphy, Erik Sowinski
1500: Matthew Centrowitz, Ben Blankenship, Kyle Merber
5000: Ben True, Ryan Hill, Hassan Mead
10,000: Galen Rupp, Chris Derrick, Shadrack Kipchirchir
110 Hurdles: Aries Merritt, Aleec Harris, Devon Allen
400 Hurdles: Kerron Clement*, Johnny Dutch, Eric Futch, Michael Tinsley
Steeplechase: Evan Jager, Hillary Bor, Donn Cabral
20 km Walk: John Nunn, Nick Christie, Emmanuel Corvera
Long Jump: Jarrion Lawson, Marquis Dendy, Jeff Henderson
Triple Jump: Christian Taylor*, Will Claye, Omar Craddock, Chris Benard
High Jump: Erik Kynard*, JaCorian Duffield, Tequan Claitt, Jeron Robinson
Pole Vault: Sam Kendricks, Logan Cunningham, Andrew Irwin
Shot Put: Joe Kovacs*, Ryan Crouser, Ryan Whiting, Darrell Hill
Discus: Mason Finley, Sam Mattis, Andrew Evans
Hammer Throw: Rudy Winkler, Kibwe Johnson, Conor McCullough
Javelin: Cyrus Hostetler, Riley Dolezal, Curtis Thompson
Decathlon: Zach Ziemek, Devon Williams, Harrison Williams
WOMEN
100: Tori Bowie, Tianna Bartoletta, English Gardner, Morolake Akinosun (relay), Ariana Washington (relay), Aleia Hobbs (relay)
200: Tori Bowie, Deajah Stevens, Allyson Felix
400: Allyson Felix*, Phyllis Francis, Courtney Okolo, Natasha Hastings, Quanera Hayes (relay), Shakima Wimbley (relay), Kendall Ellis (relay)
800: Ajee Wilson, Laura Roesler, Brenda Martinez
1500: Shannon Rowbury, Jenny Simpson, Kate Grace
5000: Molly Huddle, Emily Sisson, Natosha Rogers
10,000: Molly Huddle, Emily Infeld, Shalane Flanagan
100 Hurdles: Keni Harrison*, Nia Ali, Sharika Nelvis, Jasmin Stowers
400 Hurdles: Cassandra Tate*, Dalilah Muhammad, Shamier Little, Georganne Moline
Steeplechase: Emma Coburn, Courtney Frerichs, Colleen Quigley
20 km Walk: Maria Michta-Coffey, Miranda Melville, Katie Burnett
Long Jump: Tianna Bartoletta*, Brittney Reese, Jasmine Todd, Quanesha Burks
Triple Jump: Keturah Orji, Andrea Geubelle, Tori Franklin
High Jump: Chaunte Lowe, Vashti Cunningham, Mady Fagan
Pole Vault: Sandi Morris, Jenn Suhr, Katie Nageotte
Shot Put: Michelle Carter, Raven Saunders, Felisha Johnson
Discus: Gia Lewis-Smallwood, Liz Podominick, Valarie Allman
Hammer Throw: Gwen Berry, Amber Campbell, Deanna Price
Javelin: Kara Winger, Hannah Carson, Rebekah Wales
Heptathlon: Erica Bougard, Kendell Williams, Sharon Day-Monroe
The top three advance, as long as they have the qualifying standard. Unlike the Olympics, though, they don't need to have the standard before the end of Trials. Athletes that finish in the top three but don't have the standard will have roughly a month to try and get it before their spot is offered to someone else. As a result, we won't know the finalized team until the end of July.
Also unlike the Olympics, there are byes into the World Championships. Defending World Champions (of which there aren't many in the U.S.) are given a bye in that event. So are the overall winners of the 2016 Diamond League, provided they don't do the same event as the defending World Champion (countries can only get a maximum of one wild card per event). All these athletes have to do to receive their wild card is show up at U.S. Nationals and run a round--in any event.
There are nine Americans who meet these criteria, so it's safe to say the United States will be represented by four athletes in each of those events. One of which is the women's 100 meter hurdles, an event in which Keni Harrison set a world record last year a week after not even making the Olympic team, where three different Americans swept the medals. Same thing with Cassandra Tate. She has a bye in the women's 400 hurdles as the Diamond League winner, but didn't make the Olympic team (where the U.S. went 1-3). Those are by far the two deepest events at Nationals, and we're going to see potential World medalists left at home.
Some of the other Americans with byes might use this as an opportunity to do some other events at Nationals. Allyson Felix and LaShawn Merritt both have byes in the 400, so they can run just the 200 at Nationals and still double at Worlds. Likewise, Tianna Bartoletta has a bye in the long jump, so she can focus on the 100 and, at the very least, being on the U.S. relay.
I also think we might see a little bit of a changing of the guard, as there are some really talented collegians looking to make the U.S. team. I can easily see some of them medaling in London, as well. But they'll have to knock off the veterans, some of whom are making one last go round as they attempt to qualify for one final U.S. team.
So, yeah, we're gonna have some fun in Sacramento. I'm listing my projected top three in each event, regardless of whether or not they already have the standard, and including the wild card entrant in the events where the U.S. gets that extra bid.
MEN
100: Justin Gatlin, Christian Coleman, Trayvon Bromell, Ronnie Baker (relay), Cameron Burrell (relay), Tyson Gay (relay)
200: Christian Coleman, Ameer Webb, LaShawn Merritt
400: LaShawn Merritt*, Fred Kerley, Gil Roberts, Michael Cherry, Tony McQuay (relay), Vernon Norwood (relay), David Verburg (relay)
800: Donovan Brazier, Clayton Murphy, Erik Sowinski
1500: Matthew Centrowitz, Ben Blankenship, Kyle Merber
5000: Ben True, Ryan Hill, Hassan Mead
10,000: Galen Rupp, Chris Derrick, Shadrack Kipchirchir
110 Hurdles: Aries Merritt, Aleec Harris, Devon Allen
400 Hurdles: Kerron Clement*, Johnny Dutch, Eric Futch, Michael Tinsley
Steeplechase: Evan Jager, Hillary Bor, Donn Cabral
20 km Walk: John Nunn, Nick Christie, Emmanuel Corvera
Long Jump: Jarrion Lawson, Marquis Dendy, Jeff Henderson
Triple Jump: Christian Taylor*, Will Claye, Omar Craddock, Chris Benard
High Jump: Erik Kynard*, JaCorian Duffield, Tequan Claitt, Jeron Robinson
Pole Vault: Sam Kendricks, Logan Cunningham, Andrew Irwin
Shot Put: Joe Kovacs*, Ryan Crouser, Ryan Whiting, Darrell Hill
Discus: Mason Finley, Sam Mattis, Andrew Evans
Hammer Throw: Rudy Winkler, Kibwe Johnson, Conor McCullough
Javelin: Cyrus Hostetler, Riley Dolezal, Curtis Thompson
Decathlon: Zach Ziemek, Devon Williams, Harrison Williams
WOMEN
100: Tori Bowie, Tianna Bartoletta, English Gardner, Morolake Akinosun (relay), Ariana Washington (relay), Aleia Hobbs (relay)
200: Tori Bowie, Deajah Stevens, Allyson Felix
400: Allyson Felix*, Phyllis Francis, Courtney Okolo, Natasha Hastings, Quanera Hayes (relay), Shakima Wimbley (relay), Kendall Ellis (relay)
800: Ajee Wilson, Laura Roesler, Brenda Martinez
1500: Shannon Rowbury, Jenny Simpson, Kate Grace
5000: Molly Huddle, Emily Sisson, Natosha Rogers
10,000: Molly Huddle, Emily Infeld, Shalane Flanagan
100 Hurdles: Keni Harrison*, Nia Ali, Sharika Nelvis, Jasmin Stowers
400 Hurdles: Cassandra Tate*, Dalilah Muhammad, Shamier Little, Georganne Moline
Steeplechase: Emma Coburn, Courtney Frerichs, Colleen Quigley
20 km Walk: Maria Michta-Coffey, Miranda Melville, Katie Burnett
Long Jump: Tianna Bartoletta*, Brittney Reese, Jasmine Todd, Quanesha Burks
Triple Jump: Keturah Orji, Andrea Geubelle, Tori Franklin
High Jump: Chaunte Lowe, Vashti Cunningham, Mady Fagan
Pole Vault: Sandi Morris, Jenn Suhr, Katie Nageotte
Shot Put: Michelle Carter, Raven Saunders, Felisha Johnson
Discus: Gia Lewis-Smallwood, Liz Podominick, Valarie Allman
Hammer Throw: Gwen Berry, Amber Campbell, Deanna Price
Javelin: Kara Winger, Hannah Carson, Rebekah Wales
Heptathlon: Erica Bougard, Kendell Williams, Sharon Day-Monroe
Tuesday, June 20, 2017
Vegas Golden Knights Mock Expansion Draft
It's time for the Vegas Golden Knights to select their inaugural roster. Each of the other 30 teams submitted a list of players that are available for Vegas to choose from on Sunday, and the Golden Knights' selections will be unveiled during the NHL Awards at their home arena on Wednesday night.
There are a number of rules governing who Vegas can select (they have to take somebody from every team, they have to take a certain number at each position, and the total cap space must be within a certain range). It's also by no means their final roster. The Golden Knights have already signed a number of players and still have the draft, trades and free agency.
NHL teams are also limited to 23-man rosters during the regular season, so we know that at least seven of the players chosen in the expansion draft won't be on the Golden Knights' roster come their opening game. And they know that too, which makes the direction they decide to go with their selections very interesting.
But you know some of the players chosen on Wednesday will skate for Vegas in 2017-18. That's because the Golden Knights also have some really good players available to them. One player who's almost certain to be picked is Marc-Andre Fleury, who waived his no-movement clause. Pittsburgh could only protect one goalie, so they chose to keep Matt Murray, who's 2-for-2 on Stanley Cup wins during his career. Which means the Golden Knights are getting a franchise goalie who's been a member of three Cup winners (even if he is somewhat shaky as a No. 1).
In fact, goalie seems to be the one position where the Golden Knights will be set. Because there are plenty of quality goalies who were left unprotected, one of whom will be a solid backup to Fleury. My guess is the Flyers' Michal Neuvirth, but there are a lot of ways Vegas could go on the backup goalie front. Either way, it seems likely Fleury will be the starter.
We'll also probably see the Golden Knights choose their first-ever captain in the expansion draft. There are a ton of available veterans who'd be great in the role. A lot of experts are saying that James Neal will be their selection from the other finalist, Nashville, and if Vegas does take him, I wouldn't be surprised to see Neal wearing a "C" on his jersey. It's hard to say who other candidates to be captain might be, though, since we don't know who's going to be on the Golden Knights' roster. We don't even know if they're gonna take Neal.
As a result of the sheer number of quality talent available to them, I think the Golden Knights are going to be able to put a pretty good team on the ice. Will they be playoff-caliber? Probably not. But they're not going to be your typical expansion walkovers either. I don't think it'll take very long for Vegas to be competitive, either. Which is probably the whole point of the expansion draft being set up the way it was.
While it's impossible to know who Vegas will take in the expansion draft, it's still fun to think about, so I decided to give it a shot. Here's my mock draft:
Goalies: Anton Forsberg (Columbus), Marc-Andre Fleury (Pittsburgh), Michal Neuvirth (Philadelphia), Peter Budaj (Tampa Bay)
Defensemen: Sami Vatanen (Anaheim), John-Michael Liles (Boston), Trevor Van Riemsdyk (Chicago), Fedor Tyutin (Columbus), Nicklas Kronwall (Detroit), Andrei Markov (Montreal), Ben Lovejoy (New Jersey), Calvin de Haan (N.Y. Islanders), Matt Hunwick (Toronto), Kevin Shattenkirk (Washington)
Forwards: Radim Vrbata (Arizona), Matt Moulson (Buffalo), Troy Brouwer (Calgary), Lee Stempniak (Carolina), Cody Eakin (Dallas), David Desharnais (Edmonton), Jussi Jokinen (Florida), Devin Setoguchi (Los Angeles), Eric Staal (Minnesota), James Neal (Nashville), Michael Grabner (N.Y. Rangers), Viktor Stalberg (Ottawa), Joel Ward (San Jose), Nail Yakupov (St. Louis), Derek Dorsett (Vancouver), Chris Thorburn (Winnipeg)
There are a number of rules governing who Vegas can select (they have to take somebody from every team, they have to take a certain number at each position, and the total cap space must be within a certain range). It's also by no means their final roster. The Golden Knights have already signed a number of players and still have the draft, trades and free agency.
NHL teams are also limited to 23-man rosters during the regular season, so we know that at least seven of the players chosen in the expansion draft won't be on the Golden Knights' roster come their opening game. And they know that too, which makes the direction they decide to go with their selections very interesting.
But you know some of the players chosen on Wednesday will skate for Vegas in 2017-18. That's because the Golden Knights also have some really good players available to them. One player who's almost certain to be picked is Marc-Andre Fleury, who waived his no-movement clause. Pittsburgh could only protect one goalie, so they chose to keep Matt Murray, who's 2-for-2 on Stanley Cup wins during his career. Which means the Golden Knights are getting a franchise goalie who's been a member of three Cup winners (even if he is somewhat shaky as a No. 1).
In fact, goalie seems to be the one position where the Golden Knights will be set. Because there are plenty of quality goalies who were left unprotected, one of whom will be a solid backup to Fleury. My guess is the Flyers' Michal Neuvirth, but there are a lot of ways Vegas could go on the backup goalie front. Either way, it seems likely Fleury will be the starter.
We'll also probably see the Golden Knights choose their first-ever captain in the expansion draft. There are a ton of available veterans who'd be great in the role. A lot of experts are saying that James Neal will be their selection from the other finalist, Nashville, and if Vegas does take him, I wouldn't be surprised to see Neal wearing a "C" on his jersey. It's hard to say who other candidates to be captain might be, though, since we don't know who's going to be on the Golden Knights' roster. We don't even know if they're gonna take Neal.
As a result of the sheer number of quality talent available to them, I think the Golden Knights are going to be able to put a pretty good team on the ice. Will they be playoff-caliber? Probably not. But they're not going to be your typical expansion walkovers either. I don't think it'll take very long for Vegas to be competitive, either. Which is probably the whole point of the expansion draft being set up the way it was.
While it's impossible to know who Vegas will take in the expansion draft, it's still fun to think about, so I decided to give it a shot. Here's my mock draft:
Goalies: Anton Forsberg (Columbus), Marc-Andre Fleury (Pittsburgh), Michal Neuvirth (Philadelphia), Peter Budaj (Tampa Bay)
Defensemen: Sami Vatanen (Anaheim), John-Michael Liles (Boston), Trevor Van Riemsdyk (Chicago), Fedor Tyutin (Columbus), Nicklas Kronwall (Detroit), Andrei Markov (Montreal), Ben Lovejoy (New Jersey), Calvin de Haan (N.Y. Islanders), Matt Hunwick (Toronto), Kevin Shattenkirk (Washington)
Forwards: Radim Vrbata (Arizona), Matt Moulson (Buffalo), Troy Brouwer (Calgary), Lee Stempniak (Carolina), Cody Eakin (Dallas), David Desharnais (Edmonton), Jussi Jokinen (Florida), Devin Setoguchi (Los Angeles), Eric Staal (Minnesota), James Neal (Nashville), Michael Grabner (N.Y. Rangers), Viktor Stalberg (Ottawa), Joel Ward (San Jose), Nail Yakupov (St. Louis), Derek Dorsett (Vancouver), Chris Thorburn (Winnipeg)
Monday, June 19, 2017
Exit Velo: The Newest Trend
Baseball's statheads have their latest stupid stat to obsess over. They've moved on from WAR and OPS to exit velo, which tracks the speed at which a ball leaves the bat. It's listed as a stat category on MLB.com, and a number of stadiums have even added exit velo to the scoreboard.
Not surprisingly, Aaron Judge have five of the six spots on the exit velo leaderboard. His record is 121.1 mph on one of his two home runs against the Orioles on June 10. Giancarlo Stanton, who hit a 118.7 mph double on May 2, has the best non-Aaron Judge mark. (Seriously, can the Home Run Derby just be a head-to-head between these two guys? We don't need six others!)
I get the idea behind exit velo. When a line drive is called a "rocket," it's generally because it was hit pretty fast. Likewise, some balls are hit so hard they bounce off the wall or get to the outfielder so quickly that the batter is held to a single or the runner on second can't score. There are countless examples of this, which is probably what led them to developing some sort of formula to figure it out.
Here's the thing, though. Exit velocity really doesn't make a difference. All it means is you hit the ball hard. That's it. And hitting the ball hard rarely makes a significant impact on the game. With Aaron Judge's tape-measure shots, I don't really care how hard he hit it. I care about how far it went. Or, in the case of one that doesn't leave the yard, where he hit it.
Would you rather set a record for exit velo only to see the outfielder make an amazing play for the out or be the guy who gets lucky and hits that slow-rolling ground ball down the line that stays fair for a single? Only one of those guys sees his batting average go up. Only one of those guys got on base. Only one of those guys did something to positively impact the game.
Basically what I'm saying here is the exit velocities may be gaudy and fans might like seeing the high numbers, but in the grand scheme of things, they're irrelevant. They have no bearing on the outcome!
How is exit velocity any less relevant than pitch speed? Well, the reason is because pitch speed can very much impact a game. How many times have you seen Aroldis Chapman come out of the bullpen and strike out a guy by blowing three 100 mph fastballs right by him? Likewise, how many times have you seen a hitter get fooled by something off-speed while sitting on a fastball (or vice versa)? Fast pitches often lead to strikeouts, which can be significant (sometimes very) depending on the situation. And what usually happens when the pitcher throws something slow right down the middle? We all know the answer to that one.
So you see, pitch speed can be a very big deal. It can sometimes even be the difference between winning and losing. Exit velocity? Not so much. It's just a gaudy number that you can use in your arguments as to why one guy is better than another. (Although, I will admit, exit velocity is less stupid than OPS, which counts the same thing twice, and WAR, which is a completely arbitrary number.)
This recent obsession with exit velocity can probably be attributed to the phenomenon that is Aaron Judge. Just like the WAR craze started because of Mike Trout. And I'm sure in a couple years, someone will come up with another new stat to talk about how great somebody is.
But why do we need a new stat every time somebody new takes the baseball world by storm? Can't we just enjoy greatness as we witness it? Does that greatness really need to be quantified?
Friday, June 16, 2017
Amazing Grace
Her nickname was "Gracie," and I couldn't think of anything more appropriate. Because my mother has more grace than anyone I've ever met.
You should've seen the parade of family and friends coming to see her over the past week. My family tends to travel in packs, and we completely took over the lounge/waiting area on the second floor ICU. Because we all just have so much love for a woman who touched everyone she ever met.
She was just that type of person. As soon as you met her, you fell in love with her. And, more likely than not, she loved you right back.
That's why people were coming out of the woodwork--from family and longtime friends to hospital staffers and people she hadn't seen in 20 years. Gracie made an impact, however small, on all of their lives. And they didn't just want to say "Goodbye." They wanted to say "Thank You."
It's her loving, generous, caring soul that made her so special. And it's her remarkable spirit that will be her lasting legacy. A legacy that will live on long after we've all joined her in Heaven.
And if you want to talk about grace, you should've seen how incredibly at peace she was with the entire thing. She accepted her fate and was ready for it, leaving no regrets. And she was in control through it all--making her own funeral arrangements and bossing everyone around until her final breath. She had even decided the day on which she was going to die--although she was a little off on that one (she said Wednesday, it was actually Friday).
Most of all, she wanted everyone to be together. She wanted to say goodbye to all of her loved ones and give each of us the chance to say goodbye to her. And her two biggest concerns were that we stay in touch and that we make sure to take care of my dad.
Speaking of my dad, he has been just as remarkable through all of this. He's held it together better than you could possibly imagine despite losing the woman who's been right by his side for the last 43 1/2 years. I can't even imagine the grief he's feeling. I only know that mine is immense. And it probably will be for a while.
Although, it does help to know that she's no longer in pain and her suffering is over. And I also know she's moved on to a place that's much better than this one. I'm also grateful we got more than four extra years with her when her initial prognosis was six months to a year.
Before she died, she told me that I was going to meet a wonderful woman, get married and have a family. My greatest regret in life is that she's never going to meet that family. She'll never meet her granddaughter. Her granddaughter Gracie.
Thursday, June 15, 2017
Confederations Cup Preview
We know one thing about the 2017 Confederations Cup. For the first time since 2003, Brazil will not win. In fact, the Brazilians aren't even in it. We also have three teams from the same confederation for the first time, as the defending World Cup Champions (Germany) and host nation (Russia) are both from Europe, and they're joined by the European "champions" Cristiano Ronaldo and Portugal.
Portugal and Russia are two of the three nations making their Confederations Cup debuts. The third is Chile, which has shown its place among world soccer's elite with its back-to-back Copa America victories. And because of that Chilean success, we've got a major international soccer tournament without either of South America's big guns. There are also two teams from Oceania, with Australia representing Asia for the first time. Then there's Mexico, which seemingly alternates the CONCACAF berth with the United States, and Cameroon, as Russia hosts the quadrennial World Cup tune-up event.
And, honestly, I have no idea who's going to win. On paper, you'd probably have to look at Portugal and Germany as the favorites. Although, Chile has proven to be the top team in South America two years in a row. They've got another statement to make. They want to show that they're the team to beat when all of the world's best come together next summer in Russia. A long run at the Confederations Cup will prove Chile's status among the world's elite teams.
Chile and Germany should be the two teams to advance out of Group B. We haven't heard much from the Germans since their World Cup victory three years ago, but you know that as one of the true brand names in international soccer, they're gonna show up to play. Especially in a group where they should easily qualify. The Chileans have a chance to knock them off and finish atop the group, though.
If either of the other teams stands a chance to advance out of Group B, I'd put Australia's chances as slightly better than Cameroon's. Either way, it'll take either a miracle or a royal screw up on the part of one of those top two squads for Australia or Cameroon to have a chance at upsetting that Germany-Chile combination from reaching the semifinals.
In Group A, meanwhile, the possibilities are endless. Russia's the seed as the hosts, but Portugal is the best team in a fairly balanced group. Mexico could easily take that second spot ahead of Russia, and New Zealand is actually than their Oceania-deflated world ranking of 110. I don't think the All Whites will advance, and I doubt they'll win a game. But they'll represent Oceania much better than Tahiti did by getting blown out three times in 2013.
For Pretty Boy and Co., not showing up until the medal round isn't an option this time. With no third-place finishers advancing, three draws aren't gonna do it. Especially since there's no easy bracket to benefit from.
Anyway, the result of that Portugal-Mexico game on matchday 1 could really go a long way towards determining the Group A standings. Assuming Portugal, which on paper is the best team, advances, that leaves Mexico and Russia fighting for the second spot. That could be a winner-take-all contest in Kazan on the final day of group play. Although, goal differential will almost certainly come into play. Since I don't think all three teams will simply beat up on New Zealand.
I've gotta like Mexico for that second spot out of Group A, though. Simply put, you don't know what you're gonna get from the Russians. Obviously since they're hosting the World Cup, they haven't had to play in any qualifying games. So this is the only real chance they're going to have against the other side's "A" squad. And the "A" squads they're going to face include the most famous player on the planet and a team currently leading its confederation in World Cup qualifying. I just don't think they stack up against both of them.
My semifinal matchups are Germany-Mexico and, in what I see as a potential game of the tournament, Portugal-Chile. As I've already said about Germany, it doesn't matter how well they're playing or what tournament it is. You know they're going to be there at the end. And in this case, they'll be in the final. Where I see them playing a Chile team that may finally start getting some of the respect it deserves by beating a non-American opponent.
So that leaves us with a Germany-Chile final in St. Petersburg on July 2. Having witnessed them firsthand throughout last summer's Copa America Centenario, I'm a believer in the Chileans. They weren't supposed to beat Argentina in either of the last two Copa finals. They did. Is there any reason not to think they'll do the same thing against the defending World Cup champs? Chile keeps the Confederations Cup in South America.
Portugal and Russia are two of the three nations making their Confederations Cup debuts. The third is Chile, which has shown its place among world soccer's elite with its back-to-back Copa America victories. And because of that Chilean success, we've got a major international soccer tournament without either of South America's big guns. There are also two teams from Oceania, with Australia representing Asia for the first time. Then there's Mexico, which seemingly alternates the CONCACAF berth with the United States, and Cameroon, as Russia hosts the quadrennial World Cup tune-up event.
And, honestly, I have no idea who's going to win. On paper, you'd probably have to look at Portugal and Germany as the favorites. Although, Chile has proven to be the top team in South America two years in a row. They've got another statement to make. They want to show that they're the team to beat when all of the world's best come together next summer in Russia. A long run at the Confederations Cup will prove Chile's status among the world's elite teams.
Chile and Germany should be the two teams to advance out of Group B. We haven't heard much from the Germans since their World Cup victory three years ago, but you know that as one of the true brand names in international soccer, they're gonna show up to play. Especially in a group where they should easily qualify. The Chileans have a chance to knock them off and finish atop the group, though.
If either of the other teams stands a chance to advance out of Group B, I'd put Australia's chances as slightly better than Cameroon's. Either way, it'll take either a miracle or a royal screw up on the part of one of those top two squads for Australia or Cameroon to have a chance at upsetting that Germany-Chile combination from reaching the semifinals.
In Group A, meanwhile, the possibilities are endless. Russia's the seed as the hosts, but Portugal is the best team in a fairly balanced group. Mexico could easily take that second spot ahead of Russia, and New Zealand is actually than their Oceania-deflated world ranking of 110. I don't think the All Whites will advance, and I doubt they'll win a game. But they'll represent Oceania much better than Tahiti did by getting blown out three times in 2013.
For Pretty Boy and Co., not showing up until the medal round isn't an option this time. With no third-place finishers advancing, three draws aren't gonna do it. Especially since there's no easy bracket to benefit from.
Anyway, the result of that Portugal-Mexico game on matchday 1 could really go a long way towards determining the Group A standings. Assuming Portugal, which on paper is the best team, advances, that leaves Mexico and Russia fighting for the second spot. That could be a winner-take-all contest in Kazan on the final day of group play. Although, goal differential will almost certainly come into play. Since I don't think all three teams will simply beat up on New Zealand.
I've gotta like Mexico for that second spot out of Group A, though. Simply put, you don't know what you're gonna get from the Russians. Obviously since they're hosting the World Cup, they haven't had to play in any qualifying games. So this is the only real chance they're going to have against the other side's "A" squad. And the "A" squads they're going to face include the most famous player on the planet and a team currently leading its confederation in World Cup qualifying. I just don't think they stack up against both of them.
My semifinal matchups are Germany-Mexico and, in what I see as a potential game of the tournament, Portugal-Chile. As I've already said about Germany, it doesn't matter how well they're playing or what tournament it is. You know they're going to be there at the end. And in this case, they'll be in the final. Where I see them playing a Chile team that may finally start getting some of the respect it deserves by beating a non-American opponent.
So that leaves us with a Germany-Chile final in St. Petersburg on July 2. Having witnessed them firsthand throughout last summer's Copa America Centenario, I'm a believer in the Chileans. They weren't supposed to beat Argentina in either of the last two Copa finals. They did. Is there any reason not to think they'll do the same thing against the defending World Cup champs? Chile keeps the Confederations Cup in South America.
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
Here Comes the Judge
That was some shot by Aaron Judge against the Orioles on Sunday, huh? For a guy who's made tape-measure home runs his signature, that one took it to another level. That's the home run people will still be talking about when Judge's career is over. His "remember when" moment. The first of what will hopefully be long list of career highlights.
There's no doubt that Aaron Judge has taken Baseball by storm over the first three months of the 2017 season. He's become the biggest spectacle in the game. He has more All-Star votes than anybody, and his at-bats are must-see TV, if only because people want to see how far he can hit it. Fans are lining up as soon as the gates open just to get a glimpse of him during batting practice. The last guy you can say did that with any regularity was Mark McGwire in 1998.
Ever since Derek Jeter retired, the Yankees have been looking for that transcendent star. They don't have to look anymore. And just like Jeter, Aaron Judge gets it. It hasn't gone to his head at all. He fits perfectly into what the New York Yankees are all about. And I think that's as big a reason as the home runs why Judge is so adored. Is it mere fascination? Possibly. But, while the home runs get the headlines, he's much more than just a home run hitter.
Whenever he hits a home run, the first thing people wonder is how far it went. Then they look at the exit velo, the latest en vouge sabermetric stat. I think exit velo is about as stupid as OPS and WAR, but it does say something about his bat speed that Judge has the four fastest exit velos of the season, including one homer that was over 120 mph.
He's become a spectacle. People are disappointed when he doesn't hit a home run. Meawhile, this is a guy hitting .340 with a ton of RBIs while playing a pretty good right field. Judge isn't just a runaway Rookie of the Year. If he keeps this up, he could become just the third player to be named Rookie of the Year and MVP in the same season. Seriously, can you think of any AL MVP candidate that you could justify picking over Judge?
It's no surprise that he's blowing away the competition in All-Star voting. Everybody wants to see this guy play. He's the type of player the midseason showcase is designed for. And I can already imagine how pumped up fans are going to be for his Home Run Derby battle vs. Giancarlo Stanton. Actually, can we just cancel the first two rounds of the Home Run Derby and go right to a Judge vs. Giancarlo finals? (If the NBA can do it, why can't MLB? Who needs playoffs?)
If you've been to Yankee Stadium this year, you know the vibe has been like. We haven't seen this kind of buzz around the Stadium on a nightly basis since Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera were still wearing Pinstripes. For the last two years, there's been no atmosphere whatsoever at Yankee Stadium. Now it's back. Sure, the winning is probably part of the reason why, but I think Judge and Gary Sanchez have more to do with it.
Aaron Judge Fever is everywhere. Prior to his first at-bat, you hear "All Rise" on the PA system. Then Yankees PA announcer Paul Olden, whose favorite player is clearly Judge, introduces "Number Niney-Nine" with an enthusiasm that would be unheard of from Bob Sheppard. They've even installed the "Judge's Chambers" in right field, putting 12 fans in a jury box with gavels, robes and those white wigs from the 1700s. Not to mention the number of 99 jerseys you see sitting in the stands all around the Stadium. Even on the road you see his jersey everywhere!
All of those No. 99 jerseys are the clearest sign of all that fans have moved on from the days of Jeter and Pettitte and Rivera. Instead of all those 2's and 42's and 51's (and even 7's and 3's), you see Judges and Sanchezes and Chapmans and Tanakas. It took a little while, but Yankees fans finally have a new generation of players to embrace.
The Yankees are fun to watch again. The Bronx Bombers are "Bombers" once again. And Aaron Judge is the star of the show. People are buying tickets and lining up at the gate just to see the most dynamic player in Baseball. Then they don't stop talking about him afterwards.
And to think, he had to fight for a roster spot in Spring Training I think the Yankees made the right call by giving him the right field job. Because they finally have THAT guy again. Can another dynasty be too far behind?
There's no doubt that Aaron Judge has taken Baseball by storm over the first three months of the 2017 season. He's become the biggest spectacle in the game. He has more All-Star votes than anybody, and his at-bats are must-see TV, if only because people want to see how far he can hit it. Fans are lining up as soon as the gates open just to get a glimpse of him during batting practice. The last guy you can say did that with any regularity was Mark McGwire in 1998.
Ever since Derek Jeter retired, the Yankees have been looking for that transcendent star. They don't have to look anymore. And just like Jeter, Aaron Judge gets it. It hasn't gone to his head at all. He fits perfectly into what the New York Yankees are all about. And I think that's as big a reason as the home runs why Judge is so adored. Is it mere fascination? Possibly. But, while the home runs get the headlines, he's much more than just a home run hitter.
Whenever he hits a home run, the first thing people wonder is how far it went. Then they look at the exit velo, the latest en vouge sabermetric stat. I think exit velo is about as stupid as OPS and WAR, but it does say something about his bat speed that Judge has the four fastest exit velos of the season, including one homer that was over 120 mph.
He's become a spectacle. People are disappointed when he doesn't hit a home run. Meawhile, this is a guy hitting .340 with a ton of RBIs while playing a pretty good right field. Judge isn't just a runaway Rookie of the Year. If he keeps this up, he could become just the third player to be named Rookie of the Year and MVP in the same season. Seriously, can you think of any AL MVP candidate that you could justify picking over Judge?
It's no surprise that he's blowing away the competition in All-Star voting. Everybody wants to see this guy play. He's the type of player the midseason showcase is designed for. And I can already imagine how pumped up fans are going to be for his Home Run Derby battle vs. Giancarlo Stanton. Actually, can we just cancel the first two rounds of the Home Run Derby and go right to a Judge vs. Giancarlo finals? (If the NBA can do it, why can't MLB? Who needs playoffs?)
If you've been to Yankee Stadium this year, you know the vibe has been like. We haven't seen this kind of buzz around the Stadium on a nightly basis since Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera were still wearing Pinstripes. For the last two years, there's been no atmosphere whatsoever at Yankee Stadium. Now it's back. Sure, the winning is probably part of the reason why, but I think Judge and Gary Sanchez have more to do with it.
Aaron Judge Fever is everywhere. Prior to his first at-bat, you hear "All Rise" on the PA system. Then Yankees PA announcer Paul Olden, whose favorite player is clearly Judge, introduces "Number Niney-Nine" with an enthusiasm that would be unheard of from Bob Sheppard. They've even installed the "Judge's Chambers" in right field, putting 12 fans in a jury box with gavels, robes and those white wigs from the 1700s. Not to mention the number of 99 jerseys you see sitting in the stands all around the Stadium. Even on the road you see his jersey everywhere!
All of those No. 99 jerseys are the clearest sign of all that fans have moved on from the days of Jeter and Pettitte and Rivera. Instead of all those 2's and 42's and 51's (and even 7's and 3's), you see Judges and Sanchezes and Chapmans and Tanakas. It took a little while, but Yankees fans finally have a new generation of players to embrace.
The Yankees are fun to watch again. The Bronx Bombers are "Bombers" once again. And Aaron Judge is the star of the show. People are buying tickets and lining up at the gate just to see the most dynamic player in Baseball. Then they don't stop talking about him afterwards.
And to think, he had to fight for a roster spot in Spring Training I think the Yankees made the right call by giving him the right field job. Because they finally have THAT guy again. Can another dynasty be too far behind?
Monday, June 12, 2017
An Impressive Triple Crown
Heading into the final event at the NCAA Outdoor Track & Field Championships, the 4x400 meter relay, the Oregon women trailed Georgia by 8.2 points. Oregon had a team in the relay. Georgia didn't. The winner of the relay gets 10 points, second-place gets eight, meaning the only way Oregon could win the overall title was by winning the relay. And they did it in thrilling fashion to clinch the first-ever Triple Crown in NCAA track & field.
The fact that a Triple Crown had never happened before in the 30-plus years the NCAA has been sponsoring women's track & field speaks volumes about how difficult it is. (I'm not sure how many men's Triple Crowns there have been, if any, but that's just as rare as it is on the women's side.)
Most schools don't even try to compete in at least one of the seasons, making the Triple Crown that much more elusive. With the exception of Arkansas, the SEC schools focus mainly on the sprints and jumps. Meanwhile, there are a number of strong distance programs that go all-in for cross country knowing that it's unlikely they'll win a National title indoors or outdoors. There are only a handful of programs that focus enough on each area to even think about the Triple Crown, and Oregon is one of them.
Scholarships are a big reason for this. Teams are limited in the amount of scholarships they're allowed to give out, and it's very difficult to spread them among the different event areas. That's why you're more likely to see a team load up in a few events and try to win the National Championship that way. That's what Georgia did. They went 1-2 in the high jump and long jump and had the winners in the heptathlon and triple jump (both of whom were Olympians). Throw in third place in the hammer throw and a tie for eighth in the pole vault, and that's all of Georgia's points. None of them came on the track.
Florida's men employed a similar strategy. They won the National title on the strength of their jumpers and sprinters. That's always been the case. Florida is nicknamed "Jumps U" for a reason. In fact, the entire 2012 Olympic team in the men's triple jump (including the alternate) was former Gators. They load up in the jumps (especially the long jump and triple jump), pick up some points in the sprints (using a lot of football players, who don't need track money), and don't worry about the distance events. The system works. They've won four outdoor National titles since 2012.
There are also plenty of distance-based programs that contend for the team championship in cross country, but don't have the depth to challenge for the title indoors and outdoors. Colorado is a great example of this. Same with Georgetown, Oklahoma State, Northern Arizona, Providence, Syracuse and Villanova (to name just a few). Every once in a while, they get enough distance points to place at the indoor or outdoor Nationals, but they usually aren't there at the end.
who
So how does Oregon do it then? Well, they obviously have some studs. Oregon's top two sprinters--Deajah Stevens and Ariana Washington--were Olympians last year. They're two of the many Ducks that will be professional track & field athletes when they graduate. They've also got mid-distance superstar Raevyn Rogers and Katie Rainsberger, one of the top high school athletes in the nation last year.
Getting the top recruits certainly has a lot to do with it, but it's not just that top talent, or even the depth, that makes Oregon the top program. It's the fact that this talent is spread across the board. The more events you enter, the more points available to you. It seems fairly obvious. But it's easier said than done. Especially at the national level.
What makes it even more remarkable is that Oregon doesn't really concentrate on the field events. They have a handful of throwers and usually have one solid long jumper (who's often a sprinter, too), but haven't had a pole vaulter or high jumper in quite some time. And Brianne Theisen-Eaton is their only heptathlete over the last 10 years worth talking about. Yet they get so many points on the track, anything they get on the field is a bonus.
I also wouldn't really classify any of their cross country runners, except for maybe Rainsberger, as a "star." Which I think is intentional. None are "great," but they're all good. And they're remarkably consistent. They run together, bunching up their points and keeping their team score down.
It's those cross country/distance runners who have it the toughest, too. They run year-round, and most of them are usually competing all summer, too. USA Nationals are always at the end of June, which is just two weeks after NCAAs, and if they make the team, they're going until mid- to late-August. That's the other thing that makes completing the Triple Crown so difficult. Everyone needs to peak three times. In November, February and June. And these athletes are good enough to compete on the world stage, meaning they have to peak for those meets, as well.
Oregon has proven that winning the NCAA Triple Crown is possible, though. Whether or not they can do it again doesn't seem to be in doubt. My question is, now that it's been done, if another program (like Arkansas) will try to do the same thing.
Friday, June 9, 2017
Mixed Relays, 3x3 Basketball and More
The IOC was very busy today. They formally proposed the 2024-28 joint awarding to LA and Paris, which will be rubber-stamped next month. More on that at another time.
They also finalized the program for the 2020 Games in Tokyo. When they announced they were going through this process, a lot of sports made their requests public. And there were a lot of requests made by virtually every international federation. There was no chance the IOC was going to approve them all. The only real questions were how many? and which ones?
Well, the answer to those questions are 15 events in nine sports. There were also a few sports that kept the same number of events, but changed what those events were. Rowing, boxing and canoe/kayak took away men's events to add women's events, while shooting turned three men's events into mixed team events, and sailing changed the boat type for one event. Weightlifting (which has the biggest doping problem of any sport, including track & field) was the only sport to see its program reduced, as one men's weight class was dropped.
Of the proposed events that were rejected, I'm most surprised about diving. They wanted to add high diving, as well as mixed synchro events. I get why the IOC didn't want to add high diving, where finding a venue might be difficult. But, with this emphasis on mixed events, I though the two mixed synchro events were virtual locks to be added. They're being held for the first time at the World Championships this year, and I'm actually pretty psyched. Maybe if they prove popular, it won't be too long until mixed synchronized diving is a part of the Olympics.
Most of the new events are mixed team events, which the IOC made it very clear they wanted. The good thing about mixed team events is that they don't add any extra athletes, which is part of the reason the IOC likes them so much. With that in mind, the addition of mixed team events in archery and judo, as well as a mixed team relay in triathlon and mixed doubles in table tennis aren't that surprising. I don't see any issue with any of these events (although I am a little confused how the judo mixed team event is going to work).
Cycling had the most events added--four. We knew there were going to be at least two more cycling events, which was a concession the IOC gave the cycling federation for moving the velodrome from Tokyo to Izu, 75 miles away. But they also added men's and women's freestyle park BMX events, presumably to appeal to the younger generation that the IOC is so desperate to attract. They could either use the same venue as the regular BMX event or the skateboarding course, so there's no new venue. I'm just not sure if you need four BMX events.
Fencing also had a men's and women's team event added to its program. This makes complete sense and actually should've been done a long time ago. There are three weapons in fencing--foil, epee and sabre, but the sport was only allotted 10 medal events in the Olympics. As a result, they rotated which of the three wouldn't have a team event for the men and which wouldn't have a team event for the women. Now, with 12 gold medals available, there will be men's and women's individual and team events in each of the three swords. I can't see why anybody would have a problem with that.
Swimming is where it starts to get interesting. FINA requested a ridiculous number of events, probably knowing they wouldn't get them all. They wanted eight, which would've aligned the World Championships and Olympic programs. They got three. Two are individual events--the men's 800 meter freestyle and the women's 1500 meter freestyle. It never really made much sense to anybody why the men only swam the 1500 and the women only swam the 800 in the Olympics when both distance events are in the World Championships. Evidently the IOC now agrees (the fact that the 1500 freestyle is another likely Katie Ledecky gold medal probably helped, too).
There are also two mixed relays in the Swimming World Championships--the 4x100 freestyle and the 4x100 medley. Well, the mixed medley relay is now a part of the Olympics, too. I wonder why they only added the one instead of both. Especially since the swimming competition is eight days long and that would've given them eight total relays. And this is one of the marquee sports, which makes the decision to add only the mixed medley relay a little bit of a surprise.
Also surprising is the addition of the mixed 4x400 relay in track & field--despite the fact that the event has never been contested at the World Championships (although it presumably will be at Doha 2019 now)! The IAAF doesn't seem too pleased by this, either, which is perhaps most interesting. I think that probably has more to do with the fact that the IOC added an event, but also told them to drop more than 100 athletes from their quota.
Based on what the IAAF has said, it gives the impression that they don't want to add the mixed 4x400. I'm not sure if this is a done deal, though. Regardless, the mixed 4x400 is a cool event. It made its debut as the finale at the World Relays in the Bahamas, and the Bahamas won it, sending the crowd into an absolute frenzy. It was the best atmosphere I've ever seen at that event. I'm sure it will add the same excitement to the Olympics. I'm just not sure it's necessary.
Speaking of new Olympic events that don't seem necessary, I present 3x3 basketball. This is a clear attempt on the IOC's part to grab those young people with no attention spans. FIBA touts the popularity of the 3x3 game and I think many in basketball (and Olympic) circles view it as basketball's answer to beach volleyball. (I'm pretty sure the bikinis have a lot to do with the popularity of beach volleyball, but I digress.)
Here's the thing about 3x3 basketball, though. It's not beach volleyball! Beach volleyball had its own massive following long before it was added to the Olympics. The IOC didn't try to force it in. Which is exactly what it feels like they're doing with 3x3 basketball. Do you need 3x3 and 5x5 versions of the same sport, no matter how different they might be? I'm not sure if you do.
However, the IOC found success with 3x3 basketball at the Youth Olympics, so they figured they'd give it a shot in the adult Olympics. Although, it must be pointed out, 3x3 is the only type of basketball contested at the Youth Olympics.
If they said the addition of 3x3 basketball was to give other nations that can't field a full team a chance to qualify in the sport, much in the same way nations that would never be able to compete in indoor volleyball have very successful beach teams, that would be one thing. But there's only going to be eight teams in each tournament, so you'd have to think those opportunities will be pretty limited. Especially since people will want to watch the United States and Australia and Spain. Not the Philippines and Indonesia.
I get why the IOC is doing this, and I applaud them for being forward-thinking. And, for the most part, these additions make perfect sense and aren't going to make any waves. I question 3x3 basketball, though. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like a stretch. Although, it does fit the mold of skateboarding, surfing and sport climbing, three youth-appealing extreme sports that will debut in 2020.
We'll just have to wait and see if these new events end up being big hits or massive failures. And I'm sure if changes need to be made, they'll make them before 2024. Now about those 2024 Games...
They also finalized the program for the 2020 Games in Tokyo. When they announced they were going through this process, a lot of sports made their requests public. And there were a lot of requests made by virtually every international federation. There was no chance the IOC was going to approve them all. The only real questions were how many? and which ones?
Well, the answer to those questions are 15 events in nine sports. There were also a few sports that kept the same number of events, but changed what those events were. Rowing, boxing and canoe/kayak took away men's events to add women's events, while shooting turned three men's events into mixed team events, and sailing changed the boat type for one event. Weightlifting (which has the biggest doping problem of any sport, including track & field) was the only sport to see its program reduced, as one men's weight class was dropped.
Of the proposed events that were rejected, I'm most surprised about diving. They wanted to add high diving, as well as mixed synchro events. I get why the IOC didn't want to add high diving, where finding a venue might be difficult. But, with this emphasis on mixed events, I though the two mixed synchro events were virtual locks to be added. They're being held for the first time at the World Championships this year, and I'm actually pretty psyched. Maybe if they prove popular, it won't be too long until mixed synchronized diving is a part of the Olympics.
Most of the new events are mixed team events, which the IOC made it very clear they wanted. The good thing about mixed team events is that they don't add any extra athletes, which is part of the reason the IOC likes them so much. With that in mind, the addition of mixed team events in archery and judo, as well as a mixed team relay in triathlon and mixed doubles in table tennis aren't that surprising. I don't see any issue with any of these events (although I am a little confused how the judo mixed team event is going to work).
Cycling had the most events added--four. We knew there were going to be at least two more cycling events, which was a concession the IOC gave the cycling federation for moving the velodrome from Tokyo to Izu, 75 miles away. But they also added men's and women's freestyle park BMX events, presumably to appeal to the younger generation that the IOC is so desperate to attract. They could either use the same venue as the regular BMX event or the skateboarding course, so there's no new venue. I'm just not sure if you need four BMX events.
Fencing also had a men's and women's team event added to its program. This makes complete sense and actually should've been done a long time ago. There are three weapons in fencing--foil, epee and sabre, but the sport was only allotted 10 medal events in the Olympics. As a result, they rotated which of the three wouldn't have a team event for the men and which wouldn't have a team event for the women. Now, with 12 gold medals available, there will be men's and women's individual and team events in each of the three swords. I can't see why anybody would have a problem with that.
Swimming is where it starts to get interesting. FINA requested a ridiculous number of events, probably knowing they wouldn't get them all. They wanted eight, which would've aligned the World Championships and Olympic programs. They got three. Two are individual events--the men's 800 meter freestyle and the women's 1500 meter freestyle. It never really made much sense to anybody why the men only swam the 1500 and the women only swam the 800 in the Olympics when both distance events are in the World Championships. Evidently the IOC now agrees (the fact that the 1500 freestyle is another likely Katie Ledecky gold medal probably helped, too).
There are also two mixed relays in the Swimming World Championships--the 4x100 freestyle and the 4x100 medley. Well, the mixed medley relay is now a part of the Olympics, too. I wonder why they only added the one instead of both. Especially since the swimming competition is eight days long and that would've given them eight total relays. And this is one of the marquee sports, which makes the decision to add only the mixed medley relay a little bit of a surprise.
Also surprising is the addition of the mixed 4x400 relay in track & field--despite the fact that the event has never been contested at the World Championships (although it presumably will be at Doha 2019 now)! The IAAF doesn't seem too pleased by this, either, which is perhaps most interesting. I think that probably has more to do with the fact that the IOC added an event, but also told them to drop more than 100 athletes from their quota.
Based on what the IAAF has said, it gives the impression that they don't want to add the mixed 4x400. I'm not sure if this is a done deal, though. Regardless, the mixed 4x400 is a cool event. It made its debut as the finale at the World Relays in the Bahamas, and the Bahamas won it, sending the crowd into an absolute frenzy. It was the best atmosphere I've ever seen at that event. I'm sure it will add the same excitement to the Olympics. I'm just not sure it's necessary.
Speaking of new Olympic events that don't seem necessary, I present 3x3 basketball. This is a clear attempt on the IOC's part to grab those young people with no attention spans. FIBA touts the popularity of the 3x3 game and I think many in basketball (and Olympic) circles view it as basketball's answer to beach volleyball. (I'm pretty sure the bikinis have a lot to do with the popularity of beach volleyball, but I digress.)
Here's the thing about 3x3 basketball, though. It's not beach volleyball! Beach volleyball had its own massive following long before it was added to the Olympics. The IOC didn't try to force it in. Which is exactly what it feels like they're doing with 3x3 basketball. Do you need 3x3 and 5x5 versions of the same sport, no matter how different they might be? I'm not sure if you do.
However, the IOC found success with 3x3 basketball at the Youth Olympics, so they figured they'd give it a shot in the adult Olympics. Although, it must be pointed out, 3x3 is the only type of basketball contested at the Youth Olympics.
If they said the addition of 3x3 basketball was to give other nations that can't field a full team a chance to qualify in the sport, much in the same way nations that would never be able to compete in indoor volleyball have very successful beach teams, that would be one thing. But there's only going to be eight teams in each tournament, so you'd have to think those opportunities will be pretty limited. Especially since people will want to watch the United States and Australia and Spain. Not the Philippines and Indonesia.
I get why the IOC is doing this, and I applaud them for being forward-thinking. And, for the most part, these additions make perfect sense and aren't going to make any waves. I question 3x3 basketball, though. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like a stretch. Although, it does fit the mold of skateboarding, surfing and sport climbing, three youth-appealing extreme sports that will debut in 2020.
We'll just have to wait and see if these new events end up being big hits or massive failures. And I'm sure if changes need to be made, they'll make them before 2024. Now about those 2024 Games...
Tuesday, June 6, 2017
Signature Sports Music
Today we got a wonderful piece of sports news! Hank Williams, Jr. and all his rowdy friends are returning to Monday Night Football! That song became an iconic part of the NFL's signature franchise and it's definitely been missed on ESPN's Monday Night Football broadcasts since they stopped airing it midway through the 2011 season.
When NBC launched Sunday Night Football, they accomplished something similar with their version of Joan Jett's "I Hate Myself For Loving You," which has since been replaced by Carrie Underwood's "Something Bad." (Since I didn't know the actual lyrics to "Something Bad," I sang the Sunday Night Football version when I went to the Carrie Underwood concert in October.) And they have Pentatonix singing a Thursday night theme now, too. But neither is as connected to football as Hank Williams, Jr.'s song is to Monday nights (I'm talking classic Monday Night Football, too, with Al Michaels, Frank Gifford and Dan Dierdorf).
There are a number of songs that are instantly associated with sports, and I'm not just talking about the Monday Night Football song. The most obvious example is "New York, New York" at the end of Yankees games, but there are plenty of others. In fact, legendary Yankees closer Mariano Rivera is so synonymous with "Enter Sandman" that he might as well be a member of Metallica. They even played it across town at Citi Field when he entered his final All-Star Game in 2013.
"Take Me Out to the Ballgame" is played at every ballpark, but Wrigley Field is where the song is most famous. It started with Harry Caray, and the tradition has since been continued with various celebrities that are Cubs fans singing it at each game. Meanwhile, in the eighth inning at Fenway Park, Red Sox fans sing "Sweet Caroline." And at the end of Dodgers victories, it's to the sound of "I Love L.A."
Chicago's hockey team has the best goal song in the NHL. Whenever I hear "Chelsea Dagger," wherever it is, my head immediatley goes to "Blackhawks goal scored by..." It's probably going to be like that whenever I hear Tim McGraw's "I Like It, I Love It" now, too. That's the perfect goal song for Nashville, which is really the only place it would work (Shania Twain's "That Don't Impress Me Much" for when the visitors score?). The Predators have a different tradition with the national anthem. There are so many country music stars in the city that they have a different one sing it at every game.
A different anthem singer at every game isn't that uncommon. Except in the NHL, most teams have their own anthem singer, and they're just as recognizable as any of the players on that team. The Kings have Pia Toscano from American Idol. For the Rangers, it's John Amirante. Jim Cornielson in Chicago is perhaps the best in the business. And in Philadelphia, where Kate Smith sang "God Bless America" for years, they start with her on video before their current anthem singer, Lauren Hart, takes over and does the rest.
The month of May always brings two sporting events that are ingrained in American culture--the Kentucky Derby and the Indianapolis 500. And each has its signature song. The month starts with the singing of "My Old Kentucky Home" as the horses march from the paddock to the track. Then you get the Preakness with the Naval Academy's choir singing "Maryland, My Maryland." Then on Memorial Day weekend is the Indianapolis 500, where "Back Home Again In Indiana" was performed by Jim Nabors for years.
For the last 30 years, CBS/TBS has played "One Shining Moment" at the conclusion of the NCAA Championship Game. The tournament isn't over until "The ball is tipped..." It went from the original version to the Luther Vandross version which is probably the most recognizable one. CBS had Jennifer Hudson do it in 2010, and her version was so bad that they switched back to Luther the next year. Some traditions you just don't mess with!
Heading back to the NFL, there are a bunch of teams that have their own anthem, none of which is more famous than Washington's "Hail to the Redskins!" Philadelphia's "Fly Eagles Fly" has also become pretty well-known, while the Bills have made "Shout!" their own. And, of course, they play "When the Saints Go Marching In" in New Orleans because, well, what other song would they play?
Movies have long been associated with particular songs, and that's no different with sports movies. You hear "Eye of the Tiger," you immediately think Rocky (even though that song was actually from Rocky III). Chariots of Fire had its iconic Academy Award-winning original score, and Madonna's "This Used to Be My Playground" brings you right to A League of Their Own. Even Aerosmith's "Dream On," which was already a pretty famous song, got that instant association when they played it over the credits in Miracle.
Likewise, Ravel's "Bolero" will forever be associated with Torvill & Dean and that iconic performance at the Sarajevo Olympics. Just like Katarina Witt's performance to "Carmen" four years later in Calgary.
It's not just figure skating, either. For a while, NBC capped its coverage by playing Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" over Olympic highlights at the end of the Closing Ceremony. To be honest, I'm not really sure why they stopped doing that.
I do know why ESPN stopped using "All My Rowdy Friends" for Monday Night Football in the middle of the 2011 season. It's because Hank Williams, Jr. made some controversial comments about President Obama. But Monday Night Football hasn't been the same without it. It was about time for it to come back.
When NBC launched Sunday Night Football, they accomplished something similar with their version of Joan Jett's "I Hate Myself For Loving You," which has since been replaced by Carrie Underwood's "Something Bad." (Since I didn't know the actual lyrics to "Something Bad," I sang the Sunday Night Football version when I went to the Carrie Underwood concert in October.) And they have Pentatonix singing a Thursday night theme now, too. But neither is as connected to football as Hank Williams, Jr.'s song is to Monday nights (I'm talking classic Monday Night Football, too, with Al Michaels, Frank Gifford and Dan Dierdorf).
There are a number of songs that are instantly associated with sports, and I'm not just talking about the Monday Night Football song. The most obvious example is "New York, New York" at the end of Yankees games, but there are plenty of others. In fact, legendary Yankees closer Mariano Rivera is so synonymous with "Enter Sandman" that he might as well be a member of Metallica. They even played it across town at Citi Field when he entered his final All-Star Game in 2013.
"Take Me Out to the Ballgame" is played at every ballpark, but Wrigley Field is where the song is most famous. It started with Harry Caray, and the tradition has since been continued with various celebrities that are Cubs fans singing it at each game. Meanwhile, in the eighth inning at Fenway Park, Red Sox fans sing "Sweet Caroline." And at the end of Dodgers victories, it's to the sound of "I Love L.A."
Chicago's hockey team has the best goal song in the NHL. Whenever I hear "Chelsea Dagger," wherever it is, my head immediatley goes to "Blackhawks goal scored by..." It's probably going to be like that whenever I hear Tim McGraw's "I Like It, I Love It" now, too. That's the perfect goal song for Nashville, which is really the only place it would work (Shania Twain's "That Don't Impress Me Much" for when the visitors score?). The Predators have a different tradition with the national anthem. There are so many country music stars in the city that they have a different one sing it at every game.
A different anthem singer at every game isn't that uncommon. Except in the NHL, most teams have their own anthem singer, and they're just as recognizable as any of the players on that team. The Kings have Pia Toscano from American Idol. For the Rangers, it's John Amirante. Jim Cornielson in Chicago is perhaps the best in the business. And in Philadelphia, where Kate Smith sang "God Bless America" for years, they start with her on video before their current anthem singer, Lauren Hart, takes over and does the rest.
The month of May always brings two sporting events that are ingrained in American culture--the Kentucky Derby and the Indianapolis 500. And each has its signature song. The month starts with the singing of "My Old Kentucky Home" as the horses march from the paddock to the track. Then you get the Preakness with the Naval Academy's choir singing "Maryland, My Maryland." Then on Memorial Day weekend is the Indianapolis 500, where "Back Home Again In Indiana" was performed by Jim Nabors for years.
For the last 30 years, CBS/TBS has played "One Shining Moment" at the conclusion of the NCAA Championship Game. The tournament isn't over until "The ball is tipped..." It went from the original version to the Luther Vandross version which is probably the most recognizable one. CBS had Jennifer Hudson do it in 2010, and her version was so bad that they switched back to Luther the next year. Some traditions you just don't mess with!
Heading back to the NFL, there are a bunch of teams that have their own anthem, none of which is more famous than Washington's "Hail to the Redskins!" Philadelphia's "Fly Eagles Fly" has also become pretty well-known, while the Bills have made "Shout!" their own. And, of course, they play "When the Saints Go Marching In" in New Orleans because, well, what other song would they play?
Movies have long been associated with particular songs, and that's no different with sports movies. You hear "Eye of the Tiger," you immediately think Rocky (even though that song was actually from Rocky III). Chariots of Fire had its iconic Academy Award-winning original score, and Madonna's "This Used to Be My Playground" brings you right to A League of Their Own. Even Aerosmith's "Dream On," which was already a pretty famous song, got that instant association when they played it over the credits in Miracle.
Likewise, Ravel's "Bolero" will forever be associated with Torvill & Dean and that iconic performance at the Sarajevo Olympics. Just like Katarina Witt's performance to "Carmen" four years later in Calgary.
It's not just figure skating, either. For a while, NBC capped its coverage by playing Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" over Olympic highlights at the end of the Closing Ceremony. To be honest, I'm not really sure why they stopped doing that.
I do know why ESPN stopped using "All My Rowdy Friends" for Monday Night Football in the middle of the 2011 season. It's because Hank Williams, Jr. made some controversial comments about President Obama. But Monday Night Football hasn't been the same without it. It was about time for it to come back.
Friday, June 2, 2017
Albert Goes For 600
Michael Kay made a really good point during the Yankee game the other night. Don't laugh. It does happen from time to time. Anyway, it was right after they showed an Angels highlight of Albert Pujols hitting his 599th career home run. With his next homer, Albert will become just the ninth player in history with 600. So how come no one is excited about it?
Maybe it was the Steroid Era. Three of the players above Albert on the all-time home run list are Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez and Sammy Sosa, all of whom have had the legitimacy of their home run totals questioned (you know my thoughts on that, so I'm not getting into it).
Or maybe it's the fact that the 600 home run club suddenly seems less exclusive. For the longest time, the 600 home run club consisted of just three people--Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth and Willie Mays. Frank Robinson was fourth with 586 career homers. He's now 10th. That's because five players have hit their 600th since 2000. Albert will be the sixth. The fact that the 600 home run club has tripled in size over the last 20 years doesn't make it any less of a feat. And that feat is something that should be celebrated.
I have a feeling the West Coast factor is coming into play here, too. Most Angels games are obviously very late at night. If he doesn't homer in his first at bat or two (when the other games are still going on), the number of people who actually see that home run live will be very small. Especially if he were to do it in the seventh or eighth inning at 1-1:30 in the morning, a lot of people probably aren't going to see or hear about it until the next morning.
The Angels are Mike Trout's team, too. Trout's obviously on the DL right now (prediction: he still finishes first or second in MVP voting, which I think is a Major League rule). But he's the face of the franchise. People are coming to Angels games to see Mike Trout, not Albert Pujols. Maybe that's contributed to there being less buzz around Albert's pursuit of 600.
Would things be different if Albert was still playing for the Cardinals? St. Louis is a baseball mad city. They worshiped Albert during the 11 years he played there. If he was a member of one of the sport's marquee franchises, playing in a baseball-loving Midwestern city with convenient game times, would people be paying more attention to his quest? I think so. After all, remember what it was like with his predecessor as the Cardinals first baseman in 1998?
Albert Pujols is no longer the superstar he was in St. Louis. So what? That doesn't change the fact that what he's about to achieve is special. He's a first-ballot Hall of Famer who's been slowed by injuries over the past couple years (which is why he's not a superstar anymore), but is still an offensive force in his 17th big league season. And this is his sixth year with the Angels, so it's not like he just went there to tack on numbers at the end of his career.
He's, of course, going to finish his career with well more than 600 home runs. And that plaque in Cooperstown (which will undoubtedly include a Cardinals hat) will include whatever that final number is. But before getting to that final number, Albert first has to hit number 600. He'll be the ninth person ever to do that. And the next player to get to 600 probably won't get there for a while (Miguel Cabrera and Adrian Beltre are second and third on the active list with 451 and 445, respectively).
Of the thousands of men to have played Major League Baseball in its 150-year history, just eight have hit 600 home runs. When Albert Pujols makes it nine, we should celebrate it for the milestone that it is. Because who knows when we're gonna see somebody get there again?
Maybe it was the Steroid Era. Three of the players above Albert on the all-time home run list are Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez and Sammy Sosa, all of whom have had the legitimacy of their home run totals questioned (you know my thoughts on that, so I'm not getting into it).
Or maybe it's the fact that the 600 home run club suddenly seems less exclusive. For the longest time, the 600 home run club consisted of just three people--Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth and Willie Mays. Frank Robinson was fourth with 586 career homers. He's now 10th. That's because five players have hit their 600th since 2000. Albert will be the sixth. The fact that the 600 home run club has tripled in size over the last 20 years doesn't make it any less of a feat. And that feat is something that should be celebrated.
I have a feeling the West Coast factor is coming into play here, too. Most Angels games are obviously very late at night. If he doesn't homer in his first at bat or two (when the other games are still going on), the number of people who actually see that home run live will be very small. Especially if he were to do it in the seventh or eighth inning at 1-1:30 in the morning, a lot of people probably aren't going to see or hear about it until the next morning.
The Angels are Mike Trout's team, too. Trout's obviously on the DL right now (prediction: he still finishes first or second in MVP voting, which I think is a Major League rule). But he's the face of the franchise. People are coming to Angels games to see Mike Trout, not Albert Pujols. Maybe that's contributed to there being less buzz around Albert's pursuit of 600.
Would things be different if Albert was still playing for the Cardinals? St. Louis is a baseball mad city. They worshiped Albert during the 11 years he played there. If he was a member of one of the sport's marquee franchises, playing in a baseball-loving Midwestern city with convenient game times, would people be paying more attention to his quest? I think so. After all, remember what it was like with his predecessor as the Cardinals first baseman in 1998?
Albert Pujols is no longer the superstar he was in St. Louis. So what? That doesn't change the fact that what he's about to achieve is special. He's a first-ballot Hall of Famer who's been slowed by injuries over the past couple years (which is why he's not a superstar anymore), but is still an offensive force in his 17th big league season. And this is his sixth year with the Angels, so it's not like he just went there to tack on numbers at the end of his career.
He's, of course, going to finish his career with well more than 600 home runs. And that plaque in Cooperstown (which will undoubtedly include a Cardinals hat) will include whatever that final number is. But before getting to that final number, Albert first has to hit number 600. He'll be the ninth person ever to do that. And the next player to get to 600 probably won't get there for a while (Miguel Cabrera and Adrian Beltre are second and third on the active list with 451 and 445, respectively).
Of the thousands of men to have played Major League Baseball in its 150-year history, just eight have hit 600 home runs. When Albert Pujols makes it nine, we should celebrate it for the milestone that it is. Because who knows when we're gonna see somebody get there again?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)