Giancarlo Stanton won the Home Run Derby last year, and since being eliminated in the first round of this year's Home Run Derby at his home park, he's turned the second half of the Marlins' season into one. Giancarlo has 51 homers this year, 30 of which have come since the start of July. He's the first player with a 50-home run season since Chris Davis in 2013, and he's on pace to become the first to hit 60 in a season since 2001.
That 2001 season, of course, came at the height of the Steroid Era. Four different players hit 50 homers that year, including two with 60 (it was Sammy Sosa's third 60-HR season in four years). And, of course, that was the year Barry Bonds broke Mark McGwire's single-season record by crushing 73.
He's been hitting home runs at a ridiculous rate, but Giancarlo has absolutely no chance of breaking that record. He'd need to hit 23 homers in the Marlins' final 29 games in order to do that. It might seem like he hits at least one every day, but 23 in 29 games is a tall order.
Yet, if you were to ask Giancarlo, he wants to get to 62. And if he does, he'll have "the record." I'm not exactly sure what record he's referring to. Because the Marlins play in the National League, so he can't break Roger Maris' American League record of 61. If he gets to 62, that would only be the seventh-most for a single-season in National League history.
I know, I know. Most people consider 61 to be the "legitimate" record. Well, you know what? There's no place in the record book that differentiates between those that are "legitimate" and those that aren't. So, like it or not, Barry Bonds holds the home run record. And the record books say Bonds hit 73 in 2001 and 762 in his career. You can question the authenticity of those numbers all you want. It doesn't change the fact that they won't be erasing any records. Giancarlo could very well hit 62 this year. But, if he does, the only record he'll be setting is a Marlins franchise record.
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion on Barry Bonds. The Hall of Fame voters have made their views on the subject pretty clear. (Although, he's been trending upwards for a couple years and it does seem like he's eventually going to get in.) Giancarlo evidently agrees with the Hall of Fame voters. But, while Hall of Fame votes are entirely subjective, the 73 is not up for debate. It's the record. Whether you think it "should be" or not is irrelevant.
Of course, the biggest irony of the home run race during the Steroid Era, and one that obviously still applies today, is that people are concerned with preserving the sanctity of Maris' 61 in 61. But back when it was happening 56 years ago, it was Maris who had to endure that ridiculous asterisk and all the other crap that was being thrown his way because he was breaking Babe Ruth's record. Now it's Maris who has the record everyone is trying to protect (of course, the same can also be said of Hank Aaron).
What Roger Maris did in 1961 was extraordinary. Just like what Giancarlo Stanton is doing this season is extraordinary. But he's not going to be setting any records. The single-season home run record is 73. You don't have to like Barry Bonds or agree with how he did it, but that doesn't change the facts.
And the fact is Barry Bonds hit 73 home runs in 2001. You can't dispute that. That's the record, at least until somebody hits 74. Which Giancarlo Stanton will not be doing this season. So let's please stop the talk that Giancarlo hitting 62 would be some sort of record. Because it won't be.
Thursday, August 31, 2017
Sunday, August 27, 2017
Open Season
Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal have met 37 times, including 12 matchups at Grand Slams. But never at the US Open. It's the dream matchup that many tennis fans have been waiting years for, and if it's ever going to happen, this might be the year. Because Nadal and Federer would've been the two biggest favorites at Flushing Meadows regardless of the competition. And that favorite status became even larger with Djokovic, Murray and Wawrinka (as well as 2014 finalist Kei Nishikori) all missing the tournament due to injury.
Murray was going to play. He was placed in the draw as the No. 2 seed, and his withdrawal created an interesting situation. Roger and Rafa are the top two players in the field, but they're in the same half of the draw (meaning that dream matchup could only happen in the semifinals). Meanwhile, No. 4 Alexander Zverev and No. 5 Marin Cilic are both on the bottom half. Which means the bottom half of the draw is wide open, and somebody's gonna take advantage and reach a US Open final.
And if there was ever a chance for us to finally see an American man back in a Grand Slam final, this might be it. Because the top three American players are all in that Murray-less bottom half, and it's not that much of a stretch to see them going through each other on the way to the semis. No. 10 John Isner and No. 13 Jack Sock were already in the same section of the draw...then No. 17 Sam Querrey joined them when they rearranged the draw after Murray withdrew. So, it's conceivable that three of the four players in the round of 16 from that section of the draw could be American. That would be huge. Especially at the US Open.
The Americans obviously benefited the most from Murray's withdrawal, but there are plenty of others happy they're in the bottom half. Marin Cilic won the title here three years ago and made the final at Wimbledon. He probably would've been the favorite on the bottom half even if Murray was there. Now that's definitely the case. But eighth-seeded Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, who's always had trouble against Murray, also benefits now that he's got a potential quarterfinal against Cilic instead.
Meanwhile, don't just assume because they're the top two players in the world again that we're automatically getting that Federer-Nadal semi next Friday (talk about a hot ticket if it does happen). Because Nadal has a history of early exits at the US Open...and the top half is loaded.
Nadal has already go on record saying he doesn't want to play Federer, presumably because it would be in a semi instead of the final and they'd almost certainly wear each other out. But in order to get there, he'll first have to get past either Fabio Fognini (who beat him here two years ago) or Tomas Berdych, then potentially Grigor Dimitrov (the winner last week in Cincinnati) in the quarters. Roger, meanwhile, would have to get through Nick Kyrgios (who lost to Dimitrov in Cincinnati) or Juan Martin Del Potro, the man who ended his run of five straight US Open titles in the 2009 final.
Nevertheless, Federer enters the tournament as the favorite. Even Nadal would admit that. Nadal may currently be No. 1 (for the record, Federer is five points behind Murray for No. 2), but it's Roger who's 2-for-2 in Grand Slams this year. And it's Roger who's the better hard court player. Nadal's style usually works against him at the US Open, although I don't think it'll be a no-name who beats him this year. I do see him losing before the Federer matchup, however.
I've got Federer beating Dimitrov in one semi, with Querrey reaching his second consecutive Grand Slam semifinal and losing to Cilic. And just like at Wimbledon, Roger beats Cilic in the final for his first US Open title since 2008 (it's hard to believe it's been nearly 10 years since he's won here), lucky No. 20 overall, and the No. 1 ranking. (Since Federer didn't play last year and has no points to defend, a deep run pretty much guarantees he'll get to No. 1 unless Nadal wins the title.)
On the women's side, it's most definitely wide open. Last year's finalist Karolina Pliskova enters the US Open as No. 1, while last year's champion Angelique Kerber has struggled all year and is seeded only sixth. The best player in the world right now, in fact, might be Wimbledon champion Garbine Muguruza. She comes in at No. 3 and went semis, quarters, win at her three US Open Series events. Muguruza's definitely a threat for the title.
This might finally be Caroline Wozniacki's chance to break through, too. Woz definitely wants to shed that "Best Player Never to Win a Slam" label (although, a lot of women have that label since Serena seemingly wins them all), and the US Open has always been her best one. She's made the finals here twice and the semis three other times, compared to a grand total of one semifinal appearance at the other three Slams combined (and that was way back in 2011). And, honestly, I think she's got a great shot this year. Except, of course, she's got a potential quarterfinal matchup against Muguruza. The winner of that match is my pick for the title.
For all the star power that this US Open is lacking with the absence of so many top men, as well as the extremely pregnant Serena Williams, it gets some back with Maria Sharapova's return to Grand Slam tennis. We all know the story with Maria's suspension and the French Open's refusal to give her a wild card. Then she missed Wimbledon qualifying with an injury. Well, the USTA had no such reservations about giving her a wild card, and she'll play her first Grand Slam tournament in 19 months.
You already knew Sharapova was getting a night match in the first round. That was further guaranteed when she was drawn against No. 2 seed Simona Halep in the marquee matchup of the entire first round. This is no picnic for Halep, and the winner seems poised for a deep run.
Woz, Muguruza and Maria are just three of the intriguing names on the bottom half of the women's draw. Incredibly, all four Wimbledon semifinalists are there. Venus Williams has been to a pair of Grand Slam finals this year and Jo Konta is having the best year of her career (for the record 31st-seed Magdalena Rybarikova was the other semifinalist). Sloane Stephens is also healthy and resurgent. I can see any of a handful of names coming out of the bottom half.
As for her opponent in the final, I think we might see that semifinal rematch of last year's final between Pliskova and Kerber. Americans Madison Keys and Coco Vandeweghe are also positioned well and could surprise, while French Open champ Jelena Ostapenko will likely be a tough out, as well. But if Pliskova wants to show that she deserves to be No. 1, this is her chance. Look for her to make a statement and get back to the final.
My women's semifinals are Pliskova vs. Kerber and Wozniacki vs. Konta (although Mugurza beating Wozniacki and taking that spot isn't too far of a stretch). I've got Pliskova vs. Wozniacki in the final, with Woz finally getting that first US Open title.
Murray was going to play. He was placed in the draw as the No. 2 seed, and his withdrawal created an interesting situation. Roger and Rafa are the top two players in the field, but they're in the same half of the draw (meaning that dream matchup could only happen in the semifinals). Meanwhile, No. 4 Alexander Zverev and No. 5 Marin Cilic are both on the bottom half. Which means the bottom half of the draw is wide open, and somebody's gonna take advantage and reach a US Open final.
And if there was ever a chance for us to finally see an American man back in a Grand Slam final, this might be it. Because the top three American players are all in that Murray-less bottom half, and it's not that much of a stretch to see them going through each other on the way to the semis. No. 10 John Isner and No. 13 Jack Sock were already in the same section of the draw...then No. 17 Sam Querrey joined them when they rearranged the draw after Murray withdrew. So, it's conceivable that three of the four players in the round of 16 from that section of the draw could be American. That would be huge. Especially at the US Open.
The Americans obviously benefited the most from Murray's withdrawal, but there are plenty of others happy they're in the bottom half. Marin Cilic won the title here three years ago and made the final at Wimbledon. He probably would've been the favorite on the bottom half even if Murray was there. Now that's definitely the case. But eighth-seeded Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, who's always had trouble against Murray, also benefits now that he's got a potential quarterfinal against Cilic instead.
Meanwhile, don't just assume because they're the top two players in the world again that we're automatically getting that Federer-Nadal semi next Friday (talk about a hot ticket if it does happen). Because Nadal has a history of early exits at the US Open...and the top half is loaded.
Nadal has already go on record saying he doesn't want to play Federer, presumably because it would be in a semi instead of the final and they'd almost certainly wear each other out. But in order to get there, he'll first have to get past either Fabio Fognini (who beat him here two years ago) or Tomas Berdych, then potentially Grigor Dimitrov (the winner last week in Cincinnati) in the quarters. Roger, meanwhile, would have to get through Nick Kyrgios (who lost to Dimitrov in Cincinnati) or Juan Martin Del Potro, the man who ended his run of five straight US Open titles in the 2009 final.
Nevertheless, Federer enters the tournament as the favorite. Even Nadal would admit that. Nadal may currently be No. 1 (for the record, Federer is five points behind Murray for No. 2), but it's Roger who's 2-for-2 in Grand Slams this year. And it's Roger who's the better hard court player. Nadal's style usually works against him at the US Open, although I don't think it'll be a no-name who beats him this year. I do see him losing before the Federer matchup, however.
I've got Federer beating Dimitrov in one semi, with Querrey reaching his second consecutive Grand Slam semifinal and losing to Cilic. And just like at Wimbledon, Roger beats Cilic in the final for his first US Open title since 2008 (it's hard to believe it's been nearly 10 years since he's won here), lucky No. 20 overall, and the No. 1 ranking. (Since Federer didn't play last year and has no points to defend, a deep run pretty much guarantees he'll get to No. 1 unless Nadal wins the title.)
On the women's side, it's most definitely wide open. Last year's finalist Karolina Pliskova enters the US Open as No. 1, while last year's champion Angelique Kerber has struggled all year and is seeded only sixth. The best player in the world right now, in fact, might be Wimbledon champion Garbine Muguruza. She comes in at No. 3 and went semis, quarters, win at her three US Open Series events. Muguruza's definitely a threat for the title.
This might finally be Caroline Wozniacki's chance to break through, too. Woz definitely wants to shed that "Best Player Never to Win a Slam" label (although, a lot of women have that label since Serena seemingly wins them all), and the US Open has always been her best one. She's made the finals here twice and the semis three other times, compared to a grand total of one semifinal appearance at the other three Slams combined (and that was way back in 2011). And, honestly, I think she's got a great shot this year. Except, of course, she's got a potential quarterfinal matchup against Muguruza. The winner of that match is my pick for the title.
For all the star power that this US Open is lacking with the absence of so many top men, as well as the extremely pregnant Serena Williams, it gets some back with Maria Sharapova's return to Grand Slam tennis. We all know the story with Maria's suspension and the French Open's refusal to give her a wild card. Then she missed Wimbledon qualifying with an injury. Well, the USTA had no such reservations about giving her a wild card, and she'll play her first Grand Slam tournament in 19 months.
You already knew Sharapova was getting a night match in the first round. That was further guaranteed when she was drawn against No. 2 seed Simona Halep in the marquee matchup of the entire first round. This is no picnic for Halep, and the winner seems poised for a deep run.
Woz, Muguruza and Maria are just three of the intriguing names on the bottom half of the women's draw. Incredibly, all four Wimbledon semifinalists are there. Venus Williams has been to a pair of Grand Slam finals this year and Jo Konta is having the best year of her career (for the record 31st-seed Magdalena Rybarikova was the other semifinalist). Sloane Stephens is also healthy and resurgent. I can see any of a handful of names coming out of the bottom half.
As for her opponent in the final, I think we might see that semifinal rematch of last year's final between Pliskova and Kerber. Americans Madison Keys and Coco Vandeweghe are also positioned well and could surprise, while French Open champ Jelena Ostapenko will likely be a tough out, as well. But if Pliskova wants to show that she deserves to be No. 1, this is her chance. Look for her to make a statement and get back to the final.
My women's semifinals are Pliskova vs. Kerber and Wozniacki vs. Konta (although Mugurza beating Wozniacki and taking that spot isn't too far of a stretch). I've got Pliskova vs. Wozniacki in the final, with Woz finally getting that first US Open title.
Saturday, August 26, 2017
Just to Sell More Jerseys
When MLB announced a couple weeks ago that this would be "Players' Weekend" and that every team was going to wear special jerseys with player-chosen nicknames on the back, I was a little skeptical of the idea. Then they revealed the technicolor designs for the jerseys and I became even more skeptical. And now that I'm seeing them in action, they're even worse than I imagined.
Where do I start with how terrible these jerseys are? How about the colors? Remember that Michigan-Syracuse game in the Final Four a couple years ago where you had to adjust the brightness on your TV? They're kinda like that. Then throw in the fact that they're pullovers and the hats, which are equally as bright, and it's like you're watching a beer league softball game in the 70s or early 80s.
Then there's the nicknames. I'll admit, some of them are clever (Kyle Seager's is "Corey's Brother"), but a vast majority of them don't make any sense to even the most die-hard fan. Sure, you've got plenty of guys who went with some shortened form of their name or added a "-y" or put something they're commonly known as (I'm sure if David Ortiz was still playing, his would've said "Big Papi"). You even had the guys who decided to just put their last name.
But for all of those, you also have a bunch of vanity projects. The ones that just leave you scratching your head like "Huh?" And, it might just be me, but when the broadcaster needs to explain it, you kinda missed the point. It's like the guy who has to explain why his joke his funny when no one laughs.
Of course, you're probably not surprised to hear that I don't like seeing the Yankees in jerseys with their names on them. That's definitely a part of it, but I wouldn't be a fan either way. Because the bright colors and gimmicky nicknames are simply too much. The Yankees actually have one of the more sedated ones (which was probably a condition of them agreeing to participate) and some look like the team's regular third jersey. But, by and large, the Players' Weekend jerseys are so ostentatious they're giving the games a Spring Training feel.
And let's not kid ourselves. MLB can say whatever they want about why they're doing this, but the underlying reason is money. This gives them an excuse to sell these things for $200 apiece (probably more if you want to get your own stupid nickname on one). That's just the jerseys, which says nothing about the $36 for the ugly hats that accompany them.
People will pay it. We all know that. Just like they gobble up All-Star jerseys and hats (for the record, no problem with All-Star jerseys, although I don't think they should wear different hats, which are usually pretty bad, for the All-Star Game itself). Which is why, I'm sure, this will likely become an annual tradition, probably with a whole new design for the jerseys and hats each year.
So, now, in addition to the "everybody wears 42" jerseys on April 15; the camouflage jerseys on Memorial Day; the red, white and blue jerseys on the Fourth of July; and the corresponding hats that go with them, we're going to have "Players' Weekend" jerseys added to each team's arsenal. Not to mention the teams that have a ridiculous number of selections just among their regular uniforms. What's next? Opening Day jerseys? Labor Day jerseys (it's the only baseball holiday left)?
They've even amended the MLB logo on the sleeves this weekend. Instead of just the batter, they have him growing up through the years, all the way from Little League. The obvious tie-in is to the Little League World Series, which ends this weekend and is the reason this weekend was chosen.
That's the one element of "Players' Weekend" that I would like to see made permanent. The Little League Classic. We got a sneak peek of the Cardinals' and Pirates' jerseys last week when they played in that amazing event in Williamsport for the 16 Little League World Series teams and their families. That game was cool enough, but the best part of the whole thing was actually seeing the Pirates and Cardinals attending the Little League World Series games during the day and wearing the hats of the different Little League teams. They loved it as much as the kids did. You could see it on their faces.
Unfortunately, the only permanent things that are going to come out of this are "Players' Weekend" and the stupid jerseys. I really wish that was the other way around. Because MLB hit a home run with the Little League Classic. And that event deserves another go-round. Much more than the nickname jerseys. Which are going to get old pretty quick.
Thursday, August 24, 2017
Breaking Down the Brawl
Today's Yankees-Tigers game was disgusting. It really was. Not one, not two, but three bench-clearing incidents. It's a good thing they don't play again this season, because it definitely got to the point where enough was enough. Although, much like the Blue Jays and Rangers, I have a feeling this still isn't over and will carry over into next season.
This all actually started a few weeks ago at Yankee Stadium when the Yankees hit Detroit's Mikie Mahtook twice in the same game, and Tigers pitcher Michael Fulmer, with a little encouragement from Miguel Cabrera, retaliated by drilling Jacoby Ellsbury. Nothing else came of that. The Yankees saw it coming, Ellsbury took his base, and that was it.
Fast forward to Thursday. Who was pitching for Detroit? Michael Fulmer. An inning after Gary Sanchez hit his 15th home run of the series (it was only four, but you get the point), Fulmer plunked him. He did a good job of playing it off like it was unintentional (the trainer even came out to "check" on him), but it was pretty clear that he was throwing at him. Yet there was no warning.
Now we go to the bottom of the sixth and all hell breaks loose. Tommy Kahnle throws one behind Cabrera and is immediately ejected (which really set Joe Girardi, who was also tossed, off). Aroldis Chapman comes in to replace him and finishes his warmup pitches, but before he can throw a real one, Cabrera and Austin Romine get into a full-one brouhaha at home plate.
According to Cabrera, Romine was "acting tough," even though it's pretty clear Cabrera starting talking and Romine was doing his best to ignore him. Eventually, something was said that got Romine (whose brother plays for the Tigers, by the way) to take his mask off and say something back. Cabrera, who was already in Romine's face, was obviously ready to fight. Because the next thing he did was push Romine down and put his fists up. Once they were on the ground, Romine got in a couple of body blows, but Cabrera was the clear instigator of the incident.
Dellin Betances was ejected in the next inning for hitting a guy in the head, even though pretty much everyone agrees there was no intent there (you're not hitting a guy on purpose, especially in the head, in a 6-6 game). David Robertson hit the next guy, but that was clearly a pitch that got away and nothing came of it. Then a Tigers pitcher was thrown out in the eighth for hitting Todd Frazier with a pitch that he admitted was intentional. And that altercation, which started out as nothing, got a little more heated when Tigers manager Brad Ausmus evidently had some choice words for one of the Yankees players, which set Brett Gardner off.
There's plenty of blame to go around for what happened. Joe Girardi wasn't shy about his displeasure for the way the umpires handled the initial situation with Fulmer and Sanchez. He had a point. They should've known that history, and if they'd issued a warning after that first HBP, all of this could've been avoided. As it is, Joe Torre and Co. have a lot of work to do when it comes to fines and suspensions.
Cabrera started it all and will almost certainly receive the largest punishment. Which he should. I'm gonna say eight games, which might seem like a lot, but (1) everything that followed was a direct result of his actions and (2) he was clearly looking for a fight. Besides, after the inevitable appeal, he'll probably end up sitting something like five games.
The other Tigers in line for a suspension? If he did say "FU" to one of the Yankees players (it's clear from the video that he said it, but you can't necessarily see who it was directed towards), I think manager Brad Ausmus will get a game or two. And pitcher Alex Wilson pretty much guaranteed himself a suspension when he admitted he threw at Frazier. Let's say he gets three. The interesting one is Fulmer. Will he get anything for throwing at Sanchez? Even if he does, it'll make little impact, since he won't miss a start.
As for the Yankees, the suspensions are going to hit them much harder. Not only are they in the thick of the race while the Tigers are out of it, they're likely going to have multiple people suspended...including both of their catchers! Romine did his best at playing the innocent victim in all of this, but his ejection was warranted, and his suspension will be too. Cabrera may have started it, but Romine got some pretty good shots in. He's getting at least three games, probably more like five.
Gary Sanchez had every reason to be upset during the fight...especially seeing as him getting hit is what set the Yankees off. He easily could've been ejected, but the umpires didn't see him connecting on a few blows while Cabrera was on the ground (one of which hit Nick Castellanos). But since MLB will be watching the video over and over again and Sanchez will be certainly be given a few days off by the league, as well. The Yankees know that they're going to have to get creative with their roster and hope they can get the suspensions staggered (which they almost certainly will).
Other than the two catchers, I'm not entirely sure what other Yankees are in line for a few MLB-mandated days off. Of the pitchers, Kahnle seems to be the most likely recipient. He threw behind Cabrera. There's no two ways around that. I think common sense will prevail and Betances won't be suspended, especially since you could make the argument he shouldn't have been ejected. Girardi and bench coach Rob Thomson, who was also ejected while serving as acting manager, will probably only be fined.
Plenty of other guys could be fined for their roles, but I think we're looking at three suspensions apiece--Cabrera, Wilson and Ausmus for the Tigers, Romine, Sanchez and Kahnle for the Yankees. Although, they've got a lot of video to watch, so it wouldn't surprise me if they determine others were involved. And Justin Verlander really wanted to be. You know that the first chance he gets against the Yankees next season, he's gonna take it...and start the whole thing up again.
But the ripple effects of Thursday's fisticuffs will have a much bigger impact on the remainder of the Yankees' 2017 season than it does on Detroit. Miguel Cabrera doesn't care if he's suspended for a few games. The Tigers aren't going anywhere with or without him. But how long the Yankees are without Gary Sanchez (and whoever else) could definitely factor into whether they win the AL East, they're a wild card, or they miss the playoffs altogether. So, yeah, I'd say they were definitely the losers when all is said and done.
This all actually started a few weeks ago at Yankee Stadium when the Yankees hit Detroit's Mikie Mahtook twice in the same game, and Tigers pitcher Michael Fulmer, with a little encouragement from Miguel Cabrera, retaliated by drilling Jacoby Ellsbury. Nothing else came of that. The Yankees saw it coming, Ellsbury took his base, and that was it.
Fast forward to Thursday. Who was pitching for Detroit? Michael Fulmer. An inning after Gary Sanchez hit his 15th home run of the series (it was only four, but you get the point), Fulmer plunked him. He did a good job of playing it off like it was unintentional (the trainer even came out to "check" on him), but it was pretty clear that he was throwing at him. Yet there was no warning.
Now we go to the bottom of the sixth and all hell breaks loose. Tommy Kahnle throws one behind Cabrera and is immediately ejected (which really set Joe Girardi, who was also tossed, off). Aroldis Chapman comes in to replace him and finishes his warmup pitches, but before he can throw a real one, Cabrera and Austin Romine get into a full-one brouhaha at home plate.
According to Cabrera, Romine was "acting tough," even though it's pretty clear Cabrera starting talking and Romine was doing his best to ignore him. Eventually, something was said that got Romine (whose brother plays for the Tigers, by the way) to take his mask off and say something back. Cabrera, who was already in Romine's face, was obviously ready to fight. Because the next thing he did was push Romine down and put his fists up. Once they were on the ground, Romine got in a couple of body blows, but Cabrera was the clear instigator of the incident.
Dellin Betances was ejected in the next inning for hitting a guy in the head, even though pretty much everyone agrees there was no intent there (you're not hitting a guy on purpose, especially in the head, in a 6-6 game). David Robertson hit the next guy, but that was clearly a pitch that got away and nothing came of it. Then a Tigers pitcher was thrown out in the eighth for hitting Todd Frazier with a pitch that he admitted was intentional. And that altercation, which started out as nothing, got a little more heated when Tigers manager Brad Ausmus evidently had some choice words for one of the Yankees players, which set Brett Gardner off.
There's plenty of blame to go around for what happened. Joe Girardi wasn't shy about his displeasure for the way the umpires handled the initial situation with Fulmer and Sanchez. He had a point. They should've known that history, and if they'd issued a warning after that first HBP, all of this could've been avoided. As it is, Joe Torre and Co. have a lot of work to do when it comes to fines and suspensions.
Cabrera started it all and will almost certainly receive the largest punishment. Which he should. I'm gonna say eight games, which might seem like a lot, but (1) everything that followed was a direct result of his actions and (2) he was clearly looking for a fight. Besides, after the inevitable appeal, he'll probably end up sitting something like five games.
The other Tigers in line for a suspension? If he did say "FU" to one of the Yankees players (it's clear from the video that he said it, but you can't necessarily see who it was directed towards), I think manager Brad Ausmus will get a game or two. And pitcher Alex Wilson pretty much guaranteed himself a suspension when he admitted he threw at Frazier. Let's say he gets three. The interesting one is Fulmer. Will he get anything for throwing at Sanchez? Even if he does, it'll make little impact, since he won't miss a start.
As for the Yankees, the suspensions are going to hit them much harder. Not only are they in the thick of the race while the Tigers are out of it, they're likely going to have multiple people suspended...including both of their catchers! Romine did his best at playing the innocent victim in all of this, but his ejection was warranted, and his suspension will be too. Cabrera may have started it, but Romine got some pretty good shots in. He's getting at least three games, probably more like five.
Gary Sanchez had every reason to be upset during the fight...especially seeing as him getting hit is what set the Yankees off. He easily could've been ejected, but the umpires didn't see him connecting on a few blows while Cabrera was on the ground (one of which hit Nick Castellanos). But since MLB will be watching the video over and over again and Sanchez will be certainly be given a few days off by the league, as well. The Yankees know that they're going to have to get creative with their roster and hope they can get the suspensions staggered (which they almost certainly will).
Other than the two catchers, I'm not entirely sure what other Yankees are in line for a few MLB-mandated days off. Of the pitchers, Kahnle seems to be the most likely recipient. He threw behind Cabrera. There's no two ways around that. I think common sense will prevail and Betances won't be suspended, especially since you could make the argument he shouldn't have been ejected. Girardi and bench coach Rob Thomson, who was also ejected while serving as acting manager, will probably only be fined.
Plenty of other guys could be fined for their roles, but I think we're looking at three suspensions apiece--Cabrera, Wilson and Ausmus for the Tigers, Romine, Sanchez and Kahnle for the Yankees. Although, they've got a lot of video to watch, so it wouldn't surprise me if they determine others were involved. And Justin Verlander really wanted to be. You know that the first chance he gets against the Yankees next season, he's gonna take it...and start the whole thing up again.
But the ripple effects of Thursday's fisticuffs will have a much bigger impact on the remainder of the Yankees' 2017 season than it does on Detroit. Miguel Cabrera doesn't care if he's suspended for a few games. The Tigers aren't going anywhere with or without him. But how long the Yankees are without Gary Sanchez (and whoever else) could definitely factor into whether they win the AL East, they're a wild card, or they miss the playoffs altogether. So, yeah, I'd say they were definitely the losers when all is said and done.
Monday, August 21, 2017
Totally Eclipsed
You know how much of a dork I am, so you knew that the eclipse would serve as the inspiration for a blog post. For me, today's eclipse was a bit of a dud. There was cloud cover during the time I was supposed to be able to see the 70 percent I was gonna get. Fortunately, I only have to wait seven years until the next one, and I've already told my buddy in Buffalo that I'm staying with him for it.
Anyway, how can the eclipse possibly inspire a blog post? Easy. Because there are so many situations where athletes stood to be the hero in a championship situation, only to have their performance eclipsed by someone else. Instead of being the play that led their team to victory, they've instead been relegated to footnotes in the story. Like these 10. Almost the hero, but not quite.
John McEnroe, 1980 Wimbledon Final: At the height of his rivalry with Bjorn Borg, they met for the Wimbledon title in 1980. This match is widely considered one of the greatest of all-time, and it's widely remembered for its epic fourth set tiebreak. McEnroe won the tiebreak 18-16. He didn't win the match, though. Borg won the fifth set 8-6, and with it, his fifth straight Wimbledon title.
Carlton Fisk, 1975 World Series: It's one of the most memorable home runs in history. Fisk's 12th inning walk-off over the Green Monster that won Game 6 for the Red Sox. It's a home run that, to this day, still lives in New England folklore. Except it ended up being for naught. Because the Reds won Game 7.
Endy Chavez, 2006 NLCS: Before Adam Wainwright froze Carlos Beltran with that wicked curve ball, Endy Chavez was poised to be the hero. You all remember the play. It was a 1-1 game in the top of the sixth when Scott Rolen crushed one to left center that was well out...until Endy Chavez made a ridiculous snow-cone catch with his glove well over the fence. He then threw Jim Edmonds out at first for an inning-ending double play. But then Yadi Molina hit a two-run homer, Wainwright threw that curve ball, and the Cardinals went to the World Series.
Larry Fitzgerald, Super Bowl XLIII: Speaking of Cardinals, Larry Fitzgerald scored two touchdowns in the fourth quarter of Super Bowl XLIII, including a 64-yard catch and run that gave Arizona a 23-20 lead with 2:37 left. His name was on the MVP trophy...until the Steelers drove down the field and Ben Roethlisberger found Santonio Holmes in the corner of the end zone with 35 seconds to go to win it, 27-23.
Josh Hamilton, 2011 World Series: Back to the baseball Cardinals. We all remember Game 6 of that incredible 2011 World Series. After David Freese's two-run triple tied it in the bottom of the ninth, Hamilton crushed a two-run bomb in the top of the 10th to put the Rangers back in front. But, the Cardinals scored two of their own to tie it again, then Freese clinched his MVP award with a walk-off homer in the 11th.
Josh Hamilton, 2008 Home Run Derby: Hamilton is the only player with the honor of being on here twice. Because the 2008 Home Run Derby at the Old Yankee Stadium will always be remembered for the show Hamilton put on. Moon shot after moon shot, 28 homers total in the first round, many deep in the right field upper deck. Except Hamilton didn't win the Derby. Justin Morneau did.
Carl Lewis, 1991 World Championships: I'll always hold firm that the Carl Lewis vs. Mike Powell in the long jump at the 1991 World Championships in Tokyo is one of the single greatest head-to-head duels in sports history. Lewis was in his prime and had been going after Bob Beamon's world record for years. He finally beat Beamon's mark (albeit wind-aided) by a centimeter in the fourth round...only to see Powell jump a wind-legal world record on his fifth jump. Lewis had the second-longest jump in history (his best wind-legal mark of the night is No. 3 all-time, behind only Powell and Beamon), but finished second in the competition.
Marcus Paige, 2016 National Championship Game: North Carolina's Marcus Paige sent the game into overtime with his ridiculous three-pointer that tied it with 4.7 seconds left. That's what we all thought. Well, all of us except Kris Jenkins. He hit that half-court buzzer-beater to give Villanova the title, 77-74.
Alfonso Soriano, 2001 World Series: There were so many memorable moments in the 2001 World Series. The back-to-back ninth inning home runs in Games 4 and 5 at Yankee Stadium. The Derek Jeter "Mr. November" home run. Luis Gonzalez's flare over Jeter in the ninth inning of Game 7 that gave Arizona the title. But, before Mariano Rivera blew that save, the Yankees had a 2-1 lead thanks to Soriano's homer off Curt Schilling in the eighth.
Jalen Hurts, 2017 CFP National Championship: Alabama-Clemson II was a classic college football game. Back-and-forth it went, with Clemson scoring that touchdown on the final play to win it. That was right after Alabama had taken the lead just 2:06 earlier on Hurts' 30-yard run.
Tim Howard, 2014 World Cup: Ryan Miller's 36 saves in the 2010 Olympic gold medal game could easily have been the choice here, but I decided to go with a different American goalie in a different sport. Tim Howard's record 15 saves kept the USA's round of 16 game with Belgium scoreless thru 90 minutes, even though the Belgians had dominated. Belgium scored twice in extra time, though, to win 2-1.
As you can see, it's happened plenty of times. The hero makes the historic play, only to be eclipsed by another historic play by somebody else. Which shouldn't make that original play any less memorable. Sometimes it's just the opposite actually. We remember the outstanding performance in a loss more than we remember the championship moment.
Anyway, how can the eclipse possibly inspire a blog post? Easy. Because there are so many situations where athletes stood to be the hero in a championship situation, only to have their performance eclipsed by someone else. Instead of being the play that led their team to victory, they've instead been relegated to footnotes in the story. Like these 10. Almost the hero, but not quite.
John McEnroe, 1980 Wimbledon Final: At the height of his rivalry with Bjorn Borg, they met for the Wimbledon title in 1980. This match is widely considered one of the greatest of all-time, and it's widely remembered for its epic fourth set tiebreak. McEnroe won the tiebreak 18-16. He didn't win the match, though. Borg won the fifth set 8-6, and with it, his fifth straight Wimbledon title.
Carlton Fisk, 1975 World Series: It's one of the most memorable home runs in history. Fisk's 12th inning walk-off over the Green Monster that won Game 6 for the Red Sox. It's a home run that, to this day, still lives in New England folklore. Except it ended up being for naught. Because the Reds won Game 7.
Endy Chavez, 2006 NLCS: Before Adam Wainwright froze Carlos Beltran with that wicked curve ball, Endy Chavez was poised to be the hero. You all remember the play. It was a 1-1 game in the top of the sixth when Scott Rolen crushed one to left center that was well out...until Endy Chavez made a ridiculous snow-cone catch with his glove well over the fence. He then threw Jim Edmonds out at first for an inning-ending double play. But then Yadi Molina hit a two-run homer, Wainwright threw that curve ball, and the Cardinals went to the World Series.
Larry Fitzgerald, Super Bowl XLIII: Speaking of Cardinals, Larry Fitzgerald scored two touchdowns in the fourth quarter of Super Bowl XLIII, including a 64-yard catch and run that gave Arizona a 23-20 lead with 2:37 left. His name was on the MVP trophy...until the Steelers drove down the field and Ben Roethlisberger found Santonio Holmes in the corner of the end zone with 35 seconds to go to win it, 27-23.
Josh Hamilton, 2011 World Series: Back to the baseball Cardinals. We all remember Game 6 of that incredible 2011 World Series. After David Freese's two-run triple tied it in the bottom of the ninth, Hamilton crushed a two-run bomb in the top of the 10th to put the Rangers back in front. But, the Cardinals scored two of their own to tie it again, then Freese clinched his MVP award with a walk-off homer in the 11th.
Josh Hamilton, 2008 Home Run Derby: Hamilton is the only player with the honor of being on here twice. Because the 2008 Home Run Derby at the Old Yankee Stadium will always be remembered for the show Hamilton put on. Moon shot after moon shot, 28 homers total in the first round, many deep in the right field upper deck. Except Hamilton didn't win the Derby. Justin Morneau did.
Carl Lewis, 1991 World Championships: I'll always hold firm that the Carl Lewis vs. Mike Powell in the long jump at the 1991 World Championships in Tokyo is one of the single greatest head-to-head duels in sports history. Lewis was in his prime and had been going after Bob Beamon's world record for years. He finally beat Beamon's mark (albeit wind-aided) by a centimeter in the fourth round...only to see Powell jump a wind-legal world record on his fifth jump. Lewis had the second-longest jump in history (his best wind-legal mark of the night is No. 3 all-time, behind only Powell and Beamon), but finished second in the competition.
Marcus Paige, 2016 National Championship Game: North Carolina's Marcus Paige sent the game into overtime with his ridiculous three-pointer that tied it with 4.7 seconds left. That's what we all thought. Well, all of us except Kris Jenkins. He hit that half-court buzzer-beater to give Villanova the title, 77-74.
Alfonso Soriano, 2001 World Series: There were so many memorable moments in the 2001 World Series. The back-to-back ninth inning home runs in Games 4 and 5 at Yankee Stadium. The Derek Jeter "Mr. November" home run. Luis Gonzalez's flare over Jeter in the ninth inning of Game 7 that gave Arizona the title. But, before Mariano Rivera blew that save, the Yankees had a 2-1 lead thanks to Soriano's homer off Curt Schilling in the eighth.
Jalen Hurts, 2017 CFP National Championship: Alabama-Clemson II was a classic college football game. Back-and-forth it went, with Clemson scoring that touchdown on the final play to win it. That was right after Alabama had taken the lead just 2:06 earlier on Hurts' 30-yard run.
Tim Howard, 2014 World Cup: Ryan Miller's 36 saves in the 2010 Olympic gold medal game could easily have been the choice here, but I decided to go with a different American goalie in a different sport. Tim Howard's record 15 saves kept the USA's round of 16 game with Belgium scoreless thru 90 minutes, even though the Belgians had dominated. Belgium scored twice in extra time, though, to win 2-1.
As you can see, it's happened plenty of times. The hero makes the historic play, only to be eclipsed by another historic play by somebody else. Which shouldn't make that original play any less memorable. Sometimes it's just the opposite actually. We remember the outstanding performance in a loss more than we remember the championship moment.
Saturday, August 19, 2017
The Meet
Fresh on the heels of a tremendous World Track & Field Championships in London where every session was sold out and the United States won a record 30 medals, British Athletics and USA Track & Field wisely looked to capitalize. So, earlier this week, they announced the creation of "The Meet," a head-to-head showdown between the two nations back at the London Olympic Stadium on July 18, 2018.
This meet is such a tremendous idea on so many levels. For starters, the United States and Great Britain are the top two track & field nations in the world right now. Now, let's not kid ourselves, Great Britain isn't going to win. But they're the only nation that has a chance of at least being competitive with the United States...especially in London.
Only a few details have been released other than the date and location. There will be nine events (I'm assuming that means nine events each), which will be a combination of running, hurdling and jumping...and, of course, the relays, especially after that thrilling men's 4x100 where the British nipped the U.S. at the line for the gold. And knowing that there are only nine events, they'll choose wisely. It'll only be events where they top two Brits and top two Americans are on par, which still leaves plenty of choices.
Let's start with the obvious events. The four relays will be included. So will the women's 1500, where Laura Muir and Jenny Simpson always battle it out, and the men's long jump, where Greg Rutherford (Great Britain) and Jeff Henderson (United States) are the last two Olympic champions. You can also expect to see both the 100/110 hurdles and 400 hurdles. I'd also include the high jump as the second jumping event and the 800. Lastly, I've got the 200. Why the 200? Because if you're having both relays, it doesn't make sense to have the individual 100 or 400, so we're meeting in the middle.
Scoring is also to be determined, but the organizers have already said every athlete will contribute to the team total. That leads me to believe some sort of standard dual meet scoring will be used. Maybe two athletes per country and a 5-3-2-1 scoring system for the individual events, with the relays going 5-2.
Who'll be in the meet is another one of those details that needs to be figured out. 2018 is the off year for Americans, meaning it's the one year in the cycle without an Olympics or World Championships. So, they could still have a team to make at Nationals if a spot at The Meet was at stake for the top two. Although, since they'll likely want to guarantee the biggest names, my guess is the teams will be invitational, which is also fine. And getting the top Americans to participate would actually be pretty easy, since they'll already be in Europe for the Diamond League.
So, using the events I've selected and the assumption that each team will have two athletes in each individual event (and, obviously, four in the relays), here's what I think our lineup for the individual events at the inaugural edition of The Meet could look like, assuming the event lineup is the same for men & women:
200: Men-Daniel Talbot & Zharnel Hughes (GBR), Ameer Webb & Noah Lyles (USA); Women-Dina Asher-Smith & Shannon Hylton (GBR), Deajah Stevens & Kimberlyn Duncan (USA)
100/110 Hurdles: Men-Andrew Pozzi & David Omoregie (GBR), Aries Merritt & Devon Allen (USA); Women-Cindy Ofili & Tiffany Porter (GBR), Keni Harrison & Nia Ali (USA)
400 Hurdles: Men-Jack Green & Jacob Paul (GBR), Kerron Clement & Eric Futch (USA); Women-Elidih Doyle & Meghan Beesley (GBR), Dalilah Muhammad & Kori Carter (USA)
800: Men-Kyle Langford & Guy Learmonth (GBR), Donovan Brazier & Boris Berian (USA); Women-Lynsey Sharp & Adelle Tracey (GBR), Ajee Wilson & Brenda Martinez (USA)
1500: Men-Chris O'Hare & Jake Wightman (GBR), Matthew Centrowitz & Robby Andrews (USA); Women-Laura Muir & Laura Weightman (GBR), Jenny Simpson & Shannon Rowbury (USA)
Long Jump: Men-Greg Rutherford & Daniel Bramble (GBR), Jeff Henderson & Jarrion Lawson (USA); Women-Lorraine Ugen & Shara Proctor (GBR), Tianna Bartoletta & Brittney Reese (USA)
High Jump: Men-Robbie Grabarz & Tom Gale (GBR), Erik Kynard & Bryan McBride (USA); Women-Morgan Lake & Katarina Johnson-Thompson (GBR), Vashti Cunningham & Chaunte Lowe (USA)
With no World Championships or Olympics, The Meet stands to be one of the marquee events on the international track & field calendar in 2018 (especially since it'll be the only international meet involving Americans). And hopefully it become an annual (or at least bi-annual) tradition, with the host alternating. It brings you back to the old days (when there was a USA-USSR dual meet every year). A head-to-head meet between the two best teams in the world. Such a simple idea. So crazy that it just might work.
Wednesday, August 16, 2017
Where Will the World Cup Be?
Yesterday they announced the venues that are under consideration for the 2026 North American World Cup bid (I have to still say "bid" because Morocco put in a last-minute bid, meaning the official awarding to the USA, Mexico and Canada won't just be a formality). The list includes 49 stadiums, a vast majority of which won't be selected.
We don't even know what the final number will ultimately be, but the 2026 World Cup will be the first with 48 teams, which will be divided into 16 groups. So, it seems to me like 16 is a good number to use. And, since Mexico and Canada are getting 10 games each, I'll figure two cities in each of those countries and 12 in the U.S.
I'll start with the two venues in Mexico since one is very obvious. Azteca in Mexico City will be chosen. It's an 80,000-seat stadium, the Mexican National Team plays all of its games there, and Mexico City is the largest city in North America. There's even some talk that Azteca could host the opening game, but with the United States hosting 75 percent of the tournament, I'd bet against that. You'd have to think the USA will get that "A1" spot and play in the opening game, which they should as the primary host.
The second Mexican city is where it gets interesting. They submitted Guadalajara and Monterrey as the other options. The stadium in Monterrey is bigger, but I'd be inclined to choose Guadalajara. It's a larger city, and its the home of Chivas, one of the most successful and popular clubs in Mexico. I'd be very surprised if Mexico City and Guadalajara weren't ultimately the two Mexican hosts.
Moving up North, nine venues in Canada were included in the submission. This includes six of the eight CFL stadiums (all but Hamilton and Montreal) and all three Canadian MLS stadiums (two of which are shared with a CFL team). However, I think it's the two venues that aren't home to either a CFL or MLS team that make the most sense. SkyDome in Toronto and Olympic Stadium in Montreal.
Toronto didn't host any games during the 2015 Women's World Cup because of the Pan Am Games, but that won't be an issue this time. Although, some sort of arrangement would have to be made with the Blue Jays in order to secure use of SkyDome for that long (or, probably, at all). Regardless, Toronto is the largest and most important city in Canada. They need to find a way, even if it means playing in the much smaller BMO Field, home of the Argonauts and Toronto FC.
If they can't figure it out and have to move on without Toronto, I'd figure you go with Vancouver or Edmonton. The 2015 Women's World Cup Final was in Vancouver, and BC Place has also served as an Olympic Stadium, which means it's plenty big enough. Although, with a number of NFL stadiums on the West Coast of the U.S. likely to be selected, do you want another West Coast city? Probably not. Which would likely give Edmonton the edge. The preference has to still be Toronto, though.
Everyone knows that Olympic Stadium in Montreal just sits there not doing anything, so it seems highly unlikely it wouldn't be chosen. Especially because at 61,000 seats, it's the largest stadium in Canada. Olympic Stadium in Montreal is almost as big of a lock as Azetca in Mexico City.
That leaves us with the 12 U.S. cities. Included in the bid were 29 of the 30 NFL stadiums (all but Buffalo, with Las Vegas instead of Oakland for the Raiders), as well as a couple of the larger college stadiums and an MLS stadium or two. And, of course, all three stadiums in LA (Coliseum, Rose Bowl AND Rams/Chargers Stadium).
Obviously, only one of the three LA stadiums will get the call, and will likely host the final. My guess is the Rose Bowl, for a number of reasons. First, it hosted the 1994 World Cup Final, and it seems only fitting to have the 2026 World Cup Final also take place at the Rose Bowl. Also, don't forget LA is hosting the 2028 Olympics. The Coliseum and Rams/Chargers Stadium are both going to figure prominently in the LA Olympics, while the Rose Bowl won't. So you make the Rose Bowl the center of attention two years earlier.
OK, so that's one. What about the other 11? Well, you'd have to think if a stadium hosted the Copa America Centenario, there's a pretty good chance it'll host the World Cup. That means you can bank on New York, Dallas, Chicago, San Francisco, Foxboro, Seattle, Washington and Philadelphia.
There's three left, and you'd have to think geographic diversity will come into play. Phoenix hosted games in the Copa America, is near the Mexican border (which is important for travel purposes), and is a fourth venue out West. I'd be surprised if Phoenix wasn't picked. Same thing with Houston. Gorgeous stadium that's hosted numerous Super Bowls in the sixth-largest city in the country.
Which leaves us with one final stadium, and the Southeast is the area of the country not yet represented, so the choice really comes down to Atlanta, Miami, Orlando and Tampa. The mid-summer humidity in Orlando likely takes it out of the equation. And Tampa's simply not as sexy as Miami or Atlanta. Your stadium in Miami is 30 years old and open-air. Meanwhile, Atlanta has a brand new, 75,000-seat, retractable roof, football/futbol palace. I think the choice is obvious.
So, my 16 host cities for the 2026 World Cup are: Los Angeles (Rose Bowl), San Francisco, Seattle, Phoenix, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, Chicago, Dallas (AT&T Stadium), Houston, Atlanta, Mexico City, Guadalajara, Montreal and Toronto (SkyDome). And, here's the best part of the 16-group format...each group would play all of its games in the same city. No travel until the elimination games. Five games (three group games, two elimination games) in each stadium with the final being played at the Rose Bowl, just like in 1994.
We don't even know what the final number will ultimately be, but the 2026 World Cup will be the first with 48 teams, which will be divided into 16 groups. So, it seems to me like 16 is a good number to use. And, since Mexico and Canada are getting 10 games each, I'll figure two cities in each of those countries and 12 in the U.S.
I'll start with the two venues in Mexico since one is very obvious. Azteca in Mexico City will be chosen. It's an 80,000-seat stadium, the Mexican National Team plays all of its games there, and Mexico City is the largest city in North America. There's even some talk that Azteca could host the opening game, but with the United States hosting 75 percent of the tournament, I'd bet against that. You'd have to think the USA will get that "A1" spot and play in the opening game, which they should as the primary host.
The second Mexican city is where it gets interesting. They submitted Guadalajara and Monterrey as the other options. The stadium in Monterrey is bigger, but I'd be inclined to choose Guadalajara. It's a larger city, and its the home of Chivas, one of the most successful and popular clubs in Mexico. I'd be very surprised if Mexico City and Guadalajara weren't ultimately the two Mexican hosts.
Moving up North, nine venues in Canada were included in the submission. This includes six of the eight CFL stadiums (all but Hamilton and Montreal) and all three Canadian MLS stadiums (two of which are shared with a CFL team). However, I think it's the two venues that aren't home to either a CFL or MLS team that make the most sense. SkyDome in Toronto and Olympic Stadium in Montreal.
Toronto didn't host any games during the 2015 Women's World Cup because of the Pan Am Games, but that won't be an issue this time. Although, some sort of arrangement would have to be made with the Blue Jays in order to secure use of SkyDome for that long (or, probably, at all). Regardless, Toronto is the largest and most important city in Canada. They need to find a way, even if it means playing in the much smaller BMO Field, home of the Argonauts and Toronto FC.
If they can't figure it out and have to move on without Toronto, I'd figure you go with Vancouver or Edmonton. The 2015 Women's World Cup Final was in Vancouver, and BC Place has also served as an Olympic Stadium, which means it's plenty big enough. Although, with a number of NFL stadiums on the West Coast of the U.S. likely to be selected, do you want another West Coast city? Probably not. Which would likely give Edmonton the edge. The preference has to still be Toronto, though.
Everyone knows that Olympic Stadium in Montreal just sits there not doing anything, so it seems highly unlikely it wouldn't be chosen. Especially because at 61,000 seats, it's the largest stadium in Canada. Olympic Stadium in Montreal is almost as big of a lock as Azetca in Mexico City.
That leaves us with the 12 U.S. cities. Included in the bid were 29 of the 30 NFL stadiums (all but Buffalo, with Las Vegas instead of Oakland for the Raiders), as well as a couple of the larger college stadiums and an MLS stadium or two. And, of course, all three stadiums in LA (Coliseum, Rose Bowl AND Rams/Chargers Stadium).
Obviously, only one of the three LA stadiums will get the call, and will likely host the final. My guess is the Rose Bowl, for a number of reasons. First, it hosted the 1994 World Cup Final, and it seems only fitting to have the 2026 World Cup Final also take place at the Rose Bowl. Also, don't forget LA is hosting the 2028 Olympics. The Coliseum and Rams/Chargers Stadium are both going to figure prominently in the LA Olympics, while the Rose Bowl won't. So you make the Rose Bowl the center of attention two years earlier.
OK, so that's one. What about the other 11? Well, you'd have to think if a stadium hosted the Copa America Centenario, there's a pretty good chance it'll host the World Cup. That means you can bank on New York, Dallas, Chicago, San Francisco, Foxboro, Seattle, Washington and Philadelphia.
There's three left, and you'd have to think geographic diversity will come into play. Phoenix hosted games in the Copa America, is near the Mexican border (which is important for travel purposes), and is a fourth venue out West. I'd be surprised if Phoenix wasn't picked. Same thing with Houston. Gorgeous stadium that's hosted numerous Super Bowls in the sixth-largest city in the country.
Which leaves us with one final stadium, and the Southeast is the area of the country not yet represented, so the choice really comes down to Atlanta, Miami, Orlando and Tampa. The mid-summer humidity in Orlando likely takes it out of the equation. And Tampa's simply not as sexy as Miami or Atlanta. Your stadium in Miami is 30 years old and open-air. Meanwhile, Atlanta has a brand new, 75,000-seat, retractable roof, football/futbol palace. I think the choice is obvious.
So, my 16 host cities for the 2026 World Cup are: Los Angeles (Rose Bowl), San Francisco, Seattle, Phoenix, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, Chicago, Dallas (AT&T Stadium), Houston, Atlanta, Mexico City, Guadalajara, Montreal and Toronto (SkyDome). And, here's the best part of the 16-group format...each group would play all of its games in the same city. No travel until the elimination games. Five games (three group games, two elimination games) in each stadium with the final being played at the Rose Bowl, just like in 1994.
Monday, August 14, 2017
10 Takeaways From the World Championships
One last post about the World Track & Field Championships before I go back to talking about sports other people actually watch. Over the last 10 days in London, we saw one of the best World Championships in history. One that was held in front of a packed house every night (just like it was five years ago at the Olympics in the same stadium). One that also saw a changing of the guard, as Usain Bolt and Mo Farah both called it a career. Here are my 10 biggest takeaways from the goings on over the past week and a half in London...
1. Usain Bolt picked the right time to retire--There was a fairly large contingent of people who thought Bolt should've gone out on top and retired after last year's Olympics. And they'll point to his performance in London as proof of that argument. But they'd be wrong. If anything, this World Championships proved why Bolt's timing is actually perfect. He came back for the fans. Yes, him winning would've been the ultimate fairy tale ending. But him actually losing for the first time ever in a championship final, then pulling up injured in the relay proved why he's stepping away. His body simply can't hold up anymore. People needed to see that. Now there won't be anymore questions.
2. Wayde Van Niekerk will be a worthy successor--With Bolt and Mo Farah both retiring, there's a huge void to be filled at the top of the sport. Well, Wayde Van Niekerk has all the makings of that guy. He burst onto the scene at the 2015 Worlds, then had that scintillating world record last year in Rio. Van Niekerk tried the 200-400 double this year and came up just short, winning silver in the 200. But you can bet he'll go for it again at the 2019 Worlds in Doha and the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo.
3. The IAAF really needs to figure out what to do about Russia--Russia wasn't there, but Russians were. In fact, the "Authorized Neutral Athletes" won six medals, including Maria Lasitskene's gold in the women's high jump...which gave us the most awkward medals ceremony I've ever seen. I get why Russia's federation is suspended, and I'm glad their clean athletes are able to compete, but there has to be a better solution. "ANA" doesn't fool anyone and the blank flag just looks stupid. Worse, Lasitskene should've been happy about receiving a World Championships gold medal. Instead it looked like she'd rather be anywhere else.
4. Upsets, upsets and more upsets--If there was one overriding theme of these World Championships, it was the upset bug. Everywhere you looked, there was an Olympic champion losing or an unexpected gold medalist. From Ramil Guliyev and Karsten Warholm to Phyllis Francis and Emma Coburn. It even extended to the relays, where Trinidad & Tobago ended the meet by beating the U.S. in the final event, the men's 4x400.
5. Going viral (and not in the good way)--Speaking of bugs, a stomach virus in one of the hotels was one of the biggest stories early in the Championships. A number of athletes were put under quarantine and prevented from even coming to the stadium. That knocked Isaac Makwala, one of the favorites to actually challenge Van Niekerk, out of the 400 final. It also caused him to miss his 200 heat, which they let him rerun (alone), and he posted one of the fastest qualifying times before winning his semifinal.
6. The U.S. is a FORCE--I'm not surprising anyone with this news. A year after winning 32 medals in Rio, the U.S. won 30 in London, the most by any nation at a single World Championships in history. But it's not just the amount of medals that's eye-popping. It's the distribution. Americans won medals all across the board (sprints, middle distance, long distance, throws, jumps). A lot of reasons have been offered for this, and I could do a whole separate blog post offering some, but one thing we know is that this all-around quality ensures the U.S. will stay on top for the foreseeable future.
7. Historic 1-2 finishes--In 16 of the 48 events, two athletes from the same nation shared the podium. Six of those were 1-2 sweeps...and four of those six were by Americans (Ethiopia and Kenya had one each). It wasn't totally unexpected in the men's triple jump or the women's 400 hurdles. But there were also those two Tennessee Vols beating Bolt in the men's 100 and that incredible women's steeplechase, where Emma Coburn and Courtney Frerichs made history by taking gold and silver. For me, that was without a doubt, the moment of the Championships.
8. Jamaica may have some lean years ahead--It wasn't just Bolt. Jamaica's sprinters struggled across the board. Their only gold medal was Omar McLeod's win in the 110 hurdles, they didn't qualify anyone for the final in either 200, and only one relay team won a medal (with the women's 4x100 barely hanging on for bronze over Germany). They've dominated Olympic and World Championship sprinting for the last decade, but the world is catching up and that dynasty may be coming to an end (if it hasn't already).
9. It's all about the schedule--For the first time, the World Championships were held over 10 days instead of nine. They also reduced the number of morning sessions to five, only four of which had events in the stadium (two days for the heptathlon, two for the decathlon). They also had the marathons back-to-back on the first Sunday, then all of the race walks back-to-back on the second Sunday. Most observers credited these changes as reasons why the attendance was so good. (I think the general British passion for track & field also had something to do with it.) But with the 2019 Worlds scheduled for late September in a non-traditional venue, and without Usain Bolt or Mo Farah to draw people in, those attendance numbers likely won't be repeated in Doha.
10. British relay redemption--Everything started off well for the hosts, with Mo Farah winning the 10k on opening night. But that was it for Great Britain until the final weekend, when Farah doubled their medal total with a bronze in the 5000. That was it individually for the Brits, who had a whole lot of fourth place finishes, too. But the relays salvaged the Championships and gave Great Britain a respectable medal total of six. They medalled in all four relays, highlighted by that incredible men's 4x100 where Nethaneel Mitchell-Blake ran down Christian Coleman on the anchor leg to win the gold.
Saturday, August 12, 2017
Greatest Long Distance Runners
Last weekend, we saw Usain Bolt get bronze in his final individual race (and today we saw him collapse to the track injured in his final race period). Today it was Mo Farah's turn. The greatest long distance runner of this generation (and the second-most popular face in the sport behind a certain Jamaican) ended his track career by taking silver in the 5000 meters. Unlike Bolt, Farah's career will continue. He'll move on to the marathon, but won't run on the track anymore.
During the race, NBC's Craig Masback mentioned that Farah would be on the Mount Rushmore of men's long distance events. And it got me thinking. He's definitely near the top of the list of greatest long distance runners ever, but he's not Bolt. He doesn't get the top spot. So who would? Well, here's my top 10:
This list easily could've included 10 more names, so let's start by handing out honorable mention to places 11-15. They are (15) Galen Rupp, (14) Said Aouita, (13) Paul Tergat, (12) Alain Mimoun and (11) Frank Shorter.
10. Hannes Kolehmainen, Finland-Long before Kenya and Ethiopia were the dominant forces on the international distance running scene, Finland had the sport's first dynasty. And that dynasty started with Hannes Kohlemainen. At the 1912 Olympics in Stockholm, he won three gold medals and set a world record in the 5000. Kolehmainen also won the 10,000 (becoming the first man to complete the double) and the individual cross country race, with the Finnish team taking silver. After World War I, he moved up to the marathon, winning that event at the 1920 Olympics before giving way to Paavo Nurmi and Ville Ritola.
9. Kip Keino, Kenya-Nowadays he's known more as a sports humanitarian and head of the Kenyan Olympic Committee. But before that, he was the trailblazer for Kenyan distance runners, who have since become a dominant force. Keino won two medals at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City, and his gold in the 1500 was the first-ever for an African athlete. He added a gold and a silver four years later in Munich, and he was also a three-time Commonwealth Games gold medalist.
8. Ville Ritola, Finland-The Scottie Pippen to Paavo Nurmi's Michael Jordan (or the Ryan Lochte to Nurmi's Michael Phelps?), Vitola's greatness was never truly appreciated because of Nurmi. But he was damn good, too. He won six medals in 1924, including four gold. And Ritola did this by running a long distance race on eight consecutive days. He added a gold and a silver at the 1928 Olympics in Amsterdam. His Olympic medals came in six different events (three of which aren't contested anymore) and also competed in the marathon.
7. Abebe Bikila, Ethiopia-One of the most enduring images from the 1960 Olympics in Rome (the first to be televised) was Abebe Bikila running barefoot in the darkness in front of the Arch of Constantine. It was one of the most significant races in Olympic history, too, as it marked East Africa's emergence on the long distance running scene. The first athlete from sub-Saharan Africa ever to win Olympic gold, he made more history four years later when he defended his marathon title in Tokyo. Bikila is arguably one of the most important figures in Olympic history.
6. Lasse Viren, Finland-Farah wasn't the first man to win both the 5000 and 10,000 at consecutive Olympics. Lasse Viren was. He completed the double at the Munich Games in 1972 (when he set a world record in both). Viren then did it again four years later in Montreal. He also ran at the 1980 Olympics in Moscow, finishing fifth in the 10,000. They didn't have World Championships until 1983, but if they'd had them in the 70s, you can bet Viren would've won a bunch of World titles, too.
5. Kenenisa Bekele, Ethiopia-Pick a long distance event. Kenenisa Bekele probably has the world record. He took gold in the 10,000 and silver in the 5000 at the Athens Olympics, then pulled off the double in Beijing. Bekele's also won five World Championships, including four straight in the 10,000 from 2003-09. Oh yeah, he's also won 11 gold medals at the World Cross Country Championships and has the second-fastest marathon time ever.
4. Mo Farah, Great Britain-He isn't the Greatest of All-Time. In fact, Sir Mo ends up just off the podium in my rankings. Which doesn't make his career any less outstanding. He completed the 5000-10,000 double at the Olympics twice, and he did it at the two World Championships in between, as well. After finishing second in the 10,000 at the 2011 World Championships, Farah won 10 straight global titles until his silver medal today. He's the most decorated long distance runner in British history, and that's saying something.
3. Halie Gebrselassie, Ethiopia-Gebrselassie's run of dominance in the 10,000 meters in the 1990s was similar to the one Farah enjoyed. He didn't lose a 10,000 at a major meet from 1993-2000, winning four World Championships and two Olympic gold medals. Gebreselassie then won bronze and silver at the next two World Championships, making it six in a row on the podium. He later moved up to the marathon and won Berlin four straight times.
2. Emil Zatopek, Czechoslovakia-Zatopek won the 5000 and 10,000 at the 1952 Olympics, then decided to enter the marathon and won that, too, in Olympic record time. Did I mention it was the first marathon of his life? This was after he won a gold and silver at the 1948 Olympics and went double gold at the 1950 European Championships. Zatopek was also the first runner ever to break 29 minutes in the 10,000.
1. Paavo Nurmi, Finland-I really don't think there's any doubt Nurmi belongs on top. He's the first name you think of whenever you think of Olympic distance running. Nurmi entered 12 Olympic events from 1920-28...and won a medal in each of them, nine gold and three silver. He also set 22 official world records at distances ranging from 1500 meters to 20 kilometers and never lost a 10,000-meter race. So revered in Finland, there's a statue of Nurmi outside Helsinki's Olympic Stadium, and he lit the cauldron to start the 1952 Games.
As I said, there are plenty of long distance runners that deserve consideration for "best ever." I doubt you can even find a consensus for the top spot. But I think that even a century later, Paavo Nurmi's nine Olympic gold medals, which is tied for the most ever by a track & field athlete, as well as his all-around dominance across a number of events, make him stand out above the rest.
During the race, NBC's Craig Masback mentioned that Farah would be on the Mount Rushmore of men's long distance events. And it got me thinking. He's definitely near the top of the list of greatest long distance runners ever, but he's not Bolt. He doesn't get the top spot. So who would? Well, here's my top 10:
This list easily could've included 10 more names, so let's start by handing out honorable mention to places 11-15. They are (15) Galen Rupp, (14) Said Aouita, (13) Paul Tergat, (12) Alain Mimoun and (11) Frank Shorter.
10. Hannes Kolehmainen, Finland-Long before Kenya and Ethiopia were the dominant forces on the international distance running scene, Finland had the sport's first dynasty. And that dynasty started with Hannes Kohlemainen. At the 1912 Olympics in Stockholm, he won three gold medals and set a world record in the 5000. Kolehmainen also won the 10,000 (becoming the first man to complete the double) and the individual cross country race, with the Finnish team taking silver. After World War I, he moved up to the marathon, winning that event at the 1920 Olympics before giving way to Paavo Nurmi and Ville Ritola.
9. Kip Keino, Kenya-Nowadays he's known more as a sports humanitarian and head of the Kenyan Olympic Committee. But before that, he was the trailblazer for Kenyan distance runners, who have since become a dominant force. Keino won two medals at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City, and his gold in the 1500 was the first-ever for an African athlete. He added a gold and a silver four years later in Munich, and he was also a three-time Commonwealth Games gold medalist.
8. Ville Ritola, Finland-The Scottie Pippen to Paavo Nurmi's Michael Jordan (or the Ryan Lochte to Nurmi's Michael Phelps?), Vitola's greatness was never truly appreciated because of Nurmi. But he was damn good, too. He won six medals in 1924, including four gold. And Ritola did this by running a long distance race on eight consecutive days. He added a gold and a silver at the 1928 Olympics in Amsterdam. His Olympic medals came in six different events (three of which aren't contested anymore) and also competed in the marathon.
7. Abebe Bikila, Ethiopia-One of the most enduring images from the 1960 Olympics in Rome (the first to be televised) was Abebe Bikila running barefoot in the darkness in front of the Arch of Constantine. It was one of the most significant races in Olympic history, too, as it marked East Africa's emergence on the long distance running scene. The first athlete from sub-Saharan Africa ever to win Olympic gold, he made more history four years later when he defended his marathon title in Tokyo. Bikila is arguably one of the most important figures in Olympic history.
6. Lasse Viren, Finland-Farah wasn't the first man to win both the 5000 and 10,000 at consecutive Olympics. Lasse Viren was. He completed the double at the Munich Games in 1972 (when he set a world record in both). Viren then did it again four years later in Montreal. He also ran at the 1980 Olympics in Moscow, finishing fifth in the 10,000. They didn't have World Championships until 1983, but if they'd had them in the 70s, you can bet Viren would've won a bunch of World titles, too.
5. Kenenisa Bekele, Ethiopia-Pick a long distance event. Kenenisa Bekele probably has the world record. He took gold in the 10,000 and silver in the 5000 at the Athens Olympics, then pulled off the double in Beijing. Bekele's also won five World Championships, including four straight in the 10,000 from 2003-09. Oh yeah, he's also won 11 gold medals at the World Cross Country Championships and has the second-fastest marathon time ever.
4. Mo Farah, Great Britain-He isn't the Greatest of All-Time. In fact, Sir Mo ends up just off the podium in my rankings. Which doesn't make his career any less outstanding. He completed the 5000-10,000 double at the Olympics twice, and he did it at the two World Championships in between, as well. After finishing second in the 10,000 at the 2011 World Championships, Farah won 10 straight global titles until his silver medal today. He's the most decorated long distance runner in British history, and that's saying something.
3. Halie Gebrselassie, Ethiopia-Gebrselassie's run of dominance in the 10,000 meters in the 1990s was similar to the one Farah enjoyed. He didn't lose a 10,000 at a major meet from 1993-2000, winning four World Championships and two Olympic gold medals. Gebreselassie then won bronze and silver at the next two World Championships, making it six in a row on the podium. He later moved up to the marathon and won Berlin four straight times.
2. Emil Zatopek, Czechoslovakia-Zatopek won the 5000 and 10,000 at the 1952 Olympics, then decided to enter the marathon and won that, too, in Olympic record time. Did I mention it was the first marathon of his life? This was after he won a gold and silver at the 1948 Olympics and went double gold at the 1950 European Championships. Zatopek was also the first runner ever to break 29 minutes in the 10,000.
1. Paavo Nurmi, Finland-I really don't think there's any doubt Nurmi belongs on top. He's the first name you think of whenever you think of Olympic distance running. Nurmi entered 12 Olympic events from 1920-28...and won a medal in each of them, nine gold and three silver. He also set 22 official world records at distances ranging from 1500 meters to 20 kilometers and never lost a 10,000-meter race. So revered in Finland, there's a statue of Nurmi outside Helsinki's Olympic Stadium, and he lit the cauldron to start the 1952 Games.
As I said, there are plenty of long distance runners that deserve consideration for "best ever." I doubt you can even find a consensus for the top spot. But I think that even a century later, Paavo Nurmi's nine Olympic gold medals, which is tied for the most ever by a track & field athlete, as well as his all-around dominance across a number of events, make him stand out above the rest.
Wednesday, August 9, 2017
Air New England
I'm not surprised the Patriots bought their own planes. It's a very Patriots thing to do. And this time, I mean that as the highest complement. Because it's smart thinking like this that is yet another example of why they're the best-run organization in all of sports. This also proves that it's not really that close, either. The Patriots are head-and-shoulders above the other 122 teams in the four major sports.
Sure, they have Bradicheck, and those two have been a big reason for the Patriots' success over the past 15 years. But they don't deserve all the credit. Not by a long shot. Because Robert Kraft is always one step ahead. His team stays on top because of savvy moves like this one. And it really was genius. The only thing that surprised me about it was that no one had thought of it until now.
Yes, there are plenty of team owners that have private planes, but those are for personal use. They aren't intended for transporting the entire team (plus staff and equipment) to and from away games. Nor are they anywhere near big enough.
Although, you know that the Patriots won't be the only ones with their own planes for long. I think it's safe to assume that Jerry Jones was on the phone immediately after he heard the news and we'll see an even bigger plane (everything IS bigger in Texas after all) with a big blue star on the tail by this time next season. And the other well-run organizations (such as the Steelers, Packers, Giants, Seahawks, Falcons and Panthers, to name a few) will likely follow suit, as well.
Other franchises will almost have to respond. Because the Patriots have found yet another way to give themselves a leg up on their competition. One of the reasons mentioned as to why Kraft was interested in making the purchase was because it can help aid in recovery by setting up some sort of custom in-flight training room. In addition to the fully-reclining seats and everything else. Imagine how much easier it will be for the Patriots to sell themselves to free agents. If you're considering two teams, one has all these amenities and the other doesn't, which one are you gonna choose?
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see some baseball teams making a similar investment. Especially since baseball teams travel much more frequently than football teams (26 road trips a year as opposed to 10). Don't be if we start seeing some major college programs (*cough* Alabama *cough*) flying around the country in their own branded aircrafts pretty soon, either. (Many college programs already have their own buses, so it's not really that big of a stretch to expand that to planes, especially with the mentality of some of these football programs.)
Financially, this makes an awful lot of sense, too. It costs NFL teams roughly $4 million per season for their charter flights (I wouldn't be surprised it was higher for the West Coast teams). Planes like the ones the Patriots just purchased generally cost between $5 million and $65 million, but new ones could go for as much as $200 million. I'm assuming the Patriots didn't buy used, so let's say they spent $400 million for the two planes. Yes, that's a lot of money upfront, but it's going to recoup itself in plenty of time.
Now consider this--it's not only getting more and more expensive to charter a plane the size an NFL team would need, those planes are becoming harder and harder to come by. A number of commercial airlines have retired those large planes in recent years, primarily because the maintenance has become cost-prohibitive. As a result, a number of teams have had to find new charter companies that can accommodate them--and they probably have to pay more, too.
So, considering all the benefits, the cost of purchasing your own team plane certainly seems worth it. Especially since they'll be able to make some money back by renting out the plane. I'm not saying they'll break even, but it definitely wouldn't be a total loss.
The Patriots obviously now have to assume all the maintenance costs that they otherwise wouldn't have had to worry about, but I think they'll probably find the trade-off is well worth it. Because they just made the traveling part of road games so much easier. As if they needed another advantage. So is life for the best-run organization in professional sports.
Tuesday, August 8, 2017
World Beaters
We're only four days into the IAAF World Championships, and the USA's performance is already leaps and bounds better than the disappointing showing two years ago in Beijing. There's still a long way to go, but the showing by Team USA is looking more like the one at last summer's Olympics in Rio.
Likewise, USA Swimming had a fantastic World Championships. The Americans won 38 medals, 18 of them gold. That's eight more gold medals than any other country won total, and even if the USA hadn't won a single event, their medal total of 20 still would've been twice that of any other nation.
It's easy to point to the American depth as a reason for this dominance, but, as we saw at the 2015 Track & Field Worlds, simply having a larger pool of athletes to choose from doesn't guarantee success. That depth obviously comes into play, but there are plenty of other factors, as well. Timing being the biggest one.
Back in 2015, I theorized that part of the problem in Beijing was that there was too much of a gap between the U.S. Nationals and the World Championships. The U.S. Nationals are always held in the same general late June/early July timeframe. The 2015 World Championships weren't until the end of August. That's two months later! Meanwhile, last year's Olympic Trials were roughly a month before the Rio Games, and the early August start to this year's Worlds meant the gap was about six weeks.
Last year's Swimming Olympic Trials were held the week before the Track & Field Trials, but, since swimming is in the first week of the Olympics and track & field is in the second, the amount of time between the competitions was roughly the same. This year, things were reversed. The swimming Nationals were actually a week after the track & field Nationals. Then the swimming portion of the World Championships were at the end of July. There was a grand total of three weeks between the last event in Indianapolis and the first event in Budapest. Some might argue that's too close, but the results obviously prove differently.
Rowdy Gaines, NBC's swimming analyst, shared his theory about this during the Rio Games, and what he said actually makes a lot of sense. His argument was that since just making the U.S. team is hard enough, once you get to the Olympics/World Championships, the pressure is off. Getting there is so difficult that competing on the world stage is actually the easy part. Meanwhile, for athletes from other countries (some who know they're going to the Olympics/Worlds for months ahead of time), wearing the national colors amplifies the pressure. And all that time to think about it probably doesn't help, either.
He's absolutely right. How many different events at the U.S. Nationals are good enough to be World Championship finals? How many potential World Championships medalists end up getting left home, simply because of the quality the competition they need to beat just to get to Worlds? Case in point, last year Keni Harrison set a world record in the women's 100 hurdles a week after not making the Olympic team. Three other Americans, meanwhile, swept the medals in Rio.
The depth of talent is one thing, and it's definitely a luxury most other countries don't have (the U.S. always has the largest team for a reason). But it's not the only reason why the U.S. does so well at international meets, either. I think the length of time between Nationals and the international championship also makes a huge difference.
No one is going to dispute that the U.S. team is the hardest team in the world to make (in pretty much any sport). So while most elite athletes aim to peak at Worlds or the Olympics, American athletes have to peak at Nationals just to get to that meet. Then they have to peak again at Worlds, which might be easier said than done. But, if the events close enough together, they can peak for Nationals and try to maintain that top level long enough to still be in prime shape for the global championship.
I'm not saying maintaining your peak for 5-6 weeks is easy, either. But it's definitely easier than peaking, tapering down your training, then trying to do it all over again (probably without the proper recovery time). It's also not the smartest training method for everyone to try and do this. College athletes who compete all year and have to peak several times (that's why U.S. Nationals are always at the same time, it's usually two weekends after NCAAs). For them, resting/training without competing is generally the preferred (and smarter) approach during those few weeks.
Regardless, whatever USA Swimming and USA Track & Field are doing is working. And it would be incredibly naive to think it's because the Americans are simply better athletes or train better. There's definitely something to the scheduling, too.
And I think Rowdy Gaines is right. Making the team is the hard part. Once they get to the world stage, that's when the fun starts. When you're loose and having fun, good things happen. Need proof? Just check the swimming and track & field results from Rio, Budapest and London.
Likewise, USA Swimming had a fantastic World Championships. The Americans won 38 medals, 18 of them gold. That's eight more gold medals than any other country won total, and even if the USA hadn't won a single event, their medal total of 20 still would've been twice that of any other nation.
It's easy to point to the American depth as a reason for this dominance, but, as we saw at the 2015 Track & Field Worlds, simply having a larger pool of athletes to choose from doesn't guarantee success. That depth obviously comes into play, but there are plenty of other factors, as well. Timing being the biggest one.
Back in 2015, I theorized that part of the problem in Beijing was that there was too much of a gap between the U.S. Nationals and the World Championships. The U.S. Nationals are always held in the same general late June/early July timeframe. The 2015 World Championships weren't until the end of August. That's two months later! Meanwhile, last year's Olympic Trials were roughly a month before the Rio Games, and the early August start to this year's Worlds meant the gap was about six weeks.
Last year's Swimming Olympic Trials were held the week before the Track & Field Trials, but, since swimming is in the first week of the Olympics and track & field is in the second, the amount of time between the competitions was roughly the same. This year, things were reversed. The swimming Nationals were actually a week after the track & field Nationals. Then the swimming portion of the World Championships were at the end of July. There was a grand total of three weeks between the last event in Indianapolis and the first event in Budapest. Some might argue that's too close, but the results obviously prove differently.
Rowdy Gaines, NBC's swimming analyst, shared his theory about this during the Rio Games, and what he said actually makes a lot of sense. His argument was that since just making the U.S. team is hard enough, once you get to the Olympics/World Championships, the pressure is off. Getting there is so difficult that competing on the world stage is actually the easy part. Meanwhile, for athletes from other countries (some who know they're going to the Olympics/Worlds for months ahead of time), wearing the national colors amplifies the pressure. And all that time to think about it probably doesn't help, either.
He's absolutely right. How many different events at the U.S. Nationals are good enough to be World Championship finals? How many potential World Championships medalists end up getting left home, simply because of the quality the competition they need to beat just to get to Worlds? Case in point, last year Keni Harrison set a world record in the women's 100 hurdles a week after not making the Olympic team. Three other Americans, meanwhile, swept the medals in Rio.
The depth of talent is one thing, and it's definitely a luxury most other countries don't have (the U.S. always has the largest team for a reason). But it's not the only reason why the U.S. does so well at international meets, either. I think the length of time between Nationals and the international championship also makes a huge difference.
No one is going to dispute that the U.S. team is the hardest team in the world to make (in pretty much any sport). So while most elite athletes aim to peak at Worlds or the Olympics, American athletes have to peak at Nationals just to get to that meet. Then they have to peak again at Worlds, which might be easier said than done. But, if the events close enough together, they can peak for Nationals and try to maintain that top level long enough to still be in prime shape for the global championship.
I'm not saying maintaining your peak for 5-6 weeks is easy, either. But it's definitely easier than peaking, tapering down your training, then trying to do it all over again (probably without the proper recovery time). It's also not the smartest training method for everyone to try and do this. College athletes who compete all year and have to peak several times (that's why U.S. Nationals are always at the same time, it's usually two weekends after NCAAs). For them, resting/training without competing is generally the preferred (and smarter) approach during those few weeks.
Regardless, whatever USA Swimming and USA Track & Field are doing is working. And it would be incredibly naive to think it's because the Americans are simply better athletes or train better. There's definitely something to the scheduling, too.
And I think Rowdy Gaines is right. Making the team is the hard part. Once they get to the world stage, that's when the fun starts. When you're loose and having fun, good things happen. Need proof? Just check the swimming and track & field results from Rio, Budapest and London.
Saturday, August 5, 2017
The Greatest's Goodbye
There's no question that Usain Bolt is the greatest sprinter in history. He's also probably the greatest showman in track & field history. And he's, of course, the biggest draw in his sport...an international celebrity when so many others labor in obscurity even in their own country.
Bolt's showmanship is legendary. And it's such a big part of his appeal. So is his knack for putting on that show when the stage was the biggest and the lights were the brightest. Bursting onto the scene with three gold medals (and three world records) at the Beijing Olympics. Then lowering those world records to unthinkable levels at the 2009 World Championships. Another Olympic triple in London, then completing the "triple-triple" in Rio (even though one of those gold medals has since been taken away, that seems to matter little).
When Bolt announced that this would be his final season and the World Championships would be his last meet, everyone expected lightning to strike again. This is Usain Bolt we're talking about, after all. That's what he does. The fans come to see him, and he responds by giving them what they want.
He decided not to run the 200 meters this season, meaning the 100-meter final on Saturday night would be the final individual race of his career. Mo Farah, the second-biggest name in the sport, opened the Championships on Friday night by winning the gold in his final 10,000-meter race. Surely Bolt would do the same thing in the 100. There was no other way for him to go out. Right?
Well, as it turns out, the ending was scripted a little differently. And, in a way, the finale was almost fitting. Because after all these years of trying and coming up futile, somebody finally beat Usain Bolt. After finishing second (or third) behind Bolt so many times, Justin Gatlin finally crossed the line before him.
Gatlin's already won an Olympic gold medal (in 2004) and a World Championship (2005) in his career. But ever since Bolt arrived on the scene, he's been playing second fiddle. Gatlin has given no indication he plans on retiring anytime soon. We'll likely see him in Tokyo and, if I had to guess, he'll also run in the 2021 World Championships in Oregon before calling it a career. There could definitely be more gold medals in his future. But, fairly or not, those will have an asterisk attached to them. They'll be gold medals won P.B. (Post Bolt).
That's what has to be the most satisfying part of this World Championship for Gatlin. Not only is he back on the top step of the podium, he finally got the best of Bolt. For all the frustration of losing to him time and time again, Gatlin earned his sweetest victory of all. Because the 50,000 people at London's Olympic Stadium (the same place that saw him get silver behind Bolt five years ago) came to see Bolt win one last World title in his final race. Except Justin Gatlin spoiled their party. Bolt, so dominant for all these years, had to settle for the bronze.
Usain Bolt won the bronze! That was the headline. Not Gatlin wins. Not USA goes 1-2. Nope. The story was Bolt loses.
OK. So Bolt lost. So what? Let's not kid ourselves. It does nothing to tarnish his legacy. Michael Phelps won 23 Olympic gold medals, but he also has two silvers and three bronzes in his collection. He also finished fourth and sixth in Olympic finals once. Do those seven losses suddenly not make Michael Phelps the greatest swimmer ever? Of course not! Same thing here. Usain Bolt didn't suddenly lose his Greatest of All-Time moniker just because he now has a bronze to go with all those golds. That's why, right after the results flashed on the scoreboard and he saw he had won, Gatlin bowed down to Bolt.
One of the reasons Bolt gave for wanting to retire now was because he didn't want to end up like one of those athletes who hung around too long. He wanted to go out on top. While that didn't happen, it, in a way, validated his decision to step away now. Usain Bolt actually lost. What was once unfathomable became a reality. The unbeatable sprinter was beaten. It's not going to become a regular thing, though. He's made sure of that.
This isn't the last we'll see of Usain Bolt. He'll run the anchor leg on Jamaica's 4x100 relay squad, so he can still get that perfect ending. But the ending on Saturday night was perfect for somebody else. Justin Gatlin, frustrated by Bolt for so long, raced his rival for the last time. It was his last chance, and he made the most of it. He finally came out on top. He finally beat Usain Bolt.
Friday, August 4, 2017
World Championships Picks
It's finally time! The World Championships are about to begin. Track & field's two biggest names will take their final bows this week in London, as Usain Bolt's incredible career will come to a close, and so will Mo Farah's (although Farah will transition to marathons). South Africa's Wayde Van Niekerk sure looks poised to become the sport's new biggest star, but I think Bolt's got one last spectacular performance up his sleeve.
So many of us were rooting for that Bolt vs. Van Niekerk showdown in the 200, but, alas, it won't happen. Bolt's only going to run the 100. And that victory, while by no means guaranteed, became a much more likely scenario now that Andre De Grasse has withdrawn from Worlds. David Rudisha withdrew, too, which is a bummer, since he somehow managed to steal the show from Bolt for a night with his remarkable world record in the 800 at this stadium five years ago.
This World Championships also marks the first time the program is equal for men and women, as the women's 50 kilometer walk has been added. Although, they only added it a few days before the qualifying period ended, so there will only be seven competitors in the event (it would've been six if American Susan Randall hadn't won her lawsuit). I think it's incredible that they've finally put in the women's 50K walk and evened up the events, but they should've done it much more in advance. They'll have plenty of notice for Doha 2019, so maybe there'll be more than seven participants two years from now.
We also see Russia's return to major championships (sort of). The IAAF voted to maintain Russia's ban (although Jamaica voted for reinstatement), but Russia is sending a team of 19 "neutrals." No flag, no national colors, no anthem, but they are allowed to compete. Which will make things very awkward when Maria Lasitskene wins the women's high jump.
As for my complete medal picks, here we go...
Men's 100: Usain Bolt (JAM), Christian Coleman (USA), Yohan Blake (JAM)
Men's 200: Wayde Van Niekerk (RSA), Isaac Makwala (BOT), Akani Simbine (RSA)
Men's 400: Wayde Van Niekerk (RSA), LaShawn Merritt (USA), Gil Roberts (USA)
Men's 800: Nijel Amos (BOT), Emmanuel Korir (KEN), Amel Tuka (BIH)
Men's 1500: Asbel Kiprop (KEN), Ronald Kwemoi (KEN), Matthew Centrowitz (USA)
Men's 5000: Mo Farah (GBR), Joshua Cheptegei (UGA), Muktar Edris (ETH)
Men's 10,000: Mo Farah (GBR), Abdai Hadis (ETH), Mohammed Ahmed (CAN)
Men's Marathon: Kenenisa Bekele (ETH), Stephen Kiprotich (UGA), Daniel Wanjiru (KEN)
Men's 110 Hurdles: Omar McLeod (JAM), Ronald Levy (JAM), Sergei Shubenkov
Men's 400 Hurdles: Kerron Clement (USA), Eric Futch (USA), Karsten Warholm (NOR)
Men's Steeplechase: Conseslus Kipruto (KEN), Evan Jager (USA), Jairus Birech (KEN)
Men's Long Jump: Luvo Manyonga (RSA), Aleksandr Menkov, Jarrion Lawson (USA)
Men's Triple Jump: Christian Taylor (USA), Will Claye (USA), Max Hess (GER)
Men's High Jump: Mutaz Essa Barshim (QAT), Derek Drouin (CAN), Danil Lysenko
Men's Pole Vault: Sam Kendricks (USA), Piotr Lysek (POL), Renaud Lavillenie (FRA)
Men's Shot Put: Ryan Crouser (USA), Joe Kovacs (USA), Tomas Walsh (NZL)
Men's Discus: Daniel Stahl (SWE), Robert Urnabek (POL), Fedrick Dacres (JAM)
Men's Hammer Throw: Pawel Fajdek (POL), Wojcieh Nowicki (POL), Esref Apak (TUR)
Men's Javelin: Thomas Rohler (GER), Tero Pitkamaki (FIN), Johannes Vetter (GER)
Men's 20 km Walk: Wang Kaihua (CHN), Eiki Takahashi (JPN), Wang Rui (CHN)
Men's 50 km Walk: Evan Dunfee (CAN), Robert Heffernan (IRL), Jared Tallent (AUS)
Decathlon: Rico Freimuth (GER), Damian Warner (CAN), Lindon Victor (GRN)
Men's 4x100 Relay: Jamaica, United States, Great Britain
Men's 4x400 Relay: United States, Trinidad & Tobago, Botswana
Women's 100: Elaine Thompson (JAM), Dafne Schippers (NED), Tori Bowie (USA)
Women's 200: Dafne Schippers (NED), Tori Bowie (USA), Shaunae Miller-Uibo (BAH)
Women's 400: Allyson Felix (USA), Shaunae Miller-Uibo (BAH), Quanera Hayes (USA)
Women's 800: Caster Semenya (RSA), Francine Niyonsaba (BDI), Melissa Bishop (CAN)
Women's 1500: Faith Kipyegon (KEN), Genzebe Dibaba (ETH), Sifan Hassan (NED)
Women's 5000: Hellen Obiri (KEN), Genzebe Dibaba (ETH), Yasemin Can (TUR)
Women's 10,000: Almaz Ayana (ETH), Tirunesh Dibaba (ETH), Molly Huddle (USA)
Women's Marathon: Yuka Ando (JPN), Eunice Kirwa (BRN), Helah Kiprop (KEN)
Women's 100 Hurdles: Keni Harrison (USA), Sharika Nelvis (USA), Sally Pearson (AUS)
Women's 400 Hurdles: Dalilah Muhammad (USA), Janieve Russell (JAM), Shamier Little (USA)
Women's Steeplechase: Ruth Jebet (BRN), Sofia Assefa (ETH), Hyvin Jepkemoi (KEN)
Women's Long Jump: Ivana Spanovic (SRB), Brittany Reese (USA), Tianna Bartoletta (USA)
Women's Triple Jump: Caterine Ibarguen (COL), Yulimar Rojas (VEN), Olga Rypakova (KAZ)
Women's High Jump: Maria Lasitskene, Airine Palsyte (LTU), Kamila Licwinko (POL)
Women's Pole Vault: Ekaterina Stefanidi (GRE), Sandi Morris (USA), Jenn Suhr (USA)
Women's Shot Put: Anita Marton (HUN), Gong Lijiao (CHN), Raven Saunders (USA)
Women's Discus: Sandra Perkovic (CRO), Yaime Perez (CUB), Dani Samuels (AUS)
Women's Hammer Throw: Anita Wlodarczyk (POL), Wang Zheng (CHN), Gwen Berry (USA)
Women's Javelin: Sara Kolak (CRO), Barbora Spotakova (CZE), Liu Shiying (CHN)
Women's 20 km Walk: Wang Na (CHN), Antonella Palimsano (ITA), Lyu Xiuzhi (CHN)
Women's 50 km Walk: Ines Henriques (POR), Yin Hang (CHN), Yan Shuqing (CHN)
Heptathlon: Nafi Thiam (BEL), Katarina Johnson-Thompson (GBR), Carolin Schaefer (GER)
Women's 4x100 Relay: United States, Jamaica, Germany
Women's 4x400 Relay: United States, Jamaica, Great Britain
So many of us were rooting for that Bolt vs. Van Niekerk showdown in the 200, but, alas, it won't happen. Bolt's only going to run the 100. And that victory, while by no means guaranteed, became a much more likely scenario now that Andre De Grasse has withdrawn from Worlds. David Rudisha withdrew, too, which is a bummer, since he somehow managed to steal the show from Bolt for a night with his remarkable world record in the 800 at this stadium five years ago.
This World Championships also marks the first time the program is equal for men and women, as the women's 50 kilometer walk has been added. Although, they only added it a few days before the qualifying period ended, so there will only be seven competitors in the event (it would've been six if American Susan Randall hadn't won her lawsuit). I think it's incredible that they've finally put in the women's 50K walk and evened up the events, but they should've done it much more in advance. They'll have plenty of notice for Doha 2019, so maybe there'll be more than seven participants two years from now.
We also see Russia's return to major championships (sort of). The IAAF voted to maintain Russia's ban (although Jamaica voted for reinstatement), but Russia is sending a team of 19 "neutrals." No flag, no national colors, no anthem, but they are allowed to compete. Which will make things very awkward when Maria Lasitskene wins the women's high jump.
As for my complete medal picks, here we go...
Men's 100: Usain Bolt (JAM), Christian Coleman (USA), Yohan Blake (JAM)
Men's 200: Wayde Van Niekerk (RSA), Isaac Makwala (BOT), Akani Simbine (RSA)
Men's 400: Wayde Van Niekerk (RSA), LaShawn Merritt (USA), Gil Roberts (USA)
Men's 800: Nijel Amos (BOT), Emmanuel Korir (KEN), Amel Tuka (BIH)
Men's 1500: Asbel Kiprop (KEN), Ronald Kwemoi (KEN), Matthew Centrowitz (USA)
Men's 5000: Mo Farah (GBR), Joshua Cheptegei (UGA), Muktar Edris (ETH)
Men's 10,000: Mo Farah (GBR), Abdai Hadis (ETH), Mohammed Ahmed (CAN)
Men's Marathon: Kenenisa Bekele (ETH), Stephen Kiprotich (UGA), Daniel Wanjiru (KEN)
Men's 110 Hurdles: Omar McLeod (JAM), Ronald Levy (JAM), Sergei Shubenkov
Men's 400 Hurdles: Kerron Clement (USA), Eric Futch (USA), Karsten Warholm (NOR)
Men's Steeplechase: Conseslus Kipruto (KEN), Evan Jager (USA), Jairus Birech (KEN)
Men's Long Jump: Luvo Manyonga (RSA), Aleksandr Menkov, Jarrion Lawson (USA)
Men's Triple Jump: Christian Taylor (USA), Will Claye (USA), Max Hess (GER)
Men's High Jump: Mutaz Essa Barshim (QAT), Derek Drouin (CAN), Danil Lysenko
Men's Pole Vault: Sam Kendricks (USA), Piotr Lysek (POL), Renaud Lavillenie (FRA)
Men's Shot Put: Ryan Crouser (USA), Joe Kovacs (USA), Tomas Walsh (NZL)
Men's Discus: Daniel Stahl (SWE), Robert Urnabek (POL), Fedrick Dacres (JAM)
Men's Hammer Throw: Pawel Fajdek (POL), Wojcieh Nowicki (POL), Esref Apak (TUR)
Men's Javelin: Thomas Rohler (GER), Tero Pitkamaki (FIN), Johannes Vetter (GER)
Men's 20 km Walk: Wang Kaihua (CHN), Eiki Takahashi (JPN), Wang Rui (CHN)
Men's 50 km Walk: Evan Dunfee (CAN), Robert Heffernan (IRL), Jared Tallent (AUS)
Decathlon: Rico Freimuth (GER), Damian Warner (CAN), Lindon Victor (GRN)
Men's 4x100 Relay: Jamaica, United States, Great Britain
Men's 4x400 Relay: United States, Trinidad & Tobago, Botswana
Women's 100: Elaine Thompson (JAM), Dafne Schippers (NED), Tori Bowie (USA)
Women's 200: Dafne Schippers (NED), Tori Bowie (USA), Shaunae Miller-Uibo (BAH)
Women's 400: Allyson Felix (USA), Shaunae Miller-Uibo (BAH), Quanera Hayes (USA)
Women's 800: Caster Semenya (RSA), Francine Niyonsaba (BDI), Melissa Bishop (CAN)
Women's 1500: Faith Kipyegon (KEN), Genzebe Dibaba (ETH), Sifan Hassan (NED)
Women's 5000: Hellen Obiri (KEN), Genzebe Dibaba (ETH), Yasemin Can (TUR)
Women's 10,000: Almaz Ayana (ETH), Tirunesh Dibaba (ETH), Molly Huddle (USA)
Women's Marathon: Yuka Ando (JPN), Eunice Kirwa (BRN), Helah Kiprop (KEN)
Women's 100 Hurdles: Keni Harrison (USA), Sharika Nelvis (USA), Sally Pearson (AUS)
Women's 400 Hurdles: Dalilah Muhammad (USA), Janieve Russell (JAM), Shamier Little (USA)
Women's Steeplechase: Ruth Jebet (BRN), Sofia Assefa (ETH), Hyvin Jepkemoi (KEN)
Women's Long Jump: Ivana Spanovic (SRB), Brittany Reese (USA), Tianna Bartoletta (USA)
Women's Triple Jump: Caterine Ibarguen (COL), Yulimar Rojas (VEN), Olga Rypakova (KAZ)
Women's High Jump: Maria Lasitskene, Airine Palsyte (LTU), Kamila Licwinko (POL)
Women's Pole Vault: Ekaterina Stefanidi (GRE), Sandi Morris (USA), Jenn Suhr (USA)
Women's Shot Put: Anita Marton (HUN), Gong Lijiao (CHN), Raven Saunders (USA)
Women's Discus: Sandra Perkovic (CRO), Yaime Perez (CUB), Dani Samuels (AUS)
Women's Hammer Throw: Anita Wlodarczyk (POL), Wang Zheng (CHN), Gwen Berry (USA)
Women's Javelin: Sara Kolak (CRO), Barbora Spotakova (CZE), Liu Shiying (CHN)
Women's 20 km Walk: Wang Na (CHN), Antonella Palimsano (ITA), Lyu Xiuzhi (CHN)
Women's 50 km Walk: Ines Henriques (POR), Yin Hang (CHN), Yan Shuqing (CHN)
Heptathlon: Nafi Thiam (BEL), Katarina Johnson-Thompson (GBR), Carolin Schaefer (GER)
Women's 4x100 Relay: United States, Jamaica, Germany
Women's 4x400 Relay: United States, Jamaica, Great Britain
Thursday, August 3, 2017
Montreal and Where Else?
It was great to see Tim Raines finally get his due with his induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame on Sunday. At the end of the induction, Harold Reynolds said on MLB Network that this "closes the book on the Montreal Expos." It also led to the speculation about when/if MLB expands again and Montreal gets its team back.
Now, MLB expansion is not even remotely near the horizon. They're perfectly content with 30 teams and six divisions. And, since baseball is the one sport where they can't make an odd number work, the addition of Montreal would obviously have to include a 32nd team. And the location of that 32nd team is also not so obvious.
The inevitable 32nd team in the NHL is also based in the Province of Quebec. With the Vegas Golden Knights officially joining the league this season, the NHL currently has 31 teams. They can make that work for a couple seasons, but everyone knows they're eventually going to add another one and make the number of teams even again. And the most likely location for that 32nd team is Quebec City, which lost the Nordiques to Denver 20 years ago.
Since then, the economic situation in Canada has changed, and they have a beautiful, new, NHL-ready arena in Quebec City. Frankly, I'm surprised that the new Nordiques (Nouveau Nordiques?) weren't granted an expansion franchise at the same time as the Golden Knights. But they will soon.
Unfortunately for Seattle, their chances of getting their team back are significantly less than Quebec's. The situation with the Sonics is very similar to the one with the Expos. The NBA doesn't seem to be in any sort of a rush to expand anytime soon. When and if they do, Seattle will be right at the top of the list (frankly, the Sonics never should've moved to Oklahoma City in the first place). But, similar to baseball, the location of the 32nd team is far less clear. Although, I'm sure there would be plenty of cities lining up to get an NBA franchise. And if I had to guess, the NBA is more likely to expand to 32 than MLB is. (The chances of the NFL expanding beyond 32 are about as slim, if not slimmer, than the chances of MLB going to 32.)
So, let's for a second assume the Sonics are returning to the NBA and there's another expansion team to be had. Where would it land? Your first thought is that since Seattle would obviously be placed in the Western Conference, the other expansion team would have to be based in the East, which would favor a city like Tampa (which is the largest media market in the U.S. without an NBA team) or Baltimore or even Pittsburgh. But with teams already in Washington and Orlando, you'd have to think they'd want to go to a completely untapped area. And I'm not sure if there's that much desire in Pittsburgh for an NBA team. Louisville and Cincinnati are interesting options, and Louisville at least would open up a new market.
But I'd have to think that the NBA would look beyond those boundaries knowing that, if they needed to, flipping Memphis to the Eastern Conference is always an option (and convincing a reasonably good NBA team to join the Eastern Conference probably isn't that hard a sell). Although, I wouldn't go too far. I'd head to the Midwest. Missouri specifically. I'd put a team in either St. Louis, which is the larger media market, or Kansas City, which is basketball-mad (and was once the home of the Kings). And there's always Las Vegas, which, after waiting this long to get its first pro team, would have two by then.
I think a Seattle-Kansas City NBA expansion isn't really that far-fetched actually. Because the clamoring for the Sonics to come back gets louder with each passing year, and expansion would put more money in the pockets of the 30 existing owners (not to mention the players), which you know they would like the sound of. Logistically, it would actually be pretty easy to figure out, too. Here are my proposed divisions in a 32-team NBA:
Eastern Conference -- Atlantic: Charlotte, Cleveland, Toronto, Washington; Central: Chicago, Detroit, Indiana, Milwaukee; Northeast: Boston, Brooklyn, New York, Philadelphia; Southeast: Atlanta, Orlando, Memphis, Miami
Western Conference -- Midwest: Kansas City, Minnesota, New Orleans, Oklahoma City; Northwest: Denver, Portland, Seattle, Utah; Southwest: Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, San Antonio; Pacific: Golden State, Clippers, Lakers, Sacramento
Again, Baseball has no interest in going to 32 teams at the moment, which is why Montreal will continue to be left out in the cold. But if they were to add Montreal and another team, there would be a couple options. Because there are a few Triple A markets that are actually larger than MLB markets.
Although, since the other expansion team would go in the American League (Montreal would obviously rejoin the NL), you'd have to think of where it would make sense to add an AL team. That means Charlotte, Indianapolis and New Orleans would likely be out. Portland and Salt Lake City would be intriguing possibilities, though. Then you'd have another team on the West Coast so that the two Texas clubs can get a little break on the travel.
Logistically, that would be a nightmare, though. Not only would you have to figure out who's in the wild card game, you'd have to change up the division alignment, which would upset some teams who would be separated from their rivals, as you can see below. Fortunately, we're not gonna have to worry about any of this for a while. Because, as much as I'd love to see Major League Baseball return to Montreal, those Blue Jays exhibition games in March are likely the closest they're gonna come.
American League -- East: Baltimore, Boston, Yankees, Toronto; Central: White Sox, Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota; South: Houston, Kansas City, Tampa Bay, Texas; West: Angels, Oakland, Portland, Seattle
National League -- East: Montreal, Mets, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh; Central: Cubs, Cincinnati, Colorado, Milwaukee; South: Atlanta, Miami, St. Louis, Washington; West: Arizona, Dodgers, San Diego, San Francisco
Now, MLB expansion is not even remotely near the horizon. They're perfectly content with 30 teams and six divisions. And, since baseball is the one sport where they can't make an odd number work, the addition of Montreal would obviously have to include a 32nd team. And the location of that 32nd team is also not so obvious.
The inevitable 32nd team in the NHL is also based in the Province of Quebec. With the Vegas Golden Knights officially joining the league this season, the NHL currently has 31 teams. They can make that work for a couple seasons, but everyone knows they're eventually going to add another one and make the number of teams even again. And the most likely location for that 32nd team is Quebec City, which lost the Nordiques to Denver 20 years ago.
Since then, the economic situation in Canada has changed, and they have a beautiful, new, NHL-ready arena in Quebec City. Frankly, I'm surprised that the new Nordiques (Nouveau Nordiques?) weren't granted an expansion franchise at the same time as the Golden Knights. But they will soon.
Unfortunately for Seattle, their chances of getting their team back are significantly less than Quebec's. The situation with the Sonics is very similar to the one with the Expos. The NBA doesn't seem to be in any sort of a rush to expand anytime soon. When and if they do, Seattle will be right at the top of the list (frankly, the Sonics never should've moved to Oklahoma City in the first place). But, similar to baseball, the location of the 32nd team is far less clear. Although, I'm sure there would be plenty of cities lining up to get an NBA franchise. And if I had to guess, the NBA is more likely to expand to 32 than MLB is. (The chances of the NFL expanding beyond 32 are about as slim, if not slimmer, than the chances of MLB going to 32.)
So, let's for a second assume the Sonics are returning to the NBA and there's another expansion team to be had. Where would it land? Your first thought is that since Seattle would obviously be placed in the Western Conference, the other expansion team would have to be based in the East, which would favor a city like Tampa (which is the largest media market in the U.S. without an NBA team) or Baltimore or even Pittsburgh. But with teams already in Washington and Orlando, you'd have to think they'd want to go to a completely untapped area. And I'm not sure if there's that much desire in Pittsburgh for an NBA team. Louisville and Cincinnati are interesting options, and Louisville at least would open up a new market.
But I'd have to think that the NBA would look beyond those boundaries knowing that, if they needed to, flipping Memphis to the Eastern Conference is always an option (and convincing a reasonably good NBA team to join the Eastern Conference probably isn't that hard a sell). Although, I wouldn't go too far. I'd head to the Midwest. Missouri specifically. I'd put a team in either St. Louis, which is the larger media market, or Kansas City, which is basketball-mad (and was once the home of the Kings). And there's always Las Vegas, which, after waiting this long to get its first pro team, would have two by then.
I think a Seattle-Kansas City NBA expansion isn't really that far-fetched actually. Because the clamoring for the Sonics to come back gets louder with each passing year, and expansion would put more money in the pockets of the 30 existing owners (not to mention the players), which you know they would like the sound of. Logistically, it would actually be pretty easy to figure out, too. Here are my proposed divisions in a 32-team NBA:
Eastern Conference -- Atlantic: Charlotte, Cleveland, Toronto, Washington; Central: Chicago, Detroit, Indiana, Milwaukee; Northeast: Boston, Brooklyn, New York, Philadelphia; Southeast: Atlanta, Orlando, Memphis, Miami
Western Conference -- Midwest: Kansas City, Minnesota, New Orleans, Oklahoma City; Northwest: Denver, Portland, Seattle, Utah; Southwest: Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, San Antonio; Pacific: Golden State, Clippers, Lakers, Sacramento
Again, Baseball has no interest in going to 32 teams at the moment, which is why Montreal will continue to be left out in the cold. But if they were to add Montreal and another team, there would be a couple options. Because there are a few Triple A markets that are actually larger than MLB markets.
Although, since the other expansion team would go in the American League (Montreal would obviously rejoin the NL), you'd have to think of where it would make sense to add an AL team. That means Charlotte, Indianapolis and New Orleans would likely be out. Portland and Salt Lake City would be intriguing possibilities, though. Then you'd have another team on the West Coast so that the two Texas clubs can get a little break on the travel.
Logistically, that would be a nightmare, though. Not only would you have to figure out who's in the wild card game, you'd have to change up the division alignment, which would upset some teams who would be separated from their rivals, as you can see below. Fortunately, we're not gonna have to worry about any of this for a while. Because, as much as I'd love to see Major League Baseball return to Montreal, those Blue Jays exhibition games in March are likely the closest they're gonna come.
American League -- East: Baltimore, Boston, Yankees, Toronto; Central: White Sox, Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota; South: Houston, Kansas City, Tampa Bay, Texas; West: Angels, Oakland, Portland, Seattle
National League -- East: Montreal, Mets, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh; Central: Cubs, Cincinnati, Colorado, Milwaukee; South: Atlanta, Miami, St. Louis, Washington; West: Arizona, Dodgers, San Diego, San Francisco
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)