Post-Deadline State of the Contenders

Baseball's trade deadline has come and gone.  Contenders, of course, still have another month to improve their teams for the postseason (last year Houston got Verlander at literally the last second), but we still saw plenty of movement.  There wasn't that big late splash, mainly because Machado got traded so early.  But contending teams were definitely aggressive in adding pieces, while teams that are out of it were just as aggressive in selling off parts.

One of the things that did surprise me was the amount of interdivision trades.  You almost never see that, but the Angels traded catcher Martin Maldonado to Houston, Asdrubal Cabrera went from the Mets to the Phillies, the Yankees got pitchers from both the Orioles and the Blue Jays, and Tampa Bay made a deal with Boston.  (The Rays also successfully rid themselves of all remaining actual starting pitchers on their roster, giving them the opportunity to do their stupid "opener" thing every game.)

The teams that were expected to be sellers basically gutted their rosters.  Baltimore and Toronto are out of it and they know it, so they both traded pretty much anyone and everyone you can think of from their respective teams.  The Twins, Rangers and Rays all did a good bit of unloading, too.  But, seeing as the AL playoff teams have been essentially locked up since May (Oakland's recent surge notwithstanding), it made sense that most of the the available guys came from the AL.  Although, we also saw the St. Louis Cardinals as sellers, an incredibly unusual position for them.

But which of the buyers helped themselves out the most?  And who's still gonna be looking to add a piece in August?  Well, let's take a look:

Red Sox: Getting Nathan Eovaldi was smart.  For a team that plays in Fenway Park, it makes absolutely no sense that 80 percent of their starting rotation was left-handed.  They didn't totally need a starter, but a right-hander of Eovaldi's quality was a worthwhile pickup.  Especially since they just put Sale on the DL.  Ian Kinsler, meanwhile, helps their depth.  Beyond their starting lineup, Boston's not a very deep team.  The addition of the veteran second baseman will help that, as Nunez and Holt move back into bench roles.  He's right-handed, though, and one thing the Red Sox could've used is a left-handed bat to balance out all those righties.  They didn't really address their bullpen, either.

Yankees: Everyone knew all season that the Yankees would be in the market for a starting pitcher.  They didn't just get one.  They got two.  Are J.A. Happ and Lance Lynn going to win you a World Series?  Probably not.  But are they better alternatives than Domingo German and Luis Cessa?  Absolutely.  And they further strengthened what was already the best part of the team by adding Zach Britton to the bullpen.  That created a situation of having too many relievers, so Chasen Shreve and Adam Warren were both traded.  The thing I like most about the Yankees' trades, though, are the position players they traded away.  Brandon Drury and Tyler Austin are Major League players who were blocked in New York and will now get an opportunity to play every day elsewhere.

Indians: Cleveland had the luxury of not having to worry about winning the division.  The Indians were able to make moves strictly based on what will help them in October.  Like adding Brad Hand, probably the best reliever who was gonna be available.  And by striking early, they kept him away from Boston and Houston.  They also added outfield depth by getting Leonys Martin from Detroit.  That move is very similar to when they got Rajai Davis in 2016.  And that move sure worked out for them.

Astros: Last year they needed a starter.  This year they had three starters that were All*Stars.  Rather, it was the bullpen that was the biggest need.  So, they went out and swapped closers with Toronto, sending the demoted Ken Giles to the Blue Jays for Roberto Osuna.  What's interesting about that is the fact that Osuna is currently serving a 75-game domestic violence suspension.  Baseball-wise, it's a good move.  But you have to wonder what kind of a message that sends.  I'd also imagine there'll be some offseason talk about a team being able to trade a guy who's suspended.  Houston also picked up Maldonado, which was good for them.  Because Brian McCann is injured and Evan Gattis is a DH.  Not a catcher.

Mariners: Seattle is desperate to end its 17-year playoff drought.  Their biggest weakness was their bullpen, which is definitely improved with the additions of Adam Warren and Zach Duke.  They also picked up Cameron Maybin, who won't start with Gamel, Span and Haniger in the outfield, but they can definitely use him in the same role the Astros did last season.  Don't forget they're getting Robinson Cano back in August, too.  Although, Cano has missed half the season and is ineligible for the postseason, so we'll see how he figures into the Mariners' plans moving forward.

Athletics: Yes, I'm surprised I'm including Oakland on this list.  But the A's are only two games behind Seattle and were buyers at the deadline as a result.  Granted, their only significant trade was getting Jeurys Familia (who, for some reason, was the only major guy the Mets moved).  But they're in the conversation and they know it.  They know they're fighting Seattle for one spot, so the A's essentially are just trying to pass the Mariners.  I'm not sure just getting Familia was enough to do that.  But I didn't expect Oakland to be in this position in the first place, either.

Phillies: I'll give them credit.  They're going for it.  Nobody expected the Phillies to be in the mix this year, so it makes sense for them to take a shot.  Did they do enough?  Probably not.  I think the Braves improved more than the Phillies did.  But they did make a couple nice acquisitions in Wilson Ramos (who knows the NL East from his days with the Nationals) and Asdrubal Cabrera.  They also added lefty Aaron Loup to the bullpen.  I expect them to be active in August, too.

Braves: Man, the Braves were busy.  In Baltimore, Kevin Gausman was the de facto "ace" and pitching against No. 1 starters (which in the AL East means Chris Sale and Luis Severino).  In Atlanta, he'll be the No. 4.  Perfect spot in the rotation for both him and the Braves.  Darren O'Day and Brad Brach are great pieces to add to that bullpen, while lefty Jonny Venters returns to Atlanta.  (If you're keeping track, that's three Orioles pitchers going to Atlanta.)  I'm not completely sure how Adam Duvall fits in that outfield, but that guy can flat out hit.  On paper, I've gotta make Atlanta the NL East favorites.

Cubs: The Yu Darvish signing simply hasn't worked, so the Cubs needed another starter to pair with Jon Lester in October.  Enter Cole Hamels, who a lot of people (including this guy) just assumed was headed to the Yankees.  When the Yankees went with Happ instead, I thought a Hamels/Phillies reunion might be in order.  Instead he went to the Cubs.  Fun fact about Hamels and Wrigley Field, too: in his last start for the Phillies, he threw a no-hitter there.  The also got a pair of relievers, Jesse Chavez from Texas and Brandon Kintzler from Washington.  And, let's face it, they didn't have to do much.

Brewers: Milwaukee needed a starting pitcher.  They didn't get one.  Instead, since they evidently plan on outscoring everybody, they created an absolutely ridiculous lineup.  They acquired two big bats in Mike Moustakas and Jonathan Schoop.  I'm not sure how they plan on playing both of them and Travis Shaw (although I guess Shaw could play the outfield), but that's a nice problem to have.  They still need a starter, though.  They did add one pitcher, Joakim Soria, but their bullpen didn't need help.  Their rotation did.

Dodgers: As soon as the ink dried on the Machado deal, the Dodgers became the favorites to repeat as NL pennant winners.  It's unfair how loaded this team is.  Then they go and make themselves even more loaded by getting Brian Dozier to be their leadoff hitter.  Oh, and they picked up John Axford, too.  Because, well, they can.  It's seriously ridiculous how good some of the players this team has on the bench is (a bench that will only get deeper if/when Justin Turner comes back).  And if they decide they need a starting pitcher in August, don't be surprised to see them go out and make a waiver claim on someone.

Diamondbacks: There wasn't gonna be a J.D. Martinez available for them this year.  Instead they had to settle for Eduardo Escobar, who was having quite a season in Minnesota.  He fits beautifully into the Diamondbacks' lineup, giving them another power guy to provide Goldschmidt with some protection.  Arizona really addressed its pitching staff, too.  Their Tampa Bay Rays' reunion continued with the addition of Matt Andriese, and they also picked up relievers Jake Diekman and Brad Ziegler.  That's a lot of relievers.  All of this, and Arizona is still staring at the Wild Card at best, though.

Rockies: Colorado usually lets the trade deadline just pass them by without doing anything.  But this year the Rockies did make a minor move by adding Toronto's Seunghwan Oh to the bullpen.  Granted, their lineup doesn't need much help.  But I would've loved to see them make a move on a starter.  A reunion with Matt Holliday (who still hasn't touched the plate in the 2007 Wild Card Game, BTW) may be on the way, but that's not nearly enough.  The Dodgers and Diamondbacks both got better.  The Rockies didn't.

The Overreach Known as the Rodchenkov Act

Congress has done it again.  Instead of actually, you know, running the country, they're busy holding hearings about something that the federal government has no business being involved in.  Specifically, I'm talking about the bipartisan "Rodchenkov Act," which seeks to criminalize doping violations in international sports (but, hey, at least we got them to agree on something!).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to anti-doping measures.  Doping is by far the biggest problem plaguing international sports (at all levels) right now.  But this is an international problem that requires an international solution.  And the Rodchenkov Act (which is obviously inspired by the Russian doping crisis) is most definitely NOT the answer.  In fact, it's a tremendous overreach that has been summarily criticized...and rightfully so!

Sheila Jackson Lee and Michael Burgess (both from Texas) brought the bill, named after Grigory Rodchenkov, the former Russian doping administrator-turned-whistle blower who has been living in the U.S. ever since (there's issue #1 right there), to the Floor with the goal of preventing "international fraud" against American athletes.  The bill's goal is basically to establish criminal penalties for doping at major international events.  The penalties would range from a fine of up to $1 million or jail time, potentially as much as 10 years. 

Here's where it begins to fall apart, though.  According to the bill, the U.S. government should have jurisdiction if "the offense is committed in whole or in part in the United States" or the offense is committed outside the United States and "is committed in relation to a major international competition" or "the offense occurs in or affects the interstate or foreign commerce of the United States."  It also defines "performance-enhancing drugs" as specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, which isn't necessarily just those on the WADA list of prohibited substances.

So, basically, they're saying that the U.S. government should be in charge of determining doping violations and penalties for any international sporting competition involving American athletes, regardless of the country it takes place in.  If that isn't asinine enough, the bill also self-appoints the U.S. government as the enforcement agency for any doping offense committed by any athlete from any country.  For some reason, they think it's completely reasonable to make athletes from all 206 National Olympic Committees subject to U.S. law.

If the event takes place in the U.S., that's one thing.  But how does a German cyclist doping at the Tour de France have anything to do with the United States?!  Just because Americans are in the field, that somehow gives the U.S. government jurisdiction?  How does that make any sense?

There's already an organization called the World Anti-Doping Agency.  As the name implies, WADA is in charge of anti-doping at international competitions.  And they've already established what the penalties for doping offenses are (as well as establishing an appeals process).  In addition to WADA, the various international federations handle their own anti-doping efforts at single-sport events.  Some sports have better anti-doping records than others, but it's not up to Congress to decide that.

They also mentioned the fact that several other nations have already passed federal anti-doping legislation.  However, in every country except the United States, the Olympic Committee receives funding from the government.  That's a very important difference.  In each of those other countries, the Olympic committee has a certain obligation and the government is entitled to have certain expectations from an organization receiving federal funds.

The USOC receives absolutely no financial support from the federal government.  It's a completely independent organization.  As such, it doesn't answer to Congress the way another country's Olympic committee would to its government.  Which is why it's apples and oranges when trying to compare how international sports are handled in the U.S. as opposed to any other nation.  Bringing up Russia, especially, isn't a like comparison, seeing as that was a state-sponsored doping program, which wouldn't have been possible if the government wasn't so involved in the day-to-day operations of the Olympic team.

In its response to the Rodchenkov Act, one of the things that the IOC pointed out, along with the other concerns I've already mentioned, is that Congress is worried about international sport, but the level of testing in our own domestic professional leagues is "low."  Each league does its own testing, and the USADA (as self-righteous an organization as there is) has no jurisdiction over them.  In fact, the USADA is only responsible for the testing of U.S. Olympic and Paralympic athletes.

Rather than taking on this fight all by itself, the IOC suggested that the United States join the "International Partnership Against Corruption In Sport," where they're working together with governments, international sports federations and international organizations like the United Nations to combat doping.  They also not-so-subtly suggested that the U.S. government and USADA worry about perceived doping issues in the NFL, NBA, NHL, WNBA, MLB and MLS while leaving the international sports to them.

I can't say I disagree with that.  Not to mention the fact that there are a number of loopholes in this plan, in addition to the flaws that exist.  (For example, it would be silly for this to apply only to international sports and not an NFL game that takes place in America!)  Events could limit the number of Americans invited just so they don't meet the threshold.  There's also the potential of it backfiring and countries possibly boycotting events in the United States in protest.  With three major events coming to the U.S. in the next 10 years (the 2021 World Track & Field Championships, 2026 World Cup and 2028 Olympics), that's not a small thing.

Regardless, criminalizing sports doping is a very difficult proposition to begin with.  Take the BALCO scandal.  Victor Conte went to jail for distribution.  But of the athletes they "busted," they were only able to make an obstruction of justice charge against Barry Bonds stick.  Roger Clemens?  Not guilty on all six counts.  A-Rod was never indicted for Biogenesis.  Even Lance Armstrong didn't face federal charges.  And when Marion Jones went to jail, it was for check fraud.

My point is that Congress may be biting off more than it can chew here.  Because there's virtually no way that any sort of federal indictment they made for doping in international sports would stick.  Especially for athletes who aren't U.S. citizens.  Even more so if those charges stemmed from an event that didn't even take place on U.S. soil.  The World Court would have a field day with that!

Two Years Til Tokyo 2020

Tuesday marked the two-year mark until the Opening Ceremony of the 2020 Olympics.  Of course, NBC has been promoting an event that's two years away nonstop since the PyeongChang Games ended.  The flame will be lit in Tokyo before we know it, though.  And there's still plenty to do between now and then.

The 2020 Games will have the earliest start since the Atlanta Olympics, and there are legitimate concerns about the heat.  Tokyo is in the midst of a heat wave right now.  The high temperature this afternoon was 104.  That's about 25 degrees higher than normal, but even 80 (Japan's average July high) with the humidity has caused plenty of concern.  When I saw this, I began to wonder why they decided to schedule the Olympics so early.  Then I saw it's not much better in August, so they were kinda stuck between a rock and a hard place, and I guess July is the lesser of two evils.

There's plenty of concern, and rightfully so, about the safety of athletes and fans alike in that heat.  They're going to attempt to combat it by holding long-distance events like the marathons and triathlons early in the morning.  Other outdoor sports like track & field, meanwhile, will have their finals in the evening.

For the outdoor sports that will have competition in the afternoon, they're going to make the athletes as comfortable as possible by, among other things, keeping them indoors in air conditioning until the last possible moment.  They'll also set up misting fans and keep spectator areas shaded.  Still, the concerns about the heat and the resulting quality of the competition, as well as the safety of the athletes, are legitimate.  Now I understand why the 1964 Olympics, which were also in Tokyo, took place in October.

When they released the competition schedule last week, the times for swimming were still listed as TBA.  NBC wanted the finals scheduled for the morning local time so that they could be shown live in prime time on the East Coast.  Japanese TV wanted them in the evening.  Guess who ended up winning the dispute?  So, just like in Beijing, the swimming finals will be held in the morning to accommodate American TV.  Gymnastics and track & field won't be, though, which is a little surprising.  Beach volleyball goes all day, so I'm sure NBC will arrange it that the Americans will be in the morning match.

Baseball and softball will also be returning to the Olympics in Tokyo, and softball will actually be the first sport to get underway.  Soccer is traditionally the first sport to start, and there will be six women's soccer games on Wednesday as usual.  But the softball game starts before the soccer games that day.  In fact, with a 10 a.m. local time start, that game will be at 8:00 on Tuesday night here.  (There's also archery and rowing on the morning of the Opening Ceremony for some reason I'm not gonna try to figure out.)

While baseball and softball are returning after 12 years away, Tokyo will also be introducing four new sports to the Olympic program.  Unlike the additions of rugby sevens and golf in Rio, I'm lukewarm about each one (but, hey, at least they're not "e-sports").  Surfing and skateboarding will be early in the Games, while sport climbing and karate will be towards the end.

Those aren't the only new events we'll be seeing in Tokyo.  Not by a long shot.  Because the IOC completely ignored its own guidelines of roughly 310 events and 10,500 athletes by allowing Tokyo organizers to schedule 339 medal events.  Even though they've cut back athlete quotas in some sports, don't be surprised if the total number of competitors ends up topping 11,000.  (And they wonder why cities/countries don't want to host the Olympics!)

One of the new events is 3x3 basketball, while many of the others are mixed team events.  I'm not completely sold on all of them, but I do give the IOC and the international federations credit for trying something different.  Mixed relays, which the IOC is a big fan of, don't add any athletes and are generally pretty fun, so the only issue there was squeezing them into an already packed schedule in those sports.

As for the venues where these events will take place, Tokyo's running a bit behind.  Olympic Stadium was originally supposed to host the final of next year's Rugby World Cup.  Except it won't be ready by then.  The new expected completion date is November 2019.  That's still four months earlier than the swimming venue, though.  That one might not be finished until February 2020.

In the grand scheme of things, two years is a lot of time.  Right now it seems like an eternity until the Tokyo Games (as does the though of two more years of NBC's endless promotion).  And there will be World Championships next year in pretty much every Olympic sport to whet our appetites.  The 2020 Olympic Trials will be here soon enough, though.  And that's when it really gets real.

But when you're organizing an Olympics, those two years can sneak up on you real quick.  After all, it's already been five since Tokyo was awarded the Games.  Before we know it, Tokyo 2020 will be here.

Old-Time All*Star MVPs

OK, one last post about the All*Star Game before I move on to different topics.  The other day I looked at All*Star Games future (as opposed to the All*Star Futures Game) with my predicted sites for the next decade.  Today, I'm going the other direction.  I'm gonna have a little fun with All*Star Games past.

The All*Star Game MVP is an annual rite of summer, and it's actually a pretty prestigious award.  Sure, there are the random winners who get a big pinch-hit RBI late in the game, but there are also plenty of Hall of Famers (both current and future) who've been named All*Star Game MVP.  Only five men have won it twice, including Mike Trout, the only back-to-back winner, but the list of Hall of Famers who've never been All*Star MVP is just as loaded.  Despite the fact that the NL won a staggering 19 times in 20 years, All*Star stalwarts of that era such as Hank Aaron, Johnny Bench, Roberto Clemente and Pete Rose never took home the prize.

There are a bunch of other Hall of Famers who've never been All*Star Game MVP, but the reason for that makes a lot more sense.  That's because for the first 30 years of the All*Star Game, they didn't present an MVP.  The award wasn't inaugurated until the 1962 season.

So, in an attempt to rectify that, I'm going through and naming an unofficial All*Star Game MVP for each of the first 30 editions.  The 31st All*Star Game, at Fenway Park in 1961, was a 1-1 tie that was called after nine innings due to rain, so, like the infamous 2002 tie in Milwaukee, I won't be naming an MVP for that one.

1933: Babe Ruth, Yankees (AL)-Went 2-for-4 with a two-run homer (the first in All*Star Game history), as the AL won the inaugural event 4-2 in Chicago.
1934: Earl Averill, Indians (AL)-This game is best remembered for Carl Hubbell striking out five Hall of Famers in a row.  But, the NL lost, so he's out.  Instead, it's Earl Averill, who had an RBI triple and a two-run double in his first two at bats of the 9-7 AL win.
1935: Jimmie Foxx, Athletics (AL)-Talk about an easy one.  Foxx hit a two-run homer in the first and finished 2-for-3 with three RBIs in the AL's 4-2 victory.
1936: Dizzy Dean, Cardinals (NL)-Dean was the winning pitcher, as the NL won the All*Star Game for the first time.  He started the contest and tossed three no-hit innings, striking out three and walking two.
1937: Lou Gehrig, Yankees (AL)-Fun fact: after the AL lost for the first time in 1936, Yankees manager Joe McCarthy played his starting lineup the entire game in 1937.  Jimmie Foxx, who pinch hit, was the only bench player used.  So, despite Hank Greenberg being on the bench, Gehrig got four at-bats.  He doubled, homered and had four RBIs in the 8-3 victory.
1938: Johnny Vander Meer, Reds (NL)-For the first time, it goes to a player from the home team, as well as one that isn't in the Hall of Fame.  Vander Meer set the tone in the National League's 4-1 win with three scoreless innings on the mound.  He did give up a hit, though, which is more than he did in his legendary consecutive no-hitters earlier that season.  I think it's safe to say he had a good year in 1938.
1939: Bob Feller, Indians (AL)-Bob Feller came in with the bases loaded and one out in the sixth inning of a 3-1 AL lead.  The first batter he faced, fellow Hall of Famer Arky Vaughan, grounded into a double play.  Feller then tossed three more scoreless innings to earn the save (which wasn't an official stat yet) at Yankee Stadium.
1940: Max West, Braves (NL)-Another ridiculously easy call.  The NL won 4-0 and West hit a three-run homer in the first inning.  Since the NL had three right fielders on the roster and they all played (which wasn't common the All*Star Game at the time), that was his only at-bat of the game.
1941: Ted Williams, Red Sox (AL)-One of the most famous home runs in All*Star Game history was the three-run walk-off shot by Ted Williams in 1941.  He also had an RBI double in the fourth that plated the game's first run.  This was, of course, the season when Williams hit .406.
1942: Rudy York, Tigers (AL)-A lot of firsts in 1942.  This was the first All*Star Game affected by the war, and the first played under the lights.  The AL won 3-1, with all three runs coming in the top of the first, two of them on Rudy York's two-run homer.
1943: Bobby Doerr, Red Sox (AL)-Wartime rosters really started to take a hit in 1943, but the Hall of Fame Red Sox second baseman was still there.  In the All*Star Game, he belted a three-run homer, as the AL won 5-3.
1944: Whitey Kurowski, Cardinals (NL)-Seven different players scored and six collected RBIs in the NL's 7-1 win.  The only player with a pair of RBIs was Whitey Kurowski, who knocked a two-run double in the seventh.
1946: Ted Williams, Red Sox (AL)-Perhaps the single-greatest All*Star Game performance of all-time was turned in by Ted Williams in his home park in 1946.  He went 4-for-4, belted two homers, and tallied five RBIs in a 12-0 AL blowout.  This makes Williams an unofficial two-time MVP.
1947: Stan Spence, Senators (AL)-Williams had two more hits in 1947, but I'm giving the MVP honors to Washington's Stan Spence.  He knocked in the game-winning run with a seventh-inning pinch-hit single.
1948: Vic Raschi, Yankees (AL)-Arguably the best All*Star Game performance ever for a pitcher.  Raschi's two-run single in the fourth provided the go-ahead runs, and he was also the winning pitcher, tossing thee shutout innings in a 5-2 AL victory.
1949: Joe DiMaggio, Yankees (AL)-DiMaggio had two hits in the 1949 game at Ebbets Field, and each one drove in a run.  He had an RBI single and scored in the first, then knocked a two-run double (with his brother, Dom, scoring one of the runs) in the sixth.
1950: Red Schoendienst, Cardinals (NL)-It was the first All*Star Game to go into extra innings, and Schoendienst was the hero.  His home run leading off the 14th inning gave the NL a 4-3 victory.
1951: Gil Hodges, Dodgers (NL)-For the first time, the NL won consecutive All*Star Games.  Brooklyn's Gil Hodges finished 2-for-5 with a homer, two RBIs and two runs scored in the 8-3 triumph.
1952: Hank Sauer, Cubs (NL)-Rain caused this one to be called after five innings.  The AL took a 2-1 lead in the top of the fourth, but Sauer's two-run homer in the bottom half of the inning proved to be the difference in the 3-2 National League win.
1953: Pee Wee Reese, Dodgers (NL)-Four in a row for the National League!  Leadoff man Reese had a pair of RBI hits, a single in the fifth and a double in the seventh, of the 5-1 win.
1954: Al Rosen, Indians (AL)-All Al Rosen did in the 1954 All*Star Game was hit consecutive home runs and tie Ted Williams' record with five RBIs.  In his home park.
1955: Stan Musial, Cardinals (NL)-Right up there with the Ted Williams walk-off blast in 1941 was Stan Musial's walk-off shot in 1955.  This one came in the 12th inning, as the NL overcame a 5-0 deficit to win 6-5.
1956: Willie Mays, Giants (NL)-He was the official All*Star Game MVP twice, and now you can add an unofficial honor to his resume.  Mays hit a pinch-hit two-run homer in the fourth and scored again in the seventh.
1957: Al Kaline, Tigers (AL)-Things got interesting at the end of the game in 1957.  Kaline's two-run single in the top of the ninth increased the AL's lead to 6-2...only for the NL to put up a three-spot and get the tying run to second in the bottom of the ninth.  The AL held on, though, so Kaline's single (his second hit of the game) gets him MVP honors.
1958: Billy O'Dell, Orioles (AL)-Nellie Fox had two hits, but I'm going with Billy O'Dell of the hometown Orioles.  He entered a 4-3 game in the seventh and retired all nine batters he faced to close out the AL victory.
1959 (1st game): Willie Mays, Giants (NL)-Make that two unofficial to go with his two official ones.  In the first year of the two-game experiment, Mays tripled home Hank Aaron for the winning run in the bottom of the eighth, as the NL took it 5-4.
1959 (2nd game): Yogi Berra, Yankees (AL)-A month later, the All*Stars got together again at the L.A. Coliseum, and this time the AL came out on top.  Yogi's third-inning two-run homer made it 3-1 in a game the AL eventually won 5-3.
1960 (1st game): Ernie Banks, Cubs (NL)-Somebody was a homer short of the cycle, so it would be easy to pick him again.  But Mr. Cub also had quite a game that day in Kansas City.  He hit a two-run homer in the first, then doubled and scored in the third.
1960 (2nd game): Willie Mays, Giants (NL)-They literally got on a plane and played again at Yankee Stadium two days later.  Mays got the home run he didn't hit in Kansas City.  He also had a pair of singles, including one to lead off the game, and stole a base in the 6-0 National League win.  If you're keeping track, this is now three unofficial All*Star Game MVPs to go along with the two he actually won.
1961 (1st game): Roberto Clemente, Pirates (NL)-Wanna guess whose double tied the game in the bottom of the 10th?  Mays doesn't get another one in his home park, though.  Because Clemente's RBI single two batters later drove him in and sent the NL home winners.  Clemente also had a sac fly in the fourth knocking in...you guessed it!  (Willie Mays was really good in the All*Star Game.)

Future All*Star Hosts

We know the location of the next two Major League Baseball All*Star Games, but nothing beyond 2020.  Next year's game in Cleveland will feel weird for a couple reasons.  First, it'll be strange to actually have the All*Star Game in an AL city for a change.  The last time an American League team hosted was 2014, when it was at the Twins' Target Field.  It's also not in a new stadium.  In fact (and this is hard to believe), Progressive Field is almost 30 years old!

Then in 2020 the All*Star Game heads to Dodger Stadium, which is the third-oldest stadium in baseball.  Seeing as the All*Star Game hasn't been there since 1980, I think this is a long overdue return to one of baseball's venerable venues (which finally saw the return of the World Series last year).  And anything to have Vin Scully doing the pregame player introductions!

Of course, one of the reasons they had four straight All*Star Games in National League stadiums was because the number of new parks was disproportionate.  And now that the new parks in Cincinnati, San Diego, Miami and Washington have all hosted, there are only three left that are yet to host an All*Star Game--Atlanta, Philadelphia and Yankee Stadium.  The Rangers are scheduled to open a new stadium in 2020, at which point they'll be added to the list, while Tampa Bay and Oakland won't be added to the list of potential hosts until their stadium situations are straightened out.

So, that trend is pretty much over.  Teams that open new parks will still work their way into the All*Star Game cycle at some point, but that's no longer the only criterion necessary to host the game.  And it's going to result in some of the older stadiums, some of which haven't hosted in a while, getting the opportunity.  It'll also give MLB to opportunity to honor various anniversaries by holding the All*Star Game in that city.

Atlanta was the other city that bid for 2020, but also put in for 2021 at the same time.  I don't know if MLB will go back-to-back National League after the four straight (putting six out of seven in NL parks), especially since I've heard rumblings about Baltimore, so I think SunTrust Park may end up having to wait until 2022.

In fact, I think there are logical choices for each of the next seven All*Star Games that are yet-to-be awarded:

• 2021: Baltimore-Believe it or not, 2021 will be the Orioles' 30th season at Camden Yards!  It was the first of the retro parks that have since become commonplace, and it's just as beautiful now as it was the day it opened.  Honoring that anniversary would be a nice touch.
• 2022: Atlanta-If they don't want to do back-to-back National League, this would be the next available year for Atlanta.  SunTrust Park opened last season, so 2022 will be the Braves' sixth year at the stadium.  That's actually not too bad a wait for a new stadium.
• 2023: Yankee Stadium-The 2008 All*Star Game was held in the final season at the old Yankee Stadium, which was done intentionally.  But it also pushed back the new Yankee Stadium's opportunity to host.  By 2023, it will have been 15 years since that game, and 10 since the Mets hosted at Citi Field, so it wouldn't be "too soon" to go back to New York.  And, another symbolic reason to bring the 2023 All*Star Game to Yankee Stadium is the fact that it'll mark the 100th anniversary since the opening of the original.  They can't play it there, so playing it at the new place is the next-best thing.
• 2024: Wrigley Field-With all the renovations the Cubs have done to Wrigley Field, they're eager to host an All*Star Game again.  They could easily host in 2022 if Atlanta is indeed selected for 2021, but I think 2024 makes more sense.  Keep in mind, too, that the 100th Anniversary All*Star Game in 2033 will undoubtedly be on the South Side, so if the Cubs host in 2024, that's a reasonable nine-year gap between games in Chicago (as opposed to a 21-year gap since the White Sox hosted in 2003).
• 2025: Texas-By 2025, Globe Life Field will be five years old.  And, assuming Yankee Stadium hosts at some point before then, it'll be the only new American League park yet to host an All*Star Game.  You know they'll want to show it off, so I think this is the absolute latest the Rangers will host.
• 2026: Philadelphia-You can write this one in ink.  Because it's a virtual certainty.  Citizens Bank Park opened in 2004 and still hasn't hosted an All*Star Game.  There's a reason for this.  They're holding out to host in 2026.  Philadelphia hosted all three All*Star Games (MLB, NBA, NHL) in 1976, and they'll do the same 50 years later for the Semiquincentennial.
• 2027: Toronto-Finally, I've got the 2027 All*Star Game headed North of the Border.  The Blue Jays are in the process of installing grass at SkyDome, and they'll finish doing that well before then.  That's only part of the reason I'd like to see the All*Star Game return to Toronto in 2027, though.  It'll also be the Blue Jays' 50th anniversary season, as well as the 160th anniversary of Canada's independence (not symbolic, but it's still a nice round number, and they already missed 150).

All of this is pure speculation on my part, of course.  And there are some other factors that could come in and change things.  If MLB does expand to Montreal and Mexico, or the A's and/or Rays relocate, they'll want to bring the All*Star Game to the new market.  Likewise, if a team builds a new ballpark between now and then, they'll likely want to showcase it.

Although, if anything does change, it'd be just as easy to insert those new stadiums into the hosting rotation starting in 2028.  Regardless, 2033 is off the table.  The White Sox are hosting that one.

MLB Midseason Awards

Well, that All*Star Game sure was the season in a nutshell, wasn't it?  A ton of home runs and a ton of strikeouts.  Yep, that's Major League Baseball in 2018.  And, just for fun, we also got a replay of last year with the Astros hitting back-to-back homers off a Dodgers pitcher.

As we get set for the second half of the season, our attention turns back to the pennant races and the trades those contenders will make (BTW, who called Machado to the Dodgers weeks ago?  This guy!).  But before moving on to see how teams will shake out for October, let's take a look at who would take home the major hardware if they voted for those awards today.

AL MVP: MOOKIE BETTS, Red Sox-Betts and J.D. Martinez are the two best players in the American League, and they're reasons 1 and 1A why the Red Sox have been the class of baseball this year.  They could easily be 1-2 in MVP voting (although Jose Ramirez might have something to say about that).  Martinez, the biggest difference between this year's Boston team and last year's, has a ridiculous 80 RBIs.  But Betts is a better all-around player whose numbers across the board are just as ridiculous.  A .359 average with 23 homers, 25 doubles, 71 runs scored and 18 stolen bases.  He also plays a solid right field.  Betts finished second in MVP voting a few years ago.  If he keeps up his first-half pace over the final 10 weeks of the season, this could be the year he wins it.

AL Cy Young: LUIS SEVERINO, Yankees-This is a close one, too (kinda like how the starting decision wasn't an easy one for A.J. Hinch).  But I'm giving Severino the nod over Chris Sale and Corey Kluber for a few reasons. 1) The Yankees are 18-2 in his starts.  That's what an ace is supposed to do.  2) In 14 of his starts, he's allowed two runs or fewer, including nine with 0 or 1.  3) The Red Sox and Indians both have deeper rotations than the Yankees, meaning Severino's team relies on him much more than Sale's and Kluber's.  4) Severino was the best pitcher in baseball for much of the first half.  Like I said, the numbers between the three are extremely close.  Whoever ends up winning the AL East may ultimately have the edge.

AL Rookie: GLEYBER TORRES, Yankees-Shohei Ohtani had this award on lockdown until his elbow injury that will limit him to hitting for the rest of the season.  Instead, it's Yankees 1-2 with Torres and Miguel Andujar.  Gleyber gets the slight edge over his teammate, though.  His arrival in late April is when the Yankees took off, and he made the All*Star team after hitting .294 in 63 games.  The most amazing part is that after never showing any power in the Minors, he's got 15 homers and 42 RBIs.  There's a reason why he's untouchable in any potential Yankees trade.

AL Comeback Player: WILSON RAMOS, Rays-After making the All*Star team with the Nationals in 2016, he signed a two-year deal with Tampa Bay prior to last season...only to tear his ACL in Spring Training and miss three months.  As a result, Ramos played in just 64 games (and still managed to hit .260 with 11 home runs).  In the first half of this season, he played in 78 games, hitting .297 with 14 homers and being elected the All*Star starter (although he unfortunately missed the game with an injury).

AL Manager: ALEX CORA, Red Sox-The manager of whichever team wins the AL East will end up being named AL Manager of the Year.  And right now that's Alex Cora.  Boston wins every freakin' day.  The Red Sox have the best record in baseball and took a 4.5-game lead into the All*Star Break.  Their 68 wins are the most-ever before the All*Star Break, but that comes with a bit of an asterisk since the Red Sox have already played 98! games (teams are normally at around 90 games played at the All*Star Break, but this season started early and the All*Star Game was later than usual).  Boston's .694 winning percentage, though, is the best of any team at the All*Star Break since the 2001 Mariners, who tied the Major League record with 116 wins.

NL MVP: FREDDIE FREEMAN, Braves-It shouldn't be a surprise that Freddie Freeman has put up solid numbers so far this season.  It's been his M.O. for most of his career.  But now he's finally getting the recognition he deserves for it, as evidence by being the leading vote-getter in the National League.  His .315 average, 16 homers, 61 RBIs, 25 doubles and 59 runs scored speak for themselves.  His veteran leadership on a surprise contender full of young players is where Freeman brings the most value to his team, though.

NY Cy Young: MAX SCHERZER, Nationals-He got a standing ovation before even throwing a pitch at the All*Star Game.  And he deserved it.  Because Scherzer is far-and-away the best pitcher in the National League right now.  He leads the league in strikeouts (by a wide margin), is tied for the NL lead in wins, and ranks fourth in ERA.  Scherzer's also thrown the most innings in the National League, and his only start of less than six innings all season was way back on April 4.  He's struck out at least 10 in exactly half his starts, and did I mention his batting average against is just .180?  The disappointing Nationals are just one game over .500 on the season, but 14-6 when Scherzer starts.

NL Rookie: JUAN SOTO, Nationals-Much like Gleyber Torres, Juan Soto didn't begin the season in the Majors.  In fact, he didn't make his debut until May 20 (although he technically hit a home run before his Major League debut in the second half of that suspended game against the Yankees).  I don't think Soto's going anywhere anytime soon, though.  All he's done in 59 games is belt nine homers and 11 doubles while establishing himself as a badly needed weapon on an offensively-challenged Nationals squad.  Did I mention he's only 19 (the same age as a certain other National in his Rookie of the Year season)?

NL Comeback Player: MATT KEMP, Dodgers-Evidently all Matt Kemp needed to get his groove back was a return to LA.  The Dodgers traded him away prior to the 2015 season, and he spent the next three years toiling away in San Diego and Atlanta.  LA got him back in a trade during the offseason, but he was gonna have to make the team in Spring Training.  Not only did he make the team, he showed flashes of his former self.  Kemp was the Dodgers' most consistent hitter in the first half, and his career revival earned him a much-deserved All*Star start.

NL Manager: BRIAN SNITKER, Braves-Milwaukee's Craig Counsell and Philadelphia's Gabe Kapler are just as deserving.  But I'm going with Brian Snitker, who's had the Braves in first place for most of the season.  Atlanta was supposed to be another year or two away.  Instead they're this year's version of the 2017 Yankees.  Yes, the career years from Freddie Freeman and Nick Markakis have helped, as has the emergence of Ozzie Albies.  But the manager also deserves plenty of credit for the Braves turning themselves into a contender in the NL East.

The Athletics World Cup: A Poorly Executed Good Idea

Last weekend was jam-packed with sports.  With the World Cup final and the Wimbledon finals, it was easy for the Athletics World Cup to get lost in the mix.  Not surprisingly, the United States won the inaugural event, which featured eight national teams at London's Olympic Stadium.  I have no idea if and when the Athletics World Cup will continue, but if it does several improvements need to be made.

Originally, this was supposed to be a dual meet between the United States and Great Britain at the London Olympic Stadium, but six other countries were invited and the event was expanded into a full-fledged World Cup.  It wasn't a terrible idea (although, I liked the USA-Great Britain head-to-head a little better).  The execution left a lot to be desired, though.

For starters, there was the schedule.  They shoehorned it into an already-busy weekend, not just in world sports, but on the track & field calendar, too.  There was a Diamond League meet in Morocco the day before, and two more next week, including the two-day London meet.  The World U20 Championships were also going on simultaneously in Finland.  The European Championships are also coming up at the beginning of August, too, and that's the focus for most of the European athletes in this non-Olympic/non-Worlds year.

I understand they were limited on when they could hold the World Cup because of stadium availability, but I think the timing was one of the biggest issues they faced.  Diamond League meets offer appearance fees.  The World Cup didn't (only prize money per team based on finish).  There was also the issue of certain athletes being sponsored by shoe companies that are different than their national team, which led to some uncomfortable conflicts and kept some athletes away.

As a result of all these issues, the Athletics World Cup was considerably lacking in star power.  Some big stars did show up.  But not enough.  Especially since the most notable names, the ones that they used in all of their promotion, were absent.  That included several of the top British stars.  The American team had some national champions, but there were also some fourth-place finishers at Nationals.  (And let's not forget the lack of star power at U.S. Nationals this year to begin with.)  

Germany didn't even send its B team.  They were represented by younger athletes that are too old for World U20s, but aren't at the same level as their top athletes, who are getting ready for Euros.  Great experience for them, but certainly didn't do anything to enhance the quality of the meet.  And they clearly didn't care about winning the team title.  At the European Team Championships, Germany usually finishes first or second.  In London, they were the fourth-best European team and seventh overall.

That's more than I can say for China, though.  Why was China even there?  The whole idea was one athlete from each team in every event.  Wanna know how many of the 34 events China entered?  Just 21!  They didn't have a competitor in nearly half the events, including some of the relays!  One or two events is one thing (Jamaica doesn't have any female pole vaulters, for example), but not entering half the events when you're supposedly one of the eight "best" track & field nations in the world?

They determined the participating nations based on their finish in the World Cup events at the 2017 World Championships, but I'm still not sure how they got China.  Maybe it was because they wanted an Asian representative.  But, if there is another Athletics World Cup and it's not in London, they should replace China with Australia.  Australia wouldn't only enter every event, they're a stronger nation than China overall and it's kinda silly they weren't among the eight nations to begin with.  Rumor has it China wants to host the next edition, though, so this whole thing becomes moot in that case.  (Speaking of that, once Russia and the IAAF are back on speaking terms, Russia should obviously be one of the World Cup teams, as well.)

Back to the schedule.  They promised a "fast-paced" meet where everything would be completed in three hours.  Except it wasn't.  The relays, which were supposed to be the last event, finished and the field events were still going.  This despite the first hour on each day being just field events.

My problem with the schedule has nothing to do with that, though.  That's easy enough to fix by adjusting the start time of the field events.  But, despite the fact that they promised "fast-paced" action, it still dragged.  There were 17 events each day, but eight of them were field events.  And it doesn't take two hours to do nine track races, especially since none of them were longer than 1500 meters!

There was more than one instance where NBCSN went to commercial, came back to show a handful of jumps in the long/triple jump, then went right back to commercial.  Six minutes of commercials in an eight-minute span is not fast-paced!

It makes sense that they didn't want to include the longer distance races, which weren't really conducive to the type of meet they wanted to have.  But, how about doing a 3K instead of a 5K?  A 3K takes only about eight minutes.  Or, even better, include the steeplechase.  That would also balance it out with five running events per gender each day.

This would also be the perfect opportunity to try something different.  I'm not talking about the crazy events at that Nitro Athletics thing they tried in Australia last year.  But, the IAAF has added a mixed 4x400 relay to the World Championships and Olympics.  How cool would it be to close the meet with a mixed 4x4, especially if the team standings come down to that final event?  They could also do a mixed 4x1 to end the first day.  If it's a combined men's & women's team, have them be teammates!

The future of the Athletics World Cup is very much up in the air.  Where does another international event fit into a sport that already has either an Olympics or World Championships three years in a row before taking a year off and starting that cycle again?  Not to mention the European Championships in the non-World Championship years.  Yet there are also the European Team Championships, which have firmly established their place.

So, yes, I think there can be a place for the Athletics World Cup.  But improvements definitely need to be made first.  This meet has potential if it's done right.  But unless everybody buys in, we'll get the same thing we saw this year--a second-rate meet that was an afterthought on an already crowded calendar (which is even more crowded in other years).

The Best World Cup Ever

Everyone else has said it, so I might as well join that group.  Over the last month, we were witness to the greatest World Cup ever (a claim that I guarantee no one will make after the 2022 edition).  There were exciting games, spectacular goals, shocking upsets, new stars, and even a little bit of controversy.

Thinking about this post, there were a number of ways I could've gone.  I could've done a countdown of the best games and/or best goals.  Even rating the top players and best moments crossed my mind.  Then I decided to combine them all into a "best/worst..." breakdown of all the soccer over the past month, knowing full well that the "worst" list will be fairly short.

Thumbs Up
Russia: They did a tremendous job as hosts.  For all the concerns people had, they delivered and then some.  The first World Cup in Eastern Europe was an overwhelming success!  Full stadiums, an incredible atmosphere, and a tremendous run by the home team.  Russia getting all the way to the quarterfinals (and taking eventual finalist Croatia to penalty kicks) only added to the excitement.  They were the lowest-ranked team in the tournament coming in.  But they gained believers with each win, and that upset of Spain at a packed Luzhniki Stadium was one of the highlights of the tournament.

Thumbs Down
Big Names: For all the promos that included Pretty Boy and Messi, you would've thought that Portugal and Argentina were the only teams in the tournament!  But, alas, neither of the biggest names in the sport could deliver on the biggest stage.  Pretty Boy did nothing after that hat trick against Spain in the opening game, while Argentina was lucky to get out of the group stage.  Instead, it was Paul Pogba and Luka Modric and Harry Kane and Romelo Lukaku playing on the final weekend.

Thumbs Up
FOX: Was their first World Cup as the U.S. broadcaster perfect?  No.  Were they a little too obsessed with certain Portuguese players and a certain national team?  Yes.  But, overall, I think they did a good job.  It was a nice change to have American announcers (it turns out you don't need a British accent to know something about soccer), and I don't know why such a big deal was made about the fact that they had announcers doing the games from LA (NBC does the same thing for the Olympics, BTW).  Most importantly, though, they showed a good number of the games on the broadcast network, with the rest of FS1.  When the U.S. didn't qualify, they could've just said screw it and done the bare minimum, but they did exactly the opposite instead.  And I think their coverage is only going to get better for the next two World Cups (and, don't worry, in 2026, they'll have all the announcers on site).

Thumbs Down
Jorge Perez Navarro: The only real problem I had with FOX's coverage was Jorge Perez Navarro.  I couldn't understand a word the guy said!  If I wanted to watch the game while having no idea what the announcer was saying, I would've watched Telemundo.  And he was openly cheering for Mexico, the team FOX was trying to force down our throats, which further turned me off.  I saw some reviews early in the tournament that actually praised him.  How?  Were those writers watching the same games I was?  Or were they watching it on Telemundo and just got confused?

Thumbs Up
Goals: In 64 games, there was a grand total of one that finished 0-0.  And that one, which came in the 37th game of the tournament, doesn't even really count, since neither France nor Denmark had any interest in actually scoring in that game.  Overall, there were 169 goals in 64 games.  We had goals come early, we had goals come late (some of which were game- and group-changing).  We had a record for own goals (12, double the previous record) and goals off set pieces (I have no way of confirming this, but it seemed like every goal was off a set piece).  All the scoring certainly added to the excitement of the tournament.

Thumbs Down
Alexi Lalas: Sorry FOX, but Mexico is not America's "Other Team," and asking fans of the USMNT to root for Mexico is like asking Yankees fans to root for the Red Sox.  Lalas, no doubt inspired by his buddy Landon Donovan, was the biggest culprit.  Then, as soon as El Tri was eliminated, he jumped off the Mexican bandwagon nearly as quickly as he jumped on it.

Thumbs Up
Fair Play: Do you know how many red cards there were in the entire tournament?  Three!  One was for a deliberate hand ball in the box, the other two were second yellows.  That's it!  Sure, there were at least two that should've been called and weren't (the Mexican guy stepping on Neymar, Pretty Boy elbowing the Iranian guy in the face nowhere near the ball in the open field), but the official total was only three red cards.  Whether it was VAR or the style of play or a combination of the two, it was nice to see pretty much every game end 11-on-11.

Thumbs Down
Fair Play Points: It was new for this World Cup, and it was a brutal way for Senegal to be eliminated from the tournament.  In FIFA's defense, they needed some way to separate teams that were tied, and I doubt they anticipated it would determine which team would advance and who wouldn't.  But it did.  And it nearly did in two other groups, as well.  There has to be something better than total number of yellow cards, though.  Because the "fair play points" didn't seem fair at all.  In fact, it was kinda cruel.

Thumbs Up
VAR: Say what you want about the World Cup's other new innovation, but VAR worked.  And it's not going anywhere.  The reviews weren't disruptive, didn't take very long, and served their purpose.  VAR was designed to correct obvious errors, some of which were simply things that happened too quickly for the referee to see.  For the most part, it achieved that purpose, even if they still got some calls wrong even after going to VAR.  But it's much better than before, when there was nothing you could do about it if the ref missed a call.

Thumbs Down
Traditional Powers: At least they made it here, which is more than I can say about Italy, the Netherlands, the USA, Chile, etc.  But none of the pre-tournament favorites did anything worth writing home about.  Defending champion Germany fizzled out in group play for the first time ever, losing to both Mexico and South Korea.  Argentina barely got out of its group, only advancing on a late goal against Nigeria in its last game before losing to France in the round of 16.  Spain and Portugal, meanwhile, after both coming out of a weak Group B, both lost in the round of 16.

Thumbs Up
Croatia: While the traditional powers struggled, Croatia showed it belonged in the conversation after dominating Argentina and finishing group play 3-0.  Then they became the first team ever to win consecutive penalty kick shootouts against Denmark in the round of 16 and Russia in the quarterfinals.  They went to extra time for the third straight game against England in the semis...and won again, becoming the second-smallest nation ever to reach a World Cup Final (and the smallest since 1950).  The fact that they lost the Final to France is irrelevant.  Because they took us on an incredible ride and gained a lot of supporters along the way.

Thumbs Down
Diego Maradona: He was there as a guest of FIFA, yet acted like a jerk the entire tournament.  From being caught on camera flipping off the Nigerian fans to going off on the officials after Colombia lost to England (apparently Colombia is Argentina's "Other Team"), all he did was draw attention to himself...and not for the right reasons.  He's one of the greatest players ever, but his skills as an ambassador leave something to be desired.  The Colombia-England thing was probably the last straw for an embarrassed FIFA.  Because somebody was conspicuously absent from the VIP box after that.

Two Thumbs Up
France: Finally, we have the champions.  Les Bleues were the most consistent team throughout the tournament, and they're deserving champions.  Their round of 16 victory over Argentina was one of the most entertaining World Cup games I've seen in quite some time, and that's when they really established themselves as the team to beat.  They're not going anywhere for a while, either.  Kylian Mbappe, who wasn't even alive the other time France won the World Cup 20 years ago, is going to be the next global superstar.  And he's already got something the three biggest names in the sport don't.  A World Cup gold medal.

With the Olympic Spirit

It's fitting that the World Under-20 Track & Field Championships are currently going on in Finland.  Because it was in Finland that one of the most unlikely Olympic men's 100-meter finals took place.  Lindy Remigino, who won the gold in those Helsinki Games by the closest margin in Olympic history (watch it here), passed away the other day at the age of 87.

Only 25 men have ever won the Olympic gold medal in the 100 meters, and I'm proud to say that I had a personal connection to one of them.  That connection is Manhattan College, the school where I used to work and from which Remigino graduated.  In fact, it was the summer between his junior and senior years when he won the Olympics.

I had only met Lindy a few times, so I didn't know him well.  But I did know him well enough for him to know who I was and say hello when I saw him at an event.  And he was one of the most gracious people I've ever met.

My first extended conversation with him was just before the 60th anniversary of his victory in 2012 (the 66th anniversary is next weekend).  I was working on an article to celebrate the anniversary, and he gave me about 20 minutes on the phone (then called me back a few minutes after we hung up because he forgot a detail he wanted me to include!).  That article is actually linked on NBC's Olympic site right now, and they pulled quotes from it.

A few weeks later, he sent me a letter thanking me for writing the story.  A letter that I have kept ever since.  In it, he told me how in 2002, he went back to Helsinki for the 50th anniversary of those Games and served as the U.S. flag bearer at the ceremony in their Olympic Stadium before sitting with then-IOC President Jacques Rogge for the remainder of it.  Just the fact that he took the time to do that says all you need to know about the man!

He obviously ranks pretty highly on the list of Manhattan's most famous alumni, and his love for his alma mater was very strong.  He frequently returned to campus for track & field reunions and other events.  As a two-time Olympic gold medalist (he also ran the third leg on the victorious 4x100 relay), that topic naturally came up pretty often.  Yet every time he would tell the story, it seemed new.  And he remembered every detail like it was yesterday!

Lindy was also a tremendous ambassador for the sport of track & field as a whole.  It wasn't just at Manhattan where he retold his Olympic stories over and over again (in front of captive audiences).    Track & field was truly his lifelong passion.  Lindy Remigino lived and breathed the sport, and he wanted others to love it just as much as he did.  After his running career ended, he became a high school coach for over 40 years, and his teams won more than 30 state championships.

When Manhattan's Athletic Hall of Fame was founded in 1979, Lindy was an obvious selection for the inaugural class.  That's just one of the many Halls of Fame into which he's been inducted.  The most recent of which was the USA Track & Field Hall of Fame, Class of 2017.  While this one's unofficial, he's absolutely in the Hall of Fame of Life, as well.

In that letter, he signed off "With the Olympic Spirit."  What a beautiful sentiment!  Because while his name will forever be in the history books (and in photographs and on YouTube), that spirit is what will live on the most.

Godspeed, Lindy.  With the Olympic Spirit...

The Hosting Solution

When Graz, Austria, withdrew from the race to host the 2026 Winter Olympics last week, I did a post about it.  Then yesterday I saw an article pretty much confirming something that has been generally understood for several months.  While not official yet, the 2023 IAAF World Championships are all but guaranteed to be held in Budapest, with an African city likely to be chosen for the 2025 edition.

After the criticism the IAAF received when it decided to award the 2021 Worlds to Eugene without going through a formal bid process, they changed the bid process moving forward.  Now, instead of cities submitting bids to host IAAF events, they're doing it the other way around.  The IAAF identifies a particular area and invites cities to apply.  And if the city's interested, the IAAF chooses a host and works with that city throughout the process.  It's an informal collaboration, not a competition.

The rationale for doing this actually makes a lot of sense.  First and foremost, it makes the whole process much cheaper.  No more months of wining and dining the voters and endless deadlines for submitting bid documents, etc.  It also makes things a lot more transparent.  The next two editions in Doha and Eugene mark the first time in the event's history that the IAAF World Championships will be held outside Europe twice in a row.  They wanted to get back to their European base in 2023, so others need not apply. 

Likewise, the senior World Championships have never been in Africa.  And, after a successful World U-18 Championships last year in Nairobi, they know that an African city can handle an event of this magnitude.  So, they want the 2025 Championships in Africa.  If a city on another continent was considering a bid, now they know to wait until 2027.  (BTW, one of the reasons they went to Eugene without the formal bid was because the World Championships have never been in the United States and they wanted to make sure they changed that.)

Budapest did a tremendous job hosting the Swimming World Championships last year, and I'm sure they'll do a tremendous job hosting the 2023 Track & Field World Championships.  Just as I have no doubt that when Budapest finally does host an Olympics, it'll be an amazing Games.

It was Budapest, of course, that indirectly did the IOC a huge favor by dropping out of the race for the 2024 Games, leaving them the opportunity to do the Paris/LA dual-awarding last September.  And it was Budapest that gave me an idea for what could solve the IOC's current predicament...mainly, the fact that no one wants to host the Winter Olympics!

IOC President Thomas Bach hoped his "Olympic Agenda 2020" reforms would put cities at ease about the costs and encourage more bidders.  It hasn't worked.  So maybe it's time to try something new.  Maybe it's worth taking a page out of the IAAF's book and reach out to cities/countries/regions instead of the other way around.  I'm not saying it'll work.  But it's a way to avoid being stuck having three straight Games in the same part of Asia.

With the next Summer Olympics not being awarded until 2025, this is the perfect time to implement such a system.  The four Olympics from 2016-28 will have been on four different continents (South America, Asia, Europe, North America).  Maybe for 2032, you shoot for Australia before coming back to Europe in 2036, then Asia and the Americas again in 2040 and 2044, with the next Olympics in Europe following in 2048.  And Africa could also cycle in their at some point, which it should.

In the Winter, things are tougher, but the rotation starting in 2026 could go Europe-North America-Europe-Asia-Europe, etc.  That wouldn't entirely alleviate the problem of cities not wanting to host.  But it would make for a much simpler, much more transparent system.  And it would give cities (especially those in Europe) plenty of time to drum up the money and necessary support to pursue a bid.

Of course, there's one element of this plan that wouldn't work.  You can't take the vote away from IOC members.  For many of them, choosing the host city is the one significant contribution they make.  They enjoy all the perks that come with IOC membership, and that host city vote is the best perk of all. 

I'm not suggesting they don't vote on a host city, though.  I'm simply suggesting that you narrow the field of candidates to those from a specific region.  That's easier said than done when getting cities to bid period has been a tough task.  But concentrating the bids on a certain area could actually go a long way in taking some of the politics out of it, too.

This isn't that crazy an idea, either.  After Germany edged South Africa by one vote for the rights to host the 2006 World Cup, FIFA implemented a similar system for future World Cups.  Only African countries were able to bid for the 2010 World Cup, which obviously went to South Africa, and the 2014 World Cup was limited to South American bidders.  Although, when Brazil ended up being the only candidate, they changed it to the current system where the last two continents to host can't bid (for the 2030 World Cup, Asia and CONCACAF aren't eligible).

So maybe that's actually the solution.  The IOC has always tried to rotate between continents until they were left with no choice for 2022.  There's nothing in writing, though.  If something was in writing, however, then they could potentially avoid the embarrassment of the last two Winter Olympic bid cycles. 

Although, "guaranteeing" the Olympics will be in Europe in a given year doesn't guarantee there will be bidders.  But, like I said the other day, make it a collaboration, not a competition.  Make cities (and their residents) see the benefit.  And one way to do that is eliminating the costly bid process that doesn't even ensure your success.

2018 Joe Brackets All*Star Teams

Ever since MLB moved All*Star voting exclusively online a few years ago, the fans have done a really good job.  I think it's probably because they include the stats on the ballot, a feature I really like.  But whatever the reason is, people are definitely taking a harder look and voting for guys who actually deserve to be there as opposed to stuffing the ballot box with players from their favorite team (I'm looking at you, Royals fans).

With that being said, I have no problem with the fact that Bryce Harper is going to start the All*Star Game with a .211 batting average.  The game is in Washington, and he's the face of the Nationals' franchise.  It's the All*Star Game, and the biggest star on the home team always has a place there.  Do his numbers warrant a selection?  Probably not.  But you're not gonna find many people complaining that the All*Star hosts will be represented in the starting lineup by their most popular player.  And if Harper's the only one of the 17 fan-elected starters who's even remotely questionable, I'd say the fans did a great job.

It's a near certainty that the starting lineups have changed since the polls closed on Thursday.  But, since we have no idea who was caught and by whom, I'm going with the vote leaders as of the last update as my starters.

You'll also notice that my AL roster is very top heavy.  That's because the five playoff teams are that much better than everybody else.  In fact, I've got at least three All*Stars from all five playoff teams and only one from each of the other 10.  That will probably change due to Gleyber Torres' injury, but he's eligible to come off the DL on Sunday, so he doesn't technically have to be replaced on the All*Star roster yet (although he likely will be).  And, yes, I had to get a little creative with the team reps in the AL.  But I was able to do it while still following the 12 pitcher rule (and somehow still managed to get all three Astros starters in there!).

The National League, meanwhile, is far less top heavy.  In fact, I've got more members of the last-place Cincinnati Reds making the squad than the first-place Arizona Diamondbacks.  I also watch the NL far less than I watch the AL, so I have a much larger margin for error there.  And, since they have two extra spots to fill because of no DH, the team reps are much easier to put in there.

As for the starting pitchers, I think they're both pretty easy.  Max Scherzer started for the NL last year, and he should again.  Not only is he the ace of the team hosting the game, he's arguably the best pitcher in the National League.

In the American League, it's a much tougher choice.  Mainly because there are so many good options.  But I was able to narrow it down to two--Justin Verlander, the best pitcher in the AL for the first six weeks of the season, and Luis Severino, the best pitcher in the AL over the last six weeks.  I can easily see A.J. Hinch going with his own guy, but I think Severino is the clear choice.

And with that, here we go...

AMERICAN LEAGUE
C: *-Wilson Ramos, Rays; Salvador Perez, Royals
1B: *-Jose Abreu, White Sox; Mitch Moreland, Red Sox
2B: *-Jose Altuve, Astros; Gleyber Torres, Yankees (injured, will likely be replaced)
SS: *-Manny Machado, Orioles; Jean Segura, Mariners
3B: *-Jose Ramirez, Indians; Miguel Andujar, Yankees
OF: *-Mookie Betts, Red Sox; *-Mike Trout, Angels; *-Aaron Judge, Yankees; Andrew Benintendi, Red Sox; Michael Brantley, Indians; Nicholas Castellanos, Tigers; Eddie Rosario, Twins
DH: *-J.D. Martinez, Red Sox; Shin-Soo Choo, Rangers
SP: Chris Sale, Red Sox; Corey Kluber, Indians; Gerrit Cole, Astros; Charlie Morton, Astros; Justin Verlander, Astros; Luis Severino, Yankees; James Paxton, Mariners; J.A. Happ, Blue Jays
RP: Craig Kimbrel, Red Sox; Aroldis Chapman, Yankees; Blake Treinen, Athletics; Edwin Diaz, Mariners

NATIONAL LEAGUE
C: *-Buster Posey, Giants; J.T. Realmuto, Marlins
1B: *-Freddie Freeman, Braves; Jose Martinez, Cardinals
2B: *-Ozzie Albies, Braves; Javier Baez, Cubs; Scooter Gennett, Reds
SS: *-Brandon Crawford, Giants; Trevor Story, Rockies
3B: *-Nolan Arenado, Rockies; Eugenio Suarez, Reds; Max Muncy, Dodgers
OF: *-Nick Markakis, Braves; *-Matt Kemp, Dodgers; *-Bryce Harper, Nationals; Charlie Blackmon, Rockies; Lorenzo Cain, Brewers; Odubel Herrera, Phillies; Corey Dickerson, Pirates
SP: Patrick Corbin, Diamondbacks; Sean Newcomb, Braves; Jon Lester, Cubs; Jacob de Grom, Mets; Aaron Nola, Phillies; Miles Mikolas, Cardinals; Michael Wacha, Cardinals; Max Scherzer, Nationals
RP: Brandon Morrow, Cubs; Josh Hader, Brewers; Brad Hand, Padres; Sean Doolittle, Nationals

AL Final Vote: Francisco Lindor, Indians (SS); George Springer, Astros (OF); Andrelton Simmons, Angels (SS); Eduardo Escobar, Twins (SS); Dee Gordon, Mariners (2B)
NL Final Vote: Paul Goldschmidt, Diamondbacks (1B); Kris Bryant, Cubs (3B); Brian Anderson, Marlins (3B); Christian Yelich, Brewers (OF); Andrew McCutchen, Giants (OF)

My AL lineup is: Betts-LF, Altuve-2B, Trout-CF, Martinez-DH, Judge-RF, Ramirez-3B, Machado-SS, Abreu-1B, Ramos-C, Severino-P.  My NL lineup is: Blackmon-DH, Harper-CF, Arenado-3B, Freeman-1B, Kemp-LF, Markakis-RF, Posey-C, Crawford-SS, Albies-2B, Scherzer-P.

Winter Games Deja Vu

Here we go again.  Graz, Austria announced today that it has withdrawn from the race to be the host city of the 2026 Winter Olympics, bringing the initial list of seven candidate cities down to five.  Like Sion, Switzerland, Graz backed out because they couldn't get the government support.  And of the remaining five, we may end up losing a few more because of the dreaded referendum.

Of the remaining options, Sapporo, which would be a third straight Winter Olympics in Asia, has said they would rather host in 2030; Calgary may get shuttered because Edmonton's one of the World Cup host cities; and Stockholm's bid, which I think is still considered the favorite, may also end up facing a referendum.  So, for a second straight Winter Games, we could end up with a two-horse race between whichever Italian city ends up getting chosen and Erzurum, Turkey.  We could end up seeing them go to Turkey by default.  Not exactly what the IOC had in mind when they said they wanted a "more traditional" host.

After the debacle of the 2022 bid and, to a lesser extent, the Paris/LA joint-awarding situation, the IOC tried to change the perception of hosting the Olympics.  All cities (and, more importantly, the taxpayers in those cities) were seeing were the price tags for Sochi and Tokyo and the empty venues in Rio and PyeongChang.  Cities don't see the benefit, especially when the Olympics are seven years after the host-city vote, so they're taking a hard pass.

The Winter Olympics have become that party you want to be invited to, but you hope is at somebody else's house.  You don't mind going.  You just don't want to do all the setup and cleanup.  And you'd rather not pay for it yourself.

It's imperative that the IOC figures out a way to change that.  The need to make the idea of hosting the Olympics (especially the Winter Games, where there's a limited number of places you can hold them to begin with) attractive again.  Otherwise, they're gonna keep running into this same problem over and over again.  You'll have three straight Games in Asia and Winter Olympics in cities that don't have any snow with the closest mountains 100 miles away (whoever thought Beijing 2.0 was a good idea was incredibly wrong).

They revamped the bid process, making it shorter and less expensive.  It hasn't worked.  They revised the Host City Contract, changing the requirements and lessening the financial burden on the host city and country.  It hasn't worked.  They pretty much flat out begged cities to focus on existing venues and only build stuff that's needed.  That hasn't worked either.  Nothing has worked!

Western Europe and North America are extremely important to the Olympic Movement.  Most of the top sporting countries are in Western Europe, and most of the IOC's money comes from NBC.  They know that they don't want to make these biannual trips to the Far East, and that no one likes the awkward start times that result from the time difference (the athletes don't like morning finals, TV doesn't like events taking place overnight).  But, when that's the only option, they have no choice.

I give the IOC credit for trying with their reforms.  They're trying to get the message across that hosting the Olympics can be a good thing.  Look at Barcelona.  Look at London.  Look at Salt Lake City.  But those positives are drowned out by the anti-Olympic groups that pop up in every potential bid city and every failed referendum.  To put it bluntly, that message isn't getting across.  So it's on them to change it.  Otherwise, they'll continue having this same problem.

For a long time, the IOC has been viewed by most of the general public as an elitist Boys Club.  There's a good reason for that.  The IOC has a ridiculous list of VIP perks for its members, some of which are completely unnecessary, that host cities are expected to fulfill.  Once someone who's opposed to the idea gets their hands on one of those documents, it's pretty easy to get other people on their side.  And the politicians, even if they personally see the benefit, can't offer their support if the voters don't offer theirs.

Instead of focusing on how cities can help the Olympics, they should emphasize how the Olympics can help the city.  Because the Olympics can be the ultimate help me help you.  The money doesn't need to be spent on venues that will only be used for two weeks and then either torn down or sit there unused.  But it can be used to improve the roads or the subway or the airport.  Or it can be used to build hotels.  That benefits everybody.  (Not to mention the amount of jobs that would be created and the amount of visitors that'll come into the city at Games-time.)

Unfortunately, no one has that perception of the Olympics.  The only message that gets across is the negative one.  It's the "anywhere but here" mindset from people who'd rather see their tax dollars spent on something else.  (Even Olympics that have a good amount of private funding run into opposition!)  And that's why the IOC repeatedly finds itself in this predicament.  Because even the people who see the benefit and support an Olympic bid are drowned out by the protesters.

Or maybe we just need to come to terms with the fact that this is the new reality.  Maybe getting governmental support for an Olympic bid in a Western democracy is going to be an uphill battle no matter what.  Maybe the anti-Olympic groups will gain enough traction to force a referendum (or get the city to pull out before it can fail one).  Although, who knows?, maybe one day one of those referendums might actually pass.

No Place For This In Sports

While we've all been wrapped up in the World Cup, qualifying for next year's Basketball World Cup is well underway.  This is the first time FIBA is using a qualifying system similar to the one FIFA uses where certain dates are blocked out each national team gets to play home games during qualifying.  Well, anyway, there was an Asian qualifier between Australia and the Philippines yesterday that descended into pure chaos.

If you haven't heard about it, there was an all-out brawl in the third quarter that left the Philippines with just three players.  The video is disturbing.  Mainly because what happened is completely disgusting.  Regardless of the reason for the fight and how/why it escalated, the behavior of the Filipino players during and especially afterwards is completely reprehensible.  See for yourself below:

Like I said, disturbing.  And I think the Australian TV commentators summed up the feelings we all had.  There's absolutely no place for any of that in sports.

For their part, the Australians acknowledged their role and expressed regret.  And, frankly, I don't think Australia was out of control at all.  Sure No. 7 (who happens to play for the Milwaukee Bucks) went over-the-top.  But all of their actions were in the heat of the moment.  And they showed a certain degree of restraint, too.

I wish I could say the Filipino team showed the same restraint.  But you can plainly see about four guys jumping over those boards in front of the bench just so they could join in, and they promptly threw haymakers.  Then it continued off the court.  Somebody threw a chair at one of the Aussies.  A freakin' chair!  That's assault!  Thank God he wasn't injured.

The game was in Manila, which only made matters worse.  Because the fans were loving every minute of it.  They were egging the players on and cheering this absolutely grotesque display.  They high-fived the ejected players as they went to the locker room.  That's not even the worst part, though.  Want to know how badly the Filipino players just ignored the ideas of sportsmanship and decorum?  They were laughing and smiling while posing for selfies with fans on the court as the officials tried to sort out this mess.

But did the Philippines show any sense of remorse for their behavior?  Of course not!  The head coach and the country's president released statements apologizing for the incident, but somebody from their basketball federation didn't think they had done anything wrong at all.  In his statement, he actually said he was "proud of the way our boys stood their ground."  Is he serious?!  That's nearly as embarrassing as the brawl itself.

When FIBA moved the date of the World Cup (which until this year was always in the same year as soccer's) and changed the qualifying process, one of the reasons they gave was because teams didn't get to play home games and have a true home court advantage.  Well, FIBA, you got what you wanted.  And this ugly incident was the result.

FIBA has already started the disciplinary process, and they've got their work cut out for them.  Because simply suspending players isn't enough.  There needs to be a clear message sent that this is completely unacceptable.  And that message needs to be a strong one.

Australia isn't blameless.  The four players involved should be suspended, with the guy from the Bucks receiving several games.  And I'm sure the federation will be fined, too.  But that should be the extent of the punishment for the Aussies.  They were embarrassed by their role in the fight and showed genuine regret about it.

There needs to be severe penalties for the Philippines, though.  And not just for the nine players who thought they were Manny Pacquiao.  The federation needs to be held accountable for the incident and its behavior afterwards.  Because, ultimately, the Filipino Basketball Federation is responsible for the reprehensible conduct of both its players and its fans.

Here's what I would do.  The Philippines is disqualified from the tournament.  They'd already advanced to the next round (as had Australia), but they must forfeit their remaining games.  With the number of lengthy suspensions their players are going to receive, they wouldn't have anybody left to play those games anyway.  There's more though.  I'd also disqualify them from Olympic qualifying.  If you think that doesn't sound like that big a deal, keep in mind the Philippines hosted one of the three final qualifying tournaments for the Rio Games.

Speaking of hosting games, they're not allowed to do that for a while, either.  This doesn't get anywhere near as out of hand if not for the fans, whose behavior was just as deplorable (the chair wasn't thrown by a player).  So, the Philippines also has to play a certain number of home games, whatever number that is, at a neutral site.  That's something FIFA does all the time, so there's a precedent for it.  And it's the only appropriate thing to do.  Because simply fining the federation isn't nearly enough.

What happened in Manila between Australia and the Philippines was regrettable in every sense of the word.  FIBA needs to make it clear that scenes like this are unacceptable.  And coming down hard on the Philippines is the only way to do that.

Wimbledon Ready

OK, who was the genius that scheduled the World Cup final at the same time as the Wimbledon finals?  The late game has been at 2:00 all tournament, then, suddenly, the final starts at 11:00?!  C'mon FIFA.  You're only giving Roger two hours.  That's gonna be cutting it close.  And I don't care how big a blowout the women's final is.  They'd be hard-pressed to finish even a 6-0, 6-1 rout in under an hour.

Anyway, First World problems I guess.  And I went on my rant about Serena being seeded yesterday, so now it's time to get down to business.  Because it's time for the most prestigious tournament in tennis.  It's a historic Wimbledon, too, as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Open Era.

On the men's side, the Big Four have combined to win the past 15 Wimbledon titles (and make 23 of the 30 appearances in the final during that span, with Andy Roddick accounting for three of the other seven).  Andy Murray hasn't played since last year's Wimbledon due to a hip injury, and it just forced him to withdraw from this year's Championships.  So, the Big Four is down to a Big Three.

That shouldn't matter too much, though.  Because Federer and Nadal enter Wimbledon as the clear favorites.  Roger sat out the French Open last year to prepare for Wimbledon, and it paid off with his eighth Wimbledon title.  He took the same approach this year (why waste your energy in Paris when you're just gonna lose to Nadal anyway?), which only helps his chances to repeat.

Roger's gotten smarter in his old age (full disclosure, we're actually the same age).  By not playing the clay court season, he's not putting that extra toll on his body.  And his game has always been better suited to Wimbledon than anywhere else (he's won eight titles for a reason).  Nadal knows that, too.  Which is why Federer was seeded No. 1 and goes into the tournament as the favorite.

And, just like the French Open was Rafa vs. the Field, I think this Wimbledon will be a case of Roger vs. the Field.  It's not the same guarantee that Nadal is in Paris, but it'll be a major upset if Federer loses before the semifinals, if at all.  Marin Cilic, his final opponent last year and at this year's Australian Open, would be his semifinal opponent, but most of the players who can challenge Federer are in the bottom half of the draw, which also plays to his advantage.

Nadal hasn't gotten past the fourth round here since 2011, and he's lost to some pretty random people along the way thru the years.  So, yes, it would be a surprise to see him make a deep run.  Especially with Del Potro awaiting in the quarters (assuming he gets there) and possible semifinal matchup with either Djokovic or Alexander Zverev (who may be ready for his breakout Grand Slam).

I also like John Isner's draw and think this might finally be his chance to go far in a Major.  Isner is the perfect grass court player, but he always plays a long match (this is the eighth anniversary of 70-68) that takes a lot out of him and kills him moving forward.  But if he can avoid that, a semifinal against Federer definitely seems possible.

No one's knocking Roger off his perch, though.  He defends a Wimbledon title for the first time since his five in a row from 2003-07 and earns career Grand Slam title No. 21.

At the French Open, everyone was pretty confident with their picks.  Nadal on the men's side, no clue on the women's side.  That's no different heading into Wimbledon.  Garbine Muguruza is the defending champion, but you've got so many former champs and legitimate contenders in the field that it's completely wide open.

Both Williams sisters are in the bottom half of the draw, which has a very American feel (and, conveniently, will play on the 4th of July).  Sloane Stephens returned from injury at Wimbledon last year.  She lost in the first round, then won the US Open and made the French Open final.  She's seeded fourth and has all the goods to make another final run here.  That is, if she can get by Venus, Serena and Madison Keys, who are all looming.

Serena ended up with a pretty good draw, so, if her health is there, a deep run doesn't seem out of the question.  After she withdrew from the French Open mid-tournament with a shoulder injury, though, you have to legitimately wonder if she can make it through seven matches, though.  There's also the very real possibility that No. 2 Caroline Wozniacki might actually do something at Wimbledon for the first time in her career.  Woz is a different player since finally winning that first Grand Slam title.

Speaking of winning a first Grand Slam title, world No. 1 Simona Halep has also gotten that monkey off her back.  Her game isn't suited great for the grass courts, but her draw is pretty favorable.  Although, she'll have to deal with British favorite Johanna Konta in the fourth round before a potential quarterfinal matchup with Maria Sharapova, assuming Sharapova beats two-time champ Petra Kvitova.  Maria hasn't been here in two years, but made the semis in her last appearance in 2015.  And, of course, won the title in 2004 (which, as is pointed out repeatedly, is still her only win over Serena).

Muguruza, meanwhile, has a decent looking draw herself.  She does have two former finalists (Eugenie Bouchard, Angelique Kerber) in her quarter, but Bouchard had to qualify and Kerber, despite being seeded 11th, has a much trickier road and could be out of gas by the time she faces Muguruza.  She's a former No. 1 and two-time Grand Slam champion, though, so don't count her out totally.

There are so many women you can see making a deep run, but you can also see almost all of them crashing out early, too, which makes picking a winner even more difficult.  But, if I had to pick somebody, I'll say Muguruza defends her title by beating Stephens in the final.  Whether that's done before the World Cup third-place game starts is a completely different issue.