US Open Top 10 Women

As I sit here watching the lovely Ms. Maria Sharapova, it seems like a perfect time to continue my US Open 50th anniversary celebration by choosing the top 10 women ever to play in the event.  Same deal as the men.  Since we're talking about the US Open here, I'm only going back to 1968.  Which still leaves us with plenty of the all-time greats in women's tennis.

Also of note, I only have two active players (you can probably guess who they are), but the other eight aren't all members of the US Open Court of Champions.  In fact, only six of them are.  That doesn't mean the other two are any less deserving, though.  (Frankly, I'm not even sure they induct people into the Court of Champions anymore.)

And with that, here we go.  I present to you the top 10 women's players in the 50-year history of the US Open...

10. Margaret Court (1969-70, 1973): She's got a court named after her in Australia, and it's her record that Serena is chasing.  Margaret Court won five US titles staggering the amateur and Open eras.  Her win in 1970 (her second straight) completed a Grand Slam and was the fifth of a remarkable six straight Major titles.  She only played the US Open 11 times and won it five, with a final, two semis and two quarters among the other six trips.

9. Tracy Austin (1979, 1981): One of the original teen prodigies, Tracy Austin made her US Open debut at 15 and her final appearance (as a player) at 20.  She crammed a lot into those six years, though--her only two Grand Slam titles (1979 & 1981), with a semifinal loss sandwiched in between, and quarterfinal appearances in her other three trips.

8. Venus Williams (2001-02): Venus sure made quite a splash when she burst on the scene at the 1997, didn't she?  (Little did we know Serena was even better.)  Her first six US Opens were incredible--two wins, two finals, two semis.  She's made the semis three more times since, including last year, 20 years after her debut!  Venus will forever be known for her five Wimbledon titles, but the fact that she's played in 20 US Opens is incredible.

7. Monica Seles (1991-92): If not for a deranged Steffi Graf fan, Monica Seles certainly would've had more than two US Open titles.  In fact, she was the two-time defending champion when her career was put on hold in 1993.  The 1995 US Open was just her second tournament back after nearly two years away...and she made the final!  She made the final again in 1996 (losing to Graf both times), then made the quarters in the next four years.

6. Kim Clijsters (2005, 2009-10): Remember when Kim Clijsters had that dreaded "Best Player to Never Win a Slam" distinction?  I don't either, but she had it for a while.  After making the final in 2003, she missed 2004 with an injury before finally breaking through in 2005.  That was just the beginning.  After a three-year retirement to have a baby, she returned to the US Open in 2009 and won the title as an unseeded wild card.  She then won again in 2010, giving her a final, then three straight wins over four appearances.  That's a 27-1 record during that stretch.

5. Billie Jean King (1971-72, 1974): Arthur Ashe had the main stadium named after him.  Billie Jean King got THE ENTIRE FREAKIN' TENNIS CENTER!  She was one of the most significant, most important figures in the history of sports in the 20th Century.  All sports.  She's right up there with Jackie Robinson for her influence.  I can't say enough good things about what Billie Jean King means to not just tennis, but women's sports as a whole.  Part of the reason she was able to be such a pioneer was because she was a damn good tennis player!  Made the first-ever US Open final, then won three of the next four titles (to go along with a win in the final pre-Open US Championships in 1967).

4. Martina Navratilova (1983-84, 1986-87): You know there are some heavyweights still to come if Martina's only No. 4.  For all her success at Wimbledon, Martina made five consecutive US Open finals while she was at her peak in the mid-80s.  In fact, she won an incredible six straight Grand Slam titles between 1983 Wimbledon and the 1984 US Open (the Australian Open was last then, so she didn't technically win the "Grand Slam").  Her most remarkable US Open stat might be this, though.  In 2006, she won the mixed doubles title with Bob Bryan...when she was 50 years old!

3. Steffi Graf (1988-89, 1993, 1995-96): Steffi won every Grand Slam tournament at least four times, so it's tough to say which one was her best (it was Wimbledon, who we kidding?).  She won this one five times, with her first US Open crown capping her remarkable Grand Slam in 1988 (she added Olympic gold a few weeks later for a truly incredible "Golden Slam").  Steffi defended in '89, then won three in four years from 1993-96.  The year she didn't win during that stretch, 1994, she lost 6-4 in the third set in the final.

2. Serena Williams (1999, 2002, 2008, 2012-14): It'll take me a while to run through all of Serena Williams' exploits.  She's arguably the greatest player in history, and she's won two other Grand Slams twice each.  But the US Open will always be where she left her mark.  When she came out of nowhere to win in 1999, little did we know what was about to happen.  In 2002, she beat her sister for the third part of a Serena Slam.  Twelve years later, she started another Serena Slam with her third straight title.  Then in 2015, she was denied a calendar year Grand Slam with a semifinal loss that shocked the tennis world.  If she wins this year, it won't just be a record seventh US Open crown (and the third Grand Slam she's won seven times).  It would also be that all-time record-tying 24th career major title.  Winning it at the US Open, the site of her first two decades ago, would be only fitting.

1. Chris Evert (1975-78, 1980, 1982): So why Chrissie over Serena at No. 1?  A few reasons.  The main one being perhaps the most staggering stat for any tennis player at any Slam with the possible exception of Nadal at the French.  She played in 19 US Opens...and never lost before the quarterfinals!  Chrissie made her debut in 1971, and made the semis, something she would do every year until 1986.  After somehow losing in the quarters in '87, she was back in the semis in '88 before making the quarters again in her final professional tournament in 1989.  Evert also won a record six titles and made the final three other times in that span.  She won 13 of her 18 majors at either the US or French Open, but that sustained run of 19 straight years in the quarterfinals is simply remarkable.  And she did that in New York, not Paris.

The Chrissie/Serena/Martina/Steffi debate regarding who's the greatest women's player of all-time will continue to rage on.  Just like the debate about the current Big Three in the men's game and their place in history will continue.  But regardless of what order you have them in, there's no question Chris Evert and Serena Williams are the two best women's players ever to take the court at the US Open.

US Open Top 10 Men

I had another idea for tonight's post in mind.  Then, while watching the US Open, I decided to completely scrap it and go with something else.  Why?  Because for this 50th anniversary US Open, I decided I would rather celebrate the greatest players in US Open history.

Over the last 50 years, only 26 men and 24 women have won the US Open, a number of tennis Hall of Famers among them.  But they haven't all been US Open legends.  Rafael Nadal, for example, has won the US Open three times, but he'll always been known for his exploits at the French Open.  Venus Williams, meanwhile, is a two-time US Open champ who made the final in her first appearance in 1997 and has been back every year since.  But her career is defined by her five Wimbledon titles.

So, who are my top 10 on each side?  Remember, we're talking about the US Open here, so it's only players from the last 50 years.  Don't worry, though.  There were still plenty of big names to choose from.

10. Arthur Ashe (1968): A man so revered, they named the freakin' stadium after him!  Ashe won the first US Open in 1968, and he also won that year's US National Championship (they held both an open and an amateur event for the first few years of the Open Era).  His legacy extends far beyond what he did on the court, though, and his name will forever be associated with the US Open.

9. Stefan Edberg (1991-92): Edberg's quiet greatness isn't fully appreciated nowadays in this Federer-Nadal-Djokovic Era, but he was consistently in the top five in the late 80s and early 90s.  Edberg made back-to-back semis in 1986-87 and won consecutive titles in 1991-92 (the last of his six career Grand Slam titles).

8. Rafael Nadal (2010, 2013, 2017): Clay Boy has won 85 French Open titles, but he's also one of just six players to win the US Open three or more times.  He's spread the wins a few years apart (2010, 2013, 2017) and usually surrounds them around an early exit (he only has one other final, a loss to Djokovic in 2011, and has only made the semis two other times).  But he's still a three-time champ, and you've gotta respect that.

7. Andre Agassi (1994, 1999): Andre Agassi's US Open career is full of superlatives.  For starters, he played 21 consecutive times from 1986-2006.  He made the final 16 years apart.  Of his four final losses, three came to Sampras and the other was against Federer, so he easily could've won more than two titles.  And even those two titles came from opposite ends of the spectrum--an unexpected unseeded run in 1994 and as the 2-seed during a dominant 1999-2000 season when he won three out of the four and made the final at the other.

6. Novak Djokovic (2011, 2015): When it's all said and done, Djokovic's major will be the Australian.  But the Djoker, who's favored to win his third title this year, has been just as consistent at the other hardcourt Slam.  Until missing last year with an injury, he'd made it to at least the semis in 10 consecutive years, including four straight finals from 2010-13.

5. John McEnroe (1979-81, 1984): Before he was a renowned tennis commentator, John McEnroe was making the finals of both Wimbledon and the US Open pretty much every year in the late 70s and early 80s.  After making the semis as a 19-year-old in 1978, he won the title in each of the next three years before adding another in 1984.

4. Ivan Lendl (1985-87): Just like Rafael Nadal is always a safe pick to win the French Open nowadays, it was the same thing with Ivan Lendl at the US Open in the 80s.  He made the final eight consecutive times from 1982-89.  After losing the first three, he won three straight titles from 1985-87 before dropping the last two during that stretch.  Believe it or not, the eight consecutive finals at the same Grand Slam is a record the current Big Three hasn't managed to take away.

3. Roger Federer (2004-08): Roger's legacy will always be at Wimbledon.  But he's also a five-time champion here, winning every year from 2004-08.  Yes, he's been stuck on that number for a decade.  But he's made two finals and three semis since then.  In 17 career US Opens (not including this year), Federer's never lost earlier than the third round...which happened once.  In his first US Open!  His five consecutive titles and 40 consecutive wins are both US Open records.

2. Pete Sampras (1990, 1993, 1995-96, 2002): Another guy whose Wimbledon legacy is enhanced by his achievements at Flushing Meadows.  How many great US Open moments from the 1990s involve Pete Sampras?  But that's only the half of it.  He won five titles, the first and last of which came 12 years apart.  Sampras was 19 when he beat rival Andre Agassi in 1990.  He beat Agassi again as the 31-year-old No. 17 seed in 2002.  Then he retired.  Part of what made that 2002 title so remarkable is that Sampras had lost in the final in both 2000 and 2001 before capturing that 14th and final Grand Slam crown.

1. Jimmy Connors (1974, 1976, 1978, 1982-83): It's kind of a shame that they have a roof now.  Because it means no more rain delays, and no more Connors-Krickstein from 1991.  That's the year of his remarkable semifinal run as a 39-year-old.  Connors made the semis 14 times and the quarters 17 times in 22 US Opens.  He won his fifth title in 1983, and he still shares the record with Sampras and Federer.  Oh, yeah, and his five wins came on three different surfaces, making him the only player in history able to make that claim.  They invented the US Open night session for Jimmy Connors.

There you have it.  That's what I've got for the men.  I told you there were plenty of Hall of Famers, and six of the seven retired players (Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Ashe, Agassi) have already been inducted into the US Open Court of Champions, as well.  And for those of you wondering where Rod Laver is, he did win the US Open to complete a Grand Slam in 1969, but the majority of his success at the US Championships came as an amateur, which doesn't count for this exercise.

Stay tuned for our next installment, where the women will get their props.  And you can rest assured, there will be plenty of familiar names at the top of that list, as well.

The US Open Turns 50

This year's US Open is a cool one.  It's the 50th anniversary of the Open Era, which is enough reason for celebration.  But that's only part of the fun.  This year also marks the debut of the new Louis Armstrong Stadium, which gives the US Open its second retractable roof.  I'll admit, I'll miss the old one.  I'm not old enough to remember it being the main stadium (my first US Open was 1998, the year after Ashe opened), but I still have plenty of memories from the old Armstrong.  And it'll definitely be weird to walk on the grounds and not see that USTA museum in the corner of the stadium where you could wait during a rain delay.

But it's kinda fitting that the new stadium opens in time for the 50th anniversary US Open and the 40th anniversary of the National Tennis Center.  The grounds have been completely transformed over the last five years in preparation for this anniversary, and it's cost the USTA plenty.

Although, I must say I'm not a fan of one of the corresponding changes for this year's US Open.  They're going to have dedicated night sessions at both Ashe and Armstrong, which makes sense (the Australian Open does the same thing at its two main stadiums).  No problem with that.  I have a big problem, though, with their decision to reduce day sessions on Ashe from three matches to two.

In a way I kinda get it.  ESPN for some reason, despite being the "exclusive home" of the US Open, didn't start coverage until 12, even though play started at 11, which didn't make much sense.  Now play and coverage will start at the same time.  Likewise, a long men's match that made the day session last into when the night session was supposed to start created all kinds of headaches as they tried to empty the stadium quickly so that the 25,000 people with night-session tickets could get in.

Here's why I have a problem with it, though.  Tickets still cost the same (maybe even more).  And US Open tickets are ridiculously expensive!  So, you're not really getting much value for that $75 ticket if the two day matches inside Ashe are blowouts.  Yes, they'd theoretically move a third match in if play is done by, say 3:30.  But the value of an Arthur Ashe ticket in the early rounds provides you significantly less value than it used to...especially since, with only four matches on Ashe, the top players will be all over the grounds that first week.

Case in point, defending women's champion Sloane Stephens, former men's champs Andy Murray and Juan Martin Del Potro, women's No. 1 Simona Halep and two-time finalist Vika Azarenka are all playing on Armstrong on Monday.  Just Nadal, the Williams sisters and an excellent Stan Wawrinka-Grigor Dimitrov match are on Ashe.  And I think it's safe to say Tuesday's Ashe schedule will likely only include the names Federer, Djokovic, Wozniacki and Sharapova.

Speaking of Djokovic and Federer, they have to be the two biggest favorites on the men's side.  Novak is definitely back from the injuries that forced him to miss last year's US Open.  He won Wimbledon and the US Open Series event in Cincinnati, where he beat Federer in the final.  Roger, believe it or not, is looking for his first US Open title since his five-in-a-row string ended a decade ago.  But we all know what Roger's capable of.

Since Djokovic is only seeded sixth, either Federer or Nadal was potentially gonna end up drawing him in the quarters.  Well, it was Roger that drew the short straw, which sets up what could be a tremendous Wednesday-night quarterfinal between those two heavyweights (it reminds me of Sampras-Agassi in 2001).  Get your tickets now!  Those ones will most definitely be worth it.

Last year they had that idiotic scenario where Roger and Rafa were in the same side of the draw, even though they were the top two players.  Fortunately, that won't happen this year.  And, even if we do get withdrawals, there are plenty of other big names actually in the draw this year that it won't make too much of a difference.

Nadal is the defending champion, but I think it'll be a very difficult road for him to defend (for starters, I didn't go last year, but I am this year).  He's got plenty of healthy challengers to contend with, starting with Juan Martin Del Potro, who he beat in the semis last year, and Wimbledon finalist Kevin Anderson, his US Open final opponent in 2017.  That's also where John Isner and Andy Murray are hanging out.  Meanwhile, joining Federer and Djokovic in the bottom half of the draw is former champ Marin Cilic.

I've got the Federer-Djokovic winner winning the entire thing.  And I think that'll be Djokovic.  He beats Del Potro in the final, with Nadal and Cilic joining them in the semis.

On the women's side, the big story is that the Williams sisters could end up meeting in the third round, their earliest Grand Slam matchup in nearly 20 years.  Serena's run to the Wimbledon final got her ranking closer in line to where it should be, so she was only bumped up eight places in the seedings here.  That only bumped her up to 17, though, which was appropriate, since it didn't move her into the next seed block (which would've bumped Venus down).  But, as a result, No. 16 Venus and No. 17 Serena ended up with each other in the third round...with the winner getting No. 1 Simona Halep in the fourth round.

That draw obviously favors the rest of the women in the field much more than it does the Williams sisters.  And we've got a lot of top women showing up at Flushing Meadows with confidence.  After all Sloane Stephens' win here last year started a string of three straight first-time Grand Slam champions, and the other two (Halep and Caroline Wozniacki) are the top two seeds.  Let's not forget, too, 2016 champion Angelique Kerber won Wimbledon and is starting to look like the No. 1 player she used to be.

So, yeah, once again we've got a wide-open women's tournament.  I'm gonna go with Woz.  She's a two-time finalist here, and now that she's a Grand Slam champ, I think she finally takes her game to another level and gets that US Open title she's always looked destined to win.

We're unlikely to see a repeat of last year's All-American semis.  In fact, I don't have a single American woman reaching the semifinals.  I've got Wozniacki beating Kerber, while my other semi is Karolina Pliskova (who beats Serena in the quarters) vs. Julia Goerges (who beats Stephens), with Pliskova as Wozniacki's final opponent.

Either way, this US Open is guaranteed to be historic.  They'll honor every living US Open champion at the Opening Ceremony on Monday night.  Will somebody new join them?  Or will it be historic for another reason?  Roger would set a record with his sixth, while Serena is still looking to tie the women's all-time record with her 24th overall.  Just some of the storylines to follow at the 2018 US Open.

Two Big (Ten) Problems

As another college football season dawns, not one, but two major programs are embroiled in pretty major scandals caused (either directly or indirectly) by their head coaches.  The good news for most of the power conferences is that both of these schools are in the Big Ten.  But the situations at Ohio State and especially Maryland get worse by the day.

Let's start in Columbus because that's significantly more straightforward.  Ohio State Head Coach Urban Meyer doesn't exactly have the best reputation for running the cleanest of programs, yet people generally look the other way because he wins.  And that once again seems to be exactly what happened here.  Because Meyer received a slap-on-the-wrist three-game suspension for something that would cost a lot of people who aren't The Head Football Coach at THE Ohio State University their jobs.

Meyer's "punishment" stems from his handling of domestic abuse allegations against former assistant Zach Smith.  The short version is that Smith ex-wife Courtney told Meyer's wife about Zach's alleged abuse back in 2015.  Meyer's wife was concerned for Courtney's well-being and even contacted the police.  Urban Meyer claimed to have no knowledge of this exchange, but the independent investigation concluded that this was highly unlikely.

This wasn't even the first time Zach and Courtney Smith had domestic issues.  In fact, Courtney called the police on Zach in 2009 while Zach was Meyer's assistant at Florida.  Meyer told investigators he met with both Zach and Courtney, but he actually met with only Zach about the incident.

Despite this, Meyer took Zach Smith with him when he took over at Ohio State in 2011.  And did Meyer tell anyone about the 2009 incident?  Of course not!  Part of this is the school's fault for doing an incomplete background check, but Ohio State AD Gene Smith didn't find out about it until a month ago.  And, even after the 2015 incident, Meyer didn't fire Zach Smith.  That didn't happen until July 23...OF THIS YEAR!

At Big Ten Media Day, Meyer was asked about Zach Smith and, while not deliberately untruthful, definitely gave some misleading answers about his knowledge of everything.  Even Ohio State's independent investigation called him out on this, after with Meyer admitted he "followed his heart and not his head" by giving Smith the benefit of the doubt.

Yet Meyer was still much more concerned with saving face than anything else.  At the press conference announcing his suspension, he wanted to make sure Buckeye Nation knew that he knew he let them down.  He apologized to everybody....except Courtney Smith!  That apology didn't come until today in a two-paragraph statement that, at least in my opinion, he was clearly forced to write.

Urban Meyer needed to be held accountable for Zach Smith's conduct, just like any other coach is considered responsible for the wrongdoings of their assistants.  According to Ohio State, however, Meyer's accountability only equates to three games.  In September.  Against Oregon State, Rutgers and TCU.  Not exactly the gauntlet.

Believe it or not, though, that's only the second-worst scandal going on in the Big Ten right now!  The situation at Maryland is much, much worse.  Especially with the new developments that emerged today.

Maryland's problems began, of course, in May when offensive lineman Jordan McNair died of heatstroke suffered during an offseason workout.  The strength & conditioning coach "resigned" and two athletic trainers were placed on administrative leave for their roles in the circumstances that led to McNair's death. 

However, that was just the tip of the iceberg.  Details of the toxic culture surrounding Maryland football ever since the hiring of Head Coach DJ Durkin in 2015 have since emerged.  This culture, based largely on fear and intimidation, was likely a contributing factor in McNair's death.  He was struggling towards the end of the workout and didn't finish it under his own power.  When he was finally taken for treatment, his body temperature was 106.

Durkin has been placed on leave by the university, but McNair's family is calling for the coach to be fired.  I can't say I disagree with them.  And if there was any doubt about that, consider the news that broke yesterday, the university released a statement indicating former AD Kevin Anderson in a $15 million payment to an outside legal firm representing two former football players accused of sexual assault.

It turns out Anderson wasn't responsible for hiring the players' attorneys.  The lawyer, Donald Maurice Jackson, did receive $15 million from the university, but it wasn't from the AD's discretionary fund (which is what the university's statement said).  It came from the football team.  He only had "minimal contact" with Anderson, which basically consisted of an email firing him from the case two weeks after he'd already been paid.

What happened with Jordan McNair gave the University of Maryland plenty of grounds to terminate football coach DJ Durkin.  With these latest allegations, they're left with absolutely no choice.  I don't see any way for Maryland to maintain its credibility AND DJ Durkin remain football coach. 

But, as Ohio State showed us, winning football games is the only thing that matters to these schools.  So, I wouldn't be completely surprised to see Durkin be retained, either.  Anything to win.  Morality be damned!

The Best Event In Sports

The Little League World Series is the best event in sports.  Go ahead and try to disagree with me.  Because if you've never been, you don't know what you're missing.  It truly is something that needs to be on every sports fan's bucket list.  And once you've been there, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.  You'll soak up every minute and become a kid again yourself.  (I went about 15 years ago when my uncle was chosen as an umpire, one of the biggest honors of his life.)

In a world where everything about sports has become so overly commercialized, the Little League World Series remains simple and pure.  Admission is free, the staff is pretty much all volunteers and the kids are out there purely for the love of the game.  It really is the perfect late-summer, feel-good event.

And just when you thought they couldn't make the Little League World Series any better, MLB came up with one of the best ideas of Rob Manfred's tenure as commissioner.  They hit a home run with the creation of the MLB Little League Classic, an event that celebrates everything right about the sport.  This was just the second time they've done it, and it's already one of those events that people look forward to.  They've already announced next year's participants (the Pirates and Cubs), and I think it's safe to say this is going to be an annual thing.

For all the logistical "inconveniences" that come with flying in the day of the game and playing in front of 2,500 people in a Minor League ballpark, you won't hear a single player complaining.  Just the opposite, in fact.  The Major Leaguers eat this up as much as the Little Leaguers.  If not more so.

They couldn't get Jake Arrieta to leave yesterday.  The Phillies went over to the ballpark to get ready for the game, but he stayed at the Little League complex until the final out.  He was supposed to be interviewed during the Staten Island-Houston game, but the Phillies didn't get there until there was one out in the top of the sixth.  He was in the booth for literally one out, but he stayed up there and did the interview for the full 15 minutes between games...and the Staten Island pitcher even came up to join him.

Same thing with the Mets.  During the MLB game, their starting pitchers left the dugout and went to sit in the stands with the kids.  For one day, everyone idolized them.  There were no heckles from opposing fans or boos from a disappointed home crowd.  It was a break from the daily grind of being a Major Leaguer and an opportunity to remember why they got involved with the game in the first place.  Because baseball is supposed to be fun.

"Fun" is the optimal word about what took place on Sunday.  From the moment the planes touched down to the moment they left Williamsport, the Mets and Phillies enjoyed themselves.  The real question is really who enjoyed it more--the Major Leaguers or the Little Leaguers? 

Of course, for the Little League teams that got to meet them on the tarmac and ride the bus to the complex with them, that's a thrill they'll never forget.  Nor will hanging out with Major Leaguers or sharing a field with them before an actual Major League game.  Then, of course, there's the opportunity to simply go to a Major League game, which was probably the first for a lot of these kids (and might've been the last for some of them).

Then there's the guys like Todd Frazier, who's a bonafide Little League legend!  He was the star of the Toms River, NJ team that won the title 20 years ago.  Now he's a Major League All-Star.  Fraizer was one of three players in last night's game who played in the Little League World Series.  Along with Michael Conforto and Scott Kingery, he's proof that you can make it.

Speaking of Todd Frazier, as the Commissioner pointed out, in what other sport can a player's career-defining moment come when they're 12 years old?  Those memories immediately came flooding back to him.  Same thing for Conforto, who was back in Williamsport for the first time since.  Arrieta's team never even made it to Williamsport.  They lost in the regionals.  But he still remembers it like it was yesterday.

It's become like the NHL Winter Classic.  Teams and players are begging to be involved.  Kyle Schwarber of the Cubs will get his wish next year, when they play the Pirates.  Obviously, the number of teams is limited because they need to be close enough to Williamsport to make it work (other than the two Pennsylvania teams, really only the Orioles, Nationals, Mets, Indians or Reds could reasonably host).  But that enthusiasm has spread, and it's a wonderful thing for the sport.

Next year they'll have a similar event in Omaha, when the Royals play the Tigers right before the College World Series.  I love that idea, too, and I think that event will be just as successful.  But it'll be different.  The College World Series is played in a 20,000-seat stadium.  And those players will be in the Minors a year or two later, and the Majors not too soon after that.

But playing in a 2,500-seat stadium full of Little Leaguers who worship you is something different entirely.  It's an experience that turns Major Leaguers back into kids, if only for a day.  And it's safe to say no one, from the Mets, the Phillies or any of the 16 Little League World Series participants, will ever forget it. 

Well done, MLB.  Well done.

Has It Really Been 20 Years?

I'd been looking forward to today's Yankee game pretty much all season.  Today was the 20th anniversary celebration of that incredible 1998 team.  It also made me feel really old.  Was 1998 really 20 years ago?  (For the record, Gleyber Torres was 1 and Miguel Andujar was 3 that season.)

That 1998 squad, of course, is really the standard that modern baseball teams are measured against.  They won 114 regular season games (tying the American League record at the time) and finished a remarkable 75 games over .500 including the playoffs.  And the most memorable moment of that season had to be the perfect game thrown by David Wells on May 17!

Just like at their 1996 reunion two years ago, a good number of the players on that team returned for the celebration.  Even the random dudes who played like three games in mid-June were there!  There were some absences for various reasons, but Scott Brosius and Derek Jeter both sent videos.  And Don Zimmer's wife was there to represent him, which was a really nice touch.

For the most part, though, all of the principles were there.  Joe Torre even threw out the ceremonial first pitch.  And they kept the 1998 theme going all day long by playing songs from the late-90s between innings (among the selections: Natalie Imbruglia's "Torn," Faith Hill's "This Kiss," The Barenaked Ladies' "One Week").

At the 1996 celebration, the players ran out from center field individually.  I guess they determined that took too long, so this time they all rode in in golf carts by position.  That didn't stop us from reacting more for certain players, though.  Extended applause for Tino Martinez and the outfielders (Bernie Williams and Paul O'Neill were together), standing ovations for Joe Torre, David Wells and Mariano Rivera (complete with "Enter Sandman" for Mo).

Anyway, I'm sure you've had enough of me talking about it.  So, in case you didn't watch it on YES, here are some of my pictures from the ceremony (notice I had a much better seat than I did for 1996).

The perfect game Davids rode in together...

...so did Pettitte and Posada, the most frequent pitcher/catcher
combo in Yankees history.

None other than Hall of Famer Joe Torre throwing out the first pitch.

This was just the start of the celebrations, too.  Next year, they could actually do two reunions if they want to--one for 1999, one for 2009.  Then there's the 2000 team that completed the three-peat.  

Those won't be the same, though.  It was, for the most part, the same cast of characters.  But that 1998 squad will always be the special one.  Yes, that was the one that set the records and forever earned a place in baseball history.  But it was so much more than that.  The 1998 team will always be special.

It's Mondo's World, We're All Just Living In It

For those of you who think Sydney McLaughlin is the Next Big Thing in track & field, may I present Mondo Duplantis?  Mondo is 18 years old.  He's going to be a freshman at LSU this fall.  And he might just be the best freakin' pole vaulter on the planet.

At the World U20 Championships last month in Finland, he was a man among boys.  In the qualifying round, he didn't enter the competition until everyone else had already been eliminated or qualified.  Then in the final, there were only three other guys left when he took his first jump.  He made it easily, passed the next height, and won the gold medal by being the only person to clear the one after that.  That height was 5.60 meters (18'4 1/2).  Since he was the only one left, he moved the bar to a championship-record 5.82 (19'1)...and cleared that on his first attempt!

Fast forward to the European Championships last week in Berlin.  In the non-Olympic year, the European Championships is the biggest meet on the world calendar, so some pretty big names were there, including world record-holder Renaud Lavillenie of France.  He could certainly contend for a medal against this field, but he couldn't possibly win, right?  Wrong!  Mondo jumped 6.05 (19'10 1/4) to win the gold and set the world under-20 record.

How good was that jump?  It was much more than a world under-20 record and the top mark in the world this year.  It equaled the second-highest outdoor pole vault EVER!  Combining indoor and outdoor, he's now tied for the fourth-best performance in history.  At 18!  He shouldn't be going to LSU (at least not to compete).  He should be going pro.

Here's where this story takes a weird turn, though.  Mondo Duplantis is from Lafayette, Louisiana (hence his decision to attend LSU).  However, since his mother is Swedish, he's eligible to compete for Sweden internationally, which he has for several years.

You still with me?  Good.  Because here comes the crazy part.  His world under-20 record was one centimeter higher than Brad Walker's American record.  And, since Mondo is an American citizen, his 6.05 jump counts as an American record.  So, somebody representing Sweden at the European Championships set an American record!  If this makes any sense to you, please let me know and maybe you can explain it to me.

Nothing in the USATF Rule Book prevents this ridiculous scenario, so Duplantis' mark will most likely be ratified as an American record when they meet in December.  (I repeat, he'll have set the American record while competing for Sweden, and this somehow makes sense to people.)  

This was actually brought up at the USATF Congress last year, but they dismissed it as unlikely.  Now USATF just looks stupid, so don't be surprised if a new rule is put in place stipulating that in order to set an American record, you can't do it while representing another country (in other words, it will be dictated by common sense).  

The new rule wouldn't go into effect until January 1, though, and can't be applied retroactively.  So, Brad Walker's record is as good as gone and it'll be up to Sam Kendricks (also a six-meter jumper) to bring the American record back to someone with an American flag next to their name.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying Mondo isn't an American.  He's lived in Louisiana his entire life.  But, as a dual citizen, he had a choice of which country to represent, and he chose to represent Sweden.  Once that decision was made, his ability to set an American record should've been lost.  Because it's just silly that he could set it at the European Championships when the U.S. isn't even a part of that continent!

Dual citizens are slightly different than citizenship changes, which are nothing new, but the same basic principles apply.  Bernard Lagat switched from Kenyan to American citizenship in 2004.  Since Kenya doesn't allow dual citizens, he represented Kenya at the Athens Olympics and didn't start representing the United States until 2005.  However, since he was a citizen, he was technically eligible to set an American record.  Lagat ran faster than the existing American record in the 1500 meters just before the Athens Olympics, but it wasn't ratified by USATF.  Why not?  How is that any different?  (Lagat's official American record, set in 2005, is nearly two seconds slower.)

What makes this situation even more ridiculous is what happened in the men's 4x400 relay at the NCAA Indoor Championships.  Texas A&M set the world record in the event despite finishing second to USC.  How is that possible?  Because USC's time was ineligible for a record since not all four runners were from the same country.  Except they were.  The athlete in question is Rai Benjamin, who was born in the Bronx, but previously represented Antigua & Barbuda (where his parents are from).  He's even been granted a release by Antigua & Barbuda so that he can represent the U.S. moving forward.  Yet that was enough for the IAAF to declare second-place Texas A&M as the record-holders (although USC is listed on the IAAF website, so I don't know anymore).

While that's just as ridiculous, I can kinda see the IAAF's point there.  That problem was magnified because they were wrong about Benjamin's citizenship.  But if they weren't and the team was actually composed of athletes from different countries, I'd have no issue with their stance.

That stance should be consistent across the board, though.  Because it makes absolutely no sense that a guy who'll be representing Sweden for years can continue to set American records while doing so.  I'm not taking anything away from Mondo Duplantis.  He's an incredible talent.  But he's chosen to compete for Sweden.  And you should only be able to set records for the country you represent.

Lefty Love

One of the best scenes in the movie The Princess Bride is the left-handed sword fight where Inigo tells Westley "I am not left-handed" and Westley responds with "I am not left-handed either," after which they continue the fight right-handed.  Like Westley and Inigo, I am not left-handed.  But my dad and one of my sisters are.

Anyway, yesterday was International Left-handers Day, so I figured I'd take the opportunity to celebrate.  Baseball, of course, has always had its share of dominant left-handed pitchers.  In fact, some of the greatest pitchers of all-time are lefties.  The left-handed quarterback, meanwhile, has become a bit of a dying breed.  There isn't one current left-handed QB on any NFL roster, while the best-known lefty QBs of recent vintage (Tim Tebow), who never made it in the NFL, is playing Double-A baseball.

But that doesn't mean the lefty QBs don't deserve love.  Here are my top five left-handed quarterbacks of all-time:

5. Jim Zorn: He was the first-ever starting quarterback for the expansion Seattle Seahawks in 1976 and won AFC Offensive Rookie of the Year honors.  Zorn was the Seahawks' starter for eight seasons and eventually became head coach of the Redskins.

4. Michael Vick: Because of the legal troubles that derailed his career, it's easy to forget how good Michael Vick was when he broke into the NFL.  But, he was the No. 1 overall pick in 2001 and made three Pro Bowls with the Falcons before going to another with the Eagles after he resumed his career.

3. Boomer Esiason: Three lefty QBs have played in the Super Bowl.  Boomer is one.  He was the MVP in 1988, when the Bengals nearly upset the 49ers in Super Bowl XXIII.  Of course, Boomer's kept himself plenty busy since then.  He's got his radio show on WFAN, does The NFL Today on CBS and Monday Night Football on radio.

2. Ken Stabler: The first lefty to start and win a Super Bowl, "The Snake" led the Raiders to a victory over the Vikings in Super Bowl XI.  He was the MVP in 1974, a member of the 1970s All-Decade Team, and was elected to the Hall of Fame in 2016.

1. Steve Young: After all those years backing up Joe Montana, Steve Young finally got his chance to start in 1991, and that turned out alright for the 49ers.  Two MVPs, a Super Bowl title (and MVP), a slew of NFL records, and a Hall of Fame selection in 2005.

Now on to the pitchers.  There are a ton that have plaques in Cooperstown, so this list includes all Hall of Famers.  Which doesn't mean it was any easier to narrow it down.

5. Whitey Ford: There have been so many great left-handed pitchers to wear Yankee pinstripes, that I could've done a Top 5 with just them.  But I'll stick with the guy widely acknowledged as the best pitcher in franchise history for baseball's most decorated franchise.  A 10-time All*Star and six-time World Series champion, he's MLB's all-time leader in winning percentage for a starting pitcher.

4. Steve Carlton: Positions 2-4 are definitely open to debate, but I'm putting Carlton at No. 4.  Four Cy Youngs, 10 All*Star Games, two World Series titles, including a memorable one with the 1980 Phillies.  Oh yeah, he also had a ton of strikeouts (fourth most all-time) and is the second-winningest left-hander ever.

3. Warren Spahn: "Spahn and Sain and Pray for Rain."  That was the mantra of the Milwaukee Braves in the 1950s.  And it won them a World Series in 1957, when Spahn won the Cy Young (which was still a combined award for both leagues then).  His 363 wins aren't just the most by a lefty by a wide margin (Carlton is second with 329), they're the most by any pitcher in the live-ball era and sixth-most all-time.

2. Randy Johnson: Why did I put the Big Unit at No. 2, ahead of Spahn and Carlton?  Because of his intimidating combination of strikeouts and dominance.  Two no-hitters, including a perfect game at age 40; four straight Cy Youngs; that insane 2001 World Series, where he was co-MVP.  Oh, and did I mention, the 4,875 strikeouts?

1. Sandy Koufax: Probably not much argument with this one.  Just imagine how much more ridiculous Koufax's career would've been had he not retired at 30?  As it is, what he accomplished is pretty extraordinary:  four no-hitters (including a perfect game), three Cy Youngs and an MVP, seven All*Star Games, four World Series titles.

And now for the current guys, one of whom is another Dodgers lefty who's drawn plenty of comparisons to Koufax.  Who are the other four, though?

5. Aroldis Chapman: It's my list and there's no rule that I could only pick starters, so Chapman gets the nod over David Price for the 5-spot.  He's been one of the most dominant closers in the game since his 2010 debut.  It's really kinda ridiculous how this guy throws 102 over and over again like it's nothing.

4. Madison Bumgarner: Five years ago, he would've been a clear No. 1 on this list.  But things have been a bit of a struggle for Bumgarner since he single-handedly won the 2014 World Series.  Nevertheless, when healthy, he's one of the most dominant starters in the game.

3. Jon Lester: A two-time World Series champion in Boston, he won a third title on the Cubs' curse-breaking 2016 squad.  He was also MVP of the NLCS that year.  Lester is, without a doubt, one of the top starters in all of baseball.  And he's the ace of a Cubs team that looks poised for another long postseason run.

2. Chris Sale: This was an easy one.  Sale's the top pitcher on the best team in baseball and the AL Cy Young front-runner.  He's also started three straight All*Star Games.  It's safe to say the Red Sox have gotten everything they've asked for and more since he came over from the White Sox.

1. Clayton Kershaw: Duh!  Not just the best lefty in the game.  The best pitcher in the game period.  It's been that way for the past few seasons.  And really Max Scherzer is the only other pitcher who you could even make the argument for.  His postseason record aside, Kershaw has been building a Hall of Fame resume in LA (although, to be fair, he was great in Games 1 & 7 of the World Series last year).  Three Cy Youngs and an MVP so far with who knows what else to come?

So, what do you think?  Was anybody left off one of my lists (pun intended)?

The Esports Takeover

I don't get "esports" and I probably never will.  It's people sitting around playing video games!  That's literally all it is.  Yet there are professional teams, and they sold out the Barclays Center a few weeks ago for the finals of the "Overwatch League", which was televised on ESPN.  A number of colleges have started varsity esports teams, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's NCAA-recognized at some point.

It's gotten to the point that parents are hiring private coaches to tutor their kids in the game Fortnite.  To repeat, parents are paying people to teach their kids how to get better AT A VIDEO GAME!  And if that's not enough, one of the reasons these parents are doing this is so their kid could potentially earn a college scholarship.  That's right.  A college scholarship for playing video games.

People can do whatever they want on their own time.  And I understand that a lot of people enjoy playing video games.  But to call them a "sport" is beyond a stretch.  Which is why giving the same college athletic scholarship to a Fortnite player that you'd give to a soccer player is wrong on so many levels.  Yet that seems to be the direction in which we're headed.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not opposed to the idea of gaming clubs or teams or tournaments.  But the idea of sanctioning esports as a varsity "sport" and awarding scholarships for it just seems to go against everything sports are supposed to promote.  After all, how many athletes waste how much time playing these games in their free time?

The whole idea of athletics is to get off the couch and do something physical.  Esports is exactly the opposite.  You're not encouraging kids to get off the couch, you're encouraging them to stay on it.  For hours upon hours.  And now that there are professional leagues and college scholarships are available, more and more people are going to view video games as more than just a hobby.

Gamers will tell you that there is a certain level of physical fitness required to be successful.  Which definitely is true.  Your hands and wrists certainly get a workout, and I'm sure sitting in the same position for too long isn't that comfortable, either.  Meanwhile, the mental fortitude is equal to that of a poker player.  You need to be able to focus for hours and days, which requires intense concentration.  And I'm sure there's also film study and scouting reports just like there are in mainstream sports.

But there's still a big difference between esports and mainstream sports.  Which is why you can't put them at the same level.  I'm sure there are plenty of people who disagree with me, but classifying esports as "sports" is a stretch.  At least in my eyes.

Yet, as crazy as the idea sounds, it seems like varsity esports teams is just the beginning.  We could see esports make its way to the Olympics in the not-too-distant future.  Tokyo's too early and Paris probably is, too.  But LA 2028 doesn't seem like that much of a stretch.  And while possible Olympic inclusion is still a while off, esports will be a demonstration sport at the Asian Games (which begin next weekend in Jakarta) before being elevated to full medal status in 2022.

Last month, there was an "Esports Forum" between Olympic officials and leaders in the esports and gaming industries at IOC headquarters in Switzerland.  The Forum was more of a dialogue so that the sides can better understand each other, but the message behind it was clear.  The IOC is desperate to appeal to a younger demographic, and they think esports is the way to do it.  After all, what's the age range of the vast majority of people who play video games regularly?

Olympic inclusion wasn't the goal of the IOC's Esports Forum.  There are still a lot of steps that need to be taken for that (for starters, there's no international federation governing esports), and there are a lot of justifiable concerns about the complete lack of doping control in competitive gaming (among other things).  But the dialogue started the ball rolling for what seems inevitable.

After the Forum, the IOC and GASIF (the umbrella international federation for those sports without one) established an "Esports Liaison Group," which will continue that communication between Olympic and esports/gaming stakeholders.  The Liaision Group will be the IOC's guests at a forum just prior to the start of the Youth Olympics in Buenos Aires this October.

And, seeing as that's the target demographic, I wouldn't be surprised to see esports appear on the Youth Olympic program in either 2022 or 2026.  Hopefully that's where it stays.  Although, I have a feeling that would be just the start.  Like it or not, it seems inevitable that esports will be making its way to the Olympics at some point.  Just like it's probably headed to the NCAA, too.

Pitching Position Players

We see it a handful of times every year.  At the end of a blowout or a long extra inning game, one or both teams resorts to having a position player take the mound.  In the blowouts, it's to save the bullpen from having to throw too many innings.  In the long games, it's because they're out of pitchers and don't want to burn a starter.

You can usually see it coming.  When it's 10-1 in the third inning and the team that's losing is already on its third reliever, there's a good chance you'll see the backup shortstop on the mound in the eighth or ninth.  Likewise, the longer the extra-inning game goes, the likelihood of a position player pitching increases. 

I'll admit, watching the end of these crazy-long games, especially in the National League is a guilty pleasure.  You see some weird stuff in the box score.  And you're secretly kinda rooting for it to go long enough that they have to pinch hit for their last available pitcher with their last bench guy, only to have to figure out who's gonna pitch if the game continues.

Most position players absolutely love it!  And the one that's asked to do it is generally someone who has some pitching experience, whether it be in high school, college or the Minors, so they aren't complete novices.  In fact, a lot of them want to get the opportunity to pitch in a Major League game at some point in their career.  Ichiro always said it was something he hoped he'd get to do before he retired (which he did in 2015 with the Marlins), and Cubs first baseman Anthony Rizzo had been begging manager Joe Maddon to let him pitch before he finally did.

It's generally met with a fair amount of chuckles, too.  Especially when it's somebody like Rizzo, who's far better known for (and far more valuable with) his bat, the fans get a kick out of it.  There's usually a good amount of laughing from the dugout, too...until Jose Reyes gives up six runs and he no longer finds it funny (although, it was a nice moment of levity in that absurd 25-4 game when Ryan Zimmerman made like he was going to charge the mound when Reyes hit him with a pitch).

In fact, what once was a novelty has since become a full-blown trend.  Like analytics and defensive shifts, position players pitching is now a regular occurrence.  There have been more than 50 appearances by more than 40 players already this season, both shattering the previous record.  That doesn't even include Shohei Ohtani, who doesn't count for the purposes of this discussion.  Since the All*Star Break, it's happened seemingly every other day.  It's developed into a part of in-game strategy for more and more managers.

On the surface, it kinda makes sense.  Even with most teams carrying 12 or 13 pitchers, managers are turning to position players for mop-up duty more often.  Joe Maddon is the biggest proponent, and he doesn't just use his utility infielder or backup catcher to pitch.  In addition to Rizzo, he's asked Ian Happ, Tommy LaStella and two different backup catchers to pitch this year.  Across town, White Sox third baseman/DH Matt Davidson has pitched three times this season.

But is this a good thing?  Consider the health concerns.  Pitching is not a natural motion.  That's why starters need four days off and relievers can't pitch too many days in a row.  And that's their job.  For guys who aren't used to pitching, the strain on their arm is much more.  In 1993, Jose Canseco was lost for the season when he hurt his elbow while pitching.  With your best players, is it really worth that risk?

Then there's the sheer fact that teams carry so many pitchers to begin with.  How can you possibly run out?  And, if you're limited to only three or four bench guys, do you really want to waste one as a pitcher?  In the American League, that's less of a problem, although how many times have we seen AL teams have to drop their DH just to have a position player pitch (or that stupid crap the Rays do where they put the pitcher at another position for a batter then move back to pitching, which also requires dropping the DH)?  But in an NL game, when you've gotta pinch hit for relievers once every nine batters, you're gonna run out pretty quick.  Yes, there are double switches and everything, but putting a position player on the mound should be a last resort, not a plan.

Of course, the biggest reason why we're seeing so many non-pitchers asked to pitch nowadays is because starters are being taken out earlier and earlier.  If you go to the bullpen in the sixth inning every night, that can take quite a toll on your relievers.  And, even though some teams carry as many as eight relief pitchers, asking them to get 12 outs every game is definitely a lot.  So, when your bullpen arms need a rest and you're getting shelled, it's the backup shortstop to the rescue!

And this trend is likely only going to continue unless the MLBPA does something about it.  The players might not have an issue with this.  But if they do, they need to bring it up at the next round of CBA negotiations.  Because there are already enough relievers on Major League rosters without asking your utility infielders or backup catchers to do it.

As a fan, there's always going to be the element of fun in seeing the position players pitch.  It's kinda like watching American League pitchers hit in interleague road games.  But as a strategy, I question the wisdom in doing it more than once or twice a season in an emergency situation.  I realize that's not going to change anything, but the novelty of position players on the mound has definitely started to wear off.

Choosing Player Safety Over a Win

Something very interesting happened last week in the WNBA.  The Las Vegas Aces-Washington Mystics game was cancelled, even though both teams were in Washington.  The reason?  Because the Aces, who'd had a travel nightmare and only got into DC a few hours before game time, refused to play, citing health and safety concerns after 26 hours of travelling.

This was the first time in WNBA history that a game has been outright cancelled, so the league wasn't quite sure how to handle the situation.  After a few days, they eventually decided that the game would be forfeited to Washington.  That's 100 percent the right decision.  The Mystics were at the arena ready to play and the Aces simply chose not to, which is certainly grounds for forfeiture.  They knew that was a possibility and they took it into consideration, but still decided it wasn't worth it to play.  As a result, the Aces were willing to take the automatic loss.  It was a bold decision to be sure.

Las Vegas didn't take the forfeiture lightly, either.  The WNBA operates in a straight league system where eight of the 12 teams make the playoffs.  The Aces are in ninth, two games behind eighth-place Dallas.  There's only about a week left in the WNBA regular season, so they certainly could've used the win.  But the fact that they determined player health was more important speaks volumes.

The Aces' travel nightmare started on Thursday afternoon.  They were supposed to leave Las Vegas at 1:00, but had to endure several hours of flight delays.  Since the WNBA requires teams to fly commercial, all they could to was wait.  They eventually split up and got on four different flights to Dallas between 12:30-1:30 a,m.  Then there were more delays in Dallas and they didn't land in Washington until 2:30 p.m., a little more than four hours before the scheduled tip-off.

Theoretically, they would've been able to play.  However, they would've had to go right to the arena (while dealing with DC rush hour traffic) and play almost immediately.  The WNBA pushed the start time back from 7:00 to 8:00, but even that wasn't enough to appease the Aces.  The players, who hadn't slept in a bed since Tuesday night, took a vote and decided that was unacceptable.  Hence their decision not to play.

I'm not saying the Aces did the right thing.  But I don't necessarily disagree with it, either.  I've traveled with many a team that had travel issues and either came out flat or just went through the motions in the next game as a result, so I get their plight.  And I applaud them for letting the players make the call.  After all, the players were going to be the ones who had to go out there and take the court.

What this illustrates, though, is the tremendous disparity between the WNBA and its male counterparts.  I get why the WNBA makes teams fly commercial.  Cost-wise it makes sense, and by having a rule it means teams that can afford to fly charter don't have a competitive advantage. 

But it's also, in part, because WNBA teams fly commercial that this situation occurred.  The Aces were just like the rest of us, waiting at the airport for hours hoping to take off before making a last-minute change just to get where they were going.  If they flew charter, that wouldn't happen.  They'd be bused directly to the tarmac and have a direct flight. 

As for the rest thing that they cited, that's a completely reasonable concern.  How often does a baseball team fly its next-day starting pitcher to the next city ahead of time so that he's not getting to the hotel at 3/4 a.m. when the rest of the team does?  How many NFL teams spend Saturday night in a hotel even before a home game?  And why do the players hate Thursday night games so much?  It's all because of rest.

So I get the Aces' concern.  They're professional athletes, just like MLB/NFL/NBA players.  And as professional athletes, they didn't feel comfortable playing after the travel situation they'd endured.  Plenty of people disagree, which is reasonable and completely fine.  But the Aces knew the potential consequences of their decision and were willing to accept them.

After the cancellation was announced, Mystics Head Coach Mike Thibault was one of the most critical.  He told the story of one time (I think when he was coaching Connecticut) that they arrived late for a game in Cleveland and got to the arena less than an hour before game time, but they still played...and won!  But when you're traveling on a bus, it's a little different.  On a bus, you can still get up and walk around.  You can stretch out, the trainer can tape ankles, etc.  On a plane (especially a commercial flight), all you can do is sit there.  And Las Vegas to Washington (with a stopover in Dallas) isn't exactly the shortest trip, either.

One other problem that led to the game's cancellation was their inability to reschedule it.  Ordinarily, that would be an option.  Had rescheduling for Saturday afternoon been possible, I'm sure they would've done it.  But, the Mystics had a game in Dallas on Sunday and the Aces were going right from DC to Connecticut, then Atlanta, before heading home for three straight.  So, with rescheduling off the table (and teams that aren't exactly close to each other), the WNBA had no choice but to cancel the game.

Making the Aces forfeit was also the right call.  Las Vegas Head Coach Bill Laimbeer voiced his displeasure, but it was either that or both teams finishing the season one game short, so the Aces would've ended up a half-game back in the final standings if it wasn't declared a forfeit.  It was the only fair result for the Mystics, though.  Washington was at the arena ready to play and lost a home game (plus ticket revenue from another since, in addition to issuing refunds, they gave fans free tickets to another game).

Sure, the forfeit is a bad look for both the team and the league.  But maybe some good will come from it.  Maybe we'll see some changes to the WNBA schedule and team travel next season.  Because these are professional athletes, too.  They deserve to be treated like it.

Winning and the MVP

Last night during the Yankees-Red Sox game, ESPN had a poll question asking who was the AL MVP right now.  Despite the fact that Boston boasts two MVP candidates, the highest vote-getter was, of course, Mike Trout.  There were similar polls of both the ESPN.com writers and the MLB.com writers right after the All*Star Break, and the results were the same on each.  The winner?  Mike Trout.

That's completely mind-boggling to me.  Mike Trout is the best player in baseball.  There's nobody arguing that.  And the numbers he's putting up this season are similar to what he's done over the first six seasons of his career.  But do these writers think that because he's the best player in baseball and he puts up the same numbers every year that he should automatically be the MVP every year?  Because this year, he shouldn't really be in the conversation.

I'm not trying to debate Trout's greatness.  He finished first or second in MVP voting in each of his first five seasons, and he still finished fourth last year despite playing in just 114 games.

But the MVP is about more than just numbers.  Unless a player on a losing team puts up numbers that simply blow everybody away, it should be about winning, too.  Because the most important thing is winning games.  And the Angels aren't winning games.

The V in MVP stands for Valuable.  There's no denying Mike Trout's value to the Angels.  But they're a fourth-place team.  They'd still likely be a fourth-place team without him.  Can the same thing be said about the Red Sox and Indians?  Would they still be in first place without their MVP candidates?  Cleveland maybe.  Boston probably not.  

Which is why Mike Trout, at this point, should really be no higher than fifth in the AL MVP discussion.  Mookie Betts, J.D. Martinez, Jose Ramirez and Francisco Lindor are all putting up comparable numbers on teams headed to the playoffs.  To me, that means a lot more than a guy raking on a bad team.

That's, of course, the age-old debate when it comes to the MVP award.  Andre Dawson and Alex Rodriguez won MVPs playing for last-place teams, and Giancarlo Stanton was the NL MVP last year.  But, there also wasn't really a standout performer on a good team in the National League last season, which is part of the reason why Stanton and Joey Votto went 1-2.  In general, though, that's the exception, not the rule.  There's likely going to be someone putting up MVP-type numbers on a playoff team.  Which the Angels are not.

A similar question has also been asked about the Mets' Jacob deGrom and NL Cy Young.  He's kinda in the same situation as Trout.  His numbers are insanely good, but because the Mets never score when deGrom pitches, he's just 5-7 on the season.  I think that's a more reasonable debate than Trout for AL MVP.  Because the only National League pitcher anywhere near deGrom numbers-wise is Max Scherzer, who I think would be your likely winner right now.

Same thing with Cy Young, at least to me, as it should be with MVP.  If a guy on a bad team blows the competition away (or the good teams don't have anybody worthy of being in the conversation), no problem.  But the team's success should enter the discussion.  Because it is important.  How much value do you bring if your team doesn't win?

In 2010, it went the other way, which I still don't think was the right decision.  Felix Hernandez won the AL Cy Young while posting a 13-12 record for an awful Mariners team.  David Price finished second while going 19-6 on a Rays team that won the division.  The whole "wins shouldn't matter" debate was used, and ultimately got Hernandez the award.  But, just like it wasn't Hernandez's fault the Mariners weren't any good, it wasn't Price's fault the Rays were.  And, I might add, Hernandez didn't pitch in a game that mattered after May, while every game Price pitched that season mattered (the Rays won the division by one game over the Yankees).  Shouldn't that also count for something?

While I digressed a little bit there, I think you can still see my basic point.  I'm not opposed to a player on a losing team winning MVP/Cy Young.  But, especially if it's a close race, team success also need to be taken into account.  Because how much value does a guy bring when the team isn't any good one way or the other?  (Yes, I do understand that it's a little different with Cy Young, but I still hold firm on my stance.)

So, no, Mike Trout is NOT the AL MVP this year.  Not when he's only driven in 30 runners that weren't himself.  Not when you have two MVP candidates in Boston, either of whom would be a deserving winner (and might end up taking votes away from each other).  Not when you've got the best player nobody ever talks about doing literally everything in Cleveland.

His simply being Mike Trout isn't enough of a reason to vote for him for MVP.  I hope the voters realize that.  Especially since there are four guys on playoff-bound teams that wouldn't be remotely close to where they are without them.  Now that's value.

It's About the Class, Not the Guy Without Any

No, I didn't watch TO's Hall of Fame speech at UT Chattanooga this afternoon.  I will, however, watch the formal induction ceremony of the seven guys who actually showed up in Canton to celebrate the honor at, you know, the actual Hall of Fame.  Not that I'm surprised Terrell Owens, the ultimate "Look at Me" athlete, found a way to make the Hall of Fame induction for eight people all about himself.

TO explained his decision to skip the ceremony, saying "I know what I'm doing" about his "protest."  Yeah, sure, that's why.  We all know the real reasons.  You don't want to share the spotlight.  And you're peeved that the voters had the audacity to make you wait three years to be elected.  (For the record, fellow Class of 2018 inductee Jerry Kramer played in Super Bowl I and retired in 1968.  Is he bitter that it took 45 years for his long-overdue enshrinement?  No.)

When Owens made his announcement, the Hall of Fame responded by saying that they would respect his decision and would only include him in materials promoting the entire class.  He won't be recognized individually this weekend.  Nor should he be.  He doesn't want to be there.  That's his prerogative.  Just like it's the Hall of Fame's prerogative to ignore him.  Which is a decision many people, including a number of Hall of Famers, agree with.

Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk, however, disagrees.  And he was pretty vocal about it.  Although, I still don't understand what his problem is or why he's such a vehement TO supporter.  His issue seems to be more with the Hall of Fame itself than with their treatment of Owens.  More specifically, Florio seems to have an issue with the Hall of Fame voters (something he isn't, but desperately wants to be).  He was particularly critical of longtime voter Gary Myers, who implied he would've voted for someone else if he knew Owens didn't plan on showing up for the ceremony.

In explaining the decision to "snub" Owens this weekend, Hall of Fame Executive Director Joe Horrigan said it's "about the guys who are there."  Critics like to point out that players who are inducted posthumously aren't there either.  But that situation's a little different.  And deceased players only have a video played and their bust presented.  No speech, which drew plenty of ire a few years ago when Junior Seau's daughter wanted to give one and they said no, only to cave somewhat and do an interview with her (that she turned into an induction speech).

Meanwhile, Michael Irvin is one of the many players who've spoken out in defense of the Hall and its decision.  Tony Dungy I think put it best.  He said he "feels sorry" for TO and noted it will be his (Owens') loss, not the Hall's.  Dungy's complete tweet was: "I feel sorry for Terrell Owens.  If he chooses not to attend the Hall of Fame induction ceremonies he will be missing one of the most moving and emotional experiences someone could have in football.  Indescribable moments.  It will be his loss, not the Hall's."

This weekend is about the entire class.  Eight individuals who had such an exceptional body of work that they achieved football's highest honor.  This weekend is about Bobby Beathard, Robert Brazile, Brian Dawkins, Jerry Kramer, Ray Lewis, Randy Moss, Brian Urlacher AND Terrell Owens.  Yes, it's a tremendous honor for each of them individually.  But it's also an honor for them collectively.  They're forever linked as the Class of 2018.  And they're being honored together.  Just like the six baseball players honored last weekend in Cooperstown will forever be linked.

Ray Lewis is the Head of the Class this year.  But he's not above sharing the stage with six other people.  Because they're all Hall of Famers.  They've all earned the right to stand on that stage.  Yet Terrell Owens and his ego need their own stage.  Well, they were provided with one in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

The Hall of Fame isn't acting like TO isn't being inducted.  His bust will still be in the Head Room, he's still getting the ring and gold jacket, and he'll still be invited to attend future induction ceremonies (as if he actually plans on attending).  All they're doing is honoring his request to celebrate his enshrinement elsewhere while not letting his absence take over the weekend.  Because, as I said, this weekend is about the entire Class of 2018. 

Why should the Hall of Fame go out of their way to acknowledge a guy who doesn't want to be there?  And why should they draw attention to the fact that he isn't by making a presentation, only to end it with "he's not here?"  That would be giving him exactly what he wants.  Terrell Owens wants attention.  They're refusing to give it to him.  They're saying "If you don't want to be here, that's fine.  But don't expect us to make a big deal about it."

He had a well-documented terrible attitude during his playing career.  And his relationship with the media wasn't great, either.  Was that a factor in his not being a first- or second-ballot selection?  I'm sure it was.  But the fact that he was in the discussion shows that the voters were willing to overlook that and consider his career on its merit.  It's a good thing for him I don't have a vote.  Because I, for one, think he was a very good player, but not a Hall of Famer.  Yes, his attitude comes into play.  But I haven't considered TO to be one of the five best players on the ballot in any of the three years he was on the ballot.

For a guy with a career-long reputation for being selfish, we probably shouldn't be surprised that Terrell Owens had one last selfish move in him.  Because whatever his perceived slight or the "change" he wants to implement (and I do agree with him that the Hall of Fame voting system could use a tweak or two), that's not the reason he's not in Canton.  It has nothing to do with him feeling disrespected, either.  Like everything else in his career, it has everything to do with Terrell Owens.  Mr. "Look at Me" wants people to do just that. 

Even TO's Hall of Fame induction has to be all about TO.  And the Hall of Fame simply wasn't having that.  Eight men are being inducted into the Hall of Fame.  It's about all of them.  Not just one.