Yes, I saw the video of the girl getting hit by the foul ball in Houston. No, you don't want to hear my opinion on it. Because I'm in the minority. I don't think they need to extend the netting all the way from foul pole to foul pole as Kris Bryant suggested. You know the risks when you sit there. They warn you before and during the game, and they print it on the tickets. Yet you decide to sit there anyway. If you don't want to assume that risk, sit somewhere else!
Rather, I'm here today to talk about the start of All*Star voting. This is the first All*Star Game under the new format. The traditional voting is now the "primary round," where the top three vote-getters at each position (nine outfielders) move on to "Election Day," where the 17 starters (9 AL, 8 NL) are chosen. And, in a fun twist, you can only vote once on Election Day. This isn't the Final Vote, where you could vote over and over again. One vote. That's it.
Also, the Final Vote is no more, having been replaced by Election Day. No Final Vote means each manager gets to select one additional position player, which will be especially worthwhile in the AL. Instead of being limited to one position player, Alex Cora will have two spots available when choosing his token team reps. So, we may not get stuck with a random middle reliever being the Oriole or Royal because there wasn't room for a more-deserving position player.
Anyway, Election Day is going to change All*Star voting in a number of ways. The most significant, of course, is that, since vote totals are reset, a massive lead over second place will mean nothing for the leading vote-getters in the first stage. It could also mean that there's less ballot-stuffing (or ballot-stuffing will have less of an impact). And, perhaps most importantly, we could actually see the most deserving players elected as the starters.
With that in mind, here are the players who've been the most All*Star worthy at their positions thru the season's first two months:
Catcher
AL: Gary Sanchez, Yankees
NL: Willson Contreras, Cubs
Look at the Kracken's numbers, then consider the fact that he spent two weeks visiting his friends on the Yankees' DL. With Salvador Perez out for the year and not on the ballot, he likely will make his first All*Star start. Willson Contreras will need to break the Buster Posey/Yadi Molina stranglehold on the position in the NL. But he's been better than both perennials this season.
1st Base
AL: Luke Voit, Yankees
NL: Josh Bell, Pirates
Once a position where you could always expect to see ridiculous numbers, first base is now one of the AL's weaker positions. Voit's numbers clearly stand out over an unimpressive crowd. Josh Bell has been a revelation for the Pirates this season. If not for Christian Yelich and Cody Bellinger, he'd be the NL MVP at this point.
2nd Base
AL: Tommy LaStella, Angels
NL: Ozzie Albies, Braves
This is Jose Altuve's domain, and I fully expect him to start at second for the AL like he usually does. But has he been the AL's best second baseman so far? No. It's actually been a toss-up between Tommy LaStella and DJ LeMahieu. It's a toss-up in the NL, too. You wouldn't be wrong to go with either Albies or Arizona's Ketel Marte.
Shortstop
AL: Jorge Polanco, Twins
NL: Jean Segura, Phillies
Minnesota has the best record in baseball. And Jorge Polanco has been a big reason for that. Of course, with the abundance of superstar names (Correa, Lindor), his most likely path to the roster is as a reserve. For all the moves the Phillies made in the offseason, the Segura trade ended up falling a little under the radar. But unlike some of their other newcomers, he's actually played to his All*Star potential.
3rd Base
AL: Alex Bregman, Astros
NL: Nolan Arenado, Rockies
As much as I love the legend that is Gio Urshela, Alex Bregman, last year's All*Star Game MVP, is blowing away the AL third base field. Although, Jose Ramirez started last year, so this could be the Indians' best chance to get a starter in their home park. In the NL, it's not even close between Arenado and everybody else.
Outfield
AL: Mike Trout, Angels; Michael Brantley, Astros; Austin Meadows, Rays
NL: Cody Bellinger, Dodgers; Christian Yelich, Brewers; Alex Verdugo, Dodgers
Obviously Mike Trout is All-World everything. Even his down years are better than the average player's good year. Michael Brantley has been the perfect addition to the Astros. This is the type of player he can be when he's healthy. And it would be cool to see him start an All*Star Game in Cleveland. I easily could've gone with another Astro, George Springer, as my third outfielder. But having watched Austin Meadows torch the Yankees and the Rays continue to hang around in the AL East, I'm giving him the nod.
In the National League, the first two selections were incredibly easy. With Bellinger and Yelich, the only real question is which one is currently the MVP (my choice would be Bellinger). The third outfielder is a little tougher. I'm going with Bellinger's Dodger teammate Alex Verdugo, who's sure making them look wise for trading Yasiel Puig and opening up a spot. It'll be interesting when A.J. Pollock comes back, but that's an issue for another day.
Designated Hitter
AL: Hunter Pence, Rangers
Something's wrong! Khris Davis is currently hitting .248! Where'd that extra point come from?! Anyway, for a guy who looked done at the end of last season, Hunter Pence sure has taken to both the American League and DHing. Of course, with J.D. Martinez and Nelson Cruz heating up, I fully expect to see one of them be the actual starter in Cleveland.
All of this, obviously, is subject to change. And, just because the format is different, it doesn't mean the traditional fan favorites won't collect high vote totals. Which doesn't make these 17 players any less deserving of selection. Currently, at least. It is still May, after all.
Thursday, May 30, 2019
Monday, May 27, 2019
Another Boston Championship
OK, it may be a bit premature to say that, but you know they're already planning the parade. The Bruins will look to extend Boston's domination of the 2018-19 sports scene with their first Stanley Cup in eight years. Their opponent, meanwhile, has been waiting nearly 50 years for the opportunity to once again play for the Cup. But now the Blues have ended the longest gap in NHL history. And I actually think they have a chance to make this a series.
In a way, these two are incredibly different. The Bruins were one of the best teams in hockey all year and were always considered a Cup favorite. The Blues were the worst team in the league in January (they're the first team ever to make the Stanley Cup Final after having the fewest points in the NHL at any point during the season). But they're here, once again proving that getting into the tournament is all that matters. Because anything can happen after that.
But the Bruins and Blues are also really similar. They might be the two deepest teams in the league. They've both consistently rolled, and gotten production from, all four lines, proving once again how it takes an entire roster to win the Cup, not just one or two superstars. They've also both gotten exceptional goaltending, the real key to playoff success. Tuukka Rask is probably the leading candidate for the Conn Smythe right now, and Jordan Binnington sure hasn't looked like a rookie.
St. Louis is a ridiculous 7-2 on the road in the playoffs, so the fact that they need at least one road win to have any chance of hoisting the Cup shouldn't faze them in the slightest. Although, Boston is 6-3 at home, so something's gotta give.
The Bruins have been on a roll since the middle of the Columbus series. They've won seven straight since trailing the Blue Jackets 2-1, including a sweep of Carolina in the Eastern Conference Final. Speaking of that, I don't think I've seen a crazier stat that what happened in the Eastern Conference playoffs. The Islanders swept the Penguins, then got swept by the Hurricanes...who then got swept by the Bruins! So, if the trend continues, that means Boston will get swept by St. Louis, right?
It might just be a coincidence. It probably is. But you also have to consider the rest factor. Normally a short series is considered a good thing because you get more rest. But you also run the risk of getting too much rest. I think the Islanders and Hurricanes both had too much rest. It messed with their momentum. And for Boston, that could be a real fear. Because Game 1 will be the Bruins' first in 10 days. (Although, the Blues haven't played in six days, so there isn't too big a difference there.)
Frankly, I don't think the amount of rest really had any bearing on the Eastern Conference Final. The Bruins are a better team than the Hurricanes and they played like it. Plain and simple. Rask gave up just five goals in the entire series, completely overshadowing an offense that scored 17 times, with contributions from everyone. Boston is one of the most complete teams in hockey, which showed against Carolina.
Meanwhile, the Western Conference Final turned on San Jose's controversial overtime game-winner in Game 3. After that, Binnington decided that it would just be easier if he didn't let the Sharks score at all, holding them to just two goals over the final three games. And the Blues dominated San Jose in Games 5 & 6, outplaying the Sharks in every aspect of the game, most importantly on the scoreboard, where they outscored them 10-1. With contributions coming from, you guessed it, all four lines.
So, the Blues finally got past all their playoff demons. This might not have been the St. Louis team people expected to do it, but it became more and more believable as the season went on. And once the playoffs started and they got on this roll, it's no longer a surprise. In fact, their story is very similar to the three previous Western Conference Champions (San Jose, Nashville, Vegas). When the playoffs started, you didn't think much of them. Then, by the time they reach the Final, you find yourself rooting for them.
And now they've come full circle, as their first Stanley Cup Final game since 1970 will be against the same team as their last one. That 1970 Bruins-Blues series gave us perhaps THE most iconic image in hockey history, Bobby Orr flying thru the air after scoring the series-clinching goal in Game 4. That was actually the third straight Final appearance for the Blues, who went to the Final in their first three seasons of existence (partially because the NHL set it up so an expansion team was guaranteed to play for the Cup), only to get swept each time, twice by Montreal, then by Boston. This time they at least look poised to be competitive.
Another fun fact about those Blues teams that went to three straight Finals to start their existence: their 1967-68 team was the only first-year expansion team to play for the Cup until the Golden Knights' run last year.
Then there's this one, which isn't new, but is still cool: Boston and St. Louis are also the only cities to have played for the championship in all four major sports (which is even more impressive when you consider St. Louis doesn't even have an NBA or NFL team anymore). Speaking of the Rams, they provide a link between the three Boston championship series in the last nine months. The Red Sox played the Dodgers, who play in LA. The Rams moved to LA from St. Louis. And now the Bruins play St. Louis to complete the Boston trifecta.
Anyway, back to this series. Rest may not be a big factor, but experience very well could be. This isn't just the first Stanley Cup Final appearance for the St. Louis franchise in nearly half a century. It's also the first Stanley Cup Final for all but two players on the Blues' roster. The Bruins, meanwhile, still have those five core players (Chara, Rask, Bergeron, Krejci, Marchand) from their 2011 Cup winner, and three others who've played in the Final previously.
That Final experience may be the biggest difference between these two teams. They're both deep and talented offensively. They've both gotten great goaltending. But something's gotta separate them, and that experience factor may very well be it.
Boston was going to be the favorite either way. Then, when you throw in the veteran presence of Zdeno Chara and Co., it's definitely advantage Bruins. And, I know both goalies are hot. But Tuukka Rask's play has been otherworldly. He'll win a game or two all by himself. Which is enough for me to say Bruins in six.
Besides, if the past year has taught us anything, it's that Boston teams don't lose once they get this far. The Bruins are, however, the most tolerable of the three by far, so that makes this one a little easier to deal with. Regardless, Boston fans will be given yet another reason to be even more obnoxious than usual, as they attend their third championship parade in less than a year.
In a way, these two are incredibly different. The Bruins were one of the best teams in hockey all year and were always considered a Cup favorite. The Blues were the worst team in the league in January (they're the first team ever to make the Stanley Cup Final after having the fewest points in the NHL at any point during the season). But they're here, once again proving that getting into the tournament is all that matters. Because anything can happen after that.
But the Bruins and Blues are also really similar. They might be the two deepest teams in the league. They've both consistently rolled, and gotten production from, all four lines, proving once again how it takes an entire roster to win the Cup, not just one or two superstars. They've also both gotten exceptional goaltending, the real key to playoff success. Tuukka Rask is probably the leading candidate for the Conn Smythe right now, and Jordan Binnington sure hasn't looked like a rookie.
St. Louis is a ridiculous 7-2 on the road in the playoffs, so the fact that they need at least one road win to have any chance of hoisting the Cup shouldn't faze them in the slightest. Although, Boston is 6-3 at home, so something's gotta give.
The Bruins have been on a roll since the middle of the Columbus series. They've won seven straight since trailing the Blue Jackets 2-1, including a sweep of Carolina in the Eastern Conference Final. Speaking of that, I don't think I've seen a crazier stat that what happened in the Eastern Conference playoffs. The Islanders swept the Penguins, then got swept by the Hurricanes...who then got swept by the Bruins! So, if the trend continues, that means Boston will get swept by St. Louis, right?
It might just be a coincidence. It probably is. But you also have to consider the rest factor. Normally a short series is considered a good thing because you get more rest. But you also run the risk of getting too much rest. I think the Islanders and Hurricanes both had too much rest. It messed with their momentum. And for Boston, that could be a real fear. Because Game 1 will be the Bruins' first in 10 days. (Although, the Blues haven't played in six days, so there isn't too big a difference there.)
Frankly, I don't think the amount of rest really had any bearing on the Eastern Conference Final. The Bruins are a better team than the Hurricanes and they played like it. Plain and simple. Rask gave up just five goals in the entire series, completely overshadowing an offense that scored 17 times, with contributions from everyone. Boston is one of the most complete teams in hockey, which showed against Carolina.
Meanwhile, the Western Conference Final turned on San Jose's controversial overtime game-winner in Game 3. After that, Binnington decided that it would just be easier if he didn't let the Sharks score at all, holding them to just two goals over the final three games. And the Blues dominated San Jose in Games 5 & 6, outplaying the Sharks in every aspect of the game, most importantly on the scoreboard, where they outscored them 10-1. With contributions coming from, you guessed it, all four lines.
So, the Blues finally got past all their playoff demons. This might not have been the St. Louis team people expected to do it, but it became more and more believable as the season went on. And once the playoffs started and they got on this roll, it's no longer a surprise. In fact, their story is very similar to the three previous Western Conference Champions (San Jose, Nashville, Vegas). When the playoffs started, you didn't think much of them. Then, by the time they reach the Final, you find yourself rooting for them.
And now they've come full circle, as their first Stanley Cup Final game since 1970 will be against the same team as their last one. That 1970 Bruins-Blues series gave us perhaps THE most iconic image in hockey history, Bobby Orr flying thru the air after scoring the series-clinching goal in Game 4. That was actually the third straight Final appearance for the Blues, who went to the Final in their first three seasons of existence (partially because the NHL set it up so an expansion team was guaranteed to play for the Cup), only to get swept each time, twice by Montreal, then by Boston. This time they at least look poised to be competitive.
Another fun fact about those Blues teams that went to three straight Finals to start their existence: their 1967-68 team was the only first-year expansion team to play for the Cup until the Golden Knights' run last year.
Then there's this one, which isn't new, but is still cool: Boston and St. Louis are also the only cities to have played for the championship in all four major sports (which is even more impressive when you consider St. Louis doesn't even have an NBA or NFL team anymore). Speaking of the Rams, they provide a link between the three Boston championship series in the last nine months. The Red Sox played the Dodgers, who play in LA. The Rams moved to LA from St. Louis. And now the Bruins play St. Louis to complete the Boston trifecta.
Anyway, back to this series. Rest may not be a big factor, but experience very well could be. This isn't just the first Stanley Cup Final appearance for the St. Louis franchise in nearly half a century. It's also the first Stanley Cup Final for all but two players on the Blues' roster. The Bruins, meanwhile, still have those five core players (Chara, Rask, Bergeron, Krejci, Marchand) from their 2011 Cup winner, and three others who've played in the Final previously.
That Final experience may be the biggest difference between these two teams. They're both deep and talented offensively. They've both gotten great goaltending. But something's gotta separate them, and that experience factor may very well be it.
Boston was going to be the favorite either way. Then, when you throw in the veteran presence of Zdeno Chara and Co., it's definitely advantage Bruins. And, I know both goalies are hot. But Tuukka Rask's play has been otherworldly. He'll win a game or two all by himself. Which is enough for me to say Bruins in six.
Besides, if the past year has taught us anything, it's that Boston teams don't lose once they get this far. The Bruins are, however, the most tolerable of the three by far, so that makes this one a little easier to deal with. Regardless, Boston fans will be given yet another reason to be even more obnoxious than usual, as they attend their third championship parade in less than a year.
Sunday, May 26, 2019
The Greatest Spectacle In Racing
We knew going in that this year's Indy 500 would be different. That's because for the first time since 1965, the race won't be on ABC. And in the first year of NBC's deal, their entire three-hour TV window when they were supposed to do pole and Bump Day qualifying last Sunday was rain delayed. They continued coverage on NBCSN later, and, amazingly, they were able to fill the last row and set the top nine positions. But let's hope their maiden voyage with the Indy 500 itself features better weather.
Qualifying proved to be interesting, too. Fernando Alonso, the former F1 World Champion, didn't qualify. That was the same fate James Hinchcliffe, one of the most popular drivers on the IndyCar circuit, suffered last year. Hinchcliffe was on the bubble again after a crash on the first day of qualifying, but he was able to make the field in a backup car.
Part of the Indy mystique is that long-standing belief among drivers that the track picks the winner. It really is the only way to explain some of the weird stuff that has happened over the years. Ask any member of the Andretti family what they think about that. It's been 50 years since Mario earned the family's only win at the Brickyard.
Anyway, the real reason why I brought that up is because it sure looks like the Brickyard has decided how James Hinchcliffe's Indy 500 career is going to go. Although, I used to think that about Tony Kanaan and Will Power, but, after Power's victory last year, they're now both former Indy 500 champions. So maybe the Indy Curse can be lifted, after all.
That's good news for a bunch of drivers who've had fast cars all month. Starting with pole-sitter Simon Pagenaud, who also turned in the fastest practice laps the day after securing the pole. He's got the speed and he's got the car. He'll be a factor.
Then there's Indianapolis native Ed Carpenter. He just missed his second straight and fourth career Indy pole, finishing just 0.003 mph behind Pagenaud on pole day. So he'll have to settle for starting on the front row for the third consecutive time. Carpenter finished second last year, and if he were to move up a position that would be a very popular victory with a lot of people.
Carpenter's not the only Ed worth mentioning. Ed Jones was the Indy 500 Rookie of the Year in 2017, when he finished third. This year, he made the Fast Nine and had the top speed in one of the practice sessions. A good driver with a fast car is a good combination at Indy. And Ed Jones is a good driver with a fast car. He'll be a factor. I'll be shocked if he's not in the top 10.
Or maybe 19-year-old Colton Herta will win Indy in his first try. His dad, Bryan, a two-time top five finisher as a driver, has won two Indy 500s as a team owner, including Alexander Rossi's victory in 2016. That was the last time a rookie won, but Colton Herta is starting fifth and has impressed everyone all month. He looks poised to win Rookie of the Year honors. Unless Marcus Ericsson does. Ericsson's team won the pit stop challenge, so you know he's got a good car.
Another guy who won this race as a rookie actually crossed the line of bricks first on both his first AND second tries. I'm, of course, talking about the legend Helio Castroneves. It's been 10 years since he picked up that third win. But let's not forget he's finished second twice since then. There's a reason Helio has 14 Top 10s in his Indy 500 career. As long as he's in a car, he's in the conversation.
Helio isn't the only former champion who's remarkably consistent at the Brickyard. Scott Dixon won the 2008 Indy 500, has finished second twice and was third last year. He's starting 18th this year, but don't be surprised to see him quickly make his way through the field and into the discussion. In order to win, though, Dixon will have to be as close to perfect as possible, and he probably needs to get a little lucky, too.
But I never count out any former winners at the Indy 500. They know what it's like to sip the milk, and you know they want to have that feeling again. Although, I like the chances for former champs Power, Rossi, Helio and Dixon a little bit more than I do for Kanaan, Takuma Sato and Ryan Hunter-Reay.
I really feel like this is a year where we're going to see some new blood at the top, though. By "new" I mean somebody who hasn't won Indy before. I really think it'll be one of the Eds or Pagenaud. They've all been so impressive all month. So has Colton Herta. Danica Patrick can't stop raving about him. And I wouldn't be surprised to see James Hinchcliffe shut all of us up and make a run towards the front after starting 32nd.
My track record with Indy 500 picks has been surprisingly good. I nailed it with Will Power last year, and I correctly called the late Dan Wheldon in 2011 (which was the other win for Bryan Herta as a team owner). So I take my Indy pick seriously. I'm just so unsure this year. Because I like so many drivers.
The one name I keep coming back to, though, is Simon Pagenaud. The Frenchman's on the pole, and he's the driver to beat. Although, he's just one of a handful of drivers with a legitimate chance to come away with the win. Which means NBC's first go at Indy should be a competitive one.
Qualifying proved to be interesting, too. Fernando Alonso, the former F1 World Champion, didn't qualify. That was the same fate James Hinchcliffe, one of the most popular drivers on the IndyCar circuit, suffered last year. Hinchcliffe was on the bubble again after a crash on the first day of qualifying, but he was able to make the field in a backup car.
Part of the Indy mystique is that long-standing belief among drivers that the track picks the winner. It really is the only way to explain some of the weird stuff that has happened over the years. Ask any member of the Andretti family what they think about that. It's been 50 years since Mario earned the family's only win at the Brickyard.
Anyway, the real reason why I brought that up is because it sure looks like the Brickyard has decided how James Hinchcliffe's Indy 500 career is going to go. Although, I used to think that about Tony Kanaan and Will Power, but, after Power's victory last year, they're now both former Indy 500 champions. So maybe the Indy Curse can be lifted, after all.
That's good news for a bunch of drivers who've had fast cars all month. Starting with pole-sitter Simon Pagenaud, who also turned in the fastest practice laps the day after securing the pole. He's got the speed and he's got the car. He'll be a factor.
Then there's Indianapolis native Ed Carpenter. He just missed his second straight and fourth career Indy pole, finishing just 0.003 mph behind Pagenaud on pole day. So he'll have to settle for starting on the front row for the third consecutive time. Carpenter finished second last year, and if he were to move up a position that would be a very popular victory with a lot of people.
Carpenter's not the only Ed worth mentioning. Ed Jones was the Indy 500 Rookie of the Year in 2017, when he finished third. This year, he made the Fast Nine and had the top speed in one of the practice sessions. A good driver with a fast car is a good combination at Indy. And Ed Jones is a good driver with a fast car. He'll be a factor. I'll be shocked if he's not in the top 10.
Or maybe 19-year-old Colton Herta will win Indy in his first try. His dad, Bryan, a two-time top five finisher as a driver, has won two Indy 500s as a team owner, including Alexander Rossi's victory in 2016. That was the last time a rookie won, but Colton Herta is starting fifth and has impressed everyone all month. He looks poised to win Rookie of the Year honors. Unless Marcus Ericsson does. Ericsson's team won the pit stop challenge, so you know he's got a good car.
Another guy who won this race as a rookie actually crossed the line of bricks first on both his first AND second tries. I'm, of course, talking about the legend Helio Castroneves. It's been 10 years since he picked up that third win. But let's not forget he's finished second twice since then. There's a reason Helio has 14 Top 10s in his Indy 500 career. As long as he's in a car, he's in the conversation.
Helio isn't the only former champion who's remarkably consistent at the Brickyard. Scott Dixon won the 2008 Indy 500, has finished second twice and was third last year. He's starting 18th this year, but don't be surprised to see him quickly make his way through the field and into the discussion. In order to win, though, Dixon will have to be as close to perfect as possible, and he probably needs to get a little lucky, too.
But I never count out any former winners at the Indy 500. They know what it's like to sip the milk, and you know they want to have that feeling again. Although, I like the chances for former champs Power, Rossi, Helio and Dixon a little bit more than I do for Kanaan, Takuma Sato and Ryan Hunter-Reay.
I really feel like this is a year where we're going to see some new blood at the top, though. By "new" I mean somebody who hasn't won Indy before. I really think it'll be one of the Eds or Pagenaud. They've all been so impressive all month. So has Colton Herta. Danica Patrick can't stop raving about him. And I wouldn't be surprised to see James Hinchcliffe shut all of us up and make a run towards the front after starting 32nd.
My track record with Indy 500 picks has been surprisingly good. I nailed it with Will Power last year, and I correctly called the late Dan Wheldon in 2011 (which was the other win for Bryan Herta as a team owner). So I take my Indy pick seriously. I'm just so unsure this year. Because I like so many drivers.
The one name I keep coming back to, though, is Simon Pagenaud. The Frenchman's on the pole, and he's the driver to beat. Although, he's just one of a handful of drivers with a legitimate chance to come away with the win. Which means NBC's first go at Indy should be a competitive one.
Saturday, May 25, 2019
Death, Taxes, the Patriots, the Warriors, and Rafael Nadal
They say that death and taxes are the only certainties in life. But that list could easily be expanded to five certainties. Because, like clockwork, the Patriots are going to end up in the Super Bowl, the Warriors are going to wind up in the NBA Finals...and Rafael Nadal's going to win the French Open.
There actually are three times he HASN'T won it since 2005, but you'd be forgiven for not remembering any of them. Believe it or not, other players (Stan Wawrinka, Novak Djokovic) won back-to-back French Opens in 2015-16. Then there was 2009, when a certain Swiss guy finally got that French Open monkey off his back. On the 10th anniversary of that victory and 20th anniversary of his Grand Slam debut right here (he lost to Pat Rafter in the first round), Roger returns to the red clay of Roland Garros for the first time since 2015.
The main reason Federer has missed the last three French Opens is pretty straightforward. He was injured in 2016, but sat out voluntarily to rest up for Wimbledon in 2017 and 2018. But there's another reason, too. Clay is his weakest surface, and his chances of beating Nadal are minimal at best. It's kinda like those poor Jeopardy! contestants who've had to go against James Holzhauer over the past six weeks. And, honestly, who can blame him for saying "Why bother?" with Wimbledon, his best Grand Slam, coming up less than a month later?
Although, even with all this talk about Rafa looking to extend his record to 12 French Open titles, there's another storyline that can't be overlooked. When he won his French Open title in 2016, Novak Djokovic completed a "Nole Slam." And this year he heads to Roland Garros with a chance to do it again. Serena has two "Serena Slams." It would be just as incredible for him to join her in that club and do the "Nole Slam" twice.
And here's another remarkable stat about Djokovic: if he wins, it'll be his 16th Grand Slam title, which would put him just one behind Nadal. A Nadal win, meanwhile, would move him to 18, just two behind Federer.
It really is incredible to think that when Pete Sampras retired in 2002, he was the all-time record-holder with 14 Grand Slam titles. He's now fourth behind all three of them! Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have combined to win 52 Grand Slam tournaments since Roger's first at Wimbledon 2003. That covers 13 of the last 16 years! Or, to put it another way, that's all but 10 of the Grand Slam tournaments played in that time! (And if you add in the three each for Andy Murray and Stan Wawrinka, it's an even more staggering 58 of the last 63 Grand Slams won by the same five people).
So, while there are plenty of other talented men in the field, all signs point to another Djokovic-Nadal final. The only question is whether Rafa will make it No. 12 or Novak will make it four in a row. Seeing as Nadal was given a ridiculously easy early draw (qualifiers in the first round), he's not going to be tested. That'll pay off later in the tournament, which is why I'm going with the former of the two options.
On the women's side, however, it's wide open. Unlike the men, they go into this thing with a whole list of players who could win. There have been five different champions in the last five years, and that could easily be extended to six. Especially when you consider that list doesn't include Karolina Pliskova or Elina Svitolina, both of whom are still seeking their first career Grand Slam title.
Naomi Osaka is the best women's player on the planet and has won the last two Grand Slams, but those were both on hardcourts. She's never been past the third round in Paris, and her style of play doesn't seem well-suited to clay. So it would be a stretch to call her the "favorite."
You can't really call Serena the "favorite" either. It was here last year that she made her return to Grand Slam tennis after giving birth, and that return was mired in controversy because she wasn't seeded. This year, that's not an issue. She's ranked 10th and seeded 10th. Although, that means a potential quarterfinal matchup with Osaka, which would be quite compelling (especially since it would be their first Grand Slam meeting since the US Open final).
If you're looking for a favorite, Simona Halep would have to be it. She's the defending champion and was the finalist in 2017. I'm not saying Halep is the female Rafael Nadal. But she's definitely the best clay-court player in the world. Most importantly, her draw is favorable. On paper, her toughest match is the semifinal against the Serena-Osaka winner. But this is the French Open. Where weird things happen.
Another clay-courter worth keeping an eye on is Kiki Bertens. She won the tune-up tournament in Madrid, beating Sloane Stephens in the semis and Halep in the final, to reach a career-high No. 4 in the rankings, the highest-ever for a Dutch player. She was a semifinalist here in 2016 (by far her best-ever Grand Slam result), but has only won six total matches in her other six French Open appearances. Plus, this is the first time she's ever really been expected to challenge at a major, so we'll see how well she handles that pressure. Bertens also has a difficult draw with former champion Garbine Muguruza and last year's finalist Sloane Stephens as potential opponents.
Stephens and Muguruza are two of the other names that wouldn't surprise anyone if they put the necessary seven wins together to hoist the Coupe Suzanne Lenglen. There's a potential Angie Kerber-Karolina Pliskova quarterfinal, and the winner of that could easily run the table. But those two also seem like candidates for an early-round upset. The women's field is just so deep.
I feel compelled to make a pick, though. So I'm gonna go with Halep to repeat. I'll say she knocks off Svitolina in the final. She's going to reward my confidence in her one of these days.
There actually are three times he HASN'T won it since 2005, but you'd be forgiven for not remembering any of them. Believe it or not, other players (Stan Wawrinka, Novak Djokovic) won back-to-back French Opens in 2015-16. Then there was 2009, when a certain Swiss guy finally got that French Open monkey off his back. On the 10th anniversary of that victory and 20th anniversary of his Grand Slam debut right here (he lost to Pat Rafter in the first round), Roger returns to the red clay of Roland Garros for the first time since 2015.
The main reason Federer has missed the last three French Opens is pretty straightforward. He was injured in 2016, but sat out voluntarily to rest up for Wimbledon in 2017 and 2018. But there's another reason, too. Clay is his weakest surface, and his chances of beating Nadal are minimal at best. It's kinda like those poor Jeopardy! contestants who've had to go against James Holzhauer over the past six weeks. And, honestly, who can blame him for saying "Why bother?" with Wimbledon, his best Grand Slam, coming up less than a month later?
Although, even with all this talk about Rafa looking to extend his record to 12 French Open titles, there's another storyline that can't be overlooked. When he won his French Open title in 2016, Novak Djokovic completed a "Nole Slam." And this year he heads to Roland Garros with a chance to do it again. Serena has two "Serena Slams." It would be just as incredible for him to join her in that club and do the "Nole Slam" twice.
And here's another remarkable stat about Djokovic: if he wins, it'll be his 16th Grand Slam title, which would put him just one behind Nadal. A Nadal win, meanwhile, would move him to 18, just two behind Federer.
It really is incredible to think that when Pete Sampras retired in 2002, he was the all-time record-holder with 14 Grand Slam titles. He's now fourth behind all three of them! Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have combined to win 52 Grand Slam tournaments since Roger's first at Wimbledon 2003. That covers 13 of the last 16 years! Or, to put it another way, that's all but 10 of the Grand Slam tournaments played in that time! (And if you add in the three each for Andy Murray and Stan Wawrinka, it's an even more staggering 58 of the last 63 Grand Slams won by the same five people).
So, while there are plenty of other talented men in the field, all signs point to another Djokovic-Nadal final. The only question is whether Rafa will make it No. 12 or Novak will make it four in a row. Seeing as Nadal was given a ridiculously easy early draw (qualifiers in the first round), he's not going to be tested. That'll pay off later in the tournament, which is why I'm going with the former of the two options.
On the women's side, however, it's wide open. Unlike the men, they go into this thing with a whole list of players who could win. There have been five different champions in the last five years, and that could easily be extended to six. Especially when you consider that list doesn't include Karolina Pliskova or Elina Svitolina, both of whom are still seeking their first career Grand Slam title.
Naomi Osaka is the best women's player on the planet and has won the last two Grand Slams, but those were both on hardcourts. She's never been past the third round in Paris, and her style of play doesn't seem well-suited to clay. So it would be a stretch to call her the "favorite."
You can't really call Serena the "favorite" either. It was here last year that she made her return to Grand Slam tennis after giving birth, and that return was mired in controversy because she wasn't seeded. This year, that's not an issue. She's ranked 10th and seeded 10th. Although, that means a potential quarterfinal matchup with Osaka, which would be quite compelling (especially since it would be their first Grand Slam meeting since the US Open final).
If you're looking for a favorite, Simona Halep would have to be it. She's the defending champion and was the finalist in 2017. I'm not saying Halep is the female Rafael Nadal. But she's definitely the best clay-court player in the world. Most importantly, her draw is favorable. On paper, her toughest match is the semifinal against the Serena-Osaka winner. But this is the French Open. Where weird things happen.
Another clay-courter worth keeping an eye on is Kiki Bertens. She won the tune-up tournament in Madrid, beating Sloane Stephens in the semis and Halep in the final, to reach a career-high No. 4 in the rankings, the highest-ever for a Dutch player. She was a semifinalist here in 2016 (by far her best-ever Grand Slam result), but has only won six total matches in her other six French Open appearances. Plus, this is the first time she's ever really been expected to challenge at a major, so we'll see how well she handles that pressure. Bertens also has a difficult draw with former champion Garbine Muguruza and last year's finalist Sloane Stephens as potential opponents.
Stephens and Muguruza are two of the other names that wouldn't surprise anyone if they put the necessary seven wins together to hoist the Coupe Suzanne Lenglen. There's a potential Angie Kerber-Karolina Pliskova quarterfinal, and the winner of that could easily run the table. But those two also seem like candidates for an early-round upset. The women's field is just so deep.
I feel compelled to make a pick, though. So I'm gonna go with Halep to repeat. I'll say she knocks off Svitolina in the final. She's going to reward my confidence in her one of these days.
Thursday, May 23, 2019
Changing the Draft Game
Carter Stewart is taking a big risk. He may pull it off, he may not. We're still too far away from knowing. But if he does, he could change the MLB Draft forever.
Stewart is a 19-year-old pitcher who was taken eighth overall by the Braves last year, but didn't sign after they reduced his signing bonus. He pitched a junior college in Florida this year, which means he's eligible to be drafted again next month (had he gone to a four-year college, he would've had to wait until after his junior year). Stewart was projected as a second-round pick. But that's not going to happen. He's going to Japan instead.
In a groundbreaking agreement, Stewart is on the verge of signing a six-year, $7 million deal with the Fukuoka SoftBank Hawks in the Japanese Pacific League. That's significantly more money than he'd earn making his way through the Minors. And, more importantly, it'll make him a free agent earlier.
Because he'll technically be an international free agent, he'll fall under the same posting system as Ichiro and Masahiro Tanaka and Shohei Ohtani. Stewart is committing to six years in Japan. But after that, he'll be able to go anywhere he wants as a 25-year-old free agent. Which is much earlier than he would under the standard Major League rookie contract.
He'll also hit free agency a lot richer than he would be making his way through the Minors. Under the terms of the current CBA, rookie salaries are slotted based on their draft position. They don't make the real money until they reach the Majors. But even the Major League minimum is $550,000. So, $7 million plus incentives and still becoming a free agent at 25 or a few years in the Minors followed by a few at the league minimum? The math seems pretty simple to me.
This isn't the first time a player has bet on himself like this. Bryce Harper finished high school in three years then enrolled in a junior college just so he could enter the draft a year earlier. We all know how things worked out for him.
Perhaps not surprisingly, Harper and Stewart share an agent. Scott Boras. Boras has a reputation for making sure his clients get the most money possible, and this is just another example of it. Boras has evidently tried to exploit this loophole before, but hasn't had a client brave enough to try it until now. And it's definitely worth watching to see if it works. Because if it does, Stewart won't be the last.
The move is bold, and the risk is calculated. There's no guarantee of success. There are massive cultural differences between Japan and the United States. And he's there for six years no matter what. There's no getting out of the contract early if things don't work out. But Stewart and Boras are banking on the positives outweighing the negatives. And banking on the financial windfall that could be the result.
Keep in mind, too, that he isn't using this as a shortcut to the draft. No shortcut is needed. If he wanted to, he could be drafted in a few weeks and playing rookie ball shortly after that. This is a conscious choice to, essentially, bypass the Minor Leagues entirely and take his chances in Japan, where the competition is somewhere between Major League and Triple A-quality.
It's not unusual for an American to go over and play in Japan. There are countless examples of players whose careers were either extended or revived after a stint in Japan, as well as those who've enjoyed long, successful careers on the other side of the Pacific. What makes Stewart different, though, is that he's not an established pro. He's an amateur. So Fukuoka's taking a considerable amount of risk, too.
Although, if you're thinking this might be the start of a new trend, don't get carried away. Japanese teams are limited to a maximum of four foreigners, which means there are only 48 non-Japanese players in all of Nippon Professional Baseball. So there isn't going to be this sudden influx of American amateurs into the Japanese Central and Pacific Leagues. Which is good. Because it means the Japanese teams will have to be selective on who they bring over and sign to these multi-million dollar contracts. And the Hawks think a 19-year-old who's 6'6 and throws in the mid-90s is worth one of those four spots. Amateur or not.
None of this is set in stone yet. The i's still need to be dotted and the t's still need to be crossed. But it'll be fascinating to watch over the next six years. And Carter Stewart already appears to be the most intriguing free agent in the Class of 2025.
Stewart is a 19-year-old pitcher who was taken eighth overall by the Braves last year, but didn't sign after they reduced his signing bonus. He pitched a junior college in Florida this year, which means he's eligible to be drafted again next month (had he gone to a four-year college, he would've had to wait until after his junior year). Stewart was projected as a second-round pick. But that's not going to happen. He's going to Japan instead.
In a groundbreaking agreement, Stewart is on the verge of signing a six-year, $7 million deal with the Fukuoka SoftBank Hawks in the Japanese Pacific League. That's significantly more money than he'd earn making his way through the Minors. And, more importantly, it'll make him a free agent earlier.
Because he'll technically be an international free agent, he'll fall under the same posting system as Ichiro and Masahiro Tanaka and Shohei Ohtani. Stewart is committing to six years in Japan. But after that, he'll be able to go anywhere he wants as a 25-year-old free agent. Which is much earlier than he would under the standard Major League rookie contract.
He'll also hit free agency a lot richer than he would be making his way through the Minors. Under the terms of the current CBA, rookie salaries are slotted based on their draft position. They don't make the real money until they reach the Majors. But even the Major League minimum is $550,000. So, $7 million plus incentives and still becoming a free agent at 25 or a few years in the Minors followed by a few at the league minimum? The math seems pretty simple to me.
This isn't the first time a player has bet on himself like this. Bryce Harper finished high school in three years then enrolled in a junior college just so he could enter the draft a year earlier. We all know how things worked out for him.
Perhaps not surprisingly, Harper and Stewart share an agent. Scott Boras. Boras has a reputation for making sure his clients get the most money possible, and this is just another example of it. Boras has evidently tried to exploit this loophole before, but hasn't had a client brave enough to try it until now. And it's definitely worth watching to see if it works. Because if it does, Stewart won't be the last.
The move is bold, and the risk is calculated. There's no guarantee of success. There are massive cultural differences between Japan and the United States. And he's there for six years no matter what. There's no getting out of the contract early if things don't work out. But Stewart and Boras are banking on the positives outweighing the negatives. And banking on the financial windfall that could be the result.
Keep in mind, too, that he isn't using this as a shortcut to the draft. No shortcut is needed. If he wanted to, he could be drafted in a few weeks and playing rookie ball shortly after that. This is a conscious choice to, essentially, bypass the Minor Leagues entirely and take his chances in Japan, where the competition is somewhere between Major League and Triple A-quality.
It's not unusual for an American to go over and play in Japan. There are countless examples of players whose careers were either extended or revived after a stint in Japan, as well as those who've enjoyed long, successful careers on the other side of the Pacific. What makes Stewart different, though, is that he's not an established pro. He's an amateur. So Fukuoka's taking a considerable amount of risk, too.
Although, if you're thinking this might be the start of a new trend, don't get carried away. Japanese teams are limited to a maximum of four foreigners, which means there are only 48 non-Japanese players in all of Nippon Professional Baseball. So there isn't going to be this sudden influx of American amateurs into the Japanese Central and Pacific Leagues. Which is good. Because it means the Japanese teams will have to be selective on who they bring over and sign to these multi-million dollar contracts. And the Hawks think a 19-year-old who's 6'6 and throws in the mid-90s is worth one of those four spots. Amateur or not.
None of this is set in stone yet. The i's still need to be dotted and the t's still need to be crossed. But it'll be fascinating to watch over the next six years. And Carter Stewart already appears to be the most intriguing free agent in the Class of 2025.
Monday, May 20, 2019
Baseball Throwbacks
Perhaps no sport is more identified with its uniforms than baseball. The Yankees, Tigers and Dodgers uniforms are timeless classics. Mickey Mantle and Aaron Judge wore the same uniform. So did Hank Greenberg and Miguel Cabrera. Ditto with Sandy Koufax and Clayton Kershaw. The Red Sox and Cubs have played around with their road uniforms, but the home whites worn by Ted Williams and Ernie Banks are the same as the ones being worn by Mookie Betts and Kris Bryant today.
Then there are the teams that can't figure out what they want to do. Of the four 90s expansion teams, only the Rockies have maintained a consistent look. The other three have all gone through multiple logo/uniform redesigns...and these are three of the youngest teams in baseball! The Diamondbacks went from purple and green to red and black to...I don't know what to call that weird gray color and snakeskin jerseys. The Devil Rays turned into the Rays, going from a rainbow to dark green to navy in the process. The Marlins, meanwhile, can't go more than a few years without completely changing their identity. They wore teal, then they wore black, then they changed their name to "Miami." Now they've got black-on-black uniforms that are impossible to read!
Everyone else has changed up their uniforms and/or logos from time to time over the years. Sometimes a new owner wants a fresh start. Sometimes they moved into a new stadium (or city) and want new uniforms to go with it. Sometimes they're just looking for a change.
And sometimes a funny thing happens. A team can change its logo/uniforms and leave its fans missing the old one. A look that once seemed tacky and outdated is suddenly cool again. Which leads to old logos being revived (Orioles, White Sox) or updated (Blue Jays) or a combination of the two (Astros). Or, best of all, we get the throwback!
Whenever you see a throwback uniform on the field, it just makes you feel good. It definitely brings you back to another era. The Pirates' gold jerseys, black pants and pillbox hats bring me right back to Willie Stargell. Some are so wonderfully bad that it makes you wonder why the team ever wore them in the first place (Chris Sale was notoriously not a fan of the pullover throwback White Sox uniforms from the early 80s). Some are so good that they leave you scratching your head as to why the team would stop wearing them. And, fortunately, there are some looks (such as the Indians' all-red getup from the mid-70s) that have remained a part of history. At least so far.
Occasionally, we get treated to a "Turn Back the Clock Day" where both teams wear throwbacks. This can lead to amazing things like the Astros in the orange rainbow vs. the Mariners in their powder blue with their trident. Or, when we have the interleague World Series rematch from way back in the day, which gives us modern versions of uniforms from the early 1900s.
By my count, there are 11 Major League teams that have throwback uniforms. Five have the throwbacks as a part of their regular uniform rotation. Six others have a throwback that they wear from time to time. (Teams that wear throwbacks only for one-off special occasions aren't counted here.)
Of those six part-timers, three wear a modified throwback. The Mariners wear their current uniform design with their old blue-and-gold color scheme. The A's recently reintroduced a kelly green jersey reminiscent of the ones they wore to win three straight World Series in the 70s. Sadly, no gold version as of yet. And the Royals haven't gone full powder blue (which they totally should). They do have a powder blue alternate jersey, though.
The other part-timers are Tampa Bay, which occasionally wears the original Devil Rays home uniforms from their inaugural season; the White Sox, with those delightful early 80s monstrosities that Chris Sale loved so much; and the Twins, who have a throwback alternate home uniform from when they first moved to Minnesota in the 60s (which reminds me, can we, just once, get the Nationals in Expos jerseys, please?).
Which leaves us with five semi-regular throwbacks (again, Baltimore and Toronto don't count, since those are their regular uniforms): Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, San Diego and St. Louis. All of which are so good and so popular that their worn multiple times per season. Some have even been designated as "Sunday" uniforms or "Friday night" uniforms.
Milwaukee: The Brewers' "ball-in-glove" logo is one of the best in the history of sports. (Although it completely boggles my mind how many people, players included, never realized that the pieces of the glove are an M and a B.) As this guy on Bleacher Report said, they really should just go back to these permanently.
Philadelphia: Bryce Harper's new team's current uniforms are actually sort-of throwbacks to the 50s and 60s. But they're bringing it back to the 80s with their incredible throwback alternates. Head-to-toe powder blue with that maroon P with the baseball in the middle (although the current version doesn't have the baseball). Beautiful on so many levels. So beautiful that you don't even mind the fact that they're wearing powder blue at home.
Pittsburgh: Another classic throwback to a bygone era. As I noted earlier, these uniforms just bring you back to a magical time with Willie Stargell and "We Are Fam-i-lee." There were actually nine different combinations with these uniforms. But the yellow top/black pants is the most classic of all those looks. The only thing missing is yellow batting helmets.
San Diego: Yellow and brown is a terrible combination. Except it worked for the San Diego Padres. The Padres have changed their logo and uniforms a lot over the years, but they still haven't gone back to the brown. Why not? It's yours! Own it! As for the throwbacks, these are more fauxbacks. The current wordmark and logo in brown and yellow. Not the Dave Winfield softball jerseys with the yellow sleeves, which would be so much better. At least they got the hats right, though.
St. Louis: As classic as the Cardinals' regular uniforms are, they actually rock two throwbacks pretty well. They've got a cream-colored "St. Louis" that they wear for Sunday home games and a powder blue "St. Louis" that isn't exactly the look they wore in three World Series in the 80s. It's really just a powder blue version of the creams. Either way, it looks good.
Baseball isn't the only sport with throwback uniforms. But it's the sport where they work the best. And for all the throwback brilliance we've already seen, there's still so much more possible. Hank Aaron-Era blue and white Braves softball jerseys anyone?
Then there are the teams that can't figure out what they want to do. Of the four 90s expansion teams, only the Rockies have maintained a consistent look. The other three have all gone through multiple logo/uniform redesigns...and these are three of the youngest teams in baseball! The Diamondbacks went from purple and green to red and black to...I don't know what to call that weird gray color and snakeskin jerseys. The Devil Rays turned into the Rays, going from a rainbow to dark green to navy in the process. The Marlins, meanwhile, can't go more than a few years without completely changing their identity. They wore teal, then they wore black, then they changed their name to "Miami." Now they've got black-on-black uniforms that are impossible to read!
Everyone else has changed up their uniforms and/or logos from time to time over the years. Sometimes a new owner wants a fresh start. Sometimes they moved into a new stadium (or city) and want new uniforms to go with it. Sometimes they're just looking for a change.
And sometimes a funny thing happens. A team can change its logo/uniforms and leave its fans missing the old one. A look that once seemed tacky and outdated is suddenly cool again. Which leads to old logos being revived (Orioles, White Sox) or updated (Blue Jays) or a combination of the two (Astros). Or, best of all, we get the throwback!
Whenever you see a throwback uniform on the field, it just makes you feel good. It definitely brings you back to another era. The Pirates' gold jerseys, black pants and pillbox hats bring me right back to Willie Stargell. Some are so wonderfully bad that it makes you wonder why the team ever wore them in the first place (Chris Sale was notoriously not a fan of the pullover throwback White Sox uniforms from the early 80s). Some are so good that they leave you scratching your head as to why the team would stop wearing them. And, fortunately, there are some looks (such as the Indians' all-red getup from the mid-70s) that have remained a part of history. At least so far.
Occasionally, we get treated to a "Turn Back the Clock Day" where both teams wear throwbacks. This can lead to amazing things like the Astros in the orange rainbow vs. the Mariners in their powder blue with their trident. Or, when we have the interleague World Series rematch from way back in the day, which gives us modern versions of uniforms from the early 1900s.
By my count, there are 11 Major League teams that have throwback uniforms. Five have the throwbacks as a part of their regular uniform rotation. Six others have a throwback that they wear from time to time. (Teams that wear throwbacks only for one-off special occasions aren't counted here.)
Of those six part-timers, three wear a modified throwback. The Mariners wear their current uniform design with their old blue-and-gold color scheme. The A's recently reintroduced a kelly green jersey reminiscent of the ones they wore to win three straight World Series in the 70s. Sadly, no gold version as of yet. And the Royals haven't gone full powder blue (which they totally should). They do have a powder blue alternate jersey, though.
The other part-timers are Tampa Bay, which occasionally wears the original Devil Rays home uniforms from their inaugural season; the White Sox, with those delightful early 80s monstrosities that Chris Sale loved so much; and the Twins, who have a throwback alternate home uniform from when they first moved to Minnesota in the 60s (which reminds me, can we, just once, get the Nationals in Expos jerseys, please?).
Which leaves us with five semi-regular throwbacks (again, Baltimore and Toronto don't count, since those are their regular uniforms): Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, San Diego and St. Louis. All of which are so good and so popular that their worn multiple times per season. Some have even been designated as "Sunday" uniforms or "Friday night" uniforms.
Milwaukee: The Brewers' "ball-in-glove" logo is one of the best in the history of sports. (Although it completely boggles my mind how many people, players included, never realized that the pieces of the glove are an M and a B.) As this guy on Bleacher Report said, they really should just go back to these permanently.
Philadelphia: Bryce Harper's new team's current uniforms are actually sort-of throwbacks to the 50s and 60s. But they're bringing it back to the 80s with their incredible throwback alternates. Head-to-toe powder blue with that maroon P with the baseball in the middle (although the current version doesn't have the baseball). Beautiful on so many levels. So beautiful that you don't even mind the fact that they're wearing powder blue at home.
Pittsburgh: Another classic throwback to a bygone era. As I noted earlier, these uniforms just bring you back to a magical time with Willie Stargell and "We Are Fam-i-lee." There were actually nine different combinations with these uniforms. But the yellow top/black pants is the most classic of all those looks. The only thing missing is yellow batting helmets.
San Diego: Yellow and brown is a terrible combination. Except it worked for the San Diego Padres. The Padres have changed their logo and uniforms a lot over the years, but they still haven't gone back to the brown. Why not? It's yours! Own it! As for the throwbacks, these are more fauxbacks. The current wordmark and logo in brown and yellow. Not the Dave Winfield softball jerseys with the yellow sleeves, which would be so much better. At least they got the hats right, though.
St. Louis: As classic as the Cardinals' regular uniforms are, they actually rock two throwbacks pretty well. They've got a cream-colored "St. Louis" that they wear for Sunday home games and a powder blue "St. Louis" that isn't exactly the look they wore in three World Series in the 80s. It's really just a powder blue version of the creams. Either way, it looks good.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/3384783/50a62b4dc0382.preview-620.0.jpg){kind=link}
Baseball isn't the only sport with throwback uniforms. But it's the sport where they work the best. And for all the throwback brilliance we've already seen, there's still so much more possible. Hank Aaron-Era blue and white Braves softball jerseys anyone?
Saturday, May 18, 2019
Whose All-Stars Shine Brightest?
One of the oft-forgotten events in the jam-packed sports month known as May is the Artist Formerly Known as The Winston, aka the NASCAR All-Star Race. It's easy to miss, especially since the Sunday of Memorial Day Weekend--with the Grand Prix of Monte Carlo, followed by the Indy 500, and capped by the Coca-Cola 600--is the greatest single day on the calendar for auto racing fans. But The Winston, held on Saturday night the week prior, is one of NASCAR's best events.
The winner gets $1 million. Second place gets nothing. And there are no points at stake, so everyone's going all-out for the million. And it's only the best of the best. None of those random guys you've never heard of that are at the back of the typical field. They have a chance to get in via the qualifying race before the main event, but, for the most part, this is only the big boys. And they have introductions where they all walk out on stage with their pit crew, which is the only time all year that happens.
During the prerace coverage on FS1, they were having a discussion about whether they'd want to win the All-Star Race or a random regular season event. They all chose the All-Star Race and that million. They also argued that NASCAR has the greatest event in sports. It's pretty good, and that $1 million sure gives the drivers plenty of incentive. But the best? That's debatable.
As they said, each sport has its All-Star event. Some of them are great. Some are definitely in need of improvement. But where does NASCAR rank in the grand All-Star scheme? Pretty high actually.
7. Pro Bowl: You know it's bad when even the Commissioner doesn't want to do it. Although, a lot of the reasons why the Pro Bowl sucks can be blamed on the Commissioner. It was his idea to try all those stupid experimental rules. It was his idea to hold it the week before the Super Bowl and make players on the two best teams in the league ineligible. It was his idea to move the game out of Hawaii, where it was always a sellout. Seriously, the only good thing about the Pro Bowl in Orlando is the dodgeball game. I'm glad they didn't discontinue the Pro Bowl (like the Commissioner was threatening a few years ago). But it pales in comparison to the other All-Star Games.
6. NBA: In the Pro Bowl, nobody is allowed to play defense. In the NBA All-Star Game, they simply choose not to. And the result is basically a skills competition where guys are chucking up threes or driving one-on-one. After the West scored nearly 200 points a few years ago, they made some changes that only made things worse. The NHL and NFL both tried that ridiculous "pick your own team" garbage and both realized it was incredibly stupid. Not too stupid for the NBA, though.
5. WNBA: When the NBA changed their all-star format, the WNBA changed theirs, too. So now we're stuck with two "pick your own All-Star team" matchups. Although, since a majority of the better WNBA players and teams are in the West, that change actually resulted in a more competitive game. I still hate the fantasy draft element, though. They don't have a WNBA All-Star Game in Olympic years, so maybe they'll only do it one more time before going back to East-West in 2021.
4. MLS: At first, the MLS All-Star Game was East vs. West. Then they played the U.S. National Team one year, and since 2005, it's been MLS vs. a top team from Europe. This year they're playing Atletico Madrid. That has certainly helped the game's appeal and credibility (so what if it won't be Atletico's A team). And by limiting it to one team covering the entire league, the MLS team only features the absolute best players to that point. Although, with 24 teams (soon to become 27), there's enough talent in MLS for it to go back to showcasing the league's best exclusively. They no longer need the European team to sell tickets. This format has been successful, though, so I'm not sure there's much desire to change it among MLS higher-ups.
3. NASCAR: There are a lot of things that are great about NASCAR's All-Star Race. For starters, they hold it under the lights, which always makes for a better race to watch. And since they have nothing to lose, everybody goes all out, and the result is some exciting racing. I also like that they give the non-All-Stars a chance to qualify through the earlier race (Kyle Larson only got into the All-Star Race through the qualifying race, and he went on to win the $1 million). My only issue with it, though, is that NASCAR's the only sport where you see all of the best go against each other every week regardless of event. So, in that regard, the All-Star Race is just another regular event against the same guys they always see.
2. MLB: I know I'm biased, but I think the original All-Star Game is still pretty close to perfect. It isn't. But it's pretty darn close. Baseball's the sport that lends itself best to the All-Star format, and it's still the greatest showcase the game has. Nothing else is going on in mid-July, so the Midsummer Classic gets the stage to itself. It'll never have the intensity it had during the 60s and 70s again, but that's OK. It's a celebration of the game. And, even though there's nothing at stake now that they've dropped the World Series tie-in, the players always play to win. I know I'm in the minority about this last part, but I like it that every team is represented, too.
1. NHL: It was the NHL that started the whole "pick your own team" nonsense, which pushed the NHL All-Star Game towards the bottom of these rankings for a while. Then in 2017, they got rid of that terrible format and turned it into the best All-Star event in sports. Four teams, one for each division, playing a 3x3 tournament for $1 million. It was one of the smartest things the NHL ever did, and it breathed new life into the event. Throw in the Skills Competition, which has always been the best All-Star showcase event, and you've got an All-Star Weekend that's pretty close to perfect.
Of course, these rankings are entirely subjective. And fans are going to turn out for these events (both in person and on TV) regardless. And isn't that the point? All-Star Games are for the fans. So, from that perspective, they're all great. Flaws and all.
The winner gets $1 million. Second place gets nothing. And there are no points at stake, so everyone's going all-out for the million. And it's only the best of the best. None of those random guys you've never heard of that are at the back of the typical field. They have a chance to get in via the qualifying race before the main event, but, for the most part, this is only the big boys. And they have introductions where they all walk out on stage with their pit crew, which is the only time all year that happens.
During the prerace coverage on FS1, they were having a discussion about whether they'd want to win the All-Star Race or a random regular season event. They all chose the All-Star Race and that million. They also argued that NASCAR has the greatest event in sports. It's pretty good, and that $1 million sure gives the drivers plenty of incentive. But the best? That's debatable.
As they said, each sport has its All-Star event. Some of them are great. Some are definitely in need of improvement. But where does NASCAR rank in the grand All-Star scheme? Pretty high actually.
7. Pro Bowl: You know it's bad when even the Commissioner doesn't want to do it. Although, a lot of the reasons why the Pro Bowl sucks can be blamed on the Commissioner. It was his idea to try all those stupid experimental rules. It was his idea to hold it the week before the Super Bowl and make players on the two best teams in the league ineligible. It was his idea to move the game out of Hawaii, where it was always a sellout. Seriously, the only good thing about the Pro Bowl in Orlando is the dodgeball game. I'm glad they didn't discontinue the Pro Bowl (like the Commissioner was threatening a few years ago). But it pales in comparison to the other All-Star Games.
6. NBA: In the Pro Bowl, nobody is allowed to play defense. In the NBA All-Star Game, they simply choose not to. And the result is basically a skills competition where guys are chucking up threes or driving one-on-one. After the West scored nearly 200 points a few years ago, they made some changes that only made things worse. The NHL and NFL both tried that ridiculous "pick your own team" garbage and both realized it was incredibly stupid. Not too stupid for the NBA, though.
5. WNBA: When the NBA changed their all-star format, the WNBA changed theirs, too. So now we're stuck with two "pick your own All-Star team" matchups. Although, since a majority of the better WNBA players and teams are in the West, that change actually resulted in a more competitive game. I still hate the fantasy draft element, though. They don't have a WNBA All-Star Game in Olympic years, so maybe they'll only do it one more time before going back to East-West in 2021.
4. MLS: At first, the MLS All-Star Game was East vs. West. Then they played the U.S. National Team one year, and since 2005, it's been MLS vs. a top team from Europe. This year they're playing Atletico Madrid. That has certainly helped the game's appeal and credibility (so what if it won't be Atletico's A team). And by limiting it to one team covering the entire league, the MLS team only features the absolute best players to that point. Although, with 24 teams (soon to become 27), there's enough talent in MLS for it to go back to showcasing the league's best exclusively. They no longer need the European team to sell tickets. This format has been successful, though, so I'm not sure there's much desire to change it among MLS higher-ups.
3. NASCAR: There are a lot of things that are great about NASCAR's All-Star Race. For starters, they hold it under the lights, which always makes for a better race to watch. And since they have nothing to lose, everybody goes all out, and the result is some exciting racing. I also like that they give the non-All-Stars a chance to qualify through the earlier race (Kyle Larson only got into the All-Star Race through the qualifying race, and he went on to win the $1 million). My only issue with it, though, is that NASCAR's the only sport where you see all of the best go against each other every week regardless of event. So, in that regard, the All-Star Race is just another regular event against the same guys they always see.
2. MLB: I know I'm biased, but I think the original All-Star Game is still pretty close to perfect. It isn't. But it's pretty darn close. Baseball's the sport that lends itself best to the All-Star format, and it's still the greatest showcase the game has. Nothing else is going on in mid-July, so the Midsummer Classic gets the stage to itself. It'll never have the intensity it had during the 60s and 70s again, but that's OK. It's a celebration of the game. And, even though there's nothing at stake now that they've dropped the World Series tie-in, the players always play to win. I know I'm in the minority about this last part, but I like it that every team is represented, too.
1. NHL: It was the NHL that started the whole "pick your own team" nonsense, which pushed the NHL All-Star Game towards the bottom of these rankings for a while. Then in 2017, they got rid of that terrible format and turned it into the best All-Star event in sports. Four teams, one for each division, playing a 3x3 tournament for $1 million. It was one of the smartest things the NHL ever did, and it breathed new life into the event. Throw in the Skills Competition, which has always been the best All-Star showcase event, and you've got an All-Star Weekend that's pretty close to perfect.
Of course, these rankings are entirely subjective. And fans are going to turn out for these events (both in person and on TV) regardless. And isn't that the point? All-Star Games are for the fans. So, from that perspective, they're all great. Flaws and all.
Friday, May 17, 2019
Hockey's Other Playoffs
As Boston city officials clear the parade route, the Blues and Sharks continue to duke it out for the right to oppose them for the Cup. But that's not the only playoff hockey going on right now. There are plenty of NHL stars currently in Slovakia, where the World Championships are taking place.
Hockey's World Championships are always around this time, which means they're usually overshadowed in North America. Which is understandable, since they're right smack in the middle of the Stanley Cup Playoffs. And it's impossible for the U.S. or Canada to host, since we'll have no idea who'll still be playing and what arenas will be available (although, they could theoretically hold Worlds in non-NHL cities like Halifax and Quebec, which they did in 1998).
So, that means the World Championships are held in Europe virtually every year (the only non-European edition since 1962 was the Halifax/Quebec tournament). And in Europe, the tournament is revered. As such, the European nations send the best teams they possibly can every single year (the fact that European leagues are finished certainly helps in that regard).
The U.S. and Canada are obviously at a bit of a disadvantage because their top players are usually still involved in the Stanley Cup Playoffs. But that's true for the other top nations, too (for the Bruins, Tuukka Rask is Finnish, Zdeno Chara is Slovakian, and David Krejci is Czech; San Jose has a couple Swedes'; and the Blues' best player, Vladimir Tarasenko, is Russian). That's another reason why the NHL guys should play in the Olympics, but that's another conversation for another day.
Here's the thing about the World Championships, though. Despite the fact that the playoffs are still going on, the rosters are still sprinkled with NHL players left and right. And that alone is enough to make the hockey World Championships worth watching.
It really is incredible how many NHL players, after an 82-game season, travel to Europe for the World Championships every year. For players on teams that don't make the playoffs, it would be easy to just pack things up and rest up for next season. Instead, they put on their national team jersey for a different type of playoffs...with a similar intensity.
That hasn't always been the case. The U.S. and Canada used to not care about the World Championships at all, and the NHL guys on other rosters were few and far between. That certainly isn't true anymore. Of the 16 teams at this year's World Championships, the only ones without at least one NHL player on the roster are Great Britain and Italy, the two lowest-ranked teams (Canada, as you'd expect, is all NHL, while Russia is a combination of NHL and KHL).
And those NHL players come from all over the league. As you'd expect, the bulk of the NHL players come from the 15 teams that miss the playoffs (and there are some pretty good players on those bottom 15 teams). But, since Worlds don't start until the second round of the playoffs, they're able to pluck players from teams that lost in the first round. This year, that meant plenty of Lightning, Penguins, Predators and Golden Knights.
Of course, every player in the NHL would prefer to be going for the Stanley Cup than the World Championship. Which makes it all the more impressive that they show up in droves. And you don't want to play in too many World Championships because it means your NHL team isn't very good. But it really does show how much these guys love the game and just want to keep playing.
Take Patrick Kane. Arguably the best American-born player ever, he's played deep into June before, getting his name on the Cup three times and scoring the Cup-winning goal against the Flyers in 2010. But the Blackhawks have struggled and missed the playoffs for the last few seasons.
So, Kane has been available for the World Championships. And he hasn't just shown up. He's SHOWN UP! He was the tournament MVP last year, when he led the U.S. to the bronze medal. This year, he's the captain again. And he set the all-time U.S. World Championships scoring record the other day.
Kane doesn't have to play at Worlds. The fact that he keeps coming back shows what the tournament means. It's not the Stanley Cup. But it's not a consolation tournament either. And it's made so much better by the fact that seemingly every nation is putting together the best roster possible.
Joining Kane on the U.S. roster--Jack Eichel, Johnny Gaudreau and Dylan Larkin. Canada took full advantage of the late roster deadline, naming Matt Murray and Jonathan Marchessault to the team. Sweden's got Henrik Lundqvist in goal, and Gabriel Landeskog joined the squad after Colorado was eliminated (and the Avalanche reached the second round of the playoffs!). Alex Ovechkin won the Cup last year. This year, he's trying to win a World Championship with Russia. Finland, meanwhile, has 18-year-old Kaapo Kakko, who'll be playing for the Devils next season after they take him 1st overall in the Draft.
These rosters are loaded! This isn't the PyeongChang Olympics, where Russia was the only nation to send its best team and went on to win gold. That won't be the case here. Whoever wins will have to beat some tough competition. This World Championship is going to be earned. Like it is every year. As the best of the rest from the NHL battle it out for World Championship gold instead of Stanley Cup silver.
Hockey's World Championships are always around this time, which means they're usually overshadowed in North America. Which is understandable, since they're right smack in the middle of the Stanley Cup Playoffs. And it's impossible for the U.S. or Canada to host, since we'll have no idea who'll still be playing and what arenas will be available (although, they could theoretically hold Worlds in non-NHL cities like Halifax and Quebec, which they did in 1998).
So, that means the World Championships are held in Europe virtually every year (the only non-European edition since 1962 was the Halifax/Quebec tournament). And in Europe, the tournament is revered. As such, the European nations send the best teams they possibly can every single year (the fact that European leagues are finished certainly helps in that regard).
The U.S. and Canada are obviously at a bit of a disadvantage because their top players are usually still involved in the Stanley Cup Playoffs. But that's true for the other top nations, too (for the Bruins, Tuukka Rask is Finnish, Zdeno Chara is Slovakian, and David Krejci is Czech; San Jose has a couple Swedes'; and the Blues' best player, Vladimir Tarasenko, is Russian). That's another reason why the NHL guys should play in the Olympics, but that's another conversation for another day.
Here's the thing about the World Championships, though. Despite the fact that the playoffs are still going on, the rosters are still sprinkled with NHL players left and right. And that alone is enough to make the hockey World Championships worth watching.
It really is incredible how many NHL players, after an 82-game season, travel to Europe for the World Championships every year. For players on teams that don't make the playoffs, it would be easy to just pack things up and rest up for next season. Instead, they put on their national team jersey for a different type of playoffs...with a similar intensity.
That hasn't always been the case. The U.S. and Canada used to not care about the World Championships at all, and the NHL guys on other rosters were few and far between. That certainly isn't true anymore. Of the 16 teams at this year's World Championships, the only ones without at least one NHL player on the roster are Great Britain and Italy, the two lowest-ranked teams (Canada, as you'd expect, is all NHL, while Russia is a combination of NHL and KHL).
And those NHL players come from all over the league. As you'd expect, the bulk of the NHL players come from the 15 teams that miss the playoffs (and there are some pretty good players on those bottom 15 teams). But, since Worlds don't start until the second round of the playoffs, they're able to pluck players from teams that lost in the first round. This year, that meant plenty of Lightning, Penguins, Predators and Golden Knights.
Of course, every player in the NHL would prefer to be going for the Stanley Cup than the World Championship. Which makes it all the more impressive that they show up in droves. And you don't want to play in too many World Championships because it means your NHL team isn't very good. But it really does show how much these guys love the game and just want to keep playing.
Take Patrick Kane. Arguably the best American-born player ever, he's played deep into June before, getting his name on the Cup three times and scoring the Cup-winning goal against the Flyers in 2010. But the Blackhawks have struggled and missed the playoffs for the last few seasons.
So, Kane has been available for the World Championships. And he hasn't just shown up. He's SHOWN UP! He was the tournament MVP last year, when he led the U.S. to the bronze medal. This year, he's the captain again. And he set the all-time U.S. World Championships scoring record the other day.
Kane doesn't have to play at Worlds. The fact that he keeps coming back shows what the tournament means. It's not the Stanley Cup. But it's not a consolation tournament either. And it's made so much better by the fact that seemingly every nation is putting together the best roster possible.
Joining Kane on the U.S. roster--Jack Eichel, Johnny Gaudreau and Dylan Larkin. Canada took full advantage of the late roster deadline, naming Matt Murray and Jonathan Marchessault to the team. Sweden's got Henrik Lundqvist in goal, and Gabriel Landeskog joined the squad after Colorado was eliminated (and the Avalanche reached the second round of the playoffs!). Alex Ovechkin won the Cup last year. This year, he's trying to win a World Championship with Russia. Finland, meanwhile, has 18-year-old Kaapo Kakko, who'll be playing for the Devils next season after they take him 1st overall in the Draft.
These rosters are loaded! This isn't the PyeongChang Olympics, where Russia was the only nation to send its best team and went on to win gold. That won't be the case here. Whoever wins will have to beat some tough competition. This World Championship is going to be earned. Like it is every year. As the best of the rest from the NHL battle it out for World Championship gold instead of Stanley Cup silver.
Wednesday, May 15, 2019
Expanding Opportunities
The other day I was reading an article where they quoted a FIBA official about 3x3 basketball's upcoming Olympic debut in Tokyo. It covered the qualification system and some other aspects of the tournament and was actually pretty enlightening. In fact, it made me view the 3x3 tournament in a new light.
When the IOC added 3x3, my initial reaction was "Why?" It seemed gimmicky, an obvious ploy to cater to the younger fans that they're desperate to attract. I'm still lukewarm about 3x3 and I still don't think it's 100 percent necessary (unlike skateboarding and surfing, which were added only for the Tokyo Games, 3x3 was added by the IOC to the permanent program, so it's here to stay). But I failed to look at it from one very important perspective. One that proves the tournament does have value.
In the regular 5x5 basketball tournament, 12 teams qualify for both men and women. There are one or two surprises, but, for the most part, you know who those 12 teams are going to be. For the most part, they're generally the same from Olympics to Olympics. And you're also gonna have a pretty good idea of who's got a shot at winning a medal.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing. Fans want to see the stars of the NBA and WNBA playing for their countries, and having NBA or WNBA stars on their rosters is what makes those nations the best in the world. The Olympics is where the best take on the best, which is how it should be.
But...it does limit the opportunities for smaller countries, which have little chance of qualifying and an even lower chance of actually being competitive if they do. Everyone goes in knowing that the African and Asian teams are most likely going to be the ones that don't make the quarterfinals. And if they do, they're not going to medal (outside of the Australian women's team, all Olympic basketball medalists have come from the Americas or Europe).
However, there is one basketball court where the playing field is much more level--the 3x3 court. For 3x3, all you need is four people. It's obviously a lot easier to field a team of four than a team of 12, which gives smaller nations the chance to also play Olympic basketball.
These are some of the countries that played 3x3 at the 2018 Youth Olympics: Andorra, Estonia, Georgia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Turkmenistan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka. At past Youth Olympics, there have been teams from Guatemala, Syria, Vanuatu, Chinese Taipei, Guam, Chile and the Virgin Islands. Belgium won the silver medal and Slovenia won the bronze on the boys' side in 2018, while the Netherlands won the silver and Hungary finished fourth in the 2014 girls' tournament.
Without 3x3, would we ever mention Olympic basketball and any of these nations in the same sentence? Of course not! And for that reason, 3x3 is a tremendous addition to the program.
There will only be eight men's and eight women's teams in Tokyo, but they've made it a point to make sure it's not all the same countries we'll see in the 5x5 tournaments. That would defeat the purpose. Will there be overlap? Sure. But we're also going to see some nations where 3x3 is their only realistic chance to play Olympic basketball. And don't be surprised if they end up being medal contenders.
It's like when they added beach volleyball to the Olympics in 1996. Suddenly Olympic volleyball was open to a lot more countries. You didn't need the six players necessary for the indoor game. On the beach, you only need two. Sometimes you can find that in one family (two Swiss brothers were one of the top teams in the world for years). And, with 24 teams in the Olympic field, you know you're gonna see some nations beyond the traditional powers. Which is great. A lot of those teams are good, too.
While that first Olympic beach volleyball tournament in Atlanta seemed somewhat weird, it has since become one of the marquee Olympic sports. Seriously, can you picture the Olympics today WITHOUT beach volleyball? Beach volleyball is always one of the hottest tickets at an Olympics. I'd even argue that it's more popular than the indoor version (and the bikinis are only part of the reason).
Will 3x3 basketball ever get to that same level? Probably not. Especially since traditional basketball is the second-biggest sport on Earth behind soccer. But 3x3 will accomplish a lot more than just that youthful, urban vibe the IOC is going for. It'll open up Olympic basketball to different players and whole new group of nations. That alone is enough to make the 3x3 experiment worthwhile.
When the IOC added 3x3, my initial reaction was "Why?" It seemed gimmicky, an obvious ploy to cater to the younger fans that they're desperate to attract. I'm still lukewarm about 3x3 and I still don't think it's 100 percent necessary (unlike skateboarding and surfing, which were added only for the Tokyo Games, 3x3 was added by the IOC to the permanent program, so it's here to stay). But I failed to look at it from one very important perspective. One that proves the tournament does have value.
In the regular 5x5 basketball tournament, 12 teams qualify for both men and women. There are one or two surprises, but, for the most part, you know who those 12 teams are going to be. For the most part, they're generally the same from Olympics to Olympics. And you're also gonna have a pretty good idea of who's got a shot at winning a medal.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing. Fans want to see the stars of the NBA and WNBA playing for their countries, and having NBA or WNBA stars on their rosters is what makes those nations the best in the world. The Olympics is where the best take on the best, which is how it should be.
But...it does limit the opportunities for smaller countries, which have little chance of qualifying and an even lower chance of actually being competitive if they do. Everyone goes in knowing that the African and Asian teams are most likely going to be the ones that don't make the quarterfinals. And if they do, they're not going to medal (outside of the Australian women's team, all Olympic basketball medalists have come from the Americas or Europe).
However, there is one basketball court where the playing field is much more level--the 3x3 court. For 3x3, all you need is four people. It's obviously a lot easier to field a team of four than a team of 12, which gives smaller nations the chance to also play Olympic basketball.
These are some of the countries that played 3x3 at the 2018 Youth Olympics: Andorra, Estonia, Georgia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Turkmenistan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka. At past Youth Olympics, there have been teams from Guatemala, Syria, Vanuatu, Chinese Taipei, Guam, Chile and the Virgin Islands. Belgium won the silver medal and Slovenia won the bronze on the boys' side in 2018, while the Netherlands won the silver and Hungary finished fourth in the 2014 girls' tournament.
Without 3x3, would we ever mention Olympic basketball and any of these nations in the same sentence? Of course not! And for that reason, 3x3 is a tremendous addition to the program.
There will only be eight men's and eight women's teams in Tokyo, but they've made it a point to make sure it's not all the same countries we'll see in the 5x5 tournaments. That would defeat the purpose. Will there be overlap? Sure. But we're also going to see some nations where 3x3 is their only realistic chance to play Olympic basketball. And don't be surprised if they end up being medal contenders.
It's like when they added beach volleyball to the Olympics in 1996. Suddenly Olympic volleyball was open to a lot more countries. You didn't need the six players necessary for the indoor game. On the beach, you only need two. Sometimes you can find that in one family (two Swiss brothers were one of the top teams in the world for years). And, with 24 teams in the Olympic field, you know you're gonna see some nations beyond the traditional powers. Which is great. A lot of those teams are good, too.
While that first Olympic beach volleyball tournament in Atlanta seemed somewhat weird, it has since become one of the marquee Olympic sports. Seriously, can you picture the Olympics today WITHOUT beach volleyball? Beach volleyball is always one of the hottest tickets at an Olympics. I'd even argue that it's more popular than the indoor version (and the bikinis are only part of the reason).
Will 3x3 basketball ever get to that same level? Probably not. Especially since traditional basketball is the second-biggest sport on Earth behind soccer. But 3x3 will accomplish a lot more than just that youthful, urban vibe the IOC is going for. It'll open up Olympic basketball to different players and whole new group of nations. That alone is enough to make the 3x3 experiment worthwhile.
Monday, May 13, 2019
Another Edition of the World Relays
After three editions in the Bahamas, the fourth IAAF World Relays were held over the weekend in Yokohama, Japan. With their carnival-like atmosphere, live music and raucous crowds, the World Relays have developed a reputation as one of the IAAF's funnest events. Although, I think a lot of what made the World Relays such a party had to do with the location. Because I didn't get a sense there was any of that in the stands this weekend.
In the Bahamas, they would have a sellout crowd on both days, and they'd go nuts the entire time. Those Caribbean fans weren't going all the way to Japan, though, and the Japanese fans didn't seem to embrace the event nearly as much. That might be bit of an unfair comparison, but the stadium was gigantic. It was built for the 2002 World Cup. As a result, they didn't sell the upper deck, which made it look a lot emptier than it probably was. (Although, the crowd on Sunday did look bigger than the one on Saturday.)
To say that the crowds were disappointing would be an understatement. Yokohama is only about 20 minutes outside of Tokyo, and the World Relays were, in many respects, viewed as a test-run for next summer's Olympics. And, seeing as people had to wait hours when they officially opened the lottery the other day, we know that the stadiums will be full then. It's just that this event doesn't resonate as much as the Olympics.
There are plenty of reasons for that to be sure. First and foremost, the World Relays are still new and people (athletes included) are still figuring out what to make of them. They tied in qualifying for the World Championships in the 4x100 and 4x400, but there were still a lot of countries that didn't bother showing up and those that did didn't necessarily send their A teams.
The World Relays are also still trying to find their footing in a crowded international track & field landscape. In that vein, they keep tinkering with the events, trying to find the right balance. This was the fourth World Relays, and the program has been different each time. And you can bet it'll look different again at the next World Relays in 2021.
This is where the IAAF tries things, and some of those innovations have caught on. The World Relays gave us instantaneous medal ceremonies, and it was at the World Relays where they started doing those one-by-one team introductions that have become popular with the fans and athletes alike. The World Relays is also where the mixed 4x400 relay made its international debut, and that event worked so well that it's been added to both the World Championship and Olympic programs.
I'll admit that I was skeptical about the mixed 4x400 relay at first, but I've since come around. The first one was held in 2017. The final was the last event of the meet, and the Bahamas staged an epic comeback on the final leg to beat the United States for gold. It was the best race of the meet. And it's the one mixed event in track & field that works, which is why it was added to the Olympics (as a part of the IOC's new obsession with mixed events).
Looking to repeat that success, they added two more mixed events at this year's World Relays, the reaction to which wasn't the best. The first was the 2x2x400 relay, which ended up being as stupid as it sounds. It's basically an 800 workout. Run a 400, rest for a minute, run another 400. It was dumb and unnecessary.
What made things worse is that they took the 4x800 out to add it. Hopefully they reconsider that change for the 2021 World Relays. Because there wasn't really a good reason to get rid of the 4x800, which turned the World Relays into essentially a sprint-only meet (although the 2x2x400 teams were made up of 800 runners). And they can't blame it on lack of entries, which was a problem they still had in the events that were contested.
They also added a mixed shuttle hurdles, which is fine, I guess. Even though the men run 110 meters and the women's hurdles are only a 100, they found a way to make it work. I wish they'd had the foresight to have a "B" final, though. Because they ended up with no bronze medalist. Since every team needs two lanes, you can only have four at a time. But Jamaica didn't start the final due to an injury, leaving them with three, which became two after Australia false started. If there had been a "B" final, the winner of that could've gotten the bronze medal (just like when the Netherlands set a world record in the "B" final of the short track relay in PyeongChang).
Frankly, because of the different distances, I'd prefer to see a men's shuttle hurdles and a women's shuttle hurdles. But if the IAAF wants to keep the mixed version, I'd have no problem with it. They need to consider a way to avoid a two-team final, though. And, if they are committed to it, they need to get more countries interested in doing it, seeing as there were just seven teams in the shuttle hurdles to being with.
Some people were also critical of the World Relays' scheduling, which had the three 4x400 finals back-to-back-to-back, and the two 4x100 finals after both 4x200 finals. That made it difficult for athletes to compete in more than one event (but not impossible, because some did try it).
While that's a reasonable criticism, it's also unavoidable at a two-day event like this. Yes, it made it more difficult, especially since most nations don't have the six quality 400-meter runners necessary to field a competitive team in all three races. At the World Championships and Olympics, when the program is spread over 10 days, that's not an issue. But when you only have two days to work with, there's no possible way to create enough separation in the schedule to make it doable (although, one solution might be to have the mixed 4x400 start the day and the men's and women's 4x400s as the last two events, which would leave at least a little bit of a gap).
As expected, the United States dominated, winning five gold medals and finishing on the podium in every event. That's apparently not enough for some people, either. I guess they expected the U.S. to go 9-for-9 and weren't willing to accept anything less than that. Which is not only ridiculous, it would be horrible for the sport.
Because for the World Relays to work, you can't have everyone going in just expecting the U.S. to win everything. That's why none of the European countries go to World Cross, where they know they're going to lose to the Kenyans and Ethiopians. And, to be honest, the races that the U.S. loses generally turn out to be the best races at the World Relays (take that mixed 4x400 in 2017 and both single-gender 4x400s this year).
Ultimately, though, the World Relays serve their purpose, and the 2019 edition was no different in that respect. They were fun, there was some good competition, and the athletes got some quality early-season competition. It gave some different events and countries a chance to shine, too, and that's never a bad thing.
In the Bahamas, they would have a sellout crowd on both days, and they'd go nuts the entire time. Those Caribbean fans weren't going all the way to Japan, though, and the Japanese fans didn't seem to embrace the event nearly as much. That might be bit of an unfair comparison, but the stadium was gigantic. It was built for the 2002 World Cup. As a result, they didn't sell the upper deck, which made it look a lot emptier than it probably was. (Although, the crowd on Sunday did look bigger than the one on Saturday.)
To say that the crowds were disappointing would be an understatement. Yokohama is only about 20 minutes outside of Tokyo, and the World Relays were, in many respects, viewed as a test-run for next summer's Olympics. And, seeing as people had to wait hours when they officially opened the lottery the other day, we know that the stadiums will be full then. It's just that this event doesn't resonate as much as the Olympics.
There are plenty of reasons for that to be sure. First and foremost, the World Relays are still new and people (athletes included) are still figuring out what to make of them. They tied in qualifying for the World Championships in the 4x100 and 4x400, but there were still a lot of countries that didn't bother showing up and those that did didn't necessarily send their A teams.
The World Relays are also still trying to find their footing in a crowded international track & field landscape. In that vein, they keep tinkering with the events, trying to find the right balance. This was the fourth World Relays, and the program has been different each time. And you can bet it'll look different again at the next World Relays in 2021.
This is where the IAAF tries things, and some of those innovations have caught on. The World Relays gave us instantaneous medal ceremonies, and it was at the World Relays where they started doing those one-by-one team introductions that have become popular with the fans and athletes alike. The World Relays is also where the mixed 4x400 relay made its international debut, and that event worked so well that it's been added to both the World Championship and Olympic programs.
I'll admit that I was skeptical about the mixed 4x400 relay at first, but I've since come around. The first one was held in 2017. The final was the last event of the meet, and the Bahamas staged an epic comeback on the final leg to beat the United States for gold. It was the best race of the meet. And it's the one mixed event in track & field that works, which is why it was added to the Olympics (as a part of the IOC's new obsession with mixed events).
Looking to repeat that success, they added two more mixed events at this year's World Relays, the reaction to which wasn't the best. The first was the 2x2x400 relay, which ended up being as stupid as it sounds. It's basically an 800 workout. Run a 400, rest for a minute, run another 400. It was dumb and unnecessary.
What made things worse is that they took the 4x800 out to add it. Hopefully they reconsider that change for the 2021 World Relays. Because there wasn't really a good reason to get rid of the 4x800, which turned the World Relays into essentially a sprint-only meet (although the 2x2x400 teams were made up of 800 runners). And they can't blame it on lack of entries, which was a problem they still had in the events that were contested.
They also added a mixed shuttle hurdles, which is fine, I guess. Even though the men run 110 meters and the women's hurdles are only a 100, they found a way to make it work. I wish they'd had the foresight to have a "B" final, though. Because they ended up with no bronze medalist. Since every team needs two lanes, you can only have four at a time. But Jamaica didn't start the final due to an injury, leaving them with three, which became two after Australia false started. If there had been a "B" final, the winner of that could've gotten the bronze medal (just like when the Netherlands set a world record in the "B" final of the short track relay in PyeongChang).
Frankly, because of the different distances, I'd prefer to see a men's shuttle hurdles and a women's shuttle hurdles. But if the IAAF wants to keep the mixed version, I'd have no problem with it. They need to consider a way to avoid a two-team final, though. And, if they are committed to it, they need to get more countries interested in doing it, seeing as there were just seven teams in the shuttle hurdles to being with.
Some people were also critical of the World Relays' scheduling, which had the three 4x400 finals back-to-back-to-back, and the two 4x100 finals after both 4x200 finals. That made it difficult for athletes to compete in more than one event (but not impossible, because some did try it).
While that's a reasonable criticism, it's also unavoidable at a two-day event like this. Yes, it made it more difficult, especially since most nations don't have the six quality 400-meter runners necessary to field a competitive team in all three races. At the World Championships and Olympics, when the program is spread over 10 days, that's not an issue. But when you only have two days to work with, there's no possible way to create enough separation in the schedule to make it doable (although, one solution might be to have the mixed 4x400 start the day and the men's and women's 4x400s as the last two events, which would leave at least a little bit of a gap).
As expected, the United States dominated, winning five gold medals and finishing on the podium in every event. That's apparently not enough for some people, either. I guess they expected the U.S. to go 9-for-9 and weren't willing to accept anything less than that. Which is not only ridiculous, it would be horrible for the sport.
Because for the World Relays to work, you can't have everyone going in just expecting the U.S. to win everything. That's why none of the European countries go to World Cross, where they know they're going to lose to the Kenyans and Ethiopians. And, to be honest, the races that the U.S. loses generally turn out to be the best races at the World Relays (take that mixed 4x400 in 2017 and both single-gender 4x400s this year).
Ultimately, though, the World Relays serve their purpose, and the 2019 edition was no different in that respect. They were fun, there was some good competition, and the athletes got some quality early-season competition. It gave some different events and countries a chance to shine, too, and that's never a bad thing.
Thursday, May 9, 2019
Hockey Conference Finals
After a crazy first round, the second round of the Stanley Cup Playoffs went a little closer to form. Everyone expected Dallas-St. Louis to be close, and it was. Colorado and Columbus gave them each a run, but the Bruins and Sharks proved to be the superior teams that they are. The only real surprise was the Islanders, after looking so dominant while sweeping Pittsburgh, getting swept themselves by a Hurricanes team that's now 8-1 since going down 0-2 against Washington.
In fact, all four teams left have really hit their stride. Boston and San Jose are still the favorites, but they're both in for a challenge. Carolina was arguably the most impressive team in the second round. It's hard to believe now that they were the 7-seed in the East, especially with the way they took it to the defending champs then an Islanders team that was nearly as good as Washington in the regular season. St. Louis, meanwhile, looks nothing like the squad that had the worst record in the entire NHL in January. I can definitely see the Blues playing for the Cup.
St. Louis would be the sixth different Western Conference champion in six years (going back to the tail end of the Kings-Blackhawks era). San Jose is one of those five, having finally gotten over the hump in 2016. For the Blues, meanwhile, it's been nearly 50 years. They went to the Final in each of their first three years of existence, but haven't been there since. Although, their most recent Stanley Cup Final game in 1970 gave us one of the most iconic hockey photographs of all-time--Bobby Orr's midair celebration after scoring the Cup-clincher.
Neither West team has ever won the Cup, while both Eastern Conference finalists have. In fact, the Carolina Hurricanes have a pretty good track record. They've made it at least this far in each of their last four playoff appearances (2002, 2006, 2009, 2019), including a Cup win (2006) and another Final appearance (2002). And you've gotta feel for those long-suffering Boston fans who've had to wait a whole eight years since the Bruins last lifted the Cup (and six since they've even played for it).
Bruins vs. Hurricanes: It took a little while, but Boston finally displayed its superiority over Columbus as that series went on. For all the Blue Jackets' talent, they were eventually stifled by the Boston defense. And the Bruins' depth really came into play, as well. That's always been one of their strengths, and their fourth line really delivered against Columbus. Which was especially important, considering how good Sergei Bobrovsky looked throughout most of that series.
For Carolina, I'm curious to see how much of an impact their long rest is going to have. I definitely think that was a factor against the Islanders, especially early in the series. This time they're the ones who've been sitting around waiting for an opponent. And for a team as hot as the Hurricanes were, that might not necessarily be a good thing. We'll see how they react, especially for Game 1 in Boston. And with Game 2 not until Sunday, that'll be their only game in an eight-day span. Not exactly what you want when you're on a roll.
Can the Hurricanes keep their momentum after that break? That will be an early key. Once the series gets going, they'll be fine. But will it be too late by then? Especially with the way Tuukka Rask has been playing of late. Combine that with the Boston defense, and I'm not sure Carolina will be able to score enough. I also thought that against Washington and the Islanders, though. And, this is a team taking full advantage of its opportunity. I don't expect that to change against the Bruins.
However, Boston's depth will prove to be simply too much. That was the difference against Columbus, and it'll be the difference here. Also, keep in mind that the Bruins have a ton of playoff experience, which is another thing they can bank on should they need it. In a way, they've gotten lucky, playing Columbus and Carolina instead of Tampa Bay and Washington. They know the Hurricanes are a worthy adversary, though. They wouldn't be here if they weren't. And Boston will be ready for them. The Hurricanes will win a game or two, but I don't see them winning four. Bruins in six.
Sharks vs. Blues: Having home ice sure paid off for the Sharks in each of the first two rounds, as they won a pair of Game 7's in their building. And they just keep getting better. Game 7 against the Avalanche might've been the best game they've played in the entire playoffs. Martin Jones is a completely different goalie than the guy who got pulled in Game 3 of the Vegas series, too. If he continues to play at that level, the Blues will have a very difficult time scoring.
That scoring was fully on display against Dallas, though. The Blues have a number of offensive weapons, and they're all capable of being The Man on any given night. Which is a tremendous asset. Because it means San Jose has an awful lot of people to think about. And it also means Brent Burns and Erik Karlsson might see even more ice time than they did in the first two rounds.
What concerns me about the Sharks, though, is those back-to-back seven-game series. Those two defensemen play a lot, and so do San Jose's top forwards. They haven't really had to travel (only going to Las Vegas and Denver), which is good. But you have to wonder how much of a toll it'll take, if any. And at least they haven't had to go back-and-forth after the Game 7's.
Although, from a rest standpoint, they might actually have the advantage. Yes, the Blues played one day earlier, but they went double overtime and had to travel. That series was far more physically-demanding than Sharks-Avalanche was, too. Which is enough for me to give the Sharks a slight edge.
I anticipate another long series. When these two met in the West Final three years ago, San Jose won in six, but none of the games were particularly close. I think this one will be much closer. The Sharks and Blues were separated by just one win in the regular season (San Jose was 46-27-9, St. Louis was 45-28-9). When the teams are that evenly-matched, it comes down to the little things. Those small details are going to make-or-break the series. Sharks in seven.
When it's all said and done, the two better teams will emerge. In the East, I feel comfortable saying that'll be the Bruins. Carolina's had a nice run, but it ends here. Out West, though, it's splitting hairs to find differences between these two. Game 7 being in San Jose should be advantage Sharks, but is it with how good the Blues have been on the road all postseason? We could very likely be hearing "Gloria" into June. I'm still taking the Sharks, though.
Monday, May 6, 2019
Controversial Decisions (and No-Decisions)
Well, that Kentucky Derby was sure one we're gonna keep talking about, wasn't it? For the first time in history, the horse that finished first didn't actually win the race. Instead, Maximum Security was disqualified for impeding other horses as they rounded the final turn for the home stretch and, 25 minutes after the race ended, Country House was declared the "winner."
I'm not in a position to say whether the race stewards made the right call or not. Personally, I don't think I would've made a move as drastic as changing the winner of the Kentucky Derby based on something you couldn't tell without studying the video over and over again, but that's just me.
Maximum Security's owner protested the result, but it was quickly denied since the stewards' decision isn't subject to appeal. Nevertheless, he's vowed to continue the fight, and this'll likely end up in court. Even though an overturn seems unlikely, the controversy will rage on. And it's certainly going to be a giant cloud hanging over the Preakness and Belmont. Maximum Security was the best horse in the Derby and would've had a legitimate shot at the Triple Crown. Country House does not.
This is far from the first controversial judging decision in sports history. It's not even the first this year. Pick a sport, and there's been some sort of controversial ruling somewhere along the way. Whether it's a call or a no-call, people are still talking about these controversial game-changing decisions, sometimes years after the fact. Take these for example...
Sharks-Golden Knights, Game 7 (2019 Stanley Cup Playoffs, First Round): You don't have to go back very far to find a controversial call that turned a game (and a series). Vegas had a 3-0 lead in Game 7 when Cody Eakin was called for a five-minute major and game misconduct for cross-checking Joe Pavelski to the ice on a face-off. The power play led to an incredible San Jose comeback, as the Sharks scored four times with the man advantage before winning in overtime. The Golden Knights called the penalty a "disgrace," and the officials weren't selected to work the next round of the playoffs.
USA-Finland (2019 World Women's Hockey Championships, Gold Medal Game): Talk about a wild sequence. It's difficult to even try and explain what happened here. Finland thought they'd scored in overtime to win a historic first World Championship. However, after the Finns' on-ice celebration, the officials disallowed the goal and instead called a penalty on the American goalie (international rules are different, but even with the different rules, I still don't quite understand how they came to that decision). Anyway, the U.S. went on to win in a shootout.
Rams-Saints (2018 NFC Championship Game): Ah yes, the pass interference non-call in the NFC Championship Game. We all remember what happened there, too. The officials missed an obvious pass interference on the Rams that would've given New Orleans a first-and-goal with a chance to run out the clock and move on to the Super Bowl. Instead, LA got the ball back, kicked the game-tying field goal as time expired in regulation and won in overtime.
2018 US Open Women's Final: Serena Williams wasn't going to win last year's US Open final. But that doesn't make what happened between her and the chair umpire any less controversial. Serena received a warning for coaching, then a point penalty for breaking her racket. Then, after some confusion about the coaching warning, a discussion with the chair umpire turned into a dispute, and he issued her a third code violation, resulting in the automatic loss of a game. It completely overshadowed Naomi Osaka's dominant and well-earned victory.
France-Ireland (2010 World Cup Qualifying): There have been plenty of controversial calls/no-calls in international soccer, perhaps none more glaring than Thierry Henry's hand ball against Ireland in 2009. It was the second leg of the UEFA playoffs. The aggregate was tied 1-1 when France's William Gallas scored in extra time to send Les Bleues to the World Cup. Except the goal never should've counted since it came off a pass from Henry, who had clearly handled the ball with his left hand first (something he admitted to). But, in the pre-VAR days, the referee's call on the field stood, leaving the Irish justifiably upset.
2004 Olympic Men's Gymnastics Individual All-Around: What?! A controversy in the Olympic final of a sport where the result is determined entirely by judging? Say it ain't so! Two years after the 2002 figure skating judging scandal, there was another in the men's gymnastics all-around at the Athens Games. This one wasn't deliberate, however. The judges made an honest mistake, giving the Korean bronze medalist a start value that was 0.1 points too low on one of the apparatus. He finished less than 0.1 points behind American Paul Hamm, so, had he been given the correct start value, he would've been the gold medalist instead.
2002 Olympic Pairs Figure Skating: For years, figure skating was ripe for corruption and biased judging. Never was that more evident than in the 2002 Olympic pairs free skate. Canadians Jamie Sale and David Pelletier were clearly the best, but, by a 5-4 decision, the gold medal went to the Russian team of Yelena Berezhnaya and Anton Sikharulidze. In the days following the competition, it was revealed that the French judge had agreed to vote for the Russians in exchange for a Russian vote for the French team in the ice dancing event. As a result, her vote was thrown out and the Canadians were declared co-gold medalists. Four years later in Torino, figure skating had dropped the 6.0 system with the cumulative point system still in use.
1988 Olympic Light Middleweight Boxing Gold Medal Bout: Roy Jones, Jr., is one of the greatest boxers in history. At the 1988 Olympics in Seoul, he cruised into the light heavyweight final against South Korea's Park Si-Hun. Jones dominated the final, winning at least three rounds and landing nearly three times as many punches as Park. However, when they announced the winner of the bout, a 3-2 decision went to Park. Park and the referee both apologized, one of the judges admitted they made a mistake, and all three judges voting against Jones were suspended. Making the decision even sillier, Jones was named the best boxer of the entire Olympic tournament despite not winning a gold medal.
Argentina-England (1986 World Cup Quarterfinals): Is there any goal in the history of international soccer more famous than Diego Maradona and the "Hand of God?" It was scoreless early in the second half when Maradona scored the goal that remains controversial to this day. Every replay clearly shows Maradona punch the ball past the English goalkeeper and into the net. Maradona played coy after the match, admitting it was deliberate without actually saying so. The referee, however, didn't see it. Maradona went on to score a truly majestic game-winner a few minutes later, and Argentina would eventually go on to hoist the World Cup.
Soviet Union-USA (1972 Olympic Men's Basketball Gold Medal Game): Forty-seven years later, this is still one of the most controversial results in Olympic history. The U.S. had a 50-49 lead when mass confusion led to them granting a Russian timeout prior to an inbound play. They reset the clock to three seconds and the Russians tried another inbound play. After the last-second shot fell short, everybody assumed the U.S. had won the gold. However, for reasons that are still unexplained, a FIBA official (who had no authority to do so) ordered the final three seconds replayed once more. This time, the Russians completed a full-court pass and sank the game-winning layup, handing the U.S. its first-ever Olympic loss. The Americans refused to accept their silver medals. They're still sitting in a vault at IOC headquarters.
I'm not in a position to say whether the race stewards made the right call or not. Personally, I don't think I would've made a move as drastic as changing the winner of the Kentucky Derby based on something you couldn't tell without studying the video over and over again, but that's just me.
Maximum Security's owner protested the result, but it was quickly denied since the stewards' decision isn't subject to appeal. Nevertheless, he's vowed to continue the fight, and this'll likely end up in court. Even though an overturn seems unlikely, the controversy will rage on. And it's certainly going to be a giant cloud hanging over the Preakness and Belmont. Maximum Security was the best horse in the Derby and would've had a legitimate shot at the Triple Crown. Country House does not.
This is far from the first controversial judging decision in sports history. It's not even the first this year. Pick a sport, and there's been some sort of controversial ruling somewhere along the way. Whether it's a call or a no-call, people are still talking about these controversial game-changing decisions, sometimes years after the fact. Take these for example...
Sharks-Golden Knights, Game 7 (2019 Stanley Cup Playoffs, First Round): You don't have to go back very far to find a controversial call that turned a game (and a series). Vegas had a 3-0 lead in Game 7 when Cody Eakin was called for a five-minute major and game misconduct for cross-checking Joe Pavelski to the ice on a face-off. The power play led to an incredible San Jose comeback, as the Sharks scored four times with the man advantage before winning in overtime. The Golden Knights called the penalty a "disgrace," and the officials weren't selected to work the next round of the playoffs.
USA-Finland (2019 World Women's Hockey Championships, Gold Medal Game): Talk about a wild sequence. It's difficult to even try and explain what happened here. Finland thought they'd scored in overtime to win a historic first World Championship. However, after the Finns' on-ice celebration, the officials disallowed the goal and instead called a penalty on the American goalie (international rules are different, but even with the different rules, I still don't quite understand how they came to that decision). Anyway, the U.S. went on to win in a shootout.
Rams-Saints (2018 NFC Championship Game): Ah yes, the pass interference non-call in the NFC Championship Game. We all remember what happened there, too. The officials missed an obvious pass interference on the Rams that would've given New Orleans a first-and-goal with a chance to run out the clock and move on to the Super Bowl. Instead, LA got the ball back, kicked the game-tying field goal as time expired in regulation and won in overtime.
2018 US Open Women's Final: Serena Williams wasn't going to win last year's US Open final. But that doesn't make what happened between her and the chair umpire any less controversial. Serena received a warning for coaching, then a point penalty for breaking her racket. Then, after some confusion about the coaching warning, a discussion with the chair umpire turned into a dispute, and he issued her a third code violation, resulting in the automatic loss of a game. It completely overshadowed Naomi Osaka's dominant and well-earned victory.
France-Ireland (2010 World Cup Qualifying): There have been plenty of controversial calls/no-calls in international soccer, perhaps none more glaring than Thierry Henry's hand ball against Ireland in 2009. It was the second leg of the UEFA playoffs. The aggregate was tied 1-1 when France's William Gallas scored in extra time to send Les Bleues to the World Cup. Except the goal never should've counted since it came off a pass from Henry, who had clearly handled the ball with his left hand first (something he admitted to). But, in the pre-VAR days, the referee's call on the field stood, leaving the Irish justifiably upset.
2004 Olympic Men's Gymnastics Individual All-Around: What?! A controversy in the Olympic final of a sport where the result is determined entirely by judging? Say it ain't so! Two years after the 2002 figure skating judging scandal, there was another in the men's gymnastics all-around at the Athens Games. This one wasn't deliberate, however. The judges made an honest mistake, giving the Korean bronze medalist a start value that was 0.1 points too low on one of the apparatus. He finished less than 0.1 points behind American Paul Hamm, so, had he been given the correct start value, he would've been the gold medalist instead.
2002 Olympic Pairs Figure Skating: For years, figure skating was ripe for corruption and biased judging. Never was that more evident than in the 2002 Olympic pairs free skate. Canadians Jamie Sale and David Pelletier were clearly the best, but, by a 5-4 decision, the gold medal went to the Russian team of Yelena Berezhnaya and Anton Sikharulidze. In the days following the competition, it was revealed that the French judge had agreed to vote for the Russians in exchange for a Russian vote for the French team in the ice dancing event. As a result, her vote was thrown out and the Canadians were declared co-gold medalists. Four years later in Torino, figure skating had dropped the 6.0 system with the cumulative point system still in use.
1988 Olympic Light Middleweight Boxing Gold Medal Bout: Roy Jones, Jr., is one of the greatest boxers in history. At the 1988 Olympics in Seoul, he cruised into the light heavyweight final against South Korea's Park Si-Hun. Jones dominated the final, winning at least three rounds and landing nearly three times as many punches as Park. However, when they announced the winner of the bout, a 3-2 decision went to Park. Park and the referee both apologized, one of the judges admitted they made a mistake, and all three judges voting against Jones were suspended. Making the decision even sillier, Jones was named the best boxer of the entire Olympic tournament despite not winning a gold medal.
Argentina-England (1986 World Cup Quarterfinals): Is there any goal in the history of international soccer more famous than Diego Maradona and the "Hand of God?" It was scoreless early in the second half when Maradona scored the goal that remains controversial to this day. Every replay clearly shows Maradona punch the ball past the English goalkeeper and into the net. Maradona played coy after the match, admitting it was deliberate without actually saying so. The referee, however, didn't see it. Maradona went on to score a truly majestic game-winner a few minutes later, and Argentina would eventually go on to hoist the World Cup.
Soviet Union-USA (1972 Olympic Men's Basketball Gold Medal Game): Forty-seven years later, this is still one of the most controversial results in Olympic history. The U.S. had a 50-49 lead when mass confusion led to them granting a Russian timeout prior to an inbound play. They reset the clock to three seconds and the Russians tried another inbound play. After the last-second shot fell short, everybody assumed the U.S. had won the gold. However, for reasons that are still unexplained, a FIBA official (who had no authority to do so) ordered the final three seconds replayed once more. This time, the Russians completed a full-court pass and sank the game-winning layup, handing the U.S. its first-ever Olympic loss. The Americans refused to accept their silver medals. They're still sitting in a vault at IOC headquarters.
Sunday, May 5, 2019
Another Women's Hockey Boycott
In the lead up to the 2017 World Championships, members of the U.S. women's hockey team threatened to boycott the event over a number of issues, most notably their demand for better compensation (both in terms of salaries and travel conditions). Adding to the situation was that those World Championships were set to take place in Plymouth, Michigan.
The players and USA Hockey eventually came to an agreement days before the World Championships were set to begin, and the U.S. went on to win the event. Since then, they've gone on to capture Olympic gold in PyeongChang before capturing another World title (in a sensational gold medal game) a few weeks ago in Finland.
All of this took place in the shadow of the CWHL's demise. One of two professional women's hockey leagues in North America, the CWHL announced at the end of March that it was folding after 12 years. The NWHL, the U.S.-based women's professional league, immediately responded that it planned on continuing operations and would be adding expansion teams in Toronto and Montreal for the upcoming season.
However, those plans have hit a snag. Because, at the moment, the members of the U.S. Women's National Team have no intention of playing in the NWHL next season. In a statement, which most of the team members (including such prominent players as Hilary Knight, Kendall Coyne Schofield and Brianna Decker) posted on social media, they declared that they wouldn't play in any North American pro league "until we get the resources that professional hockey demands and deserves." Several Canadian players, including those who played in the shuttered CWHL, have joined in the boycott.
"We come together, over 200 players strong, to say it is time to create a sustainable professional league for women's hockey," the statement said. "We cannot make a sustainable living in the current state of the professional game. Because of that, together as players, we will not play in ANY professional leagues in North America this season until we get the resources that professional hockey demands and deserves. It's time for a long-term viable professional league that will showcase the greatest product of women's professional hockey in the world."
Players in the NWHL make as little as $2,000 a season and don't have health insurance. That makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to adequately train and compete at the highest level. Many, if not all, of the players need to have another job just to make a living wage while still being expected to be available for the National Team and be in proper playing shape.
Contrast that to the NWSL, which is partially funded by US Soccer and the salaries of the players on the National Team are covered by US Soccer. Or the WNBA, which has lasted more than 20 years and is still going strong. WNBA salaries pale in comparison to those in European leagues (which is why a number of WNBA players, even the biggest stars, play overseas in the winter), but they at least have health insurance. And the league is financially viable. It wouldn't be the most successful women's professional sports league in history if it wasn't.
A big difference between the WNBA and the NWHL is that the WNBA has financial backing from the NBA. It has throughout its existence. The NHL, meanwhile, didn't want to pick a side between the NWHL and the CWHL, so they provided modest support to both leagues. Now that there's only one league, the NHL has increased its financial commitment to the NWHL, although it's still not a significant amount.
That's not enough for the women's players, and their boycott puts pressure on the NHL to take on a larger role. One of the biggest reasons for the WNBA's success is the NBA backing, and you'd have to figure the NWHL could also find some level of success with solid NHL support.
It makes sense, too. Especially since most of the teams have those relationships already. Four of the five American-based teams are affiliated in some way with the NHL team in their home market, and Toronto and Montreal teams have had similar agreements with the Maple Leafs and Canadiens in the past.
What will be the end result here? I have no idea! The NWHL is still going ahead with its plans to play next season, but I'm not sure how they'll be able to move forward without any of the top players from either the U.S. or Canada. And I don't see how they can come to an agreement without raising salaries and providing health insurance, which I'm not sure they'd be able to do without more sponsorship dollars and/or funding from the NHL. And I don't know where those sponsorship dollars come from without the participation of the top players. They already don't have a TV contract, and it's not like this'll get them one.
Without those things, the league isn't viable. But a professional league without the best players isn't viable, either. And the players are totally justified in their demands for better salaries and, perhaps even more importantly, health insurance. If you want to call it "professional" hockey, the players need to be able to treat it as their full-time job. Which they're not able to do in the current environment.
Two years ago, the boycott was a success and the players were able to get pretty much everything they were demanding. This is a much different situation, but the point they're making is a similar one. You can't call the league "professional" without treating it as such. And there's much more that goes into a professional sports league than simply paying salaries.
Hopefully this doesn't mean the NWHL will meet a similar fate as the CWHL. Nobody wants that. And, frankly, one league makes more sense than two (which a lot of people were saying all along). It certainly makes more sense than zero. But, unless a solution is reached, the NWHL could easily find itself in that exact situation. Which would be even worse. Then the players won't even have a league to boycott.
Friday, May 3, 2019
The Semenya Decision
I have to admit I'm surprised by the Court of Arbitration's verdict in the landmark Caster Semenya case. I agree with their decision. I just didn't think it's the one they would come to. I thought they'd cave to public pressure and rule in Semenya's favor. And she could still get a favorable ruling. She has 30 days to appeal to Swiss federal court (the CAS is based in Switzerland), so who knows how much longer this will be drawn out?
For those of you who are unfamiliar with the case, Semenya has presented the IAAF with a very difficult dilemma for nearly a decade. Semenya has dominated the women's 800 meters ever since bursting onto the scene at the 2009 World Championships. Almost immediately, her appearance led to questions about her sexuality.
Now, I'm not smart enough to try and explain the science that I don't really understand, but Semeya has a (naturally-occurring) condition called "hyperandrogenism." Basically, her body produces twice the testosterone of a "normal" woman. It's this excess testosterone that has allowed her to be so dominant.
So, in an attempt to level the playing field, the IAAF came up with new rules for hyperandrogenous athletes, requiring them to take medication to lower their testosterone levels to compete in the 400, 800, 1500 and mile (the events that their research indicated athletes with increased testosterone have the greatest advantage). The rules were supposed to take effect in November, but that was delayed because of Semenya's appeal. CAS was originally set to rule in March before finally announcing its decision on Wednesday. And by a 2-1 vote, CAS agreed with the IAAF. As a result, the new testosterone rules will take effect next week.
However, while the IAAF technically "won," there are no winners here. Semenya has done nothing wrong. She wasn't taking drugs and everything she's done she's done naturally. Now she has two choices: either immediately start taking medication (which could potentially lead to long-term health risks) or change events (which she might do anyway; she won the 5000 at the South African Championships last week). Neither one is fair.
From the beginning, Semenya felt like she was being singled out, and it's easy to see why. All kinds of derogatory words were thrown out, including "racist" and "sexist," which are both ludicrous suggestions (it's also worth noting that, despite what some critics tried to imply, at no time did anyone ever actually argue that Semenya isn't a woman). And it got the attention of advocates on all sides of the fence.
She derided the regulations as "discriminatory." And she's absolutely right. They are discriminatory. Because they need to be. This is about preserving the integrity of women's sports, which is the one part of the argument where everybody agreed. And the hyperandrogenism rules don't apply to a vast majority of female athletes, which is the entire point.
The ruling was going to be unfair to somebody. So, let me ask you this--Which is worse: Being unfair to a handful of athletes or being unfair to the other 99 percent? For years, Semenya's competitors went into races knowing they had no chance of winning. It's not any different than those female athletes who went against the East Germans and their state-sponsored doping program for all those years (I'm not trying to imply that Semenya doped in any way). Then hyperandrogenism rules were designed to level the playing field. Nothing more.
This is the basic point on which CAS came to its decision. There's a specific reason why sports are divided along gender lines. If they weren't, men would dominate. Why? Testosterone. It's the biggest reason for the physical differences between men and women. The male body contains 75 percent more testosterone than the female body. There's no overlap. The low-end of male testosterone levels is still significantly higher than the high-end of female levels.
Most women's testosterone level falls in the 0-1.7 range. The IAAF's limit at which athletes will be required to take testosterone-suppressing medication is 5.0. That's a huge gap. And that's the point. Very few women come anywhere near that level. Semenya happens to be one of those athletes that's above it. Does it suck? Yes. But it's necessary to preserve fair competition.
A few years ago, there was a similar case involving Indian 400-meter runner Dutee Chand that was just as high-profile. The hyperandrogenism rules that the IAAF put in place at the time applied across the board. Chand appealed, and that time CAS ruled against the IAAF, arguing that their evidence didn't support it and giving them two years to prove their case. This time, they had the science on their side and the new rules withstood the appeal.
How did the previous testosterone rules impact Semenya's performance? Her 2013 season best (the year before the Chand case) was 1:58.92. In 2014 (the first year under those regulations), it was 2:02.66. In 2016 (the first full season after they were overturned), she was back to 1:55.28 and won her second Olympic gold medal in Rio. You can bet that her times will be similarly affected this time. She'll still be one of the premier women's 800 meter runners in the world. She just won't be unbeatable anymore. Everyone else will have a chance.
As for her feeling singled out, she's got a point. The timing is too coincidental for it not to be. However, in my opinion, whether it was intentionally directed at Semenya or not (it was) ultimately doesn't really matter. Because this is a complex issue that was going to come up again eventually and had to be addressed sometime. And it was only going to get harder and more complicated the longer they waited. It won't stop being an issue. But now there's at least a policy in place that's clear and "fair" for everybody.
Caster Semenya hasn't done anything wrong. No one is saying she has. That point can't be emphasized enough. So it's understandable that she's disappointed with the "unfair" ruling. But a ruling the other way would've been just as disappointing and just as "unfair" for her competitors. Like I said, there are no "winners" here. Just one side that lost less.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with the case, Semenya has presented the IAAF with a very difficult dilemma for nearly a decade. Semenya has dominated the women's 800 meters ever since bursting onto the scene at the 2009 World Championships. Almost immediately, her appearance led to questions about her sexuality.
Now, I'm not smart enough to try and explain the science that I don't really understand, but Semeya has a (naturally-occurring) condition called "hyperandrogenism." Basically, her body produces twice the testosterone of a "normal" woman. It's this excess testosterone that has allowed her to be so dominant.
So, in an attempt to level the playing field, the IAAF came up with new rules for hyperandrogenous athletes, requiring them to take medication to lower their testosterone levels to compete in the 400, 800, 1500 and mile (the events that their research indicated athletes with increased testosterone have the greatest advantage). The rules were supposed to take effect in November, but that was delayed because of Semenya's appeal. CAS was originally set to rule in March before finally announcing its decision on Wednesday. And by a 2-1 vote, CAS agreed with the IAAF. As a result, the new testosterone rules will take effect next week.
However, while the IAAF technically "won," there are no winners here. Semenya has done nothing wrong. She wasn't taking drugs and everything she's done she's done naturally. Now she has two choices: either immediately start taking medication (which could potentially lead to long-term health risks) or change events (which she might do anyway; she won the 5000 at the South African Championships last week). Neither one is fair.
From the beginning, Semenya felt like she was being singled out, and it's easy to see why. All kinds of derogatory words were thrown out, including "racist" and "sexist," which are both ludicrous suggestions (it's also worth noting that, despite what some critics tried to imply, at no time did anyone ever actually argue that Semenya isn't a woman). And it got the attention of advocates on all sides of the fence.
She derided the regulations as "discriminatory." And she's absolutely right. They are discriminatory. Because they need to be. This is about preserving the integrity of women's sports, which is the one part of the argument where everybody agreed. And the hyperandrogenism rules don't apply to a vast majority of female athletes, which is the entire point.
The ruling was going to be unfair to somebody. So, let me ask you this--Which is worse: Being unfair to a handful of athletes or being unfair to the other 99 percent? For years, Semenya's competitors went into races knowing they had no chance of winning. It's not any different than those female athletes who went against the East Germans and their state-sponsored doping program for all those years (I'm not trying to imply that Semenya doped in any way). Then hyperandrogenism rules were designed to level the playing field. Nothing more.
This is the basic point on which CAS came to its decision. There's a specific reason why sports are divided along gender lines. If they weren't, men would dominate. Why? Testosterone. It's the biggest reason for the physical differences between men and women. The male body contains 75 percent more testosterone than the female body. There's no overlap. The low-end of male testosterone levels is still significantly higher than the high-end of female levels.
Most women's testosterone level falls in the 0-1.7 range. The IAAF's limit at which athletes will be required to take testosterone-suppressing medication is 5.0. That's a huge gap. And that's the point. Very few women come anywhere near that level. Semenya happens to be one of those athletes that's above it. Does it suck? Yes. But it's necessary to preserve fair competition.
A few years ago, there was a similar case involving Indian 400-meter runner Dutee Chand that was just as high-profile. The hyperandrogenism rules that the IAAF put in place at the time applied across the board. Chand appealed, and that time CAS ruled against the IAAF, arguing that their evidence didn't support it and giving them two years to prove their case. This time, they had the science on their side and the new rules withstood the appeal.
How did the previous testosterone rules impact Semenya's performance? Her 2013 season best (the year before the Chand case) was 1:58.92. In 2014 (the first year under those regulations), it was 2:02.66. In 2016 (the first full season after they were overturned), she was back to 1:55.28 and won her second Olympic gold medal in Rio. You can bet that her times will be similarly affected this time. She'll still be one of the premier women's 800 meter runners in the world. She just won't be unbeatable anymore. Everyone else will have a chance.
As for her feeling singled out, she's got a point. The timing is too coincidental for it not to be. However, in my opinion, whether it was intentionally directed at Semenya or not (it was) ultimately doesn't really matter. Because this is a complex issue that was going to come up again eventually and had to be addressed sometime. And it was only going to get harder and more complicated the longer they waited. It won't stop being an issue. But now there's at least a policy in place that's clear and "fair" for everybody.
Caster Semenya hasn't done anything wrong. No one is saying she has. That point can't be emphasized enough. So it's understandable that she's disappointed with the "unfair" ruling. But a ruling the other way would've been just as disappointing and just as "unfair" for her competitors. Like I said, there are no "winners" here. Just one side that lost less.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)