This was the first year baseball had a single trade deadline, which led to a lot of speculation about how many teams would actually be sellers and how early the buyers would strike. As it turned out, the trade deadline was nearly as uneventful as the entire free agency period. That is until the last minute, when a flurry of deals did take place. And they accomplished one of the goals of the single deadline. Because there were a lot more July trades this season than in years past.
And, as usual, the trade deadline produced some winners and some losers. There were also plenty of moves that left us scratching our heads, players who we thought would be on the move that stayed put, and, most surprisingly, teams that were thought to be buyers and ended up doing absolutely nothing.
How will it all play out? Well, there's still two months left in the season, so a lot can still happen. And, as we all know, only one team can ultimately win the World Series. A few teams greatly improved their chances of reaching that goal, though.
Houston doubled down on starting pitching, adding Zack Greinke (in the middle of a game that he started for the Diamondbacks!). Now the Astros have a postseason rotation of Verlander, Greinke, Cole and Miley. It's not the Maddux-Glavine-Smoltz Braves, but it's better than what any other team in the American League has to offer. They didn't stop there, though. They also got Aaron Sanchez and Joe Biagini from Toronto and brought back last year's catcher Martin Maldonado. And they didn't give up much of anything other than some prospects. The Astros were the biggest winners at the deadline, and they're now the World Series favorites out of the AL.
Despite his team's glaring need for starting pitching, Yankees GM Brian Cashman stood pat at the deadline, which might be the most shocking development with any team. It was a big vote of confidence in his team. He also thought that the pitchers available on the market didn't meet the asking price, especially since it would be for a rental. The Yankees also expect to get some reinforcements from within when all the injured guys return. But, right now, it's looking like the ALCS will feature seven innings from the Astros starter against six innings of the Yankees bullpen. And, frankly, that's advantage Houston.
The Yankees weren't the only team that was quiet. Defending champion Boston didn't address its biggest weakness--the bullpen. The Red Sox won it all last year with no bullpen, but this year is different. They've got the starting pitching and the lineup to do some damage in the postseason, but they have to get their first. And that would require winning the Wild Card Game. Which they might not even make, seeing as the three teams above them in the wild card race all improved.
When Trevor Bauer threw the ball over the center field wall in Kansas City on Sunday, you pretty much knew he was going to get traded. Then word came out that Cleveland sent him to Cincinnati and everyone was like "Huh?" Then we found out who the Indians got in return, and it turns out it was a pretty smart deal. Cleveland has needed an outfielder all season, and Yasiel Puig wasn't just the best outfielder available, he's the absolutel perfect fit. That was actually a three-team trade that also yielded another outfielder, Franmil Reyes from San Diego. And they have more than enough pitching to absorb losing Bauer. They could even give the Twins a run for the division.
I don't recall Tampa Bay ever being this aggressive at the trade deadline. But the Rays are going for it. Jesus Aguliar is the right-handed power bat they've been missing in the middle of their lineup. The Rays didn't stop there, though. They made a bunch of pitching moves that completely reshaped their 10-man bullpen (although, I'm not sure how they plan on continuing their stupid "opener" thing with Ryne Stanek sent down I-75 to Miami). Is it enough to pass the Yankees? Probably not. But it should be enough to hold off the Red Sox and guarantee Tampa Bay a spot in the Wild Card Game.
Oakland is the other team in the AL wild card mix. The A's made only one move of consequence, but it was an important one. They got starting pitcher Tanner Roark from the Nationals. Last year, they used an "opener" in the Wild Card Game. Liam Hendriks gave up a two-run homer to Aaron Judge in the first inning, and that was that. Should they make it back to the Wild Card Game this year, they'll have a legitimate starter in Roark and actually have a realistic chance of advancing to the Division Series. (This after starting trade deadline season by getting Homer Bailey from the Royals two weeks ago.) They know they're not going to catch the Astros, so thinking about how to win the Wild Card Game was smart.
Over in the National League, the Dodgers are still the overwhelming favorites. They didn't do much, but they didn't need to. Their biggest acquisition was Jedd Gyorko, who wasn't playing in St. Louis and perfectly fits the mold of that versatile bat off the bench that they can put pretty much anywhere on the field. They also needed bullpen help and addressed that with the addition of Adam Kolarek (who can evidently also play first base if they're in a pinch!). He's not Felipe Vazquez, the guy they really wanted, but he's still a lefty reliever. And the Dodgers' starters are so good that they could just have Kershaw, Ryu and Buehler go seven before turning it over to Jansen for two.
If someone is going to push LA for the NL pennant, it might be Atlanta. The Braves had rotation concerns that became less of an issue after the signing of Dallas Keuchel. The bullpen remained a mess, though, so they took care of that at the deadline. They added a pair of setup guys in Chris Martin and Mark Melancon, and they also snagged one of the biggest bullpen prizes available in Tigers All-Star closer Shane Greene.
Meanwhile, Greene's former teammate in Detroit, Nicholas Castellanos might've helped turn the Cubs into the NL Central favorites. The Cubs needed a right-handed-hitting outfielder badly. Now they have one. And he's got power, too. They also got a utility guy in Houston's Tony Kemp, which was the return in the Maldonado trade, and improved their bullpen with former Marlin David Phelps. The NL Central's going to be a dogfight. The Cubs already had the most talent in the division. They just added to it.
Don't count Milwaukee out, though. Even after giving up a big bat in Aguilar, who was splitting time with Eric Thames anyway, the Brewers are still in a strong position. They strengthened an already good bullpen by adding Ray Black from the Giants in a trade that also brought them Drew Pomeranz. Pomeranz had recently been demoted to the bullpen in San Francisco, but he was a great deadline pickup by the Red Sox a few years ago as a starter, and I can easily see him sliding into that Milwaukee rotation.
San Francisco is an interesting case. The Giants have absolutely no chance of catching the Dodgers. They know this. But a recent good stretch thrust them into the wild card race, which led to them keeping Madison Bumgarner and Will Smith. They still moved some pieces, though (Melancon, Sam Dyson), but also picked one up in former Red second baseman Scooter Gennett. I'm not sure exactly what that all means.
Another team who's trade deadline strategy I fail to understand is the Mets. Although incredibly overrated and overvalued, Marcus Stroman was the biggest starting pitching name available. He was expected to go to a contender. Instead he went to the Mets, which led to people thinking either Noah Syndergaard or Zack Wheeler (or both) would be moved out. Yet they both stayed. The only Met starter traded was Jason Vargas, who they kept in the division and sent to the Phillies (I'll never understand intradivision trades). Which now has delusional Mets fans thinking they're actually capable of making a wild card run.
In order for them to make that run, though, they'll have to pass both the Phillies and Nationals, two teams that got better at the deadline. Philadelphia picked up outfielder Corey Dickerson from the Pirates, while Washington picked up three relievers. With Scherzer currently out, I'm not sure the Nationals can continue their recent hot streak, but their bullpen is no longer the major issue it was a few days ago. Is it enough to get them into the playoffs? Maybe, maybe not. But the National League wild card race is so crazy, that it just might.
Wednesday, July 31, 2019
Monday, July 29, 2019
Position Players Pitching and Pitchers Playing Positions
Whenever a position player takes the mound, it's usually entertaining. Normally, position players only pitch in one of two situations. The first is in the late innings of blowouts, which brings some levity into the proceedings and gives people a reason to stick around. The second is in long extra inning games when the managers are out of relievers and don't have much of a choice. That's when you keep watching, no matter how late it is, because (a) you're too invested in the game by that point or (b) you sense it coming.
Even in this era of eight- or nine-man bullpens, position players made a record number of pitching appearances last season, and they're on track to come near that number again this year. This is what happens when teams use "openers" instead of starting pitchers and they're down to their last two relievers in the seventh inning!
MLB doesn't like this abundance of pitching position players. For a number of reasons. In fact, they don't like it to the point that they're putting in rules next year telling teams when they're allowed to do it. There's also going to be a roster restriction on the number of pitchers teams can carry (which I never thought would be necessary, but absolutely is), so they'll have to designate everybody as one or the other prior to the season (an exception will be made for Shohei Ohtani).
This is one of just several rule changes MLB is planning on adopting next season, many of which involve pitching. Although, the shenanigans that the Tampa Bay Rays pulled against the Red Sox the other day got me thinking: If they're going to put in a rule limiting position players pitching, wouldn't it stand to reason that they should also implement a rule that does the reverse?
First, a refresher on the Rays-Red Sox game. Tampa Bay brought in lefty Adam Kolarek to start the eighth, and he promptly got Sam Travis to pop out. Mookie Betts, a right-handed hitter, was up next, so the Rays dropped their DH, moved Kolarek to first base, and brought in a righty to face Betts. After Betts flew out, they brought in an actual first baseman and Kolarek went back to the mound to face the left-handed Rafael Devers.
Are you confused yet? So were the Red Sox! It took 15 minutes for the umpires to explain what was going on to Boston manager Alex Cora, and he said afterwards that he was going to protest the game. The Red Sox ended up not protesting, mainly because what Tampa Bay did was completely legal (just poorly communicated). But that doesn't mean it should be.
Now, Tampa Bay isn't the only culprit, so they don't deserve all of the blame here. The Rays have done it a few times this season, in fact. And National League teams regularly do it (although in the National League it's far less confusing since there's no DH involved). The Cardinals had some sort of pitcher-left field tag team going for a few innings a couple years ago, and Joe Maddon manages the Cubs (and used to manage the Rays), so you know he has to have done it at least once. I can even remember a time when the Yankees put Bryan Mitchell at first base in order to keep him in the game (and he promptly dropped an easy popup).
So, my problem is less with teams taking advantage of a rule than the fact that the rule exists in the first place. Because there's no place for it in the Major Leagues! Sure, a lot of college pitchers also play other positions when they aren't pitching, and you often see the closer come in from right field. But this isn't college! This is the Major Leagues! Once these guys get to the pros, they're either hitters or pitchers! And they make it to the Majors as one or the other. Not both!
Why do I dislike this rule so much? Well, let me tell you. For starters, I'm not a fan of the gamesmanship. The other team might have to burn a pinch hitter, etc., only for the original pitcher to come right back in. Also, baseball has forever been a sport with no reentry. So once you make a pitching change, that's it. Why should he be able to pitch again after coming out just because he's technically still in the game? It also effectively gives a team unlimited pitching changes, with the pitcher receiving the full allotment of warm-ups each time.
Also, how come nobody talks about the injury factor? Pitchers don't play positions. Sure, they may shag fly balls during batting practice, but that's vastly different than playing the field during a game. (And how many pitchers immediately run out of the way every time there's a popup in the infield?) If one of the reasons they don't want position players pitching is because of injury concerns, why aren't they worried about it the other way? Not to mention how marginalized you make the three bench guys you do have by using a pitcher at a position in a non-emergency situation.
If National League teams want to use a pitcher to pinch hit or pinch run so they don't have to burn a regular player (or because they're out of position players), be my guest. Likewise, if somebody gets hurt and a pitcher's all you've got left, you don't really have much of a choice. But when you're putting them in the field, and the only reason you're doing it is to be cute with your pitching changes, I have a problem with it.
I've been asked (by someone who's fine with the rule) what the difference between that and someone moving from third base to first base is. Frankly, I don't think you can even make that comparison. For starters, many position players play multiple positions. That's the whole point of a utility infielder. Beyond that, though, repositioning your infielders isn't remotely the same as making a pitching change! That's why teams carry 13 pitchers to begin with.
Another one of the rule changes they're likely going to implement next season is a three-batter minimum for relievers. I can't wait for this to take effect and the nonstop parade of relievers to end! Hopefully that'll end things like what the Rays did the other day, as well. Although, in light of that, they may have to rewrite the language to say three consecutive batters.
Either way, something needs to be done about pitchers playing another position for a batter, then going back to pitching. Because, even though it doesn't happen a lot, it's still a problem that needs to be addressed. It's a rule that's been exploited. And it's one that doesn't have a place in today's game.
Even in this era of eight- or nine-man bullpens, position players made a record number of pitching appearances last season, and they're on track to come near that number again this year. This is what happens when teams use "openers" instead of starting pitchers and they're down to their last two relievers in the seventh inning!
MLB doesn't like this abundance of pitching position players. For a number of reasons. In fact, they don't like it to the point that they're putting in rules next year telling teams when they're allowed to do it. There's also going to be a roster restriction on the number of pitchers teams can carry (which I never thought would be necessary, but absolutely is), so they'll have to designate everybody as one or the other prior to the season (an exception will be made for Shohei Ohtani).
This is one of just several rule changes MLB is planning on adopting next season, many of which involve pitching. Although, the shenanigans that the Tampa Bay Rays pulled against the Red Sox the other day got me thinking: If they're going to put in a rule limiting position players pitching, wouldn't it stand to reason that they should also implement a rule that does the reverse?
First, a refresher on the Rays-Red Sox game. Tampa Bay brought in lefty Adam Kolarek to start the eighth, and he promptly got Sam Travis to pop out. Mookie Betts, a right-handed hitter, was up next, so the Rays dropped their DH, moved Kolarek to first base, and brought in a righty to face Betts. After Betts flew out, they brought in an actual first baseman and Kolarek went back to the mound to face the left-handed Rafael Devers.
Are you confused yet? So were the Red Sox! It took 15 minutes for the umpires to explain what was going on to Boston manager Alex Cora, and he said afterwards that he was going to protest the game. The Red Sox ended up not protesting, mainly because what Tampa Bay did was completely legal (just poorly communicated). But that doesn't mean it should be.
Now, Tampa Bay isn't the only culprit, so they don't deserve all of the blame here. The Rays have done it a few times this season, in fact. And National League teams regularly do it (although in the National League it's far less confusing since there's no DH involved). The Cardinals had some sort of pitcher-left field tag team going for a few innings a couple years ago, and Joe Maddon manages the Cubs (and used to manage the Rays), so you know he has to have done it at least once. I can even remember a time when the Yankees put Bryan Mitchell at first base in order to keep him in the game (and he promptly dropped an easy popup).
So, my problem is less with teams taking advantage of a rule than the fact that the rule exists in the first place. Because there's no place for it in the Major Leagues! Sure, a lot of college pitchers also play other positions when they aren't pitching, and you often see the closer come in from right field. But this isn't college! This is the Major Leagues! Once these guys get to the pros, they're either hitters or pitchers! And they make it to the Majors as one or the other. Not both!
Why do I dislike this rule so much? Well, let me tell you. For starters, I'm not a fan of the gamesmanship. The other team might have to burn a pinch hitter, etc., only for the original pitcher to come right back in. Also, baseball has forever been a sport with no reentry. So once you make a pitching change, that's it. Why should he be able to pitch again after coming out just because he's technically still in the game? It also effectively gives a team unlimited pitching changes, with the pitcher receiving the full allotment of warm-ups each time.
Also, how come nobody talks about the injury factor? Pitchers don't play positions. Sure, they may shag fly balls during batting practice, but that's vastly different than playing the field during a game. (And how many pitchers immediately run out of the way every time there's a popup in the infield?) If one of the reasons they don't want position players pitching is because of injury concerns, why aren't they worried about it the other way? Not to mention how marginalized you make the three bench guys you do have by using a pitcher at a position in a non-emergency situation.
If National League teams want to use a pitcher to pinch hit or pinch run so they don't have to burn a regular player (or because they're out of position players), be my guest. Likewise, if somebody gets hurt and a pitcher's all you've got left, you don't really have much of a choice. But when you're putting them in the field, and the only reason you're doing it is to be cute with your pitching changes, I have a problem with it.
I've been asked (by someone who's fine with the rule) what the difference between that and someone moving from third base to first base is. Frankly, I don't think you can even make that comparison. For starters, many position players play multiple positions. That's the whole point of a utility infielder. Beyond that, though, repositioning your infielders isn't remotely the same as making a pitching change! That's why teams carry 13 pitchers to begin with.
Another one of the rule changes they're likely going to implement next season is a three-batter minimum for relievers. I can't wait for this to take effect and the nonstop parade of relievers to end! Hopefully that'll end things like what the Rays did the other day, as well. Although, in light of that, they may have to rewrite the language to say three consecutive batters.
Either way, something needs to be done about pitchers playing another position for a batter, then going back to pitching. Because, even though it doesn't happen a lot, it's still a problem that needs to be addressed. It's a rule that's been exploited. And it's one that doesn't have a place in today's game.
Thursday, July 25, 2019
My 2019 World Championships Team
It's time for the USATF Outdoor Championships, which means it's time to start putting together the team that will represent the U.S. at the World Championships. Of course, regular U.S. Nationals aren't as straightforward as the Olympic Trials. Because there are byes involved with the World Championships.
Reigning champions get a bye (as long as they show up at U.S. Nationals). Eight Americans won World titles two years ago, so the U.S. can send four athletes in those eight events. Diamond League winners get a bye, too. But, since we won't know the Diamond League winners until early September, we don't know which other events might get a fourth American. Which adds some incentive to finish fourth.
The IAAF initially wanted to use their new world ranking system as the qualifying process for Worlds, but after some criticism and questions about how the rankings would work, they decided to go back to the old method of entry standards. So, it's top three with the standard who'll qualify, although the IAAF could conceivably add people without the standard to fill the field (and those who finish in the top three but don't have it will have the opportunity to "chase" the standard between now and Worlds).
Fortunately, the standard isn't an issue in most events. So, for the most part, we're looking at top three make the team (unless one of those three is the reigning World Champion, in which case fourth place will also go). And, since the U.S. track team is the strongest in the world, just making the team is half the battle.
In addition to a trip to Worlds, there's another little nugget at stake. The top four earn places on the team for the USA-Europe dual meet in September. But, of course, that doesn't matter nearly as much as making the team for the World Championships, which is the main goal of this weekend.
They already named the team in the marathon, and the only race walk being contested at Nationals is the 10K, not either of the two World Championships distances (20K, 50K), so the race walkers will be chosen separately. We are determining who'll go to Doha in the other 38 events, though. Here's who I think will snag those berths (defending World champs, who have a bye, are denoted with an asterisk; names in parentheses are top three, but don't have the standard)...
Men's 100: *Justin Gatlin, Christian Coleman, Ronnie Baker, Cameron Burrell
Men's 200: Noah Lyles, Christian Coleman, Isiah Young
Men's 400: Michael Norman, Paul Dedewo, Fred Kerley
Men's 800: Clayton Murphy, Donovan Brazier, Erik Sowinski
Men's 1500: Matthew Centrowitz, Johnny Gregorek, Ben Blankenship
Men's 5000: Paul Chelimo, Hillary Bor, Hassan Mead
Men's 10,000: Shadrack Kipkirchir, Leonard Korir, Lopez Lomong
Men's 110 Hurdles: Grant Holloway, Aleec Harris, Devon Allen
Men's 400 Hurdles: Rai Benjamin, Kerron Clement, Michael Stigler
Men's Steeplechase: Andy Bayer, Stanley Kebenei, Mason Ferlic
Men's Long Jump: Jeff Henderson, Zack Bazile, Will Claye
Men's Triple Jump: *Christian Taylor, Will Claye, Omar Craddock, Chris Benard
Men's High Jump: Ricky Robertson, Jeron Robinson, Shelby McEwen
Men's Pole Vault: *Sam Kendricks, Chris Nielsen, Matt Ludwig, Zach Bradford
Men's Shot Put: Ryan Crouser, Darrell Hill, Payton Otterdahl
Men's Discus: Mason Finley, Sam Mattis, Reggie Jagers
Men's Hammer Throw: Sean Donnelly, Alex Young, (Rudy Winkler)
Men's Javelin: (Riley Dolezal), (Curtis Thompson), (Michael Shuey)
Decathlon: Zach Ziemek, (Harrison Williams), (Solomon Simmons)
Women's 100: *Tori Bowie, Sha'Carri Richardson, Aleia Hobbs, Ashley Henderson
Women's 200: Gabby Thomas, Dezerea Bryant, Jenna Prandini
Women's 400: *Phyllis Francis, Shakima Wimbley, Jessica Beard, Kendall Ellis
Women's 800: Ajee Wilson, Raevyn Rogers, Hanna Green
Women's 1500: Shelby Houlihan, Jenny Simpson, Kate Grace
Women's 5000: Karissa Schweizer, Rachel Schneider, Elinor Purrier
Women's 10,000: Molly Huddle, Emily Sisson, Marielle Hall
Women's 100 Hurdles: Brianna McNeal, Keni Harrison, Sharika Nelvis
Women's 400 Hurdles: *Kori Carter, Dalilah Muhammad, Shamier Little, Sydney McLaughlin
Women's Steeplechase: *Emma Coburn, Courtney Frerichs, Colleen Quigley, Marie Lawrence
Women's Long Jump: *Brittney Reese, Kenyattia Hackworth, Shakeela Saunders, Alliyah Whisby
Women's Triple Jump: Tori Franklin, Keturah Orji, (Bria Matthews)
Women's High Jump: Vashti Cunningham, (Inika McPherson), (Liz Patterson)
Women's Pole Vault: Sandi Morris, Katie Nageotte, Jenn Suhr
Women's Shot Put: Michelle Carter, Jeneva Stevens, Chase Ealey
Women's Discus: Valarie Allman, Whitney Ashley, Kelsey Card
Women's Hammer Throw: Gwen Berry, Deanna Price, Maggie Ewen
Women's Javelin: Ariana Ince, Kara Winger, (Jenna Gray)
Heptathlon: Erica Bougard, Kendell Williams, (Ashtin Zamzow)
Reigning champions get a bye (as long as they show up at U.S. Nationals). Eight Americans won World titles two years ago, so the U.S. can send four athletes in those eight events. Diamond League winners get a bye, too. But, since we won't know the Diamond League winners until early September, we don't know which other events might get a fourth American. Which adds some incentive to finish fourth.
The IAAF initially wanted to use their new world ranking system as the qualifying process for Worlds, but after some criticism and questions about how the rankings would work, they decided to go back to the old method of entry standards. So, it's top three with the standard who'll qualify, although the IAAF could conceivably add people without the standard to fill the field (and those who finish in the top three but don't have it will have the opportunity to "chase" the standard between now and Worlds).
Fortunately, the standard isn't an issue in most events. So, for the most part, we're looking at top three make the team (unless one of those three is the reigning World Champion, in which case fourth place will also go). And, since the U.S. track team is the strongest in the world, just making the team is half the battle.
In addition to a trip to Worlds, there's another little nugget at stake. The top four earn places on the team for the USA-Europe dual meet in September. But, of course, that doesn't matter nearly as much as making the team for the World Championships, which is the main goal of this weekend.
They already named the team in the marathon, and the only race walk being contested at Nationals is the 10K, not either of the two World Championships distances (20K, 50K), so the race walkers will be chosen separately. We are determining who'll go to Doha in the other 38 events, though. Here's who I think will snag those berths (defending World champs, who have a bye, are denoted with an asterisk; names in parentheses are top three, but don't have the standard)...
Men's 100: *Justin Gatlin, Christian Coleman, Ronnie Baker, Cameron Burrell
Men's 200: Noah Lyles, Christian Coleman, Isiah Young
Men's 400: Michael Norman, Paul Dedewo, Fred Kerley
Men's 800: Clayton Murphy, Donovan Brazier, Erik Sowinski
Men's 1500: Matthew Centrowitz, Johnny Gregorek, Ben Blankenship
Men's 5000: Paul Chelimo, Hillary Bor, Hassan Mead
Men's 10,000: Shadrack Kipkirchir, Leonard Korir, Lopez Lomong
Men's 110 Hurdles: Grant Holloway, Aleec Harris, Devon Allen
Men's 400 Hurdles: Rai Benjamin, Kerron Clement, Michael Stigler
Men's Steeplechase: Andy Bayer, Stanley Kebenei, Mason Ferlic
Men's Long Jump: Jeff Henderson, Zack Bazile, Will Claye
Men's Triple Jump: *Christian Taylor, Will Claye, Omar Craddock, Chris Benard
Men's High Jump: Ricky Robertson, Jeron Robinson, Shelby McEwen
Men's Pole Vault: *Sam Kendricks, Chris Nielsen, Matt Ludwig, Zach Bradford
Men's Shot Put: Ryan Crouser, Darrell Hill, Payton Otterdahl
Men's Discus: Mason Finley, Sam Mattis, Reggie Jagers
Men's Hammer Throw: Sean Donnelly, Alex Young, (Rudy Winkler)
Men's Javelin: (Riley Dolezal), (Curtis Thompson), (Michael Shuey)
Decathlon: Zach Ziemek, (Harrison Williams), (Solomon Simmons)
Women's 100: *Tori Bowie, Sha'Carri Richardson, Aleia Hobbs, Ashley Henderson
Women's 200: Gabby Thomas, Dezerea Bryant, Jenna Prandini
Women's 400: *Phyllis Francis, Shakima Wimbley, Jessica Beard, Kendall Ellis
Women's 800: Ajee Wilson, Raevyn Rogers, Hanna Green
Women's 1500: Shelby Houlihan, Jenny Simpson, Kate Grace
Women's 5000: Karissa Schweizer, Rachel Schneider, Elinor Purrier
Women's 10,000: Molly Huddle, Emily Sisson, Marielle Hall
Women's 100 Hurdles: Brianna McNeal, Keni Harrison, Sharika Nelvis
Women's 400 Hurdles: *Kori Carter, Dalilah Muhammad, Shamier Little, Sydney McLaughlin
Women's Steeplechase: *Emma Coburn, Courtney Frerichs, Colleen Quigley, Marie Lawrence
Women's Long Jump: *Brittney Reese, Kenyattia Hackworth, Shakeela Saunders, Alliyah Whisby
Women's Triple Jump: Tori Franklin, Keturah Orji, (Bria Matthews)
Women's High Jump: Vashti Cunningham, (Inika McPherson), (Liz Patterson)
Women's Pole Vault: Sandi Morris, Katie Nageotte, Jenn Suhr
Women's Shot Put: Michelle Carter, Jeneva Stevens, Chase Ealey
Women's Discus: Valarie Allman, Whitney Ashley, Kelsey Card
Women's Hammer Throw: Gwen Berry, Deanna Price, Maggie Ewen
Women's Javelin: Ariana Ince, Kara Winger, (Jenna Gray)
Heptathlon: Erica Bougard, Kendell Williams, (Ashtin Zamzow)
Wednesday, July 24, 2019
Tokyo One Year Away
The Tokyo Olympics are one year away! Even though NBC started showing promos during the Closing Ceremony of the PyeongChang Games a year and a half ago, the countdown has now officially begun. And to celebrate, Tokyo 2020 unveiled the medal design (which is always cool even though Olympic rules dictate that the front of Summer medals must look the same).
They'll be awarding more of those medals than ever before. There will be 339 medal events in 33 different sports, including the return of baseball and softball, as well as the Olympic debuts of surfing, skateboarding, sport climbing and karate. Tokyo will also become the first Asian city to host the Olympics twice.
When Tokyo last hosted in 1964, it was a different time. There was half as many athletes and half as many sports. Those were also the last Olympics with a dirt track. The all-weather running surface that has been standard ever since debuted four years later in Mexico City. Those 1964 Games were also held in October, so the intense Japanese summer heat wasn't an issue, which it definitely will be next summer (another sign of the different times: TV didn't dictate when the Olympics were held 55 years ago).
One of the coolest things at the 1964 Olympics was the torch lighting. The honor went to Yoshinori Sakai, who was born in Hiroshima the day the atomic bomb was dropped on that city. Next summer, the circumstances will be much different. And the final torchbearer should reflect that. We'll likely see a great Japanese Olympic champion of the past light the cauldron. And, since Japan traditionally finishes among the top 10 in the medal standings, they've got plenty to choose from...
Sawao Kato is older and likely won't be selected, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't be a fine choice. He was the star of Japan's dominant men's gymnastics team in the 1960s and 70s, winning 12 medals and eight golds from 1968-76. He's Japan's most decorated Olympian, and only five athletes have more gold medals than him. (Kato will have to be involved in the Opening Ceremony in some way. My guess is as one of the people who carries in the Olympic flag.)
Another gymnast who would be worthwhile and seems more likely is Kohei Uchimura. The two-time reigning Olympic champion in the men's all-around, he also won six consecutive World titles from 2009-15. Uchimura also won all-around silver in Beijing and will enter his home Games as a seven-time medalist. Although, since men's gymnastics always gets underway on the first weekend, Uchimura is probably out.
Japan takes great pride in its international team sport success. They won the 2011 Women's World Cup and the first two World Baseball Classics. So, even though they've never won Olympic gold in either of those sports, I can see them honoring the Olympic medalists who were key members of those teams. Homare Sawa was the MVP of the 2011 Women's World Cup and played in four Olympics, winning silver in London. Daisuke Matsuzaka, meanwhile, in addition to winning the World Series with the 2007 Red Sox, was the MVP of both the 2006 and 2009 WBC. He was also on Japan's Olympic silver medal-winning team in 2004. With baseball returning to the program after a 12-year absence, I can't think of a better representative.
Naomi Osaka has become one of the faces of the Games with her two Grand Slam titles and rise to No. 1 over the past 12 months. But another Japanese tennis player has left just as big a mark, and I can easily see him being recognized for it. Kei Nishikori became the first Asian men's player to reach a Grand Slam final at the 2014 US Open, and he beat Nadal to claim Olympic bronze in Rio.
If they want to link the two Tokyo Games at the Opening Ceremony, there's a cool way to potentially do it. Hiroshi Hoketsu represented the home team in equestrian as a 23-year old in 1964. He was an Olympian again 44 years later in Beijing, then again as a 70-year-old in London, making Hoketsu the third-oldest Olympian ever.
Koji Murofushi has had an Olympic career that can only be described as "unique." He finished second in the hammer throw in Athens, only to be upgraded to gold a few days later. Murofushi was originally fifth in Beijing, was moved up to bronze after the gold and silver medalists were DQ'ed, then was moved back to fifth after they won their appeal. He then won the World Championship in 2011 and a second Olympic medal (bronze) in London.
An out-of-the-box selection would be the pair of Miya Tachibana & Miho Takeda. In a sport that has been dominated by the Russians for years, they managed to win five medals (four silver, one bronze) in synchronized swimming between 1996-2004, including back-to-back second-place finishes in the duet (2000-04).
There are five names at the top of my list, though. And I think the final torchbearer will be one of those five. They're all legends in their respective sports, and their sports are all incredibly popular in Japan. It would be a big surprise if the final torchbearer doesn't come from this group.
Swimming is so popular in Japan it led to a dispute between the Tokyo organizers and NBC over when the finals would be held. NBC ended up winning, and the finals will be in the morning so that they can be shown live in prime time in the U.S. Anyway, the biggest name in Japanese swimming is arguably Kosuke Kitajima. He's a four-time Olympian and won four gold medals, pulling of the double in the 100 and 200 breaststroke at both the 2004 and 2008 Games. He also held the world record in both events.
Judo was created in Japan and made its Olympic debut in 1964. So it would figure that the Japanese have been very successful in the sport. Ryoko Tani was dubbed the "best female judoka ever" when she retired after a seven World titles and medals at five straight Olympics (1992-2008), including gold in Sydney and Athens. On the men's side, meanwhile, Tadahrio Nomura is the only judoka to win three straight Olympic titles, capturing extra lightweight gold in Atlanta, Sydney and Athens.
Women's wrestling was added to the Olympic program in 2004, and the Japanese have been the dominant force. Japan has won 11 of the 18 gold medals awarded in women's wrestling all-time. They have two absolute legends who may or may not compete in Tokyo, either of whom would be a great choice. And, with women's Olympic participation set to be at an all-time high, it would be appropriate for either to be the selection.
Saori Yoshida lost a grand total of three matches in her international career. One was to Helen Maroulis in the 2016 Olympic final, denying her a fourth consecutive gold medal. She also won 13 World Championships. The only woman who can top that, though, is four-time Olympic champion Kaori Icho, who was undefeated from 2003-16. Icho might not get a chance to go for a fifth straight Olympic title at home (she lost in the Japanese trials for the World Championships). But a bigger honor could be in store for her. If it were up to me, she'd be lighting the Olympic cauldron.
Tuesday, July 23, 2019
A Mess of a Selection Process
As an organization, USA Track & Field has a knack of getting in its own way. They've become somewhat notorious for playing favorites or making up rules as they go along or contradicting themselves (sometimes all three).
Case in point, Vin Lananna, who was elected President of USATF in 2017, was put on leave by the Board of Directors more than a year ago because of a "conflict of interest" regarding the 2021 World Championships in Oregon. Lananna is the former head coach at Oregon and former president of TrackTown USA, the organizing committee for those World Championships. However, he was chosen in a public vote of USATF members and essentially removed from office for reasons that are pretty weak (the real "conflict" is that the Board of Directors has different interests than those Lananna was looking out for and they didn't like that). It's also absurd that he hasn't been given a chance to either defend himself or do his job, since they still haven't had a hearing regarding Lananna's status.
That's just one example of USATF incompetence. Another was the messy selection process for the Pan Am Games team. As the National Federation, one of USATF's primary tasks is naming the U.S. team for various international events.
This is normally through the athlete's placement at the designated selection event (usually U.S. Nationals). However, the World Championships are later this year, so U.S. Nationals were pushed back a month to late July. This timing meant they couldn't be used as the selection meet for the Pan Am Games like they normally are, since the entry deadline was at the end of June. As a result, they had to come up with a different method.
Now, the Pan Am Games aren't on the same level as the Olympics or World Championships, so, for the most part, the top athletes generally choose not to participate. That's especially the case this year with the timing (Pan Ams start right after U.S. Nationals end). Nevertheless, the U.S. still fields a full team of two athletes per event.
The selection process they decided on seemed pretty straightforward. It would be based on the 2019 performance list (although they ended up using the combined 2018-19 list, mainly because some athletes started their season later and didn't have any 2019 marks yet). The two athletes who had the best marks in that time and wanted to go would be offered spots on the team. This is what USATF published on its website, so it appeared everyone was on the same page. As it turns out, they were not.
For some reason, USATF didn't follow its own procedures while selecting the team. In some events, they did what they were supposed to and based it off the 2019 list. But in others, they used just the 2018 marks. And some were based on the combined 2018-19 list. So, in other words, they used three different lists, only one of which was right, to choose the team!
When they realized the error (which it sounds like was simply a sorting mistake on the spreadsheet), they tried to fix it. But they only made matters worse instead. They tried to do it quietly, changing the names on the press release as if nothing had happened. Except people noticed. And it was more than just a handful of names that were different.
Several athletes who had been incorrectly named to the team were replaced by those who should've qualified. But they weren't all notified right away. And they only did it for the handful of athletes who filed grievances, not all of those who were affected!
LetsRun.com, which doesn't hold back in its criticism of USATF, has been all over this since the beginning. They helped move the case to arbitration, where the arbitrator ruled against USATF and ordered them to re-pick the team based on the published criteria (the 2019 list). However, since we're well past the entry deadline, it's up to the Pan Am Games organizers to decide whether to accept that amended roster or not. If they don't, the original team will compete in Lima.
So, in other words, because of USATF's screw up, we still have no idea who's actually on the Pan Am Games team! Especially since some of those who should've been offered spots don't want them because it'll result in somebody else (who might be a friend) getting removed from the team. And that's the most unfortunate part of this entire thing. For someone to get put on, someone else has to get taken off. Through no fault of their own.
Granted, this is a unique circumstance because of when the Pan Am Games are in relation to U.S. Nationals. Ordinarily, Nationals would be used to select the team for both Worlds and Pan Ams, and they'd just keep going down the results in order until they filled the roster. So the timing is partially to blame. But the way USATF handled the situation was beyond embarrassing.
Instead of being upfront about the mistake, they tried to save face. The official explanation was that, "Unfortunately, the published selection criteria was susceptible to an alternate interpretation." Whatever that means. Also, despite never changing it on the website, they evidently informed the athletes in December that they'd be using the combined 2018-19 list. (I actually agree with USATF on this one. If not everybody had a 2019 mark to go by, it made more sense to use the combined list.)
Fortunately, when it comes to choose the team for the World Championships and next year's Olympics, things will be a lot more clear cut. The top three with the standard make the team. Plain and simple. Nothing arbitrary about it. At least I hope not.
Case in point, Vin Lananna, who was elected President of USATF in 2017, was put on leave by the Board of Directors more than a year ago because of a "conflict of interest" regarding the 2021 World Championships in Oregon. Lananna is the former head coach at Oregon and former president of TrackTown USA, the organizing committee for those World Championships. However, he was chosen in a public vote of USATF members and essentially removed from office for reasons that are pretty weak (the real "conflict" is that the Board of Directors has different interests than those Lananna was looking out for and they didn't like that). It's also absurd that he hasn't been given a chance to either defend himself or do his job, since they still haven't had a hearing regarding Lananna's status.
That's just one example of USATF incompetence. Another was the messy selection process for the Pan Am Games team. As the National Federation, one of USATF's primary tasks is naming the U.S. team for various international events.
This is normally through the athlete's placement at the designated selection event (usually U.S. Nationals). However, the World Championships are later this year, so U.S. Nationals were pushed back a month to late July. This timing meant they couldn't be used as the selection meet for the Pan Am Games like they normally are, since the entry deadline was at the end of June. As a result, they had to come up with a different method.
Now, the Pan Am Games aren't on the same level as the Olympics or World Championships, so, for the most part, the top athletes generally choose not to participate. That's especially the case this year with the timing (Pan Ams start right after U.S. Nationals end). Nevertheless, the U.S. still fields a full team of two athletes per event.
The selection process they decided on seemed pretty straightforward. It would be based on the 2019 performance list (although they ended up using the combined 2018-19 list, mainly because some athletes started their season later and didn't have any 2019 marks yet). The two athletes who had the best marks in that time and wanted to go would be offered spots on the team. This is what USATF published on its website, so it appeared everyone was on the same page. As it turns out, they were not.
For some reason, USATF didn't follow its own procedures while selecting the team. In some events, they did what they were supposed to and based it off the 2019 list. But in others, they used just the 2018 marks. And some were based on the combined 2018-19 list. So, in other words, they used three different lists, only one of which was right, to choose the team!
When they realized the error (which it sounds like was simply a sorting mistake on the spreadsheet), they tried to fix it. But they only made matters worse instead. They tried to do it quietly, changing the names on the press release as if nothing had happened. Except people noticed. And it was more than just a handful of names that were different.
Several athletes who had been incorrectly named to the team were replaced by those who should've qualified. But they weren't all notified right away. And they only did it for the handful of athletes who filed grievances, not all of those who were affected!
LetsRun.com, which doesn't hold back in its criticism of USATF, has been all over this since the beginning. They helped move the case to arbitration, where the arbitrator ruled against USATF and ordered them to re-pick the team based on the published criteria (the 2019 list). However, since we're well past the entry deadline, it's up to the Pan Am Games organizers to decide whether to accept that amended roster or not. If they don't, the original team will compete in Lima.
So, in other words, because of USATF's screw up, we still have no idea who's actually on the Pan Am Games team! Especially since some of those who should've been offered spots don't want them because it'll result in somebody else (who might be a friend) getting removed from the team. And that's the most unfortunate part of this entire thing. For someone to get put on, someone else has to get taken off. Through no fault of their own.
Granted, this is a unique circumstance because of when the Pan Am Games are in relation to U.S. Nationals. Ordinarily, Nationals would be used to select the team for both Worlds and Pan Ams, and they'd just keep going down the results in order until they filled the roster. So the timing is partially to blame. But the way USATF handled the situation was beyond embarrassing.
Instead of being upfront about the mistake, they tried to save face. The official explanation was that, "Unfortunately, the published selection criteria was susceptible to an alternate interpretation." Whatever that means. Also, despite never changing it on the website, they evidently informed the athletes in December that they'd be using the combined 2018-19 list. (I actually agree with USATF on this one. If not everybody had a 2019 mark to go by, it made more sense to use the combined list.)
Fortunately, when it comes to choose the team for the World Championships and next year's Olympics, things will be a lot more clear cut. The top three with the standard make the team. Plain and simple. Nothing arbitrary about it. At least I hope not.
Sunday, July 21, 2019
Sports' Moon Moments
Yesterday we celebrated the 50th anniversary of arguably man's greatest achievement of the 20th Century. The world stopped when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon. It was one of the defining moments in human history, and Armstrong's perfect words, "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind," is one of the most recognizable quotes ever spoken.
In the world of sports, there are very few moments that can even compare to the moon landing. The more I thought about it, the more I realized how few there actually are. Then I realized why. For all their power to unite, sports have a winner and a loser. That's the entire point. So, a moment that's memorable for one fan base is one the other team's fans would just as soon forget.
But...I did manage to find a few that transcend sports. They're not the moon landing or Pearl Harbor or 9/11. With the exception of one, they don't even compare to the overarching significance of those events. But for sports fans, they're similar in the regard of you know exactly where you were and what you were doing as they were happening.
There is one sports moment that does rank up there with the moon landing and the Kennedy assassination as a defining moment in 20th Century American history. That, of course, is Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier on April 15, 1947. Blacks had been barred from playing Major League Baseball for more than half a century until Robinson made his debut for the Brooklyn Dodgers. That moment went beyond baseball.
Robinson is one of the most significant figures in baseball history for a number of reasons, that being the biggest one. It's hard for anyone today to even imagine what he had to endure, yet he handled it all with grace. It's appropriate that we celebrate him every April 15 (even if the everyone wearing 42 thing drives me nuts!). Because he deserves it for what he did and what that meant.
The only other sports moment that comes remotely close to the cultural significance of Robinson's debut is the Miracle On Ice. Obviously the reasons are vastly different. But a team of college kids beating the Soviet professionals on February 22, 1980 was the boost America needed at the time. It was the middle of the Iran Hostage Crisis, gas prices were astronomical, and the U.S. had just announced it would boycott that year's Summer Olympics in Moscow. Yet a hockey game in Upstate New York, if only for a day, made people feel good about being American again.
Everything else on this list will resonate with sports fans, although not nearly in the same way. They're significant from a sporting perspective, but don't have that same cultural impact as Jackie Robinson's debut or the Miracle On Ice. For sports fans, though, these are definitely "remember where you were" moments.
Hank Aaron's 715th home run. Aaron entered the 1974 season one home run behind Babe Ruth on the all-time list. He tied the record with a homer on Opening Day in Cincinnati, then broke baseball's most hallowed mark at home in Atlanta on April 8, 1974. He ended with 755 and held the record for 33 years until Barry Bonds passed him in 2007. And when Bonds hit his 756th, there was no fanfare at all.
Cal Ripken's 2,131st consecutive game. If there's any longtime baseball record more well-known than Ruth's home run mark, it's Lou Gehrig's 2,130 consecutive games, a streak that only ended because Gehrig was dying of the disease that now bears his name. Some thought that streak would never get touched, yet Ripken was on his way when the strike wiped out the final six weeks of the 1994 season. When baseball returned in 1995, Ripken's streak continued (and helped bring people back to the game). On September 6, 1995, the Orioles' game against the Angels became official and Ripken had passed Gehrig. He'd play 500 more before voluntarily ending it at 2,632 in 1998.
Joe Namath's guarantee. It was bold, brash, basically Joe Namath in a nutshell. The NFL had won the first two Super Bowls, and nobody gave the Jets a chance against the dominant Baltimore Colts in Super Bowl III. In the week leading up to the game, though, Namath was confident, telling reporters, "We'll win the game. I guarantee it." And on January 12, 1968, he delivered on that guarantee, as the Jets pulled the upset and validated the AFL.
Bob Beamon's world record. I talk about it all the time. I consider it the greatest single individual performance in both track & field and Olympic history. On October 18, 1968 at the Mexico City Olympics, Beamon jumped into the stratosphere (not literally like the astronauts, but you get my point). He broke the world record in the long jump by nearly two feet! No one had ever jumped 28 feet, and he surpassed that mark entirely with a leap of 29'2 1/2. It would stand as the world record for 23 years and is still the No. 2 mark all-time.
They aren't all good. At the 1972 Summer Olympics, Palestinian terrorists broke into the Olympic Village and took 11 members of the Israeli team hostage. The Munich Massacre ended with a shootout at an air field, where all of the hostages were killed. September 5-6, 1972 represent the darkest two days in Olympic history (and there isn't even a close second).
Finally, we have another thing that transcended sports. It actually marked the dawn of reality TV and 24-hour news. I'm, of course, talking about the O.J. Simpson Chase on June 17, 1994. The nation was transfixed as police chased his white Bronco down the Los Angeles Freeway. And they would remain transfixed throughout his 1995 murder trial. In fact, O.J. and this case still fascinate today (as evidence by the number of award-winning documentaries produced on the subject). Our celebrity culture had officially arrived.
Are any of these transcendent moments in history like the moon landing? Of course not! Few things are. What Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin achieved on July 20, 1969 is one of the most amazing feats ever accomplished by mankind. Sports moments, even the significant ones, pale in comparison.
In the world of sports, there are very few moments that can even compare to the moon landing. The more I thought about it, the more I realized how few there actually are. Then I realized why. For all their power to unite, sports have a winner and a loser. That's the entire point. So, a moment that's memorable for one fan base is one the other team's fans would just as soon forget.
But...I did manage to find a few that transcend sports. They're not the moon landing or Pearl Harbor or 9/11. With the exception of one, they don't even compare to the overarching significance of those events. But for sports fans, they're similar in the regard of you know exactly where you were and what you were doing as they were happening.
There is one sports moment that does rank up there with the moon landing and the Kennedy assassination as a defining moment in 20th Century American history. That, of course, is Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier on April 15, 1947. Blacks had been barred from playing Major League Baseball for more than half a century until Robinson made his debut for the Brooklyn Dodgers. That moment went beyond baseball.
Robinson is one of the most significant figures in baseball history for a number of reasons, that being the biggest one. It's hard for anyone today to even imagine what he had to endure, yet he handled it all with grace. It's appropriate that we celebrate him every April 15 (even if the everyone wearing 42 thing drives me nuts!). Because he deserves it for what he did and what that meant.
The only other sports moment that comes remotely close to the cultural significance of Robinson's debut is the Miracle On Ice. Obviously the reasons are vastly different. But a team of college kids beating the Soviet professionals on February 22, 1980 was the boost America needed at the time. It was the middle of the Iran Hostage Crisis, gas prices were astronomical, and the U.S. had just announced it would boycott that year's Summer Olympics in Moscow. Yet a hockey game in Upstate New York, if only for a day, made people feel good about being American again.
Everything else on this list will resonate with sports fans, although not nearly in the same way. They're significant from a sporting perspective, but don't have that same cultural impact as Jackie Robinson's debut or the Miracle On Ice. For sports fans, though, these are definitely "remember where you were" moments.
Hank Aaron's 715th home run. Aaron entered the 1974 season one home run behind Babe Ruth on the all-time list. He tied the record with a homer on Opening Day in Cincinnati, then broke baseball's most hallowed mark at home in Atlanta on April 8, 1974. He ended with 755 and held the record for 33 years until Barry Bonds passed him in 2007. And when Bonds hit his 756th, there was no fanfare at all.
Cal Ripken's 2,131st consecutive game. If there's any longtime baseball record more well-known than Ruth's home run mark, it's Lou Gehrig's 2,130 consecutive games, a streak that only ended because Gehrig was dying of the disease that now bears his name. Some thought that streak would never get touched, yet Ripken was on his way when the strike wiped out the final six weeks of the 1994 season. When baseball returned in 1995, Ripken's streak continued (and helped bring people back to the game). On September 6, 1995, the Orioles' game against the Angels became official and Ripken had passed Gehrig. He'd play 500 more before voluntarily ending it at 2,632 in 1998.
Joe Namath's guarantee. It was bold, brash, basically Joe Namath in a nutshell. The NFL had won the first two Super Bowls, and nobody gave the Jets a chance against the dominant Baltimore Colts in Super Bowl III. In the week leading up to the game, though, Namath was confident, telling reporters, "We'll win the game. I guarantee it." And on January 12, 1968, he delivered on that guarantee, as the Jets pulled the upset and validated the AFL.
Bob Beamon's world record. I talk about it all the time. I consider it the greatest single individual performance in both track & field and Olympic history. On October 18, 1968 at the Mexico City Olympics, Beamon jumped into the stratosphere (not literally like the astronauts, but you get my point). He broke the world record in the long jump by nearly two feet! No one had ever jumped 28 feet, and he surpassed that mark entirely with a leap of 29'2 1/2. It would stand as the world record for 23 years and is still the No. 2 mark all-time.
They aren't all good. At the 1972 Summer Olympics, Palestinian terrorists broke into the Olympic Village and took 11 members of the Israeli team hostage. The Munich Massacre ended with a shootout at an air field, where all of the hostages were killed. September 5-6, 1972 represent the darkest two days in Olympic history (and there isn't even a close second).
Finally, we have another thing that transcended sports. It actually marked the dawn of reality TV and 24-hour news. I'm, of course, talking about the O.J. Simpson Chase on June 17, 1994. The nation was transfixed as police chased his white Bronco down the Los Angeles Freeway. And they would remain transfixed throughout his 1995 murder trial. In fact, O.J. and this case still fascinate today (as evidence by the number of award-winning documentaries produced on the subject). Our celebrity culture had officially arrived.
Are any of these transcendent moments in history like the moon landing? Of course not! Few things are. What Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin achieved on July 20, 1969 is one of the most amazing feats ever accomplished by mankind. Sports moments, even the significant ones, pale in comparison.
Friday, July 19, 2019
It's A History Museum, Too
It's Hall of Fame Weekend in Cooperstown! For the second straight year, six players who played in the 1990s will be inducted. We've had 24 players elected to the Hall of Fame in the last six years, 20 of whom have been voted in by the writers. This is a good thing.
The 80s and 90s have been grossly underrepresented in Cooperstown until now, so it's nice to see those recent players finally get their due. This year, especially, shows how the modern game is at long last being fully embraced, as we've got two closers and two DH's among the six inductees (the other two are a dying breed, the innings-eating starting pitcher).
However, we celebrate this year's class and the first unanimous selection, it becomes more and more glaring that certain players aren't welcome in Cooperstown. Mariano Rivera was the greatest closer in history. No one is disputing that. And, while some would've preferred to see someone from an earlier era to have also been unanimous, there isn't a single person who doesn't agree that he deserved that honor.
But as more and more players from the 90s and early 2000s are elected, the absence of those who aren't there becomes more and more glaring. Everyone has their own opinion about the Steroid Era and the principal players in it. But, like it or not, the Steroid Era happened, and, as much as some may want to, you can't simply just gloss over an entire period of the game's history as if it never existed. Yet that's exactly what's being done at the Hall of Fame.
Barry Bonds, of course, is the main protagonist in this drama. His Hall of Fame candidacy as a player is discussed every January when the election comes around. That debate's going to be around forever, regardless of whether or not he ever gets in. Same thing with Roger Clemens and Mark McGwire and Alex Rodriguez (although David Ortiz, who's also been linked to steroids, will easily get in on the first ballot in 2022).
Now, everyone knows my feelings on whether or not I think Bonds should be in the Hall of Fame. Every year when I unveil my "ballot," his name is right at the top. And it will continue to be as long as he's eligible. Ditto with Clemens. So this isn't about making a case why he deserves to be in. Those that are Bonds supporters aren't going to change their minds, and neither are those who are anti-Bonds.
He seems to have come to peace with his Hall of Fame status. Bonds never had a good relationship with the media. He's the first to admit it. And now that those same media members are the ones responsible for deciding whether or not he belongs in the Hall of Fame, it's easy to cast Bonds as the villain and vote against him. Which they're entitled to do.
Although, whether or not he eventually has a plaque hanging alongside the all-time greats, that doesn't change Bonds' place in the game's history. And that's where Bonds should be recognized. It's the National Baseball Hall of Fame AND Museum. If you want to keep him out of the Hall of Fame part, fine. But, at the very least, he should be in the Museum part.
Like it or not, Barry Bonds is the all-time home run leader. He's also holds the single-season home run record. Yet, if you go to Cooperstown, you won't find anything celebrating either achievement. How can a place that's supposed to preserve the game's history completely ignore the man who holds two of its most revered records? Especially since they DO recognize Pete Rose, an admitted gambler who's banned from baseball for life.
After years of denials, Rose finally admitted his gambling. His lifetime ban still stands, though, and he needs to get special permission from the Commissioner to attend official events (mainly in Cincinnati). Bonds, however, is a member in good standing of the baseball community. He had his number retired by the Giants last August and regularly works with the team's Minor Leaguers.
There are many baseball historians who rank Barry Bonds up there not just as the best player of his era, but one of the greatest of all-time (although my vote would go to his godfather, Willie Mays). Regardless of where you think he belongs in the greatest players of all-time debate, there's no denying that he was one of the central figures in the Steroid Era, for multiple reasons. Which is another reason why it's stupid to pretend Bonds simply doesn't exist.
Besides, everyone knows the Steroid Era happened. And nobody did anything to stop it! What brought fans back after the 1994-95 strike that almost killed the game? Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and all the home runs. It happened. At the time, people simply turned their backs on it. But it's still a period in the game's history, and those who played in the era should be recognized as such.
As a history museum, it's the Hall of Fame's responsibility to do that. Especially since they're being selective about who they want to acknowledge and who they don't. Bud Selig was the Commissioner who turned a blind eye to steroids as it was happening. Yet he was overwhelmingly voted into the Hall of Fame by the Modern Baseball Committee in 2017.
Not liking Barry Bonds as a person is one thing. So is withholding a Hall of Fame vote for him. But those are completely unrelated to the records he holds and his place in baseball history. And the Hall of Fame is also a history museum. At the very least, Barry Bonds needs to be there. Because, like it or not, he definitely is an important figure in the game's history.
The 80s and 90s have been grossly underrepresented in Cooperstown until now, so it's nice to see those recent players finally get their due. This year, especially, shows how the modern game is at long last being fully embraced, as we've got two closers and two DH's among the six inductees (the other two are a dying breed, the innings-eating starting pitcher).
However, we celebrate this year's class and the first unanimous selection, it becomes more and more glaring that certain players aren't welcome in Cooperstown. Mariano Rivera was the greatest closer in history. No one is disputing that. And, while some would've preferred to see someone from an earlier era to have also been unanimous, there isn't a single person who doesn't agree that he deserved that honor.
But as more and more players from the 90s and early 2000s are elected, the absence of those who aren't there becomes more and more glaring. Everyone has their own opinion about the Steroid Era and the principal players in it. But, like it or not, the Steroid Era happened, and, as much as some may want to, you can't simply just gloss over an entire period of the game's history as if it never existed. Yet that's exactly what's being done at the Hall of Fame.
Barry Bonds, of course, is the main protagonist in this drama. His Hall of Fame candidacy as a player is discussed every January when the election comes around. That debate's going to be around forever, regardless of whether or not he ever gets in. Same thing with Roger Clemens and Mark McGwire and Alex Rodriguez (although David Ortiz, who's also been linked to steroids, will easily get in on the first ballot in 2022).
Now, everyone knows my feelings on whether or not I think Bonds should be in the Hall of Fame. Every year when I unveil my "ballot," his name is right at the top. And it will continue to be as long as he's eligible. Ditto with Clemens. So this isn't about making a case why he deserves to be in. Those that are Bonds supporters aren't going to change their minds, and neither are those who are anti-Bonds.
He seems to have come to peace with his Hall of Fame status. Bonds never had a good relationship with the media. He's the first to admit it. And now that those same media members are the ones responsible for deciding whether or not he belongs in the Hall of Fame, it's easy to cast Bonds as the villain and vote against him. Which they're entitled to do.
Although, whether or not he eventually has a plaque hanging alongside the all-time greats, that doesn't change Bonds' place in the game's history. And that's where Bonds should be recognized. It's the National Baseball Hall of Fame AND Museum. If you want to keep him out of the Hall of Fame part, fine. But, at the very least, he should be in the Museum part.
Like it or not, Barry Bonds is the all-time home run leader. He's also holds the single-season home run record. Yet, if you go to Cooperstown, you won't find anything celebrating either achievement. How can a place that's supposed to preserve the game's history completely ignore the man who holds two of its most revered records? Especially since they DO recognize Pete Rose, an admitted gambler who's banned from baseball for life.
After years of denials, Rose finally admitted his gambling. His lifetime ban still stands, though, and he needs to get special permission from the Commissioner to attend official events (mainly in Cincinnati). Bonds, however, is a member in good standing of the baseball community. He had his number retired by the Giants last August and regularly works with the team's Minor Leaguers.
There are many baseball historians who rank Barry Bonds up there not just as the best player of his era, but one of the greatest of all-time (although my vote would go to his godfather, Willie Mays). Regardless of where you think he belongs in the greatest players of all-time debate, there's no denying that he was one of the central figures in the Steroid Era, for multiple reasons. Which is another reason why it's stupid to pretend Bonds simply doesn't exist.
Besides, everyone knows the Steroid Era happened. And nobody did anything to stop it! What brought fans back after the 1994-95 strike that almost killed the game? Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and all the home runs. It happened. At the time, people simply turned their backs on it. But it's still a period in the game's history, and those who played in the era should be recognized as such.
As a history museum, it's the Hall of Fame's responsibility to do that. Especially since they're being selective about who they want to acknowledge and who they don't. Bud Selig was the Commissioner who turned a blind eye to steroids as it was happening. Yet he was overwhelmingly voted into the Hall of Fame by the Modern Baseball Committee in 2017.
Not liking Barry Bonds as a person is one thing. So is withholding a Hall of Fame vote for him. But those are completely unrelated to the records he holds and his place in baseball history. And the Hall of Fame is also a history museum. At the very least, Barry Bonds needs to be there. Because, like it or not, he definitely is an important figure in the game's history.
Wednesday, July 17, 2019
Mixing It Up at the Aquatics Worlds
The Beach Volleyball World Championships ended a few weeks ago, right as the World Aquatics Championships started. The World Track & Field Championships usually complete the odd-year summer trifecta, but they're being held in the fall this year since they're in Doha, Qatar. And the three events always take on added significance in the pre-Olympic year.
In track & field and swimming, the World Championships don't determine Olympic spots. Those are based on the qualifying standards established by the international federations. But in beach volleyball and the other aquatic sports, Olympic qualification is on the line at Worlds. Which certainly ups the intensity (and makes the pre-Olympic Worlds much more significant than the post-Olympic Worlds).
What I've enjoyed watching at the Aquatics Worlds, though, is the non-Olympic events. In the Olympics, they only have a 10-kilometer open water swim. The top 10 qualified for the Olympics, with Jordan Willimovsky, Haley Anderson and Ashley Twitchell becoming the first three American individuals to book their tickets to Tokyo.
At Worlds, though, the 10K's are just two of the seven open water events. There's a 5K and a 25K for both men and women, as well as a 5K mixed relay. The mixed relay is the new thing across the board in international sports (frankly, I'm surprised they don't have mixed beach volleyball yet). And in the case of open water swimming, it was perhaps the most entertaining race of them all. In order to be considered for the Olympics, events have to be contested at the World Championships first. And judging by the IOC's recent obsession with mixed team events, I wouldn't be surprised to see the mixed open water relay make its way onto the Olympic program in Paris.
But that's not the only place where the Aquatics World Championships program differs than the Olympic program. Olympic spots were on the line in the four synchronized diving events that have been a part of the Olympics since Sydney. But there were also mixed synchro events on both the springboard and platform. They also have a team event which I find very interesting. It's one man and one woman. One does the platform, the other does the 3-meter springboard.
Meanwhile, the swimming program at Worlds has 42 events compared to the Olympics' 35, an increase of three from Rio. They've got 50s in every stroke (not just the freestyle), as well as a mixed 4x100 freestyle relay. The two mixed relays have been a part of the Swimming Worlds for a few years now, and frankly it was kinda surprising that they only added the mixed medley relay to the Olympics.
And in case you thought the swimming portion of the World Championships, don't worry. Because the top 12 teams in the seven relays get spots. Only 16 teams will compete in each relay at the Olympics, so that means we're filling three-quarters of the field. So those relays in Gwangju will be pretty intense.
Synchronized swimming is almost completely different at Worlds. Well, for starters, I should probably start calling it by the right name. Because at some point between the Rio Olympics and now "synchronized" became "artistic."
Anyway, at the Olympics, artistic swimming includes two events--the duet and the team. At the World Championships, they give out 10 gold medals. There are only five events, but for some reason they give separate gold medals for the technical and free routines instead of combining them into one event.
Most interestingly, though, they have the mixed duet in artistic swimming. Bill May made headlines about 20 years ago for being a man breaking into a sport that traditionally was only open to women. He actually wasn't able to compete at a number of events (such as the Worlds and Olympics) for a number of years because they didn't have the mixed event. But evidently now there are enough male artistic swimmers worldwide that they've added the mixed duet to the World Championships.
I haven't seen it yet, but I'd be curious to. When he first burst on the scene, May (who's still competing at 40, BTW) said something along the lines of how the male-female element meant he and his partner could do different things than the typical all-female teams. He compared it to underwater pairs skating. That's why I want to see it. Because I want to see if I agree with his assessment.
Then there's high diving. If you think the 10 meter platform is high, that's nothing. The women jump from twice that height, while for the men, it's nearly three times as high, 27 meters! That's the equivalent of jumping off a six- or nine-story building. These people are nuts!
And if that wasn't crazy enough, I remember one World Championships (I think it was 2013) when the high diving was taking place off the side of a cliff, aka that scary scene in every beach movie where you aren't sure if the guy made it until they show him in the water (or the "death" scene in a soap opera that leaves the character's fate open-ended so they don't have to be written out entirely in case the actor ever decides to come back).
It's terrifying, but it's also fascinating to watch. Unlike the pool diving events where they're doing all those crazy flips and spins, high diving is very basic in comparison. Frankly, I'm usually pretty impressed that they just make it out of the pool in one piece!
High diving has been proposed for Olympic inclusion at least once already, and it probably will be added to the Olympics eventually (if they need a facility, they can just do what they do with big air snowboarding and put a 30-foot tower with a pool inside a stadium somewhere). The diving team event, too. That'll likely make its way to the Olympics at some point. And I'm almost certain that we'll see the open water mixed relay five years from now in Paris.
As for mixed synchro diving and the "artistic" swimming mixed duet, those seem less likely. It's definitely fun to watch them at Worlds, though. Which is another thing that makes the World Championships worthwhile. Pre-Olympic or post-Olympic doesn't matter. Worlds is the show in these events. And they put on a pretty good one!
In track & field and swimming, the World Championships don't determine Olympic spots. Those are based on the qualifying standards established by the international federations. But in beach volleyball and the other aquatic sports, Olympic qualification is on the line at Worlds. Which certainly ups the intensity (and makes the pre-Olympic Worlds much more significant than the post-Olympic Worlds).
What I've enjoyed watching at the Aquatics Worlds, though, is the non-Olympic events. In the Olympics, they only have a 10-kilometer open water swim. The top 10 qualified for the Olympics, with Jordan Willimovsky, Haley Anderson and Ashley Twitchell becoming the first three American individuals to book their tickets to Tokyo.
At Worlds, though, the 10K's are just two of the seven open water events. There's a 5K and a 25K for both men and women, as well as a 5K mixed relay. The mixed relay is the new thing across the board in international sports (frankly, I'm surprised they don't have mixed beach volleyball yet). And in the case of open water swimming, it was perhaps the most entertaining race of them all. In order to be considered for the Olympics, events have to be contested at the World Championships first. And judging by the IOC's recent obsession with mixed team events, I wouldn't be surprised to see the mixed open water relay make its way onto the Olympic program in Paris.
But that's not the only place where the Aquatics World Championships program differs than the Olympic program. Olympic spots were on the line in the four synchronized diving events that have been a part of the Olympics since Sydney. But there were also mixed synchro events on both the springboard and platform. They also have a team event which I find very interesting. It's one man and one woman. One does the platform, the other does the 3-meter springboard.
Meanwhile, the swimming program at Worlds has 42 events compared to the Olympics' 35, an increase of three from Rio. They've got 50s in every stroke (not just the freestyle), as well as a mixed 4x100 freestyle relay. The two mixed relays have been a part of the Swimming Worlds for a few years now, and frankly it was kinda surprising that they only added the mixed medley relay to the Olympics.
And in case you thought the swimming portion of the World Championships, don't worry. Because the top 12 teams in the seven relays get spots. Only 16 teams will compete in each relay at the Olympics, so that means we're filling three-quarters of the field. So those relays in Gwangju will be pretty intense.
Synchronized swimming is almost completely different at Worlds. Well, for starters, I should probably start calling it by the right name. Because at some point between the Rio Olympics and now "synchronized" became "artistic."
Anyway, at the Olympics, artistic swimming includes two events--the duet and the team. At the World Championships, they give out 10 gold medals. There are only five events, but for some reason they give separate gold medals for the technical and free routines instead of combining them into one event.
Most interestingly, though, they have the mixed duet in artistic swimming. Bill May made headlines about 20 years ago for being a man breaking into a sport that traditionally was only open to women. He actually wasn't able to compete at a number of events (such as the Worlds and Olympics) for a number of years because they didn't have the mixed event. But evidently now there are enough male artistic swimmers worldwide that they've added the mixed duet to the World Championships.
I haven't seen it yet, but I'd be curious to. When he first burst on the scene, May (who's still competing at 40, BTW) said something along the lines of how the male-female element meant he and his partner could do different things than the typical all-female teams. He compared it to underwater pairs skating. That's why I want to see it. Because I want to see if I agree with his assessment.
Then there's high diving. If you think the 10 meter platform is high, that's nothing. The women jump from twice that height, while for the men, it's nearly three times as high, 27 meters! That's the equivalent of jumping off a six- or nine-story building. These people are nuts!
And if that wasn't crazy enough, I remember one World Championships (I think it was 2013) when the high diving was taking place off the side of a cliff, aka that scary scene in every beach movie where you aren't sure if the guy made it until they show him in the water (or the "death" scene in a soap opera that leaves the character's fate open-ended so they don't have to be written out entirely in case the actor ever decides to come back).
It's terrifying, but it's also fascinating to watch. Unlike the pool diving events where they're doing all those crazy flips and spins, high diving is very basic in comparison. Frankly, I'm usually pretty impressed that they just make it out of the pool in one piece!
High diving has been proposed for Olympic inclusion at least once already, and it probably will be added to the Olympics eventually (if they need a facility, they can just do what they do with big air snowboarding and put a 30-foot tower with a pool inside a stadium somewhere). The diving team event, too. That'll likely make its way to the Olympics at some point. And I'm almost certain that we'll see the open water mixed relay five years from now in Paris.
As for mixed synchro diving and the "artistic" swimming mixed duet, those seem less likely. It's definitely fun to watch them at Worlds, though. Which is another thing that makes the World Championships worthwhile. Pre-Olympic or post-Olympic doesn't matter. Worlds is the show in these events. And they put on a pretty good one!
Monday, July 15, 2019
The Era of the Big Three
Roger Federer is generally considered to be the greatest male tennis player of all time. At least in terms of Grand Slam titles, he is. He's currently at 20, and if not for getting outplayed in those three tiebreaks yesterday, he'd be at 21. Who knows what number he's going to end up with? But he definitely needs to win at least a few more. Because the other two members of the Big Three are right on his tail.
Pete Sampras won the 2002 US Open and walked off into the sunset as the all-time record-holder with 14 career Grand Slam titles. The following year at Wimbledon, Roger Federer won his first Grand Slam title. And since then, the Big Three have combined to win 54 Grand Slam titles, pushing Sampras into fourth place overall.
The current standings are: 1. Federer (20), 2. Nadal (18), 3. Djokovic (16), 4. Sampras (14). And I don't think there's anyone who believes the Big Three are done adding to their respective collections.
There is, after all a French Open every year, and Clay Boy doesn't let anyone else win that, while Djokovic will always be the favorite at the two hard court Slams and Roger has a special relationship with Centre Court at Wimbledon. It's not a stretch to think all three of them will end up in the 20s. That 24 Serena's been chasing for two years could even be approached (although I think she'll end up surpassing that number).
When all is said and done, we might be talking about Novak Djokovic as the greatest player of all time. Because it looks like he's going to sail past both Roger and Rafa. And consider the head start that Federer and Nadal had. Djokovic didn't win his first Grand Slam until the 2008 Australian Open and didn't win his second until three years later. From 2003-10, Federer won 16 of his 20 Grand Slams and Nadal won nine of his 18. Since 2011, it's Djokovic 15, Nadal 9, Federer 4.
But when you think about the three of them as a whole and consider the fact that they're all contemporaries, it's pretty remarkable. And I don't think it's a stretch to call this the greatest era in the history of men's tennis.
Now, I do understand that the Grand Slam totals of the Big Three are somewhat inflated because of the Australian Open. Until the late 80s, the Australian Open was held around Christmastime, so a lot of players would skip it. John McEnroe only played the Australian five times (and reached the semifinals in 1983). Jimmy Connors only played in 1974 (when he won) and 1975 (when he made the final). Bjorn Borg only played it once in his entire career.
Roy Emerson, meanwhile, the player whose record Sampras broke, is Australian, and won six of his 12 Grand Slam titles at his home tournament (he won the others twice each). He made the final seven straight years from 1961-67, when the field consisted almost exclusively of Aussies.
So the comparison is a little bit skewed. If everybody played the Australian Open back then like they do today, Connors, Borg and McEnroe would likely have more Grand Slam titles, while Emerson would probably have fewer. But regardless, what we've been privileged to witness over the last 15 years with Federer, Nadal and Djokovic is something pretty special.
For a while, we kept wondering when that challenger to the Big Three was going to emerge. Yes, it was a Big Four while Andy Murray was still healthy enough to play singles (here's hoping he can again soon), and Stan Wawrinka has managed to snag a few Grand Slam titles. But, by and large, that challenger never arrived.
And you also have to think how many Slams other players might've won if not for the Big Three, which is another testament to their greatness. Andy Roddick's only Grand Slam title came at the 2003 US Open. He probably would've won Wimbledon at least once if he hadn't had to face Federer in his prime every time he got to the final. Same with every clay court player. The best anyone can hope for in Paris is losing to Nadal in the final.
Instead, we're wondering how long their greatness is going to last. They've been going strong as a threesome for more than a decade, and this era is definitely winding down. Federer turns 38 next month and doesn't figure to play much longer. Nadal, meanwhile, plays with such a hard, heavy-hitting style that he's frequently injured, which will probably be what forces him to eventually call it quits. Djokovic is the youngest of the three, so you figure he's got the most amount of time left (another reason I think he'll finish on top).
That day is coming. Probably soon. We will start seeing other players win Grand Slam titles. Not because they're beating the Big Three, but because they aren't around anymore. Until that time, though, let's enjoy what we've got in front of us. Because the consistent, collective dominance these three guys have displayed for so long really is awe-inspiring.
In the 70s, it was Connors, Borg and McEnroe. In the 80s, it was Becker, Edberg and Lendl. Then there were the three Americans--Sampras, Agassi and Courier--in the early 90s. But none of those eras were as great as the one we're living in now. The Era of the Big Three.
Friday, July 12, 2019
MLB Who's Headed Where
Now that we've passed the All*Star Break and the second half of the season has started, attention will be shifting to MLB's trade deadline soon enough. There's extra intrigue surrounding the trade deadline this year. Because now there's only one. All trades must be completed by July 31. They no longer have the August 31 deadline for players who clear waivers, which is how the Astros got Justin Verlander (and won the World Series as a result) two years ago.
This was a long time coming, and it's going to result in a lot more action on the days leading up to July 31. It also means teams will have to decide a lot sooner whether they're going to be buyers or sellers. No waiting until mid-August to figure out whether or not you're good enough to make a run. Which will be interesting with the teams on the fringes of the wild card races.
While some teams have two more weeks to make that decision, others have known for a while whether they'll be buying or selling (or both). Players like Madison Bumgarner and Marcus Stroman have had their names tossed around for weeks. They'll almost certainly be traded, and they know it. The real question surrounds who's going to strike first and who they're gonna get.
So I'll start there. These trades aren't necessarily going to happen. But they would make sense for both teams, especially the buyer. And who knows? Maybe they'll be the difference between playing in the World Series and not playing in the World Series.
Madison Bumgarner to the Brewers. Milwaukee has needed starting pitching since the middle of LAST season. And they've got the prospects to give the Giants for Bumgarner. Bumgarner has a full no-trade, so it really would be up to him, but I bet he'd relish another postseason run before hitting free agency in the winter. Don't forget, this is a guy who single-handedly won the World Series five years ago. I'm not saying the Brewers beat the Dodgers (or the Cubs) if they get Bumgarner. But they definitely won't if they don't.
Hunter Renfroe to the Indians. One thing San Diego has is a lot of young talent. One thing Cleveland needs is outfielders. With Renfroe seeming to be the odd-man out on a Padres team that's only going to get younger (they need a spot for their top prospect), sending him to the Indians would be a win-win. The Indians are the type of team that could be both a buyer AND a seller, so I can see them sending a pretty good haul the Padres' way in return.
Zack Wheeler to the Red Sox. The Mets have all but said that Wheeler's getting traded. The Yankees are interested, but it seems highly unlikely they would send him across town. Sending him the Red Sox, though? That's a different question. Boston still thinks they're capable of getting back in it, and they want to add another starter, even though they need bullpen help more.
Will Smith to the Twins. It seems even more likely that San Francisco's All*Star closer will get traded than it does that Bumgarner will. And if the Twins are going to have any chance of hanging with the Yankees and Astros in October, they need bullpen help (which is a common theme, despite the fact that most teams carry eight relievers). Smith would slide right in as their closer.
Felipe Vazquez to the Dodgers. There isn't much that the Dodgers need. They're running away with the NL West and looking ahead to October...where they need to address their bullpen in front of Kenley Jansen. Evidently right now they're unwilling to meet the Pirates' demands for Vazquez, but that could easily change between now and July 31. I think it will. It's World Series title or bust in LA, and they'll do whatever they need to do to improve their team.
Marcus Stroman to the Yankees. We all know the Yankees are going to add a starting pitcher. Maybe two. And, as much as I don't like Marcus Stroman (he started that whole pitchers-wearing-single-digit numbers thing that drives me nuts) and as much as I'd prefer they'd get someone else (for a number of reasons), this is the trade that seems most likely. He's from New York and basically begging to be traded to the Yankees (not unlike an NBA player), where he'll have to wear a real number.
Ken Giles to the Yankees. Don't be surprised if Stroman and Giles are packaged together in the same deal. Which is another reason why I think they'll end up on the Yankees. The Yankees did the same thing last year, despite already having a ridiculous bullpen, they went out and added Zack Britton. And, especially if they can get him and Stroman together, I can see them bringing in Giles to once again make the crazy-good bullpen even stronger.
Matthew Boyd to the Braves. Atlanta's starting pitching has been inconsistent all season. They just added Dallas Keuchel, but they need more. Which is why I wouldn't be surprised if the Braves strike first and try to land one of the bigger names. But, assuming the bigger names land elsewhere, Tigers lefty Matthew Boyd will be the best starting pitcher available for the Braves.
Dee Gordon to the Cubs. How perfect a marriage would this be? Seattle's looking to move anybody with a pulse, and Gordon has a ton of trade value. The Cubs don't really have a second baseman, and they don't really have a leadoff hitter. Gordon is both. The NL Central race is going down to the wire, so everybody's gonna make a move. If the Cubs were to add Gordon, though, that could be the difference.
Robbie Ray to the Astros. Ray has been linked to the Yankees (and is reportedly their preference), but Houston is looking to upgrade its rotation, too. Slotting in Ray behind Verlander, Cole and Miley (another former Diamondback) would perhaps give them back the edge over the Yankees in a potential ALCS matchup.
This was a long time coming, and it's going to result in a lot more action on the days leading up to July 31. It also means teams will have to decide a lot sooner whether they're going to be buyers or sellers. No waiting until mid-August to figure out whether or not you're good enough to make a run. Which will be interesting with the teams on the fringes of the wild card races.
While some teams have two more weeks to make that decision, others have known for a while whether they'll be buying or selling (or both). Players like Madison Bumgarner and Marcus Stroman have had their names tossed around for weeks. They'll almost certainly be traded, and they know it. The real question surrounds who's going to strike first and who they're gonna get.
So I'll start there. These trades aren't necessarily going to happen. But they would make sense for both teams, especially the buyer. And who knows? Maybe they'll be the difference between playing in the World Series and not playing in the World Series.
Madison Bumgarner to the Brewers. Milwaukee has needed starting pitching since the middle of LAST season. And they've got the prospects to give the Giants for Bumgarner. Bumgarner has a full no-trade, so it really would be up to him, but I bet he'd relish another postseason run before hitting free agency in the winter. Don't forget, this is a guy who single-handedly won the World Series five years ago. I'm not saying the Brewers beat the Dodgers (or the Cubs) if they get Bumgarner. But they definitely won't if they don't.
Hunter Renfroe to the Indians. One thing San Diego has is a lot of young talent. One thing Cleveland needs is outfielders. With Renfroe seeming to be the odd-man out on a Padres team that's only going to get younger (they need a spot for their top prospect), sending him to the Indians would be a win-win. The Indians are the type of team that could be both a buyer AND a seller, so I can see them sending a pretty good haul the Padres' way in return.
Zack Wheeler to the Red Sox. The Mets have all but said that Wheeler's getting traded. The Yankees are interested, but it seems highly unlikely they would send him across town. Sending him the Red Sox, though? That's a different question. Boston still thinks they're capable of getting back in it, and they want to add another starter, even though they need bullpen help more.
Will Smith to the Twins. It seems even more likely that San Francisco's All*Star closer will get traded than it does that Bumgarner will. And if the Twins are going to have any chance of hanging with the Yankees and Astros in October, they need bullpen help (which is a common theme, despite the fact that most teams carry eight relievers). Smith would slide right in as their closer.
Felipe Vazquez to the Dodgers. There isn't much that the Dodgers need. They're running away with the NL West and looking ahead to October...where they need to address their bullpen in front of Kenley Jansen. Evidently right now they're unwilling to meet the Pirates' demands for Vazquez, but that could easily change between now and July 31. I think it will. It's World Series title or bust in LA, and they'll do whatever they need to do to improve their team.
Marcus Stroman to the Yankees. We all know the Yankees are going to add a starting pitcher. Maybe two. And, as much as I don't like Marcus Stroman (he started that whole pitchers-wearing-single-digit numbers thing that drives me nuts) and as much as I'd prefer they'd get someone else (for a number of reasons), this is the trade that seems most likely. He's from New York and basically begging to be traded to the Yankees (not unlike an NBA player), where he'll have to wear a real number.
Ken Giles to the Yankees. Don't be surprised if Stroman and Giles are packaged together in the same deal. Which is another reason why I think they'll end up on the Yankees. The Yankees did the same thing last year, despite already having a ridiculous bullpen, they went out and added Zack Britton. And, especially if they can get him and Stroman together, I can see them bringing in Giles to once again make the crazy-good bullpen even stronger.
Matthew Boyd to the Braves. Atlanta's starting pitching has been inconsistent all season. They just added Dallas Keuchel, but they need more. Which is why I wouldn't be surprised if the Braves strike first and try to land one of the bigger names. But, assuming the bigger names land elsewhere, Tigers lefty Matthew Boyd will be the best starting pitcher available for the Braves.
Dee Gordon to the Cubs. How perfect a marriage would this be? Seattle's looking to move anybody with a pulse, and Gordon has a ton of trade value. The Cubs don't really have a second baseman, and they don't really have a leadoff hitter. Gordon is both. The NL Central race is going down to the wire, so everybody's gonna make a move. If the Cubs were to add Gordon, though, that could be the difference.
Robbie Ray to the Astros. Ray has been linked to the Yankees (and is reportedly their preference), but Houston is looking to upgrade its rotation, too. Slotting in Ray behind Verlander, Cole and Miley (another former Diamondback) would perhaps give them back the edge over the Yankees in a potential ALCS matchup.
Wednesday, July 10, 2019
The Equal Pay Debate
Even before they left for France, one of the biggest stories surrounding the U.S. Women's National Team at the World Cup was their lawsuit seeking equal pay. At the final, there were just as many chants of "Equal Pay" as there were of "U-S-A!," and it was the same thing again today at the parade.
And politicians, of course, have decided to insert themselves into the conversation, as always happens with the hot-button sports issue of the moment. A Senator from West Virginia introduced a bill yesterday that said unless US Soccer agrees to equal pay for the women's team, no federal funds will be provided for the men's World Cup in 2026. I'm pretty sure they'll get enough sponsorship money to cover it even if this bill ever does make it to a vote, but that's not even what it was about. It was taking the women's players' fight and making it a political issue.
Here's the thing, though, it's not nearly as simple as it's being made out to be. And that really isn't fair to US Soccer. They're being made out to be the bad guys in this situation, but it's not an apples to apples comparison. Which is why they can't simply say "we'll give you equal compensation." These things have to be negotiated, and I'm sure they will be.
What exactly do they mean by "equal pay" anyway? Are they looking for the dollar-to-dollar amount they make to be the same as the players on the men's team get? Because with endorsements and everything else, that's impossible to judge. And, endorsement dollars and club contracts result in a range of salaries even among the members of the men's team.
The men don't get most of their money from the National Team, either. The biggest reason for the pay gap is because of the professional contracts. Christian Pulisic is getting paid $73 million by Chelsea, not US Soccer. It's silly and unreasonable to think the National Federation should or is able to compensate players nearly as well as those European club teams.
Another thing that makes a comparison difficult is the fact that the men only get paid by US Soccer for their National Team service. The women's team, meanwhile, is full-time employees of US Soccer. The Federation pays their salaries for both the National Team and the NWSL, in addition to giving them health benefits year-round. So, in that area, the women are compensated better than their male counterparts, who only get those services while on National Team duty.
Are a lot of the points the women have made absolutely right? Of course they are! They're the two-time defending World Cup Champions, while the men didn't even make it last year. They're more popular than the men, as the TV ratings and jersey sales suggest (and would be obvious anyway).
If it were based on those factors alone, the women would have an argument that they should be paid more than the men. But, it's more than that. Which is why you can't simply turn it into "the men make more."
Now, don't get me wrong. I 100 percent agree that they deserve equal compensation. But what exactly is that equal compensation? The per-game salaries should be the same. No question. So should the per diems and travel conditions. If the men are taking a private charter and staying in a four-star hotel, the women should, too. Same with the support staff. The number of coaches and trainers and everyone else behind the scenes should be equal for both squads.
For the most part, US Soccer is pretty good in that regard. Where the disparity lies is in the extra compensation. I don't remember what the numbers are, but the amount that would've been distributed among the men for winning the World Cup (which obviously wasn't going to happen) is significantly more than the bonus the women are gonna get. And that's wrong. If it's based on a percentage of the funds that the Federation receives, that percentage, whatever it is, should be the same (which, it should be noted, can result in two different dollar amounts).
I'm assuming that gap comes from a difference in sponsorship dollars, which is an area where both US Soccer and FIFA can improve. Although, even there, I think some of the criticism is unwarranted. Men's World Cup money is distributed between the 32 participating teams, just as the Women's World Cup funds are divided equally between 24 nations. It's up to the federations to decide how their share gets spent.
US Soccer funds and supports its women's program better than any other National Federation. It's part of the reason why the team is--and will continue to be--so successful. The problem is the women who are responsible for that success feel disrespected. And, frankly, it's not unreasonable to want to reap some of the benefits that you helped secure.
That's really what's at the heart of the issue here. "Equal Pay" makes for a catchy chant, but that's only a part of it. Because, again, it's not a black-and-white situation. It's just as much about equitable compensation as it is about respect. The women are looking to be paid what they feel they're worth. And they don't think they are, especially when compared to the men.
When the U.S. women's hockey team went on strike a few years ago, many of their demands were similar to what the women's soccer team wants now. That was resolved through arbitration, as I'm sure this will be. Because both sides have incentive to get it done. Especially because US Soccer knows the women have a point. They're the two-time reigning World Cup champions. They deserve to be compensated as such.
And politicians, of course, have decided to insert themselves into the conversation, as always happens with the hot-button sports issue of the moment. A Senator from West Virginia introduced a bill yesterday that said unless US Soccer agrees to equal pay for the women's team, no federal funds will be provided for the men's World Cup in 2026. I'm pretty sure they'll get enough sponsorship money to cover it even if this bill ever does make it to a vote, but that's not even what it was about. It was taking the women's players' fight and making it a political issue.
Here's the thing, though, it's not nearly as simple as it's being made out to be. And that really isn't fair to US Soccer. They're being made out to be the bad guys in this situation, but it's not an apples to apples comparison. Which is why they can't simply say "we'll give you equal compensation." These things have to be negotiated, and I'm sure they will be.
What exactly do they mean by "equal pay" anyway? Are they looking for the dollar-to-dollar amount they make to be the same as the players on the men's team get? Because with endorsements and everything else, that's impossible to judge. And, endorsement dollars and club contracts result in a range of salaries even among the members of the men's team.
The men don't get most of their money from the National Team, either. The biggest reason for the pay gap is because of the professional contracts. Christian Pulisic is getting paid $73 million by Chelsea, not US Soccer. It's silly and unreasonable to think the National Federation should or is able to compensate players nearly as well as those European club teams.
Another thing that makes a comparison difficult is the fact that the men only get paid by US Soccer for their National Team service. The women's team, meanwhile, is full-time employees of US Soccer. The Federation pays their salaries for both the National Team and the NWSL, in addition to giving them health benefits year-round. So, in that area, the women are compensated better than their male counterparts, who only get those services while on National Team duty.
Are a lot of the points the women have made absolutely right? Of course they are! They're the two-time defending World Cup Champions, while the men didn't even make it last year. They're more popular than the men, as the TV ratings and jersey sales suggest (and would be obvious anyway).
If it were based on those factors alone, the women would have an argument that they should be paid more than the men. But, it's more than that. Which is why you can't simply turn it into "the men make more."
Now, don't get me wrong. I 100 percent agree that they deserve equal compensation. But what exactly is that equal compensation? The per-game salaries should be the same. No question. So should the per diems and travel conditions. If the men are taking a private charter and staying in a four-star hotel, the women should, too. Same with the support staff. The number of coaches and trainers and everyone else behind the scenes should be equal for both squads.
For the most part, US Soccer is pretty good in that regard. Where the disparity lies is in the extra compensation. I don't remember what the numbers are, but the amount that would've been distributed among the men for winning the World Cup (which obviously wasn't going to happen) is significantly more than the bonus the women are gonna get. And that's wrong. If it's based on a percentage of the funds that the Federation receives, that percentage, whatever it is, should be the same (which, it should be noted, can result in two different dollar amounts).
I'm assuming that gap comes from a difference in sponsorship dollars, which is an area where both US Soccer and FIFA can improve. Although, even there, I think some of the criticism is unwarranted. Men's World Cup money is distributed between the 32 participating teams, just as the Women's World Cup funds are divided equally between 24 nations. It's up to the federations to decide how their share gets spent.
US Soccer funds and supports its women's program better than any other National Federation. It's part of the reason why the team is--and will continue to be--so successful. The problem is the women who are responsible for that success feel disrespected. And, frankly, it's not unreasonable to want to reap some of the benefits that you helped secure.
That's really what's at the heart of the issue here. "Equal Pay" makes for a catchy chant, but that's only a part of it. Because, again, it's not a black-and-white situation. It's just as much about equitable compensation as it is about respect. The women are looking to be paid what they feel they're worth. And they don't think they are, especially when compared to the men.
When the U.S. women's hockey team went on strike a few years ago, many of their demands were similar to what the women's soccer team wants now. That was resolved through arbitration, as I'm sure this will be. Because both sides have incentive to get it done. Especially because US Soccer knows the women have a point. They're the two-time reigning World Cup champions. They deserve to be compensated as such.
Sunday, July 7, 2019
MLB's Best at Midseason
We've reached the All*Star Break. Outside of the NL Central, the division races haven't brought much suspense, so unless one of those teams seriously falters, they can start planning for October. That doesn't mean there won't be any suspense down the stretch, though. Because we have the makings of an epic showdown for NL MVP.
But who would get it if the awards were presented today? I honestly don't even know which way that pendulum would swing. I do know who I'd vote for, though. So, I might as well start the midseason awards right there.
NL MVP: Cody Bellinger, Dodgers-Bellinger or Yelich? You really could flip a coin. It's that close (and Josh Bell would have a really good MVP case if not for those two). So why am I going with Bellinger? Because Christian Yelich is following up last year's MVP campaign with similar numbers while Bellinger has really come into his own while leading the Dodgers to the best record in baseball. He's second in all three triple crown categories (.336/30 HR/71 RBI), third in hits (107) and leading the NL in runs (70). Moving him to the outfield full time has certainly worked out for all parties involved.
NL Cy Young: Hyun-Jin Ryu, Dodgers-The pitching staff has been another reason why the Dodgers simply blew away the rest of the National League over the first three months of the season. That's why they've got three starters on the NL All-Star roster. The craziest part is that Clayton Kershaw hasn't been the best of them. Hyun-Jin Ryu has. Dave Roberts already announced he's starting on Tuesday, which seemed obvious even before he said it. He leads the league in wins. And ERA. And WHIP. This is a no-brainer.
NL Rookie: Pete Alonso, Mets-Talk about a no-brainer. We've got another one for NL Rookie of the Year. Pete Alonso is one of the most dynamic rookies to show up since, well, that big right fielder across town. And he's challenging Judge's ridiculous rookie records in the power department. Alonso's tied for second in the NL in homers with 30, which already broke the Mets rookie record for an entire season (set by Darryl Strawberry in 1984). He also has the NL rookie record for first half RBIs (68) and the Major League rookie record for extra base hits in the first half (53).
NL Comeback: Zach Davies, Brewers-Last year, when the Brewers were desperately in need of starting pitching, he was in and out of the rotation with shoulder issues (and wasn't particularly good when he was in). This year has been a different story. Davies has pitched like the ace he was in 2017. He's 7-2 with a 3.07 ERA and a big reason why Milwaukee is once again right there with the Cubs in the NL Central.
NL Manager: Dave Roberts, Dodgers-How hard is it to win when you're the hunted? The Dodgers have been to the last two World Series and won the last six NL West titles. So it's pretty clear that teams are gunning for them. Yet, this year, they're dominating again. They've been the best team in baseball since Day 1 and they don't show any signs of slowing down. They're 60-32 and have a 13.5-game lead. For all his (well-publicized) mistakes in the last two postseasons, every decision Dave Roberts has made this year has worked out. And they've got a great shot at becoming the first NL team since the 1942-44 Cardinals to win three consecutive pennants.
AL MVP: DJ LeMahieu, Yankees-Was there any better offseason pickup than DJ LeMahieu? The Yankees brought him in to be an extra infielder, playing everywhere to give the starters a rest. Instead, he's become an indispensable force at the top of the lineup. Seriously, where would they be without him? He went from a utility guy who didn't even start on Opening Day to the AL's starting All-Star second baseman. It seriously seems like he has two hits every game. LeMahieu has 113 hits and leads the AL with a .336 average...while playing three different infield positions. Not bad for a guy who was picked up to be an extra infielder. (And before you start trying to argue "Mike Trout," his simple existence and doing what he always does doesn't mean he's automatically the MVP every year.)
AL Cy Young: Justin Verlander, Astros-It doesn't make sense that as Justin Verlander gets older, he just keeps getting better. His career was reborn when he was traded to the Astros, and the first half of his 2019 season has been reminiscent of his 2011 MVP campaign. Second in the AL in wins (10), strikeouts (153) and innings (126.2), third in ERA (2.98), and first in WHIP (0.81). He's been every bit as dominant as those numbers suggest and a big reason why the Astros are once again running away with the AL West.
AL Rookie: Michael Chavis, Red Sox-AL Rookie of the Year is a tough one. Because there's no obvious front runner like Pete Alonso. And, while he's probably not the leading candidate right now, my vote would go to Boston's Michael Chavis. He started the year in the Minors because the Red Sox didn't really have a position for him, and he's hit his way into becoming Boston's starting first baseman. And I don't think it's a coincidence that the Red Sox started to play significantly better once Chavis arrived and stabilized the lineup.
AL Comeback: Lucas Giolito, White Sox-Lucas Giolito was bad last year. How bad? He finished last among all qualifiers with a 6.13 ERA! Fast forward to this season and he has more wins at the All-Star Break (11) than he did all of last year (10). Giolito's not just an All-Star, he's a candidate to start the game. This is the pitcher the White Sox thought they were getting when they acquired him.
AL Manager: Aaron Boone, Yankees-With all due respect to Rocco Baldelli and the job he's done in Minnesota, this isn't even close. The Yankees have used so many players this season that I've lost count. Only two of the nine Opening Day starters (which doesn't even include DJ LeMahieu) haven't been on the IL. Luis Severino and Dellin Betances haven't pitched at all this season. At one point, they had an entire All-Star roster on the IL. They were down to third-string players at some positions. Yet all they've done is keep winning. At 57-31, they have the best record in the American League and a 6.5-game lead in the division.
But who would get it if the awards were presented today? I honestly don't even know which way that pendulum would swing. I do know who I'd vote for, though. So, I might as well start the midseason awards right there.
NL MVP: Cody Bellinger, Dodgers-Bellinger or Yelich? You really could flip a coin. It's that close (and Josh Bell would have a really good MVP case if not for those two). So why am I going with Bellinger? Because Christian Yelich is following up last year's MVP campaign with similar numbers while Bellinger has really come into his own while leading the Dodgers to the best record in baseball. He's second in all three triple crown categories (.336/30 HR/71 RBI), third in hits (107) and leading the NL in runs (70). Moving him to the outfield full time has certainly worked out for all parties involved.
NL Cy Young: Hyun-Jin Ryu, Dodgers-The pitching staff has been another reason why the Dodgers simply blew away the rest of the National League over the first three months of the season. That's why they've got three starters on the NL All-Star roster. The craziest part is that Clayton Kershaw hasn't been the best of them. Hyun-Jin Ryu has. Dave Roberts already announced he's starting on Tuesday, which seemed obvious even before he said it. He leads the league in wins. And ERA. And WHIP. This is a no-brainer.
NL Rookie: Pete Alonso, Mets-Talk about a no-brainer. We've got another one for NL Rookie of the Year. Pete Alonso is one of the most dynamic rookies to show up since, well, that big right fielder across town. And he's challenging Judge's ridiculous rookie records in the power department. Alonso's tied for second in the NL in homers with 30, which already broke the Mets rookie record for an entire season (set by Darryl Strawberry in 1984). He also has the NL rookie record for first half RBIs (68) and the Major League rookie record for extra base hits in the first half (53).
NL Comeback: Zach Davies, Brewers-Last year, when the Brewers were desperately in need of starting pitching, he was in and out of the rotation with shoulder issues (and wasn't particularly good when he was in). This year has been a different story. Davies has pitched like the ace he was in 2017. He's 7-2 with a 3.07 ERA and a big reason why Milwaukee is once again right there with the Cubs in the NL Central.
NL Manager: Dave Roberts, Dodgers-How hard is it to win when you're the hunted? The Dodgers have been to the last two World Series and won the last six NL West titles. So it's pretty clear that teams are gunning for them. Yet, this year, they're dominating again. They've been the best team in baseball since Day 1 and they don't show any signs of slowing down. They're 60-32 and have a 13.5-game lead. For all his (well-publicized) mistakes in the last two postseasons, every decision Dave Roberts has made this year has worked out. And they've got a great shot at becoming the first NL team since the 1942-44 Cardinals to win three consecutive pennants.
AL MVP: DJ LeMahieu, Yankees-Was there any better offseason pickup than DJ LeMahieu? The Yankees brought him in to be an extra infielder, playing everywhere to give the starters a rest. Instead, he's become an indispensable force at the top of the lineup. Seriously, where would they be without him? He went from a utility guy who didn't even start on Opening Day to the AL's starting All-Star second baseman. It seriously seems like he has two hits every game. LeMahieu has 113 hits and leads the AL with a .336 average...while playing three different infield positions. Not bad for a guy who was picked up to be an extra infielder. (And before you start trying to argue "Mike Trout," his simple existence and doing what he always does doesn't mean he's automatically the MVP every year.)
AL Cy Young: Justin Verlander, Astros-It doesn't make sense that as Justin Verlander gets older, he just keeps getting better. His career was reborn when he was traded to the Astros, and the first half of his 2019 season has been reminiscent of his 2011 MVP campaign. Second in the AL in wins (10), strikeouts (153) and innings (126.2), third in ERA (2.98), and first in WHIP (0.81). He's been every bit as dominant as those numbers suggest and a big reason why the Astros are once again running away with the AL West.
AL Rookie: Michael Chavis, Red Sox-AL Rookie of the Year is a tough one. Because there's no obvious front runner like Pete Alonso. And, while he's probably not the leading candidate right now, my vote would go to Boston's Michael Chavis. He started the year in the Minors because the Red Sox didn't really have a position for him, and he's hit his way into becoming Boston's starting first baseman. And I don't think it's a coincidence that the Red Sox started to play significantly better once Chavis arrived and stabilized the lineup.
AL Comeback: Lucas Giolito, White Sox-Lucas Giolito was bad last year. How bad? He finished last among all qualifiers with a 6.13 ERA! Fast forward to this season and he has more wins at the All-Star Break (11) than he did all of last year (10). Giolito's not just an All-Star, he's a candidate to start the game. This is the pitcher the White Sox thought they were getting when they acquired him.
AL Manager: Aaron Boone, Yankees-With all due respect to Rocco Baldelli and the job he's done in Minnesota, this isn't even close. The Yankees have used so many players this season that I've lost count. Only two of the nine Opening Day starters (which doesn't even include DJ LeMahieu) haven't been on the IL. Luis Severino and Dellin Betances haven't pitched at all this season. At one point, they had an entire All-Star roster on the IL. They were down to third-string players at some positions. Yet all they've done is keep winning. At 57-31, they have the best record in the American League and a 6.5-game lead in the division.
Saturday, July 6, 2019
Sporty Seinfeld
Yesterday was the 30th anniversary of Seinfield's debut on NBC. To celebrate, the Mets had "Seinfeld Night" at Citi Field, with Jerry Seinfeld himself throwing out the first pitch and the Soup Nazi making an appearance. The highlight, obviously (and the entire reason I went to the game), was the Jerry Seinfeld bobblehead giveaway.
Sports played a big role on Seinfield throughout the show's run. The most obvious example was George working for the Yankees for several seasons, which gave us Larry David's memorable George Steinbrenner. And, of course, Keith Hernandez had one of the most legendary guest-starring roles in TV history (as himself!).
But it was more than just baseball. In fact, Seinfeld ran the gamut of different sports. Sometimes they were central to the main plot, sometimes they were the B- or even C-stories. You could always count on Seinfeld for delivering a few very funny sports-related storylines each season.
Football: Jerry had Super Bowl tickets and gave them to Tim Whattley, only to get them back...and end up going to the game with Newman. In another episode, Elaine wants her boyfriend (who shares his name with a serial killer) to change his name, and he finally realizes it when he has to go to will call at a Giants game so he can give Kramer their extra ticket.
Basketball: This was actually the first-ever sports-themed storyline on Seinfield. Jerry wants to "break up" with Joel Hornick but can't bring himself to do it, so he ends up inviting him to a Knicks game, only to find a way out of it and Kramer goes instead. Then there's "The Limo," where Jerry and George steal a limo that's headed to Madison Square Garden, where they think they're headed to the Knicks-Bulls game. Only, the limo is going to a neo-Nazi rally where the guy who the limo was supposed to be for is the keynote speaker.
Hockey: "You've gotta support the team." Puddy's a big Devils fan. So he paints his face to show his support...and promptly scares this little old priest into thinking he's seen the actual devil! When Elaine tells him to stop, he paints his chest instead. "As you can see, this is not my face."
Golf: Kramer's love of golf is a constant throughout the series. And it gives us some of the most memorable episodes. There's George's monologue at the end of "The Marine Biologist," when he saves the whale by pulling the golf ball out of its blow hole. And, of course, his career on the senior tour was ruined when he crashed his car in "The Caddy," only to also blow his lawsuit by having Sue Ellen Mischke try on a bra at trial against Jackie Chiles' advice.
Frolf: Frisbee golf. "Golf with a frisbee!" George was so excited to learn how to play when he took the summer off after getting fired by the Yankees. Only to have his fledgling frolf career derailed by a fall down the stairs when he tripped over a bunch of party invitations.
Tennis: Where do I start with the great episode "The Lip Reader?" Marlee Matlin is a deaf lineswoman that Jerry wants to date, Kramer wants to be the first ball man, and George's girlfriend breaks up with him because he was caught on camera with ice cream all over his face. Then there was the episode where Elaine lends someone Mr. Pitt's racket and can't get it back, even though he has his big match with Ethel Kennedy coming up.
Gymnastics: In "The Gymnast," Jerry dates an Olympic gymnast from Romania, only to be disappointed that their sex life is just ordinary. And, when they're discussing ideas for the show to pitch to NBC, George comes up with the terrible idea of Jerry being a gymnastics coach who's pressuring his son to get into gymnastics.
Boxing: George and Mike Moffitt fight over a parking spot while everybody's trying to get to Jerry's in time to watch the big fight. Another big fight was the cockfight between Kramer's rooster and the ringer brought in by Marcelino in "The Little Jerry" (and, yes, I do realize it's a stretch to categorize that as boxing).
Track & Field: "I choose not to run!" Until he had to when Jerry ran into his old rival, who had always believed Jerry had gotten a head start when they raced in high school and demanded a rematch. Then there's John Paul Jonpaul, the Trinidadian marathon runner who overslept at the Barcelona Olympics and was making his comeback at the New York City Marathon, only to oversleep again, then pour Kramer's scalding hot coffee on his face while leading at the end of the race. That's a different New York City Marathon than the one they all went to watch at the apartment Jerry and Elaine both wanted. (And who can forget that lady who told the runners "You're all winners" as they passed by?)
It's pretty clear what sport is Jerry Seinfeld's favorite, though. There are so many baseball-related storylines beyond Keith Hernandez and (the only-seen-from-behind) George Steinbrenner. So many, in fact, that I've got to break it down by character:
Kramer punched Mickey Mantle at Yankees Fantasy Camp, saw Joe DiMaggio in Dinky Donuts and led police on a low-speed chase while taking fugitive Steve Gendison to see his fish after murdering the dry cleaner. Elaine got kicked out of Yankee Stadium for refusing to take her Orioles hat off while sitting in the owner's box.
George, of course, worked for the Yankees and lent advice to real-life Yankees Danny Tartabull, Paul O'Neill, Derek Jeter and Bernie Williams, as well as manager Buck Showalter. He also once thought he could be a color analyst and tried to get fired so he could work for the Mets. As well as his many, many, many storylines that involved Steinbrenner. Jerry, meanwhile, had to miss a big softball game for his aunt's funeral, and it was at another softball game where Bette Midler got hurt (after she was run over by George) and Jerry's girlfriend had to take over her role on Broadway.
Seinfeld ran for nine years and 180 episodes, and, as you can see, sports played a big role in many different episodes throughout that time. I'm sure I missed some, too. Further proof that the "show about nothing" was actually about everything.
Sports played a big role on Seinfield throughout the show's run. The most obvious example was George working for the Yankees for several seasons, which gave us Larry David's memorable George Steinbrenner. And, of course, Keith Hernandez had one of the most legendary guest-starring roles in TV history (as himself!).
But it was more than just baseball. In fact, Seinfeld ran the gamut of different sports. Sometimes they were central to the main plot, sometimes they were the B- or even C-stories. You could always count on Seinfeld for delivering a few very funny sports-related storylines each season.
Football: Jerry had Super Bowl tickets and gave them to Tim Whattley, only to get them back...and end up going to the game with Newman. In another episode, Elaine wants her boyfriend (who shares his name with a serial killer) to change his name, and he finally realizes it when he has to go to will call at a Giants game so he can give Kramer their extra ticket.
Basketball: This was actually the first-ever sports-themed storyline on Seinfield. Jerry wants to "break up" with Joel Hornick but can't bring himself to do it, so he ends up inviting him to a Knicks game, only to find a way out of it and Kramer goes instead. Then there's "The Limo," where Jerry and George steal a limo that's headed to Madison Square Garden, where they think they're headed to the Knicks-Bulls game. Only, the limo is going to a neo-Nazi rally where the guy who the limo was supposed to be for is the keynote speaker.
Hockey: "You've gotta support the team." Puddy's a big Devils fan. So he paints his face to show his support...and promptly scares this little old priest into thinking he's seen the actual devil! When Elaine tells him to stop, he paints his chest instead. "As you can see, this is not my face."
Golf: Kramer's love of golf is a constant throughout the series. And it gives us some of the most memorable episodes. There's George's monologue at the end of "The Marine Biologist," when he saves the whale by pulling the golf ball out of its blow hole. And, of course, his career on the senior tour was ruined when he crashed his car in "The Caddy," only to also blow his lawsuit by having Sue Ellen Mischke try on a bra at trial against Jackie Chiles' advice.
Frolf: Frisbee golf. "Golf with a frisbee!" George was so excited to learn how to play when he took the summer off after getting fired by the Yankees. Only to have his fledgling frolf career derailed by a fall down the stairs when he tripped over a bunch of party invitations.
Tennis: Where do I start with the great episode "The Lip Reader?" Marlee Matlin is a deaf lineswoman that Jerry wants to date, Kramer wants to be the first ball man, and George's girlfriend breaks up with him because he was caught on camera with ice cream all over his face. Then there was the episode where Elaine lends someone Mr. Pitt's racket and can't get it back, even though he has his big match with Ethel Kennedy coming up.
Gymnastics: In "The Gymnast," Jerry dates an Olympic gymnast from Romania, only to be disappointed that their sex life is just ordinary. And, when they're discussing ideas for the show to pitch to NBC, George comes up with the terrible idea of Jerry being a gymnastics coach who's pressuring his son to get into gymnastics.
Boxing: George and Mike Moffitt fight over a parking spot while everybody's trying to get to Jerry's in time to watch the big fight. Another big fight was the cockfight between Kramer's rooster and the ringer brought in by Marcelino in "The Little Jerry" (and, yes, I do realize it's a stretch to categorize that as boxing).
Track & Field: "I choose not to run!" Until he had to when Jerry ran into his old rival, who had always believed Jerry had gotten a head start when they raced in high school and demanded a rematch. Then there's John Paul Jonpaul, the Trinidadian marathon runner who overslept at the Barcelona Olympics and was making his comeback at the New York City Marathon, only to oversleep again, then pour Kramer's scalding hot coffee on his face while leading at the end of the race. That's a different New York City Marathon than the one they all went to watch at the apartment Jerry and Elaine both wanted. (And who can forget that lady who told the runners "You're all winners" as they passed by?)
It's pretty clear what sport is Jerry Seinfeld's favorite, though. There are so many baseball-related storylines beyond Keith Hernandez and (the only-seen-from-behind) George Steinbrenner. So many, in fact, that I've got to break it down by character:
Kramer punched Mickey Mantle at Yankees Fantasy Camp, saw Joe DiMaggio in Dinky Donuts and led police on a low-speed chase while taking fugitive Steve Gendison to see his fish after murdering the dry cleaner. Elaine got kicked out of Yankee Stadium for refusing to take her Orioles hat off while sitting in the owner's box.
George, of course, worked for the Yankees and lent advice to real-life Yankees Danny Tartabull, Paul O'Neill, Derek Jeter and Bernie Williams, as well as manager Buck Showalter. He also once thought he could be a color analyst and tried to get fired so he could work for the Mets. As well as his many, many, many storylines that involved Steinbrenner. Jerry, meanwhile, had to miss a big softball game for his aunt's funeral, and it was at another softball game where Bette Midler got hurt (after she was run over by George) and Jerry's girlfriend had to take over her role on Broadway.
Seinfeld ran for nine years and 180 episodes, and, as you can see, sports played a big role in many different episodes throughout that time. I'm sure I missed some, too. Further proof that the "show about nothing" was actually about everything.
Thursday, July 4, 2019
Greatest American Teams
On this 4th of July, the U.S. Women's National Team is getting ready to play for its second straight World Cup title and the men look to take a big step in their rebuilding process at the Gold Cup Final. Throughout the World Cup, there's been a lot of talk that this might be the best U.S. women's soccer team ever. And that got me thinking, "Are they?"
Then that got me thinking further, "What are the greatest-ever American teams in some other sports?" Which sounds like a perfect topic for the most American holiday of them all. And, since I began this discussion with women's soccer, I might as well start there...
Women's Soccer: 1999
As good as this year's team is, and as good as the 2015 team was, they pale in comparison to the originals. Because none of it would've been possible without the '99ers. They inspired a generation that includes pretty much all of the active members of the team. Christen Press was at the game with her face painted red, white and blue, never imagining that she'd be playing for the National Team herself. And let's not forget some of the legends on that '99 team--Mia Hamm, Michele Akers, Julie Foudy, Brandi Chastain, Kristine Lilly, Joy Fawcett, Briana Scurry. They're some of the all-time greats of U.S. soccer.
Men's Soccer: 2009-10
Well, it's obviously NOT the 2015-18 version of the U.S. Men's National Team. Instead I'm going with the version that made back-to-back trips to South Africa a decade ago. In 2009, the U.S. reached a FIFA final for the first time, upsetting Spain in the semifinals of the Confederations Cup. A year later, they won their group at the World Cup. Yes, they lost in the round of 16, but that was arguably the most talented team the U.S. has ever sent to a World Cup--Landon Donovan, Clint Dempsey, Tim Howard, Jozy Altidore, etc.
Men's Basketball: 1992
Duh! They called it the "Dream Team" for a reason! This is arguably the greatest collection of talent ever assembled in any sport. Every player except for Christian Laettner is in the Hall of Fame, as is Head Coach Chuck Daly, and they've been inducted as a team, as well. Their romp through Barcelona seemed predetermined, but that wasn't even the point. Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson were playing against Angola in the Olympics. It opened the doors to the truly international game basketball has become.
Women's Basketball: 2008
I was tempted to say 1996, the team that started this two-decade era of dominance and led to the creation of the WNBA. But 2008 was truly the peak of that greatness. It's where the two eras converged. Lisa Leslie won her fourth straight gold medal, while Sue Bird and Diana Taurasi, who are now the veteran leaders, were in their prime.
Men's Hockey: 1980
Another Duh! The "Miracle on Ice" is one of the seminal moments in American sports history. It was almost 40 years ago and people still talk about it like it was yesterday. We had NHL players in the Olympics from 1998-2014 and the best the U.S. did was a pair of silvers. The U.S. has never won a World Championship. But these college kids shocked the world and beat the Russians in Lake Placid.
Women's Hockey: 2018
If you wanted to say 1998, the team that started it all and had two Hockey Hall of Famers in Cammi Granato and Angela Ruggeiro, you wouldn't get much of an argument from me. But the gold medal in PyeongChang was just as big as the one in Nagano. Because this one came after all those years and so much frustration from the repeated losses to Canada. And, player-for-player, I think the '18 team was better.
Baseball: 2017
Was it the greatest collection of Major Leaguers ever? No. Not even close. But it's the one that validated the World Baseball Classic. In the first three editions, the U.S. made the semifinals once and no one cared. Not the players. Not the fans. That all changed in 2017, when they finally won the title. Now players and fans alike are excited for the 2021 edition. It was also Christian Yelich's coming-out party.
Softball: 2004
Softball's returning to the Olympics next year, but it'll be hard for the U.S. team to match what the 2004 squad did. In fact, their dominance in Athens was probably one of the reasons why the sport was dropped from the Olympic program a year later. They won all nine of their games and outscored their opponents 51-1, with that lone run coming in the sixth inning of the gold medal game! That insane pitching staff? Lisa Fernandez, Jennie Finch and Cat Osterman, only three of the greatest pitchers ever!
And now for some of the top teams in other sports that may not immediately come to mind.
Men's Tennis: 1992
Andre Agassi, Jim Courier, John McEnroe and Pete Sampras. That was the American roster for the 1992 Davis Cup final. Sampras and McEnroe won a combined 21 Grand Slam titles, and neither one played singles! Seeing as it's been 16 years since an American man won a Grand Slam title and there are barely any Americans in the top 10, it's hard to remember an era where the Americans were the dominant force in men's tennis. But in 1992, they definitely were.
Women's Gymnastics: 2012
They've won two straight Olympic team golds (and could easily make it three in Tokyo). The 2016 team had Simone Biles, who might be the greatest gymnast ever. But I'm partial to the 2012 squad, and not just because they had a better nickname (the "Fierce Five"). They won the team title by nearly a point and a half! That's insane! They had so much talent that Jordyn Weiber (who's now the head coach at Arkansas) finished fourth overall in qualifying, but didn't make the individual all-around final because she was the third-best American. McKayla Maroney, for one, wasn't impressed.
Men's Curling: 2018
Another easy one. Curling develops its little cult following for two weeks every four years during the Winter Olympics, but the U.S. had never really been that successful in the sport. Until PyeongChang. They were on the brink of being eliminated during the round robin stage before winning their last two matches to make the medal round, where the winning streak continued with upsets of Canada and Sweden for the first-ever American Olympic curling gold medal.
Track & Field: 1968
NBC produced a very well-done documentary on the 1968 Olympics for the 50th anniversary last year and focused on the track & field team. They called it the best track & field team ever assembled, and it's hard to argue. They won 28 medals, including 15 golds, but it's the legendary performances that make this team truly remarkable. Tommie Smith and John Carlos with their Black Power salute after the 200. Bob Beamon's incredible long jump world record, which is still mind-blowing 50 years later. Dick Fosbury reinventing the high jump. Al Oerter winning his fourth straight discus title. Wyomia Tyus becoming the first Olympian ever to win back-to-back 100 meter gold medals. The list goes on and on...
There are plenty of other great American teams that have taken the field in plenty of sports. These ones are truly memorable, though. Both for what they did on the field and their impact off it.
Then that got me thinking further, "What are the greatest-ever American teams in some other sports?" Which sounds like a perfect topic for the most American holiday of them all. And, since I began this discussion with women's soccer, I might as well start there...
As good as this year's team is, and as good as the 2015 team was, they pale in comparison to the originals. Because none of it would've been possible without the '99ers. They inspired a generation that includes pretty much all of the active members of the team. Christen Press was at the game with her face painted red, white and blue, never imagining that she'd be playing for the National Team herself. And let's not forget some of the legends on that '99 team--Mia Hamm, Michele Akers, Julie Foudy, Brandi Chastain, Kristine Lilly, Joy Fawcett, Briana Scurry. They're some of the all-time greats of U.S. soccer.
Well, it's obviously NOT the 2015-18 version of the U.S. Men's National Team. Instead I'm going with the version that made back-to-back trips to South Africa a decade ago. In 2009, the U.S. reached a FIFA final for the first time, upsetting Spain in the semifinals of the Confederations Cup. A year later, they won their group at the World Cup. Yes, they lost in the round of 16, but that was arguably the most talented team the U.S. has ever sent to a World Cup--Landon Donovan, Clint Dempsey, Tim Howard, Jozy Altidore, etc.
Duh! They called it the "Dream Team" for a reason! This is arguably the greatest collection of talent ever assembled in any sport. Every player except for Christian Laettner is in the Hall of Fame, as is Head Coach Chuck Daly, and they've been inducted as a team, as well. Their romp through Barcelona seemed predetermined, but that wasn't even the point. Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson were playing against Angola in the Olympics. It opened the doors to the truly international game basketball has become.
I was tempted to say 1996, the team that started this two-decade era of dominance and led to the creation of the WNBA. But 2008 was truly the peak of that greatness. It's where the two eras converged. Lisa Leslie won her fourth straight gold medal, while Sue Bird and Diana Taurasi, who are now the veteran leaders, were in their prime.
Another Duh! The "Miracle on Ice" is one of the seminal moments in American sports history. It was almost 40 years ago and people still talk about it like it was yesterday. We had NHL players in the Olympics from 1998-2014 and the best the U.S. did was a pair of silvers. The U.S. has never won a World Championship. But these college kids shocked the world and beat the Russians in Lake Placid.
If you wanted to say 1998, the team that started it all and had two Hockey Hall of Famers in Cammi Granato and Angela Ruggeiro, you wouldn't get much of an argument from me. But the gold medal in PyeongChang was just as big as the one in Nagano. Because this one came after all those years and so much frustration from the repeated losses to Canada. And, player-for-player, I think the '18 team was better.
Was it the greatest collection of Major Leaguers ever? No. Not even close. But it's the one that validated the World Baseball Classic. In the first three editions, the U.S. made the semifinals once and no one cared. Not the players. Not the fans. That all changed in 2017, when they finally won the title. Now players and fans alike are excited for the 2021 edition. It was also Christian Yelich's coming-out party.
Softball's returning to the Olympics next year, but it'll be hard for the U.S. team to match what the 2004 squad did. In fact, their dominance in Athens was probably one of the reasons why the sport was dropped from the Olympic program a year later. They won all nine of their games and outscored their opponents 51-1, with that lone run coming in the sixth inning of the gold medal game! That insane pitching staff? Lisa Fernandez, Jennie Finch and Cat Osterman, only three of the greatest pitchers ever!
And now for some of the top teams in other sports that may not immediately come to mind.
Andre Agassi, Jim Courier, John McEnroe and Pete Sampras. That was the American roster for the 1992 Davis Cup final. Sampras and McEnroe won a combined 21 Grand Slam titles, and neither one played singles! Seeing as it's been 16 years since an American man won a Grand Slam title and there are barely any Americans in the top 10, it's hard to remember an era where the Americans were the dominant force in men's tennis. But in 1992, they definitely were.
They've won two straight Olympic team golds (and could easily make it three in Tokyo). The 2016 team had Simone Biles, who might be the greatest gymnast ever. But I'm partial to the 2012 squad, and not just because they had a better nickname (the "Fierce Five"). They won the team title by nearly a point and a half! That's insane! They had so much talent that Jordyn Weiber (who's now the head coach at Arkansas) finished fourth overall in qualifying, but didn't make the individual all-around final because she was the third-best American. McKayla Maroney, for one, wasn't impressed.
Another easy one. Curling develops its little cult following for two weeks every four years during the Winter Olympics, but the U.S. had never really been that successful in the sport. Until PyeongChang. They were on the brink of being eliminated during the round robin stage before winning their last two matches to make the medal round, where the winning streak continued with upsets of Canada and Sweden for the first-ever American Olympic curling gold medal.
NBC produced a very well-done documentary on the 1968 Olympics for the 50th anniversary last year and focused on the track & field team. They called it the best track & field team ever assembled, and it's hard to argue. They won 28 medals, including 15 golds, but it's the legendary performances that make this team truly remarkable. Tommie Smith and John Carlos with their Black Power salute after the 200. Bob Beamon's incredible long jump world record, which is still mind-blowing 50 years later. Dick Fosbury reinventing the high jump. Al Oerter winning his fourth straight discus title. Wyomia Tyus becoming the first Olympian ever to win back-to-back 100 meter gold medals. The list goes on and on...
There are plenty of other great American teams that have taken the field in plenty of sports. These ones are truly memorable, though. Both for what they did on the field and their impact off it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)