Women's Tennis All-Time Greatest

That was some post-match lovefest after Serena's first-round win at the US Open, huh?  They said that they planned on doing it whether she won or lost, which I'm sure is true, but it was still weird.  She has at least another match!  Are they gonna do the whole thing over again after every round she plays?  Because that would be silly.  But it would also be incredibly anticlimactic.  Although, come to think of it, all of her remaining matches will be anticlimactic after that farewell celebration.

Anyway, there was a card stunt at the end where the fans spelled out "We Love You Serena" and the ribbon board said "Greatest of All-time."  That's been the common refrain about Serena for a while now, since long before her impending retirement.

I have a problem with those sort of declarations, mainly because recency bias is definitely a thing.  People usually tend to have a more favorable opinion of the athlete/event/play that's still fresh in their mind.  I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but I do think the discussion needs to be deeper than just "who played most recently?"

The more I thought about Serena, though, the more I realized that calling her the "Greatest of All-time" wasn't the result of recency bias.  It was because it's true.  And not just because of what she's done on the court.  It's the entire story.  It's what she's meant to women's tennis as a whole.  The fact that the other women in the discussion agree says all that needs to be said, too.

So, if Serena's No. 1, where do those others rank?  Well, coming up with a top five was pretty easy.  I might get some disagreement about the order from 2-5, but I doubt I'll have an argument over who'll fill those places.  Spots 6-10 were much more difficult, however.  And that's where there's plenty of room to have a conversation about who should be on in place of somebody else.

Also, with all due respect to players like Helen Wills Moody, Maureen Connolly and Althea Gibson, I'm limiting this list to players who played during the Open Era, which began in 1968.  It's simply too hard to compare.  It's completely different eras.  Tennis wasn't a professional sport back then, so it really would be unfair to mix those pioneers with professionals.  So, you might want to call this the "Greatest Players of the Last 55 Years" instead of the "Greatest Players of All-time."

1. Serena Williams: She'll probably finish with 23 career Grand Slam singles titles, one short of the record.  But that doesn't include all of her Grand Slam doubles titles or her four Olympic gold medals.  Or the fact that she was simply the most dominant player of her era.  Serena changed the way women's tennis is played with her serve and her power.  Oh yeah, and she won the "Serena Slam" twice...a decade apart!

2. Martina Navratilova: There's really only one other player for whom you could make a legitimate argument that she's deserving of the top spot.  And that player would be Martina Navratilova.  Counting all of her singles and doubles titles, Martina's a 53-time! Grand Slam champion.  The first came in 1974.  The last?  In 2006!  She also won six straight Grand Slam titles at one point, and her 1984 season was one of the most dominant single seasons in history. 

3. Steffi Graf: Steffi was the greatest women's player I'd ever seen until Serena came along.  She won each Grand Slam at least four times and was No. 1 for a ridiculous 377 weeks (that's more than seven years!).  It could've been a lot more, too, if she hadn't retired at age 30 right after winning the French Open and making the Wimbledon final in 1999.  Then, of course, there's her "Golden Slam" in 1988, all four majors and Olympic gold.  Just ask Novak Djokovic how difficult that is to do!

4. Chris Evert: Part of what makes Chrissie and Martina so great is their rivalry.  If not for the other, they'd each have significantly more Grand Slam titles.  As it is, they both have 18.  My favorite Chris Evert stat is this one, though.  She played in 19 US Opens.  She made the semifinals or better in 17 of them at lost in the quarters at the other two.  In 56 career Grand Slam tournaments, she reached the semifinals 52 times (including 34 consecutive Majors played).  That, frankly, is absurd!

5. Billie Jean King: My admiration for Billie Jean King is well known.  She's the most influential female athlete of all-time, and I'd argue the most important since Jackie Robinson.  What sometimes gets lost in all that is that she was a damn good tennis player too!  Obviously, her legacy as an advocate is far more important, but let's not forget she won 12 Grand Slam singles titles.

6. Margaret Court: Even though she holds the all-time record (men's or women's) for Grand Slam titles, 11 of those 24 came at the Australian Open at a time when not everybody traveled to Australia for the tournament.  Court did win the calendar-year Grand Slam in 1970, though, and she won the calendar-year Grand Slam in mixed doubles twice.  So, while she might not be at the same level as the top five, Margaret Court definitely belongs near the top, especially since her career spans both the amateur and professional eras.

7. Monica Seles: Oh, what might have been!  When I was a kid, the rivalry between Monica Seles and Steffi Graf was one of the things that got me hooked on tennis.  She won nine Grand Slam titles, although pretty much everyone agrees it would've been more had she not missed almost two years in her prime because of that horrific on-court stabbing.  The fact that she came back from that to make the final of the 1995 US Open and win the 1996 Australian Open tells you all you need to know about how good a player Monica Seles was.

8. Venus Williams: When Venus had her breakthrough at the 1997 US Open, Richard Williams wouldn't shut up about how Serena was better.  Well, as it turns out, Dad was right.  Which isn't a knock on Serena's big sis at all.  Because Venus is a Hall of Fame player in her own right.  Five Wimbledon titles, plus two US Opens and the 2000 Olympic gold, as well as seven! Grand Slam final losses to her sister.  They've also teamed up to win 14 Grand Slam titles and three Olympic gold medals in doubles.

9. Justine Henin: For some reason, Justine Henin often gets overlooked in the all-time greatest discussion.  I'm not saying she belongs at the top.  But she deserves a lot more credit than she gets.  Henin was so great on clay, winning four French Opens in five years from 2003-07.  She retired while still No. 1 in 2008, only to come back in 2010 and reach the Australian Open final.

10. Kim Clijsters: Number 10 was tough.  I thought about Martina Hingis, Maria Sharapova, Arantxa Sanchez Vicario and Jennifer Capriati before settling on Kim Clijsters.  She was No. 1 in both singles and doubles simultaneously in 2003, but didn't win a Grand Slam title until the 2005 US Open.  Clijsters won her second US Open in 2009...as an unseeded wild card in her third tournament back after a two-year retirement.  She actually got back to No. 1 in 2012 before retiring a second time.

New-S Open

This year's US Open will have a very different feel.  The first few days will be more of a goodbye than anything else.  Serena Williams has announced she'll be retiring after the tournament, and the fairytale ending of her winning her record-tying 24th Grand Slam before riding off into the sunset is highly unlikely.  But, until she loses, every one of Serena's matches will potentially be her last, so she'll be the story.  As she should be.

Fortunately, Novak Djokovic will NOT be the story.  As an unvaccinated foreigner, he's not allowed to enter the U.S.  So, instead of turning a second hardcourt Grand Slam into a circus, Djokovic did the opposite of what he did in Australia.  He actually did the responsible thing, accepted the fact that he can't play in the tournament, and withdrew before the draw was made.

But still, not having Djokovic in the field opens up the men's draw immensely.  He's made eight of the last 12 US Open finals and, even though his ranking has slipped because he received zero points at two of the first three Grand Slams (and will slip more because he'll receive zero here), he still would've been considered one of the favorites.  If not THE favorite.  

Last year, of course, Djokovic was going for the calendar-year Grand Slam when he lost in the final to Daniil Medvedev.  Medvedev followed up that US Open title by making the final in Australia and taking over Djokovic's No. 1 ranking.  And he, of course, wasn't allowed to play at Wimbledon (prompting the zero-points punishment for the tournament), so I'm sure that would make defending his title that much sweeter.

I'm not saying I'm rooting for it to happen, but it would create a very interesting/unusual situation if he were to win.  And, you know what?  He's probably the favorite.  Outside of Djokovic, Medvedev is probably the best hardcourt player in the world.  So that situation could very realistically occur.

In fact, Medvedev isn't the only Russian with the chance to make the US Open awkward.  Because Andrey Rublev, a two-time US Open quarterfinalist, has a pretty good shot, too.  Rublev has a potential quarterfinal matchup with Nadal, but should he get through that, I can actually see them playing each other in an all-Russian final.  An all-Russian final that I've got Rublev winning.

If someone other than Medvedev or Nadal wins, it'll be the fifth straight year with a different US Open men's champion.  For all Djokovic's dominance at the Australian Open and Wimbledon and Nadal's at Roland Garros, it's crazy how the US Open has really become such a toss-up.  In fact, going back to Andy Murray's win in 2012, there have been seven different men's champions in the last 10 US Opens.  And five other guys have made the final and lost, so that's 12 different finalists in the last 10 years.

Although, let's be honest, the US Open is just as unpredictable on the women's side.  Emma Raducanu was a qualifier playing in her first US Open main draw last year.  She didn't lose a set en route to the title!  In 2019, Bianca Andreescu was playing in her first US Open...and won the tournament!  We've seen other unlikely names like Naomi Osaka (the first time), Sloane Stephens and Flavia Pennetta win recent US Opens.  And, just like the men, somebody new wins seemingly every year.  Other than Osaka's second title in 2020, there's been a different champion every year since 2015, and 12 different finalists in those seven years.

So who are this year's candidates to make that seven champions and 14 finalists since 2015?  Well, we've gotta start with world No. 1 Iga Swiatek.  She had her winning streak snapped at Wimbledon, but definitely has the all-court game to be successful on hardcourts.  Swiatek made the fourth round last year and the semis in Australia, so it's not a stretch at all to say she's a contender for the title.

Coco Gauff also has a chance to really make some noise.  The American women, by and large, always play well at the US Open, but that hasn't really translated to Coco yet.  She was all the buzz in her 2019 debut, where she lost to Naomi Osaka in the first round.  Then in 2020, she lost in the first round before losing to Sloane Stephens in the second round last year.  This year, though, she enters the US Open as the American No. 1 and a Grand Slam finalist.  Will that change her fortunes?

You've also got No. 3 Ons Jabeur, who made history by reaching the final at Wimbledon, and No. 5 Maria Sakkari, a semifinalist last year.  Then there are the perpetual US Open performers.  Players like Vika Azarenka and Naomi Osaka.  I don't think either will win the title, but they'll make life difficult for every woman they play (Azarenka and Osaka are both in the same section of the draw...with Raducanu).

None of them are my pick, though.  I'm going with world No. 2 Anett Kontaveit.  She's never been past the third round at Flushing Meadows and, in fact, has only made one Grand Slam quarterfinal in her career (the 2020 Australian Open), but she's ranked No. 2 in the world for a reason and I just have a feeling about her.  And I really like her draw.

Could I be totally off about Kontaveit?  Absolutely!  But then again, no one saw Raducanu coming last year, and nobody thought Elena Rybakina would win Wimbledon this year, either.  It really just goes to show the unpredictable state of women's tennis right now.  It feels like you could pick a name out of a hat and have just as much of a chance of picking the winner as tennis analysts whose job it is to make predictions.

Which is really another testament to Serena Williams.  The US Open is where she had her breakout in 1999.  The US Open is where she's won six titles (including three in a row from 2012-14) and made 10 finals.  When she was dominating women's tennis, it was clear who was going to win.  But, in her final US Open, we have no idea who will!  It might even be Serena herself, writing that Hollywood ending after all!  

Making Sense of the New Schedule

There was so much anticipation for the release of next year's MLB schedule.  It wasn't NFL level, but the interest level was definitely higher than usual.  That's because ever since it was officially announced that MLB would dramatically change the schedule next season and have every team in the Majors play each of the other 29, people wondered how exactly the schedule would look.  Now those questions have been answered (for the most part).

When they first announced the basic template for the new schedule format, they said it would be 14 games against each division opponent (seven home, seven away).  The actual number is 13, so instead of seven and seven, it's seven and six.  That, presumably, will alternate each year.

My guess is there were two main reasons behind this.  The first is that they no longer play "Game 163" to break ties in the standings.  It's now based entirely on the season series.  If the season series were 14 games, it's possible that it could end even at 7-7.  With a 13-game season series, though, that's not possible.

The other reason addresses one of the potential issues I brought up when I initially blogged about this topic.  When teams play in London (or Paris or Japan or Australia), it's two games.  Other than taking one of each team's home games (and thus creating a fifth series between the two), how would they make a two-game series work when they're scheduled to play seven in each stadium?  Would they actually schedule all of the remaining games as a five-game series?  Well, the answer to that question is "No!"

MLB is returning to London next season with two games between the Cubs and Cardinals, so I checked out the Cubs' and Cardinals' schedules to see exactly how they were doing it.  As it turns out, they're doing it basically just like they did when the Yankees played the Red Sox in London.  They're Cardinals home games, so the only series they'll play against each other in St. Louis is a four-game set from July 27-30.

Obviously, the initial idea between 14 division games was to have the number of non-division games be balanced, as well.  The way the math worked out was six games against each of the other 10 teams in your own league, a three-game series at home, a three-game series on the road.  No random four-game series.  Well, we'll still have the random four-game series.  There'll just be four per team instead of six.

This is actually the one element of the rumored format that I really liked.  The non-division teams you play the extra game against always seems so random, and teams end up playing a four-game series against the same opponent every year.  As long as that extra game rotates between all 10 teams, I don't have too big of a problem with it, though.

That actually gives MLB some more flexibility, too, so I don't really mind it as much as I thought I would.  The Red Sox, of course, always have their 11 a.m. home game on Patriot's Day, which is a Monday.  And, since the game is at 11:00 on a Monday, it has to be a four-game wraparound series.  If they didn't have the non-division four-game series, they'd be limited to only AL East opponents as options.  Instead, they can play anybody in the American League (and, in fact, it'll be the Angels getting the 8 a.m. Pacific first pitch in 2023).

Likewise, the Nationals always have an 11 a.m. home game on the Fourth of July.  The Fourth of July, obviously, isn't on the same day of the week every year like Patriot's Day, but it does occasionally fall on a Monday.  And when it does, the Nationals can finish off a four-game series against anybody instead of just their four NL East opponents.

Speaking of NL East opponents, one of the quirkiest things about the 2023 schedule involves the Mets and Marlins.  They open the season against each other in Miami, then play again a week later in the Mets' first home series.  Then they don't play again until the final two weeks of the season, when they play one series in each stadium.  So, they'll play each other in seven of their first 10 games and six of their final 13 against...and none of the 133 in between!  (Which is still not as quirky as the teams that ended up with a six-game series to end this season because of a lockout-postponed April series being moved.)

Of course, the whole purpose of this new schedule format is to increase the number of interleague games each team plays.  It'll more than double from 20 to 46, and that's where things look very, very different.  The Yankees open next season at home...against the Giants and Phillies!  The Mets have a road trip that takes them to Kansas City and Baltimore.  I haven't looked at every team's schedule, but I'm sure everybody's got something quirky like that.

I am a little confused by how they chose which interleague opponents you play at home and which you play on the road, though.  This year, the AL East plays the NL Central.  The Yankees have a home-and-home with the Pirates, visit St. Louis and Milwaukee, and had home series against the Cubs and Reds.  So, you'd figure that the NL Central teams they play at home next season would be the Cardinals and Brewers.  Yet, when the schedule came out, the Cubs were set to come to New York, while the Yankees will visit St. Louis for the second straight year.

In the long run, does that really matter?  No!  The Cardinals and the six other teams they only visit will come to Yankee Stadium in 2024, while they'll visit the seven teams they host next season.  That, again is the whole point!  You'll play everybody at home at least every other year!  I just found it odd that they're playing the same interleague opponents in the same stadium two years in a row!

Playing everybody in the Majors also means you're making an extra West Coast trip.  Every non-West division team usually only goes out there twice a season, but that'll increase to three for most teams.  And for the ones that only have to go to the Pacific time zone twice, they're looking at a longer trip (which is sort of a throwback to the days when you'd go to the West Coast twice each season and play all three teams in one trip both times).

It'll depend on how many West division interleague teams you end up playing, too.  Depending on whether you count the Rockies (I don't), there are either seven or eight West Coast teams.  Which means you're going out there either five or six times a year.  (The West Coast teams, meanwhile, will get fewer games in their own time zone, which is one of the few drawbacks of the new schedule.)

Overall, though, the new schedule achieves its objective.  At least on paper.  Fans will see every team in the Majors, and 22 different opponents will travel to your ballpark.  So, from that perspective, it's already a success.  Even if it'll take some getting used to!

A Major (and Great) Change

Oh, how far we've come in just about a year and a half.  We can all remember that picture of the "weight room" that went viral during the 2021 NCAA Women's Basketball Tournament from the San Antonio bubble and all the positive changes that came about as a result.  Well, add another positive change to the list!  The 2023 Championship Game won't be on ESPN.  It'll be on ABC.

This won't be the first time that the women's Championship Game will be on network TV, but it's been a while.  For some reason, I seem to remember when UConn won its first National Championship in 1995, the semifinals and final were both on CBS.  The semifinals were on Saturday before the two men's games, and the final was the next day.  ESPN then took over the tournament rights in 1996 and has had them ever since.

ESPN moving the game to ABC did seem like something that was eventually going to happen, though.  Did I expect it right away?  No!  But they've been showing NCAA Women's Tournament games on ABC for the last two years since the COVID cancellation in 2020, so moving the Championship Game to the broadcast network is a natural evolution.  Especially since ESPN has been acquiring/moving a lot of properties to ABC.

A number of Monday Night Football games have been shown on both networks in recent years, and ABC reenters the Super Bowl rotation in the new NFL TV contract.  As part of ESPN's NHL contract, the entire Stanley Cup Final is on ABC in their years.  So, it makes sense that their biggest NCAA property, the women's basketball tournament, would also make its way to the broadcast network.  The ratings justify it, too.

Last season's Championship Game between South Carolina and UConn drew 4.85 million viewers, the highest-rated Championship Game since 2004 (which saw UConn finish an undefeated season and win its third straight title in the final game of the Bird-Taurasi Era).  And the ratings for the handful of tournament games that were shown on ABC were solid, if not spectacular.  Those two reasons alone are enough to give the Championship Game the bigger potential audience.

When the Big Ten signed its massive media rights deal with FOX, CBS and NBC last week, the point was made that, even in the era of streaming, live sports are somewhat immune.  That's why the NFL, the SEC and the Big Ten were able to get a ton of money to have their games shown on linear TV (in addition to streaming).  And, as much as the cord-cutters want to say broadcast TV is "dying," you still have a bigger potential audience on broadcast TV than on cable.  (That Big Ten deal, by the way, includes the women's basketball championship game on CBS.)

There is one element of the move to ABC that some people don't like, however.  The game will be played in the afternoon.  Tip-off is scheduled for 3:00.  That's only because ABC already has other broadcast commitments that evening, though.  The plan is to move the Championship Game back to primetime in 2024.

I get the optics of it, which is probably why so many people are upset.  "Sure, it's important enough to put on ABC, but not important enough to show in primetime."  I don't look at it that way, though.  In fact, I look at it very differently.  A 3:00 start on a Sunday afternoon is actually an incredible opportunity.

Think about it.  People watch football all afternoon every Sunday for five months from September-January.  Then the NBA and NHL fill the void, scheduling Sunday-afternoon nationally-televised games in February and March.  Then college basketball takes over in March.  So, people are accustomed to watching sports on Sunday afternoon.  And, outside of the first weekend of the MLB season, there aren't any other Sunday afternoon sports scheduled for April 2.

That's why I'm curious to see what the ratings will look like for the 2023 Women's Championship Game.  People are just assuming the game being in the afternoon will mean lower ratings, but I'm not so sure of that.  And, don't forget, ratings may be higher simply because the game is on ABC instead of ESPN.

The teams involved will have something to do with it, too.  If it's a popular team with a national following like UConn or South Carolina, the ratings will likely be higher.  Ditto if a Cinderella emerges or a Brittney Griner/Sabrina Ionescu-type player leads her team to the Final Four.  People will tune in for the teams/players they want to watch.  Same as any other sport.

If the 3:00 Championship Game doesn't work, they can always move it back to primetime in 2024, which is currently their plan.  But, who knows?  Maybe it will.  Maybe the 3:00 Eastern start will become the standard for the Women's Championship Game (although, that would be tough if the Final Four is on the West Coast, so maybe you move it to 4:00 Eastern?).

It's not like the Women's Championship Game has a set time like the Monday-at-9 men's final (that people complain about every year even though it's been the same since 1982!), either.  ESPN has tinkered with the start time a lot.  I remember it starting at either 5 or 6 because of Sunday Night Baseball or 7 when the final ended up on Easter.  So, if starting at 3:00 is the trade-off for the game being on ABC, it's worth giving it a shot.  If it doesn't work, it doesn't work.  They can also do primetime in 2024 and compare, then make a decision for 2025 and beyond.

Bottom line, this is a great thing for women's basketball.  The WNBA is enjoying the best ratings in its history, and they're coming off the highest-rated NCAA Championship Game in decades.  There's obviously an appetite for women's basketball on TV, and ESPN/ABC is giving people what they want.  Does it really matter whether it starts at 3:00 or 8:00?

Who's Next?

Number 21 is now officially on the wall in Monument Park in honor of the legendary LaTroy Hawkins!  Sorry, I mean Paul O'Neill.  Other than that week Hawkins had it before the fans basically made him change numbers, nobody has worn 21 since O'Neill retired after the 2001 season.  Now, 21 years later (on August 21), it's finally official.

The critics, of course, are gonna complain that the Yankees have "too many" retired numbers and make their arguments that O'Neill "doesn't deserve" the honor.  Which, frankly, is ridiculous.  It's up to the team and its fans to decide who "deserves" to have their number retired.  And, as evidence by the fact that the one guy who's tried to wear it in the past two decades was not treated very kindly, it's pretty clear where Yankees fans stand on the number 21!  More specifically, who the number 21 belongs to.

Paul O'Neill has a special place in the hearts of Yankee fans.  That's why, except for the Hawkins debacle, his number hasn't been given out since he retired.  When he got a plaque in Monument Park a few years ago, my reaction was "when's his number getting retired?"  So, for Yankee fans, the honor was actually long overdue.  Especially since, again, it's been unofficially retired for 21 years.

I have another response to the haters.  The Yankees have won a lot of championships.  Thus, they've had a lot of great players throughout their history.  It's the same reason the Boston Celtics, Los Angeles Lakers and Montreal Canadiens have a lot of retired numbers (which nobody seems to have a problem with).

Are they all the same level as Babe Ruth, Joe DiMaggio, Mickey Mantle and Derek Jeter?  No.  But, there's no rule saying you need to be one of the sport's all-time greats (or even a Hall of Famer) to have your number retired.  Teams get to decide their own criteria.  And, with the exception of Don Mattingly (who was the Face of the Franchise throughout the 1980s), all 23 men who have their number on the Yankee Stadium wall have played a big part in their 27 championships.  That's why they had their number retired.

Beyond that, Paul O'Neill was one of George Steinbrenner's favorite players.  The Boss is the one who gave him the nickname "The Warrior" because of that intensity he brought every day.  More than anything else, that intensity is what endeared him to Yankees fans.  It was also the trade for O'Neill in 1993 that helped set the stage for the run of four championships in five years from 1996-2000.  That fact cannot be forgotten, either.

O'Neill was the last guy from that group to have his number retired, joining Hall of Famers Jeter, Rivera and Joe Torre, as well as Bernie Williams, Andy Pettitte and Jorge Posada.  Jeter, Rivera and Pettitte were also on the 2009 team, so the Yankees' most recent championship is also represented.  Which begs the question: Now that 21 is retired, whose number goes on the wall next?

There isn't an obvious candidate.  As I just said, everyone else from that late 90s dynasty has either already had his number retired or you can't make a case why he should.  Love you, Tino, but, sorry, you'll have to settle for your plaque in Monument Park, which is an honor in its own right.  And, with only one championship since then, it's not like there's anybody over the past 13 years who immediately stands out.

CC Sabathia is probably the only guy who might remotely be considered.  CC was a great Yankee for 11 years and if (when?) he's inducted into the Hall of Fame, it'll likely be a Yankee hat on his plaque in Cooperstown.  He was the ace of the 2009 staff and was MVP of the ALCS that year.  But does that warrant number 52 being placed on the wall?  Unfortunately, it does not.  A plaque in Monument Park?  Maybe.  But a retired number?  Definitely not.   (Although, it is worth noting that 52 hasn't been given out since he retired.)

Alex Rodriguez?  Yeah right!  Just like how A-Rod knows he'll likely never be elected to the Hall of Fame, it's equally unlikely that he'll be honored by the Yankees in any significant way.  The season-long suspension in 2014 took care of that.

Which brings me to the guy who took A-Rod's roster spot after he retired in August 2016.  Aaron Judge hasn't just become the Face of the Franchise over the past six years, he's become one of the Faces of Baseball.  And he's already making the case that he belongs among the all-time Yankee greats.  Who knows where he'll end up when all is said and done?  Of course, that's assuming Judge re-signs with the team when he hits free agency this offseason.  If he leaves, however, the chances of 99 ending up on the wall will range from minimal to nonexistent.

Judge is also missing something.  Something that he'll be the first to tell you is more important than any individual honor or record.  A World Series ring.  Sure, he could become this generation's Mattingly, a beloved Yankee who's still beloved despite not winning a championship.  But for Judge's place in Yankee history to be secure, he needs to lead the team to a title.  Preferably more than one.  And he knows that.

If the Yankees do win a championship (or several) in the next few years, Judge won't be the only one in the Monument Park/retired number conversation.  We could easily find ourselves talking about Gerrit Cole's 45 or Giancarlo Stanton's 27, too.  But, right now, there's only one number that we can confidently say will require a discussion.  Number 99.

What we do know is that, eventually, the Yankees will retire a 24th number.  Whether it's Judge's 99 or someone else's number, Paul O'Neill's 21 definitely won't be the last.  We just don't know who'll be next.  Rest assured, though, it'll be somebody.

A B1G Time TV Deal

We've known for weeks who the Big Ten's new TV deal would be with and what the terms were.  We just needed everybody to make it official.  And, now that they have, it's easy to see why UCLA and USC left the Pac-12.  Whether the Big Ten sought them out or vice versa doesn't really matter.  What does matter is the financial windfall all 16 institutions are set to receive.

As you know, I'm not the biggest college football fan out there.  I'm not a college football fan at all, actually.  But, I also understand that it rules the roost and that ain't changing anytime soon, so this TV contract was gonna be all about football.  And the Big Ten will have a full Saturday of football on network television every week of the season.  I'm not sure any conference has ever had that before.

Kind of like when the NFL realized they could have a four-game, full-day window and started scheduling the London games for 9:30 am kickoffs, the Big Ten will be able to do exactly the same thing on Saturdays.  In the weeks when they have an 11:00 UCLA or USC game on FOX, half of the Big Ten will be seen on national TV.  That's huge exposure for what's already one of the strongest conferences.

FOX is the biggest winner here, which makes sense, seeing as FOX is a partner in the Big Ten Network.  They get to keep the "Big Noon Kickoff" that they've built their entire college football package around, and they'll have first pick of games every week...which all but guarantees they'll have Ohio State-Michigan every year.

CBS, meanwhile, will replace its 3:30 SEC game with a 3:30 Big Ten game.  That's not much of a downgrade.  Instead of Texas A&M vs. LSU, they'll have Penn State vs. Michigan State.  Or Wisconsin vs. Iowa.  Or USC vs. UCLA (which can't be at 12:00 Eastern for obvious reasons).  And, CBS will get a Black Friday game, so it wouldn't surprise me if one of the rivalry games ends up in that spot every year.

NBC might have the fewest games, but what they're lacking in quantity they'll make up for in quality.  They get to keep their Notre Dame package AND have a primetime Big Ten game!  They won't have a Big Ten game if the Notre Dame game is at night, but it's also easy to imagine Notre Dame-Michigan or Notre Dame-USC moved into that primetime slot, thus covering both bases.  It also essentially guarantees NBC will have the Notre Dame-USC game every year (thru their Notre Dame contract when it's in South Bend, thru their Big Ten contract when it's in LA).

There will be exclusive games on Peacock, too, which isn't a surprise considering how much NBC is pushing Peacock.  They already put one Notre Dame game on Peacock every season, and the chances of a marquee game getting the streaming-only treatment seems minimal.  So, get ready for Rutgers-Maryland and Northwestern-Purdue on Peacock!

Notre Dame is a big winner here, too.  The Fighting Irish were able to keep their NBC deal, which only figures to get bigger now that it can be packaged with a Big Ten game immediately afterwards.  The pressure for them to join a conference is off, at least for now.  And they'll probably end up getting some road games on NBC, too, if they visit Big Ten teams.  (I can even see them arranging it with the conference where they, for example, play Penn State in Pittsburgh in a Penn State "home" game that's NBC's primetime selection for that week.)

Going back to the Big Ten, all three will get Big Ten Championship Games during the seven years of the contract.  It won't exactly be a Super Bowl-like rotation, though.  FOX gets the odd years, while CBS gets two of the evens and NBC only has 2026.  That makes sense, though.  NBC is the third partner in the package, so them getting the fewest championship games is understandable.

None of the details about the football portion of the contract were a surprise to anybody.  It's essentially what was unofficially announced a few weeks ago when the news first broke that ESPN was out and it would be a combination of FOX, CBS and NBC.  What I was curious about was how the Big Ten basketball contract would look for each network.

I must admit, there are some details about basketball that still confuse me.  The Big Ten is the biggest college basketball property CBS has, so you know they were gonna make damn sure it stayed that way, even if it meant fewer football games overall (as long as they filled their Saturday at 3:30 slot with a Big Ten game)!  And that's exactly what happened.  They got more regular season games, in fact, and added the women's championship game to go along with the men's semifinals and final, which have been on CBS for years.

The FOX and NBC portions of the basketball deal are where they lose me, though.  Not so much with FOX, which will have the Big Ten join the Big East on FS1.  And, since they already have the Big Ten Network, the rest will go there.  Nothing was mentioned about the Big Ten Tournament other than CBS having the weekend, though.  I'd have to assume it'll stay on BTN since the Big East will be on FS1.

One place I know it won't be is NBC.  The basketball portion in their part of the package calls for games exclusively on Peacock.  Again, I get it.  NBC is really pushing Peacock, and their theory is the more content on there, the better.  It also seems like it's limiting them, though, since they don't have the cable network to show Big Ten Tournament games on even if they wanted to.

Overall, though, there's no way anybody isn't satisfied with this package.  The Big Ten wanted its football Saturdays to resemble an NFL Sunday, and that's exactly what it got.  FOX expanded its relationship with the conference, CBS found a replacement for its 3:30 SEC game, and NBC achieved two goals.  They increased their college football presence and don't have to do anything with their NBC deal, which will only be strengthened.

Most importantly, there's the money.  This seven-year deal is worth $7 billion.  That's $62.5 million a year per school!  At a minimum!  That figure only stands to go up once UCLA and USC join, adding the Los Angeles market, which, in turn, will increase the Big Ten Network's reach.  Which will increase what the conference gets in subscriber fees.  When you look at it that way, their decision to go from the Pac-12 to the Big Ten makes total sense.  Financially at least.

After the SEC got its windfall from ESPN, people wondered how the Big Ten would respond.  They responded very nicely.  And once again showed that, when it comes to the Power 5, it's really the Power 2, then the Other 3.

A New-Look Postseason

Ever since they announced that they'd be moving one of the series postponed by the lockout to the end of the season, I've wondered what the MLB postseason schedule would look like.  I tried to figure it out on my own a few times, and every time I did it, I realized it would be impossible for them to have the World Series start on Tuesday, as it has for the past few years.  So I was curious how they'd end up actually doing it.

The postseason schedule finally came out on Monday, and, I must admit, it wasn't exactly what I was expecting.  Just as I figured, the World Series did get pushed back.  But I never in a million years would've thought Game 1 would be set for a Friday and Game 7 for a Saturday, with no World Series games scheduled on Sunday for, I think, the first time in history.

By going with the Friday-Saturday, Monday-Tuesday-Wednesday, Friday-Saturday schedule, they avoided both of the NFL's two big nights.  Of course, they didn't need to avoid Thursday Night Football since it's not on FOX anymore and is only available on Amazon Prime, but FOX has the WWE every Thursday night, so I'd imagine that's the reason why.  Not playing on Sunday night, though.  That's one big concession to the fact that's been obvious for years--the NFL is king.

With the exception of 1990 (another season affected by a lockout), Game 7 of the World Series was scheduled for a Sunday night every year from 1985-2006.  During a lot of those years, the NFL wouldn't schedule a Sunday night game during that first weekend of the World Series, so Game 2 would face no NFL competition.  In 2007, they moved the World Series to a midweek start, meaning there'd only be one NFL Sunday to contend with.  Then, when FOX got Thursday Night Football and they had to move the World Series to a Tuesday start, it was possible the World Series would be over on Saturday night if it was a four-game sweep (which never happened).

I'm curious what went into the decision to not play on Sunday during the World Series, thus avoiding the NFL entirely.  (Yes, Game 3 on Halloween night will go against the Bengals-Browns Monday night game, but that matchup on ESPN won't draw nearly as many eyeballs as the Packers-Bills Sunday night game on NBC.)  And was the move made just for this year, when they had to adjust the postseason schedule because of the lockout?  Or will this be the schedule moving forward?

Conceding that the World Series won't compete against Sunday Night Football isn't MLB waving the white flag.  In fact, it's just the opposite.  In a way, it might actually help World Series ratings not having to go directly against the NFL...especially on Sunday night.  I'm sure the critics are already ready to pounce on the record-low ratings that will result from playing Game 1 on a Friday night, the least-watched night of TV every week.  I guess they'll see what the ratings look like and decide from there.

Although, I'd be willing to bet MLB and FOX wouldn't be too upset if the World Series ends in six.  Because, should it go the distance, Game 7 will be up against another football game on NBC that will likely draw plenty of eyeballs--Notre Dame vs. Clemson.  Game 2 will obviously go up against Saturday night college football, too, but that marquee matchup opposite Game 7 would definitely leave quite a few fans torn.

While that Friday night World Series opener is what immediately draws your attention, there are several other details about the postseason schedule that can't go unnoticed.  The first is the most obvious.  This is the first year with the single Wild Card Game being replaced by the best-of-three Wild Card Series.  There's no travel involved there, so it makes sense that those games are scheduled for three consecutive days.  What's weird, though, is that they aren't staggered.  All four are scheduled for Friday-Sunday.

That also means the Division Series won't start until Tuesday, which is six days after the regular season ends.  That will obviously give the top two seeds in each league the opportunity to set their pitching, but is that too much of a break?  Especially since their aces probably won't pitch the last game of the regular season, so they'll end up getting more than a week between starts.

Also, for some reason, they're playing Game 1 of all four Division Series on Tuesday, then the AL gets a day off before Game 2, so the Astros and Yankees (assuming they stop sucking at some point) will literally play one game in a week, have a day off, play another game, then have another day off.  That sounds great from a bullpen management perspective, until you see there's no travel day between Games 4 and 5, which means you won't be able to get away with using only three starters.

Of course, that's not entirely unprecedented.  In that crazy 2020 postseason, they had the LCS scheduled over seven consecutive days with no off days.  But there was also no travel in the 2020 postseason.  Still, these guys are used to traveling after a game and playing in another city the next night, so that's not at all unusual.  It was probably expected, too, since everyone knew they'd have to take away some postseason off days to make up for the regular season being delayed and extended.

There won't be an off day between Games 5 and 6 of the LCS, either.  That's where things get really interesting.  Because, if the series goes seven, they'll end up playing five days in a row.  Which means you'll need all five of your starters in the LCS.  Unless you can work it out that your No. 1 guy starts Game 3, then comes back on three-days' rest in Game 7. 

In 2020, the argument in favor of playing every day was "you need five starters during the season," which is true.  What's different about 2022, though, is that the schedule is so backloaded after those top two teams sit around for a week before even starting their postseason.  Will it be an advantage or not?

Some of the quirky things about this year's postseason schedule are a direct result of the lockout.  Next season, when things are back to normal, the Wild Card Series will, presumably, start on Tuesday and the Division Series over the weekend.  But I bet some of these changes may be permanent.  Because, while it seemed crazy at first, MLB may be on to something with the no Sunday World Series games.

Istanbul Wants 2036

This new Olympic bid process, introduced after the Paris-LA double-awarding, where cities don't compete against each other but instead enter into a "dialogue phase" in which the IOC just picks its favorite, has actually made the process even longer.  LA was awarded the 2028 Games in 2017, a full 11 years prior to the Olympics.  Brisbane was then awarded the 2032 Games right before last year's Tokyo Olympics...again 11 years out!

Under the old bid process, the host city was announced seven years prior to the Olympics in question, so the entire process, from thinking about a bid to the end of the Olympics took about a decade.  That's obviously no longer the case.  In fact, cities are already talking about the 2036 Games, which are 14 years from now!

I bring that up because one of the cities that's been mentioned for 2036 is perpetual Olympic bidder Istanbul.  Istanbul bid for every Olympics from 2000-12, took one cycle off, then finished second to Tokyo in the bidding for 2020.  They've promised that this will be their "best bid yet," too.

The IOC is more concerned about the 2030 Winter Olympics right now, so 2036 is obviously not a priority at the moment.  It also seems likely that other bidders will emerge between now and when those Games are actually awarded, whenever that may be (although, it wouldn't shock me if it's either right before or right after the Paris Games).  But, judging by the public comments and the city's bid history, an Istanbul 2036 Olympic bid is not just likely, it's a near certainty.

After two consecutive non-European Olympics, I'd imagine the IOC will want to return to Europe in 2036, which is good news for a city like Budapest (which is an Olympic-host-in-waiting).  Turkey is also a part of Europe, though, and Istanbul gives the IOC a unique opportunity that they'd be foolish not to take advantage of.

There's never been an Olympics in the Arab world.  That isn't something that's gone unnoticed, either.  Doha hasn't been shy about its Olympic-hosting ambitions, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a city like Dubai (which would be a much more appropriate host) or Riyadh enter the fray at some point, as well.

An Olympics in the Middle East comes with a number of concerns for the IOC (and participating countries), though.  The human rights and Israel situations aside, the biggest issue is the heat.  You can't hold the Olympics in the Middle East in their traditional late July/August timeframe.  But moving them to another time of the year is easier said than done.  Just look at the disruption this year's World Cup will cause!  Now make that an Olympics instead.  Logistically, it doesn't work.

When Doha hosted the 2019 World Track & Field Championships, they were moved to late September, and, even then, they started events at midnight and needed an air-conditioned stadium.  The schedule of World Swimming Championships has gotten all screwed up because of the pandemic, but the upcoming edition Doha will be hosting is in January 2024.  That timing's obviously not ideal, but, fortunately, it's just one sport and the international federation was willing to make that adjustment.

Making similar adjustments for an Olympics wouldn't work for several reasons, though.  So, they'd be left with either rescheduling the Olympics for a time that's not ideal or holding them in unbearable heat, which wouldn't be comfortable for anybody.

All of those things make holding an Olympics in an Arab country difficult.  That's where Istanbul comes in.  Turkey is an Arab country.  But it's also located in an area where they can host the Olympics at their normal time.  The average summer high in Istanbul is 85, and the average low is 71.  That's actually pretty perfect.

Istanbul's location also makes it one of the most unique cities in the world.  It's literally located on two different continents!  There's a road that goes through the city that has a sign like you'd see when crossing from one state into another, only it's Europe and Asia on the sign!  For all intents and purposes, Turkey considers itself part of Southern Europe.  Culturally, though, it's an Arab country.  Which, frankly, makes Istanbul a perfect Olympic host!

We're very close to the point where the IOC can't ignore the Arab world and Africa any longer.  Especially if a European country is selected for 2036.  Istanbul would be the best of both worlds, though.  Literally!  They'd be going back to Europe, but they'd also be going to the Arab world for the first time.

It's not like Istanbul would be a token host, either.  They're well-prepared to host an Olympics.  That's why they're claiming, after all those failed bids, that this would be the "best one yet."  They're plenty capable, and, with each successive bid, they've learned more about the process and improved upon the last one.  So, there's no reason to think that Istanbul wouldn't be ready to put on a first-rate Olympics in 2036.

Yes, I understand that 2036 is a long way away.  The IOC hasn't even officially opened the process for potential 2036 hosts.  Once they do, though, you know Istanbul will be in the discussion.  And, frankly, they could do a lot worse.  So, even though it's waaaaayyyyy early, I'm installing Istanbul as the favorite to host the 2036 Olympics.  The end of a long quest, with the ultimate goal finally realized.

The Problem Is the Bullpen

Early in the season, back when the Yankees were on pace for like 120 wins, Aaron Boone said they were making "deposits," knowing full well that they'd likely start making "withdrawals" at some point.  Well, we've reached that point.  Because the team that we've seen over the past month is nothing like the one that played the first four-and-a-half months of the season!

So, how does a team go from practically unbeatable to one that looks like they couldn't even beat Little Leaguers?  Well, there are several reasons.  One is injuries, which have finally reared their ugly head after a relatively injury-free first half.  They've also stopped hitting, especially with men on base.  And there have been some ugly outings by the starting pitchers.  Or maybe the Curse of Joey Gallo is really a thing.

All of those have been problems to varying degrees, but none are the main culprit.  That would be the bullpen.  A bullpen that was so good early in the season and was once praised as the strength of the team is now anything but.  And if you want to know why the Yankees have been losing the types of games they were winning earlier in year, look no further than the bullpen.

This nightmare of a road trip is actually a perfect example.  Five of the six losses on this trip have been by one run.  Two of them were in extra innings.  Three included a blown save, and two others featured the bullpen giving up the winning run late in a tie game (eighth inning in St. Louis, 13th inning in Seattle).

If you want to extend that to the end of July, you'll find more losses that can be blamed squarely on the bullpen.  July 31 vs. Kansas City: Up 6-2 after 7, bullpen gives up 1 in the 8th, 3 in the 9th, lose 8-6.  July 27 at Mets: Score 2 in 8th to tie game, give up 1 in 9th to lose 3-2 on a walk-off.  July 12 vs. Cincinnati: Up 3-0 after 8, give up 4 in the 9th, lose 4-3.  And, you could argue that it was losing two of three to the Reds at Yankee Stadium right before the All*Star Break (which came right after a Sunday night game in Boston they led 6-3 after 3, only to lose 11-6) that really got this run started.

In my opinion, there are two relievers in particular to blame: Albert Abreu and, especially, Clay Holmes.  (And, to a lesser extent, Wandy Peralta.)  Abreu got traded in the offseason, and was released by both Texas and Kansas City this year.  After the Royals DFA'ed him, the Yankees brought him back as if he was some sort of missing piece.  He isn't.  Every time Abreu pitches, he gives up multiple runs it seems.  In each of his last two outings, he's taken the loss.  Yet, for some reason, Boone keeps going to him.

Holmes, meanwhile, was so good in the first half that he made the AL All*Star team.  That pitcher is a distant memory.  The Clay Holmes we have now is nothing like that one.  He walks everybody, has given up 11 runs in his last 11 outings, and has blown four saves in the last month.  On July 9, his season ERA was 0.46.  Now, just over a month later, it's 2.39.  Holmes had a 7.00 ERA in July, and it's currently 10.80 in August.  Why is this guy still the closer?!  Especially since he was never intended to be!

Of course, there's an obvious solution to Holmes blowing games late--taking him out of the closer's role.  He only moved into it because of how well he was doing and because Aroldis Chapman went on the IL.  That's a little detail everybody seems to forget.  Chapman's had his battles with ineffectiveness, yes, but he only lost the closer job because he got hurt.  When he returned, he'd been Wally Pipped by Holmes.

To be clear, I had no issue with Holmes remaining in the closer role when Chapman came back.  He'd been doing well, so there was no reason to change things.  And, since there was concern about Chapman, not throwing him immediately back into high-leverage, ninth-inning situations made complete sense.  Especially since they've been trying to piece together the back end of that bullpen pretty much ever since Chad Green and Michael King were lost for the season.

With all that in mind, the time has come for Chapman to regain his job.  He's back to being Aroldis Chapman.  It's also worth noting that Chapman has yet to blow a save this season.  Despite his 0-3 record and high ERA, he's 9-for-9 in save chances (and it's been well-established throughout his career that Chapman's big innings are generally either when he hasn't had a lot of work or it's not a close game...or both).  And, again, the only reason Holmes took over as the closer to begin with was because Chapman went on the IL!

And, while this shouldn't be a factor (and isn't), the fact that Aroldis Chapman is being paid an awful lot of money to be the closer can't be ignored.  He's been a closer for his entire career.  That's why he got the contract.  The fact that he's been willing to do this Swiss Army knife thing says a lot, since Chapman either doesn't actually care what his role is or, if he is unhappy about it, doesn't want to say so publicly.

He's been a Major League closer for 10 years for a reason, though.  And, with Holmes struggling mightily, it's time to make him one again.  Not only is he the logical choice, can he really do any worse than Holmes?  Because, while they can't be blamed entirely on the bullpen, all of these recent losses have had a recurring theme.  And that's late runs that cost the Yankees the game.

Fortunately, they built enough of a cushion that their recent struggles have had no impact on the Yankees' lead in the AL East.  And maybe this is just a blip along the road.  After all, every team goes through a bad stretch at some point over the course of a six-month season.  So, while it's definitely enough to be a concern, there isn't really any reason to panic.  As painful to watch as this stretch has been, there's little to no doubt the Yankees will be one of the six AL playoff teams.

But, for a team that hasn't been to the World Series in 13 years, simply making the playoffs won't be enough.  The team they had in April and May looked destined to end that drought.  The current version?  Not so much!  There's time to fix it, though.  And that starts with fixing the bullpen, which is anything but championship-caliber right now.

Future Field of Dreams Matchups

Before getting too far into this post, let me say how awesome the Cincinnati Reds' uniforms for the Field of Dreams were!  Those batting helmets, especially, were incredible!  The Cubs' uniforms were great, too!  Much like with the uniforms for the Yankees and White Sox last season, MLB hit a home run with both (unlike with the "City Series" uniforms, which are one massive collective strikeout).

Unfortunately, we won't see any cool old-school uniforms at the Field of Dreams next season.  Frank Thomas, who's on the board of the site, said that, because of construction, they won't be able to have a game there in 2023.  However, you can bet that it'll be back in 2024...and a regular part of the baseball calendar after that.

Which actually works out well, since the London Series resumes next season with a Cubs-Cardinals matchup.  That works out because I think the St. Louis Cardinals may be the next team we see featured in Iowa, and it's unlikely MLB would give them two special-event, neutral-site games in the same season.  So, the Cardinals can go to London next year, then play in the Field of Dreams game in 2024 (which they were originally going to do as the White Sox's replacement opponent in 2020 before the game was cancelled entirely).

As for who the Cardinals should play, I have two suggestions.  The first is the Milwaukee Brewers, who are close enough to Iowa to have plenty of their fans make the trip.  I can even see the Brewers volunteering to be the home team, too.  The Brewers aren't one of those flashy teams that will draw eyeballs on TV, though (although, that might not matter as much since the Cardinals are).  They also didn't exist until 1970, so they wouldn't have old-time uniforms to base the ones for the game on.  (There was a Milwaukee Brewers minor league team from 1902-52, however, so they could easily base uniforms on them.)

My other option is the San Francisco Giants.  This is, of course, only if the 2024 London Series isn't Dodgers-Giants, which seems to be the logical next choice for that series.  Not only would Giants-Cardinals be a great matchup between two marquee teams, they both actually existed during Baseball's early days, and you can't tell me you wouldn't love seeing New York Giants uniforms, even if it's just for one game!

There's another reason to pick the Giants.  The first two "home" teams at the Field of Dreams were the White Sox and the Reds.  The first one had to be the White Sox, for obvious reasons.  Doing the Reds second also made sense, since they're the team who beat the Black Sox in the 1919 World Series.  The Reds aren't actually featured in the movie, though.  The New York Giants are.

What team did Moonlight Graham play his one Major League inning for?  The New York Giants.  (John McGraw pointed to him and said, "right field.")  Then, at the end, in the climactic scene where everybody's crying as Ray plays catch with his father, whose uniform is John Kinsella wearing?  The New York Giants.

Of course, the Giants would need to be the road team since it would be much easier to finish the three-game series in St. Louis than in San Francisco, but I doubt that would cause an issue.  So, assuming they don't play the Dodgers in London, Giants-Cardinals would be my choice, with Cardinals-Brewers as the backup option.

In 2025, I can see the Cleveland Guardians as the home team at the Field of Dreams.  (They won the World Series in 1920, so they've also got the tie-in, albeit indirectly.)  And they, too, have a few options for their opponent.  The first is the Detroit Tigers, which, granted, isn't a sexy matchup at all.  They could also play the Twins, who would have to transform back into the Washington Senators for the day.  Or, the matchup I'd really like to see and I think FOX would want, too, is Cleveland (the 1920 World Series champions) against the Boston Red Sox (the 1918 World Series champions).

However, that matchup, too, could be dependent on who MLB chooses to play its first games in Paris, which are scheduled for 2025.  The Yankees have indicated they'd like to be involved.  You'd have to imagine MLB will take them up on that.  And, if they do, there's only one logical opponent.  Which would probably rule the Red Sox out for the 2025 Field of Dreams game.

Although, it's still conceivable they could have Boston play the Paris Series in 2025 against the Yankees, then at the Field of Dreams in 2026, against either Cleveland or "Washington"/Minnesota.  Or, if I'm right about the London/Paris assignments, they could flip-flop it and do Red Sox-Guardians in 2024 and Cardinals-Giants in 2025. 

Regardless of what teams are selected, it looks like the Field of Dreams game, much like the Little League Classic, will become a regular part of the MLB calendar moving forward.  And I'm sure we'll reach the point where teams are playing at the Field of Dreams for the second or third time (Cubs-Dodgers, anyone?).  Likewise, we'll probably see somebody outside of the original 16 teams play in it eventually.

I'm also curious to see how next year's schedule format impacts these special events moving forward.  Now that everybody's gonna play everybody every season, the possibilities are unlimited.  There's no reason why they can't do an interleague matchup if they want.  And, since it's just a single game, the fact that it's only three-game series against non-division opponents won't matter.  (Having at least one Midwest team involved so they won't have to travel too far to finish the series would make sense, though.)

We obviously don't yet know what the ratings for Cubs-Reds will be like.  Whether they compare to Yankees-White Sox hardly matters, though.  It's a marquee event for MLB that's special for the teams involved.  Will the luster eventually wear off?  Probably.  But, just like the NHL Winter Classic (an event now well into its second decade), it'll remain special.  "People will most definitely come, Ray."  They'll most definitely watch, too.

End of an Era

Today, Serena Williams made me feel very old.  While she didn't actually use the word "retirement," she all but announced that's exactly what she'll be doing after the US Open.  It wasn't a complete surprise, and it's something that's felt inevitable for a while.  But still.  Another athlete around my age whose entire career I've spent watching calling it a career.

She's not the first.  Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt are long retired.  Peyton Manning, Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera are already in the Hall of Fame.  Albert Pujols will be hanging it up at the end of the season.  Allyson Felix just ran in her final World Championships and her final competitive race is next month.  Tiger Woods barely plays anymore.  And Roger Federer isn't too far behind Serena.  But still.  (Meanwhile, the ageless Tom Brady keeps chugging along.)

I give Serena a lot of credit for doing it on her own terms, too.  She doesn't want a long, drawn out goodbye.  Of course, she'll end up getting a tribute anyway, but she deserves it.  And it's fitting that it'll come at the US Open, her favorite Grand Slam and the site of her first Grand Slam title in 1999.

If she doesn't win the US Open, she'll finish with 23 career Grand Slam titles, one shy of Margaret Court's record.  When she got to 23 five years ago at the Australian Open, it seemed like it was only a matter of time until she tied and eventually broke the record.  What we didn't know at the time was that she won that 23rd Grand Slam while pregnant with her daughter, Olympia, which makes that Australian Open win all the more impressive.

You know something though?  I don't think she cares about that record.  At one time, when she was dominating the women's game, she did.  But that's not the case anymore.  It's clear that her focus now is on her family, which she would like to grow while she still can (she said that Olympia's been asking when she's gonna become a big sister).  And, whether she has 23 or 24 Grand Slam titles really doesn't matter.  Her legacy as one of the greatest women's players of all-time has been secure for a while.

Consider everything she's accomplished.  She doesn't just have 23 Grand Slam singles titles, she also has 14 in doubles.  Then there are the four Olympic gold medals (one in singles, three in doubles).  And, perhaps most impressively, the two Serena Slams.  Twelve years apart!

It's been five years since that 2017 Australian Open victory, after which she took an entire year off to become a mom.  She hasn't won a Grand Slam since having Olympia, but she made the final at Wimbledon and the US Open back-to-back in both 2018 and 2019.  She also reached the back-to-back Grand Slam semifinals at the 2020 US Open and 2021 Australian Open.  Even into her late 30s, well past her dominant prime, she was making Grand Slam finals.  So what if she didn't win one to equal the record?

Consider the number of injuries she's overcome during her career, too.  How many times did her ranking drop because of injuries, only for her to make a final or win a title as an unseeded player?  Which only showed how great she was.  Even when not at her best, she was still better than everyone else.  And, when she was at her best, we saw the result.  Sheer dominance!

When Venus burst onto the scene in the late 90s, Richard Williams proclaimed that Serena was even better.  It was a brash statement.  But, as it turns out, he was right!  Serena wasn't just the greatest player of her generation, she's one of the greatest of all-time.  I'd put her fourth behind Martina Navratilova, Chris Evert and Steffi Graf, and ahead of Billie Jean King.  Her impact goes far beyond that, though.

Sure, Serena Williams is known first and foremost as a dominant tennis player, but she's so much more.  She's an entrepreneur, a businesswoman, a spokesperson.  She's posed in numerous magazines and even acted.  Simply put, she's an icon.  She didn't play a tennis match after losing in the first round at Wimbledon last year and was still the second-highest-earning female athlete of 2021.  

That's perhaps her greatest legacy.  For all her success on the tennis court, it's just a small part of the Serena Williams story.  With her family and all her businesses, she'll stay plenty busy.  Which is why she's stepping away now.  She's set for life.  Tennis won't be a part of that life forever, and she wants to get on with the post-tennis part.  And she's at piece with it.  There's still the desire, but it's not the same desire she once had for tennis.

There's something beautiful about the way she's ending it, too.  Serena's going out on her own terms.  I'm sure she'd love it if she could go out still at the top of her game, and tying the record in her final tournament, then riding off into the sunset would sure be a poetic finish.  But, regardless of when her US Open ends, Serena will walk off the court a champion.  Hopefully she has one last long run in her.  Whether she does or doesn't, though, it doesn't matter!

Ending it now is her choice.  Could she keep playing a little while longer?  Perhaps.  But it's also possible she could suffer the same fate as Roger Federer, who's been beset by injuries.  He hopes to come back and end on his own terms, but, unfortunately, that may not be possible.  With Serena, that won't happen.  She's worked so hard to come back that she's able to walk out on her own.  And hanging it up is entirely her decision.

We've already gotten a glimpse of what the post-Serena WTA Tour will look like.  She's played so sporadically over the past few years that tournaments won't look dramatically different without her.  But the 2022 US Open will still mark the end of an era.  And what an era it's been!  Serena Williams isn't just the greatest women's tennis player of her generation, she's one of the greatest athletes period.  At least we'll get to enjoy watching her play one final time before she, as she said, "evolves" away from tennis.

Not That Easy to "Free Brittney"

I've held off on posting about Brittney Griner until now for a few reasons.  First off, I wanted to get more facts before making a decision about the case.  Second, the details of the situation are so complex that I wanted to make sure I actually understood everything.  Finally, this isn't as straightforward as some of Griner's supporters would like you to believe.  There are a lot of moving pieces at play here.

Now, to be clear, I absolutely think Griner is being wrongfully detained and a nine-year prison sentence is an absolute joke!  I also 100 percent believe that she's being held as a political prisoner.  If there wasn't existing tension between Russia and U.S. (over a lot more issues than just the war in Ukraine), Griner likely wouldn't be in this situation.  It, at the very least, wouldn't be nearly as serious.  But, there is and she is.

It's also important to note that she did commit a crime.  Is she an international drug kingpin?  No.  But she still violated the law by having drug paraphernalia in her possession.  The fact that she had a prescription for medical marijuana is irrelevant.  Because it doesn't apply in Russia!  Marijuana is illegal in Russia.  No exceptions.  So, simply trying to bring it into the country constitutes the legal definition of "smuggling."

Griner, of course, pled guilty to the crime.  This was part of her legal strategy, yes, but it was also clear very early in the trial that she was going to be convicted.  And just think about how much harsher her sentence would've been had she not admitted her guilt!

Of course, none of that matters to the vocal Griner supporters, who want her released from custody yesterday.  That, unfortunately, isn't the way it works, though.  Obviously, it's a high-profile case involving a high-profile person (which, again, is entirely the point from Russia's perspective), which is what's kept it in the news.  But do the Russians care--at all--about how upset Americans are about this?  The answer is an emphatic "No!"

That's a detail people conveniently seem to forget in cases like this.  Griner was accused of breaking Russian law and tried in a Russian court.  Thus, she's subject to the Russian legal system, which isn't the same as the American legal system.  Whether and how the case would've been handled differently in the U.S. is irrelevant.  Because she wasn't tried in the U.S.  She was tried in Russia.

Which is why I think that doctor's note she provided as part of her defense was, frankly, a little ridiculous.  In the U.S., that would probably be enough to have the charges thrown out.  In Russia, however, they don't care what your reason for taking it is.  It's illegal in all cases.  And, if you're in a different country, you've got to follow that country's laws.  If you don't, you have to suffer the consequences.

This reminds me of what happened with Sha'Carri Richardson at last year's Olympic Trials.  Richardson accepted her suspension, then claimed it was "unfair" because marijuana is legal in Oregon, as if Oregon state law should supersede the international doping code.  That, of course, is ridiculous.  Just like how applying American legal theory to the Griner case is ridiculous.

During the trial, Griner claimed that she packed in a hurry and inadvertently put it in her luggage.  I'm not entirely sure I believe that, but, even if she didn't have intent, the fact of the matter remains she had it on her person.  Now, did simply having that stuff warrant the treatment she received and the circus this has become?  Of course not!  But, had she not had it in her bag, they wouldn't have had a reason to detain her.  Has anyone considered that little detail?

Instead, Griner's arrest and detention has been made about every possible cause by Americans.  It's because she's Black.  Or a woman.  Or a lesbian.  Or all three.  The truth, however, is that it's none of those.  (Again, Russians don't care about any of that!)  The only argument that's actually correct is that this is political.  Because it is.

There's no doubt in my mind that Griner is being held because of who she is.  A well-known American basketball player.  The Russians knew what they were doing, and they knew this case would garner a massive amount of international attention.  And they knew that they could use it to their advantage.  Especially since they hold all the cards.

Russia's motivation appears to be a prisoner exchange, where a Russian arms dealer being held in the U.S. and Griner would both be released.  Both President Biden and the State Department have prioritized bringing Griner home, and they're receptive to the idea of the prisoner exchange.  But it's a very tense political situation, so they have to tread lightly.  Which is why she hasn't come home yet.

Unfortunately, none of that will satisfy Griner's advocates, who won't rest until she's back in the U.S.  To which I have to say, "Good for them!"  What's happening to her isn't right, and it's important to keep the issue in the news and at the forefront of people's minds.  But, these things take time, and it hasn't even been six months.  It seems much longer, to be sure, but, still, six months is not a lot of time when dealing with these tense international situations.

Brittney Griner will eventually come home.  I have no doubt about that.  Everything needed to play out first, though.  And, now that the trial is over and her (ridiculously long) sentence has been issued, the process of bringing her home can start.

Six Frontrunners, No Favorites

It's been a few days since one of the wildest Trade Deadlines on memory.  I saw a stat that 29 of the 30 teams made at least one trade at the deadline.  Only the Rockies didn't make a single transaction.  I point that out not only because it's highly unusual, but because virtually every good team got better because of its deadline deals and, as a result, it's hard to declare anybody a definitive World Series "favorite."

Just because there aren't any "favorites" doesn't mean there aren't any frontrunners.  In fact, I think there are six teams that stand out above the rest.  At least five of them, obviously, won't win the World Series.  At least four of them won't even make it.  I can see each of the six winning...and there are also plenty of reasons why each of them won't.

Yankees
Why They Will: To put it simply, they've been the best team in baseball pretty much all season.  Sure, there have been a few hiccups here and there, but, for the most part, they've been the best team.  And this is despite having Joey Gallo on the roster for four months!  Now Gallo's gone, and they've improved elsewhere, too.  Frankie Montas is a legit No. 3, and you knew they'd address the bullpen.  If they can stay healthy, there's no reason to think it won't continue into October.

Why They Won't: The Astros.  Houston is the one team in the American League that isn't afraid of the Yankees, and they certainly appear to be on a collision course.  Should they meet in the ALCS, the Yankees will need to be the better team, which is something they weren't their seven regular season meetings with Houston.

Astros
Why They Will: There were two glaring issues with the Astros--catcher and first base.  They addressed both of them at the deadline with Christian Vazquez and Trey Mancini.  They also improved their bullpen by adding Will Smith (who actually gives them a lefty to, presumably, face Anthony Rizzo seven times in a seven-game series).  Plus, they've got the playoff experience and know how to win in October.  (Also, their draw as the 2-seed should give them an easier Division Series than the Yankees will have.)

Why They Won't: For a team that been to five straight ALCS, it's hard to envision them not getting there again.  But it is theoretically possible, especially if they have to deal with an injury or two.  They're not as deep as they used to be, so having to play somebody other than their regular starters could make them vulnerable.

Dodgers
Why They Will: While they're not as clear a favorite as the Yankees and Astros are in the AL, the Dodgers are still the class of the National League.  And they're only gonna get better as some of their regulars come back from injury.  Plus, the fact that they have so many stars takes the burden off everyone.  They can outscore you or they can get seven shutout innings from the starter and win 2-1.  And that ability to win different ways is crucial in October.

Why They Won't: Will they have enough pitching?  So far, they've gotten lucky on the injury front, especially on the mound.  However, Kershaw is currently on the IL with his annual injury, and who knows when he'll be back?  They'll need their rotation at full strength.  Because that's the only way they'll match up with the Mets.

Mets
Why They Will: Pitching.  Plain and simple.  Assuming they're both healthy, the Mets can send either Jacob deGrom or Max Scherzer out there four times in a seven-game series (and Taijuan Walker in two of the other three).  And that doesn't even take their lineup into account!  When the team that has the best pitching also has a ridiculously strong lineup, that's a pretty good combination.  And it makes it really difficult to envision them losing four out of seven to the same team.

Why They Won't: Honestly, there aren't many flaws with this Mets team.  But a bad matchup could be their undoing.  And by a "bad matchup," I mean a team that has the pitching to handle their lineup.  They also need both deGrom and Scherzer to be healthy and do their thing.  If I were a Mets fan, I'd also be somewhat concerned about the bullpen.

Braves
Why They Will: If it's possible, the Braves might be better this year than last season's championship team.  Don't forget, Ronald Acuna missed the postseason last year.  They're formidable, they're dangerous, and they know how to win in October (don't forget, they had a 3-1 lead in the 2020 NLCS before the Dodgers won three straight).  They have the experience and confidence that it won't matter who they play.

Why They Won't: Last year, everything they did worked.  The chances of that happening again aren't high.  You'd have to think that winning the division is key, too, especially with the new playoff format.  If they win the NL East, they'll have a very favorable path to the NLCS.  If they don't, they'll have to face the Padres and the No. 1 seed to get there.  Even with Jake Odorizzi, I'm not sure they have enough pitching for that.

Padres
Why They Will: Everything move San Diego made was with one clear objective in mind.  We're going for it.  And we're going for it now.  I don't totally want to say it's World Series or bust, but you don't go out and get Juan Soto if you don't think your team is good enough to win this year.  That lineup is ridiculous, and it'll become even more formidable once Tatis comes back.  The pitching isn't nearly as good as the lineup, but it's not exactly bad, and now they've got Hader at the end, too.  The Padres are a team nobody will want to face in October.

Why They Won't: They're too far behind in the division.  Even with their new additions, it's unlikely they'll catch the Dodgers.  Which means they'll have to play in a best-of-three Wild Card Series (likely against the Braves), then, if they win that, face the No. 1 seed in the Division Series.  I'm not sure the Padres are good enough to win both of those rounds, then the Mets or Dodgers in the NLCS.

So, as you can see, the top six teams are all plenty capable of winning the World Series.  They're also all plenty capable of losing the Division Series.  Which is why I think getting one of those top two seeds so you can get a few days off and set your pitching will be huge (even if the 1-seed isn't really as much of an advantage, since the wild card teams look stronger than the Central winners).

I haven't even mentioned the other six playoff teams, either.  While they won't be considered one of the "favorites" come October, they'll be in the field.  And just being in the field is ultimately what matters.  Especially since the teams no one's talking about often prove to be the most dangerous ones.

Trade Deadline Tracker

Juan Soto is now a Padre, and he's taking Josh Bell west with him.  While it seemed likely Soto would be traded, I'm not sure how many people had San Diego tagged as the destination.  Although, it's not a complete surprise, seeing as the Padres were one of the few teams that would actually be able to put together the package of prospects and established Major Leaguers the Nationals were looking for.

The Soto-Bell deal, coupled with shedding the contracts of Eric Hosmer and Luke Voit, obviously makes the San Diego Padres a much better team today than they were 24 hours ago.  Especially when you consider they also got Josh Hader!  It would be easy to call the Padres the winner of the trade deadline, but have they done enough to catch the Dodgers?  I'm not sure.  It should be enough to get them a wild card berth, though.

Not to be completely outdone, the Dodgers took Joey Gallo off the Yankees' hands.  I actually kinda like this move for them.  It's low-risk, high-reward.  Maybe Gallo finds what was missing in New York.  If he does, that's another weapon for that ridiculous Dodgers offense.  If he doesn't, he's a free agent, so they just don't re-sign him.

Speaking of the Yankees, they were busy, as we all knew they would be.  It started with the trade for Andrew Benintendi, an obvious upgrade in left field.  Then it was Frankie Montas, who slides right into the rotation, and Lou Trivino, a quality veteran reliever.  He's not the only bullpen addition, either.  They also got Scott Effross from the Cubs.  All while keeping their top prospects.

What I wasn't expecting was the Yankees' final trade deadline move, sending Jordan Montgomery to St. Louis for Harrison Bader.  (Fun fact about Harrison Bader, his number is retired by the Eastchester Little League, one of the organizations for which I umpire.)  Bader's on the injured list and won't be ready for a while, but he's under team control next season, too, so I think that move's more about 2023.

One of the reasons the Yankees got Montas is because the starter they really wanted, Luis Castillo, went to Seattle.  I give the Mariners credit.  They're going for it.  Getting arguably the best starter available at the deadline proves that.  They might end up in a similar situation as the Padres.  They probably won't catch Houston, but they've gotta be a favorite for a wild card.

Houston needed to improve in two areas and took care of both of them.  The Astros got Boston's Christian Vazquez, a clear upgrade over Martin Maldonado at catcher, and Orioles first baseman Trey Mancini.  They also addressed their excess of starting pitching by sending Jake Odorizzi to Atlanta for Will Smith, giving them an actual lefty reliever to face Rizzo and Benintendi should they meet the Yankees in the playoffs.

Before the trade deadline, it looked like the Yankees and Astros were on a collision course for the ALCS.  After the trade deadline, that looks even more likely.  They were already the two best teams in the American League, and they both got better.

Washington is a team that obviously did not get better.  The only remnants of the Nationals' championship team from just three years ago are Patrick Corbin and Stephen Strasburg (who hasn't been healthy since).  Of course, I'm not expecting the Nationals to be down long.  They likely stripped it down just so they can build it back up.  But, still, they're a shell of what they were not too long ago.

Another team that's thrown in the towel on 2022 is the Angels.  The fact that they were listening to offers about Shohei Ohtani tells you all you need to know.  And they did trade their two biggest pitching-only pieces, Noah Syndergaard and Raisel Iglesias.

First off, just let me say how weird it is that Noah Syndergaard is on the Phillies.  With him in that rotation alongside Nola and Wheeler now, the Phillies are suddenly in the mix for a playoff spot in the National League.  In fact, the NL East just got a whole lot more interesting.  Are the Phillies as good as either the Mets or the Braves?  Not even close!  Can they make life interesting and challenge for a wild card spot?  They sure can!

Last year, the Braves won the World Series because of the trades they made at the deadline.  I'm not sure this season's additions will be quite as impactful.  I do like bringing Odorizzi into that rotation, and I think Robbie Grossman is a perfect fit for them, but I'm not entirely sold on Iglesias.  Especially since they already have Kenley Jansen, so Iglesias will be a setup guy.  I can't say they're better than the Mets, who only made minor moves, but ones that filled their holes nicely.

There are also a few teams where I'm just flat out confused by what they did.  One is the Cubs, who held on to Willson Contreras, the one guy everybody assumed would be traded.  It's not like they kept him because they think they have a chance at the playoffs, either.  And it's highly doubtful they'll be able to re-sign him, so why not get somebody else's prospects in the deal?

I'm also confused by the Red Sox.  A few days ago, it looked like they were sellers who were shedding salary so that they can pay Rafael Devers in the offseason.  Then today they went and picked up Tommy Pham, who I'm not sure where they intend to play since they have Alex Verdugo in left, and Eric Hosmer, who was originally supposed to go to Washington in the Soto deal, but invoked his no-trade clause and ended up in Boston instead.  At least with Hosmer, he fills a position they actually need and this isn't like last year's Kyle Schwarber-at-first base experiment.

All this to be what figures, at best, a wild card team.  They're not better than the Yankees.  They're not better than the Astros.  They're not better than the Twins.  They might not even be better than the Blue Jays or Mariners.  Which is why I don't get the half-buy/half-sell thing the Red Sox did.

That's the craziest thing about this trade deadline.  Did a lot of teams get better?  Yes.  But, no matter how good other teams got, it didn't really change the pecking order.  The AL's still gonna come down to the Yankees and Astros, and the NL's still a battle between the Dodgers and Mets.  Although, as the Braves proved last year, a good trade deadline can make all the difference in October.