If there was one good thing about the Olympics being postponed until next summer, it's that the IOC and the different international federations didn't have to deal with the issue of political protests. The events of this summer have obviously made the athlete activist more prevalent than ever, especially in the United States...and you know there are American athletes who would've protested on the medals stand in Tokyo, whether it was "allowed" or not. Now the IOC has time to come up with some sort of plan that, while it might not make everybody happy, will at least be a reasonable compromise.
IOC rules are very clear in that "no political demonstrations are allowed on the field of play or medals stand." American athletes don't like this rule, but it's a good one that exists for a good purpose. You're dealing with athletes from 205 different countries. They don't all share the same ideologies. So, one athlete might be protesting for something that their competitor might be against. Neither is "right." Neither is "wrong." And they're both entitled to have their conflicting opinions.
Likewise, an act of protest is as much about the athlete as it is about the issue. The athletes know this. That's part of the reason they do it. They want to draw that attention to themselves. So, regardless of the motivation, the act is selfish.
And, again, you're talking about 205 different nations here! Triple jumper Christian Taylor is one of the most outspoken advocates of "athletes' rights." But what Taylor fails to understand is that not everyone thinks the way he thinks. As an American, he takes things like freedom of speech and freedom of expression for granted. Those are foreign concepts in a lot of other societies.
So, while Taylor and Co. may think the ability to protest is a "right" that they're unfairly being denied, that sentiment is not shared by all athletes around the world. And the IOC needs to consider the feelings of those athletes, as well.
They also want to avoid situations like what happened at last year's Swimming World Championships, where Australia's Mack Horton refused to take the medals stand with China's Sun Yang, who was allowed to compete despite a pending doping suspension. The reaction was mixed to say the least. A lot of people praised Horton for taking a stand (metaphorically). But there were also plenty of people who criticized Horton for making it about himself. And the level of criticism will only be magnified in Tokyo.
This important topic was discussed by the IOC Athletes' Commission at its virtual meeting a few weeks ago, and the results were telling. There was no clear consensus one way or the other. Some athletes favored abolishing the rule. Some were fine with it as-is. Others would like to see it amended and perhaps define what's acceptable and what's not.
The point is there's no simple solution. That was never going to be the case. Somebody's not gonna be happy either way. If the rule is kept in place, you'll have a group of (mostly American) athletes who are upset about being denied their "right" to protest. If the rule is changed, you'll have a group of athletes who are upset when others are protesting during the medals ceremony, potentially hijacking a moment that they've worked their entire lives for.
It's a difficult balance that the IOC must find here, and they still might not have a solution to this very complex problem even with the extra year. IOC President Thomas Bach, an Olympic gold medalist himself, doesn't appear to be completely opposed to the idea. However, he also cautioned that that a clear distinction needs to be made between suitable forms of protest and "divisive demonstrations."
One potential solution proposed by the Athletes' Commission was to have a moment of silence at the Opening Ceremony in Tokyo. Kikkan Randall, a gold medalist in PyeongChang and member of both the IOC Athletes' Commission and USOPC board, thinks that could be a "really powerful statement to the world."
I agree with her. That would be an excellent compromise. It would be an excellent demonstration of worldwide solidarity, too. While it probably wouldn't be enough to satisfy those athletes who still want the ability to protest individually, it would still show them that their voices aren't being ignored. More importantly, it's not specific, which is key. Because once you start getting into specific causes, you run the risk of offending/alienating those who disagree.
Maybe there's a way to individually protest within the rules, though. That solution was provided by American Noah Lyles, who figures to be one of the sprinting stars of the Tokyo Games. When he was introduced prior to his race at the Monaco Diamond League meet, Lyles lowered his head and raised his fist. It was simple, personal and inoffensive. And it got the point across.
That's easier said and done in a sport like track & field or swimming, where they have individual introductions. But it does seem like it could work in the other sports, as well, which makes it perhaps the best solution of all. Athletes would have their opportunity to express themselves without tainting the medals ceremony with a political statement that others may not agree with.
Regardless, there will be athletes who want to protest in Tokyo. Especially in the politically-charged environment of the past several months (that doesn't figure to calm down before next summer). The IOC's challenge will be to find a way to accommodate their desire to protest with their own desire to keep politics out of the Olympics. It's a daunting task to be sure.
Saturday, August 15, 2020
Friday, August 14, 2020
Where's the Originality?
The MLS expansion team in St. Louis has announced its name. And they continued in the recent MLS trend of not being creative at all. Instead, they became the latest MLS team to name their team the European way, going with the ultra-original "St. Louis City FC."
MLS has expanded significantly over the past several years. St. Louis will be the league's 30th team, and the 12th added since 2015. Of those 12 teams, eight have some variation of "(City) FC/SC." There are also two "Uniteds," 2017 additions Atlanta and Minnesota, and David Beckham added "Inter" before Miami (naturally in a nod to Inter Milan). The only exception is Sacramento Republic FC, which is simply keeping the name of the existing USL club when it joins MLS in 2023.
Once all four expansion teams (also Austin FC and Charlotte FC) begin play, more than half of MLS will have European-style names. The number will either be 17 or 18, depending on how you want to count the New York Red Bulls (this might be the first time that I didn't call them the MetroStars). And nearly all of those teams have joined MLS as expansion franchises over the past 15 years.
That hasn't always been the case. When MLS debuted, virtually every team had a nickname common to other North American professional franchises. The only exception was DC United. That remained the case until 2005, when the Dallas Burn changed their name to FC Dallas. The 2005 season also marked the debut of an expansion team in Salt Lake City, which got the whole European-style thing started when it bypassed the traditional naming convention and named itself "Real Salt Lake." (There was also a second LA team that debuted that season, "Chivas USA," which was partly owned by the owners of the Mexican team known as "Chivas.") Since then, we've seen more European-style names than not.
We're even seeing it at the lower levels. The USL is the second tier of North American professional soccer. A lot of MLS expansion teams are successful USL franchises in larger markets that have shown they can support an MLS club. And even the USL has become overrun with "FCs" and "SCs."
Over the first decade or so of MLS, the league wasn't taken very seriously. There were a number of reasons for this, and the team names were one of those reasons. Some of that criticism was warranted. A lot of it was not. But MLS franchises were particularly sensitive to the name thing.
Everyone likes to compare MLS to European leagues. And one of the trademarks of European leagues is that the teams have "traditional" names. They all have unofficial nicknames that are used by their supporters, but the formal name of the teams is the standard "(City Name) FC" or something similar. So, I guess as a way to legitimize themselves, MLS teams started adopting that naming convention. (Although, it's worth noting that the sport is called "soccer" here. We all know what "FC" means, but it comes off as a bit pretentious when North America's "football" is a completely different sport.)
Does any of this make an actual difference? Of course not! Teams are free to name themselves whatever they like. But that change in how MLS clubs are named can is almost directly proportional to the growth of soccer in the U.S. More specifically, the increased popularity of European soccer in the U.S.
All four of the biggest European domestic leagues have U.S. TV deals. NBCSN pays a fortune for the Premier League and shows like five games a weekend. England's not your cup of tea? That's OK. The Bundesliga is on FS1. Or you can watch La Liga on beIN, with the occasional Serie A game making its way onto ESPN. The Champions League has had a bit of a vagabond existence, with its U.S. TV rights moving to CBS Sports Network during the pause.
It's not a fair comparison to rate the quality of play in the top European leagues with the quality of play in MLS. But what MLS teams can do to make people think of these European clubs is adopting similar names. Which is why, you'll notice, it's only soccer teams that have taken the European naming convention. Every other expansion team in every other sport, goes with the American standard of "Location Nickname."
Here's the thing, though. No one is going to confuse an MLS team with a European team. So what exactly is the point of using the European name style? Is it because that feels more legitimate? Is it because they think they'll be taken more seriously if they're known as "(City) Football Club" instead of by whatever nickname they choose?
If that's the case, there's nothing wrong with it. It's just so boring and unoriginal, though. Your name is your identity. People were anxiously waiting for months to see what Seattle was going to name its hockey team. Now we're waiting just as anxiously to find out what the Artists Formerly Known as the Washington Redskins will be known as moving forward. (Their temporary name, the "Washington Football Team," would fit right in with MLS. I can even envision a nice little intercity rivalry with DC United.)
Maybe the problem is that the unoriginal has also become the predictable. When Real Salt Lake joined the league, their name was unique. At the time, everybody except for DC United had an American-style name. But do you know the last time a team joined MLS with a name that was more than simply "(City) FC/SC" or "(Place) United"? 2012, when the Montreal Impact joined MLS from the USL. The last team to enter the league as a brand new franchise that actually has a nickname is the Philadelphia Union, who joined in 2010.
Since then, MLS has added 15 teams. The only four with actual nicknames (Montreal Impact, Portland Timbers, Vancouver Whitecaps, Sacramento Republic) were elevated from USL. Everyone else has a European-style name. It's become boring in more than one sense. Not only do the names lack any sort of creativity, everybody has essentially the same name!
How can teams develop their own identities when the only difference in their names is the city? It's confusing! Sure, it doesn't matter to their own fans, but when those same fans refer to their team by the nickname they came up with for them, no one's gonna know who they're talking about! Likewise, if you say "the Sounders" or "the Galaxy," everybody knows who you mean. All the FCs and SCs and Uniteds have to be referred to by just their city name, though. That doesn't really do much to promote a brand.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with any of this. If that's what they want to do, it's their prerogative. (Full disclosure, my favorite MLS team is New York City FC.) I'd just like to see the MLS teams work a little harder to build their own identity. Just because you're a soccer team (sorry "football club"), you don't have to copy what's done in Europe. You're not in Europe. You're in North America. You should embrace that. And one way to embrace that is to have an American-style name.
MLS has expanded significantly over the past several years. St. Louis will be the league's 30th team, and the 12th added since 2015. Of those 12 teams, eight have some variation of "(City) FC/SC." There are also two "Uniteds," 2017 additions Atlanta and Minnesota, and David Beckham added "Inter" before Miami (naturally in a nod to Inter Milan). The only exception is Sacramento Republic FC, which is simply keeping the name of the existing USL club when it joins MLS in 2023.
Once all four expansion teams (also Austin FC and Charlotte FC) begin play, more than half of MLS will have European-style names. The number will either be 17 or 18, depending on how you want to count the New York Red Bulls (this might be the first time that I didn't call them the MetroStars). And nearly all of those teams have joined MLS as expansion franchises over the past 15 years.
That hasn't always been the case. When MLS debuted, virtually every team had a nickname common to other North American professional franchises. The only exception was DC United. That remained the case until 2005, when the Dallas Burn changed their name to FC Dallas. The 2005 season also marked the debut of an expansion team in Salt Lake City, which got the whole European-style thing started when it bypassed the traditional naming convention and named itself "Real Salt Lake." (There was also a second LA team that debuted that season, "Chivas USA," which was partly owned by the owners of the Mexican team known as "Chivas.") Since then, we've seen more European-style names than not.
We're even seeing it at the lower levels. The USL is the second tier of North American professional soccer. A lot of MLS expansion teams are successful USL franchises in larger markets that have shown they can support an MLS club. And even the USL has become overrun with "FCs" and "SCs."
Over the first decade or so of MLS, the league wasn't taken very seriously. There were a number of reasons for this, and the team names were one of those reasons. Some of that criticism was warranted. A lot of it was not. But MLS franchises were particularly sensitive to the name thing.
Everyone likes to compare MLS to European leagues. And one of the trademarks of European leagues is that the teams have "traditional" names. They all have unofficial nicknames that are used by their supporters, but the formal name of the teams is the standard "(City Name) FC" or something similar. So, I guess as a way to legitimize themselves, MLS teams started adopting that naming convention. (Although, it's worth noting that the sport is called "soccer" here. We all know what "FC" means, but it comes off as a bit pretentious when North America's "football" is a completely different sport.)
Does any of this make an actual difference? Of course not! Teams are free to name themselves whatever they like. But that change in how MLS clubs are named can is almost directly proportional to the growth of soccer in the U.S. More specifically, the increased popularity of European soccer in the U.S.
All four of the biggest European domestic leagues have U.S. TV deals. NBCSN pays a fortune for the Premier League and shows like five games a weekend. England's not your cup of tea? That's OK. The Bundesliga is on FS1. Or you can watch La Liga on beIN, with the occasional Serie A game making its way onto ESPN. The Champions League has had a bit of a vagabond existence, with its U.S. TV rights moving to CBS Sports Network during the pause.
It's not a fair comparison to rate the quality of play in the top European leagues with the quality of play in MLS. But what MLS teams can do to make people think of these European clubs is adopting similar names. Which is why, you'll notice, it's only soccer teams that have taken the European naming convention. Every other expansion team in every other sport, goes with the American standard of "Location Nickname."
Here's the thing, though. No one is going to confuse an MLS team with a European team. So what exactly is the point of using the European name style? Is it because that feels more legitimate? Is it because they think they'll be taken more seriously if they're known as "(City) Football Club" instead of by whatever nickname they choose?
If that's the case, there's nothing wrong with it. It's just so boring and unoriginal, though. Your name is your identity. People were anxiously waiting for months to see what Seattle was going to name its hockey team. Now we're waiting just as anxiously to find out what the Artists Formerly Known as the Washington Redskins will be known as moving forward. (Their temporary name, the "Washington Football Team," would fit right in with MLS. I can even envision a nice little intercity rivalry with DC United.)
Maybe the problem is that the unoriginal has also become the predictable. When Real Salt Lake joined the league, their name was unique. At the time, everybody except for DC United had an American-style name. But do you know the last time a team joined MLS with a name that was more than simply "(City) FC/SC" or "(Place) United"? 2012, when the Montreal Impact joined MLS from the USL. The last team to enter the league as a brand new franchise that actually has a nickname is the Philadelphia Union, who joined in 2010.
Since then, MLS has added 15 teams. The only four with actual nicknames (Montreal Impact, Portland Timbers, Vancouver Whitecaps, Sacramento Republic) were elevated from USL. Everyone else has a European-style name. It's become boring in more than one sense. Not only do the names lack any sort of creativity, everybody has essentially the same name!
How can teams develop their own identities when the only difference in their names is the city? It's confusing! Sure, it doesn't matter to their own fans, but when those same fans refer to their team by the nickname they came up with for them, no one's gonna know who they're talking about! Likewise, if you say "the Sounders" or "the Galaxy," everybody knows who you mean. All the FCs and SCs and Uniteds have to be referred to by just their city name, though. That doesn't really do much to promote a brand.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with any of this. If that's what they want to do, it's their prerogative. (Full disclosure, my favorite MLS team is New York City FC.) I'd just like to see the MLS teams work a little harder to build their own identity. Just because you're a soccer team (sorry "football club"), you don't have to copy what's done in Europe. You're not in Europe. You're in North America. You should embrace that. And one way to embrace that is to have an American-style name.
Wednesday, August 12, 2020
College Football On the Brink
As more and more conferences started postponing or cancelling their fall seasons, you had to wonder how long the Power 5 leagues would be able to hold out. You knew that they were going to do everything in their power to play, but, as the dominoes kept falling, you knew that possibility became smaller and smaller by the day. It eventually became a matter of who would accept the inevitable first.
The answer to that question was the Big Ten, which made the call one day after its Midwestern neighbors, the Mid-American Conference. The Pac-12 (which was my bet to be the one) followed suit soon after, leaving the SEC, ACC and Big 12 as the outliers. Those three still want to play and are going to try. But, again, how long until they're faced with the inevitable?
I get it. The prospect of not playing football this fall is something that they don't want to think about. But, like it or not, that's the reality we're living in. And the idea of playing college football in states that are still in the midst of the outbreak comes off as any combination of greedy, inappropriate and tone-deaf. It also shows how misplaced the priorities are at the schools that are still full-speed ahead preparing for a season that almost assuredly won't happen.
There's so much money involved in college football that it makes sense they were going to do everything they could to play if possible. The financial impact of not playing will be devastating to athletic departments that have already taken a massive hit because of the cancellation of March Madness. Not to mention the impact it'll have on the communities in those college towns with local businesses that are dependent on football Saturdays. So the desire to play was obvious.
However, the writing's been on the wall for months. They were just unwilling to see it. Or unwilling to accept it. Either way, the optics were terrible. You've got these football teams back on campus acting as if everything was normal while you've got other students at the same universities preparing to start the semester with online-only classes.
It's also worth noting that there are more fall sports than just football. Soccer, volleyball, cross country and field hockey are the seemingly forgotten pawns in the desire to salvage the football season. Nobody cares if those seasons happen. All they care about is football. But they can't have just football, so those other student-athletes were set to be collateral damage. Whether they wanted to return or if was safe for them to do so is irrelevant.
Everybody wishes things were different. When the NCAA cancelled everything and the sports world came to a grinding halt in March, we were all hopeful that life would be on its way back to normal by now. That wouldn't just mean college sports returning. It would also mean college campuses full of students. Unfortunately, none of those things are going to happen.
Those coaches and administrators who've been advocating playing a season and think it can be done safely point to the success of the NBA and NHL bubbles. The NBA and NHL have both done a tremendous job since their restarts. Neither league has had a positive test. Those bubbles are vastly different than a college campus, though.
College athletes, by definition, are college students. College students live and interact with other college students on a daily basis. They can't be isolated the way NBA and NHL players can in their respective bubbles. And, as we've already seen with some programs, the more interaction you have (especially if you don't take the proper precautions), the more likely it is you'll become infected. And in a contact sport like football, one infection can easily spread among an entire team, which would put also put their opponents at risk.
And, frankly, playing football this fall is a lawsuit waiting to happen. The players might say they want to play, and they might comply with all the testing and other precautions. That doesn't make them immune from infection. And as soon as there's one positive test, all liability waivers aside, the school might as well have the lawyers on standby. Especially if that player takes the field in a game, exposing players on both teams!
Simply put, playing college football this fall isn't worth it. There's still too much risk involved. I wish that wasn't the case, but wishful thinking isn't going to get us out of this nightmare. Fortunately, the Big Ten presidents and AD's made the right decision, which could not have been easy. It's not something any of them wanted to do. But they knew it was something they had to do. And they should be commended for it.
Players and coaches in the three remaining conferences were quick to jump on the Big Ten and Pac-12's decisions as "rash" and "too early." Yes, they had moved to conference-only schedules and pushed the start date back, but even that didn't guarantee a season was going to happen. And if the end result was ultimately going to be no fall football season, what difference does the timing make?
In fact, I'd argue the earlier, the better. The uncertainty is gone. You don't have players preparing for a season that they had to know was unlikely to happen all along. Big Ten and Pac-12 players at least know what's going on and can plan accordingly. Imagine what things are like for players in the ACC, SEC and Big 12, though. They have to keep going through preseason practices for a season that may or may not happen.
Moving the season to the spring has been floated as a possibility, but, to me, that doesn't seem like a viable option. Those who are advocating for a spring season either have no idea or don't care about the logistics that would be required (and the strain it would put on the athletic staff). Not to mention how it would affect the NFL Draft. Or the fact that moving the season to the spring would mean asking the players to play two full seasons in one calendar year.
Also, and I can't stress this enough, you wouldn't just be moving football to the spring. You'd be moving all fall sports. Which sounds great in theory but is impractical in reality (especially since the NCAA won't reschedule the championships in those sports). And, frankly, how fair would that be to the spring sport athletes, who already lost last season? Now you're gonna ask them to have a second consecutive season impacted so you can accommodate the fall athletes? And why should they have to lose a season when the fall athletes can simply have theirs rescheduled?
Thinking about college football returning in the fall gave a lot of people hope during the early months of the pandemic. It was a sense of normalcy that they craved while every aspect of daily life was upended all around them. As it turns out, that ended up being just a pipe dream. Life isn't back to normal. Not by a long shot. And as a result, something that was once unthinkable--an autumn without college football--will become a reality. Why? Because...2020.
The answer to that question was the Big Ten, which made the call one day after its Midwestern neighbors, the Mid-American Conference. The Pac-12 (which was my bet to be the one) followed suit soon after, leaving the SEC, ACC and Big 12 as the outliers. Those three still want to play and are going to try. But, again, how long until they're faced with the inevitable?
I get it. The prospect of not playing football this fall is something that they don't want to think about. But, like it or not, that's the reality we're living in. And the idea of playing college football in states that are still in the midst of the outbreak comes off as any combination of greedy, inappropriate and tone-deaf. It also shows how misplaced the priorities are at the schools that are still full-speed ahead preparing for a season that almost assuredly won't happen.
There's so much money involved in college football that it makes sense they were going to do everything they could to play if possible. The financial impact of not playing will be devastating to athletic departments that have already taken a massive hit because of the cancellation of March Madness. Not to mention the impact it'll have on the communities in those college towns with local businesses that are dependent on football Saturdays. So the desire to play was obvious.
However, the writing's been on the wall for months. They were just unwilling to see it. Or unwilling to accept it. Either way, the optics were terrible. You've got these football teams back on campus acting as if everything was normal while you've got other students at the same universities preparing to start the semester with online-only classes.
It's also worth noting that there are more fall sports than just football. Soccer, volleyball, cross country and field hockey are the seemingly forgotten pawns in the desire to salvage the football season. Nobody cares if those seasons happen. All they care about is football. But they can't have just football, so those other student-athletes were set to be collateral damage. Whether they wanted to return or if was safe for them to do so is irrelevant.
Everybody wishes things were different. When the NCAA cancelled everything and the sports world came to a grinding halt in March, we were all hopeful that life would be on its way back to normal by now. That wouldn't just mean college sports returning. It would also mean college campuses full of students. Unfortunately, none of those things are going to happen.
Those coaches and administrators who've been advocating playing a season and think it can be done safely point to the success of the NBA and NHL bubbles. The NBA and NHL have both done a tremendous job since their restarts. Neither league has had a positive test. Those bubbles are vastly different than a college campus, though.
College athletes, by definition, are college students. College students live and interact with other college students on a daily basis. They can't be isolated the way NBA and NHL players can in their respective bubbles. And, as we've already seen with some programs, the more interaction you have (especially if you don't take the proper precautions), the more likely it is you'll become infected. And in a contact sport like football, one infection can easily spread among an entire team, which would put also put their opponents at risk.
And, frankly, playing football this fall is a lawsuit waiting to happen. The players might say they want to play, and they might comply with all the testing and other precautions. That doesn't make them immune from infection. And as soon as there's one positive test, all liability waivers aside, the school might as well have the lawyers on standby. Especially if that player takes the field in a game, exposing players on both teams!
Simply put, playing college football this fall isn't worth it. There's still too much risk involved. I wish that wasn't the case, but wishful thinking isn't going to get us out of this nightmare. Fortunately, the Big Ten presidents and AD's made the right decision, which could not have been easy. It's not something any of them wanted to do. But they knew it was something they had to do. And they should be commended for it.
Players and coaches in the three remaining conferences were quick to jump on the Big Ten and Pac-12's decisions as "rash" and "too early." Yes, they had moved to conference-only schedules and pushed the start date back, but even that didn't guarantee a season was going to happen. And if the end result was ultimately going to be no fall football season, what difference does the timing make?
In fact, I'd argue the earlier, the better. The uncertainty is gone. You don't have players preparing for a season that they had to know was unlikely to happen all along. Big Ten and Pac-12 players at least know what's going on and can plan accordingly. Imagine what things are like for players in the ACC, SEC and Big 12, though. They have to keep going through preseason practices for a season that may or may not happen.
Moving the season to the spring has been floated as a possibility, but, to me, that doesn't seem like a viable option. Those who are advocating for a spring season either have no idea or don't care about the logistics that would be required (and the strain it would put on the athletic staff). Not to mention how it would affect the NFL Draft. Or the fact that moving the season to the spring would mean asking the players to play two full seasons in one calendar year.
Also, and I can't stress this enough, you wouldn't just be moving football to the spring. You'd be moving all fall sports. Which sounds great in theory but is impractical in reality (especially since the NCAA won't reschedule the championships in those sports). And, frankly, how fair would that be to the spring sport athletes, who already lost last season? Now you're gonna ask them to have a second consecutive season impacted so you can accommodate the fall athletes? And why should they have to lose a season when the fall athletes can simply have theirs rescheduled?
Thinking about college football returning in the fall gave a lot of people hope during the early months of the pandemic. It was a sense of normalcy that they craved while every aspect of daily life was upended all around them. As it turns out, that ended up being just a pipe dream. Life isn't back to normal. Not by a long shot. And as a result, something that was once unthinkable--an autumn without college football--will become a reality. Why? Because...2020.
Monday, August 10, 2020
One Round Done, Four to Go
There were definitely a few surprises during the first week of the Stanley Cup Playoffs. For starters, both 12 seeds advanced (even when there's no NCAA Tournament, we still get 12-5 upsets!). One of those 5-seeds was Edmonton, which clearly didn't enjoy the home ice advantage nearly as much as I thought they would. Neither did Toronto. Both home teams getting eliminated in the Qualifiers definitely ranks high up there among the unexpected happenings.
Another unexpected happening was how competitive each series was. Only Columbus-Toronto went five, but six others went four. Only Hurricanes-Rangers was a sweep, and even then, the Rangers showed they're gonna be a force relatively soon. And that process will only be sped up now that they've won the lottery and will get the No. 1 pick, which will likely be Alexis Lafreniere, who they can pair with Kaapo Kakko, last year's No. 2 pick, for years to come.
We also saw both teams that entered the round robin with the most points in their conference fail to win a game and end up with the 4-seed. Although, I'm not sure how much we can take away from that. Boston certainly looked flat, but the round robin games were essentially tune-ups. Since all of the games are being played at a neutral site, the seeding doesn't matter as much as it usually would, so you'd have to wonder if that thought process came into play at all. If it did, that may explain why the Bruins and Blues didn't look so great last week.
Overall, though, it was certainly playoff-quality hockey. After four-and-a-half months off, and playing at a time that they aren't used to, we weren't sure if that would be the case. But it was answered pretty quickly with a definitive "Yes!" In virtually every series!
And you'd have to expect that will only continue as we get into the Stanley Cup Playoffs proper. The teams that came out of the Qualifiers have a week's worth of playoff games under their belts already. The teams that played in the round robin, meanwhile, did so because they're the better teams.
I'm curious whether that's going to have an impact. The round robins were competitive games that mattered, but that's not the same as the intensity of a series. The lower seeds had to shift into playoff mode right away, and they've already got one round under their belts. That's no small thing. Besides, this is the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Lower seeded teams win all the time. In fact, what would be shocking is if all eight teams that had first-round byes advance.
EASTERN CONFERENCE
Flyers vs. Canadiens: Was any team more impressive in the round robin than the Philadelphia Flyers? They rolled past the top three teams in the Eastern Conference during the regular season, and they did so in dominant fashion! The Flyers have been far and away the best team in Toronto. I don't want to write off Montreal, though. I did that prior to the Qualifier and look what happened! So, the question really becomes: Can Carey Price steal them another series? He might get them a game or two, but if the Flyers play the way they did last week, I don't see Montreal winning four. Flyers in six.
Lightning vs. Blue Jackets: Remember what happened last year between these two? The Lightning sure do! They've been waiting more than a year for a chance at redemption. Now it comes against the same team that they laid an absolute egg against in 2019. Of course, it's not going to be easy without Steven Stamkos or Victor Hedman. We do know that Tampa Bay won't take Columbus lightly this time, though. And I think the team with something to prove will prove it. Lightning in six.
Capitals vs. Islanders: On paper, this is probably the most competitive first-round series in the East. Except for half of Game 3, the Islanders looked great against Florida. Meanwhile, Washington looked somewhat shaky in the round robin. The Capitals got better with each game, though, so maybe they were simply building up to playoff-ready. Washington has more talent, but, don't forget, Islanders coach Barry Trotz used to coach the Capitals. He knows those guys inside and out. That could make a huge difference. Either way, I see this one going seven. And, as we know, Game 7's are always a toss-up. Capitals in seven.
Bruins vs. Hurricanes: Perhaps I underestimated the Carolina Hurricanes. Because that team's defense is tight. As the Rangers found out, good luck coming back if Carolina scores first. Maybe it wasn't a fluke that they made the Eastern Conference Final last season, where they lost to...Boston! The Bruins looked nothing like the dominant team that won the President's Trophy over their first three games in the bubble, though. If they don't want to be upset here, they'll need to turn it on. Quick. If the Bruins play the way they did against Tampa Bay and Philadelphia, this could be a short series. And not in Boston's favor. Hurricanes in five.
WESTERN CONFERENCE
Golden Knights vs. Blackhawks: Never count out the Chicago Blackhawks in the playoffs! We should all know that by now, but for some reason, we all forgot in the Edmonton series. Can they do it again? After what they did against a superior Oilers team, don't count them out. Even against the Golden Knights. Vegas got strong goaltending from Robin Lehner in the round robin, which is one of the main reasons why they ended up with the 1-seed. He'll need to be just as strong against Chicago. Because if the Blackhawks carry over their momentum and confidence into this series, they could pull another upset. Blackhawks in six.
Avalanche vs. Coyotes: To show you just how much I know, I though the two weakest teams entering their respective bubbles were Montreal in the East and Arizona in the West. They both won their Qualifier. The first round may be where the Coyotes' run ends, however. Colorado is loaded from top to bottom. Yes, they lost their last round robin game to the Golden Knights, but I still think the Avalanche have been the most impressive team of the 12 in Edmonton. They'll make quick work of the Coyotes. Avalanche in four.
Stars vs. Flames: With the Oilers out, the Flames become Canada's best chance to hoist the Cup. And they've definitely got a shot against Dallas. In fact, I'd be surprised if Calgary doesn't win this series. Look what they did to Winnipeg! Granted, the Jets finished that series short-handed, but the Flames still looked mighty impressive. Plus, they got solid goaltending from Cam Talbot, which only makes them that much better. Flames in six.
Blues vs. Canucks: Unlike their 2019 Stanley Cup Final opponents, the Blues didn't look completely flat during the round robin. In fact, Craig Berube stressed how he felt good about the way his team played in the Dallas game. It almost didn't matter that they lost all three games. It certainly looks like they were ramping themselves up. The postseason starts now for St. Louis. And the defending champs will be very tough to beat. Blues in five.
Another unexpected happening was how competitive each series was. Only Columbus-Toronto went five, but six others went four. Only Hurricanes-Rangers was a sweep, and even then, the Rangers showed they're gonna be a force relatively soon. And that process will only be sped up now that they've won the lottery and will get the No. 1 pick, which will likely be Alexis Lafreniere, who they can pair with Kaapo Kakko, last year's No. 2 pick, for years to come.
We also saw both teams that entered the round robin with the most points in their conference fail to win a game and end up with the 4-seed. Although, I'm not sure how much we can take away from that. Boston certainly looked flat, but the round robin games were essentially tune-ups. Since all of the games are being played at a neutral site, the seeding doesn't matter as much as it usually would, so you'd have to wonder if that thought process came into play at all. If it did, that may explain why the Bruins and Blues didn't look so great last week.
Overall, though, it was certainly playoff-quality hockey. After four-and-a-half months off, and playing at a time that they aren't used to, we weren't sure if that would be the case. But it was answered pretty quickly with a definitive "Yes!" In virtually every series!
And you'd have to expect that will only continue as we get into the Stanley Cup Playoffs proper. The teams that came out of the Qualifiers have a week's worth of playoff games under their belts already. The teams that played in the round robin, meanwhile, did so because they're the better teams.
I'm curious whether that's going to have an impact. The round robins were competitive games that mattered, but that's not the same as the intensity of a series. The lower seeds had to shift into playoff mode right away, and they've already got one round under their belts. That's no small thing. Besides, this is the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Lower seeded teams win all the time. In fact, what would be shocking is if all eight teams that had first-round byes advance.
EASTERN CONFERENCE
Flyers vs. Canadiens: Was any team more impressive in the round robin than the Philadelphia Flyers? They rolled past the top three teams in the Eastern Conference during the regular season, and they did so in dominant fashion! The Flyers have been far and away the best team in Toronto. I don't want to write off Montreal, though. I did that prior to the Qualifier and look what happened! So, the question really becomes: Can Carey Price steal them another series? He might get them a game or two, but if the Flyers play the way they did last week, I don't see Montreal winning four. Flyers in six.
Lightning vs. Blue Jackets: Remember what happened last year between these two? The Lightning sure do! They've been waiting more than a year for a chance at redemption. Now it comes against the same team that they laid an absolute egg against in 2019. Of course, it's not going to be easy without Steven Stamkos or Victor Hedman. We do know that Tampa Bay won't take Columbus lightly this time, though. And I think the team with something to prove will prove it. Lightning in six.
Capitals vs. Islanders: On paper, this is probably the most competitive first-round series in the East. Except for half of Game 3, the Islanders looked great against Florida. Meanwhile, Washington looked somewhat shaky in the round robin. The Capitals got better with each game, though, so maybe they were simply building up to playoff-ready. Washington has more talent, but, don't forget, Islanders coach Barry Trotz used to coach the Capitals. He knows those guys inside and out. That could make a huge difference. Either way, I see this one going seven. And, as we know, Game 7's are always a toss-up. Capitals in seven.
Bruins vs. Hurricanes: Perhaps I underestimated the Carolina Hurricanes. Because that team's defense is tight. As the Rangers found out, good luck coming back if Carolina scores first. Maybe it wasn't a fluke that they made the Eastern Conference Final last season, where they lost to...Boston! The Bruins looked nothing like the dominant team that won the President's Trophy over their first three games in the bubble, though. If they don't want to be upset here, they'll need to turn it on. Quick. If the Bruins play the way they did against Tampa Bay and Philadelphia, this could be a short series. And not in Boston's favor. Hurricanes in five.
WESTERN CONFERENCE
Golden Knights vs. Blackhawks: Never count out the Chicago Blackhawks in the playoffs! We should all know that by now, but for some reason, we all forgot in the Edmonton series. Can they do it again? After what they did against a superior Oilers team, don't count them out. Even against the Golden Knights. Vegas got strong goaltending from Robin Lehner in the round robin, which is one of the main reasons why they ended up with the 1-seed. He'll need to be just as strong against Chicago. Because if the Blackhawks carry over their momentum and confidence into this series, they could pull another upset. Blackhawks in six.
Avalanche vs. Coyotes: To show you just how much I know, I though the two weakest teams entering their respective bubbles were Montreal in the East and Arizona in the West. They both won their Qualifier. The first round may be where the Coyotes' run ends, however. Colorado is loaded from top to bottom. Yes, they lost their last round robin game to the Golden Knights, but I still think the Avalanche have been the most impressive team of the 12 in Edmonton. They'll make quick work of the Coyotes. Avalanche in four.
Stars vs. Flames: With the Oilers out, the Flames become Canada's best chance to hoist the Cup. And they've definitely got a shot against Dallas. In fact, I'd be surprised if Calgary doesn't win this series. Look what they did to Winnipeg! Granted, the Jets finished that series short-handed, but the Flames still looked mighty impressive. Plus, they got solid goaltending from Cam Talbot, which only makes them that much better. Flames in six.
Blues vs. Canucks: Unlike their 2019 Stanley Cup Final opponents, the Blues didn't look completely flat during the round robin. In fact, Craig Berube stressed how he felt good about the way his team played in the Dallas game. It almost didn't matter that they lost all three games. It certainly looks like they were ramping themselves up. The postseason starts now for St. Louis. And the defending champs will be very tough to beat. Blues in five.
Saturday, August 8, 2020
Glorious For a One-Off
Hockey returned last weekend, and it has been glorious! Playoff hockey all day long, starting at noon and ending after midnight. It has gone so well, in fact, that a number of participating players and coaches, as well as some media members, think the expanded Stanley Cup Playoffs should maybe become a permanent thing.
However, the NHL shouldn't get too carried away and wrapped up in all the success of the "bubbles." Because we need to remember what led to this unprecedented 24-team tournament. An extraordinary situation required an extraordinary solution. And that's what this is. An extraordinary solution. It has been exceptional no doubt, but it shouldn't become the norm. Instead it should be celebrated for what it is, a brilliant one-off event marking hockey's return after an unexpected four-month break.
Some of the reasons why this 24-team tournament is working are the exact reasons why the change should not be permanent. The argument that Islanders Coach Barry Trotz, among others, used in favor of playoff expansion is because this tournament has proven that "too many teams are too close." He's right. And that's why going to 24 teams this year was the right thing to do. There were teams just outside playoff spots that may or may not have made it had they been able to complete their regular season. This was the only fair way for their season to end.
There's no need to accommodate the "just-missed" teams in a complete, 82-game season, though. Everyone will have had the same amount of games played and the teams that just missed would've had their chance to qualify. You're three points out with eight games left, that's one thing. But if you play all 82 games and finish three points out, that's something else entirely.
Likewise, the "round robin" for the top four seeds in each conference was designed mainly to give those teams competitive games while the other eight played in the qualifiers. The two teams that had the most points in their conference at the end of the regular season (Boston and St. Louis) won't be the No. 1 seeds in the playoffs. That's fine in a situation like this where everybody's playing on neutral ice, so it really doesn't matter a whole lot.
Under normal circumstances, though, when teams are playing in their own arenas in front of their own fans, that seeding matters. And the best team should be rewarded with home ice advantage. They've earned by having the best record over 82 games.
I'm not exactly sure how a round robin would work under normal circumstances, either. Those four teams are in the "bubble" with everyone else, so it's easy for them to play each other. It doesn't make nearly as much sense when they'd be traveling to each other's arenas for games that amount to nothing other than seeding. In that situation, I'm sure they'd prefer the rest.
More importantly, once Seattle starts play in 2021-22, there will be 32 teams in the NHL. Having 24 teams qualify for the playoffs in a 32-team league is simply too many. That's 75 percent of the league!
It would be like in the 80s, when the NHL had that division-based playoff system and 16 of 21 teams made the playoffs. The regular season was virtually meaningless! Basically all you had to do to qualify for the postseason was not finish last in your division. As a result, there were some bad playoff teams during that era. The NHL is a better, deeper league now than it was then (as evidence by the results of the qualifying round series), but it would still water down the regular season significantly to have all but the bottom four teams in each conference make the playoffs.
Then there's the schedule. The Stanley Cup Playoffs take two months! Adding an extra round with best-of-five series would add 10 days. That would push the Stanley Cup Final into the end of June. That's a lot of arena dates that need to be held, as well as a lot of broadcast slots that NBC and Rogers would need to keep blocked off. And you know the TV partners will need to be consulted before any decision about an expanded postseason is made.
Beyond that, this season involves hockey in August for the first time ever and will end in October (when the season normally starts). Next season won't start until December and will probably run into July. Then the 2021-22 season will most likely have an Olympic break, which will push the playoffs later again. So, we're looking at 2023 before the Stanley Cup is awarded at its normal time in early-mid June again. And that would be using the traditional playoff format.
So, no, permanently expanding the Stanley Cup Playoffs to 24 teams is not a good idea. It works for this unusual season where people have been starved for months for any live sports to watch. And summer hockey certainly fits the bill! Once things are back to normal, though, will there be the same appetite for hockey that we're seeing right now? That's another thing that would need to be considered, because once they're expanded, they can't go back to 16.
Although, there is one element of the 24-team Stanley Cup tournament that should absolutely stay. And that's the conference-based seeding. For years, I've been wanting the NHL to dump the stupid division-based bracket and go back to the 1-8 seeding in each conference. As you know, I've never been a fan of the current playoff format, and this gives them the perfect opportunity to restore the conference seeding that (a) makes so much more sense and (b) is fairer.
Whether this year's unique postseason leads to permanent changes remains to be seen. What I do know, however, is that the first week of the 2020 Stanley Cup Playoffs has been great! And they only promise to get better! So let's just enjoy them for what they are and worry about everything else later.
However, the NHL shouldn't get too carried away and wrapped up in all the success of the "bubbles." Because we need to remember what led to this unprecedented 24-team tournament. An extraordinary situation required an extraordinary solution. And that's what this is. An extraordinary solution. It has been exceptional no doubt, but it shouldn't become the norm. Instead it should be celebrated for what it is, a brilliant one-off event marking hockey's return after an unexpected four-month break.
Some of the reasons why this 24-team tournament is working are the exact reasons why the change should not be permanent. The argument that Islanders Coach Barry Trotz, among others, used in favor of playoff expansion is because this tournament has proven that "too many teams are too close." He's right. And that's why going to 24 teams this year was the right thing to do. There were teams just outside playoff spots that may or may not have made it had they been able to complete their regular season. This was the only fair way for their season to end.
There's no need to accommodate the "just-missed" teams in a complete, 82-game season, though. Everyone will have had the same amount of games played and the teams that just missed would've had their chance to qualify. You're three points out with eight games left, that's one thing. But if you play all 82 games and finish three points out, that's something else entirely.
Likewise, the "round robin" for the top four seeds in each conference was designed mainly to give those teams competitive games while the other eight played in the qualifiers. The two teams that had the most points in their conference at the end of the regular season (Boston and St. Louis) won't be the No. 1 seeds in the playoffs. That's fine in a situation like this where everybody's playing on neutral ice, so it really doesn't matter a whole lot.
Under normal circumstances, though, when teams are playing in their own arenas in front of their own fans, that seeding matters. And the best team should be rewarded with home ice advantage. They've earned by having the best record over 82 games.
I'm not exactly sure how a round robin would work under normal circumstances, either. Those four teams are in the "bubble" with everyone else, so it's easy for them to play each other. It doesn't make nearly as much sense when they'd be traveling to each other's arenas for games that amount to nothing other than seeding. In that situation, I'm sure they'd prefer the rest.
More importantly, once Seattle starts play in 2021-22, there will be 32 teams in the NHL. Having 24 teams qualify for the playoffs in a 32-team league is simply too many. That's 75 percent of the league!
It would be like in the 80s, when the NHL had that division-based playoff system and 16 of 21 teams made the playoffs. The regular season was virtually meaningless! Basically all you had to do to qualify for the postseason was not finish last in your division. As a result, there were some bad playoff teams during that era. The NHL is a better, deeper league now than it was then (as evidence by the results of the qualifying round series), but it would still water down the regular season significantly to have all but the bottom four teams in each conference make the playoffs.
Then there's the schedule. The Stanley Cup Playoffs take two months! Adding an extra round with best-of-five series would add 10 days. That would push the Stanley Cup Final into the end of June. That's a lot of arena dates that need to be held, as well as a lot of broadcast slots that NBC and Rogers would need to keep blocked off. And you know the TV partners will need to be consulted before any decision about an expanded postseason is made.
Beyond that, this season involves hockey in August for the first time ever and will end in October (when the season normally starts). Next season won't start until December and will probably run into July. Then the 2021-22 season will most likely have an Olympic break, which will push the playoffs later again. So, we're looking at 2023 before the Stanley Cup is awarded at its normal time in early-mid June again. And that would be using the traditional playoff format.
So, no, permanently expanding the Stanley Cup Playoffs to 24 teams is not a good idea. It works for this unusual season where people have been starved for months for any live sports to watch. And summer hockey certainly fits the bill! Once things are back to normal, though, will there be the same appetite for hockey that we're seeing right now? That's another thing that would need to be considered, because once they're expanded, they can't go back to 16.
Although, there is one element of the 24-team Stanley Cup tournament that should absolutely stay. And that's the conference-based seeding. For years, I've been wanting the NHL to dump the stupid division-based bracket and go back to the 1-8 seeding in each conference. As you know, I've never been a fan of the current playoff format, and this gives them the perfect opportunity to restore the conference seeding that (a) makes so much more sense and (b) is fairer.
Whether this year's unique postseason leads to permanent changes remains to be seen. What I do know, however, is that the first week of the 2020 Stanley Cup Playoffs has been great! And they only promise to get better! So let's just enjoy them for what they are and worry about everything else later.
Wednesday, August 5, 2020
Time to Pick One
Is it time now for the Angels to finally end the great Shohei Ohtani experiment? When he came over from Japan, he was going to be this new sensation--the first full-time two-way player since Babe Ruth (who only did it for two seasons). One of the main reasons why he picked the Angels was because they were going to let him do both, and they even developed a plan that they were sure would work. He'd pitch on Sundays and DH during the week.
That's similar to what Ohtani did in Japan, which is why both he and the Angels believed in the plan and were convinced he wouldn't have to choose between them. And it did work that first year. In just his second start, Ohtani struck out 12 and gave up only one hit over seven shutout innings against Oakland. He ended up going 4-2 on the mound and hit .285 with 22 home runs to win AL Rookie of the Year honors (even though he shouldn't have, but it's best I avoid that subject).
It's worth noting, however, that Ohtani only pitched 51.2 innings as a rookie. He made just 10 starts, only one of which came after June 6, when he left after four innings with arm trouble. Ohtani wouldn't pitch again until September 2, when he lasted all of 2.1 innings and 49 pitches in his final appearance on the mound before Tommy John surgery.
Because of his Tommy John, Ohtani was limited to DH duty last season. He originally wasn't going to be available as a pitcher this season until sometime in May, but the delay meant that he'd be ready to resume his two-way role when the season began. Ohtani's first start on the mound in nearly two years came on July 26, when he gave up five runs, walked three and didn't get an out against Oakland. His second start wasn't much better: two runs on five walks in 1.2 innings against Houston. Ohtani's 2020 pitching stat line: 2 games, 1.2 IP, 7 R, 8 BB, 3 K, 37.50 ERA.
After that stellar performance against the Astros, Ohtani was diagnosed with a strained elbow. It'll keep him off the mound for 4-6 weeks, which basically means the whole rest of the season. Angels manager Joe Maddon has even admitted that he doesn't expect Ohtani to pitch again this year, but doesn't expect the injury to affect his hitting.
Despite this setback, the Angels still think the Ohtani experiment can work. Maddon flat out said, "I believe he can." He even suggested the abbreviated Summer Camp (which has been blamed for the rash of pitcher injuries over the season's first two weeks) might've contributed to the situation. Maddon wants to see how Ohtani's arm handles a normal Spring Training and a normal number of starts before making any sort of determination about his status.
They're inevitably going to have to make that decision, though. Because, as much as they might want it to work, it's not going to. Ohtani's arm simply hasn't been able to hold up. Fortunately, the arm injuries that have kept him off the mound haven't kept him out of the lineup. But, eventually one of them will. Then you won't have him at all.
I get it. He was their new toy that they wanted to play with as soon as they unwrapped it on Christmas morning. But how often is that new toy broken by New Year's? That's what's happening here. They envision Ohtani as an ace pitcher, but he's made a grand total of 12 appearances on the mound in his three seasons as an Angel. Which really makes you wonder if it's worth it.
For the Angels, it's a great paradox. They have the greatest player in the game in Mike Trout, but have only made one playoff appearance since 2009 (when they were swept by the wild card Royals in 2014). They've been adding the pieces around Trout to have a formidable lineup. Ohtani the DH is a big part of that. Their weakness has been the lack of a front line starter, which they think Ohtani the pitcher can be. That's part of the reason they're so invested in this working and not willing to give up on it just yet.
There's also the fact that Ohtani chose the Angles BECAUSE they told him he'd be able to do both. They want to be men of their word. The fact that Ohtani is represented by Scott Boras is significant, too, since Boras will immediately be out looking for suitors as soon as he gets the first indication the Angels want him to decide. That's an uncomfortable conversation the sides will eventually need to have, though.
Simply put, the Angels can't count on Ohtani as a pitcher. Even with all the things they've done to accommodate him, he hasn't been this reliably "great" No. 1 that was advertised. That's if he's even able to pitch at all. Even then, since he only pitches once a week, he'd be used less than the others, not more. Most starting pitchers make between 2-34 starts in a full 162-game season. Ohtani, assuming he stayed healthy and didn't miss a start, would only make 26-27.
Your ace is supposed to be your horse who you can hand the ball to every five days (and sometimes on three days' rest down the stretch). He's the guy who starts on Opening Day and Game 1 of every playoff series. You don't handle him with kid gloves. Which is exactly what the Angels have done with Ohtani.
Ohtani doesn't want to make a decision because he likes doing both and still thinks he can effectively. But, make no mistake, there's a financial motivation for him too. An ace starting pitcher is one of the most valuable properties in the sport. Just ask Gerrit Cole and the Yankees. More significantly, starting pitchers make a lot more than DHs. And if he's still technically a "two-way" player when he hits free agency, he'll command starting pitcher money, not DH money.
Which is why the Angels will have to be the ones making the decision. And, frankly, it should be a pretty easy one. Ohtani the pitcher hasn't been anywhere near worth the money you're paying him. Ohtani the hitter, meanwhile, has more than held up his end of the bargain. And he's been putting up those offensive numbers while either serving as a two-way player or while unable to pitch because of arm injuries. Imagine what could happen if you took the pitching part out and that guy could really be unleashed!
Major League Baseball obviously wants the two-way thing to work. Ohtani was such a sensation when he came over from Japan, and those first two months of the 2018 season got so many people excited about his potential. They even created a freakin' Shohei Ohtani Rule! (It won't take effect until next year, but there will be restrictions on position players pitching unless they're declared "two-way" players by their team.)
However, it looks like Ohtani's detractors will end up being right. It was a noble attempt, but it looks like this experiment isn't going to work. Could it have worked? Perhaps. But Ohtani's arm will make the decision for everyone. It's the easy decision that was eventually going to be made all along. Because there's a lot more value in 140 games from a middle-of-the-lineup hitter than a pitcher who only makes 25 starts a year (if that).
That's similar to what Ohtani did in Japan, which is why both he and the Angels believed in the plan and were convinced he wouldn't have to choose between them. And it did work that first year. In just his second start, Ohtani struck out 12 and gave up only one hit over seven shutout innings against Oakland. He ended up going 4-2 on the mound and hit .285 with 22 home runs to win AL Rookie of the Year honors (even though he shouldn't have, but it's best I avoid that subject).
It's worth noting, however, that Ohtani only pitched 51.2 innings as a rookie. He made just 10 starts, only one of which came after June 6, when he left after four innings with arm trouble. Ohtani wouldn't pitch again until September 2, when he lasted all of 2.1 innings and 49 pitches in his final appearance on the mound before Tommy John surgery.
Because of his Tommy John, Ohtani was limited to DH duty last season. He originally wasn't going to be available as a pitcher this season until sometime in May, but the delay meant that he'd be ready to resume his two-way role when the season began. Ohtani's first start on the mound in nearly two years came on July 26, when he gave up five runs, walked three and didn't get an out against Oakland. His second start wasn't much better: two runs on five walks in 1.2 innings against Houston. Ohtani's 2020 pitching stat line: 2 games, 1.2 IP, 7 R, 8 BB, 3 K, 37.50 ERA.
After that stellar performance against the Astros, Ohtani was diagnosed with a strained elbow. It'll keep him off the mound for 4-6 weeks, which basically means the whole rest of the season. Angels manager Joe Maddon has even admitted that he doesn't expect Ohtani to pitch again this year, but doesn't expect the injury to affect his hitting.
Despite this setback, the Angels still think the Ohtani experiment can work. Maddon flat out said, "I believe he can." He even suggested the abbreviated Summer Camp (which has been blamed for the rash of pitcher injuries over the season's first two weeks) might've contributed to the situation. Maddon wants to see how Ohtani's arm handles a normal Spring Training and a normal number of starts before making any sort of determination about his status.
They're inevitably going to have to make that decision, though. Because, as much as they might want it to work, it's not going to. Ohtani's arm simply hasn't been able to hold up. Fortunately, the arm injuries that have kept him off the mound haven't kept him out of the lineup. But, eventually one of them will. Then you won't have him at all.
I get it. He was their new toy that they wanted to play with as soon as they unwrapped it on Christmas morning. But how often is that new toy broken by New Year's? That's what's happening here. They envision Ohtani as an ace pitcher, but he's made a grand total of 12 appearances on the mound in his three seasons as an Angel. Which really makes you wonder if it's worth it.
For the Angels, it's a great paradox. They have the greatest player in the game in Mike Trout, but have only made one playoff appearance since 2009 (when they were swept by the wild card Royals in 2014). They've been adding the pieces around Trout to have a formidable lineup. Ohtani the DH is a big part of that. Their weakness has been the lack of a front line starter, which they think Ohtani the pitcher can be. That's part of the reason they're so invested in this working and not willing to give up on it just yet.
There's also the fact that Ohtani chose the Angles BECAUSE they told him he'd be able to do both. They want to be men of their word. The fact that Ohtani is represented by Scott Boras is significant, too, since Boras will immediately be out looking for suitors as soon as he gets the first indication the Angels want him to decide. That's an uncomfortable conversation the sides will eventually need to have, though.
Simply put, the Angels can't count on Ohtani as a pitcher. Even with all the things they've done to accommodate him, he hasn't been this reliably "great" No. 1 that was advertised. That's if he's even able to pitch at all. Even then, since he only pitches once a week, he'd be used less than the others, not more. Most starting pitchers make between 2-34 starts in a full 162-game season. Ohtani, assuming he stayed healthy and didn't miss a start, would only make 26-27.
Your ace is supposed to be your horse who you can hand the ball to every five days (and sometimes on three days' rest down the stretch). He's the guy who starts on Opening Day and Game 1 of every playoff series. You don't handle him with kid gloves. Which is exactly what the Angels have done with Ohtani.
Ohtani doesn't want to make a decision because he likes doing both and still thinks he can effectively. But, make no mistake, there's a financial motivation for him too. An ace starting pitcher is one of the most valuable properties in the sport. Just ask Gerrit Cole and the Yankees. More significantly, starting pitchers make a lot more than DHs. And if he's still technically a "two-way" player when he hits free agency, he'll command starting pitcher money, not DH money.
Which is why the Angels will have to be the ones making the decision. And, frankly, it should be a pretty easy one. Ohtani the pitcher hasn't been anywhere near worth the money you're paying him. Ohtani the hitter, meanwhile, has more than held up his end of the bargain. And he's been putting up those offensive numbers while either serving as a two-way player or while unable to pitch because of arm injuries. Imagine what could happen if you took the pitching part out and that guy could really be unleashed!
Major League Baseball obviously wants the two-way thing to work. Ohtani was such a sensation when he came over from Japan, and those first two months of the 2018 season got so many people excited about his potential. They even created a freakin' Shohei Ohtani Rule! (It won't take effect until next year, but there will be restrictions on position players pitching unless they're declared "two-way" players by their team.)
However, it looks like Ohtani's detractors will end up being right. It was a noble attempt, but it looks like this experiment isn't going to work. Could it have worked? Perhaps. But Ohtani's arm will make the decision for everyone. It's the easy decision that was eventually going to be made all along. Because there's a lot more value in 140 games from a middle-of-the-lineup hitter than a pitcher who only makes 25 starts a year (if that).
Tuesday, August 4, 2020
Russia's Last Chance
It's been five years since the Russian Athletics Federation was suspended from international competition. The doping scandal is, of course, more widespread than the track & field team, but that sport has been the one that's received most of the focus. Mainly because, when it comes to reinstatement, they keep doing things that get in their own way.
Take, for example, their latest transgression. Back in March, World Athletics made the conditions for Russia's eventual reinstatement very clear. They were fined $10 million and ordered to pay $5 million of it by July 1 or face expulsion. That deadline, of course, was not met.
This didn't come as a surprise. The RusAF president acknowledged in the days leading up to the deadline that they simply didn't have the funds to pay the fine and asked World Athletics for more time. Whether or not they were just stalling for time or if they actually are short on funds is a whole separate debate, but with the impact the pandemic has had on the entire global economy, I'll bet there's at least some truth behind that request.
However, it also shows how little regard Russia has for its athletes. Because the federation still, even after all this time, refuses to take this seriously. And the athletes are the ones paying the price. Maria Lasitskene and Sergey Shubenkov haven't had a country to compete for in five years. But at least they were able to compete. Now even that's in jeopardy because of the federation's incompetence.
Whether or not the RusAF agrees with the findings (and they clearly do not) is irrelevant. And they obviously have no remorse, so it's not even worth pulling at that thread. They aren't even being asked to admit that they were wrong Simply put, these are the rules that have been established. All they need to do is play by them. Why that's so hard for them to understand is beyond me!
To their credit, the RusAF has admitted to wrongdoing under the federation's previous leadership. In a move that was egregious even by Russian standards, the former president helped forge documents that "proved" the innocence of a high jumper who had missed doping tests (and was subsequently handed an eight-year suspension). That was a direct violation of the Athletics Integrity Unit's anti-tampering rules and what led to the most recent fine.
In announcing the fine, World Athletics also made it clear that enough was enough. If they didn't make the payment on time, Russia could potentially face expulsion. And when they did, that's exactly what some members of the World Athletics task force wanted to do.
Rune Andersen, the head of the task force, said there "very little in terms of changing the culture of Russian athletics" has been done in the five years since the RusAF was first suspended. He added that the task force has spent "an enormous amount of time and effort to help RusAF reform itself and Russian athletics, for the benefit of all clean Russian athletes." Time and again, however, the federation hasn't held up its end of the bargain.
Perhaps expulsion will be the only way for the RusAF to finally get the message. World Athletics opted against taking that drastic step, though. Instead they threw the Russians a life line. Pay the fine, which is now $6.1 million because of increased legal costs, by August 15 or you will be expelled. And World Athletics President Seb Coe has warned that if they are expelled, the reinstatement process would be "lengthy" and "very difficult."
An expulsion wouldn't just keep the Russian flag and uniform out of international meets, which is already the case. It would also mark an end to the ANA process. It would mean that the clean Russian athletes, who've been allowed to compete as individuals, would suddenly be shut out of competitions, too. Through no fault of their own!
The ANAs are the biggest victims of the RusAF's arrogance and incompetence, yet they've shown incredible loyalty and patience. They haven't been able to wear "Russia" across their chest for the last five years (for some, that's their entire career). With the exception of Darya Klishina, they all had to miss an Olympics because of this. Yet they've put up with it. But now even they're fed up. Lasistskene, especially, has been outspoken in her frustration with the federation and its resistance to change.
And now the ANAs have another option. If they're willing to switch nationalities, Belarus will welcome them. There's at least one athlete who's taken them up on it, and I'd imagine others will follow if Russia is indeed expelled. National loyalty only goes so far. If you're an athlete who has a choice between a country that's allowed to compete internationally and one that isn't, that seems like a pretty easy decision. Competing in the Olympics for somebody else beats not competing in the Olympics at all!
Fortunately, all signs point to the Russians having finally gotten the message. Russian Minister of Sport Oleg Matystin sent a letter to World Athletics and promised the overdue payment would be made by the new deadline. He didn't say where the funds would come from, but did confirm that the ministry was "prepared to support RusAF" and guaranteed that the fine would be paid in full.
If World Athletics doesn't receive the funds by August 15, Russia WILL be expelled. It's no longer a question of "if." It could've happened a month ago, but didn't. When they were given a lifeline, it was made clear they wouldn't get another one. Hopefully that was enough to finally get the message across.
Take, for example, their latest transgression. Back in March, World Athletics made the conditions for Russia's eventual reinstatement very clear. They were fined $10 million and ordered to pay $5 million of it by July 1 or face expulsion. That deadline, of course, was not met.
This didn't come as a surprise. The RusAF president acknowledged in the days leading up to the deadline that they simply didn't have the funds to pay the fine and asked World Athletics for more time. Whether or not they were just stalling for time or if they actually are short on funds is a whole separate debate, but with the impact the pandemic has had on the entire global economy, I'll bet there's at least some truth behind that request.
However, it also shows how little regard Russia has for its athletes. Because the federation still, even after all this time, refuses to take this seriously. And the athletes are the ones paying the price. Maria Lasitskene and Sergey Shubenkov haven't had a country to compete for in five years. But at least they were able to compete. Now even that's in jeopardy because of the federation's incompetence.
Whether or not the RusAF agrees with the findings (and they clearly do not) is irrelevant. And they obviously have no remorse, so it's not even worth pulling at that thread. They aren't even being asked to admit that they were wrong Simply put, these are the rules that have been established. All they need to do is play by them. Why that's so hard for them to understand is beyond me!
To their credit, the RusAF has admitted to wrongdoing under the federation's previous leadership. In a move that was egregious even by Russian standards, the former president helped forge documents that "proved" the innocence of a high jumper who had missed doping tests (and was subsequently handed an eight-year suspension). That was a direct violation of the Athletics Integrity Unit's anti-tampering rules and what led to the most recent fine.
In announcing the fine, World Athletics also made it clear that enough was enough. If they didn't make the payment on time, Russia could potentially face expulsion. And when they did, that's exactly what some members of the World Athletics task force wanted to do.
Rune Andersen, the head of the task force, said there "very little in terms of changing the culture of Russian athletics" has been done in the five years since the RusAF was first suspended. He added that the task force has spent "an enormous amount of time and effort to help RusAF reform itself and Russian athletics, for the benefit of all clean Russian athletes." Time and again, however, the federation hasn't held up its end of the bargain.
Perhaps expulsion will be the only way for the RusAF to finally get the message. World Athletics opted against taking that drastic step, though. Instead they threw the Russians a life line. Pay the fine, which is now $6.1 million because of increased legal costs, by August 15 or you will be expelled. And World Athletics President Seb Coe has warned that if they are expelled, the reinstatement process would be "lengthy" and "very difficult."
An expulsion wouldn't just keep the Russian flag and uniform out of international meets, which is already the case. It would also mark an end to the ANA process. It would mean that the clean Russian athletes, who've been allowed to compete as individuals, would suddenly be shut out of competitions, too. Through no fault of their own!
The ANAs are the biggest victims of the RusAF's arrogance and incompetence, yet they've shown incredible loyalty and patience. They haven't been able to wear "Russia" across their chest for the last five years (for some, that's their entire career). With the exception of Darya Klishina, they all had to miss an Olympics because of this. Yet they've put up with it. But now even they're fed up. Lasistskene, especially, has been outspoken in her frustration with the federation and its resistance to change.
And now the ANAs have another option. If they're willing to switch nationalities, Belarus will welcome them. There's at least one athlete who's taken them up on it, and I'd imagine others will follow if Russia is indeed expelled. National loyalty only goes so far. If you're an athlete who has a choice between a country that's allowed to compete internationally and one that isn't, that seems like a pretty easy decision. Competing in the Olympics for somebody else beats not competing in the Olympics at all!
Fortunately, all signs point to the Russians having finally gotten the message. Russian Minister of Sport Oleg Matystin sent a letter to World Athletics and promised the overdue payment would be made by the new deadline. He didn't say where the funds would come from, but did confirm that the ministry was "prepared to support RusAF" and guaranteed that the fine would be paid in full.
If World Athletics doesn't receive the funds by August 15, Russia WILL be expelled. It's no longer a question of "if." It could've happened a month ago, but didn't. When they were given a lifeline, it was made clear they wouldn't get another one. Hopefully that was enough to finally get the message across.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)