Tag Archives: Baseball

My view: Why sportswriters shouldn’t vote for Heisman, Hall of Fame, MVP and all other awards

Posted on by

My view is based on an experience that occurred more than 20 years ago.

When it comes to the issue of whether sportswriters should vote for prestigious awards and the Hall of Fame in various sports, I flash back to a day in Miami in 1991. I saw my name in large type in the Miami Herald and realized I had become news.

It seems timely to weigh in on the subject after heavy traffic and reaction generated by a post I did yesterday on Notre Dame beat writer Brian Hamilton. He was conflicted over what to do with his Heisman Trophy ballot in light of Irish linebacker Manti Te’o being a top candidate. Eventually, the Chicago Tribune decided to use an internal staff poll to determine Hamilton’s vote.

Hamilton’s dilemma underscored the possible pitfalls and conflicts that result when writers engage in this exercise. He is to be commended for bringing up the issue with his sports editor Mike Kellams.

Based on my experience, I don’t think writers should participate in votes for major awards and the ultimate honor, election into a Hall of Fame. I fall back on that old axiom: Reporters cover the news. They don’t make the news.

I come to this perspective as someone who once voted for the biggest trophies in sports.

I became the Tribune’s baseball writer for the White Sox in 1986. At the end of the year, I was allowed to participate in voting for the American League MVP and Cy Young Award. There were only 28 voters for each award.

I was only 26 at the time. Only a decade or so earlier, I was collecting baseball cards. Now I was voting for AL MVP. Talk about a powerful feeling. It was intoxicating.

In 1988, I became the Tribune’s national college football reporter. Soon, I was awarded a Heisman Trophy vote. But even bigger, I was asked to be among the voters for the Associated Press writer’s poll.

In the old days before the BCS, the writer’s and UPI coaches’ polls determined the national champion. Again, it was an incredible power surge. This athletically-challenged sportswriter was going to have a say on No. 1.

My epiphany, if you will, came in 1991. The polls were split between Miami and Washington. As a result, I was fielding calls from reporters about my vote for No. 1. It started to dawn on me that there was something not right about this.

Then it really hit me one November day when I was in Miami to cover the Hurricanes. The Miami Herald did a major story on the polls. They splashed a big pullout quote across the top of the front page. I had to do a double take.

The quote was mine.

I remember it was a really uneasy feeling. I felt like a line had been crossed. My vote was news.

It was magnified even more when Miami won the AP poll by a two-point margin thanks in part to my vote for the Hurricanes. If I had gone the other way and it ended in a tie, history would have been different. My vote clearly helped Miami players and coaches win that ring.

Did I realize it fully back then? No, I still was a bit naive. Even though I felt uncomfortable about it, I continued to vote in the AP poll until I came off the beat in 1994. Looking back, it wasn’t right.

Later, the Associated Press reviewed its stance, deciding in 2004 not to allow its poll to be used in the BCS’ wacky equations.

As for sportswriters participating elsewhere, let’s make this clear: their votes go beyond somebody winning a trophy. Baseball players get six-figure bonuses for winning top awards. You could be sure Texas A&M will heavily market Johnny Manziel’s Heisman Trophy, and not just this year but many years to come. And Manziel’s marketing power will be much greater once he turns pro.

For people who say there’s no money involved with Hall of Fame votes, guess again. A Hall of Famer sees a huge jump in demand and appearance fees. There’s nothing like being able to sign an autograph that includes the tagline: “HOF.”

Aside from the money, there’s prestige involved for the athletes with these honors, and in the case of the Hall of Fame, a legacy and sense of immortality.

I can go on forever about the potential conflicts for sportswriters being involved in these awards. The Tribune’s Hamilton faced them with his vote.

Ultimately, though, most sportswriters are responsible and do the right thing. In many respects, they are best qualified to do the job. But that isn’t the point.

Basically, it’s very simple: This is all about reporters not making news. Repeat, reporters DO NOT make news.

Sportswriters made news Saturday night when their votes for the Heisman Trophy were disclosed. It’ll be huge news in January when the Baseball Hall of Fame reveals their votes for the 2013 class. Will it include first-time eligibles Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Sammy Sosa?

Baseball writers will be reporting on news they created with their votes. Is that right?

You wouldn’t allow a court reporter to be on a jury and then write about the case. I respect the political reporters who decide not to vote in elections so they can maintain an appearance of objectivity.

Several newspapers, such as the New York Times and Los Angeles Times, have decided not to allow their staffers to participate in votes. Others, such as my former paper at the Chicago Tribune, are OK with their writers being part of the process.

There are plenty of views on the subject. I just know how I felt on that morning in Miami in 1991.

I didn’t like seeing my name in that big pullout quote. I didn’t like making news.

What’s your view?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your thoughts: Why people aren’t watching World Series

Posted on by

Yesterday, I gave my views on what contributed to the record low ratings for this year’s World Series. And the declining popularity isn’t just limited to this year.

I asked for your thoughts and got some interesting responses. You have the floor:

Too many games

They need to end the baseball season sooner. Baseball is a spring/summer sport; don’t allow it to run over into fall. The baseball season is way too long. How to fix baseball? Have a 120-game season and end it in late July or early August. This will allow people not to be complacent and keep baseball from competing with the big boys (NFL and college football).–Ronnie

Ugh, I hate to admit it, because I love baseball as both a former player and a fan. But they need to reduce the amount of games played. This is an always-on world we live in and the huge amounts of content available online has had significant implications for the modern day consumers attention span.–Mark

There’s so many baseball games on during the reg. season that postseason baseball just seems like another game to the average fan. I’ll watch, but I’m guessing many fans tune out once their team is out.–Twins91

My response: Yes, the reason season could use a trim, but it isn’t going to happen.  Too much revenue from those meaningless games.

*******

Less regular season, more postseason

Baseball needs to take a page from NBA: Lengthen your postseason. The NBA soars in April, May, June.  For two months, they are front and center with playoffs. In baseball, it’s (three weeks) and postseason is over.

I’m 36, and I could care less about the baseball regular season. I honestly didn’t watch three innings of baseball all year. Absolutely dreadful; no urgency whatsoever. They need urgency in baseball!!!  Almost every year I do tune into baseball postseason.

Forget 162 games; that is baseball’s biggest problem. Take month or more off the regular season; add a month or more to post season.  That would get me to tune in. I am not for watching meaninless baseball games. Can’t do it.–Brad

My response: I also have kicked around this notion. The purists will say the worst thing that could happen to baseball would be for it to become like the NBA and NHL with too many teams getting in. But wouldn’t an extended playoff format increase the number of meaningful games?

Just a thought. I’m not wed to the idea. Also, like I just said; baseball isn’t going to reduce the 162-game regular season.

********

Too many Latin players

I have talked about this with my friends for several years. A lot of what people watch has to do with the ability to relate and identify with the athletes. In my opinion, the Latin demographic is becoming more and more dominant in baseball. The best players in our supposed “American pasttime” seem to be from Latin America. Therefore, it is hard for American youth, and Americans in general, to idolize, follow and care about athletes they perceive to have nothing in common with. I think this is a major factor in the declining interest from American viewers.–Mark

My response: Latin players have been around for a long time. The Pittsburgh Pirates won the World Series in 1960 with a guy named Roberto Clemente. People definitely identified with the Latin players on the Red Sox: Manny Ramirez, Pedro Martinez and David Ortiz. I think the bigger issue is that there isn’t a large enough pool of players that people identify with these days, American or otherwise.

*******

Yankee-Red Sox factor

When you shove only RedSox/Yankees down national throat. Giants and Tigers not national teams. Only Boston-New York are.–Dave via Twitter

An inordinate % of MLB regular season national TV coverage (Fox, ESPN, and TBS) on a small # of teams–Classic Sports Media via Twitter

I still think the main reason is intrigue of teams. People will watch the games with Yankees, Red sox, Dodgers. Yankees-Phillies in 2009 had great ratings.–Jake via Twitter

My response: Indeed, I overdose on seeing Yankees-Red Sox all the time. At least it feels that way. Baseball needs to do a better job of enhancing the identity of other teams, especially a team that has won two titles in the last three years.

********

Late start times

I was 15 in 1991, and I missed the ending of Game 7 of probably one of the best World Series ever because I had to go to school the next day. Start the games at 7:00pm! (ET)–Lou

I will say the late starts kill it for all sports. My son is 10. He rarely gets to see the end of a sporting event because they don’t start until after 7:30 central. He ends up watching it on SportsCenter or Youtube the next morning. Maybe I should raise my kids on the West Coast or Hawaii–Ralph

My 12-year-old son would rather watch a FC Barcelona or Manchester United Soccer game with me.  Plus they actually play when he is awake!  He can name the starting line-ups for Man U and FC Barcelona, just like I could name the baseball starting line-ups when I was a kid.  With the high cost of tickets and the pace of the game (slow and boring) MLB is totally missing the young demographic–Benjamin

I think the low baseball ratings have to do with length of games; 3+ hrs & late endings of game. Games need 2 end by 10p EST–Andy via Twitter

My Response: I’ve made my points on this issue. MLB might have lost a generation of World Series fans because of the late start times. At least start the weekend games earlier.

******

Enough with the ratings

Don’t get stories about ratings – should I stop watching because ratings down? Same issue w move box office numbers.–Greg via Twitter

My Response: I hear ya, Greg. But this is what I do here. Enjoy your games and your movies.

 

 

 

All-time low rating: Why World Series continues to decline; trails NBA Finals, NCAA tourney, BCS

Posted on by

It doesn’t add up.

Bud Selig will tell anyone who listens that Major League Baseball is more popular than ever. The game continues to set attendance records.

However, if that’s the case, why are TV ratings sinking at the same pace as Detroit’s bats during the World Series?

The latest Giants World Series victory averaged an all-time low of 12.7 million viewers per game. The numbers are striking.

From Sports Media Watch:

The World Series has now set or tied a record-low rating eight times since the 1994-95 players’ strike (1998, 2000, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2012). In addition, this is the seventh time in the past eight election years (midterm or presidential) that the World Series has set a record-low.

The 2012 World Series was the third in five years to average a previously unheard-of single-digit rating. Over the past five seasons, 20 of 27 World Series telecasts have drawn a single-digit rating — compared to four such games previously.

Forget about losing to football. From Sports Media Watch:

Compared to other sports, the World Series trailed the five-game Bowl Championship Series on ESPN (8.4, 14.1M), the three-game NCAA Tournament Final Four (10.1, 17.1M*) and the five-game Heat/Thunder NBA Finals on ABC (10.1, 16.9M).

This marks the fourth time in five years that the NBA Finals has averaged a higher rating and more viewers than the World Series, and the fifth time in seven years the NBA has averaged better numbers among adults 18-49. Prior to 2008, the NBA Finals had only topped the World Series three times, all in years when Michael Jordan‘s Bulls won the championship (1993, 1996 and 1998).

Once upon a time, the 1977 World Series averaged 44 million viewers per game. Now that’s not a fair comparison in the modern era of TV ratings, but even by recent measures, the World Series has declined. There wasn’t one series in the ’90s that averaged less than 20 million viewers per game. As late as 2004, the series pulled in 25 million viewers per game.

So what gives Mr. Commissioner? Popularity should be measured by attendance and ratings. If I’m MLB and its TV partners, there has to be concern why fans aren’t watching the biggest games on their big screens.

As it relates to the World Series, here are some of my theories:

Sweep madness: Baseball has run into an extraordinary string of bad luck. The Giants sweep was the fourth in a World Series since 2004. Only two series in the last nine have gone beyond five games and only one to the full seven.

Nothing kills ratings more than a sweep. People start to check out after 2-0. Even worse, there’s no carryover effect from one year to the next. With the exception of St. Louis-Texas in 2011, the World Series hasn’t delivered much in the way of lasting memories–except for fans of the winning team.

Football: Back in 1977, football was limited to the colleges on Saturday afternoon and the pros on Sunday afternoon and Monday night. And baseball usually scheduled on an off-day to avoid a conflict with Monday Night Football.

Now the World Series bumps up against football on virtually every night. Saturday’s Game 3 faced a stiff test in Notre Dame-Oklahoma, and Game 4 went up against Peyton Manning and Drew Brees on Sunday Night Football. Baseball definitely took a hit.

I remember when the NFL didn’t schedule a Sunday night game to avoid a conflict with the World Series. Not anymore. Football rules.

Local: I wonder if baseball has become more provincial. If the home team isn’t involved, perhaps we don’t care anymore. I definitely didn’t hear much talk about the World Series on my two local sports talk radio stations in Chicago. Can you say, Da Bears!

Star power: Or lack thereof. Stars draw viewers, and this year’s World Series didn’t have them. Sure, Buster Posey and Miguel Cabrera are terrific players, but they don’t move the meter like a Derek Jeter or ARod, or dare I say it, Barry Bonds. Now the Giants winning two of three series with Bonds in the lineuep? I guarantee that would have generated some ratings.

Kids out: As I wrote Saturday, lamenting how kids get shut out because of the late start of games, I wonder if we’ve lost a generation of baseball fans–at least as far as the World Series is concerned. All I can say is that when I came home Saturday night, my sports-obsessed teenage boys were flipping between ND-Oklahoma and Michigan-Nebraska games. When I asked them what was going on in Game 3, they had no idea.

They didn’t grow up with the World Series. They never got to see the end of games when they were younger. As a result, the World Series isn’t important to them.

MLB should reach out to my boys. They could provide some good feedback on the all-important youth demo.

And finally: At least the short series prevented a Game 7 on Nov. 1. There’s something not right about baseball in November.

Anything else?: I’m open to suggestions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does Ozzie Guillen still have a future in TV? Stock is down after Castro flap, dismal year

Posted on by

Ozzie Guillen always seemed to have a future in TV. The Venezuelan version of Charles Barkley, Guillen landed a role with Fox Sports as a studio analyst for the 2010 World Series. He did well enough to earn a nod to sit at ESPN’s table for the 2011 Series.

But Guillen is nowhere to be found during this year’s World Series. And that might be the case for the 2013 season in regards to TV.

Guillen’s TV stock definitely has fallen in the wake of his regretful comments on Fidel Castro and then the disaster he oversaw with the Miami Marlins. There’s definitely not a positive vibe.

In the words of one TV insider: “My hunch is that Ozzie has to go to the penalty box for awhile.”

Guillen may not even be interested in a TV gig. Obviously, he is hoping somebody will offer him another managing job for 2013.

However, if the call never comes, TV might be Guillen’s best option to help rebuild some of the damage done during 2012. It would keep him visible and current with the game. The strategy seemed to work well with Terry Francona.

Will somebody give Guillen a chance? He’s outspoken, fun and knows baseball.

But Guillen is carrying some baggage now. The networks don’t like baggage.

 

 

 

 

New book: How much did dealing with ‘media nonsense’ impact La Russa decision to retire?

Posted on by

I covered Tony La Russa during what had to be the low point in his career. In 1986, I took over as the White Sox beat writer for the Chicago Tribune.

That was the year Ken Harrelson assumed the role of general manager. Let’s just say it was a bad marriage. It resulted with La Russa being fired in June of that year.

Given what La Russa went on to accomplish in Oakland and St. Louis, there’s little question why Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf called it the one decision he regrets the most.

I had a good relationship with La Russa during that season with the Sox and several years thereafter when he was in Oakland. I always found him to be fair, interesting and accomodating. I do recall I have never seen a coach or manager suffer more after a defeat.

Yet through the years, I have heard some writers complain about dealing with La Russa. It appears the feeling was mutual.

In his new book, Tony La Russa: One Last Strike, has a couple of interesting passages about his relationship with the media. Co-written with Rick Hummel, the Hall of Fame baseball writer with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, he says the media element of his job wore him down. It was a factor in his decision to retire after winning the title in 2011.

Here’s La Russa:

***********

The media evolved over the years to the point where second-guessing and a lot else besides recapping the games took over. I want to make it clear that I understand that media people have to make a living and that, like me and our players, they have to survive in a highly competitive environment. Still, just because I understand all that doesn’t mean that I enjoyed it. It was more like I tolerated it as part of the dues you pay to stay in the game.

One consequence of media proliferation was it seemed as if some members of the media were trying so hard to make a name for themselves that they began to compete with the very players they were interviewing for the attention of the public. Toward the end of my career, these competitive individuals were becoming more the rule than the exception, and as in most competitions, hostilities were a natural result. Being stuck in the middle between the players and the media when this occurred was a taxing and irritating part of my job.

Having to manage the media, though not my full-time job, took up a considerable amount of time and energy and also took some of the enjoyment out of managing.

********

(Later he wrote)

Now, I don’t want to paint with too broad a brush here, because looking back at the span of my career, I have known plenty of appreciative and respectful players, as well as media members who were responsible and loved the game. Call it the squeaky wheel syndrome, the bad apple or whatever; but human nature being what it is, you tend to remember the really good and the really bad, and the big middle becomes kind of blank….

When I added in all the rest–the media nonsense especially–I thought that if I wasn’t getting the same enjoyment even under the best of circumstances with this team, then it really was time to get out at the end of the year.

*****

“Media nonsense”? Yeah, don’t think La Russa misses dealing with the media.

 

 

 

Baseball or Smilin’ Joe? Ratings hold steady for Yankees-Orioles; surge after VP debate

Posted on by

What to watch?

Last night’s buffet table was full. Two big baseball games and a decent football game on NFL Network.

Ultimately, I chose the VP debate. I mean, this might be the last time we get to see “Smilin’ Joe Biden in that format. All I can say, I can’t wait to see the take from Saturday Night Live. Should be classic.

It was interesting to see how the debate impacted the ratings for the baseball game. From 7:30-9 p.m. ET, Yankees-Orioles did a 4.1 rating on TBS. It dipped only slightly to 4.0 during the debate from 9-10:30 p.m.

Then once the Biden show finished, many viewers ditched Wolf Blitzer and Chris Matthews and switched to the game. The rating from 10:30-12:15 a.m. was 5.4, up 35 percent. All told, the game did a 4.6 rating, impressive given the competition.

Baseball even beat football. The Pittsburgh-Tennessee game did a 4.4 overnight rating on NFL Network.

 

 

 

Wildcard winner for TBS: Baseball should stay with 1-and-done format

Posted on by

The early ratings for the baseball playoffs should convince Bud Selig and his pals to keep the one-and-done format for the wildcard teams.

While a best-of-three series might be fairer, opening with two winner-take-all games gave the postseason a high dose of urgency from the first pitch. And it carried over into the weekend.

From TBS:

TBS’s exclusive live doubleheader coverage of Major League Baseball’s first-ever Wild Card presented by Budweiser averaged 4,608,000 total viewers, up 61 percent over last year’s 2,866,000 viewers for the first day of the MLB Postseason. The average 3.0 U.S. household rating for the Wild Card doubleheader was an increase of 58 percent over last year’s 1.9 rating for the first day of the postseason.

Why the big jump? In a 5 or 7-game series, if you miss the first game, so what? There’s more coming.

But a one-gamer with all of its drama and storylines (Will it be Chipper Jones’ last game?), and you’re there.

The format sucked fans in, as TBS’ ratings are up 16 percent for the first three days of the playoffs, increasing from 2.5 to 2.9.

Is one-game for the wildcard winners fair? Probably not. But if I’m MLB, I’m not going to mess with it.

 

 

 

 

A Sportswriters Life: Beat writer for Cubs during long road trip to nowhere

Posted on by

This is the first of an occasional series on the life and times of sportswriters.

My first installment is going to be on my old friend, Paul Sullivan, the Cubs beat writer for the Chicago Tribune.

I talked to Sullivan the other day from the lobby of his hotel in Washington. He was in the middle of what only can be described as the road trip from hell: A 10-game trek to Washington, Pittsburgh and Houston in September.

“I’ve been dreading this trip all season,” Sullivan said.

I know exactly how Sullivan feels. I covered a series of bad White Sox teams in the late 80s for the Tribune. There’s nothing worse than being on a long road trip in September to cover meaningless games for a team going nowhere.

Unfortunately for Sullivan, he has experienced this drill before. He’s been on the baseball beat for 19 years, most of them with the Cubs. The last time they were somewhat relevant was in 2009, following back-to-back division titles in 2007-08.

However, despite three straight beyond-bleak years, and the prospect for several more with a rebuilding team, Sullivan said his enthusiasm for the beat hasn’t dimmed. “I love writing, and I love baseball,” he said.

And he wants to remain on the Cubs beat, if for no other reason than out of fear of leaving.

“I know the minute I come off they are going to start winning like crazy,” he said.

Here’s my Q/A with Sullivan on what it is like to cover a bad team in September:

So what is like at this point in the season? It has to feel like a death march.

I can’t lie. I’m looking forward to October. I’m seeing some bad baseball. It’s not pleasant to write negative things about people you like and respect. There are no players on the team I don’t like.

You look around for players to talk to after the game. After going to the rookie pitcher, who else are you going to talk to? When the team is winning, it’s easy to go from one guy to the next.

It makes you appreciate the veterans like Carlos Pena and Mark Grace, who were the go-to guys. This team is so young, they don’t have any real go-to guys.

Your stories now are often features with a smattering of game detail. When was the last time you wrote a true game story?

Probably the end of April. You have to find different stories, but I never have a hard time doing it.

The hardest part is that (manager Dale Sveum) isn’t the most quote-worthy managers. I spent eight years with Dusty Baker and Lou Piniella. That was like the golden age. I like Sveum, but he isn’t the most quote-worthy guy.

What is it like to cover the new front office regime of Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer?

It’s different. I had good relationships with Jim Hendry and Kenny Williams and Ron Schueler (from when he covered the Sox).

These guys are insulated. You don’t know if you’re going to hear back every time you reach out to them. A lot of time, they do it by Email.

They’re never around. They’re never in the clubhouse or hanging around the batting cage. They don’t want to chat with the writers.

I don’t know (Epstein) enough to like him. I don’t dislike him, and I agree with his game plan. But I have no relationship with him.

19 years is a long time on the beat. Do the long seasons, especially losing seasons, ever get you thinking about doing something else?

The travel is tough. I’m going to be gone for 12 days on this trip, and I’m already running out of clothes.

But it’s still baseball and it’s still writing. I love baseball and I love writing. I still enjoy what I do.

 

 

 

 

 

New Sports Illustrated TV program to debut tonight; Writers go on air to tell stories

Posted on by

As the lines continue to blur in the new media world, Sports Illustrated is taking its writers to television.

A new show, simply named Sports Illustrated, is set to debut tonight at 9:00 p.m. (ET) on NBC Sports Network.

Here’s the promo:

The program doesn’t have a host or narrator. Instead, the first installment uses SI writers Tom Verducci, John Wertheim, Jack McCallum and Sarah Kwak lending commentary and context with the subjects telling the story. Also, unlike HBO’s Real Sports, the SI writers aren’t shown doing the interviews.

From the release:

“Sports Illustrated” Presented by Lexus is, a monthly, hour-long sports magazine TV show produced by NBC Sports and Sports Illustrated. The show will deliver the magazine’s DNA of award-winning storytelling through feature segments, original reporting and commentary from SI’s trusted journalists. Emmy Award-winning Red Line Films has been tapped to produce the show.

I have to say there’s an ESPN E:60 feel to the show. The SI writers are shown in black-and-white with the camera moving in that new age way.

Obviously, the stories are wonderfully shot. You wouldn’t expect anything less from SI. However, I found it curious that they didn’t do at least one of the segments on a well-known superstar for its first show. Maybe a little LeBron, Michael Phelps, or dare I say, Tebow?

Not all that much star power here, with the exception of McCallum’s flashback piece on the ’92 Dream Team.

In an interview with Street & Smith’s Sports Business Daily, John Ourand talks with Time Sports Group president Mark Ford about the show.

It includes this passage:

Q: It sounds like it will look a lot like ESPN’s “Outside the Lines” and HBO’s “Real Sports.”

Ford: You never try to duplicate what someone else is doing. We have a lot of respect for HBO and “Real Sports.” What we’re going to do is what we do well. We’re not patterning ourselves after anybody. We are patterning ourselves behind what our brand is about. We want to maintain that integrity. It won’t be a documentary. It will be storytelling, and we hope it will be interesting and exciting. Everything I’ve seen to date looks pretty good.

Here’s another video clip and a rundown of the show:

 

War and Peace in Jackson’s Gym: The soul of one of America’s fastest-rising sports can be found in a desert octagon where mysticism mingles with disciplined mayhem. Mike Winklejohn, a former kickboxing champion and Muay Thai champ, plays the heavy while Greg Jackson, the son of pacifists, embraces a less strident approach to teaching. Together, they have produced some of the MMA’s biggest stars. Sports Illustrated Senior Writer Jon Wertheim has the story.

The Bundy Project: The development of prized Baltimore Orioles pitching prospect Dylan Bundy is quite extraordinary. He squats 500 lbs. throws a 100-mph fastball, drinks broccoli-and-barley smoothies… while under the watch of pitching guru Rick Peterson. Sports Illustrated Senior Writer Tom Verducci reports.

The Story of Alex Meyer: Training at historic Walden Pond, Meyer has overcome personal obstacles and the death of friend and former champion, Fran Crippen, to make the 10K open-water U.S. Men’s Olympic team competing in the London Olympic Games. Sports Illustrated Writer-Reporter Sarah Kwak reports.

The Point After: The Greatest Game Nobody Saw: An impromptu scrimmage ahead of the Olympics pitted Michael Jordan’s team against Magic Johnson’s in a grudge match where agendas and ego were given their fullest expression. No journalist was closer to the Dream Team than Sports Illustrated’s Jack McCallum, and he explores “The Greatest Game That Nobody Saw.”