Why The Class Of 2015 MLB Hall of Fame Pitchers Represent The End Of An Era

Several weeks ago I was watching a show where some scientists were studying layers of sedimentary rock and trying to reconstruct what things were like millions of years ago in that particular part of the world. It was pretty interesting. They were able to determine quite a bit of information by studying the types of rock in the layers, the thickness, and any fossils the layers may have contained. With that information it was possible to figure out when a certain time period ended and another began. Then over the weekend, I watched a recap of the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame induction ceremonies. When I saw the three pitchers who were honored that day, I thought back to that show that I watched on television, and I came to the realization that we may have just seen the end of an era when it comes to major league pitching.

 I began playing baseball when I was seven and continued until I finished high school. And even though I couldn't hit off speed pitches consistently enough to make it to the next level, I have always remained close to the game as a fan. So I always pay particular attention when a new class is voted into the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame. This year, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, and Randy Johnson were selected along with Craig Biggio. Martinez, Smoltz and Johnson were arguably the three most dominant pitchers of the past 25 years. In this week's post, I wanted take a brief look at their careers and discuss the changes that we will probably see when it comes to evaluating future pitchers for the Hall of Fame. All the numbers come from the baseball reference.com website.

Pedro Martinez

At 5'11" and 170 lbs, Pedro Martinez was the smallest of the trio, but that never stopped him. It always amazed me that he could throw in the mid-90 mph range with that frame. From 1997 to 2003, Martinez was virtually unhittable. During that time, his ERA was never higher than 3.00 and only once was it more than 2.50. He won two Cy Young Awards and was a big reason why the Boston Red Sox were finally able to reverse the curse of Babe Ruth in 2004 and bring home their first World Series Championship in 86 years,

John Smoltz

John Smoltz had the more traditional power pitcher's build at 6'3", 210 lbs. Not only did he throw hard, he had excellent location. Smoltz was positively clutch in the post season, sporting an impressive 15-4 record and an ERA of 2.67. He was also remarkably resilient. Smoltz missed the entire 2000 season while recovering from Tommy John surgery. Without skipping a beat, he transitioned to the role of closer in the Atlanta Braves bullpen the following year. From 2001-2004, he racked up 154 saves for the perennial division champs, making him the only pitcher inducted into the Hall of Fame with over 200 wins and 150 saves.

Randy Johnson

Randy Johnson was just a freak of nature, plain and simple. He stood at 6'10", 210 lbs; nearly a foot taller than Martinez. Standing on the mound, he looked closer to eight feet tall. I can't imagine a more intimidating sight for hitters when they stepped into the batter's box than seeing The Big Unit glaring down at them over the top of his glove as he awaited the sign from his catcher. To make matters worse, Johnson's long frame made it seem like by the time he released his fastball, it only had to travel about 45 feet to get to home plate. That's just not fair. Some of you may also remember a wild pitch he uncorked that absolutely vaporized a bird that had the misfortune of trying to occupy the same point in space between home plate and the backstop. The poor thing never stood a chance against a 99 mph fastball. Take a look. Over his 22 year career, Johnson struck out 4,875 batters, which is second only to Nolan Ryan. And in 2004 at age 39, he became the oldest pitcher in Major League Baseball to throw a perfect game.

Martinez, Smoltz, and Johnson represent the last generation of pitchers making the trip to Cooperstown whose greatness can be evaluated using traditional statistics.  Others who pitched during the same period may also earn induction later, but the point is that these three began their careers when baseball was starting to become more specialized, particularly when it came to pitching.  When they took the mound, the goal was to throw a complete game or at the very least get to the eighth inning. If they ran out of gas, a reliever from the bullpen would come and get the last handful of outs to save the game. That is rarely the case now. And because baseball has become more specialized, it's going to change how pitchers will be evaluated for induction into Hall of Fame from this point forward. It will no longer be possible to rely as heavily on the traditional statistics to see how they stack up against previous Hall of Fame pitchers.  The numbers simply won't be there. Let me show you what I mean. I will compare some key statistics from our most recent Hall of Fame inductees to two previous members and also to two of today's pitchers who are having outstanding careers so far and could be on the road to Cooperstown if they they continue to perform at their current high levels.

Bob Gibson

Jim Palmer

The two previous Hall of Fame pitchers we will take a look at are Bob Gibson and Jim Palmer. Gibson spent his entire career with the St. Louis Cardinals. He was the ace of their staff throughout the '60s and '70s and led them to two World Series Championships in three appearances. Gibson holds the modern day record for the lowest ERA among starting pitchers in a single season with a microscopic 1.12 in  1968. Jim Palmer played for the Baltimore Orioles for nineteen years. He was a six time 20 game winner and picked up three Cy Young Awards along the way. Palmer holds the distinction of winning a World Series game in three different decades (60's, '70s and '80s).  In his first World Series start in 1966, he shut out the Los Angeles Dodgers 6-0, beating Sandy Koufax in what turned out to be the great left-hander's last major league appearance. Koufax would retire later that year due to an arthritic left elbow. The Orioles swept the Dodgers in that series, and Palmer helped them win two more Fall Classics in 1970 and again in 1983.

Clayton Kershaw

Zack Greinke

The two current pitchers we will look at are Zack Greinke and Clayton Kershaw. Both have been pitching for at least eight years, and they have clearly established strong reputations as two of the premier pitchers in the major leagues today. The metrics we will compare in the following table will be  the number of years played, won-loss record, innings pitched, complete games and shutouts thrown. The players are listed in chronological order by career to make it easier to pick up on the trends.  Let's see what we've got:

Name	Year Played	W-L	Innings Pitched	Complete Games	Shutouts
Bob Gibson	17	251-174	3,884.1	255	56
Jim Palmer	19	268-152	3,948.0	211	53
Randy Johnson	22	303-166	4135.1	100	37
John Smoltz	21	213-155	3,473.0	53	16
Pedro Martinez	18	219-100	2827.1	46	17
Zack Greinke	12	132-92	2,010.1	14	4
Clayton Kershaw	8	106-55	1519.1	15	11

First of all, take a good look at Randy Johnson's 303 wins. It's not likely that we are going to see another career 300 win pitcher any time soon. The closest right now is Tim Hudson with 220 and he's 39 years old. Clayton Kershaw may have a shot, but he would have to average over 16 wins each year for the next 12 years to make it. That's assuming he has a 20 year pitching career. The only problem is he is only averaging a little over 13 wins each year right now, meaning he would need to perform at an even higher level in order to reach 300 wins. I'm not saying he can't do it, but the odds are not in his favor. 

Now let's break down the number of innings pitched. Johnson has more innings than Jim Palmer and Bob Gibson, But he only averaged 187 innings pitched per year compared to over 200 for Palmer and Gibson. The average numbers for Martinez and Smoltz are in the 160 inning range. The same goes for Greinke. Kershaw is currently averaging about 190 innings per year. It will be interesting to see if this number holds up as his career progresses. The biggest reason for the drop in these averages is the more specialized nature of pitching. The development of the closer and set up man has effectively shortened the game for the starters. It used to be that the relief pitchers were those who didn't quite have what it took to break into or stay in the starting rotation. This was more true with the middle relievers than it was with those that closed out the game. Then there was a concerted effort to develop the "set-up man"; a pitcher who could take the ball in the 7th inning and get his team to the 9th before handing the ball to the closer. So instead of being asked to go the distance, today's starting pitchers only need to make it to the 7th inning before turning the game over to the bullpen. This definitely impacts the number of innings pitched over a career, and potentially affects the pitcher's won-loss record, depending on how good the relievers are at closing out the game. An argument can be made that this will help extend a pitcher's career. It's a fair point, but until more data is available, I don't know that we can make that assertion right now. We'd have to wait until this generation of pitcher's retires before drawing any meaningful conclusions. 

 From there, what we have is a cascading effect. Less innings pitched leads to less complete games. The numbers bear this out. Johnson had 100 complete games, which was less than half of the total for Gibson and Palmer who both had over 200. Then there is a significant drop to Smoltz and Martinez who sit at 53 and 46 respectively. Now take a look at Greinke and Kershaw. They are currently have 14 and 15 complete games respectively. That's less than two per season compared to the double digit complete games Gibson and Palmer averaged each year for their careers. As a result, the number of shutouts are also shrinking. Eight years into his career, Clayton Kershaw has a total of 11 shutouts. Gibson had 23 durng his first eight years. Then he threw a mind-blowing 13 shutouts in 1968. Palmer was right there with him. He had tossed 24 shutouts in his first eight years and then rang up 10 alone in 1975. Moving forward, pitchers will be throwing far fewer shutouts because  many of them are limited by pitch counts. The only time managers are inclined to leave them in longer is if they have a no-hitter or perfect game going. Even if they lose the no-hitter, they are given the chance to finish the game if they still have good stuff. That explains Kershaw's 11 shutouts in only 15 complete games.

Based on today's trends, pitchers will not be able to post the same kinds of numbers as the ones who came before them. In fact, we start to see that drop off when Martinez, Smoltz, and Johnson were pitching from the early 1990s until they retired in 2009. The game just isn't the same. That's why I referred to them earlier as the last of their kind in the modern era. Up until now, statistics like won- loss record, innings pitched, ERA, complete games and shutouts, were what the baseball world used to determine a pitcher's greatness. But now the only one that has any significant weight is the ERA. Total strikeouts are impacted by the starters coming out the game earlier. The pitcher's record is something he has less control over for the same reason. The outcome is totally in the hands of the relievers. And let's face it, there are plenty of them out there who have trouble hanging onto a lead.

Starting now, the baseball writers will have to look more closely at the current analytics to figure out where today's pitchers stand. Using the old methods described above, Greinke and Kershaw would not likely achieve Hall of Fame numbers even when you project them out over an 18-20 year career. Never mind the 300 wins; 250 might be a stretch for either one of them. And forget about innings pitched, complete games and shutouts. They wouldn't come anywhere near those numbers posted by Gibson, Palmer and Johnson. So instead of  the traditional statistics, the focus will be more on today's analytics like wins above replacement (WAR), walks plus hits per innings pitched (WHIP), and defense independent pitching statistics (DIPS). Believe me, those three numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. When I began looking into all the different metrics that are used to evaluate pitchers, there were so many acronyms, it would have made any government agency proud. And whatever you do, please don't ask me how to figure some of them out.  The DIPS calculation alone requires 14 separate steps, and you need seven different pieces of information before you can even get started. Who would have thought that things would have gotten so complex?

As a fan, I need to get a lot smarter on these new analytics so I can carry on an intelligent conversation whenever it turns to potential Hall of Fame pitchers. That's what I think makes the induction of Martinez, Smoltz, and Johnson so significant. It marks the end of one period and the beginning of another. Within the modern baseball era, there is the traditional period, which corresponds to the application of pitching statistics like won-loss record, total strikeouts, ERA, innings pitched, complete games and shutouts to assess Hall of Fame status.  The induction of Martinez, Smoltz and Johnson marks a transition from the traditional period to the sabermetric period, which uses statistics that some say require an advanced degree in mathematics to even understand. For every pitcher who has entered the league since 2000, sabermetrics will likely be the standard that will be used to decide whether or not they are worthy of the Hall of Fame.

Fifty years from now, it's not going to be hard for baseball historians to look back at past decades (the metaphoric layers of sedimentary rock) and identify the specific point in time when the transition to sabermetrics occurred. That would be with the induction of Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, and Randy Johnson into Cooperstown in 2015; three pitchers who each dominated opposing batters in their own way. Today's pitchers like Greinke and Kershaw will do the same. It's just that now we all need to adjust to a new way of measuring that greatness to truly appreciate their accomplishments.

Until next time . . .

Karl

What's With All The Stupid Questions?

My biggest source of frustration as a sports fan these days is the post-game press conference. It has gotten to the point where it is almost too painful to watch. I am not sure exactly when it happened, but it's pretty clear to me that today's sports beat reporters have completely lost the ability to ask good, thought-provoking questions. Instead, what we get is an unimaginative, half-hearted attempt to get their subjects talking with the hope that whatever comes out of their mouths will give them enough information to fill up a the necessary inches of column space. There doesn't appear to be any interest in finding a particular angle and coming up with a thoughtful question that can provide some greater insight into whatever game or event has just occurred. Today, I am going to look a little further into two of the more inane types of questions that beat reporters ask, discuss what makes them such a complete waste of time, and suggest a way to get some of these reporters back on track (at least from my perspective). Here we go:

Question #1: "Talk about  . . . "

The irony here is that this isn't even a question. It's more or less a command, even though some reporters will throw in a "Can you" at the beginning to make it a question. Either way, it lacks imagination. I guarantee if you listen to any post-game press conference, you will hear this at least two or three times. It has gotten so ubiquitous that Bryan Curtis from Grantland.com did a great story on it this past January. You can check it out by clicking on the link. Here are a few examples of what I mean:

1.) "Talk about that last drive." (Presumably, this was a drive that determined the game's outcome.)
2.) "Talk about your preparation for the game."
3) "Can you talk about the play of (insert player's name here) today?

When reporters go this route, they are basically saying, "I refuse to put any effort whatsoever into this part of  my job." And when they do go into "Talk about" mode, I start looking around for a sharp stick so I can poke myself in the eye. It's a much more preferable alternative to sitting and watching the rest of the press conference. Let's take the first question for example ("Talk about that last drive"). There was clearly something significant about the drive. Either the team scored to win the game or they failed to score and lost the game. Wouldn't it be great if the person being asked that question just came back with "Weren't you watching it?" It's the vagueness of the question that makes it so frustrating. Sometimes I wonder how players and coaches have the patience for it. No wonder Greg Popovich is one of my favorite coaches.  This man does not suffer fools lightly. When he gets asked a stupid question, he doesn't have any problem letting the reporter know it. Then people complain about him being so uncooperative when he is being interviewed. Hey, I have a suggestion. You want a better interview? Start asking better questions.

Question #2: " How big was  . . . ?"

As in " How big was this win?" or "How big was that play?"  This question is almost automatic at press conferences that follow a particularly important win or a key play that clearly either won or helped win a game.  I practically lose my mind every time I hear it. Just once, I would like for a player to answer, "Actually, I don't really think it was all that big. It didn't impact the game one bit. Next question, please." Look, I get that's it not the easiest thing to keep coming up with new, fresh questions, but this is pretty weak. Most reporters should be able to predict the answer to such a question, so there is no real need to ask it. In court, one of the key rules that lawyers follow is to never ask a witness a question on the stand unless they know the answer that they are going to get. The opposite should be true if you are a sports reporter. Never ask a question when you already know what the answer is likely to be.

What I am wondering is why have the quality of these questions sunk to such a new low? As a sports fan, they have no value to me at all because I am not getting any insight into the game that I wasn't aware of already. One possible answer is that some of these beat reporters don't want to get the players or coaches upset for fear of losing access to them. It's a reasonable concern, but that doesn't mean they have to completely forfeit their responsibilities as reporters. Besides, there are ways to ask a thought provoking or challenging question without sounding like a jerk.  It's their job to obtain compelling information in order to develop a story that holds the reader's interest. If their 'go-to" questions are the two mentioned above, maybe sports reporting isn't the best profession for them.

So how can these reporters stop putting us through such torture? Just like in any other profession, they need to prepare for their assignments better by doing the necessary research.  That would help them set up their questions when the time comes. Compared to thirty years ago, it takes far less time to get some good background on the events reporters are assigned to cover. The good ones can use this information effectively to create some questions that make players or coaches think about their answer. My feeling is that they would be so appreciative of getting a good question that they would make an extra effort to provide a decent answer.

Last week, Serena Williams' defeated Garbine Muguruza of Spain in the women's final at Wimbledon. It was her 6th title at the All England Club and her 21st grand slam title overall. For the second time in her career, Williams is in possession of the Australian, French, Wimbledon and U.S. Open trophies at the same time. Barring any serious injury, she is in a really good position to win the calendar grand slam if she can close the deal at the U.S. Open in late August. That hasn't been accomplished since Steffi Graf did it in 1988. I didn't see the press conference live following the match, so I pulled it up on YouTube. The clip was just over three minutes, so I doubt that it was the whole thing. Some of the questions were hard to hear, but from what I did pick up, they were pretty boring. The first one was "How does it feel to win the Serena Slam?" Williams' answer was fairly predictable: "It's a great feeling. . .  The moment is still setting in . . . etc., etc., etc." The rest of press conference wasn't much different. There were no "Talk about" or "How big" questions in the segment I watched. In fact, there were no questions specific to the final match at all.  They could have been asked at a different point in the press conference, but this was the only version I could find on YouTube, so there is no way to know how much they went into it.

Even going with the Serena Slam theme in this particular segment, there were so many more thought provoking questions that could have been asked.  If I was a reporter in the room, I would have gone in knowing that Serena Williams' career grand slam titles break down as follows: Australian Open - 6, French Open - 3, Wimbledon - 6 (which includes the title she just won), U.S. Open - 6. Secondly, her career record vs. Muguruza going into the final was 2-1. The Spaniard defeated Williams in the second round of the 2014 French Open, and lost to her in the early rounds of the 2013 and 2015 Australian Open.

Armed with this information, I would have come up with the following questions to ask. With any luck I might have gotten a chance to ask a follow up, and in the response, Williams may have wound up answering a couple that I didn't get an opportunity to ask.

First question: You've just won your fourth consecutive grand slam title. Which one of them was the most challenging? What were some of the factors that made it so challenging to win?

I would ask this question to see if Williams' answer lines up with her track record at the major tournaments. Her record at the French Open doesn't measure up to her outstanding performances in the other three. If she answers that the French was the toughest, it would be interesting to know why. Was it because of the surface? Or maybe it was the draw? Williams' was also battling the flu, so that could have been it as well. On the other hand, Williams could easily say that Wimbledon was the toughest. She was two points from losing in the third round against Britain's Heather Watson. Then she had to play her sister Venus in her very next match. That couldn't have been easy. The point is the answer to the question could go in a couple different directions, and that's a good thing.

Second question: Garbine Muruguza was able to win for the first time against you in last year's French Open, and she took you to three sets earlier this year at the Australian Open. Going into this match, was there a part of her game that you wanted to be especially ready to handle in order to come out on top today, or did you feel that you had a significant advantage, given that her strongest surface is clay? Did the match play out like you had envisioned, or did you make adjustments at any point that helped to close it out?

Like most Spaniards, Muruguza grew up playing on clay, which would explain her success against Williams in the 2014 French Open. Serena's wins have come on faster surfaces, but Muruguza did manage to win the first set against her at this year's Australian Open. It's tough to tell what this really means given that Williams has been a notoriously slow starter recently. That's why it would be interesting to get her take on how she approached this match. Even if she did feel that Muruguza had improved on the faster surfaces, did Williams think it would be enough of an improvement to make a difference on grass, which is arguably her best one? It would be worth looking into.


Those are just a couple of examples of how doing some homework can help reporters put together questions with a little more depth. The fact is a little research goes a long way. But when that doesn't happen, what we get are beat reporters who are either winging it or who have no idea of what goes into asking a decent question in the first place. The result is a press conference that is of no value whatsoever to watch. If I had my way, I'd make all of them take a class on how to ask good questions and have them re-certify every year. Maybe that way they won't be as prone to turning every post-game press conference into a journalistic train wreck.


Until next time . . .

Karl

U.S. Soccer: Have We Finally Reached A Tipping Point?

For as long as I have been following sports, there has been one question that has always left me scratching my head: Why has soccer, which is so hugely popular around the world, still struggled to gain even a modest level of acceptance here in the United States? The question (and the debates that usually follow) tend to pop up most frequently when a significant championship such as the World Cup, the Olympics or the European Championships is being contested. And with the conclusion of the FIFA Women's World Cup, the discussions have taken center stage once again.

In the interest of full disclosure, I will admit to you all that there are at least a dozen things I would rather do than sit down and watch a soccer match. But I am not totally closed off to the idea. If the story is compelling enough, I will watch. This is why I've been tracking the U.S. Women's National Team for the last couple weeks, and why I was camped out in front of my television to watch every second of the Women's World Cup final match Sunday afternoon. And it got me to thinking about one question. Has anything really changed over the last 25 years? In other words, now that the Women's World Cup is over, will these discussions about soccer's growth and popularity in the U.S. fade away like they have in the past? Or are we finally at a point in time where things are changing? Now, I am a naturally curious person, so I decided to do some poking around to see what I could find out. What I discovered leads me to believe that this time, the idea of soccer's popularity taking a big quantum leap forward may not be so far-fetched. In fact, we are starting to see it happen already. Here are five reasons why:

Reason #5: Increased Exposure On ESPN

It's hard to imagine the self-proclaimed "World-Wide Leader in Sports" not being in the middle of all this. Last year, ESPN was part of a three network deal with Major League Soccer to broadcast their games on television and stream them on ESPN.com. They will pay MLS roughly $45 million a year for the next eight years for those rights. Fox and Univision were also part of the deal, which is worth a total of $720 million to MLS. Upon the signing of the contract with the three networks, MLS commissioner Don Garber stated, "It's a partnership that's going to elevate the domestic game to unprecedented heights, something that all of us have been working so hard to achieve." For that kind of money, I'd say the odds of that happening are pretty good. ESPN isn't an organization that makes these kinds of decisions in a vacuum. That $360 million represents a big commitment, so I am thinking that they are on to something. If you don't think so, maybe you'll change your mind after reading the next reason.

Reason #4: MLS Expansion & Increased Franchise Value

Major League Soccer debuted in 1996 with ten teams. Now in its 20th year, MLS boasts a total of twenty franchises. It plans to add four more by 2020. But what is even more significant is how the value of these teams has skyrocketed. According to Forbes Magazine, the average MLS franchise was worth about $37 million in 2008. In 2013, that number stood at just over $103 million with the Seattle Sounders topping the list at $175 million. Given this type of growth, both numbers figure to be even higher now that we are two years further down the road. More importantly, over half of the teams in the league are turning a nice profit; a stark contrast to 2008 when the average team was pretty much hemorrhaging money. All of these indicators point to the fact that MLS is putting a quality product on the field and that fans are beginning to respond. Right now it's the fastest growing fan base in the country, so it's only a matter of time before those numbers reach critical mass.

Reason #3: The Numbers Don't Lie

Participation in youth soccer programs continues to grow at a steady rate. In 2014, U.S. Youth Soccer (the country's largest youth sports organization) reported over three million kids registered in programs around the country, which was up from about 2.8 million. This represents a bump of over 4% compared to 2013. On top of that, the U.S. Men's national team that competed in the 2014 World Cup had 16 members who were products of U.S. Youth Soccer. That certainly doesn't hurt if you are trying to strengthen the program beginning at the grass roots level. Here is another big reason that will figure into the equation as we move forward.

Reason #2: The U.S. Women's National Team 

Congratulations to the 2015 FIFAWomen's World Cup champions!! Many of us remember Mia Hamm, Julie Foudy, Brandi Chastain and company winning the World Cup in 1999 when it was played in the United States. But not many outside the soccer world know that they also won the inaugural Women's World Cup in 1991. In fact, the U.S. Women's team has never finished lower than third since WWC play began. That's pretty impressive any way you look at it. The 2015 edition of the national team features Carli Lloyd, Abby Wambach, and Hope Solo (who by the way, gets my vote for the coolest name in women's sports since U.S. alpine skier Picabo Street).

Carli Lloyd

This team is incredibly talented. All of it was on display in the final match against Japan as they scored an incredible four goals in the first 16 minutes of the game. Three of those goals belonged to Lloyd. Among them was an absolutely ridiculous shot she nailed from 54 yards away over the head of the opposing goalie who had drifted off of her line. Based on their performance it's pretty clear that the U.S. Women will remain a team to be reckoned with in the future. Now, the most significant reason why soccer's popularity is poised to explode in the United States.

Abby Wambach

Reason #1: The Millenials

About sixty years ago, the companies that had the forward vision to make the Baby Boomer generation the focal point of their marketing strategy ended up reaping huge rewards. The Baby Boomers grew to be the largest generation in the United States. As they matured, their purchasing power represented the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for every company under the sun. Well, guess what? In 2015, according to the Pew Research Center, the Millennial generation will overtake the Baby

Hope Solo

Boomers as the largest living generation in the country. Major League Soccer has seen this trend, which has also been fueled by the growth in the Hispanic population within that same demographic. Dan Courtemanche, Vice- President of Communications for MLS made it a point of saying that they are focused on Millennials as well as their kids. MLS has successfully tapped into social media also, which is the key to reaching this generation. Based on some research conducted by Stone Temple Consulting, a Massachusetts based firm, MLS has a stronger following on Google Plus than the NFL, Major League Baseball, and the NHL. Only the NBA has more followers by a slim margin of 2.65 million to 2.58 million. The MLS YouTube channel has over 150,000 subscribers. and they have nearly 300,000 followers on Twitter as well. This is all beginning to have an effect. Some data show that MLS has always been greater than hockey in popularity among kids 12-17, and it is now tied with Major League Baseball.





The bottom line is that by leveraging today's technology, soccer is in a position to reach heights that were thought to be unattainable as little as fifteen years ago.

So what does this all mean when we look at the bigger picture? I believe that soccer will surpass baseball shortly in popularity within that 12-17 year-old demographic shown above. It also stands a pretty decent chance of overtaking college basketball if current marketing strategies continue to be successful. Beyond that, it's tougher for me to predict. One thing is virtually certain. Football will remain king in this country. A person would have to be completely delusional to think that's going to change any time soon. As a sports fan, I don't know that all of these great strides that soccer has taken will necessarily change my habits when it comes to watching it. I have a ton of respect for the athletes; both men and women. They are among the best conditioned in the world and when I watch the U.S. National teams play, I get just as excited as any avid soccer fan. I will be right there with them when they are in the hunt for either a World Cup or Olympic Championship. I'm just not wired to sit an watch it for extended periods of time. That four goal outburst in the WWC final was great, but it is extremely rare. And while I don't need that kind of offense to keep me dialed into the game, I would like to at least see an average of five or six goals per game between the two teams. The good news is that organizations like MLS and FIFA no longer need to appeal to casual fans like me. They have an entire generation of Millennials and their kids on which to focus their attention. Put that together with the momentum generated by the U.S. Women's team winning the World Cup and a shifting demographic punctuated by the growth of the Hispanic population, and we could very well see soccer challenge baseball and basketball in terms of popularity within the next ten years among all fans, not just the avid ones. If you would have told me that fifteen years ago, I'd have said you were crazy. But now? It doesn't sound so crazy after all does it?


Until next time . . .

Karl