Buster Olney's recent article on Sabathia in ESPN The Magazine!

by indiansfan on Mar 26, 2008 7:39 PM EDT Comment 15 comments

Hello everyone,

While reading the other thread on "experts'" opinions on who will win the divisions and make the postseason, I came across this ESPN Magazine article from Buster Olney on C.C. Sabathia, including his early childhood, his competitive streak, and where his emotions have gotten the better of him (not during his early years with the Indians, but rather, his childhood playing days.)

You can read the article here.

It's also a main reason why Buster Olney picks the Indians to win the American League (or the World Series? Not sure - I got the latter impression first, then got the former impression later,) and based on Olney's picking record from last season (the best of the ESPN experts according to crazymoloh's post in the other thread - 4 correct choices for division winners and 5 correct choices for playoff teams,) it could be a very good sign (hopefully! :-)

Just my 2 cents.

0 recs | Comment 15 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

That article was a good read...I guess moms just want the best for their kids at the end of the day.

Plus, its good to see some positive Indians press other than the Miggy Cabespn lovefest that they have going over at ESPN right now.

by cclemens31 on Mar 26, 2008 7:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Great article. I can only hope that some of the character and accountability referred to there create intangibles that encourage C.C. to re-sign with the Tribe at the end of the season. If not, I'll be even more sorry to see him go.

"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.

by Harry Doyle on Mar 27, 2008 2:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Likewise, I too will be sorry to see him go!

Hello cclemens31 and Harry Doyle,

Yes, I too will be sorry to see him go if he leaves. If he is going to leave though, I sure hope it's NOT to the Yankees or Red Sox; I think I could stomach one of the California teams (even the Dodgers or Angels) better than I could the Yankees or Red Sox, plus the idea of his being closer to "home" I could stomach much better than his going for "top dollar."

Just my 2 cents. :-)

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Mar 27, 2008 4:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree, the guy who cuts my hair is a prototypical Yankees fan - very arrogant and obnoxious when it comes to them.

While getting my hair cut a few weeks ago, he mused that if the Yankees didn't win the WS this year, they'd HAVE TO get C.C. Like there's nothing to it. Everybody wants to be a Yankee, and, if they want you, it's only a question of how many dollars they'll have to pick off the money tree growing in Steinbrenner's backyard in Tampa to get you, a fait accompli

At least I stiffed him on the tip.

"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.

by Harry Doyle on Mar 27, 2008 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Careful. Those guys have long memories and sharp scissors.

Formerly known as "tribefan stuck in boston"

by BostonWahoo on Mar 27, 2008 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hello Harry,

Yes - I think that's the thing that annoys me the most about many Yankees and Red Sox fans (not ALL of them, mind you - there are some well-mannered, intelligent fans on both teams,) - they think they'll entitled to WS titles just by paying top dollar for any quality free agent from any other team they want, and 99% of the time, there's nothing the "little" team can do about it. It gets sickening.

That's why when WE win the WS, it will mean that much more in my opinion - unlike the Yankees or Red Sox, we don't have the mega-millions to spend and grab every premium free agent from our competitors just to make ourselves stronger and the others weaker; we'll do it through our farm system (something we've done quite well for a while now, long before those two even utilized their systems) and through "cost-conscious" moves that we have to abide by due to our market size and the lack of a true salary cap in baseball.

Just my 2 cents - no offense to any Yankees or Red Sox fans reading this post, but you guys do have an unfair advantage - there's no question about that in my mind.

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Mar 27, 2008 7:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

no offense to any Yankees or Red Sox fans reading this post, but you guys do have an unfair advantage

I don't think it's an unfair advantage at all; it's an advantage, for sure, but it's not unfair. They're well within their rights to pay for anyone they want. It's frustrating, and it sucks for the 25 or so teams that can't do it (I'm counting the Yankees on one level, the Red Sox on the next, and then the Mets, Angels, and Cubs; I'm sure that number is debatable), but if it were really that unfair, it seems like it'd be fairly easy to vote in a new system, what with 25 teams on one side and 5 on the other.

The players love it, and the little market teams are pretty pleased, I'd be willing to bet, with the solution they've come up with that nets them a pretty fat check from teams like the Yankees, and those few mega-teams don't seem to mind writing them. It's really only the fans of the little teams that get screwed. We've got a weapon at our disposal, too; we can not watch. Doesn't seem that unfair, I'd bet.

I do agree with your notion that it will be sweeter when we ultimately win the Series, because chances are (unless some unforeseen circumstances like the late 90s roll around again), it's going to be because our team beat the system.

Il faut d'abord durer.

by CU Adam on Mar 27, 2008 7:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

In any legitimate sport, any advantage unrelated to talent, skill or smarts is an unfair one.

by Jay on Mar 27, 2008 7:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The wind suddenly switching directions at a ballpark, aiding a homerun that earlier would have been knocked down (I've been at Wrigley a few hundred times, this happens pretty frequently).

I'm not trying to be difficult, I just think your definition is a little broad.

Il faut d'abord durer.

by CU Adam on Mar 27, 2008 9:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hello Adam,

I can understand your point - though both teams would benefit from playing there (i.e. the wind plays no favorites,) the Cubs do play there 81 games, whereas other teams only play anywhere from 3-19 times at most.

However, that goes to the effect that we don't have standarized fields that are exactly the same at all the ML ballparks. While that is a main difference, I'm not sure it's quite the same thing, especially since there are advantages and disadvantages to each home field.

For instance, while the Cubs' offense likely will benefit more from playing 81 games at Wrigley, their pitching likely won't, so, all in all, I think the home field advantages and disadvantages balance out over the course of the season and the fact that for every home field advantage for one side of a team, there is usually an equal disadvantage for the other side of that same team.

Just my 2 cents - no offense.

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Mar 28, 2008 12:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry, my point was more when the wind changes mid-game. The 2003 Cubs season comes to mind for me. I wish I could remember the exact date, but it was late season and the wind literally shifted when there were 2 outs in the top on the ninth. I remember Steve Stone making a big deal about it on the broadcast (I worked in the money room at Wrigley, so was underneath the park watching on TV). I went out to watch the 9th and it was really blowing out, though the whole game had had a pretty stiff crossbreeze. Sosa hit a game-winning homerun, monster shot to deep center that almost hit the camera bay in the bleachers -- anyone who's been to Wrigley might know how far that is.

So I didn't mean just the wind at Wrigley in general -- more often than not, I believe, Wrigley plays as a pitchers' park -- but the freak occurrence like that where it changes mid game. No intelligence, skill, or talent involved. Just dumb luck and a huge advantage.

Il faut d'abord durer.

by CU Adam on Mar 28, 2008 1:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hello Adam,

Yes, that is certainly something that can't be controlled, and doesn't involve intelligence, skill, or talent.

However, depending on when the wind picks up or slacks off, it could be an advantage or disadvantage for one side (offense or pitching) of one team and an equal advantage or disadvantage for the other side (offense or pitching) of the other team.

I guess one could say that it would hopefully balance out over the course of a season, but there's no guarantee on that either.

Certainly, though, the wind and other forces of nature certainly don't involve intelligence, skill, or talent; as you mentioned, just luck and good (or bad) fortune.

Just my 2 cents. :-)

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Mar 28, 2008 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hello Adam,

I agree we can choose not to watch, but unfortunately, MANY people would have to choose that action for it to have any real effect, and even though there are probably a good number of people who would prefer for it to be an equal level playing field, chances are, there won't be enough of those people to give up watching baseball to force any meaningful action.

As a result, those people who want change are stuck because there will be too many who won't want to give up baseball in order to force them to make the changes necessary to install a salary cap and an equal level playing field. The luxury tax helps, but it still can be and has been overcome by the Yankees, Red Sox, and others, partly because of their large market sizes and the revenues they can pull in from their television networks as compared to smaller markets like ours.

That's why it's still an unfair advantage in my opinion. As Jay mentioned, this doesn't have anything to do with talent, skill, or smarts (except that Shapiro and other GMs with smaller budgets have to be even smarter to compete with the Cashmans and Epsteins in order for their teams to have a legitimate shot to beat their teams) - that's why it's an unfair advantage in my opinion.

Imagine if Shapiro, Beane, or Ryan (when he was GM) had Cashman's or Epstein's payroll - you think the Indians, A's, or Twins would have won a World Series or two (or three or four in the Indians' extended case) from when they last won a WS? I think they would have - it helps when you can purchase premium, established talent from virtually any team in the league almost at will, and be able to overcome virtually any mistake you make in regards to personnel either from FA, the Draft, or trades.

That's why I believe it's an unfair advantage, and why, as mentioned, it will be that much sweeter when we do win the WS because we won't have had any of those advantages or benefits from having virtually unlimited resources at our disposal like the Yankees and Red Sox do.

Just my 2 cents - no offense to anyone.

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Mar 27, 2008 8:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No this one's pretty much dumb as a post.

"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.

by Harry Doyle on Mar 27, 2008 5:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Good read. Would hate to see C.C. leave, but that's the business sometimes. I'll respect the kid no matter what he does. Also love the fact that his mom preaches the heater and BBQ.

Who's the more foolish: the fool, or the fool who follows him?

by Brian Galliford on Mar 27, 2008 7:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs