The Hero Factory
by afh4 on Oct 28, 2009 11:54 PM EDT
in Analysis
Email
Print
I don't hate CC Sabathia the way I am supposed to. When I see him atop the mound at Yankee stadium, I'm not filled with anger and bile, I'm not tempted to use verbs like "waddle" and my blood does not boil. I understand that those things are supposed to happen, that my blood is supposed to elevate to such a temperature that I cannot contain my vitriol and I start cursing in Sicilian or something. I agree with the logic of those hypothetical emotions and I acknowledge them as appropriate and justified. Rationally, I know I'm angry with CC and with the Yankees and most of all with Bud Selig. Emotionally, though, that's not what I feel. I just feel sad.
It's like the latest version of Garden State a few months back where that Baz Luhrman-y guy intones:
This is not a love story. It's a story about love.
Baseball is steeped in myth as no other sport is, for obvious reasons. The heroes of yesterday's baseball resonate in a way that no other sport's heroes do: Babe Ruth is a candy bar, Bronco Nagurski is not. Joe DiMaggio married Marilyn Monroe, Paul Hornung married Mrs. Paul Hornung. Nat Clifton, Jackie Robinson. The powers that be in baseball will remind us of this powerful history whenever they have an opportunity: were the Indians in the world series we would be seeing grainy archival footage of the 1948 team and Joe Buck would be working to convince America that he had always admired the people of Cleveland more than the residents of any other mid-sized, midriff-loving, mid-western city.
So, if you grew up loving baseball you more than likely grew up loving its mythology. Fathers and sons is a tired, tired theme when it comes to baseball but it applies as well here as it ever has: many of us gathered around our modern-day campfires to watch Charles Nagy pitch and have tales of Rocky Colavito and Joe Charbonneau passed to us by our fathers. If we didn't have that experience, we invented it for ourselves later through diligence, researching both the players themselves and the emotions we were supposed to feel towards them. These myths become part of our fabric as fans. They are our collective shared experience and the vantage point from which we examine the future.
There's no question that the poorer franchises have always been bit players in baseball's story. Cleveland has never been Thor or Odin; it's lucky to be Ullr, god of skis and ring oaths. And Cleveland is fine with that. There is a level of pride in being the little guy, in not being New York, in representing a select few instead of an undiscerning multitude, in being ignored by the media sometimes because not so many people own television sets in Northern Ohio. This, I imagine, is what most Yankees' fans think everyone is so upset about: that they were born Odin and we were born Ullr. To some degree, they're right. However, the analogy lacks nuance; it's not simply that we are minor players in the universe of stories they dominate. It's that, more and more, we're not part of that universe at all.
Of late, Cleveland has gotten out of the business of being a minor part in a wonderful story and into the business of being the gentleman who colors the illuminated manuscripts. We are providing the colors and shading to the larger story with no narrative of our own to remember. Our narrative goes out the door with our heroes; factory workers don't reminisce fondly about the packages that head to the loading dock. Perhaps it's always been that way to some degree and it's simply become more obvious because of the remarkably depressing confluence events of this season. I don't know. All I know is that it feels terrible.
Leaving beside the business aspects of this whole sordid affair for a moment, what Cleveland has been forced to do three times over the past two seasons is trade away the center of its story. In Sabathia, Lee and Martinez, Cleveland had three compelling protagonists, three centers of myth that I could sit and tell my own sons and daughters about one day. And, stunningly, each of them is gone. The story I was going to tell my children is robbed of its center, gutted on the floor, its ending fouled up in ways unbelievably noxious. And, most depressingly, the stories of other franchises suddenly have new and wonderful heroes. Characters that simply appeared out of thin air, like a wonderfully hilarious new baby on a great sitcom! Loyal fans of other teams will never forget the magic of these players and one day they will sit around whatever the fireplace of 2031 is and tell their children wonderful stories about the incredible things that Sabathia and Lee (Game 1 starters, they'll call them!) did.
The Yankees and Selig and all the other complicit parties (self included, I suppose) have taken my love story and turned it into a story about love. I'll sit around my future fireplace with my future children and try to tell that story, maybe. More likely, if things haven't changed, I'll not tell any stories about baseball at all, ever.
310 comments
|
14 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Didn’t get a chance to read all of this yet, but just wanted to say that calling 500 Days of Summer a clone of Garden State is really unfair to both those movies.
LGT's resident moderate Yankee hating fan.
Agreed. And what does Baz Luhrman, a director, have to do with voice-over narration?
by JulioBernazard on Oct 29, 2009 10:46 AM EDT up reply actions
I dare say he’s far more famous for Moulin Rouge and Romeo & Juliet.
by JulioBernazard on Oct 29, 2009 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions
CC
I feel straight hate towards CC everytime i see him on t.v.
by siejecy on Oct 29, 2009 12:04 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Interesting piece, Andrew. Very deep. And I mean that seriously, not patronizingly. Very much enjoyed that.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
I hate baseball economics, I truly do. PEDs aren’t the problem, Steinbrenner isn’t the problem, the Union isn’t the problem, Joe Morgan’s a problem, but isn’t the problem. It’s the inequality of the economics that just makes me wonder how much longer I can give. I casually watch the Browns and even take pride in them when they play well. But I’m different in that I don’t swoon at the start of training camp. The Cavs? Meh. Who really likes the NBA? Yes, I know some are out there somewhere – I just don’t understand you. College football is great when you’re bored on a Saturday during the fall or are trying to defend Ohio’s honor based upon a college you’ve never even set foot upon. But otherwise – meh as well.
No, it’s baseball that’s got me. Kinda always has. I’ve often grumbled about the inequality of the game, just like everyone else not from NYC, Boston, LA or Chicago. Its oft fashionable and has the strength of being true. But this postseason is different. Maybe its because of the season that just was (or wasn’t). Maybe its because we see those players – such special players – finally recognized on the national stage for being what we always hoped they would be. Watching Vic, Lee and CC – players that were supposed to be just as large to this generation as Thome, Alomar and Vizquel were to the last one – become some other fan’s heroes.
I don’t know – maybe at 34 something of the kid who is enamored with his team is finally dying. This is a team I have followed daily for years upon years. Where we – yes, we – are at is not the fault of Shapiro (whom I believe does a fine job) nor is it the fault of Dolan (whom I see as being as reasonable with his money as any sane person). It’s not even the fault of those players who seek that big payday.
It’s the system that is killing baseball. Its killing my love of the sport. Its killing everything that we romanticize about it.
Of course baseball is a business – always has been. Some of the best baseball stories are the gimmicks that owners have done in the past to get people to come see the game. It runs straight through to today. Just think of how truly cheesy some things are at a MLB game – let alone any minor league game. These things are part of the fun, part of the experience. Baseball as a business is fine.
The problem is that today the entrenched business practices are killing baseball in 3/4 of the baseball markets. For every team there are thousands of me’s watching our little kid fanaticism just die. We’re watching our players do it for someone else after the reasonable decision was made we couldn’t afford them any longer. Of course, true fans accept that it can and will happen to a certain extent. But when it is an endless cycle – it just wears you down. At some point, it finally strikes the bone and you start giving up, stop paying as much attention. Stop taking your kid (or dreaming of taking your kid) to ball games.
Will this change anything? Will it make MLB, the owners or the players union change that great payday business they’ve got going? Does it matter when fans stop caring as much? Does it matter when this fan stops caring as much?
I just wanted to believe.
by mjmarble on Oct 29, 2009 12:36 AM EDT reply actions 14 recs
Thank you Andrew and M for being so eloquent where I’ll be cryptic. I tried to watch last night. I tried to rejoice in the beauty of the game that I love so much and in Cliffs mastery but I couldn’t because it made me so…damn…mad. I am mad as hell at the indentured servitude structure of the game and am starting to feel that my participation in this system makes me complicit. This train gained some serious momentum last night.
by stuart dean on Oct 29, 2009 7:36 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
It’s incredible how the game traded something truly terrible (the reserve clause) for something that parallels it so closely and is terrible in it’s own way.
how does modern free agency “closely parallel” the reserve clause?
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Oct 29, 2009 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Great! I agree with everything you say. I think the best hope for change lies in fans no longer accepting Bud’s claims of parity, and in redirecting blame from the small-market owners to the people who are really at fault here. Conversations like those occurring in the comments here need to see the light of day, and reach beyond the confines of LGT where they are already understood. It’s the only solution I am willing to accept. I’m not ready to stop watching or attending games, and the notion of contraction scares me to my core. When liars and idiots are revealed as liars and idiots, and considered such by the masses, I think we’ll stand a chance of seeing change.
All they need to do is bring back the reserve clause.
by Brick. on Oct 29, 2009 1:05 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
This is a masterpiece.
This was a hard year for me. It troubles me that I’ve become so indifferent about the game, but I can’t help it that my heart’s not in it. My lack of feeling probably has a lot to do with what you’re describing here.
Agreed 100%. I’m ashamed of the ridiculously small number of games I actually watched this year, and I’ve hardly been on LGT for the most part.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Oct 29, 2009 9:44 AM EDT up reply actions
Ha, I’m not sure why, but thanks! I’ve missed you guys, too. I feel like I’ve interrupted a season’s worth of my mental development by not being here often.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Oct 29, 2009 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions
Thanks, John. Good to see you around.
The terrible part about all this is that Selig is even more in control than we realize; he’s got the tonic (winning) and he knows that, just by chance, every franchise that’s not KC or PIT will get to taste it about once a decade. Those of us who really love the game will not be able to stay away when it settles in Cleveland again and we’ll be trapped in this whole terrible system of hear no/see no evil for another couple of years, rallying around some new flag just like we did the one with Shapiro’s face on it, wanting to believe we’ve broken the system.
Selig knows we’ll do that and he also knows we’ll never break the system. The only thing that can do that is the economy.
You’ve failed to mention the Players Union in all of this.
Selig, coming from ownership, would seem to be more likely to side with owners if they think the current system is untenable. The Union is plenty powerful enough to maintain the system, which favors hefty contracts for elite players from a handful of large market franchises. The larger the elite contracts, the more justifiable it is to the rest of the free agent market to inflate contract values. (a rising tide lifts all boats sort of thing?)
Backlash on this front is always met with ‘collusion’ charges, even though in some instances it would make sense for no owner to pay x amount of dollars to a player when he’s clearly not worth it.
The fallacy (if there is one) is that MLB believes that in order for it to prosper, the large market teams have to be successful, since they drive the prosperity. This year, that seems more relevant than ever with Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles enjoying playoff runs and generating larger TV ratings, more advertising dollars, and more revenue.
I’m not absolving Selig of any wrongdoing. He’s presided over the largest increase in payroll disparity the game has ever seen. Which, left unchecked long-term will be detrimental to the game’s health.
However, in his defense, he could argue that he’s also presided over the largest overall increase in economic growth for the game, too. So to him, the system isn’t necessarily broken (even though we know long term it is.) To MLB, what’s good for the goose (Yankees, Dodgers, etc.) is also good for the gander (smaller markets) within the limited scope of existing revenue-sharing.
If the system continues as it is, I could envision natural contraction occurring when small market teams can no longer afford the ‘buy-in’ even to be considered a major league franchise.
Wait 'til next millennium!
Here’s the part of your posts that puzzles me: in the whole organization who do you think makes the most money? The FA 300 lb. pitcher? The sweet fielding, hard-hitting OFer? No, not anybody who people actually pay to see. The guy that rakes in the most cash is the owner. I can’t deny the guy who’s worked and sacrificed to become – objectively – one of the best ball player’s in the game. I’m fine with the players getting 80% of the take. What I can’t stomach is cafones like the Steinbrenner Spawn who think that they deserve their royal income just becuz they’re the off-spring of some meglomaniac.
I got no problem payin’ the players. It’s their pimps I can’t stand.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
If you were loaded beyond belief, would you take care of your children? Would they deserve it? If they grow the business, do they deserve it less because they didn’t build it from scratch?
I’m not saying I like Steinbrenner or that he’s good for the game, and I’m not saying life is fair, but I have nothing against the guy for making gobs of cash while playing with his favorite toy.
I find it rather hypocrtical of some to say if they had Steinbrenner-like wealth, that they would not ensure their ‘spawn’ be taken care of.
Wait 'til next millennium!
There’s a difference between making sure your kids are set financially and putting them in charge of a MLB organization.
Is this the whale section?
If it were actually a family business (a single-location restaurant, shop, or something like that), then of course I would. But if you’re saying that a professional sports team is a family business, then we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Is this the whale section?
First of all, this is terrific, and I mean that in the colloquial complimentary way and in the true-meaning-of-the-word way. Gorgeous and devastating. I’m sending it to every sports fan I know.
One complaint. Every great thinker and writer knows that contrarianism is in vogue, and I fear there’s a subtle hint of it here that is misplaced. By that I mean: Around here we all know the true villains and problems plaguing the game. We know what causes the inequalities. We’re not angry at the Yankees for spending the money that comes in; we’re angry with the system that perpetuates this farce.
This piece seems to lament the state of the game without properly hammering away at the root causes. Sure, not every written piece is going to do that, and you acknowledge that you’re “leaving aside the business aspects.” But a piece this good, which is going to be read far and wide and emailed and linked to, needs to have a graph about the villain. Because it’s still stunning how many people don’t know.
In other words, the contrarian view among regular fans is not to blame the Yankees for spending the money they have. The contrarian view among LGT is to write beautiful pieces bemoaning the state of play without taking a dig at the system — more of an existential woe-is-us. I just fear that the casual fans who stumble across this piece will finish it with a sense of sadness but no new understanding of what’s wrong. And no one expresses the sadness and frustration more eloquently than you. And it’s possible that casual fans will read the section on losing Lee, Sabathia, and Martinez and they’ll walk away even angrier at their own organization, not the real baddies.
Anyway, this is just awesome. Thanks for this. I almost cried and I’m at work.
Sorry, but I’m not letting the Yankees off the hook so easily. I do blame them for spending the money, for resisting all efforts to reform the economic foundation of the game, for generally being a bunch of jackasses. When Pete Rozelle left his job as GM of the Rams to become NFL Commissioner in 1960, the Rams had played in two championship games that decade, and could have benefited from the current system. Instead Rozelle pushed for revenue sharing. Baltimore won the title in 1959 and 1960, and would have thrived under the free-for-all regime. Instead, Carroll Rosenbloom joined Rozelle’s cause. The Yankees could abandon their efforts to buy titles and work for the long-term future of the sport. That they don’t is understandable. That it is understandable does not make it forgivable. They’re jackasses, every last one of them, evil semi-humans who would sell out their own future for a few more rings.
by FredOx on Oct 29, 2009 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
You’re largely right, Evan, and I probably should hammer away at Selig and the rest. There’s no doubt that the economics are the problem. It’s just difficult for me to comprehend that there are people to whom that is not obvious. Additionally, there’s the fact that Jay and Ryan have both written persuasively and forcefully about it on this site and others.
We ought to be holding the line and coming down on the system every time and Jay is a great example of someone who does that unambiguously every time. This is a black and white ethical issue and he’s got better moral fiber with regards to it than I do. That said, I’m exhausted when I even think about holding that line as rigidly as I ought to. I mean, this is a game-a game!
Thanks for the kind words.
“Factory workers don’t reminisce fondly about the packages that head to the loading dock.” — Afh4
I can’t help but lament, having read this beautifully crafted essay, that its only audience is, well, us. The Diaspora of Doom. This piece rivals anything I’ve seen by the distinguished contributors to SI, etc. Readers aside from us — i.e., fans of the Evil Empire, etc. — should see it.
This morning, I was going to write about how it made me feel to see Sabathia and Lee at the pinnacle but the larger points made here made my issues seem petty.
by just a bit outside on Oct 29, 2009 6:23 AM EDT reply actions
Very well written, Andrew.
Fortunately for me, my love of the game isn’t tied to winning a World Series.
Wait 'til next millennium!
I don’t think mine is particularly either. But I do think my love of the game is connected deeply to these sorts of stories (remembering individual players extremely fondly, etc) that I’m talking about and it’s difficult that they are all ending the same way, lately.
First of all — an excellent, EXCELLENT piece. Secondly, I sincerely hope everyone reading and commenting and considering chasing that bottle of Valium with furniture polish will stop and think why it is we all do, in fact, care. I’m sure we all came to the Tribe in our own way, but I suppose in the end it all goes back to an old Jerry Seinfeld bit: “We’re cheering for laundry.” We don’t know these guys. The vast majority of us on here would probably hate most of them as people if we were forced to sit one cube over from them for 40 hrs a week. But for 162 nights a year they put on these pants and shirts that we identify with and we pore over their every move from the moment they shed their street clothes. (ew. sorry.) We all seem to have the same “don’t hate the player, hate the game” understanding that the average fan calling Kevin Keane (is he still on the air?) doesn’t. But that doesn’t make it any easier when the guys we’ve been following for four, five, six years all of a sudden are wearing different laundry. I get that.
So for me, loving the game of baseball as a small- or mid-market fan (whatever we’re being called these days) is kind of like someone who is obsessed with Duke basketball or Ohio State football: we’ve got these guys that come in and wear the uniforms that we identify with for a few years and we hope those years will be successful – but we also know those players aren’t going to be here forever. We know they’re going to move on somewhere else. And someone else is going to take their uniform. Then we become fans of that guy. And so on. Rinse. Repeat. I keep following this team year in and year out and I get so frustrated and angry … a fool’s errand someone said up higher. That’s definitely true. But something that the economic disparity and the fan-raping system that created it can’t touch – as far as I’m concerned – is the comfort that I get from watching this team play wayyyy too many innings each and every year.
I used to hate the idea of Fantasy Baseball. I’ve softened on it now as I have come to understand it – although I don’t take part in it myself. But one of the things I love about it is that its inception, combined with the sabermetrics revolution and the world wide internets, has created a room that I can go into and listen to (and sometimes converse with) people who GET it. People who understand that the enjoyment we get from baseball is a completely different kind of enjoyment that a Yankee fan gets. And that’s okay. For them it’s all about winning championships. Literally. Every year. For us, it’s different. We have to create scenarios, study, read, think, pay attention to the draft, to some 21 year old we send to the D.R. in the winter, to oddly named stats put up by players who can’t legally drink, but who might someday wear that laundry. I take pride in the fact that I have to work to enjoy this “hobby” of mine. It’s kinda what makes eating lobster so rewarding, you know?
Although, admittedly, sometimes it’d be nice if just once I didn’t need a handful of tools and a bib to eat it.
I just can’t let the system kill it for me.
Before taking Pro-Acta, please consult your doctor. Do not taunt Pro-Acta.
by Ockus_NYC on Oct 29, 2009 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions 5 recs
Nor mine but….
The system is a fraud that will continued to be perpetuated because we love the game so. I love watching it too but I am angry enough about this that I feel like I’m being made a fool of for letting this be perpetrated upon me. I’m fairly sure that I will cool down but the only ballot I have is my feet and I’m seriously thinking of voting.
by stuart dean on Oct 29, 2009 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions
The fans will pay for the rope with which we will hang them.
Just a little bit of poetic license here…
by stuart dean on Oct 29, 2009 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions
I understand loving the game – love playing the game, watching the game, sitting in chairs at the stadium. It’s a spectator sport that is fun without context.
But we do have context, and I think that every time Travis gets a hit my brain says: Travis on base, so he might be healthy again, so we might have a weapon in the middle of the order again, so that might mean that our offense is scary, which can help us win a ton of games, which will be nice come October. A good win in a lost season, won by soon-to-be-lost players just makes me sad.
Loving baseball without wanting a World Series is nice and all, but it seems like a lame fail-safe so you don’t get your feelings hurt. Every season that we don’t win the WS is a depressing one. The seasons that hurt the most in my mind are 95, 97, 07.
by joeee on Oct 29, 2009 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
A fine year, which included the birth of Altheides of Cyprus.
A clever man is capable of solving puzzles, and a knowledgeable man knows many answers. But only a wise man knows which puzzles to solve and which questions to ask.
by FredOx on Oct 30, 2009 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Have you ever been in line behind someone at the store and their final price comes up, for example, “$19.78,” and they say “Good year,” or something to that effect? I hate those people.
Steel Nick
Wasn’t that the year that David Clyde was actually a serviceable starter for the Tribe?
by kennesawmountainwahoo on Oct 31, 2009 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions
From his 1979 Topps card (It’s been hanging on my refrigerator for well over a year now. Just a random card a friend gave me.) :
28 games
153 IP
8W 11L
80 R
73 ER
83 SO
60 BB
4.29 ERA
David posted an 18-0 record as a high school senior with an earned run average of 0.18 .
*Went directly from high school to majors in 1973 and didn’t go to minor leagues until 1975 season.
*Tossed a pair of 4-hitters during 1978, against the A’s & Red Sox.
I agree 1000 times over. Absolutely the same way I feel.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Oct 29, 2009 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s just the way I cope, I guess. I don’t think the fact that you find a non-WS year depressing is lame at all. If you find the turn-the-other-cheek policy of some fans (of which I’m a subscriber) “a lame fail-safe so [I] don’t get my feelings hurt” then i guess that’s okay. but what does it hurt? it’s how I try to keep sane. otherwise i’d fill a sock full of batteries and wait outside the player parking lot every night.
Before taking Pro-Acta, please consult your doctor. Do not taunt Pro-Acta.
I don’t think these two positions are all that contradictory. I think there’s the season, and then there’s the contending season. As a rule, the contending season ends first, and you mourn that. Still, you enjoy the season in and of itself, after the contending season is over.
Except this season, that is.
Wait, women can teach geometry?
:-)
by ken from alexandria on Oct 29, 2009 10:02 AM EDT reply actions
I just want to post that I love the fact there’s Mariah Carey ads on the sidebar now.
That’s some smart keyword marketing, there.
Wait 'til next millennium!
ooo yeah! We’re ironically triggering ads now too!
Resident Take the Football References One Step Too Far Guy
Marisa Miller
Marisa Miller
Marisa Miller
Marisa Miller
Marisa Miller
Marisa Miller
Wait 'til next millennium!
I love what you wrote, Andrew, but I just wish the mystique of being a baseball (sports) fan wasn’t still mythologized in patriarchy. I’m my father’s daughter, was inquisitive from a young age about every sport’s team he watched, first and foremost, the Indians. How many 7th grade girls proudly owned a Cleveland Indians winter coat in 1994 and could name the starting rotation and lineup?
I know the intent in comments above and the post (fathers/son) elucidate the childhood experience of most men who read at LGT, but it’d be great to see as intelligent a community as this, represent the voice of all fans in 2009.
I hate that being a sports fan begrudgingly requires me to ignore that advertising for sport on the radio/tv is directed towards one gender. I know the ratio is skewed. I get it. But come on, guys. Can we please think a bit more about how a woman reading may respond to this? It just feels a slight bit old boys club when 1+1 are added together.
(I’m sure I’m overreacting a bit. I work in a profession dominated w/ men. And overall the experience is wonderful around here. You all rock, generally speaking! Please don’t hate me for calling to question some mildly saddening behavior.)
by themadlibs on Oct 29, 2009 6:18 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I did refer to my own (hypothetical) daughters. I felt like the fathers-son reference was appropriate in that it’s a reference to the actuality of baseball’s mythology-it has been typified as a patriarchy and eloquently so. The Soul of Baseball reinforces that over and over.
As for the stupid joke up there, well, it’s stupid and I don’t particularly like it and I hope the guys involved will think twice after reading your comment. This is what Jay talks about every time this comes up: it’s just off-putting for some women, rightfully so, and we really want women to participate on this board.
This. I don’t think themadlibs reaction is an overreaction at all. I also don’t think you need to have changed your story. But the jokes are open for whatever appropriate criticism.
Just to clarify, the Miley Cyrus joke means nothing oriented at gender or any general misogynistic poke. I was naming a celebrity that I assumed most people here would not appreciate being featured in ads because they are so far from her target audience. I have a feeling the “joke” reference is to Marissa Miller, but I wanted to be perfectly clear here.
As for Andrew not referencing the woman’s perspective in his article, while I understand madlib’s point I also feel like this is Andrew talking from his own point of view. He certainly could have casted a wider net but I don’t think there’s much blame for not doing so.
It’s easy to fall into male-dominated perspectives on a male-dominated blog about a sport with a male-dominated fanbase, but I certainly appreciate any woman who loves the Tribe and don’t want her to feel left out around here.
Steel Nick
I just like looking at Marissa Miller. If that makes me a misogynist, then sorry.
Wait 'til next millennium!
You all rock, generally speaking!
Ain’t it the truth, ain’t it the truth.
But say, what do you mean by “generally speaking”?
by ken from alexandria on Oct 30, 2009 8:54 AM EDT up reply actions
One the things I’m proudest of is that my oldest kid (stepdaughter, actually) is a total stat-head, understands OPS, VORP, and knows what idiot stats are and why they’re called that. It is totally a bonding phenomenon.
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on Nov 1, 2009 11:57 AM EST up reply actions
I’m reccing the general principle of this post.
However, I don’t think there was anything wrong with emd2k3’s post. It was a funny throwaway line. If AnG had responded by posting a picture of a shirtless Gerard Butler, that would have been funny too.
If it had gone down an ugly rabbit hole, that would have been bad. But it didn’t, because this board is mature enough to laugh at a joke and leave it at that.
The economic reality was fully displayed on Monday, October 15, 2001.
On that night, the Yankees triumphantly returned to post-September 11 New York to meet the A’s in the decisive 5th game of the ALDS. Meanwhile, Monday Night Football pitted the Cowboys against the Redskins. These once-storied rivals each sported an 0-4 record.
So there you had it: a decisive post-season baseball game featuring the Yankees and lots of “honoring America” versus a miserable regular season football game between two disappointing teams that had already fumbled away their playoff hopes.
MNF trounced baseball in the ratings that night. There is no mistaking the lesson of this. As the AFL taught us in the 1960s, there is a national audience for just about any football game you put out there. Baseball appeals to its core fans and to fans of the local team.
Major League Baseball, Inc. needs the big market teams in the post-season because it desperately needs their fans to boost the national numbers. The current system is designed to make it happen. I don’t see any way around this because the only alternative is for everyone, including the players and the media, to accept less.
We lose.
Isn’t there an alternative here? Namely, make baseball more popular?
Football’s going to be dead in 15 years anyway. This concussion stuff is not a joke.
Didn’t mean to step on your great post with such a long comment. You just succeeded in stimulating some thinking.
Making baseball more popular: Assuming this involves moves toward parity, how to do it without scaling back on short-term revenue for the various stakeholders?
Football and concussions: Does a culture in which NASCAR and the UFC are the trendy sports really care?
The more I hear about the concussion thing the more convinced I am that something will have to radically change in the sport. This is truly scary stuff – and it looks like it’s being felt at the collegiate levels on a regular basis too. What happens when/if they start figuring out HS football is causing kids problems?
I just wanted to believe.
Safer equipment will exist by then for sure. No way is it gone in 15 [or 50] years.
Resident Take the Football References One Step Too Far Guy
Andrew, what you fail to take into account is that the concussion syndrome and football was much more pronounced in football during its inception. And punch drunk boxers have been around for centuries. Plus the danger increases the attraction – you know like NASCAR down there in the Carolina’s.
Nope, sorry, football’s gonna be the sport of choice for the phony-tuff and terminally macho.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I agree with Jay’s point here. I think the media coverage has blown up on this issue in the past couple weeks and then the Congressional hearings; it will be interesting where the issue is in 2 years. If it’s still being talked about and they are still trying to figure it out, then I will start to honestly believe football might suffer long-term.
Il faut d'abord durer.
I think there’s going to be huge media hits for football over the next 15, possibly including: death on the field in the pros (Carson Palmer has referenced this), studies that show it’s stunting kids developmentally, and, most importantly, when the players from the early 90s age into their danger zones. It’s one thing for Iron Mike Webster to meet his end so tragically but it’s going to be something all together different when it’s guys who have been in the media spotlight continuously since the early 90s: Joe Montana, Steve Young, whoever. Once one of those guys hits the skids, I think a lot of people will lose their stomach for it, especially as the science becomes more and more pronounced.
It will be interesting. Very sad if it goes that way, but interesting to see what will happen.
Meanwhile, screaming heads at ESPN will complain about not being allowed to play Football with a capital F because you get penalized for spearing someone in the back of the head as they’re mid-air.
Il faut d'abord durer.
Isn’t it just a matter of designing bigger and better helmets?
by ken from alexandria on Oct 30, 2009 9:01 AM EDT up reply actions
It’s more a matter of convincing people to wear them. Do you remember when the soccer helmet came out about a decade ago? It was shown to reduce the risk of concussion or head injury significantly. No one, however, would consider wearing something that so drastically reduced motion. I suspect that a larger football helmet would meet the same resistance.
Like Andrew noted somewhere, F = MA. They can do a lot of wonderful things these days, but they haven’t produced a helmet that prevents brain damage yet.
Il faut d'abord durer.
Football will suffer down the timeline if what you predict about famous players is enough to convince parents to steer their kids from the sport at a young age. Kids stopped becoming interested in baseball, and we’re seeing the effect it has.
Steel Nick
But baseball has successfully transitioned to a more multifaceted player acquisition strategy by bringing in so many international players. I don’t think anyone would argue football has any chance to do that.
I don’t know about that. Did anyone really foresee how much foreign talent would suddenly be in the NBA at this point?
But nobody even plays football anywhere else. We always knew there were European basketball players, we just didn’t think they were any good, right?
I mean, it took 15 years from Drazen Petrovic for the Euros to really invade. I don’t see anybody from Europe who’s going to blaze the trail like Drazen did.
There’s actually the leading edge of Aussie and New Zealand football players on the way. And you reveal a certain Euro-ethnocentricity here. You remember Vai Sikahema? Probably not since you don’t follow football, but he was one of the first polynesians to play in the NFL, now just about every team has at least one Polynesian on the team. And they’re starting produce good players from Down Under.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
not to reopen a can of worms already buried, but the simplest solution to the concussion/high velocity of football would be to go back to the original design of no helmets and fewer pads.
Players would be mush less likely to take off in their bodies as missiles without the helmet and pads on. Sure there would be more broken noses, cuts etc, but the concussions sure would drop. Broken noses, bones etc are easily fixable, concussions are not.
And I am prettty sure this wouldn’t ever happen either, lawsuits galore just waiting to happen. JMO
NASCAR’s popularity is waning, isn’t it?
by JulioBernazard on Oct 29, 2009 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions
This is the first time I have seen this posited. You don’t think there is a way that technology can catch up to the force generated by a human being?
I think football can wholly reinvent itself to make that possible but no, I don’t think it can remain in it’s current form and have technology wallpaper over thousands of head-on collisions a year for linemen. There’s no helmet that’s going to offset that kind of force and if you start doing it with something besides a helmet, I think you’re going to have to change the significantly.
Also! – the “more rigorous” definition of Newton’s 2nd is that F = d(mv)/dt – and, because mass is roughly constant unless you’re traveling near the speed of light, this simplifies to F = md(v)/dt. Spoken, this means force equals the rate of change in momentum (remember momentum = mass * velocity).
So what are you going to do to make the rate of change of momentum less? Have people fall much more slowly? Nada. You gotta extend impact time, and that just isn’t going to happen.
I think the answer starts with SlamBall.
by afh4 on Oct 30, 2009 1:44 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Like I said, I’d honestly never thought of this before. I think you overestimate our culture though. There are ills that affect the lives of players in nearly every major sport and we are content to watch them happen so long as the entertainment value remains high. PED’s, wrecks in NASCAR (which isn’t a sport at all), horrific leg injuries in soccer and so on have all been accepted as necessary to maintaining the entertainment value of the game. Why do you think football will change when the others haven’t?
No question. There are a million (or so) good, logical reasons to change the game of football before someone dies on the field, but the vast majority of real change in any setting is based on emotional appeals.
Every supporting anecdote I could readily call to mind involved politics in some way, so I’ll just go ahead and stop here.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
Leg injuries are not brain injuries. The stuff about Mike Webster and the other linemen that have met their demise lately is truly horrific and not “arthritis is debilitating” kind of way. These guys are homeless, drinking antifreeze, hoarding guns. This is a totally different beast.
As to Nascar, it’s become incredibly safe, actually. The thing about engineers is that they can make a pretty incredible machine that keeps people safe at high speeds. It’s insanely expensive and is nothing like a real car but there’s a lot of innovation that can go into something that big. Football pads and helmets, on the other hand, are limited by the fact that they are accessories to the motion and impact, not agents of it.
Your faith in technology and those that practice it is precious. Really.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I think you’re confused. I don’t think technology can help football. There’s not enough there there.
As for Nascar, I don’t have any faith, I’m just stating the facts. There hasn’t been a serious injury/fatality in Nascar for a decade or so.
There’s so many holes in this I’m not sure where to begin. Let’s start with some real honest-to-God stats. They’re from Chapel Hill, so I’m sure you’ll discount them, but here they are. You’ll note that the number of fatalities in football appears to be trending down, but that the number direct deaths per 100,000 participants at the collegiate level (0.47) stands alone among all other fall sports. You’ll also note that the indirect death rate – mostly heat stroke – per 100,000 (2.18) is less than 60% of the indirect death rate among water polo players (3.91) So here’s the facts: water polo is much more lethal than football. Do you hear anybody calling for the abolition of water polo – do you?
Next, in NASCAR we’re talking about a single catastrophic event. The football injuries you’re discussing are cumulative. Different analysis entirely. I chuckled when I read fwembt response – 20 incidences is statistically valid, is that right? I guess. But here’s the problem. In NASCAR it’s not the participants whose at the most risk – its the spectators. And the kind of catastrophic accident we’re talking about here is what the safety guys call low probability/high consequence. The chances of a 200mph/3,000 lb car going into the stans is extremely low. However, the next NASCAR auto to go into the stands won’t be the first. And the next NASCAR spectator to die in the stands won’t be the first either. But I guess the death of a few spectators is not as dramatic as the death of one of the better known drivers.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I think fwembt was saying 20 as the tiny numerator, with some gigantic (unspecified) number as the denominator. Yes, it would help if he offered an estimate of the denominator.
I don’t think Andrew’s point is about on-field fatalities, but rather the long-term consequences of playing careers. We turn these guys into celebrities, and when they all start ending up like Muhammad Ali, it’s going to start turning people off at some point.
Yeah, Chuck, you’re missing the big point. It’s about what happens to guys after their career.
And I don’t care about Nascar, at all. Somebody else brought it up and I was just pointing out that it was probably safer than football. That’s not the point, though, at all.
Read about Webster’s post-career life and tell me that more incidents like that with players that are far more famous isn’t going to hurt the game.
It’s pretty common phenomenon in boxing. In fact the syndrome is called dementia pugilistica . Mike Webster’s end stage life story ain’t very pretty. Being well know does not inoculate you from tragedy.
Here’s another thing to consider: getting old is not for sissy’s. My best friend who’s never taken a punch or a snap in his life has Parkinson’s. Getting old entails a lot of changes, not all of which -even for football players – are related to trauma.
Here’s the one truth I learned in Medical School: everybody gets sick, becomes debilitated, suffers and dies. Even sports heros.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
OK, those are all sentence fragments; I feel like you over-punctuated a little bit. Perhaps it would read more smoothly as all one sentence, like, “No one is arguing against this.”
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
No, one is arguing against this.
Is this the whale section?
by sarcasmdave on Oct 31, 2009 1:48 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Do you hear anybody calling for the abolition of water polo – do you?
Do you know anyone who cares about water polo – do you?
It is in pathos, not logic, that abolition gets started. There simply aren’t enough people who give a rip about water polo for there to be the gross tonnage of pathos needed to push for an abolition.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by Joel D on Oct 30, 2009 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Once too many horses drown, someone will finally call for the aboliton of water polo.
Wait 'til next millennium!
by emd2k3 on Oct 31, 2009 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
Hey! I care about water polo.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Oct 31, 2009 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions
It apparently also kills.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by Joel D on Oct 31, 2009 12:33 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Hey! I care about water polo.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Oct 31, 2009 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions
For starters, NASCAR isn’t even vaguely reminiscent of a sport and is, frankly, a waste of time. That out of the way, what I was attempting to point out is that, in keeping with Andrew’s point on the detriments to the participants, only 20 deaths in the whole of NASCAR racing history is not statistically significant. They are anomalies.
Well, I wouldn’t say anomalies exactly. I doubt there have been 20 deaths in the whole of pro golf and tennis history combined.
But NASCAR deaths are anomalies considering the nature of the activity. Put the average person in a car going 180 mph or however fast they go and you can time his remaining life span with a stopwatch. The same dude (or gal) could golf all day without incurring anything more serious than a sunburn.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
I guess it was your turn to get unfathomable. Dead is dead. Where it’s an anomaly or not is irrelevant.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
It’s actually very relevant to this discussion. If a NASCAR driver stood a 70% chance of dying every time he took the wheel, NASCAR would soon go the way of the dinosaur. Since NASCAR driver deaths are anomalies, enough people feel (and are) safe enough doing it that the competition continues to be held.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
No, it isn’t. Dead is dead, yes. Steve Irwin was anomaly, a cancer patient is not. That’s why the 20 deaths in NASCAR are statistically meaningless. It’s more dangerous to be a fisherman than it is to either watch or participate in a NASCAR race.
NASCAR isn’t even vaguely reminiscent of a sport and is, frankly, a waste of time.
Then you should try it sometime.
Wait 'til next millennium!
Not vaguely reminiscent of a sport?
I’m arguing it takes a lot of skill, coordination, and endurance to drive in a Nascar race, and I’m not even a fan.
Wait 'til next millennium!
It takes a lot of skill, coordination, and endurance to fly a space shuttle, but that doesn’t make it a sport.
As someone who considers himself an endurance athlete, I’m going to take exception to the idea that you need endurance to race in NASCAR.
Endurance in the sense that you need to stay awake? Ok. Otherwise, no. You need endurance to run a marathon. You need endurance to race an Ironman. You need to be sixteen years old to drive a car.
Il faut d'abord durer.
Have you tried steering a car around an elevated banked turn at 150+ mph while several other cars are trying to do the same thing? For 200 or so laps? In an environment where temperatures can reach 100+ degrees?
Wait 'til next millennium!
Have you ever tried running a marathon? How about doing so after riding your bike for 112 miles? And after swimming 2.4 miles with 2000 other people?
I’m not saying that driving a NASCAR is easy. I’m simply on the side that’s it’s not a sport. And whatever else it might require, endurance isn’t the right word.
Il faut d'abord durer.
Words tend to have fairly specific meanings. The meaning of endurance clearly applies here. It may not be the same type of athletic endurance that you’re accustomed to applying to pro sports, but it’s still endurance.
by Jay on Nov 2, 2009 3:17 PM EST up reply actions
Words tend to have fairly specific meanings.
I guess I’d disagree right up front. Words have all kinds of nuances depending on how they’re used or by whom, and meanings can change over time or because of context.
Dictionary.com, not the best resource out there but certainly a quick one, defines endurance in a couple ways. I would concede that “the ability or strength to continue or last, esp. despite fatigue, stress, or other adverse conditions,” in the strict sense, is probably true in NASCAR. You have to be able to continue to drive the car despite it being hot, despite driving fast, despite the road being crowded. The other definitions of endurance there fit in a similar way. But I would say that, in the context of a conversation about sports, we’re talking about a specific type of endurance, one that is commonly understood to be more than the ability to continue . Athletic, physical endurance requires more than that in this context.
So maybe NASCAR requires a different type of endurance, and to use “endurance” in a conversation about sports isn’t the right context to use it in.
Il faut d'abord durer.
Yeah, I honestly haven’t a clue what you’re trying to say here.
What NASCAR drivers go through meets the first two definitions listed neatly — it isn’t “strictly” meeting the definition, it meets it with no qualification required at all.
The physical stress and strength demanded of NASCAR drivers is a lot more than you realize, but even beyond that, you are pushing a semantic argument where even the semantics go against you.
by Jay on Nov 2, 2009 6:30 PM EST up reply actions
I am clearly not claiming that all levels of ‘endurance’ in sport are the same. It takes less endurance to play a round of golf than compete in an Ironman competition. But I’m not quick to deny that endurance is not a factor in NASCAR competition.
Jimmie Johnson often touts his physical condition as a major reason he’s able to outperform other drivers. Now, I don’t know if that’s true for certain, but I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I am also willing to classify auto racing as a sport, because to me, it takes a certain level of skill to be successful.
Wait 'til next millennium!
Not trying to be overly argumentative, but is that how you define a sport? It takes a certain level of skill to be good at almost everything that isn’t sheer dumb luck.
Reminds me of the scene in Christmas Vacation when the Christmas lights won’t go on. Upon being told that Clark worked really hard on this, his father-in-law comments, “So do washing machines.”
Il faut d'abord durer.
Actually, yes. I’d define a sport as (1) an activity that requires particular prowess or skill that is (2) governed by specific rules that (3) produce a clearly defined victor. By that definition, NASCAR is a sport. So is chess. That it’s technically a sport doesn’t mean I like it, would watch it, or care about it in any way whatsoever. People tend to use “not a sport” to mean “I don’t like it.”
i agree with a lot of this, and am not using “Not a sport” as code for “I don’t like it,” but recognize that happens a lot in this conversation.
Yours is a pretty good definition. Offhand, I would add “athletic” before activity in part (1), because I don’t think something like chess is a sport. This is where horse racing (more than auto racing) fails, to me. And I’d add change (3) to read “produce a clearly defined objective victor,” to eliminate things like figure skating or those parts of gymnastics that require a judge to interpret how good something was in a subjective way.
As far as chess being a sport, then why not Scrabble? Or Crosswords or Sudoku? I think you need to include those as sports, too, without more.
I had a friend who used to add, “And requires either special shoes or a ball” to every definition he heard when we had this discussion (which we had a lot, looking back on it) in college. It worked surprisingly well.
A big problem with this argument (and one that I certainly fall into myself) is that people tend to know what they think is a sport or not a sport, and then write their definition around that.
Il faut d'abord durer.
My brothers and I have this debate fairly frequently. These are the standards by which we now judge sport. This is actually a condensed version of a veritable treatise written on this subject.
1) Is there an objective scoring system in place? (Eliminates:gymnastics, dance-offs, horse shows, beauty contests, and boxing).
2) Is there direct competition? Put simply, are the competitors allowed to physically oppose one another, or are they separated by rules or a net? (Eliminates: tennis, volleyball, golf, swimming, and track & field).
3) Are people the ones exerting the energy? (Eliminates: NASCAR, open-wheel racing, horse racing, Ben-Hur, and weiner dog decathalons).
4) Is it necessary for someone to exert his cardio-vascular system? (Eliminates: poker, Scrabble, tiddly-winks, croquet, and staring contests).
If you are scoring at home that leaves: baseball, basketball, football, soccer, hockey, handball, field hockey, lacrosse, and water polo.
by Brad D on Nov 2, 2009 6:20 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Well, I’m glad we could find common ground.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Nov 2, 2009 7:16 PM EST up reply actions
1, 3, and 4 are big yeses. 2 is crazy talk. Of course, this is all crazy talk. But even still.
Il faut d'abord durer.
Track and field and tennis are not sports?
Want out of Cleveland? Easy - mess with LeBron's entourage.
by woodsmeister on Nov 2, 2009 10:16 PM EST up reply actions
Several reasons, which I’ll try to keep short so they’ll be reasonable to read in this mini-box of a thread we’ve got left here.
First, purely selfish reasons. I’m a runner, a biker, a swimmer. I played baseball my whole life, up to and including college, to the detriment of my natural athletic ability, which is in long distance endurance sports.
Second, one of the things I enjoy most about sport is how it allows you to better yourself. This is different than beating everyone else. This is obviously different when you are a sport fan vs. a participant, but it is possible to be happy as a fan when the team or athlete you are rooting for does great things, even if they don’t win.
Third, I pretty strongly disagree with some of the sports you eliminate there. Baseball, very largely, has almost no physical contact, but you don’t knock it out there. Also, just because you aren’t laying hands on someone most definitely does not mean that you are not in direct physical competition with them. Go train for a 400m dash for a couple months. Run a time trial, absolutely all out, as hard as you can, all by yourself on the track. Recover for a week or so, and then get yourself in a race with 7 people all a little bit faster. You will run faster virtually every time, because the physical competition is real and there.
Il faut d'abord durer.
Let me add one more qualifier here. A competitve sport, unlike what I call an activity, must be played by all walks of life, and cannot be limited by social status and income – like horsey polo, or car racing.
I kinda like fwembt definition re: physical contact. You actually hafta get make contact with the opposition to make it a competitive sport. I like to hurt the guy I’m competing with.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Oh yeah, boxing is the ultimate sport – old school style, where there was no such thing as a decision. You fought til one guy couldn’t get up.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
How on earth is simply beating someone the ultimate sport? It seems more the purvey of frats than of athletes.
Because all sports have the metaphor of beating someone … but in boxing, it’s not a metaphor.
Don’t know where you’re getting the frat boy relationship.
Baseball, very largely, has almost no physical contact, but you don’t knock it out there.
Because it does allow for physical contact. That’s the qualification.
I agree with you on every thing you say about track and field, which is why I think it isn’t a sport. While I played basketball in college and play soccer now, most of my athletic endeavor is spent simply running (either in training for a sport or a race). With the caveat that there is not a definitive answer here, the inability to ever actually physically engage another participant keeps something from being a sport in my opinion.
This isn’t to say that I don’t have the utmost respect for you, Michael Phelps, Levi Leipheimer, or any other endurance athlete. Those endeavors, to me, are athletics, not sports.
Fair enough, I disagree, but it’s not like it’s anything at all important.
My favorite “definition” of sport comes from Again to Carthage, admittedly a book about running. I have loaned out my copy, but to paraphrase, There are at their core two types of sports: ball and chase. Ball requires a bit of cognitive dissonance, since all its participants have to agree that the ball is the most important object in the universe. Chase is more primal; evolution has let us all know what it’s like to run from something trying to eat us.
Fairly melodramatic, for sure (as both of John Parker’s books on running are), but it made sense to me.
Il faut d'abord durer.
You eliminate tennis?
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Nov 3, 2009 10:17 AM EST up reply actions
I guess I tend to differentiate between athletics and sport. The two have significant overlap, but they are not synonymous.
It’s all semantics, anyway. They only athletic contests I care about are baseball and college basketball.
College basketball is the pinnacle of sports. I wish there was an appropriate SBN to discuss it with intelligent fans.
I think it’s the time of year to start lobbying Andrew to start a Duke blog.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Nov 2, 2009 10:13 PM EST up reply actions
Yea, I really don’t think it’s all that bad. I’ve seen a few threads derailed, but we have been better about it.
It’s inevitable that there’s going to be some overlap. Most of us our Cleveland fans. Honestly, I think it’s more detrimental to the Cavs and Browns blogs… why let all the great discussion be wasted on a baseball forum?
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
Just think what it’ll be like if the football team wins two more games.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Nov 3, 2009 8:05 PM EST up reply actions
Chess is not a sport. I’m not even willing to debate that one.
Resident Take the Football References One Step Too Far Guy
A sport at least ought to demand more endurance from its competitors than from its spectators.
by Jay on Nov 2, 2009 8:28 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
That’s great, but you just eliminated Indians baseball.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Nov 2, 2009 8:48 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
i always get caught up with car racing and horse racing – or any kind of racing where the main thing that provides the movement that is timed is not the (human) athlete themselves. they aim it. they get the most out of it, but unless they provide the propulsion, i feel like it’s something other than a sport sport.
i had a whole naming convention made up at one point for separate types of sports. there was a category for anything like gymnastics or diving that relied on judges scoring. one for sports based on direct head-to-head scoring like football, tennis and baseball. one for man propelled racing like biking and running and swimming. one for “piloting sports” like nascar and horse racing. one for individual sports with a scoring system based on a standard but ‘best of’ against other individuals like bowling and golf…
And the next NASCAR spectator to die in the stands won’t be the first either.
Actually, yes, that person would be.
So NASCAR has never had a spectator fatality at a major race, although there was one fan death at a small, NASCAR-sanctioned track in Ohio in 2001
Some more details here. It wasn’t Taldega or Daytons, but it was NASCAR.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
A 13 yo girl got killed by a hockey puck at a Columbus Blue Jacket game 3 or 4 years ago. I’m sure her family didn’t think it was “statistically meaningless”.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I’m sure her family didn’t think it was "statistically meaningless".
That is a shameless emotional appeal completely bereft of rhetorical value.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by Joel D on Oct 31, 2009 1:59 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Actually, according to Aristotle, this is a prime example of pathos, and thus having inherent rhetorical value. You can argue its logos, ie, that it has no place in the reason of his rhetorical case, but an appeal to the emotions is always fair game according to Aristotle.
Want out of Cleveland? Easy - mess with LeBron's entourage.
by woodsmeister on Oct 31, 2009 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions
In a conversation about statistics and probabilities, an emotional appeal holds no meaning. The girl’s death is sad, but statistically meaningless.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
Actually, his pathetic appeal is an attempt to undermine your argument by humanizing the statistical anomaly. This is still rhetorical fair game. It’s notthe argument you want to have, but it’s rhetorical fair game nonetheless.
Want out of Cleveland? Easy - mess with LeBron's entourage.
by woodsmeister on Oct 31, 2009 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Accidental deaths are, by definition, anomalies – that’s why they’re called “accidents”, and therefore statistically unlikely. And also by definition, accidents are preventible. So in the end accidental deaths are rare, and preventible. How’s that for logic?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Neither my seventh edition Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary nor the miracle of the internet defines accidents as preventable.
Something that is an anomaly, as you posit an accident is, is of its very nature nearly impossible to foresee and thus similarly difficult to plan for and prevent. The only way to prevent accidental deaths is to simply not do anything. Otherwise, stuff happens.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by Joel D on Oct 31, 2009 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Thanks Andrew. I know other people in the thread are saying this, but I think this captures my fading baseball fandom better than any other piece that I’ve seen. I echo John and Phil when they say this was a difficult year to be an Indians fan, but I think it’s actually becoming more difficult to enjoy baseball. At all.
-Erik
yeah, there are fewer than 10 teams that I can watch without memoaning the fact that I’m watching them.
Off the top of my head:
Us
Tampa
StL
The NL West, ironically
Florida
well, and select pitchers, such as Philly with Phifer on the mound. Such as.
Resident Take the Football References One Step Too Far Guy
I think it’s one part beatingtheyankeesinthews and one part JoshJohnsonAndHanley
Resident Take the Football References One Step Too Far Guy
My favorite thing about this piece: the title + cover picture (I’m a sucker for the Right Title).
The Hero Factory – coupled with a picture of Sabathia quietly working, somehow alone (in the busiest city in America!) is a stirring thought. The reader thinks: this stadium, right here, is where heroes are made. Formed in high-pressure World Series molds. Surely, that’s the author’s intent.
But you read on. The Hero Factory is hundreds (or thousands) of miles away from that picture. The actual Hero Factory is not shown; Sabathia (I know this now) has lost. It’s Cliff’s day. Moreover, the image of the factory has gone from a Noble Theater to an unsympathetic mill. Make crude steel slab strong and stiff can’t be properly deployed in our tough-luck town. Ship it far away to be used in the construction of beautiful obelisks and monuments to All The Wrong Things.
Then, finally, we read that the fond memories we fantasized about having might not ever be formed! The factory – maybe our factory – our steel mill – gets shut down. We don’t talk about heroes and baseball not because we feel pain (nostalgia), but because we feel nothing. Indifference! We don’t remember being disappointed that our heroes were stolen: we remember nothing. What heroes?
My baseball hurts.
by joeee on Oct 29, 2009 6:29 PM EDT reply actions 7 recs
I actually thought a lot about Cleveland/Pittsburgh’s relationship to the steel industry and the parallels to this as I was writing.
In a related nut much less metaphysical thought, I was thinking about what a great get this picture was…
Do you see the inverted double v’s? He’s bound for an injury at some point.
by joeee on Oct 30, 2009 12:13 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Why I like the imagery of a baseball stadium as hero factory, Yankee Stadium is not it. The Yankees let someone else find the talent, develop the prospects, and incur the risk. Then, once it is clear that a player is a superstar, they buy his services. I don’t know of any factory that works that way. You want a real hero factory?
San Pedro de Macorís.
I don’t think the piece refers to Yankee Stadium as a hero factory.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Oct 30, 2009 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions
Actually, it is common practice for the top corporations, law firms, universities, media companies, you name it, to purchase proven talent nurtured by smaller operations.
I want to say thanks for taking the time to write this. I found it very moving. I don’t take issue with limiting the scope to a simple emotional plea, rather than trying to tackle the economics or offer solutions. Being a Tribe fan in NYC, I get to see first hand the easy adoption of our heroes. I always find myself wanting CC to do well, and recently, I’ve been questioning the spiritual consequences of rooting against something usually the Yankees. When my friends ask me now, who I’m rooting for in the World Series, many of whom are Met fans and detest both squads, I simply say, “the Indians.” You captured my current state of mind regarding my favorite pastime perfectly. Thanks again.
Chicks dig the long ball.
Just getting around to reading this post and thread. Thanks, Andrew, for another thoughtful piece. But please, I tell MY kids about Joe Charboneau.
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on Nov 1, 2009 11:55 AM EST reply actions
Oh crap. No one tell indiansfan.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Nov 3, 2009 11:30 AM EST up reply actions
It’s also not telling me that there are new comments on the front page, or letting me “Z” to them once I’m here.
Il faut d'abord durer.
Does the text seem a little bigger to anyone else? Maybe there’s just more leading between lines.
Finally convinced my dad that Jeter is immensely hatable.
Possibly the leading, possibly the space in between posts. Seems like there’s extra space between the comment body and the sig.
by Jay on Nov 3, 2009 1:51 PM EST up reply actions
Still no “New Comments,” though. They’re there for fanshots on the left side, but not the main stories in the middle. Anyone else having this? I’m wondering if I left my browser open at home with these threads open.
Il faut d'abord durer.
Weird new look…don’t really get it, since it just looks like the old look, only broken. Is this a purposeful change?
It is purposeful, but I think they are still working out some kinks.
The change is purely cosmetic; there are no functional updates.
It’d be nice if, towards the bottom of longer threads, more of the screen were used. Once we get below the right hand bar of Fanshots, Fanposts, ads, and other stuff, it seems odd to have all the text off-center like this, and not use about 40% of the right hand side of the screen.
Nitpicking a bit; SBN still has the best format of any messageboard I’ve ever been to.
Il faut d'abord durer.
by CU Adam on Nov 3, 2009 11:28 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
That’s mildly disappointing, since I don’t like the new look one bit. Kinda hoped there was some sort of requirement that caused it though.
Oh well. I’ll live.
I think it is a little unfair to call Adam Miller the old format
by APV on Nov 4, 2009 4:13 PM EST up reply actions
I’d never even heard of those until my HS biology teacher used them. Everyone looked at her like “wth is that?”
Finally convinced my dad that Jeter is immensely hatable.
My uncle had a laser disc player in the 90’s. I remember watching The Empire Strikes Back on it. Did you have to change the discs during movies? Maybe I’m remembering it as much more antiquated than it actually was.
But good lord, man.
Steel Nick
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
- Will Bryce Harper start the season with the Nationals?
- Mitch Mustain puts football behind him, signs reported rookie deal with White Sox
- Robinson Cano and Denzel Washington face off in Jay Leno’s Yankees trivia contest
- Shane Victorino lands role on ‘Hawaii Five-0′
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
