Indians of the Decade: The Sluggers
by afh4 on Jan 30, 2010 6:52 PM EST
in History
250 comments
The is the fourth entry in a series on the Indians of 2000-2009. The last entry, on CC Sabathia, can be read here.
The decade now ended was, for Indians' fans, bookended by two giant, corn-fed, hulking men. Men who hit baseballs with mirthful rage and elicited honest rage from many Clevelanders for totally different reasons. Jim Thome and Travis Hafner could rake.
In 2002, Thome's signature offensive season for the second half of his career, he should've walked away with the MVP-he was in the top five in the league in essentially every important offensive category and posted the third highest OPS+ in team history. It's an offensive season for the ages, the 25th highest OPS+ posted since integration. The icing on the cake, of course, is that it was a walk year and big Jim walked.
With Thome heading to Philadelphia on a six-year, $85 million dollar deal, first year GM named Mark Shapiro watched the "Most popular athlete in Cleveland sports history" walk out the door. Shapiro had correctly figured that a super-slugging 1B/DH was a piece that a team admittedly rebuilding didn't need at the price he could earn elsewhere. So, Shapiro moved on and within a couple of weeks did a little deal, swapping a couple of obvious never-will-be's for a garbage arm and a guy who was less obviously a never-will-be. And, incredibly, the storyline becomes that Shapiro's "replacing" Jim Thome, one of the three or four best hitters in franchise history. As if Einar Diaz could net you Jim Thome.
Einar did. Hafner was on the scene and looking promising by the very next season, a bona-fide slugger in 2004 and 2005 and then, in 2006, he popped off the 11th entry on that list from earlier and, for good measure, tied the MLB record for most grand slams in a season with six. And, with those good vibes flowing, Shapiro forked over a monstrous re-negotiation/extension the next July, promising Hafner nearly 60 million dollars for his next four years of work.
It's well known in these parts that Hafner was already showing some cracks when Shapiro rewrote his contract in 2007. Pronk had substandard, even submediocre, months in May and June and, at the time, there was speculation that his contract situation had weighed on his mind, that suddenly being worth eight figures instead of seven was going to free him of fiscal anxieties and allow him to start crushing the baseball again. There was also a hypothesis that the market would make Hafner's contract look small, even for a team like Cleveland, within a few a seasons. And, there was Jay calling Choo a "fungible asset."
None of those assertions holds up in retrospect. In an "Only in Cleveland" turn of events, Hafner's big contract marks the end of his time as a dominant player, perhaps even his time as an honestly good player. Before his extension, Hafner OPSed over 1.000 in 11 separate months. Since he attached his name to that piece of paper, he's done it once. There's a vortex of rationales and excuses surrounding Hafner's performance since that time, most eloquently summed up in Evan Dawson's excellent Hafner profile for the Indians Annual 2009, but the bottom line is that something very bad has happened to Travis Hafner's body or mind and it makes it impossible for him to consistently appear under the stage name Pronk. You'll probably watch Hafner for three more seasons and, more than likely, you'll watch him play less than a hundred games a year and hit like a good second baseman.
That's how the decade started and ended. With a truly great Indian hitter walking out and fostering incredible antipathy among fans and with the next truly great Indian hitter exiting stage left, inexplicably, never to be seen again. Hafner's extension, which was once trumpeted as a sign that Dolan and Shapiro were willing to spend big when they thought they were spending wisely, is now a warning sign for all Indians' executives, owners and fans. A lighthouse that cyclically reminds everyone that, no matter how well you think you've built your ship, it doesn't make much sense to sail as close to the rocks as the dreadnoughts from Boston and New York do.
1 recs |
250 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I think you missed a paragraph in there.
Oh, how quickly the Plain Dealer forgets about Jim Brown.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 30, 2010 8:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Did I leave out a whole paragraph? What? I’ll look at it when I get home I guess.
by afh4 on Jan 30, 2010 9:29 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
The end of paragraph 3 after “And in”.
The quoted threads are interesting, almost like an autopsy.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Jan 30, 2010 10:04 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
See that. It’s just a typo. I like the old threads a lot. Funny how you came around to at least neutral on the Haf contract. Shouldn’t have given any ground.
by afh4 on Jan 30, 2010 11:06 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
It’s been a somewhat shrouded issue, but is the medical jury in on Haf’s shoulder? That he’ll never be Pronk again? Or that he was still recovering from surgery last year?
Non-Pronk still delivers above .800 ops, but there’s also the issue of how many at bats he can take before he needs to rest it.
by mcrose on Jan 30, 2010 9:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
If the “medical jury” is in or out is moot. If they told me that Shaq was tall I wouldn’t believe them.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Jan 30, 2010 10:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I believe the medical term is that his shoulder is made of 95% lean ground beef.
by afh4 on Jan 30, 2010 11:07 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Acta says he will be able to play more than three games in a row this season, and that they expect continued improvement and strength in the shoulder a year removed from surgery.
by odradek on Jan 31, 2010 9:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know if this will happen or not, especially given Hafner’s second half Mark Lewis imitation, but it is easy to forget that early on last season Hafner was Pronk
by APV on Jan 31, 2010 10:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Adding to this a little bit…
You might recall this piece I did last year at the end of the first week of the season. At the time it was hopeful that Pronk might be back, but given the sample size it was still a poor-man’s betting game at that point. But for the remainder of April Hafner went on to hit .270/.370/.540 – decent average, good patience, good power. Certainly encouraging. And Hafner played in 17 of 21 games (twice as a pinch-hitter) during the month. Then on April 29th Hafner abruptly made a return visit to Dr. James Andrews and was placed on the 15-day DL. It was easy at the time to think the worst.
But a funny thing happened. After spending all of May on the DL and then on a rehab assignment, Hafner came back at the end of the first week of June and was once again Pronk. Between June 5th (his first game back) and July 3rd Hafner hit .300/.426/.660 – good average, good patience, great power – while playing in 18 of 24 games (4 pinch-hitting appearances – this stretch of games covered several interleague series). That was decidedly Pronk.
Hafner avoided the DL the remainder of the season but went on from July 4th to the end of the season to hit a depressing .267/.333/.409, playing 59 of the final 81 games. If you break that stretch down into games when he was playing on back-to-back days and games he had a full day off for this is what you get:
without a day of rest: .250/.300/.353
with at least a day rest: .292/.376/.494
Hafner seems pretty clearly to have been dealing with fatigue. Fatigue is something that preparation and training can be effective in remedying. I certainly hope this is something Hafner is actively working on during the off-season and something the team will have him conditioning for during the season. If Hafner can play 3 out of 4 games and put up something close to a .300/.400/.500 line that is hugely beneficial for the Tribe, both with regards to offensive production but also financial health. I think there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic about Hafner going into 2010.
by APV on Jan 31, 2010 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I dunno. Fatgue? Could be. More probably inflamation in one or both of his shoulders. Either way he couldn’t hit after July.
But I find a sliver of hope in this too. If it is fatigue you’re right, training can help over come fatigue. If it’s inflamation a little more disconcerning. He may or may not improve with rest and rehab. We’ll hafta wait and see.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Jan 31, 2010 3:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The two aren’t exactly mutually exclusive, are they?
by APV on Jan 31, 2010 3:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well fatigue, to me at least, means a lack of energy. Lactic acid built up, reduced glycogen storage – you know like that. Inflamation on the other hand is a cellular response to irritation. In other words one has a more bio-chemical component the other more cellular. But to some extend you’re right. Potayto/potahto.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Jan 31, 2010 3:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
More….
Hafner’s HR/FB up to and counting July 3rd: 19.5%
After July 3rd: 10.7%
That first number is very good – for the season, it would put Hafner into the top 20 in the league (Albert Pujols is at 20.1%, for example). The latter is not so good, especially for a DH-only. Were Hafner able to sustain a near 20% number it would be better than all but his insane 2005 (24.4) and 2006 (30.2!) seasons.
I don’t know if the drop in HR/FB is a result of Hafner simply hitting the ball less distance or making less solid contact. Interestingly if you look at his graph of GB/FB/LD he switches from a FB-heavy first half to a GB-heavy second half. I think all of these observations are consistent with the idea of shoulder fatigue.
I don’t have experience with post-surgery related fatigue, but my sense is that things can be done from a preventative perspective, but one fatigue becomes an issue only sustained rest can really remedy the situation. And rest on the order of 1-2 months, not a day or two.
by APV on Jan 31, 2010 3:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What might be interesting is to compare Hafner’s HR/FB ration to pre and post steroid Bonds and McGwire. I’m not meaning to imply that Hafner’s issues are due to hormonal induced changes in performance, just that his injury might mimic the changes in power production evinenced by those two players.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Jan 31, 2010 3:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s generally believed that there’s a substantial luck factor with HR/FB, though that may be moreso for pitchers than for hitters (as it is with BABIP). Certainly if you weed out the “no doubter” home runs and flyballs that don’t reach the warning track, you’d probably find that everything in between showed a lot of variance.
by Jay on Jan 31, 2010 3:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think that “luck” reflects noise in the middle of the distribution. If you look at the top and bottom of the HR/FB leaderboards from year to year, there are a lot of names that show up repeatedly. Hafner’s numbers throughout his career have put him in the top 5% of major league hitters.
by APV on Jan 31, 2010 3:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Intuitively, it seems like if you weeded out the speed guys, the high BABIP hitters probably would correlate pretty well with the high HR/FB hitters.
by Jay on Jan 31, 2010 3:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And to a lesser extent, Jamey Carroll.
"I'm a baseball lifer. It's what I do." —Manny Acta
by westbrook on Jan 31, 2010 4:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I love the tiny Thome picture. Was watching game 1 of the ’95 ALDS on MLB Network (woo Tony Pena) and both Thome and Ramirez are there, looking very very slim.
*sigh*
by zempf on Jan 30, 2010 11:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Given that Thome’s 2002 season was buried between the death throes of the 90’s and what had yet to emerge, it is easy to forget just how phenomenal that season was. Thanks for making me go back and look.
I could really use an oscillation overthruster
by stuart dean on Jan 31, 2010 7:48 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
The most popular figure in Cleveland sports history? This guy isn’t even the most popular figure in Indians history. That honor goes to Bob Feller.
by elsandito on Jan 31, 2010 6:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
You’re looking at this from what you know now, not what we thought we knew then. If he had stayed in town he would have been forever revered. Instead he went from being the big country boy next door to just another money hungry douchebag.
by fwembt on Jan 31, 2010 7:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What a douche bag he is. Man, he was my favorite when I was a kid. Now words can’t express the antipathy I have for him.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Jan 31, 2010 8:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I figured you would be on this. I’m not sure that any Cleveland athlete, excepting Ernest Byner, has gone from loved to reviled so quickly.
by fwembt on Jan 31, 2010 10:21 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
How quickly we forget Jose Mesa.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Jan 31, 2010 11:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Repressed memory, there goes another year of work.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Feb 1, 2010 1:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He was never a hero like Thome though. I liked what he did for us, but he never captivated me like Thome did.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Feb 2, 2010 12:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How can anyone claim not to have been captivated by Mesa in 1995, when he saved 43 in a row with dominating stuff?
by Jay on Feb 2, 2010 12:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Because I was ten and I loved Thome and that’s all I cared about. I rarely got to see them play on TV, and 1100 only came through late at night, but I wore my socks high in little league and wallpapered my room with CPD clippings sent from my grandma. Maybe in my heart of hearts, I already knew that saves were a junk stat, but it’s more likely that I selected a favorite player for reasons I can’t recall now and that was it.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Feb 2, 2010 12:17 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Thanx for your reply. You just spelled out what makes me love baseball. I’m a different generation, my world was Tiant, McDowell, and Hargan. We went to see them whenever the tribe came west. I had to have an Indians hat and put a premium on their baseball cards. It’s an intangible feeling, but I shared it too.
by larzko on Feb 2, 2010 10:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How about an ERA+ of 194 in 97 and an ERA+ or 415(!) in ’95 and a second place finish in the CYA and fourth in MVP voting the same year? The guy could pitch.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Feb 2, 2010 12:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t blame Byner, but I was a year old. Couldn’t really comprehend what blame is.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Feb 1, 2010 1:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What I know is that Feller and only Feller has a statue dedicated in his honor outside Progressive Field. There is no way Thome would have received this honor even if he had finished his career in Cleveland.
by elsandito on Jan 31, 2010 8:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A statue was part of the Indians’ offer.
by odradek on Jan 31, 2010 11:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that anyone who hits 500 HR in an Indians uniform will be joining Feller in statue-dom. That was the reasonable expectation when that contract was being offered — Thome was 166 away and had hit 171 over the previous four seasons. Age 32.
by Jay on Feb 1, 2010 8:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m surprised that this is a debatable topic. In my mind, Feller always was and probably will be for a long long time, the most popular Indian ever. Wiki says that hitters who faced bot Nolan Ryan and Feller claim that Feller threw harder. He came up to the bigs at 17 throwing over 100 MPH. He struck out 17 in a game at that age. He has associated himself to the organization his entire life since then. People who saw him pitch spoke of him in hallowed terms. He has been an ambassador of goodwill for the Indians and baseball.
by elsandito on Feb 1, 2010 2:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Nolan claim is dubious, given how few hitters could have faced both in their primes. (Clearly Feller in the early/mid 1950s could not throw as hard as Nolan in the mid/late 1960s.)
Anyway, I don’t know what that has to do with popularity.
I’m still trying to find someone with a credible reason to believe Feller was more popular than Tris Speaker or even Lou Boudreau, who was Feller’s contemporary. I remember when Dolan bought the team, he said he never dreamed of being the owner of the Indians, but rather he dreamed of being Lou Boudreau. My dad idolized Al Rosen — the MVP, remember him? — which I’m sure many kids of a certain age did.
I’m sure both men loved the hell out of Feller, too, but that doesn’t mean he was the most popular. Obviously Sandy Alomar was very popular … but Omar was even more popular.
by Jay on Feb 1, 2010 5:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Imagine a teenager with 100+ MPH and control and sustains that ability. Maybe someone so gifted comes along every 30 years? And this kid pitches for your team. How many years will it be before the next so gifted kid pitches for your team? When will the next Jim Brown play for Cleveland? When will the next LBJ play for Cleveland? These players aren’t just very very good, they’re freaks.
And maybe they had big mouths and it hurt their popularity. And maybe Jim Thome said all the right things and Albert Belle didn’t. But, if we were choosing sides in a pickup game, I’d take Belle in his prime over Thome every time. To Hell with popularity.
by elsandito on Feb 1, 2010 7:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nobody is championing popularity. We’re just talking about it.
Belle had the more imposing persona, but despite your perceptions, Thome’s best seasons were every bit as good as Belle’s, and he had more of them.
I take your point about Feller’s freakish, once-in-a-generation-if-that talent. We are, however, only talking about popularity.
by Jay on Feb 1, 2010 9:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m with you here. My dad is ambivalent toward Feller (at best) but loves Rocky Colavito and Herb Score. Thome was well on his way to becoming an actual icon; it was difficult to find anyone who didn’t love him. Feller is well-liked and respected, but I don’t think the fan base loves him.
by fwembt on Feb 1, 2010 7:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The number of hitters facing both in their primes is zero. Here’s the list of players facing both Feller and Ryan: Al Kaline, Clete Boyer, Jim Bunning, Pedro Ramos and Tito Francona.
by FredOx on Feb 2, 2010 11:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you … I see my BS meter is still alive and humming …
by Jay on Feb 2, 2010 11:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Interestingly, Al Kaline, a member of baseball’s HOF, had to have faced Feller in the waning moments of Feller’s career and in Ryan’s prime.
by elsandito on Feb 2, 2010 1:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And this is my whole point. If Kaline says Feller threw harder in the last year of his career than Ryan did in his prime, he’s just full of crap.
by Jay on Feb 2, 2010 7:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And why would that be necessarily true? It’s unlikely, but it’s possible.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Feb 2, 2010 7:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Disagree. It’s akin to saying Lofton at the end of his career was faster than Dave Roberts in his prime. It’s just poppycock.
by Jay on Feb 2, 2010 7:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Kaline faced Feller in 1954 when Al was 20 and Feller was 35. Feller was 13 and 3 that year with an ERA+ of 119. Hardly his best year ever, but still pretty good. Kaline was 5 for 11 offa Bob OPSing 1.481. Kaline had 10 plate appearances against Ryan and went 3 for 10 OPSing .817. So he could hit both of them.
Kaline, in his prime, also face Sam McDowell in his prime and went 24 for 88 OPSing a more mortal .881.
So, yeah, Kaline smacked Feller around pretty good (SSS) but then again he smacked everybody around pretty good.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Feb 3, 2010 1:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Those samples are all pretty small.
Feller’s stuff fell way off for the last 5-6 years of his career, by his own description.
What I’m saying is, there’s a good chance Feller himself would find the question ridiculous. He doesn’t have the deluded confidence of a Ted Williams, who thought he could still hit .300 in his 70s.
by Jay on Feb 3, 2010 8:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
When asked in 1959 what he would bat against present-day players, Cobb said he’d hit .300. When Cobb was asked why the BA was so low, he said: “You’ve got to remember—I’m 73.”
by odradek on Feb 3, 2010 10:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s a fine point, but sample size is not relevant. A hitter as superior as Kaline would only need to face each pitcher a couple of times to determine which threw harder. He would not be asked who was the better pitcher, only which one threw harder.
by elsandito on Feb 3, 2010 2:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And that is not relevant. Kaline could tell you that Eddie Gaedel was taller than Wilt Chamberlain, too, and that wouldn’t make it so.
by Jay on Feb 3, 2010 2:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i’m picturing a scene in a bar where a number of former major leaguers are drinking, including Kaline and Feller. Kaline remarks that Feller threw harder than Ryan to the crowd, Feller takes the remark seriously and repeats it to some reporter.
by elsandito on Feb 3, 2010 2:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This also reminds me of a time during a Cleveland radio sports call in show when a caller, during Jim Brown’s career claims that he isn’t the greatest RB of all time.
The host goes on for minutes asking the caller didn’t he see this and didn’t he see that? The caller’s response was “Yeah, I seen it and I still can’t believe it”.
by elsandito on Feb 3, 2010 3:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My guess is that Feller in his prime did throw harder than Ryan, but that’s just a guess. What I’m sure about is that Feller after his prime did not throw harder than Ryan.
by Jay on Feb 3, 2010 5:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He also had a statue in his contract, playing right field.
by odradek on Feb 1, 2010 8:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
< insert witty garko comment here >
"I'm a baseball lifer. It's what I do." —Manny Acta
by westbrook on Feb 1, 2010 9:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Was Feller more popular than Tris Speaker in his day? Or Nap Lajoie or Lou Boudreau?
by Jay on Jan 31, 2010 9:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I was watching the Cavs/Clippers game today on the California Fox Channel – Shapiro was in the third row behind the Cavs bench. One of the Clippers announcers was gushing about LeStonod and called him, “the most popular player in Cleveland sports history”. Clearly, he never talked to me.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Jan 31, 2010 9:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, clearly, since you yourself have the power to outvote all other Cleveland sports fans.
by Jay on Jan 31, 2010 10:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He made it sound unanimous. Besides, I’m not the only Cleveland sports fan who doesn’t worship at that shrine.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Jan 31, 2010 10:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I know, you’re right. I’m just saying, the only criterion for popularity is … popularity.
by Jay on Jan 31, 2010 10:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You’d be hard pressed to find anyone in Cleveland who would say anything bad about Rocky Colavito.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Jan 31, 2010 11:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Still, we’ve got two Hall Of Fame players who each led the Indians to a championship while serving as player-manager. It’s hard to imagine that they weren’t more popular than Colavito or Feller.
by Jay on Jan 31, 2010 11:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’d make the argument that Feller has done way more for himself in the last 10-15 years than ever before. His status as the oldest living Hall of Famer has to add to that spotlight. Honestly, when I think about the Indians, the first players that come to mind are Omar, Sandy and Thome – in that order. But what do you expect, I was a kid then, they were heroes.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Feb 1, 2010 1:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sandy Alomar’s popularity has always confused me. He disappointed us a lot more often than he performed well. Wasn’t he basically Dave Dellucci for something like 7 of his 11 seasons?
by Jay on Feb 1, 2010 8:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is my view, too. I stopped fighting the fight a long time ago, though.
by APV on Feb 1, 2010 9:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s pretty simple for me: Series-winning home run off of Rivera.
by Roger Dorn on Feb 1, 2010 11:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So you love him for something that you don’t even remember right?
It was a game-tying home run which eventually led to a game-winning infield single by Vizquel. The series-winning hit was the next day, a two-run double by Manny.
by Jay on Feb 1, 2010 6:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh I remember the whole chain of events, I was at the game. I just give Sandy all the credit.
by Roger Dorn on Feb 1, 2010 8:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, you, with your retrosheet memory.
I've really got to change my signature.
by emd2k3 on Feb 1, 2010 11:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think your response to Chuck above is all that need be said. Popularity, ultimately, is determined by popularity and not be expectations met or failed or performance.
Those things obviously have roles to play, but I think Sandy was sold as the piece that put the 90s Indians on the attack, the big name up and comer that would the Tribe’s center for a decade. That’s how a lot of people saw it, anyways, it seems to me.
We’re also dealing with a phenomenon that, for most fans of the Indians, the 90s teams were the first times in our lives that we had a winning team. And the average fan wasn’t very baseball-savvy. Even a lot of people here, who ARE savvy, grew up on the 90s teams as kids, and learned baseball then. Of course there’s going to be slants and biases and memories that are more influenced by his home run off Rivera than his .260 batting averages (I’m completely making up that number, but I suspect it can’t be that far off).
I never loved Sandy as much as a lot of fans, but it also wasn’t because of his performance; I just liked other guys better.
Il faut d'abord durer.
by CU Adam on Feb 1, 2010 10:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think when a team is really excellent, which the mid-90s Tribe clearly was, fans are able to pick their favorite players on the basis of something other than performance. On the 2008 Indians, nobody has Sowers as a favorite because he’s representative of the team’s overall failure of the franchise. However, in 1995, you can like a spunky starter because the team is winning in spite of him. He doesn’t “feel” like he’s hurting the team because the team isn’t hurting.
by afh4 on Feb 1, 2010 10:15 AM EST up reply actions 5 recs
The first time I see Sowers, I adore him. Second time, he’s okay. Third time, I don’t know what it is, I just can’t stand him. Is it just me?
by YoDaddyWags on Feb 1, 2010 6:26 PM EST up reply actions 5 recs
this is the exact opposite experience for opposing batters.
by Brick. on Feb 1, 2010 7:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You haven’t been following Feller much have you? Bob Feller has no filter, he says whatever’s on his mind without regard for consequence. Kinda like Charles Barlkley.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Feb 2, 2010 7:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
its the law of diminishing returns. he is never as good as the first time he pitches (because ppl know its coming)
by bross09 on Feb 1, 2010 8:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
For the record, the first time he pitched he gave up 4 earnies in 5 IP, serving up 2 homers in the process. Clearly, he actually has been better since.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Feb 2, 2010 12:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It was a joke…
he was saying that the first time he sees sowers he likes him, the second time, it is less. by the third time he really doesn’t like sowers.
the law of diminishing returns is an economic theory. I was making an economics joke…i guess you didn’t get it and went to your fallback of stats to try to disprove a joke.
by bross09 on Feb 2, 2010 1:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I get that it was a joke.
Media Reflexivity is a communication theory when something makes a joke about itself, which is what I did here. It’s next level stuff, so I’m not surprised you didn’t get that it was a joke and fell back on ignorant belligerence to try to discredit it.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Feb 2, 2010 7:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Judgementalist. I’m telling you, this works.
by fwembt on Feb 2, 2010 12:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I wasn’t being belligerent at all.
I do not know about media reflexivity. that is all. I was not even offended at all. if it seemed like that then I came off wrong.
by bross09 on Feb 2, 2010 1:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In fairness to junkballer, it does seem like you have a different understanding of the word “joke” from everyone else. I take your word for it that there are people who would agree that this is a joke, and some of your previous jokes as well, but those other people don’t appear to be on this site.
by Jay on Feb 2, 2010 8:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
at least you finally are understanding my “jokes”.
when I actually try to be funny I am but I rarely try to do that over the internet. a lot of my “jokes” over the internet are somewhat dumb and are random, irrelevant statements like above.
by bross09 on Feb 2, 2010 1:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Your “jokes” appear to be any random statement that is related in some way to some other comment which may have been funny. These are also known as “non-sequiturs,” or, more precisely, “things that shouldn’t be posted.” File under, “Not every fact or idea in my head needs to be posted online.”
by Jay on Feb 2, 2010 7:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Non Sequitur was funnier when it was more political.
by VA tribe fan on Feb 2, 2010 10:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
there are not things that “should” and “shouldnt” be posted, except insults and vulgar words. those shouldn’t be posted. besides that, I though there were no guidelines. there was not a sign on the door that said “no non sequiturs”.
I don’t post every idea in my head online at all. I didn’t know you had such a problem though with my non-sequitur.
by bross09 on Feb 3, 2010 1:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
there are not things that "should" and "shouldnt" be posted, except insults and vulgar words.
Again, I hate to repeat myself, but you are not the judge of that. There’s no point contradicting a moderator on this subject, because propriety here is ultimately a judgment call that we make.
And again, I hate to repeat myself, but what the guidelines do and do not include involve an assumption of basic common sense, and where that fails for an individual user, it’s our job to step in and provide some clarity. That’s what I’m trying to do here, provide some clarity. And instead of paying attention, you’re nitpicking this into another unnecessary discussion.
by Jay on Feb 3, 2010 8:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Okay…whatever.
so what happens if I forget and end up saying another non-sequitur or 2.
by bross09 on Feb 3, 2010 1:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
seriously?
"I'm a baseball lifer. It's what I do." —Manny Acta
by westbrook on Feb 3, 2010 1:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Depends on the circumstances. Maybe nothing. Maybe ten guys give you crap. Maybe I give you crap. Maybe we ban you.
How about instead of worrying about that, you just stop posting things for no reason?
by Jay on Feb 3, 2010 1:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It had a reason.
and you know what, whether you like my post or not/think it has a purpose or not is somewhat irrelevant.
by bross09 on Feb 3, 2010 10:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
“I thought I was out, but they keep pulling me back in!”
I've really got to change my signature.
by emd2k3 on Feb 3, 2010 10:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Popularity, ultimately, is determined by popularity and not be expectations met or failed or performance.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. What I’m saying is that the fan base’s criteria — not mine, but theirs — is usually based on how much a player has disappointed them.
Alomar perhaps benefits from the fact that nobody expects a catcher to hit well, so his 636 OPS seasons pass by unnoted while his one dream season in 1997 is a timeless classic never to be matched by anyone … and never mind the fact that Indians catchers have surpassed that performance in six seasons out of 12 since then.
by Jay on Feb 1, 2010 6:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Reasons for Alomar’s popularity:
1.) He was established by the time the team started to be good. He was a rookie of the year in 1990, and had a long(est?) tenure of any Indian going into the 94-99 run.
2.) He was a catcher. Natural to think of the catcher as a couple things that fans generally love: tough and a leader.
3.) 1997. Most magical individual season I’ve ever seen. The best? Of course not. But it was magical. Legendary. Of note:
- 30 game hit streak (one of the longest ever by a catcher)
- All Star game homerun, in front of the home fans… just awesome
- .316 and two HRs in the division series, including the biggest hit of the series against Rivera
- Game winning hit in the ALCS
- .367 and two HRs in the World Series.
I just watched STO’s replay of the 1997 year in review. It reaffirmed Sandy as my second favorite player of those teams (behind Manny).
4.) He was a baseball guy. People knew he was the older brother of one of the game’s best players and the son of a former major leaguer. People like stories that go along with these types of families.
5.) He came off (and still does) as a very genuine and nice guy.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Feb 1, 2010 7:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i love sandy, too, but can’t understand/forgive his decision not to slide at homeplate in game 7 of the world series.
by macasson on Feb 2, 2010 12:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You know, not everyone picks their favorite player by logical reasoning. Especially kids.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Feb 1, 2010 9:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The reasons I’m giving aren’t logical! I’m just saying, those are the usual reasons. Performance relative to expectations plays a huge role.
I think Kelsey makes some very good points.
by Jay on Feb 1, 2010 9:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Kelsey’s grammar isn’t bad either.
I've really got to change my signature.
by emd2k3 on Feb 1, 2010 11:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
awesome.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Feb 2, 2010 10:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I was afraid you were going to slander Carlos Baerga’s walk rate. I’d never recover.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Feb 2, 2010 6:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
granted my favorite player as a kid was thome…
by bross09 on Feb 2, 2010 1:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He had a nice smile.
I've really got to change my signature.
by emd2k3 on Feb 1, 2010 10:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it may have also helped that he was am all-star catcher, whereas Dellucci was far from that.
by Chief Wahoo on Feb 1, 2010 8:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Alomar hit a HR offa the Yankees closer leading to his first post season blown game. That puts in him the Pantheon of Indians Greats as far a I’m concerned. And you’re right, he is like Dellucci to me – who hit a HR offa that sphincter Jobba while I was in attendence giving me 2 hours worth of blissfull ball-busting ammunition for the train ride back to Princeton.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Feb 1, 2010 11:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I was a catcher when I played little league and always wanted to be a catcher until I stopped playing. I have and always will identify very closely with catchers for that reason alone. Somewhere around ‘96, he came to my hometown to sign autographs and he inked my catcher’s mitt. We talked about the position for a few minutes, it was a shining moment for my young self.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Feb 1, 2010 1:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Also, reply fail for me.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Feb 1, 2010 1:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is pretty awesome (via Wikipedia):
The Lajoie-Cobb rivalry reached a peak in 1910, when the Chalmers Auto Company promised a car to the batting leader (and MVP) that year. Cobb took the final two games of the 1910 season off, confident that his average was high enough to win the AL batting title unless Lajoie had a near-perfect final day.
Lajoie, a far more popular player than Cobb, was allowed by the opposing St. Louis Browns to go 8-for-8 in a season-ending doubleheader. After a “sun-hindered” fly ball went for a triple and another batted ball landed for a cleanly hit single, Lajoie had five subsequent “hits” – bunt singles dropped in front of third baseman Red Corriden, who was playing closer to shallow left field on orders of manager Jack O’Connor. Lajoie also laid down a sixth bunt that was muffed for an error—officially giving him a hitless at-bat and dropping his average. O’Connor and coach Harry Howell then offered a new wardrobe to the official scorer, a woman, if she changed it to a hit. She refused, and the resulting uproar resulted in O’Connor and Howell being kicked out of baseball for life.
Nap Lajoie on a 1911 American Tobacco Company baseball card.
As it turns out, Lajoie’s average is not the only one tainted by controversy; Cobb’s average might have been inflated by counting a game twice in his statistics when one day he went 2-for-3, as researchers discovered 70 years later. In the end, the Chalmers Auto Company avoided taking sides in the dispute by awarding cars to both Cobb and Lajoie for their thrilling batting race.
I've really got to change my signature.
by emd2k3 on Feb 1, 2010 10:17 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I’ve always found this story very interesting.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Feb 1, 2010 1:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I can believe that story up until the point where the Browns manager decided he felt so strongly about the issue that he tried to bribe the official scorer, and then get pulled into such an uproar that he was banned for life.
by dgcambridge on Feb 3, 2010 7:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
STEROIDS HAVE RUINED THE PURITY OF THE GAME!!!
by APV on Feb 1, 2010 1:45 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
My grandpa LOVES that guy… … …
LeBron posted 23 in the 1st. This isn’t an argument, I’m just sayin…
by gte619n on Feb 1, 2010 2:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you ran a poll now, it would be pretty easy for most fans to pass by Laloie, Boudreau, Graham, Brown, Groza, Feller or Colavito as their choice. Most people who rooted for those guys are dead.
by elsandito on Feb 1, 2010 2:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
This is also true of…Bob Feller. To really remember Feller as a player you need to have been born around 1940, making you 70.
Look, I get that Feller’s a big deal, but as a young Indians fan my most immediate associations with him are the verbal missteps he’s made as an old man.
by afh4 on Feb 1, 2010 2:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Feller – like Alomar is more than just a pitcher. And yes, I’m old enough to have seen him pitch, just not in his prime. But Feller, to me any way, embodies that whole era and generation when baseball players weren’t grossly overpaid entertainers, when money – to the players at least – wasn’t the only driver. And then there’s Bob Feller enlisting in the Navy one day after Pearl Harbor. I guy who gave up the thing he loved and excelled at for his country. Not that he was Audey Murphy or anything, just a gunner on a ship’s battery. But then again, he did his part without regret or remorse.
I’ve told you guys before I had a half hour conversation with Bob Feller by the Indians locker room in the old Municipal Stadium. He was there with Mel Harder and for at least 20 of the 30 minutes he talked about how much Mel helped him in his career and what a great pitcher Mel was. I’m not sure that you’ll find too many of today’s “super stars” deflecting the conversation away from themselves and towards one of their mentors so readily.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Feb 1, 2010 11:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, a lot of them do that. Sizemore is notorious for being almost completely unwilling to talk about himself in any way.
by Jay on Feb 1, 2010 11:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Three of my brothers and I spent the better part of an hour talking to Brandon Phillips through the fence of the players’ parking lot after the rest of the lot had cleared out. Phillips is held up as being in love with himself, and probably rightly so, but I’ll always remember chatting with a major-league ball player like he didn’t have anything better to do at midnight after an extra-innings game.
Also, loving the Audie Murphy reference.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Feb 2, 2010 12:15 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
And one more thing: Bob Feller doesn’t like LeStonod either.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Feb 2, 2010 1:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Bob Feller doesn’t like anyone who’s not Bob Feller, but for $10 he’ll talk to you for a few minutes and scratch his name on something.
Fixed.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Feb 2, 2010 11:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Pretty sure he liked Mel Harder. Pretty sure.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Feb 2, 2010 12:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ask him again when Harder isn’t in the room.
by Jay on Feb 2, 2010 7:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This was supposed to go here:
You haven’t been following Feller much have you? Bob Feller has no filter, he says whatever’s on his mind without regard for consequence. Kinda like Charles Barkley.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Feb 2, 2010 7:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This post came to my mind on my drive to work today as I heard an interview with Kobe. He said that a lot the credit for his breaking Jerry West’s scoring record for the Lakers goes to West himself for his tutelage of Kobe when he was young. To have one of today’s super stars – albeit one from a different sport – deflect the conversation so readily away from himself and towards his mentor probably goes to show that maybe athletes aren’t any more douchier now than they were 50 years ago, but it’s just the 24/7 media coverage that makes them seem more insufferable.
You might well come back and say that Kobe had a publicist tell him he needed to say that to burnish his public image. You may well be right. The other two options are that Kobe is a misunderstood throwback or that things weren’t any different in the good ol’ days.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Feb 2, 2010 6:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I first met Feller at spring training, circa 1988. He was old. But he wore the entire uniform.
This was pre-$10 autograph days, and he signed some things for me.
That was cool.
I've really got to change my signature.
by emd2k3 on Feb 1, 2010 11:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just think he’s 22 years older now and I’ll bet he’ll still be getting chumps out at the Indians fantasy camp this spring.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Feb 2, 2010 12:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I saw a game down in Winterhaven in 2008 and Bob was signing autogrpahs for $10. I had gotten his signature in the late 80’s so just wanted to shake his hand. While I was chatting with him some guy came up to him for an autograph and gave Bob a $20. After Bob signed his ball the guy asked for change and Bob said “You give me a twenty, I keep the twenty. I am not an ATM.”
He may have been even more polular had he not quit playing ball for a few years to join the Navy to fight in World War II.
by ShawnK on Feb 2, 2010 10:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Can’t fault him for doing what a good majority of his generation, other HoFers included, did.
by The Grimace on Feb 2, 2010 10:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, it’s a rare trait these days. The only modern athelete that pops into my head in this category is Patrick Tillman.
by ShawnK on Feb 2, 2010 2:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t see how doing the honorable thing and quitting to join the Navy makes him any less popular today. It’s a story that is bandied about quite a bit and if anything, increases his popularity.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Feb 2, 2010 4:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Feller could have joined later and played exhibition baseball games for his entire enlistment – lots of MLers did. He could have got a cush job and taken an officers rank like Clark Gable. Or he could have dodged the entire war like John Wayne. Feller did none of those things. Instead he enlisted, asked for no special prevledges, and got treated just like any other enlistee. Just for that alone he’s earned my respect.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Feb 2, 2010 4:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed… so you would also agree on my point that his choice to serve in the means he did would increase his popularity? Sorry, it’s late and I’m struggling to bridge the gap.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Feb 3, 2010 2:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He’s earmed my respect not only for enlisting the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, but also how he choose to serve. The guy was the real deal. My dad, also a WWII Navy vet and amatuer baseball player, respected Feller like no other baseball player of that era. BTW, my old Man couldn’t stand John Wayne for related reasons.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Feb 3, 2010 11:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You’re not really answering my question, but I’m going to assume that you agree, given your stance on the above.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Feb 3, 2010 2:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely agree.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Feb 4, 2010 12:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, thought so.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Feb 4, 2010 2:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You might appreciate the song Sands of Iwo Jima by the Drive By Truckers.
by ClarkM on Feb 3, 2010 8:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think the story of Feller’s enlistment is that well known outside of the Bob Feller fans (of which I am) – and it wasn’t out of the ordinary during his generation, so I don’t know that the fan base appreciated it as much in the 1940’s as we do now (for those that know about it).
However, I surmise that if Bob Feller pitched another 1,000-1,200 innings of baseball from 1941-1945, he would have been a top 5/10 pitcher in several career categories. On a statistical basis, he would likely transcend from being one of the best Indians of all-time to one of the top 5 pitchers in the history of baseball – making him an even more popular Cleveland sports figure in the historical context of the game across fan bases.
by ShawnK on Feb 2, 2010 5:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well I 100% disagree. I’ve seen quite a few non-biased baseball programs that tout the Yankees like any and all baseball programs do, but Feller is almost always mentioned for his service time. I’m going to say it is fairly well known outside of his fanbase. I would also argue that there were even MORE people that were aware of this shortly after it happened, but the number has weened as generations have died off.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Feb 3, 2010 2:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If Bob Feller’s military service made him more popular than if he would have not served and finished his basbeall career as one of the top 5 ptichers in the history of the game (on a statistical basis), has Bob Feller’s popularity changed as the popularity of military service has changed across decades (1960’s-1970’s = not popular, 1980’s-1990’s = ambivalent, post-September 11th = very popular)?
From 30+ years of experience (as a Navy brat and as a Naval Officer), I think that the appreciation for military service has not always been the same. Meanwhile, while record books are objective.
by ShawnK on Feb 4, 2010 10:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But you’re forgetting he served in WW2, easily the most honorable time to volunteer for the military since the Civil War. I’d even say the most honorable time to serve in out entire nation’s history, but without a doubt since the Civil War. These are guys with parades in their honor, hundreds of movies documenting and glorifying their fight. These guys have consistently been heroes since they stepped into the enlistment office. And rightfully so.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Feb 4, 2010 3:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And, in case anyone wants to split hairs, by deeming it the most honorable time, I of course mean public opinion since the fact on the necessity of the conflict. I mean, men who were 4F in the 40s committed suicide. Wow.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Feb 4, 2010 4:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think whoever volunteers for service, serves honorably, regardless of when that time period occurred. Anyway…I think we went off on a tangent.
Bob Feller is popular because:
(a) He was a great pitcher
(b) He temporarily walked away from baseball in his prime to serve his country
To achieve (b) he gave up:
© the fame associated with being one of top 5 pitchers (statistically) in the history of the game.
You contend that (b) created more popularity than he could have achieved with ©. I think that the popularity of (b) changes over time, and © might have lead to greater popularity than (b) in the long run.
I think both arguments are defensible depending on how an individual thinks society values (b) and ©.
by ShawnK on Feb 4, 2010 6:21 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I think whoever volunteers for service, serves honorably
Do you think I’d be talking about this stuff if I didn’t also think the same thing?
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Feb 5, 2010 5:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I know we’re thinking the same thing about service. Anyone that drops a reference to 4F in their post has a deep understanding of the military. Plus USS Choo could be the name of a new naval warship. Probably a fast mover that likes to strike from long distance.
by ShawnK on Feb 5, 2010 9:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds about right. I’d join that Navy.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Feb 5, 2010 3:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Plus USS Choo could be the name of a new naval warship. Probably a fast mover that likes to strike from long distance.
But is at risk of being repo’d by the South Korean navy.
by VA tribe fan on Feb 11, 2010 8:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You’ve found my flaw!
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Feb 11, 2010 3:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t really care about public opinion.
I think it’s very damned honorable right now.
by Jay on Feb 4, 2010 6:32 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Did you guys really get the impression from my above statements that I don’t also think that?
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Feb 5, 2010 5:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh ok, I was worried I was giving off the wrong impression.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Feb 5, 2010 3:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just the way you were phrasing it, made it sound like the “true nobility” of enlisting was fluctuating in a certain way, when in reality only public enthusiasm about the military was fluctuating. I knew you didn’t really mean it that way, but you said it that way. Hence, I didn’t disagree, but I felt like it needed restating.
by Jay on Feb 5, 2010 7:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well I’m glad you did then, clear the possibility of a misconception up.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Feb 6, 2010 1:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I mean, men who were 4F in the 40s committed suicide.
I will try to keep this from being political, but I think your view is a bit reductionist. Some people may have done this, though it is most certainly anecdotal. 4F is a draft category, not an enlistment ranking, no? So why would someone who was classified 4F—which indicated their acceptability for conscription—be suicidal because they couldn’t be drafted?
Enlistment rates were high but not universal (see Catch 22) in World War II. African-American enlistment rates, for example, were not overwhelming. Plenty of people were glad to have deferments. Plenty of people were conscientious objectors.
This idea that service in the military was universally desired is belied by the existence of a military draft. If everybody enlisted there’d be no need to draft anyone.
by odradek on Feb 5, 2010 2:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, I should have phrased it as “some”, but the point still stands. And it would still make sense if they were drafted and weren’t able to go, they didn’t want the shame of being looked down upon skipping out of the commitment. Obviously, this isn’t something that was wide spread or even common, but it happened. Probably much more likely to happen in smaller towns as well. And if you were an African American in the 40s, would you really be all that excited to enlist just so they could make you a cook and remind you how the goverment really feels about your race? I wouldn’t have.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Feb 5, 2010 3:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The more I think about people killing themselves because they were 4F the less I believe it. Certainly people wondered why an apparently able-bodied male wasn’t off fighting the Huns, but the version of history that says everybody wanted to go off to war is suspect.
I fully understand your point about the reluctance of African Americans to enlist. Plenty of American males—black, white and Asian—were unwilling to enlist.
by odradek on Feb 5, 2010 5:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
… and, of course, plenty of Americans were thrown into internment camps for absolutely no wrongdoing or defect of their own.
by Jay on Feb 5, 2010 7:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree. I think Shawn makes a good point about the popularity of military service through the decades; but I believe that only applies to current enlistedmen. I don’t see antiwar demonstrators in the ’60s and ’70s as blaming the WWII generation for taking down the axis powers.
by clusterchuck on Feb 4, 2010 5:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
…easily the most honorable time to volunteer for the military since the Civil War. I’d even say the most honorable time to serve in out entire nation’s history, but without a doubt since the Civil War.
You forgot World War One.
by odradek on Feb 5, 2010 12:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No, I didn’t. WW2 has Pearl Harbor as provocation and the Holocaust. If you ask people today, the majority probably don’t even know what started WW1.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Feb 5, 2010 5:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, was Archduke Ferdinand really worth all the fuss?
I've really got to change my signature.
by emd2k3 on Feb 5, 2010 9:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Either I don’t understand what you’re saying or you need to read more history. American soldiers enlisting in WWII knew nothing of the Holocaust, of course. Pearl Harbor was a profound incentive.
But WWII isn’t at issue. I’m talking about the period between 1865 and 1941. There actually weren’t a lot of enlistments for the Civil War, which was why conscription had to be enacted.
American involvement in the Great War was huge. There were a lot of conscripts, but there were more than a million American troops in France by 1918.
It really doesn’t matter whether people today can’t identify Gavrilo Princip or Black Jack Pershing. History isn’t a popularity contest (well, it is, kind of).
by odradek on Feb 5, 2010 11:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We’re not talking about enlistment or service viewed at THAT time period. We’re not even talking about American involvement numbers. We’re talking about how history views the service/necessity of the war fought. Of course the soldiers knew nothing about the Holocaust, but history views this generation of soldiers as the liberators of Europe. The men who helped end the mass murder of millions of people.
What you’re not getting is that I am in no way saying that anyone who served in WW1 was doing anything less honorable. What I am saying, is that if you polled 1000 people asking them to list the major wars America has taken part in, in regards to their influence over the world, the nobility of what they were (or are now perceived to have been) fighting for, you would undoubtedly see WW2 atop that list.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Feb 5, 2010 3:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Okay, now I understand. World War One at the time was the war to end all wars. It was a war of great nobility until the invasion of the Sudetenland. So these things change.
I think historically American involvement in WWII is considered the most noble (or the least ambiguous). Liberating Europe (and Asia), saving the lives of countless people and fighting fascism are all heroic.
if you polled 1000 people asking them to list the major wars America has taken part in…
You’d have a pretty lame list.
by odradek on Feb 5, 2010 6:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
“Uh, let’s see … war on drugs … war on terrorism … war on the environment … war on Christmas? I can’t remember.”
by Jay on Feb 5, 2010 7:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
“Wasn’t there, like, a civil war with Mexico?”
by odradek on Feb 5, 2010 8:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
LBJ’s War on Poverty.
Mayor Bloomberg’s War on Salt.
by elsandito on Feb 5, 2010 9:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wasn’t the war on drugs started so the police could bother Tupac?
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Feb 6, 2010 12:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The War on Tupac, that’s another one. And Tupac versus Biggies, another.
by odradek on Feb 6, 2010 2:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I still remember the ill-fated War on Chanukah.
I've really got to change my signature.
by emd2k3 on Feb 8, 2010 1:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t exactly get behind the idea of liberators of Asia. We were pretty ruthless over there, not to mention the A-Bombs.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Feb 6, 2010 1:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Unlike the bombing of Hamburg and Dresden.
Many lives were saved by the the interventions of the Allies in China and Southeast Asia, at least for another 20 years. Korea too.
by odradek on Feb 6, 2010 2:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There’s also a view of history that says the true liberators of Europe, the true victors over fascism, were the Soviets. They sustained much greater losses, and, so the thinking goes, contributed more to the downfall of the Third Reich. In the U.S. we don’t hear as much about the Eastern Front, but Stalin was willing to sustain insane losses against Operation Barbarossa.
by odradek on Feb 6, 2010 2:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Some figures put the totals at roughly 9 million Soviet casualties from the Nazi invasion and counter-invasion.
by The Grimace on Feb 6, 2010 4:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I believe the total war dead (military and civilians) is somewhere north of 25 million. It’s an astronomic figure.
Modern warfare (or at least what we expected modern warfare to be in a future European war) was developed on the Eastern front.
The West was little more than a sideshow. The Soviets won the war, and would have, regardless of an invasion of France or Italy.
by Gradyforpresident on Feb 6, 2010 2:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m pretty certain that if you went through the historical record one would come to the conclusion that the reasons for the Western front were:
1A) Defeating Germany
1B) Stopping the Soviets as far east as possible.
Churchill was especially of this view.
by Gradyforpresident on Feb 6, 2010 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Last point: Despite revisionist claims of the war being fought to end the Holocaust, in reality it was an afterthought for American and British war planners. And, for that matter, the vast, vast majority of Holocaust victims died in the east, and the most — and biggest — death camps were liberated by the Soviets.
by Gradyforpresident on Feb 6, 2010 2:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not aware of the revisionist claims. I’ve never been aware of any evidence that the extent of the Holocaust was at all well known even at the highest levels of government.
by Jay on Feb 6, 2010 4:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m fairly confident that many in the US government in late 1940, early 1941 knew how the Germans were treating the Jewish population of Poland and western Russia. And of course you’d have to be deaf and blind not to be appalled at the German government for incouraging the Kristallnacht events of November, 1938. I don’t believe that the US government ever envisioned the totality of the coming horror, but they knew that it wasn’t going to be good.
There’s plenty of blame to go around for the passive response to this barbarity. Plenty.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Feb 6, 2010 4:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Mass communications were in their infancy at that point, so it’s really tough to say who really knew what. Ethnic scapegoating was not a new phenomenon, and no nation has ever made a foreign policy imperative out of preventing it. It’s tough to say what anyone knew and what could be excused, but it is safe to say nobody knew how bad it really was.
by Jay on Feb 6, 2010 5:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
True, probably nobody could know how bad it really was. But I’m almost positive I’ve read multiple times that the British and Americans knew that atrocities were being committed in what they thought to be work camps (of course they didn’t know the extent), and that they neglected any opportunity, despite some protestations, to do something about it (i.e., bomb the railroads).
God knows it would have been a better use of the air force than needlessly slaughtering some half a million German civilians with a totally useless bombing campaign.
by Gradyforpresident on Feb 6, 2010 10:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, poor word usage. I meant popular belief, looking for even greater justification after the fact.
by Gradyforpresident on Feb 6, 2010 10:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
1C) The Soviets would have let Germany just keep France.
by Jay on Feb 6, 2010 4:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The British were prepared to liberate themselves.
by Jay on Feb 6, 2010 4:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I have a hard time believing that the Soviet Union would stop its divisions at the Vistula or the Oder, especially if there were no Allied army from the west that would check their expansion.
by Gradyforpresident on Feb 6, 2010 10:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There were still Commie rebels in Spain waiting to be hooked up with.
by The Grimace on Feb 7, 2010 1:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And I think it’s highly likely most European governments would have been overthrown by internal communist uprisings ahead of the Soviet advance. (Again, with no western army present.)
by Gradyforpresident on Feb 6, 2010 10:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree. The Czechs would later democratically elect their communist regime; Italy nearly did the same, and had it happened there it might’ve happened in France as well.
by jhon on Feb 7, 2010 4:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
While I would agree that Russia played a far more important role than the U.S. in the ETO, measuring contribution by lives lost shouldn’t be the yardstick. If the Russians lacked resources and training and paid for it with lives, it’s unfortunate. However, it does underscore their extreme perseverance.
by elsandito on Feb 6, 2010 5:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
By the best estimates available, the Russians cause at least 75% of all the German casaulties of WWII. And, after all, this was a war of attrition.
BTW, the Russians lost as many men in the final campaign to capture Berlin as we did in the whole war – in both the Pacific and European Theatres.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Feb 6, 2010 6:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If the Russians lacked resources and training and paid for it with lives, it’s unfortunate.
This is just not, not, not, not true. The Russian Army at the end of World War II was the best on the planet, despite having taken nearly ten million deaths. The Russians fought every inch to Berlin, we in the west had a cakewalk of it.
by Gradyforpresident on Feb 6, 2010 10:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We wouldda chewed Red Air Force into saw dust. Just like we did the Germans.
Nope, Patton was right. Shouldda kicked their asses while we had all the equipment over there.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Feb 6, 2010 11:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely wrong. The Red Army was the strongest in the world at the time and really just starting to get going.
by fwembt on Feb 11, 2010 2:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And it wasn’t like the Russian tanks were going to run out of oil, either; they had plenty of that. A question that should be posed before any war: is the sum total of human (and environmental, for that matter) misery going to be greater or lesser for this action?
by YoDaddyWags on Feb 11, 2010 8:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree with that question but that is too political for these pages.
There is really no reason to think the Allies could have suddenly just marched through the Red Army. Even with what was left of the Wehrmacht on their side they would have been significantly outnumbered and up against some of the best equipment in the war.
by fwembt on Feb 11, 2010 12:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s posed as an abstract question, so any expounding on your opposition to it seems within the bounds of this discussion.
by YoDaddyWags on Feb 11, 2010 1:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, they wouldda run outta oil alright. Our Air Force could reach the Russian oil fields and refineries just like they did the Ploesti oil fields and essentially cut off the Russian oil supply.
Nope, the Russians were tough, but the Germans had just about exhausted them by ‘45. Plus you’re forgetting that we were 4 months away from deploying the Big Bobber on Himoshima. That thing wouldda tore hell outta the Kremlin.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Feb 13, 2010 3:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is completely historically false. How do our bombers propose to get to Russian oil production, located much farther away than German oil ever was? More raids like Ploesti would have destroyed the Ninth and Tenth before they put a dent in the Russians.
We used the Trinity bombs in 1945. Not until Operation Crossroads in July of 1946 did we even have one more atomic bomb ready. Again, reaching the Kremlin with it would have been a logistical impossibility.
by fwembt on Feb 13, 2010 5:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
For the sake of argument, by 1945, a strong Army—tanks and infantry—no longer mattered quite so much. This wasn’t true in 1939, but a lot had changed.
by jhon on Feb 11, 2010 1:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We were living in the post-Atomic bomb era. Today nuclear weapons aren’t really a game changer as they aren’t exclusive, but I must imagine they would have been for at least a few years following the conclusion of the war. I’m not sure when Russia developed the technology.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Feb 11, 2010 3:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We didn’t have the capability at that point to just bomb haphazardly either. Assuming Russia could just swallow civilian casualties as easily as they did military, they didn’t have much to fear from a nuclear attack in 1945-46.
by fwembt on Feb 11, 2010 5:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair. I’d also assume that they would have had less centralized operations in comparison to Japan.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Feb 12, 2010 2:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Are you joking? The reverse is true. Has any power ever been so tightly centralized as the 1940s USSR? They had more decentralized resources, sure, but not the authority to command them.
Since information didn’t exactly flow freely over there, and disinformation prevailed more strongly than anywhere else, sure, maybe they would have kept on fighting for awhile.
I appreciate the Soviets’ contribution to defeating the Axis, but their capabilities are vastly overstated here. If in 1945 the Soviets had tried to take Yugoslavia—later the Soviets ideological rival—the resurgent state would have given their Army a run for their money.
At any rate, the potential terror that a strong Air Force—something that we, not the Soviets had—would have been the decisive factor in a conflict, as conflicts had evolved. It’s a good thing we didn’t, but we probably could have.
They swallowed civilian casualties, fwembt, by ruthlessly suppressing information about it. But tell me, how do you suppress the terror of enemy planes dropping bombs of any sort?
by jhon on Feb 12, 2010 3:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well quite obviously I was talking about resources here. I’m not quite sure that in the wake of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an already reluctant Truman was going to make the decision to drop atomic bombs on things that weren’t resources.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Feb 12, 2010 5:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They swallowed civilian casualties, fwembt, by ruthlessly suppressing information about it. But tell me, how do you suppress the terror of enemy planes dropping bombs of any sort?
Is this true? I don’t know, but I thought Stalin just swallowed the casualties. It was no secret what was going on in Stalingrad or Leningrad.
by odradek on Feb 12, 2010 11:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Even though they were very cynical, the Soviet people were told many lies by their monarchs…
Honestly, I’ll have to hit the books to develop my comments any further, and today is not a good day for the project.
by jhon on Feb 13, 2010 4:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But tell me, how do you suppress the terror of enemy planes dropping bombs of any sort?
The same way they did at the start of Barbarossa. The civilian population was in the dark then but for those of them being bombed. The deaths at Leningrad and Stalingrad didn’t cause so much as a dip in the national morale. Bombing the Soviets was simply never a viable alternative.
by fwembt on Feb 13, 2010 5:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In a war with Russia what would have mattered? Navy was unlikely to play much a role and the air force wouldn’t have the conditions it needed for much longer in 1945 had war been declared.
by fwembt on Feb 11, 2010 5:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Weather conditions aside Soviet production centers were roughly 2000 miles from the farthest Allied advancement into Europe. Strong Air Force or not, that is a long way to go for bombing runs even with the technology of the time.
by The Grimace on Feb 13, 2010 4:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s also a long way to sustain a supply line under constant air bombardment. Ask the Germans what Allied air superiority did to their supply lines.
And don’t forget, the Allies were supplying a pretty good percentage of raw materials and food to the Soviets.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Feb 13, 2010 3:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And how would the Allies have managed that constant bombardment, defeated the Japanese, and controlled Europe at the same time? The Russian Air Force was a much bigger threat than you seem to think. By 1942 it was already three times the size of the Luftwaffe, and subduing the Germans took three years after that.
by fwembt on Feb 13, 2010 5:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, it was nothing to do with lack of resources or training and everything to do with doing whatever it took, no matter loss of life, to win.
by The Grimace on Feb 7, 2010 1:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
D-Day was a cakewalk?
Let’s dial back the hyperbole here. Way too many people died on that front to act like it was no big deal.
by Jay on Feb 7, 2010 8:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough. It just has always bothered me how most don’t give the Russians their due.
by Gradyforpresident on Feb 7, 2010 1:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I hear what you’re saying, but the Soviets did not help things with the non-aggression pact.
by jhon on Feb 7, 2010 11:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Stalin had just (1937-38) purged his army of, by some counts, 269 of its top 316 bigwigs (that’s an .851 clip), leaving only the less than brilliant Voroshilov and Budyenny of the original 5 Marshalls of the Red Army. The Soviets were excluded from the Munich negotiations, despite having, along with France, a mutual defense pact with the Czechs, and the caving of the west to Hitler probably didn’t cure Uncle Joe’s little problem with paranoia. The west has had difficulty, I think, in assessing Russian motivations and intentions, which included the 1945 disinformation the Soviets fed them about a Nazi “last stand” in the south, which seems to have frozen Allied troops and allowed the Red Army to get into Berlin first. We forget how flat and open the Russian border is, and how much they value a buffer of client states—which their recent foreign policy seems intent on recreating.
by YoDaddyWags on Feb 8, 2010 10:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Because we’re not Russian?
I've really got to change my signature.
by emd2k3 on Feb 8, 2010 2:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I know a few Russians that don’t care.
by Roger Dorn on Feb 8, 2010 5:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ask someone from our boys if Bastogne was an f-ing cakewalk.
I've really got to change my signature.
by emd2k3 on Feb 8, 2010 2:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And then ask them if they felt they needed to be rescued by Patton. Tough SOBs, all of them.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Feb 8, 2010 3:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I have spent a considerable amount of time working in the former Soviet republic of Georgia. The visible signs of WWII are incredible. It is not uncommon, even in very small villages in the country, to find memorials to WWII listing all of the people in that village who died in the conflict. The village I’ve spent much of my time in is no more than 200 people and given its size and location, probably has never been more than that. But the villages WWII memorial had 24 casualties in WWII. The effect of WWII on the human landscape there far outstrips anything I have ever observed here, and that is not including Stalin’s relocation policies with an even greater number of ethnic minorities and dissidents.
by APV on Feb 6, 2010 7:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Soviets lost 2 million men in the first three weeks of the war.
by odradek on Feb 7, 2010 7:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We were ruthless with Japan, but for the rest of the continent we were saviors. What the Japanese did in China was atrocious on so many levels, and they started doing that in 1931. Read up on the Rape of Nanking to see just how bad it was for China. They’re occupation of Korea (which started well before WWII) was also terrible. Much like Germany in the west the Japanese had a strong superiority complex when it came to their neighbors, and they acted out on it in force.
by The Grimace on Feb 6, 2010 4:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There’s a short interview up with Travis on BP, and it’s not going to convince anyone to sign up. The questions ignore his recent struggles and injury, and instead focus on the idea that he was trapped in Texas before the Tribe and their statistical savvy rescued him. Short and fluffy, I’m not going to fan shot it.
by dgcambridge on Feb 2, 2010 12:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
So I totally miss one of the most political threads in LGT history?
by Gradyforpresident on Feb 6, 2010 2:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Fair territory in the next Bob Feller discussion.
by odradek on Feb 6, 2010 4:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I managed to get involved anyway. But I guess it’s sort of apolitical history.
by Gradyforpresident on Feb 6, 2010 10:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I managed to incite the whole thing, then miss the meat of the discussion for being out of town for two days. I can’t even jump back in at this point.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Feb 8, 2010 4:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Let's Go Tribe!
on FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
