Round The Bases Slowly
I've always fallen hard for a certain sort of athlete—I like it when a guy simple believes he's much better, broadcasts it, be that explicitly or implicitly, and uses the contest as his ultimate opportunity to make that point repeatedly and emphatically, even after the outcome seems assured. I like my athlete's great and arrogant about their greatness—it makes their successes and failures more interesting to me.
Clearly, I'm not alone in this—the appeal of Ali and Frazier has been rehashed quite a bit in the wake of Frazier's passing, and an oft repeated exchange stands out for me. I've read at least three different versions of this, but the gist is that during the first Ali-Frazier fight in 1971, Ali was supposedly shouting at Frazier, over and over:
"Don't you know I'm God?"
At least one version has Ali punctuating each swing of his fists with it, as if by repeating it, in combination with his incredible talent, he would make it true. Frazier, for his part, was unimpressed. There are conflicting versions of how the then champion responded (and hell, let's admit this all is at best 50-50 for ever happening), but in my favorite Frazier responds almost apologetically:
"Lord, you in the wrong place tonight."
Devastating. Ali and Frazier was the collision of two athletes who carry the mentality I mentioned earlier—Ali and Frazier were each so sure of their ability, so assured of victory, that the former was willing to assert that he was God—all powerful, the creator—and the other was willing to accept that but counter that he could, in fact, knock God down often enough to win the fight. And, of course, he did.
Baseball hasn't recently lent itself to the kind of grandstanding that makes me gleeful—Albert Belle hanging out of the dugout pointing at his bicep is one of my favorite sports moments of all time, and it's also a moment that clearly would seem out of place in this era, where an excess of power is the equivalent of a scarlet "WINSTROL" across your chest, where an explosive personality is an easy way to raise flags. Albert Pujols, clearly one of the very best players of the last decade, is nicknamed 'The Machine', and there's a lot about baseball's last decade in that. A Machine is efficient, excellent, and maybe, if we're felling personify-ing, ruthless; a machine is not arrogant, communicative, or interested in asserting its excellence after the job has already been completed. I am totally uninterested in the athlete as machine. To see the expressive and cocksure Brewers lose to Tony LaRussa's Golden Machine and The Aww Shucks Squad was a disappointment.
In light of all this, it's not hard to discern that I often find the Indians disappointing. I'm inclined to imagine (and impose) the alchemy of greatness and ego that I want on the team. I see Chris Perez as an untouchable fire-eater when, actually, he might be a player worth flipping for an interesting guy at AA; I remember Fausto as the 2007 ALDS world beater when, actually, his nerves appear made of rock candy, not steel. At least this season brought Asdrubal and his occasional bat flip, and, of course, Carlos, who exudes exactly my sort of catnip.
Smack in the middle of this, of course, is the player I wrote about on Halloween, Grady Sizemore. Grady was considered a generational talent from nearly the beginning, and he's one of only a few Indians of my lifetime who really approached the talent level that really sucks me (and most fans) into a persona. At his peak, Grady would occasionally give me what I was after, in the form of a disingenuous "Who, me?" smirk after smacking a baseball 420 feet or legging out a triple. Now, though, the potential that such a posture would be routine for him is long gone.
The Indians appear to be moving in the right direction, though, and some new swagger may soon be earned. Masterson is a gigantic talent and, with a well placed scream or two, he can worm his way deeper into my heart. Kipnis, Carlos, and Cabrera have a chance to throw blankets of fear over opponents, and Santana most clearly among them seems capable of physically embodying that threat with his walk, glare, and wildman's swing. Add to this the intriguing possibility that Yoenis Cespedes could be the Indians next center fielder, and you can start to see a team that's a lot of fun. Clearly, sustained greatness is probably not in the cards for the 2012 Cleveland Indians, but it's my hope that we can at least see moments of true greatness, and when those moments come I hope they're punctuated by sideways grins, helmet tosses, and derisive barks—whatever it takes to let opponents know that these moments are not isolated incidents but, instead, the advanced scouts for a forthcoming army of pain.
87 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think we have a secret admirer of Jose Valverde.
by johnf34 on Nov 10, 2011 7:21 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
What are the chances, given the teams listed, that the Indians actually land Cespedes? I can’t imagine it happening, especially given their (reasonable) distaste for long term contracts.
It probably won’t happen, but every time I think about it I think about that Clooney speech from Ocean’s 11: “The house always wins. Play long enough, you never change the stakes. The house takes you, unless, when that perfect hand comes along, you bet big and you take the house.” We’re not going to outbid the Yankees or Red Sox on a known commodity, and if the front office doesn’t think we can win with our in-house outfield options (lord knows I have my concerns), then why not take a gamble on an unknown commodity? It probably won’t happen, but I will think it is awesome if it does.
So why is our track record on trading for high-A, AA, and young AAA prospects so good? At what point does a commodity in baseball become known?
by NatiTribeFan on Nov 12, 2011 12:18 AM EST up reply actions
We’re nothing until we know all the unknown unknowns.
I like ex-Phillies prospects.
by Gradyforpresident on Nov 12, 2011 3:19 PM EST up reply actions
We see that track record as great in part because the cost of an individual failure is so low. If 30% of those guys are borderline All-Stars, 30% become decent contributors and 40% flame out completely, that’s a stellar result. The same cannot be said for nine-figure contracts or even eight-figure contracts.
Kerry Wood was a small disaster for us. Billy Traber, not so much.
I’m all for this type of personality trait on my team if they can actually support it on the field. The last thing this team needs is a Nyjer Morgan.
by callmrplow on Nov 11, 2011 11:40 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
You mean the 111 OPS+ guy who can play all three OF spots? You’d rather see Michael Brantley?
Formerly fwembt, now co-moderator of Banners on the Parkway
Play them very well, mind.
I like ex-Phillies prospects.
by Gradyforpresident on Nov 12, 2011 3:19 PM EST up reply actions
I mean the guy who had a career year at age 30 sporting a career 94 OPS+.
by callmrplow on Nov 14, 2011 9:13 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Tony Plush kills me.
I like ex-Phillies prospects.
by Gradyforpresident on Nov 12, 2011 3:19 PM EST up reply actions
Frankly I never saw Sizemore as “a generational talent”. Maybe the best of a good lot of players, but not one you see only every 25 years of so. That would be Manny Ramirez, or maybe Albert Belle, or possibly JIm Thome, but Sizemore? Close but no cigar. Sizemore’s more like Baerga than those other three guys.. Good, ever great, for 2 or 3 years, but a “generatioanal talent”, no.
Truth is I don’t see any real, honest-to-god superstars anywhere in the Indians system. Above average to good, yes, we got some of those guys, but Rosen, Feller, or Speaker type talent? Nope, sorry, just don’t see it.
So 50 years from now when you ask some 20-something about Grady Sizemore he’ll look at you blankly and ask, “Oh, yeah Brady Sizemore, wasn’t he one of those stiffs that played for the Tribe waaaaaay back at the turn of the century?”
Our best players wear suits.
Although that’s a pretty good comp, I think Grady was better than Baerga. But Grady was a 4-tool player who only touched a >900 OPS once. (Of course there’s still time for this to change.) Kinda sucks that, after all, Curtis Granderson really was a more impactful player.
Remember the howling on this site when someone even suggested that Granderson was at least the equal of Sizemore? So much for cold, hard, objective evaluation.
Our best players wear suits.
Through 2008 it wasn’t close. Sizemore was better, and at a younger age, than Granderson. Even after the last couple years, Sizemore still has a comparable career WAR
Come on, Chuck. Sizemore’s problem was that he was remarkably fragile, not that he was unremarkably talented. I know talent that doesn’t stay healthy is worthless, but that doesn’t mean that Sizemore didn’t have the talent to be a once-in-a-generation player. Looking at his numbers when he was young, it’s pretty easy to make the case that he had that kind of talent.
by Joel D on Nov 13, 2011 3:33 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Oh, no argument that he was talented, but though the years the Indians like every other team have had players with great talent and glass jaws. Here’s a guy that was a much bigger talent than Sizemore and I bet half of you have never heard of ’em. Just like the 20-somethings 70 years from now will have no idea who Sizemore was.
Our best players wear suits.
Not sure that’s a good comparison. From ages 21-28, Trosky played in 220 more games than Sizemore despite the shorter season. I’m not even sure what your point is anymore. First it was that Sizemore wasn’t a generational talent, now it’s that people who will be born 50 years from now won’t remember him?
Here let me be more specific. A generational talent’s rep lasts forever. Elmer Flick, Addie Joss, Shoeless Joe, Tris Speaker, Bob Feller, Manny, these guys will be talked about whenever Indian’s fans talk abou baseball. Guys like Trosky and Sizemore will be forgotten whenever the next generation of fans dominates the conversation. You know, liike 30-40 years from now.
Our best players wear suits.
I’m 21 and I know who Trosky was.
I also had no idea who Elmer Flick and Addie Joss were. I’m willing to bet most people my age who follow the Indians don’t know who Tris Speaker is. Many of them have never heard of Nap Lajoie.
My point here is that your definition of what constitutes a generational talent needs work.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Nov 14, 2011 1:49 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Well here’s here’s a coupla thiings: Addie Joss has a lifetime 1.89 ERA and is in the Hall of Fame, Flick is in the Hall of Fame also. Hal Trosky is not.
Our best players wear suits.
38.1 — Speaker
35.6 — Feller
25.9 — Sizemore
16.1 — Baerga
15.9 — Thome
11.1 — Ramirez
4.5 — Granderson
3.6 — Belle
<0 — Rosen
Through age 25, Sizemore looks FAR more like Tris Speaker than any of the other guys you named. It was reasonable to call Sizemore a generational talent through age 25, and not especially reasonable to argue against it. Hindsight is 20/20, but nothing apparently has gone wrong for Sizemore except for health.
Is health part of being a generational talent? I think so. But did you or anyone else predict massive health issues for Sizemore immediately after age 25, at which point he was considered the closest thing to Cal Ripken in the game? Absolutely not. So this is just revisionist BS — with a dash of a stubborn old man’s bias against middling batting averages and inability to process the all-around value of a four-tool player.
As an aside, Feller nearly tops the list despite missing all of his age 23, 24 and 25 seasons to the war. He likely would have approached 60 had he played those seasons.
by Jay on Nov 15, 2011 3:33 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
See you’ve concocted an argument I never made. What “four tool player” was invented by Bill Jame? (BTW the Gold Standard is five tools). Sorry, but that concept is as old as baseball. And if you think that BA has always been King, then you must believe that no one ever thought much of Greg Nettles, Dave Kingman or a host of other players with sub-par BAs that were valued by baseball managers well before Billy Beane was born.
Nope, sorry you’re attributing lines of logic that I never used. Here’s what I’ve always thought of Sizemorfe: Great Glove, good speed with average instincts, nice stroke with middling power, weak arm, and – unlike Lofton – will probably crash into too many fences to last very long. In other words a very good player, but the kind of player we should see come up from our farm system every 3 or 4 years.
Our best players wear suits.
Of course you are aware of four-tool players, I never said otherwise. I said you had an inability to properly value them compared with more one-dimensional players — Ramirez, Belle, Thome, even Baerga to an extent.
Fans of your generation chronically underrate guys who present exceptional value as defenders and baserunners and/or who have unexceptional batting averages. You know about all of these qualities, it’s just that your “intuitive math” is off when it comes to drawing comparisons.
You think I don’t know that a five-tool player is the gold standard? In fact it is probably a misnomer to say that, because it’s a standard that is basically unheard-of in the majors.

Ali wasn’t all that, In this photo taken in 1963 Ali, at the time know as Cassius Clay, is shown sitting on his duff after absorbing a thunderous left from Henry Cooper. At the time of this fight Cooper was 27 pounds lighter than Clay,
Our best players wear suits.
I don’t think this picture really means that “Ali wasn’t all that.” Especially considering he was only 21 at the time.
Matt LaPorta is the bane of my existence.
Let’s just say that Clay learned a valuable lesson at this time that it is better to be the one standing than the one sitting. Seemed like he learned it very well.
Why won’t you guys listen to Chuck? Clearly one photo of a boxer having been knocked down proves he wasn’t that great. Haven’t you seen how poorly Chuck spells? What more proof of his folksy wisdom do you youngsters need?
by Joel D on Nov 13, 2011 3:27 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Tell you what, try to find a similar picture of Mike Tyson at that age picking himself up off the canvas after being thumped by a light heavy.
Our best players wear suits.
I still don’t see how that makes Ali anything less than “all that.”
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Nov 13, 2011 7:02 PM EST up reply actions
Here’s what’s remarkable about Ali – he kept coming back. He was very, very quick, could take a punch – still he was no George Chuvalo – and was a plus puncher. But in the end he’s more like Derek Jeter than Alber Pujols, more famous for being famous than famous for being great.
Our best players wear suits.
Wasn’t that in the bout that Cooper dealt Ali/Clay one of his numerous professional losses? Oh no, that’s right, Clay beat him so bad that the ref stopped the fight.
Sorry Joel, but Cooper fought Ali twice. the first one where this picture was taken, Cooper had Clay (Ali) in trouble in the fourth but Clay’s gloves were split (some say Dundee cut them) delaying the continuation of the figh, t allowing Clay to recover. Clay opened up a cut on Cooper in the fifth and the ref called the fight in Clay’s favor even though Cooper was ahead on all the cards.
I’m not sure if this is the fight you’re thinking of since Cooper was ahead at the conclusion. I’m pretty sure you’re thinking of the second fight, which ended in a TKO for Ali, despite Cooper being ahead on the score cards.
Our best players wear suits.
So two fights Ali won prove he wasn’t all that?
by Joel D on Nov 14, 2011 5:00 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
Such a whippersnapper. Honestly, you have an opinion about whether Ali was good or not? He had Parkinsons by the time you were born! And today mighta been different. Chuck, don’t plastic surgeons implant dead guys cartilage into fighter’s faces so they don’t open up so easy? Tragic story about Henry Cooper losing those fights…I wonder if someone here can relate strongly to that guy?
Such a whippersnapper. Honestly, you have an opinion about whether Ali was good or not? He had Parkinsons by the time you were born!
Patently ridiculous. I suppose you don’t have an opinion about if the Titanic was actually unsinkable? Just because it happened before I was born doesn’t mean there’s not enough information available for me to put together an opinion about it.
I could be wrong but I thought that was sarcasm.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Nov 16, 2011 1:24 PM EST up reply actions
Chuck throws off my radar for such things because he passionately espouses positions that most people couldn’t even recite with a straight face. Joeee, if I misread you, mea culpa. If not, see above.
Naw, you just can’t understand. You say things like “patently” and “espouse.” Chuck just keeps it real. It’s his language.
Apology accepted, but no I was not being sarcastic. I’m serious. Did anyone even care about boxing before Simmons wrote that article about Frazier? (Answer: unequivocally no.) I get that boxing is cool and old timey and all, but we’re all just looking at wikipedia. Yes, I’m making sweeping generalizations, but seriously tell me you know what great boxing looks like.
I also charge everyone with an extreme lack of creativity. Yes, Ali/Clay/that guy in the picture was probably better than an old dude 30 pounds lighter with a significantly less-famous career. But how many of you even knew that picture existed? That there was a pic out there, just as stirring as the famous one of him standing over the corpse of some opponent (refusing to google it, embracing my lack of boxing knowledge) screaming? Except in this picture, a huge icon is looking cross-eyed with his hand around the ropes, looking like he isn’t sure what planet he was born on. That is the life-lesson here!
That picture tells us absolutely nothing, except that Ali got knocked down one time.
I am just old enough to remember the twilight of Ali’s career, and I certainly remember Sugar Ray and the entire career of Mike Tyson. Once Douglas knocked out Tyson, when I was a sophomore in college, I kind of tuned out.
For people around my age, the first few Rocky movies generated a lot of interest in boxing.
You remember Sugar Ray? You? Hell I can barely remember Sugar Ray. Oh wait, I get it you mean that fraud Sugar Ray Leonard, not the real Sugar Ray – Sugar Ray Robinson.
Leonard was a good boxer in his own time. There were a coupla other guys in his weight class who were arguably better – Tommy Hearns, Marvin Hagler, to name two.
Nobody – and I mean nobody – lhought there was another fighter as good as Sugar Ray Robinson back in the day. And that includes Jake LaMotta’s cousins.
Our best players wear suits.
Hey, Robinson was a much better fighter than the next Sugar Ray.

by Jay on Nov 17, 2011 12:47 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
This is such bull. You’re basically telling every person to never form an opinion on something because it happened in the past. History is our greatest lesson, our biggest insight into future outcomes. To not form an opinion on history, right or wrong, is to walk into the future blindly.
Matt LaPorta is the bane of my existence.
Ugh, spare me the “I sat front row in AP US history class” gag. Imagine in 50 years some 25 year old is righteously telling you that Sizemore was never any good. “He had 3 good seasons, I have access to googleHologram, these are facts.”
Nobody would say that, given a fair view of only the facts. One need not have seen Sizemore to know how good he was.
Okay, now imagine that everyone stopped watching baseball and as a nation we switched to…gulp…lacrosse, only turning baseball on every 7 years to watch the championship fight between the two permanent heavy-weight contenders for the last century, the New York Yankees and Tampa Bay Rays….what am I saying?
Sizemore was the guy who finally snapped us out of the hangover from the late 90s crew. Sizemore was just as good/better than those guys not named Manny, obviously a cut above the other pro-athletes on the field. Watching him in 2005 made me feel like the Indians had the secret weapon. I wish him the best, I hope he plays like a stud again.
That one hurt, but we can take it.
Sizemore did no such thing — certainly not single-handedly. We had two straight Cy Young winners. We had Peralta breaking the club record for home runs by a shortstop. We had the greatest catcher in club history by far. We had Hafner hitting six grand slams in a single season and scaring the crap out of the entire league.
Then you can spare me the crap about how you have to have been alive to know something about anything. It is really really stale. It reeks of angry old man. If you want to prove someone’s point wrong, do it with facts, not with idiotic agism.
Matt LaPorta is the bane of my existence.
by USSChoo on Nov 16, 2011 11:11 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
A battle over historiography breaks out!
In 1994, Steven Shapin wrote A Social History of Truth, examining belief and skepticism, weighing our valuation of empirical evidence while noting that we at the same time accept enormous amounts of second-hand information, through other people’s reports and writings, as truth. His study focused on 16th century England, and there he found that credibility was regulated by a moral estimation of those providing the information, and that people “were able to draw upon the resources of familiarity” in a society that was small enough to retain a “face-to-face mode.”
Skepticism inexpertly expressed, though, could lead to nasty things like duels. What evolved, then, was a language of skepticism that was voluminous and adroit, and which, in deflecting the personal nature of challenge, advanced the disputed argument. And experimental knowledge bloomed, as exemplified by Robert Boyle’s 1660 book New Experiments Physico-Mechanicall, Touching the Spring of the Air, and its Effects, detailing 43 separate experiments explication the mysteries of barometric pressure.
Shapin suggests that today this trust engendered by familiarity within a face-to-face mode is replaced by a “system trust”, a trust in that institutional umbrella which certifies, for instance, that the plane we’re flying in will reach its destination safely. But he’s careful to note that face-to-face systems still obtain within the “communities of practitioners” to whom, because of their collectively greater knowledge, we defer.
So can you determine the truth, or a truth, about Ali, palsied before you were born? You can listen to those who saw him, though you might be confused when someone like me says Cooper never had a chance, and then someone like Chuck places before you incontrovertible evidence that Cooper had enough in him to send the icon sprawling. You can read works by people who indeed knew boxing—I’d recommend A. J. Liebling’s A Neutral Corner, a collection of pieces he wrote for the New Yorker and which includes two pieces, funny, unblinkered and surprising, about the young Cassius Clay. You could watch the YouTube videos of his fights, and fights of his heavyweight cohort. And you could dig up the contemporary press reports.
Between all that, I’d think there would be grounds upon which you might construct a version of Ali that could approach truth.
by YoDaddyWags on Nov 16, 2011 11:23 PM EST up reply actions
Lies! Shapin’s book is about 17th-century England.
by YoDaddyWags on Nov 16, 2011 11:41 PM EST up reply actions
Very literate piece here Wags.
Every day in Medicine I’d see this phenomenon. I went to a Grand Rounds where they were presenting a guy with some off-the-wall GI disease. He’d been Dxed at some St. Elsewhere in Southern Ohio by and old horse doctor with some rare GI disorder and send to the nearest Ivory Tower, OSU and seen by the GI gurus and referred to the Invasive Radiology wizard from Hiedelberg Germany for a complete imaging work-up. The Wizard said that it was a non-standard case of Crohn’s. Later the patient was sent to surgery and the surgical presentation, plus the pathology slides, confir
Our best players wear suits.
Christ, I need a new laptop, to continue.
……..confirmed the horse doc’s Dx, but the Wizard just wouldn’t budte. Path report, sath report. Ain’t no horse doc in Pomeroy Oshio gonna tell me what’s what.
Bottom line: sometimes the guru’s are wrong and often will not except evidence that contrdicts there pre-formed opinions.
Our best players wear suits.
Kahneman said that he did this as often as he could: seek out people who had attacked or criticized him and persuade them to collaborate with him. He not only tortured himself, in other words, but invited his enemies to help him to do it. "Most people after they win the Nobel Prize just want to go play golf," said Eldar Shafir, a professor of psychology at Princeton and a disciple of Amos Tversky’s. "Danny’s busy trying to disprove his own theories that led to the prize. It’s beautiful, really."
I found this profoundly amazing to me.
I was wondering why it’s been so slow on the courses, and now I know: they’re clogged with all those damn Nobellers.
by YoDaddyWags on Nov 18, 2011 11:30 AM EST up reply actions
Sure, occasionally a guru will do that, but so will a “horse doc,” and so will everyday folks who aren’t expert at anything much beyond their own privates.
Come on, man. To me, great boxing is Ward-Gatti, which I knew about long before Marky Mark recorded The Fighter (which I’m yet to see). You’re way off base in stating that nobody cared about boxing until Simmons wrote whatever article about Frazier you’re referencing. You’re getting farther from making a rhetorically valid point, not closer to it.
Fun facts about that fight: Liz Taylor and Richard Burton, ringside, let it be known that they would wed (if the little stumbling block of their current spouses could be dealt with). Liz is credited—by the notoriously ridiculous Brit tabloids—with stopping the fight: as Clay was battering the half-blinded Cooper in the 5th, she is said to have stood up shouting “No! No! No!”, prompting the crowd to entreat the ref to call an end to the slaughter. The gloves Clay wore are the most expensive pair of boxing gloves ever auctioned, fetching £37,600 in 2001.
Despite the legend of a long break between the 4th and 5th rounds as officials scrambled to find a replacement for Clay’s gloves that Angelo Dundee deviously tore to give his beleaguered fighter a break, I couldn’t find any press reports that mentioned any such gap. Clay was not taking Cooper very seriously, and Cooper’s advantage on the scorecards—meaning he had 2 rounds, Clay 1 and one even—should be balanced by this from the AP fight summary: “At the end of the third round it was obvious that it was only a matter of time before Cooper either retired or the referee stopped the fight.” Ali came out in the 5th and swarmed a defenseless Cooper, whose lone shot at victory was illusory, that big punch coming with 2 seconds left in round 4 in a fight where you were, indeed, saved by the bell.
Cooper was a bleeder, and his TKO defeats aren’t tragedies but an almost inevitable result of that condition.
by YoDaddyWags on Nov 14, 2011 11:07 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I was trying to be consistent, but it’s hard to think of him as Cassius Clay. It was Clay who came out for round 5; Muhammad Ali didn’t come out for any rounds until he defended his title against Sonny Liston in Lewiston, Maine, in May 1965.
by YoDaddyWags on Nov 14, 2011 11:49 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

by 
















