Show the '67 Red Sox!

I was disappointed in Fox for not showing the reunion of the 1967 Red Sox team. It was great to see Yaz throw out the first pitch, but why didn't Fox take a few minutes and show the other ones that were there? I believe Joy Foy and Elston Howard are both dead. How are the others? Without them and that great year, maybe history changes and we don't have the present ownership and the last two World Championships.

Worth checking out - Tony Conigliaro Forty Years Later A Remembrance by Shaun L. Kelly.

Why we play and watch sports

When as a youngster I first heard of baseball pools in which one would bet upon a total score's last digit, I was appalled. I could not understand how a non-fan could cheer for one team to score and then cheer for the other team to score. It was taking something almost sacred to me and perverting it. I was young and naive and thought all played or watched sports for the reasons I did. Today I am neither. Oh I have not changed my reasons, but I do understand that many other factors are involved.

I see kids that do not want to play forced to play by their parent(s). Sometimes the parent(s) mean well and hope sports will teach valuable life lessons (often those lessons are only a precursor to negatives in life). Many times the parent(s) are living vicariously through the child. Not only is this unfair to the child, he/she is taking a spot that would be better filled by someone that actually wants to be there.

For many it is an ego boost. Sports are the last arena where one is expected to be and it is accepted to be totally impolite, aggressive, and ruthless. Playing or watching often brings out the primordial in us, giving us an adrenaline high, win or lose. Associating with a team allows one to claim their victories and commiserate their losses with other fans. The sense of belonging is a positive part of our identity.


I fondly remember my father buying my first real ball, wooden bat, and glove. (I still have the bat and glove, saved with my most precious mementoes.) I could not wait to get home to use them. I soon learned that for me, one of the most beautiful things in life is the geometry in the way a ground ball predictably bounces, our minds quickly gauging the most opportune time to catch and then throw that ball. Lynn Swan was a wide receiver who had taken ballet lessons. He was fun to watch because that ballet training carried over to his sport. I see that same beauty in a good shortstop. (Maybe many shortstops are not great hitters because the body type that makes them so fluid and graceful is not that of a power hitter). I love watching films of Roberto Clemente - the beauty in his style of play, whether hitting, running, throwing, or fielding may never be matched.

The movie 'Field of Dreams' captures the generational ties that many of us have with baseball. My father was 44 when I was born and had worked hard his entire life. I remember fondly the handful of times we played catch in the yard. We even played a few softball league games together. I don't remember him missing more than a few of my baseball practices in ten years. One of my daughters (I taught her to hit left-handed as my father did) was a starter on a team that went to states, and this year my youngest son dominated his playoff game in both pitching and hitting. I know my father, if alive, would have been there watching them and afterwards would have proudly congratulated them in that understated way of his, "You did alright."

Manny, Joe, George, and ESPN

Manny should have hustled. What else is there to say? I readily accept criticism of Manny for not running out what he thought was a home run. But I didn't think there would be any controversy over Manny's non-slide . Fault the third base coach if you must, but a great throw caused Manny not to slide. Why should he slide and risk injury when he was thrown out by 6-8 feet? What I am really tired of is ESPN and their sarcastic humor that deepens once the Yankees are eliminated. It would take two at bats by their hero A-Rod to begin to equal the offensive production of one at bat by Manny in the playoffs. And A-Rod does not outshine Manny defensively.

Kudos to Joe Torre for walking away from Steinbrenner's ridiculous offer. I am sure that in the petty hollowness of George's mind, the offer made sense. He thought he could force Torre to leave and no one would know he had. Now, will the free agents bleed pinstripes, or will they leave what Sparky Lyle rightfully called the 'Bronx Zoo'? Once again George has managed to relegate the playoffs to a back seat. Yankee lovers ESPN report every move of King George with the upmost seriousness. Get real ESPN! Anyone with knowledge of the situation who is not a Yankee fan regard the Yankees as a soap opera. George begs to be treated as a joke. Quit belittling a team still in the playoffs. The rest of baseball and its fans deserve better.

The A-Rod and Jeter myths

It has been said that Alex Rodriguez carried the Yankees for the first half of 2007. Carried them to where? How much lower could they have been? With that much talent the team was bound to win some games even though they were not playing up to their potential. Their slumps could match or better many other teams' play. So add what was maybe the best half season ever from A-Rod and one would expect at least a few games over .500. Why wasn't their record better?

Does ESPN's and others' emphasis on offense, particularly home runs, cause defense to become less important? Or does poor defensive play cause the sportswriters to concentrate on power hitters? I know at one time players were not allowed to vote for their own teammates for awards. I did not see the reason for this because all teams have the same number of players and equal votes. Why is it then that sportswriters can vote for players in the city they cover when some cities are far over- represented with sportswriters than others? There is also the added problem of attempting to not be prejudiced when some players are good copy and others do not talk to the press. Witness the sarcastic treatment Manny Ramirez gets from ESPN.

While the Yankees do have the best offensive team in baseball, they are also the poorest defensively. A-Rod plays third like a shortstop and is often seen standing, watching a ball to his right that most thirdbasemen would have at least attempted to catch. Giambi is an embarassment. Abreu left his Gold Glove in Phili. Damon is but a shadow of his former self. Cano has potential but is influenced too much by Jeter. I have watched Jeter a lot in the last few years (only because ESPN gives me little choice) and I cannot believe there are not many shortstops more deserving of defensive recognition. His range is not great and his jump and throw is entertainment only for those lacking in baseball and/or physics knowledge. Towards the end of my shortstop playing days, when my arm was long gone and inaccurate when I did attempt to throw hard, I relied on a quick release. I would watch my lob throws just beat the runners. I was well aware that I had to set and attempt a hard throw in closer situations. Unless Jeter has a sore arm, it is quicker to set and throw a bullet than Jeter's method. (I'll admit it is less entertaining.) Doesn't (or perhaps I should say didn't) Torre have the authority to correct Jeter? If I were manager, I would have taken him out of the game, when on a relay throw from Cano to second for the force, Jeter spun around before his throw to first, loosing sight of Doug Mientkiewicz at first, and threw the ball into the runner, causing Mientkiewicz to break his wrist. (If I were Mientkiewicz I would have punched Jeter with the fist attached to my good wrist.) Ironic that perhaps their best defensive player is injured by a show-off. Don't tell me about Jeter's dive into the stands. It was a decent catch but does not deserve the attention it got. The same is true of his flip to home to get Giambi in a past playoff. He is praised for his awareness. But he is a major leaguer and should be aware. (I often hear announcers praise players for doing things I expect Little Leaguers to do.)

Don't we deserve more as fans from those covering sports? We certainly see, hear, and read enough about great offense. I saw nothing about Jeter when Mientkiewicz broke his wrist. Please, those that cover sports, educate us (and Steinbrenner) in all facets of the game, and don't be afraid to tell the truth about our hometown heroes.

Boston vs. New York

You knew I had to write this. It was just a matter of time.

I recently read an essay from the late 1800's about New York city. It said that all it had was its bigness. If only it could have a sports team to cheer for, civic pride would follow, the streets would be cleaned, and many other improvements would follow. Well, it is still big, and they do have several sports teams to cheer for. I have several friends that are Yankee fans that are great baseball fans that I enjoy talking to about the state of the American League East. Others I consider Band wagon sitters, for they lose no opportunity to razz others when the Yankees are winning and are scarce to be found when they are not. They generally have little knowledge of the game and are interested in the final score only when the Yankees win. A article on A-Rod announced (facetiously I hope) that the baseball season was virtually over once the Yankees were eliminated, no one would watch Colorado or Arizona, the Indians were just upstarts, and Boston would probably win it anyway. Wasn't the Subway series one of the lowest viewer rated series in recent memory? Those in the 'Big Apple' would do well to remember that they would have nothing to eat if it were not for us in 'fly over' country. Almost fifty years ago I asked my father who was his favorite team. He answered, "anybody that can beat the Yankees". I didn't understand then, but I do now. One sportswriter, when asked about Steinbrenner's threat to fire Joe Torre if the Yankees did not win, used the words arrogant and ignorant. These words apply to to many fans.

Stephen King said it well (not surprisingly) when asked at a playoff game about the state of affairs in baseball, that Colorado was hot, Cleveland had a good team, and we (Red Sox Nation) were enjoying watching the Sox play while the Yankees were golfing and waiting for Steinbrenner to talk. Until 2004 the history between the Sox and Yanks had not been kind to Boston. I can talk to my Yankee friends that are also baseball fans, and they at least hide the gloating well. Other Yankee 'fans' can best be described by example. A classmate of my nine-year old son told him the Yankees would win it all (they had been eliminated the night before). Is there any wonder that there is such animosity from Red Sox fans? It would be nice if more Yankee fans would allow Red Sox fans their moment of glory. King hinted that fans of the team from the city of culture and our Revolution could accept one of the other remaining teams as victor. Those that have come to expect a World Series win as their right cannot understand that though the Yankees have won more series than anyone else, I would not take all of those for being a member of Red Sox nation, particularly in 2004.

Manny vs. Steinbrenner

It seems we have two extremes on winning. We have George Steinbrenner who believes money can, or should be able to guarantee a World Series ring, and Manny Ramirez who says life goes on whether one wins or one loses. Somewhere in the middle is the fan. The three vocations of owner, player, and fan share the common element of wanting to win. The differences lie in the amount and ways they are able to affect the outcome.

An owner makes decisions that affect the make-up and personnel of the team. These are decisions that for the most part, are not split second decisions, though the owner has limitations of money and availability of personnel. Steinbrenner, for all his money, is not able to buy the championship year after year. He apparently has trouble accepting this, and in case of loss, feels blame must be placed.

Manny takes a much more rational approach. He and his teammates will play their best, but they realize that there are winners, and there are losers. They are making split second decisions in a game where fractions of an inch are involved in virtually every play. In a 162 game season, the best teams usually win. In a five or seven game series, a team, or even a player or two can get 'hot'. The only thing the players can control is their preparation, attitude, and effort. Other than that, they have little to say about the outcome of the game. Perhaps Manny is attempting to put the game in perspective so that he and his teammates will not be tight, can relax and be confident in their abilities, and play their best.

We fans have even less to say about the winning and losing of the game. We can add more money to the coffers of the owners, write letters, and for those of us lucky enough to be able to attend games, support our team vocally. (I guess this blog is an indirect way of my attempt to have my say.)

I remember Howard Cosell announcing that a left handed batter had "placed" a hit both two feet from the left field foul post and two feet from being a homerun. Absurd! He may have "gone with the pitch", but that was the extent of his control. So it is with both owners and players. Spend, plan, and prepare, baseball is still a game. Maybe our team will lose, but can't we find some beauty in the game itself, or be happy for at least one of the winning team's players, some of that team's fans, or maybe even an owner? And Manny is right - there is always next year. Isn't that the beauty of sports?

Umpires

The play at second base last night in the NLC series was called correctly (the attempted break-up of a double play). I think it was obvious, at least in the slow-motion replays, that the runner rolled and lifted his arm instead of sliding. The umpire later said that the runner intentionally interfered with the second baseman. Isn't that the runner's job? Maybe a better way to make this call would be to call the runner out at first when the runner at second cannot retain contact with second after his slide. Slide as hard as you like, but, even though you are out, stay on the base. This might stop many of the rolling blocks. Either the fielder would have to tag the runner at second (in effect getting him out twice), or the umpire would have to call it. Either way it would give us something more concrete to go on.

I am reminded of the Eddie Armbrister bumping incident in 1975. Arguably the whole series turned on this. With a runner on first (and maybe third-memory fails me), Arbrister, a right-handed hitter bunted. The ball ended up just in fair territory in front of home plate. Carelton Fisk appeared to hesitate as did Armbrister. First Fisk stepped in front of Armbrister and picked up the ball to throw it to second. Armbrister then started to run to first, and bumping Fisk, caused him to throw the ball past second base. Instead of a sure double play, no outs were recorded. After the game the umpires announced that since this was not intentional, no call was the right call. I am convinced they got together after the game and came up with this excuse to cover themselves. To my knowledge neither rule that covers this situation says anything about it having to be intentional. The conferences that are now common after some close calls are welcome and the reversals I have seen get the call right. Major league umpires are very good at their jobs, calling plays in real time that I sometimes am not sure of after seeing several slow-motion replays and several angles. I commend them.

Perhaps the worst call I ever saw was a in a softball tournament I played in twenty plus years ago. With bases loaded and no outs the batter hit a hard ground ball to me at shortstop. I threw home. Our catcher stepped on home for the force, brought his arm back to throw back to me, now at second base, when the runner from third (intentionally?) knocked the ball from his hand. No call was made (not even the force at home), and what was potentially a triple play with no runs scoring, turned into two runs in, men on second and third, and no outs. We lost this game by one run and later received a letter from the tournament director apologizing for the non-call and commending us for not arguing more than we did (it was my first year with this team or I am sure we would not have gotten a letter, solely on my account).

Football polls

I suppose that most of us that are interested in college football have disagreed with the polls. The Florida Gators, for instance, have dropped into double digits in the polls. They lost a close game to Auburn in which it could successfully be argued that they were out played (but not by much). Florida found itself behind for the first time against LSU with 69 seconds left. Were it not for a fumble or an interception that bounced off a helmet, Florida wins. Even better time management might have allowed the Gators to score and win the game (neither team's defense could stop the other's offense). If the ball bounces differently off the helmet, does Florida deserve to be ranked above LSU? I watched the Florida at LSU game and am convinced that they are two of the top three or four teams in the country (I will also readily admit that with two losses Florida does not deserve to be ranked that high). Last year things fell into place for Florida to win the national championship. Florida was a huge underdog in that game; so much so that the announcers were not prepared and had little to say in the first half of that game. It is still considered an upset but Florida obviously was the better team. The polls were wrong.

If I have time, I will try my version of a ranking. Each team will receive one point for winning a quarter and three points for a win. (A tie in regulation would split the seven possible points down the middle.) Thus a winning team would receive 4-7 points and the losing team 0-3 points. Nothing would be given for a win in that ridiculous thing they call overtime (it cannot be called football when you tell your punter and half of your special team players to sit it out). Records of the opposing team would be factored in by looking at their opponents records (by records I mean my points system). My ranking might be called the most dominant team (MDT). Granted it penalizes teams that do not run up the score, but it would remove the human element that often votes for their favorites and cannot possibly see all the games but only looks at the final score for many.

Fan?

A fan as defined by Wikipedia, is ' someone who has an intense appreciation for something(s) or someone(s)'. Sounds positive, doesn't it? Yesterday I had the joy of watching my nine year old son play in a soccer match. Not only have I come to know his teammates, but I knew several of the opponents. I am surely not a soccer fan by the above definition, but I am a fan of good athletic play. Thus I cheered for both teams. (That might have changed if the score had been closer). I have admittedly (though begrudgingly and belatedly) clapped (only one clap mind you) for the opposing team at a major league game. Shouldn't a true sports fan appreciate good play on both sides?
There are true fans of teams and there are 'band-wagon sitters'. True fans follow their teams through winning and losing seasons. 'Band-wagon sitters' display team colours and watch games only in the good times. If the latter are questioned about 'their' team's loss or poor season, one is met with silence, a lame excuse, or a defense of ignorance ('band-wagon sitters' can also jump off the wagon). When 'their' team is winning, 'band-wagon sitters' play their instruments loudly and often out of tune with the sport itself. Once again I ask if a true sports fan shouldn't appreciate good play on both sides.
To follow a team does mean one must defend everything that team does. One can disagree with the front office, the manager, or a player. If one wishes his/her team to win, one must disagree when the best option is not chosen. This is not disloyalty to the team. but loyalty to the sport. Could we change the 'or' to a 'and' in the opening definition? I expect a fan to be fairly knowledgeable and concerned about the sport itself.
ESPN is partially to blame for this blog. (My apologies to those at ESPN that attempt to rise above their managements' narrow viewpoint.) Their reporting and coverage is blatantly biased. Their knowledge conveyed is at a novice level. The sports news given is minimal. Their (perhaps as well as baseball's) emphasis on home-runs is a disservice to that sport. Their coverage of several athletes borders on worship. Pardon my complaining, but their networks could be so much better. This fan wants more depth and relevant information. I will attempt to provide some of this to other fans.