So, it’s been awhile since I’ve posted on my blog and what better to bring me back than one of the most anticipated days of the major league baseball calendar: On Monday, we’ll find out the results of this year’s balloting for the National Baseball Hall of Fame.
Of course, as I have mentioned previously on this blog, “Hall of Fame” seems like a misnomer to me, since the balloting usually works like a “Hall of Excellence” instead. I’ll put that issue aside for the moment and proceed with this blog entry as if I’m thinking of it as a “Hall of Excellence,” as it is typically conceived.
Since I’m an academic and not a sportswriter, I don’t get to vote in the election, though that does raise what I think could be some intriguing questions about who should be voting for the Hall of Fame. I mean, I could probably make an argument that, having been a member of the Society for American Baseball Research (SABR) for more than 10 years, I’ve got at least as much credibility as many baseball writers in voting for this thing. But that sounds like a good idea for another post somewhere down the road. For now, I’m going to focus on who I’d vote for if I had a say. So, here, generally, is how I see the folks on this year’s ballot, grouped by order of my sense of their merit for induction:
Unequivocally, I’d vote for them (4 players): Rickey Henderson, Mark McGwire, Tim Raines, and Andre Dawson. Rickey Henderson is the no-brainer on everyone’s list this year. McGwire would be in, but for the steroid stuff, and that doesn’t make him unworthy in my thinking, so he’s right there, too. I didn’t realize how good Raines was until I looked at his numbers last year. It seems to me that he definitely belongs there and might have been a sure thing, if he hadn’t been Henderson’s contemporary. Dawson is probably, for many people, the biggest question mark as unequivocal of the four I’ve named here, but he’s been that way for me since the day he hit the ballot. When I asked myself in the late 1980s and early 1990s which current players were definite Hall-of-Famers someday, I didn’t think twice in adding Dawson’s name to the list. I maintain that conviction today. I think ESPN writer Jayson Stark’s comments on Andre Dawson, especially the line “All I know is that every who's-the-best-player-in-the-National-League conversation in the 1980s included his name,” seem to hit the mark.
I wouldn’t necessarily have thought of these guys as Hall-of-Famers when they played, but I see their merits and would vote for them (2 players): Bert Blyleven and Jim Rice. If twenty years ago, someone gave me a choice between these two and made me choose one for the Hall of Fame, I’m pretty sure I would have picked Rice, but I wouldn’t have thought he definitely belonged and for a number of years I wouldn’t have included him on this list. He never struck me as being as dominant as I guess he was. I suppose that’s because about half of his “great” period was before I was old enough to recognize that kind of thing. Blyleven suffers similarly for me, since I’m a child of the 80s, but, of course, many who covered him in the 1970s have had to be convinced of his merits, too. Basically, I look at the cases and statistics for these two and see them as belonging, but I did have to be convinced. To a certain extent, Raines could go here, since I did have to look at his numbers to be convinced last year, but two things put him in the prior group: (1) one glance at his numbers convinced me; I look again at the cases for Blyleven and Rice every year and (2) twenty years ago, if you put Raines in that choice I mentioned and made me pick one of him, Rice, or Blyleven, I would have said Raines belongs there well before either of the other two.
I once had him in the unequivocal category, cooled off him after his career ended, and then came back to him (1 player): Jack Morris. In the 1980s, when Morris was at his peak, I would have considered him a lock. When he retired, though, I wasn’t sure he had done enough and I remember thinking one or two more good seasons would have put him in. So, I cooled on thinking of him as a Hall-of-Famer, given that he didn’t win 300 games and his ERA was 3.90. On further consideration a couple of years ago, I decided he belongs. 254 wins is pretty good and plenty of players have made it with a win total in the mid-200s before. He also gets credit for his postseason performances. I mean, right now I’d say Curt Schilling should be a Hall-of-Famer because, while his statistical numbers aren’t as high as some of his contemporaries, his postseason performances count for something. If I do that, I think I need to do the same for Morris. So, Morris would get my vote.
Vying for slots 8-10 this year (10 players): Harold Baines, David Cone, Mark Grace, Tommy John, Don Mattingly, Dale Murphy, Jesse Orosco, Dave Parker, Lee Smith, Alan Trammell. I tend to have a very inclusive view of the Hall of Fame, so I would almost assuredly vote for the maximum of 10 players every year. Thus, how many slots on my ballot would be available after the folks I’m sure I’d vote for would change from year to year. If, for instance, Rickey Henderson had managed to keep playing longer than he did, he wouldn’t be on the ballot this year and that would open a slot for someone else. Also, whether Jim Rice makes it or not, this is his last year of eligibility, so next year that would open a slot where he would have been. Of course, the 2010 ballot will include Roberto Alomar, Barry Larkin, and Fred McGriff, who, I’m sure, are all players for whom I would vote. So, there might actually be less slots available next year. This year, there are three slots available and I think each of the ten players I’ve listed deserves, in varying amounts, at least some consideration. If the ballot had a maximum of 15 instead of 10, I’d likely add 8 of these players instead of just 3. If it had a maximum of 20 instead of 10, I’d probably vote for all of these folks, for a total of 17. I’m not going to go into much detail about all of them here and my 3 choices from among this group tend to vary from time to time, but I think right now I’d vote for Baines, Murphy, and Smith. Baines did hold on forever but, in some ways at least, he compares favorably with Jim Rice. So, I suppose if Rice gets in, in my mind Baines does, too. Murphy was really good in the 1980s and, while he didn’t quite make some of the “big” milestone numerical markers, his excellence in the 1980s puts him slightly ahead of many of the others here. Finally, I think ending his career as the all-time saves leader (and having only Mariano Rivera and Trevor Hoffman pass him since, in an era of even more closer specialization than Smith’s era) counts for enough to put him ahead of the rest of this pack. That said, if I had two more slots available, I think they’d go to Mark Grace and Jesse Orosco. For Grace, he did have a heck of a career, with a ton of hits, especially doubles. I tend to think he was among the best players of the 1990s. For Orosco, I think being the all-time leader in appearances (and by a pretty significant margin) counts for something and he really was an effective pitcher for almost all of that time, while playing at the position (though he was a closer for a few season, most of his career was middle relief) that probably gets the least respect in all of baseball. Of course, as a Mets fan, maybe I’m just giving him too much credit for the last out of the 1986 World Series.
Definitely wouldn’t make my ballot (6 players): Jay Bell, Ron Gant, Dan Plesac, Greg Vaughn, Mo Vaughn, Matt Williams. I almost put Jay Bell in the above category, but when I thought about whether or not I’d include him if I had a maximum of 20, I had to say no. So, he goes here. I guess he’s the line of my inclusiveness for the Hall of Fame. The only other one on here at whom I’d even take a second look is Matt Williams, who had a very nice career and might have beaten Mark McGwire to breaking Roger Maris’ single-season home run record if not for the 1994 work stoppage. I suppose Mo Vaughn might deserve a little consideration for his early and mid-1990s play, especially his MVP season, but, as I mentioned, I’m a Mets fan. That probably says enough about Mo … or should that be Les? … Vaughn.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Twilight Baseball
No, this isn't a post about an interesting ballgame I took in one evening ...
On November 21, I saw the film Twilight on its opening day. I have not read the book, though I do have it (as well as the entire 4-book series) on my list of books I’d like to read. So, while I knew elements of the story, I didn’t know a lot going into the film. My wife, on the other hand, has read all of the books in the series and is much more of an expert on them.
While I found the beginning a little too teeny-bopper in its presentation (an aspect that my wife confirms is not representative of the book), I generally enjoyed the film, especially once the relationship between the two main characters got going. It was interesting to see the filming quality that they used—one that I think is meant to relate to contemporary teenagers and young adults. The entire film kind of felt like a two-hour Evanescence video.
What perhaps interested me the most, though, was the prominence of baseball, which plays at least two roles in the stories: (1) the main character’s father appears to be a pretty diehard (or is that Twihard?) Seattle Mariners fan (2) and the vampires in the story like to play baseball. Given my interest in the ways that baseball (as well as sports in general) is used and referenced in texts that otherwise are not about baseball (or sports in general), this particularly grabbed my attention. According to my wife, baseball plays the same kinds of roles in the books. Add that to my reasons for wanting to read the books because I’m now wondering what this suggests about the social meaning of baseball.
On November 21, I saw the film Twilight on its opening day. I have not read the book, though I do have it (as well as the entire 4-book series) on my list of books I’d like to read. So, while I knew elements of the story, I didn’t know a lot going into the film. My wife, on the other hand, has read all of the books in the series and is much more of an expert on them.
While I found the beginning a little too teeny-bopper in its presentation (an aspect that my wife confirms is not representative of the book), I generally enjoyed the film, especially once the relationship between the two main characters got going. It was interesting to see the filming quality that they used—one that I think is meant to relate to contemporary teenagers and young adults. The entire film kind of felt like a two-hour Evanescence video.
What perhaps interested me the most, though, was the prominence of baseball, which plays at least two roles in the stories: (1) the main character’s father appears to be a pretty diehard (or is that Twihard?) Seattle Mariners fan (2) and the vampires in the story like to play baseball. Given my interest in the ways that baseball (as well as sports in general) is used and referenced in texts that otherwise are not about baseball (or sports in general), this particularly grabbed my attention. According to my wife, baseball plays the same kinds of roles in the books. Add that to my reasons for wanting to read the books because I’m now wondering what this suggests about the social meaning of baseball.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
My Contradictory Fandom
On Friday, the football team from the high school that I attended won its fifth state championship. (The first four came in 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2005.) The game was televised in my area and I watched the second half of it on television. While I was not really vocal about it, I was inwardly rooting for them to win and, then, I was subsequently happy to see them win. Yet, I recognize that that happiness is a very contradictory kind of happiness in two ways:
First, that I should root for a team to win its fifth championship in twelve seasons isn’t particularly consistent with my view of parity in sports (a view that I have discussed, to some extent, here and here), particularly when there are scores of teams playing in the same division and playing for the same championship as the high school that I attended. I tend to think that New York Yankees fans, Ohio State football fans, Detroit Red Wings fans, New York Yankees fans, Duke basketball fans, Los Angeles Lakers fans, New York Yankees fans, New York Yankees fans, and others who expect championships every year are being egregious in their desires. Yet, here I was rooting for a team to maintain a very similar kind of dominance, as if it deserved to win so many more championships than everyone else.
Second, I hated my high school when I attended it. At one point while I was there, the parish (it’s a Catholic school) held a rally to support the school because there were concerns that it might have to close. Not only did I not attend the rally; I openly wished for the place to close. So, it’s kind of strange for me today to root for the football team from that place.
I think these contradictions point out a couple of things about sports identifications. First, we find ways to justify the identifications and rooting interests that we have, even when they contradict our own ideological perspectives. Because of that, I can find myself rooting against parity in one instance, even as I espouse the desirability of parity in so many other instances. Second, we become branded with these identities strongly when we are young and that branding is hard to break. I think this is similar to how individuals find themselves rooting for their home country in the Olympics, even if they have good reasons why they might not want to do so. Similarly, connections to local communities die hard, even when people have denounced or, at least, moved on from those communities.
In the end, I think this potentially illustrates how significant sports identities are—at least in the United States and, I suspect, in many other parts of the world as well. There are times when individuals who otherwise divide themselves based on race, social class, gender, sexuality, religion, etc. find themselves bonded (at least temporary) by sports team identification. To be sure, these are commercialized, branded identifications, like identifications with musical artists, television programs, and soft drinks, among other things. And like these other brand identifications, part of understanding the significance of sports, I believe, is recognizing the deep-seated ways in which these identifications work and affect people’s lives as identities, like race, social class, gender, etc., do. Just as we become branded to think about racial identities, gender identities, national identities, sexual identities, religious identities, and other identities from young ages to the point that, as we grow older, it becomes harder and harder to examine our own assumptions along each of these lines, I think that we become branded in connection with sports and sports allegiances from young ages to the point at which it becomes much harder to look at the politics of sporting practices. If we’re going to get at the politics of sport, fuller recognition of the deep workings of sports identities seems to be a very important step to take.
First, that I should root for a team to win its fifth championship in twelve seasons isn’t particularly consistent with my view of parity in sports (a view that I have discussed, to some extent, here and here), particularly when there are scores of teams playing in the same division and playing for the same championship as the high school that I attended. I tend to think that New York Yankees fans, Ohio State football fans, Detroit Red Wings fans, New York Yankees fans, Duke basketball fans, Los Angeles Lakers fans, New York Yankees fans, New York Yankees fans, and others who expect championships every year are being egregious in their desires. Yet, here I was rooting for a team to maintain a very similar kind of dominance, as if it deserved to win so many more championships than everyone else.
Second, I hated my high school when I attended it. At one point while I was there, the parish (it’s a Catholic school) held a rally to support the school because there were concerns that it might have to close. Not only did I not attend the rally; I openly wished for the place to close. So, it’s kind of strange for me today to root for the football team from that place.
I think these contradictions point out a couple of things about sports identifications. First, we find ways to justify the identifications and rooting interests that we have, even when they contradict our own ideological perspectives. Because of that, I can find myself rooting against parity in one instance, even as I espouse the desirability of parity in so many other instances. Second, we become branded with these identities strongly when we are young and that branding is hard to break. I think this is similar to how individuals find themselves rooting for their home country in the Olympics, even if they have good reasons why they might not want to do so. Similarly, connections to local communities die hard, even when people have denounced or, at least, moved on from those communities.
In the end, I think this potentially illustrates how significant sports identities are—at least in the United States and, I suspect, in many other parts of the world as well. There are times when individuals who otherwise divide themselves based on race, social class, gender, sexuality, religion, etc. find themselves bonded (at least temporary) by sports team identification. To be sure, these are commercialized, branded identifications, like identifications with musical artists, television programs, and soft drinks, among other things. And like these other brand identifications, part of understanding the significance of sports, I believe, is recognizing the deep-seated ways in which these identifications work and affect people’s lives as identities, like race, social class, gender, etc., do. Just as we become branded to think about racial identities, gender identities, national identities, sexual identities, religious identities, and other identities from young ages to the point that, as we grow older, it becomes harder and harder to examine our own assumptions along each of these lines, I think that we become branded in connection with sports and sports allegiances from young ages to the point at which it becomes much harder to look at the politics of sporting practices. If we’re going to get at the politics of sport, fuller recognition of the deep workings of sports identities seems to be a very important step to take.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
An Hour of Hell, Boy?
I thought this story on CNN about a judge who is sentencing noise violation offenders to an hour of music is kind of interesting for its popular culture value. Since the point is to deter these folks (mainly young men and women) from violating the noise ordinance again, I assume these songs are meant to be annoying or boring ... or both. What's telling is that this might serve as an indication of how United States society views the musical interests of teenagers and young adults as well as how U.S. society views the social meaning of the likes of the Barney theme song, Patti Page, and the Platters.
I'd think, though, that Southpark's Eric Cartman singing Styx's "Come Sail Away" would be appealing to this crowd. I'd also think that the Barry Manilow selection might have some appeal as well, after this memorable scene from one of this past summer's big film releases.
I'd think, though, that Southpark's Eric Cartman singing Styx's "Come Sail Away" would be appealing to this crowd. I'd also think that the Barry Manilow selection might have some appeal as well, after this memorable scene from one of this past summer's big film releases.
Friday, November 7, 2008
The Social Significance of Star Wars
By now, I suppose many folks have heard about CNN debuting its election coverage holographic technology on election night. CNN correspondent Jessica Yellin was holographically projected from a tent in Chicago to the CNN studios in Atlanta. Video of it can be seen here.
There are multitudes of aspects involving this development to look at and think about, but as a bonafide Star Wars geek, I was especially taken by how it serves as the latest in the long line of ways in which Star Wars has influenced language and culture (with perhaps one of its most notable influences being Ronald Reagan's proposed missile defense program in the 1980s that was called "Star Wars"). In this instance, the reference to Star Wars came when Yellin said, "it's like I follow in the tradition of Princess Leia." CNN needed a special tent with 35 filming cameras to send Yellin as a hologram, so this was a far cry from R2-D2 recording Princess Leia on one little camera, but it's certainly a step in that direction and the aura around Yellin as she appeared in holographic form is incredibly similar to the one that appeared around Princess Leia in the 1977 film. Meanwhile, this once again reinforces the cultural significance of Star Wars, while also illustrating the ways in which the entertainment business--or, as the Frankfurt School called it, the culture industry--significantly influences how we see and think about the world.
Additionally notable is how Wolf Blitzer over and over again refers to Yellin being "beamed" in, which, of course, draws right out of the Lexicon of Star Trek--something that is pointed out in one segment of the film Trekkies.
There are multitudes of aspects involving this development to look at and think about, but as a bonafide Star Wars geek, I was especially taken by how it serves as the latest in the long line of ways in which Star Wars has influenced language and culture (with perhaps one of its most notable influences being Ronald Reagan's proposed missile defense program in the 1980s that was called "Star Wars"). In this instance, the reference to Star Wars came when Yellin said, "it's like I follow in the tradition of Princess Leia." CNN needed a special tent with 35 filming cameras to send Yellin as a hologram, so this was a far cry from R2-D2 recording Princess Leia on one little camera, but it's certainly a step in that direction and the aura around Yellin as she appeared in holographic form is incredibly similar to the one that appeared around Princess Leia in the 1977 film. Meanwhile, this once again reinforces the cultural significance of Star Wars, while also illustrating the ways in which the entertainment business--or, as the Frankfurt School called it, the culture industry--significantly influences how we see and think about the world.
Additionally notable is how Wolf Blitzer over and over again refers to Yellin being "beamed" in, which, of course, draws right out of the Lexicon of Star Trek--something that is pointed out in one segment of the film Trekkies.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
More on English with Lou Dobbs
A couple of months ago, I wrote about Lou Dobbs’ coverage of a case in which a school in Kansas has made it against the rules to speak English. Soon after, I wrote to Mr. Dobbs to share with him what I wrote. I have never heard back from him regarding the issue, which is fine. I’m sure he is inundated with numerous comments and messages from people around the country and outside of the United States and he does not have time to respond to all. However, for someone who promotes himself as an independent thinker and whose website seems to want to encourage open debate and discussion by asking viewers to get involved, he seems to have a very narrow position on this and he certainly has not responded to the kinds of concerns that I (and I’m sure others) have raised regarding English-only policies.
I have been checking transcripts of his show since I emailed Dobbs and, finally, on October 22, Dobbs took up the subject of requiring English within institutions and forums again. This time, he addressed the issue with Missouri Governor Matt Blunt, in connection with discussion of a ballot measure in Missouri that would require all public business to be done in English. Video of the exchange can be found here.
It’s obvious that Dobbs supports this measure. Indeed, Dobbs seems downright indignant toward any who would oppose making English the official language of public business. This indignant tone is perhaps most notable when Dobbs says, “the idea that we're having these discussions in 2008 is mind boggling that there should be any division at all over this issue.” On the one hand, I feel compelled to agree with Dobbs on that particular statement … though for quite an opposite reason. How can we, in 2008, after all that has been recognized about how excluding languages reinforces racism and takes away from democracy, be so narrow-minded as Dobbs as to think that English should unquestionably be the official national language? On the other hand, I’m happy to keep having the discussion, especially since it’s obvious that plenty of folks like Dobbs and Governor Blunt still have some questions to address in relation to their positions vis-à-vis racism and the real practice of democracy. So, once again, I am posting my concerns about the positions that Dobbs is advancing and I will be emailing him to invite him to discuss the matter with me.
Furthermore, I want to recognize one other aspect of this issue that seems particularly significant in relation to the positions that Dobbs advances. Time and time again, Dobbs appears to be a proponent of free enterprise and private ownership and rights. This is evident in his argument about the school board in Kansas adopting an English-only policy, with his claim that individuals bringing a suit against the school “completely forget 200 years of history and ideals and values that have made this liberal society available to them.” It seems the history of a liberal society to which Dobbs refers could be taken to mean the rights of private institutions and organizations to enact whatever policies within their groups that they wish. This draws upon the public-private split that has been central to much of United States society since its inception, that has been a hallmark of the theories of liberalism to which Dobbs refers, and, that seems to be the only ground upon which he might have a case in railing against those who challenged the school’s English-only policy (i.e., the school, since it is private, has a right to enact its own rules within its organization). I’m not sure I entirely agree with that case, but I think that’s the only viable case he has here. Yet, he clearly then has a double standard when he is discussing the institution of English as an official language, as in the case of the proposition in Missouri. Here, we are certainly not talking about a private institution or organization; this is very much the opposite—the public forums of public administration. When Dobbs then says that we should require the language of one group to take precedence over others within that forum, he has now advocated the private takeover of the public good and, thus, he has muddied the water of the very public-private split that he as held up as so sacrosanct. At the same time, for one who spends much time vigorously arguing against elitists who are imposing their wills on the United States’ people, he is now doing the very same thing that he has been so vociferously against. He is advocating for the imposition of the will of whites of European heritage who have held power in this country since its inception to maintain and reinforce their own power and privilege against others.
Lou, you can’t have it both ways like this. Well, I suppose you can, but it is not "intellectually honest," which is a quality that you hold up in this very segment of your program as important, and it exposes a number of unexamined assumptions of significance that inform your positions. And so, in the same way that you have issued challenges to others, I challenge you to take a much harder and deeper look at the ways in which your own cultural biases are influencing your positions and blinding you to aspects of racism that are embedded within those positions.
I have been checking transcripts of his show since I emailed Dobbs and, finally, on October 22, Dobbs took up the subject of requiring English within institutions and forums again. This time, he addressed the issue with Missouri Governor Matt Blunt, in connection with discussion of a ballot measure in Missouri that would require all public business to be done in English. Video of the exchange can be found here.
It’s obvious that Dobbs supports this measure. Indeed, Dobbs seems downright indignant toward any who would oppose making English the official language of public business. This indignant tone is perhaps most notable when Dobbs says, “the idea that we're having these discussions in 2008 is mind boggling that there should be any division at all over this issue.” On the one hand, I feel compelled to agree with Dobbs on that particular statement … though for quite an opposite reason. How can we, in 2008, after all that has been recognized about how excluding languages reinforces racism and takes away from democracy, be so narrow-minded as Dobbs as to think that English should unquestionably be the official national language? On the other hand, I’m happy to keep having the discussion, especially since it’s obvious that plenty of folks like Dobbs and Governor Blunt still have some questions to address in relation to their positions vis-à-vis racism and the real practice of democracy. So, once again, I am posting my concerns about the positions that Dobbs is advancing and I will be emailing him to invite him to discuss the matter with me.
Furthermore, I want to recognize one other aspect of this issue that seems particularly significant in relation to the positions that Dobbs advances. Time and time again, Dobbs appears to be a proponent of free enterprise and private ownership and rights. This is evident in his argument about the school board in Kansas adopting an English-only policy, with his claim that individuals bringing a suit against the school “completely forget 200 years of history and ideals and values that have made this liberal society available to them.” It seems the history of a liberal society to which Dobbs refers could be taken to mean the rights of private institutions and organizations to enact whatever policies within their groups that they wish. This draws upon the public-private split that has been central to much of United States society since its inception, that has been a hallmark of the theories of liberalism to which Dobbs refers, and, that seems to be the only ground upon which he might have a case in railing against those who challenged the school’s English-only policy (i.e., the school, since it is private, has a right to enact its own rules within its organization). I’m not sure I entirely agree with that case, but I think that’s the only viable case he has here. Yet, he clearly then has a double standard when he is discussing the institution of English as an official language, as in the case of the proposition in Missouri. Here, we are certainly not talking about a private institution or organization; this is very much the opposite—the public forums of public administration. When Dobbs then says that we should require the language of one group to take precedence over others within that forum, he has now advocated the private takeover of the public good and, thus, he has muddied the water of the very public-private split that he as held up as so sacrosanct. At the same time, for one who spends much time vigorously arguing against elitists who are imposing their wills on the United States’ people, he is now doing the very same thing that he has been so vociferously against. He is advocating for the imposition of the will of whites of European heritage who have held power in this country since its inception to maintain and reinforce their own power and privilege against others.
Lou, you can’t have it both ways like this. Well, I suppose you can, but it is not "intellectually honest," which is a quality that you hold up in this very segment of your program as important, and it exposes a number of unexamined assumptions of significance that inform your positions. And so, in the same way that you have issued challenges to others, I challenge you to take a much harder and deeper look at the ways in which your own cultural biases are influencing your positions and blinding you to aspects of racism that are embedded within those positions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)