Jiffy Pop on a Coleman grill
>> Saturday
In case you missed it, last night the Brewers debuted a great new fan-draw: drive-in movies.

In case you missed it, last night the Brewers debuted a great new fan-draw: drive-in movies.

Roman numeral one:
Expect Joe Maddon to be the latest manager / GM / player to unfairly serve as the face for the un-truism that analytical, bookish-looking guys can't win the big one. That probably won't happen after this season considering all the genius points he scored from the Rays' drastic improvement, but if the Rays go down in the LDS the next two years, there will no doubt be those calling for the ghost of Gene Mauch to replace him. Having said that, please do not keep tabs on this absurdly hypothetical and needless prediction.
Roman numeral two:
I think it's kinda funny how fans of a certain baseball team that plays near my house slumped into pathetic self-pity in the fifth inning of the first game of the LDS when things got slippy, but the Phillies fans never wavered in Game 5--not even while getting drenched and watching their stud ace give up a lead in an inning that should have never started in a clinching game of the World Series. Granted, this is the most unfair and slanted comparison ever, but I think my point still stands.
Roman numeral three (the long one):
Here's a shock--The World Series got low ratings. I get on this soapbox at least once a year, but here it goes again:
I will always find it hilarious / ironic / sad social commentary that approximately everyone cares about the outcome of the baseball season--especially their own team's fate--but precisely no one cares to watch the freaking game. Call me old fashioned, but to me if people don't care to watch the most critical games played by the best (loosely speaking) players of a sport that they profess to love, they're imposters who are only in it for that moment when they can circle-jerk around a pile of World Series Champions t-shirts with the home team's colors on it.
And if anyone cares, it's on that high horse where I stand up for the old-school curmudgeons who detest the analysis-obsessed Nate Silver wannabes, even though I'm fascinated by the actuarial perspective of baseball. As freely as we create and rip apart fan stereotypes like the reactionary old man, drunken blowhard, and rah-rah fratboy**, I would just as well ally myself with them as with the pompous speculator who'll never understand why I turn to Youtube clips of anything baseball-related to pull me through depressing winter nights or why I visit ballparks.com and fantasize about watching a game at Shibe Park. Whether it's the loudly ignorant or the smugly detatched, I don't appreciate phonies hijacking the game that people like Bob Costas and me worship like nine year-olds.
Being a supporter of a team alone does not make you emotionally invested in the sport. It's not quite total crap, but it's next to crap. If your computer desktop is a picture of Ryan Howard, but you didn't watch any of last year's Series, you might as well be flushed out the universe.
Rant over.
**Tangential rant: Can we please can the term "fratboy" as code for "shallow," "simple-minded," "boorish," etc.? This is such a tired and horrible cliche which has persisted mostly because the types of people who take time to criticize the use of cliches are the same who enjoy using this term to elevate their intellectual cred. Neil Armstrong--first man on the moon Neil Armstrong--was a "fratboy," okay? I know this fact because my cousin is an alumnus of the same fraternity and drops this into conversation liberally. The point is--I think we all know some very intelligent, articulate, perceptive people who belong or have belonged to a fraternity. So let's cut this shit already. If you're gonna be condescending (which I fully condone), at least don't be so lazy about it. Or at least don't use a term that screams, "I still haven't gotten over being bullied as a kid." Jesus.
Tangential rant over.
I'm sure that just about every sports blog out there has had something to say today about this Costas Now segment that aired on HBO last night. (Though I wouldn't know because I try to read sports blogs as little as possible. As it is, I already lament the amount of time I spend writing on this one for little more than my own amusement when I could be applying my intellect to so much else). But I wanted to share my own angle on the matter for our tiny audience.
Admittedly, I'm coming from a perspective of sheer ignorance. I don't have HBO, so I didn't see the segment. All I know is what Will Leitch and Michael Schur--two of the featured representatives of the "sports blogging community"--have had to say about it on Deadspin and Fire Joe Morgan, respectively. But the gist of what happened seems pretty self-explanatory: Buzz Bissinger, a sports journalist and author, verbally and maliciously attacked Leitch and everything about sports blogs, evidently lumping them under one huge umbrella.
That, of course, is absurd and unfair. But by no means am I willing to fully defend Deadspin's authors or readers. If you read this blog regularly and haven't yet picked up on this, I think most of Deadspin's content is--quite frankly--trash. Some people consider their reporting of off-beat sports news (i.e. the personal foibles and misadventures of sports figures) a way of "humanizing" the idolized. I consider most of it to be needless humiliation of people subjected to a brighter spotlight than most of us could handle.
I don't have much respect for what Deadspin does, and I resent the fact that they're considered the nexus of the sports-blogging world and somehow respresent a philosophy by which all sports bloggers and young sports fans abide. I'd prefer not to stand under anyone's umbrella, much less that of an entity which--I don't think--represents our blog at all. This--more than anything--is what bothers me about Bissinger's generalization because I can't say I'm very moved by any empathy I may feel for Leitch or anyone else who writes for or reads Deadspin.
I'd be lying if I said that my frustration has nothing to do with petty jealousy because it absolutely does. Even though we mostly write on this blog for our own amusement, everyone likes a little acknowledgment when they think their ideas and work are worth sharing. And in my own egocentric mind, the material we produce when we're "on" is every bit as insightful and entertaining as almost everything I've read on Deadspin or the many other blogs with heavier traffic--many of which transparently kowtow to Deadspin and other higher-profile blogs.
It would also be disingenuous of me if I didn't admit to selfishly using Deadspin for links on a number of occasions to get hits for our posts. I feel bad about doing that because dishonestly allying myself with something I don't respect for selfish motives isn't something I generally do--even if the other party couldn't care less about how I really feel. (Plus the fact that their links never made for more than a single-day bump in hits is all the more reason to say "fuck 'em.")
Personal grievances aside, I think Bissinger and other authors/journalists who resent blogs deserve some defending. It's one thing to write about sports and make it entertaining. Doing that with accountability and limitation--two things that bloggers are, for the most part, spared--is very different. We have the ability to express what paid journalists can't--in large part because we're allowed to screw up infinitely more than they are.
That said, the two media should be able to complement one other. But I also think that bloggers are incredibly guilty of wandering out of our necessary role and stepping on the turf of paid journalists at no benefit to anyone. Some forms of reporting are inherently best fit for those with access and experience, and to copy it on a blog only makes for a redundant, less substantiated version of the real thing. I think this is a legitimate and justifiable source of resentment.
The frustration felt by those who are truly a master at the craft of reporting must be similar to that felt by scientists and political scholars in knowing that the public will formulate its opinions from Fox News and late night talk shows before anything a true expert can say. And don't we all get a little pissed when people listen to someone else's ill-informed take on a matter over our own just because that person is funnier, or better looking, or simply better at speaking the language of his audience?
As much as we accuse mainstream media and journalists of winning esteem merely by speaking the language of the blowhard, old-school fan, bloggers prosper from this dynamic every bit as much, if not more so. It's a simple fact of human nature--we're more likely to listen to like-minded people. And it doesn't help that a lot of blogs essentially hand-pick their readership by honing in on a specific subject matter with a specific bent, which makes for tons of group-think, insularity, unconditional reinforcement, and an unwillingness to recognize our own vulnerability to stagnancy and blowhardedness. I think this, more than anything, is what bothers mainstream journalists who attack bloggers.
I know nothing about Buzz Bissinger, but I'm sure he's a very intelligent guy and not at all the villain he made himself out to be last night. And by all indications, Will Leitch is a really nice guy (as evidenced by his resistance to villainizing Bissinger). As best I can tell, we're all antagonists in this conflict, and we're all just competing for respect the way human beings do.
Leitch didn't need to say a word to defend himself because right now he holds all the cards. As for the Bissinger's of the world, I'm guessing that their hostility, more than anything, is just the frustration of getting older and losing a competition that they're bound to lose for reasons beyond their control. And that's a destiny that awaits all of us, whether we like it or not. Hopefully we can learn something from it, even if we can't do anything about it.
[AMENDED: After actually watching the segment (I wrote most of this on my lunch break at work where streaming video is banned by our server), I don't feel the need to retract anything, and I still feel the same about Deadspin, its devotees, and sports blogs in general. And Bob Costas is a genius. Did I mention we have the same birthday? That's right--March 19 babies (a group that also includes Bruce Willis) are better than everyone else.
AMENDED: Bob Costas was born on March 22. Oops.]
Alright, let's get right to this.
BEST DRESSED:
Ellen Page. Simple, lovely, and sparkly! I know I'd impregnate her if I had the chance. A-plus, Juno.
Sean Combs. Classy and sophisticated. So surprising from a black man.
WORST:
Cate Blanchett. Academy Award nominee or German barmaid? Yuck!
Ok, done with the silly ruse. Actually, what brought me on here was this teaser for an upcoming SportsCenter segment (paraphrased):
"How dominant has Tiger Woods become? Who's dominated more--Tiger or Michael Jordan? Michael Wilbon weighs in!"
Wow, creative. Controversial subject. Very important. Worth a thoughtful answer. I missed Wilbon's answer, but I'm guessing it went something like this:
"It depends what you mean by 'dominate.' If you're asking which player is, or was, better at his sport relative to his contemporaries, I'm not sure anyone can answer that. After all, basketball is a team sport where a player's individual contributions are inseparable from those of his teammates, whereas golf is a sport where one's accomplishments are dictated, almost entirely, by his own limitations. Even if we were able to accurately evaluate an NBA player's accomplishments independent of the team dynamic, the question of "dominance" is complicated by the fact that NBA players offer varied skill sets, each rendering a different role--and therefore, different objectives--within the team dynamic. On the other hand, every golfer has an identical objective: get the ball in the hole with the least amount of strokes. And we still haven't addressed the issue of the two sports' talent curves and how they compare with one another at various points within the two men's careers. With all this in mind, shouldn't we spend our time on a resolvable debate? Or at least one that can better our understanding of sports? Or better our understanding of something more important than sports? Or for God's sake, at least something that doesn't seem so cliched? Working at this network has made it harder and harder for me to respect myself."
No, wait. His answer would be nothing like that. More like:
"I'm from Chicago, so it's hard to say anyone is better than MJ at anything because I'm from Chicago. But--and I can't believe I'm saying this because I'm from Chicago and grew up worshiping MJ--I think Tiger is more dominant! He has 63 career tournament wins! MJ had just six championships! Those numbers have a huge arithmetic difference--the only fair way to compare any two numbers in sports, by the way--so I don't see how you could argue against, which is so hard for me to say because I'm from Chicago and love MJ. I love having these debates, though, because they're fun and get my face on TV, and like any good American would do, I willingly trade my journalistic integrity for celebrity on a daily basis. So... Tiger! Now you know the answer."
Honestly... What kind of society do we live in that people earn money, respect, and huge stage for hashing out nonsense questions and where people like me have the time and a forum to critique it? It makes me sick. I make me sick. We need a good plague or famine--not like the kind government aid can cover but the kind that brought civilaztions to their knees--to get back some semblance of sanity. Thank God for these diversions. Thank God for the reassurance of a resolute voice rich in testosterone telling us that these trivial things matter and that everything is hunky dory as long as we work hard and play hard. And we believe him because subconsciously, we see him as a protector and a rock of strength when the truth is, they'll be the first to cannibalize the weak when that famine does hit.
While ESPN/ABCDisney was all up its own ass the last two days about its star-studded Sunday afternoon of NBA action, most of us--I think--were rather unimpressed.
ESPN hyped the doubleheader as--holy crap!--four of the biggest stars playing on the same network in one day. Wow. Nothing like that has ever happened. And if not for the grace of God (read: made-for-TV scheduling), we'd have never been so privileged. We'd have never gotten to see the four most overexposed stars in the league play on national TV. Uh-gain.
As far as I'm concerned, the redundancy of teams and matchups in marquee games is as crappy for the league as it is for the fan. I realize that superstars tend to boost the appeal of a professional sports league tremendously, but I don't think that fans need to hear the St. Dwyane routine every week to realize D-Wade is a good player. Nor should we be robbed of appearances by players of equal merit that don't play for the defending champ.
It's the same thing that's gone on forever with national broadcasts. The NBA's current star power unfortunately has brought us back to the '90s when it was "Sunday on NBC--Michael and Bulls take on Ewing and the Knicks, followed by Hakeem and the Rockets versus O'Neal and the Magic! And next week--O'Neal and the Magic face Michael and the Bulls followed by Hakeem and the Rockets versus Ewing and the Knicks! Here on NBC! [John Tesh music.]"
We get the same thing, of course, in other sports, be it the Red Sox-Yankees and Giants-Dodgers five times a year on ESPN Sunday Night Baseball or Duke versus whomever every Wednesday night.
If athletes--particularly NBA players--are so motivated by the limelight, as the common perception holds, wouldn't the league prosper from sharing this limelight among more stars? Today two of the league's most intriguing stars, Gilbert Arenas and Zach Randolph, were playing head-to-head in a game with an excellent side plot (Arenas's misguided bitterness about his Team USA snub). Granted, it was a horrible game in hindsight, but the TV exec with foresight would have seen that pot of gold (Wizard's jerseys) a mile away. But no dice. Just more Duncan, Kobe, and LeBron.
I don't just have a problem with the repetition. I also dislike the distortion of public perception it creates. Is Wade really that much better than Joe Johnson? Or Duncan compared to Pau Gasol? Were Michael and Magic really that much better than Bernard King and Alex English?
Remember--Phil Rizzuto is in the Hall of Fame, and Bert Blyleven is not. And that's really what this post is all about.
ABC tickets is your source for all NFL Football tickets including Philadelphia Eagles tickets. Also check out their large supply of Phillies tickets, Flyers tickets and Sixers tickets
Enjoy the best cricket betting odds with William Hill! Find all the necessary information about cricket highlights, competitions, tips and popular bets.
AllianceTickets.com is your source for Nuggets Tickets. They carry all Denver Broncos Tickets and Seattle Seahawks Tickets at Great Prices. Don't forget to check out their Pittsburgh Steelers Tickets. It's always a Great buy with AllianceTickets.
Get out of your yellow chairs and onto some treadmills to train like a pro.
© Blogger template Webnolia by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009
Back to TOP