“Peanuts and Cracker Jack” (a repost)

There’s been some debate lately after last week’s NFL games, regarding whether or not it’s right, or good, for teams that have secured their playoff positions and who are thus facing a game that is essentially meaningless to not play their best players. The Kansas City Chiefs rested their starters, having already locked up the Number One seed in the AFC, and because they proceeded to lose to the Denver Broncos, who very much did have something to play for, the Broncos made the playoffs and the Cincinnati Bengals did not. (That the Bengals could have made the playoffs had they actually not lost a pile of games early in the season is not something that a lot of Bengals fans want to admit, for whatever reason.)

Likewise, the Buffalo Bills rested a bunch of their best players in their final game against the New England Patriots, who also won. Now, the Patriots had a very bad season and had they lost they would have secured the First Overall pick in the 2025 draft. By winning, they lost the first pick. Again, much rending of teeth and gnashing of garments. (We mustn’t feel too bad for the Patriots, who will pick 4th, and who will likely be looking to trade down for a package of picks anyway, since they likely aren’t looking for a quarterback in the draft.)

I personally have no problem with resting players if you can. Football is a brutal game, and many times in recent years the Super Bowl has come down to “Who is the least banged up.” Plus, there’s the fact that those backup players are still players who want to play. Maybe they want to shake off some rust before their playoffs, or maybe they want to make a good impression in hopes of securing their roster spot next year. And this quote below, by Patriots quarterback Joe Milton, reminded me of a book I read years ago, a wonderful baseball book by John Feinstein. First Milton’s quote, and then the post I wrote about Feinstein’s book years ago.

So the World Series kicks off tonight. [The 2014 World Series, that is. The San Francisco Giants defeated the Kansas City Royals in seven. -Ed.] I know, that’s the wrong metaphor. Sorry. I used to be a huge baseball fan, and I still find the game itself utterly beautiful to watch unfold, a game of moments where things happen one thing at a time. Baseball may be the last major sport that isn’t a constant flow of motion. As for rooting interests, as the League Championship Series started in each league, I noticed that of those four teams, none were a team I dislike in any major way. Generally, my approach in such cases is this: when there are no teams left for whom I have a rooting interest (be it rooting for a team to win or for a hated team to lose), I root for the remaining teams in order of how long it’s been since they won. In the AL you had the Orioles versus the Royals, whose last World Series wins were in 1983 and 1985, respectively. The Royals haven’t even made the postseason since then. (The Orioles have, but have not won any pennants.) As for the NL, it was the Cardinals and Giants, two teams who have each won it at least twice in the last few years. So no matter who won the AL pennant, I would root for the AL champion in the World Series. Hence, go Royals!

The remainder of this post is a book review. My sports fandom is nowhere near what it once was, and I see little reason to expect it to rebound in any significant way in the future. That said, I do still enjoy good sports writing, and John Feinstein is one of the betters sportswriters out there. He has a new book about baseball, called Where Nobody Knows Your Name: Life in the Minor Leagues of Baseball, and it’s definitely worth a look.

Minor-league baseball is sometimes seen as the more “pure” version of the baseball experience these days, where you can still go to the ballpark and take in a game for a few bucks, where goofball promotions are often used as enticements, where ads for local businesses still cover the outfield walls, where players still endure long bus rides from town to town, and where brushes with true baseball celebrity come mainly from young phenom players or Major Leaguers sent down to the minors to work their way back into the game after an injury.

Feinstein’s portrait of the minors has all that, but he also captures something that a lot of fans may not come to realize: that the minors are, in addition to being a training ground for guys not yet ready for the Majors, a place of frustration. The fact is, especially at the AAA level, nobody wants to be there. This is a fact that everyone must acknowledge, and some managers come right out and say it. Nobody wants to be in AAA baseball, because AAA is the cusp of the Majors. When you’re in AAA, your dream is almost there, constantly tantalizing you and torturing you with every single injury with the big club, with every time the manager’s phone rings, with every invitation to spring training. Triple-A baseball is a land of players who are this close. For some, it’s just a brief spot, while for others, it’s a place to spend years without ever getting to “the show”.

Feinstein focuses his book mostly on just nine men: six players, two managers, and one umpire. Some have made it and will make it back; others haven’t made it yet; some have made it and will never make it back. The central fact of this book is that while dreams do come true, they don’t always stay true. It’s a hard lesson for some of these players, and it’s very easy to understand why they keep signing up for one more year, why they keep trying to catch on someplace, even as they pass their 30th birthdays and start approaching their 40th.

It’s interesting to me, as well, that Feinstein includes an umpire in his journey through AAA baseball. Fans don’t think too much about umpires, really, and the only time their names really come up is when they screw up. If a baseball fan knows Don Denkinger’s name, it’s almost certainly because he blew a call in a World Series game; and even then, it’s not like umpire’s names stay in the memory for long. I couldn’t tell you the name of the umpire who screwed up a call a couple years back that cost a pitcher a perfect game on what should have been the final out. (For the record, I still think that MLB should have reversed the call and credited that guy with the perfect game. The idea that umpire’s calls are sacred and must never be changed, ever ever ever, is deeply bizarre to me.) Umpires work their way through the minors just like players do, hoping for that call to become an umpire at the Major League level. What I didn’t know is that umpires’ time is limited even more than players. A player can stay in the minors as long as some organization is willing to have him, but not so an umpire: you only get so many years, and if by that time the people who choose the Major League umpires don’t think you have it, that’s it: you’re done. There are no career minor league umpires.

I was likewise surprised at the degree to which winning isn’t much of a concern in the minors. They like to win, but winning is mainly seen as a function of playing well, and playing well is seen as the means to the end of reaching the Majors. Feinstein depicts the feel of a championship-winning minor league clubhouse as a pretty surreal place. It’s an accomplishment that nobody much gives a shit about. This reminds me of the great movie Bull Durham, which spans an entire season and yet except for one brief segment in the middle of the movie, you get almost no sense for how the team’s doing in the standings. No one cares. All that matters is who gets the call to go up, and who gets the call to go home.

Minor leaguers, it turns out, put up with a lot of crap. They’ll fly with their team in the morning to a new city for a day game, only to be told as soon as they plane lands that the big club needs an arm for that night’s game, so they’re to turn around and get on another plane entirely. Mets pitcher Chris Schwinden, for example, got a call up to join the Mets in Toronto. After sitting in the bullpen, he flies with the team to Pittsburgh, where he’s told that he’s been sent back down already, so he has to turn around and get to Buffalo (the Mets’ AAA affiliate was the Buffalo Bisons at the time). At this point in the night, a direct flight from Pittsburgh to Buffalo isn’t available, so they fly him to JFK, where he’s supposed to catch a flight to Buffalo. That plane is delayed for two hours, so the team sends a car to drive him from NYC to Buffalo. After a series of mechanical mishaps with the car, Schwinden finally gets back to Buffalo eighteen hours after leaving Pittsburgh. This whole passage had me laughing, because you can drive from Pittsburgh to Buffalo in less than four hours.

Feinstein is an honest sportwriter, which means that he can’t just depict baseball’s poetic and pastoral beauty. Baseball keeps going, and as big as some players get, there is no player so big that the game can’t keep being played once they hang up their cleats. Throughout the book, Feinstein makes clear that each and every person is aware that they are just minor cogs in the game’s history and that the game will go on without them when they’re done, almost as if they were never a part of it at all. At times this aspect of baseball can be bluntly heartless: near the end, when the umpire is finally told that he simply isn’t good enough and that his career is over, one reason given is the time he has missed from umpiring. How much time did he miss? Two weeks once, for the birth of his own child, and two days one other time, so he could attend an uncle’s funeral. That’s pretty brutal.

The emotions go the other way, though, and Feinstein shows this as well in many passages. Why do these players work so hard to chase a dream that few will ever get, for whom the odds get smaller with each year? This passage, from the introduction, explains it perfectly.

Every player knows how much the first call-up means. Which is why there is almost always a celebration of some kind in a Triple-A clubhouse when someone gets the call for the first time. Everyone understands what an extraordinary moment it is in a player’s life. Those who have been called up remember what it meant to them; those who have not know how much they want it to happen.

J.C. Boscan’s story isn’t quite the same as Jimmy Morris’s, because he never stopped playing. He signed with the Atlanta Braves in the summer of 1996 at the age of sixteen and spent the next fourteen seasons bouncing around the minor leagues. He first reached Triple-A in 2002 but couldn’t take the next step, because, even though he was a solid catcher, he just couldn’t hit well enough to be regarded as a serious big-league prospect.

He left the Braves for a couple of years to play Double-A and Triple-A for the Milwaukee Brewers and the Cincinnati Reds. He signed back with the Braves in 2008, because the people running the organization had so much respect for him as a clubhouse leader and someone who would set a good example for younger players that they were willing to bring him back – knowing he was unlikely to ever play in Atlanta.

Two years later, playing in Gwinnett, he had his best offensive season. Nothing spectacular, but a career-high five home runs and a batting average of .250 – higher than his lifetime average of .222. Late in August, Boscan began to hear that he might be on the September call-up list.

Every year on September 1, major-league teams can expand their rosters to as many as forty players (the regular roster size is twenty-five). Rarely do they bring up more than five or six players. Those who are brought up usually provide depth in the bullpen or on the bench of are young players being given a taste of the major leagues. Every once in a while, a team will give a player a “good guy promotion” – bring him up so he can make major-league pay for a month as a reward for being a good guy and not complaining about being stuck in the minor leagues.

Boscan had been in the minors for fourteen years and had never seen the inside of a big-league clubhouse except during spring training. At thirty, he was a long way from being the bright-eyed teenage prospect the Braves had brought to the United States from Venezuela in 1997.

On August 31, the word in the Gwinnett clubhouse was that the Braves were going to make their call-ups after the game. Boscan remembers being more nervous that night than at any other time in his career.

“I walked on the field that night, and all I could think was, ‘If I don’t get the call tonight, it’s never going to come,'” he remembered. “I honestly thought this was my last shot and my best shot to ever get to the majors. I could barely keep my mind on the game. All I could think about was what was going to happen after it was over. I was praying to God to let this be my time.”

When the game ended, Boscan sat in front of his locker and picked at the postgame meal. Hitting coach Jamie Dismuke had been designated by manager Dave Brundage to bring players into his office so they could be told they were going to make the thirty-seven-mile trip down I-85 to Turner Field. As Dismuke worked his way around the clubhouse, that thirty-seven miles felt more like a million to Boscan.

The first player called in was Freddie Freeman, the twenty-year-old phenom, who was hitting .319 and was considered a lock call-up. He came out of Brundage’s office with a huge smile on his face and was engulfed in congratulations.

Dismuke continued his rounds. One player after another walked around the corner to Brundage’s office and came out wearing the giveaway grin. The congratulations continued. No one had made a move to leave because this was a happy night – for those going up.

Six players had gone in to see Brundage – entering as Gwinnett Braves and coming out as Atlanta Braves – and there was no sign of Dismuke for a couple of minutes. Boscan’s heart sank. That was it – six guys. His dream had died.

Dismuke appeared again, this time walking directly toward Boscan.

“Skip wants to see you, J.C.,” he said. He wasn’t smiling. Boscan panicked. Maybe Brundage had gotten the good news out of the way first, and now he was going to let Boscan know that the team needed him in Double-A to work with a young catcher. Or, maybe he was being released.

Brundage was, in fact, preparing that kind of speech for Boscan. “I was going to look very sad and tell him that sometimes things don’t turn out the way you want them to in baseball,” he said. “But when he walked in here, he was shaking. I couldn’t go through with it.”

The entire Gwinnett staff was in the room when Boscan walked in.

“Have a seat, JC,” Brundage said, trying to look grim.

Boscan sat on the couch across from Brundage’s desk.

“You ever been to the big leagues?” he asked – knowing the answer.

“No,” Boscan said, shaking his head.

Brundage couldn’t keep up the charade.

“I was going to mess with you, JC, but I can’t do it,” he said, feeling himself start to choke up. “This is your day. You’re going up.”

Boscan burst into tears. Everyone else in the room was fighting to hold tears back.

“I’ve been a minor-league manager a long time,” Brundage said. “I can honestly say that was the best moment I’ve ever had.”

After Boscan had thanked everyone and shaken everyone’s hand and been hugged all around, he walked out of the office. Brundage’s office is in a hallway that leads to the clubhouse area where the players’ lockers are located. When Boscan turned the corner to reenter the locker area, the entire team was waiting for him.

Feinstein doesn’t reveal what became of JC Boscan after he finally reached the Major Leagues after fourteen years of minor-league toil, because that’s really not the point of his book at all. But I couldn’t help wondering, so I looked it up. That’s the thing about baseball: you can always look it up. He only had one plate appearance with the Braves that fall, in which he drew a walk to load the bases; he would then score a run when a subsequent hitter doubled. Over the next two seasons with the Braves and then one season with the Cubs, he appeared in a total of 17 Major-League games, collecting 7 hits in 28 at-bats, for a .250 average. He has 2 career RBIs, and zero home runs. After the 2013 season he signed with the Dodgers organization, and he’s still there, playing Double-A ball with the Chattanooga Lookouts.

Baseball abides, man.

Share This Post

The “Greatest” Comeback? (a repost)

(Every year now, social media around the 716 lights up on the anniversary of the Bills-Oilers wildcard playoff game in January 1993, almost always simply called “The Comeback Game”. I wrote these thoughts a couple years ago when that record comeback was finally exceeded. I’ve been thinking a lot, more recently, about the degree to which numbers have taken over sport discourse in this country, and some of these thoughts might be pertinent to the current “race” for the NFL MVP award.)

From The West Wing, Season Three, “Stirred”:

VICE-PRESIDENT HOYNES: I heard you had Caps tickets.

SAM: Yes, sir.

HOYNES: How was the game?

SAM: Not very good.

HOYNES: Have you ever seen a good hockey game?

SAM: No.

HOYNES: Me neither. I love sports, I just can’t get next to hockey. See, I think Americans like to savor situations: One down, bottom of the ninth, one run game, first and third, left handed batter, right hand reliever, infield at double play depth, here’s the pitch. But scoring in hockey seems to come out of nowhere! The play-by-play guy is always shocked. “LePeiter passes to Huckenchuck who skates past the blue line. Huckenchuck, of course, was traded from Winnipeg for a case of Labatts after sitting out last season with–Oh my God, he scores!”

A warning for those who don’t care about football: Football blathering ahead!

In the Wild-Card weekend following the 1992 NFL season, the Buffalo Bills famously fell behind by 32 points, 35-3, to the Houston Oilers before coming back to eventually win the game in overtime, 41-38. The comeback was the greatest in NFL history…until just a few weeks ago, when the Minnesota Vikings fell behind 33-0 to the Indianapolis Colts before coming back to win, 39-36. So the Vikings now hold the record for the greatest NFL comeback of all time.

But…do they?

Well, obviously in one very key sense, yes, they do. The numbers don’t lie: a 33-point deficit is greater than a 32-point deficit. And much of the “debate” that followed as to whether this was really the greatest comeback of all time centered on Buffalo fans who just don’t want what’s probably their franchise’s greatest singular on-field accomplishment erased. That’s the problem with records like that: every record can be erased, or pushed to second place, eventually. Championships are forever, but records are transitory, and a record that stands for 30 years before being pushed to second place is still the second-place record. So yeah, I get it.

But…that’s a pretty starkly numerical way of looking at things, isn’t it?

You can’t escape numbers in sports. Numbers are bound up in sports. They are inescapable…probably because numbers are inescapable in life, but really, numbers are sometimes everything in sports. Tom Brady’s 7 Super Bowl rings, Nolan Ryan’s 7 no-hitters. Ted Williams, last guy to hit .400. The idea then shapes out that numbers, more than anything else, tell us everything about what happens on the field. I remember quoting Fox Mulder from The X-Files a while back, talking about how he can look up a fifty-year-old box score in a yellowing newspaper and know exactly what happened on the field that day, all because of the numbers captured in that box score.

But…can he?

I mean, he can, to a certain degree. But the numbers don’t tell everything.

You can’t look at a box score and tell how blue the sky was that day, or what it smelled like in the park because maybe the breeze was coming from the lake or the industrial park the other way (in Buffalo, with the cereal plants downtown, it often smells of Cheerios). A box score won’t tell you how scuffed up the first baseman’s jersey is after several close plays, or how the catcher is still trying to work off the gimpy ankle from that play at the plate last Tuesday night. The box score won’t tell you the crowd’s mood: Are they giddy and jubilant, or are they kind of grumblingly negative because the team’s having a rough season and they’re sarcastically cheering the guy hitting .197 who just managed to leg out a weak grounder safely to first?

The box score won’t tell you if the players are attacking an early season game with vigor, or if they are visibly just playing out the last few weeks of the schedule, mired in fifth place and just wanting nothing more than to go home and rest for about a month. The box score will tell you that a particular player homered in the sixth, but it won’t tell you that he was on a hot streak and he came up against a tiring pitcher who probably should have already been pulled and who had of late been surrendering homers to right-handed hitters at a surprising rate for a guy who, up to a few weeks before, had been almost unhittable.

Numbers are great and important and useful…but they are also a flattening force, a force that tends to flatten out story. A baseball player who collects more than 3000 career hits is almost guaranteed a spot in the Hall of Fame…but is that all that player does? All I really know about Robin Yount is that he hat 3000 hits in his career. That’s numbers: for me they reduce a Hall of Fame player to a guy who had roughly 150 hits a year over his 20-year career.

But, what if I ask a person who has been a Milwaukee Brewers fan their whole life, “Hey! Tell me about Robin Yount?” Then, I’m not going to hear about 3000 hits. Then, I’m going to hear stories.

Sport isn’t just numbers, it’s also stories. I think that’s why we follow sport so adamantly as a species–well, partly, anyway. I don’t want to discount numbers, after all. But numbers aren’t the whole story.

This suggests to me that there’s another kind of greatness at play here, when we talk about “Greatest Comebacks”: situational greatness, we can call it. Or storytelling greatness? The New England Patriots trailed the Atlanta Falcons 28-3 a few years back in the Super Bowl–and they came back to win it. That’s a 25-point comeback, still a full touchdown “less” than the Bills’ against the Oilers…but 25 points down in the Super Bowl? You have to give that some special consideration, I think, because comebacks just don’t happen in the Super Bowl. The previous record for biggest comeback in a Super Bowl had only been 10 points. That means something.

And it also means something that the Bills’ comeback against the Oilers was a playoff game, at home, after a season that had been a bit of a struggle, when the Bills were banged up and missing several starters (including their quarterback and running back), and had been beaten soundly just the week before by that very same Oilers team. The Vikings’ comeback? A regular season game, at home, relatively healthy, against one the worst teams in the NFL that built its lead on a pile of field goals. The box score will tell you the Vikings overcame the biggest numerical point deficit in an NFL game to date. The box score won’t tell you the other stuff, and the other stuff is what we talk about when we sit over a beer and discuss old sports memories.

So. Is the Vikings comeback the greatest in history? Numerically, yes. Absolutely. Thirty-three points is more than thirty-two points.

But I doubt as many people will still be talking about that game thirty years from now as are still talking about that game in January 1993 when a backup quarterback erased a 32-point deficit in a playoff game.

(Credit for West Wing quote. Disclaimer: I do not endorse the fictional Vice President’s opinion of hockey.)

Share This Post

What is “value”?

Buffalo Bills quarterback Josh Allen, a.k.a. “His Royal Awesomeness”

I rarely write about sport on this site anymore, but I’m going to broach the topic here just for a few minutes because there’s an interesting debate raging across social media right now regarding the NFL MVP award, and which players are worthy. As of this writing, there are four players I see mentioned most frequently. The two that I think aren’t likely to win it are Bengals quarterback Joe Burrow and Eagles running back Saquon Barkley. The debate is really swirling around the other two guys: Bills and Ravens quarterbacks Josh Allen and Lamar Jackson.

I’m not going to actually lay out the case for either player here. As a Buffalonian and someone who roots for the Bills, I openly admit that yes, I think it’s perfectly clear that Josh Allen is the MVP this year. It’s obvious, you weirdos! Just give it to him already. It’s a done deal. It’s in the bag.

But…is it?

Obviously, not really. Lamar Jackson is having an amazing statistical season; in fact, if you were to only look at the numbers, Jackson is obviously the MVP. It’s a done deal. It’s in the bag.

Only, it’s not.

The problem is with the nature of the MVP award itself. It’s an award that’s voted on by a number of sports journalists, and like all such things, it’s a weird blend of stats and narrative. Some years the stats win out, sometimes it’s the narrative that wins out. Sometimes the MVP is given to the player who obviously had the best statistical season, while others it’s a vaguer justification–the best player on the best team, perhaps. That last is one of the bigger reasons for supporting Allen over Jackson this year: as of this writing the Bills have the better record, having already won their division and being on the brink of clinching the Number Two seed in the AFC playoffs, while Jackson’s Ravens have lost more games and may not even end up winning their division (though that looks likely at this point).

It’s the word in the award itself: the most valuable player. And that makes the whole thing a judgment call, basically an opinion. Is Lamar Jackson more valuable to his team than Josh Allen? I don’t know that he is. I also don’t know–really know–that he isn’t. So what we end up with is conflicting opinions, and let’s be honest here: those opinions can shift and change depending on who it is we’re rooting for. (Right now we’re not even going to mention the fact that NFL MVP is now a de facto award for quarterbacks alone; it’s been 12 years since anyone other than a QB won it, and it’s been 38 years since anybody on the defensive side of things won one. And in a pass-whacky league, a wide receiver has never won it.)

Here’s a thought experiment: consider all the argument for Josh Allen for MVP, and all the arguments for Lamar Jackson as well. Now imagine if these two guys were having the exact same seasons–but they played on the opposite teams. Imagine Allen leading the Ravens to a 12-3 record (again, as of this writing), having set all manner of offensive records over his first bunch of years, and the stunning individual performances he’s had in single games this season. And imagine Lamar Jackson playing for the Bills, and putting up the passing numbers he’s put up this year.

If that happened, you would see each camp still advocating strongly for their guy–but with the exact opposite set of arguments.

I do tend to react strongly against purely statistical justifications for MVP awards. I’m not a fan of reducing everything to stats, because I’m a storyteller and a story-lover at heart, and stats aren’t stories. Stats can be a part of stories, but they’re not the whole thing. Josh Allen’s story in Buffalo is amazing and compelling, and when one considers the degree to which he’s played a role in the resurgence of a franchise and the emotions of a fandom (we can talk another time about how maybe a football team’s fortunes in the field probably shouldn’t be this big of a factor in a region’s emotional life), and the role he has come to inhabit in this community, it’s hard to make a case that he’s not incredibly valuable. And most people agree on this point. So is he the most valuable? Maybe, maybe not.

The NFL MVP award turns out, in some ways, to be similar to the Oscars: it’s all about aesthetics and recognition, as opposed to rewarding a true “objective” standout. It’s clear that even with the statistical arguments, there’s no real “objective” standard of a player’s value, so again it’s the narrative that comes in to play. That also happens with the Oscars, where sometimes an actor is awarded an Academy Award less for the particular role for which they’re nominated but as a nod of respect to a career. For Josh Allen, the narrative case is strengthened when various aspects of his career are noted: the degree to which he has been responsible for the Bills winning a lot, the fact that the Bills have enjoyed an even better season this year after an offseason that left many thinking the Bills would take a step back, the further fact that Allen has significantly improved the major aspect of his game that was often criticized before this year (his turnovers).

The other problem with stats is that if a player with gaudy stats is truly the most valuable, then surely it should show up in the win-loss column. One standout weird example of this is from Major League Baseball, which in 1987 awarded National League MVP to Andre Dawson, because he had an outstanding season at the plate (49 HRs). Never mind that his team that year, the Cubs, finished dead last. Was Dawson “valuable”? Well, I’ve seen that debated here and there over the years. The NFL does have ways of avoiding this sort of thing, with its additional awards of “Offensive Player of the Year” and “Defensive Player of the Year”. MVP, then, becomes something else. Something more elusive, dealing with those pesky “intangibles”.

So, what’s my solution? Obviously, I’m a Josh Allen guy. However, there is precedent for doing something more daring: in 2003, the NFL MVP was split, and we had co-MVPs in Peyton Manning and Steve McNair. If that happened again, it would not bother me at all. (Nor, really, would Lamar Jackson winning MVP outright.) Another thing that’s always struck me as odd is why the NFL’s awards are singular. Baseball has multiple sets of awards for each league, so there is no one Baseball MVP; there’s a NL MVP and an AL MVP. Why not a AFC and an NFC MVP? (This wouldn’t help the current situation, obviously, since Allen and Jackson are both AFC guys.)

But ultimately, aside from my thinking there should be awards from both conferences, I don’t much have a problem with any of this. It gets people talking about sport and it shows the passion in the fanbases. More than anything, all these MVP candidates show what a glorious period of football this is, and how much it’s an embarrassment of riches right now. Unfortunately not many people are taking it this way, and that’s a shame. Rooting for Josh Allen surely doesn’t have to mean that I can’t appreciate the amazing football that Lamar Jackson is playing right now.

One last point: sooner or later in all of these discussions one point inevitably gets made: “Neither Allen nor Jackson has ‘won anything’ yet.” This refers to the fact that neither guy has won the Super Bowl (or even been to it) yet. And yes, that does suck. One thing I dislike about the NFL is that for whatever reason, it’s much more conducive to dynasties forming, and this is compounded by the weird way that sports fans (and some commentators) overvalue championships above all else. This is natural, I suppose–winning the Super Bowl is everybody’s goal–but I have a problem with looking at someone’s career as “lesser” if they simply never managed to win it. There’s only one Super Bowl every year, after all, and many fine careers play out in the NFL (or in any sport) that don’t include a championship. Every time I see the “Allen doesn’t have a ring!” thing on social media, I like to respond along these lines: “I have bad news for you if you ever visit the Pro Football Hall of Fame, because I’ll bet most of the guys in there never won a Super Bowl.”

So much of sport is narrative, as much as the folks who love stats would pretend otherwise. Look at Aaron Rodgers and the narrative over the course of his career. Of course, right now the narrative on Rodgers is pretty much that he’s a washed-up weirdo who is going to leave the Jets on the verge of a full-on rebuild, but for years, his story was that he’d have a great regular season, lead the Packers to one of the best records in the NFC, and then faceplant in the playoffs. Year in and year out, that’s what happened…and if any other player had that kind of record, our sporting world would label him a “choker”, fairly or not. So why was Rodgers never labeled a “choker” at all? Because one time, early in his career, he actually won a Super Bowl.

Winning a championship completely changes the narrative of a player and a coach. Win one, and all previous “failures” (and again, it’s a hell of a thing to view all sporting effort that doesn’t produce a championship a “failure”) are forgiven and forgotten. Win one early in your career, and nothing that happens after will ever diminish your sheen: you are a Champion forevermore. Rodgers illustrates the latter, and the former is illustrated perfectly by Chiefs coach Andy Reid. Reid coached the Philadelphia Eagles in the late 90s and the 2000s, and he took them to multiple NFC Championship games (losing all but one) and to one Super Bowl (which he lost). Until Reid won his first Super Bowl with the Chiefs, he was the most recent poster child for the “He can’t win the big one! He coaches small in big moments! He can’t manage a game! He can’t get the team ready to win a Super Bowl!” crowd. But all those years of falling short still happened! They’re right there in his record! But he won a Super Bowl finally (along with, as of this writing, two more), so all of that is forgotten and ignored.

Ultimately, the NFL MVP is a shifting blend of narrative and statistical excellence. This season, there’s enough of both to go around for multiple players, so much so that the award will honestly feel partially incorrect, no matter to whom it’s given in the end.

Unless it’s Josh Allen. If that happens, everything is right in the world.

Share This Post

Go Bills…kinda

So, public opinion seems to be coalescing to a degree around the idea that the best Super Bowl matchup to conclude the season that is currently winding its way toward a conclusion would pit the Buffalo Bills against the Detroit Lions. That would be the Bills’ fifth Super Bowl appearance, versus the first for the Lions. The Bills, notably, lost all four of their previous Super Bowl tilts, so a Bills-Lions Super Bowl would produce the first ever Super Bowl victory for one of those two teams.

I get the appeal. I really do. The Bills are not only really good, but they’re really likeable and they are vastly exceeding expectations for this season. Many prognosticators had the Bills finishing somewhere around 9-8, after an offseason that had them dumping two wide receivers and a few key defensive starters from the really good teams of the last three or four seasons…but they just plugged in new, younger guys and here they are, 9-2 as I write this.

The Lions, meanwhile, have been building smartly over the last few years. Last year they advanced all the way to the NFC Championship Game before losing, and as of this writing they are 10-1, firmly in first place in the NFC and the favorite to win the conference and finally make their first ever Super Bowl. And they, too, are a very likeable team, and they have a fanbase that is seen as one of the most cruelly cursed in sports.

So, Bills-Lions in the Super Bowl is well within the realm of possibility, and because both teams are so easy to root for, that’s what’s happening.

Except for me.

I do not want this matchup, precisely because both teams are so likeable and precisely because both fan bases have suffered for, well, ever.

Now, I’m on record as not being terribly sympathetic to “suffering fans”, since the suffering is voluntary. But there’s a limit, and a Bills-Lions Super Bowl would allow one of those fanbases to experience glory, while plunging the other into more heartbreak. If the Lions won, that would drop the Bills to 0-5 in the Super Bowl, and more, they would be the only 0-5 team in the Super Bowl at all. The Bills are already still the butt of jokes for the Super Bowls they lost over 30 years ago, and adding a fifth loss would, I think, simply amplify the national mocking. It’s already annoying enough hearing “He hasn’t won a Super Bowl yet!” in reply to any post online anywhere talking about Josh Allen’s prodigious gifts as a quarterback.

So honestly, were I given by the Sports Gods the binary choice of “They make the Super Bowl and lose” versus “They don’t make the Super Bowl at all”, I would honestly take the latter.

As for the Lions? I don’t want them to lose either, even to the Bills. When the Lions reach the Super Bowl, I want to root for them, and I don’t want them to lose their first Super Bowl.

No, I don’t want Bills-Lions in the Super Bowl. I want the Bills in one of the next two Super Bowls, the Lions in the other, and both teams winning. That‘s what I want.

I’m also sick of the Chiefs, but that’s another matter entirely….

Share This Post

Wake

The Pittsburgh Pirates entered the 1992 season as two-time defending National League East champions. Back then, both the AL and NL had just two divisions, East and West, and the playoffs consisted of a single Championship Series pitting the division winners of each league; the winners of the LCSs would then face off in the World Series. No wild-card teams, no play-in games, no divisional series, just two teams in each league facing each other for the pennant and then the World Series. The Pirates had lost the NLCS in 1990 to the Reds, and then they lost the NLCS again in 1991 to the Atlanta Braves. They lost some talent after 1991–most notably, Bobby Bonilla–and not many people penciled them in for another division crown in 1992.

But somehow, the Pirates managed to surge early to a lead in the division, which they somehow maintained throughout the season, though in the middle of the season, through July and the All-Star break, it looked like their lead was in trouble. The Montreal Expos were breathing down their necks (partly because of the play of Moises Alou, a former top Pirates prospect that the Pirates dealt to the Expos two years earlier for pitching help), the bullpen wasn’t doing terribly well because for all their talent the Pirates never managed to find or develop a true closer, and the rotation was two really good guys (Doug Drabek, Zane Smith) and a few other OK guys.

Meanwhile, down in the minors, there was a first baseman who occupied his downtime by practicing throwing a knuckleball, one of the strangest of all baseball pitches. When this guy was told straight-out that he would, at best, plateau as a position player no higher than AA ball, he decided to try reinventing himself as a pitcher, with the knuckleball as his main pitch. He didn’t have much other than the knuckleball, to be honest; his fastball speed was never above 80mph, so he was never going to overpower hitters at the plate. No, it was knuckleball-to-the-majors or bust. He made the conversion to pitcher and started toiling away in the minors as a full-time pitcher in 1990.

Knuckleball-to-the-majors or bust, indeed.

It worked.

He made it to the majors on July 31, 1992, when the Pirates decided that they needed some help in the rotation. Up came this weird knuckleballer, who proceeded to go 8-1 down the stretch for the Pirates, with a 2.15 ERA; his presence helped fortify the rotation and provided an exciting boost. The Pirates ended up winning the NL East handily, and went on to face the Braves again in the NLCS.

Honestly, it felt like the run was over very quickly; the Braves took a three-games-to-one series lead–but the one game was a complete game thrown by this rookie knuckleballer who managed to out-duel Tom Glavine, one of the game’s best pitchers and a future Hall-of-Famer. Suddenly everybody knew who this kid was.

His name was Tim Wakefield.

The knuckleball, if you’re unfamiliar, is a very strange pitch. Every other pitch–fastball, slider, curveball, you name it–relies on spin to control the ball’s trajectory. The knuckleball, so named because of the weird grip used to throw it, negates all of that. The idea is the throw the ball with no spin, so that the ball might do anything on its trajectory to the plate. If it’s thrown right, it might start off looking like this big fat old baseball moving slowly into the hitter’s zone…and then drop suddenly, one way or the other, as the hitter swings. Or it might look like it’s going to drop and then not drop, so the hitter either doesn’t correct or doesn’t swing at all. Or…you get the idea. The knuckleball is an unpredictable beast, and since most athletes at that level rely on predictable results from muscle memory, nobody wants to work with a pitch that relies on total randomness. In Wakefield’s first game in that NLCS, Braves hitters–a potent lineup including David Justice entering his prime–were made to look like inept Little Leaguers.

The Pirates won Game Five, behind a complete game by pitcher Bob Walk, setting up Tim Wakefield to go again in Game Six, on three days’ rest (the knuckleball’s other main grace is that it puts very little strain on a pitcher’s arm), again facing Tom Glavine. The series was back in Atlanta for the last two games, all Atlanta had to do was win one to return to the World Series. Surely there was no way this rookie knuckleballer was going to beat the future HOFer again.

Tim Wakefield beat Glavine again. He threw another complete game, his second of the NLCS. The Pirates, who had trailed the NLCS 3-1, now tied it up, 3-3, with Game Seven to come.

It didn’t escape anyone’s notice that the Pirates’ three wins had all been complete games. Everyone knew that the bullpen was not great and that all bets were off if the starter got knocked out. Doug Drabek, the staff ace who had won the Cy Young Award two years earlier, went out and shut the Braves down for eight innings.

And then, the ninth inning happened.

I’m not going to relate the specifics of that inning; suffice it to say that the Braves managed to get Drabek out of the game, the Pirates’ lack of a closer reared its ugly head in exactly the worst way at exactly the worst time, some backup “whodat” catcher came up with the pinch-hit of his life, Gold-Glover and Best Ever Barry Bonds couldn’t manage to throw out at home a guy who couldn’t outrun a rock…well, that’s a lot of specifics after I said I wasn’t going to relate any, but the bottom of the 9th of Game Seven of the 1992 World Series might well be the most galling memory of my sports-fan life. That one may actually hurt more than “Wide right”. (Google it, if you don’t get the reference.)

After 1992, the Pirates entered a salary purge. Bonds and others were gone, and when 1993 dawned, there were a bunch of rookies up with the club and Wakefield–who had finished third in Rookie-of-the-Year voting just the year before–found himself anointed as Opening Day starter, staff ace, and all of that. It was probably too much for him, and he spent most of the next two years bouncing back down to the minors before the Pirates gave up after the 1994 season. Wakefield ended up with the Boston Red Sox, where he successfully worked his way back into an MLB rotation–and he was a damned good one. He had a couple of really good years, and a whole bunch of solid years, riding that knuckleball all the way to a career that spanned 19 seasons and saw him make crucial contributions to two World Series winning teams.

Tim Wakefield retired after the 2011 season. He’s a fond memory for Pirates fans, but he’s beloved by Red Sox fans, and with good reason. Yes, I wish the Pirates hadn’t screwed up the team when he was there, but getting out of Pittsburgh was the best thing for him as the 1993 Pirates were starting a run of losing baseball that would last more than two decades. Consider: Wakefield came up as a rookie in 1992 during the Pirates’ playoff run that year…and then he played out his entire 19-year career and retired before the Pirates finally made the playoffs again, two years later.

Tim Wakefield died yesterday, aged 57.

Make sure you read Sheila’s post; she comes at it from a Red Sox fan’s vantage point. No doubt more satisfying than a Pirates’ fan’s remembrance, but that’s how baseball goes. Many players start one place and then blossom in another. It happens, a lot. It certainly happened for Tim Wakefield.

It turned out that he had been suffering a very aggressive form of brain cancer. The public wasn’t even supposed to know about this, but his former teammate, Curt Schilling, decided to take it on himself to ignore Wakefield’s and his family’s wishes and reveal Wakefield’s condition on his podcast last week. (Schilling may well have Ty Cobb to thank for keeping him out of first place for Worst Person To Ever Play Major League Baseball.)

Tim Wakefield is not in the Baseball Hall of Fame, and looking at things from a strictly statistical standpoint, I suppose that’s the right decision…but then, I remember what I wrote last year when quarterback Ryan Fitzpatrick retired from the NFL:

But I submit that it’s the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Stats. The Hall of Fame does not exist merely to honor numerical excellence. I’m a storyteller, and stories are why I love the Hall of Fame–in fact, stories are what I love most about sports in general. Who doesn’t love sitting with friends around a beer or two, swapping stories about great games and great players or even players who weren’t so great but had some great moments?

We don’t love sports because of stats. Stats help and they’re fun in themselves, but stats aren’t what connect us to sports at the most basic level. Stories are why we connect with sports: stories that we can share, stories that we recall collectively, stories that bind us together in fandom either in love for this team or, yes, hatred for that team or player, the one that always drives in the knife.

I stand by that. Yes, baseball is about numbers, probably moreso than any other sport; when you play that many games in a season and when there have been that many seasons–more than a hundred of them!–then numbers become part of the way we talk about the game more than for any other games. But still, numbers aren’t everything. Numbers offer a shorthand to talking about the game, a way of quantifying greatness…but they don’t capture the game. As I wrote in another post:

You can’t look at a box score and tell how blue the sky was that day, or what it smelled like in the park because maybe the breeze was coming from the lake or the industrial park the other way (in Buffalo, with the cereal plants downtown, it often smells of Cheerios). A box score won’t tell you how scuffed up the first baseman’s jersey is after several close plays, or how the catcher is still trying to work off the gimpy ankle from that play at the plate last Tuesday night. The box score won’t tell you the crowd’s mood: Are they giddy and jubilant, or are they kind of grumblingly negative because the team’s having a rough season and they’re sarcastically cheering the guy hitting .197 who just managed to leg out a weak grounder safely to first?

The box score won’t tell you if the players are attacking an early season game with vigor, or if they are visibly just playing out the last few weeks of the schedule, mired in fifth place and just wanting nothing more than to go home and rest for about a month. The box score will tell you that a particular player homered in the sixth, but it won’t tell you that he was on a hot streak and he came up against a tiring pitcher who probably should have already been pulled and who had of late been surrendering homers to right-handed hitters at a surprising rate for a guy who, up to a few weeks before, had been almost unhittable.

Numbers are great and important and useful…but they are also a flattening force, a force that tends to flatten out story. A baseball player who collects more than 3000 career hits is almost guaranteed a spot in the Hall of Fame…but is that all that player does? All I really know about Robin Yount is that he hat 3000 hits in his career. That’s numbers: for me they reduce a Hall of Fame player to a guy who had roughly 150 hits a year over his 20-year career.

But, what if I ask a person who has been a Milwaukee Brewers fan their whole life, “Hey! Tell me about Robin Yount?” Then, I’m not going to hear about 3000 hits. Then, I’m going to hear stories.

Sport isn’t just numbers, it’s also stories. I think that’s why we follow sport so adamantly as a species–well, partly, anyway. I don’t want to discount numbers, after all. But numbers aren’t the whole story.

Yes, I stand by all of that, as well. One common thing that I hear often in Hall of Fame discussions when players come up whose statistical accomplishments seem to make them a borderline candidates is, “Can you tell the story of the sport without mentioning this person?” And I suppose, depending on how deep you want to go, maybe you can tell the story of Major League Baseball, or the last thirty years of it, without mentioning the Tim Wakefields of the game…but it’s the Tim Wakefields of the game who flesh out the stories, who make them live. Every sports fan talks about their team’s Hall-of-Famers…but I wonder if it’s the not-quite-HOF guys that sports fans actually prefer to talk about. I wonder if they’re the ones whose stories summon up those knowing smiles and the twinkles in the eyes of the people who know.

I’ll always be a stories-over-stats person. It’s in my nature. And though he may not be in the Hall of Fame, but Tim Wakefield is in mine.

 

Share This Post

112 wins, here we come!

WARNING: May contain baseball-like product.

One-hundred twelve wins! That’s roughly how many games the Pittsburgh Pirates will win this year if they manage to maintain their current winning percentage of .690 for the balance of the season. Of course, they almost certainly won’t, but it’s a fun thought to entertain. As of this writing the Pirates are 20-9. It’s quite early in the season, yes, but it’s not that early; by the end of the weekend they’ll have played a fifth of their entire season.

And here they are, playing well and feeling good about themselves. It’s been a long time coming; this team has been rebuilding for several seasons now, and they lost 100 games each of the last two seasons. But for those of us that have still been paying at least a little attention, the Pirates have been diligently obtaining and developing prospects over that time, so there’s been a forlorn kind of sports hope going on that maybe the kids would turn out to be good ballplayers and maybe the MLB club would start to be competitive in another year or two.

Well, here they are, winning.

No, it probably won’t last. A baseball season is long, and there are a lot of ups and downs. Nobody just blows through it all untouched. (Well, sure, the 1998 Yankees did, but that was a special case.) The Pirates will have slumps and they’ll lose games they should win and maybe they’ll finish under .500. Maybe.

But for now? The Pirates aren’t just “not awful”. Right now they’re good. And that’s something.

(image credit)

Share This Post

Something for Thursday

ALL RIGHT!

LET ME HEAR YA!

A-ONE!

A-TWO!

A-THREE!

TAKE ME OUT….

Yup, today’s Opening Day for another baseball season! Hope springs eternal…with differing degrees of “hope”, obviously. For fans of, say, the Astros, Dodgers, Mets, and Braves, “hope” is of a World Series win. For fans of, oh…the Pittsburgh Pirates…well, they’re coming off two consecutive 100-loss seasons, so “hope” is them managing to win at least 63 games this season.

But still! Baseball!

Here’s James Horner, from his score to one of the greatest baseball movies of all time:

And if that song’s in your head, here’s the master:

(“Orb Match” credit: Strange Planet)

Share This Post

60 of 23

(via)

Michael Jordan turned 60 two days ago.

While I’ve slowly come around to the acknowledgement that LeBron James is likely the greatest basketball player of all time, my commitment to MJ as the greatest still holds some sway in my head. The man was incredible, and watching him play when he was just himself was exciting enough. But when he turned it on and played not just as one of the NBA’s best but as MJ, the single best of all time, it was just something to behold. He did things that defied explanation, and then you would watch a slow-mo replay of the astonishing thing he’d just done, and it would somehow become even more astonishing.

There was no need at all for slow-mo in Game One of the 1992 NBA Finals, however. That series pitted Jordan’s Chicago Bulls, who were the defending champs, against the Portland Trailblazers, who featured my personal favorite basketball player ever, Clyde Drexler. As we had lived in Portland several times in earlier years, I rooted for the Blazers in that series…but it became quickly apparent that Jordan wasn’t losing. He took over that first game, and it wasn’t his usual ballet-like progress to the hoop that did it; he just rained in shots from beyond the 3-point line. His dominance became so thorough and inexplicable that at one point he turned to the sideline and shrugged as if to say, “I don’t get this, either.” I don’t think LeBron at the height of his powers could have beaten Michael Jordan that night.

Anyway, MJ is now 60. He only retired 20 seasons ago, in 2003–that was his second and final retirement, having retired previously in 1993 after winning three consecutive NBA titles and wanting to go play baseball. Which he did, spending two years being a big draw in the minors as a Chicago White Sox prospect. In his absence from the NBA the Houston Rockets won back-to-back NBA championships, led by their superstar player at the time, Hakeem Olajuwon, who had been the first pick overall in the 1984 NBA Draft. The third pick that year? Michael Jordan, to the Bulls. (The number two pick, Sam Bowie, might have been great had injuries not affected his career.) After two seasons of baseball, MJ decided that enough of that was enough, and he returned to the NBA and the Bulls, where he picked up right where he left off and won three more consecutive championships.

I’ve always had a bit of trouble with basketball as a spectator, owing to my constant feeling of having missed something amazing and then having this be borne out when I watch the replays. Basketball is a game that looks better in slow-motion to me, which keeps it generally at arm’s length. (Also, I am terrible at playing it, because an eye doctor once informed me that my depth perception isn’t the best, which is not what you want when you’re shooting baskets.) MJ, however, was always worth watching.

 

Share This Post

The Greatest!!!

(Buggered link fixed.)

LeBron James has now scored more points than any other player in NBA history, surpassing the previous record set over three decades ago by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

You know what’s strange about this? I heard nothing about it until the record had fallen, and that’s not some obscure record like “Most homeruns hit as a pinch-hitter” or some such thing. All-time leading scorer in NBA history? That’s a big damn record, and I didn’t know it was on the verge of falling until James had broken it.

Now, a part of that is surely the nature of how sports news is disseminated and how I consume it. We haven’t had cable since 2000, so regular watching of SportsCenter isn’t something that’s remotely on my radar. But I heard nothing of James’s pursuit of Kareem’s record at all on social media; nor did I see anything about it on The Athletic, to which I subscribe. And a big part of that is that The Athletic, for all its good coverage, is a site and app that is also a service, so when you use it first, you set up your “interests”, which is nice because you get what you’re interested in…but only what you’re interested in. There used to be a “Front Page” that had articles on other subjects, but they got rid of that, which means that now I don’t see stories on anything other than what I’ve signed up for. And that’s annoying, because good sports writing is always wonderful, no matter what the topic.

Which brings me to this bit of good sports writing, by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar himself. Apparently he’s got quite the writing career going, and I had no idea! I didn’t know this at all, but reading this installment of his newsletter, in which he breaks down how he feels about seeing his own record fall, was just fantastic.

An excerpt that I especially loved:

Whenever a sports record is broken—including mine—it’s a time for celebration. It means someone has pushed the boundaries of what we thought was possible to a whole new level. And when one person climbs higher than the last person, we all feel like we are capable of being more.

Yes, I have already subscribed to Mr. Abdul-Jabbar’s newsletter.

And congratulations, LeBron James! By the way, this is my favorite James moment, and it doesn’t even happen during a game but during one of those contests where they bring a fan down and let them take one shot from half-court, and they win a bunch of money if they somehow hit this extremely low-percentage shot. Actual NBA players don’t hit half-court shots very often…but this guy did, and LeBron James, in his exuberant joy at this regular Joe winning, ran out and tackled the guy:

Share This Post