Posts filed under 'Sports'
Jeff J. Snider
Sports
I recently made a list of topics I wanted to eventually get around to blogging about. Looking back over the list today, I realized that four of the six topics (and a fifth one I added today) directly relate to race and its place in sports. Here are those five topics:
- Don Imus and “freedom of speech” issues.
- Braves, Indians, Redskins, and other team names — should they be changed?
- Jackie Robinson tributes.
- The “crisis” in baseball about not enough African American players.
- The recent ESPN/ABC poll about Barry Bonds and racism.
So I thought I’d kill several birds with one big, verbose stone.
Don Imus
Here’s what I wrote on my message board:
While I agree that the Imus thing was overblown, I don’t agree that what he said was not offensive. The only part that bothered me was how many people got offended who had no business doing so. There are only two groups of people who had a right to be offended: the Rutgers women’s basketball team, who could justifiably be upset about being called nappy-headed hos; and any actual nappy-headed hos who do not like being associated with a women’s basketball team. Anyone who is not a Scarlet Knight or an actual nappy-headed ho had no business being offended. (And being an actual nappy-headed ho only gives you the right to be offended if you are offended for the reason I stated above — I’m looking at you, Messrs Jackson and Sharpton.)
I’m glad Don Imus got fired for his statements, though. I think it was overblown, but I think anyone with a brain could have foreseen the reaction it got, and someone with no working filter on his brain-to-mouth connection has no business being on national radio. I hear people saying it is a free speech issue, but their arguments would only hold water if someone was actually trying to have him arrested for what he said. CBS Radio and MSNBC had every right — and a responsibility to their stockholders — to limit this guy’s “free speech” by giving him the boot.
Racist team names
Are “Braves,” “Indians,” and “Redskins” inappropriate team names? Yeah, they probably are. As far as offensiveness goes, they are certainly more mild than a lot of racial names that no one would ever consider, but the fact remains that they are at least somewhat offensive. So the question is, is the historical value of the name enough to keep it around even though it is inappropriate? That’s a tough question to answer. On the one hand, the names weren’t necessarily meant to be offensive when they were created; on the other hand, that’s because the names were created in a time when we as a society were far less concerned about the feelings of non-whites. I don’t think that’s an excuse, nor do I think it’s a legacy we ought to honor. The cities of Cleveland, Atlanta, and Washington certainly have plenty of history from which to choose a quality, inoffensive name.
Jackie Robinson and the Black Baseball Crisis
April 15 was a pretty cool day. I really enjoyed watching the Dodgers/Padres game and seeing everyone wearing number 42 on their backs. I thought the ceremony was handled wonderfully by the Dodgers and Major League Baseball. I thought Jackie’s widow, Rachel, was a marvelous, engaging guest in the booth with Jon Miller and Joe Morgan. There were only two things that detracted from the overall greatness of the moment for me:
- The question about how many people should be able to wear number 42 that day.
- The ongoing discussion about the “crisis” (C.C. Sabathia’s word) baseball is facing with regards to the dropping percentage of African Americans in the Majors.
The number issue was interesting until it got boring. Originally, the idea was for each team to have one player wear number 42 to honor Robinson; then it was decided that the Dodgers, Robinson’s team, would all wear the number. Somewhere along the line, it was decided that anyone who wanted to wear it could wear it that day, and nearly every African American player did, along with a few players of other racial backgrounds and five or six entire teams. Torii Hunter was among those who cried overkill, and in a way it’s hard to blame him. Overall, though, I agree with Ken Griffey Jr., who is quoted near the end of that article I linked to:
“I didn’t know so many guys planned to wear the number. I sure wasn’t expecting whole teams to wear it,” Griffey told the newspaper of his gesture-turned-movement. “But I’m not going to look at it as a negative. This is a tribute for what the man has done, a day to celebrate.”
Let’s pretend that the tribute, instead of wearing the number, was to give $1 million to Rachel Robinson’s foundation. Would anyone be complaining that too many people were paying tribute? Or that people were doing it just to look cool? I don’t think so. A tribute is a tribute, and whether the motives of everyone involved were pure or not, a whole bunch of people paid tribute to a true pioneer that day, and that is a good thing.
So let’s talk about the “crisis.” Let me start by acknowledging that I am fully aware of the limitations I am up against as a white man, and I do not even pretend to understand the nuances of racism and the issues that people of other races face on a regular basis in this country. I know that I can never fully understand anything related to racism. All I have to go on is my own experiences (far too many people believe that it is impossible for a white man to understand “diversity”) and my common sense.
So I see this headline on March 29 on ESPN.com: Only 8.4 percent of major leaguers were black last season. And I realized: I don’t know what words mean. Are they referring to “black” as a race? Of course not. They are using it as a synonym for “African American,” which is certainly NOT a race. (For example: Joe Blow is a black man born in Milwaukee; his brother John Blow is born a few years later, after his family has moved to Canada. Joe is an African American; John is an African Canadian. But they are certainly the same race.)
So what this article is ACTUALLY saying is that only 8.4 percent of Major Leaguers are black AND U.S.-born. The way it is worded, you’d think it was a bunch of white guys and a few black guys. But no — it is 8.4 percent African American, with another (I would guess) 40 percent made up of Latinos from dozens of countries, quite a few Asians, etc. Included in that is a whole bunch of Latinos (especially from the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico) who are every bit as “black” as that 8.4 percent. I actually read an article decrying the fact that the Mets had no black players on their major league roster — yes, the same Mets who were led by Pedro Martinez, Carlos Delgado, and Jose Reyes.
So maybe this is all a quibble with semantics; my only real problem with the issue is that they are using “black” to mean something it doesn’t. So is it a crisis that only 8.4 percent of Major Leaguers are African American? I don’t think it’s a crisis, but I do wish it was different. Why? Because what that number actually represents is the fact that African American young men, if they are into sports, are more likely to be into basketball or football than baseball. But why doesn’t anyone care about the severe lack of Hispanic Americans in Major League Baseball? Or Asian Americans? If the problem really is about the game losing its standing among American youth (and not about grandstanding or, even worse, reverse racism), why don’t we care about all the youth of other races who aren’t playing baseball? Is it because they aren’t playing other sports, either?
Barry Bonds and Racism
One last time with the disclaimer: I am a white man, and I know I will never quite understand all there is to understand about racism.
So ESPN and ABC News did a poll about Barry Bonds, and they broke the results down based on race. I’m not going to rehash the results, but here’s a link. The results are interesting, but I only want to focus on one: 27 percent of blacks believe Bonds has been treated unfairly because of his race.
I don’t know a politically correct way to say this, so I will choose bluntness instead: that is stupid. Barry Bonds is treated the way he is (whether it’s fair or not) for two reasons: 1) he is perceived as a cheater; and 2) he is a jerk. Some of the most beloved players in the game are African American — Dontrelle Willis, Torii Hunter, Ryan Howard, etc. The two most beloved athletes in the world — Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods — are African American. In the sports world of 2007, you are judged on a lot of things, some fair and some not, but race is very far down the list for most people.
I dislike Barry Bonds because he cussed me out in a movie theater for asking for his autograph when I was sixteen years old. It didn’t help that he almost ran me over in the parking lot of Jack Murphy Stadium a year or two later. And his attitude over the years has done nothing to endear him to me. But I have never, ever thought, “Gee, I hate Bonds because he’s black.” If I were to list a million things I dislike about him, his race would NEVER come up. Jerk, sure. Steroids, absolutely. Plays for the Giants, boooooo. He’s black? I don’t give a rat’s behind.
I sat in Dodger Stadium a few weeks ago and joined in the heckling of Barry Bonds in left field. He was being heckled by people of all races, religions, and social classes. No one ever said, “You’re so black!” or anything like it. They chanted “BALCO,” they chanted “Shoot ‘em up Barry, shoot ‘em up!” They said, “Down in front, I can’t see the plate over your head.” But no mention of race.
Anyone who thinks Bonds is treated unfairly because of his race is an idiot. They may be black idiots, they may be white idiots, but they are idiots.
***
So there you have it. The entirety of my opinions on all things related to race and sports.
May 12th, 2007 at 03:45pm
Jeff J. Snider
Sports
I don’t always have a lot of time to write what I want to write, and sometimes when I get a minute, I have forgotten some ideas I had. So I thought I’d do a bullet list of things I want to write about, and when I get to each of them, I will link to them here in the list.
I will add more to this list as I think about it.
UPDATE: I killed five birds with one stone.
April 12th, 2007 at 11:31pm
Jeff J. Snider
Sports
I want to like Buster Olney. He seems like a nice guy, he grew up a Dodger fan, and he has a dream job. And to be fair, he doesn’t say stupid things nearly as often as Joe Morgan does. But if he was banned from ever mentioning Alex Rodriguez again, his STP (Stupid Thing Percentage) would go way down, as he seems to have some sort of intelligence block when talking about A-Rod.
Let me put a disclaimer first. I don’t think Olney has it out for A-Rod. I also don’t think anyone who disagrees with me is automatically an idiot. I think there are probably some valid reasons not to like A-Rod as a baseball player; I just don’t believe that 99% of the people who dislike him don’t do so for any of the valid reasons. People either dislike him because he is paid so much (for real, people: if your boss offered you $25 million a year to do the same job you are currently doing, would you really turn him down???) or because he’s good looking and one of the best baseball players of all time.
So there’s my disclaimer. Now, for Buster Olney. This is actually from his blog from March 17, but I just got around to reading it this weekend:
David Cone always told players in A-Rod’s situation that the instinct of fans is that they want to cheer you. They want him to do well. If he does well, they will cheer him, and the stories will reflect that. And if you think that this is entirely media created, remember that it wasn’t the media’s decision to bat him eighth in the lineup in the playoffs last year (that would be Joe Torre, after a summer’s worth of frustration with A-Rod’s inconsistency), or to have teammates come out and say he needs to get his head right (which is what Mike Mussina and Jason Giambi said, in so many words). It would be pure fiction to suggest that all is well in A-Rod’s world.
A lot of people have jumped on this bandwagon, pointing out A-Rod batting eighth in a playoff game as proof that he had a lousy season. This revisionist history — as if the Yankee fans didn’t start booing him until he struggled in the 2006 postseason — is ridiculous, and anyone who uses it loses a ton of credibility in my eyes. But the really bad part is the part about A-Rod being inconsistent all summer. Allow me to quote myself from October 11:
He batted .290 with a .392 on-base percentage and a .523 slugging percentage. Despite all the talk about his failures in the clutch, he batted .302 with runners in scoring position, .313 with RISP and two outs, and .474 with the bases loaded. Despite all the talk about how he was lousy most of the season, he had only one truly bad month: June. In every other month of the season, if you quickly multiply his numbers by six to emulate a six-month season, you will get between 30 and 48 homers and between 96 and 168 RBI. Yes, he had a lousy season defensively, tying his career high with 24 errors. And no, no one is going to argue that he had a great offensive season by his lofty standards. But anyone who thinks he had a terrible year is simply a fool.
So Buster, in short, when you say, “[Yankee fans] want him to do well. If he does well, they will cheer him,” you are either being naive or willfully stupid. Yankee fans want a World Series. If they don’t win the World Series, they want to blame it on the highest paid player (or perhaps the player they see as the biggest threat to their resident pretty boy, Derek Jeter — and I mean no disrespect to Jeter, only to Yankee fans). You live in a pipe dream if you really believe all A-Rod has to do to be loved is to play well; he won an MVP award in 2005 and played very well in 2006.
Buster Olney, I want to like you. But I need you to stop being an idiot.
March 26th, 2007 at 10:59pm
Jeff J. Snider
Sports
In the past, I have enjoyed pointing out when baseball commentators have made stuff up. (I have, in the past, nailed Joe Morgan, Tim Kurkjian, and Richard Justice.) But let me tell you this: when it’s Peter Gammons, I don’t enjoy it at all. But I’m going to give him as much benefit of the doubt as possible.
In this blog entry about Roger Clemens and his competitive drive on ESPN.com, Gammons says this:
There are pitchers happy to be 11-11 and maybe miss a half-dozen starts. Sonny Siebert once shut it down after 17 wins, saying he didn’t want to win 20 “because they’ll expect you to do it again.” Expectations are tough for some to deal with.
Now here’s the Bad News Part I: Sonny Siebert never won 17 games in a season.
And Bad News Part II: Siebert won 16 games three times (1965 and 1966 with the Indians, and 1971 with the Red Sox), but none of those seasons appear to be what Gammons was talking about.
–In 1965, he won his 16th game on September 28 and pitched the first nine innings of a 12-inning game on October 2, two days before the season ended. So he didn’t shut it down to avoid winning 20 games; he shut it down because the season ended.
–In 1966, Siebert won his 16th game on September 5. But then he pitched 11 innings and got the loss in a game on September 15, his last game of the season. So yes, he apparently shut it down a couple weeks early, but he shut it down after a loss, and at that point, winning four more games in the last 2-1/2 weeks of the season wasn’t exactly likely anyway.
–1971 was almost identical to 1966: he won number 16 on September 3, then took a loss ten days later and was done for the season. For all the same reasons as 1966, it just doesn’t appear that he took the rest of the season off to avoid winning 20 games.
Now, to the part where I give Gammons the benefit of the doubt: maybe Siebert really did say that at one point and was just talking out of his rear, and maybe Gammons just got the slight detail of the number of wins incorrect. Joe Morgan won’t get that kind of benefit of the doubt from me, since he’s proven repeatedly that he is not so bright, but Peter Gammons, one of my heroes and the greatest baseball writer in the world … he gets the benefit of the doubt.
February 26th, 2007 at 05:54am
Jeff J. Snider
Sports
Pitchers and catchers report to Spring Training today! After all these months of pretending to care about football and basketball and hockey, I can be a real sports fan again, because there’s finally a real sport to care about!
February 14th, 2007 at 09:22am
Jeff J. Snider
Sports
Read this article about the trade talks between the Rockies and Red Sox regarding Todd Helton. You want to know why owners hire general managers to handle trades and contracts and stuff? Because owners aren’t smart enough to shut up and refrain from making stupid statements that can serve no good purpose.
Exhibit A, the third paragraph of the article:
“This is Todd Helton we’re talking about,” [Rockies owner Charlie] Monfort told The Associated Press on Monday. “We’re not just going to give him up for nothing.”
So if this trade does go through, regardless of who else is involved, Mike Lowell and Julian Tavarez will start their Rockies careers knowing that their owner referred to them as “nothing.” (For the record, Monfort did backtrack a little and say that “Tavarez and Lowell are good.” Gee, thanks.)
Exhibit B, the thirteenth paragraph:
“We’re not just looking to save money,” he said. “I’d consider it a salary dump if we didn’t have anybody there who could play first base, and we do. I’m not saying they’re Todd Helton by any means. And they’d have some huge shoes to fill. But we have some guys there, a little bit of a logjam.”
The guy most likely to take over at first base is Garrett Atkins, who, admittedly, is no Todd Helton. After all, Atkins is more than six years younger, is hitting his peak instead of being two years into a somewhat steep decline, and had better numbers than Helton in every offensive category last season. But at least now he knows that his owner knows he’s not half the ballplayer Helton is.
So if this trade goes through, you have at least twelve percent of next year’s roster who have every reason to think their owner is a bit of a wiener. All in the name of driving a hard bargain. Way to go, Mr. Monfort!
January 29th, 2007 at 04:45pm
Jeff J. Snider
Sports
I remember back when people complained about sports writers’ “east coast bias” because they felt that the writers were biased towards teams on the east coast. Apparently, the term now refers to a writer writing something the reader disagreed with. Witness these letters to Buster Olney in response to an article he wrote about some intriguing young players to watch in 2007:
You think Bobby Crosby is a player on the rise? He’d be one if he played. I noticed no Cubs on there. What about Rich Hill? Your Yankees wish they had him. It’s funny you ESPN writers are so quick to dismiss Kerry Wood and Mark Prior but you’ll put an oft-injured guy on a list of “rising young stars” instead of Rich Hill. Your east coast bias goes on and on and on.
– James, Munster, Ind.
How you can look at young players (Rafael Furcal has been in the league for 7 years and is almost 30!) and not even cast an eye at Milwaukee, where Prince Fielder, Rickie Weeks, J.J. Hardy, and Chris Capuano play? All are on the verge of big years, and major steps forward… the majority of ESPN baseball writers appear to have an east coast bias, anyway, and it would be nice to spread a little long-due respect to Milwaukee …
– Brett Smith, Los Angeles
Hmmm…no interest in what is going to happen to Chris Duncan (22 HR in 280 ABs). Talk about Bobby Crosby and his 22 HR in 545 ABs? Duncan, like the entire Cardinal team (save Pujols and Carpenter) is completely overlooked to the point where it is ridiculous. Can he learn to hit left-handed or will he only be a platoon player? The corner outfield was a weakness for the team and Duncan is a key for the success of the team. But we’ll just ignore the World Champs and talk Yankees and Red Sox.
– Robert, Ann Arbor, Mich.
So one guy is upset that Olney mentioned Bobby Crosby (Oakland) instead of Rich Hill (Chicago). Another guy complains that he mentioned Rafael Furcal (Los Angeles) instead of a bunch of Brewers (Milwaukee). And then the third guy is ticked that Crosby got mentioned over Chris Duncan (St. Louis). And yet all three complain of “east coast bias,” either explicitly or implicitly. Wow.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:48am
Jeff J. Snider
Sports
So Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken got elected to the Hall of Fame, Mark McGwire didn’t, and everything else was exactly what we expected, too. Well, maybe not everything. Take a look at these vote totals from the bottom of the list:
Paul O’Neill, 12 votes
Bret Saberhagen, 7 votes
Jose Canseco, 6 votes
Tony Fernandez, 4 votes
Dante Bichette, 3 votes
Eric Davis, 3 votes
Bobby Bonilla, 2 votes
Ken Caminiti, 2 votes
Jay Buhner, 1 vote
You might be saying, “One vote is only 0.2% of the voters, what’s the big deal?” The big deal is that there is one voter who apparently thinks Jay Buhner belongs in the Hall of Fame. There are 12 who think Paul O’Neill belongs. If we assume that each of these votes was from a different person, I have just listed 40 voters who have demonstrated that they know exactly nothing about what makes a player worthy of the Hall of Fame. And they are the ones voting!!!
If I ever find out that the guy who voted for Jay Buhner is one of the eight who didn’t vote for Ripken, my head will literally explode, because I will put a stick of dynamite in my mouth.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:50am
Jeff J. Snider
Sports
The Yankees traded Randy Johnson back to the Diamondbacks. In order for that to happen, the D-Backs gave the Yankees a couple prospects and a Major League reliever, AND they signed Johnson to an extension through the 2008 season. So they will pay Johnson $26 million to play for them in 2007-08.
I don’t want to beat a dead horse, because I already thought it was stupid of the Yankees to extend Johnson through 2007 when they originally traded for him two years ago, but I can’t figure out what the D-Backs are thinking. I’m sure some of it has to do with trying to get butts back in the seats, after having all-time low attendance these last two years without Johnson. But the thing that puts butts in the seats is a good team. Johnson may raise the attendance every fifth day when he pitches, but that is a) not a hugely significant increase, and b) assuming that a 43-year-old with a history of back problems who just had back surgery will be available to start every fifth day.
If Johnson starts 30 games each of the next two seasons and is as dominant as he was in his previous stint with the D-Backs, this is a great trade for them. But I am here to tell you right now that it ain’t gonna happen. Johnson will start somewhere between 40-50 games over the next two seasons (if I had to break it down, I’d say 24 in 2007 and 18 in 2008), and his ERA will be in the 3.90-4.20 range. When he’s healthy, he will be a slightly above-average pitcher, but he will be exactly as healthy as you would expect a guy in his mid-40s with back problems to be. He will be 45 when the contract ends, at which point another sucker team may come along and offer him huge money to play until he is 47. More likely, he will retire after 2008 and spend a year or two in a wheelchair.
January 8th, 2007 at 09:34am
Jeff J. Snider
Sports
True or false: Lou Piniella would look the same without a nose as he does with one.
December 11th, 2006 at 04:00pm
Next Posts
Previous Posts