The members of the Baseball Writers Association of America almost universally suck! Virtually none of them deserve the honour of being able to vote for Major League Baseball's major awards. They have shown year after year to have no ability to exercise sensible judgement skills. This year's crime will be in naming Detroit Tigers starting pitcher Justin Verlander the AL MVP.
Don't get me wrong, Verlander had a great season! He won the pitching version of the Triple Crown and was a unanimous selection for the AL Cy Young Award, as he should have been. But he has no business even being considered for the MVP. Pedro Martinez had a better year in 2000 and he didn't win, so even for those that think that pitchers should win, the bar has been set and Verlander failed to clear it.
In a vacuum, you can argue that any and all players should be eligible for the MVP. After all, the "P" stands for "player" not "position" or "position player". This is a really weak argument and holding this opinion shows a remarkable inability to think logically or critically.
There are two primary awards for baseball players. One is the Most Valuable Player Award and the other is the Cy Young Award. The Cy Young Award goes to the most outstanding pitcher. The MVP goes to the most outstanding player. Player is not defined, nor should it have to be. If pitchers were meant to be considered for the award then there wouldn't be a separate award exclusively for pitchers. It wouldn't make sense to have one.
(There is a third award, the Hank Aaron Award, given to the best offensive player in each league, but it has nowhere near the value or cachet of these two venerable awards. If an argument is to be made that pitchers belong in the MVP race, then the Hank Aaron Award needs to be elevated to a status equal to the other two.)
Here's an analogy. Quebec decides to separate from Canada and produces its own currency. They decide on the follow coins to be minted as legal tender: a penny, a dime, a quarter, another different-sized quarter (similar to a nickel), a 3rd quarter the same size and weight as the dime (but a different colour), and a dollar coin. What is wrong with this hypothetical design? For one, there are redundant coins. If you have one 25c piece, you don't need another. It is a waste, it is pointless, it is illogical and it is confusing. Second, there are 2 identically sized, shaped and weighted coins. This is enormously confusing. People are going to accidentally spend 'quarters' when they meant to spent 'dimes' and vice versa. You can probably count on people telling you when you've accidentally underpaid (or intentionally tried to pull a fast one) but if you accidentally overpay, kiss your money goodbye. Even worse, try to pick the right coin if you're blind! Third, there is no 5c coin. Arguably you don't need one -- a country could get away with nothing but pennies but it would be inconvenient for people to deal with such a silly coin system. However, even though you don't need one, it makes total sense to have one.
How does this relate to baseball? As in coins, it makes no sense to have multiple coins representing the same value, or in this case, multiple awards for the same subgroup. Similarly, it makes no sense to have no 5c coin, here represented by an award exclusively for everyday position players. Finally, 2 different coins that are virtually indistinguishable from one another representing different values is what the BBWAA is trying to turn the MVP and Cy Young into.
The only way that it makes sense for there to be two separate awards is for them to represent two different types of contribution and thus two different types of players. You could argue that pitchers are more important than everyday position players and should thus be eligible for both. Nice try. You're showing evidence of independent thought, but you're not quite there yet. If pitchers were more important than position players then you would only need one award, the MVP, and pitchers would win it more often than position players because they are 'more important to their teams'. But that isn't the case. There are two awards, and again I say the only way they make sense is if they are completely separate!
There are two types of baseball writers that vote for pitchers. The first thinks that pitchers are typically more valuable than position players. This is similar to the popular and misguided belief that quarterbacks are integral to football and goalies are integral to soccer and hockey. Try to win with a superstar in these 'prime' positions when you have gross deficiencies in other positions. All positions are equally essential to winning. That is a big part of why these are called 'team' sports and not individual sports with the 'main' athlete having secondary 'helpers' -- consider golfers and caddies. Even in rowing, the coxswain -- who doesn't actually row and doesn't even need to have any athletic ability (! -- just an excellent sense of timing/pacing) -- still wins a medal when his 'team' wins a race! In fact, rowing teams without a good cox seldom excel, so you could call this non-athlete the 'prime' player of that sport!
Any single weakness can undermine a team completely! No position is more vital than others. In baseball there is an axiom that "good pitching always beats good hitting." This is always true except for the times when good hitting beats good pitching. Amazingly, both happen with about equal frequency. Still, we've got perception issues and the BBWAA doesn't recognize a difference between perception and fact. What they perceive to be true must be true even if the facts refute it. Even baseball management and owners have similar perception problems. I believe that the average salary for pitchers is higher than that of position players, but not by much. It is also true that more money is wasted on bad pitching than there is on bad hitting as pitchers can 'lose it' at any time. So, even in salaries there is no real evidence that pitching is more important than hitting.
Besides, an equally compelling argument can be made that the 'key' player on the diamond isn't the pitcher but the catcher! Catchers are generally acknowledged as the most valuable/important position player to any team. This can be shown by the simple fact that catchers typically are the worst hitters and runners on any team. (Some shortstops may be weaker hitters, but not all. Further, the shortstop is generally considered an elite fielding position just like the catcher is.) If catchers' contributions without the bat weren't of paramount importance then weak hitting catchers would never make the majors!
The idea that pitchers deserve the MVP is even more ludicrous in the American League than in the National League. At least in the National League pitchers are responsible for taking their turn at bat! Sure some of them are absolutely terrible hitters but some actually help their own cause when hitting! In the American League pitchers are spared that indignity by the Designated Hitter Rule. The only times they ever have to pick up a bat is during a handful of at bats during Interleague play and during the World Series, assuming that they actually play one of these games in a National League park. Not all do!
The second type of baseball writer that casts MVP votes for pitchers are the lazy kind. If the best position players vying for the award are hard to separate from one another, i.e. hard to rank, take the easy way out, i.e. cop out, and vote for the most outstanding pitcher. If two stallions finish a race in a dead heat, we name co-winners of the race. These baseball writers would declare the #3 horse as the winner because it's a mare and it's easier than having to decide between the two faster stallions and in sports, particualrly North American sports, no one is ever comfortable with ties or co-winners! It somehow offends the sports-fans' and sports-writers' delicate sensibilities.
Here's yet another, completely different reason why pitchers should never be considered for the MVP and why they have their own, private award. Pitching and hitting are so different that they simply cannot be compared. There is no uniform, mathematical or logical method to use to decide whether a performance in one role was better than another performance in the other role. That leaves the only methods as personal feelings, biased opinion and hunches. Nothing should ever be decided on fuzzy feelings, biased opinions and hunches!
The'official' rules for how to determine who should win these awards are vague at best. Here are the BBWAA guidelines for the MVP:
(1) actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense;
(2) number of games played;
(3) general character, disposition, loyalty and effort;
(4) former winners are eligible;
(5) members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.
Nowhere does it say that a team must make the playoffs, or even contend for a playoff spot. In fact, there is nothing that indicates that a player should be judged by the performance of his teammates, at all! But the vast majority of the BBWAA won't give a player on a mediocre team the time of day. Part of item number 1 is pretty much ignored. A player's defensive play almost never comes into play, with the obvious exception of pitchers. Item number 2 speaks very loudly that pitchers should NOT be eligible as they don't come close to appearing in enough games. Similarly, last year's AL winner, Josh Hamilton missed a ton of games due to injury! So, summarily, the BBWAA ignores its own rules and votes for pitchers with alarming regularity. Item number 3 is completely ignored. Barry Bonds won 7 MVPs. Has there ever been a bigger jerk in baseball? Need I say more about that?
I do? OK, how about 2003.
Alex Rodriguez has an outstanding season for the last place, 71-91 Texas Rangers. Carlos Delgado also has an outstanding season for the 86-76 Toronto Blue Jays. Between the two of them they led the AL in virtually all offensive categories (Delgado led MLB in RBI). Rodriguez had a marginally better season in a ballpark designed for hitters (e.g. the Rangers won the AL HR derby with 239 on the season). They finish 1-2 in the MVP race in spite of the fact that neither team was close to a playoff spot.
Rodriguez almost certainly should have won the MVP in 2002, but the BBWAA in its infinite wisdom gave the award to Miguel Tejada. Why? Because Tejada played for the 1st place Oakland Athletics and Rodriguez played for the last place Texas Rangers. A-Rod had better stats than Tejada in every category (except team wins, which is not something within his, or any one person's control)! A-Rod led the majors in 2002 with 57 HR, 142 RBIs & 389 total bases, the 1st time someone led in all 3 categories in almost 20 years. His 57 HR were the most since Roger Maris' hit (a then record, and probably still should be) 61 in 1961. Again I ask, where does the talent of your teammates fit into the qualifications for the MVP? I'm absolutely positive that some of the ballots cast had been influenced by "writer's guilt" for having snubbed A-Rod the year before. Stated another way, A-Rod was likely given votes based on career performance (or a 'lifetime achievement award'). I seem to have missed the part in the instructions where previous years' performances were in any way relevant. Certainly, A-Rod's 2002 was far better than his 2003. Similarly, Delgado's 2003 was better than Tejada's 2002. And yet we're stuck with the results given to us by a clueless and possibly corrupt BBWAA.
Getting back to qualification #3...Rodriguez has always been a private to surly individual and has been dogged by all kinds of bad press. A-Rod received the nickname "The Cooler" for the tendency for teams to cool off when he arrived and heat up when he left, which seemed to occur with all three of his teams -- the Mariners, Rangers and Yankees. His own teammates called him "A-Fraud" for a perceived lack of clutch performance. He has also been frequently associated with marital infidelity including keeping the company of strippers and prostitutes. This ended his marriage. And last but not least, A-Rod is a confessed user of PEDs and wouldn't you know it, the period he 'allegedly' took them (allegedly because he probably took them outside of the limited period to which he he confessed) just happens to be 2001-2003, the years in question.
On the other hand, Carlos Delgado has always been a model citizen. He was as positive a person as anyone is likely to meet and was also always considered a club leader. His smile was famous throughout baseball and he was great with fans and the media. Even more telling, Delgado won MLB's Roberto Clemente Award (in 2006) for his community contributions, something with which he had been very active throughout his career. (He even had charitable interests in Toronto long after he had moved on as a free agent to the Mets.) Finally, at no point has there been any credible connection made between Delgado and the use of PEDs. I'm not even aware of any non-credible connections attempted!
The only knock against Delgado was his silent, almost completely unknown protest of the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In his mind, the playing of "God Bless America" in New York City had become a symbol of support for these 'immoral and unauthorized' wars. Delgado would disappear into the clubhouse during the playing of GBA rather than stand at attention in the dugout with the other players. The only reason I don't think that this cost Delgado any votes at all is that it didn't happen until 2004, or at least didn't come to light until then. Had it been known in 2003, he would not have finished as high as 2nd in the MVP since undoubtedly members of the BBWAA would have punished Delgado for his incredible and admirable show of conscience, deeming it "Unamerican". There would have been ballots where his name was conspicuously completely absent.
(A-Rod's charitable claim to fame is a $4 million donation to his Alma Mater, the University of Miami, for which he was rewarded with their renaming their baseball stadium after him and placing him on their Board of Trustees. Is it really charity if you get rewarded for it?)
The only other obvious differences between the two players are that A-Rod is an American Hispanic having been born in New York City. Carlos Delgado is an Afro-Hispanic Puerto Rican, i.e. not American and black. I don't know whether this had anything to do with any of the votes cast that year, but it would be entirely consistent with prevailing American attitudes.
Not everyone agrees with me. Not everyone understands logic, either. BleacherReport.com published this article on the web 2 months ago: MLB Writers Who Won't Vote a Pitcher for MVP Shouldn't Be Voting at All. I've read the article. In my humble opinion, it's complete garbage. It tries to use one injustice to justify another. It also gets hung up on the semantics of the word "valuable". If the title confuses you, just look at the guidelines for the award as you're supposed to! Complete crap.
I guess the wild frontier justice style of handing out these awards can be considered part of their appeal -- or their major flaw, depending on your personal view. It certainly leads to lots of debate and controversy, as well as some huge snubs and unfairness. In addition to the MVP guidelines mentined above, here are some of the definitions for the awards from around the World Wide Web.
Baseball-Almanac.com on the MVP:
"It is considered by Major League Baseball as the only "official" most valuable player award and symbolizes the pinnacle of a player's personal achievement during any single season of play."
Wikipedia.com on the MVP:
"The Major League Baseball Most Valuable Player Award (MVP) is an annual Major League Baseball (MLB) award, given to one outstanding player in the American League and one in the National League."
Elsewhere on Wikipedia it refers to it as follows:
"Kenesaw Mountain Landis Most Valuable Player Award: given to the best all-around player"
Notice the phrases 'personal achievement' and 'outstanding'. These directly contradict the BBWAA practices of electing pitchers and ignoring 'outstanding personal achievement' because they weren't surrounded by outstanding teammates.
I will give members of the BBWAA some credit. Two years ago they gave the American League Cy Young Award to "King" Felix Hernandez, who is, in fact, a superlative pitcher. What made this decision remarkable is the fact that Hernandez finished with a 13-12 record for the Seattle Mariners. How the members of the BBWAA managed such an enlightened position to elect a pitcher with only a marginal record but can't get the MVP right is beyond me. After all, the BBWAA are clearly hung up on the importance of wins for MVP candidates, yet somehow they can see past that for the award for the player category where wins and loses are tracked! This makes absolutely NO SENSE!
So, to summarize, too many members of the BBWAA are hypocrites and/or idiots. They should all turn in their voting rights for people that actually know what they are talking about. (Jeff Blair, a local BBWAA member turned in his voting rights recently, no longer wanting the responsibility or aggravation. Presumably this had to do with the Hall of Fame vote and the use of PEDs. Regardless of the reason for the decision, I have enormous respect for Blair for having given up that honour. For whatever reason he no longer felt up to it and gave it up. Dozens of others should follow suit.) They are using this honour to make pseudo-political statements contrary to the instructions they have been given. The moment they deviate from the formula they should lose their vote, whether they want to give it up or not. The honour and responsibility of having the vote is not a license to become a petty tyrant doing things the way they see fit, the rules be damned. Don't get me wrong, there is still room for individual opinion, but not for ideology. Ignoring players on mediocre or losing teams is ideology. Ignoring qualification #2 and voting for pitchers is ideology. Ignoring qualification #3 and the defense portion of qualification #1 is ideology.
Maybe with these bad seeds removed, future honours awarded will actually make sense. I expect nothing to change before I die. The only hope is that the Commissioner of Baseball will step in a clarify things -- which is to say none. This won't happen with Selig and I expect Selig to be replaced by his own younger clone -- the owners got away with a puppet Commissioner for 20 years and they will keep on electing puppet Commissioners until the US Congress steps in and stops them. This simply won't happen because it would be political suicide to 'interfere' in the affairs of all-sacred Baseball. So, let me be clear: there is no hope for change. This is just another thing wrong with baseball with no relief in sight. If you don't like it, you don't have to. But get used to it, it's here to stay.
[Editor's note: Verlander didn't just win, he won by a landslide! Complete garbage! This is the 2nd year in a row that Jose Bautista has won the Hank Aaron Award and been robbed of the MVP. Bautista is a superlative defender! How could he win the Hank Aaron, and be a better defender than his competitors but not win the MVP?]
A self-derisive title. We're off to a good start. Image source: @johnlund.com (who is not affiliated with this blog)
Monday, November 21, 2011
Sidney Crosby Is Back! For How Long?
After 10 long months out of action due to a pair of concussions received in rapid succession, Sidney Crosby of the Pittsburgh Penguins will make his return tonight. Crosby is widely thought to be the best, most talented hockey player in the world and his absence has left an enormous hole in the NHL. He has been practicing at full speed for weeks if not months so this day was been anticipated in the worst way.
There are two related questions that arise as a result of his comeback. 1) Will opponents be out looking to make a name for themselves by gunning for Sid? 2) How long will Sid be able to play before his next, or worse, his last, concussion?
Why so pessimistic? History and psychology. Hockey has already had a death that is suspected to have been brought about by concussions. In 1968, the Minnesota North Stars' Bill Masterson took a bodycheck that caused him to fall backwards to the ice. He struck headfirst. It wasn't a vicious hit. Some even called it 'routine'. Something other than raw force cause Masterson to lose his balance.
At the time, no one in hockey wore helmets. Jacques Plantes had just introduced the goaltender's mask not to be used to protect an already existing injury 9 years earlier. Plantes was frequently derided as being a coward for wearing the mask. His response was comparing tending goal without a mask to skydiving without a parachute. At least one goaltender was still not regularly wearing a mask as late as the 1970's!
Helmets were frowned upon at least as much as masks had been. "We were not allowed to wear helmets. You would get traded if you did. It was a no-no in no uncertain terms. You were a yellow belly if you wore a helmet." -- J.P. Parise, Masterson's teammate in 1967-68. Only Andre Boudrias dared challenge the Minnesota policy -- he was traded the following season to the Chicago Black Hawks.
Apparently, blood sprayed from Masterson's mouth and nose due to the impact with the ice and he is rumoured to have said, "Never again" before passing out. (It is more likely that he passed out immediately.) The impact didn't just cause a brain hemorrhage it damaged his pons, pone of the most ancient parts of the brain involved with the regulation of sleep and breathing. Damage was so extensive doctors couldn't operate and Masterson died two days later.
In the days before Masterson's fatal injury he had suffered another big hit. His head had struck the glass surrounding the playing ice quite hard. Earlier this year, in a "Toronto Star" forensic investigation it has been concluded that Masterson did not die from a brain bruise resulting from hitting the ice. World renowned Toronto neurosurgeon and concussion expert, Dr. Charles Tator, concluded that Masterson died from "second impact syndrome," a rare occurrence where a 2nd concussion happens soon after an initial concussion that never healed, causing rapid and severe brain swelling. "My interpretation is that the seeds of this catastrophic injury were sown days before," said Dr. Tator.
It is not known for certain if the hit against the glass caused this first injury, but it could have. There were signs that Masterson was already injured when his final game began. Here are some facts and quotes uncovered by the Star in its investigation:
"The Bill Masterton Memorial Trophy is awarded annually to the National Hockey League player who best exemplifies the qualities of perseverance, sportsmanship, and dedication to ice hockey. The winner is selected by a poll of the Professional Hockey Writers' Association after each team nominates one player in competition. It is often awarded to a player who has come back from career- or even life-threatening illness or injury."
It's ironic that perseverance is exactly what killed Masterson. Athletes have two reasons to ignore injuries, even serious ones. First, they are afraid that they will lose their jobs. This is a reasonable fear as players in various sports have lost their regular job when another player excelled in their absence. Second, sports culture is steeped deeply in machismo. If you're hurt, you're soft. If you wear protection, you're weak. If you acknowledge pain, you don't want to win enough. This obviously irrational and self-destructive culture has to be changed, but good luck with that! Culture change of any kind is difficult and beliefs this deeply ingrained are almost impossible to displace.
To Crosby's credit, he took his sweet time in coming back. He had the benefit of better medical understanding of brain injuries than his predecessors. Ian Laperriere. Marc Savard. Pat LaFontaine. Eric Lindros. There have been a great many NHL players, many of them stars or super-stars, whose career ended or was severely curtailed by repeated concussions. Most, if not all, came back too soon and were knocked back out of the game in short order. Also, it seems as though Crosby's doctors may have made breakthroughs in the treatment of concussions, so maybe he won't be as fragile as those that have gone before. Or, maybe the treatment isn't that miraculous and the absence of symptoms doesn't imply he is injury-free. We don't know. We won't know until it is a matter of hindsight.
Going back to those 2 questions, will players gun for Crosby and will Crosby be able to last... I don't like the most probable answers. Most players won't use Crosby's possible frailty as an excuse to headhunt, but some will. The ones that will are the ones that tend to dole out 'illegal' injuries in general. They also tend to be marginal players that wouldn't have jobs if they couldn't be used to neutralize or 'take out' the opposing team's skilled players. So yes, I think Sid is coming back with a big fat target on his back. His absence has been bad for the NHL in terms of press, publicity and profits. Some minimum-salary goon is going to put his own tenuous job over the health of the game and the industry by taking Crosby out. It's just a matter of time.
The real question then becomes "How will Crosby's body be able to handle violent checking?" I was highly doubtful that Crosby would ever be the same player he was before his injuries. History shows that players' skills have declined due to brain injury. Crosby's primary talent is being able to 'see the ice' better than anyone else on the planet. According to reports of his play during practice Crosby's skills remain as fine as they have ever been, which I find astonishing and miraculous. I guess it remains to be seen whether this ability to excel in practice will translate to success during games.
Still, I have serious doubts about the ability of the human brain to take this kind of punishment over and over. In fact, I'll be surprised if Crosby plays more than another 25 games in the NHL, regardless of the level of play he can achieve. Between intentional hits and accidental hits something will test Crosby's ability to handle physical play, and soon! I hope for his sake, the sake of everyone who cares about him and for the sake of the continued success of the NHL that Crosby has a long and storied career still ahead of him. I just find it hard to believe that we're going to get that fairy tale ending. Either way, it's a pretty good bet that hockey fans will enjoy every game Crosby plays from tonight until his retirement. Again, let's hope that's a long, long time.
There are two related questions that arise as a result of his comeback. 1) Will opponents be out looking to make a name for themselves by gunning for Sid? 2) How long will Sid be able to play before his next, or worse, his last, concussion?
Why so pessimistic? History and psychology. Hockey has already had a death that is suspected to have been brought about by concussions. In 1968, the Minnesota North Stars' Bill Masterson took a bodycheck that caused him to fall backwards to the ice. He struck headfirst. It wasn't a vicious hit. Some even called it 'routine'. Something other than raw force cause Masterson to lose his balance.
At the time, no one in hockey wore helmets. Jacques Plantes had just introduced the goaltender's mask not to be used to protect an already existing injury 9 years earlier. Plantes was frequently derided as being a coward for wearing the mask. His response was comparing tending goal without a mask to skydiving without a parachute. At least one goaltender was still not regularly wearing a mask as late as the 1970's!
Helmets were frowned upon at least as much as masks had been. "We were not allowed to wear helmets. You would get traded if you did. It was a no-no in no uncertain terms. You were a yellow belly if you wore a helmet." -- J.P. Parise, Masterson's teammate in 1967-68. Only Andre Boudrias dared challenge the Minnesota policy -- he was traded the following season to the Chicago Black Hawks.
Apparently, blood sprayed from Masterson's mouth and nose due to the impact with the ice and he is rumoured to have said, "Never again" before passing out. (It is more likely that he passed out immediately.) The impact didn't just cause a brain hemorrhage it damaged his pons, pone of the most ancient parts of the brain involved with the regulation of sleep and breathing. Damage was so extensive doctors couldn't operate and Masterson died two days later.
In the days before Masterson's fatal injury he had suffered another big hit. His head had struck the glass surrounding the playing ice quite hard. Earlier this year, in a "Toronto Star" forensic investigation it has been concluded that Masterson did not die from a brain bruise resulting from hitting the ice. World renowned Toronto neurosurgeon and concussion expert, Dr. Charles Tator, concluded that Masterson died from "second impact syndrome," a rare occurrence where a 2nd concussion happens soon after an initial concussion that never healed, causing rapid and severe brain swelling. "My interpretation is that the seeds of this catastrophic injury were sown days before," said Dr. Tator.
It is not known for certain if the hit against the glass caused this first injury, but it could have. There were signs that Masterson was already injured when his final game began. Here are some facts and quotes uncovered by the Star in its investigation:
- "I’ve never said this to anyone before. I’ve never thought that it had anything to do with that hit. I think he had a (pre-existing) cerebral brain hemorrhage." -- Wren Blair, Minnesota North Stars coach & GM.
- "I saw Bill’s head after he was just checked from behind and it just looked like his eyes were in the back of his head. I thought he was out then and just went fast right down." -- Mavis Managio, Minnesota goalie Cesare Maniago’s wife, who had a clear view of Masterton’s fall from her seat in the stands explaining that the routine bodycheck left him unconscious even before he hit the ice.
- "He had been complaining of headaches. He’d got hit and even that night he said ‘Gee, I’ve really been getting these migraines and they’ve been with me for about a week.’" -- Minnesota goaltender Cesare Maniago of a conversation he had with Masterson while celebrating Maniago's 29th birthday -- the night before Masterson's fatal injury.
- "I’d said to our trainer, ‘Do you ever look at Billy when the game’s on?’ His face is blood red, almost purple. (The trainer) said, ‘Yeah, I notice that too.’ I said, ‘I wonder if we could have him checked. There’s something wrong.’" -- Wren Blair (again)
- Carl Johnson, Assistant GM of Minnesota’s farm team in Memphis, said he was told that Masterton had blacked out while on line rushes during practice.
- "I really believe he was injured before the fatal blow. I know that in our training camp he got hit hard a couple of times. And he got hit a few games very hard at the NHL level. His aggressiveness got him." and "He wasn’t the most talented guy in the world but he really wanted to play. . . . He wanted it badly. I’ve never seen a person work so hard. He’d never show when he got hurt. He never laid down." -- John Muckler, head coach of the North Stars' farm team in Memphis and subsequent NHL coach with the Edmonton Oilers.
- "My mother, before she died, talked about it. He was having some headaches. My feeling is that he may have gotten a minor concussion playing or practising on some other day . . . and when he got hit the second time, he had that head whip and when that happens, you can go unconscious in that split second before you fall." -- Bill Masterson's son Scott, a former professional kickboxing champion who was 3 at the time of his father's death.
- "I’ve always thought of this after, that when he complained (of headaches) at least he could have put on a helmet for a couple of days. But it was frowned on, really." -- Masterson's 1967-68 teammate, Wayne Connolly.
"The Bill Masterton Memorial Trophy is awarded annually to the National Hockey League player who best exemplifies the qualities of perseverance, sportsmanship, and dedication to ice hockey. The winner is selected by a poll of the Professional Hockey Writers' Association after each team nominates one player in competition. It is often awarded to a player who has come back from career- or even life-threatening illness or injury."
It's ironic that perseverance is exactly what killed Masterson. Athletes have two reasons to ignore injuries, even serious ones. First, they are afraid that they will lose their jobs. This is a reasonable fear as players in various sports have lost their regular job when another player excelled in their absence. Second, sports culture is steeped deeply in machismo. If you're hurt, you're soft. If you wear protection, you're weak. If you acknowledge pain, you don't want to win enough. This obviously irrational and self-destructive culture has to be changed, but good luck with that! Culture change of any kind is difficult and beliefs this deeply ingrained are almost impossible to displace.
To Crosby's credit, he took his sweet time in coming back. He had the benefit of better medical understanding of brain injuries than his predecessors. Ian Laperriere. Marc Savard. Pat LaFontaine. Eric Lindros. There have been a great many NHL players, many of them stars or super-stars, whose career ended or was severely curtailed by repeated concussions. Most, if not all, came back too soon and were knocked back out of the game in short order. Also, it seems as though Crosby's doctors may have made breakthroughs in the treatment of concussions, so maybe he won't be as fragile as those that have gone before. Or, maybe the treatment isn't that miraculous and the absence of symptoms doesn't imply he is injury-free. We don't know. We won't know until it is a matter of hindsight.
Going back to those 2 questions, will players gun for Crosby and will Crosby be able to last... I don't like the most probable answers. Most players won't use Crosby's possible frailty as an excuse to headhunt, but some will. The ones that will are the ones that tend to dole out 'illegal' injuries in general. They also tend to be marginal players that wouldn't have jobs if they couldn't be used to neutralize or 'take out' the opposing team's skilled players. So yes, I think Sid is coming back with a big fat target on his back. His absence has been bad for the NHL in terms of press, publicity and profits. Some minimum-salary goon is going to put his own tenuous job over the health of the game and the industry by taking Crosby out. It's just a matter of time.
The real question then becomes "How will Crosby's body be able to handle violent checking?" I was highly doubtful that Crosby would ever be the same player he was before his injuries. History shows that players' skills have declined due to brain injury. Crosby's primary talent is being able to 'see the ice' better than anyone else on the planet. According to reports of his play during practice Crosby's skills remain as fine as they have ever been, which I find astonishing and miraculous. I guess it remains to be seen whether this ability to excel in practice will translate to success during games.
Still, I have serious doubts about the ability of the human brain to take this kind of punishment over and over. In fact, I'll be surprised if Crosby plays more than another 25 games in the NHL, regardless of the level of play he can achieve. Between intentional hits and accidental hits something will test Crosby's ability to handle physical play, and soon! I hope for his sake, the sake of everyone who cares about him and for the sake of the continued success of the NHL that Crosby has a long and storied career still ahead of him. I just find it hard to believe that we're going to get that fairy tale ending. Either way, it's a pretty good bet that hockey fans will enjoy every game Crosby plays from tonight until his retirement. Again, let's hope that's a long, long time.
Friday, November 18, 2011
More Bad Government: Afghan Immigration
Canada's Conservative government has found itself caught between three different aspects of its Right Wing ideology.
Ideology #1: Support the War Machine
Right Wing policy dictates that you support the war machine unequivocally. This means supporting soldiers and their causes, veterans and their causes, military contractors and their causes, and a generally Hawkish stance on just about everything. In this case, there is an issue of fulfilling a promise that helped support the Canadian military in their mission in Afghanistan.
Ideology #2: Immigrants Need Not Apply
Right Wing policy also dictates that immigration is overwhelmingly bad. As result, you can expect a tightening of the rules concerning all aspects of immigration, including refugee claimants. The only possible exception are wealthy immigrants that pay their way into the country and (hopefully) come to spend their wealth locally, stimulating the economy. This theory tends not to happen in reality, but ideology is ideology and reality seldom matters. In this case, Afghanis that assisted the Canadian mission as interpreters in Afghanistan are seeking to immigrate to Canada. This can be viewed as repayment for taking on a job with such a high mortality rate or for assisting Canadian soldiers and helping keep their mortality rate lower by helping them communicate effectively with the locals.
Ideology #3: Don't Tell the Public Anything
This particular nugget of Right Wing ideology borders on neo-fascism. Sometime it actually crosses that line. This Government has shown a resolute refusal to let any information about the workings of government, decision making and implementation of policy. Freedom of Information access requests are illegally ignored or refused on the grounds of national security. Not even the courts can sway this Government to fulfill its legal obligations to the people of Canada. Apparently, everything that happens in the governance of Canada is a matter of national security. Here, this ideology rears its ugly head in the form of punishing someone who dared breach the wall of silence and informed the public of what is actually going on.
If you want to be particularly critical of this Conservative Government you could add another ideological stance:
Ideology #4: Promises Are For Elections, Not Policy
This one is fairly self-explanatory. The Government will fulfill the promises that Canadians generally don't want because they fit the Government's ideology. But promises that swayed middle- and lower-class Canadians to cast a ballot for the 'Party For Plutocracy' (governance by the wealthy, for the wealthy) will uniformly go unfulfilled.
To tie these together, what is happening is the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) has been dragging its heels in general on a Government promise refused to help Afghanis that assisted the very recent Canadian military peace mission in Afghanistan relocate to Canada. Further, they have actually refused to admit interpreter Sayed Shah Sharifi. In the eyes of the CIC Sharifi exercised 'terrible judgement' in speaking to the Press about the frustration he was feeling about the delays in processing his immigration request. What he should have done is sat silently and suffer the stress over the molasses-like CIC. And if the slow progress turned to no progress or a denial then he should have quietly accepted the reneging on the Government's promise, as though that is their imperial right.
So what we have is a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. In the case of this Government it would be more accurate to say that the Right hand doesn't know what the other Right hand is doing. When Conservative ideology ends up being at odds with itself you can be reasonably certain thet the Government will make the most incorrect choice, and by that I mean the one that is worst for Canadians. Failing to live up to the promise of granting admittance to interpreters endangers the ability of future missions to obtain local allies for any tasks, including interpreting. This is a slap in the face to the military, every soldier that served in Afghanistan and every member of their families. It is bad enough that the Government is doing what it can to shut down the borders, but now they are promising people admission and then quietly refusing them. And when someone dares break their Vow of Silence meant to keep Canadians unaware of what is happening in their own country you can expect punitive action.
Perhaps, before this matter is resolved, the Government will do the right thing instead of the Right thing. It is perhaps more likely, however, that the matter will drag on until the Press and public have tired of it and/or forgotten about it entirely and then thy will do the most wrong thing, as they seem to be doing now.
As the instances of misbehaviour and bad governance pile up, I have to wonder how many, if any, of these issues will be recalled by the Canadian electorate when called upon to vote once more. That is so far in the future that there is ample opportunity to even forget Syrian- or Iranian-style wholesale slaughter of citizens that dare disagree with the Government's ideology. (Maybe this will be the fate of the Occupy movement?) Canadians certainly didn't hold the Conservative Government to task for their political and/or ethical indiscretions as a minority government! Now that they are a majority it only makes logical sense that the indiscretions are going to get larger and harder to ignore or forget. I have full faith in the bulk of my countrymen to manage to ignore and forget everything no matter how serious, personally relevant, or even criminal, they may be so long as they are presented with the promise of a reduction in taxes by a single penny. That's what they have always done and I suspect it is what they will always do. And so long as this Government is allowed to manage the flow of information even tighter than Bush-Cheney-Rove what manages to enter the public consciousness/domain will only be the tip of the iceberg.
Canada is in trouble. Big trouble.
Congratulations to Dwayne De Rosario!
Dwayne De Rosario was named the MLS MVP for 2011. This is fantastic for him, but it is also fantastic for Canadian soccer. Canada is a country with a decent soccer heritage but not much in the way of soccer performance on the world stage. They are putting a lot of effort into improving their world ranking and making a run at a World Cup appearance.
De Rosario had the unique experience of having been traded twice this season. First he went from his hometown of Toronto to NY, then from NY to DC. The second trade was because NY had gross deficiencies on defense and needed to bolster that part of their roster. Doing that meant parting with an offensive asset that they still wanted. The first trade was motivated by money.
De Rosario made a poor judgement call by miming the signing of a check during a goal celebration. He was upset that he was being paid far less than the 'designated players' on the team when he was outperforming them by a large margin. The TFC response was to deny him and ignore him and when he wouldn't back down, they dumped him. TFC is a wealthy franchise. Their parent company is worth somewhere between 1.5 and 2 billion dollars. De Rosario would have been pacified by anything resembling a raise of at least $400,000, effectively doubling his salary. He wanted more, but I think he would have settled for something symbolic like a doubling of his salary along with the prestige of being a 'designated' player.
The decision to dump him provided proof to many that TFC is one of the cheapest tightwad franchises in MLS, and possibly in all of sport. Their parent company already had a reputation for being tightwads. The crown jewel of the organization, Maple Leafs Sports & Entertainment, is the Toronto Maple Leafs. The Leafs are widely considered to be tantamount to a license to print money. Prior to the imposing of a salary cap in 2005 the Leafs could have spent as much as necessary to bring success on the ice. They were always among the top spenders, but never came close to even trying to break the bank. The Maple Leafs haven't made a Stanley Cup appearance (the NHL Championship series) since 1967, the longest drought in the NHL by far. The other teams that are close are all expansion franchises that haven't really 'made it' yet and may not have had time to make it. Most franchises have had multiple Stanley Cup appearances during that period. The other 5 "Original Six" franchises have won the Cup at least once each in the 40+ year Toronto vacuum of success.
Given the lack of success and a near limitless cash flow it would be logical to spend whatever it took to get the talented free agents to achieve success. It never happened. The team was more concerned with financial prudence than winning. They were pretty much alone in the entire league with that philosophy. Some point to the fact that for the most recent history of the franchise the majority owners are a pension fund rather than the more traditional philanthropic, obscenely wealthy, vain, egotistical, offended-by-losing individual owner. Pension funds exist to make money. Winning is irrelevant to them. The only thing that matters is maximizing return on investment. If winning turns out to be necessary for profitability then winning would be a priority. In Toronto, every game is a sell-out and tickets are generally brutally expensive, so winning is clearly not necessary for profitability. So no one that had control of the purse strings really cared to win.
Now that the NHL has a salary cap that option is no longer available. MLS has a salary cap, too, but it also has a pressure valve or escape clause in the 'designated player'. Teams are allowed up to 3 deisgnated players and their salaries don't count against the cap. Theoretically, there is no limit to how much a team can spend on their designated players. At the time, Toronto had less than their designated player allotment. It would actually have eased their salary cap situation by declaring De Rosario a designated player as his current salary would come off the books. In it's infinite wisdom, TFC management and coach Aron Winter decided that it would be better to dump De Rosario than pay him. There was an outcry in the city when this happened, but what could fans do?
They could stop attending, and many did. Season ticket sales are down and dropping. The stands had bare spots for the first time in team history, which is a mere five years long. Not surprisingly, TFC has never made the playoffs, and in general haven't even been close. This year, they would have had to increase their point total by 40% just to tie for the final playoff spot (33 pts vs 46 pts)! As long as they remain in the financial black, they will remain tightwads. If the fans' boos and dismay turn to outright rejection and it hurts the bottom line, there may be a change.
Today, I wonder what TFC management and Aron Winter are thinking. They knew when they let De Rosario go that he was among the very best in the league. He had been runner up to the MVP twice before and had been named to the Top XI (the MLS version of a First All-Star Team) many times. His outstanding performance this year -- he was tied for the league lead in goals, 4th in assists, 1st in total points (by a landslide), and the only player with double digits in goals and assists -- under very difficult conditions (having to learn to play with new teammates, not once but twice in a single season!) were completely worthy of the MVP award. Does TFC regret it's decision to get rid of MLS's best player? I doubt it. I don't think these executives think that way. In their minds, they are infallible. Their original reasoning justifies their decision no matter how De Rosario plays. He could lap the field in scoring and they would still think dumping him helped the team.
So, as far as intelligent, objective people are concerned, DeRo wins the battle in the court of public opinion and laughs both last and best. With more roster decisions like this, it will take another decade before TFC enjoys it's first playoff game. The biggest losers are the soccer/football fans of Toronto. Here's hoping the black turns red, and soon. It's the only way Toronto's fans have any hope of having something worth cheering.
De Rosario had the unique experience of having been traded twice this season. First he went from his hometown of Toronto to NY, then from NY to DC. The second trade was because NY had gross deficiencies on defense and needed to bolster that part of their roster. Doing that meant parting with an offensive asset that they still wanted. The first trade was motivated by money.
De Rosario made a poor judgement call by miming the signing of a check during a goal celebration. He was upset that he was being paid far less than the 'designated players' on the team when he was outperforming them by a large margin. The TFC response was to deny him and ignore him and when he wouldn't back down, they dumped him. TFC is a wealthy franchise. Their parent company is worth somewhere between 1.5 and 2 billion dollars. De Rosario would have been pacified by anything resembling a raise of at least $400,000, effectively doubling his salary. He wanted more, but I think he would have settled for something symbolic like a doubling of his salary along with the prestige of being a 'designated' player.
The decision to dump him provided proof to many that TFC is one of the cheapest tightwad franchises in MLS, and possibly in all of sport. Their parent company already had a reputation for being tightwads. The crown jewel of the organization, Maple Leafs Sports & Entertainment, is the Toronto Maple Leafs. The Leafs are widely considered to be tantamount to a license to print money. Prior to the imposing of a salary cap in 2005 the Leafs could have spent as much as necessary to bring success on the ice. They were always among the top spenders, but never came close to even trying to break the bank. The Maple Leafs haven't made a Stanley Cup appearance (the NHL Championship series) since 1967, the longest drought in the NHL by far. The other teams that are close are all expansion franchises that haven't really 'made it' yet and may not have had time to make it. Most franchises have had multiple Stanley Cup appearances during that period. The other 5 "Original Six" franchises have won the Cup at least once each in the 40+ year Toronto vacuum of success.
Given the lack of success and a near limitless cash flow it would be logical to spend whatever it took to get the talented free agents to achieve success. It never happened. The team was more concerned with financial prudence than winning. They were pretty much alone in the entire league with that philosophy. Some point to the fact that for the most recent history of the franchise the majority owners are a pension fund rather than the more traditional philanthropic, obscenely wealthy, vain, egotistical, offended-by-losing individual owner. Pension funds exist to make money. Winning is irrelevant to them. The only thing that matters is maximizing return on investment. If winning turns out to be necessary for profitability then winning would be a priority. In Toronto, every game is a sell-out and tickets are generally brutally expensive, so winning is clearly not necessary for profitability. So no one that had control of the purse strings really cared to win.
Now that the NHL has a salary cap that option is no longer available. MLS has a salary cap, too, but it also has a pressure valve or escape clause in the 'designated player'. Teams are allowed up to 3 deisgnated players and their salaries don't count against the cap. Theoretically, there is no limit to how much a team can spend on their designated players. At the time, Toronto had less than their designated player allotment. It would actually have eased their salary cap situation by declaring De Rosario a designated player as his current salary would come off the books. In it's infinite wisdom, TFC management and coach Aron Winter decided that it would be better to dump De Rosario than pay him. There was an outcry in the city when this happened, but what could fans do?
They could stop attending, and many did. Season ticket sales are down and dropping. The stands had bare spots for the first time in team history, which is a mere five years long. Not surprisingly, TFC has never made the playoffs, and in general haven't even been close. This year, they would have had to increase their point total by 40% just to tie for the final playoff spot (33 pts vs 46 pts)! As long as they remain in the financial black, they will remain tightwads. If the fans' boos and dismay turn to outright rejection and it hurts the bottom line, there may be a change.
Today, I wonder what TFC management and Aron Winter are thinking. They knew when they let De Rosario go that he was among the very best in the league. He had been runner up to the MVP twice before and had been named to the Top XI (the MLS version of a First All-Star Team) many times. His outstanding performance this year -- he was tied for the league lead in goals, 4th in assists, 1st in total points (by a landslide), and the only player with double digits in goals and assists -- under very difficult conditions (having to learn to play with new teammates, not once but twice in a single season!) were completely worthy of the MVP award. Does TFC regret it's decision to get rid of MLS's best player? I doubt it. I don't think these executives think that way. In their minds, they are infallible. Their original reasoning justifies their decision no matter how De Rosario plays. He could lap the field in scoring and they would still think dumping him helped the team.
So, as far as intelligent, objective people are concerned, DeRo wins the battle in the court of public opinion and laughs both last and best. With more roster decisions like this, it will take another decade before TFC enjoys it's first playoff game. The biggest losers are the soccer/football fans of Toronto. Here's hoping the black turns red, and soon. It's the only way Toronto's fans have any hope of having something worth cheering.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Everybody Wants It All
Have you noticed that everybody wants it all?
It doesn't really matter what 'it' is, people want it all. Today, there is no such thing as 'enough', nor is there any such thing as 'too much'.
For a start, we can talk food. All-You-Can-Eat restaurants/buffets are enormously popular, at least in North America. You can find them for almost any kind of food. Chinese food, Indian food, sushi, Italian food, breakfast/brunch fare, you name it! As a whole, we're already fat. Why do we need all-you-can-eat meals? It appeals to our sense of getting good 'value', but we fail to account for the adverse affect it has on our health when calculating that 'value'. We aren't satisfied being full, we want to be stuffed. It's the same as OD-ing on drugs. The blood rushes from our brain to our stomach and we enter a mild altered state.
Retail/wholesale shopping has an equivalent to all-you-can-eat. It's called all-you-can-carry. For a flat price, fill your tote bag or cart. It's nowhere near as common as all-you-can-eat, probably because there's too much variation in value for items people can cram into their bags. Also, the profit margins are probably thinner for these other goods. Finally, food is an absolute need for everyone, while there are few if any consumer products that are absolute essentials and can be applied to the 'you can never have too much' philosophy. People also run out of space to keep 'stuff'.
People want it all in love, too. Good luck finding someone who doesn't want to find someone who is intelligent, funny, beautiful, sexy, empathetic, personable, rich, has a heart of gold and, of course, is healthy...and fertile. This is even true for people who themselves embody none of these characteristics. No matter what kind of person we happen to be, we think we deserve all these qualities in a mate. Is this related to the general sense of universal entitlement that is so prevalent today? At least in love people do in fact settle for less, but then they are seldom happy. Also, settling or not, they aim for the stars! I wonder if this is why relationships are treated with such disrespect, replete with cheating and/or divorce/break-ups the moment someone perceived as 'better' comes along. What is this 'committment' thing you speak of? Never heard of it. Can you get it at an all-you-can-eat?
I could go on, but it's all pretty much the same.
Once upon a time, we were satisfied with 'enough'. Now, many of us are never satisfied. This is behind the drive to accumulate wealth to obscene degrees. Sure, it is nice to be 'comfortable', a step up from 'satisfied', but we don't stop there. We never stop. More, more, more! (Cue scene from "Oliver!".) Somewhere along the journey we lose sight of our needs and even our wants, and the pursuit of wealth becomes an end in and of itself. Since there is always more available, unattained and unrealized, the urge is never satisfied. I wonder if the urge would be satisfied if someone actually managed to obtain everything. The entire world in the possession of one person. Actually, I guess it would have to be the entire Universe or there would still be something that they hadn't yet obtained. Would they be satisfied? Would they be happy? Would they lose their mind because there is nothing more for which to strive/compete? If you ask me, we all lose our minds long before this stage. Would nearly everybody life live so deeply in debt if this weren't the case?
It can't just be plain old consumerism, can it? I mean, it's impossible to actually consume that much. A person only has so much time with which to consume. How many cruises can one person take? How many Monet's does one person need? How about cars? Houses? I think the level of wealth being achieved today is beyond the point of maximum consumption. They could eat, shop, be entertained and travel 24/7 and they would still have wealth left over. They would be so busy consuming that they wouldn't have any time to appreciate or enjoy it! I imagine they would justify the excess wealth as "something for my children to live on." If extended over an unlimited number of generations I guess there is no limit to how much we can consume and therefore no limit to our appetite for wealth.
I wonder, is there something wrong with the human mind, heart and/or soul that a person can be so consumed with consumption that they fail to see or care about the nearly endless throng of people with next to nothing or less? Is it a disease, or a madness...or is it the heart of the human condition? Do we want things just to keep them out of other people's hands as though other people's wealth/success harms us in some way? Are we any different than a wolverine in a frenzy, killing far more than it could possibly eat? The more closely you examine man, the more he resembles a mere beast. Perhaps if he used God's gift to him more often this wouldn't be true. If you're not keeping score, God's gift to man is his advanced brain, capable of both creativity and cruelty nearly beyond comprehension. Most people have their brains on autopilot for most of the waking day. Some nearly shut it down entirely with mindless activities (e.g. reality TV) and 'what-was-I-just-daydreaming-about' lost thoughts. I certainly think that if people stepped out of themselves for a moment and used their brain's full potential they might strongly question their insatiable urge for more. They might even find time to be happy, and satisfied.
It doesn't really matter what 'it' is, people want it all. Today, there is no such thing as 'enough', nor is there any such thing as 'too much'.
For a start, we can talk food. All-You-Can-Eat restaurants/buffets are enormously popular, at least in North America. You can find them for almost any kind of food. Chinese food, Indian food, sushi, Italian food, breakfast/brunch fare, you name it! As a whole, we're already fat. Why do we need all-you-can-eat meals? It appeals to our sense of getting good 'value', but we fail to account for the adverse affect it has on our health when calculating that 'value'. We aren't satisfied being full, we want to be stuffed. It's the same as OD-ing on drugs. The blood rushes from our brain to our stomach and we enter a mild altered state.
Retail/wholesale shopping has an equivalent to all-you-can-eat. It's called all-you-can-carry. For a flat price, fill your tote bag or cart. It's nowhere near as common as all-you-can-eat, probably because there's too much variation in value for items people can cram into their bags. Also, the profit margins are probably thinner for these other goods. Finally, food is an absolute need for everyone, while there are few if any consumer products that are absolute essentials and can be applied to the 'you can never have too much' philosophy. People also run out of space to keep 'stuff'.
People want it all in love, too. Good luck finding someone who doesn't want to find someone who is intelligent, funny, beautiful, sexy, empathetic, personable, rich, has a heart of gold and, of course, is healthy...and fertile. This is even true for people who themselves embody none of these characteristics. No matter what kind of person we happen to be, we think we deserve all these qualities in a mate. Is this related to the general sense of universal entitlement that is so prevalent today? At least in love people do in fact settle for less, but then they are seldom happy. Also, settling or not, they aim for the stars! I wonder if this is why relationships are treated with such disrespect, replete with cheating and/or divorce/break-ups the moment someone perceived as 'better' comes along. What is this 'committment' thing you speak of? Never heard of it. Can you get it at an all-you-can-eat?
I could go on, but it's all pretty much the same.
Once upon a time, we were satisfied with 'enough'. Now, many of us are never satisfied. This is behind the drive to accumulate wealth to obscene degrees. Sure, it is nice to be 'comfortable', a step up from 'satisfied', but we don't stop there. We never stop. More, more, more! (Cue scene from "Oliver!".) Somewhere along the journey we lose sight of our needs and even our wants, and the pursuit of wealth becomes an end in and of itself. Since there is always more available, unattained and unrealized, the urge is never satisfied. I wonder if the urge would be satisfied if someone actually managed to obtain everything. The entire world in the possession of one person. Actually, I guess it would have to be the entire Universe or there would still be something that they hadn't yet obtained. Would they be satisfied? Would they be happy? Would they lose their mind because there is nothing more for which to strive/compete? If you ask me, we all lose our minds long before this stage. Would nearly everybody life live so deeply in debt if this weren't the case?
It can't just be plain old consumerism, can it? I mean, it's impossible to actually consume that much. A person only has so much time with which to consume. How many cruises can one person take? How many Monet's does one person need? How about cars? Houses? I think the level of wealth being achieved today is beyond the point of maximum consumption. They could eat, shop, be entertained and travel 24/7 and they would still have wealth left over. They would be so busy consuming that they wouldn't have any time to appreciate or enjoy it! I imagine they would justify the excess wealth as "something for my children to live on." If extended over an unlimited number of generations I guess there is no limit to how much we can consume and therefore no limit to our appetite for wealth.
I wonder, is there something wrong with the human mind, heart and/or soul that a person can be so consumed with consumption that they fail to see or care about the nearly endless throng of people with next to nothing or less? Is it a disease, or a madness...or is it the heart of the human condition? Do we want things just to keep them out of other people's hands as though other people's wealth/success harms us in some way? Are we any different than a wolverine in a frenzy, killing far more than it could possibly eat? The more closely you examine man, the more he resembles a mere beast. Perhaps if he used God's gift to him more often this wouldn't be true. If you're not keeping score, God's gift to man is his advanced brain, capable of both creativity and cruelty nearly beyond comprehension. Most people have their brains on autopilot for most of the waking day. Some nearly shut it down entirely with mindless activities (e.g. reality TV) and 'what-was-I-just-daydreaming-about' lost thoughts. I certainly think that if people stepped out of themselves for a moment and used their brain's full potential they might strongly question their insatiable urge for more. They might even find time to be happy, and satisfied.
Houston Astros May Move To the American League. Why?
I don't get it.
The Houston Astros are for sale and the prospective buyer wants in on the condition that the team move to the American League. I don't understand why, or how it is good for Baseball.
In 1997 the Milwaukee Brewers, the Commissioner's team, moved from the American League East to the National League. The main/official reason for this was to ensure that there were an even number of teams in each league. They could have placed the expansion Tampa Bay Devil Rays in the National League but they didn't want both Florida teams in the same league. That meant someone had to move. It's good being king. Selig's team was given the task of 'evening' out the leagues. The fact that the American League salary structure and power dynamics were starting to form a two-tier system of haves and have-nots certainly had nothing to do with the decision to bail to the lower-payroll and more evenly balanced National League. (Selig also desired to move Milwaukee to the National League because the city had previously been a National League team, when they were the home of the Milwaukee Braves.)
So, for all those reasons, both the official and 'double secret probation' reasons, I get why the team moved. This time, I don't get it.
I've thought about it and can come up with lots of changes that will happen as a result of the move. Some are good, some are bad and some are pretty much neutral. Here are the reasons I've been able to identify:
1) Increasing the number of games with intrastate rivals the Texas Rangers
Moving to the 4-team American League West with the Texas Rangers would increase the number of times they play against one another from 6 games to 18 games, or when only considering home games, from 3 to 9. Is the incremental gate for 6 games really that important? I suppose this is good for Houston, but is a relatively small gain.
2) Increasing the number of games with America's favorite teams, the Yankees and Red Sox
Currently, Houston has no real relationship with either of these teams. That means that on average they meet once every three years for a 3-game series. This might be at home and it might be on the road. I suppose you can count on a home series against these teams once every 6 years (on average). If they move to the American League (West) they will play 4 - 6 games against each other each year. That works out to one home series of 2 or 3 games each year. The Yankees and Red Sox are the biggest road draws in MLB so this benefits Houston, but again, not by much. After all, it actually hurts their chances of on-field success.
3) Getting out of a crowed division
Currently, Houston is in the Majors only 6-team division. In theory, that makes it harder to make the playoffs than if they'd been in any other division. I say in theory because the 5 other teams of the National League Central Division are habitual dogs and under-performers. It is considered one of the easiest divisions to win in Baseball, and the increased number of games against weaker teams means it is a good place to qualify for the Wild Card playoff spot, too. They would be moving to Baseball's only 4-team division, making the size all 6 of MLBs divisions a uniform 5 teams. The American League West is also a relatively weak division, but is considered tougher than the NL Central. Currently, the Rangers are in ascendancy. In recent years, the LA Angels of Anaheim (I hate that name) have been strong, winning the World Series once, the Oakland Athletics have been over-achievers with one of the lowest payrolls in Baseball, and the Seattle Mariners have also been strong off and on through the years, though they are certainly in 'off' mode right now. In addition, the Astros will now have to face the Red Sox and Yankees 8 - 12 times a season, a trial they haven't had to deal with before. All in all, I can't see how moving makes it easier for the Astros to win.
4) Balancing the divisions, leagues
As I mentioned earlier, moving a team from the NL Central to the AL West would balance the 6 divisions at 5-teams apiece. It would also balance the leagues at 15 teams apiece. If the standard 162-game schedule is going to be maintained, all 30 teams have to be playing most of the time. The only way to achieve that is for there to be at least one Interleague series happening all the time.
In my humble opinion, this is a terrible situation! For one, it likely means that there will be yet MORE Interleague games than there are currently. Outside of the natural rivalries, like Houston-Texas(Arlington), Interleague play is suffering declining popularity. The only reason that IL games appear to have decent attendance is that they take place during the prime part of the season schedule (e.g. no cold April games while kids are still in school) and often fall on weekends. Also, the few popular natural rivalries boost the overall numbers making IL play seem more popular than it really is. So, more is bad! Further, MLB would lose the natural IL rivalry of Houston-Texas as they would become divisional rivals. Further still, the requirement to have at least 1 IL series running at all times almost assuredly means that the games WON'T be between natural rivals. I assume that MLB will still have the 2 stretches of games where all the teams are playing IL games. (Currently, with 16 NL teams and only 14 AL teams, 2 pseudo-random NL teams play each other on any given day during the IP section of the schedule.) Finally, if there's always at least 1 IL series happening the 'specialness' or 'novelty' of IP with be eroded even more than it already has been! This is a big, fat negative for all of MLB.
If this is unavoidable, and of course it is not unavoidable, they are choosing to do it, then there is one thing that MLB can do to renew the 'freshness' and popularity of Interleague play. They can reverse the rules. Instead of playing the rules variation according to the home team's league, play the rules according to the road team's league. This way, American League fans will have an opportunity to watch teams playing National League rules and vice versa. Other than the multi-franchise cities (NY, Chicago, LA, the Bay Area) fans never get this opportunity in their home city, even during the World Series (since the home park determines the rules set there, too)! Even if they do this, I still think the 2 15-team league model is a terrible idea.
5) Diluting the relevancy of Interleague play
This is completely detailed in point #4, but is worth naming specifically as an independent effect.
So, as near as I can see it, there are slight positives for Houston to change leagues and huge negatives for the other 29 teams if they move. In fact, the negatives are so horrendous they may even outweigh the positives for Houston, too! I don't even see how it benefits any of the owners or Selig himself! So, again I have to ask "why?" If you know, please fill me in. I'd love to understand why this is good for MLB.
If it happens, and it probably will, it won't be the first thing that Selig has done that has been nothing but bad for Baseball.
[editors note: My bad! I totally forgot #6...
6) Time Zone changes
In the NL Central, Houston faces two teams in the Eastern Time Zone (Cincinnati and Pittsburgh) and three in the Central Time Zone (Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Louis). With Houston being in the Central TZ this is a good fit. It is reasonably easy to travel East as this is not the direction that causes jet lag.
With Houston in the American League West, they play one team in the Central TZ (Texas) and three teams in the Pacific TZ (LA of Anaheim, Oakland & Seattle). This is quite bad for Houston. Instead of traveling one time zone East for 18 games they will now travel 2 time zones west for 27 games! West is the direction that is considered hard to handle and hard and thus harder to succeed.
Forget what I said before -- the net effect of moving to the AL West is BAD for Houston, and BAD for the other 29 teams. Tell me again why this is good for Baseball, Bud. Please, tell me!
End editor's note.]
The Houston Astros are for sale and the prospective buyer wants in on the condition that the team move to the American League. I don't understand why, or how it is good for Baseball.
In 1997 the Milwaukee Brewers, the Commissioner's team, moved from the American League East to the National League. The main/official reason for this was to ensure that there were an even number of teams in each league. They could have placed the expansion Tampa Bay Devil Rays in the National League but they didn't want both Florida teams in the same league. That meant someone had to move. It's good being king. Selig's team was given the task of 'evening' out the leagues. The fact that the American League salary structure and power dynamics were starting to form a two-tier system of haves and have-nots certainly had nothing to do with the decision to bail to the lower-payroll and more evenly balanced National League. (Selig also desired to move Milwaukee to the National League because the city had previously been a National League team, when they were the home of the Milwaukee Braves.)
So, for all those reasons, both the official and 'double secret probation' reasons, I get why the team moved. This time, I don't get it.
I've thought about it and can come up with lots of changes that will happen as a result of the move. Some are good, some are bad and some are pretty much neutral. Here are the reasons I've been able to identify:
1) Increasing the number of games with intrastate rivals the Texas Rangers
Moving to the 4-team American League West with the Texas Rangers would increase the number of times they play against one another from 6 games to 18 games, or when only considering home games, from 3 to 9. Is the incremental gate for 6 games really that important? I suppose this is good for Houston, but is a relatively small gain.
2) Increasing the number of games with America's favorite teams, the Yankees and Red Sox
Currently, Houston has no real relationship with either of these teams. That means that on average they meet once every three years for a 3-game series. This might be at home and it might be on the road. I suppose you can count on a home series against these teams once every 6 years (on average). If they move to the American League (West) they will play 4 - 6 games against each other each year. That works out to one home series of 2 or 3 games each year. The Yankees and Red Sox are the biggest road draws in MLB so this benefits Houston, but again, not by much. After all, it actually hurts their chances of on-field success.
3) Getting out of a crowed division
Currently, Houston is in the Majors only 6-team division. In theory, that makes it harder to make the playoffs than if they'd been in any other division. I say in theory because the 5 other teams of the National League Central Division are habitual dogs and under-performers. It is considered one of the easiest divisions to win in Baseball, and the increased number of games against weaker teams means it is a good place to qualify for the Wild Card playoff spot, too. They would be moving to Baseball's only 4-team division, making the size all 6 of MLBs divisions a uniform 5 teams. The American League West is also a relatively weak division, but is considered tougher than the NL Central. Currently, the Rangers are in ascendancy. In recent years, the LA Angels of Anaheim (I hate that name) have been strong, winning the World Series once, the Oakland Athletics have been over-achievers with one of the lowest payrolls in Baseball, and the Seattle Mariners have also been strong off and on through the years, though they are certainly in 'off' mode right now. In addition, the Astros will now have to face the Red Sox and Yankees 8 - 12 times a season, a trial they haven't had to deal with before. All in all, I can't see how moving makes it easier for the Astros to win.
4) Balancing the divisions, leagues
As I mentioned earlier, moving a team from the NL Central to the AL West would balance the 6 divisions at 5-teams apiece. It would also balance the leagues at 15 teams apiece. If the standard 162-game schedule is going to be maintained, all 30 teams have to be playing most of the time. The only way to achieve that is for there to be at least one Interleague series happening all the time.
In my humble opinion, this is a terrible situation! For one, it likely means that there will be yet MORE Interleague games than there are currently. Outside of the natural rivalries, like Houston-Texas(Arlington), Interleague play is suffering declining popularity. The only reason that IL games appear to have decent attendance is that they take place during the prime part of the season schedule (e.g. no cold April games while kids are still in school) and often fall on weekends. Also, the few popular natural rivalries boost the overall numbers making IL play seem more popular than it really is. So, more is bad! Further, MLB would lose the natural IL rivalry of Houston-Texas as they would become divisional rivals. Further still, the requirement to have at least 1 IL series running at all times almost assuredly means that the games WON'T be between natural rivals. I assume that MLB will still have the 2 stretches of games where all the teams are playing IL games. (Currently, with 16 NL teams and only 14 AL teams, 2 pseudo-random NL teams play each other on any given day during the IP section of the schedule.) Finally, if there's always at least 1 IL series happening the 'specialness' or 'novelty' of IP with be eroded even more than it already has been! This is a big, fat negative for all of MLB.
If this is unavoidable, and of course it is not unavoidable, they are choosing to do it, then there is one thing that MLB can do to renew the 'freshness' and popularity of Interleague play. They can reverse the rules. Instead of playing the rules variation according to the home team's league, play the rules according to the road team's league. This way, American League fans will have an opportunity to watch teams playing National League rules and vice versa. Other than the multi-franchise cities (NY, Chicago, LA, the Bay Area) fans never get this opportunity in their home city, even during the World Series (since the home park determines the rules set there, too)! Even if they do this, I still think the 2 15-team league model is a terrible idea.
5) Diluting the relevancy of Interleague play
This is completely detailed in point #4, but is worth naming specifically as an independent effect.
So, as near as I can see it, there are slight positives for Houston to change leagues and huge negatives for the other 29 teams if they move. In fact, the negatives are so horrendous they may even outweigh the positives for Houston, too! I don't even see how it benefits any of the owners or Selig himself! So, again I have to ask "why?" If you know, please fill me in. I'd love to understand why this is good for MLB.
If it happens, and it probably will, it won't be the first thing that Selig has done that has been nothing but bad for Baseball.
[editors note: My bad! I totally forgot #6...
6) Time Zone changes
In the NL Central, Houston faces two teams in the Eastern Time Zone (Cincinnati and Pittsburgh) and three in the Central Time Zone (Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Louis). With Houston being in the Central TZ this is a good fit. It is reasonably easy to travel East as this is not the direction that causes jet lag.
With Houston in the American League West, they play one team in the Central TZ (Texas) and three teams in the Pacific TZ (LA of Anaheim, Oakland & Seattle). This is quite bad for Houston. Instead of traveling one time zone East for 18 games they will now travel 2 time zones west for 27 games! West is the direction that is considered hard to handle and hard and thus harder to succeed.
Forget what I said before -- the net effect of moving to the AL West is BAD for Houston, and BAD for the other 29 teams. Tell me again why this is good for Baseball, Bud. Please, tell me!
End editor's note.]
The London Rippers
It seems that London's has a new baseball team. The team's origin is a deal made on October 1st by some American owners with local council to use the local ballpark for Fronteir League play. They decided to take a name that would jump out and grab you (or in this case, stab you) something that couldn't be ignored. Marketing theory at its best.
Welcome to the London "Rippers"! Yes, they chose to have serial murderer Jack "The Ripper" as their central theme, though they claim they don't. Their logo has a stylized Jack "The Ripper" looking very menacing in Victorian garb. He wields a bat and dall, only the bat looks more like a billy club than a baseball bat. Their mascot is "Diamond Jack", which along with the "Rippers" nickname proves without any doubt that the serial murderer of women is, in fact, their inspiration. If it wasn't, why not choose "Diamond Jim" or "Diamond Fauntleroy" for that matter?
This may be the worst marketing decision ever made! Worse than New Coke!
To call this gambit insensitive is an exercise in understatement. This choice is intentionally disrespectful. It's disrespectful of every person who can trace their relationship to one of Jack's victims. It's disrespectful to anyone who has lost someone to a murderer. It is disrespectful of every woman that has been attacked in any fashion and every person that cares for these women. That should leave just about nobody to appreciate their marketing 'genius'. Sure, the owner has a corny, thin veil of an explanation that the similarity is 'coincidental'. If it is coincidental, why does even he consider the theme 'edgy'. Edgy doesn't begin to address how wrong this is.
The pathetically contrived 'back story' is that "Diamond Jack" is a"Phantom of the Opera" inspired character. A rogue that is not wanted anywhere because he always 'rips' the covers off of baseballs when he hits them. So, he creates his own team to have a place to hang out. GIVE ME A BREAK! Do they really think that anyone is going to swallow that tripe?
Part of the problem is that the owner came up with this plan on his own. At no point did he consult with city officials -- or the public for that matter. Ideas that get acted upon before they've been vetted almost always turn out badly and this is perhaps the perfect, classic example.
Already, within 48 hours of the 'brand's' unveiling the public has given its verdict: FAIL! Megan Walker, executive director of the London Abused Women’s Centre is on the case. She stresses what should have been obvious to even the most obtuse person, that this theme is disrespectful of women in general and even more disrespectful for people with specific experiences. She goes on to predict that the team will fail miserably, noting that the last local team, the London Werewolves -- an allusion to both a popular song by Warren Zevon in 1978 and a popular (fictional) 1981 horror movie -- also failed and that was with the approval of the community. Without it the team is doomed! The owner thinks the public has overreacted. Nonsense! This is EXACTLY the reaction he was looking for. There is no way that the team could have gotten even half as much attention with ANY other name. It was chosen entirely for shock value and shock it certainly has.
Politicians have picked up on the pulse of the city and have also expressed their concern. London has been very proactive about ending violence against women. Actually, they're pretty much leaders where this is concerned. David Martin, the obviously mentally or morally challenged owner, has said a great deal about the controversy. Here are some quotes...
His response to the political flak and fallout:
“The mayor was in attendance [at the unveiling of the team nickname, logo and mascot Tuesday night]. Everything was fine last night.”
“That’s probably the way a politician would answer [the controversy].”
His stance on why there's controversy:
[It's] “negative spin” [from a] “loud minority.”
On the idea itself:
“It’s a great logo. It’s a great look. We took a lot of time putting it together and thinking the storyline out.”
No doubt! I'm sure it took a lot of creativity to come up with a rationalization for getting away with a Jack "The Ripper" theme. Again, this was done to shock and outrage. It follows the woeful incorrect and mostly immoral or amoral philosophy that 'there is no such thing as bad publicity'.
So far, I've intentionally been leaving out one key detail. This isn't happening in London, England. It's happening in London, Ontario, Canada! If this had happened in England, someone who really wanted to make a case for the legitimacy of this 'brand' could say that Jack "The Ripper" is not just a 19th Century serial killer. He's a piece of London's history and culture. They effectively 'own' the legacy and phenomenon that is "Jack." London, Ontario has absolutely no connection to Jack "The Ripper" other than the fact that the cities share the same name. So, not only is Martin using a terribly insensitive and insulting 'brand' but he's using it without even a remote connection to the history, folklore or mystery that surrounds "Jack." He has absolutely no leg to stand on for justifying this pathetic 'brand'!
What is it about White, Christian (Western) society that makes them think that they can do whatever they want whenever they want and if it offends someone, that's their problem!? I've got news for those people that think the world has gone too far in political correctness and is oversensitive about everything. It isn't that they are oversensitive, it's that you are completely insensitive. Frankly, I think it borders on being sociopathic, being completely unable to place one's self in other people's shoes and see how things appear/feel for them.
"The Rippers" certainly aren't the first team nickname in ridiculously poor taste. There are tons of teams that have stolen Native American culture for their own fun and profit. Why this is considered acceptable but a hypothetical sports team from Mississippi that called itself the N-----s is considered obviously wrong! Here's the short list of nicknames that 'white man' has no business using to represent themselves, but does anyway:
Atlanta Braves
Chicago Black Hawks
Cleveland Indians
Edmonton Eskimos
Kansas City Chiefs
Washington Redskins
...and MANY more college/university/high-school nicknames
It wasn't enough that Europeans came to North America and leveraged the fact that they had more technology than the indigenous peoples to slaughter them and steal their land. By doing so, they showed that they were technologically 'superior' to the dozens of cultures and civilizations that they destroyed and inferior to them in EVERY other way!. Today, many wonder if worshiping rampant technology was somehow better than living in harmony with the land. The ongoing collapse of the environment says otherwise.
What gave them the right to kill indiscriminately? Does the Bible authorize it? Does it even condone it? Where does it say it's OK to kill and then steal so long as the 'enemy'/'others' have something you covet? To me, that's 3 out of Ten Commandments broken and all the while they felt they had the moral imperative to sin! To this day the vast majority of people think that the actions of this era were just and that modern society has no obligation to apologize or provide reparations. Now, centuries later, the descendants of those butchered, marginalized and criminalized peoples are all too often living on the fringes of society, frequently with the worst kind of poverty and addiction. If they're lucky, they have been 'granted' land by the government on which they can live as they please. Only they can't, because the quality and quantity of the land is pathetic and in some cases quite distant from their traditional territory. They are also forced from time to time to accept 'white man's law' which directly prevents them from living as they please. BTW, how do you 'grant' someone something that already belongs to them? No, it wasn't enough -- now, they misappropriate their cultural symbols as though these symbols have something to do with European heritage or history. It's a mockery. It's an insult. It's completely wrong.
But it won't change. We still live with that same sense of moral superiority and refuse to consider that our actions infringe on other's freedoms or identities. We still believe 'might makes right'. We live it every day, both politically and in terms of economics -- what are modern capitalism and class warfare if not 'might makes right'? Ultimately, sports are more important to the typical North American than the sum value of the lives of every single Native American that ever lived. They don't matter. "Didn't we beat them into submission enough? What the hell are they whining about? Maybe we should have gotten rid of all of them while we had the chance?" Disgusting!
The only possible exception to this rule is the Florida Seminoles. Florida State University had the surprising good sense to consider changing their nickname out of deference to and respect for the modern Seminole people. But the Seminole tribe spoke up and lobbied for the retention of their name. To them, it was a source of pride. In the end, they are the only people whose opinions matter! If they accept the nickname as a form of respect and acknowledgement then that's that. To the best of my knowledge no other tribe has EVER stepped up to support a team nickname that refers to Native peoples, so none of the other franchises get a pass. For teams to justify a 'brand' that refer generically to Native Americans they would have to get permission from ALL tribes.
Only slightly less offensive are the following:
Calgary Hitmen
Oakland Raiders
Minnesota Vikings
Pittsburgh Pirates
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
The Raiders, Buccaneers and Pirates all refer to the same thing, the same culture. When exactly was piracy an aspect of American culture? There were pirates and privateers from every seagoing culture in the world. If they are associated with any one location it's likely the islands of the Caribbean and those of the South Pacific. Besides, why is it OK to celebrate criminals? While we're doing that why not the Rapists, Embezzlers or Killers?
The Calgary Hitmen derive their name from one of the original owners, world famous and local ex-WWE wrestler Bret "The Hitman" Hart. Further, it is supposed to be an allusion to hockey's ubiquitous bodychecking, which is often called 'hitting'. Unfortunately, the logo features a 'player' that is reminiscent of "Jason", the goalie-mask-wearing serial killer from the "Friday the 13th" movie franchise. If he carried a goaltender's stick then he would just look like a goaltender, but he carries a normal stick and holds it in a fashion somehwere between the wielding of a long gun (e.g. Tommie gun) or an axe. Which forces one to think of the original meaning of "hitman", namely that of a murderer-for-hire generally employed by "the Mob." Actually, I don't think most people need a cartoon-like character on the logo to make that connection. Again, and maybe completely inadvertently, this is an example of glorifying criminals. Try to explain to your 4-year old son taking in his first hockey game what a "hitman" is.
The Minnesota Vikings are only marginally offensive. Actually, it's possible that they offend no one. In 2005 17% of the Minnesota population could trace their roots to Norway. Another 10% came from other Scandinavian countries. These numbers were likely much higher generations ago, but are now falling steadily as immigrants settle in Minnesota and the Hispanic population outstrips the growth of the other demographics. If this 25%-or-less-and-falling of the population wanted to lend their heritage and culture to their professional football team, then more power to them. As far as I know, the team was named to reflect Minnesota's traditionally strong Norwegian background. 2 of the 5 businessmen that founded the franchise in 1960 were of Norwegian descent. One of those owners went to a high school whose nickname was also the Vikings, but that was in Wisconsin where Norwegians make up less than 10% of the population. He also owned a professional football team prior to the Vikings and it was the Duluth Eskimos, so he already had a history of misappropriating the culture and heritage of others. Besides which, Duluth is 1000 miles removed from actual Eskimo (now considered a pejorative term, replaced by self-referential names including Inuit) habitat. I am not aware of the public having been consulted about their feelings regarding being represented by the team nickname "Vikings" This is perhaps most important because of the standard inclusion of a cartoonish, stereotypical reflection of the culture it adopts. At least here, there IS a cultural connection of the local people to that of the nickname, and if they chose it or openly accepted it, no harm, no foul.
"The Rippers" puts all of them to shame for sheer political incorrectness. Let's hope that Martin steps outside of himself for just a moment and allows the idiocy of his idea to penetrate to his consciousness. Unless the city boycotts the team I doubt he'll have any such revelation. Decisions like this have nothing to do with ethics or morals, they are entirely about money. So long as the money rolls in the name will remain the same. If tumbleweeds start to blow through the bleachers, the "Rippers" will have a new name in a heartbeat.
Welcome to the London "Rippers"! Yes, they chose to have serial murderer Jack "The Ripper" as their central theme, though they claim they don't. Their logo has a stylized Jack "The Ripper" looking very menacing in Victorian garb. He wields a bat and dall, only the bat looks more like a billy club than a baseball bat. Their mascot is "Diamond Jack", which along with the "Rippers" nickname proves without any doubt that the serial murderer of women is, in fact, their inspiration. If it wasn't, why not choose "Diamond Jim" or "Diamond Fauntleroy" for that matter?
This may be the worst marketing decision ever made! Worse than New Coke!
To call this gambit insensitive is an exercise in understatement. This choice is intentionally disrespectful. It's disrespectful of every person who can trace their relationship to one of Jack's victims. It's disrespectful to anyone who has lost someone to a murderer. It is disrespectful of every woman that has been attacked in any fashion and every person that cares for these women. That should leave just about nobody to appreciate their marketing 'genius'. Sure, the owner has a corny, thin veil of an explanation that the similarity is 'coincidental'. If it is coincidental, why does even he consider the theme 'edgy'. Edgy doesn't begin to address how wrong this is.
The pathetically contrived 'back story' is that "Diamond Jack" is a"Phantom of the Opera" inspired character. A rogue that is not wanted anywhere because he always 'rips' the covers off of baseballs when he hits them. So, he creates his own team to have a place to hang out. GIVE ME A BREAK! Do they really think that anyone is going to swallow that tripe?
Part of the problem is that the owner came up with this plan on his own. At no point did he consult with city officials -- or the public for that matter. Ideas that get acted upon before they've been vetted almost always turn out badly and this is perhaps the perfect, classic example.
Already, within 48 hours of the 'brand's' unveiling the public has given its verdict: FAIL! Megan Walker, executive director of the London Abused Women’s Centre is on the case. She stresses what should have been obvious to even the most obtuse person, that this theme is disrespectful of women in general and even more disrespectful for people with specific experiences. She goes on to predict that the team will fail miserably, noting that the last local team, the London Werewolves -- an allusion to both a popular song by Warren Zevon in 1978 and a popular (fictional) 1981 horror movie -- also failed and that was with the approval of the community. Without it the team is doomed! The owner thinks the public has overreacted. Nonsense! This is EXACTLY the reaction he was looking for. There is no way that the team could have gotten even half as much attention with ANY other name. It was chosen entirely for shock value and shock it certainly has.
Politicians have picked up on the pulse of the city and have also expressed their concern. London has been very proactive about ending violence against women. Actually, they're pretty much leaders where this is concerned. David Martin, the obviously mentally or morally challenged owner, has said a great deal about the controversy. Here are some quotes...
His response to the political flak and fallout:
“The mayor was in attendance [at the unveiling of the team nickname, logo and mascot Tuesday night]. Everything was fine last night.”
“That’s probably the way a politician would answer [the controversy].”
His stance on why there's controversy:
[It's] “negative spin” [from a] “loud minority.”
On the idea itself:
“It’s a great logo. It’s a great look. We took a lot of time putting it together and thinking the storyline out.”
No doubt! I'm sure it took a lot of creativity to come up with a rationalization for getting away with a Jack "The Ripper" theme. Again, this was done to shock and outrage. It follows the woeful incorrect and mostly immoral or amoral philosophy that 'there is no such thing as bad publicity'.
So far, I've intentionally been leaving out one key detail. This isn't happening in London, England. It's happening in London, Ontario, Canada! If this had happened in England, someone who really wanted to make a case for the legitimacy of this 'brand' could say that Jack "The Ripper" is not just a 19th Century serial killer. He's a piece of London's history and culture. They effectively 'own' the legacy and phenomenon that is "Jack." London, Ontario has absolutely no connection to Jack "The Ripper" other than the fact that the cities share the same name. So, not only is Martin using a terribly insensitive and insulting 'brand' but he's using it without even a remote connection to the history, folklore or mystery that surrounds "Jack." He has absolutely no leg to stand on for justifying this pathetic 'brand'!
What is it about White, Christian (Western) society that makes them think that they can do whatever they want whenever they want and if it offends someone, that's their problem!? I've got news for those people that think the world has gone too far in political correctness and is oversensitive about everything. It isn't that they are oversensitive, it's that you are completely insensitive. Frankly, I think it borders on being sociopathic, being completely unable to place one's self in other people's shoes and see how things appear/feel for them.
"The Rippers" certainly aren't the first team nickname in ridiculously poor taste. There are tons of teams that have stolen Native American culture for their own fun and profit. Why this is considered acceptable but a hypothetical sports team from Mississippi that called itself the N-----s is considered obviously wrong! Here's the short list of nicknames that 'white man' has no business using to represent themselves, but does anyway:
Atlanta Braves
Chicago Black Hawks
Cleveland Indians
Edmonton Eskimos
Kansas City Chiefs
Washington Redskins
...and MANY more college/university/high-school nicknames
It wasn't enough that Europeans came to North America and leveraged the fact that they had more technology than the indigenous peoples to slaughter them and steal their land. By doing so, they showed that they were technologically 'superior' to the dozens of cultures and civilizations that they destroyed and inferior to them in EVERY other way!. Today, many wonder if worshiping rampant technology was somehow better than living in harmony with the land. The ongoing collapse of the environment says otherwise.
What gave them the right to kill indiscriminately? Does the Bible authorize it? Does it even condone it? Where does it say it's OK to kill and then steal so long as the 'enemy'/'others' have something you covet? To me, that's 3 out of Ten Commandments broken and all the while they felt they had the moral imperative to sin! To this day the vast majority of people think that the actions of this era were just and that modern society has no obligation to apologize or provide reparations. Now, centuries later, the descendants of those butchered, marginalized and criminalized peoples are all too often living on the fringes of society, frequently with the worst kind of poverty and addiction. If they're lucky, they have been 'granted' land by the government on which they can live as they please. Only they can't, because the quality and quantity of the land is pathetic and in some cases quite distant from their traditional territory. They are also forced from time to time to accept 'white man's law' which directly prevents them from living as they please. BTW, how do you 'grant' someone something that already belongs to them? No, it wasn't enough -- now, they misappropriate their cultural symbols as though these symbols have something to do with European heritage or history. It's a mockery. It's an insult. It's completely wrong.
But it won't change. We still live with that same sense of moral superiority and refuse to consider that our actions infringe on other's freedoms or identities. We still believe 'might makes right'. We live it every day, both politically and in terms of economics -- what are modern capitalism and class warfare if not 'might makes right'? Ultimately, sports are more important to the typical North American than the sum value of the lives of every single Native American that ever lived. They don't matter. "Didn't we beat them into submission enough? What the hell are they whining about? Maybe we should have gotten rid of all of them while we had the chance?" Disgusting!
The only possible exception to this rule is the Florida Seminoles. Florida State University had the surprising good sense to consider changing their nickname out of deference to and respect for the modern Seminole people. But the Seminole tribe spoke up and lobbied for the retention of their name. To them, it was a source of pride. In the end, they are the only people whose opinions matter! If they accept the nickname as a form of respect and acknowledgement then that's that. To the best of my knowledge no other tribe has EVER stepped up to support a team nickname that refers to Native peoples, so none of the other franchises get a pass. For teams to justify a 'brand' that refer generically to Native Americans they would have to get permission from ALL tribes.
Only slightly less offensive are the following:
Calgary Hitmen
Oakland Raiders
Minnesota Vikings
Pittsburgh Pirates
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
The Raiders, Buccaneers and Pirates all refer to the same thing, the same culture. When exactly was piracy an aspect of American culture? There were pirates and privateers from every seagoing culture in the world. If they are associated with any one location it's likely the islands of the Caribbean and those of the South Pacific. Besides, why is it OK to celebrate criminals? While we're doing that why not the Rapists, Embezzlers or Killers?
The Calgary Hitmen derive their name from one of the original owners, world famous and local ex-WWE wrestler Bret "The Hitman" Hart. Further, it is supposed to be an allusion to hockey's ubiquitous bodychecking, which is often called 'hitting'. Unfortunately, the logo features a 'player' that is reminiscent of "Jason", the goalie-mask-wearing serial killer from the "Friday the 13th" movie franchise. If he carried a goaltender's stick then he would just look like a goaltender, but he carries a normal stick and holds it in a fashion somehwere between the wielding of a long gun (e.g. Tommie gun) or an axe. Which forces one to think of the original meaning of "hitman", namely that of a murderer-for-hire generally employed by "the Mob." Actually, I don't think most people need a cartoon-like character on the logo to make that connection. Again, and maybe completely inadvertently, this is an example of glorifying criminals. Try to explain to your 4-year old son taking in his first hockey game what a "hitman" is.
The Minnesota Vikings are only marginally offensive. Actually, it's possible that they offend no one. In 2005 17% of the Minnesota population could trace their roots to Norway. Another 10% came from other Scandinavian countries. These numbers were likely much higher generations ago, but are now falling steadily as immigrants settle in Minnesota and the Hispanic population outstrips the growth of the other demographics. If this 25%-or-less-and-falling of the population wanted to lend their heritage and culture to their professional football team, then more power to them. As far as I know, the team was named to reflect Minnesota's traditionally strong Norwegian background. 2 of the 5 businessmen that founded the franchise in 1960 were of Norwegian descent. One of those owners went to a high school whose nickname was also the Vikings, but that was in Wisconsin where Norwegians make up less than 10% of the population. He also owned a professional football team prior to the Vikings and it was the Duluth Eskimos, so he already had a history of misappropriating the culture and heritage of others. Besides which, Duluth is 1000 miles removed from actual Eskimo (now considered a pejorative term, replaced by self-referential names including Inuit) habitat. I am not aware of the public having been consulted about their feelings regarding being represented by the team nickname "Vikings" This is perhaps most important because of the standard inclusion of a cartoonish, stereotypical reflection of the culture it adopts. At least here, there IS a cultural connection of the local people to that of the nickname, and if they chose it or openly accepted it, no harm, no foul.
"The Rippers" puts all of them to shame for sheer political incorrectness. Let's hope that Martin steps outside of himself for just a moment and allows the idiocy of his idea to penetrate to his consciousness. Unless the city boycotts the team I doubt he'll have any such revelation. Decisions like this have nothing to do with ethics or morals, they are entirely about money. So long as the money rolls in the name will remain the same. If tumbleweeds start to blow through the bleachers, the "Rippers" will have a new name in a heartbeat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)