Mmm, Humble Pie!
Jul 31
Not so tasty. After getting their asses handed to them — at home — by a team that’s the very definition of “perennial losers,” I guess my hopes of seeing the Brewers in the playoffs this year were proven unrealistic today. This series was the baseball equivalent of getting manhandled by the Washington Generals.
I can only take solace in the fact that the Cubs will find a way to blow it again, as they always do, and their fans will continue to naively point to “next year.” Kind of like what me and other Brewers fans do, except that they’ve been doing it about 70 years longer…
#1 by Ted at July 31st, 2008
| Quote
I feel your pain. The Red Sox got crushed in 3 straight series against LAA, NYY, and NYY. The only good news is Manny will no longer have the opportunity to be Manny in Boston, and for that I am very grateful. He is a great hitter, but in order for me to support a team, I need to have a certain respect for the players, and Manny is not worthy of respect (as a ball player). Jason Bay won’t go to the HOF, but I’d have him over for dinner.
And now about the Yankees? Need a bat - go get one of the top hitters in the NL. Need a catcher, go get Pudge. It never ends with those guys. They now have past all-stars playing in AAA just in case. 10 to 1 their new 1B next year is one M Teixeira, who I watched play high school ball right up the street.
#2 by tgirsch at July 31st, 2008
| Quote
And for me, it only gets worse. Sabathia and Sheets are probably both gone after this year (in all likelihood, one of them in pinstripes). Fielder is a free agent at the end of the year. Barring something greatly unexpected, I can probably expect another decade of mediocrity after this season.
#3 by digglahhh at August 1st, 2008
| Quote
Don’t forget Fielder’s a Scott Boras client too.
Pudge is vastly overrated at this point in his career. He’s no longer a plus defender, and the .300 average devoid of any power or on base skills makes him Juan Pierre minus the speed - a stunningly moderate upgrade over a back-up, IMO. And, I wouldn’t call Nady one of the top hitters in the NL. At the time of the trade, during his career year, he was 5th in the NL in batting average, he has never finished in the top 10 in his own league in any meaningful offensive category in his entire career. A suitable piece, yes. Game changer and big time threat, no.
I think Bay will do just fine in Boston. If Bos wasn’t going to re-up Manny by exercising, Bay isn’t a bad replacement. His already substantial production will only increase by function of being a RH bat with power playing in Fenway. Normally, I’d say they did pretty well for being (inexplicably) under the gun, except the young guys the gave up, Hansen and Moss both have trade value.
Personally, I actually have nothng but respect for Manny as ballplayer. Despite his image, he’s known to insiders as one of the most diligent students of hitting around - first to the stadium, and first to the weight room after the game. He’s a quirky personality, and volatile and moody. Pushing Boston’s George Costanza was pretty classless, but otherwise, I don’t have many problems with Manny being Manny. The lore of game lives on through its colorful characters, Yogi, Casey, Veeck, etc. Manny is more than just an inner circle HOFer, he’s a guy who you will tell your kids about. Frank Thomas may have had a similar career, but he’s basically just the sum of the back of his baseball card.
To me, the weirdest part of the trade is that the Dodgers were the team who got him. Seems like a poor fit. They already have an overcrowed OF, and now they add Manny to the Jones, Pierre, Ethier, Kemp choreography. Also, there’s not a division in baseball with more expansive left fields than the NL West LA, SD, and SF account for 3 of the few remaining pitcher friendly parks. Manny’s defensive woes were minimized by having the least amount of ground to cover of any OF job in the game, left field at Boston – the emperor will be stripping now.
Regardless, I wouldn’t have made the deal if I was Boston.
#4 by Ted at August 1st, 2008
| Quote
Manny was pulling himself out of games against hard-throwing right handers. He did it more than just a couple times. He refused to swign when asd to pinch hit against the Yankees. He quit on the team for the entire month of Seotember in ‘06. Three times he has asked to be traded.
He is a childish personality, and if he was an average hitter, he would be out of baseball by now. The players no longer defended him, management hated him, and the majority of the fans wanted him out. That’s why he is gone. Watch the tape of him joking out a double play in late innings against the Yankees over the weekend.
In ‘04, at the begginning of a critical series with the Yankees late in the season, Manny breaks his media silence to say it has always ben his dream to play for the Yankees. You can have him. I’ll take a Mike Lowell or Youk or Pedroia or even a Schilling any day of the week. Someone who gives it their all, all the time.
#5 by tgirsch at August 1st, 2008
| Quote
Well, Schilling’s kind of an asshole, but I can’t argue with his pitching…
#6 by digglahhh at August 1st, 2008
| Quote
Not to mention Schilling’s penchant for jingoism and rampant religiosity… Oh, and he named his kid “Gehrig” as an homage to Lou - doesn’t get any more traitorous than a Red Sock naming his progeny after the Iron Horse… Actually, he does tons of work for ALS and that’s part of the reason, but I couldn’t resist.
Pujols doesn’t run groundballs out either. (But you know who does, btw? A-Rod! I just mention it because he constantly hustles when many players his caliber don’t, and he doesn’t seem to get any credit for it). I understand that stuff, but Manny is not paid to leg out routine grounders to third. Michael Kay, during yesterday’s NYY game, went so far as note precise times (5.6 seconds or something) for Manny’s jaunts down to first in Lackey’s near no-no. …But, you still shit your pants when he digs in the box, Mikey!
I find it hard to believe he patently refused to swing – doing so, in fact, would be antithetical to the criticisms of him as selfish (in one interpretation, not so much so in the other). I think he takes too much pride in his hitting to just give away an AB, to cut off his nose to spite his face like that.
And you know what - at this point in his career, he needs regular days off – why not take ‘em against those who are most apt to hold him in check. Hell, Duke Snider virtually never started against a lefty after age 30.
Manny is one of my favorite players of all time, so I’ll certainly cop to making excuses for him to a certain extent. But what I do to wax poetic on his virtues and talents is pennies on the dollar compared to the smear campaign the sports media has waged against him for years. Fuck playing like Dustin Pedroia, if Manny just looked like him, the prevailing image of Manny would be very different.
Manny being Manny = .320/.420/.600
#7 by Ted at August 1st, 2008
| Quote
Sorry Digg, you are wrong, on several accounts. I have watched virtually every red sox game since 2004 season. I have read all the interviews. The veteran players had a meeting a few days ago and told Tito Manny had to go. One player said he simple does not care at all about the game. It goes way deeper than not running out ground balls (and I’m talking about a DP ball at a critical part of a close game). If Manny lokked like Pedroia? Sorry dude, that’s bullshit. The crowd was on Pedroia big time when he started off last year and was not producing. Same with JD Drew. Most populat player, but a long shot? Ortiz. So forget the racist stuff. It ain’t about that. If I opay you $20 millino guaranteed, and you take yourself out for the final month of the season, you are an asshole. I don’t care what your slugging percentage is. I’ll see if I can track down the take of his AB against Rivera where he didn’t swing…
As for Shill, his son was born 9 years before he joined the Red Sox. Not much heft to that comment.
#8 by Ted at August 1st, 2008
| Quote
Nah, can’t find it. MLB probably already hunted down and killed anyone with an unauthorized copy. BUt it was bottom of the 9th, bases loaded, two outs. Rivera pitching. What would you guess he would throw, oh, three times in a row? Cutter? Good. You have seen him pitch before. Manny took all three. Had that been an isolated instance, no big deal, but it’s not.
understand I have had to internalize my dislike for Manny for many years, so I am now venting years of pent-up anger.
#9 by Ted at August 2nd, 2008
| Quote
One final bit on Manny. Well, two. First, I love that Bay scored both runs in a 2-1 victory in his first game and made a defensive play Manny would have have made to make the score hold up. Game 2: 3 run home run. SO far so good.
But seriously, After the Manny deal is in place and the Red Sox waive the two option years, Boras calls Theo and say that if the Red ox keep the options off the table, Manny promises to come back and try hard for the next two months. Red Sox response? Pound sand douche bag.
And the Dodgers were so anxious to pick up Manny, all the Red Sox had to do was pay his entire friggin salary for them. In other words, ok, he can play for us - as long as we don’t have to pay him any money. A ringing endorsement.
#10 by digglahhh at August 4th, 2008
| Quote
Well, the Dodgers not paying is more a testament to the leverage they had in this situation than their unwillingness to pay for one of the greatest right handed hitters of all time.
And it’s fine if the players said it was time for Manny to go. They’re entitled to their opinion and the organization heeded that opinion (wisely or not remains to be seen). Look, Bay is a real nice player, and he’ll do work off that Monster. If losing Ortiz for two months didn’t sink em, replacing Manny with Bay won’t. So, if they wanted him gone they accomplished their mission and added a suitable replacement. Bay’s been good so far, and he’ll continue to be. Manny had four more hits last night, and has homered in back to back games. Truthfully, I hope it works out for both teams.
Manny has certainly done plenty to legitimately tarnish his rep in the last month or so. My main point is that he’s generally been maligned unfairly throughout his career. And, yes, I think race plays a part. I’m sorry, the notion that race (racial archetype) plays a significant role in the way athletes are covered by the media is something I’m particulalry adamant about. Ortiz being adored doesn’t refute my contentions about Manny. Ortiz is gregarious, media-friendly, and non-threatening. The biases come into play when the athlete is aloof, quirky, opinionated, aggressive, etc. But this is another discussion anyway.
The Schilling comment was clearly a joke.
#11 by tgirsch at August 4th, 2008
| Quote
digg:
I agree with you about race making a big difference in how athletes are covered. Chad Johnson is treated a lot differently if he’s a white guy, is all I’m saying.
That doesn’t make Ramirez any less of a dickhead, however.
#12 by digglahhh at August 4th, 2008
| Quote
No, it doesn’t. And I don’t object to covering Manny’s dickheadness in proper prospective. He’s certainly done plenty of dickheaded things. But, he’s also done many nice things too. I could rattle off a litany of anecdotes about Manny’s generosity and moments of altruism, but that’s not really the point. The point is that because he doesn’t bust it down to first every single time he’s branded as wholly lazy, when that is far from the case. The fact that he clearly has fun while he plays is taken as a sign of ambivalence. Again, you don’t put up a career OPS of 1.000 (pause, let that sink in) by accident, and by not giving a shit.
I’m not looking for hagiography, just a little more balance. And yes, Boston fans may be happy he’s gone. My retort - not as happy as Yankees fans are!
#13 by Big U at August 4th, 2008
| Quote
The race thing re: Manny is a bunch of garbage and it’s disgusting to see it brought up here. Manny did far more things to destroy team unity than Garciaparra or Clemens (the two best examples to compare him to) ever did and yet he got chance after chance to “just be Manny” while Clemens and Garciaparra got shredded whenever they stepped out of line in any way.
Manny got a ton of latitude because he could pound the ball. Because of his talent, he was able to become a spoiled little baby with regards to his attitude and kept getting away with it. Yes he did a ton of good things and his playful attitude in the game was often very enjoyable but his lack of care/interest/hustle contributed significantly to many Sox losses over his time there (I can think of at least three in the past month alone).
Boston has been a notorious town for being hard on black players and yet Manny got more breaks than any player of any color has ever received in that town. So please don’t be stupid enough to bring race into this thing because it doesn’t hold water.
#14 by digglahhh at August 4th, 2008
| Quote
Dan Shaugnessy doesn’t drive the national perception of Manny. This isn’t about the town of Boston, this is about his overall image. This is also not entirely specific to Manny Ramirez. Many minority athletes are portrayed as lazy. Their accomplishments are commonly attributed to their “athletisism” and “gifts,” while white athletes are often praised for their “work ethic,” and “determination.” Even setting aside the notion that baseball is a game of skill more so than athleticism, and thus inherently privileges hard work through endless repitition, Manny would actually look to be a good example of a hard worker, as his physical gifts aren’t astounding the way many (often lesser) players’ are. Hustle as a proxy for commitment to craft doesn’t really work in Manny’s case.
#15 by Ted at August 4th, 2008
| Quote
Manny is certainly not lazy, he works hard at being a good hitter. But he doesn’t run out ground balls and he doesn’t chase down fly balls. He ignores the base coaches and runs the bases as he sees fit (ran through a stop sign just last week). But when he takes himself out of a game because he doesn’t want to face a certain pitcher, or when he takes himself out of the game for a month because he doesn’t want to play anymore - and he gets paid $20 million a year, that’s reason enough for me to not want him on my team. If the vets are polled by the manager and they say they want him off the team - I want him off the team.
And the racial thing, at least for baseball players, is minimal if at all. I watch these guys every game, every day, year after year. It doesn’t even enter my head - oh here comes Ortiz - he’s black. I’m sure it is the sma ay for the sports writers ( at least the vast majority of them). They hang around these guys all the time, I don’t think they see color very much. Now they do see attitude, and the fact that Barry Bonds is a huge prick and ignores his teammates results in some bad press, and the fact that Manny refuses to talk to the press for years at a time results in some bad press, but I really don’t think it has anything to do with race - in baseball (where you see the players so much).
One final thing on Manny, he was so wanted, that all it took to get him was a could of mid level prospects, offset by $7 millino in cash.
If he ends up in a low pressure market where he can live a low profile, I thini he will have a good couple of years. If he goes to the Yankees next year, I think he might totally melt down. I’m glad he was in Boston while he was, and I am glad he no longer is.
#16 by digglahhh at August 5th, 2008
| Quote
Ortiz is Dominican. But, again, it’s not just race, it’s racial archetyping. Yes, you can flash a megawatt smile and shuck and jive your way into the hearts of the sports media. Manny and Barry aren’t much the shucking and jiving type, and that was their first problem. True surliness compounds it exponentially.
Quoting the price for Manny is probably disingenuous or naive. First of all, Andy Laroche, though disappointing so far (give the kid a chance) was ranked, by Baseball America, as the Dodgers top prospect last year - over Clayton Kershaw, over James Loney. Going into last year, he was ranked as the #19 prospect in all of baseball. A partial list of those he was ranked ahead of: Mike Pelfrey, Matt Garza, RYAN BRAUN, Jacoby Ellsbury, Hunter Pence, Joba Chamberlain. Craig Hansen was a first round draft pick. Brandon Moss has put up a .850-ish OPS in his very limited big league experience.
Further, the Pirates are just not going to take on a veteran player with a substantial contract. And, the prospects are who the Pirates got - so that wasn’t the price for Manny, more directly it was the price for Bay. I mean, the Dodgers just gave up prospects, but Boston didn’t get them, they got Bay, so it’s hard to call those prospects the price for Manny. It’s Bay who replaces Manny, so why not refer to him as the price? It doesn’t help your argument as much though to call the “price for Manny” a 29 year old outfielder under contract for 9M next year who,in six MLB seasons, has put up an OPS fewer than .025 points shy of David Wright’s…
Regarding the race issue, feel free to explain this 2003 poll of 550 MLB players:
5. Who gets the most from the least talent?
David Eckstein, Angels 62.2%
Craig Counsell, Diamondbacks 6.7%
Jamie Moyer, Mariners 4.8%
Joe McEwing, Mets 2.7%
Kevin Millar, Red Sox 1.7%
Juan Pierre, Marlins 1.2%
Albert Pujols, Cardinals 1.0%
Brad Ausmus, Astros 1.0%
Eric Byrnes, Athletics 0.7%
Greg Maddux, Braves 0.7%
Mike Sweeney, Royals 0.7%
6. Who gets the least from the most talent?
Ruben Rivera, Giants 29.3%
Raul Mondesi, Yankees 6.9%
Frank Thomas, White Sox 3.1%
Mo Vaughn, Mets 3.1%
Adrian Beltre, Dodgers 2.8%
Kyle Farnsworth, Cubs 2.8%
Ken Griffey, Reds 2.4%
Aramis Ramirez, Pirates 2.1%
Esteban Loaiza, White Sox 2.1%
Juan Gonzalez, Rangers 2.1%
Jose Guillen, Reds 2.1%
#17 by Big U at August 5th, 2008
| Quote
Digglahhh > The cost for the Sox to get rid of Ramirez was huge. They lost two top prospects AND they will be paying $7 million for Manny to play elsewhere. Even if you say the prospects are for Bay, which would still be a bit of a high price, that means that the Sox gave Manny away and willingly paid $7 million to do it. That is how badly they wanted him gone.
Not sure what your poll was supposed to infer. Care to clarify?
#18 by tgirsch at August 5th, 2008
| Quote
Big U:
The cost for the Sox to get rid of Ramirez was huge. They lost two top prospects AND they will be paying $7 million for Manny to play elsewhere.
I don’t think so. I think the prospects came from the Dodgers, not from the Sox. The Dodgers sent 2 prospect to Pittsburgh, who sent Bay to Boston, who sent Ramirez and $7 million cash back to the Dodgers. Everyone take one step to the right.
#19 by Big U at August 5th, 2008
| Quote
Brandon Moss and Craig Hanson came from the Red Sox and went to the Pirates.
#20 by digglahhh at August 5th, 2008
| Quote
Pitt. got two prospects from the Dodgers (Laroche and Bryan Morris) and two from the Sox (Hansen and Moss).
Again, the Sox paying the contract is a function of how badly they wanted to get rid of him, not a testament to Manny’s skills not being attractive to other teams. It was Boston’s apparent determination to trade him that forced them to accept the Dodger’s request that Boston pay Manny. The fact that a player’s former team pays his contract does not necessarily mean that player is undesirable. And, yes, Manny is overpaid at this point in his career - but when you finance a Mercedes the payments don’t go down over time, even though the car isn’t brand new anymore. Few superstars who sign long term, nine-figure deals fully “earn” their checks at the end of the contracts.
The poll I posted was to show evidence of the notion that minority players are considered lazy but athletic, and white players are considered hard working and less gifted. Of the get more out of less group 8/10, white. Less out more, 9/10 minority. The appearance of three black players on the list is approximately 3.5 times their proportional representation on MLB rosters by the way.
#21 by Big U at August 5th, 2008
| Quote
Isn’t it possible that the players, when looking at other players and working with them, would have a pretty good idea of who is overachieving and who is underachieving?
A good comparison would be to put players of the same skill level together and then hear what is said and if there is a trend along race lines.
#22 by digglahhh at August 5th, 2008
| Quote
And how do they tell who is under or overachieving? How do they determine how good a player should be? That’s the exact kind of immeasurable, subjective criterion presents personal bias as objective evaluation. I mean, the theoretical you are asking they compare the existing to is the product of the biases upon which the will judge.
But anyway, does the bottom list look like a bunch of underachievers? Let’s let the hardware speak for itself, huh.
The bottom list beats the top list in MVPs 5 to 0 at the time of the survey. (Maddux did have four Cys.)
All Star appearances as of poll: top list, 12. bottom list, 23.
#23 by Big U at August 5th, 2008
| Quote
Digglahhh > you are trying to insert race as an issue where it doesn’t really exist as one. Look at the bottom of the list based on how the players were performing in 2003 compared to the contracts and expectations there were for them.
The question is not asked for perspective over their careers, but rather is a snapshot of what was happening in 2002.
Rivera - expected to hit for power and average over his career and he flopped. Batted .209 in 2002.
Mondesi, deemed to have the talent to be a .300 hitter with power batted .232 in 2002.
Thomas - terrorized pitchers but then at the start of the new century his batting average took a huge drop and he packed on a lot of weight. While his power came back, his average never did.
Vaughn - Signed a HUGE contract as a free agent and then went on to hit .259.
Remember, the biggest thing that anyone uses to rate over- and under-achieving is based on expectations.
While it is true the bottom list had in the past been much better than the top list, that does not mean that at the time of the survey they were still there. And if a player signs for 5 million and then sucks, he is underachieving even if he has won the league MVP for the previous 4 or 5 years. If a player comes out of nowhere, is playing for the league minimum and excells, (aka Dustin Pedroia for the Sox his first full year) then he is classified as an overachiever.
#24 by Ted at August 5th, 2008
| Quote
Digg has uncovered a very interesting thing here. I called Ortiz blac. Fact is you will meet few people who have darker skin thn him. Digg seemlyly corrects me my saying, no he Dominican. Now to me, black is the color of a person’s skin and Dominican is the country he is from.
In any event, eveyone loved Manny and even ut up with “Manny being Manny” because he was such a good player. But when he turned his back o the team, people let himj have it. And that has nothing to do with race.
#25 by Ted at August 5th, 2008
| Quote
Oh, and the price for Manny, From LA’s POV (and theys the ones that got him), they gave up two prospects and received $7 million. It’s that simple.
Of course he is now on record that he wants to play out his career there - based on a couple of games experience - and totally discounting the lack of shelter an AL would afford him. My money is on the team that pays him the most guaranteed money total. You don’t sign Scott Boras to be your agent if you are going to make a lifestyle choice.
#26 by Ted at August 5th, 2008
| Quote
Writing these between innings. I keep going back and looking at your “pricing” of the various players. There is exactly one way to determine the price each team paid in a deal like this. It is what they gave up for what they got.
So the price for Bay was not Manny, it was Manny, $7 million, Hansen and Moss. Moss might turn into a player. I predict Hansen never will, even though his sleep apnea is now fixed.
#27 by tgirsch at August 5th, 2008
| Quote
I think there are two sort-of separate things going on here. Race is still very much a factor in the way athletes are perceived and treated by the fans, the media, and the teams. I don’t think anyone can seriously argue that point. In the specific case of Manny Ramirez, however, I don’t think it has very much to do with it. A white guy with his attitude would get treated pretty much the same way. If anyone believes differently, I’d love to hear some specific examples.
#28 by Big U at August 6th, 2008
| Quote
I have no doubt race plays a part in it. But not as heavily as some people may think.
The best examples I can think of off the top of my head are Paul Pierce and Roger Clemens. Fantastic athletes. Fans love them as long as they keep their noses clean and their egos in check. But, once they decide to tell everyone they are the greatest or they start to pout because things didn’t go their way, fans and media turn on them. Race doesn’t matter in an instance like that.
Now, maybe it is just me but it seems the black athletes as a whole tend to be more emotionally expressive, and more vocal overall. And it seems that is what draws the attention. Any athlete that is quiet and does his job well will be given greater latitude by the press than an athlete that is more high-strung, more outspoken or more extreme (i.e. “I am not talking to the media”). And it seems that that expressiveness is more evident in black culture than in white culture.
Now, I know that sounds incredibly racist but I am referring to the cultural aspects more than the race. So if I offended anyone I apologize as that was not my intention. These are simply observations from several years of watching sports.
#29 by tgirsch at August 6th, 2008
| Quote
Big U:
There’s certainly a cultural aspect to it. However, what I’m saying (and I think what digg is also saying) is that given two athletes of equal talent and performance, behaving the same way, if one’s white and the other is non-white, the white athlete is going to get a lot more latitude. If Brett Favre were black, the reaction to the current soap opera (in both the media and among the fans) would be decidedly different.
#30 by Big U at August 6th, 2008
| Quote
How would it be different? Can you provide examples where the different things happened to two athletes who were under similar circumstances? I can’t but then I have not followed it as closely as perhaps others have.
I look at the way Ramirez and Clemens were treated. No real difference.
The way Garciaparra and Vaughn were treated and realistically Garciaparra was treated much worse.
The way MacGwire and Sosa were treated when it was assumed they both were juiced. MacGwire took way more heat and criticism.
Find me examples where it was clear the black player and white player were treated differently under the same circumstances.
#31 by digglahhh at August 6th, 2008
| Quote
1. Big U - Nice to know the definitive voice on whether race plays an issue in an issue or not has spoken. Yes, list two was populated by stars who had broken down. And, yes, you may interpret to inclusion of Mo Vaughan as being more about not keeping himself in shape than not caring about his game//being lazy, or being an unintelligent player (the other ways a guy can underachieve). However, may of those guys had the same rep at the peak of their prowess (most especially, Mondesi, Guillen, Gonzalez, and Thomas).
2. If you want to refer to Ortiz as black for purposes of the discussion, that’s fine. When you initially said it there was no qualifier about how you were using the word (referring to race or ethnicity). But, as far as the archetyping goes, he might as well be borderline albinic like David Eckstein.
3. The “price” thing is NOT that simple. Not every team can accomodate the same types of players and contracts. Some have long term goals and other short term goals. Three way deals obviously messy - obviously the price for Manny wasn’t just what the Dodgers gave up, or why would they need to involve the Pirates, and the price for Bay wasn’t Manny, cash, and prospects, because the team giving up Bay only got the prospects. Also, many apparent rapes have proven otherwise (see Sizemore, Grady + Phillips, Brandon for Colon, Bartolo or Deshields, Delino for Martinez, Pedro.)
4. Since when does the media love Paul Pierce? Before the title, Paul Pierce was, according to the media, an overrated ball hog with poor judgment, and decidedly NOT a winning player. Funny how the addition of two HOFers and the best player on the planet having a shit Finals will change things huh? Unbutu!
5. The black players being more emotive is anecdotal, I think. Also, depending on the sport, certain races are more represented than others. So, in the NBA black players will be the majority of vocal guys, and also the majority of quiet guys. In the NFL, you get a lot of black WRs who are mouthy, but you also get a lot of white linemen and TEs who are too. One set of guys just gets more airtime.
6. Here’s another example of race, culture, and perception. Lastings Milledge makes raps album = free reign to question the work ethic and moral fiber of the man. Bronson Arroyo makes rock album = nobody gives a shit.
#32 by Big U at August 6th, 2008
| Quote
So Digglahhh, since you have chosen to appoint yourself the supreme determiner of race based issues, please provide evidence of similarly talented players being treated differently when actions and attitude of the player are similar.
As far as Milledge appearing on a rap album, what was the content of the material compared to Arroyo’s rock album? Seems to me if Arroyo had put in the same content, he would have received the Don Imus treatment. So really, the two are not comparable as far as how each is viewed.
#33 by tgirsch at August 6th, 2008
| Quote
Big U:
Recent example off the top of my head? Kordell Stewart vs. Chad Pennington. Both showed flashes of great promise, both ended up being a great disappointment. Sure, they’ve called for Pennington’s head in Jersey, but he’s been the target of nowhere near the kind of revulsion that Stewart had to deal with.
#34 by Big U at August 6th, 2008
| Quote
I haven’t seen the revulsion you speak of but that is likely more a case of geography than anything so I will take your word for it. However, it seems that Pennington has been spared somewhat because injuries have played a major role in his failure to fulfill promise whereas injuries were not a problem for Stewart. Just a thought.
#35 by Big U at August 6th, 2008
| Quote
What I meant by geography in #34 is that it is likely more a case of me being in Canada and not exposed to as much of that type of media.
#36 by tgirsch at August 6th, 2008
| Quote
I guess the difference between you and me is that you’re willing to give a lot more “benefit of the doubt” than I am, and are a lot more willing to presume that race isn’t a factor. A benefit of being a Canuck, I suppose…
Anyway, here’s another recent example.
[Comment edited for tone.]
#37 by Big U at August 6th, 2008
| Quote
tgirsch > that report is interesting. Has it been peer-reviewed yet?
I will not deny that there are preconceptions that color people’s approach to everything. But those preconceptions go both ways. I have seen many instances where racism was assumed though none existed. And that was done because of a person’s preconceptions.
Race can be a factor in many things but it seems that even when it isn’t a factor, people want it to be because that fits their built in prejudices.
#38 by digglahhh at August 6th, 2008
| Quote
Nope, still no peer review as far as I know. I wrote briefly about that study over on Metaphorical’s blog, back when I was part-time writing there, as opposed to full-time commenting here.
The stories about Last-O focused on questioning his dedication, the conclusion being that he wasn’t fully investing himself in his growth as an athlete. Do you really think the MSM actually listen to the content of a rap album before deriding any artist as part of a corrosive culture? Bill O’Reilly picked Nas to go to war with; that’s like claiming comedic movies have no intellectual depth and then choosing as your bashing post, I Heart Huckabees… Specific content was not the main issue, the mere act of practicing hip hop as a hobby was cause to question the man’s desire to play baseball. Meanwhile, Arroyo’s ERA is still a buck and a half higher than a gallon of gas.
I don’t really know how an anecdotal recount of two athletes of similar prowess who are treated differently is going to help, as you’ve already discounted my original piece of far more substantive evidence.
But how about Clemens and Bonds? Argurably the greatest pitcher of his generation, and inarguably (sorry, Griffey fans) the best position player of his generation. Sure, Clemens is getting his share of vitriol now, but they were treated incredibly differently. Clemens wasn’t presumed guilty before any credible evidence surfaced. Clemens put up age-defying season after age-defying season, he pitched at levels in his early forties that he hadn’t apporached since his mid-twenties, and nobody gave a shit. And, Clemens is by all accounts a dick too, he’s surly and brash. But, he’s not an asshole like Bonds – he’s a “cowboy,” a “gunslinger.” But, that type of personality gets revered when it is exhibited by a white guy; that’s John Wayne! When a black guy does it, he’s a militant, black radical, a threat.
#39 by tgirsch at August 6th, 2008
| Quote
digg:
Excellent example, actually. Clemens continued to get commercial offers until very recently, well after he threw a broken bat at a guy on national television. Clemens is every bit the asshole that Bonds is.
But, that type of personality gets revered when it is exhibited by a white guy; that’s John Wayne! When a black guy does it, he’s a militant, black radical, a threat.
This criticism is highly accurate, and it extends well beyond the realm of sports. Imagine a black guy with GWB’s attitude!
#40 by Big U at August 6th, 2008
| Quote
Good example Digglahhh
#41 by Big U at August 6th, 2008
| Quote
**But, that type of personality gets revered when it is exhibited by a white guy; that’s John Wayne! When a black guy does it, he’s a militant, black radical, a threat.**
Actually that part is total crap.
#42 by Ted at August 6th, 2008
| Quote
Can’t get into the racial stuff. But I’ll stand by pricing statement 100% It;s very simple. In a transaction, the staps along the way miht be complex, put in the end, the cos is what you no longer have, and the gain is what you now have.
#43 by digglahhh at August 7th, 2008
| Quote
Fine, but it’s not an apples to apples comparison, and differing contexts from team to team imply that you can’t equate the cost with the value. So I stand by this: “if you’re using price as a proxy for worth, you’re doing so either naively or disingenuously.”
#99 went yard again last night!