Free Baseball: Week 2 in MLB
Listed in:Leading Off: The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything
On Deck: I'm You're Huckleberry, Jeremy
In the Hole: It's Good To Be The King
Leading Off
Jackie Robinson Day went off without major incident. Before the game at Dodger Stadium, a choir sang "Oh Happy Day" with lyrics substituting Jackie for Jesus, and, presumably, baseball imagery for kingdom come. No one's sure if players on teams that were rained out will wear number 42 in their next games in order to honor Robinson. I'm guessing they will, because the jerseys were to be auctioned off for charity, and in order to maximize their value, they ought to be game-worn.
One of those players is Barry Bonds. Unfortunately, late last week, ESPN.com published a citation-less hit piece by Jeff Pearlman that deserves special attention for its utter lack of substance. Critical thinking, activate!
-Vitriolic rant against President Bush that ignores the president's surprisingly not-totally-sucky and somewhat complicated record on environmental issues: Check. (Note the oversimplification. It'll come up again.) Update: Commenter Jason pushed me to dig up this NYTimes piece on Bush's environmental record (reg req'd). Moral of the story? The Bush administration's record is complicated.
-Attempt to justify Bush's inclusion in the column by comparing him to a figure with administrative power nonsensically comparing him to Bonds: Check.
-Quote Bonds saying, "There's no person who was more important to the African-American cause in baseball history than Jackie Robinson," then claim it's a disingenuous statement because Bonds doesn't offer to help young African-American ballplayers, even though Bonds is notorious for brushing off every other ballplayer who asks for help, black or whatever: Check.
-Imply that when you publicly acknowledged that Bonds holds Aaron in such high regard that he always used to tell people he was gunning for the Babe, not Hank, you think you were being duped, because Bonds doesn't tell the truth about anything, ever, apparently: Check.
-Provide any evidence, any at all, that this piece required some sort of research, a single interview, a scrap of fact-based reasoning, and that it is NOT some ill-advised attempt to use Jackie Robinson Day as an excuse to launch oversimplified and unsupported contentions that Bonds is a fake who doesn't actually appreciate Robinson or African-American history in the game: No.
Changing directions slightly, and channelling my inner Uni Watch, Zach's idea for every player to wear number 42 was proven feasible and aesthetically appealing. Concerns over not being able to identify individual players were overblown, and, to my senses at least, leaving the jerseys nameplate-less made the gesture more powerful. Let's get on MLB to institute the universal 42 for next April 15th.
(Countdown to someone mentioning that Torre, Cano, and Jeter all wore 42, but A-Rod did not, in 5, 4, 3...)
On Deck
If you told Jeremy Bonderman that he'd pitch nine innings and give up only one run on six hits--on the road, no less--he'd probably warm his heart with the expectation of winning the game. Roy Halladay spits on his opponents' expectations. Tell the AL East the Blue Jays are coming. And they're bringing Hell with 'em!
In The Hole
Right now, if you had Felix on your team, would you trade him for anyone? A-Rod? Johan? Pujols? Didn't think so. After thoroughly humiliating the Boston lineup Wednesday night on national television, King Felix ought to finally receive some of the mainstream adoration already heaped upon him by prospect fiends and the hardest of hardcore baseball fans (who, not coincidentally, get their news from a wide variety of sources, not just the behemoths).
Notice how I didn't use Felix's last name, yet you know who I mean? He's arrived.
Comments
Notice how I didn't use Felix's last name, yet you know who I mean?
To be fair, how many other players named Felix are there in MLB (none, unless someone decides to give Felix Rodriguez another go-around).
Posted by: Zach Geballe | April 16, 2007 12:29 PM
while you're right to deconstruct pearlman's article (firejoemorgan would be proud), it would be far better to find citation support beyond easterbrook. he gives the term 'hack' a whole new meaning (in baseball terms, he has less plate discipline than jeff franceour & tim mccarver admires his analysis). just doing a general google search will provide many links of scientists & economists obliterating his writing in much the same way you did to pearlman.
i can't decide whether to see felix against minnesota on wednesday or k.c. next weekend. given his start, i'm tempted to be at both.
Posted by: jason | April 16, 2007 1:09 PM
Zach: Is Felix Heredia still around? Wasn't Felix Jose still in somebody's minor league system?:)
Jason: Touche on Easterbrook. The thing is, TMQ appears to be the only major writer willing to stand up and consistently argue on behalf of Bush's environmental record, and, as you point out, he tends to muck up the details, regardless of his topic, which is why I picked a relatively quick blog post. The main point I was going for is that Bush's beliefs are complicated, and that it's kind of fascinating how his personal property and lifestyle is apparently so at odds with his policy, which, like the man himself, is subject to more knee-jerk reaction than rational consideration. While in sum the Bush administration has been pretty bad for the environment, they simply don't get credit for the good that they have done, and acknowledging that good means acknowledging that the issue is complicated. From a New York Times article that I'll append to the piece:
The outcry ensured that some Bush administration initiatives favorable to the cause of environmental groups received little notice. They include the E.P.A.'s decision to force General Electric to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to remove PCB's in the Hudson River, a cleanup that has been delayed; legislation speeding the cleanup of urban industrial sites known as brownfields; increases in financing for private land set aside for conservation of animals and their habitats; and the first limits for diesel emissions in trucks and off-road vehicles.
In the end, Pearlman is assigning the force of "true intent" to Bonds's actions, saying that because of Bonds's actions, his words must be duplicitous. However, as the Bush example might also illustrate, Bonds's "true intent" could be good and his actions simply have awful unintended consequences. I'd say there's a pretty big difference between having a good intention and going about it all wrong, and knowingly deceiving people because the good intention was never there in the first place.
Posted by: David Arnott | April 16, 2007 4:22 PM
heck, with easterbrook, i didn't get into with global warming. i dislike him more than the sycophantic press corps because mr. tmq is intellectually dishonest. his attempts to bring religion into physics discussions are a disgrace.
i'd just say that while i understoof your metaphor, i happen to vehemently disagree with it :) as you point out, finding someone who's not a paid shill to defend bush (really, on anything these days) is rather difficult.
yes, the EPA did a very good thing in that instance. on the whole, though, such as with the "clear skies" initiative, it's all packaging with this administration but very little practical benefit to the earth. the only time bush seriously backed down on trying to gut environmental regulations was when hunters stood up to him.
just about everything bush has been involved with regarding the environment has been pro-business. after six years of political hackery, it's not that hard to infer intent. the good policies almost happen by accident.
---
back on topic - could baseball owners pick a worse spokesman than bud selig? every occasion he's involved in comes off cheap and/or crass in some way. the only resonating part of jackie robinson day was watching the players wear his number instead of their own. i didn't mention it, but kudos to this site for pushing that idea.
Posted by: jason | April 16, 2007 10:14 PM