Archive for the 'Baseball the Teacher' Category

Keith Hernandez Meets A Tenor

(yet another thing to love about KH)

Keith Hernandez espouses on his arrival in New York (in New York Mag) and on meeting Placido Domingo:

And you’d be a fool to live here and not take advantage of the cultural stuff. So I would go to Broadway plays and even some operas. I met Plácido Domingo backstage once. The guy is a huge baseball fan, and he said “Sorry, I have a cold, I sang like a .230 hitter. Next time, I promise I’ll be a .300 singer for you.”

No word on whether Keith asked Plácido to help him move afterward.

Alex Rodriguez: Tragic Hero? (Part II)

“Fair is foul, and foul is fair.” – The Witches of Macbeth


This started as an essay called Alex Rodriguez: Tragic Hero. I had noble intensions for it; I was going to compare A-Rod to Macbeth. I would have matched A-Rod’s time in Seattle to Macbeth’s glory as a military hero. I would have talked about how Scott Boras was his Lady Macbeth, encouraging him to take the money from Texas (or slay King Duncan). I would have argued that once A-Rod did go to Texas, his insecurities about the circumstance led him to steroids, and eventually the living hell that is New York and its media. Kind of like Macbeth’s raging paranoia on the throne. I didn’t have a match for the fortune telling witches, but otherwise the whole thing was going to be beautiful. Then I remembered this was a blog, not a high school essay.

(If it were a high school essay, the thesis would read something like this: So and So defines the tragic hero as a sympathetic protagonist who is undone by his own flaws or mistakes. Baseball player Alex Rodriguez (A-Rod), is a tragic hero because a blind, overwhelming desire to be loved by everybody has caused him to make some significant mistakes and hurt his reputation. The main example of this is his use of steroids.)

So I’ll just pose this as a question: Is Alex Rodriguez a tragic hero, well-intended at first but undone by one catastrophic flaw? Maybe. He’s certainly a wounded hero, hardly the knight in shining polyester who sat above even the great Jeter and Garciaparra on the triumvirate of convention-shattering shortstops in the 90s.

Where he’s gained status as an all-time great hitter, he seems to have lost it as a champion of the sport. First, he took the money with Texas. Then he got himself shipped to New York and did the honorable thing for his pal Jeter by shifting over to third base. The rest I don’t need to get into –the regular season dominance and postseason struggles are fresh in all our minds. The clubhouse dramas and marriage problems, and now the steroids are fresh too.

But what’s guided all this behavior? I think back about the excerpt I started with in the last post, from the poet Cody Walker:

When I was younger I wanted to be a baseball player. But I can’t remember whether I loved baseball, or whether I just wanted everyone to love me. A confession, then: I still want everyone to love me—blindly, entirely, without sense or reason.

Which motivates Alex Rodriguez? His love for baseball, or his desire to be loved? The answer is probably a lot more complicated than either choice. Money fits in there somewhere too, and a whole litany of subtle factors I probably couldn’t understand. But more than greed or competitive lust for victory, it feels to me that Rodriguez has been guided by an unquenchable desire to be loved, praised, adored.

If his tragic flaw (or at least self-damaging one) really is an addiction to Praise, Adulation, and Worship, then maybe it all makes sense. Maybe his crucial error was somehow letting his own sense of humanity get intertwined to unrealistic notions of heroism. Maybe it was the high off all that admiration that so skewed his understanding of consequence. Fair is foul, and foul is fair. Will heroism itself be the undoing of Alex Rodriguez?

Part III coming when it comes…

Alex Rodriguez: Tragic Hero? (Part I)

When I was younger I wanted to be a baseball player. But I can’t remember whether I loved baseball, or whether I just wanted everyone to love me. A confession, then: I still want everyone to love me—blindly, entirely, without sense or reason.

-Cody Walker


Most of the people I love and respect say they are happy to live out their lives in anonymity. To make some money, have a family or not have a family, pursue their interests, and not be bothered with history or legacy. I love and respect them. I love and respect that about them. But here’s a confession: I’m not like that. I understand that the best I can probably expect is to be remembered for a few generations by my family as something more than a mere historical fact. Many of my ancestors haven’t even gotten that much. But I can’t help wanting more.

Maybe it’s the writer in me, but I have this certain pressing interest in legacy. I wouldn’t call it an obsession; I certainly wouldn’t call it a blind desire to be loved or adored. It’s just a nagging desire to be respected. I want to affect the way somebody reads the world, and I want them to appreciate me for it. I want to write something so good that it makes other writers think for a passing minute about just giving up, the way I have a thousand times. And when I’m dead, I want those slight changes in perceptions I caused, the moments of doubt and inspiration I stirred, to bond as some sort of collective body – a legacy.

I realize the sentiment is totally narcissistic and hollow. I know that ‘success’ as a writer or anything else won’t be the panacea that answers for all my existential insecurities. Plus, the logic is terrible. When I’m dead, I won’t know whether or not somebody is reading me, loving me, hating me. And if dead Eric Nusbaum were able to tell, I doubt he would care much.

So I deal with it. I push my silly glorious fantasies off to the corner and shut them out and try to live in the moment and do the best I can. It’s not terribly hard. We all wrestle with our stupid demons.

I think as children we all want to be loved like that. We want to be astronauts because astronauts pilot space ships, but also because they sit shotgun in open convertibles and wave their way down parade routes. We want to be movie stars because movie stars get to see their faces on billboards and big screens. We want to be President and see our names alongside Washington’s, Lincoln’s, Kennedy’s. And we want to be baseball players. Not merely to hit home runs, but to circle the bases and look up at the lights and out at the crowd. We want to collect our own cards.

But most of us move on. Our interests change, our talents leave us in the wake of people who are soon to come up short themselves. And that’s how life goes for the 99.9% of which you and I are probably a part. We may or may not still want everyone to love us, but regardless we realize they probably won’t. The love of a few people is a lot better than none, and perhaps more meaningful than the love of everybody.

Except that’s only 99.9%. Somebody out there never has to give up on those dreams, never has to settle. It’s just math. Somebody has to walk on the moon, win an Oscar, deliver the State of the Union, greet his team in the dugout with hugs and high fives. What about that guy? Does he ever adjust like the rest of us? Does the adulation merely carry him, like a wave, to oblivious success? Or is it like a drug? Perhaps he comes to need glory and depend on it for nourishment. Perhaps he doesn’t just want to be loved – blindly, entirely, without sense or reason, but his very existence hinges on it.

And what if that guy played third base for the New York Yankees?

This will continue, in much less self-indulgent fashion, over the course of the week.

Barry Bonds: Guilty Or Guilty?

Dayn Perry had an excellent post this morning, “The Case Against the Case Against Barry Bonds.” In terms easy for a legal novice like me to understand, he explains the main elements of the federal case and simultaneously cuts it to shreds. He also seamlessly uses the phrase “many-tentacled:”

Barry Bonds’ terminally looming jury trial has been postponed, perhaps until the fall. At some point, though, he’ll probably be dragged in front of his peers on four counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice. All of it, of course, traces back to the many-tentacled BALCO scandal, which has been too much with us for the better part of a decade. But it’s going to end soon, and this will almost certainly be the closing scene: Bonds’ walking out of the federal courthouse in San Francisco a free man.

Maybe I found the post so informative because I haven’t followed the Bonds case much. I’ve been burnt out on steroid and PED stories, and anyway the jury in my head convicted Barry Bonds about five years ago. Perry’s post leaves me asking an important question. Who cares? Aside from the purely legal aspect (Bonds probably broke the law), I don’t see how the outcome of this trial does anything to significantly affect his legacy. He’s guilty in the public conscience, and it will take a hell of a lot more than some court decision for him to regain his footing. It will take a lot of humility, some profuse apologies, and maybe a little bit of groveling. None of those are going to happen here.

The example I can’t help but turn to (noting the difference between killing someone and cheating a little) is OJ Simpson. Most people think OJ did it. Obviously that brings up a lot of racial implications i, but Bonds can easily be substituted for Roger Clemens or Rafael Pameiro who their own legal swamps, and the question doesn’t change. A major sports star betrays the public’s trust, refuses to own up, and devolves into some kind of sad parody of his former existence.

How long before Barry Bonds coauthors If I Juiced: The Mystery Novel? How long before Bobby Estalella, the career .216 hitter who owned up to his own steroid use, is held as a model of dignity beside his former teammate?

Rebuilding: What Baseball Tells Us About the Economy

Part of my new job (internship but who’s counting?) is to watch cable news all day and flag breaking stories, funny clips, and keen soundbites. One thing I’ve learned in just three days is that every mean thing ever said about political pundits is true. They really are that dumb.

Among the noises bouncing from network to network this week is a growing concern amongst media types that Americans are impatient with the rate of our economic recovery. “Americans are sitting around waiting for things to get better,” one empty suit might say. “Yep, consumers won’t spend anything until they see that we are really coming out of this,” another might reply.

The sentiment is a dangerous one. We can’t make everything all better right away. I won’t comment on policy decisions –this website is about understanding the world through baseball, not political gospel- but I will make one statement. Things will get worse before they get better. If you don’t realize that, you better wake up. Now we start with the baseball:

The first thing to occur to me when I heard all that chatter about a quick recovery was baseball; I thought about my days managing teams in online simulations. I thought about the way real life clubs rise and fall, rebuild or try to spend their way into contention.

Let’s look at the economy like a struggling baseball franchise. On this team things were going great until all at once they weren’t; a bunch of guys got hurt and few reckless signings came back to burn the front office. Suddenly the team is taking. A superstar is done in by a steroid scandal, the manager retires after his own scandal-plagued reign, and the bottom has dropped out of the team’s won-loss record. Last place and falling fast.

As a General Manager, what do you do? You could spend big on a few quick-fix free agents. It worked for the Florida Marlins after all, but where did that leave them the next season? Back in last place. You could trade everybody and completely rebuild. Do it like the Oakland A’s. Win for a few years until the youngsters grow up. Then let them walk when you can’t afford to pay them and start from the process over.

Or the balanced option: Work to the best of your ability with what you have. Try and stabilize what core of your roster hasn’t festered, and in the process overhaul the personnel, culture, and failed office structures of your franchise. Don’t let your team crash completely and risk crippling ticket revenue, but don’t get ambitious. Don’t build a skyscraper with a shallow foundation. Perhaps the best example of this approach is what the Cleveland Indians have done under Mark Shapiro.

When Shapiro took over the Indians in 2001, the team was on its way to toal collapse. But after two very ugly years, Shapiro got the team on an upswing. He bought a fancy software program called DiamondView and changed managers. He gave prospects the chance to succeed and kept the right veterans like Omar Vizquel around. The franchse has not been spectacular, but it is the definition of stable. Now the Indians have nowhere to go but up.

Mark Shapiro, Tim Geithner, Joe the Plumber, you, me. We’re all just out there trying to make sense of the world. And as we do, as we read the paper and watch the news and check our dwindling bank accounts, I think it is important we maintain perspective. Things will only get worse. More jobs will be lost, more homes will be foreclosed. We must consider how we want this recovery to happen.

Do we want to be the Florida Marlins or the Cleveland Indians? Do we pin our hopes to Bobby Bonilla, huffing after a bunt on the back end of a big contract? Or do we pin them to Grady Sizemore, running down a would-be double in the gap, young and in it for the long-haul?




Bad Behavior has blocked 403 access attempts in the last 7 days.