Category: People

Dusty Baker, Tony LaRussa and Red Ruffians, or, Major League Blunders!

Why Baker and LaRussa should not see each other again this season.

I have a few thoughts about the Cardinals-Reds brawl from their last series. You may remember Cincinnati’s Brandon Phillips made numerous provocative comments about the Cardinals then when he came to the plate, Yadier Molina chastised him, benches cleared, bodies flew and hell was raised. At least two pitchers were tossed against the fence in a scary scene. One of them, Johnny Cueto, received a seven game suspension because of kicking at the Cardinals surrounding him. Jason LaRue suffered a mild concussion as a result. I firmly believe that Cueto’s lengthy suspension was based on the injury that his actions caused, not the actions themselves. Random kicking into an onrushing crowd is much less dangerous than throwing a fastball at a batter’s head. Cueto was obviously frightened and, as a pitcher, smartly avoided throwing punches. As we’ve seen too many times, a single arm injury can cost a pitcher his career, millions of dollars and his team a championship.

More importantly, MLB should institute a blanket rule covering fighting the way the NBA has done. In the NBA, if you are on the bench and cross onto the playing floor you are automatically suspended. (I think there should be a little gray area there because basketball benches are so close to the court that players on the sidelines are often less than a step away from the court so crossing over sometimes happens during actual play, much less during a melee.) In baseball, the idea might be to simply punish anyone who comes onto the field or, if already on the field, leaves their legitimate area of engagement. That covers guys playing defense, warming up on the sidelines, the on-deck hitter, the base coaches, everybody. As usually happens in these fights, Phillips and Molina were yelling at each other but not fighting. It was only when 50 other guys crowded the area that things became physical. (Reason #37 professional sports are like junior high school.) Removing the additional people from the scene means that umpires and security personnel can tamp down confrontations quickly, easily and safely. Ideally, managers would be exempt from this rule and allowed to bring their players back to earth from Planet Testosterone.

That notion took a beating in the Phillips-Molina encounter because Tony LaRussa and Dusty Baker failed in their primary responsibility as managers during a fight. They did not serve as peacemakers protecting the game and their players, instead they escalated the confrontation. For them, two games was not a severe enough penalty. I think MLB missed a perfect opportunity to declare that fighting is a dangerous problem for baseball by dropping the hammer on these managers. Baker and LaRussa should have been suspended for the rest of the season series between these teams. I mean, full blown suspended too, as in, can’t enter the stadium during these series. These are old school guys who behave in old school ways that simply don’t make sense in 2010. These great managers behaved in ways that encouraged their players to fight. That is entirely unacceptable. What I am suggesting is the kind of draconian penalty that would make it clear to managers that fighting will no longer be tolerated. Too harsh? Perhaps. That’s kinda the point.

FDO

HIV and Gay Marriage Rights

Last week someone showed me the first poll to indicate a narrow majority of Americans support gay marriage.  For the past few months, I have been talking and thinking a lot about our perceptions of HIV/AIDS. I teach US History and cover the 1980s including HIV, gay liberation efforts and the Reagan administration's reluctance to discuss AIDS or fund research efforts. In class, I read an excerpt from ‘And the Band Played On’ and the kids consistently flip out because they (incorrectly) assume their government would have been highly interested in, y'know, trying to stop a dread, communicable disease. It is always heartening to me that these young people almost uniformly reject anti-gay policies and prejudices, even retroactively. They are the ones who will consistently support laws, initiatives and politicians who advocate marriage rights for everyone.

 

In discerning the base level meaning of marriage, I think it is clear that for many people, the institution of marriage provides license for two people to have sex. This poll reveals significant change in attitudes concerning gay marriage and I am wondering if part of the reason more straight people are willing to support the public sanction of gay sex via marriage has occurred because our collective fear of gay sex has diminished tremendously since the gay people profiled in ‘And the Band…’ were just about the only people who knew anything at all about AIDS.

 

When Magic Johnson announced he was HIV+, I thought there was a good chance that my generation (I was 17, in college and LOTS of us were sexually active) had a new JFK moment. I was totally wrong though (it's still Challenger). Instead, Magic is so healthy, active, rich and visible that I know some people have (temporarily?) forgotten he has HIV. That's a little scary actually. AIDS is now the leading killer of Black women between 25 and 34. The most horrifying elements of that statistic, for me, is that these women have still not been educated enough to know that they are a) susceptible to HIV, b) perfectly capable of preventing their infection in almost every case and c) consistently late to receiving diagnosis and attendant care.

 

Our increasingly cavalier attitude towards HIV is another reminder that we have an amazing level of privilege in the U.S. In so many countries, HIV almost always becomes AIDS and almost always equals a death sentence. Now, early detecting Americans are likely to stay healthy for a very long time. Some of them, like Magic, will always carry HIV but never develop AIDS. The transition in our country from a) AIDS=Death to b) HIV= chronic, massive health concern gives me increased hope that some of the fears our society has long harbored about gay sexuality will continue to fade. The likely repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is another step in that direction. (Baby steps to full equality, baby steps to full equality.)

 

While judicial decisions are critical stepping stones, it is ultimately the support of the American people that generates the permanent force of change. That change is occurring. Most people I suggest this to think I’m crazy but I believe that gay marriage will be legal in half the states by 2020. That's my hope and my prediction. We're on the way, people. Slowly but surely. We're on the way.

 

 

FDO

 

US Open Men’s Tournament Preview 2010

 

 

This is the first time in many years that at least 5 men should enter a Grand Slam tournament feeling as though they have at least a 10% chance of winning. For Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Robin Soderling, Novak Djokovic, Andy Roddick and Andy Murray, this US Open has to be seen as a realistic opportunity to provide a breakthrough in some way.

 

For Federer, winning this title would not only ‘stop the bleeding’ but it would dim the calls that he’s on the path of clear decline. Last year, his loss to Martin Del Potro was seen as shocking, but this year, his aura of invincibility has all but vanished. Winning in New York would push him back to being the clear #2 in the world (the silly ATP rankings system be damned) and would give him another year of multiple Grand Slam victories. Not only would that pad his lead, it would also keep Nadal from gaining ground in that all important category.

 

For Nadal, this tournament could push him into rarified air. Winning the lifetime Grand Slam is significant and would allow him another feather in his history cap. 3 Grand Slams in a year would also propel him radically out of the pack and into a unique position at the top of his sport. Nadal stands to prove that his game truly does work on hard courts and US Open success could mean that Nadal would also be primed to win in Australia next January with a chance to win the “Spanish Slam”.

 

Soderling needs this win. He needs to get past the competitor stage and move into the champion stage. He has the game for it and the personality to take it. Instead of being one of the guys, Soderling could become The Next Big Thing in tennis, instantly surpassing Djokovic and Murray in that conversation. (Del Po could have been that guy but his wrist injury has made that impossible.)

 

Djokovic risks becoming a tennis afterthought. Even though he’s #3 in the world, and has been as high as #2, no one feels that he’s likely to become the best player in tennis. (To most fans, even Djokovic’s arrival at #2 was less about his climb as much as it was about Fed’s descent.) Winning in Australia in 2008 should have catapulted him into tennis’ royal box but it didn’t happen and now he’s in jeopardy of being a one hit wonder. He still has a chance to become Jim Courier instead of Michael Stich but has to take advantage of this kind of opportunity.

 

Roddick may need this championship more than any of the other top contenders because his window seems nearest closing. His only Grand Slam victory came here in 2003 and, although he’s had excellent results since then, he’s likely to be viewed as an underachiever when his career ends. Although winning again in New York would be the least beneficial major for him to win, he desperately needs another Grand Slam title under his belt.

 

Andy Murray is best suited to win on hard courts but in his two Grand Slam finals, Federer beat him thoroughly. If Murray truly believes he can eventually win Wimbledon, he would be well served to have notched a major championship elsewhere first. The openness of this year’s field may yield the best opportunity he will have to achieve his ultimate goal.

 

With the rough equality of so many top contenders, I believe the US Open may prove a tremendous fortnight for tennis fans across the globe.  Especially since the clear #1 woman, Serena Williams, is out of this year’s tournament, the excitement of the men’s tournament is likely to provide the key to a successful end to the 2010 major season. I am looking forward to the many great matches I expect over the next two weeks.

 

 

FDO

 

 

Is Joey Votto the National League MVP? Part 2.1

Late Update: Howard is now on the DL. Extra legitimacy to this post I believe.

An unfortunate addendum is that Votto’s NL MVP candidacy was indirectly strengthened this weekend. Ryan Howard, one of the slugging first basemen with legitimate MVP aspirations hurt his ankle and may miss some games. Howard was struggling a bit anyway and an ankle injury will make it even harder for him to excel down the stretch.

 

Even without injury, Howard would almost certainly have finished behind Votto in the key batting categories but the Phillies’ trade deadline moves seem to have put them in a great position to make the playoffs which would have raised Howard’s already outsized profile. Howard also has the credibility of being Rookie of the Year, MVP and a World Series champion. While some would shake their heads at a Votto MVP (as happened with Justin Morneau a couple seasons back), Howard and Albert Pujols would be safe choices this year. Votto may soon become the best choice.

 

FDO

Is Joey Votto the National League MVP? Part 2

 

An unfortunate addendum is that Votto’s NL MVP candidacy was indirectly strengthened this weekend. Ryan Howard, one of the slugging first basemen with legitimate MVP aspirations hurt his ankle and may miss some games. Howard was struggling a bit anyway and an ankle injury will make it even harder for him to excel down the stretch.

 

Even without injury, Howard would almost certainly have finished behind Votto in the key batting categories but the Phillies’ trade deadline moves seem to have put them in a great position to make the playoffs which would have raised Howard’s already outsized profile. Howard also has the credibility of being Rookie of the Year, MVP and a World Series champion. While some would shake their heads at a Votto MVP (as happened with Justin Morneau a couple seasons back), Howard and Albert Pujols would be safe choices this year. Votto may soon become the best choice.

 

FDO

 

Amaré the Jew

 

I am very excited to read that Amaré Stoudemire is making efforts to connect to what he perceives as his Jewish roots. Honestly, I assume that this is part of a Black American religious subculture that attempts to connect with ancient Israel as an offshoot of the metaphorical relationship between Blacks during slavery and Jews in Egyptian bondage from the Hebrew Bible.  

 

Whether Stoudemire has a religious, ethnical, cultural or familial root in Judaism doesn’t matter to me. What matters to me is that he is willing to explore himself and the world. In a time when many of us try desperately to follow the footprints on the floor, watching a pampered young millionaire (with a very troubled background) work to expand himself this way brings a smile to my face.

 

FDO

Is Joey Votto the National League MVP?

I know that he was the last guy added to the National League All-Star team and I know the Cincinnati Reds are ahead of schedule but I've started wondering: Does the combination of team and player performance mean that Joey Votto should be the MVP of the league this year?

 

At the moment, Votto is first in the league in batting, home runs, tied for (a distant) third in RBI and has substantial leads in OPS and each of the component elements. Even though the Reds are technically out of the playoffs, by percentage, they are fundamentally tied with St. Louis for first place in the NL Central. Most casual baseball fans know Joey Votto primarily for the anxiety issues that put him on the DL for emotional distress last year. He’s put that sadness behind him and has made himself into one of the 10 best players in his sport. And right now, Votto has great individual stats for a team in the pennant race. It’s way too early for this to be definitive but so far, Votto sounds like the MVP to me.  

FDO

Obama’s View

I think it will be intriguing to see how much of a boost President Obama receives from his appearance on “The View”. This seems like a perfect opportunity for Obama to seem less distant law professor and more charming leader. The drone of politics will be replaced, at least for many folks, by soundbites and cute anecdotes. Isn’t that what every politician wants?

 

 

FDO

I Like the SuperFriends

Lots of folks are giving grief to LeBron James, Chris Bosh and Dwyane Wade for making free agent moves to team up in Miami. The suggestions have primarily included the notion that winning with lots of talent is somehow illegitimate and the championships that the SuperFriends might win together for the Miami Heat would be tarnished.

What?!? Winning is the bottom line in sports. Kobe Bryant and Tiger Woods were recently ranked as America’s favorite athletes. Why?  Because they are viewed as champions and this country loves a winner more than anything else. Between Eagle, Colorado and Thanksgiving at the fire hydrant, Kobe and Tiger could have been sports pariahs but instead they’re our favorite athletes. Success leads to popularity when it comes to sports. As much as the SuperFriends are being beaten up now, I feel confident that if they win 2 of the next 3 NBA titles, all 3 of those guys will be among the top jersey sellers and commercial endorsers in the entire league.

 From a basketball standpoint, I love these moves. All 3 of these guys were the dominant stars on their teams and that’s a rare and enviable position. To willingly forego that status along with the money and control that accompany it is impressive. For young men in their 20s to choose a communal path to success over an individualistic one, especially in the hypermasculine world of professional sports, is refreshing and should be applauded. I hope this shared vision will help create a new paradigm in sports, one that’s less about the Alpha Dog and more about the winning team.

 

FDO

 

 

 

 

The Power of Frames

 

This year, I began reading George Lakoff, a linguist and author whose works include Don’t Think of an Elephant… Lakoff writes in a way that was not clear to me before about the ways people use frames to shape their understandings of the world. Many of us have heard the political caricatures of different family models: liberals as nurturing parents and conservatives as strict fathers. Well, Lakoff tries to explain what those frames mean and how they work.

 

He argues that language is largely a tool that connects individuals to frames, especially frames that already exist. Taxation is one of Lakoff’s clearest models but I’ll add my own illustration. We all know that death and taxes are said to be certain. While there are lots of ways to think about death, there are relatively few ways in which Americans think about taxation. For most of us, taxes feel like a chore and a burden, so when the GOP began describing lower taxes as ‘tax relief’, it made immediate sense to most people. If we have a burden, relieving that burden is a good thing. So, it seems to follow, lowering taxes (thus relieving a burden) is a good thing.

 

Joe Biden said paying taxes is patriotic. Of course, technically it is. But that’s not how Americans think of it. Most would describe it as a necessary evil, not as a necessary good. That is consistently true even though certainly, few of us really want to live in the kind of society that would quickly unfold if the IRS ceased to exist. (My friend Rick would be on the first plane to Singapore.) Still, because of the way we perceive taxation, patriotism doesn’t come to mind. Maybe duty or citizenship or avoiding jail or even, for some, the public interest. But our frames about taxation do not include patriotism so Biden sounded foolish to many.

 

I thought about this notion of framing in my real life a few days ago. When my wife and I arrived at an event, I parked our car and rolled the windows down a crack, thinking that in two hours when we came back, the car would be a little less painfully hot. I promptly forgot about this. Four hours later, thunder booms and my wife asks me to go roll up the windows on the car. I tell her that I didn’t roll them down. She earnestly believes that I did. So I go outside, roll up the windows, chat with other folks doing the same thing and head back inside. I promptly forgot about this.

 

The next day, my wife asks if the windows were down when I’d gone outside the night before. Yes, they were, I tell her and she tells me that she’s very glad since she didn’t want to cause an argument if she were wrong. I ask her what argument she meant. When she tells me that she means the ‘yes, they are’/’no they aren’t’ exchange, I am dumbfounded. She thought that we had an argument. I thought we disagreed about something. We’d framed the same interaction in very different ways. What is the difference between an argument and a disagreement? Where are the lines drawn? Do lots of things go unsaid because one person is afraid to start an argument when the outcome would only be a disagreement? What other interactions are dramatically altered because of the differences in the frames we’re using? Do we all choose how to frame our daily interactions?

 

I am thinking a lot about the frames I use and the ones I don’t realize are being used by others.

 

 

FDO