Baseball: An Outsiders Perspective

In his April 15th article, Tim Stanley wrote about his experience going to a baseball game. While that on the surface doesn't sound interesting, this game was his first ever baseball game. Though confused about much of the technicalities, Stanley took away an important message: Baseball is representative of the American Dream. He writes, "Everyone gets a go at the bat. If you hit a home run, that's great. If you strike out, that's your lot. It's very meritocratic with no prejudice and ample rewards for the talented." he also breaks the game into one of an individual sport as well as a team sport. Because he has no outsider biases towards the game, Stanley can break the game into unique parts and examine them in a way no fan ever could. What shocked me was his parallel to "military pageantry" in the game, from the walking of the flag to the singing of the "Star-Spangled Banner."

I could find a connection to this blog post essentially to everything we've read so far but I feel Underworld is most pertinent. When the novel opens, we are faced with a scene of discomforting parallels: the winning of the Giants-Dodgers game and the launch of a nuclear weapon in the same day.  When Manx Martin walks through the Bronx he hears loud noises and realizes these are people lined up for the World Series game. DeLillo doesn't explicitly say it but I think he intended for the World Series fans to be more invested in the game because of the fear of nuclear war.

I also saw a connection to Great American Novel in terms of the patriotism, military-pageantry aspect. When the Ruppert-Mundy's are forced out of their stadium they are doing it for America; that's why they lie at the heart of the Great American Novel. Baseball and Americanism are inextricably linked; the game's context in Japan or South America takes on a whole new set of attributes and fundamental groundings.

Home Is Where the Heart Is

408 days ago, Andy Pettite announced his retirement from the Yankees. After playing with the Yankees for 8 years, he briefly visited the Astros and then returned back to New York in 2007. Though his start date is ambiguous Pettite feels excited to be back playing with the team. He told reporters "Obviously, I think I could have probably considered other places and got a lot more money, but this is where my heart was, man. I had no desire to go anywhere else."


A few connections from class popped up in my mind regarding this story but mainly, the idea of "going home." Pettite retired from the game but after just over a year felt the urge to return. Pettite returned home with ease to the team he had abandoned; I find this case a little unusual but heart-wrenching all the same. Moneyball came to mind as I read this article, mostly in the sense of how Billy Beane would have handled Pettite. Since Pettite clearly had a reason to retire in the first place( age, fatigue, etc.) why would management want to reabsorb that kind of liability? Billy Beane values exploitable talent over loyalty and I just don't think he would have made the decision to give him a contract at all. 


His quote also raises the question of playing for the love of the game vs. the love of money. Most likely Pettite could play for another team besides the Yankees and make more money than his 1-year contract. By prioritizing the love of the game, Pettite reminds me of a kid playing baseball. Pettite is happy just to re-embraced by his home team that money is pointless. (Unless this is all a hopeful ploy to be picked up for a multi-year, multi-million dollar contract.) 

MLB DUI?

Every Sunday during Spring Training, the Mets get together and do a fun team activity. Last Sunday the activity was bowling, an event which celebrates drinking but doesn't require it. Though the manager said the event ended at 8:30, Eric Langill received a DUI at 11:30 pm. After crashing into a concrete fountain, Langill's car flipped and he attempted to flee the scene. Police detained him and said his breath smelled of strong alcohol and had very slurred speech. He said he'd had two to three drinks; no one believed him.

Eric Langill plays for the Mets as a bullpen catcher. Unlike the normal catcher, the bullpen catcher will rarely(if ever) take the field and serves to warm-up pitchers before and during games. The bullpen catcher is a glorified water-boy, a player whose name will most likely never be known to even the most intimate of fans. Despite his lack of notoriety until now, the press is still in outrage over his indiscretion. But why?

Since the early years of baseball, fans have glorified baseball players as just good old American boys; fans would rather ignore the fact that they are often drinking, misogynistic jerks. Up until Ball Four, most fans did not realize that ballplayers were actually just normal people who drank, smoked, had sex, and acted like everyone else. The Great American Novel showcases baseball's Puritanical attitudes when discussing Big John. All positions of authority reprimand John for his lack of teetotaling and love of playing baseball drunk. To General Oakhart, Big John defies the core morality of the game by his disdain for the most core rules of the game. When Big John takes Nickname to the Mommy-Houses this causes a huge scandal. Why? Because as baseball players, they are believed to be "above" that kind of behavior. 

In class on Monday, we discussed why we take baseball players advice on anything besides baseball and I think that's relevant here. Why do we hold baseball players to a higher level of morality? I think it's because the very symbol of baseball is as the "Great American Past-Time" and the idealized version of our own moralities is that we're a teetotaling, Christian nation. When the people who enact this symbolism defy it, we find ourselves at odds with ourselves and the mythologies we've created around our nation. 

"Moneyball" Strikes Out

On Sunday, February 26th, millions of viewers tuned-in to watch the Academy Awards. Up for Best Picture were 3 films about France, 2 about adultery, 1 about terrorism, 1 about the Civil Rights Movement.....and one about the economics of baseball. "Moneyball," a film which was nominated for 6 Academy Awards, left that night with none. A feature aired during the middle of the night discussed "Field of Dreams," a baseball film which also missed out on Best Picture, Best Score, and Best Screenplay. The announcer told the audience that no baseball film had ever won Best Picture and questioned if "Moneyball" would break the losing streak.

Other than "Moneyball," all the films tackled issues filled with drama and intensity. While I watched the Oscars, I couldn't help but notice how differently the films were discussed. Much time was spent hailing the genius of "The Artist" and the prolific career of Meryl Streep."Moneyball" looked like a AA-player moving up overnight to be the Yankee's starting-pitcher in the World Series. In other words, absolutely and totally out of place.

If baseball is the Great American Past-Time, then why have its cultural depictions always been so verily shafted? In The Great American Novel, Roth tethers baseball to American culture while also addressing its critics. While discussing the GAN with Smitty, Ernest Hemingway mocks the idea of a GAN about baseball. My interpretation of what he said is that baseball is a low-brow distraction. While it is the "Great American Past-Time," it is just a group of men running around the bases at the end of the day.

Until recently, I had really never thought about baseball's role in American culture as anything more than natural. The cliche that baseball is as American as apple-pie always struck me as just that. But in reality, all of these myths are entirely historical. Baseball has been socially crafted as the Great American past-time, but when we're faced with the serious issues of the world it takes a backseat in our minds. "Moneyball" was shafted at the Oscars because it's subject-matter was seen as more"fluffy" and "sentimental" than the hard-hitting films about adultery, France, and the Civil Rights Movement.

WWBBD? or, What Would Billy Beane Do?

After the Boston Red Sox's horrendous last season, David Ortiz("Big Papi") commented that he might be interested in leaving the team. When asked about the New York Yankees, he said he respected them as a team and "it's a good situation to be involved in." The rivalry between the Yankees and the Red Sox is a cultural norm, understood by anyone intimate with baseball. Because of this statement made back in October, the salary negotiations that occurred between Ortiz and the Sox were understandably precarious.

On Monday(Feb. 13th) Ortiz asked for $16.5 million and the Red Sox offered $12.65 million. In the end, the two settled for a $14.575 contract for one year. That takes care of this year, but I think this will be a crucial season for the Red Sox in keeping Ortiz on their lineup. Once this contract is up, Ortiz has the option to leave to wherever he may please. 

In relation to Moneyball, I find this whole arrangement completely counterintuitive and the team in a real state of upheaval. First, longstanding GM Theo Epstein decided to work for the Cubs this year. Then, manager Terry Francona left. Replacing two of the primary decision makers on the team would be like ejecting Billy Beane and all of his right-hand-men and putting strangers in their places. 

In Moneyball, Billy Beane used his dollars wisely to keep the best players for the time being. Instead of choosing players who were already famously successful, he chose underdogs and molded them into stars. The Boston Red Sox have wholeheartedly ignored that logic in favor of two others: Boston spirit and Yankee hatred. None of the press releases mentioned this directly, but I believe the primary reason for the large contract agreement was the mention of the Yankees. Though it was a brief mention, Ortiz did intimate he would be interested in playing for the New York Yankees. 

Players trade loyalties all the time, and as seen in Moneyball, most coaches favor money in exchange for player loyalties. Boston is a little different in the sense that trading(or even worse, losing) a player to the Yankees is an affront to the Red Sox Nation. Johnny Damon went from being nicknamed "Jesus" to "Judas" overnight when he traded to the Yankees. Because of this sense of Boston allegiance, the threat of losing Ortiz might have been enough to offer him a large contract. 

In this situation, what would Billy Beane have done? I think he would have told Ortiz to get the hell out. It's doubtful there are any DHs in the minor leagues who can hit like Ortiz, but I think he would have tried to find someone who could eventually be competitive. Billy Beane wouldn't say that some players are one in a million, but I think the case could be made for Ortiz.