Saturday, July 20, 2013

Steve Perry Hearts Baseball!

This blog post is not, at first, going to seem like it is on baseball, but bear with me. (I say that a lot, don’t I?)
I have always been in love with Steve Perry’s voice, since the moment I first heard him on the radio in about 1978-9. Journey was one of those bands that seemed, to the uninitiated eye, to suddenly appear, fully formed, springing from the head of the Radio Masters, like Aphrodite from the head of Zeus.  I have no memory of their “early years,” or seeing them as an opening act for someone else, or anything like that. They were just suddenly there, on the radio, polished and perfect.  Fantastic melodies, incredibly searing guitar solos, and that inimitable voice of Steve’s. Whew. It was love-at-first-hear for me.
However, this blog post is not devoted—really—to Steve, to express my undying devotion to him, to his voice, to his band, or to how much that music meant to me—all those silly clichés we have all come to know too well. No. this blog post is to explain that I now have a whole new appreciation of Steve Perry for one reason only:
He is a baseball fan.
It all began a few nights ago, at dinner with some friends here on the Big Island of Hawaii.  The conversation turned to music, especially the music that meant so much to us during our formative years. The Elder of our tribe that evening is 67 years old, so her music was a completely different group of names and tunes. Two of us are in our 50s, so we mentioned everything from Elvis, to the Beatles, to The Spinners, to Elton John. The Younger of us is 42.  One of the first names she offered as “influential” was Journey. All of us agreed: outstanding example.  The conversation then turned to the whatever-happened-to-Steve-Perry, to the casts of “Glee” and “Rock of Ages” doing Journey covers.  Then the conversation moved on to other topics.  
The next morning, there, on my Yahoo homepage sideways scroll of Top News Stories, was a story about Steve Perry and a reporter’s announcement that he had “found” the girl from the “Oh, Sherrie” video, who declined to be interviewed but wished everyone well, citing her preference for the private life. That led me to a few more web pages, following links, and then, this story popped up:  


Holy cow. Talk about an improbable circumstance! Can you imagine being an Average Joe, thinking you are incredibly lucky to have scored tickets to a World Series game, but then, -boom- :  You suddenly realize that you are at that game with one of the Greatest Voices of All Time, leading the crowd in one of the Greatest Rock Anthems of All Time?  I love how you can hear the entire crowd singing along. I love how easily he leads the crowd, as he has done  hundreds of times, at hundreds of concerts. I love how his enthusiasm for the Giants never flags, joyfully singing the positive, encouraging “Don’t Stop Believin’ ,” as if the sheer exuberance of that positive message could will the Giants to a World Championship.  (And it did!)
And this brings up the point I want to make. (See? Told ya I could bring it back around to baseball.) There is some mysterious, inexplicable bond between baseball and the arts, especially music and literature. How many songs can you name with a baseball theme? I can think of three, right off the top of my head. How many novels, short stories and/or poems have a baseball theme? How many have been made into wonderfully magical, lyrical films? The Natural and Fields of Dreams are just the most recent examples.
When I first came to work at Arizona State, there was an English professor in the department who had published a book about baseball:  Her name is Cordelia Candelaria, and her book is called, Seeking the Perfect Game: Baseball in American Literature.  I realized that she had already written the book that I had wanted to write for years; she beat me to it. Here’s a short version of the critical review on the Amazon page for this book:
Candelaria offers a probing analysis of the progression from allegory and romanticism in the earliest baseball fiction to the realism, irony, and solipism of contemporary narrative.
I know that sounds impossibly stuffy, and I suspect that the book is more readable than that sounds.
The point is that the connection I see between baseball and music and other artistic endeavors is well documented.  The question is, why is this case? We could speculate about how the game is divided into mystical groups of threes and nines. We could mention that the game has been over-romanticized  by popular press. We could point out that although the death of baseball as a viable sport in America has been predicted, the game has persisted, garnering huge crowds, especially for Big Events, like the World Series.  I like to say that baseball is a game for players who can keep track of the game (the number of outs, especially if you play the outfield; the count to each individual batter, for each at-bat; the play for the situation—where do you throw the ball if there’s only 1 out, there’s a runner on first? vs. where do you throw it if there’s already two outs?—what kind of pitch is appropriate for a 1-2 count, as opposed to the appropriate pitch for a 3-0, or 2-1 count).
If the player cannot keep all of those things in his head, he is unlikely to be successful at the game.  Therefore, a certain level of memory and intelligence is required to play—and to watch and enjoy—the game. And everybody knows that there is HIGH correlation between higher intelligence and memory levels and participation in and enjoyment of the arts.
So, I draw this conclusion: Baseball is not just a Game for Thinkers. It is also a game for Thinkers, Singers and Musicians, and Artists.
I offer Steve Perry at the 2010 World Series game as my evidence, so it must be true. J 

Saturday, June 22, 2013

Notes from Hawaii!

I knew, when I was preparing to make the move to Hawaii for 7 weeks this summer, that getting access to my Diamondbacks games was going to be ... uh ... problematic. I actually spoke with a few people at DirecTV, thinking that  I might be able to access my home DVR with my laptop in Hawaii, and watch the games on my computer. No, no, that "DirecTV anywhere" service doesn't quite work that way. 

Apparently, you have to have this little gizmo that attaches to your modem. Then, you have to connect the signal from that little gizmo to your phone or tablet (NOT a laptop). Then, you can access your DVR, but only within the range of the DirecTV signal in your larger area, say, Arizona. 

There is no technology yet, silly me, that will allow you to access your DVR at home when you are 5,000 miles away in the middle of the Pacific ocean. What was I thinking?

The only solution was to purchase access to all the games, on any given day, through MLB.com.  I got a break on the price, though, because the season is nearly half over. It was only $19.99 to watch on my laptop; however, to get access to the games from the "Smart TV" they gave me (that's another story), I had to pay an extra $5 to upgrade to "Premium." OK. $24.99 for any game, any time on MLB.com. Not bad. Here's what I have to choose from today:



But there's a few things I've learned about MLB from this experience. Like most things, there are good things and bad things about it. 


  • The League enjoys total control over every broadcast, every game. This should not surprise me, but the totality of their stranglehold actually does give me pause. There is no radio, television, cable, or satellite (including satellite radio) broadcast that does not require MLB permission to air or to watch/listen to. And "access" means "pay us." They are like a farmer, who, upon recognizing that people need to cut across his land to get where they are going, sets up a toll booth and turnstile, charges whatever he wants, and sits there, day after day, collecting the tolls from travelers. There is no other competition to keep the price low. They enjoy a monopoly, and all the benefits that come with it. 
  • Every game, in both leagues, looks essentially the same. Two announcers, one doing play-by-play, one doing "color commentary" (read: former player or manager who makes observations, compares the play in the game to his experience, colorfully recalling past highlights), and one "girl reporter" out in the stands, among the people/fans/hoi-polloi, doing the "special interest" stories. It does not seem to matter which teams are playing, which city/stadium they are playing in, or what the standings are. The games--along with American society and culture--have been homogenized to be palatable to any watcher, of any shape or size, preference or loyalty, race, creed, color, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation. The cameras are placed in the same positions throughout the stadium, so that how we see the game remains the same. You can count on instant replays of every play, pitch, catch, tag, or bobbled error. Commercial breaks happen only in between half-innings, or whenever a new pitcher comes in. Always the same. Give 'em points for consistency. 
  • Even the promotions are the same. Each team has a deal with Taco Bell: If the home team scores 6 runs or more in a game (win or lose) Taco Bell offers a special deal. Only the deal itself changes per city. In Arizona, if the Diamondbacks score 6 runs, you get 3 free tacos with the purchase of large drink (a Pepsi product, since Pepsi and Taco Bell are owned by the same parent company, Yum Brands, which also owns KFC). Other cities may get a free burrito with a drink purchase, or an order of Nachos Bell Grande, or something. Bobbleheads of players, backpacks with team logos on them for the kids, mini-bats, and for Mother's Day, handbags and/or earrings, specially made with the team insignia, are offered in every city, for every team.  
  • Every city has a customized RV that offers rides to and from the game to fans who live outside driving distance of the city's stadium. In Arizona, that means that people in Tucson (south) or Prescott (north) can "get on the bus" and go the game with about 50 of their closet friends and strangers. I'm not sure how much this costs, but I would imagine it's not cheap. The RV is customized with Diamondbacks logos and insignia; in other cities, of course, their RVs are decorated with their teams colors and mascot. In Denver, for example, the RV is purple and white, and has mountains painted on it, while in Arizona ours is red and black, and has the rattlesnake and cactus images. 
  • Every stadium has a collection of bobblehead figurines.
  • Every stadium's organ player plays the same, lame music during the innings.  
And finally:

"Blackout" rules still apply. So, when the Diamondbacks play anywhere in California, I am blocked from watching the game--although I can listen to radio broadcast. And I'm supposed to consider myself fortunate for being offered that small consolation. Now, I'm having trouble understanding how in the world the blackout rule would apply to us in Hawaii for games in California. Blackouts are entirely out-dated anyway. 

In the early days of television coverage of sports, the fear was that if the game was televised, people would stay home and watch on their TVs, and not go to the game at all. They were, seriously, afraid that very expensive players would be playing in empty stadiums. Seriously. 

Well, that fear now seems ludicrous.  Even for losing teams, they still get people to the stadium for the game, TV broadcast or not. So why has the "blackout" remained in force? 

And do they *really* think that people in HAWAII should go to games in California? Really? Have they even checked airfare prices these days?

I have streaming issues only occasionally. All it takes to get the game back is to re-load the page. Commercial breaks are actually simply silent, with the MLB logo and "Commercial Break in progress" displayed on the screen, for about 2-3 minutes. It's kind of nice to not have to watch commercials!  

When, for some odd reason, there was no television coverage of the Diamondbacks game locally (meaning, in Arizona), I could watch it by accessing the feed to the away team's broadcast. They do not post the scores on the list of televised games, so last night, I could watch the first 4-5 innings, go out to dinner, and come home and pick up the game right where I left off, without the outcome being spoiled. That's absolutely the best thing about it. 

Also, if for some reason I am prevented from watching the game live because I have other obligations, I can watch it later, from the beginning, or can jump to any inning, either the top or the bottom of the inning. That's pretty cool. The only thing I can't do on this Smart TV is fast forward, like we can on a DVR. But that's OK. I'm not all that offended by that. 

All in all, this has been an interesting experience. I definitely think that it is worth the $25, blackout restrictions notwithstanding. 

And once again, I am reminded of how good our announcing team, when I am exposed to other announcing teams around the league. 

But the main thing I've learned is: We must all pay homage to the MLB, and worship at the altar they have built. They demand it. And we pay. 

Sunday, May 26, 2013

Random Thoughts

Why, why, why did somebody in Major League Baseball think it would be a good idea to have the Houston Astros move over to the American League? This is not only deeply offensive to those of us baseball fans who oppose the American League on principle; it is also deeply offensive because it makes no sense at all. 

The Milwaukee Brewers should have just been moved BACK to the American League, where they started. They were AL from their inception until the 1997 season. The Astros have been National since the beginning. 

But no. They have to go and RUIN the Astros. Ugh. 


***************

The officiating has been really bad, for the first time in my conscious memory. Missed calls on the bases, elastic strike zones, rules not enforced. Never in my life have I ever heard of the league fining officials for doing a bad job, yet that actually happened a couple of weeks ago. Shocking. 

Several times, during Diamondbacks games, my husband and I have suspected that the umps may actually be on the take, the calls were so outrageously wrong.

It's time for MLB to adopt instant replay, and even seriously consider the "Robo-Ump" option for the calls at the plate. 

Past time, actually. 


***************

Martin Prado seems to be coming out of his slump, and Miggy is showing signs of coming out of his! Yay! Gerardo Parra's assists are fantastic. In fact, the Diamondbacks' defense, in general, has been a thing of beauty to watch. 


***************

We finally got HD at home. The DirecTV guy was here at the house for FIVE HOURS. He had to install a new dish and two new receivers.  But the game in HD? A-w-e-s-o-m-e ! 


***************

I'm warming up to the new announcing team. Bob Brenly is really, really good. I enjoy his observations from a manager's point of view, which was expected; unexpected but equally insightful are his observations based on his experience as a major league catcher. I especially appreciate his distrust of umpires, his position on "robo-umps" for the calls at the plate, and his interactions with Steve. 

Steve seems to have toned down his silliness in the last few weeks, which is welcome. However, I am not all all happy that he continues to call Heath Bell "The Heath Bell Experience." Stupid and pretentious. Ugh. I could probably accept that if Bell were better, more reliable and more consistent. 


***************

On our bullpen and starting pitching: With JJ Putz out, we have to rely on Bell in save opportunities. Although he has improved in the past few outings, I do not trust him. I have also lost my trust in David Hernandez and Tony Sipp. Even Matt Reynolds let me down the other night. Ian Kennedy has been a disappointment this year, as has Wade Miley, who has been hot and cold. Pat Corbin has been incredible, which has been fantastic. Trevor Cahill? Who knows? 


***************

Does anybody doubt that Daniel Hudson, Willie Bloomquist and Adam Eaton are all on the trade block, once they return from their injuries? Aaron Hill, though, I don't think will be traded. I could be dead wrong, on all counts. But I don't think so. 


***************

And finally: I do not watch Sports Center. I do not participate in "fantasy league" games. Years ago, at the beginning of football season, we were waiting for a game to come on, and the men who do the pre-game show for either Fox or CBS (I forget which one) were on the TV, talking. I remember saying to my husband, "You know, I like football. It's a fun game. However, I do not like to listen to MEN TALKING about football. They are obnoxious, arrogant, know-it-alls who only want to be the Last Man Standing, always right in the their predictions, blah, blah, blah. It's like they think that if they are proven right, then everybody will know that they have the biggest d---, and are the manliest man; king of the hill. Yuck. Unbearable." Well, the same thing applies to any pre-game show in baseball. The during-game commentary is less obnoxious, and I do not mind it as much. At least, with really good announcing, the listener/watcher can learn something about the game.

But I just want any of my readers to know, if you care, that I don't watch those sports shows, nor do I listen to sports-talk radio (even worse), especially those shows that take calls from obnoxiously opinionated listeners. I only occasionally follow sports stories in the sports page of the Arizona Republic. This could make me outside the loop, not in-the-know, not up with the current trends or lines of conversation and controversy. I don't care. I'm OK with forming my own opinions.  

Till next time, Baseball fans! 


Saturday, April 20, 2013

Not the Same Game

Sometimes, managers make decisions during a game that leave me scratching my head. I often forget about the whole right-handed/left-handed batter vs. left-handed/right-handed pitcher stuff. I just don't think about it. I do know that statistically, batters do better against a pitcher who uses the arm opposite of themselves. I've read that it's because the batter can see the ball better when it is not coming at him from the same side that is facing the pitcher.

So it's always a bit of a surprise when a manager substitutes for a hot-hitting batter when the opposing team changes pitchers. The Diamondbacks' manager, Kirk Gibson, did just this in a game against the Dodgers a few nights ago. It worked; the pinch hitter got a hit, we tied the game (or took the lead, I can't remember which), and when the defense came back out onto the field, all the players took their new positions, and the Skipper's brilliant foresight was revealed.

(I wish I could remember the exact details, but it all just vanished from my brain. My inability to keep all that in my brain only makes me admire the Skipper's mind even more.)  But what I do remember is that moment when I suddenly could see what Gibby had in his mind from the beginning: It was brilliant. He could see it in his mind from the dugout, during the game.  I couldn't see it until after it was done.

And here it is: If the Designated Hitter rule were used in the National League, none of that would have even been necessary. The DH would have just come up to bat, either gotten a hit or not, and the game would have continued. No shifting people around. So substitutions. No brilliant adjustments need be made by the Skipper. Ho-hum.

And this is the main reason I am opposed to the DH:  When the manager has to make substitutions, he has to know all his players, all the positions they can (or can't) play, which side of the plate they bat better in, whether they are better against right- or left-handed pitchers,  and if we do need them, can they play a position they may not be used to? He also has to know all the strengths and weaknesses of the opposing team's players, too. None of those considerations are necessary when all you have to do is send up your best hitter.

Besides, I think it's cheating. Here's why (and this involves another childhood story, so bear with me): When I was in junior high and high school,  in Houston, mixed intramural sports were huge, especially volleyball. One of the teams figured out that they could do this: At the start of a new "side," the front row of the serving team rotated players to the right. The player at net-right, though, would move back to the server position. The player at back-left, instead of moving up to the net, would "rotate out" (meaning leave the game), while the big, strong, tall guys (way better at the net than the skinny little girls) would "rotate in," at net-left. Their best players were substituting themselves in to play the net, crushing their spikes into the faces of the opposing team, which was playing by the rules. In other words, they had figured out a way to make sure that their best players always played the net. In other words, they were cheating.

Finally, one of the Phys Ed teachers caught on, and put a stop to it. The guys put up a fuss, but it was only a half-hearted fuss, because they knew damn  good and well that what they were doing was wrong. When you play volleyball, you play with 6 players. All 6 players play every position, from the beginning of the game to the end.

But, somehow, the Powers That Be in Major League Baseball have decided that substituting your best hitter in the place of your weakest  hitter is not, actually, breaking the rules. Apparently, in the American League, one set of 9 players can play defense, and a different set of 9 players can play offense. And that's just wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

But mainly, by removing the strategy from the game, the owners think they will get more people to ball park to spend their money, because people have shown that they will come out to the park to watch Casey at the Bat. And make no mistake about it: When the National League does finally give in, eventually, and adopt the Designated Hitter, it will be a decision that will be made purely for economic reasons. As the conventional wisdom has it, defense may win championships, but offense sells tickets.  And baseball is All About Making Money. It is a veritable Money Making Machine. The more fans come out to the park and spend their money, the happier the owners are.

So I suppose you could say that the point about the DH's being cheating is somewhat debatable (even though I don't think so). But this I know for sure, from watching (or trying to watch) American League games on TV: When you remove the need for any kind of strategy, what you remove is the mind.

And without the mind, what's the point of the game? Just to see who can muscle the ball out of the park more often? That is a game I have no interest in.

Monday, April 8, 2013

Play ball!

It seems to take April such a long time to get here! Spring Training does nothing to slake my thirst for the Real Thing, even though the Valley of the Sun is home to the Cactus League. There's just nothing like Opening Day!

So, there's a lot to talk about. The Diamondbacks made some pretty big moves during the off-season, most notably trading Chris Young and Justin Upton. I can't say that I was surprised. They were more valuable to us for what we could get for them in a trade than for what they were (not) contributing to the team. I think both Young and Upton are fine young men, and I wish them well. I was not sad to see them go, though.

I was more upset by the trades of Stephen Drew, before the season was over, and John MacDonald, during the off-season. I had a feeling they would trade Drew, once he returned from that terrible broken ankle during late 2011. It seemed to take way too long for him to get back to playing form. The longer they delayed his return to action, the more I suspected that the trade would happen. Johnny Mac, though, stepped in and did an admirable job at shortstop after Willie Bloomquist's back injury proved to be more stubborn than anyone expected. Mac made some dazzling plays at short. He was a trouper, and I was really sorry to read of his trade. Both men were professional, talented players. They will be missed.

So we have an all-new out-field, and a whole new left side of the infield. Although lots of in-the-know baseball people here in the Valley declared the trades that got us Prado and Pennington to be excellent moves,  I haven't made up my mind yet. I have to admit, though, Pennington was the hero in the first extra-inning game of the year (a marathon 5-hour, 32-minute win), and Prado has contributed some terrific offense. I guess I will eventually come down ont he side of "good trade."

I'm less impressed with our new announcing team. I like Bob Brenly. I've heard him before, during other games, and he is engaging and knowledgeable, and even funny, without being silly or stupid. That other guy--our play-by-play announcer that we stole from ESPN with the unpronounceable last name--well, I don't know yet. There have been some clever and funny moments over the first week of the season, but also some jokes that fell sort of flat. He seems to know what he's talking about, I guess.

But I have a bad taste in my mouth about the how the situation with Daron Sutton and Mark Grace played out last season. For the record, I loved our Sutton-Gracie team. They were often hilarious, but also extremely knowledgeable.  Sutton has a great voice for TV. Gracie is extremely charming, even though he messed up badly when he drove drunk.   I have no idea what Sutton did that was so terrible, other than simply refuse to obey his masters like a good little serf. At least, that was how it was portrayed in the Valley media outlets. I had often remarked to my husband and other interested parties that I thought they were the best announcing team in Major League Baseball, even before everything fell apart last year. I have and will continue to miss them.

I am planning future blogs on the Designated Hitter, on the Houston Astros defecting to the American League, on the progress of the Diamondbacks' season, and anything else that occurs to me that is baseball-related.  For now, let me just say that I am thrilled that Baseball is Back! Play ball!

 

Sunday, October 7, 2012

AZ D'Backs Season: Pfft!

So, the Diamondbacks season is over. They ended the season at exactly .500: 81 wins, 81 losses. There were things to really rejoice about from this season, but it was mostly pretty disappointing.  Mediocrity was the name of the game this year.

Rejoice-ments:

The acquisition of Aaron Hill and John McDonald late in the season last year. Their first full season with the Diamondbacks showed that Kevin Towers made a terrific deal to get these two--whose acrobatic, well-tuned double-play skills were a thing of a beauty--in the trade for Kelly Johnson. At the time, I thought Towers had lost his mind. Now, I'm grateful. Aaron Hill had a career-making season. Two times in a span of 11 days, he hit for the cycle. He had a couple of dramatic, game-ending-in-our-favor walk-off hits. He could always be counted on to deliver when he stepped up the plate. McDonald, the "old man" of the two, stepped in when he was needed at the beginning of the season, and when Willie Bloomquist went down in August with back issues, he played at short regularly, and played admirably. A couple of his defensive plays were breathtaking. If he had played the entire year at short regularly, and if his offense were as good as his defense, we might have had a very different season, indeed.

Miguel Montero is a treasure.

Gerardo Parra  handled  being demoted to platoon-outfielder status with a huge amount of grace and dignity. And, with injuries and illnesses to Jason Kubel and Chris Young, he played quite a bit, so it wasn't as bad as he (rightly) feared it would be. But we never heard him complain or grouse or grumble, even in Spanish, his native tongue. All he would admit to was that it "was hard." Yes, it must have been, but you did everything exactly right, Mr. Parra. Thank you for being a gentleman.

And speaking of Kubel: Kubel represented another trade that had me doubting Towers' sanity. This had nothing to do with Kubel himself; I just didn't think we needed another outfielder.  It turned out better than I feared: Kubel's arm is deadly accurate (and his stats back that up: more assists than any other outfielder this year in the league), and when his bat gets hot, he can really made substantive contributions to the team. He's also a good fit with the team. The camaraderie in the dugout is easy to see. But he had one hot streak at the plate, and never did find that rhythm again.

Wade Miley: Wow. What a phenomenal way to start a career. First he made the team during Spring Training. Then, he did well in the bullpen.  Then he replaced a struggling Josh Collmenter, and -boom- new starter for us.  Made the All-Star team. Won 16 games--as a rookie. Awesome.

Josh Collmenter: Although he had a rocky start, it turned out way better than anyone could have imagined. He seemed to have a found a place in the bull pen as a long-reliever.  He pitches better without any preparation or advance notice. Joe Saunders can't pitch tonight? Let's call Collmenter's number. -Boom- we get a win. His season was not without its low points, but he was always there when Gibby needed him. What more can anyone ask?

Zeigler, King of the Double-Play ball. 'Nuff said.

Disappointments

The number of runners left in scoring position, or even just on base, was worrisome. Being unable to "close the deal" revealed a weakness at the heart of this team: Our bunch of really nice guys just could not find their killer instinct. Or something.

One-run losses. Last year, we lead the league in this is stat. This year: Pfft.

Aaron Hill should have been an All-Star.

Inconsistency from our starting rotation: Which Ian Kennedy would pitch tonight? The one with the devastating, unhittable change-up? Or the one who who leaves the ball out over the plate, only to be promptly hit out of the park? We could never tell which Kennedy would show up on any given night. Trevor Cahill also had an evil twin who would show up on occasion.

I actually was sorry to see these Diamondbacks get traded: Joe Saunders, Stephen Drew and Ryan Roberts. Saunders, when he was "on," was as good as it gets. Unfortunately, he was "off" more than he was "on."  It was still sad to see him go. Drew, after suffering such a devastating broken ankle (which gave me flashbacks to my own broken ankle, which looked eerily similar to his), was slow to return to active duty. The longer his rehab took, the more I realized that they would trade him once he was reactivated and proved that he could still play.  I've seen it happen to so many players over the years. It's almost a tradition in major league baseball, one that I deplore. It just strikes me as disloyal and capricious.  I was really, really sorry to see Roberts go. Not only was he a unique personality (who had a large following here in the Valley), he also brought a lot of fire to the line-up. It seemed like Gibby couldn't decide where to play him, or where to put him in the batting order. It is true that he struggled at the plate, but who didn't this year?

Justin Upton: It took way, way too long for his bat to get hot. The last two weeks of August and all of September is just too late for that offense to do us any good. I also suspect that he wasn't entirely honest with the trainers about the severity of his thumb injury, which obviously impacted his prowess at the plate.  I don't know. Maybe he told them that it hurt, but they thought he was faking it. Or something.

Chris Young: Bummer, man. The power of an injury to tear apart a player's season was never more graphically displayed.

Relievers who give up walks or late-in-the-game hits that give away the game. David Hernandez and J.J. Putz, particularly, gave up hits that hurt us,  or even that lost the game. Argh. Aside from Zeigler, Hernandez, and Putz, though, the rest of the bullpen was a source of nervous uncertainty. Would Albers give up a hit? Would Zagursky give up a walk? Too many times, the answer to those questions was "Yep."

Injuries: J-Up's and CY's injuries were not the only ones that wreaked havoc.  Willie Bloomquist's nagging back injury; Paul Goldschmidt's back injury in the last week; Jason Kubel's various illnesses and injuries; Josh Collmenter's ulcers; Daniel Hudson's season-ending tear in his elbow ligament; once Young's shoulder injury was finally healed, then he had hamstring problems.  The list just seems endless.

All in all, it was just one thing after another. The final bright spot: In spite of all these problems, we were still in the race until we were mathematically eliminated at game #158.  It's nothing short of a miracle that we could remain in the hunt for so long, considering the lack of offense, the inconsistent pitching, the injuries, and the trades. I believe that that fact is a testament to the managerial skill of the Gibson and his coaches and the desire of the players to win.

Maybe next year. Sigh.










Saturday, September 29, 2012

The Slang's the Thing

It's the bottom of the 9th. The bases are drunk because the lead-off hitter reached on an infield hit, then a freebie, then a Texas-league blooper to shallow right. Can the slugger jack it out? Will he pull it, or hit it to the opposite field?

If all of this sounds vaguely ominous to you, or like a language children made up to intentionally exclude their parents from their little world, then you have not spent enough time around ball players. Like engineers, they speak their own language.

One of the most fun things, to me, about watching baseball is getting in on the lingo.  Baseball has, by far, I think, the most colorful and lively slang of any sport.  When I was in the midst of learning the game, during Disastrous First Marriage in the 80s (see previous post), I reached a turning point when both my PHWWUNBWUB and I exclaimed--just as the swing by the batter missed the pitch, which meant that he had struck out, thus getting the pitcher out of a jam--an emphatic "GOT 'IM!" at the same time.

Baseball slang of course constantly evolves, so keeping up with it can be a challenge. Lots of times, it takes a while for me to sort out what a new term means. I have to work to pay attention to the context, and I listen for repetitions that will give me hints. Announcers/commentators often simply use terms without explanation, and then often do it on purpose. They figure that "real fans" will know what they mean; phony fans don't matter; and the smart ones will figure it out.  In the past couple of years, I have had to figure out for myself what a "walk-off" hit is (any hit, home run or otherwise, that ends the game--in other words, a hit in the bottom of the ninth for the home team that allows them to win the game, so everyone just "walks-off" the field: game over); what the OPS statistic consists of (on-base percentage plus slugging--an indication of a hitter's offensive ability); and the difference between "pulling" the ball, and "hitting to opposite field," slang terms that were necessary to accommodate either a right-handed batter or a left-handed batter.  Since we can't simply say, "He has a tendency to hit to right field" for everyone, we say, for a right-handed batter that when he hits the ball to right, he has "pulled" it, meaning he had to hit across his body. Hitting to the "opposite field" for a right-hander would mean he hit it to left field.  The opposite of both of those things would be true for a left-handed batter.  So, rather than clarify what they mean, they came up with these terms that are good for either side of the plate. Infinitely inventive, those ball players.

Some of baseball slang has entered into the non-baseball world, too.  Whenever slang migrates out of its home turf, so to speak, you can bet that it has resonated with the general population to such a degree that it has meaning outside the context of its original setting. "Hitting a home run" in a business setting can mean any wildly successful thing--either something new got "pitched" and was then agreed upon, or a proposal for a job got accepted, or a big contract that will ensure your business's continuance for the next millennium was awarded.   In fact, you could probably go so far as to say that once a sport-specific term has left the confines of its sport,  then what it expresses is relatable to everyone, not just players or watchers of that sport.   It's a measure of the effectiveness of the slang.

"The slang of the game is its quaint romance, the connective tissue between Ty Cobb and Ty Wigginton. Honestly, it's gratifying to know of a subculture of such pointless innovation, one without goals or aspirations, one not intended to impress the public or one's boss." --Nick Stillman, The Nation, May 13, 2009

Unfortunately, not all of baseball slang is particularly relatable or even especially kind to half the population. One particularly offensive "tradition" in the world of baseball has to do with the superstition that holds that if a player is slumping offensively, he should have sex with a fat woman. Such an enormous sacrifice on his part, so it goes, is enough the break the spell.  Being a fat woman myself, I find this particular bit of baseball slang hugely objectionable, but luckily, due to the level of its offensiveness,  it is never mentioned by on-air announcers or commentators, so I don't have to hear it. I can pretend, then, that it is not a part of the clubhouse-locker-room culture of the game. I can accept the traditions of the game while acknowledging that the men who play it are, well, men.

Some day, I may just have to sit down to write my own dictionary of baseball slang, even though the market is already replete with helpful publications, like the one above. But before I do that, I may have to get this one, and study it, as well as figure out what an "Eephus pitch" is.

Next time: Wrapping up the Diamondbacks' 2012 season.