Maggie's FarmWe are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for. |
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Categories
QuicksearchLinks
Blog Administration |
Sunday, October 2. 2011Baseball Confessional
The story centers on Steve Bartman, a young fellow who may have cost the Chicago Cubs a shot at the World Series. It was an unlikely error on his part, one in which fault is questionable. As the documentary points out, many other fans were also reaching for that foul ball. He was unlucky enough to touch it. More importantly, an easy double play ball was booted by the shortstop just a few moments later. Certainly, the lost double play did more to cost the Cubs than a fan preventing a single out.
What was intriguing about the documentary was the arc through not only the pain of the Cubs, but through another hard luck team: the Boston Red Sox. The director focuses on the Bill Buckner episode in Game 6 of the 1986 World Series. A ground ball down the first base line, that would have ended the Series in favor of the Red Sox, went between Buckner's legs and eventually cost them the championship. This event is linked to Buckner's 1984 trade from the Cubs to the Sox, then related to Buckner's replacement on the Cubs, Leon Durham, who in the 1984 playoffs also let a ground ball down the first base line go between his legs. Indirectly, the pain of the Cubs in 1984 is tied to that of the Red Sox in 1986. The relationship deepens. Buckner becomes the scapegoat for all that went wrong in Boston baseball. It was years, and 2 World Series Championships, before Buckner could return to Boston. The issue of the scapegoat closes the circle between Buckner, the Red Sox, and the Cubs. The events of the 2003 National League Championship Series, in which Steve Bartman becomes the ultimate baseball scapegoat, completes the cycle. The ability to find scapegoats is one thing hard luck teams share. There is a need to 'blame' failure on someone or something. In the case of the Cubs, the original scapegoat was, in fact, a goat. The Curse of the Billy Goat is well known to baseball fans as the reason why the Cubs have not returned to the World Series since 1945. In 2003, however, the Billy Goat took human form and was named Steve Bartman. Director Alex Gibney closes with an interview of a minister who did a sermon on scapegoating, citing Steve Bartman. The minister discussed the source of the term scapegoat, which is traced back to the Book of Leviticus. On the Day of Atonement, a goat is chosen to carry off the sins of the people. This goat is led through a crowd, all of whom scream at it, burdening it with their sins, and throwing detritus at the goat as it passes by. The goat is led to the desert and released, to carry off the sins. The goat carries a heavy load, and is exiled, the sins cast out of society. Video from that fateful night eerily depicts a similar fate for Bartman. Buckner was a scapegoat because a ball passed between his legs, and until the Red Sox finally won a World Series in 2004, he was persona non grata in Boston. Bartman still bears his burden. Each time humans seek to explain unfortunate events, we desire to place blame. We want to put a face on our disappointment and disgust. 'Catching Hell' does something rare in a sports documentary. It explains why we behave poorly. It shows why our initial emotions are unfounded and provides context but doesn't justify these emotions. The film winds its way through the fabric of time and 2 different cities suffering with failure. It then links these failures, attaches them to the respective scapegoats, and humanizes each event and the people involved. In doing so, viewers see themselves reflected in the passion of the fans and their desire for success. It is a story for all families and all people, sports fan or not. For leaders, it is a tremendous teaching tool.
Posted by Bulldog
in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects, Our Essays
at
16:45
| Comments (13)
| Trackbacks (3)
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Nice article, Slobber Jaws. The 'blame game' is certainly an integral part of the Western psyche.
According to the right-wing bloggers: If you want to blame politics for all of your problems, blame the liberals. If you want to blame a political party, blame the Democrats. If you want to blame a US state, blame California. If you want to blame a city, blame San Francisco. If you want to blame a group of people, blame the hippies. If you want to blame a generation, blame the Boomers. If you want to blame a specific figure for the Boomers, blame Dr. Spock. If I were to write a blog on the subject, I'd title it: Of Whipping Boys and Boogeymen These people are playing their readers for saps. Danke schoen
I'd say blame goes both ways. We hear the Tea Party blamed for many things, as well. At work, if blame is placed, I will typically respond "that's fine, but what do you intend to do about it?" Blame doesn't fix anything, it is used to incite feelings rather than focus on facts. Eric Hoffer discussed this approach to generating political support in "The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements." Blame is useful if it provides context for discussion of solutions. It is the polarity of a view which creates the need for a scapegoat. And that was germane to the topic how? The word "blame" shows up and you have a knee-jerk reaction already created that you just have to spill?
And that's the right wing's fault? Nice job of undermining your own argument there. Buckner was a scapegoat because a ball passed between his legs, and until the Red Sox finally won a World Series in 2004, he was persona non grata in Boston.
Wrong. When he returned to Fenway in 1988 as a member of the KC Royals he was treated warmly by Red Sox fans, although not to the extent that he was treated in 1990 when he was acquired by the Red Sox. In his first regular game appearance that season, he was given TWO standing ovations - one when he was at the plate and another when he took the field later in the game. A large part of what happened to Bill Buckner was the result of Boston sports media - in particular the Boston Globe's Dan Shaughnessy - who is a smarmy greasy yellow dog journalist who fueled the anti-Buckner mood relentlessly. In truth, it wouldn't have mattered if Buckner had caught the ball anyway - Mookie Wilson was going to be safe at first anyway so the whole question of it being Buckner's fault is moot. Additionally, the pitchers that game, Calvin Schiraldi's pitching and Bob Stanley's wild pitch created the loss - not Buckner's error. He never returned to Boston until 2008 when he threw out the first ball of the first game following the 2007 World series win. He never returned prior to that including 2004. Just sayin'. :>) Perhaps it's part of the storytelling. In the documentary, Buckner was offered several opportunities to return and turned them all down. It's clear he was not comfortable with the way he was treated in Boston, until after they won their second World Series.
He moved to Idaho and tried to distance himself from the episode, clearly recognizing how he was being treated. He says he received taunts and threats for years. I am from Philadelphia, and I'm aware of how a fan base can get riled up by journalists utilizing barstool logic. But there is no denying Buckner was a scapegoat for many years, and that's all that was really important to the story. http://weblogs.wpix.com/sports/thehuddle/2008/04/all_is_forgiven_22_years_too_l.html Granted, it's from New York, and New York never has anything nice to say about Boston or Philadelphia. No matter how you view it, though, the documentary is fantastic. There may have been fans who continued the hate, but in the interviews I've seen with him in the intervening years, he was gracious with his interviewers and in general with the fans of Boston. In fact he donated every year to the Jimmy Fund and spent time at Children's Hospital - second only to Tim Wakefield.
And if he was so opposed to returning to Boston, he could have turned the offer from the Red Sox down in 1990 and never had to return - but he did and the result was a great reception. I was at that game and at the Royals game when he went two for two against Clemens and the place went nuts. So it wasn't all bad for Buckner. The good thing of course is that it's all over with and he's back in the fold so to speak. >) It may be part of the storytelling, as I mentioned. I point out, in a reply below, that New York controls the direction of the media. So most of the 'opinions' about how other cities behave is tainted by New York views. Around here, all they ever mentioned, when the Buckner story was mentioned, was how he turned down invitations to return (and he did). Was it because he had bad feelings, or he was just happy in Idaho? No idea. New York journalists probably aren't interested in making that distinction.
I think Buckner is a class act, and even if he received death threats until the end of his life, I suspect he'd have been gracious in interviews. Does it count as "nice" if I say I hope the NYY beat Phillies in the World Series? At least that implies that they should be there.
Hard to say about Bruckner....I have enough Sox fan friends (go figure) who still lament the moment, but I don't know if they really mean it so personally or more just how it reflected or symbolized the (team) failure. The fans that show up in the stands, and are not just reading the press, also tend to be more attuned to the real deal regarding any player (on any team) who has left/been traded/or some other "misfortune". They clap for the ones they felt contributed to the ballclub when they were around. sounds like a bull durham cliche. When I was younger, I had friends who rooted for an AL team and an NL team. I rooted for the Phillies, and adopted the Yankees as my "AL Team". I was a fan for years.
When the 2 teams played in the 2009 World Series, I attended 3 of the games, 2 of them in NYC since I live here. I have vowed, ever since, to never root for the Yankees. New York, which basically controls the MSM, has spent years talking about how bad Philly fans are. Until the 2009 World Series, I might have agreed with some reservations. After 2009 and the treatment I received in Yankee Stadium, I vowed to never root for the Yankees again. Let's just say there are lousy fans in every town, and I'm the first to admit Philly has some low quality. New Yorkers, in my experience, are much worse. After 27 years here, I've seen all kinds of bad behavior blithely glossed over by the media here. I have plenty of friends who root for New York teams. I live here, after all. I have no problem with people rooting for their team. So I appreciate that you're at least saying Philly will get there. Sadly, my one time fondness for the Yankees has become a deep dislike for the very reasons New Yorker hold Philly fans in low regard....a number of very bad experiences. apparently then if we can just get rid of the MSM, all's well with the universe.
#2.1.2.1.1
Bomber Girl
on
2011-10-02 21:18
(Reply)
Overly simplistic, but a good start.
People who work in the media, such as me, are well aware of certain behaviors. Whether they are willing to admit these behaviors are true or not is quite another thing. I'm not opposed to the MSM, in the sense that Sarah Palin is. I am opposed to the MSM in the sense that there are roughly 4 or 5 major outlets for opinion and they tend to be self-reinforcing, while opting to diminish any and all who disagree with the views they perceive as important. Those who think Fox News is meaningful are correct in the sense that FNN provides roughly 5% of the people a viewpoint they can agree with most of the time. But the network reaches 5% of the audience 100% of the time. Other networks with lower ratings (a rating point is a percentage of viewing and CNN is consistently below FNN) reach their percentages in a different fashion. That is, a CNN 3 rating means they come close to reaching 100% of the audience 3% of the time. So if you look at how the MSM reaches its audience, people who complain about a Fox News because it "has the highest ratings" are only telling you half the story. The other half is that every other news outlet has a greater overall reach than Fox News. As a result, the opportunity for a particular view (political, regional, etc.) to be widely disseminated is much greater for the MSM. The impact, in sports, is even greater. While sports announcers come from all over the US, any major sports commentator is going to live in the NYC area and over time will usually develop an affinity for the NY audience. The reasons are obvious. All 4 major networks are in NY. ESPN is in Bristol, CT, and does a somewhat better job at having a broader view of things. There was a time, brief though it was, where the local broadcaster was more important than the national. Over time, that relationship has reversed. This is why one of the current 'hot topics' on the internet is how websites can become 'hyperlocal'.
#2.1.2.1.1.1
Bulldog
on
2011-10-02 21:59
(Reply)
In my organizations we used blame to get rid of the incompetents. We allowed a certain learning curve and accepted that sometimes mistakes are made but when it reaches the level that one is forced to check, doublecheck and verify simple procedures that is a problem that can only be dealt with finding the fault and removing it. Other organizations have an infinitely more tolerant view of blame shedding but their just teachers and postal workers and UAW types that simply are never held accountable for failure.
If the blame is justified, and the people are truly incompetent, then I'm not sure that's a problem.
The point here is that sometimes blame is just blame without fact. I've found that blame isn't the first thing you look for. You seek to determine if the person is incompetent by seeing if they can fix their errors. Even in the modern corporation, it is difficult to get rid of incompetent people. The amount of documentation you have to prepare is designed to make you think twice about placing blame without support. It just so happens you can increase the difficulty by several magnitudes when you talk about government jobs. I think it's wise to make it difficult. I once had a boss who wanted to get rid of one of my best workers because he "didn't look right and wasn't a leader." He never met with clients, so looks weren't really an issue for me. He wasn't a leader and didn't want to be, but he was damn good at what he did and was happy. Eventually, after I was gone, he was blamed for something he didn't do and let go. |
Yesterday, Bulldog wrote an excellent article, Baseball Confessional, on the blame game as it relates to baseball. Cubs fan Steve Bartman, sitting in the outfield bleachers, reaches out for a long fly ball — as one million baseball fans have done
Tracked: Oct 03, 10:29
Yesterday, our new guest blogger, Bulldog, wrote an excellent article, Baseball Confessional, on the blame game as it relates to baseball. In a playoff game in 2003, Cubs fan Steve Bartman, sitting in the outfield bleachers, reaches out for a long
Tracked: Oct 03, 10:47
Yesterday, our new guest blogger, Bulldog, wrote an excellent article, Baseball Confessional, on the blame game as it relates to baseball. In a playoff game in 2003, Cubs fan Steve Bartman, sitting in the outfield bleachers, reaches out for a long
Tracked: Oct 03, 10:49