The Yankees? With very few exceptions, they're a team of unknowns and kids. The Plucky Underdogs wearing pinstripes? The last time that happened was, what, 95 years ago when the wise old men of baseball thought Babe Ruth and his homers were a passing fad. Enjoy 'em now, before these guys are in your face and in the tabloids every week.
And who doesn't like the Houston Astros, even if they are in the wrong league? Justin Verlander is one of the class acts in the game, on and off the field, and is Jose Altuve the second coming of Joe Morgan or what? Their once-ridiculed little ballpark has now picked up some seasoned charm, and we still think they're the better team, assuming they remember how to hit this weekend.
Even our designated Evil Empire, the Dodgers, the Blue Meanies of LA-- you don't have to like them, but you sure have to admire a team this good, this complete. Dave Roberts as managerial genius-- who saw that coming? And considering these guys haven't been in the Series since 1988, we Giants fans can continue to feel a bit smug even if they wind up winning the whole thing. They had their dynasty, from the late forties to the Eighties. This decade was ours.They still gotta catch up.
And the Cubs are a lot more likable now that they're struggling to stay alive and no longer the Anointed Ones of last year. (Yes, we contrarians were pulling for Cleveland.) Joe Maddon gets thrown out twice in two games? How can you not like that-- the Dumbledore of the Dugout gets angry and dirty in the umpires' face, arguing two of the most inexplicable calls we've seen in, like, ever.
Oh, it's four great stories, all right, no matter who moves on.
But speaking of stories, we were reading two of them this evening, one on the ALCS by the veteran scribe Richard Justice, and another on the Kershaw-Quintana matchup looming tonight, this one by Doug Miller.
Quoting Justice: "After winning 101 regular-season games and then getting past the Red Sox in the American League Division Series presented by Doosan, the Astros are playing a potential elimination game."
And a few clicks down, here's Miller: "(I)n this National League Championship Series presented by Camping World..." and, a little later, he brings up the Dodgers' "three-game sweep of Arizona in the NL Division Series presented by T-Mobile."
What in the name of Red Smith is goin' on here?
Are these veteran sportswriters (some of who have been around for years) now really, and truly, actually contractually obligated to add the name of the TV sponsor whenever they mention the Division or League Championship Series by name?
Is somebody gonna get sued if they don't?
Is there nothing or no one these owners and the MLBPA won't sell for a sponsorship buck?
Look, advertisements have been all over the game since the 1800s. Big signs on the outfield walls. "Hit this target, win a suit!" Airplanes trailing banners circling over the ballpark:: " E A T A T J O E S ". Cheesy middle-inning promotions for this, that, or the other. Multimedia scoreboards with an unending parade of commercials. More recently, corporate sponsorship of stadiums. The constant on-air sponsorship of every "offical MLB product," from jockstraps to beer to laptop computers and tablets. "This first pitch sponsored by the Ginsu Knife Company, or whatever." We're used to hearing it.
But-- seeing this in print-- casually inserted, like a throwaway line in a play-- it's jarring. It's unsettling. It's bizarre, and weird, in a thousand ways that the other intrusions aren't. Somehow it just seems wrong; that print, that the written word, is especially defiled by this in ways that the other media aren't. You know? It's like... well, it's like going to see your favorite band play. The big sponsorship placard behind the stage-- Black Death Malt Liquor Presents the Simpletones!-- well, that's one thing. But then in the middle of your favorite song, the band artfully, or artlessly, what does it matter, the band works a well-known advertising jingle into the third verse, repeats it a few times during the coda to drive home the message, and then carries on the rest of the show without a hitch. Ya know?
"Please," I said, holding up my hands, "no more."
"Lemme tell you the weird part." He was pleading.
"Weird part?" I yelled. "Weird part?"
-- Peter Gent, North Dallas Forty
Here's the weird part. I've been reading Richard Justice for years. He may not be Roger Angell, but he doesn't need to be. He's pretty good. There is no way on earth Richard Justice, or Dan Jenkins, or Paul Zimmerman, or anyone who carries or has carried a legitimate byline, would voluntarily insert this-- this tripe into his column.
But, at the end of each article, after the byline, comes the familiar disclaimer: "This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs."
Well... then who? If it wasn't MLB, the clubs, or the union, then who in tarnation is demanding these odious little promotions be inserted into what's supposed to be a writer's own story?
Who indeed? Do we even want to know the answer?
Well, we've once again gone off our policy of not discussing off-field matters. Sorry about that. This one shook us up, far more than perhaps it should have, or maybe not. These are uncertain days. Sometimes you don't know how to respond... is it really The Latest Outrage, or are we just being extra-curmudgeonly this evening?
But we can't help it this time.
This stinks.
No comments:
Post a Comment