The Baseball Desert

Sunday, July 30, 2006

Gone fishin'


It probably hasn't escaped your notice that there hasn't been much going on here for the last week or so. The reason for that is that I'm not here (well, almost not here, as evidenced by this post) - I'm on vacation.

Much as I love not having to commute or work or even think about work for the best part of three weeks it is unfortunate that my long annual vacation comes in the middle of summer, and therefore in the middle of the the baseball season. Still, it gives me an opportunity to experience once again the "baseball desert" I lived in for many years and to better appreciate the miracle that is the World Wide Interweb, which has become one of those things that you only realise the value of once they're gone.

So, the Indians, Devil Rays, Royals and Orioles will all come and go and I won't be there to see them. When I get back after those series, I'm hoping that the Sox will be sporting a healthy 72-45 record and that all the familiar faces will still be around. In both cases, there's absolutely nothing I can do, except cross my fingers and hope that everything turns out for the best.

In the meantime, if you came here looking for baseball wit and wisdom, check out the bloggers listed over to the right, who are guaranteed to keep you entertained until I return from self-imposed exile.

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

"Out of sight...

...out of mind", is how the proverb usually goes, but it is not possible for me to be away from the Red Sox without constantly worrying about how they're getting on.

Generally, when I have limited access to the Internet, my baseball fix is gotten through a quick visit to MLB.com, but today I figued I'd try another approach: see what Beth and Red and Denton have to say about the games, then head over to read the official reports. However, once I'd read this:
I've been trying, lord knows, to keep on an even keel with the Sox this season. But right now, this game is so infuriating it's giving me a nic fit. Some games just push your buttons--this is one of them for me. Twice we've clawed our way back now and twice the Mariners, who are not exactly the goddamn 27 Yankees, keep...
and this:
This one played out like a "worst ways to lose a game" compilation, lowlighted by that bizarre theatre piece of a play by Coco and Manny in which Coco misjudged an Adrian Beltre fly ball by a country mile and Manny, so swept up in the magic, simply flailed around, pointing at the ball as it caromed away from both of them. By the time it all ended -- with Beltre achieving Safeco's first-ever inside-the-park home run -- I almost expected the cast of The Cannonball Run to come blazing onto the field. It was that surreal.
somehow I don't need to go and find out what happened during the rest of the game.

I regained some measure of composure on reading the report of lst night's game, a big-bash 7-3 victory over the A's. But even then, I find it bizarre that reading the name 'Josh Beckett' conjures up scary images of blisters and a billion home runs given up, and yet here he is the first 13-game winner in the Majors.

We have a rotation held together by duct tape and a coiple of dozen Hail Mary's, and yet, on July 25th, we're still in 1st place, 2 1/2 games ahead of the Yankees, with a 7-3 record over our lst ten games. "Go figure" doesn't even cover the half it, so, as of today, I've officially stopped trying to understand what's going on in Red Sox World 2006 and I'm just going to take whatever this season decides to throw at me.

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Win-win-win

The question after last night's game was: "Glass half-empty or half-full?" I have to admit that I was already leaning towards half-full, and tonight's game only served to confirm that feeling.

I know we're supposed to kick the crap out of the Royals - shut down their offense and score runs in multiples of 5 - but last time I looked a one-run win counts the same as a ten-run win. The Red Sox are a team currently without a number 4 or number 5 starter, and every win that they can scratch out now is a step closer to October. The Sox just put together back-to-back 1-0 wins for the first time in 16 years, and after the disaster that was the Oakland series, I'll take that thank you very much. Beckett looked like he was trying to prove to Jon Lester that he's the stud around Fenway - 8 innings, 4 hits, 7 strikeouts, consistently 95-97mph on his fastball, and pitching out of a Lester-esque bases-loaded jam in the sixth.

It was a good win, whichever way you look at it. Before coming into the series it felt like Red Sox Nation would settle for nothing less than a sweep of the Royals. Well that's what we got, and as a special bonus prize, the Yankees lost to the Mariners, which put another tiny sliver of daylight between us and them. There's still a long way to go, but for the time being the Sox are hanging in there.

Monday, July 17, 2006

Positive thinking

The Sox may have lost, but at least they didn't give up two grand slams in one inning.

Sunday, July 16, 2006

A Rush Of Blood To The Head

I don't know whether the fact that Wally took one for the team last night by spending the whole game stood on his head:
was of any real help, but Schilling got the job done in a big way last night.

Through seven innings he pretty much threw what he wanted where he wanted, a pitching-machine performance: "Please select your pitch: fastball, curve, splitter. Please select location: inside, outside, up, down. Execute pitch." Schilling had such great command that he could probably have come out throwing left-handed and still won the game.

This was - unbelievably - the Red Sox' first shutout since last July, but what's more important is that Schilling stopped the bleeding. A little reminder of how the game was meant to be played, indeed.

Saturday, July 15, 2006

Back to life, back to reality

The All-Star break was a welcome opportunity to get away, not so much from baseball, because I love the game and really miss it when it's not there, but from the rigours of being a Sox fan on the wrong side of the Atlantic. Only when the three days were over did I realise that the crazy rhythm I have imposed on my life over the past two or three monhs has become so much the norm that taking a break from it was actually an unwise move.

The last two nights have been physically tough to get through, fighting accumulated tiredness and the stifling heat here in Paris to try to make it more or less intact through the nine (or eleven) innings of the game. And what has been the reward for my struggle? Well, basically bugger-all. I've watched twenty innings of baseball over the last two nights, and the highlight has been one splendid catch by Coco. I guess I should be thankful that this is a long-term love-affair and not a business relationship, because that is not what you could call a significant return on investment.

The Coco catch - a scaled-down version of the incredible catch he made at the end of June - did make me realise one thing, and that is that I miss the hell out of playing baseball. Knee problems notwithstanding, I loved being out there in the field and running after that little white ball. If I use the next couple of months to start to get back nto some kind of shape, maybe it's not too late to attempt a comeback. It's not quite the epiphany I had last time I got the urge to get back on the field, but it was a little nudge in the right direction. And, of course, when I go to read what Beth has to say about the Red Sox' latest woes, I find her in a reflective mood as well:
Holding this ball, with its perfect white surface and sharp red stitches on it, was just a tangible demonstration of how little I know about what it's actually like to play baseball. I wonder what a player's relationship with the ball is like; I wonder how they develop their habitual ways of holding it, throwing it, catching it, the kind of finesse it takes to make this hard little thing bend and dip and curve in the air.
I know I don't have that finesse, but the desire to hold and throw a ball around is still there. I woke up this morning with a renewed enthusiasm for the game of baseball, and when I head off on vacation next week I think I'll be finding some space in my bags for my ball and glove. I'll be away from the Red Sox for two weeks in early August, but those two weeks could, strangely enough, put me back on the road towards real, live baseball, French suburb style.

Saturday, July 08, 2006

Much Ado About Nothing

Scene: A meeting-room somewhere in the depths of FOX Sports HQ. Joe Buck, Tim McCarver and Ken Rosenthal are poring over a stack of papers.

Joe Buck: Guys - we need to come up with an angle for today's Red Sox / White Sox game.

Tim McCarver: What about a "Battle of the Sox" theme? I could work the whole "Battle of the Sexes/ Soxes" pun to death...

Joe Buck: Nah, we've done that whole thing before.

Ken Rosenthal: How about we do a hatchet job on Manny? You know, because of him not playing in the All-Star Game?

Tim McCarver: Yeah - we can do the whole "Manny being Manny" angle, and I can lament how it was all much better thirty years ago.

Joe Buck: But haven't we done "Manny being Manny" before as well?

Ken Rosenthal: Sure we have, but it's Manny - he's an easy target. I mean, we can't rip Bonds and Giambi and all the other cheating assholes playing baseball today, so let's go with "Manny is no shining example to today's youth."

Joe Buck: So the angle is what - "Manny is disrespecting the sacred All Star Game by declining to play"?

Ken Rosenthal: Not just the All Star Game, but all baseball fans everywhere.

Joe Buck: Erm, OK. But if we hold the All Star Game up as a sacred institution, don't we have to mention the totally farcical non-inclusion of a guy who through July 8 is hitting .388?

Ken Rosenthal: Well, what the hell do you expect if you let fans decide who goes to the game? They don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

Tim McCarver: But Kenny, weren't you saying at lunch that you'd been online to vote for the All Star team as well?

Ken Rosenthal: Erm, well, yeah, sure, but I didn't vote for Manny - I voted for A.J. Pierzynski.

Joe Buck: A true model indeed for young baseball players everywhere.

Ken Rosenthal: So we can't rip the fans, 'cos it's gonna make me look bad. How about we rip the network that's carrying the game and making the whole thing out to be some big deal? That whole "This time it still really, really counts - we swear to God" shit.

Tim McCarver: Erm, Kenny - that's us. It's a FOX game.

Ken Rosenthal: Oh, yeah. My bad, guys.

Joe Buck: So, we leave the fans alone, we leave the network alone. "Manny's an asshole" it is, then.

Tim McCarver: (chuckles) It'll be like shooting fish in barrel...

"You can put it on the boooooooard...YES!"

All I've seen is the Condensed Game on MLB.com, but that's enough to keep me happy. As our good friend Hawk would say, "one-nothing bad guys."

The Condensed Game probably lasts no more than about ten minutes, but that's about as much Hawk as I can take - all those "He gone", "5-3 bad guys" just make me want to punch a hole in my PC screen. I know that's it's a regular lament on here (and elsewhere), but those of you who get to listen to Don and Jerry from April through October do not know just how lucky you are. I'll be watching tonight, but it'll probably be with the sound turned down.

Friday, July 07, 2006

A Cure For Gravity

Tonight I am going to see one of my favourite artists - the aformentioned Joe Jackson - in concert at the Bataclan in Paris. This will be the sixth or seventh time that I have seen him, and it never gets old. I am an unconditional fan of his studio music, but seeing him live adds another dimension to the experience. He is never afraid to re-arrange his own songs, do cover versions of other artists' songs and generally innovate in a context which often lends itself to nothing more interesting than a carbon copy of a band's studio output.

Outside of the music itself, Jackson is also blessed with a wry sense of humour and a rare gift for analysis of what his music means both to himself and to his fans. His autobiography, "A Cure For Gravity", which covers his life - both personal and musical - up until his band had its first hit, is a great chronicle of a musician struggling to be heard. In the absence of any tracks to link to, I thought I'd share some of Jackson's observations on his craft:
At least three different people I can think of have been quoted as saying that writing about music is like dancing about architecture. In other words: music takes us to places that words cannot, and maybe that's the whole point...

[speaking about hearing the theme music from the movie Exodus as he walked by someone's parked car]:
I was transfixed by this music. It was sad, but strong; noble, but with a yearning quality which brought tears to my eyes. Everyone else was partying, [it was a special naval celebration day in his home town of Portsmouth] but I felt as though I'd discovered a secret truth: that beneath it all was sadness. Not that the happines and the pomp and circumstance were false, but that the sadness was always there, in a delicate balance with it. It suddenly seemed to me unbearably poignant. And I knew that no-one else would understand.
And no-one could, or ever will. When music hits you like this, it cuts through logic and soars like a pole-vaulter over the walls of your rational mind. It reaches you in a visceral way that is unique to your own experience. No two people hear the same music.
[...]
Of course, music per se is not always the issue, and it's impossible to completely separate any kind of art - or any kind of product - from the preoccupations of its time. I like to say that I have no agenda. I say it because I don't run with any particular gang, and because agendas are often no more than defensive postures we take up against other people's agendas. But I do have an agenda of sorts, or a guiding conviction, and I may as well be honest about it. Music is either an art form or it isn't, and I say that it is: the greatest of the arts, and one of the closest approaches we mortals have to the divine. And try as I might, I can't seem to reduce it to the level of the matching handbag that goes with this year's jacket. Nor can I inflate it to the level of tribal warfare.
So, presumptuous though I may be, I try to speak on behalf of the goddess, or the muse, of music itself. The best music is universal and transcends fashion. Not in some high-flown intellectual way, but in a way that's humble and honest and real. There's no right path for everyone.
[...]
I had to get my priorities straightened out. Because the only way to win, at least for us musicians, is by keeping the faith. Keeping our faith with the one thing that has really mattered all along: the music.
We have to follow what excites us, interests us, challenges us, and makes us feel alive, and put aside whatever does not; and if we can't make a living out of it, we should hang on to our day jobs. We must be wary of facts and figures and pundits and PR, of critics both internal and external, and of all those cocksure movers and shakers who tell you they have their fingers on the pulse; they don't have a finger on yours. If you're doing what makes you feel alive, no matter how obscure or uncool it might be, you can be Gulliver while they're all just Lilliputians, trying in vain to tie down your shoes.
And this is how you win.
[...]
[speaking about the first concert he did with a really great band behind him]
Finally, I could taste and smell and feel what I'd only glimpsed before: me, the band and the audience all vibrating on the same frequency, linking arms in free fall, time standing still somewhere high above the clouds. Genius that I was, alchemist, wizard, mad professor, I'd found the cure for gravity...
He writes well, with that magical combination of passion and intelligence. Having read the book several times, I sometimes get the impression that he's bordering on being anal-retentive or pretentious, but he manages to carry it off every time, because even when he's getting on his high horses about music, you sense that it's not just the ranting of some rock'n'roller who is using and abusing his position and his fame - all of it is stuff which has been carefully thought through. It is great to read such passionate, intelligent writing, even more so when the person in question happens to be an artist you admire.

I guess there are one or two secrets to writing things like this, things that people want to read. One of them is obviously a good grasp of the language and how it works and fits together, and how you can best use it to your advantage. I think this is partly a 'gift' and partly a result of a person's education. If you are taught to write properly and coherently when you are young, then it is so much easier to write this kind of thing. I was lucky enough not only to be a good learner at school, but also to have teachers who were concerned not only with what they taught, but also with how they taught it and how it was received. Expressing yourself in a coherent manner was always high on the agenda in all the places I've ever studied, and in fact, at college, how you expressed yourself was almost as important as what you said. I don't mean that you could write any old crap, but rather that people were willing to listen to what you had to say provided that you could justify your argument and argue it coherently.

I think that the other secret to great writing (and I'm talking more about non-fiction here, I guess) - above and beyond the intelligence and education which allow you to write technically very well - is to write about something you feel passionate about. There are people who are very passionate about any number of things, but who lack the 'tools' to communicate that passion, and somehow that passion gets lost in their expression of it. It's not a hard and fast rule - sometimes the person is able to get over the lack of tools and still communicate in an interesting way - but if you are lucky enough to find the winning combination of passion AND an ability to express oneself clearly and coherently, then it is always a pleasure to read. You don't even necessarily have to enjoy or be interested in the subject-matter, because the very style of expression can draw you in - the intelligence and insights become a pleasure in themselves, even if the subject is fishing for cod or baseball. I have read scientific books and non-fiction which communicated this passion with such intensity that I sometimes forgot that I didn't always understand what the author was saying, yet still emerged from my reading feeling that I'd read a great book.

I was lucky enough to receive the kind of education which allows me to express myself in an intelligent, thought-out way, so I have the 'tools' to do this. However, when I sit down and think about it, I feel that I only write 'well' (or talk 'well', for that matter - there is little difference between the two...) in certain circumstances and about certain things, and those things are ALWAYS things about which I feel passionately. Get me onto music, books or baseball and I can go on and on in an intelligent manner until the person with whom I am conversing is either bored to tears or asleep! I think these are the cases in which the subject-matter carries the whole thing - someone who feels passionately about something can make you interested in it even if this is not initially the case. However, get me onto sculpture or soccer (closely related to the other subjects) and it will be a whole different ballgame. The writing might be coherent, but the spark of passion will be missing. A good writing style can provide the launch-pad that a passion needs in order to be communicated, and vice-versa - passion can set a good writing style on fire...

Good writing is like great hi-fi equipment - the equipment should allow you not only to get to the heart of the music you love (which is 'easy', because music you love will sound great whether it' on a $10 radio or through a pair of $15,000 speakers, but also to discover things that you'd never previously listened to. The quality of the equipment and the sound coming from it should be able to take you on a journey you've never been on before.

And so it is with great writing. Someone who writes with great passion and intelligence should be able to interest you in the subject matter, whatever it is. For those of you reading this who are not baseball fans, I would like to hold Roger Angell up as an perfect example of how the writing itself can take you places you never expected to go. Here he is writing about the game-winning home run hit by Carlton Fisk in Game 6 of the 1975 World Series to keep the Red Sox in the Series. I've quoted this piece before, but I make no apologies for doing it again:
I suddenly remembered all my old absent and distant Sox-afflicted friends (and all the other Red Sox fans, all over New England), and I thought of them -- in Brookline, Mass., and Broolin, Maine; in Beverly Farms and Mashpee and Presque Isle and North Conway and Damriscotta; in Pomfret, Connecticut, and Pomfret, Vermont, in Waland and Providence and Revere and Nashua, and in both the Concords and all five Manchesters; and in Ramond, New Hampshire (where Carlton Fisk lives) and Bellows Falls, Vermont (where Carlton Fisk was born), and I saw all of them dancing and shouting and kissing and leaping about like the fans at Fenway -- jumping up and down in their bedrooms and kitchens and living rooms, and in bars and trailers, and even in some boats here and there, I supposed, and on the back-country roads (a lone driver getting the news over the radio and blowing his horn over and over, and finally pulling up and getting out and leaping up and down on the cold macadam, yelling into the night) and all of them, for once at least, utterly joyful and believing in that joy -- alight with it.
[…]
It is foolish and childish, on the face of it, to affiliate ourselves with anything so insignificant and patently contrived and commercially exploitative as a professional sports team, and the amused superiority and icy scorn that the non-fan directs at the sports nut (I know this look -- I know it by heart) is understandable and almost unanswerable. Almost. What is left out of this calculation, it seems to me, is the business of caring -- caring deeply and passionately, really caring -- which is a capacity or an emotion that has almost gone out of our lives. And so it seems possible that we have come to a time when it no longer matters so much what the caring is about, how frail or foolish is the object of that concern, as long as the feeling itself can be saved. Naiveté -- the infantile and ignoble joy that sends a grown man or woman to dancing and shouting with joy in the middle of the night over the haphazardous flight of a distant ball -- seems a small price to pay for such a gift.
Tonight is much the same - there will be no "haphazard flight of a distant ball", but I know in advance that I will be listening to something that is, as Joe Jackson himself says, "unbearably poignant." If "Home Town" is on the setlist, it is entirely conceivable that a tear will be shed:
We think we're pretty smart
Us city slickers get around
And when the going's rough
We kill the pain and relocate
We're never married
Never faithful not to any town
But we never leave the past behind
We just accumulate
So sometimes when the music stops
I seem to hear a distant sound
Of waves and seagulls
Football crowds and church bells
And I...

Wanna go back to my home town
Though I know it'll never be the same
Back to my home town
'Cause it's been so long
And I'm wondering if it's still there...

Enough of this, already

There has to come a moment in a series like the one in Tampa Bay where the team in general, and Big Papi in particular, is going to say: "Screw the shift, screw this ballpark and screw the Devil Rays." That moment came last night.

Although losing three out of four to the Devil Rays is not the end of the world, let alone the season, winning one out of four against the Devil Rays is only the slimmest of moral victories to take into Chicago. We're no doubt going to be reminded that the White Sox are the second-best team in baseball this year, but you know who the third best team is? Yup, the Boston Red Sox. The same Boston Red Sox who have a three-game lead over the Yankees in the AL East. We throw Lester, Beckett and Schilling (23-7, 3.76 ERA) out there against Buehrle, Garcia and Contreras (28-10, 3.96 ERA) - it's going to be an interesting series. Which I'll be watching in the company of Hawk and DJ... ::sticks sharp pencil in eye::

Thursday, July 06, 2006

On the sidelines

I didn't see the Sox-Rays game last night, opting instead to watch the World Cup semi-final between Portugal and France. This was motivated less by a burning desire to watch the game than a realisation that the whole of our neighbourhood would be watching the game and making a lot of noise, so it was clearly a case of "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

It struck me as I watched the game that I have watched only three matches during this World Cup (as against 17 or 18 Red Sox games over the same period), all three of which featured Portugal. Coincidence or not, all three games (against the Netherlands, England and France) were bad games, with nothing at all that could possibly entice a disillusioned and disinterested soccer fan like myself back into the fold. There are several reasons behind that disinterest - a passion for baseball and the Red Sox being the main one - but watching the games served to remind me of one of the other key reasons: no-one is playing a fair game.

In baseball, there are very few plays on which blatant cheating occurs, or even can occur. A hitter claiming to have been nicked by a pitch, a catcher trying to bring an outside pitch back into the zone, a shortstop applying a phantom tag on a runner - all of these things happen, but they're not a regular feature of every game you watch. In soccer, however, there is an almost constant battle to gain an unfair advantage, with players falling down left, right and centre, pretending to be have been fouled and /or injured (mortally wounded, in fact, judging by some of the reactions).

During Saturday's England / Portugal game there was a blatant dive by one of the Portuguese players (Maniche, I think, but it could have been Ronaldo or Figo or any one of a number of players) I asked Baseball Desert contributor DBF why this blatant play-acting didn't seem to bother those involved, even when millions of TV viewers can see that there was cheating involved, and he had a very simple answer: "Because they got what they wanted." The end apparently justifies the means, in every single instance.

I dislike this kind of behaviour, but on some level, I can at least understand it. What really leaves me both perplexed and annoyed is the impact that this behaviour has an all other aspects of the game. Take last night's winning goal by France, as reported by The Guardian:
Scolari did concede that France deserved a penalty when Ricardo Carvalho belied his experience by going to ground when turned by Thierry Henry and then caught the Arsenal striker's ankle with an instinctive lunge. The contact was minimal but Henry did what all forwards would do, eschewing the shooting opportunity he had fashioned for himself in favour of going to ground.

If you want to know what is wrong with soccer, that last sentence says it all. It's not just the attempt to gain an unfair advantage, but the acceptance by players, fans and writers that doing so - even at the expense of a legitimate chance to score a goal - is an accepted part of the game. It's become a reflex reaction - even in situations where there is potentially more to be gained by staying on your feet than falling down, players will opt to go down in an attempt to gain a free-kick. And as long as that is an intrinsic part of the game - and it will be for a long time to come, since kids watching the game now are seeing this as an accepted thing to do - I will always be an occasional, casual observer of the game, never a real fan.

You're welcome

At least we didn't let him steal first...

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Shots

  • Is it me, or do the Devil Rays have some of the ugliest ballplayers in the league? Every time Gomes, Cantu or Wigginton comes up to bat, I have to resist the urge to go hide behind the sofa. There's no way that Tampa Bay is going to attract new young fans to the game when half their lineup would make small children weep.
  • That heckler guy you can hear throughout games at Tropicana Field? Definitely in line for the 2006 "Person You Would Least Like To Sit Next To At A Ballgame" award. Heckling can be very funny, in small, carefully-packaged doses, but doing it for three solid hours can tend to get on people's nerves. I can't believe that nobody has taken it upon themselves to punch this guy's lights out.
  • Tropicana Field has to be one of the most soulless baseball parks there is. Maybe it's the FSN Florida feed that I get on MLB.TV, but everything sounds and looks off. The blurb on the website says that the Trop "features the new, naturally looking FieldTurf", which is true, if by "natural" you mean "has sat in the sun way too long without being watered." I will watch baseball pretty much anywhere and under any circumstances, but games at Tropicana Field make me want to go and do something more interesting, like organise my sock drawer or maybe even cheer for Portugal (shock! horror!) in the World Cup semi-final.
  • One last one, on a positive, heart-warming note: awwwwww... Oh, hang on, did I say "positive, heart-warming"? I meant "bitter, twisted and reveling in other people's misery." Apologies for misleading you, but I just couldn't resist.