A few weeks ago, I sent in an application to MLB.com for some dream job offer they had. I apparently had waited too long, and there was a second part to the application that I didn't have time for, but I wrote an essay they asked for. Below is that essay. The prompt was "Talk about why you like baseball."
I went to my first baseball game when I was 7 years old. My aunt and uncle had just gotten married, and didn't yet have any children, so they invited me and my cousin to come with them to see our hometown Orioles play host to the Tigers. This was during the Orioles' historically awful 1988 season, but I didn't know enough about baseball to realize that when I saw them win the game, I was seeing a rarity.
I think it's fair to say that I was hooked right away. Seeing a baseball field live for the first time was tremendous, and I still get goose bumps every time I walk out from the concourse into a stadium. There’s no greener grass than outfield grass. But the most distinct memory I have from the game was when Jack Morris was pulled for a reliever, the song "Hit the Road Jack" came on the loudspeaker. I thought it was the coolest thing in the world that they had found this song that perfectly fit the game scenario, and sang along loudly, as only a 7-year-old can.
As I've grown, while I still appreciate the beauty of a baseball field, the thing I find most striking about a baseball game is the intensity of each pitch. More than any other team sport, baseball gives you the direct confrontation of two wills, pitcher versus hitter. In a close game, the tension of each pitch is almost magical. Fifteen seconds of plotting and planning by the pitcher and catcher, the deep breath, and then everything crescendos into that one moment when the hitter starts to offer at the pitch. For that split-second, literally anything can happen.
I guess maybe that’s why I like baseball so much: possibility. At the beginning of every season, we remind ourselves that, hey, the Marlins have a couple World Series rings. And, remember back in 1991 when the Twins and Braves both went worst-to-first to meet in the Fall Classic? On April 1st, every team has a shot. You don’t get that same feeling in football, or even basketball, despite the fact that more than half of the NBA makes the playoffs.
One last thing about baseball that I think sets it apart from the other team sports is its ability to withstand its fantasy counterpart. I’ve played pretty much every fantasy sport out there, but baseball is the only sport that, for me, has remained interesting to me in both the real game and the fantasy game. If anything, fantasy baseball has made me a more broad baseball fan. I knew about Ryan Braun before he’d ever played a game. The case was the same with Clayton Kershaw, Evan Longoria, and Tim Lincecum. Seeing these super-prospects turn into major league superstars gives them a story in my mind; I’ve watched them from the beginning.
PS: I know the ending is a little abrupt; they had a word limit, and I was right up against it.
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Monday, January 31, 2011
Why I'm Siding With The Players
With the NBA and the NFL both facing labor disputes and potential work stoppages in 2011, I thought I would take a little time and outline why I'm siding with players. In fact, I'm siding with the players this time, next time and probably every time after that. Here's why:
1) The players won't propose a deal that's bad for ownership
No, you read that correctly, the players won't and can't propose a deal that is bad for ownership. A bad deal for ownership would be one in which their labor costs to the players and other operating costs are so high that they don't make an acceptable profit and consider shutting down the sport for an extended length of time. If this were to happen, the players are basically putting themselves out of business. Since the players are (at least semi) rational, they won't offer a deal that kills the golden goose. Thus, the players have no choice but to agree to a deal that keeps the owners happily in business. Sure, they'll try to push as far into the owners profits as far as possible, but ultimately the players have to present a deal that is good for both sides.
The flip side of this is that the owners don't have to present a deal that is good for both sides. In fact, they want to maximize profits by lowering operating costs as much as possible. As long as their deal would be good enough to keep the talented players from choosing other professions (probably not hard to do since the average American makes somewhere south of $40k), then the owners would be in business and raking in even more cash.
2) The players are what we want to see
The players ARE the game. Watching the world's greatest athletes play the most exciting games at the very highest level is the reason we tune in to professional sports. Want proof of this: How many WNBA games did you watch last year? How many Division III college football games did you watch? How many cricket matches did you watch? I'm guessing the sum of these three question is probably less than five. Now, how many NFL games did you watch? That number is a lot higher, isn't it?
The talent is really the reason we watch professional sports. Without extraordinarily gifted players performing remarkable physical tasks, nobody pays attention. It doesn't matter how good your marketing is, how nice the stadium is or how delicious the hot dogs are, if the players aren't highly skilled nothing else matters. This isn't to say that we don't need the business side of sports to make things operate, we do, but the players are what draw people to the game.
In addition, it's important to note how scarce talented players are. Approximately 400 guys play in the NBA every year. Maybe another 2000 guys play in the NFL each year. That's 2400 people out of roughly 300 million Americans (yes, yes, some of the NBA guys come from overseas, bear with me). That means that roughly 0.0008% of the country is talented enough to play in the NFL or NBA. I don't care what other profession you name, I'm guessing more that 0.0008% of the population can do it.
3) It's a zero sum game
I've heard it a thousand times: "The players are just a bunch of spoiled millionaires who should shut up and be thankful they are getting paid 100 times more than the average school teacher". Ok, that's true, but guess what, the owners are multimillionaires too, and in most cases billionaires. Either way somebody really, really, really rich is going to end up with the money. It makes no sense to tell the players just to be grateful when it essentially makes someone else richer. Both sides are trying to maximize their slice of the revenue, this is capitalism.
4) Ticket prices aren't going anywhere
Another favorite argument is that if the players would accept less money, the owners (who were then facing lower operating costs) would lower ticket prices. This is flat out wrong. Ticket prices are calculated based on what people are willing to pay to walk in the gate. It's based on market research and demand to see the product on the field. Do this thought experiment: If all the player's salaries dropped to $100,000 tomorrow, what would happen to ticket prices? That's right, the ticket prices would stay exactly where they currently are...and the owners would pocket the difference.
5) The owners have an investment, the players have a job
Due to the increasing popularity of American professional sports (both in America and expanding around the world), an NBA or NFL franchise is worth more today than it was ten years ago...approximately 50% more. For example, the Jacksonville Jaguars (the NFL's least valuable franchise), was worth $460 million in 2000 is now worth $725 million. The Oakland Raiders went from $315 million to $758 million over the same ten year period. Even my beloved Cleveland Browns went from $557 million to $1032 million proving that you don't need to win to make money. Even if the owners weren't making any money year to year (and believe me, they are as all but 6 franchises had profits of greater than $10 million in 2009), the act of simply owning the team is returning 50% over ten years. Obviously, past results don't guarantee future returns, but, damn.
The players are another story. The average NFL career is only a few years and when you are done, you're done. Of course there is the NFL pension plan, but that is only for players that played at least three years and you can't get full benefits until the age of 55. While this is a nice benefit that most American workers would probably kill to receive, it doesn't exactly seem to match up with the 50% return on investment the owners are seeing.
Highly skilled players, representing the only real commodity of their sport, presenting a reasonable, win/win offer to ownership that is seeing huge returns on their investments. That is why I'm supporting the players in the upcoming NBA and NFL labor disputes.
1) The players won't propose a deal that's bad for ownership
No, you read that correctly, the players won't and can't propose a deal that is bad for ownership. A bad deal for ownership would be one in which their labor costs to the players and other operating costs are so high that they don't make an acceptable profit and consider shutting down the sport for an extended length of time. If this were to happen, the players are basically putting themselves out of business. Since the players are (at least semi) rational, they won't offer a deal that kills the golden goose. Thus, the players have no choice but to agree to a deal that keeps the owners happily in business. Sure, they'll try to push as far into the owners profits as far as possible, but ultimately the players have to present a deal that is good for both sides.
The flip side of this is that the owners don't have to present a deal that is good for both sides. In fact, they want to maximize profits by lowering operating costs as much as possible. As long as their deal would be good enough to keep the talented players from choosing other professions (probably not hard to do since the average American makes somewhere south of $40k), then the owners would be in business and raking in even more cash.
2) The players are what we want to see
The players ARE the game. Watching the world's greatest athletes play the most exciting games at the very highest level is the reason we tune in to professional sports. Want proof of this: How many WNBA games did you watch last year? How many Division III college football games did you watch? How many cricket matches did you watch? I'm guessing the sum of these three question is probably less than five. Now, how many NFL games did you watch? That number is a lot higher, isn't it?
The talent is really the reason we watch professional sports. Without extraordinarily gifted players performing remarkable physical tasks, nobody pays attention. It doesn't matter how good your marketing is, how nice the stadium is or how delicious the hot dogs are, if the players aren't highly skilled nothing else matters. This isn't to say that we don't need the business side of sports to make things operate, we do, but the players are what draw people to the game.
In addition, it's important to note how scarce talented players are. Approximately 400 guys play in the NBA every year. Maybe another 2000 guys play in the NFL each year. That's 2400 people out of roughly 300 million Americans (yes, yes, some of the NBA guys come from overseas, bear with me). That means that roughly 0.0008% of the country is talented enough to play in the NFL or NBA. I don't care what other profession you name, I'm guessing more that 0.0008% of the population can do it.
3) It's a zero sum game
I've heard it a thousand times: "The players are just a bunch of spoiled millionaires who should shut up and be thankful they are getting paid 100 times more than the average school teacher". Ok, that's true, but guess what, the owners are multimillionaires too, and in most cases billionaires. Either way somebody really, really, really rich is going to end up with the money. It makes no sense to tell the players just to be grateful when it essentially makes someone else richer. Both sides are trying to maximize their slice of the revenue, this is capitalism.
4) Ticket prices aren't going anywhere
Another favorite argument is that if the players would accept less money, the owners (who were then facing lower operating costs) would lower ticket prices. This is flat out wrong. Ticket prices are calculated based on what people are willing to pay to walk in the gate. It's based on market research and demand to see the product on the field. Do this thought experiment: If all the player's salaries dropped to $100,000 tomorrow, what would happen to ticket prices? That's right, the ticket prices would stay exactly where they currently are...and the owners would pocket the difference.
5) The owners have an investment, the players have a job
Due to the increasing popularity of American professional sports (both in America and expanding around the world), an NBA or NFL franchise is worth more today than it was ten years ago...approximately 50% more. For example, the Jacksonville Jaguars (the NFL's least valuable franchise), was worth $460 million in 2000 is now worth $725 million. The Oakland Raiders went from $315 million to $758 million over the same ten year period. Even my beloved Cleveland Browns went from $557 million to $1032 million proving that you don't need to win to make money. Even if the owners weren't making any money year to year (and believe me, they are as all but 6 franchises had profits of greater than $10 million in 2009), the act of simply owning the team is returning 50% over ten years. Obviously, past results don't guarantee future returns, but, damn.
The players are another story. The average NFL career is only a few years and when you are done, you're done. Of course there is the NFL pension plan, but that is only for players that played at least three years and you can't get full benefits until the age of 55. While this is a nice benefit that most American workers would probably kill to receive, it doesn't exactly seem to match up with the 50% return on investment the owners are seeing.
Highly skilled players, representing the only real commodity of their sport, presenting a reasonable, win/win offer to ownership that is seeing huge returns on their investments. That is why I'm supporting the players in the upcoming NBA and NFL labor disputes.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Someone Get LaVar Arrington off My Radio
I've had very little nice to say about LaVar Arrington since about three years into his tenure as a Washington Redskin. He was a disappointing high draft pick, and perhaps served as a warning to other teams regarding early linebacker picks. Their skills don't always translate to the NFL, as they rely on being faster than college running backs, and strong enough to take them down.
But I can get past a bad draft pick. He didn't work out, that's alright, it happens. I wouldn't be talking about Arrington today if that's where it stopped. But he's got his own radio show in the DC area. It's on from 2 PM - 6 PM, afternoon drive time, which means someone decided he was one of the best options they have, and whoever that is should be fired.
LaVar is awful. He comes across as naive and foolish, and he's just about the worst interviewer I've ever heard. Some commentators will offer leading questions; LaVar outright answers his own questions, then says, "Right?" He basically instructs his interviewee to use as many cliches as possible. His radio partner, Chad Dukes, has some more sense than Arrington, but he encourages LaVar enough that he's complicit in this crime. And make no mistake; what LaVar Arrington does to his radio listeners is criminal.
The worst part of it all is that I think Arrington is just not all that familiar with today's NFL. Just yesterday, the discussion focused on DeSean Jackson's comments about being happy that Donovan McNabb was out of town. That kind of discussion, a division rival talking smack about your quarterback, that's easy radio fodder. Arrington managed to make himself look like an idiot. First, he referred to McNabb's replacement as Schaub. Three times. Matt Schaub is the starting quarterback for the Houston Texans, and is fairly accomplished. Kevin Kolb is McNabb's replacement in Philadelphia.
If that were the only mistake he made, while silly, it could be chalked up to misspeaking once, then repeating the misspeak. But just a minute later, this exchange took place between LaVar and Dukes:
L: "How many teams are in the NFL? Thirty-five?"
C: "Thirty-two."
L: "Yeah, I guess there would have to be an even number."
Congratulations, LaVar Arrington. You've established yourself as the least qualified sports commentator in the Washington, DC area. Seriously, how many teams are in the NFL? I'll give you a clue, LaVar. No teams have been added to the league since you stopped playing football less than five years ago.
I mean, come on, this is the guy's job. If there's one expectation about a former NFL player when it comes to his radio show, it's that he'll be able to speak with some expertise about the NFL. I can accept that he's not a hockey expert, and doesn't know much about baseball, but he'd better know the NFL up and down.
I don't mean for this post to make you think I dislike LaVar Arrington as a person. He seems like a fine person, fairly good-natured, and while I personally don't care, he's got a history of being very charitable. But companies shouldn't (and overwhelmingly don't) employ people because they're good people. They employ people because they're good at their job. And LaVar isn't.
But I can get past a bad draft pick. He didn't work out, that's alright, it happens. I wouldn't be talking about Arrington today if that's where it stopped. But he's got his own radio show in the DC area. It's on from 2 PM - 6 PM, afternoon drive time, which means someone decided he was one of the best options they have, and whoever that is should be fired.
LaVar is awful. He comes across as naive and foolish, and he's just about the worst interviewer I've ever heard. Some commentators will offer leading questions; LaVar outright answers his own questions, then says, "Right?" He basically instructs his interviewee to use as many cliches as possible. His radio partner, Chad Dukes, has some more sense than Arrington, but he encourages LaVar enough that he's complicit in this crime. And make no mistake; what LaVar Arrington does to his radio listeners is criminal.
The worst part of it all is that I think Arrington is just not all that familiar with today's NFL. Just yesterday, the discussion focused on DeSean Jackson's comments about being happy that Donovan McNabb was out of town. That kind of discussion, a division rival talking smack about your quarterback, that's easy radio fodder. Arrington managed to make himself look like an idiot. First, he referred to McNabb's replacement as Schaub. Three times. Matt Schaub is the starting quarterback for the Houston Texans, and is fairly accomplished. Kevin Kolb is McNabb's replacement in Philadelphia.
If that were the only mistake he made, while silly, it could be chalked up to misspeaking once, then repeating the misspeak. But just a minute later, this exchange took place between LaVar and Dukes:
L: "How many teams are in the NFL? Thirty-five?"
C: "Thirty-two."
L: "Yeah, I guess there would have to be an even number."
Congratulations, LaVar Arrington. You've established yourself as the least qualified sports commentator in the Washington, DC area. Seriously, how many teams are in the NFL? I'll give you a clue, LaVar. No teams have been added to the league since you stopped playing football less than five years ago.
I mean, come on, this is the guy's job. If there's one expectation about a former NFL player when it comes to his radio show, it's that he'll be able to speak with some expertise about the NFL. I can accept that he's not a hockey expert, and doesn't know much about baseball, but he'd better know the NFL up and down.
I don't mean for this post to make you think I dislike LaVar Arrington as a person. He seems like a fine person, fairly good-natured, and while I personally don't care, he's got a history of being very charitable. But companies shouldn't (and overwhelmingly don't) employ people because they're good people. They employ people because they're good at their job. And LaVar isn't.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Steroids v. Rape
Mark McGwire has been demonized for having used steroids and (until recently) not admitting so. Barry Bonds continues to be shunned from baseball because the belief is that major league fans won't tolerate their team signing him, because of the assumption, most likely correct, that he used performance-enhancing substances during his career.
Lawrence Taylor is a member of the NFL Hall of Fame, despite a fairly long rap sheet. Will he be removed from it if this most recent (and most heinous) charge sticks? Is cheating at your job more horrible than rape? It can't be, right?
I'm trying not to rush to judgment, trying not to assume that Taylor is guilty before he's been given a chance to defend himself. But if he ends up being guilty of this crime, the NFL has to step up and say, "Despite his amazing on-field performances, we refuse to be associated with Lawrence Taylor any further. While his statistics will remain in our record books, he has been removed from the NFL Hall of Fame."
And the media needs to react with similar disgust. Otherwise, keeping McGwire and Bonds out of the baseball Hall of Fame is just petulant.
Lawrence Taylor is a member of the NFL Hall of Fame, despite a fairly long rap sheet. Will he be removed from it if this most recent (and most heinous) charge sticks? Is cheating at your job more horrible than rape? It can't be, right?
I'm trying not to rush to judgment, trying not to assume that Taylor is guilty before he's been given a chance to defend himself. But if he ends up being guilty of this crime, the NFL has to step up and say, "Despite his amazing on-field performances, we refuse to be associated with Lawrence Taylor any further. While his statistics will remain in our record books, he has been removed from the NFL Hall of Fame."
And the media needs to react with similar disgust. Otherwise, keeping McGwire and Bonds out of the baseball Hall of Fame is just petulant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
When I think about why I'm making this blog post, I'm reminded of a memorable quote from my all-time favorite show, The West Wing : ...
-
Games are a little tougher to judge, because frankly I play a lot of games that I don't finish, but often I don't finish them like, ...
-
We're making progress! I've got kind of a reputation for being way behind on movies and shows, a reputation well-earned. Even with t...
