Ruminations, Haunts, and Errors

In the last two months of this dismal, astonishing season I’ve made a deliberate attempt to watch just two Cubs games in their entirety: one in person against the Cardinals in August, and then the last game of the season. Fortunately, they won both, and I was especially happy with the latter since, for some odd reason, I can feel somewhat satisfied in my Cubdom by finishing an otherwise disastrous season with a victory (especially at sun-splashed Wrigley with the ivy showing hints of color); perhaps it’s just knowing that the last innings for several months turned out well.

Anyway, as the Dusty Death March finally stood a day away from resolution there was yet another flurry of activity with Andy MacPhail’s announcement of his resignation, resulting in an hour of press questions for MacPhail, iterim prez John McDonnough, and Tribune Co. chariman Dennis Fitzsimmons. As I listened to the talk it dawned on me that the great Corporate Cubs Canard–the suits see fans in the seats win or lose, so they don’t care about winning since it might cost more money–was about to dominate the local sports news for a few days, especially since the management reins were being handed, at least temporarily, to the team’s (successful) VP of marketing.

A quick look at the papers this morning of course proved me right. Yet it just exasperates me, the argument is just so fricking ridiculous, especially when spewed from the mouths and keyboards of people who claim to understand both the business and on-field aspects of the sport.

Okay, I will concede that Tribune Co. isn’t going to feel a particular urgency to single out one of its assets for special attention, especially when it seems to be generating steady revenue year-in and year-out. Perhaps the general corporate short-term attitude has also crept into the Cubs’ front-office mentality and is preventing them from properly constructing longer-term plans to rebuild the whole organization. But in the 25 seasons of Tribune ownership the team has won three divisions, one wild-card berth, and twice been within a couple innings of the World Series. That’s a vast improvement over the previous 35 seasons under the stewardship of the Wrigley family, which makes it hard to argue that the ‘corprate mentality’ has hurt the team on the field.

Yet what I find utterly ridiculous about the notion that Tribune management is deliberately constructing mediocre-to-bad teams, and emphasizing Wrigley’s party atmosphere, over on-field success is the notion that a successful team is inherently less profitable than a bad one. Certainly, success leads to higher player salaries…but it also generates more interest, resulting in more prime-time playoff appearances (read: higher advertizing revenues) and the ability to bump up next season’s ticket prices. Yes, Connie Mack said that a team that gets off to a fast start, generates lots of interest, and then ultimately finishes fourth is nicely profitable because the money is taken in but management can hold the line on player salaries–but the key element is still some measure of success.

Moreover, did anyone pay attention to the buzz around Wrigleyville in the fall of 2003? The ringing of cash registers at souvenir stands well into November? The throngs of ticket-seekers on a cold February morning in 2004? Do people really think that cold, corporate calculation in Tribune Tower feels that the revenue potential of putting the Cubs–the long-standing doormats of the National League–into a sustained run of prime-time battles deep into the World Series would be lower than that of just running the world’s largest beer garden?

If those corporate suits were so smart and calculating as the armchair owners seem to think they are, here’s a more likely scenario for maximizing the profit potential. They would build up the team to the point where it would consistently take all three playoff series to the limit, thus maximizing the profit of each by playing all possible games whose net reciepts don’t need to be shared with the players. They would make the team just good enough to reach the 7th game but perhaps not good enough to win it, thus keeping everyone (players and fans alike) hungry while justifying both ticket-price increases and some dampening of players’ raises. They’d keep this up for several seasons, culminating in a World Series victory–after which the team would quickly be sold: the team’s valuation would be at a lofty premium, and Bill Veeck knew long ago that you don’t make money by operating a baseball team but rather by selling it.

Maybe I’m wrong, maybe there is a TribCo beancounter with a cost-benefit spreadsheet showing that the risks involved with such a scenario are too high compared with the current steady revenue stream. But, as in most human endeavors, it is probably incorrect to attribute the lack of success to calculated malice when it can just as easily be explained by incompetence and bad luck. The self-fulfilling prophecy of a goat’s curse probably has a lot more power, and longer life, than any corporate business model.

With the exception of overcast rather than clear blue skies, everything else about our afternoon at Wrigley seemed to come together nicely. Public transit moved fairly smoothly all the way to the ballpark. Carlos Zambrano, the only truly consistent star the Cubs have had in 2006, was the starter. The team picked yesterday to finally surrender a game to the Cardinals–I figured there was no way the division-leading Cards were gonna go 0-for-Chicago this season–so that burden of expectation was relieved. Our upper-deck seats had a good view, we were near the premium-beer stand, the temperature was pleasant, and there were some sightings of the Blue Angels to add a little spice.

We certainly got our money’s worth. Cubs-Cards is always a festive experience, and this one had not only plenty of action–nine runs on 18 hits means a goodly amount of activity yet not quite a boring slugfest of sloppy pitching–but an extra inning to boot. Big Z was a bit shaky for the first two innings, but got out of major jams to turn in a very impressive seven innings. Too bad the bullpen couldn’t hang on to a one-run lead…twice. Yet, that did set up perhaps the most spectacular combination of play and situation that I’ve ever personally witnessed: Juan Pierre going back on a Pujols drive, checking the wall, checking the ball and backtracking further, checking the wall again, and finally leaping into the ivy with exquisite precision to snag the ball just under the basket–turning a game-breaking, bases-loaded double into a long, loud third out. The stunned buzz of ‘did I really just see that?’ was palpable; too bad the play came for a Cubs team that has been reduced to merely the role of spoiler. At least that play plus Nevin’s game-winning single an inning later kept Z’s outing from being in vain.

I noticed a number of Cardinals fans walking around the park in T-shirts showing how many more championship rings they had in comparison with the Cubs. The main gist was that, unlike the Cubs, the Cards had more rings than a bear has claws, and the text finished with something along the lines of ‘…and our last one wasn’t before man’s first flight.’

Hmm. Wright brothers, 1903. Cubs last World Series victory, 1908. Cards in World Series: 9-for-16. Cubs in World Series: 2-10 (plus 6 pennants prior to St. Louis joining the NL in 1892). Bears have four paws with five claws each.

So, while that T-shirt reiterated the obvious fact that St. Louis has had a more successful baseball team over the years, apparently they’ve done so at the expense of learning other things like history, biology, and arithmetic. Glad to hear they’re proud of that tradeoff.

While getting to the game was okay, getting home was more irritating. When the touch pad registers a proper hit with a CTA Chicago Card, it lights up and beeps, but when there is a problem with the hit it…well, lights up and beeps. Very helpful there, guys, and having the bus driver yell out ‘Sir! Sir!’ without actually explaining the issue isn’t much better. Moreover, after a decade or so of electonic farecards of various types, why the hell hasn’t the CTA figured out how to properly cope with transfers and multiple users on the same card yet? Seriously, the number of use cases isn’t that large, nor does it require a particularly complicated state diagram. I’m pretty sure a high-schooler could write the necessary software, and sell it to the CTA for something that would meet their budget constraints.

Cubs land Izturis, send Maddux to LA

Always sad to see a great player traded, especially one who genuinely seemed to like the team and fans, but such is pro sports.  It’s not like the Cubs are going anywhere this year, and unlike the fiasco during his first exit in 1992 this time his leaving would appear to be helping the team for the future.

I noted while watching the game on Saturday that the fans gave him two ovations, one for a perfectly executed sacrifice bunt in the sixth and then a larger one (prompting the cap tip) as he walked off the mound as Baker relieved him one batter into the seventh.  They paid homage to not only his skills and execution in that game, but also that they were seeing a Hall-of-Famer leave the field in Cubbie pinstripes for what was quite possibly the final time.

Hence, the Wrigley crowd exhibited an understanding of 1) how the game is supposed to be played, 2) its history and a particular player’s place therein, and 3) the business realities of the sport.  Not bad for a bunch of yuppies who know nothing of baseball and just go to that ballpark for the beer and sunshine, no?

Being in England during the FIFA World Cup, I could not avoid watching or discussing soccer. Actually, I’ve got nothing against the sport, I’ve just never been that interested. At least I finally got a decent answer for why so often it seems that any goal causes the scoring team to erupt in a frenzy usually reserved (in typical American sports, at least) for championship wins: more often than not, goals result not from designed plays but from right-place-right-time chances in busted plays–so the jolt of amazement is usually genuine.

Fair enough, but that still supports my gripe–and the view of many Americans probably–that the game as currently configured simply makes scoring a goal too hard…which is befuddling since there’s really no other objective measurement of the progress of the match! Some might argue that the true measure of the game is in watching the technique and struggle of the players, so a 0-0 match can be amazing. Okay, fine…but if the goals are merely side notes, what’s the point of keeping score? Why not just judge the World Cup finals on style points?

Oh, and I noted one more thing in watching bits and pieces of several matches. Anyone who claims that soccer is superior to other sports because of its neverending flow of play–as opposed to the frequent stoppages of, say, baseball or (American) football–is full of crap. Seeing nineteen players casually jog towards one end of the field while the twentieth saunters over to the sideline for a throw-in is hardly compelling action, and based on my limited sampling this seems to occur with about the same frequency as ’stoppages’ in other sports; that soccer doesn’t stop its game clock for these situations doesn’t change the fact that it’s still essentially a break in the game flow.

• Satire in the legislative ranks
  Good to see that some of our politicians at least still have not only a sense of humor but the sense to realize that the public interest demands legislation based on something more than ‘I just don’t like X’.
  (tags: USA politics satire)
• turning down big bucks
  Wait, turning down a potential windfall from Hummer because they don’t want to be associated with gas-guzzling aboniations? I thought all those lefty types were relativists with no values to guide their lives!
  (tags: USA society values)
• NSA searches for advanced data mining tech
  Actually, I hope the NSA has some success here. Striking the proper balance between civil liberties and police powers would be much easier if we had confidence that government agencies could actually get something useful from all the info they claim to need.
  (tags: USA government civil liberties technology)
• An avalanche of goodwill
  Nice to see Joey Cheek get some well-deserved recognition. After watching Bode Miller act like he didn’t care while Shani Davis and Chad Hendrick act like petulant children, at least its good to know that some people still appreciate the privileges and honors we often afford our athletes.
  (tags: USA sports society)
• Court gives meth addicts way out
  So, is this an example of good values or going soft on lawbreakers?
  (tags: USA law society)
• Saddam ‘calls off hunger strike’
  Calling off a hunger strike for health reasons?!? WTF? I thought the whole point was to cause health problems that would lead to sympathy.
  (tags: international law)
• Pension reckoning,
  A Hard Rain’s Gonna Fall
  The Feds have the deficit, we’ve got our pension problems. Either way it’s gonna be a mess. How long until our legislators can no longer play with the appropriations numbers to ensure that the reckoning happens after they’re safely retired from office?
  (tags: Illinois politics)

The presence of a play-by-play commentator for a televised sporting event has long seemed a silly affectation, but some of the better color commentators do, from time to time, actually improve the experience through explanations of some nuance that may not have been immediately apparent in real time. Still, as a long-time viewer I’ve learned to tune out most of the yakkery and selectively listen only to thost bits that might prove interesting.

I don’t have such well-developed mental filters for the winter Olympics, so I’ve paid more attention to the announcers’ commentary…and it’s really struck me how inane much of it is. Three items stand out from the past week:

• The lingo and delivery of the snowboarding commentators conveys a sort of ‘Duuude’ cachet. Perhaps it’s just unfamilarity with these relatively new events, or maybe pure elitist disdain for a sport still enveloped in a slacker-surfer-ganja-free-spirit mentality, but hearing what sound like Bill & Ted talking about the righteous moves so-and-so did at last week’s Winter X-Games simply doesn’t project the grandiosity the IOC tries to weave around the Games.
• Is Scott Hamilton a commentator or a cheerleader? His cries of ‘whoa!’ evoke Hawk Harrelson and are likewise distracting. Is it really adding anything to mention that skaters are required to do a number of mandatory elements? Or that a triple axel/double toe loop combo is difficult, requiring talent, skill, and practice?
• I didn’t catch the name of the Canadian commentator during the ice-dancing short program, but I did notice that she repeated, essentially verbatim, the same description of how the focus is different for each member of the pair three times in a span of about five or six minutes.

It occurs to me that the structure of Olympic competitions tends to enhance the superfluousness of commentary. Perhaps the vast majority of what Pat & Ron say during Cubs games changes very little from game to game, but it helps that there’s typically a day that passes between the times they say it. In contrast most Olmypic events only take a couple of minutes to complete, so the commentators say the same thing again and again (and again!) in the space of just 15 or 20 minutes. Moreover, a downhill race or short skating program simply doesn’t have the complexity of a three-hour ballgame that takes place in the context of a long season and thus doesn’t require the same kind of insight and explanation. This isn’t to say that the Olympic events don’t require nuance of ability and technique that can mean the difference between the podium and the gallery; rather, whereas the subtlety of a pitch sequence may have import on tactical decisions in the remainder of a game (or strategic decisions for the season) that might not be initially obvious, the consequences of missing a gate or two-footing a landing will be readily apparent within moments.

• Holiday-week vacation, I Love the 80s: 3D on VH1…can’t…stop…watching…ahh! It’s like frickin’ crack for the Gen-X set!! Whoever came up with the I Love… series is a genius. Quoth Liz at 1:11am: “Finally, a commercial! Quick, get the remote so we can finally turn it off!”
• Oh, no! First Field’s, now the Berghoff is closing. I thought Chicago was rising, what’s with the long-time institutions going by the wayside? Where shall we go now for schnitzel and haughty service??
• Figuring that a pre-qualification letter would be a good thing to have at this point in the house-hunting process, I filled out the forms at LendingTree this morning. Wowzers, within 30 minutes I had eight emails and a phone call! I suppose it’s better than trudging around from bank to bank, awaiting to see what rates they deign to give out, but the response it a bit overwhelming. Didn’t they see where I marked that we don’t have an actual property under consideration yet?
• Can’t there be some better standards for writing up descriptions of houses on the market? Hitting place after place only to find that the meaning of ‘yard’, ‘3 bedrooms’, or ‘needs some TLC’ can vary by orders of magnitude is making the process a bit more like a chore than it needs to be. We’ll have enough of that once we have to maintain a place, thank you very much.
• I figured the Prior-for-Tejada rumors that surfaced last week were just so much hot-stove-league rumor mongering to spice up the holiday lull, yet they’re still showing up on the Trib and ESPN. Seriously, I hope there’s nothing to them; the trade simply doesn’t make sense, and not just because he’s a popular Cub–or even the starting-pitching-wins-championships mantra. It’s simply that a 25-year-old pitcher has his best years ahead of him, while a 30-year-old hitter is either at or past his peak. Maybe Prior is injury-prone or exhibits flaws in his mechanics, but there’s plenty of time to mold that; Tejada’s bat (or glove) isn’t the difference between last year and the World Series, and both skills will almost certainly start declining soon.

Yesterday the NCAA released their ruling on U of I’s appeal of the initial ruling against their use of the Fighting Illini name and Chief Illiniwek. While I’m glad to see part of the issue resolved, it looks to me that controversy will still rage on for a while. So the school won on the no-brainer part of the appeal relating to its teams’ nicknames

Based on its own research, discussions with relevant Native American groups and information provided by the university, the staff committee concurs with Illinois that the term ‘Illini’ is closely related to the name of the state and not directly associated with Native Americans. The nicknames ‘Illini’ or ‘Fighting Illini’ are not reasons for including the university in the August 2005 policy, and the review committee accepts the university’s appeal on this point.

but, uh…hmm, the name of our fair state derives from the loose confederation of tribes that use to live here yet their collective name isn’t associated with those people? The university made this argument, and the the NCAA accepted it, with straight faces? Well, I suppose at heart this is an argument over bylaws among money-making corporate entities, even if they are academic institutions.

Anyway, methinks this bit of sophistry is only going to muddy the waters rather than forge resolution. Hence, this ruling would seem to confirm that there is no particular group that can claim support for, or opposition to, Chief Illiniwek due to any direct connection (if the elimination of the Illini as a distinct ethnic/cultural group in the 1800s wasn’t enough already). Yet the press release also states

However, because the term ‘Illini’ has become associated with Native Americans through its use in conjunction with Chief Illiniwek, the committee strongly recommends that the university undertake an educational effort to help those among its constituents and in the general public understand the origin of the term and the lack of any direct association with Native Americans.

What, lawyer got your backbone? The NCAA seems here to dance around a more explicit statement that their continued call to retire Chief Illiniwek is a desire to be politically correct and to extricate themselves from a controversy. Whatever has transpired during the course his development, Chief Illiniwek has become an amalgam of attributes and traditions unique to the Illinois athletic department–a work of impressionism, as it were. Some might feel that the school and community simply have no right for drawing upon those traditions no matter how well-intentioned they believe they are being, and given the general history of the contact between Europeans and Native Americans that belief is certainly reasonable. However, if the NCAA simply cannot handle that a vocal minority feel that way, then they should just come right out and say so. Either this is a weighty and obvious social injustice that must be eliminated–immediately and uniformly, no appeals or special dispensations–or it’s a point-of-view dispute that needs to be adjudicated by aggrieved parties on a case-by-case basis. The NCAA should stop trying to have it both ways.

(Oh, by the way, given how the various committees are taking great pains to make this whole issue into a case requiring solemn, detailed, legalistic consideration, how is it that they got the official institutional name of the school wrong–it’s the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, not the University of Illinois, Champaign–not once but four times in a one-page press release??)

Warm summer night, slight breeze off the lake. An all-beef hot dog and a beer as we settled into our upper-deck box seats, looking down the right-field line over a beautifully kept field, smooth cutout and freshly chalked lines all just waiting to be trampled. That part of the Wrigley experience never, ever gets old.

But by the second inning, that was all gone as the listless Cubs continued their struggles. No spark, no pizazz, still no clue at the plate. Defense didn’t fail them tonight, but I guess Williams and Rusch decided it was better (certainly more dramatic) to simply serve up the runs via gopherballs before the fielders had the chance to imitate Little Leaguers. Did the Cubs just discover in the ninth that they were down nine runs and decide maybe they should wake up and score? But, of course, too little too late. At least there was the novelty of Kerry Wood as an 8th-inning reliever.

As several innings passed with little else to spark my interest, I mused that at this point in the season, with this roster, Dusty Baker is probably the worst manager the Cubs could have. The issue isn’t his general quality as a manager–he’s proven himself competent and was great for the Cubs in 2003 when they needed someone to loosen them up then keep ‘em calm through the wild ride that was August and September; I’m not even talking about his (perceived) strategic shortcomings, overuse of starters, or handling of the 8th inning of Game Six. No, the problem is that the Cubs need to decide in the next few days (if it isn’t too late) whether to pusue a catch-Houston-or-bust charge for second place (and the Wild Card) or pull back to assess what they can build upon in 2006. The former requires spectacle–bold lineup changes, mind games to scare veterans and rookies alike to revert to fundamentals, occasional histrionics on the field or in the press–while the latter requires sitting the Proven Veterans (what is his fascination with Jose Macias? In center field?!??) in favor of seeing what the rookies can do. Baker seems determined to maintain his ride-it-out approach no matter how much the standings and schedule indicate against it, and getting him to play rookies has always been worse than pulling teeth. So, it looks like the Cubs will spend the remainder of 2005 foundering towards fourth (fifth?) place yet may have to start their evaluation process all over again come February 2006.

So far in 2005 the Cubs bring to mind two words: exasperating inconsistency. Lose 7. Win 8. Win-and-lose. Take 2 of 3 on the South Side. Win-and-lose some more. Drop 8, mostly to the best of the East…then drop 26 runs on the league’s best pitching to finish out the first half with a road sweep. All the while, never seeming to have the starters, relievers, and batsmen all going at the same time.

• Good: Derrek Lee’s triple-crown chase and well-deserved All-Star start. Jeromy Burnitz’s solid, if mildly ungraceful, play–especially the ability to position himself properly, throw to the right base, and hit the cutoff man.
• Bad: The revolving door to the DL. Middle relief.
• Ugly: The pathetic approach to the plate for most batters, notably Corey Patterson. Can someone not named Derrek Lee take a frickin’ pitch or two once in a while? I’ve seen way too many weak grounders and lazy fly balls on the second pitch for my liking. C’mon, Dusty, enough with the I’m-OK-you’re-OK, let-him-play-through-it approach and give these guys some incentives to take a more fundamentals-driven approach to each at-bat.

Given that essentially every pre-season prediction of goodness for the 2005 Cubs came with the qualifcation “…depending upon the health of the starting pitching…”, that they’re one under and 12.5 back isn’t particularly surprising. But Prior and Wood are both back, and both pitching fairly well considering their travails, Dempster seems a stable closer, and Hawkins is long gone, so the excuses are gone. So are all this team’s mulligans, in this hack’s opinion. With 75 games left, if they win (on average) every series they can still finish with 93 victories….but they had better put together a good solid winning streak by early August–plus limit the losing streaks to one in a row for a while–or else it will be another season of looking towards next year come September.

• Cuba doubts it will play in World Baseball Classic

  Cuba’s top sports official said Wednesday he doubts the nation will participate in next year’s World Baseball Classic, calling the event commercialization of the sport.

  Hmm, because ‘commercialization’ would be such a shocking, radical departure from the last 130-some years of professional baseball, huh?