ill noise: E.O.E.

E.O.E.

A half hour from now starts the home opener for the Cubs. I’ve got a feeling I won’t like how the new renovations to Wrigley Field will look on TV, but hey, if it allows for 1,800 more people per game to enjoy the Friendly Confines, then I guess I should have no qualms about it. I’m really excited about this season though, although some people aren’t so much.

The other day when I had a meeting with a potential employer, I was enthusiastically explaining my qualifications for the position — by uncontrollably talking with my hands — when my blue Cubs “Believe” bracelet fell down from out of my shirt sleeve onto the end of my wrist, thus revealing my affiliation. My worst nightmare came true when my interviewer, now eyeing my bracelet, stopped me and said, “Cubs fan, eh? I grew up a diehard Sox fan.”

Trying to salvage the situation, I quipped, “Well at least you aren’t a Cards fan, or else we’d have big problems!”

“My wife grew up in southern Illinois and loves the Cardinals.”

I said nothing and just nodded my head. This is what I get for talking with my hands too much, and literally wearing my heart on my sleeves. Hopefully they will still hire me. In any case, GO CUBS!

Friday, April 7, 2006

23 Comments

#1 cole: the team looks good so far this season.

April 7, 2006 03:49 PM

#2 Stewart

An ex-fan's perspective:

You should have said: "At least we can agree that there are 14 teams too many in MLB, and the talent is spread so thin that, among other things, nobody has been thrown out at home from deep center field since ive been a fan"

The idea that 'nobody watches baseball' outside of the northeast corridor and Chicago could be easily remedied if we turned some things back to 1960.

I would think Chicago, with such a rich baseball history, would reject the "history started last week" mentality forced on us by the ESPN-style sports media.

Too many (bad) players, too many errors, too much focus on money and book deals and steroids...

If a player back in the 1950's, who didnt lift or take any drugs, could accurately throw a ball from the outfield to anywhere else on the field (no bounces, actually THROW it), then why cant anyone do it today with all our 'advancements'? A cut-off man is for high school ball, yet even so, how many accurate throws do you even see from him to home plate?

Chicago has 2 of the original teams, so does STL; all of your favorite rivalries would even be preserved!

April 8, 2006 08:12 PM

#3 Pete

Stewie,

I'll agree with you that the league is too big. But not 14 teams too big. Maybe 1 or 2. A couple years back when it was announced that the Montreal Expos were going to go bye-bye, I hoped that this would mean a league contraction, and that the Expos players would be dispersed throughout the league in a lottery. Instead, they were simply relocated to fuckin' D.C.

I say the league should get rid of the Nationals, and maybe the Devil Rays (whose team name reminds me of a typical cheesy NHL team), or at least get rid of those ugly-ass Devil Ray jerseys.

It seems to me, Stewart, that you're basing your disdain for baseball only on the inability for most major leaguers to throw people out at home. Different eras, man (era, meaning "time period" -- not "earned run average"). Players today are just better at different things, that's all. You can't actually believe that today's players are any less talented than the players of 50 years ago? Throwing men out at home, I'd guess, is just a lost art... something they don't practice anymore these days. It's akin to how the average NBA player today can't shoot a simple 15-foot freethrow.

Baseball players also strike out lots more than they did 50 years ago, but that doesn't mean they suck, it just means that more are swinging for the fences. I don't have a problem with that.

Sure, the game is flawed, sure, a basketball fastbreak is more exhilirating, but when it comes down to it, baseball games can have a level of drama that neither football or basketball can or will ever touch. When it's the bottom of the 9th, wind blowing out at Wrigley, 2 outs, full count, down by 1 run, runner on 2nd with your favorite batter at the plate, when the stakes are high and everyone is on their feet... there is no sport that connects fans together so well emotionally.

I'm no Bob Costas, but I've watched enough great baseball moments to think that the league's existence is justified and that the game is worth watching.

April 8, 2006 08:58 PM

#4 Lennie

what modern pro sports league doesn't have the problem of diluted talent? sports is now an entertainment business. quality of games are good enough to bring in enough fans so thats all that matters. main key is the fans are being properly entertained...just look at attendance.

why single out baseball?

April 8, 2006 10:15 PM

#5 Stewart

The overall level of play hasn't decreased dramatically in the NFL or NBA, in fact i think its become better in the NFL. (They need to call the travel more in basketball, that 'jump stop' crap is trvelling; oh, but we arent allowed to criticize if its 'from the streets', i forgot, thanks ESPN)

Attendance is key. Outside of BoSox games, yankees games, and the wonderful teams here in Chicago, you show me some consecutive sellouts like the NFL or NBA. Watch the TV, you will see more empty seats than filled ones at any other MLB stadium. Nobody wants to pay $ to see overthrown balls into the dugouts and at the same time, players that need 2 cut-off men to get the ball into the infield.

Baseball is not centered around home runs. It is about pitching and defense, foremost.

April 8, 2006 11:12 PM

#6 Dan

All this "back in the day" stuff is boring and just sounds bitter. Were you there to see all these throws from the warning track to home plate on one bounce? Or maybe some people only remember the good stuff, and their memories become exagerrated over time. And of course, because hitting, specifically power hitting, has improved at a faster rate than pitching, the talent is spread too thin. Yeah, right. How many Dominicans, Asians, Venezualans, and on and on, were playing in 1960?

Many people would argue that population growth, doors opening to new markets, specialization, etc, lead to increased quality of product in other professions and products, but baseball somehow was missed in these improvements? I think the game really improved in all areas, but the focus changed, so the light shines brighter on the offensive part of the game, making the pitching and defense look worse.

Also, would NFL games be selling out if they played 10x as often? I don't doubt their average attendance would be higher than MLB's, because it's simply more popular, but I really don't think they could pull in 70k 6 nights in a row every other week.

April 9, 2006 08:46 AM

#7 Dan: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33402

April 9, 2006 08:55 AM

#8 Stewart

Yeah, the attendance thing is hard to compare, for football. But the NBA has half as many games as MLB, and there are more sellouts there, some teams nearly every game.

ESPN has told our generation that baseball is boring, thats why they were the modern impetus to change it to the game nobody watches today.

Talent being spread to thin has nothing to do with power hitting; and everything to do with the fact that there are probably only enough players with the fundamentals necessary to field 8 AL and 8 NL teams.

Also, Im not seeing why the 'race' issue was introduced, but its interesting that the greatest players of all time are ALL born in the USA.

April 9, 2006 11:25 AM

#9 Lyle: Pete dog, that was a great story man!

April 9, 2006 09:21 PM

#10 Lyle

Pete,

On second thought, you know what you should have said? How bout them Brewers! Last time I checked they had a better record than the Cubbies and the world champion White Sox.

Gotta take advantage of the trash talking time while I still can!

April 9, 2006 09:25 PM