The Baseball Digest Archive

That Stanford/Iowa State game last night? Wow! Wow! Wow!

March 1977

This month’s issue is a good one. It contains one of the evergreen arguments, as well as an anecdote that I loved when I first read it all those years ago, one which I have thought of a lot in subsequent years, and which I was pleased to rediscover so that I can requote it accurately.

The 1976/77 offseason was a gamechanger, as it was the first with unfettered free agency. The most immediate ramification is that it completely decimated the Oakland A’s dynasty, but already at this early stage of the process people were questioning the worth of individual players. The editorial by John Kuenster questioned several of the signings, most specifically those of Bert Campaneris & Sal Bando, pointing out that the players were 35 & 33 respectively, and therefore past their primes. It turns out he was correct in those instances, but he found fault with so many other signings, even those of Don Baylor & Rollie Fingers, who had big seasons in their futures. This reads a bit too much as if he is carrying water for the owners, harping on large salaries.

This month’s edition also featured the magazine’s predictions for the upcoming season’s top rookies. As it says, they figure the rookies of the year will come from the all-rookie team that they selected. Well, they went 1 for 2. The 1977 NL ROY was Andre Dawson, but they overlooked the eventual AL ROY, Eddie Murray, in favor of Dave Revering. Murray’s name came up in the article, but the rationale for excluding him was that Murray would have a problem earning playing time with Lee May entrenched at first base in Baltimore. Not an issue, as Murray DH’d in ‘77 and won the Rookie of the Year in the first step for what proved to be a Hall of Fame career.

One of my favorite recurring features in the magazine was the interstitials placed on the bottom of pages. This one has long stuck with me, as I not only loved the way that Sparky Anderson and Mickey Mantle are busting each other’s balls, but also that Sparky turned out to be prescient. Because his hair was prematurely gray, he seemed old even when he was young, whereas in the years immediately following his retirement, Mantle still had somewhat of a boyish feel. Things changed. With the exception of a few wrinkles, 60 year old Sparky didn’t look all that different from 40 year old Sparky. Mickey’s lifestyle, on the other hand, took a toll. By the time he was in his mid-fifties, he looked soooo much older than that.

Running through some of the other content, the toughest pitchers to hit in ‘76 were as expected hard throwing relief pitchers. The chart which accompanied the article used 100 innings as the cutoff, which gave the honor to Mark Littell of the Royals. This of course was a few months after he surrendered the walkoff home run to Chris Chambliss in the 1976 ALCS, so he was hittable at least once. The text of the article also mentioned a pitcher who was even harder to hit but fell a few innings short of 100. That pitcher? Skip Lockwood, whose name inspires Mets fans of a certain age to pump their fists.

The article on the Cubs runs through their past 3 decades of futility; I bet Cubs fans at the time weren’t fully prepared for the possibility that the next championship was still 40 years away. If you look again at the table of contents, you may notice the name on the byline. Yep, it was written by THAT Richie Ashburn. And the dietary secret to curing Yogi Berra’s batting slump in 1953? Cod liver oil.

I’ll close with this tidbit from the letters page. A reader requested a photo of Babe Ruth’s called shot. There’s no photo, but the editors provided a painting of the moment instead. Of course, years later a home movie shot from the stands was discovered, which showed that this painting is decidedly not a historically accurate depiction of the event.

TV Of the 21st Century - Parks & Recreation

Parks & Rec initially played like a watered down version of The Office. It eventually found its voice and would go on to earn a place in the inner circle of the pantheon of great TV comedies. I have to wonder how that would play out today. I’m sure I’m not the only one with a long queue of shows on my must watch list. As a result a new show that I sample needs to reel me in with the first episode; I just don’t have enough personal bandwidth to nurture a show. If Parks & Rec were to premiere today, would I cast it aside? My suspicion is that someone whose judgment I respect would convince me to give it a second chance.

The show is well known enough that I don’t need to provide much exposition; it’s enough to describe it as a mixture of the mockumentary and workplace as family concepts set in the government office in the fictional town of Pawnee, Indiana. As a general rule of thumb, a sitcom tends to take a while to find its footing, but this one took longer than most. Many of the more beloved characters were only barely sketched at the beginning - Leslie was too intense, Ron was too misanthropic, April was too nihilistic, Andy was frankly an a**hole. And the writers were trying to make the Leslie/Mark couple a thing, despite the fact that he was a drab character and there was no chemistry between the two. He would soon be exiled to the island of misfit toys, never to be spoken of again.

By around the midway point of season 2, the show was finally hitting its stride. The characters were much better fleshed out, and promoting Donna and Gerry (or Gary, or whatever the hell his name was) to regulars was a smart move. The purity of the Leslie/Ann friendship was a joy to watch. Any Tom Haverford scene was pure comedy gold. And the additions of Adam Scott and Rob Lowe to the cast was lit-erally the finest decision ever made. The Leslie/Ben romance was another example of sheer purity. The “I love you and I like you” phrase in their wedding vows was such a beautifully simple expression of devotion.

Beyond the main cast, the absurd town of Pawnee was filled with a never ending supply of spectacular supporting characters. My favorite by far was Perd Hapley, but he was just one of many. There was Jean-Ralphio & Mona-Lisa, Councilman Jamm, Joan Callamezzo, Jennifer Barkley, and Bobby Newport. There was the infamous Tammy, and the beloved Lil’ Sebastian.

As deep of a bench as the show had, one character towers over all others. Ron Swanson is one of the greatest comic creations in all of television history. There are so many ways in which he could have gone terribly wrong. A gruff libertarian who hates governmental intrusion yet holds a government job, he could have easily been a terribly unlikable person were it not for Nick Offerman’s performance. He has a great twinkle in his eye which helps to soften his tone, and as much as he despises many of the idiots he has to deal with, he is fiercely protective of the few people that he cares about. The dynamic that Ron & Leslie had was perfect; they had a way of bringing out the best in each other. And my gosh, he was such a quotable character as well.

Even though it took a while to get good, once it did, it stayed so. Even after some key cast departures, it never lost stride. It stayed great up until the very end, and blew as brightly as 5,000 candles in the wind.

The Streisand Effect Is Alive & Well In Baton Rouge

It seems that The Washington Post is about to drop a major story concerning LSU women’s basketball coach Kim Mulkey. No one knows the details yet, but apparently it’s devastating enough that Mulkey held a preemptive press conference on Saturday in which she said that it’s a hatchet job and that she intends to sue the Post if they publish it. It’s probably a bit of a stretch to call this a classic example of the Streisand Effect, after all, if the allegations contained in the article are so damaging that Mulkey felt the need to get ahead of the story then it stands to reason that a boatload of people will read the article once published. It is true, however, that her comments are leading lots of people who would not have been all that interested otherwise to constantly hit “refresh” on the Post’s website in anticipation of the juicy details.

I know as much as you do about what the article might entail, although I do have a couple of suspicions. What I do know is that as defiant as she was in her press conference the flop sweat was apparent. And boy, was she flailing. She claimed the writer of piece has been trying to get her to do a sit down interview for 2 years, yet she later stated that she was only being given 2 days to refute the allegations in the article, which isn’t enough time. Ummm, you had those 2 years to do so, it’s all your fault that you’re suddenly facing a deadline.

I have a lot of opinions on Kim Mulkey, few of them good. I’ll hold off until the article drops, but it always bears repeating that her treatment of Brittney Griner has been indefensible. Quick recap, Griner was the star player who led Baylor to a championship when Mulkey was coaching at that university. She and school administration basically ordered her to remain in the closet even though her sexual orientation was obvious, which fans from opposing schools certainly noticed. Unless I missed something, Mulkey never publicly stuck up for Griner even though the heckling from fans on road games was merciless and cruel. And Mulkey never offered a single word of support during Griner’s incarceration in Russia. That tells me everything I need to know about her. If the details in the Post article are something that could be career ending, I have zero sympathy for her.

The Mystery Has Been Solved

After months of speculation, conspiracy theories, and yes, jokes that have aged badly it was finally revealed that Kate Middleton has been battling cancer. In a clear example of Occam’s razor, the most obvious explanation was the correct one.

This has come with a certain amount of shaming pointed towards those of us that have made jokes about the situation. It’s worth pointing out that all of this could have been avoided had the royal family shown even the minimum amount of transparency. Yes, everyone, even such a prominent public figure, is entitled to medical privacy. (Although I will make the argument that a member of the royals has literally one job & that is to be a public figure. Her subjects deserve up to date info, being that they help subsidize their lavish lifestyle.) Yes, the fact that she has 3 young children complicates sharing such serious news publicly.

But in this instance the public would have been better served with updates on her condition, even it would have involved lying. Show a “proof of life” photo. Send out a vague statement stating that were minor post surgical complications that will prolong her recovery. Express thanks to the citizens who sent out well wishes, for God’s sake! That’s not asking too much. And, most crucially, DO NOT LET HER TAKE THE BLAME FOR A POORLY PHOTOSHOPPED MOTHER’S DAY PHOTO! Whether it was Will himself who tossed his ailing wife under the boss, or someone in the family’s PR staff, there was someone in the chain of command who signed off on Kate’s apology who was fully aware of her condition, yet they let her take the fall. I hate, hate, hate the fact that monarchies still exist in the 21st century, and this is a perfect example as to why. Because these people have been living in a bubble for generations they do not have the ability to act like actual human beings.

In short, I’m not a monster. I sympathize with Kate and wish her well in her recovery. As for Will and the rest of that family, nope.

Quick Update

So, when I wrote about M. Emmett Walsh’s death last week I threw out the suggestion that there needs to be a That Guy Hall Of Fame. An eagle-eyed friend pointed out to me that such an institution does in fact exist. I do question some of the choices - Steve Buscemi, for example, is a bit too well known to be a genuine That Guy, but that’s a matter of semantics.

In fact, I would say there are different categories of That Guy. Unless you’re in one of these categories, you don’t qualify. (Please note that I use That Guy as an all-encompassing term to cover both genders. There are actresses such as Ann Dowd, or I suppose Hope Davis, who follow some of the That Guy criteria.)

• When you see the person in a movie, there’s that moment of recognition. I know this actor, off the top of my head I can’t name anything else he’s been in, but he’s always great. I have no idea what this person’s name is.

• You still may have trouble placing the name, but you can at least identify movies that you have seen him in.

• The close cousin to the above; you know the actor’s name but have difficulty recalling any of their specific movies.

To summarize, if you know A) the actor’s name and B) can easily name a handful of their movies, then he or she is too big of a name to be a That Guy. That would make someone a character actor, not a That Guy. To me, there’s a difference between the two. Thank you for attending my TED talk.

Closing Laughs

This brings things to a close for yet another day. Have a great day & a great week everyone. See you once again on Wednesday.