July 07, 2008

Advantage: Nadal and Federer
Disadvantage: Tennis

Ten_g_nadal01_200The thing about Breakfast at Wimbledon is that it's almost always over long before I'm even out of bed, let alone eating breakfast. On Sunday, though, thanks to some English rain, I was lucky enough to catch the last half of what many are already calling the greatest match in the history of tennis. Considering they've been playing tennis since Shakespearean times, that's a pretty hefty claim. Based on what I saw, though, I think I can go along with that.

When Rafael Nadal outlasted Roger Federer (and wasn't it just yesterday that Federer was the greatest player in the history of the game?), becoming the first player to win Wimbledon and the French Open in the same year since Bjorn Borg in 1980, he drew himself up alongside Federer.

The tennis experts I watched on Sunday night were all gushing about this rivalry, which, I gather, has been building for a few years. They told me that these two lions would likely fight it out in the Grand Slam events for years to come, energizing the game in the process. All of the experts agreed that this was what tennis needed. The fan base would build and somewhere the next Agassis, McEnroes, and Samprases were picking up rackets for the first time.

It sounds nice, but so do most fairy tales. This isn't to say that Sunday's match wasn't absolutely phenomenal. I would never describe myself as a tennis fan, but I couldn't get up from the couch. First, there was the sheer athleticism. It's been several years since we watched more than fifteen minutes or so of a tennis match, and I was stunned by quickness and strength of both competitors. Time after time one man would rifle a return to a remote area of the court, and I was certain the point was over. But time after time the other man would close the gap with ridiculous speed and retrieve a ball that appeared irretrievable.

And the drama! How could Nadal expect to compete with a man who hadn't lost in this arena since 2002? How could Federer expect to win after falling behind two sets to none? How could Nadal recover after letting that golden opportunity slip through his fingers in the fourth set tie-breaker? How could either man expect to continue competing after two separate rain delays? How could either man continue playing at such a high level as the sky darkened towards the end of the longest final match in Wimbledon history? There are no answers for any of these questions, save this: 6-4, 6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 9-7.

All of which makes a pretty good case for the resurgence of tennis, except for one thing. Tennis is tennis. And tennis is soccer, and tennis is horse racing, and tennis is... well, you get the picture.

T026040aDial your calendar back a few weeks and think back to all the hype surrounding Big Brown and the Belmont Stakes. Big Brown was just what the sport needed, they told us. A Triple Crown would save the sport. Big Brown had the charisma (the charisma!) to pull millions of fans back to the sport of kings. We know what happened, but just for a minute let's imagine that it had gone the way everyone expected. In fact, let's imagine the best case scenario. Not only does Big Brown win, but he annihilates the field, winning by, say, thirty lengths. And as he burns down the final stretch, racing towards immortality, a picture is taken. The picture captures jockey Kent Desormeaux peaking under his arm at the retreating field. The picture is an instant classic, drawing comparisons to Ron Turcotte aboard Secretariat thirty-five years earlier. In our imagination, the Belmont wasn't a race, it was a coronation. Got it?

Okay, if all that happened, would you be a horse racing fan? Of course not.

And what about soccer? For thirty years people have been telling us that soccer would one day be the biggest sport in America. The millions and millions of youngsters playing the sport in parks across the country would all grow up to be fans of the game they played as children, and they'd be rooting for the best players in the world. After all, how could this grassroots pipeline produce anything less than that? Sure, we know now that that was all just a fantasy, kind of like the metric system, flying cars, and jet packs (and by the way, where the hell is my jet pack, already?), but what if that weren't a fantasy?

257906This time let's push our time machine in the other direction. Imagine it's 2010 and a feisty U.S. squad has swept its way into the World Cup finals. Just to make it extra sexy, we'll say they beat Germany in the quarterfinals, Italy in the semis, and now they're facing Brazil for all the maracas. It's a tight game, tied at 0-0 as the two teams enter overtime. But we Americans don't care. It doesn't matter to us that there hasn't been a single goal because we've been raised on this game. We appreciate the defense, the passing, the nuance. It's not the boring game, after all, it's the beautiful game. Anyway, in the fourth minute of overtime, Landon Donovan leads a rush down the right side into Brazilian territory and rifles a crossing pass to a streaking Freddy Adu (these are the only two American soccer players I know, so they have to play the starring roles). Donovan's pass is much higher than is should be, and Adu is forced to use his athleticism -- thankfully, soccer players are the most athletic athletes on the planet -- to jump into the air and execute a perfect bicycle kick, kind of like Pelé in that soccer movie with Sylvester Stallone. Adu strikes the ball perfectly and rifles it into the back of the net for the Golden Goal. The United States has won the World Cup.

So if all that happened, would it change the course of history? Would Americans finally discover soccer? Doubtful.

And so it is with tennis. I loved Sunday's match, as much for the human drama as for the athletic competition, but I'm not itching for more tennis. If pressed, I don't think I could name more than five or six players on the men's side of the tour, and that's not a good sign. Right now there's Roger, Rafa, and refuse. If Nadal and Federer match up again in the U.S. Open finals, I can guarantee that I'll watch -- maybe even set the TiVo -- but I can also guarantee that I won't watch if someone else is involved.

So while the Wimbledon final might have seemed like a fairy tale, I still don't think the sport will live happily ever after.

June 19, 2008

An Interview with Richard Bradley

515oyazm5gl_sl160_It is certainly the most famous game from the most famous rivalry in baseball history. Any sports fan can tell you that Bucky Dent earned a "special" middle name when he launched an improbable home run on a crisp October afternoon in Boston, and most would also tell you that the story ended with more sorrow for the Red Sox and another World Series championship for the Yankees. Richard Bradley's recent book, The Greatest Game: The Yankees, the Red Sox, and the Playoff of '78, not only tells the story we know but also digs beneath the service to give us what we don't. (Click here for an excerpt.) Bradley interviewed dozens of players, coaches, and other personnel connected with both teams in order to give a complete picture of the game and all that led up to it.

He reminds us that although the Yankees made an historic comeback, the Red Sox (who won ninety-nine games, afterall) didn't collapse. We meet Bob Lemon, the mild baseball lifer who replaced Billy Martin, the volatile alcoholic who nearly piloted a championship team into the ground. And, of course, we're reintroduced to George Steinbrenner when he was at the peak of his manipulative powers, nothing like the mild patriarch (relatively speaking, at least) that he's become today.

Perhaps most interesting, though, are the players. Bradley intertwines two separate narratives throughout the length of the book, one following the season from spring training to its eventual conclusion, the other detailing each at bat of the playoff game. As he tells these two stories, Bradley includes brief biographical sketches of the key players on both sides. We read about Reggie Jackson's struggles with Martin's caustic, dictatorial style, and Carl Yastrzemski's desperate search for a championship. Jim Rice's MVP season is balanced nicely against Ron Guidry's Cy Young campaign. Most compellingly, Carlton Fisk's polished athleticism stands as a stark contrast against Thurman Munson's scruffy competitiveness.

The Red Sox and the Yankees, it seems, could not have been more different in 1978, and so it makes perfect sense that these two opposites would have come together to produce one of the most memorable games of the past half century. Bradley's book captures the rivalry, the season, and the game perfectly. It appeals to fans of both teams, as well as baseball fans in general, and whether they were born after the game was played or were sitting in the stands that afternoon, readers will revel in the details Bradley uncovers.

Recently Bradley was generous enough to spend part of his morning talking with me about his book. Check it out...

BrokenCowboy:
Previously you had written about JFK, Jr., and Harvard University. Whatever led you to write about something as mundane as a baseball game?

Richard Bradley
(Laughing) Well, I guess first of all, I didn’t consider it mundane – it’d be tough to write a book about something that you felt that way about because books are so hard, even when you love your subject. But what I found when I was writing about John Kennedy and the importance of the Kennedy mythology in the American culture and also about Harvard University was that really what I was writing about turned out to be American icons. Institutions, people, that are sort of a central part of the collection of ideals and myths that we think of when we think of America, and baseball is obviously very much a part of that. So while in some ways the subjects seemed very different, I thought that in another way it’s really just a different angle of looking at the things that we think define the United States.

BC:
You mentioned how difficult it is to write a book, and I was interested in your process for this one. When did you begin your research and what was that experience like?

RB:
Well, I guess I began with the idea for the book in early 2006. I had just come off this book Harvard Rules, about the last president of Harvard University, and as I said baseball seemed a natural progression. I also wanted to write about something that would be timely and something that I felt was a central part of the sport’s iconography: a famous game, a famous homerun, a remarkable era, a great rivalry. This Yankees-Red Sox game, which really capped a very intense period in the rivalry between the two teams in the 1970s, absolutely fit that description. So I wrote a proposal for the book, sold it, which is a pretty standard thing that writers have to do, and I began reaching out to the clubs, the Red Sox and Yankees. I found that the Red Sox were terrific, and quite easy to work with. The Yankees were a little more difficult because their attitude towards the media, I think, since Mr. Steinbrenner took over has been a little… How can I put it?

BC:
Suspicious?

RB:
Less pro-active. And also at the time, of course, and currently, George Steinbrenner has been ill. So I got the feeling that a number of things were moving slowly in the organization because there was a little bit of a leadership vacuum. So to get to the Yankees players, I wound up really going through their agents. And then I spoke with the players, as many of them as I could. I couldn’t get all of them, but I got most of them. And after that I tried to speak to as many of the people surrounding the game as possible: umpires, observers, people in the organizations, baseball historians, that sort of thing. Then in early 2007 I started to write, and I finished the manuscript in the fall of 2007.

BC:
Talking a little bit about the game, I was about a month shy of my ninth birthday when this game was played. Even though I remember watching it very clearly, I certainly had no idea of its historical significance. What was your experience? Did you understand what was happening? Do you remember what was going on?

RB:
Well, my experience was sort of different in that at the time I didn’t actually get to see the game. I was stuck in school. I was at a school where we really didn’t get out until 4:30, we didn’t get home until a little bit after five. So I missed it, pretty much, and I’d never seen it until a couple of years ago when I made a point of looking it up, which isn’t easy to do actually. Tapes of games from that era are harder to find than you would think. And when I watched the game I realized that although of course it’s justly famous for Bucky Dent’s unexpected homerun that really turned the momentum of the game, there were so many subplots and dramas in every inning of that game that people had forgotten a little bit about. So I grew more and more curious about it.

BC:
You mentioned that you spoke to a lot of players and people connected with the game. Even though we’re talking about a game that was played thirty years ago, I’m guessing that the people you spoke with didn’t have any trouble recalling its details. Were you surprised by how vivid some of the memories were?

RB:
Actually I was surprised at how faulty some of the memories were. I think this is something that happens with iconic events. At some point, say, a faulty memory might get introduced into the conversation, people misremember things just a little bit, and then they repeat it over and over again until it becomes established fact, at least in their own minds. I’ll give you an example. I went down to Florida to meet with Bucky Dent, and I was talking to him about his home run which he hit on a 1-1 count. Remember, this is one of the most famous home runs in the history of the game, far and away the most famous thing that Bucky Dent ever did on the playing field, and Bucky thought – and was adamant – that he had hit that home run with two strikes on him. He said that, and my ears kind of perked up, and I interjected and said, “Actually, no, there weren’t two strikes.” And he said, “Oh, yeah there were.” And I felt kinda bad, because…

BC:
Because you had seen the tape.

RB:
Who am I to say to Bucky Dent what the count was? But in fact, I’d always wondered because the first pitch of that at bat was arguably a strike and a check swing by Dent. And I’ve always wondered if on some level in his memory he didn’t sort of think that maybe that had been a strike, and maybe he remembered it that way.

BC:
That’s interesting. I interviewed Jonathan Eig a year ago or so, off of his Jackie Robinson book, and he mentioned some of the things. He was dealing with a season that was fifty years ago, but still he mentioned that there were certain stories that have just become a part of folklore, almost. The famous image of Pee Wee Reese putting his arm around Jackie Robinson to support him the face of an abusive Cincinnati crowd, and he couldn’t find any record of that actually happening. Just as you said, stories have been told, and they’ve become fact.

RB:
And what happens, I think, when you try to convince people otherwise, is that oftentimes they don’t believe you, and sometimes they actually can get irritated at you because the memory is something that’s become important to them, emotionally significant to them. So for you to come in and say actually it didn’t happen that way, people aren’t always happy to hear it. So what you have to do, I think, is try to check with as many other sources, whether documentary or through interviewing people, and eventually it’s kind of like filling in a puzzle. Eventually you start to get a sense of what may have really happened.

BC:
Right.

RB:
I’ll give you another example. After the second pitch of Dent’s at bat, Dent swung and fouled a ball off his instep and fell to the ground. He had to be treated by trainer Gene Moniyhan. Mike Torrez and a number of folks thought that the time in between when Dent hit his ankle and stepped in for the next pitch was really long, something like five minutes. Torrez said to me, “One of my great regrets is that I didn’t take any warm-up pitches during those five minutes.” Don Zimmer said the same thing. I timed that interval, over and over again. It was about a minute and twenty seconds, but they were all convinced that it was four times as long. It may have seemed like four times as long, but it wasn’t.

BC:
I assume at point in an important game, time kind of slows down. You probably lose reference a little bit.

RB:
Exactly.

BC:
I loved how you chose to construct your narrative by weaving your game description into a review of the entire season, but I think my favorite parts of the book were the short player profiles that were scattered throughout. Were there any particular players that stood out for you as you were researching and writing?

RB:
Well, the Yankees were a team full of characters, but the guy who I found the most fascinating is unfortunately a guy that I wasn’t able to speak with. Thurman Munson. Even when I was a kid – and in my personal life I’m a Yankee fan; the book is pretty neutral, I think – I thought Munson was sort of a fascinating character because he was such a curmudgeon with the press. But when you spoke to his teammates a very different side of him became clear. A guy who was warm and funny and surprisingly vulnerable.

BC:
And writing poetry! I couldn’t believe he was writing poetry!

RB:
(Laughing) Thurman Munson writing poetry – you just don’t see it! And he was a guy who, for very complicated reasons, I think, and some of them having to do with a father who was really a jerk, Munson felt that he had to have this very thick skin. Bucky Dent told me that one of his favorite images of Munson is of Munson wearing what was apparently his favorite t-shirt, which was a Yosemite Sam t-shirt showing him with guns blazing and the caption, “Ise Hates Baseball!” Of course Munson didn’t hate baseball at all. He loved baseball. It was all he ever did, but he wasn’t gonna say that. So on the Yankees, I think, Thurman Munson. Catfish Hunter was a fascinating guy. I wish I’d have been able to talk with him as well. Unfortunately he died of ALS about twenty years ago. He was a veteran player who had a really great wit and great insight into the team. Lou Piniella I did get to talk with a little bit, also a very thoughtful guy who hides it a little bit behind a sharp edge…

BC:
He hides it pretty well, I think.

RB:
Yeah, but you can tell that there’s a real intelligence there. On the Red Sox there were several complicated personalities. Jim Rice, an African-American player with a lot of pride who felt, and I think justifiably, that race was a real issue for him, particularly as a guy was sort of slotted to be the next in the Ted Williams-Carl Yastrzemski line. A very tough position to be in, especially for an African-American man from South Carolina.

BC:
In Boston.

RB:
In Boston, exactly. And also, I think, Carl Yastremski, whom I did get to speak with after quite a lot of work. He very rarely gives interviews. Yaz is someone who went through different phases with the Red Sox in his twenty-three year career with them. He was not always beloved by the fans, and was not a simple team leader. Playing that long for one team, he went through phases of different roles that he played with the team. He was not a rah-rah kind of guy by any means, but he was passionate and intense and incredibly committed to what happened on the field. I spoke with Yaz about that game where he hit a home run and drove in two runs, but also made the last out in a situation where he had the opportunity to win the game for the Red Sox. There was no question that this still bothered him. He felt at the time that this was really his last best chance to get into and win a World Series, that the Red Sox team probably wouldn’t be able to hold together in the following years. For a guy who spent that long in baseball, this was pretty deep stuff. So I think Yaz is a fascinating character as well.

BC:
I wanted to ask you about what the rivalry was like back then. Nowadays you often hear that the rivalry means a lot more to the fans than the players on the field. In fact, there was a big controversy when Joba Chamberlain sent a good luck text to Clay Buchholz before a game not too long ago. Would something like that have happened in 1978?

RB:
Unthinkable back then. For different reasons. Free agency and the way that players were moving around had not totally sunk in. So for somebody like Mike Torrez to go from the Yankees to the Red Sox was really, really a big deal. And for Torrez to do as he did in the off-season, to make remarks degrading the quality of the Yankees and suggesting that they wouldn’t be as good in ’78 as they had been in ’77 was something that really pissed off the Yankees. I think the rivalry was more personal, it was definitely more physical than it has become. I think in the current rivalry the fact that the Red Sox have been so successful in the past few years has sort of taken some of the anger out of it. Even back, I can’t remember what year it was, when Don Zimmer got flipped by…

BC:
2003, by Pedro.

RB:
Those emotions were pretty high at that point. But that seems to have leveled off in terms of the relationships between the players. Back then these two teams really didn’t like each other. In particular, I think, the great personal rivalry was between Thurman Munson and Carlton Fisk, who were in some ways very similar, and in some ways very different. Very similar in their approach to the game, their complete devotion to it. Very different in the sense that Munson had a tough self-image. Very hyper-critical, kind of an odd-looking guy, didn’t look like a natural athlete. Brian Doyle, from the Yankees, told me that Thurman Munson, when you saw him in the locker room and you would never have thought that this guy was an amazing athlete. And Munson was pretty self-conscious about that, whereas Fisk was this good-looking guy, tall, kind of rugged-looking, square-jawed. And the Yankees thought that Fisk was a little taken with himself. Marty Appel, who had been the Yankees P.R. guy for a while during that period said to me that when Fisk hit that home run in the 1975 Series where he waved it fair and jumped up and down the line, the Yankee players didn’t actually like that. They thought that was a little bit of showboating, a little sort of self-love. And part of the reason they felt that way, I think, was they just didn’t like Fisk.

BC:
I guess you can’t really discuss that game without looking at the season that led up to it. First of all, how crazy was Billy Martin, and how much of an impact did the switch to Bob Lemon have on the Yankees?

RB:
Well, every one of the Yankees I spoke with I asked about the importance of that switch, and every single one of them said, “We would never have made it to that playoff game against Boston if Billy Martin had still been the manager.” Martin had a trajectory that he followed with pretty much every team he managed, which was great success over the first couple of years followed by increasing volatility in his relations with players and management. A cycle of self-destructive behavior. With the Yankees, 1978 was the downside of that cycle for Martin. It was not helped by the fact that Martin’s drinking was really out of control. Billy Martin was an alcoholic. There’s no way that if he were managing today that he would not be packed off to a rehab clinic to dry up. At the time, people didn’t do that kind of thing. But Martin drank so much that it fueled irrational and volatile behavior. And also, to be fair, he was in a very delicate situation. George Steinbrenner has never been an easy man to work for, but back then he was really at the height of his mind games with the manager and his players. Steinbrenner was a guy who wasn’t averse to manipulating Martin and trying to suggest lots of little ways in which Martin might lose his job. And of course, the job of being Yankees manager meant more to Billy Martin than anything else in his life. He had been a Yankee player, of course, and he’d been traded after some alleged misbehavior after a night on the town with Mickey Mantle. That trade had devastated Martin and effectively brought an end to his playing career, although he kicked around the majors for a few years after that. Coming back to the Yankees was salvation for him. Unfortunately his personality and his drinking combined to cost him that salvation, at least for that year. He would come back of course, but it was never quite the same.

BC:
And what about Ron Guidry? I was so caught up in his season that even living outside of Chicago at that time as an eight-year-old, I actually dressed up as Ron Guidry for Halloween that year. Just how dominant was he?

RB:
Ridiculously dominant. Out of control dominant. Ron Guidry went 25-3 on the season, and in fact, a couple of his losses were games that he probably should have won, except that a ball was misplayed or something fluky happened. His ERA was 1.74. He won his first 13 games of the season. He won games after… something like nine or ten of his games came after consecutive Yankee losses, so essentially the Yankees could not go into any three-game losing streak when Ron Guidry was in the order. There’s just no question that without Guidry this was a team that would never have gone as far as it did.

BC:
So even though the focus now is on the Yankee comeback and eventual win, people sometimes forget how good that Red Sox team was. Isn’t that right?

RB:
Oh, I think they do, and the worst culprits tend to be Red Sox fans themselves, because they focus so much on the loss and that October playoff game and on Bucky Dent’s home run that they forget that this was a team that won 99 games and that was astonishingly good, really a great team. If a couple of things had gone differently on that October day, the Red Sox would have been the team to win that game, and all the players on both teams were convinced that the Yankees and the Red Sox were the best teams in baseball, and that whoever won that playoff game would go on to win the World Series, which turned out to be true when the Yankees beat the Dodgers. But they were equally certain that if the Red Sox had won that game, that they would have gone on to win the World Series as well, and I think that’s probably true.

BC:
Well, all of this leads us to Bucky Dent. I loved your three-page description of his home run, something that probably took about thirty seconds in real time. Can you talk about that a little bit and some of the peripheral things that were going on?

RB:
What I tried to do in describing Dent’s home run was to show what that looked like…

BC:
From every point of view.

RB:
Every point of view that I could, really, at least in terms of the players. Because I think when you watch a game like this on TV, what do you see? You see, at that time, really one camera following the ball. The production values of that game were substantially lower than they would be for a game of similar import played today. So you got to see, back in 1978, Dent’s swing, and you sort of saw the ball as it headed out, and you couldn’t even completely see the ball as it barely skimmed the top of the Green Monster. What I wanted to do is sort of present that even in a way that you wouldn’t get to see it even if you were in the stands that day. Because when you’re watching a ball that may be a home run, you’re following the flight of the ball. So I talked to a lot of the other players about what they were looking at, to see what players judge when they’re in a situation like that. And one of the things that quite a few of them said, was that they were actually watching Yastrzemski. Yaz, for them, was the best measure of whether or not that ball was going to go out. Because after all, nobody played the Green Monster better than Carl Yastrzemski, ever. So for, I don’t know, half a second, three-quarters of a second, something like that, as Yaz was running, he looked confident. He looked he was either going to catch the ball, or that it was going to bounce off the Green Monster and he’d do what he usually did, which was hold a ball like that for a single. Instead, there’s a moment where Yaz, his knees just sort of bend and his body just kind of crumples. You see it. It’s shock. It’s like he’s been punched in the stomach. Player after player said they saw that, and they knew that Bucky Dent had hit a home run.

BC:
And I think that image of Yaz buckling like you said, is as iconic as Fisk waving his home run.

RB:
Yeah.

BC:
Because as you’re describing it, I can see it vividly in my mind.

RB:
It was a remarkable, tangible expression of disbelief. Yastrzemski said to me, in fact I think that’s the word he used, he said, “I just couldn’t believe that Bucky Dent had hit a home run.” And in that sense, I think what he felt was what hundreds of thousands of people across New England felt.

BC:
It seems like their recent championships have softened the hearts of the Red Sox and their fans, as evidenced by their recent love-in with Bill Buckner. Is there any chance that they might also forgive Dent, or will he always just be Bucky Fucking Dent?


RB:
(Laughing) I think he’s always going to be Bucky Effing Dent for them. The people who were really affected by that, it took them twenty-five years, right? At least Bill Buckner was one of their own, and look, the Red Sox still had a seventh game, right? So it wasn’t completely Buckner’s fault. With Bucky Dent, they were mad at Bucky Dent for twenty-five years or so until the Red Sox won a World Series, so the people who were there at the time, I don’t think they can really turn around and say all is forgiven. And for people who weren’t there at the time and didn’t really feel it so strongly, it doesn’t really matter as much. The truth is it’s kind of fun now to get mad at Bucky Dent. But it wasn’t at the time. And of course, you know, the great story about how he got that nickname is that after the game Don Zimmer was driving home, still in a state of shock. Thinking about the game, he got so overwhelmed that he pulled off to the side of the world and just kept muttering to himself… Am I allowed to say this?

BC:
You’re allowed to say it.

RB:
Zimmer just kept shaking his head and saying, “Bucky Fucking Dent. Bucky Fucking Dent.”

An Excerpt from The Greatest Game by Richard Bradley

515oyazm5gl_sl160_What follows is an excerpt from Richard Bradley's recent book, The Greatest Game: The Yankees, the Red Sox, and the Playoff of '78. Enjoy...

It's going to be Yaz, Goose Gossage thought. In the bottom of the ninth, it's going to be me against Yaz.

The relief pitcher was back in his hotel room after drinking beers with his teammates at Daisy Buchanan's on Newbury Street. The Yankees hung out there when they came to Boston to play the Red Sox. Thurman Munson, Lou Piniella, Sparky Lyle, Reggie Jackson, Bucky Dent -- it felt like the whole team was out drinking. The 1978 Yankees were a tough crew. They liked to party, razz one another, throw back a few -- even if they were playing the biggest game of their lives the next afternoon, which they were. It was better than sitting around at your hotel. Thinking. Getting nervous. Getting tense. You didn't want that much time to think.

But Gossage couldn't shut out thoughts of the next day. After he and his teammates drifted off to their rooms for the night, he tried to sleep, and that's when the game bored into his head and started to buzz around inside his skull. The Yankees versus the Red Sox in a one-game playoff to determine the winner of the American League East Division. The two teams with the best records in either league, and those records happened to be the same -- 99 wins and 63 losses. After 162 games, the regular season had ended in a tie. Baseball hadn't seen such an outcome for thirty years, since 1948, when the Red Sox and the Cleveland Indians took part in the first such playoff. And for almost thirty years after 1978, the sport would not see it again.

A couple of weeks before the last day of the season, when the Red Sox trailed the Yankees in the standings by two games, officials from the two teams had flipped a coin to see, in the event that there were a one-game playoff, which team would be the host. The Red Sox won the toss but didn't expect anything to come of it. Since late July the Yankees had been winning nearly three of every four games they played, and even the Red Sox players doubted that they would catch them. They were wrong. The Sox won 11 of their last 12, including their last seven straight, to stay within one of the Yankees. Then, on October 1, both teams had a game against considerably weaker opponents -- the Yankees against the mediocre Cleveland Indians, the Red Sox against the hapless Toronto Blue Jays. Much to the surprise of both the Red Sox and the Yankees, the Yankees lost. The Red Sox, however, did not.

As a result, baseball's two best teams would be facing each other in a 163rd game. The winner would take on the Kansas City Royals in the league championship series, the prelude to the World Series, but both teams were confident that whoever won this game was the best team in baseball. This game, they felt, was like an entire World Series compressed into one afternoon at Fenway Park. And that was why Richard Michael Gossage, best known as "Goose," had a feeling that, come the ninth inning, he would be on the mound. Closing out games was his specialty.

It's going to be Gator for as hard as he can go for as long as he can can go, Gossage thought. And then...

"Gator" was Ron Guidry, the team's soft-spoken, left-handed ace, who in his second full season had compiled an astonishing record of 24-3, the best in the majors and one of the best in baseball history. Game after game that 1978 season, Guidry had been almost unhittable. He threw a rising fastball in the mid-nineties, setting up a wicked slider that darted in on right-handed hitters. Guidry disguised the pitch somehow; batters couldn't see the spin on it. The slider looked like a straight-up fastball, but then, just as a batter started his swing...it made hitters look silly.

Guidry, however, had pitched just three days before, one day less than his usual rest between starts, and Gossage, the big, strong relief pitcher, suspected that Guidry wouldn't have his best stuff.

Gator for as long as he can go, and then it's going to be me. Against Yaz.

That night, Carl Yastrzemski, successor to the great Ted Williams and Red Sox star since 1961, lay in bed and thought about the game the next day. He tried to picture in his head the pitchers he would be facing -- Guidry and Gossage. He'd faced them plenty of times before. What did they like to throw? What did they like to throw against him? What did they like to throw against him at Fenway? That was what Yastrzemski did before games. He was always thinking, always preparing, so deep inside his head that some of his teammates felt like they barely knew him.

Carl Yastrzemski had turned thirty-nine years old that season. He was well past his prime, eleven years older than he had been in the miracle season of 1967, when an unheralded Red Sox team came from nowhere to win the pennant. Yaz won the Triple Crown that year, leading the league in batting average, home runs, and runs driven in. No player in either league has done so since. But now, after seventeen seasons in the majors, Yaz's body was starting to break down. His back hurt him constantly; one of his vertebrae was digging into the surrounding tissue. Since August he had worn a steel back brace whenever he played. His wrists ached from an awkward check swing early in the season. Before each game, Yaz had them wrapped so heavily he looked like a burn victim. He couldn't run with his former daring, and more and more he played first base instead of his usual position in left field in the shadow of the thirty-seven-feet-high left-field wall, Fenway's famed Green Monster. First base was easier on the body -- less running.

None of that, though, would matter in this game. As Gossage knew, Yastrzemski was the last man you'd want coming to the plate with the game on the line. He was unflappable, and he performed brilliantly under pressure. On that last day of the '67 season, when the Sox had to beat the Minnesota Twins to win the division, he went 3-4 with three runs batted in. Yaz was just tough. Midway through the season, the doctors wanted to hospitalize him so his back would heal. Yaz walked out on them. Blocks away from the hospital, he came across a construction site and picked up a shovel, the closest thing to a bat he'd seen in days. He picked it up and started to swing. If his back could handle the shovel...

When he was a kid, the son of a Long Island potato farmer, Yastrzemski had done much the same. In the summers, he'd toss hundred-pound bags of potatoes onto a tractor. On winter nights, bundled up against the cold, he'd trudge up a long hill to the family garage and swing a lead bat for hours, hundreds of times, peeling off the layers of coats and sweaters as he warmed up. Night after night, Yastrzemski went to that garage to practice his swing and build his strength. Twenty years later his swing was still powerful, just less frequent. Yaz had always been mainly a fastball hitter. Now, in the twilight years of his career, fastballs were about the only pitch he'd swing at. Breaking balls, curves, changeups -- unless he guessed fastball, and guessed wrong, Yaz would stand and watch them go. And if Gossage and Yastrzemski did face each other, the two men's individual strengths would make the confrontation particularly compelling: a fastball hitter against a fastball pitcher. For Gossage was even faster than Guidry -- over short stretches, anyway -- and maybe the fastest in the game. So against Gossage, Yaz would get his chances, and that was as it should be. You didn't want to come at a legend throwing junk. Gossage would match his strength against Yastrzemski's.

The two men tried to sleep, but couldn't, and lay in their beds wondering. What would the next day be like? Surely there would be two on, two out. Bottom of the ninth, the season on the line. Maybe the greatest chapter in the greatest rivalry in baseball and beyond. Was there a more intense, more passionate, more historic rivalry in all of sports? Going back to the turn of the twentieth century, the competition between the Red Sox and the Yankees wasn't just about two teams, but also about two cities, two regions, two cultures, two different ways of looking at the world. Whether you rooted for the Yankees or the Red Sox had something to do with your outlook on life, your reverence for tradition versus your tolerance for change -- even, perhaps, how you saw the United States itself. There weren't many rivalries in sports you could say that about.

Fate, destiny, logic, whatever you wanted to call it -- that was how the two teams had wound up here. The Sox and the Yankees had battled for six months now. Back in April, they'd started from two very different places. The Yankees had won the World Series in 1977, but even in spring training they seemed weary of the infighting that had plagued them the prior season, when manager Billy Martin and Reggie Jackson and Thurman Munson feuded and fought for months, and owner George Steinbrenner played the team like a puppeteer. Steinbrenner was "the kind of owner," right fielder Lou Piniella said in April 1978, "that likes a 163-game lead with 162 games left." Now, even the off-season was exhausting. "This club can't take it for another year," Piniella said.

The Red Sox, on the other hand, were optimistic, and with good reason. Defense? Player for player, theirs was better than the Yankees', and the Yankees themselves would probably have admitted that. Offense? In 1977, their third baseman, Butch Hobson, had 30 home runs and 112 runs batted in, and he was the last batter in the Red Sox lineup. Ahead of him came Yaz, of course, and catcher Carlton Fisk, former MVP Fred Lynn, the powerful George "Boomer" Scott, and the slugger Jim Rice, who would go on to have the finest offensive season in baseball in decades. The 1978 Red Sox might have had the strongest-hitting lineup in the team's storied history. They even had some speed, a Red Sox rarity, to go with the power. In the off-season, they had acquired second baseman Jerry Remy from the California Angels; Remy had stolen 41 bases for the Angels.

Pitching had been the club's weakness in 1977, when not a single Red Sox pitcher had won more than twelve games. But in the off-season the team had traded for the young and promising Dennis Eckersley and signed Mike Torrez, a right-hander who'd won 17 games for the Yankees the year before, with two more victories in the World Series against the Los Angeles Dodgers. Torrez had been with four teams before joining the Yankees, but from 1974 to 1977, even as he was traded from coast to coast, he'd won 68 games. After the advent of free agency in 1975, Torrez had taken charge of his own future. His father had been a Mexican immigrant who worked on the railroad for a living; Torrez wanted a better life. He played out his contract with the Yankees and signed a seven-year deal with their enemies in Boston for a million dollars more than the Yanks were willing to pay. New York fans called him a traitor. He told them to talk to George Steinbrenner.

Baseball was changing in the 1970s. With the recently obtained right to sell their services on the open market, players were acquiring new wealth and power; the days when even the greatest players were simply handed a contract every spring and told to sign it were gone forever. But this good fortune was also costing the game some of its former pleasures. The lure of seven-figure contracts separated players not just from their old teams, but from the writers who wrote about them, the fans who rooted for them, and even the teammates they played alongside. As wealth began to isolate the players, press coverage grew tougher and more invasive, while the fans, stunned and angry at the amounts of money these baseball players -- baseball players! -- were making, not to mention their sudden ability to pick up stakes and move to another city, were starting to look upon the athletes like racehorses -- worse than that, even. Fans in the 1970s would hurl curses and objects at the players with whom they once felt kinship -- beer, hot dogs, cherry bombs, bolts. Such vitriol reflected the fans' frustration over the uncomfortable ways in which baseball, the most traditionconscious of American sports, was undergoing rapid and disconcerting change. It also showed how the violence and anger of the late 1960s and early 1970s was seeping into baseball stadiums, no matter how much those fortresses of constancy and tradition tried to filter out the cultural transformations, both good and bad, coursing through the country.

The game was changing, and even as the players tried to capitalize on that, they struggled to preserve the sense of joy so vital to the sport, that element of eternal boyhood so hard for most of them to articulate but so crucial to their love of the game. They welcomed the money that free agency brought. Who wouldn't? But money wasn't why this generation of athletes started playing baseball. When they were boys, no one went into baseball to get rich, because the vast majority of players never would. In backyards and on dusty playgrounds, in inner-city parks and on high school diamonds, they played baseball because when they were young they listened to the game on the radio and watched it on television, sometimes in color, but more often in grainy black and white. They saw Jackie Robinson steal home or Mickey Mantle race to make a catch in center field, or heard the crack of Ted Williams's bat sending another line drive into right field at Fenway Park, and that's what they wanted to do when they grew up: play baseball like their heroes. They never dreamed of making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, much less millions, just for playing a game. They played baseball because they loved the sport, and for many of them it was the only thing they knew how to do.

Rich Gossage had been a free agent when he was signed by the Yankees after five years with the White Sox and one with the Pirates. When he came to the Bronx that spring of 1978, he learned how brutal the fans could be when you were being paid enormous sums of money but didn't perform brilliantly from day one. Gossage blew a few games early, on the road. Then, on opening day at the Stadium, when Gossage was announced with the rest of the Yankees, the fans had booed and booed, like nothing the twenty-six-year-old Gossage had ever heard. Playing for the White Sox, the fans had never been anywhere near as vocal -- or hostile. He stood disbelieving in a line of Yankees, the jeers and catcalls cascading down upon him. Gossage was one of the game's most intimidating players. He stood six feet three inches tall and weighed 210 pounds, and pitched with his cap yanked down low so that opposing batters couldn't see his eyes. On his first day in his new stadium, Gossage stood on the field, alone in front of 50,000 people, and pulled his hat down to hide the fact that he was crying.

The 1978 season was like that for the Yankees and the Red Sox -- gritty, emotional, fiercely competitive. It was also, as the writer Roger Angell said at the time, a painful season. All of those qualities contributed to the drama of the 1978 American League East pennant race. In the first months of the season, the Sox raced to a fourteen-game lead over the Yankees, who bickered and fought with one another as they had the year before. Then, in mid-July, Yankee manager Billy Martin simply imploded, the result of too much pressure and too many scotch-and-waters. One night he told two reporters that his most famous player was a liar and the team's owner was a crook, and the next day, as he unsuccessfully fought back tears, he announced his resignation in the lobby of a Minnesota hotel.

The Yankees hired a new manager, the quiet, self-assured Bob Lemon, who didn't say much, just wrote out the lineup card and let the players play. And even as the Red Sox started to lose, the Yankees started to win. A fourteen-game deficit became eight...then four...then none...and suddenly, in early September the Yankees had a three-game lead. No team in American League history had ever come back from fourteen games down. Red Sox fans, always the first to put the worst on the table -- it hurt less that way -- were calling their team's slide the greatest choke in baseball history.

And then the Red Sox surprised those fans by picking themselves up and fighting back.

The playoff started at two-thirty in the afternoon on October 2. Inside Fenway Park, 32,925 fans would watch as if the weight of a combined 324 games was riding on every pitch, because it was. For Red Sox fans, whose team had come tantalizingly close but fallen short for some sixty years, the weight of decades was riding on the outcome. This game was not just about who would go on to play the Kansas City Royals; both the Yankees and the Red Sox were sure they could beat the Royals. It was about everything that had come before it. You could trace a line from the men involved in this game back to the origins of the Red Sox-Yankee rivalry at the beginning of the century, and from there back to the very beginning of baseball in the United States, before the Civil War. Yet you could also look forward and see that, whoever won on this October day, when it was done everything was going to change -- faster, probably, than baseball had ever changed before. That was one reason why players on both teams agreed it was the most important game of their careers. It felt not just like a singular moment, but also like a fragile one, a rare convergence of tradition and rivalry and timelessness that would not be easily, if ever, re-created.

Outside Fenway Park that afternoon, Red Sox fans lamenting their failure to acquire tickets would mill around Kenmore Square, carrying signs with obscene sentiments and harassing any Yankee fan reckless enough to flash his pinstripes. And beyond Fenway, north to Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, south to Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey, and west across the entire country, fans would play hooky from work or school to park themselves in front of their televisions and watch a game that would burn itself into their memories, a game that reminded them of why they loved baseball, of how beautiful it felt to win and how much it hurt to lose, of the reassuring constancy of the expected and the inevitability of the unpredictable, of struggle and hope and redemption and disappointment and all the ways in which baseball was like life itself. Much of that feeling would be inspired by a light-hitting shortstop named Bucky Dent, whose uncharacteristic moment of greatness changed his life forever and would become one of the sport's iconic events. And much of the emotion would result from a showdown between a fiery but anxious relief pitcher and an intense, driven veteran near the end of his career, desperate to win it all for the very first time.

After 162 games, the New York Yankees would fly from New York to Boston and Goose Gossage would sit in his hotel room, thinking that the game between his team and the Red Sox would probably come down to a single confrontation between him and Carl Yastrzemski. Meanwhile, Yastrzemski lay in bed and wondered if he would get a chance to win the game for his team, bringing the Red Sox and himself one huge step closer to the goal that had so long escaped him: winning a World Series.

From THE GREATEST GAME by Richard Bradley
Copyright © 2008 by Richard Bradley
Reprinted by permission of Free Press, a Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc.

May 04, 2008

An Interview with Pat Jordan

Recently a friend of mine introduced me to the writing of Pat Jordan. As a sports fan and avid reader of Sports Illustrated, I'm sure I had read his stuff before without being aware, as I wrote at SI for years in the seventies and early eighties. But after diving into a newly published collection of some of his best work, The Best Sports Writing of Pat Jordan, I couldn't imagine it had taken me so long to find him. Jordan's style is reminiscent of an older generation of journalism. Most journalists today seem intent on using their writing to set bonfires which will further illuminate their own pseudo celebrity. Jordan, however, steers clear of the easy targets and the pieces which fall from the sky already written. Instead, he delves deep into his subjects and produces profiles which, to paraphrase him, give a better picture of his subject that the reader will ever get anywhere else. He succeeds.

Recently Pat was kind enough to spend part of his morning talking to me about a host of subjects including his failed baseball career, an early interview with Roger Clemens, his experience with Ricky Williams, the controversial running back, and lots of other stuff. It's a long and winding road -- enjoy!

BrokenCowboy
I wanted to start by asking you about some of your earliest baseball memories. Mine are crystal clear. I was obsessed with baseball from a young age, so when my parents took me to Tiger Stadium when I was seven years old to see Mark Fidrych pitch, it was about the coolest thing in the world.

Pat Jordan:
The Bird! He was one of the coolest guys.

BC:
A month later when we were on a family vacation to New York City my parents asked me what I wanted to do one day, and I chose Yankee Stadium. I remember everything about that game – Catfish started, Chambliss hit a homerun to beat the Royals, and Sparky closed it out. More than thirty years later, I’m still a die-hard Yankee fan because of that day at the Stadium.

PJ:
You gotta go to Yankee Stadium, you gotta go to Fenway Park, and you gotta go to Wrigley Field. Those are the three stadiums that you have to see if you’re a baseball fan.

BC:
I’ve been two of those three. I still need to make it to Fenway.

PJ:
Oh, Fenway’s great. It’s like going to a little cubby-hole, you know? The press box is up this rickety old stairway. I’ve got a fear of heights, and you’ve gotta climb up these rickety stairs, and there’s no railing, and you’re looking out over the right hand side all the way down to the street. The last time I was there it was like a Quonset hut with a little tin roof.

BC:
And they keep building those stands that stick farther and farther out.

PJ:
I know. They’ll be across the street pretty soon.

BC:
So what was your first game like?

PJ:
I was about seven or eight. My brother was going to Georgetown Law in Washington, DC. It was in the early fifties. It was a Yankees-Senators game, and after the game they allowed the people to walk onto the field to try to get autographs. The Yankees were just running off the field, and I had a torn piece of paper or something, but I was too embarrassed to ask one of the Yankees. But my brother, who was a very big guy, he was like 6’5”, grabs Phil Rizzuto and sticks the paper under his nose and says, “Will you sign it for the kid, Phil?” Phil gave him a big smile and signed a piece of paper that I never saw again. That was my first remembrance. I was always a Yankee fan. In Connecticut, if you’re south of Hartford, you’re a Yankee fan. If you’re Hartford or east or north, you’re a Red Sox fan. So we were always Yankee fans. Plus, the Yankees had all Italians in the fifties. You had DiMaggio, Crosetti, Lazzeri, Raschi, Berra… As Italian immigrants – even my grandmother, who could barely speak English, knew the great DiMaggio. They were a sign that our immigrants were making it in an American game.

BC:
That reminds me of something that came up in Jonathan Eig’s recent book on Jackie Robinson. One thing that he mentioned that I wasn’t aware of growing up in my era, was the strong ethnic identities, like you mentioned, that different teams would have.

PJ:
Oh, very big. The Red Sox were Irish, the Yankees were Italian, the Midwest teams were German and Polish, and then when Jackie came along the Dodgers were always identified with black fans because he was their first hero, you know. And after Jackie they weren’t reticent about signing Joe Black, Don Newcombe, Roy Campanella… I’ll tell you a funny story about Campanella. When I was a kid, my parents and my uncles would watch the Yankees-Dodgers World Series. My two uncles were arguing about who was a better catcher, Campanella or Berra. And so my father intercepted and said, “What difference does it make, they’re both Italians!” But then when Campanella struck out, then he wasn’t Italian anymore, he was black. But when he hit a home run he was a paisan. So they got it both ways with Campanella. But that’s how ethnic it was when I grew up. Today Campanella is noted as one of the early black ballplayers, but in my family, no, no. He was Italian.

BC:
That’s funny. As far as that strong ethnic identity, you mentioned that you followed the Yankees in large part because they were Italian like you, not just because of where you lived. How much of that went on, where people said, “I’m Irish so I like the Red Sox.”?

PJ:
Oh, that was very common. The Red Sox had Williams, McDermott… Boston was an Irish city ruled by Irish politicians. Italians, and people don’t know this, this is going back into a history that you wouldn’t be aware of. Italians were not prejudiced. My mother and father, when I was a kid, they never questioned any girls I brought home. It was always a Polish girl, a black girl, anything. Except – I could never bring home the hated Irish. The Italians and the Irish hated each other. It was all social because the Irish came first and the Italians came after them. And plus the Italians didn’t look American, number one, and number two, they didn’t speak the language. So they were wops – without papers. The ethnic resentment went back to the simple fact that during Prohibition my grandmother had a variety store and she sold bootleg wine out of the back room, and the Irish cop on the beat made her give him five dollars a week in tributes to keep the bootleg wine operation going. So that’s why they hated the Irish, because the Irish held ‘em up for five bucks a week to sell their wine. But that was the only prejudice I ever grew up with in my Italian house. Our ancestry goes back to Italy, where the original name was DiMenna, which in English is diamond. My Uncle Ben was Benjamin Diamond, and there’s Jewish history in our family, and I’m sure black history. As my mother said, when Hannibal came over the Alps he dallied with the Italian girls. So I never grew up with any form of prejudice except the hated Irish. So when I married my second wife whose last name is Ryan, my mother – who’s about eighty – she calls up and says, “What kind of name is Ryan for an Italian wife?” And comes flying down to Florida to check my wife out! Those were interesting times. I was talking with a friend the other day about how ethnic my generation was. We always referred to each other by ethnic names: I was the guinea, Richie Belzer was the Jew, Richie O’Connor was the Mick. We used those terms. Today to be politically correct you can’t, but I still do.

BC:
My love of baseball, a lot of it came from reading about these old players, especially old Yankees. And you can’t imagine, like DiMaggio being called the Big Dago, you can’t imagine a player in the press being referred to like that now.

PJ:
Oh, of course not. But you know when my father grew up in the twenties he couldn’t get a job because the signs on the doors said “Help Wanted – No Italians Need Apply.” So in their own way they were the blacks of the twenties in terms of immigrants. And people sometimes think that I’m Irish because of my name, Patrick Michael Jordan, but it’s Pascuali Michaeli Jordano. That was my father’s name, but he changed it on the day I was born. He had it legally changed so that I would be born an American, he said. He didn’t want me to have the stigma of being Italian. Today I wouldn’t mind being Patty Jordano. That’s a nice name.

BC:
So you obviously played the game early on. How important was playing as you were growing up?

PJ:
It was the focal point of our neighborhood. I was born in an Italian ghetto, but I moved when I was five to a little suburb in Fairfield, and everybody met at the park. Now the park had a swing set, a tennis court, and two baseball diamonds. One was a little league, and one was a major league – major league dimensions. Basically every kid woke up, had breakfast, got on his bike, and went up there. The non-athletic kids hung out at the swing set – the shooty shoots and all that. And the kids who were into baseball, we played pick-up games. So that’s where my friendships were made. One of my friends who died when he was forty-six, he was the oldest kid, the first kid I ever met up at the park, his name was Doug Holmquist. He played with the Houston Astros, and he eventually became a coach under Billy Martin for the Yankees. Doug and I, the first time we went up there we were just five years old and we had a catch together. And that was my oldest friend until he died. We had to pick up sides, and I was always lousy so they always put me in right field. One day when I was about eight years old a station wagon pulls up. A guy gets out and he starts pulling out these big canvas bags with bats and balls, and everyone goes running, except for me. I didn’t know what was up. And one of the kids yells out, “It’s the Little League coach, stupid!” I didn’t know what Little League was. So he goes to the mound and he says, “I’m the Little League coach and I wanna see who wants to try out.” Naturally everybody raises their hands. “We’re gonna try out by position. So if you want to play a position, raise your hand.” The first position he calls is pitcher, and I was so excited that I raised my hand.

BC:
And how old were you then?

PJ:
Eight. At that time Little League was eight to twelve. There was no minor league, just all major league Little League. So I raised my hand at eight, I had never pitched before, they put me on the mound, aimed me toward the plate, I threw a couple of pitches, and everybody’s eyes bugged out. I had been playing right field all this time, and I didn’t know I had an arm. So eventually I made the Little League. I was the first guy in the history of Little League to make the major leagues at the age of eight years old. I never pitched, but I was playing with twelve-year-old kids, you know. So I got a uniform and there was a little publicity about “eight year old makes major league Little League” and all.

BC:
Do you still remember that first uniform?

PJ:
Oh, yeah. You know why? Because we had a Memorial Day parade. Memorial Day opened the Little League season, and we all had our uniforms and marched in a parade down through the center of town. It was Smirnoff’s Market. Smirnoff’s Market Little League. Plus the idea that you’re a member of a team. That was something. You were part of something. That was fun. And by the time I was ten I was really good. When I was ten I was pitching shutouts.

BC:
I played Little League baseball growing up, and I have a lot of those same memories. I remember getting my first jersey. It was number eight, and immediately I thought of Joe Morgan, one of my favorite players, so that was a pretty cool thing.

PJ:
Oh, Joe. I like Joe.

BC:
But the sad thing is that I was not a talent. I’ll never forget what it was like being cut from my high school teams in the ninth and tenth grades. Up until then, foolishly, I always assumed that I’d be a major league baseball player.

PJ:
We all did.

BC:
Your playing career lasted a lot longer than that, but it still ended earlier than you would’ve liked. What was the end like for you?

PJ:
Oh, it was very traumatic.

BC:
Did you have any regrets then or now?

PJ:
I did then, but not now. Someone asked me what I would’ve been. I said I would’ve continued on the road to becoming an asshole that not even José Canseco could approach. I was so single-focused about baseball all my life that I was not a very social kid. All I cared about was pitching. I didn’t care about friendships anymore once I became a star, it was just pitching a baseball. And since I had unlimited success very early, when it was cut off at the age of twenty-one I was stunned. What do I do? I had gone to college one semester a year before I went to spring training just to placate my parents, but I had no interest in anything but baseball. It was very traumatic. I couldn’t even look at a box score for about five or six years, partly because most of the guys I played with were going to the big leagues and becoming stars: Joe Torre, Phil Niekro, Ron Hunt, Tony Cloninger. All these guys were in the big leagues, and I couldn’t even look at a box score. It was rough, but it was the best thing. It was like a traumatic amputation, you know? Sometimes it’s the only way to make somebody get well. I think if I had lingered on into the minor leagues until twenty-eight, say, as a triple A player and not quite get called up or maybe get called up for a cup of coffee and spend a month or two and then get sent back down again… I think it would’ve been a thousand times worse. I was forced at twenty-one to say, okay, what are you gonna do now? It wasn’t too late. At twenty-eight it would’ve been late.

BC:
So how did you go from pitching to writing? If someone had told you at age fifteen that you’d grow up to be a writer, how shocked would you have been?

PJ:
I had no idea. I had never read a book. What happened was when I came back from baseball I worked all these menial jobs. I was a construction worker. I worked for a Lithuanian mason. I carried mortar and bricks up a scaffold while he built a chimney, stuff like that. I wanted to go to college, so I wanted to get a night job. I was playing semi-pro basketball at night for this guy who was a sports editor of the local newspaper. I was getting paid fifty bucks a game. I had a wife and a baby. So I was complaining to him one night, I said, geez, I need a night job so I can go to school. Because when I went to school they didn’t even have night courses, you had to go full time. So he says, “I’ll give you a job at the sports section of the newspaper.” I told him I didn’t know anything about writing, but he said, “Well, you know sports.” So I got the job for sixty-five dollars a week, I worked from six to two in the morning, then went to school from eight-thirty to three. He would let me do my homework from midnight to two because the paper was put to bed at midnight but we had to wait until the paper came up and I had to go down to the linetype room and read the paper to make sure there were no mistakes. So between midnight and two I did my homework. In those days all the guys had a bottle of bourbon on their desk, they smoked cigars – both things that I do to this day. And my only job the first couple of weeks was to read the race results to the local bookie, Clyde. And that’s all I did. Then after a while I would write the headlines for the local high school games: “Tigers Rip Rams, Smith Hits 20”. Two lines, and I had to make sure they fit in a certain number of characters. And that’s all I did. And I’d sit there at the typewriter and I would write it out longhand on a piece of paper, and then type it with one finger. Tiger. Hunt around… T. Hunt around… I. So you couldn’t have started at a lower level than I did. You know what I mean? Guys go to journalism school and all that, but you couldn’t start any lower than I did. Little by little then I’d write the high school results, then I wrote a couple profiles and somebody mentioned one of them: “You know, that was a terrific story.” And that was the first time I’d gotten any ego feedback since I left baseball. I liked the ego gratification when somebody’d recognize me downtown and say he’d read my story. So I went to see this old guy, an old sportswriter who was a real drunk. He was always whacked by eight o’clock at night. I said, “Johnny, you know I’m thinking I might like to be a writer.” He looks at me with bleary eyes, with a cigarette hanging from his lips, and he says, “Pat, I owe everything I am in my life to this business.” And I got so depressed that I quit that week. This is my future? And so I quit and became a school teacher, high school English at an all girls high school.

BC:
I teach 8th grade English.

PJ:
Oh, you do? Okay. That was the second-best job I ever had. I loved teaching. I just like writing more.

BC:
I’m wondering how your playing experience affected your writing. You mentioned how bitter the end was for you; how do you think that affected your perception of the game? For instance, if I were covering a game it would be hard for me. As difficult as this is to admit, even at thirty-eight years old, it would be hard for me to talk to Derek Jeter, for instance.

PJ:
Not me. I pitched against Hank Aaron. Fuck Derek Jeter.

BC:
Right, that’s what I’m saying. So how do you think your experience affects your point of view? Are you able to be more objective?

PJ:
I never romanticize them. A friend of mine said he was shocked that I’m not a fan. I sent him a story I wrote once about Tom Seaver. It was about the first World Series that they won, and I put a TK in there. I wrote, “When the Mets won the World Series in 19TK…” And my buddy called up and said, “Every fan knows when the Mets won the World Series.” I said, I don’t. I never approached it as, oh, I’m in a major league locker room. I was in a major league locker room when I was seventeen years old in Yankee Stadium with Mickey Mantle when I was trying out for the Yankees. I took one look at Mantle and you know what my first though was? I’m bigger than he is. They said he was six feet, but he was like five-ten, and I towered over him. I was six-one or something. I thought I should’ve been up there. Not that I put these guys down, but I never romanticized the idea that I’m talking to, say, Derek Jeter or Mariano Rivera. Like if I were talking to Mariano Rivera, the first thing I’d talk about would be his cut fastball and I’d show him how I used to hold my slider. And then I’d say, “Well how do you hold it differently? Because a slider breaks more than your cut fastball.” You know what I mean? I’d be interested in his talent, but it would never be like, oh my god, I’m talking to a major league ball player. Friends will say to me today, I’ve got tickets to the Marlins game, they’re playing the Mets, you want to go? I say why? They say, it’s a major league game, I got a friend who can get us into the locker room. What do I want to go into a locker room for? I was in a locker room with Hank Aaron and Warren Spahn. I ran wind sprints with Spahnnie and Burdette in 1959. I pitched against Hank Aaron in spring training in 1960. So I never had that kind of rosey-eyed view of professional athletes, but I always admired guys for their talent.

BC:
So do you think that objectivity has made you a better writer?

PJ:
Oh, absolutely. I carry it over into everything I write about. It’s not cynical, I always think it’s realistic. Like I’ve done Hollywood actors – Tom Selleck, and all these different actors. I’m always interested in their professions and their personalities, but I don’t think they’re better than anybody. George Plimpton used to think… George always did the stars, and I always did the failures. George was never an athlete, he always romanticized…

BC:
He always wanted to be an athlete.

PJ:
Yeah, he wanted to be. That’s why he did all those imitation roles: how I almost pitched, how I almost boxed, how I almost played golf. He always thought there was some kind of mystical grace about them, you know. They were blessed like we weren’t. One day Roger Angell saw two pitchers talking. He said to me, “Look at that Pat. You and I will never know what mystical thing they’re talking about in terms of baseball.” I said, “I know what they’re talking about, Roger. They’re talking about a steak and a piece of ass they had last night.” That’s what they’re talking about because that’s what they talk about. And George used to think that Hank Aaron had this mystical grace that made him this great hitter. I said, no he didn’t. Hank has unbelievable quick wrists. He can wait on a pitch longer than anybody else, so he could wait on a curve ball until it broke and then rip it over third. That was his mystical grace. Without those wrists he’d be a .240 hitter. Ted Williams had fantastic eyes. That was his mystical grace. God blessed him with, what, 20/10 vision or something? He could pick up the spin on a curve ball the minute it left the pitcher’s hand and the rest of the batters couldn’t. So I tend to see them more realistically. I think.

BC:
Well, it definitely comes across in your writing. I’ve been reading through your recent collection, the one that Alex Belth edited for you, and I’ve been loving it. What strikes me the most is how different your stuff is from what’s typically out there now. There are two things that I love – first, the depth and length of your profiles. Obviously, if you pick up Sports Illustrated you’ll never see anything like that.

PJ:
No, and I wrote for Sports Illustrated in the seventies and I used to write 8,000 words.

BC:
The other thing is the fact that you insert yourself into each piece. You’re definitely a part of what you write, something you never see in most journalism today.

PJ:
I’ll do it when it pops up, where it’s important. I try not to do it too much, but there will be times, like with Tom Seaver obviously. But that was really a dual piece about me being a failure and Seaver being a success. But yeah, a lot of times I’ll do it when I know something about the sport, like I know pitching. Like with the Ankiel piece, Rick Ankiel. Since what happened to him happened to me.

BC:
I thought that was a pretty poignant one.

PJ:
As a matter of fact a guy from the St. Louis Dispatch interviewed me recently about the Ankiel piece. I felt for the kid because I had gone through that. I tried to help him but he never called. I told him I’d work out with him, throw with him, but I don’t think the Cardinals would’ve let him.

BC:
That piece was written during the off-season before he really melted down, is that correct?

PJ:
It was the off-season, but right after he melted down in the playoffs, and he just never got back.

BC:
But I think even at the time, I wasn’t following it that closely, but I felt like, oh, this is a young kid, he had a bad couple of outings, but he’ll probably be fine.

PJ:
No, I knew it. I knew it then. I saw it when I watched him pitch in the playoffs and World Series. I knew exactly what was happening to him. I knew it was a hard thing to get out of, very few guys have ever gotten out of that.

BC:
Were you surprised that Ankiel’s been able to come back?

PJ:
No, he was an athlete. But he hasn’t come back. I mean, he’s a hitter. It’s like me becoming a writer. You say, well, you’re a baseball failure but you came back as a writer. Yeah, but they don’t have anything to do with each other. Hitting the ball is nothing like pitching. Hitting is fairly instinctive. You have to react in one one-hundredth of a second, whereas pitching is deliberate. You’ve gotta think. And that’s what fucks you up. You’re on the mound thinking, and that’s how pitchers get screwed up and batters don’t.

BC:
I suppose this is completely natural, but when you started, you were viewed as a part of the new school of journalists who were breaking all the rules, and now you’re a throwback. I was wondering what your perspective is on the changing face of sports reporting. I mentioned earlier that I’m a Yankee fan. When I want to read about my team, to learn about a trade they’ve made or a player who’s hurt, I don’t go to mainstream sources anymore. I go to Bronx Banter, a blog started by Alex Belth, the guy who edited your collection. It seems that sites like this have changed the way sports – especially baseball – is reported.

PJ:
You know why? Because the bloggers don’t have to get in the clubhouse. The beat reporters are trapped, because if they write too many negative stories they’re persona non grata in the clubhouse. Freelance writers like me, I can go into a clubhouse, write a story about Roger Clemens, leave, and the Yankees ban me from the clubhouse. So what? It’s cost me one story over the years, an assignment I had when they wouldn’t let me in the clubhouse.

BC:
And it seems like you’ve kind of embraced this new trend. I loved your recent piece on José Canseco, for instance, that was featured at Deadspin.com.

PJ:
See now, I’ve always been writing like that. It’s just that the mainstream press ran some of those stories, but rarely. It’s getting rarer and rarer. The kind of pieces I do, which are pretty hard-hitting, they don’t run that many of them anymore. ESPN doesn’t, Sports Illustrated doesn’t. They run all these puff pieces.

BC:
I guess I couldn’t imagine reading that Canseco piece in any magazine.

PJ:
I sent it to every magazine in America. They all rejected it. Every magazine. Sports Illustrated wanted to buy it, but the managing editor wouldn’t buy it. The other magazines wouldn’t buy it because I didn’t talk to Canseco, they wanted quotes from him. Which is such ridiculously inane bullshit because most ballplayers don’t have anything to say. My perceptions are more valuable to a magazine than any sports figure’s quotes, but once again what magazines are looking for are the pull quotes. For example, José Canseco writes Vindicated. There are three pull quotes in there: Alex was after my wife, I shot up Ordóñez with drugs, and Roger Clemens never did take drugs. That’s it. And that’s the basis for the book. The same thing with magazine articles, like the John Rocker story that ran in SI years ago? I read the story. There was no story except for Rocker’s crazy quote.

BC:
The subway quote.

PJ:
Right. I write stories. I’m not looking for pull quotes. If I get a quote that’s really dynamic, I’ll run it. I certainly won’t hide it, but I’m not really looking for it. If I do a story on Derek Jeter, I want you to know Derek Jeter in a way no other writer will ever be able to let you know who Derek Jeter is as a person, that’s my goal. I just did a long piece on Ricky Williams, and it’s gonna be in Playboy probably in the fall. I spent a lot of time with Ricky, and I think I nailed Ricky more than anybody who has ever written a story about him ever has or will.

BC:
That’s interesting, because I think most people see him as a total mystery.

PJ:
He’s not a mystery, he’s easy.

BC:
What’s your perception? When he was in college, aside from this great talent, the biggest image I had of him was that he was this great kid. He won the Doak Walker Award, so he went to meet Doak Walker and started this friendship. It seemed like he was pretty down to earth, and then suddenly he gets overwhelmed by the NFL and the media attention and he turns into something else.

PJ:
He’s alright, he’s a good kid. The best way I can describe Ricky is there was a girl hanging around a bar when I was in my twenties, a college girl. A real attractive girl. Guys would talk to her for a couple minutes and then they’d vanish, they wouldn’t have anything to do with her. Finally I said to my bartender, “You know, she’s a good looking head. How come nobody’s hitting on her?” He says, “She thinks she’s a mystery that the rest of us should unravel, and after talking to her for ten minutes most people figure they don’t wanna waste their time.” That’s the best way I could describe Ricky. He wants the world to think he’s a mystery they should unravel, and he’s really not. His drugs were less about drugs than it was about ego and being a mysterious counter culture guy. He works pretty hard at it. That’s my take on Ricky. I liked him, I liked his girlfriend. You ever meet those guys who are trying to be deeper than they are?

BC:
Yeah.

PJ:
That’s what he’s trying to do.

BC:
Focusing on your book, I wanted to talk about a couple of the pieces that really stayed with me. First has to be Clemens. I gotta say that reading that piece now in light of what’s happened over the past six months, was on the one hand revealing, but also not surprising, if that makes any sense.

PJ:
Yeah. The drug thing didn’t come up then.

BC:
Right, this was written long ago.

PJ:
But I was confused by one thing that I never put in the story. I work out hard. I’m sixty-seven, but I go to the gym every morning and I lift weights and I can bury guys half my age. I do physical stuff. And what I was shocked at was, Clemens wasn’t lifting heavy weights or anything, I was shocked at the amount of time that he worked out throughout a day. He was constantly working out. And as I’ve gotten older I’ve learned it’s not the strength that goes, it’s the energy level. I can do what I did when I was thirty, I just can’t do it as long – that’s what my wife says anyway! So anyway, I was saying, how the hell does he maintain his energy? The thing I thought is he eats a ton of food. So I thought maybe that’s it, because I’m always dieting because I don’t want to get heavy. Maybe all those calories he ingests gives him the energy. But then I did a story for Playboy on HGH. I went to an anti-aging convention in Vegas, did a lot of research on it, talked to doctors and everything. Where most people have missed the boat on HGH and testosterone, they keep talking about steroids and HGH as if they’re interchangeable, but they’re not. Steroids give you strength and muscle; HGH gives you energy. HGH was originally devised to use for people who had aged prematurely and had lost their energy. It also increases your libido, and it does cosmetic stuff too. It’s almost like a fountain of youth drug – it makes you look younger, gets rid of wrinkles, grows hair, all that. But it doesn’t give you increased strength, it gives you increased energy. Now what does a starting pitcher need more than anything?

BC:
Stamina.

PJ:
Right, he needs energy. A relief pitcher doesn’t need it. They had talked to [Eric] Gagné, who has taken testosterone. Well that makes perfect sense. If he’s only gonna pitch an inning or an inning and a half, he needs to be strong. But if he was gonna pitch eight innings in ninety degree heat, then he needs that kind of energy. So the possibility that Clemens was taking HGH, once I did my research on it, became very real to me. I figured, sure, if he’s gonna take any drug it’s gonna be HGH.

BC:
So what do you think of the circus that ensued over these last few months?

PJ:
With Clemens? I followed like everybody else. Clemens does what he knows how to do, which is to be a pit bull and dig in and throw harder. Like Clinton: deny, deny, deny, delay, delay, delay. He’s hoping that sooner or later it’ll evaporate because there’s no concrete proof. It’s him against McNamee. Until they come up with blood on a vial with HGH and steroids in it that’s got Roger’s DNA, it’s gonna be difficult for anybody to convict him.

BC:
You said it was Clemens vs. McNamee, and watching that whole thing I felt like I was watching a high school wannabe who’s kissing up to the homecoming king.

PJ:
That’s exactly what I felt when I wrote the story. McNamee was playing this fatherly figure to Clemens telling him he could eat a potato but he couldn’t put butter on it. And I was like, who the fuck is this guy dictating to Clemens what kind of workout he should do. Clemens was so beholden to him. I cannot imagine Clemens doing anything that McNamee didn’t instigate or help him with.

BC:
I wanted to ask you about one more before I let you go, and that was the piece on Toe Nash. It was actually the first one I read, because I knew about the myth – the little things that Peter Gammons would drop in his columns or on ESPN about this kid who walked out of the sugar cane fields and is hitting five hundred foot home runs, and then he just kind of disappeared and I had no idea what had happened.

PJ:
That’s going back to your question about sports writing today. I investigated it, Gammons never even went to New Orleans, never saw Toe Nash, never talked to anybody except the scout who signed him.

BC:
To be honest with you, I almost wish that I hadn’t read that story, as good as it was. I felt like I needed to take a shower after I finished it.

PJ:
Well, you should have, because he’s a bad kid.

BC:
Well, my question is, what’s your reaction to the Toe Nash saga, and more generally, are you ever surprised by what you find when you scratch beneath the surface like this?

PJ:
Yeah. You have perceptions when you go in to do a story, everybody does. And you’re always surprised: sometimes delighted, sometimes disappointed. I went to do a story on Bo Belinsky, who I thought I was an idiot. I went to do him, I thought he was the best guy I had met. I love Bo. I thought Tom Selleck was a good guy from what I’d read about him, and then I went there and he was a wimpy guy and I was really disappointed. Marilyn Chambers, the porn actress, I thought she was just another dumb bimbo, she was a great girl. We still get Christmas cards from her. So she likes to have sex in front of a camera, so what? She’s still a great girl. Toe Nash, I had no feelings about it one way or another. As a matter of fact it wasn’t even my idea. I had a researcher in Kansas City who’s a friend, the guy I dedicated the book to, Mike Sharpe. He sent me the ESPN story. He says, Pat, you should do a story on this guy. I originally did it for the New York Times, but they didn’t run it. So I got the assignment, I go to the story. I didn’t know anything. I got names of everybody. I wanted to see Toe Nash. I got his scout, who got me Hot Rod Williams, and Hot Rod Williams got me the father, and the father got me into the jail to talk to Toe Nash. Then I got the arresting officer, I got the prosecutor, I got the defense attorney, I got the probation officer. I was going up and down between New Orleans and Baton Rouge for five days, then I went back two other times. So I did a lot of reporting on that, and that’s the picture I got. That’s the picture I got of Nash. And then the final thing is I got the girl that he supposedly raped, and I got medical reports about the girl from the district attorney. Even his defense attorney didn’t like him. The idea that nobody knew about Toe Nash's past when they signed him was ridiculous. Everybody knew about him, every team. The Pittsburgh Pirates passed on him because of his bad reputation. So no, it didn't bother me, that was the story. I don’t care where the story goes. It could’ve been the myth, it could’ve been true. This whole myth of sugar cane, he couldn’t cut Hot Rod’s lawn for more than two days without quitting because he didn’t like the work. The idea that he was cutting sugar cane and that’s how he got his muscles, well I saw the guy and he didn’t have a muscle on his body. He was fat. He was big, but he was fat. I’m sure he might have been a talent, but the idea that he just appeared one day, well he had been playing in that sugar cane league, which was not one of these horseshit leagues, they had a beautiful stadium that Hot Rod Williams built with his own money. Gammons never left his office doing that story. Gammons and the Reynolds brothers were cutting up that pie. They were gonna do a movie, The Myth of Toe Nash.

BC:
And Gammons was involved in that too?

PJ:
Oh, yeah. Gammons and Reynolds were gonna promote this guy to do a movie, a Disney movie, you know. The natural coming out the sugar cane field. A whole lot of people had a lot of things invested in that story. Not after I finished.

BC:
Well, it still might be an interesting movie.

PJ:
It might be now. You can begin with the myth and how everybody blew it up and then go back and track it down. I’m sorry I ruined if for you, Hank!

BC:
That’s alright.

PJ:
See, that’s one of those instances where I wasn’t starry-eyed going in.

BC:
Right. But like I said, I don’t know that I’d thought of him in, I don’t know how long it’s been, five years? And I picked up the book and I’m skimming through the table of contents and I see Toe Nash. I wonder what happened to him? And there you go.

PJ:
Shit, I still keep in touch with the probation officer. He tells me that Toe’s still in and out of jail every week.

BC:
From what I read it doesn’t surprise me. Hey, I’ve got one last question for you. I’m wondering if there’s anybody out there that you’re dying to profile.

PJ:
Martina Navratilova.

BC:
Yeah?

PJ:
My favorite. I would love to do Martina. I admire her, I think she’s great. I interviewed her recently for a nothing story for AARP, just a little workout story you know. She was turning fifty. She was every bit as interesting as I thought she would be, and she’s the one I would love to do. She escaped me. I can’t seem to sell it to anybody.

BC:
I’m sure people would be interested. I’d be interested in reading it.

October 31, 2007

Dear Alex

Captcbd5299964364160b9cd9168ded47feDear Alex,

Are you serious? Is all this really happening? Can you really be this misguided? Ever since I heard the news during the eighth inning of the fourth game of the World Series on Sunday night (more on that later), I've been having a hard time functioning because my brain is having such difficulty understanding the sheer magnitude of what you've done.

Let's start with the bottom line. Can this really be about money? Since we're talking about professional sports, I guess it's always about money, but I'm not the type who blames guys for signing with the highest bidder. If there's someone willing to pay you a truckload of money because you're the best at what you do, you should take that truck and drive off into the sunset. But here's what I don't get, Alex. The contract you just walked away from would've paid you $91 million over the next three years, and reports indicated the Yankees were getting ready to offer you an extension of five or six years beyond that for an additional $150 million or so. I suppose it's possible, as Scott Boras keeps telling us, that since the game's overall wealth has more than doubled in the past seven years, you might actually be worth more now than you were when you signed that ridiculous quarter-billion-dollar contract in Texas, but wouldn't that Yankee money have been enough?

See, I'm guessing that it's not about the money. I think that when you came to New York five years ago you honestly thought you were gonna be the man. Sure, Jeter was the Captain, but he couldn't carry a team. It would take him almost three years to hit the dingers you could hit in one, and he was only half the shortstop you were. You probably assumed that you'd be the fan favorite as soon as you hit your first bomb into Monument Park.

And then reality set in. Your first clue came during trade negotiations when you were told that you'd have to move to a new position. There must've been a voice in your head questioning the whole thing, reminding you that you were probably the best shortstop in the history of the game, but you ignored it, thinking that you were talented enough to play any position on the field. (And you were probably right.)

Your next clue came during the press conference when you were first introduced as a Yankee. (Not a true Yankee; forgive me.) The reporters and camera crews packed the media room, eagerly snapping photos and taking video of the greatest player in the game pulling on the jersey of the greatest franchise in sports. But wait -- who was that sitting right next to you? It was Derek Jeter, at your press conference. It was as if the Yankees had flown him in to remind the world -- and you -- that sure, this A-Rod character's a great player, but this will always be Jeter's team.

But you did well. You might not have gotten the biggest cheers, but you certainly put up the biggest numbers. If you were tentative in your first year, it was easily explained away. The Bronx, afterall, is a bit different than Seattle or Arlington. No problem, though. You made up for that average '04 by winning the MVP in '05.

Was it in 2006 that you made up your mind about this experiment? Never before had a future Hall of Famer been questioned as you were, and you were in your prime, smack in the middle of two MVP seasons. First your manager and teammates turned on you in that Sports Illustrated piece, and then came the ultimate indignity. In the fourth game of the American League Divisional Series, with his team facing elimination, manager Joe Torre decided to put you in the eighth slot in the order, something which surely must have embarrassed you. What was the voice saying then?

As all the world demanded your trade during the off-season, you worked. While other sluggers responded to adversity by getting bigger, you dropped weight instead. Your defense improved drastically, and your offensive exploits were so spectacular that they can't really be defined by numbers alone. On a team full of all-stars and future Hall of Famers, you stood out as if you were playing with Little Leaguers. Your teammates were at a loss in the interview room, in awe in the dugout. I'm sure you remember the bomb you hit into the rarely visited upper deck in left field of the Stadium; what I remember is the look of disbelief that Jeter gave you when you got back to the bench. As he said many times throughout the year, he simply couldn't relate to what you were doing on the field.

There was another moment with Jeter, though, that spoke even more about your new place on the team. It was in a meaningless game as spring turned to summer, and someone drilled you in the ribs with a tight fastball. Remember? It must've gotten you pretty good, because you immediately howled with pain and went into a full body spasm while dancing around the plate for a while before staggering to first base. Now here's the beautiful part. A while later the cameras caught Jeter in the dugout doing a dead-on impression of your contortions. Everyone on the bench, especially Robinson Canó and Melky Cabrera -- laughed hysterically. You were a team.

But it wasn't only your teammates that had come around. The fans were suddenly in your corner as well. Sure, it helped that you came out like a house afire in April, stopping the boos dead in the throats of even your most jaded critics. But once you had them, you kept them. Each clutch hit and walk-off homer seemed to bring new fans and louder cheers until finally you were slipping your 500th home run past the foul pole in left and the Stadium suddenly belonged to you. Did you feel the love that afternoon? It was as if fifty thousand people were trying to make up for all the boos from the past three years -- but it was more than just that. They weren't just screaming about your 500th home run; they were dreaming of your 660th, 714th, 755th, and 800th. I know I was. The best player in the game -- maybe the best player ever -- was wearing pinstripes, just the way we all knew it was supposed to be.

All the while, though, there was a cloud hanging over the stadium. While you told half-truths about being happy in New York and downright lies about not thinking about next year, your agent spoke about the huge opportunity of free agency. As I've said, I can never fault someone for wanting to get paid, but did you once think about how all this might play out in the bleachers or playgrounds or construction sites in New York? Few people have ever had the opportunity to work for a $91 million pay day; fewer still have had the cajónes to walk away from one.

And so when it finally happened, when you left your legacy along with all that cash on the table, I wasn't surprized, only disappointed. I thought you'd at least have the sense to sit across the table from Brian Cashman or George Steinbrenner. Even if you didn't want to negotiate with them, I thought you'd at least feel the need to explain your decision.

But then it got crazier. Just as the attendants in the Red Sox clubhouse were starting to make plans for rolling out the champagne, America got the news that you were opting out of your contract. From a larger perspective, it showed a lack of respect for the game and a need to be the center of attention, even if that meant pulling the focus away from the World Series. From a Yankee persepctive, though, it was even worse. That last series game was depressing for me. Here were the Red Sox winning a second championship in four years while the Yankees were seven years removed from their last ring. Joe Torre was gone, and the organization seemed as unstable as it had been since before he arrived. And then came your news, like a knife twisting in my back.

Your agent claimed that the Yankees could still negotiate with you, but if you believe that... Well, let's imagine for a moment that Brian Cashman decides to go back on his word. Let's imagine that Hank Steinbrenner changes his mind and decided he really does want you back in pinstripes even though you don't appear to want to be a Yankee. They get together with your agent and hammer out a deal worth $300 million over ten years. Sounds good, right? Now let's jump ahead to April and the last season opener in Yankee Stadium history. Bob Sheppard announces the starters one by one, and they trot out to the first base line accompanied by the usual cheers. First Johnny Damon doffs his cap to the crowd, then Jeter lightly touches the bill of his cap to the biggest roar of the day. Bobby Abreu follows and waves to the crowd as he takes his place next to Jeter.

And then the three of them turn to the dugout where you stand poised on the first step. As your name is announced and you trot out into the light, what do you think it sounds like? The fans will remember the fifty-four home runs, but suddenly they won't matter much. The boos will come down like insects in Cleveland, clinging mercilessly to your skin. But it won't be about the money. It will be about the lack of loyalty to the team and the lack of respect for the game. It will be about you.

But of course, none of that will happen. Next April you'll find yourself wearing another jersey in someplace like Los Angeles or Detroit or Anaheim or Boston, and as your name is announced on Opening Day, the sun will be shining, the cheers will be loud, and the outlook will be bright. There's just one thing you'll have to watch out for, Alex. As your numbers continue to mount -- and I'm sure that they will -- there will always be whispers about your failures in New York as a player and as a person, and I'm not sure there's anything you'll ever be able to do to quiet them.

October 09, 2007

Lucky

Mlb_g_torre_275Were the Indians a better team than the Yankees this year? Quite simply, no. The Indians won 96 games to the Yankees' 94, and they only allowed 704 runs to New York's 777, but that's about it. The Yankees thrashed them in six regular season meetings, outscoring them 49-11 in sweeping series in April and August. Against the rest of the league, it was much the same. New York's run differential was +191 (meaning they scored 191 more runs than they allowed, 2nd best in the league to Boston), while Cleveland's was only 107. But this is really quibbling. Both teams were definitely two of the four best teams in the league.

So did this series prove that the Indians are actually better than the Yankees? Hardly. In fact, no five-game series will ever prove such a thing. Would it be possible, for instance, for the Florida Marlins (or any other bottom dweller) to win a five game series against one of the top teams in the league? Certainly. The Marlins swept all six games against the NL Central champion Chicago Cubs. But what about this particular four-game series between the Yanks and Tribe? If you only watched the highlights on SportsCenter or read the blurb in your morning paper, you can be forgiven for thinking that the better team won, but if you watched every pitch of every game (like I did), you know that the answer isn't quite that simple.

Here's the one stat that you need to know. Until late in game four, the Indians as a team were actually hitting .500 with two outs and runners in scoring position. This is insane, a number which points to a fair degree of luck. By calling this lucky, I am in no way saying the Indians didn't deserve to win, I'm just acknowledging the place that luck has in baseball, perhaps more than any other sport. More on this later...

Now let's look at the individual games.

Game 1:
Indians 12, Yankees 3. This was the game where the Yankees had no shot, right? Trailing 4-2 in the top of the fifth, New York mounted a rally. Bobby Abreu sliced a double down the left field line to score Shelly Duncan and push Johnny Damon to third. Suddenly up by only a run with the meat of the Yankee order coming up and only one out, Cleveland manager Eric Wedge wisely chose to walk Alex Rodríguez, looking for a double play from Jorge Posada. Were it not for A-Rod's historic season, Posada would have been the Yankees' clear MVP. C.C. Sabathia, meanwhile, was struggling, having already thrown close to a hundred pitches. C.C. dialed it up, though, and struck out Posada before getting Hideki Matsui to pop-up to end the threat. Cleveland then came up in the bottom half of the inning and plated five runs, essentially ending the game. What might've happened if either Posada or Matsui had come through? Or what if Posada had even managed a sac fly? A baseball game, even one that ends with a nine-run margin, can sometimes turn on a single at bat, and this was one of them.

Game 2:
Indians 2, Yankees 1. Depending on how you look at it, this was either the game when Cleveland's luck abandoned them or the game when Andy Pettitte pitched like a magician. Pettitte pitched into the seventh inning, allowing base runners in every frame. Most of these runners led off the innings (a Grady Sizemore single in the first, a Jason Michaels double in the third, a Travis Hafner single in the fourth, a Kenny Lofton single in the fifth, and a Sizemore triple in the sixth), but none of them scored. With one out in the seventh, lucky enough to be clinging to a 1-0 lead because Melky Cabrera had deposited Cleveland pitcher Fausto Carmona's only mistake of the night into the right field stands in the third inning, Pettitte got even luckier when Jhonny Peralta launched a missile to straight away center field. It bounced high off the wall for a double, but had it been eighteen inches higher or eighteen inches to the right, the game would've been tied.

Joe Torre smartly went to his favorite new toy, Joba Chamberlain, and order was quickly restored. Through seven innings, the Yankees were right where they wanted to be, up by a run with the most dominant pitcher in baseball (at least in August and September) on the mound, to be followed quickly by Mariano Rivera (arguably the most dominant pitcher of the last ten years) waiting to pitch the ninth. No problems, right? Perhaps in response to the run of luck the Yankees had been enjoying for seven innings, things changed dramatically in the bottom of the eighth. I'm not sure if Lake Erie was running red, but there was a plague of biblical insects inside Jacobs Field, and they descended upon Chamberlain. Covered by bugs and clearly flustered, the man who had struck out 34 while walking only six in 24 regular season innings suddenly lost the strike zone. He threw sixteen pitches to the first five hitters in the eighth with these results: 11 balls, 5 strikes, one hit batter, and two wild pitches (one of which allowed the winning run to score). Carmona dealt with the same insects in the top halves of the seventh and eighth, but he seemed to get them as they were coming and going; Joba had them at their thickest. What if the umpires had halted the game as they probably should have? What if the swarm had never arrived in the first place? Luck allowed the Yankees to hold the lead for seven innings; luck allowed the Indians to tie it up in the eighth.

Game 3:
Yankees 8, Indians 4. Who'd have thought that the only game the Yankees would win in the series would be the one in which Roger Clemens limped his way out of the game and finally into retirement? I can't really say that luck had much to do with this one. Jake Westbrook pitched like Jake Westbrook, and Phil Hughes pitched well in relief of Clemens.

Game 4:
Indians 6, Yankees 4. In many ways, this was the strangest game of the series. The pedestrian Paul Byrd kept the Yankees off balance all night long, Yankee ace Chien-Ming Wang turned in his second consecutive disastrous start, and the Yankee pitchers who weren't named Joba or Mo actually did their jobs, shutting down the Indians over the last five innings and giving their team a chance to get back in the game. But how did the runs score? The Indians had their share of blasts (Sizemore's no-doubt homer to lead off the game and a couple of Kelly Shoppach doubles come to mind, but the back-breakers were a bloop single by Asdrubal Cabrera with two outs and two strikes in the second and a ground ball by Victor Martínez with the bases loaded in the fourth. The Yankees, meanwhile, made their money the hard way, tallying their four runs with three solo home runs and a bases loaded single.

So we can look at all this in two different ways. Maybe the Indians came through when they had to, buckling down with two outs and getting the hits that good teams and clutch players get. Maybe the Yankees wilted under the pressure of their owner's yearly mandate to win the World Series. Maybe the best team won.

Or maybe the Indians just got lucky.

I don't think we can discount either answer, but a seven-game series would be much more equitable than a five-gamer. Would the Yankees have been able to beat C.C. Sabathia, Fausto Carmona, and Jake Westbrook in games five, six, and seven to win a longer series? It would've been difficult, but it would've been possible. Sabathia was shaky in game one, Carmona might never again pitch as well as he did in game two, and Jake Westbrook is Jake Westbrook.

If the NBA can convince people to pay attention to seven-game series in a sport in which luck plays a minimal role, why can't major league baseball? If they had started the first round on Tuesday as they always have, then given off days for travel on Thursday and Monday, a seven-game series would end Wednesday at the latest. The league championship series would then start on Friday -- exactly as it's scheduled now.

All that being said, it's impossible to completely eliminate luck in any playoff series. The best example of this is probably the 2001 World Series. The Arizona Diamondbacks thoroughly outplayed the three-time defending cham