People are making us out to be a bunch of drunk, fried-chicken eating SOBs, playing video games. ... [O]ne person writes an article, and things have gotten blown way out of proportion, almost to another planet. We're getting crushed. ... [W]hat people are trying to do is a witch hunt. ... [W]e lost because we did not play good baseball. ... I'm not making excuses for what we did. I'm owning up to what I did. ... It was our fault. That's the message I'm trying to get across. It's not about beers, it's not about Tito, it's not whether there were no rules, it's not anything. It's performance. And we didn't do it.Note 2: Lester was also interviewed by the Providence Journal (see here and here).
Note: The original Extra Bases post has been expanded with more quotes.
Jon Lester spoke to the Globe:
I love Tito and he did a great job for us when he was here. ... But there comes a time when your authority is no longer there. You kind of run your course. People knew how Tito was and we pushed the envelope with it. We never had rules, we never that that iron-fist mentality. ...
I never saw guys purposely breaking rules or doing the wrong thing in front of him and rubbing it in his face. But this particular team probably needed more structure. ...
There's a perception out there that we were up there getting hammered and that wasn't the case. Was it a bad habit? Yes. I should have been on the bench more than I was. ...
We probably ordered chicken from Popeye's like once a month. ... Most of the times it was one beer, a beer. It was like having a Coke in terms of how it affected you mentally or physically. ...
But nothing happened that had me unprepared to pitch. ...
Consider us a unit when it comes to these accusations. We either fall together or rise above it all together ... I'm not a follower. I'm a grown-ass man. I made my decisions. [Beckett] wasn't twisting my arm like I was in high school.
The fuss made over the fried chicken and beer consumed in the Sox clubhouse by the starting pitchers was greeted with amusement by at least former major leaguer, who told me that when he played, in the '70s and '80s, it was not uncommon for a player to pop into the clubhouse to do a line of cocaine before returning to the dugout.Ah, the good old days!
68 comments:
The fuss made over the fried chicken and beer consumed in the Sox clubhouse by the starting pitchers was greeted with amusement by at least former major leaguer, who told me that when he played, in the '70s and '80s, it was not uncommon for a player to pop into the clubhouse to do a line of cocaine before returning to the dugout.
I was thinking about the rampant drug use of the 70s and 80s when reading about some of this shit. Some of this fuss over beer and fried chicken is part of uptight, anti-everything hysteria of more recent decades.
But there comes a time when your authority is no longer there. You kind of run your course. People knew how Tito was and we pushed the envelope with it. We never had rules, we never that that iron-fist mentality. ...
Grown men admitting they need their manager to be a nanny. Pathetic!
"Some of this fuss over beer and fried chicken is part of uptight, anti-everything hysteria of more recent decades."
But most of it is because we lost. Would the stupid fucking Globe been doing a fucking expose on fried fucking chicken if we were World Champs right now? Even if they did, we'd all be buying fried chicken shirts celebrating it. Instead I get to hear from every boob on the street how much they hate the Red Sox players and their--gosh!--fried chicken-eating ways.
But most of it is because we lost.
All of it is because we lost. As you say about the fried chicken shirts, no one complained about shots of Jack Daniels before playoff games, now the stuff of legend.
What load of crap. "If Tito did his job, then we probably would have done better."
Way to pass the buck, Lester. Glad to see that you're taking responsibility for your actions.
That said, I agree with Laura and Jere. People are looking for reasons for why the Sox lost. Plain and simple.
That said, I agree with Laura and Jere.
I don't. If we had squeaked into the playoffs, they way the team was pitching, we would not have gone far. Plus, Francona was not coming back no matter what happened.
So ... shitty September (11-18?), but we win the Card ... bounced in the first round by the Rangers? (or lose ALCS?) ... Tito steps down/does not get options picked up ... Theo/Cubs ... It's still Chicken Time, imo.
If we got in and went all the way and Tito "goes out on top", then maybe we get a different narrative.
Further to our chances in the DS/CS:
September ERA
Starters: 7.08
Beckett: 5.48
Lester: 5.40
Lackey: 9.13
Wakefield: 5.25
Facing the Rangers would have been tough.
"Tito, you can't spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You fucked up! You trusted us! Hey, make the best of it!"
Michael Giardi, CSNNE.com:
#RedSox sources are calling Jon Lester's comments to @PeteAbe about drinking in the clubhouse "not the whole truth. Incomplete."
SoSH:
Ananti:
Not the whole truth as in the drinking was heavier than Lester implied in the article?
curly2:
I would have to think so. Does anybody really thing it was limited to a "ninth-inning rally beer?"
greek_gawd_of_walks:
No. For them to rally in September, they would have needed to start drinking in the third on most nights.
I was puzzled by Lester's off-hand comment that "In September, a lot of people had their weight jump up", but it's not unusual or a big deal.
Way to pass the buck, Lester. Glad to see that you're taking responsibility for your actions.
Exactly. I did it, but it wasn't that bad, and anyway, no one stopped me.
Michael Giardi, CSNNE.com:
#RedSox sources are calling Jon Lester's comments to @PeteAbe about drinking in the clubhouse "not the whole truth. Incomplete."
So another "team source" wants us to know Lester is not telling the "whole truth", without giving any indication of what his or her agenda is, or what Lester is not saying.
Whatever you think about Lester's comments, at least he was willing to put his name under them. Why would any of the players want to respond on the record at this point, only to have anonymous "team sources" throw them under the bus?
As somebody on SoSH said, it would be grand if the press would start telling these people that if they're not willing to go on the record, it isn't going to be reported.
Let's all hold our breath...
Shorter CHB:
"Tito trusted team to act like pros. Team did Tito wrong by not acting like pros. Lackey sucks. Fans may remember this stuff next April. You should hate the Red Sox as much as I do."
***
But if you don't click, you'll miss gems like this:
"The 1919 Chicago White Sox had Eight Men Out. The 2011 Red Sox have Three Men and a Bucket of Popeye's."
As somebody on SoSH said, it would be grand if the press would start telling these people that if they're not willing to go on the record, it isn't going to be reported.
I take your point, but media can never do that. I'm sure you understand why, and it's not because the media is inherently unethical. People must be able to speak anonymously in the press. It may be annoying to we who want more information, but it's an important protection for careers (and sometimes lives, although not in this case).
What Benjamin said @ 2;12 and what Laura said, last graf, @ 12:19.
I'm glad Lester was willing to speak on the record and I give him credit for that, but I just wish he had said something that didn't make my opinion of his character go into freefall.
Laura, I agree the press should be able to use anonymous sources, but I think it's tricky - it should depend on whether the public has a legitimate interest in the information being reported even without the source (which is an important thing to know to evaluate the quality of the information), and on whether the source actually needs the protection of anonymity. (Would ownership ever have a legitimate need for anonymity?)
It's not that I think the press is inherently unethical, but there are uses of anonymous sources in these stories that have really bothered me.
The allegations about Francona's use of painkillers and his marital problems are an example. Is there really any legitimate reason that should have been reported with no named sources (or maybe, at all)? After all, Francona has a career too, and those accusations may follow him around for the rest of it.
It's an issue with Popeyegate too. Beckett, Lester and Lackey *can't* respond anonymously, and again, they also have careers. (Well, Beckett and Lester do anyway.) Is it fair that anonymous sources have been allowed to paint them in the press as a bunch of drunk, out-of-condition slobs who don't care about their teammates?
If you have a uniform on and you are on the active roster you should be either in the dugout or bullpen ready to play ball.
Anything else is crap.
I’m with Johngoldfine (and his attributions). I am skeptical about Lester’s statement about the “one beer.” Reminds me of the line that I used on my parents and cops too many times back in the day… “Yes. I’ve been drinking… but I only had one beer.”
Here's a rambling, long-ass post. I had a minor epiphany regarding why fans are so upset over this. (The comments under the Jon Lester article at the Globe site are largely negative. And I'm inclined to agree with those negative comments.) I don't know if I'll be able to really articulate my "theory." Here comes the babbling.
First, I think the fans do have a legitimate right to be mad over what has happened and how certain members of the team disappointed. But having said that, I think our reaction is disproportionate compared to how far this year's Red Sox clubhouse behavior deviated from the norm. (I suspect that it wasn't *that* much more dysfunctional than a lot of clubhouses. And I suspect that as lame as Beckett, Lackey and Lester's attitudes seem to be, they're probably not that far off from the "norm.")
I think that with this atmosphere in which we're all waiting for players and insiders to talk to Peter Abraham like Jon Lester did, and "confess" to their role in the collapse ... and we're all waiting for that next "team source" to spill more detailed dirt about what went on in there, the dynamics and cliques...
I think the universal negative reaction to all these inside scoops don't just come from the worse-than-usual behavior the team displayed this year. I think that with all these peeks into a pro-sports clubhouse, we're basically picking at a scab that has always been there. A scab that when removed, lets forth a flood of all sorts of implications and misgivings that have always bubbled under the surface of fans' psyches.
Basically, fans all live in denial. We live in denial over the fact that we secretly resent these guys for getting paid what they do. And we live in denial over the fact that--even on the best, most winning teams--players probably aren't all that chummy with each other or are the "characters" we think them to be. Not in the storybook, "Major League" way we have come to think.
(cont.)
...So regardless of how out-of-the-norm (or not) this year's clubhouse was, all these peeks behind the curtain are making us realize, "Hey! These guys DO get paid ridiculous amounts of money and I kind of hate them for it, regardless of whether they eat chicken or not, and regardless of whether they win or not."
And also, "Hey, these guys aren't constantly chucking each other on the shoulder all the time. A lot of the times they just kind of awkwardly look forward at their locker and avoid each other. Even the guy with the "C" on his jersey. And man, that reality makes me realize that my entire perception of the team, baseball itself, and my attachment to those things is based on a fiction."
"And couple the fact that some of these guys aren't quite the wacky Charlie Sheen, Tom Berenger types we've told ourselves they are, with the fact that they are getting paid insane amounts of money ... it makes me question if I wasted my time following not just this year's team, but the team in previous years as well."
Basically, I feel a sort of bitter indifference to the apathy that seems to exude from Jon Lester in this latest interview. And I feel negativity towards people like Beckett and Lackey who apparently feel that they don't owe the fans anything at all. But "the scab" part comes with the realization that these guys' personalities and their view of the fans were probably like this all along, not just this year. And that a lot of (even most) other players are no different.
It's like this whole debacle has made the players and fans alike see each other for the first time for what they really are and always were, and neither likes what they see. It's like looking in the mirrorgate in the NeverEnding Story once you get past the Sphynx ladies with the huge breasts. Sometimes the truth isn't just ugly. Sometimes the truth makes you realize that The Nothing exists in places where you always assumed there was substance. And you ask yourself, "Why do I bother watching these guys again?"
There, that's the theory.
Maxwell, I can't speak for fans in general, but what you say resonates for me in some ways. Of course, I am not so naive to have ever thought these guys were angels or that they all loved each other like family. But I did think that they at least cared enough to show up in all ways, not just physically, and that they did their best to win every game. I don't care if they are buddies, I don't care if they make a lot of money, I don't care if their politics or their personal values are not aligned with mine---but I DO care about whether they CARE about the game, the team, and winning. It's pretty clear that Lackey and Beckett care only about themselves, and it seems Lester is not far behind them with his attitude.
It does make me wonder about rooting for the team, though I also realize this stuff is likely true for all teams, many players, all sports. So perhaps we should just take all the money wasted on sports and put it to some more constructive use---like building homes for people or libraries or schools or health care. Even movies and television seem to have more redeeming value.
(Wake me up in April; I am crawling back into my sports-free cave until then.)
So perhaps we should just take all the money wasted on sports and put it to some more constructive use---like building homes for people or libraries or schools or health care.
This is something I frequently hear from anti-sports people - as if players' salaries come out of public funds that we could somehow redirect to public services. I wish!
I don't know why sports is more of a waste of money than any other type of entertainment. I find much more value in sports than in 99% of what's on TV and what comes out of Hollywood.
Another Lester interview, ProJo:
"[Beckett and Lackey] are two of our bigger leaders on the team. If you get rid of those two guys just for the sake of getting rid of them, that tears us apart, period. Josh is a very influential person in that clubhouse, and so is Lack. Guys look to them for advice. Guys look to them for leadership -- and people are making these guys out to seem like the devil."
I agree with Maxwell H that there is always a flip side to things: that adulation and loathing can coexist. Many loves are transcendent only when they are also transgressive, when they touch on the dark, and that coexistence of light and dark forces the lover into ambivalence.
Maxwell is saying, I take it, that the end of the season and its fallout rubbed all our noses in the darkness, the darkness we'd rather pretend doesn't exist (because we all would be happier if (let's say) FY were the true soul, light, and genius of the club.
Thoreau said that those we can love, we can hate, and to the rest we are indifferent. I am certainly not indifferent to the Red Sox, but not many would ever claim that the typical Red Sox fan has only a clear, bright, shining adoration for this team or any Red Sox team stretching back to damn near forever.
Thoreau said that those we can love, we can hate, and to the rest we are indifferent.
It's true. That thin line between passionate love and hate.
On the flip side, I don't think that those we hate we can love. Love/hate of Sox and hate of Yankees, for example. Sox fans' NYY hatred is not akin to love.
Way back when, Allan was doing an interview on WNYC (public radio) about his book. This would have been 2001 or 2002. Brian Lehrer asked him if he loved the Red Sox or hated them. It was phrased oddly and I thought it might throw Allan off.
Allan didn't miss a beat. He said, Brian, it's complicated. I love them, I hate them, I love to hate them, I hate to love them.
It was the perfect ice-breaker. They both laughed and the interview came off beautifully. Had to be true.
"I don't know why sports is more of a waste of money than any other type of entertainment. I find much more value in sports than in 99% of what's on TV and what comes out of Hollywood."
I'm going crazy with the long-ass posts today. I've actually thought about this before and came up with an argument to show why--at least personally to me--the mediums of movies and visual storytelling are indeed more valuable than sports. Or at least they used to be.
(SKIP THE REST OF THIS POST; I can't help myself from ranting. This is literally the topic that I have thought most about over the last few years.)
First, I agree that most of what comes out of Hollywood or comes on TV is soulless, imagination-stifling evil. But I honestly only feel that way about things now. Over the last several years visual standards have changed disastrously. Moving images *always* used to look alive and had texture. Images "breathed" and had humanity and weight. This life resulted in the viewer always being taken to another place, always able to empathize with the people on the screen, no matter if it was a Burger King ad or a Spielberg movie.
This ability to transport and touch came both as a result of the 24-frame rate of film and the "illusion of life" given by the interlacing of analog broadcasting methods (those spaces, like in jazz, like in everything, are almost as important as the images themselves). It was also because of the inherent depth and naturalism of images captured on film and, yes, videotape as well, regardless of the issues of frame-rates or "jazz spaces." (Meaning, the nature of still film images before "motion" even becomes a factor.)
But now with the "digital revolution, everything we see lacks that life and sense of transport that used to be an unspoken promise. Now "people" on screen look more like Colorforms--dead, plastic, people-shaped things. The viewer's soul is not taken anywhere. It's like looking at a non-porous sheet of Saran wrap, and instead of having our imagination stimulated and our minds made to wander--we are left sitting in the same living room we started in while the dead "HD" images push us back. (Or "blow us away" the ads might scream.)
But anyway, the illustration of why I think a medium like movies--before the above disastrous sea change--has more value than sports... For 99.9% of sports fans, the only thing that matters is winning. A lost game feels basically like a waste of time. A season where they "didn't go all the way" is thrown down the memory hole. Few people remember the amazing comeback the Sox had against the rays in the 2008 ALCS, and that is because they discarded it along with the rest of the season. And if they do remember it, it's more like a shrugging, "Yeah, I guess that was sort of cool, but it ultimately didn't matter."
Heck, even *winning* seasons are quickly forgotten in favor of the attitude, "What have you done (won) for me lately?" People sort of remember 2004 and 2007, but it doesn't actually "fuel" them. It more acts as a salve to take away the hurt of future lost seasons. And to me that's not the same, nor nearly as good as actually *providing* continuous soul-fuel.
But movies have a value beyond wins and losses. Yes, there are Oscars and Golden Globes and whatnot, but ultimately it doesn't matter (to most people) whether, say, the Shawshank Redemption takes home Best Picture. Movies and stories are something that can touch and fuel the soul regardless of whether it "won" anything or not, and regardless of how much time has passed since their creation.
Yes, there are a lot of (incredibly shallow) people that do see any movies older than 5 minutes ago as not worth their time. But I'll bet, proportionally speaking, those people are far less than those sports-followers who consider lost games and lost seasons not worth a second look.
I'm out of control today. I promise that's the last I'll post.
Sox fans' NYY hatred is not akin to love.
No argument here when it's put that way, but one thing we love are the narratives we spin. For many years, Red Sox fans had narratives about David and Goliath, about scrappy underdogs, about curses, about being the victim of bullies, about (let's say) having the wrong DiMaggio on the team.
The counternarratives we told ourselves about the MFY had to do with triumphalism, arrogance, inevitability, the conquering hero, the hopelessness of resistance, raw power, relentless success.
We may loathe the MFY and even refuse to type their MF name on JOS, but surely we always had a sneaking envy and desire to ourselves be a bit of what we always hated: Goliath, the Winner, The Triumphant, and, yes Laura, The Unstoppables! In that sense, I think our hatred had a tinge of love too--but in no other sense.
First, I am hardly an anti-sports person. I love baseball, and I believe that sports are an important part of ensuring that children (and adults) stay fit, learn team work, and relieve stress.
I do, however, think that there is probably too much time and money spent on professional sports. I think lots of public money DOES go into sports; many arenas are built with public money at least in part and much of the public infrastructure that is necessary for professional sports like the public transportation that brings fans to the games, the police and fire departments that provide safety and security, the sanitation departments that clean up the streets around the arenas, etc., is publicly funded.
And every dollar we as private citizens spend and every dollar the government spends on sports related activities could be allocated elsewhere if there was no such thing as professional sports. It's a choice we as a society have made about how to allocate our resources. But it is a choice, not something inevitable. Like the rest of those who post here, I choose to spend some of my resources on baseball. I could be spending those resources on something else: charity, travel, clothes, political donations. Does that mean I am doing something wrong? No, but I do recognize that I have made a choice that has ramifications for other parts of the society and the economy. Some would call that wasteful, especially after hearing all this stuff about the players and their behavior.
John, great analysis. Prior to my conversion, I always said the hate was often about envy. It seemed obvious from where I sat. Sox fans would protest this vehemently, and the more they protested, the more obvious it seemed.
* * * *
M Horse, I love movies, and I love film as a medium, that's why I specifically said "99% of what's on TV and what comes out of Hollywood".
I guess I experience sports in a manner very differently from what you're describing. My experience of baseball - and I'm guessing, yours and that of many people who hang around here - is much more profound and complex. It's definitely not all about winning, and it's definitely not "what have you done for me lately", even if we feel that way while we're watching a game.
The stuff I'm referring to on TV and from Hollywood is junk food. It could never compare to something as intricate and important as baseball. The gossip going on now about the Sox is no different than gossip about Charlie Sheen or whoever the new flavour is. But the Charlie Sheen gossip is only that. Whereas underneath the baseball gossip is... baseball.
So when we're done with the gossip (or like me, if we take no notice of it in the first place - which is an option!), baseball is still there, waiting.
Re your riff on digital technology, I'm not sure if you're anti-technology or simply seeing the wrong movies. Or maybe my visual sense is far less developed than yours. I see tons of great movies and they look like movies to me.
First, I am hardly an anti-sports person.
Yes! I wasn't saying you are an anti-sports person. But what you said, that one statement, I have often heard from anti-sports people over the years.
In response to a few comments above, I'm not so sure I'm talking about the whole "love/hate" paradigm. I know that Sox teams over history have made fans pull out their hair. But I think it was different than what we're facing this year.
I was more talking about the difference between love and "do we really want to go there?" Between love and blase indifference. Seeing the man behind the curtain. At least hate has some meaning and means we're invested in something. I think this year makes some people question the "legitimacy" of the team/fan relationship itself.
Laura, thanks for clarifying your stance on sports and movies. One honest question, do you see your movies on an LCD screen? (I would assume you do.) I have personally foundn that, for all their dots-per-inch and attention-getting color contrasts, they actually don't enable the viewer to pick up on nuance the way a CRT screen would. I have found multiple times that on LCD screens, I--the most OCD person in the world on this issue--couldn't tell if something was shot digitally, as opposed to film. Yet seeing that same thing on a CRT, I could make the distinction.
And yes, a lot of public money goes into sports, usually for private enrichment. I was thinking solely of salaries.
I've heard many friends who dislike sports complain that athletes earn so much money and teachers (for example) earn so little. But if the gazillionaires who pay athletes' salaries spent less, teachers would not earn more.
We live in a society where vasts amounts of wealth are privatized, and are not put back into the public welfare. That is also not inevitable.
We live in a society where vasts amounts of wealth are privatized, and are not put back into the public welfare. That is also not inevitable.
Yes. Sigh.
And who knows? If those billionaires did not have sports to invest their money in, perhaps they would invest in schools and libraries instead? Yeah, I know...keep dreaming....
Like the rest of those who post here, I choose to spend some of my resources on baseball. I could be spending those resources on something else: charity, travel, clothes, political donations.
We all do most of these things in addition to sports, right? Most of us, or all of us, juggle work, family, down time, and also work in some volunteering or activism, travel, creating art, gardening, our animals - whatever we do that gives our lives meaning. For me, baseball is part of that. It's also vital to helping me recharge and have energy for those other things.
Anyone who feels they devote too much time to a pursuit and don't get enough back needs to re-evaluate and re-distribute their time, for sure.
For me, these revelations - the little I know about them, anyway - have nothing to do with that equation.
We're entering a new Red Sox era. Seeing the end of the old era is sad, but it's also exciting, a new beginning.
As I said in my post, I am not in any way suggesting that spending money on baseball is somehow ethically wrong. I am just saying that if I didn't spend the hours and dollars on baseball, that time and money would be spent on something else, maybe something that would be more helpful to someone else or society overall. But I am not so altruistic. I "waste" lots of time and money on things that I enjoy that may do no one else any good.
Overall, I just am pissed off and disgusted with the team and the media right now, and I am really sad to lose Tito and Theo, both of whom served the team and its fans so well for so long. Will I get over it? Sure. I got over 2003, I got over 1986, I got over 1975. I was sad when Nomar was traded, I was sad when Fisk left the team, when Pedro left, when Yaz retired, etc., etc. I always come back. I just can't help myself. But for now, I am sad and pissed off. Where else but here can I vent?? I refuse to talk about this at home!
I think this year makes some people question the "legitimacy" of the team/fan relationship itself.
Why?
I mean no disrespect to you at all. But seriously, why on earth would this season make you question this? This baffles me.
It's a season where we were slated to do well and did not. That is not such a very strange occurence in sports. I guess I don't understand this whole riff on indifference.
M Horse, I watch movies on an older TV - CRT. I can't think of something purchased in 2005 as old, but it is the previous technology.
I can't imagine ever being able to discern if something was shot digitally or not. I watch movies for story, dialogue, acting, character, empathy, education, enlightenment, entertainment, but very very rarely for any visual quality.
This probably helps explain my lack of interest in Hollywood!
If those billionaires did not have sports to invest their money in, perhaps they would invest in schools and libraries instead? Yeah, I know...keep dreaming....
Not unless forced. Dream about our collective ability to force them to do so! :)
Laura K, the reason I feel that this season makes us question things is because, as I said, we're getting real specific peeks into clubhouse dynamics that in my short time as a baseball fan, I've never seen before. And not "cool" stuff revealing passion, like roundhouse brawling. But stuff that shows apathy and indifference. Stuff that contradicts the idea that the game or the fans matter much at all to the players.
On the other topic ... (I know this is more than you're asking for. Tell me to stop if I'm crossing a line here.) ....
I'd imagine you do get invested in visual quality, but maybe you aren't consciously aware of it. I feel that how images look in a movie is more important than obvious things like theme and dialogue. Basically I'm equating the quality of images with the general issue of presentation/execution.
For example, if you go to Youtube and check out some of the clips people make, they all feel like amateur hour. Sometime they put a lot of effort into dialogue and acting. But if it's shot on a dead, flat looking digital camcorder from Target (as most Youtube stuff is) none of it matters. They could resurrect Laurence Olivier, and the acting will seem like amateur hour.
Contrast that experience to watching a simple movie opening like Road to Perdition. On paper, it's basically just various shots of a kid riding a bicycle. Nothing very thought provoking or deep. Except it *is* thought provoking and deep. It's shot on evocative film and with a pro-film score by Thomas Newman, and the viewer just watches that other world, gets pulled in, and thinks thoughts.
The digi-cam flick could have the deepest, loftiest themes in the world, with the actors talking about cancer, mental illness, Hitler and the nature of the universe. But watching them will never compare to the experience (and thoughts and emotions evoked) of watching someone simply ride a bicycle, as long as the bicycle rider inhabits a weighty, alive "Otherworld."
In the movie "Big Night" there's a long, unbroken shot of someone simply making an omelet. On digital, that wouldn't even be considered something that's "shootable." Because digital is so unengaging, the viewer would never stand for that. Making an omelet and not whipping the camera around wouldn't even be considered a viable on-screen choice.
I won't say any more about this. Sorry for introducing this tangent.
These "behind the curtain" glimpses come with some regularity in the modern baseball era.
Re movies, perhaps this speaks to the general insensitivities of my receptors about different modalities. I have a very emotional, profound reactions to art, but am a dullard when it comes to the medium itself. I can't tell digital from film, can't discern quality remasters from old analog music, etc. Quality speakers or headphones are wasted on me. Unless there's a monumental difference, I don't pick up on it. I don't know why. But I assure you, I truly can't discriminate among the differences you're talking about.
To me, what's amateur hour vs what's meaningful on YouTube is based on message and the skill of the creator. I don't find it all non-meaningful because of the medium.
It's interesting how different people respond to these different variables. What seems obvious to you is an utterly foreign language to me.
[Everyone should stop apologizing for saying stuff.]
[I loved Big Night.]
I am enjoying the discussion of film versus digital, but have to say that like Laura, I couldn't tell the difference at all. But since I can't discern when a pitcher balks or a curve from a breaking ball, I am sure no one is surprised by that. :)
And I loved Big Night also. Food, Italians, love, joy---what's not to like?
Horse: Stop apologizing for your comments. Post whatever you want. Readers can ignore them if they choose.
That love/hate quote of mine from 2001 sounds somewhat strange now. It sure made sense at the time, though. I was finally able to be a 100% fan again and there were puh-lenty of assholes on that team in 2001.
I want to comment on the fan relationship aspect - it seems connected to the essay about my changing feelings as a fan that I've been promising myself I'll write for several years -- but I'll have to do that later.
Jays fan here in "Peace" mode.
Your team had three seasons; a start to truly forget, a middle of prodigious accomplishment and an ending from a horror film.
To some extent it reminds me of 87 when the Jays had a 4.5 game lead with 7 games to go...they lost all 7 by one run...sigh. Shit happens.
Your year is - however - different. You had two inexplicable collapses in one year. Amongst all the brilliance, something was wrong. Not just went wrong - but was intrinsically wrong.
While the loss of your Manager is of little import - the loss of Theo may prove the harder shoe to fill.
The good news is that whomever of the cast returns in 12 they will be motivated to prove they don't belong as bit players in a horror film. That at least should help.
But you must surely agree with me that as a Jay's fan - your collapses were exquisitely beautiful things to behold! I would not object in the least to a encore performance in 2012.
I personally would not object in the least if " Jay's " fans in peace (or any other mode) would go the way of Theo and Tito. The loss would be of little import.
That love/hate quote of mine from 2001 sounds somewhat strange now. It sure made sense at the time, though.
I thought that too! Hate to love, love to hate? That's from another era!
At the time, it was a brilliant save. Friends told me they held their breath waiting for your answer, and then, YES!
Jays fan here in "Peace" mode. ... your collapses were exquisitely beautiful things to behold
"'Asshole' mode" would be a more accurate description.
SoSher JimD:
I was as frustrated about the collapse as anyone, and the details of the clubhouse dysfunction have been painful to read about and are no small issue, but the local media has gone way beyond providing a service to the fans by simply reporting this news. The description of the current Red Sox news cycle as a feeding frenzy is apt and it’s not hard to determine why. CHB, Mazz, Callahan and other ‘personalities’ who have been in the business for more than 10 years have had few opportunities to work the city up into a frenzy the way they used to. ... They’ve been waiting for this moment and they are going to milk this for every click, viewer and sold newspaper it’s worth. It will flare back up this winter each time the team makes a move and spring training will not be pretty, and we will not truly be past it until the team earns a playoff berth in non-embarrassing fashion and gives the fans a reason to be excited again."
Tomorrow at 8 AM:
Jason Varitek will be interviewed on The WAAF Hill-Man Morning Show.
97.7 FM
107.3 FM
http://www.waaf.com
All this talk from those who shall remain nameless (Laura and Amy) claiming they can't tell the difference between different image types is, I think, probably not entirely true. In an attempt to make the point, I will post links to two *obviously* different things.
In some ways this might not be "fair" to digital, because some instances of digital at least try to make things less soulless than this example. But I feel an extreme example is warranted to prove to those that shall remain nameless (Laura and Amy) that they *are* capable of making such distinctions. Also, damnit, it *is* fair, because all the problems in the below digital clip are present to some degree in all our "newer" media. (And a lot of stuff is even worse.)
Here is the aforementioned Road to Perdition opening, shot on film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKPe7jC1aTY
Here is a Youtube upload, Dr. Mercola discusses water filters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHBbjtYt9D0
Here's a checklist of questions for next time you watch something.
1) Does the image look alive? Does it "breathe" (as opposed to looking like a suffocating plastic bag)? Is the only thing telling me that this world is alive, that the video is even playing, is the fact that something on screen is blatantly moving, like Dr. Mercola's gesticulations?
2) Does the image take me to a place *beyond* my living room, the place where imagination lies? The "Other world" wholly separate from the mundane physical world?
To that end, does it allow my mind to do two things at once--focus on the action in front of me, yet also allow my subconscious to empathize and wander around in that other world? (I have found that digital only seems to exist within the same realm as the room I occupy. So the mind only does the first of those two items. And that's pretty much useless, because it's the second action that stimulates the imagination and soul.)
3) Do the images have a weight to them? Can I relate to them. Moreover, do elements within the image itself (such as colors) look like they even belong in the same universe with *each other*?
If you answered no to any of the above questions, then you're looking at an image for, whatever reason (the shooting format, the broadcast format, post-production filters), is deficient in something vital which all of society's images used to have in spades.
What you should NOT be asking yourself.
1) Is the image "clean?" (This is art and entertainment, not surgical equipment.)
2) Are the colors "insane?" (What are you a baby that needs keys jangled in front of him?)
3) Is it in "HD." (The HD buzzword is a lie. One, because "sharpness" in images is about as important as symmetry in steaks. And two, because film actually had infinitely more "D" than what a digital "HD" camera can capture, despite film never being psychologically linked to a cool buzzword.)
There, now that's not so unreasonable, is it? Now if you'll excuse me, I have to make sure all the jars of urine I keep in my closet are properly labelled and organized.
Horse, everyone's mind works differently.
I can promise you, 100%, that when watching a movie, I cannot discern if it was shot using film or video. If you show me two examples side by side, and tell me which is which, then yes, I might see it at that one moment.
But the very next time I'm watching something, I will not notice it, and either way, and either way, it will not affect my reaction to or feelings about the movie one bit.
Whether or not you believe this, it is my reality.
I could point out the difference between a minor key chord and a major key chord, and many people will not discern it. Or the sound of an oboe versus a bassoon. To me those are incredibly obvious, not exactly higher music theory, yet not everyone hears it.
I hear alliteration everywhere. I read articles and mentally edit sentences while I read. I can't help it. I see typos everywhere that others clearly don't see. Every misused apostrophe and quotation mark jumps out at me.
But I don't see the difference between film and video.
You have to trust me. I do not know or care whether movies are shot with film or video.
Okay. Gotcha.
Does the image look alive? Does it "breathe" (as opposed to looking like a suffocating plastic bag)?
This means nothing to me. It's a code I don't know.
I could ask similar questions about say, blues music, which I have been listening to and thinking about for about 35 years, and many people wouldn't understand what I was talking about. I would have to believe them.
Here, I do not know what you are talking about.
It's cool that you are so passionate about this and care about it so much. Personally, since I have many talented friends who work in video, I'm glad I don't feel this way.
Is this really a fair comparison? A real movie versus an infomercial? Do I really care whether the infomercial is digital?? I wouldn't watch it anyway. Even on film. Perhaps a better comparison would be something like Avatar?
Anyway, unless someone sat there and told me what the differences were, I doubt I would notice. I can see what you mean, but if the acting is good, the story is good, I wonder if I would notice at all what the background looks like in many movies.
I have the same thing with sound. Like Laura said, I can't really tell the difference between good speakers and great speakers, though lots of people can. I think my senses of sight and hearing are just not that finely tuned. I am not much better at discriminating between good wine and great wine (though I can tell when it is bad wine). And forget about smells!!
But if someone uses poor grammar or misuses a word either orally or in writing, it's like chalk squeaking on a blackboard. And I cannot stand itchy clothes or uncomfortable shoes.
But I do find your discussion and descriptions interesting, so thanks for educating me!
I am not much better at discriminating between good wine and great wine
I am so glad I have learned this over time, especially when we're with our wine-snob sister and brother-in-law and they are buying. :) (Later this month, whoo-hoo!)
And I cannot stand itchy clothes or uncomfortable shoes.
Labels! Scratchy labels are like... like... errrrr!!!!
Amy, well fair or not, at least you could see the differences. It might be an extreme example, but the point was you did perceive the differences.
I personally care very much how bad this (seemingly niche) infomercial looks, because much of what is on television these days, or what saturates our society as a whole, shares similar qualities (or deficiencies) with that infomercial, including the coverage of our favorite baseball team.
By the way, I'd like to apologize to you or Laura or anyone else here if my passion comes across as rude or like an attack. Maybe we should change the subject to something less emotionally charged for me, like abortion or illegal immigration.
Man, the comments under the new Glove Varitek article are pretty critical. I feel kind of bad for people like Varitek and Wakefield whose long Sox careers will end with people thinking pretty badly of them.
Good discussions everyone, but my mind is too tired to process all of this tonight.
I just read the Varitek article. WTF?????
TEK
Varitek said he was "surprised" when former manager Terry Francona expressed different sentiments.
That's Tito's personal opinion and based on what was going on with him personally and maybe how he related to the team.
Is anyone except Pedey going to stick up for Tito? These guys aren't just not sticking up for him...they are throwing him under the bus!
STOP FUCKIN' APOLOGIZING!!!!!!!!!!!!
(sorry for yelling)
I don't see why Tek couldn't see certain things differently than Francona. Seems normal enough. Will have to read more.
"[Tito] can't hit for us."
But they do have something in common.
It *was* interesting that when Lester mentioned the need for veteran leadership, he did not mention Varitek at all.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S CRANK THIS UP A NOTCH OR FOUR!!!!!!!!!!
"Josh Beckett, Jon Lester and John Lackey drank beer in the Red Sox dugout during games, according to two Red Sox employees who witnessed the drinking on multiple occasions at Fenway Park.
On nights when they were not pitching, Beckett, Lester and Lackey would exit the dugout as early as the 6th inning, walk back to the clubhouse, and fill cups with Bud Light beer. They would then return to the dugout with cups of beer and drink while watching the game. It didn’t make a difference whether the Red Sox were winning or losing at the time and the practice became more frequent later in the 2011 season. One Red Sox employee said Beckett, Lester and Lackey appeared “bored on nights they weren’t pitching and this is how they entertained themselves.”
Another Red Sox employee described the routine like this: “Beckett would come down the stairs from the dugout, walking through the corridor to the clubhouse and say ‘it’s about that time’. Becket was the instigator but Lester and Lackey were right behind him.
It was blatant and hard not to notice what was going on with all three guys leaving at once.”
Both Red Sox employees said it was exclusively those three pitchers, (Beckett, Lester and Lackey) who were drinking in the dugout during games.
**********
But wait!
"Red Sox pitcher Jon Lester strongly denies a report by a Boston TV station WHDH that he and fellow pitchers Josh Beckett and John Lackey drank beer in the Red Sox dugout during games this season. ...
A Red Sox employee who was contacted by ESPNBoston.com on Tuesday evening to react to the latest story said he had heard complaints about players drinking in the dugout during the 2010 season but did not personally witness it either that season or in 2011. He added, however, that it would not come as a surprise to him if it were true. ...
Another Red Sox staffer who was in the dugout during every game said he never saw Beckett, Lackey or Lester drinking in the dugout, nor had he heard anything about that happening.
**********
Started a new post for the dugout story.
M Horse: you were totally totally totally not rude and nothing you said could be construed as an attack. I have really been enjoying reading your views. It's a subject on which I have zero thoughts, so it's especially interesting in that respect.
It's very good of you to be so sensitive to how others might be feeling, but if you don't stop apologizing, Allan is going to have an ALL CAPS FIT, so quit it.
He added, however, that it would not come as a surprise to him if it were true. ...
Pathetic.
Even more pathetic that videotaped infomercials.
"STOP FUCKIN' APOLOGIZING!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Sorry! Won't do it again. I apologize!
Even more pathetic that videotaped infomercials.
Although not as pathetic as my typing after one glass of wine.
Post a Comment