|
MLB
Dec 14, 2020 14:48:46 GMT
via mobile
Post by kds on Dec 14, 2020 14:48:46 GMT
How long before we just drop nicknames all together and just identify each team by its city?
|
|
|
MLB
Dec 14, 2020 15:01:32 GMT
Post by Kapitan on Dec 14, 2020 15:01:32 GMT
As I understand it, European clubs mostly do just that. They are mostly known by corporate sponsors and cities, and the sponsors change occasionally, meaning your favorite team's name may change every few years! I believe they often also do have nicknames, but they're more informal. "The blues," or "the green-and-whites," etc., often (as obvious by the examples) based on uniform colors.
While I think the mascot controversies can be overblown, I don't think they're totally meritless either. And the Cleveland Indians in particular had for a long time a pretty racist mascot, a "drunken Indian" stereotype of a face. It's one I really don't mind seeing disappearing.
That said, I don't think every team named after some ethnic group needs to disappear, either. Much like the Vikings seem fine to me, I think a team could be "the Warriors" with some or other ethnic mascot--Greek or Roman warriors, Indian warriors, or whatever--and be just fine. It's about respect and dignity if you're using people as your mascot.
Related, I did hear recently from my parents that some people in my hometown want to change the high school mascot, which is Rebels. The funny thing is, it was just changed to that while I was in high school, as we consolidated several schools at that time and people didn't think it would be fair to use any of those previous schools' mascots over the others. But Rebels was a copy of the UNLV Rebels, which was the most popular team/mascot of the day. It was basically a cowboy. I have no idea what the offensive part of it is even supposed to be, but apparently they said it is Confederate-friendly? News to me... (There is not, and has never been, anything resembling or invoking the Confederacy as far as I know.)
|
|
|
MLB
Dec 14, 2020 15:14:57 GMT
via mobile
Post by kds on Dec 14, 2020 15:14:57 GMT
Cleveland did retire Chief Wahoo a couple years ago, and I understood that. I don't see anything offensive about monikers like Indians, Braves, Chiefs, etc.
|
|
|
MLB
Dec 14, 2020 15:26:12 GMT
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Dec 14, 2020 15:26:12 GMT
I don't see anything offensive about monikers like Indians, Braves, Chiefs, etc. To quote Mr. Zimmerman - "The times they are a-changin.''
It's funny, but The Washington Football Team might be on to something, not that they intentionally tried.
|
|
|
MLB
Dec 14, 2020 15:35:37 GMT
Post by Kapitan on Dec 14, 2020 15:35:37 GMT
Cleveland did retire Chief Wahoo a couple years ago, and I understood that. I don't see anything offensive about monikers like Indians, Braves, Chiefs, etc. I don't either, necessarily, but with Cleveland specifically I think it was too little, too late. If you're the organization that had not just had that mascot once upon a time, but insisted on keeping it for decades after it was questioned, you don't get a lot of leeway when you eventually do take that one step. There's just no good faith left.
Those other two, as well as things like the Vikings, the Seminoles, Spartans, Illini (most people don't even realize that is one...), assorted Warriors, etc., don't bother me either, assuming the presentation isn't offensive (and I don't think those generally are). But also like SJS says, part of it is simply 'the times they are a-changin.' Once people decide something en masse, that's just kind of the way it is going to be...
|
|
|
MLB
Jan 8, 2021 17:50:16 GMT
Post by Kapitan on Jan 8, 2021 17:50:16 GMT
|
|
|
MLB
Jan 8, 2021 17:52:43 GMT
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jan 8, 2021 17:52:43 GMT
|
|
|
MLB
Jan 8, 2021 20:31:00 GMT
Post by kds on Jan 8, 2021 20:31:00 GMT
It struck me when I saw this news that baseball is sorely lacking "characters" like Tommy.
The game's become somewhat sterile and boring. I think I said this before, but if not for my rooting interest in the Baltimore Orioles, I'd probably barely pay the game any mind.
|
|
|
MLB
Jan 8, 2021 20:42:25 GMT
Post by Kapitan on Jan 8, 2021 20:42:25 GMT
I think that is increasingly true of sports in general, because "characters" tend to come with some degree of controversy, and between the absurdly big money sports have become at all levels in all major sports, the 24/7 media focus (and subsequent freakouts, bad press, cancellations, etc.), the 24/7 visibility of social media, and the costs of potential litigation, more and more leagues, teams, and players have literally had "media training" (e.g. learning how to say and do nothing) and, with their wealth, just aren't in public except in controlled ways.
|
|
|
MLB
Jan 8, 2021 20:59:53 GMT
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jan 8, 2021 20:59:53 GMT
Regarding "characters of the game", echoing what Kapitan said, I think the changes in society (good or bad, it depends on how you view them) have pretty much put an end to most characters. I can't tell you how many times I watched old footage of pro athletes in documentaries, and found myself shaking my head and saying to myself, "He'd never get away with saying THAT today..." or "no way he could DO that today...".
There's a million stories to tell, but one of the most common ones is the pro athlete who went out drinking and partying and womanizing to the wee hours of the morning, only to show up right at game time and have the game of his life. Legends were made from stories like those.
|
|
|
MLB
Jan 8, 2021 21:07:53 GMT
Post by Kapitan on Jan 8, 2021 21:07:53 GMT
Or players and coaches having beers with reporters after games, on or off the record (and usually a combination of both, with the decisions on which is which made together as they talked). I used to get to talk to a lot of old journalists when I was in school, and I'm sorry to have missed it.
No multimillionaire athletes are risking sullying their "personal brands" these days with beat writers--to say nothing of the class difference involved. (Beat writers could never afford the high-end hot spots athletes can!)
|
|
|
MLB
Jan 9, 2021 13:31:47 GMT
via mobile
Post by kds on Jan 9, 2021 13:31:47 GMT
Yep, I agree its all sports.
I think to a certain extent, fans are somewhat responsible too. Players are seen more as a name on a spreadsheet these days.
And baseball fans in particular seem to have sticks up their asses about players who show any emotion or uniqueness. Just something as small as a pitcher wearing his cap slighty askew has the power to make heads explode.
|
|
|
MLB
Jan 9, 2021 13:41:56 GMT
kds likes this
Post by Kapitan on Jan 9, 2021 13:41:56 GMT
Yep, I agree its all sports. I think to a certain extent, fans are somewhat responsible too. Players are seen more as a name on a spreadsheet these days. And baseball fans in particular seem to have sticks up their asses about players who show any emotion or uniqueness. Just something as small as a pitcher wearing his cap slighty askew has the power to make heads explode. Yes, I think with fans it is largely one of two things (both of which you said or hinted at): 1) Names on a spreadsheet, just for fantasy sports purposes, or 2) Celebrities to be gossiped about and followed online--"he's dating which Kardashian!? Look at his new fashion line (never thought I'd see pro athletes get so into fashion lines...)" etc.
The games, the whole reason we cared about them in the first place, seem irrelevant to most.
|
|
|
MLB
Jan 9, 2021 13:52:21 GMT
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jan 9, 2021 13:52:21 GMT
I do think the "name on a spreadsheet" analogy is an accurate one. Fans don't appreciate the ticket prices, merchandise prices, food/drink prices, and rising cable-TV bills - all related to players' financial...situations. However, I also think fans/cities will always embrace the "characters" of the game and the sport. When a player is traded or let go, it still stings if he was a good guy, a pillar of the community, AND if he had a unique personality.
|
|
|
MLB
Jan 9, 2021 15:58:20 GMT
via mobile
Post by kds on Jan 9, 2021 15:58:20 GMT
Yep, I agree its all sports. I think to a certain extent, fans are somewhat responsible too. Players are seen more as a name on a spreadsheet these days. And baseball fans in particular seem to have sticks up their asses about players who show any emotion or uniqueness. Just something as small as a pitcher wearing his cap slighty askew has the power to make heads explode. Yes, I think with fans it is largely one of two things (both of which you said or hinted at): 1) Names on a spreadsheet, just for fantasy sports purposes, or 2) Celebrities to be gossiped about and followed online--"he's dating which Kardashian!? Look at his new fashion line (never thought I'd see pro athletes get so into fashion lines...)" etc.
The games, the whole reason we cared about them in the first place, seem irrelevant to most.
With baseball, I've found it goes beyond fantasy. There is a newish group of baseball nerds who put more faith in analytics than the actual games. They'll be quick to spout off fancy anagrams that'll rate player x over player y, but don't believe in old age baseball philosophies like productive outs, bunting, or stealing bases. You know, actual strategies that might not be able to be quantified.
|
|