This is brilliant, L.D.
Seriously. I grew up a baseball fan and, though I have never forgiven the game for the 1994 strike, this might be what finally brought me back into the fold: a facial hair growing contest, like on "Cheers." Outstanding!
I believe a convincing argument for your position is the 1993 National League champion Philadelphia Filthies, who were the rangiest, scruffiest, most unshaven and unshorn bunch to have taken the diamond in a long while. Even though I was rooting for the Braves, it was impossible to root against the Phillies.
By the way, while we're on the subject, maybe you can answer this one for me. How is it that the Braves are able to claim 14 consecutive division titles?
Atlanta wasn't leading the division in 1994 when the strike occurred; Montreal was. I suppose one could argue that the 1994 season doesn't count since it wasn't finished, but, since Greg Maddux won the Cy Young Award for that incomplete season, I don't see how that argument holds water. If it was enough of a season to give out postseason awards, it was enough of a season to count in the standings.
Why, then, do the Braves get to pretend that the 1994 season didn't happen? I've never been able to figure that one out and I thought maybe you could explain it to me. (While you're at it, I'd love to hear a good reason why the replacement games in the spring of 1995 didn't break Cal Ripken's consecutive games streak, either.)
I'm going to speak up for both professionalism _and_ C. Jones growing a mustache here. I think they can easily be combined.
Where is the online petition?
Kyle, I actually left a long comment about this on your site but it got lost amid some form of Xanga signing in to comment confusion.
I believe the Braves may properly describe their unprecedented run in one of two ways, but the word choice is very important.
1) The Braves have won 14 consecutive awarded division titles.
or
2) The Braves have been champions of their division since 1991.
Because of the strike, MLB claims that no pennants or titles were awarded in 1994. Even though the Expos were in first place when the season was cancelled, they did not win anything (and I agree with that - I've seen too many late season fades and charges).
Now, the Braves (or any writer) should not say that "Atlanta has won for 14 consecutive years" because it's not true. I think conscientious writers should include the "awarded" in any sentence that also includes the word "consecutive" (or straight) out of a reference to 1994.
As for why Baseball gave out individual awards but not pennants or titles, I have no real reason to add. But it's how Baseball did it.
As for Ripken's streak, I think there's a better reason for it. Ripken wasn't on the roster. Replacement players were. If the streak is consecutive games, it'd be broken by not playing in a game played by your team. Well, in the scab games, Ripken didn't have a team. I'd say it's somewhat akin to this hypothetical. Assume Sammy Sosa has played in 1000 games in a row. Right now, he's a free agent, without a team. On opening day, his streak doesn't end simply because teams are playing. He has to have a team to "miss" a game. If he signs with the Phillies on May 1, the Phillies play that night without Sosa in uniform, the streak ends. I'm more disturbed by people who say that a particular player (I've heard this for Bonds) has "homered in X straight games" when the player hasn't played in X staright games (say he homered on Friday and Saturday, took Sunday off and homered on Monday). You should say he homered in his last X games. And yes, this is all semantics.
All right, I'll buy that.
In the first instance, it's somewhat akin to saying, "Georgia has beaten Georgia Tech in 12 straight recognized meetings." Since the only three Georgia Tech victories since 1990 subsequently were vacated by the N.C.A.A., that statement is true, even though it would be false to say, "Georgia has beaten Georgia Tech in each of the last 15 seasons."
The same principle (coincidentally, over exactly the same period) applies to the Braves, even though, in my heart of hearts, I know that Atlanta team would not have caught that Montreal team.
I am somewhat more skeptical about Cal Ripken's claim, since the only reason he didn't have a team is that he chose not to show up for work when his team began play. (Had Ripken crossed the picket line, there is no doubt he would have been permitted to don a uniform and there was some offseason talk of the players' union permitting Cal a special dispensation to keep the streak alive.)
Under the circumstances, though, a Soviet-style revision of history probably was a wise public relations move and the whitewashing at least was applied consistently, so I won't complain.
As a disenchanted baseball fan who wants to be able to share the same experiences with my son at Turner Field that my father and I shared at Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium, I'm trying really hard to overcome my disgust with what the national pastime has become. Your facial hair suggestion may be just what I needed to overcome my disdain for the game of my youth.
Finally, I'm sorry about the Xanga confusion. One of the many advantages of my upgrade to www.dawgsports.com is the easier time visitors have commenting.
Sorry . . . that should have been:
http://www.dawgsports.com
A brief (and inadequate) acknowledgment of your capital idea may be found here:
http://www.dawgsports.com/story/...3/14/95246/
8762
L.D., will you be joining us in Athens for the pre-G-Day game tailgating known popularly as "Bloggerpalooza '06"?
While the mustachioedness of the Phils were probably instrumental in their popularity (as much as steroids were to their success), you have to realize that I root for the team that has lost more games than any other squadron in professional sports; we would go apeshit for Nazis if they could just get us into the Wild Card.
hey, don't forget Ozzie Virgil and Oddibe McDowell, now.
They're pre-1991, so I didn't add them. But they'll definitely be included in the pictorial series.
Commenting by HaloScan
