I’m so pleased that Bill Buckner was recently recognized before a Red Sox game and given a long ovation by the local fans.
It has troubled me for years that one play from his career, his late inning error in Game 6 of the 1986 World Series, has been the one mark on his career that is constantly brought up.
In my memory, Buckner was the kind of player who could be on my team any day. Tough, he played with and through injuries. A lifetime batting average close to .300. Played hard and well for many years.
Unlike many of the ballplayers of the last 15 years, he was not, to anyone’s knowledge, a cheater by any standard.
Yet, he made one “error” in a game that Sox were not necessarily going to win anyway, and he was—and is—vilified by arm chair observers.
He and his family suffered through the aftermath. I quote at length from a recent Associated Press story:
The former first baseman knew the same old questions would crop up about that play 22 years ago that has been replayed on television hundreds of times. At first, he turned down the team's request. A few days later he agreed to return to Fenway Park for the first time since 1997 when he was batting coach with the Chicago White Sox.
"I really had to forgive," he said after collecting himself, "not the fans of Boston per se, but I would have to say, in my heart, I had to forgive the media..."
Another pause, this one for 10 seconds, before he continued, "...for what they put me and my family through. So I've done that. I'm over that. And I'm just happy that I just try to think of the positive. The happy things."
And not about the night of Oct. 25 in Shea Stadium when Mookie Wilson's ground ball rolled through his legs in the 10th inning. It capped a three-run rally and drove in the winning run in the New York Mets 6-5 win that forced a seventh game.
The Mets won the final game 8-5 and Boston's streak of no championships since 1918 continued. That drought ended in 2004, and then the Red Sox made it two championships in four years.
Buckner, a .289 hitter in 22 years with more than 100 RBIs in two of his three full seasons with Boston, wasn't the only Red Sox player who failed in the last two games of the 1986 Series. To focus on just one play is "the ugly part of sports," he said.
"I don't think that in society in general that's the way we should operate. What are you teaching kids? Not to try because if you don't succeed then you're going to buried [sic], so don't try?"
The Mets already had tied the game at 5 in the 10th against Calvin Schiraldi and Bob Stanley before Wilson hit the ball to Buckner. And the Red Sox led 3-0 after 5 1/3 innings of Game 7 before the Mets tied it against Bruce Hurst in the bottom of the sixth and nicked Schiraldi for three runs in the seventh.
"You can look at that series and point fingers in a whole bunch of different directions," Buckner said. "We did the best we could to win there and it just didn't happen and I didn't feel like I deserved" so much blame."
"If I felt like it was my fault, I'd step up to the plate and say, 'hey, if I wasn't here the Red Sox would have won this thing,' but I really can't do that so I think some of it is unjustly directed my way," he said. "I'm pretty tough mentally, but the hardest part was with my family and my kids and I'm still dealing with it."
Since I work with a lot of young athletes, I want to focus in particular on one of Buckner more poignant comments:
"I don't think that in society in general that's the way we should operate. What are you teaching kids? Not to try because if you don't succeed then you're going to buried, so don't try?"
Amen.
Here was a guy, good enough to be starting and playing in the World Series, who had a near Hall-of-Fame career, who simply made an error on a ball that didn’t quite bounce the way he expected it to bounce.
It is so easy when you’ve never played the game at a high level to criticize someone when they make a mistake at a “key moment” in a game. I’ve done it myself, for sure.
But the reaction to Buckner and his error in the ’86 World Series was so unfounded, so unfair, that it is heartwarming to see that he has been able to speak so eloquently about it, years later.
The media and its need to criticize in cases like this should not be easily forgiven. But apparently Buckner has, and he is a better person for having done so than those who have put him down over the years.
Maybe the rest of us can learn something. Or if it’s too late for us, at least maybe our kids can distinguish between what’s truly important, and what’s not, in sports, and in life.
Buckner and the ’86 Red Sox did not win the World Series. But for me, he is a champion.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Monday, March 31, 2008
Wild do the right thing
There are many different ways to communicate.
In the following case, actions speak louder than words.
This week, the Minnesota Wild announced they would offer a seriously injured player a contract, even though, technically, they are not required to do so to retain his playing rights.
The player is Kurtis Foster, a young defenseman who suffered a badly broken leg in a controversial icing-play incident.
Wire stories reported that Wild GM Doug Risebrough had already decided on a course of action.
One story, from TSN.com, reports that the Wild are not sure if Foster will be able to play in the NHL again, because of the seriousness of the injury.
"I don't have to qualify him [to retain his rights], but I will," Risebrough told the (Minneapolis) Star-Tribune. "It's a bad message not to do that. He's a good player. He needs a motivation [to rehab], and he doesn't need that stress in his life."
The Wild will offer Foster a one-year, $1.025 million contract before the June 25 deadline, which insurance would not have covered according to Wild assistant general manager Tom Lynn.
The professional sports world often reflects a kind of ego-driven and self-centered attitude, an environment which can be very cold and all about “business”.
In this instance, it seems clear that the Wild recognize that one of their own was hurt while in the line of duty, and they aren’t prepared to let him worry about his immediate future.
They have sent a message and they have done the right—and honorable—thing.
In the following case, actions speak louder than words.
This week, the Minnesota Wild announced they would offer a seriously injured player a contract, even though, technically, they are not required to do so to retain his playing rights.
The player is Kurtis Foster, a young defenseman who suffered a badly broken leg in a controversial icing-play incident.
Wire stories reported that Wild GM Doug Risebrough had already decided on a course of action.
One story, from TSN.com, reports that the Wild are not sure if Foster will be able to play in the NHL again, because of the seriousness of the injury.
"I don't have to qualify him [to retain his rights], but I will," Risebrough told the (Minneapolis) Star-Tribune. "It's a bad message not to do that. He's a good player. He needs a motivation [to rehab], and he doesn't need that stress in his life."
The Wild will offer Foster a one-year, $1.025 million contract before the June 25 deadline, which insurance would not have covered according to Wild assistant general manager Tom Lynn.
The professional sports world often reflects a kind of ego-driven and self-centered attitude, an environment which can be very cold and all about “business”.
In this instance, it seems clear that the Wild recognize that one of their own was hurt while in the line of duty, and they aren’t prepared to let him worry about his immediate future.
They have sent a message and they have done the right—and honorable—thing.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
A damaging double-standard
"Rocker rats out Texas
John Rocker claims he flunked a drug test ordered by Major League Baseball in 2000 and that he, Alex Rodriguez and other Texas Rangers were advised on how to effectively use steroids"
It’s revealing how the above media headline blares "Rocker rats out Texas"….
As we have mentioned often in this space, many in the media hate it when athletes "say nothing". Yet, when an athlete does step "outside the box" and say something outside the realm of the bland or ordinary, he or she is often condemned by those same media folks.
In this circumstance, we have a former high-profile major-leaguer stating that, basically, clubs knew about steroid use years ago. This is no real shock to anyone, of course.
Can we really believe that baseball commissioner Bud Selig was totally unaware of baseball’s bulked up athletes hitting balls farther than ever before, and home runs in greater numbers than ever before?
But the point here is this: athletes are glorified by the same media who had to know that many of these sporting heroes of the last 20 years have had big-time, shall we say, "help", from performance-enhancing supplements.
In the same breath, reporters and writers criticize athletes for lying through their teeth about steroid usage. (Many of us have witnessed the recent Clemens fiasco before Congress—his was simply a different approach than Mark McGuire’s "I’m not here to talk about the past" denials when the former slugger had his turn a couple of years ago.)
Yet, the media also hammer an athlete like Rocker for being a squealer, or a "rat".
If somebody doesn’t step forward and speak about what actually occurred, whether it be Jose Canseco or John Rocker or anyone else, how will people ever really know what has gone on in club houses?
Is the media philosophy actually supportive of the "old boys network" approach, where everyone covers up the truth and covers up for each other?
That’s how we ended up with baseball in the mess it is in, the world of sprinting with no credibility, the Tour de France in shambles, pro football with weekly drug suspensions announced, without fanfare.
In the above circumstances, everyone shut their eyes – and mouths-- and stood together in a big lie.
Unless, as in the case of a "star" such as Andy Petite, you face legal scrutiny and have to speak with the police or Congress. Then you may feel it is necessary to speak up and speak the truth, and the media will not give you a difficult time.
But if you’re just a mediocre ex-player, or "disgraced" ex-players such as Canseco or Rocker, you’re a "snitch" if you speak out about what you did or saw.
Quite the double-standard, at best.
John Rocker claims he flunked a drug test ordered by Major League Baseball in 2000 and that he, Alex Rodriguez and other Texas Rangers were advised on how to effectively use steroids"
It’s revealing how the above media headline blares "Rocker rats out Texas"….
As we have mentioned often in this space, many in the media hate it when athletes "say nothing". Yet, when an athlete does step "outside the box" and say something outside the realm of the bland or ordinary, he or she is often condemned by those same media folks.
In this circumstance, we have a former high-profile major-leaguer stating that, basically, clubs knew about steroid use years ago. This is no real shock to anyone, of course.
Can we really believe that baseball commissioner Bud Selig was totally unaware of baseball’s bulked up athletes hitting balls farther than ever before, and home runs in greater numbers than ever before?
But the point here is this: athletes are glorified by the same media who had to know that many of these sporting heroes of the last 20 years have had big-time, shall we say, "help", from performance-enhancing supplements.
In the same breath, reporters and writers criticize athletes for lying through their teeth about steroid usage. (Many of us have witnessed the recent Clemens fiasco before Congress—his was simply a different approach than Mark McGuire’s "I’m not here to talk about the past" denials when the former slugger had his turn a couple of years ago.)
Yet, the media also hammer an athlete like Rocker for being a squealer, or a "rat".
If somebody doesn’t step forward and speak about what actually occurred, whether it be Jose Canseco or John Rocker or anyone else, how will people ever really know what has gone on in club houses?
Is the media philosophy actually supportive of the "old boys network" approach, where everyone covers up the truth and covers up for each other?
That’s how we ended up with baseball in the mess it is in, the world of sprinting with no credibility, the Tour de France in shambles, pro football with weekly drug suspensions announced, without fanfare.
In the above circumstances, everyone shut their eyes – and mouths-- and stood together in a big lie.
Unless, as in the case of a "star" such as Andy Petite, you face legal scrutiny and have to speak with the police or Congress. Then you may feel it is necessary to speak up and speak the truth, and the media will not give you a difficult time.
But if you’re just a mediocre ex-player, or "disgraced" ex-players such as Canseco or Rocker, you’re a "snitch" if you speak out about what you did or saw.
Quite the double-standard, at best.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Tilghman story an opportunity to educate, rather than punish
The comment by Golf Channel anchor Kelly Tilghman that led to her two-week suspension was clearly an attempt, under the bright lights of live television, to make a witty remark.
That her reference to Tiger Woods and "lynching" brought reaction was not a surprise.
Her friendship with Tiger Woods, at whom the jesting comment was directed, helped alleviate what could have been an even more severe network—and public—reaction.
Woods said, essentially, that he was friends with Tilghman; that she was not trying to be hurtful and that we all make comments that we wish we had not made.
Interestingly, former NFL great Jim Brown, a person of color who has a long history working with troubled inner-city youths, commented publicly that he would have liked to have seen Tiger take a stronger public stand.
This is not the first time Brown has called upon Woods to do more in this area.
But surely everyone, including Brown, Woods and many of the rest of us, have indeed, as Tiger mentioned, made comments we wish we could take back, upon reflection.
The reference to “lynching”, an explosive word to be sure, was obviously unfortunate and in poor taste given the context in which it was used.
But the real opportunity here, it would seem, is to use this inadvertent error by Tilghman to educate people, young and old, about why the word can be offensive to the African-American community, and to thoughtful people everywhere.
This is an ideal opportunity, not to make an example of Tilghman, but to bring forward the terrible events that led to this word becoming an understandably sensitive subject. This can be done in schools and through the media at large.
If we only penalize and judge, and never instruct, how will young people, for example, ever really learn about history and social injustice, whether it be the treatment of minorities in the U.S. or how Jews and others were treated by the Nazi regime in the Second World War?
When a public figure clearly, and intentionally, makes hurtful and thoughtless comments, that is one thing.
In this instance, it is an opportunity not for punishment, but for discussion, education, and for creating genuine awareness and learning.
That her reference to Tiger Woods and "lynching" brought reaction was not a surprise.
Her friendship with Tiger Woods, at whom the jesting comment was directed, helped alleviate what could have been an even more severe network—and public—reaction.
Woods said, essentially, that he was friends with Tilghman; that she was not trying to be hurtful and that we all make comments that we wish we had not made.
Interestingly, former NFL great Jim Brown, a person of color who has a long history working with troubled inner-city youths, commented publicly that he would have liked to have seen Tiger take a stronger public stand.
This is not the first time Brown has called upon Woods to do more in this area.
But surely everyone, including Brown, Woods and many of the rest of us, have indeed, as Tiger mentioned, made comments we wish we could take back, upon reflection.
The reference to “lynching”, an explosive word to be sure, was obviously unfortunate and in poor taste given the context in which it was used.
But the real opportunity here, it would seem, is to use this inadvertent error by Tilghman to educate people, young and old, about why the word can be offensive to the African-American community, and to thoughtful people everywhere.
This is an ideal opportunity, not to make an example of Tilghman, but to bring forward the terrible events that led to this word becoming an understandably sensitive subject. This can be done in schools and through the media at large.
If we only penalize and judge, and never instruct, how will young people, for example, ever really learn about history and social injustice, whether it be the treatment of minorities in the U.S. or how Jews and others were treated by the Nazi regime in the Second World War?
When a public figure clearly, and intentionally, makes hurtful and thoughtless comments, that is one thing.
In this instance, it is an opportunity not for punishment, but for discussion, education, and for creating genuine awareness and learning.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Loyalty for athletes, but not their coaches?
College football coaches—and pro, for that matter—in the United States are known for preaching constantly about teamwork and loyalty.
They do this with goods reason. Football is obviously a demanding sport, physically and psychologically, and there are obvious benefits to working together as a tight-knit group to achieve difficult goals against top competition.
Ironically, however, many of these same individuals simply do not practice what they preach.
Every December, we see a number of high-profile College football coaches leaving their team before the current NCAA season is even finished to accept a coaching position elsewhere.
Two recent examples of how individuals put themselves ahead of their athletes and their schools and programs come from Bobby Petrino and Rich Rodriguez.
Petrino left his job as head Coach of the NFL Atlanta Falcons literally less than 24 hours after coaching the team on Monday Night football to take a job with the University of Arkansas.
Clearly, while he was supposedly preparing his struggling pro team to play a league game, he was also negotiating with officials at Arkansas.
That is a no-no.
In a similar vein, Rodriguez was recruited by the University of Michigan in the weeks before his Western Virginia team played in an important Bowl game. He has since been sued by the University of West Virginia, according to various published reports, and has expressed disappointment that he would be treated in that manner.
It is impossible to believe how these individuals can preach loyalty when they are prepared to leave a team in the midst of a season for a "better opportunity" elsewhere.
Rodriguez, ironically, did not even coach Michigan in their upset Bowl victory over Florida. Just as interestingly, his former West Virginia team, also an underdog, played inspired football in beating their Bowl opponent Oklahoma with an Assistant Coach running the show.
It’s easy to understand that coaches want job security. But when you already have that, and you leave the players, especially at the college level, that you yourself recruited and convinced to come to your school, it is very hard to understand.
A year ago it was Nick Saban insisting he was not leaving the Miami Dolphins for the University of Alabama, only to wisk off to a press conference to announce that he was indeed taking the Alabama job.
If you are a young student athlete thinking about going to University in the U.S. to play football, based on a particular coach, you may be well advised to ensure you are going to that University for a number of good reasons, not simply because of the "Coach".
Otherwise, you may hear a lot of words and a lot of promises, and end up feeling as though you were left at the altar.
They do this with goods reason. Football is obviously a demanding sport, physically and psychologically, and there are obvious benefits to working together as a tight-knit group to achieve difficult goals against top competition.
Ironically, however, many of these same individuals simply do not practice what they preach.
Every December, we see a number of high-profile College football coaches leaving their team before the current NCAA season is even finished to accept a coaching position elsewhere.
Two recent examples of how individuals put themselves ahead of their athletes and their schools and programs come from Bobby Petrino and Rich Rodriguez.
Petrino left his job as head Coach of the NFL Atlanta Falcons literally less than 24 hours after coaching the team on Monday Night football to take a job with the University of Arkansas.
Clearly, while he was supposedly preparing his struggling pro team to play a league game, he was also negotiating with officials at Arkansas.
That is a no-no.
In a similar vein, Rodriguez was recruited by the University of Michigan in the weeks before his Western Virginia team played in an important Bowl game. He has since been sued by the University of West Virginia, according to various published reports, and has expressed disappointment that he would be treated in that manner.
It is impossible to believe how these individuals can preach loyalty when they are prepared to leave a team in the midst of a season for a "better opportunity" elsewhere.
Rodriguez, ironically, did not even coach Michigan in their upset Bowl victory over Florida. Just as interestingly, his former West Virginia team, also an underdog, played inspired football in beating their Bowl opponent Oklahoma with an Assistant Coach running the show.
It’s easy to understand that coaches want job security. But when you already have that, and you leave the players, especially at the college level, that you yourself recruited and convinced to come to your school, it is very hard to understand.
A year ago it was Nick Saban insisting he was not leaving the Miami Dolphins for the University of Alabama, only to wisk off to a press conference to announce that he was indeed taking the Alabama job.
If you are a young student athlete thinking about going to University in the U.S. to play football, based on a particular coach, you may be well advised to ensure you are going to that University for a number of good reasons, not simply because of the "Coach".
Otherwise, you may hear a lot of words and a lot of promises, and end up feeling as though you were left at the altar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)