Wilting Roses: The ESPN Culture of "Blah, Blah, Blah"

"Everybody's talkin' at me, I don't hear what they're sayin'..."

Disregarding the fact that hardly anyone under age 40 knows where those words actually come from, they say a great deal to the world today. In the aptly-described "Information Age", facts, statistics and opinion alike are available as soon as we get out of bed in the morning. We can find out about an earthquake in Tunisia, a space shuttle launch in Russia, or an unusual birth in Luxembourg almost immediately, and if we don't care about it, we don't have to.

No field has benefited more from the Info Age than sports. After all, most sports fans today are junkies (nerds!) concerned with statistics and more news than can be provided in the box scores now, so there is up-to-the-minute reporting on everything. Pro stars, college stars, high school stars, grammar school stars even! There is analysis on everything, breakdown of everything, and critiques on everything. It is as in-depth as you can get, and when there's nothing concrete anymore, there are endless panels of experts to give their (often clashing) opinions.

And therein lies the problem. When there are thousands of shouting voices, who can say which is worth listening to?

More importantly, which one is shouting the truth?


The fates, intertwined

As the NBA season started, all focus was on the Miami Heat. The trio of LeBron, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh had been predicted to do everything short of conquer the entire continent of Asia, and only the Los Angeles Lakers were thought to have an eventual chance against the mighty [insert Heat nickname here].

To clarify: the Heat had already been given a berth in the NBA Finals. Before the season had even started.

(Note: I will attempt to deliver the next few paragraphs without any sarcasm or animosity. However, LeBron James is still a punk and will be treated accordingly.)

As the season got underway, the Heat train experienced a few bumps and near-halts: an opening night loss to Boston, a buzzer-beating home loss to Memphis, defeat at the hands of the lowly Pacers. Chris Bosh was ridiculed from coast-to-coast and had a popular song parodied in his honor. Erik Spoelstra was already a lame-duck coach in the minds of many. And all the predictions of astronomical win totals? Disapparated faster than Severus Snape.

Meanwhile, the Chicago Bulls and their fans were greeting the season with guarded apprehension. One of the final favorites to land LeBron, Chicago had been similarly spurned on the night of the decision, though they did get low-post machine Carlos Boozer as a consolation prize. But as the preseason finished up, word came down that Boozer had "curiously" broken his finger in the preseason and would sit out the first month.

New coach Tom Thibodeau had a great resume and endorsements but was still a wild card. Meanwhile, Derrick Rose had publicly declared "why can't I be MVP of the league?" leading many pundits to believe he was crazy.

Chicago and Miami were over a thousand miles away from each other, but from Bulls fans' perspectives, they might as well have been neighbors competing for best Christmas decorations.


The numbers, chopped and screwed

After a full month of play, the Bulls were 9-8 and still awaiting the return of Boozer. Going into tonight's game (the 73rd of the season), they are 53-19. Translation: a 44-11 record since December 3, an .800 winning percentage.

Over the same period, the Heat (who were 12-8 on December 3), ran off a record of 39-14 for a percentage of .736. Not better than the Bulls but still incredibly good. (To compare, the Lakers were also 39-14 in that span; the league-leading Spurs were 41-13, a .759 clip.)

Naturally, the media looked to the numbers and wondered how Chicago was winning so much. There had to be a single, primary reason, right? So they saw Rose's statistical improvement and TV-friendly skill set, and started putting him at the forefront of the MVP race.

Correction: they firmly crowned him as the most valuable player. Every single one of them, from Jon Barry to Christopher Hitchens. Even Christiane Amanpour went on record: "the situation in Libya is growing dire, but Derrick Rose is hands down my MVP. The guy is a flat-out winner, unlike Gadhafi."

There was only one problem: the season wasn't finished yet.


The noise, muted

I'm a Chicago fan through and through. I even want the Cubs to succeed, if it means their well-meaning fans can be happy and the Chicago baseball rivalry can be a rivalry. I've watched Derrick Rose and the Bulls all season long and I've seen him and the Bulls get better every game. I sang the "Fast Don't Lie" jingle all through the winter, and I've mused many times over selling my life for playoff tickets.

Derrick Rose would be my MVP vote, as Cam'ron and the Diplomats would say, easy.

However, I understand the cases for other players. Dwight Howard is the engine for Orlando and he has improved his game this year as well (the Tim Duncan-like jumper.) Kobe Bryant is Kobe Bryant, the best in the clutches. LeBron James will always be a positional anomaly who can play almost anywhere on the court, and Kevin Durant can score almost at will now.

There is an argument for other players. But there shouldn't be a need to scream about it.

Skip Bayless has criticized just about everyone who's been born and played a professional sport in the United States, as well as Mother Theresa's charity work. We expect it from him. But now Dan LeBatard (whom I just don't respect) has weighed in on the supposed media-driven Rose-fest.

The quote that sums up all this Rose-hatred/MVP-misjudgment: "[Rose] is just not the best [player]. Which means he's not the most valuable."

Without going into detail, best does not equate in basketball with most valuable. If that were true, either Kobe Bryant or LeBron James would have won the award the last five years every single season, because they are without a doubt splitting time for best player  (with Timmy D running third.)

What does it mean? I don't know. There are so many variables to consider even without sabermetrics. Chemistry, trade value, "aaaah" factor (see: fans after a Blake Griffin dunk), player mindset. But most of all, I think the MVP should come from a team that not only wins, but wins when it counts: the playoffs.

So since the season's not over, I think it's time for everyone to shut up.

That would fix everything, wouldn't it? There wouldn't be any of the D-Rose stumping which has caused so much backlash. There also wouldn't be coaches, players and media personnel campaigning for another player based a modicum of facts and a majority of shouted opinions. We could watch the games, total the stats, weigh them with those few remaining intangibles, and when the season's over, make a reasoned argument. The opinions would stay relegated to 100-plus characters on Twitter and the 10-plus characters at the barbershop.

It would be so easy. And so much quieter.

The reality, resigned

Alas, the world does not work that way. Everyone has a subject to formulate an opinion on and a chance to voice that opinion. Indeed, this blog post is a shining example of just that.

The system won't change. Without people like Skip, there would be no targets for our ire and no arguments to rebut. And there's no going back from the Internet and the culture of immediacy. It's a "global village", as Marshall McLuhan correctly theorized, and one where you can't move away from your neighbors.

As the Miami Heat have as yet failed to live up to lofty expectations, Rose's emergence as an MVP candidate is the natural debate topic. That would be fine, if most or all of the opinions weren't opinions and were instead well-reasoned arguments. But with new stats and figures every second and endless frames of tape, that is becoming almost impossible. After all, none of the so-called arguments have done what arguments are supposed to do: bring everyone involved to a logical conclusion.

So I propose that since we have nothing valuable to say, we should say nothing at all. That would be the most valuable thing we could do.

See you in the cheap seats.

JS

A Fan, By Any Other Name, Is Just an Idiot

"I have discovered in 20 years of moving around the ballpark that knowledge of the game is usually in inverse proportion to the price of the seats." - Bill Veeck

It's every fan's worst nightmare.

You've somehow gotten great seats for a great game at your favorite team's stadium. Seats you would never get because, as the title of this blog suggests, you're tax bracket usually has you sitting in the upper deck. But somehow, you can actually see the players without having to increase your future chances at getting laser eye surgery. It's going to be a great day.

Then, out of nowhere, they show up.

The annoying fan.

You know the types. The fan who has an irrational hatred of your squad and can only express it with incoherent profanity. The guy who just has to let everyone know he's at the game, via phone call, text, Twitter, photo messages and keep updating them every two seconds. The guy who takes up two seats.

It's a hazardous world out there in the cheap seats for sure. But your likelihood of running into the "Phans" (after Philly fans, who have the rep of being the worst fans in America) increases a lot when you venture into the lower bowl, and I'm not talking your run-of-the-mill bandwagon jumper. So here is a handy guide for these terrible fans and how to avoid them.


The "Social Butterfly"

How to spot: Has newest phone on the market, usually matched with freshly bought home team jersey or cap. Friendly, at times overbearingly so. Will often shout "Did you see that?" about plays that everyone saw. Subset of "bandwagon fan".

Avoid by: Either be completely stony until they get the message or move out of range of their camera phone.
 Not the worst fan to be next to, but can be deceivingly distracting. Or if you're cool with it, take a picture with the person and you just might make a new friend...who always has great seats to the game.

The "Deflector"

Chars.: Fan of the other team; will always tell you what's wrong with your team, your city, your politicians, restaurants, schools, etc. If their team starts losing, it's never their fault: "Oh, the refs have it out for us...we never play well here...it's Good Friday and the boys haven't eaten meat, they're tired."

Avoidance: I had the misfortune of running into this guy at a White Sox-Tigers game in 2006. The Tigers got out to an early lead and my man used that opportunity to tell me how bad the Sox were, how their World Series win was a fluke, and how Detroit was a much better city than Chicago. When the Sox took a late lead in the seventh inning, I turned around to ask the guy what he thought...and he was nowhere to be found.

The point? Winning is the best cure for this particular fan.

The "William Ligue"

Chars.: Lot of tattoos, a lot of facial hair, worn-out cap or t-shirt that they've have since 1992, and an attitude like they've stubbed their toe twice a day since birth. Loves the f-word, whether the team is winning or losing, but will go to Incredible Hulk status if the team does start losing. (Note: if this is a woman, disregard next paragraph and RUN. Run away quickly.)

Avoid by: Calling security, police, or Ron Artest. No fan alive can stand up to The Queensbridge Mangler.

The "Father-Daughter Day"

Chars.: Easy to spot: a parent(s) and a baby. Deceptive in that it looks like a heartwarming scene, but that child is one crowd-riling dunk from becoming a crying, screaming menace.

Avoid by: Never having kids yourself. (Kidding. Just move somewhere else.)

The "St. Patrick's Day"

Chars.: A group of younger people, usually under 30- or 35-years-old (variable). Hard to spot because they could be fans of the game wearing team apparel or they could just be on a work outing, but they will always be drunk by the fifth inning or third quarter. Will be excited and rowdy no matter the outcome; usually nice enough but can get belligerent towards anyone around them.

Avoid by: Talk to them early in the game so you're cool; by the time they're on their fifth round, you'll have known each other your whole lives. Agree with everything they say within reason. If they turn on you for some reason, either leave quickly or find your William Ligue-looking friend for backup.

The "Jeff Van Gundy"

Chars.: Will always be a fan of whoever's winning at that particular moment or who ESPN is backing at that point in time (see: many Bulls fans in the '90s, Yankees and Lakers fans in the early 2000s, Red Sox fans post-2004, Cubs fans of any generation, any current Miami Heat fan that doesn't live or has lived in Miami.) Other names: "bandwagon jumper", "rider", "fairweather fan", "jocker". A particularly annoying breed is the "girl who's in love with this athlete so she likes his team", i.e. female Patriots fans who only like Danny Woodhead (hah! You thought I would say Tom Brady?).

Avoidance: This is widely acknowledged as the worst of the Phans. As they're just following a team to be trendy, their knowledge will be limited and logic non-existent. The easiest way of dealing with these fans is to avoid interaction with them at all costs. Or just whack them, Sopranos-style. The world's usually better off.


With baseball season nearing it's beginning, the NBA playoff race heating up and March Madness kicking into gear, fans from everywhere in the country will be filling stadiums. If you know anyone who's unaware of these bad fans, or if you have any more Phans you know of, please let me know. Only you can cure Phanaticism.

See you in the cheap seats.

JS