Amazine! Sports In New York
Amazine! Sports in New York
This sports column and Mystical Mets blog reaches a large number of baseball fans around the New York City area, the homebase area of Resonance Magazine. During the season it is read by sports radio producers and announcers, sports columnists, players, and regular fans like you. This is updated on a regular basis and forms a link between esoteric spirituality and the mainstream readership. This is not your average sports section; you will find it poetic, literary, mythopoetic, and mystical, not to mention very funny--at least we try. You will find it filled with amazing statistics, most of which are actually real, including our specialty, "intangible stats." There will be lots of photos and charts and cool stuff 4 ALL. http://amazine1.blogspot.com has been up and running as a separate site since January 06 and contains lots of great investigative articles concerning things you didn't know about New York Baseball, all of which is, in a word, amazing.
What's even more amazing is that we have created a Hall of Fame all our own, which can be found at http://amazinehalloffame.blogspot.com. In it you will find stat charts and articles about great players in baseball history, who are great for things you never thought were important before...now you will know better!!
EP
Here is a current article:
Sub-Champions of the Nationall League?
The Mighty Mets: Sub-Champions of the National League?
2006 Felt Like a Champion Season, But Was It Really? Only Your Etymologist Knows For Sure.
Copyright c 2006 Evan Pritchard for AMAZINE
The word “champion” has a nice sound to it, but what does it really mean in this modern complicated world of Major League Baseball?
Here is the entry from dictionary.com. (December 2006)
"cham·pi·on /ˈtʃæmpiən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[cham-pee-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a person who has defeated all opponents in a competition or series of competitions, so as to hold first place: the heavyweight boxing champion.
2. anything that takes first place in competition: the champion of a cattle show.
3. an animal that has won a certain number of points in officially recognized shows: This dog is a champion.
4. a person who fights for or defends any person or cause: a champion of the oppressed.
5. a fighter or warrior.
–verb (used with object) 6. to act as champion of; defend; support: to champion a cause.
7. Obsolete. to defy.
–adjective 8. first among all contestants or competitors.
9. Informal. first-rate.
[Origin: 1175–1225; ME < OF < LL campiōn- (s. of campiō) < WGmc *kampiōn-, equiv. to kamp- battle (< L campus field, battlefield) + -iōn- n. suffix; cf. OE cempa warrior, etc.]"
Back in 1900, there was the National League just as God had created it, free from usurpers, and there were no others worshipped before it. If you won the pennant, you won the pennant plain and simple. You were the champion. It fit in really nicely with monotheism and the one true religion. Then in 1901 the American League came along and that’s when all the trouble started. Now you had two champions each year, and people were supposed to consider them separate but equal. One could say that fit in well with the two party system in America and the split between Protestants and Catholics. In 1901, the Pittsburgh Pirates were the best in baseball, but then the Chicago White Stockings were the best in baseball too. The same thing happened in 1902. Pittsburgh had to share their title reluctantly with the Philadelphia Athletics. Something had to give.
In 1903, they invented something called a World Series, and the winner became the World Champion, a term which we still use today. The winner, in this case the Boston Americans, remained the defending champion for one year, or until their title was dashed from their lips. Even so, one team remained National League Champion and the other the American League Champion, and that really meant something. In politics, the guy who loses the Presidential election can still say he won the Democratic or Republican nomination, and no one can take that away from him.
Then in the 1969, they split up the AL and NL into Eastern and Western Divisions, so that now there were four “champions” at the end of the regular season; two western division and two eastern “champions,” although by now some would challenge the use of the word. This was similar to inflation, where the value of say a million dollars wasn’t what it used to be. "Millionaire? Stand in the line to the left." One of those teams, the New York Mets, went on to become the NL champion, while the Baltimore Orioles became the AL champion. It was still pretty simple, the NL champion won the NL pennant, the AL champion won the AL pennant. And if you lost the NL pennant, at least you won your division, which represented a quarter of all the fans and teams in baseball.
Incidentally, the two division system was very lucky for the New York Mets. By the winter of 1986, they had won all but 14 of the 18 NLCSs ever played. At the end of the 1988 season, they had participated in 5 out of 20, one quarter of all the NLCSs in history, an almost Yankee-like statistic.
Then things got complicated, and this is why the Mets ended up in linguistic limbo last year. In 1994 those guys down at MLB split both leagues into three divisions, an uneven number in each league totaling six “champions,” plus later, two wild card teams. The wild card teams were not champions, and were made to climb the equivalent of Mount Everest in order to earn their stripes and make their way to the NL or AL pennant. Baseball leadership then became sort of like Canadian politics, with dozens of Banana Republic party leaders vying for media attention. The first NLDS was in 1995.
So last year, 2006, the Mets were the Champions of the NL Eastern Division, because they were first in that division, and champion means "first," but nobody cared. "Division champions? Line up on the left."
Then they beat the Dodgers, the so-called Champions of the NL west, but here’s the rub. That series victory did nothing for the Mets linguistically! It did not earn them a pennant, or a "first," and did not earn them a higher level of champion-ness at all. They were in limbo as far as bragging rights were concerned. …”Oh YEAH? Well my team won their dinky little division and then beat some other guys!” It doesn’t sound as good as, “We were the League Champions! Or “We won the xxx pennant!” In fact, MLB does not issue MVP awards for the NLDS or the ALDS series, an acknowledgement of what we all subconsciously know. They are basically “Survivor” episodes with no credits.
Oh, sure you could say the Mets were NLDS (National League Division Series) “Winners,” whatever that means. And I think there is even a sweat shirt to go with that limited run pennant flag and decal. But the Cardinals were also NLDS “winners,” and two bodies cannot occupy the same space for very long. It earned them the right to compete in the NLCS, a series in which the Mets came within an extra base hit (as long as it was one by Carlos Beltran) of winning the National League Pennant and League Championship. It was sort of a Red Sox kind of feeling, you’re about to bite into your victory sandwich but it jumps from your hand and falls in the mud. I’m sure Adlai Stevenson would have a few choice words if he were here today, to help Mets fans understand what funny things happened on the way to the top. or to Comerica Park in Detroit.
The Cardinals can now claim triple championships, those of the NL Central, the National League, and the World, respectively. They are also NLDS “Winners,” (for beating up on the Pod people from California, which is their trademark) but no one talks about that east of the Cahokia Burial Mounds.
So the Mets got farther than the Yankees in the post season, and that’s worth bragging about. But it was all so vague! Bragging demands clarity and singularity, and our team couldn’t find that outside of their division, not in terms of the word “championship.” Not in terms of the word “pennant.” Of course we could always call them National League“sub-champions,” and “sub-pennant winners.” It has more of a definite ring to it, but that doesn’t work for me.
“Wait till next year” now means “going all the way to the NL Pennant,” because anything less would be a comedown, and would leave us all in banneristic limbo for yet another whole season. “Defending NL Eastern Division Champions” does not win you a Wheaties endorsement, as nice as it sounds. We’ve got to do something in 2007 that has more pizzazz. How about “Major League Baseball’s 2007 World Champions?”
Now that has a ring of singularity to it!
This sports column and Mystical Mets blog reaches a large number of baseball fans around the New York City area, the homebase area of Resonance Magazine. During the season it is read by sports radio producers and announcers, sports columnists, players, and regular fans like you. This is updated on a regular basis and forms a link between esoteric spirituality and the mainstream readership. This is not your average sports section; you will find it poetic, literary, mythopoetic, and mystical, not to mention very funny--at least we try. You will find it filled with amazing statistics, most of which are actually real, including our specialty, "intangible stats." There will be lots of photos and charts and cool stuff 4 ALL. http://amazine1.blogspot.com has been up and running as a separate site since January 06 and contains lots of great investigative articles concerning things you didn't know about New York Baseball, all of which is, in a word, amazing.
What's even more amazing is that we have created a Hall of Fame all our own, which can be found at http://amazinehalloffame.blogspot.com. In it you will find stat charts and articles about great players in baseball history, who are great for things you never thought were important before...now you will know better!!
EP
Here is a current article:
Sub-Champions of the Nationall League?
The Mighty Mets: Sub-Champions of the National League?
2006 Felt Like a Champion Season, But Was It Really? Only Your Etymologist Knows For Sure.
Copyright c 2006 Evan Pritchard for AMAZINE
The word “champion” has a nice sound to it, but what does it really mean in this modern complicated world of Major League Baseball?
Here is the entry from dictionary.com. (December 2006)
"cham·pi·on /ˈtʃæmpiən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[cham-pee-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a person who has defeated all opponents in a competition or series of competitions, so as to hold first place: the heavyweight boxing champion.
2. anything that takes first place in competition: the champion of a cattle show.
3. an animal that has won a certain number of points in officially recognized shows: This dog is a champion.
4. a person who fights for or defends any person or cause: a champion of the oppressed.
5. a fighter or warrior.
–verb (used with object) 6. to act as champion of; defend; support: to champion a cause.
7. Obsolete. to defy.
–adjective 8. first among all contestants or competitors.
9. Informal. first-rate.
[Origin: 1175–1225; ME < OF < LL campiōn- (s. of campiō) < WGmc *kampiōn-, equiv. to kamp- battle (< L campus field, battlefield) + -iōn- n. suffix; cf. OE cempa warrior, etc.]"
Back in 1900, there was the National League just as God had created it, free from usurpers, and there were no others worshipped before it. If you won the pennant, you won the pennant plain and simple. You were the champion. It fit in really nicely with monotheism and the one true religion. Then in 1901 the American League came along and that’s when all the trouble started. Now you had two champions each year, and people were supposed to consider them separate but equal. One could say that fit in well with the two party system in America and the split between Protestants and Catholics. In 1901, the Pittsburgh Pirates were the best in baseball, but then the Chicago White Stockings were the best in baseball too. The same thing happened in 1902. Pittsburgh had to share their title reluctantly with the Philadelphia Athletics. Something had to give.
In 1903, they invented something called a World Series, and the winner became the World Champion, a term which we still use today. The winner, in this case the Boston Americans, remained the defending champion for one year, or until their title was dashed from their lips. Even so, one team remained National League Champion and the other the American League Champion, and that really meant something. In politics, the guy who loses the Presidential election can still say he won the Democratic or Republican nomination, and no one can take that away from him.
Then in the 1969, they split up the AL and NL into Eastern and Western Divisions, so that now there were four “champions” at the end of the regular season; two western division and two eastern “champions,” although by now some would challenge the use of the word. This was similar to inflation, where the value of say a million dollars wasn’t what it used to be. "Millionaire? Stand in the line to the left." One of those teams, the New York Mets, went on to become the NL champion, while the Baltimore Orioles became the AL champion. It was still pretty simple, the NL champion won the NL pennant, the AL champion won the AL pennant. And if you lost the NL pennant, at least you won your division, which represented a quarter of all the fans and teams in baseball.
Incidentally, the two division system was very lucky for the New York Mets. By the winter of 1986, they had won all but 14 of the 18 NLCSs ever played. At the end of the 1988 season, they had participated in 5 out of 20, one quarter of all the NLCSs in history, an almost Yankee-like statistic.
Then things got complicated, and this is why the Mets ended up in linguistic limbo last year. In 1994 those guys down at MLB split both leagues into three divisions, an uneven number in each league totaling six “champions,” plus later, two wild card teams. The wild card teams were not champions, and were made to climb the equivalent of Mount Everest in order to earn their stripes and make their way to the NL or AL pennant. Baseball leadership then became sort of like Canadian politics, with dozens of Banana Republic party leaders vying for media attention. The first NLDS was in 1995.
So last year, 2006, the Mets were the Champions of the NL Eastern Division, because they were first in that division, and champion means "first," but nobody cared. "Division champions? Line up on the left."
Then they beat the Dodgers, the so-called Champions of the NL west, but here’s the rub. That series victory did nothing for the Mets linguistically! It did not earn them a pennant, or a "first," and did not earn them a higher level of champion-ness at all. They were in limbo as far as bragging rights were concerned. …”Oh YEAH? Well my team won their dinky little division and then beat some other guys!” It doesn’t sound as good as, “We were the League Champions! Or “We won the xxx pennant!” In fact, MLB does not issue MVP awards for the NLDS or the ALDS series, an acknowledgement of what we all subconsciously know. They are basically “Survivor” episodes with no credits.
Oh, sure you could say the Mets were NLDS (National League Division Series) “Winners,” whatever that means. And I think there is even a sweat shirt to go with that limited run pennant flag and decal. But the Cardinals were also NLDS “winners,” and two bodies cannot occupy the same space for very long. It earned them the right to compete in the NLCS, a series in which the Mets came within an extra base hit (as long as it was one by Carlos Beltran) of winning the National League Pennant and League Championship. It was sort of a Red Sox kind of feeling, you’re about to bite into your victory sandwich but it jumps from your hand and falls in the mud. I’m sure Adlai Stevenson would have a few choice words if he were here today, to help Mets fans understand what funny things happened on the way to the top. or to Comerica Park in Detroit.
The Cardinals can now claim triple championships, those of the NL Central, the National League, and the World, respectively. They are also NLDS “Winners,” (for beating up on the Pod people from California, which is their trademark) but no one talks about that east of the Cahokia Burial Mounds.
So the Mets got farther than the Yankees in the post season, and that’s worth bragging about. But it was all so vague! Bragging demands clarity and singularity, and our team couldn’t find that outside of their division, not in terms of the word “championship.” Not in terms of the word “pennant.” Of course we could always call them National League“sub-champions,” and “sub-pennant winners.” It has more of a definite ring to it, but that doesn’t work for me.
“Wait till next year” now means “going all the way to the NL Pennant,” because anything less would be a comedown, and would leave us all in banneristic limbo for yet another whole season. “Defending NL Eastern Division Champions” does not win you a Wheaties endorsement, as nice as it sounds. We’ve got to do something in 2007 that has more pizzazz. How about “Major League Baseball’s 2007 World Champions?”
Now that has a ring of singularity to it!
posted by evan pritchard @ 10:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home