Losing Narratives: A Thought Experiment
Let us imagine a scenario: after the Phillies clinch the NL East on September 17th they go on to win just three of their last eleven games. Many Phillies fans and members of the media begin to grow uneasy with this apparent lack of urgency from the team. Even though the games are meaningless, they'd still love to see the team continue to win at their previous torrid clip.
In the NLDS, the Phillies encounter the Milwaukee Brewers. In the first game, Roy Halladay delivers an uncharacteristically shaky performance, allowing five runs in seven innings. Meanwhile, the Phillies bats manage to hit a number of balls hard off of Brewers' game one starter Zack Greinke, but they all seem to find gloves and he pitches a complete game 4-hitter. Just like that, the Phillies find themselves down 1-0.
In game two, Cliff Lee and Yovani Gallardo duel for seven innings, each holding their opponents to just two runs. Having thrown 105 pitches, Cliff Lee is sent out for the eighth. After putting two men on with no outs, Lee appears to have escaped the jam before Ryan Braun sends a 2-0 cutter into the second deck in left to put the Brewers ahead 5-2. The Phillies manage to tack on two runs in the eight against the Brewers bullpen, but the lead ultimately holds and the Brewers take a commanding 2-0 lead in the series.
Facing elimination, Cole Hamels takes the mound and pitches a total gem. In seven shutout innings, he strikes out 11 Brewers and allows just 2 hits. Against Shawn Marcum, the Phillies offense breaks out for five runs, chasing him after four innings. Antonio Bastardo enters the game in the bottom of the eighth and surrenders two runs while getting just one out. Brad Lidge replaces Bastardo and allows an inherited runner to score, but escapes without further damage. Ryan Madson enters a 5-3 game in the bottom of the ninth and records two quick outs. Then, a Nyjer Morgan bleeder and a Ryan Braun bloop put two men on for Prince Fielder. An ill-advised 0-2 cutter from Madson is smashed damn near out of the stadium and the Brewers complete the sweep in walk-off fashion.
I know it is horrifying to envision this scenario, but if you can, try to bear with me. Next I want you to imagine that after you have tended to the sucking chest wound you have been left with from this series, you find yourself listening to sports radio, or watching ESPN, or accidentally reading the comments on a local paper's website.
What is the dominant narrative being used to explain the Phillies' sudden, unceremonious elimination from the playoffs?
Well, clearly they peaked too soon and, following their early clinch, had been lulled into a deep state of catatonia from which they were never quite able to emerge.
Now let us imagine an alternate scenario: after the Phillies clinch the NL East on September 17th, they win eight of their last eleven games and went rolling into the playoffs.
Once in the playoffs, the exact same thing as described above happens. Again, you tend to your wounds and the next morning you turn on the radio, or ESPN, or read the comments of a local paper's website. Now what is the narrative being trumpeted (by the same people who in the first scenario were calling for the Phillies to keep the pedal to the metal to close out the regular season) to explain the team's early departure from the playoffs?
Why, they are "chokers" of course! How else are we to make sense of the fact that this 106-win juggernaut of a team could be bounced from the playoffs so quickly? They were clearly not as good as their record suggested because they couldn't perform when it mattered!
And this, my friends, is the trouble with narratives in sports. They are almost always post-hoc constructions that can be custom made to fit any outcome.
But both of the above scenarios rest on the fallacious assumption that there can be any such thing as a "playoff lock". As we well know, the playoffs are a crapshoot. The better team frequently loses because over a stretch as short as a five or seven game series, bad luck can play a significant role in the outcome. To people who accept these narratives and likewise deny the basic randomness inherent to the playoffs, though, no matter how the Phillies played out their last eleven games this season and no matter how they are to lose in the playoffs, it will be due to some great failing on their part. In reality, the opposite is true: regardless of how the Phillies played their last eleven games, they would still have a strong chance of losing at some point in the playoffs.
However, it is not hard to see why such narratives appeal to some. It is far more comforting to believe that we have somehow earned all of the bad (or good) things that happen to us than it is to ascribe them to dumb luck. Indeed, the notion that there is a significant element of randomness in the universe is so scary to some that it leads them to accept much wider-reaching narratives than the ones discussed in this post.
Like everyone else, I hope the scenario I described above doesn't come to pass. But if the Phillies do somehow lose a playoff series this year, instead of getting caught up in the blame game, wouldn't it be nice if we could just acknowledge and appreciate that the Phillies won the 162-game series?
106 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Stop being an apologist for this bunch of losers!
http://www.thegoodphight.com
by WholeCamels on Sep 22, 2011 2:03 PM EDT reply actions 4 recs
wouldn’t it be nice if we could just acknowledge and appreciate that the Phillies won the 162-game series
in short: no
then again, I wouldn’t call them chokers either, just that for some reason it wasn’t in the cards. Winning the regular season doesn’t mean much to me
I eat sentimentality for breakfast, but stats stop me dead in my tracks
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Sep 22, 2011 2:07 PM EDT reply actions
that’s ok. It’s a very well written article and I enjoyed it, despite disagreeing with the premise.
I don’t feel any sort of doom, and if the Phillies lose, well that’s how it goes. No need to panic or feel depressed about it. Go get them next year and the year after that.
I eat sentimentality for breakfast, but stats stop me dead in my tracks
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Sep 22, 2011 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions
What premise did you disagree with? That the playoffs are a crapshoot and very good teams often lose in them?
Do you not accept the notion that the Phillies could objectively be the best team in baseball and still be knocked out of the playoffs before the World Series?
The Good Phight, NotGraphs, Twitter, fun!
Do you not accept the notion that the Phillies could objectively be the best team in baseball and still be knocked out of the playoffs before the World Series?
Yup. You can be the most talented team in baseball, but one holds a playoffs to determine the best team in baseball, or rather, the best team in baseball at that point in time. If the Phillies would lose to the Brewers, I’d say they were the more talented team, but in that series, the Brewers were the better team, meaning that the Phillies were not, during that series, the best team in baseball.
I eat sentimentality for breakfast, but stats stop me dead in my tracks
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Sep 22, 2011 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions
This isn’t true at all. One holds a playoff in order to entertain fans. The idea that this is the most accurate way of determining who the best team was is ludicrous.
Another reason why I’m not a football fan. A one playoff game? How much more crapshooty can it get?
Let's go eat...a triceratops. /velociraptor'd
by LeepinLizardz on Sep 22, 2011 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions
The worst, of course, is college basketball. No one makes any pretense that the winner of the NCAA tournament is necessarily the best team in the country. People watch the tournament because it’s fun.
Yet people have trouble extending that insight to other sports, for whatever reason.
Arguably the NFL playoffs are actually less crapshooty than the baseball playoffs are, despite being single-elimination. Favorites win in football much more often than they do in baseball. I think this has something to do with the fact that weaknesses can be exploited much more consistently throughout a game in football. In baseball a weak hitter is only going to come up once every nine, no matter what.
The least crapshooty of all is the NBA playoffs.
Isn’t the NFL the league with the most parity? Of course perfect parity means there are no real favorites. And maybe parity is more easily achieved/presented with a 16-game sample.
by flyersfaninchicago on Sep 22, 2011 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions
I think it has the most parity in the sense that there’s a lot of mobility from top to bottom (and vice versa) year to year. But within a certain year, it seems like there’s a wide differential between best and worst – in the sense that if they played each other 100 times, the best team would probably win 95 times, unlike in baseball where the best team might win 75 times.
I don’t have strong views on this though and am open to being persuaded otherwise.
that actually makes more sense. i was thinking about the fact that there often seems to be a division in which everyone finishes between 9-7 and 7-9, but there are plenty of the 3-13, 4-12 teams.
by flyersfaninchicago on Sep 22, 2011 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions
I know very little about football, so thanks for explaining that about the weaknesses.
I was at Reading’s elimination game when they lost to the FisherCats. I was like the only person in the stands that applauded the RPhils for a good and thoroughly enjoyable season. I applauded the IronPigs too, when they lost (though I was at the second-to-last game for them). I don’t understand why people felt the IronPigs in particular were a failure, when they had never even been above .500 before. Just making it as far as they did in the playoffs was awesome.
Let's go eat...a triceratops. /velociraptor'd
by LeepinLizardz on Sep 22, 2011 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions
The team-to-team talent disparity in NCAA basketball, even among the 64 teams in the tournament, is enough to partially overcome this though.
I would wager that the best team wins the NCAA tournament a lot more often than the best MLB team would win a similar tournament.
Lately, I’ve actually been of the opinion that the NFL, of all sports, is the most luck-based. Injury luck alone dominates the narrative of an NFL season in a way that it doesn’t in other sports. Sure, every sport has injuries, but no sport is like football in that literally every team has to expect to lose anywhere from 1-10 projected starters to season-ending and career-altering injuries every season.
And although favorites historically tend to win in the NFL playoffs, that trend has been changing over the past several years with more wild card teams either winning the Super Bowl or making it there.
Hell, the Eagles’ most recent NFC Championship run after a 9-7 season (in which they only made the playoffs due to a series of upsets in week 17) is a great illustration of luck.
Plus, of course, there’s the one game thing; all it takes is an injury to a key player early on to ruin the game (think Carson Palmer vs. the Steelers), or one fumble bouncing randomly into the wrong hands, and suddenly you end up with a team like the Seahawks beating the Saints.
I sort of feel the same way, actually, though for different reasons. Sure, having the best regular-season record is a damned impressive accomplishment for which we should be proud. But expectations aside, I would still be left feeling massively unfulfilled should we not at least get to the World Series. Not because we underperformed, or because “winning” the regular season doesn’t mean anything, but because I want to win a ^%$$%) World Series.
I get the fact that no matter the outcome, this season is a figuratively living testament that the Philies are probably the best team in baseball this year. Awesome. But the ultimate goal of the sport is to win it all, and should we not do that, I will feel pretty bad for a few days, at least.
Doc, Lee, Hamels, Vance...Moyer. 2012's winning combination.
by Missing Jamie Moyer on Sep 22, 2011 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions
I wholeheartedly agree, and I mean that in the nicest way possible.
I’ve followed this team for over 30 years. I’ve never switched allegiances, never given up hope, even when I moved to different parts of the country.
I’ll be the first to admit that it’s differnt now than it was 10 years ago, with technology and streaming games, etc… but the difference between a competitive team and a prennial cellar dwellar is severe.
There were years when I’d give up and lose interest by July in even following the box scores. Then I’d open the paper and see that we were back to a single digit deficit and I’d start figuring out what we needed to do to get back in it, and I’d have hope.
The past few years?
I barely miss a game on TV. Yeah, thats kind of rabid, sure. But I know how SPECIAL this is.
And so does my kid. MY four year old knows all the players, he hates the Braves, loves Ryan Howard just like all kids do, but appreciates Victorino more, because he’s “small, like him”. He wants to try and switch hit, because Victorino switch hits.
He wants to go have a catch when I get home from work, and he has to put on his phillies hat and shirt before hand. Thats his rule.
nine months ago, he wanted to watch blues clues before he went to bed. Now, every night, he throws a fit if he has to go to bed before the game is over.
I appreciate this team, win or lose in the post season, because they bring joy to my kid, the way Schmidt, and Boone, and Carlton, and Maddux, and Luzinski and McGraw brought joy to me, and that in turn, hopefully, will make him still follow them when Howard and Vic are gone and the next generation of Greg Jeffries and Ugeth Urbinas ultimately end up in the cycle of reality.
No team wins forever. If you don’t enjoy this ride now, and pin all your hopes on winning World Series, you’re gonna be sorely dissapointed more often than not.
Think about this for a second. When we lost to San Fran last year, how long did it take you to start thinking about this year? How often did you secretly try and figure out how we could sign Cliff Lee? When it happened, how excited were you?
You wanna know whats awesome about this team? They keep me excited 10 months out of the year, versus 2 or 3.
Little secret: I HATE THIS TIME OF THE YEAR. Why? Because win or lose, in 4 weeks, theres no more baseball till March, and I know that the chances of a letdown over the hopes I’ve put into the past 10 months are at about 80%.
But damn if I didn’t and won’t continue to enjoy this ride until the engine breaks.
25.8/106 "Winter is coming" -Eddard Stark
by Joecatz on Sep 22, 2011 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 11 recs
Rec’d. Win or lose, I’m enjoying this ride.
Baseball’s end is probably more depressing to me than the approaching cold, short days of winter. February is my favorite time of year, because that’s when pitchers and catchers report to spring training and everything begins anew and I can start planning my fantasy team and OMG BASEBALL.
Last year, I started watching hockey. I’ve found that it helps ease the sting of baseball ending a little, and gives me a new and different team to obsess about every day (or most days…that’s why I chose hockey over football). I realize I need sports in my life on a regular basis. It’s strange.
Let's go eat...a triceratops. /velociraptor'd
by LeepinLizardz on Sep 22, 2011 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Haha, yeah. Exactly.
Let's go eat...a triceratops. /velociraptor'd
by LeepinLizardz on Sep 22, 2011 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Rec’d, but I gotta say, if Gregg Jefferies is your Phillies’ nadir….
Jefferies was just some overpaid stiff free agent brought on after the strike. We knew what he was going to be right from the start. He was actually kinda fun to heckle. Basically a Lance Parrish for the mid-90s.
For me, the real name that brings pain is Ron Jones. Lucky for your son, all the walls are padded now.
'Things are more like today than they have ever been before." Gerald R. Ford
Jeffries was actually the first name that came to mind. Trust me, I could rattle off far worse doozies if tempted…
One more point to make with all this. A very. very small part of me will actually be very, very ok with a loss in the postseason, if only because I’ll be able to accurately explain defeat to my son.
Life is full of defeat. We lose a lot more than we win, and thats what makes winning so much more fullfilling. When I grew up, competition was encouraged. Today, its the opposite. Teachers and schools stress nurturing ans sharing, and fairness and while thats great, life is not fair, or nurturing in the least for many, many people.
Its a delicate balance trying to toe the line between agreeing with what they teach, and fearing that my kid is being groomed for mediocrity and dissapointment without understanding how to deal with it.
25.8/106 "Winter is coming" -Eddard Stark
Excellent, Joe
That really helped. I have been a fan for 40-odd years too, since the very early 70’s. Saw Schmidt come in; saw Rick Wise go for some guy named Carlton, of whom I knew nothing; saw Mike Anderson flame out and Luzinski turn into a star; saw Bowa eat baseballs for 10 seasons, then the Dave Cash’s and Manny Trillos and Maddox/Matthews and the Samuels and Pete Rose and Tug and then Kruk and I’m all out of order but so what….
These last few years have been the opposite of 90% of Phillies baseball. It’ll be a heartbreaker if they lose round 1 or 2, and hard to take if they lose the Series should they get there, especially to the Yankees.
The past 6 games have been giving me a sinking feeling. But the past 5 years of consistent, winning, playoff baseball (with a Series win) have been sweet and special and I thank the club for getting its shit together for us.
by Georgia_Flyer on Sep 22, 2011 9:21 PM EDT up reply actions
I can come to terms with Losing a series to the Tigers. I can live with losing to the Rangers. I’d be bent if we lost to the Sox. I’d go god damned nuclear if we lose to the Yankees.
by Cormican on Sep 22, 2011 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
TITLES DUDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Call me dumb, call me stupid, whatever. I block shots."
His Name is Mudd http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo-WjUjzV_Q
@boknows71
/sings The Doom Song
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Scenario # 1 idiotic comment: “Why didn’t Charlie yell at those guys during that last week and a half of the season?!”
Scenario # 2 idiotic comment: “Why didn’t Charlie rest those guys more during the last week and a half of the season?!”
Idiotic comment for both scenarios: “Why didn’t Charlie bring in Worley for Halladay?!”
by Buphilo on Sep 22, 2011 2:27 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Great article
Call me crazy, but I was just as pleased with winning the 162-game series last year than I was with winning the World Series in 2008. Both are amazing accomplishments.
Interesting perspective. That first scenario, especially, is horrifying, and the second isn’t a lot better.
Yes, I’m glad we’ve won the 162-game series. In all honesty, though, given the choice of sneaking into the playoffs and making it to the Series, and DOMINATING the regular season and floundering in the playoffs, I’d choose the former 1005 of the time. Not that the latter isn’t a more impressive and challenging feat, certainly, but “Best Record in Baseball” doesn’t carry the cachet of “World Fucking Champions.”
I love subtle the jab at religion at the end of it.
by Won'tYouBeADaal? on Sep 22, 2011 2:46 PM EDT reply actions
here’s a narrative, from a classic, perfect, philly.com comment:
Not employing “small ball” strategy is the #1 Phillie Killer. Cost them 15 wins—at least.
from here: http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/phillies/The-2011-Phillies-Killers.html
Incidentally, Larry Andersen has been really aggravating lately with this crap. Seems like every game now he’s whining about how they’re not trying to steal enough bases, how they need to bunt more, etc etc etc
15 games!
I can almost see the argument for stealing a little more often, under the right circumstances…. but, you know, Rollins has been hurt, Victorino missed a lot of time and is slumping lately, and was hitting lots of XBHs, so it wasn’t necessary… and Utley’s been really struggling.. who else is the big basestealer?
and I think Charlie bunts too often as it is
I listened to the radio broadcast for the first time in awhile and I was shocked by how annoying Larry was being. Not like when he’s just chatting with Franzke, that’s fine. But he was really complaining about the Phillies not doing the little things correctly. He really hates Michael Martinez’ lack of bunting skills. It’s frustratin, but do you really need to complain about a failed bunt for three innings? And then again when he gets up to bat again?
Let's go eat...a triceratops. /velociraptor'd
by LeepinLizardz on Sep 22, 2011 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions
the problem with bunting more is that no one on this team has any concept how to do it correctly, least of all Valdez and martinez, who should both be experts at it.
25.8/106 "Winter is coming" -Eddard Stark
I would think the problem with bunting more often is that its usually a terrible idea.
by FanSince1993 on Sep 22, 2011 5:50 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Well, to be fair, he’s more or less correct (been doing it since like June, as well), at least with the running game. The Phils have some of the better base stealers in the game, and it’s an aspect of the game that has the potential to add a lot of value. When Vic gets on, no outs, with someone like Polanco up, he should be running more often.
And part of why he’s whining, I suspect, is the current 5-game losing streak. If you’re not getting the big hits, you need to “manufacture” some runs.
I’m not sure I agree with this. One of the reasons why they’re such good basestealers is that they’re so good at knowing how to pick their spots. If they ran willy nilly, they wouldn’t be as good at it.
Well, I don’t want them to run all “willy-nilly,” but I’d like to see them run more frequently than they do. At least Vic and Rollins.
I know this is verging on “watch the games, bitch” territory, but it feels like the Phils have grounded into innumerable double-plays after not running in a good running situation. Probably just ’cause those are the instances I remember, but they sure stick out.
Wait. Officially? Or was this just “leaked?”
Let's go eat...a triceratops. /velociraptor'd
by LeepinLizardz on Sep 22, 2011 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions
It was leaked but confirmed by ESPN and a few other sources.
Ed Snider is a crotchety old fuck.
That is all.
The team isn’t confirming it, and won’t be revealing the new logo until Nov 11th. Until they reveal the new logo, I refuse to believe that this atrocity will be on the uniforms of professional baseball players. That logo is UGLY.
Remember what happened with the Winnepeg Jets a few weeks ago? A logo leaked that was confirmed by ESPN and whatnot, and the team at first didn’t confirm and then bumped up their official unveiling to like, the next day…turns out what leaked was the real logo (which I also kinda hate, btw). I wonder how the Marlins will handle this leak?
http://www.icethetics.info/blog/2011/7/22/boy-was-i-wrong-about-the-jets.html
Let's go eat...a triceratops. /velociraptor'd
by LeepinLizardz on Sep 22, 2011 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think it’s that bad, to be honest. I don’t think it’s good, mind you, but it isn’t so terrible.
The Marlins logo or the Jets? The Marlins is…ew. The Jets I could live with, but not blissfully.
Let's go eat...a triceratops. /velociraptor'd
by LeepinLizardz on Sep 22, 2011 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions
The Marlins. Just my subjective feeling. I dunno. Actually the part of that logo I dislike the most is the block lettering, which is far too similar to the Giants’ block lettering. It looks like a knockoff. I also agree with Buphilo that the yellow looks weird.
But, the fish doesn’t even have a tail! HOW WOULD HE SWIM, TACO? HOW?!?
I also hate the Giants-esque block letters on the wordmark. But wow, that technicolor M and that fish and those colors…it looks dated.
Let's go eat...a triceratops. /velociraptor'd
by LeepinLizardz on Sep 22, 2011 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t mind the logo/script but I am still struggling to see how they will appear on a hat or uniform and not look ridiculous.
Ed Snider is a crotchety old fuck.
That is all.
It could just be their armpatch logo, for lack of better terminology. Like the equivalent of the Phillies’ Liberty Bell thing. The hat may be different.
I could live with it (but again, not blissfully) as an arm patch. I think the M is too big. I think that’s what’s wrong. Lose the M, make the fish not look like it belongs on a shirt I wore in third grade (I think it looks early-90s, I dunno)…lose that block lettering…
Nevermind, just scrap the whole thing.
Let's go eat...a triceratops. /velociraptor'd
by LeepinLizardz on Sep 22, 2011 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions
The guy on Yahoo mentioned that it was supposed to evoke art deco. Perhaps there’s also a certain local aesthetic that makes it make sense, but only if you’re from there.
Art deco? The M might, but I don’t think the fish does. My husband just pointed out it’s kind of Miami Vice in a way. That I can see, but I still don’t like it from an aesthetic standpoint. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
Let's go eat...a triceratops. /velociraptor'd
by LeepinLizardz on Sep 22, 2011 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions
The block lettering is MLB standard
These are T-shirt designs, the logo is the hat logo for the team, not the primary team logo.
It’s not as terrible as a hat logo.
Let's go eat...a triceratops. /velociraptor'd
by LeepinLizardz on Sep 22, 2011 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions
By the way I think the Jets’ logo is alright, but a little too busy. I think it would have looked better if the maple leaf were on the jet instead of the other way around. I like how they worked the compass into it though.
Agreed on the busy-ness. I actually like their secondary logo with the wings and sticks a lot more. In the primary, would’ve taken out the maple leaf altogether, and just kept the jet, or made the leaf smaller maybe. I don’t know.
Let's go eat...a triceratops. /velociraptor'd
by LeepinLizardz on Sep 22, 2011 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions
It seems like hockey is the sport where you find both the best logos and the worst logos.
Some of the classic logos are just so great. Maple Leafs, Canadiens. The Flyers too (although I suppose they’re not really “classic”)
Classic in the sense that it’s the only logo they have ever had. But I agree with you. The newer logo’s, pretty much anything mid 90’s on are absolutely terrible.
Ed Snider is a crotchety old fuck.
That is all.
We at the NHL want a logo with attitude. It’s edgy, it’s “in your face.” You’ve heard the expression “let’s get busy”? Well, this is a logo that gets “biz-zay!” Consistently and thoroughly. We’re talking about a totally outrageous paradigm.
Confession: I really like the Predators’ new yellow unis. I love (loved? I don’t think it’s on the new sets) the sabertooth tiger skull arm patch. I’m a little ashamed for liking the logo of a late 90s expansion team. But I think the Preds are gutsy for going with yellow and being able to pull it off.
Let's go eat...a triceratops. /velociraptor'd
by LeepinLizardz on Sep 22, 2011 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I would bet the Marlins move up their unveiling but probably not until the end of the season, which is not to far away.
Ed Snider is a crotchety old fuck.
That is all.
I guess we’ll see. I’m more interested in sports logos than is probably healthy, though.
Let's go eat...a triceratops. /velociraptor'd
by LeepinLizardz on Sep 22, 2011 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Uniwatch and Icethetics are my two favorite non-SBN blogs.
Let's go eat...a triceratops. /velociraptor'd
by LeepinLizardz on Sep 22, 2011 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Not dissimilar to Mets colors.
But what’s with the yellow? A collapsing roof of sunshine? An economic indicator? A golden V for victory?
by Buphilo on Sep 22, 2011 3:41 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Well to be fair it could have been this

As per a recent tounge in cheek SBN article on the topic
Welcome to the City of Brotherly Love, now GTFO
by Veni Vidi Vici on Sep 22, 2011 6:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I like that one.
You know, racecars, baseball, you know that whole connection there.
And the “SCUMBAGS” part is priceless.
Wanna hear something funny? when I first saw that last night I laughed my ass off, my girlfriend asked what was so funny so I showed it to her then she started laughing her ass off. So now for the last two days we keep saying “eat dirt scumbag” back and forth.
Welcome to the City of Brotherly Love, now GTFO
by Veni Vidi Vici on Sep 22, 2011 9:15 PM EDT up reply actions
When are the t-shirts going on sale!?
by Adam Gladstone on Sep 26, 2011 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions
I feel like I’m looking at a logo for the Super Friends or something.
by philsandthrills on Sep 22, 2011 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Of course we can appreciate the awesomeness that has been this regular season. That doesn’t mean we aren’t allowed to be really, really pissed (as I’m sure anyone here will be if we lose in the playoffs), and sometimes when you’re really pissed you have to make excuses and blame things. It happens. I’m not saying it’s SMART, but it happens, and you can’t be that mad at people for it. Surely you understand how simply saying “well, the Phillies only had a 22% chance at winning the World Series” or something like that isn’t going to make anyone feel any better, at least in the near-immediate aftermath of a playoff loss.
This has been the best baseball team that just about any of us have ever had the privilege of watching every day. We can obviously appreciate it. But there are emotions tied into that, and a lot of the time emotions to justifications and ultimately narratives when things don’t go well. Don’t have to like it—I don’t, either—but it happens.
I won’t comment on what ESPN will say because it’s their jobs to make up crap that people buy into.
by everybodyhitswoohoo on Sep 22, 2011 3:30 PM EDT reply actions
Randomness is scary, in part, because we want to believe that we have agency in our lives. The central fact of ardent fandom, in my opinion, is that you care deeply, fanatically, about events over which you have absolutely no control. To invest so much time, emotion and meaning into an activity in which you have no agency makes even more urgent the grasping for an after-the-fact narrative that explains the how and why of things.
by flyersfaninchicago on Sep 22, 2011 3:38 PM EDT reply actions
Did the 116 win Mariners have a narrative?
"Call me dumb, call me stupid, whatever. I block shots."
His Name is Mudd http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo-WjUjzV_Q
@boknows71
Mystique and Aura, you’re right.
They’ll be coming to the main stage in 5,4,3,2…….cue Motley Crue’s Girls Girls Girls
"Call me dumb, call me stupid, whatever. I block shots."
His Name is Mudd http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo-WjUjzV_Q
@boknows71
"To people who accept these narratives and likewise deny the basic randomness"
YES: right on! That’s also why I love baseball: there’s NEVER a foregone conclusion. Best teams lose & lesser teams win for many reasons besides the constructed narrative (done post facto). In fact Tolstoy said as much in War & Peace: Napoleon’s defeat in 1812 was as much about the forces & randomness of life that are beyond our control than any flaw in his genius (or the genius of his Russian enemies).
Yes, it’s true: Tolstoy was a Phillies fan!
In a weird way, the likelihood of this great Phillies team ultimately falling short has made me appreciate 2008 all the more.
That almost certainly wasn’t “the best team in baseball” that year. But they got the ring, and for that (unreasonable) reason, as crushed as I’ll be if this Phils team falls short, it (probably) won’t feel like the universe is taking a dump on me.
Great post! Ever see “The Sweet Hereafter”?
by David S. Cohen on Sep 23, 2011 12:24 AM EDT reply actions

by 




































