Question for Our World Series Historians

REMINDER: "ANONYMOUS" POSTS WILL BE DELETED.

FROM THE ARCHIVES: Ron Washington

Like everyone else, I'm saddened by Ron Washington's departure and by the offered reason for it.   I have no particular insight on this.  But it reminded me of something I wrote a long time ago.  This piece ran on October 26, 2010.

Ron Washington and The Other

[Irrelevant matter omitted.]

To Ron Washington, baseball is The Other.

To Ron Washington, baseball is a, separate, sensate, volitional entity.  It is a thing unto itself that gives, takes, and speaks, and to whom one gives and from which one takes, and to whom one listens. 

Consider the way he talks about it.  I don’t have the time to research all of his interviews, but it appeared vividly in today’s press conference, when he said something like: When the game tells you to bunt, you bunt; when the game tells you to steal, you steal.   And in another recent interview, he said something like:   You take what baseball gives you, and you give what baseball takes.   There are numerous other examples along these same lines.  

Even his repeated use of the phrase "the game of baseball" bespeaks a certain reverence, a reverence one holds for the mysterious Other.

And even his Ticket-promoted signature phrase – That’s the way baseball go.  Doesn’t that sound a lot like Josh Howard saying that you can’t control what the ball do?  And, like that basketball, baseball is crazy.  (Fun?)  And you have to deal with its craziness like it’s an insanely possessive lover from whom you cannot escape, to whom you must return day after day to do her bidding, whatever she tells you to do, and you give to her what she demands.   You have to listen to what she tells you she wants, make sure you heard it correctly, and then deliver it right then and there so that she will give you what you want.

No, I don’t mean that Ron Washington has a peculiar sexual yearning for the game of baseball.    I mean nothing more than that Ron Washington thinks of baseball as a discrete being, equal parts demanding and benevolent, to whom direct and careful attention must be paid.  And if you do it right, with appropriate respect and loyalty, that attention will be rewarded with victory.

To Ron Washington, baseball is a spirit. 

His relationship with The Other is the source of The Passion of Ron Washington.

*     *     *

OK, we're back to September 2014.

It wasn't drugs.  It wasn't health.  He wasn't fired.   The possibility of depression has been mentioned; no one seems to know.  USA Today's Bob Nightengale reports that Wash texted him:  "I'll be back!  Need some time!"

As The Hardline said, the departure invites speculation.  Mine is no more informed than anyone else's, and less than many's.  

But I wonder if what happened was a something akin to an unbearable crisis of faith.  The game let the man down.  Turned its back on him.  Visited ill-fortune on individual players, robbed promising up-and-comers of their promise.   Robbed talented players of their desire to fight through adversity (Yu?).  And nothing he did changed a thing.   Loss after loss after dreary loss.

He had to get away, before another loss attacked his soul, maybe to talk to it, like Job, think about where the love had gone.

Two Pretty Quick Hits [CORRECTED]

I've heard like close to zero Ticket over the past week.  Family and work obligations, and that may linger for a bit.  Here are a couple of quick ones to fluff up the string a bit.  You can tell it's lame, because the second one is sportsy, always dangerous.

(1) One of the few segments I did hear was The Shake Joint's interview of CNN's Ed Lavandera on Sunday.  Wow.  I did not hear the beginning so I wasn't sure about how this interview came about, but it was outstanding.  Very interesting, and very professional.  I only heard Jake doing the interviewing, so I'm not sure if Sean was a part of this segment.  I especially liked the line of questioning about the moral dilemma of whether a newsman should participate in an event when there is a human need.

I asked myself -- what other show would, or could, do this?   I wouldn't mind hearing more off-sports interviews on The Ticket, but who the heck is going to do them?  Assuming they played it straight (an always shaky assumption), I can imagine two other guys being able to pull this off as well -- Gordon and Dan.   (Why Dan?  I don't know -- he's got a very penetrating intelligence and could be counted on to get to the the nub of the gist, without regard to his current-events knowledge.)  

But someone, presumably Jake, reached out to this guy or CNN, and landed it with great distinction.  What does this tell us?  Continue to keep an eye on Mr. Kemp. 

Nice work. 

[CORRECTION:  I have been reliably informed that the interview was conducted by both Jake and Sean, and booked by Sean.  In my defense, the only part I heard at proper volume and without interruption was the part I mentioned, and only heard the balance with the radio turned down and Mrs. Plainsman and a smallish child simultaneously giving me instructions as I tried to keep the Conestoga in the ruts.  Thanks to my reliable informant for the better information and apologies to Sean for failing to note his contribution.  Better keep an eye on him as well.]

(2)  MY WRONG THEORY ABOUT THE RANGERS' SWOON

It's not injuries.

It's not the departure of Michael Young, Mike Napoli, Josh Hamilton.

It's not questionable bullpen personnel.

Here's what it is:

It's Nelson Cruz.

I have no proof for this.

I only have a logical fallacy on which to rely, the old "happened contemporaneously with or after, therefore happened because."  Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

But it seems to me that the Rangers' collapse here really started right around the time that the dope story got big again.  I think it's an elephant in the clubhouse.  I'll bet every player on that team and every member of the coaching staff and every member of management believes that Cruz was dirty and that if he is denying it now he's lying.  Hell, he's even got the braces to keep his teeth organized in his jaw.

So there's this tension between public support and private concern, and uncertainty over whether they'll have him when playoff time rolls around.

It's casting a pall over the all-for-one, one-for-all Texas Rangers. 

And pretending like it's not there means Coach Ron can't "manage" it.  I don't know what I would do if I were him.  I know what I'd be doing if I were Jon Daniels -- I'd be getting the team's lawyers involved to get this thing resolved toot sweet, get the authorities to fish or cut bait, release a list or drop it.

So there you have a tragically sportsy MTC commentary.

*     *     *

I'll try to be back soon, but in the meantime, my thanks for informative and interesting commentary.

As Frank Sang, "Regrets, I've Had a Few . . . ."

But I don't think I'm entirely crazy.

If you haven't seen the prior post, check it out now.  Read the comments, too.

As I mentioned in my comment, I wish I had taken a less dramatic approach.  But I don't think I was entirely out of line on this.  Ignorant about ALS, guilty.  Ass, guilty.

But this has been on my mind for quite awhile.  I looked ahead.

 Look, I'm a guy that worries about stuff like this.  I don't even like Fight Night, so if you think I'm too much of a mamby-pamby, you're entitled.   But let me invite you to join me in a little theater of the mind. Consider this decidedly non-crazy hypothetical:

Josh throws a bat.  Bat hits someone, doesn't matter who.  Maybe into a group of kids who couldn't protect themselves.  Someone is badly hurt.  The Rangers aren't able to make a private settlement.  This isn't like a foul ball, where spectators have a reasonable expectation of one coming their way.  Scene:  A law firm conference room.

HIGH-PROFILE PLAINTIFF LAWYER:  Good morning, Mr. Daniels.

JON DANIELS:  Good morning.

HPPL:  Mr. Daniels, you're aware of the events of August 3.

JD:  Yes.

HPPL:  Mr. Daniels, were you, or perhaps I should say, to your knowledge, were the Texas Rangers aware of the statistics regarding thrown bats?

JD:  I don't understand the question.

HPPL:  Were you aware that a bat being thrown into the stands is a relatively rare occurrence over the course of a season, and even rarer for a single player to have done it on several occasions in a season?

JD:  I didn't know the exact numbers, but generally, yes.

HPPL:  In fact, the number of bats thrown by Mr. Hamilton, several of which went into the stands, may be a major league record?

JD:  I don't know.  I do know it was somewhat unusual.

HPPL:  On occasion, did Mr. Beltre leave the on-deck circle over concern about Mr. Hamilton's thrown bats?

JD:  It may have been a gag.

HPPL:  The team regarded it as funny?

JD:  No.

HPPL:  Were you concerned about the thrown bats?

JD:  Somewhat, yes.

HPPL:  Did you speak with him about it?

JD:  Yes.

HPPL:  What did you say to him, and what did he say to you?

JD:  I asked him why he was throwing the bats.  He said he didn't know.

HPPL:  Is that all?

JD:  He said he guessed he just couldn't help it.

HPPL:  Did he say anything about the bats, or maybe his batting gloves?

JD:  No.

HPPL:  Did he give you any reason for the increased frequency of thrown bats?

JD:  No.

HPPL:  What did you say to him about it?

JD:  I explained that we were concerned about the safety of our fans and the players on the field, of course, and urged him to make every effort not to throw the bat.

HPPL:  What was his reaction?

JD:  He understood.  He said he would try.

HPPL:   Did you ever think it was intentional?

JD:  Certainly not.

HPPL:  A subconscious issue of some kind?

JD:  No, no.

HPPL:  How long was this second meeting before the incident and Mr Hamilton's suspension by Major League Baseball?

JD:  A month or so, I think.  Six weeks maybe.

HPPL:  But after that and before the incident, he threw another bat into the stands and another towards the dugout, did he not?

JD:  I believe that's correct.

HPPL:  Did you do anything else?

JD:  We spoke to him again and repeated our concern about the thrown bats.  He said he was sorry but he just couldn't help it.

HPPL:  Did you speak to Mr. Washington about possibly removing Mr. Hamilton from the  lineup?

JD:  No.

HPPL:  Why do you think he threw the bats?

JD:  I don't know.

HPPL:  Did it concern you that he said he said he couldn't help it?

JD:  Well, yes, of course.

HPPL:  What do you think he meant by that?

JD:  I don't know.  I thought he meant he would just lose his grip from his swing.  Obviously, he swings very hard.

HPPL:  But the frequency was increasing, was it not?

JD:  Yes.

HPPL:  Did you ever ask Mr. Hamilton to submit to a medical examination to determine why he might be losing his grip on the bat?

JD:  No.

HPPL:  No further questions.

+     +     +

THAT's what I was thinking.  That when the whole world can see there's something odd going on that results in the threat of bodily harm to your fans and highly-paid athletes, you do something about it in advance of tragedy.  And where you don't know the reason, you ask people who know about holding on to things to have a look.  Even if they don't find anything, you've done what you could to find out why this extremely unusual and dangerous series of events were occurring.  Other than sitting him down to think it over.

It would surprise me if I am the only person in the metro who has thought -- there's something wrong here.

But in retrospect, I should not have focused on the specific possibility of ALS.  That was look-at-me, even by my somewhat relaxed standards, and I should have thought twice about that.

Let the piling-on continue.  I know, I know, I've lost a reader.