I'll be rooting against the Mets on February 26
I strive to not be thin-skinned about too many things in life, but here's an issue I'm still working through: I absolutely hate it when people assume I'm a Yankees fan, or a Mets fan, or a Red Sox fan, or a fan of any other baseball team.
This subject has come up recently here in the blog, so let me give you the CliffsNotes version of my evolution from fan to objective reporter. Much how Andy Pettitte backed up Brian McNamee, I'm confident that Steve from South Amboy and Jon E. can corroborate my testimony:
After attending my first ballgame at Shea Stadium on June 16, 1977 (with Steve, Jon and Jon's dad Al E.), as detailed here last year, I became a Mets fan. But when I got this Thurman Munson All-Star card in a pack that summer, I switched allegiances to the Yankees. I think I just loved all of the colors in the '77 Munson, from the red notating the captain's All-Star status to the orange block letters spelling "Yankees," to Thurman's bushy mustache. I'm not even sure I understood, at age six, how much better the Yankees were than the Mets at that juncture.
Soon I did realize how awful Joe Torre's Mets were, but when Davey Johnson and Frank Cashen turned things around in 1984, I hopped on that bandwagon, while keeping my other foot on the Yankees' frustrating ride through the 1980s. The Mets' 1986 postseason ranks among my top memories from the decade. And as an older teenager, I went to more Mets games than Yankees games, even though I lived in New Jersey, because it felt safer to take the Long Island Railroad to Flushing than the New York City subway system to the Bronx.
College largely distracted me from the Yankees and Mets, and when Bud Selig canceled the 1994 World Series due to the work stoppage, I grew enraged and declared myself done as a fan. When the games returned in 1995, I paid no attention; for the first time since 1987, I didn't attend an Opening Day. I didn't even bother watching the Yankees' run to their first postseason since 1981, or the playoffs themselves.
As I rose up the ranks at The Record, however, I started to cover more baseball games, and I disliked the assignment at first, still angry at the game itself. In time, however I realized that a) writing about baseball would be a good career move, given the passion that New York area fans have it; b) I still enjoyed the actual game, itself, even if I no longer felt an allegiance to any specific team; c) I held a firm grasp of both the rules and the history.
And here I am now, my loyalties long buried. Just like a political reporter can't be choosing sides when covering an election, a good sports reporter roots only for a good story. When people accuse me of always taking one team's side, I consider than an insult.
So that's my tale. Jim, you mentioned recently that I must be a fan, or otherwise I'd be writing about politics, or traffic, or something else. Well, first of all, I kind of wound up where I did because I reported on sports in college, and that naturally brought me to covering sports professionally. Moreover, part of the reason I love writing about baseball so much is that it forces you to not only master not only baseball, but also gain an understanding of medicine, finance, law and myriad other topics. I'm in Washington right now, equally excited to cover two Congressional hearings as I am to hear the pop of ball against glove later this week.
But on the 26th, I'll be shouting (to myself), "Go Blue!" The Mets take on the University of Michigan (Fred Wilpon's alma mater, and mine, too) in an exhibition game. I could never cover the Wolverines, since I still do live and die with their results. In that case, I am most definitely a fan. But for no other sports team.
E-mail
Facebook
Digg
Delicious
Comments (9)
the "no comment" is probably due to the fact that rocker went into an employee assistance paln, which is supposed to remain prvate.
1. Orza's "no comment" got to me, too.
2. RMT's explanation makes sense.
3. When I stated that Ken must be a fan, I meant a fan of the game, not a particular team. Reporters aren't supposed to be fans of specific teams - at least not to the extent it colors their judgment. Ken mentions that political reporters are also supposed to live by this creed. Too bad many of them don't.
4. Ken has the greatest job in the world. Who wouldn't love going out to the ballpark every day/night. He gets to be a kid his whole life.
Ken, I still haven't forgiven them for striking and ruining the game. But you know this, fans will always complain about how bias you and any other reporter is. I remember being 15 and Mets fan swearing Vin Scully was rooting for the Red Sox and the Sox fans (before they were called Red Sox Nation) believing he was rooting for the Mets.
But I have a question for you. Do you ever find yourself rooting for a team because a player is a great guy, or has been through a rough ordeal? Or against a player for being a jerk?
I hate when fans switch allegiences, but I've become a pretty big Packer fan because of Brett Favre. Just like I became a Bills fan (during the Super Bowl years) because they kept fightihng through adversity. Sometimes you cant help yourself.
and a cheap plug for Ken - everyone should read his piece on B12 and HgH and their ineffectiveness when used independenetly.
Thanks, RMT! You're probably right about Orza, although why didn't he call out Rocker for the part about Rangers/union officials instructing the players on steroid usage?
Richie, I'll admit, I am human: There are times when I'm happy for a particularly good guy who does well, or when I'm not particularly upset that a bad guy played poorly.
as for not calling out Rocker, you don't discuss facts with a trailer-park psycho.
I think Don Fehr is going to address the Rocker matter himself. The union is holding off until then. Rocker is off his rocker and might be one of the few people with higher "negative ratings" than Jose Canseco. Is there anyone out there who was surprised to hear that players were using steroids/HGH? I would have liked Mitchell to concentrate on MLB, front office, coaching staff and medical staff people who knew, facilitated, encouraged or covered up use/abuse. That would have been news. Oh, that's right, Selig never would have had to the guts to pursue such an investigation, and neither would have Sir George Mitchell. Congress should focus on that, not talking to Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee. Let's get Wendy Selig and the other owners, GMs, etc., in the dock under oath and hear what they have to say.
Jim, love the Mitchell-bashing! I do have to say, in Congress' defense: They really were not intending to have this hearing tomorrow. They wanted to do Mitchell-Selig-Fehr and take a bow. But when Clemens kept pushing the issue, they apparently figured a) since we're taking credit for the Mitchell Report, we might as well look into this; and b) how can we pass up this public-relations gift?
Ken, unfortunately, my sworn testimony under oath and before multiple independent Congressional witnesses indicates that I cannot specifically recall attending that Mets game 30 years ago. But I can say that I was similarly swayed by the Yanks of the late 70s relative to the Mets at that time.
Jim, you are definitely on to something... but if everyone "in charge" were subpoenaed to testify, we would have a bigger takedown than the global mafia and hence no one left to pitch and catch.