More Proof the "Me" Plan Does Not Work—From Baseball!

We were awed by the drama and excitement of the final day of baseball's regular season: three remarkably dramatic wins that determined playoff teams and, in two of them, historic events that truly defied all logic and probability.

Today, the day after, we read quotes from players reacting to the games. And we were struck—once again, unfortunately—by the self-centered attitudes of these athletes. But upon further review, we realized those selfish thoughts may not be unrelated to losing.

Three Boston players offered shockingly selfish reactions to their loss and, moreover, their team's amazing September collapse. Two were mentioned in Boston Globe sportswriter Dan Shaughnessy's piece today.

Carl Crawford had a chance to prolong last night's game but missed a sliding catch on the game-ending hit; he evaluated the play this way: “If I should have caught it, I could have caught it." 

Huh? 

Putting aside the fact that this may not in fact be English—it certainly isn't coherent thought—Crawford doesn't come close to taking responsibility. Not really my fault, is what he's essentially saying in a disturbingly bizarre way.

Adrian Gonzalez took the "higher" route to irresponsibility: "“God has a plan,’’ he said. “And it wasn’t God’s plan for us to be in the playoffs.’’ Shaughnessy's one- word reaction to this: "Wow." We can't say it any better.

The Globe also reported that 45-year-old pitcher Tim Wakefield, when asked if he would play again next year, said he wanted to come back to break the record for most wins in team history. He said nothing—not one word—about helping the team win.

Hmm. Three key players saying nothing about their roles and responsibilities as teammates . . . and then their team goes out and loses in an epic way. Coincidence? We think not.

Perhaps the most shocking lack of character was shown yesterday by the Mets' Jose Reyes, who asked out of a game in the very first inning so he had a better chance of winning the batting title. Reyes' act is indefensible; his level of arrogance and disrespect, to teammates and fans alike, tells you everything you need to know about him. (The Mets season was marked by rampant losing and organizational disarray.)

When your team includes players who are more focused on individual priorities, your team chemistry suffers. By definition, you're playing as less of a team. 

We won't suggest reasons for the "Me First" approach because there may be societal, economic and personal forces in play here. We will suggest, however, that when you put on a uniform (or join a company of any kind) you might want to think big picture first. Why? It's simple: If the team wins you win. How that could be considered anything but a positive outcome, for the group and for the individuals, escapes us. 

Our Positively Writing view is, always, that you get what you give. So we always strive to do the respectful thing, the selfless thing, and we persevere with positive expectations. Always. And when we witness events that are so unexpected, as we did in these baseball games last night, we feel more justified than ever in our approach.

Baseball as a life lesson? Why not? The universe once again is showing us that by giving we'll all be getting what we want—happiness. 

Simple and satisfying, isn't it?

Sports For Dummies?

We love sports. But watching—and especially listening to—sports broadcasts requires the viewer to accept language that is brutally inaccurate, inappropriate and often just plain dumb. Perhaps this is why European football (aka "soccer," around here) increasingly appeals to us here at Positively Writing. England's Premiership announcers use language more correctly, precisely, and more cleverly than do the announcers of American sports.

It's almost too easy to point out silly announcer errors; the web site Awful Announcing has built a business by doing that. So let's go deeper; why do viewers evidently accept the consistently incorrect use of language during games?

We cite three primary reasons. First, let's turn things around and look not at the announcers, but at the viewers. No need to tense-up sports fans; just keep an open mind.

Many (perhaps most) sports fans are not overly concerned with announcer syntax during games they watch. We would venture that highly precise language might in fact distract viewers. Here's why: Sporting events are decidedly informal gatherings. Alcohol often is consumed; massive amounts of alcohol often are consumed. When that happens, the brain, the nervous system, and general awareness levels are operating on less-than-optimum levels. Larger stimuli will logically make an impact; more subtle stimuli do not.

So if an announcer states "The Cowboys offensive line has three first-time starters, which begs the question . . . " most sub-optimized viewers don't particularly care that "begs the question" is completely misused. They (the Cowboys haters) instead salivate at the thought of their team's defensive-line stunts that will confuse those new starters and KO Tony Romo for another season. Larger stimuli.

The viewers are into the experience, not the framing of the experience with precision language. So the announcers and their networks do not receive negative feedback, even though it is warranted in many, many cases. Hence, thorough elucidation not required.

The second reason: Many announcers are ex-athletes who have not, shall we say, matriculated with particular urgency at their respective institutes of higher learning. The true scholar-athlete—the Bill Bradley or the Pat Haden—is not merely the exception. He is scarce to the point of near non-existence. So we'll not get a seriously studied delivery from the athlete-announcer . . . which fits just fine into the aforementioned "informal" game-time experience.

The third reason language gets abused during sports broadcasts: Language also gets abused in the surrounding media environment (i.e., advertising pre-, during, and post-game). Advertisers are pretty good at targeting their messages, especially those in sports-related broadcasts. They, too, know that informal is better. In this case, informal sells better. So they keep the language loose and focus on monitoring sales, not monitoring Twitter comments about misplaced modifiers in their :30 commercials. If the brand is thriving, the language is acceptable, they seem to be saying.

To be sure, some sports writing is highly competent and technically correct. But it is striking how infrequently we see it; the almost incomprehensible, sheer volume of sports banter across all media channels is staggering, so even if 10% (we're skeptical) is done well, it's swallowed by the typically insipid, bombastic blather of the sporting media landscape.

So it seems we purists might pay more attention to Man United–Chelsea matches that the Yankee–Red Sox games. (For the record we'll restate a recent Tweet of ours: Barcelona's Lionel Messi is approaching a "greatest ever" level, one that may surpass Gretzky, Jordan, Montana and all the rest.) And while we'll always advocate for strong, clear communication, we recognize it's not a high priority for the average sports fan. That's too bad, because we're all for doing the right things, and we view respecting the language as one of those right things.

Final thought sports fans: You win with fundamentals, correct? Well, what could be more fundamental than communicating correctly? As the new NFL season approaches, think about that. Right after you stop thinking about Tony Romo getting sacked again. And again. And again . . .