Today, Scoop Jackson tells the entire city of Cleveland they are NOT cursed because Chicago is a much more cursed town. See, Scoop is from Chicago and they KNOW curses. The city of Chicago only has 7 major titles since 1991. Now THAT'S a curse. I bet the Blackhawks won't win the Stanley Cup Finals this year, not because of skill, but because they are just so fucking cursed. I guess if you convince yourself a team losing has nothing to do with skill it makes you feel better about having a team that loses. I don't get it, I always find someone to blame for the loss. Finger pointing is much more fun than blaming curses for me...but not for Scoop.
Do you know who is really cursed? Anyone who has to read an article about a team being cursed. So I am sorry for writing this.
I have two friends, one named Vincent, the other Jamal. They are from Cleveland.
I have two friends, one named Idont, the other Giveashit. They don't tell stories about their friends as way to introduce a column as if these two opinions are representative for how an entire city feels.
And instead of facing the facts surrounding why another of their beloved teams bit the dust, they have decided to wallow neck-deep into the concept that as far as sports are concerned their city is cursed.
"And how dare they wallow in their self-pity and feel like they are cursed. Because I am from Chicago where we are really, really cursed. You can see we are cursed by the fact I am telling you we are cursed right now."
I'm from the Chi (Chicago, for those slangology-impaired), land of the Cubs. We know curses.
One team out of the five major sports franchises Chicago hasn't won a championship and a long time and now the entire city lays claim to being cursed. It's like Scoop is begging for others to give him some pity. I don't pity you Scoop...though I do pity those who like your writing.
And what they're talking in Cleveland, that's not a curse. That's victimization. There's a difference between the two.
The difference? A curse isn't real and victimization is. Obviously this means in the area of sports the non-real "curse" should be widely recognized as deserving sympathy while the quite-real idea of victimization shall get widely mocked by Scoop.
A curse is something that happens out of the ordinary. Something that makes no sense that helps continue a trend that goes beyond explanation.
What is the trend that Scoop refers to here and what is it caused by? My best guess would be victimization or general inability of a team to win a championship. So at the heart of it, a cursed team (which doesn't exist) is a lousy team that had some media-conceived event attributed to their losing. Therefore every time that team has bad luck, it will be attributed to the curse. So curses are all media-created as I suspected.
Like asking a man to remove his goat from the ballpark and him saying because of that the team isn't "gonna win no more," and they don't.
Actually, that's just a bullshit reason to pin the Cubs losing on something other than the team not being good enough to win a World Series in a long, long time.
Or a fan's interference on a foul ball causing one of the greatest downward spirals (chokes) in modern sports history.
Fans interfere with the action sometimes. The Yankees had fan interference help them in 1996 and for some reason the Orioles aren't seen as cursed because of what Jeffrey Maier did in 1996 when he caught Jeter's fly-ball in the field of play and it got turned into a home run by a blind umpire. Why did that event not curse the Orioles?
The foul ball deflected by Steve Bartman did not cause the downward spiral for the Cubs on the field, it was the Cubs crappy starting and relief pitching that gave up 8 runs. Hell, even Moises Alou doesn't know if he could have caught the ball. There was no curse in play here. The Cubs blew the game because of poor mental strength and even worse relief pitching. At least Scoop acknowledged the Cubs choked, but if they choked then they weren't cursed. I mean, right?
Did the Curse of Bartman extend to Game 7 when the Cubs again lost to the Marlins at home to end the series? Why is it that Scoop is taking a perfectly explainable event (Mark Prior started pitching poorly, the Cubs bullpen melted down and the Cubs choked in Game 7) and making it a rare event that changed the course of history? Yes, Bartman picked a bad time to deflect a fly-ball, but there is no reason 8 runs should have scored in that inning. Bartman's fly-ball deflection wasn't the beginning of the rally for the Marlins, but merely an event that preceded the meltdown of the Cubs pitching.
I find it amazing Scoop can ignore plenty of baseball-related reasons why the Cubs lost Game 6 and chalk it up to the one non-baseball-related reason the Cubs lost.
The Cubs didn't lose because Mark Prior melted down during the inning, it wasn't because Mark Prior threw a wild pitch to Castillo later in the at-bat, it wasn't the fact the Cubs bullpen couldn't get the Marlins out, and the Cubs didn't lose because in Game 7 Kerry Wood got batted around early in the game or the pitching staff gave up nine runs. What would that have to do with the Cubs loss? It was definitely the fly ball that was/was not catchable for Alou that made the difference.
But when Willie Mays makes a spectacular catch, when John Elway leads a team on a legendary drive, when Michael Jordan hits a series-winning shot at the buzzer, those are not out of the ordinary!
When Kerry Wood gets batted around in the 1st inning of Game 7, when Mark Prior throws a wild pitch, when Ivan Rodriguez gets a base hit that drives in a run, when Derrick Lee doubles to bring home two more runs, when the Cubs pitching staff again fails to stop the Marlins from scoring nine runs in Game 7...these aren't out of the ordinary either.
Those three plays are arguably one of the top three signature plays for each of these Hall of Fame athletes. They were plays that were out of the ordinary, even for these three players.
Those are plays executed by three of the greatest players to ever play in their respective sports. Those are things they were supposed to do.
So the only players who are supposed to succeed in key situations are players who aren't the greatest ever to play their sports? How come Scoop doesn't use this same argument to show why the Cubs aren't cursed? Moises Alou, Alex Gonzalez, Mark Prior, and Kyle Farnsworth aren't the greatest players ever to play their respective sports, so they are supposed to give up runs while pitching, make errors in the field and not catch fly-balls. Not being the greatest players to ever play their sport, they were supposed to fail in big situations.
Those are things that they continued to do throughout their careers, things that made them who they became.
Not true. I am not sure Willie Mays ever made a catch like he did against the Indians in 1954 again, I don't think Michael Jordan ever hit a buzzer beater on as tough of a shot like he did against the Cavs, and I think that drive against the Browns is probably the drive that defined Elway's career. Cleveland teams still lost on once-in-a-lifetime plays. This of course doesn't make them cursed, but to act like Jordan hit game-winners over opposing players while double clutching in mid-air on a weekly basis is just wrong.
Also, for what city did Jordan's Bulls play in? Oh yeah, Chicago. The same city that Scoop Jackson claims is cursed had 6 NBA Titles in the 90's, a World Series title in 2005, the Blackhawks are in the Stanley Cup Finals this year and won a Super Bowl title in 1986. The Cubs have had some bad luck and other issues that led to their World Series drought, but they aren't cursed, and the entire city of Chicago isn't cursed because one of the five sports franchises in the area hasn't won a World Series in a long time.
"But what about when Earnest Byner fumbled the ball?" they'll reply. Sounding like an old Babyface record.
Fumbles are a part of the game. They happen in football.
Errors are part of the game, base hits are part of the game, and wild pitches are part of the game. They happen in baseball. The Bartman deflection didn't lead to ANY runs scoring, it just led to Luis Castillo still being at-bat. What happened after that is all a part of the game of baseball.
The defense or a lack of focus or bad execution causes them.
A lack of focus or execution also causes ALL of the problems that directly led to runs scoring for the Cubs in the 8th inning of Game 6 in 2003.
Now, the timing of Byner's fumble was bad. That's bad luck. That's not part of being diagnosed as cursed.
And how is Bartman's deflection not bad luck for the Cubs?
Translation: If the Red Sox could get over trading Ruth (I know, a stretch), then you all surely should be able to get over trading Colavito. And if you can't, that says more about who the Indians are as an organization than it does the possibility of them being cursed.
I am pretty sure the Red Sox are over trading Babe Ruth by now. If the Cubs can't get over a goat being removed from the field and the owner of the goat saying they weren't going to win anymore, and this happened in 1945, this says a hell of a lot more about who the Cubs are as an organization than it does about them being cursed.
A curse is just a media-fabricated angle for a game. It's a desperate attempt to come up with an original story for why a team hasn't won a title in a while. Any team can have something that caused them to lose a game happen to them which can be considered a curse. Pick out an event in the history of a franchise and it could be a curse.
Red Right 88, Edgar Renteria's hit, Grady Sizemore losing the fly ball in the sun, the Carlos Boozer handshake deal, Art Modell: bad call, bad timing, bad defense, bad business, bad owner.
How many times has an NBA player had a handshake deal with a blind owner and then reneged on the deal and signed a more lucrative offer elsewhere? I am pretty sure that only happened once. This is actually an event that has never happened in the history of the NBA before.
For the Cubs the loss to the Marlins in the 8th inning of Game 6 was bad focus, bad pitching, bad fielding, and even worse pitching. These things all happen in the course of the game of baseball. Fans also interfere, but this interference did not directly lead to the Cubs loss, it merely cost the Cubs an out (maybe, depending on if Alou would have caught the ball) and the at-bat went back to exactly where it was the pitch before. There was a clean slate and Mark Prior blew it.
Bad calls are made on the regular; pitchers make bad pitches at the wrong time, which leads hitters to have big hits at the right time for the opposition; players make unforced errors every game;
Right now, Scoop is telling everyone why Cleveland isn't cursed, but he is also undermining his argument the Cubs are cursed because nearly everything he wrote here can go for the Cubs in the 8th inning of 2003 as well.
To impress me, talk to me when your team goes to New York (Shea Stadium) in September leading the NL East pennant race, then someone drops a black cat on the field and that cat makes a beeline for your All-Star third baseman (Ron Santo), stops, stares at him, then heads into your team's dugout where it stares down all the players and your team winds up losing the division to the team in that other dugout (Mets) by eight games.
Have investigated the idea that Cubs players are among the most mentally weak players in the history of baseball? I am not saying this is true, but a black cat can't make your team lose the division by eight games in September. Only really shitty baseball-playing can do that. It seems like for some reason the Cubs players have an event happen them on the field and then completely lose focus. It just feels that way for some reason. It may not be true.
Now that's an ingredient for a curse, my friend.
No, that's a black cat on the field. The Carolina Panthers have a black cat for a mascot. Is the entire franchise cursed? Why hasn't anyone written an article on this yet? Alert ESPN!
That's when you know something more than the game is a possible reason your team (or city) will never win the last game.
That's when you know Scoop Jackson is more interested in making excuses for why the Cubs lost than actually blaming it on the players for playing poorly.
And until something extra absurd happens that is out of the realm of reasonable and conceivable possibility, then all bets are off with the rest of us outside the 216 even honoring your claim to shame.
Is it really out of the realm of reasonable and conceivable possibility that a fan would deflect a fly-ball that was headed his/her way? This is really an argument Scoop Jackson is making? Who would have thought fans who are sitting in seats that don't have a fence around the area that borders the baseball field could have an impact on the game? Other than a rational person of course. Sure, it was bad luck, but Scoop said himself in this very column that bad luck isn't a curse.
2003 isn't even the first time a fan interfering has come into play in a MLB playoff game, so I would say the possibility of a fan interfering was completely reasonable and conceivable...at least until the fans have a barrier that prevents them from leaning into the field of play.
And when that futility mark hits 100 years and counting -- not the measly 46 years you all claim -- then you can call me.
This is the last article Scoop Jackson has written for ESPN.com. Perhaps they fired him after he wrote this. That's not outside the realm of reasonable and conceivable possibility at all.
2003 isn't even the first time a fan interfering has come into play in a MLB playoff game, so I would say the possibility of a fan interfering was completely reasonable and conceivable...at least until the fans have a barrier that prevents them from leaning into the field of play.
And when that futility mark hits 100 years and counting -- not the measly 46 years you all claim -- then you can call me.
This is the last article Scoop Jackson has written for ESPN.com. Perhaps they fired him after he wrote this. That's not outside the realm of reasonable and conceivable possibility at all.
14 comments:
We will all rue the day the Cubs finally win the World Series.
hey, remember when Jason Whitlock called Scoop Jackson a clown?
that was awesome.
"For real? Pa'leeze."
"I'm from the Chi (Chicago, for those slangology-impaired)"
"Sounding like an old Babyface record."
"Bad calls are made on the regular"
"Common should remake his tribute to Ice Cube in your honor."
Peep the metaphor!*
holy shit Scoop Jackson is awful. fucking terrible. hey Scoop, if all the things that have happened to Cleveland "on the regular," how come you don't list any examples of things happening to other teams? it would help you out better than saying, "whoa, a black cat and a goat and Steve Bartman! that shit's crazy, dawg! Chicago is cursed, yo!"
* - direct quote from one of his older columns. warning: the more you think about it, the less sense it makes.
I will rue the day, not because I don't like the Cubs, but for three reasons:
1. The constant talk about the end of the Curse during the World Series and after the World Series.
2. The Cubs bandwagon is going to make the Red Sox bandwagon look incredibly small.
3. Certain Cubs fans (not all of them) could very well gain too much confidence that comes with knowing your team has won the World Series.
Ivn, I do remember that. I love that. I think he also said that Jackson was "bojangling." That was awesome. I don't always agree with Whitlock, but at least he is amusing.
I hate talking about curses, but Scoop had one example, the Bartman situation, and then he threw in a black cat superstition for good measure. Every franchise has something that can make them "cursed." I don't see how it matters the level of player who did something that led to the "curse" makes a difference. There is nothing cursed about the city of Chicago, it is all the Cubs that get that attention.
Of course Scoop lumps the entire city of Chicago in there and has no other examples. I really shouldn't expect him to.
No city that has the greatest basketball player of all time is cursed. I don't care if their baseball team hasn't won in 100 years. I'd trade that for Jordan in a heartbeat.
Dylan, exactly. It is so hard to be a cursed city when your NBA team essentially owned the 90's and one of your two baseball teams just won the World Series. Maybe the Cubs have bad luck, but the city of Chicago is not cursed.
Would I trade 6 titles for one of my teams over a decade for the other team in the same city not winning anything for 100 years. That's tough, but I would lean towards yes.
Did you see Simmons tweet about how he is mad people are saying he jinxed by the Suns by tweeting? This from the guy who no longer live blogs Boston sports because he says he jinxes them. This guy has become a complete parody of himself now.
Anon, I did see that and I was actually going to Tweet something about it, but haven't gotten around to it. It's pretty pointless at this point.
I thought it was hilarious though. This is the same guy who thought a bird shitting on his jacket was good luck in 2004 and that he jinxed the 2008 Patriots by comparing them to the 1986 Celtics.
He is a parody of himself at this point. He can write articles about jinxing teams and blame himself for jinxing the 1986 Red Sox because he taped the game, but if anyone else suggests he jinxes a team, all of a sudden jinxes are all bullshit at that point.
Like always, the rules change for him depending on what he wants them to be.
And of course Bill puts up a mega-mailbag at noon before Memorial Day weekend, thereby assuring I can't get to it for a few days. It's a conspiracy.
I read it and plan on posting something on it, but of course I don't have time right now. Simmons has defeated me again!!!!!!!! This will not stand.
It's funny how Bartman managed to single-handedly destroy the Cubs that year, but no one ever mentions the shortstop misplaying a grounder that should have ended the inning after one run a couple of minutes later. It's more like the Cubs were looking for an excuse to lose and found it in Bartman.
I don't hate the Cubs, but there's no curse, unless you call having a front office that struggles with how to put a baseball team together is a curse.
Let me help you with that Simmons column (same anon as above):
"Rajon Rondo: Can you think of a better position for a 6-foot-3, cat-like, freakishly athletic guy with oversized hands than soccer goalie? I mean, other than point guard? Why do I feel like we could teach Rondo the position in 10 days and he'd instantly become the best goalie in the world?"
Uhh..because you are an idiot who does not know anything about soccer (but thinks he does because he once wrote a column on picking an EPL team to root for)? Goalkeeping is about more than athleticism, its about positioning, communication, knowing when to attack balls and when to stay in the net and distributing balls to start the attack.
Kent, that is exactly right. Alex Gonzalez booted a ground ball and that is what helped continue the rally. Throw in the fact the Cubs gave up 8 RUNS in that inning and this isn't a case of the ball going through Buckner's legs. This is a lot of stuff gone wrong in one inning that isn't just being cursed.
I think the Bartman storyline is much sexier than just saying the Cubs choked.
Anon, thanks for that summation. I hadn't read the entire mailbag quite yet, but I do think it is funny how Bill thinks being a point guard would be perfect for also being a goalie.
I feel stupid for even talking about it, but he may be a good goalie, but not instantly the best in the world after 10 days. That's an insult to all the goalies who have played the position their entire life, to think some guy can learn to play better than them in 10 days. Ugh, I don't want to get too excited quite yet, because I will waste all I have to say for the post I will probably do.
If only he hadn't done it on Memorial Day weekend...Simmons!!!!!
Rondo would have a better chance becoming a world-class midfielder than he would becoming a world-class goalie.
Chris, don't give Bill any ideas. Pretty soon he'll have Rondo as a running back or a safety for the Patriots.
Post a Comment