Fun stuff from Phil Mushnick of the Post: he hates the fact that Robinson Cano doesn’t hustle. And he hates it even more that the Yankees broadcasters at YES don’t call Cano out for it. Really, he lays into the network for not noticing this, accusing them of being the Yankees’ Pravda or something:
So is the silence of Yankee TV commentators who for some reason — perhaps a lack of guidance from YES management or YES’ fear of having to hear from Yankee management — feel that we don’t know good baseball from bad … Yet, the Yankee TV guys, Ken Singleton, David Cone and Lou Piniella, ignored what had just happened. They passed on Cano’s inconceivable disregard for playing winning baseball before they even had a chance to change the subject. Piniella, three-time Manager of the Year for crying out loud, said nothing! Standard Cano, followed by standard TV indulgence.
I guess Mushnick doesn’t watch every game — or else he doesn’t read HBT — because if he did he would have remembered that just a couple of weeks ago YES’ Michael Kay spent a long time going after Cano for not hustling down the line. Oh well, I guess it doesn’t count if the only one doing it is the LEAD BROADCASTER ON THE NETWORK.
Not that it should matter. Joe Girardi has been asked about Cano’s habit of not running out 4-3 grounders at full speed all the time and Girardi says he doesn’t care. Nor should he, given that Cano is the one superstar he’s got who has been consistently healthy and given that the dude is hitting .307/.386/.510.
Maybe the failure to give 110% when it doesn’t matter is bothersome to people, but I’ll take that line and some occasional jogging over a guy who busts it down the line in the course of making far more outs or a guy who pulls a hamstring in the name of empty, showy hustle.
Ben Schulman wrote a long, interesting article about stadium architecture over at The Hardball Times today. He asks us to consider the old concrete donut stadiums — multipurpose parks like Three Rivers and The Vet — and to think about what we have gained by their near-extinction. And what we’ve lost.
The article starts out with what I feared would be too much misplaced nostalgia for the Brutalist, functional places that no longer exist outside of Oakland, with the now de rigueur references to astroturf and weird 1970s baseball. It backs away from that early on, though, and presents what I feel is a thoughtful look at the various approaches to building a ballpark. Stadium geeks and architecture geeks will find much to love here.
From a personal perspective, I have a love/hate relationship with newer parks. I spent a good deal of time going to places like Riverfront Stadium when I was a kid and do not miss them at all. But I also think there have been a lot of missteps in the last 25 years or so too.
Most new parks are pleasant and comfortable places to take in a ballgame, but so many of them are totally unimaginative and uninspiring from an architectural point of view. I am not fan of nostalgia, and so many of them — particularly the ones built in the 90s — were fueled by a great deal of misguided retro-ism that looks backwards. I suspect this is the case because either (a) no one had the guts or vision to look forward; and/or (b) they felt they could make easier bucks by catering to people who think everything went to hell once Eisenhower left office than by doing something bold. To be fair, there are examples of newer parks that eschew the faux old-timey vibe to greater degrees — Target Field in Minneapolis and Marlins Park in Miami come to mind — and I tend to prefer those to more backward-looking places. Again, architecturally speaking.
I think the sweet spot — and the linked article touches on this a bit — are ballparks which think bigger than the bland and dreary functionalism of the 1960s and 70s but which eschew derivative, traditionalist approaches. Parks which were built with then-modern sensibilities and saw their vision through without compromise. Dodger Stadium is a fine, modernist example of this. So too is Kauffman Stadium in Kansas City, about which I wrote a few years ago. They had a great opportunity to do this in Chicago in the late 80s but muffed it. I think Marlins Park could fall into that category if (a) there is ever anything approaching memorable baseball there; and (b) if they stop being afraid of its bold aspects and stop trying to turn it into a vanilla monument to its vanilla owner. The common denominator, I suppose, is that these parks weren’t and aren’t trying to cater to the childhoods of local fans.
Anyway, good read on a slow news day.