David Ortiz, Shane Victorino, the bullpen cop and “one lucky fan” will shave on Monday

12 Comments

I just got an email from a P.R. person about some event Gillette is putting on Monday in which some of the Red Sox’ beards will be shaved:

Following the World Series victory, Gillette is helping champions, MVP David Ortiz, Shane Victorino, Boston Police Officer Steve Horgan and one lucky bearded fan trim down and shave off their rugged beards at the Gillette World Shaving Headquarters … Gillette is helping Ortiz and Victorino feel their best with well-deserved shaves. The hometown heroes will start their offseason as champions well groomed and shaved.

I presume David Ross and Jonny Gomes went fully feral after Wednesday night and can’t be captured and shaved.

I also presume that, since there is a “World Shaving Headquarters,” all of us have been shaving at field offices. Who knew?

But don’t bother changing your plans for Monday to go watch the shaving. The press release says the event is “open to media only.” I’d go, but man, I figure the throngs of reporters will be so great that I won’t even be able to see what’s going on.

In other news: Fight the Power.

Consider the Concrete Donut

Getty Images
3 Comments

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.