10,000. It's a number that everyone around here is talking about. It refers to the historical number of losses the Philadelphia Phillies are approaching in the 120-some odd years of their existence. At the time this is being written, the number stands at 9,997. And probably shortly after the All Star break (if they it doesn't happen this weekend against the Rockies) they will be the first franchise in all of sports to reach that "milestone." While this obviously shows that the Phils have been a pretty mediocre franchise, the number really shouldn't have so much meaning today. Here's why:
- First of all, it is really kind of pointless to add "...in all of sports" to the statement "first franchise ever." No other sport comes close to the history of baseball. It's called America's pastime for a reason. When the Phillies played their first game in 1883 the population of Philadelphia was about 900,000, and the country was still recovering from the Civil War. That is a long time to accumulate losses for any franchise. Now, if any other sport played as many games per year, for as many years, as baseball then it would be more meaningful.
- The Phillies aren't that far in "front" of the competition. The Atlanta Braves are in 2nd place on the all time losses list with 9,677. Granted, the Braves have been around longer, but the Braves are widely considered a much much better franchise.
- And finally, while all those losses are contributed to one official franchise, there have been countless different teams and a number of different owners, presidents, managers, and coaches. This current rendition of the Phils has indeed contributed to the loss total, but they have so little to do with the total number, it doesn't even make sense to connect the two entities.
Yes, the Phillies have been a pretty dreadful franchise, but what does it have to do with the here and now? Not much. The number that should be concentrated on is one - as in one championship in 124 years. But not in the terms of success or failure; rather in terms of statistical improbability. Odds tell us that the Phils should've won about four rings in their history, just by chance. Now that's interesting. What's even more interesting is the fact that the city of Philadelphia has continued to stand behind this team throughout it all. Whatever number you want to use, 10,000 or 1, both numbers prove that Philadelphia has the best fans in sports, and we deserve a little slack when we boo, heckle, or throw snowballs at Santa.
2 comments:
"And finally, while all those losses are contributed to one official franchise, there have been countless different teams and a number of different owners, presidents, managers, and coaches. This current rendition of the Phils has indeed contributed to the loss total, but they have so little to do with the total number, it doesn't even make sense to connect the two entities."
For me, this is really what we are talking about. Its so difficult to make the assertion that there is something that necessarily correlates a previous incarnation of a sports team to a future incarnation of the
"same" team.
The "identity" of a sports franchise really is a questionable thing, at best. But as you point out, the "identity" of a franchise's fans is a more coherent and somewhat reasonable idea.
Sports fans seem to operate under a, kind of, "imagined" identity. And I don't mean that as harshly as it sounds. We, "as a city", (don't even get me started on the nationalization of geographic vicinities, or the nationalization of sports, for that matter) (Although, I guess I am already started on that). Where was I? Oh yeah.
We, "as a city", imagine a narrative that follows our favorite team, year after year, the narrative embodies an imagined spirit, that goes along with a team, despite drastic changes in coaches, owners, star-players, supporting players, venues, even cities.
But the thing that is being used to draw this identity, comes from the fans themselves,(fine, and the media). What narrative is told about a team? How does that forge its persona/identity? Its almost a self-fulfilling prophecy.
That is until we account for the actual performance of the team. Obviously, that makes things a little more complicated. And this is where my biggest question, relative to this article, at least, comes in.
I am hesitant to question this, because as we both know, you know alot more about the issue of sports, but here goes:
You mentioned the probability of the Phil's winning more than one championship in 124 years. And I really have to wonder if we can talk like that about a game of skill.
Now, I understand, with balancing factors in play, like a draft, that there is a certain element of chance. But doesn't, like 150 games a year help to nullify the statistics in the situation.
Like with poker, yes, the cards you are dealt matter, and they definitely affect play. But over time, even if you get improbably bad cards, your skill is ultimately accountable.
It may seem like I am making your point for you, (and who knows? Maybe I am.), but what I am getting at is, why even bring up probabilities in this issue? Bad luck isn't statistically significant. Improbable performance is just that : performance.
Or am I missing something?
Ideally, every team has the opportunity to be the best team in the league. I understand that is not the actual situation, with certain cities having more "pull" for the better players. But this being the case, Philadelphia should have more pull than any other city other than the New Yorks, Chicagos, and LAs. While each team doesn't have the same probability to win it all each year, over the years teams get better and other teams get worse. So I guess I just assumed that over 124 years, it would average out. Anyway, I'm not sure where I'm going with this. I guess I am so mind boggled by the fact that they won one championship in 124 years.
Post a Comment