Joe Leathersich: So, I want to talk about the affinity baseball has with “tradition.” This is a game that has not changed significantly compared to other sports. What makes me bring it up is how upset everyone got over Yasiel Puig’s celebration - sort of saying that this kid needs to earn his keep and that he’s cocky. What do you guys think of the new wave of athletes? Taylor Frank: I think the problem goes beyond some ill-founded hatred for kids being arrogant.

Nick Preller: I personally love Puig. But is having a young cocky star new to baseball? Every generation has one, so I don’t see why people are freaking out over Puig.

TF: I agree. Even if that star isn’t necessarily cocky, they are always polarizing. Look at guys like Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle, just to name a few. People either loved them or hated them for the way they played the game, but regardless they brought attention to the sport. In that sense, all publicity is good publicity.

Nate Joseph: Players like Puig are hated by the older crowd. Younger people who love baseball and know the game realize that players like him do not hurt the ratings or anything, but he hurts the clubhouse. Players like Mike Trout are more liked because he is all baseball unlike Bryce Harper. Players like Harper and Puig add excitement. Trout is a team player.

TF: From baseball’s beginning until 1919, the game was constantly changing, and it was good for the game. Since then, there has been very little change to speak of. If baseball wants to keep up with the NBA and NFL, they need to go the way of Harper and Puig.

Rebecca Fitzgerald: I think this topic brings up the argument about whether sports are about the actual competition or entertainment, and it’s not one or the other, but rather, how much?

JL: That is interesting. But it’s hard to distinguish the difference, I think. I agree it’s not one or the other, but doesn’t better competition bring more entertainment?

RF: I think it depends on the fans. Personally, I don’t find mixed martial arts entertaining, but it’s still competition. The exception is with the young athletes who naturally bring that excitement to the game, regardless of the sport.

NJ: The real thing is how much flash each player brings. In every sport you have players who play for themselves and others who play for their team. This is why Puig has gotten such negativity. Also, when looking at the NFL, you see that players show off more than any other league. Why is that? Is it their nature or the sport?

TF: I would argue that baseball is suffering from a lack of competition. The [St. Louis] Cardinals are going into their fourth World Series in the last decade, and many fans are not happy about this. Ratings will suffer even more than usual. I think the reason you see players in the NFL and NBA show off more is that those are more individualized sports. In baseball, unless you are the pitcher, you have four or five chances to be in the spotlight per game, and the best of all time only take true advantage of that spotlight a third of the time.

JL: I like this point. There is [more] “pretentiousness” to baseball than the NBA or NFL. I think about this kind of thing when I watch tennis. Why can’t the fans be going buck wild and screaming their heads off when they’re at a match?

NJ: The thing with baseball and tennis is that they are traditional sports that have stood the test of time, and the majority of fans don’t see anything wrong with the way that they go about. This being said, the times have changed. Players in baseball and even tennis are becoming flashier and doing more “modern” things you would not see in the past.

NP: I love seeing these nontraditional guys excel in their sports. It’s what everyone wants to see, even if they don’t agree with their actions. People want to be entertained, and these athletes do just that. Even if it is controversial, there is a case to be made about going against the grain and being as flashy as possible. It really only helps them in the long run, as they will become a polarizing figure for their sport leading to endorsements and bigger coverage.

Leathersich: I absolutely consider this year a success for Tiger [Woods]. He has five wins on the Tour, and he is the money leader at $8.5 million. He finished top 10 in two of the four majors. It is not the “old Tiger” everyone wants, but that guy is gone. This is the new Tiger and he is still head and shoulders above the rest of the field. Frank: I agree it would be a success for anyone else, but this is arguably the greatest golfer to ever play the game. He didn’t perform well by any means at the PGA or The Open, and he severely underperformed in the playoffs. For him, that is a failure, no matter what he says about it.

Preller: He hasn’t won a major in five years, so until he wins another one, there will always be people doubting his ability to perform in big situations like he once did.

Rhodes: For me it is more about his upward trending than tournament wins. He has returned to a form where he is in the hunt in almost every tournament he participates in. The last few years have been a downward slope, and I finally think that he has changed his trajectory.

Eisinger: With the sheer amount of stress that Tiger’s been through, even if he did bring it on himself, the fact that he has been able to put most of it behind him and play well at all is pretty remarkable.

Frank: But now that it is behind him, he should be able to win at least one major. He is currently with Lindsey Vonn; he should be currently winning majors.

Preller: He was just awarded the Vardon Trophy, which goes to the player with the lowest stroke average on the Tour. So clearly his game is still there, and his ability to play well hasn’t gone away. That said, he looked very tired at the end of the Tour and really struggled late in rounds.

Leathersich: The whole scandal took a lot out of him, needless to say. The fact that he is back in the hunt is remarkable, as [Eisinger] said. Only the greatest in the world could do that. Another point, too, is that since he came on Tour and set the standard, the field has significantly improved, which is another reason why I don’t think we will ever see him blowing away the competition.

Eisinger: I completely agree. While perhaps the younger players aren’t quite as good yet as Phil Mickelson was, there are a lot more people who are able to challenge Tiger on any weekend.

Rhodes: Is it possible that Tiger’s career is simply winding down? His first money title came 16 years ago. That is a long time to maintain his status as the world’s best golfer.

Frank: Regardless, it is still not a success for him. Just because he’s getting older and the competition is getting better doesn’t mean that he has an excuse to not outperform himself. When you’re the best at something, you need to beat yourself to achieve success. I do agree that he may be in the twilight of his career though.

Preller: I think Tiger is in a very comfortable place right now. While there is some great young competition, there seems to be a lack of a single star emerging. Everyone thought Rory [Mcllroy] would be one a couple of years ago, but he has struggled since. Right now Tiger is still the king of golf and should be for at least a few more years.

Eisinger: And let’s not forget, arguably the greatest golfer of all time, Jack Nicklaus, won his last major title at age 46. If he can do it, Tiger definitely can.

Leathersich: He absolutely is the best of all time. I can comfortably say that I would not be into golf if it were not for Tiger. His time on Tour is deemed the “Tiger era” for what he did to the game.

Preller: General consensus seems to be that he had a great year, and we know he can do even better.

Rhodes: I would agree that after the past few Tour seasons, one can deem this a “good” year. But for a golfer of Tiger’s caliber, there will always be questions surrounding his status unless he wins another major.

Frank: I agree that Tiger had a “good” year, but I don’t think “good” is successful for Tiger. I don’t think he will be happy until he has another major win.

Eisinger: This year was a definite improvement over the past few, so I would say that it is a success. However, if the same thing happens next year, it will not be.

Leathersich: I think this year was a success for him relative to the field, his success in recent seasons among other things. I agree that he needs to build off of this year and come out to take a major next year. If he does that, I think it goes without saying that [this] year could be considered a success.

Sections

Information