Designing my "History of U.S. Sports" syllabus: Looking for good stories

[Dalberov]

Originally Posted by TheFrenzy

All fantastic suggestions. I've added most of them to my running list of examples for each lecture topic.

Question: I'm wracking my brain today trying to think of all the different kinds of sports narratives we like to tell in describing players, games, seasons, and career?. Things like the comeback, the dynasty, the upset, the underdog/cinderella, David v Goliath, the slump, the barnburner, the slugfest, the GOAT, etc.

What are some others?

I can think of an old one in baseball. First division and second division when describing a team’s general place in the standings before there were divisions. For example, the Yankees were primarily a first division team in the 1950’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Saraste]

There is one player that is absolute mandatory to more than just mention as he changed all of professional team sports: Curt Flood.

[YouTheManNick]

What I wanna know is have you taught or are you ever going to teach a class on ska?

[justrun7]

Originally Posted by TheFrenzy

All fantastic suggestions. I've added most of them to my running list of examples for each lecture topic.

Question: I'm wracking my brain today trying to think of all the different kinds of sports narratives we like to tell in describing players, games, seasons, and career?. Things like the comeback, the dynasty, the upset, the underdog/cinderella, David v Goliath, the slump, the barnburner, the slugfest, the GOAT, etc.

What are some others?

The Yips, The What If's, Comparing players across era's (probably falls under GOAT), how players play in big situations or games, ultra hyped prospects

[preakness]

Very neat class. I'd probably take it if I were still in college.
Think anyone on student loans and don't plan on paying back their loans shouldn't be taking classes like this

[TheFrenzy]

Originally Posted by Saraste

There is one player that is absolute mandatory to more than just mention as he changed all of professional team sports: Curt Flood.

Flood and Catfish Hunter are absolutely key pieces in the story of player agency. SABR has a great lengthy article on Flood.

Originally Posted by YouTheManNick

What I wanna know is have you taught or are you ever going to teach a class on ska?

No. But I have chatted with Heather Augustyn, one of the few historians who have written on the genre.

Originally Posted by justrun7

The Yips, The What If's, Comparing players across era's (probably falls under GOAT), how players play in big situations or games, ultra hyped prospects

To go down a bit of a rabbit-hole...

I absolutely loathe the opposition to "What If's" and counterfactual discussions. I know one SI writer once wrote: "Going down these hypothetical roads distracts from the reality that Webber did call that timeout, the Pistons drafted Darko Milicic, Bartman deflected that ball and became a scapegoat, Jackson’s body failed him, Jordan left to play baseball, Gretzky went to L.A., and Brady took over, leading the Patriots to the first of its three Super Bowl wins. Those are all exceedingly compelling stories in their own right. We can’t isolate an event, turn it on its head, pretend that everything else remains constant -- it can’t --- and construct any meaningful narrative around it."

But I 100% disagree.

I disagree because I know that the origin of such anti-What If thinking comes from modernity's obsession with determinism—both scientific (we're nothing but matter in motion and therefore choice and human agency are illusions) and sociological (the individual is at the mercy of larger social/economic/political forces and their choices are irrelevant).

I believe that we enter dangerous territory when we erase human agency and the individual's ability to make meaningful choices. My university email signature features the quote by M. Scott Peck: "The whole course of human history may depend on a change of heart in one solitary and even humble individual - for it is in the solitary mind and soul of the individual that the battle between good and evil is waged and ultimately won or lost."

And so, because I believe that individuals can and do make choices that matter, I believe a vital function of the historian is to provide some sense of how those alternative choices may have played out. Not to indulge in escapism or make believe, but to add a very real sense of weight to the choices that were made.

Example: The Dallas Cowboys' decision to pass on WR Randy Moss in the 1998 draft matters precisely because we recognize that it is entirely reasonable to believe that Moss would have had a more productive career as a Cowboy than DE Greg Ellis (who was pretty good himself) and would have altered the trajectory of the franchise.

But if we cut ourselves off from considering "what if's", then we undermine everything from choice (because all that matters is what did happen) to intention (because now we can only judge actions by what they led to rather than in comparison to the choices available at that moment) and find ourselves helpless amidst a rigid universe of determinism and consequentialism.

[HickryHornDevil]

Originally Posted by justrun7

how players play in big situations or games

"In the Zone"

Staring MJ, an athlete being unstoppable regardless
what defense is tried to stop them.

[ScooterD]

Explain to the the significance of the Bobby Bonilla contract or how Jeff Samardzija has made $125M with his stats

[salthill]

Originally Posted by TheFrenzy

To go down a bit of a rabbit-hole...

I absolutely loathe the opposition to "What If's" and counterfactual discussions. I know one SI writer once wrote: "Going down these hypothetical roads distracts from the reality that Webber did call that timeout, the Pistons drafted Darko Milicic, Bartman deflected that ball and became a scapegoat, Jackson’s body failed him, Jordan left to play baseball, Gretzky went to L.A., and Brady took over, leading the Patriots to the first of its three Super Bowl wins. Those are all exceedingly compelling stories in their own right. We can’t isolate an event, turn it on its head, pretend that everything else remains constant -- it can’t --- and construct any meaningful narrative around it."

But I 100% disagree.

I disagree because I know that the origin of such anti-What If thinking comes from modernity's obsession with determinism—both scientific (we're nothing but matter in motion and therefore choice and human agency are illusions) and sociological (the individual is at the mercy of larger social/economic/political forces and their choices are irrelevant).

I disagree on your initial reading of the SI writer’s point. It isn’t that everything - including the original subject of the what-if - is predetermined.

It’s that that very moment and choice ripples outwards and impacts so many other choices and decisions and actions and happenings, that you can’t freeze just one and then investigate “ceterus paribus”. All other things don’t remain equal.

[TheFrenzy]

Originally Posted by salthill

I disagree on your initial reading of the SI writer’s point. It isn’t that everything - including the original subject of the what-if - is predetermined.

It’s that that very moment and choice ripples outwards and impacts so many other choices and decisions and actions and happenings, that you can’t freeze just one and then investigate “ceterus paribus”. All other things don’t remain equal.

You are correct in that that is the justification given by that particular writer.

I used that writer as an example because they were writing specifically within the context of sports, but the historiographical opposition to counterfactuals (historians like Evans and Tucker) is typically grounded in arguments of determinism.

As for this particular writer’s that it is impossible for any what-if to be meaningful because any changed variable will immediately produce other changes and make interpretation impossible—it’s not totally wrong, but it is very heavy handed and it also has the effect of distorting our sense causality within even factual history. If tracing cause-and-effect is really as wildly unpredictable as they claim, then our very ability to construct meaningful narratives from history breaks downs. We can no longer assign much importance to Webber caling timeout, Gretzky going to LA, or Tom Brady taking over because (according to their argument) so many other variables are pouring into the mix that tracing any kind of sustained and meaningful causal connection from those isolated events to future outcomes is impossible.

Thank you for forcing this clarification. I needed to think through your/the writer’s point in greater depth.