1
Nice point on the statue. Even lucky with him in that. Usually there's a creative process of figuring out how to portray them in a statue, but he's already supplied a "perfect pose".
What Is It About Felix?
I know, I know, a dirrrrrrrty word
.
Load up on guns
Bring your friends
It’s fun to lose
And to pretend
She’s overboard
And self-assured
I know I know
A dirty word
.
M-Pops axs,
.
Doc, I would love to read your take on what specifically makes Felix such a rare and unique player/personality.
.
As you know, we live to serve :- )
.
=== Dirty Words, Dept. ===
Have you ever contemplated the success rates that the U.S. Army achieves with its boot camp training?
Don't think about it cynically. Think about it intelligently. I mean, supposing somebody gave you an 18-year-old punk foulup to rehab. What do you think you could accomplish in ten weeks? You got it. Nothing. Neither could I. And yet how often does the Army turn these kids into responsible adults? What is their percentage rate, and how long does it take them?
They're doing something right, kiddies. Being a U.S. Soldier still means something. The men and women who have completed boot camp have accomplished something that civilians have not, and they know it.
They spend the rest of their careers parlaying those first achievements into further achievements. Fortune 500 companies respect U.S. military service. It's no small number of women who are attracted to the man in uniform. They know certain things are included in the package when they go out with a Soldier.
.
In boot camp, the U.S. Army instills seven core values. One of these is Loyalty. The Army defines it this way:
.
Bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army, your unit and other Soldiers. Bearing true faith and allegiance is a matter of believing in and devoting yourself to something or someone. A loyal Soldier is one who supports the leadership and stands up for fellow Soldiers. By wearing the uniform of the U.S. Army you are expressing your loyalty. And by doing your share, you show your loyalty to your unit.
If I were the Army, I'd have included the idea of "firm and consistent allegiance in adverse conditions," but okay.
The culture war in America, in the 21st century, rages over whether these virtues even exist, much less whether they should be ideals. Why a man would spend his time persuading his fellow men to be disloyal (or, a-loyal), we'll leave for another time. Suffice it to say that America no longer universally agrees that loyalty is important. What would have been a "given" fifty years ago is now debated, or even forgotten.
Chuck Straub put it this way:
.
Honor and Loyalty, are these two virtues an anachronism of the past. Who in today’s world would put honor ahead of your personal comforts, your job, or your life?
Loyalty? Loyalties are being broken and changed all the time, throughout the world. Many of us make decisions in our lives which strain our loyalties and smear our own honor. To many, they don’t even give it a second thought. Do whatever is the easiest at the time. It suits your purposes just fine. Why worry about anyone else? Is there anyone left that keeps their loyalty through thick and thin?
.
Obviously you can make an argument that no athlete owes his original club loyalty - or in fact anything at all. The club was acting exclusively in its self-interest when it prepared the athlete for stardom, right? (Wrong.)
You can make similar arguments that a Soldier owes his country nothing; the Army was acting exclusively in its self-interest when training, paying, and feeding the Soldier, right? (Wrong.)
You can make arguments that nobody owes anybody anything. People in fact do make these arguments. How many blogs are going to discuss "loyalty" with respect to Felix? It's a dirty word, seen as an unfair indictment of those who made different choices.
Hopefully we re-think the concept of Virtue when we have our first child.
.
We grope around trying to figure out what it is that attracts us to Felix' personality. That's because, for civilians in America, the concept of Loyalty is all but forgotten.
Felix appreciates everything the Seattle Mariners have done for him since the age of 16. He doesn't sneer and wave it away as nothing more than enlightened self-interest. He takes into consideration the fact that they have provided him a warm, nurturing home, and he feels obligation for past loyalty they have extended to him.
Loyalty as an Ideal is fading. Here we see a sudden and vivid example of it burst into our midst, and we don't quite know what it is that warms our hearts so much, but the sportswriters stand and applaud anyway.
Believe me, I can remember in the 1970's when many writers questioned the character of a player who would leave his original team in free agency. And we're talking about sportswriters here, most of whom are card-carrying revolutionaries in the culture war.
It's perhaps going too far to question ARod's character for blowing off the Mariners the way that he did. Or perhaps not. Our point is a different one - that Loyalty is Good.
.
.
Loyalty is a concept that carries great beauty. Hachiko the Akita dog was in the habit of waiting for his owner at the train station each day. One day the dog's owner died of a brain hemorrhage and didn't show up. Guess how long the dog kept returning each day to greet his owner? Nine years.
That story touches nothing within you? Virtue is an invented concept? Where does the feeling come from? The right side of the brain, the side without words, was the one that told you Hachiko was a beautiful animal. Your 3rd-grade teacher did not impose cultural bias on that side of your brain. Everybody, on every continent, in every century, reacts to Hachiko the same way. (He wound up with a crowd of fans on the train platform.)
That sign outside Safeco, Edgar Martinez Way, that is an object of beauty. Sometimes we might forget what's beautiful about it ... Loyalty can be, like Edmond said in Narnia, "as if a dream within a dream," a childhood memory of a feeling that we can't quite remember the source of.
Do you think that in 2029, Felix' bronze statue will be cast with him doing his Perfect Game dance?
Cheers,
Jeff
Comments
2
Yep, Doc...I love Felix Hernandez unconditionally now because he loves the Mariners unconditionally and because he really believes that he owes the fans, his teammates, and his employers he absolute best at all times. There just aren't many players like that anymore.
And the same was true of Edgar Martinez. That's why, no matter how good RJ or A-Rod or Jr. Griffey ever were, they couldn't be the heart and soul of the Mariners...that was always Edgar...because Edgar bled Mariner silver and teal so deeply that he did things like play through a broken foot (and hit .300+ still) and give the Mariners significant breaks on his salary. Remember when Edgar had that broken foot in, I believe, 2002, and while he was trying to play through it and rehab on the go, he fouled two consecutive sinkers down and in off that foot, the second of which caused him to go down like a sack of bricks and shed tears from the agony...and stay down for five minutes? And remember how he practically knocked down the trainer getting back up because he didn't want to come out of the game...and then homered two pitches later? :) That isn't just the warrior's heart...that's also an extreme example of loyalty.
Felix is like that too, IMHO...intensely, fiercely loyal. That's where he emotion came from at the press conference...it was always in expressing how deeply thankful he was that the Mariners worked so hard to make him the great pitcher and person he is today.
3
While it doesn't apply universally, I think most professional athletes can be characterized as aggressively competitive and surprisingly confident. This combination leads to a desire to win everything. Humility is a virtue most athletes struggle to embrace. I think ego is the enemy of loyalty, since it blinds people from acknowledging our reliance on others. Felix is clearly competitive and cocky, but somehow he maintains humility despite his enormous success.
4
Remember that the M's just signed Felix's brother again.
I sure that means something... especially when you remember the celebration that took place in the Jackson OF after the perfect game.
5
ARod will never be loved by any city and it's fans. He made his millions - but he could have made milllions here as well, and become the most beloved and honored player in Seattle sports history. He'll never be considered as anything in baseball but a mercenary. Even his Yankee championship is cheap - it's Jeter and Rivera who get the love, honor and respect. ARod won't even receive the love and warm feelings as a Yankee 3rd baseman that Graig Nettles and even Clete Boyer do. Texas couldn't care less about ARod, and Seattle was jilted. And btw, as a jilted lover, Seattle behaved entirely appropriately in its crude hatred in those early years - for that's the emotion of a love affair. People who say Seattle is too nice a city forget that Seattle didn't sit back and wax philosophic about ARod's desertion. We were pissed, and we tore up the living room in our anger. We promised to love and cherish him, and still pay him handsomely in the meantime. He wanted quail meat, not manna (the food of love and covenant), and he ate his fill, but it brought leaness to his soul. And then, even here in Seattle, the jilted lover moves on - and ARod's appearances no longer bring emotion, but disinterest and detachment. We've moved on, and we've found a better player to pour our affection on, and even have it returned! Felix chose wisely, and he will be loved forever by this city for it. And he will be a richer man for it as well.
6
... for much of the past decade Seattle fans and pundits have been almost unwavering in the insistance that the club needed to go recruit "Stars" from elsewhere.
I have repeatedly attempted to voice my opinion that in order to "GET GOOD" there was a requirement to have a foundation of excellence that was constructed INTERNALLY ... before the club could (effectively) recruit excellence from outside.
I think the discussion of loyalty may be capturing precisely what I have been hinting at but never fully communicating.
I've never been of the opinion that it is an absolute. St. Louis remains an organization that is viewed (rightly) as loyal to its players. But, they allowed Pujols to leave, the same as Atlanta eventually watched Maddux and Glavine leave. Loyalty is a complex concept - and its application even more so when mixed with competitive necessities.
But, I definitely see the ... trivialization of loyalty that has bled across America in the past 50 years. Too much of our society has truly fallen in love with the "it's all about me" trap that is monofocused on personal gain and wealth and has no room for virtues like patience, sacrifice, loyalty ... basically much of anything that suspends personal wants and desires for those of others in almost any circumstance.
What's so sad is that in the book "Happy", the acquisition of actual happiness requires not simply fulfilling internal desires - but the second axis on the journey is "meaning". It is traits like loyalty that are precisely what can transform what could cynically be viewed as just mindless and pointless competitive entertainment. Baseball players are not curing cancer or feeding the world or teaching our children algebra, are they?
Ironically, perhaps paradoxically, sports allow millions to self-identify with some small group of strangers that have chosen to take on the mantle of representing US. Sports, and sports fans, are foundationally about something bigger than our puny selves. This is precisely why Jerry Seinfeld hit so close to the mark when he railed on free agency and how too often today we end up rooting for laundry.
I suffered with the Braves through 20 years of losing ... but was loyal to guys like Aaron, Neikro, Murphy. That had value.
I was lucky enough to follow the Braves through the glory years. Only one title ... but thousands of great memories. Rooting for Glavine, Smoltz, Chipper added value.
Consider that the Marlins have two WS titles and no fans to speak of. Why is that?
Great, great, put, Doc. Bravo.
7
Coming from the perspective of someone who accepts the following as part of his world view:
- The principal of non-aggression
- Virtues exist (corollary to that, evil acts and ideas exist as well)
- Any idea taken to sufficient extreme can be abhorrent
I'd be interested in exploring the idea that my worldview is wrong in some way. 'Enlightened self-interest' is mentioned in the article and is associated with a sneer. The idea is put forward that the Army is not acting exclusively in its self-interest when training, paying, and feeding the Soldier. This may not be the appropriate forum, but could you expand on these premises? I'd genuinely like to explore this.
8
Loved your post, Sandy. Were you a Braves fan when they were located in Milwaukee? I am going to assume you are too young to be a Boston Braves fan. When the Pilots left for Milwaukee, I became probably the Brewers #1 fan in Seattle. My friends moved on to other interests, but I wasn't going to let them take my team away that easily. I became and remained a HUGE Brewer fan...until the Mariners came along. Suddenly, my allegiance disappeared, so much so that when the Brewers did finally make the World Series, I didn't even root for them - but rooted for the Cards, who were one of two favorite NL teams of mine at the time (The other team was San Francisco, two teams that lived pretty much in the cellar during the 70's after captivating me with interesting ballplayers and teams in the 60's. And yes, Sandy, I was even pretty heartbroken when the 82 Giants' late charge was blunted by your Braves - but I digress). Anyway, had the Mariners never came along, the idea of the Brewers ever making the World Series would have been too awesome to comprehend. It still surprises me that I didn't root for them, after suffering through those 65 win seasons, only to transfer my AL loyalties to suffer through yet another expansion team go through even more lousy seasons (making matters even worse is that both teams had expansion partners that enjoyed almost immediate success! Talk about twisting the knife.)
BTW, while I'm on the subject, I am not an NBA fan by any means and I hate the Thunder. I tried to root for them, during their first playoff appearance, but the second the camera focused on Clay Bennett in the stands, I felt like George Bailey in that scene in It's a Wonderful Life, wiping his hand off after shaking it with Mr. Potter. I continue to root against the Thunder. But I remain a Sonics fan, and should the Kings come north and become the Sonics, I fully expect my allegiance and love for the Sonics to re-ignite.
I know a lot of my strange affection for these teams are wrapped up in childhood sports hero worship, so I do feel sorry for any young boys who root for the Kings. I hope they find a way to become Sonic fans. Maybe that's the point of all this reminiscing...team owners and players should realize and remember they are holding the hearts of many young boys - and girls - in their hands. If you are going to own teams, or play professional sports, you ought to keep that in mind. Otherwise, go into real estate or wall street to make and play with your millions. Fans like us expect a bit more from you. It's complex, like Sandy said. And, yeah, life isn't fair. But, hey...at least apologize to the kids when you walk away, or trade a team hero. Tell them that's life, if you must. But at least acknowledge their pain.
And finally, we've had a recent contributor here who had made a lot of references to those early SF Giant teams. Just want to say, whoever you are, that if you're reading this, thanks for your memories. Enjoyed them very much. I can definitely relate to Charlie Brown's angst as to why McCovey couldn't have hit the ball 3 feet higher!
9
Hey Doc,
Baker's piece yesterday on Smoak's new training regimen (including "slow practice" and aiki-like first principles of mental readiness and simplification, as well as the revelation that Smoak should be a "pitch stalk" hitter) made me think of you...sounded like a Dr.'s Rx to me. :)
So...what say you?
10
Let's start with: who are the people you have best known, who have had honorable careers in the U.S. armed forces? Could you tell us a little bit about those people?
11
Nobody, not even Buddhists, believed more fervently in non-aggression than did first-century Christians - most of whose leaders passively went to their executions for simply speaking what they believed.
But all of those first-century Christians believed in government, in the enforcement of civil behavior -- by force when necessary. If thugs tried to carry off a maiden, a Christian solider would have drawn his sword to protect her.
Is it your premise, Nathan, that government, police, military, etc., are unnecessary? Do you believe that the Allies should have picked up guns against Hitler?
.........
As a Christian myself, and a believer in loving my enemies, I'm going to walk away from a fight, if it's only my ego at stake. But I'm not going to allow people to throw my daughter into the back of their van; I'm going to use physical force to prevent her being sold into slavery.
Could you define your term "non-aggression" in the context of when, or if, a good man should use physical force to prevent evil?
12
In technical terms this Smoak / Bledsoe story is what's known as a "softball."
:- )
13
Are you saying it's pure fluff - a nice PR service piece written by Baker for Smoak's benefit? Are you saying that it's a really easy pitch for you yourself to return with lengthy articles? :) What is the softball implying?
14
:- )
Specialty area of interest here.
15
For me the idea of tyranny and the traps that go with it are what the military should be fighting. To make a war on an idea like "terrorism" or "drugs" is sophistry that has no chance of success. The tenets of the war on drugs was to make them less available, less affordable and less potent. That almost 40 year war has failed on all 3 counts.
What we should be fighting is expressed in your idealistic examples but any war is more complex than that. War affects the neighbors, relatives and all compatriots of the guilty parties. The standard for waging it with the knowledge of innocents that will always be affected should be extremely high. If killing a few hundred saves a few thousand politics will justify it. But the guilt is shifted from the Tyrant for those thousands to the politicians for those hundreds and it becomes murky whether we should then be after the politicians for their murder of innocents. That it's war implies military vs military which it's easy to get behind. If it's tyranny you are trying to dissolve that implies that the compatriots of the villain are not on his side to start so war isn't the answer to begin with. I think there are more subtle answers that may be available.
The idea of fixing things here being a higher priority than fixing things elsewhere is nothing new. Our infrastructure, education, medical affordability, jobs, homelessness, science and many other things are trailing dozens of "lesser"countries while we dump funds into wars we can not win. These things are all non aggressive ventures that are more pertinent to our well being.
I'm not against the military, I just believe it may be being overused. The war on drugs is the most ridiculous money dump in our budgets right now though and it isn't even a military venture, per se. There are millions spent each year to pay out wrongful death suits just in serving warrants to wrong addresses. Military trained personnel getting sent into our homes is a practice listed in our Declaration of Independence as a grievance against king George we would no longer tolerate, but began again with the war on drugs. There's so much more, it's just that the ideals of these decisions aren't followed through in many cases and the outcomes aren't reassessed enough.
16
I have not served. My father served in the Air Force in his younger years. He was mostly absent from my life but is, on the whole, a good man. My father-in-law (the man I admire most in life) is a career marine and is currently making his living as an instructor at a military academy. To keep this short, he's a great man. My wife's ex served in the army and I would consider his overall worth to be less than ideal. : )
17
To me (how's that for being relative) the principal of non-aggression means that aggression against another person is inherently illegitimate. If someone were to initiate force against you, that is wrong. At that point, it would be acceptable to defend yourself.
If the thugs were to attack me, I would have no moral qualm defending myself. In your example, it would be okay to defend the maiden against the thugs, the thugs are initiating force against the maiden with the intention of doing evil and she does not have the means to resist.
To be fair, I'm still trying to come to terms with the idea of interventionism in this worldview (maiden example included), so my argument for or against WWII is not on solid ground at this point.
I have heard it said that the logical conclusion of this worldview is anarchy because a government can only survive by initiating force but I have not come to terms with this idea yet. Exploring anarchical ideas certainly has been thought-provoking, though! A society based solely on voluntary interaction is something I've been quietly reading up on while I try to evolve my worldview.