Philadelphia and Washington and the sociology of fandom
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
Philadelphia and Washington and the sociology of fandom
David Murphy, Daily News Staff Writer
I just enjoyed a good chuckle because I just ran across a story about my Tuesday column that Dan Steinberg posted on DC Sports Bog, his fabulous general interest sports blog whose format I would love to see other newspapers replicate (cough, cough...hi Chuck!). I spent much of yesterday fending off 140-character pitchforks from indignant Nationals fans who managed to find some time in their workdays to defend their fair ballpark. The experience did not come as a surprise. Manufacturing outrage at perceived slights from an out-of-town media members is a time-honored tradition in sports, and I would not be the first writer to go out of my way to indulge a fan base's desire to feel persecuted.
Of course, many readers who managed to make it through the entire column probably realized that my intent was not to lob gratuitous cheap shots in the general direction of our nation's capital. Even Steinberg acknowledges that possibility, qualifying the obligatory pot-stirring lead paragraph with the admission that, "Some diehard Nats fans would say these are deserved shots, but still. . ."
In fact, the ensuing comments section of that blog post includes two types of reactions: Nationals fans unleashing their best neener-neener-neeners, and Nationals fans acknowledging that, hey, you know what, a World Series contender shouldn't need to spend 75 percent of its gameday budget on video bits hyping its mascot race and an in-game television host interviewing fans about how much fun they are having not watching the action on the field because they are talking to him. The latter viewpoint is the viewpoint that I hold. I didn't mean to sound judgmental, but I am, so that's probably how it came across. Still, the intent of the column was to highlight the peculiar dynamic that I felt as I watched the Nationals finish off an ascension that wasn't supposed to happen for at least another year. It is a dynamic that always exists among the nouveau riche when they complete the transition from fun-loving summer entertainers to legitimate contenders. October arrives, and two worlds collide: the cowbell-ringing, rally-monkey-waving, president-racing world of a marketing department that started the season desperate to put fannies in the seats, and the baseball-game-winning, home-run-hitting, champagne-spraying world of a baseball operations department that has succeeded in its quest to make the product on the field sell itself. We saw it in Anaheim and we saw it in Tampa and now we are seeing it in Washington, and this final series of the regular season made that dynamic even more pronounced because the team that watched it first-hand from the visitor's dugout was the Phillies, who five years earlier had witnessed a similar transition on the final day of the 2007 regular season.
I label the transition "similar" because Philadelphia fans of a certain age will recall that their own team was not always above the use of gimmicks to attract fans to the ballpark. In fact, when the Phillies faced the Yankees in the World Series in 2009, fans found themselves on the receiving end of some of the same condescension they may have inflicted on the Rays one year earlier. Put it this way: I have a friend who is a Yankees fan, and he would have a heart attack if he ever saw rally towels distributed in the Bronx.
That being said, winning in places like Philadelphia is different from winning in a lot of other cities across this country, and that sociological divide feels even more disparate when the winning happens in Washington, a town that is just three hours south in distance but worlds apart in culture. I reference this phenomenon in the column in question. Places like New York and Boston and Philadelphia are cities populated by sons and daughters whose fandom is less a diversion and more a cultural tradition that links them to all of the generations that lived before, from their parents to their parents' parents to their parents' parents' parents, all the way back to a time when the Northeast was the epicenter of the industrialized world and living there meant taking pride in everything it manufactured, from the troop transports in the shipyard to the ballclub on Broad Street. Sports in this country rose to prominence at a time when the desire for greatness infected every aspect of American life. The playing field was an extension of our lives. An steelworker could arrive home after a day on the job, read about Robin Roberts' latest complete game, then think to himself, "Both of us made this city better today." They shared a mission, and that mission was greatness.
Steinberg actually provides a perfect summation of the situation when he writes, "I thought the meaning of the mission was just to have fun. Not saying that the baseball should be secondary to races and gimmicks and ads, but golly, there’s an awful lot of raw emotion in certain cities that I could do without. I prefer my emotions partially cooked. Or maybe fully boiled."
That's no less acceptable, and perhaps psychologically healthier, than the way folks do it up here. But it is different. As I noted in the column, everything has a beginning, and this just might be the beginning of a baseball revival in the beltway. But for now, the way many Philadelphians see it, they got beat by the Nationals, and all they got in return was a Teddy in 2012 bumper sticker.
I heard that the Dodger Dog was invented not to honor Sandy Koufax, but to sell more hot dogs.— tgray83- Spot on Murph, as always. But it should be noted that Washington would share that same sports culture like other NE cities, had the American League not screwed it twice-- first when they let Griffith move the original Senators (and replacing them with an expansion team), and then letting the new Senators leave twelve years later. So fast-forward 40 years and the Nats have to essentially re-establish DC as a baseball city from scratch. I can't blame them for the gimmicks.— everydayguy
- It's also ironic that much of that baseball legacy in the NE was manufactured by teams who aren't here anymore. In NYC it was the Giants and Dodgers who won championships and established fan pride (before the Yankees became a powerhouse), and in Philadelphia it was the Athletics. The Mets and the Phillies, respectively, are the beneficiaries.— everydayguy
- @everydayguy...that's actually not completely true. The Giants may have been the IT team in NY until Ruth got the Yankees, but for nearly the next 40 years the Yankees owned NY and baseball before the Giants got the idea and left town. As for the Dodgers...they weren't winning championships before the Yankees became a powerhouse; in fact they won just one World Series, in 1955, breaking up a span of several Yankee titles. Outside of Brooklyn, the Dodgers had always been second fiddle to the Yankees.
(Of course the Mets are the beneficiaries...simply look at their team colors—orange for the Giants, Blue for the Dodgers—and they even acknowledged it.)
As for the Phillies and A's? Um...no, you're wrong. The Phillies were here long before the A's (nearly two decades) and even though the A's were more successful, they were still the red-headed step-child. That's why they left. They couldn't compete with the Phillies.— Eilex826 - I get what you're saying, to a point (especially Clint's between innings blather; a lot of that stuff is strictly minor league, and embarassing). But you seem to be insinuating that liking the game and liking the other stuff going on at the ballpark are mutually exclusive, and I don't get that at all. I shouldn't have to point out that the Presidents' Race and Clint's shenanigans go on BETWEEN innings, so it's not like the truly detract from the game. To be a truly hardcore fan, do I need to closely watch the pitcher's warm-up tosses, or the infielders chucking the ball around? I will be the first to acknowledge the the Presidents' Race is goofy as hell, but in no way do I think Nats fans care more about that than the team itself (well, maybe a small demographic under 10 years old or so--the same demographic who care more about the Phanatic than Phillies baseball). But I like the Presidents' Race, precisely because it is goofy and fun. If there are some blog posts about it, what's that keeping us away from? More talk about the Strasburg shutdown, or other topics that have already been beaten to death? It's OK to have fun, people.— Carlos del Vaca
- I live in DC after spending the first 20+ years of my life in Philly. Murph's article is spot on. I don't believe the president's race is a big deal because it's DC's version of the Phanatic; however, the awkward forced interaction with Clint and then fans is annoying. The Nationals should be proud of their accomplishment this year. Ill never forget how I felt in 2007 when we clinched and I celebrated with my family like we just won the World Series. The promotional video content here is in DC is lacking because they are not giving the fans a chance to learn about their team. Throughout this year each article I read and every game I watch in stadium feels like I'm getting the USA Today cliff notes version of the Nats rather than analysis. I will never be a Nats fan but I love baseball and the only person on this team I feel I know anything about is Davey Johnson...and thats terrible considering that if the Nationals win today they would have MLB's best record in 2012.— nittanyapollo
- whatever the point, I fell asleep after the first 500 or so self-absorbed words of this self critique. your wonderfulness is amusing if not impressive. now, shut up and go away.— defg0003
- I'm another Philly transplant living in DC who's gone to a ton of Nationals games since 2005 I think you've got it exactly right. I've foolishly gotten myself into arguments with DC sports fans over the years trying to point out the same differences you articulated in your column and these posts. Inevitably, people get offended because they don't understand the point: "Different" doesn't necessarily mean "worse," though I prefer what I grew up with. When I have that same conversation with fans of the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Cowboys, etc., they know what I'm talking about.— Jeffrey
- The Cowboys? Really? Dallas fans are known to be very indifferent toward their team in comparison to the NE. As I heard a Dallas native explain, "Heck, we love the 'boys but if they lose we still got the important stuff like HS football and the Longhorns." — UncleStosh
- I lived in the Philly area until I was 18, moved to the DC area at 25 and have been here 17 years now. I don't think it's really a matter of different cultures, at least not this whole fandom-passed-down-through-generations thing. Redskins fans here are just as emotional and borderline insane as Eagles fans. The Nats are just a new team, and there are a lot of new fans who were never baseball fans before. It's a mistake to read too much into a city's "culture" when you're a sportswriter who doesn't spend much time here and is judging an entire city based on some promotional gimmicks at the ballpark.
Most Nats fans I know could probably do without the presidents race and most of the other things at the park that seemed geared to the casual or new fan. It isn't Fenway down here and it's silly for any of us to expect it to be. Maybe fifty years from now it will be. But there are real, passionate and intelligent fans here. Their fandom wasn't passed down from generation to generation -- instead it just came from a very simple love of baseball. There's something pretty amazing about watching a team struggling to figure itself out, getting to know the players and the stories, seeing them come together. Traditions have to start somewhere. And our two young kids (boy and girl) are both as into the Nationals as I remember being as a kid with the Phillies.
And maybe I've just been away from Philly too long, but I kind of like the idea that it's not a mission, or if it is, then the mission to have fun. We feel every loss and hang on every pitch in our house, but it's still a game, and we're still just fans. There's nothing wrong with living and dying for your team, I guess -- but I never thought that's what makes someone a good fan, or a city a good sports city. Philly is a good sports city because its fans understand the game and appreciate any player who gives everything he has. Washington is figuring that out with baseball. We'll get there.— tominva - nittanyapollo: "Throughout this year each article I read and every game I watch in stadium feels like I'm getting the USA Today cliff notes version of the Nats rather than analysis. I will never be a Nats fan but I love baseball and the only person on this team I feel I know anything about is Davey Johnson..."
Can I guess, then, that you don't read the DC Sports Bog, or the Post's Nationals Journal, or Mark Zuckerman's Nats Insider, or any of the coverage on MASN's web site, or Harper Gordek's Nationals Baseball blog? If all you do is watch TV or listen to sports radio, I can see how you might feel you're not given enough information. But in the grand scheme of things, if you claim to not know much about the team, I'd say you're not trying very hard.— Carlos del Vaca - Watch for the follow-up blog post: "Calories at the buffet table: The Pathology of Waterboy-dom."
§
— Quixote II - Murph, no need to apologize....Steinberg is the laziest, most pathetic excuse for a "journalist" I've ever seen. I heard him earlier this season on WIP trying to kiss up to Angelo and acting like the whole Gnats-Phils rivalry was not such a big deal, now he pulls this stunt. You should have seen the vitriolic comments on his column in the Post yesterday. I tried to explain how this was a PHILADELPHIA Sports Column (you know your opinion) about another team's stadium and fan base, intended for your PHILADELPHIA newspaper's readers, but no one from that pathetic fan base in D.C. gets it. Look, they couldn't even sell out a potential division clinching game...that tells you all you really need to know what a lousy fan base they have.— NYC sucks
- As a Philadelpia native now living in DC for over 30 year, I am always struck by the different vibe DC has compared to other cities. It is only a slight exageration to say that no one is from here. So there is no generations old communal link -- the same link that is needed for the passionate ongoing support of a baseball team. Another strange characterisitic is that Washington is an event town. Folks like to be part of big events. It is hard to sell the idea that game #87 in July is an "event." I think that is why the Redskins support is strong each year.
I was amazed this year that the Nationals were one of the best teams in baseball and attendance ranked only in the middle compared to other teams. They better be strong in the next couple of years to build up fan support or Washington risks losing baseball for the third time.— rjd - I think Phillies fans (especially the diehards) are being dishonest with themselves if they are saying that their experiences at Citizens Bank Park are completely unadulterated by gimmicks. The reality is, all ballpark experiences are shaped by gimmicks, some more or less so than others, and Citizens Bank Park is no exception- the free giveaways at the entrance or through a section lottery, anything on the big screen that encourages fan interaction- Turkey Hill Ice Cream cup & ball magic trick, subway car races, guess the attendance, kisscam, playing the bongos, doing the latest dance craze like gangnam style, etc.; the plethora of corporate advertisements fit into every nook and cranny of the physical ballpark (and in the background of player profiles on the big screen), and perhaps most blatantly, the make some noise!, fake handclapping swells, and fake organ interludes... I'll leave the Phillie Phanatic and his antics alone because I love him... But anyway, the point is that I would caution using the "ballpark experience" (especially in a ballpark erected within the last 15-20 years) as a tool for criticizing the fan base of any team. It's not the fans who demanded that all of this distracting bull**** be thrown at them during their ballpark experience, it's the ownership and their desire to improve their bottom line that decides that. If you want to criticize a fan base, stick to the explanations that make more sense- 1)their fans suck; 2) their team loses damn near all of the time and so it's hard to watch them; 3) the organization's business model and financial situation are such that they can't afford to keep or buy talent and so the organization cannot produce fan loyalty; 4) the fan base's attention is stolen by other teams, sports, or phenomena (national politics in DC), and so on.— lookyhere
