compulsion
tricia and katee, hog-ridin’ fools

lovable

I admit, it’s been kinda nice to have the rest of the country think the San Francisco Giants are lovable. I mean, they are lovable, as far as that goes. But Joan Walsh gets at the real point behind all that lovable talk across the nation, and since this blog has no intention of forgetting the greatest Giant since at least Willie Mays, I’m going to give a shout out to Joan for her piece, “The Giants would be lovable even with Barry Bonds,” as we prepare for Game One of the World Series. She describes

[A] national media obsession this postseason: explaining to the world, and San Francisco fans, why our team this year is so much more lovable and fabulous and deserving of glory than earlier Giants champions, particularly the 2002 team. And you know why.

Led by Bonds, the surly steroid-tainted superstar with the big head (literally), the club of eight years ago was Barry's team, the national scribes report, not ours. Those guys may have had more talent, sure, but they had much less heart. The point's been made so often in October, and so repetitively, you might find yourself wondering if there's an iPhone app that lets you make lazy Giants-team comparisons. …

[T]he worst came from AOL Fanhouse, whose Terence Moore suggested that the delirious standing ovation Bonds received from hometown fans at the first game of the NLCS last week meant "Giants Fans Glad to See Him Gone."

I don't know a single San Francisco fan who saw the outpouring for Bonds that way, but I am glad Moore came along to tell us what we really feel about Bonds, whether we realize it or not.

She then quotes Jeff Passan, whose screed I luckily escaped, about the ovation Bonds received: “San Francisco deserves a hero worth cheering about, not some narcissistic, disgraced attention whore whose bounding out of the dugout to throw out a first pitch last week was greeted with an enormous ovation.” As Walsh noted, “God, we suck, Giants fans! Who knew?”

Comments