World Series Preview: Baseball Hotbeds Clash in Astros-Braves Title Bout
The Fall Classic is here, the 117th World Series, which will end with the Commissioner’s Trophy and a stage with room for just one victorious organization. Two supremely talented teams are at the end of an eight-month gauntlet — one that began with the singular, casual, quiet pop of catchers’ mitts in Florida and will end in a pressure cooker, with screaming masses and the attention of the sports world, as the AL champion Astros, in their third World Series of the last five years, will face the NL champion Braves in their first since 1999.
It’s been a mixed, inconsistent decade for Atlanta in the post-Bobby Cox era. The franchise’s 15-year reign over the NL East, which it won every year from 1991 to 2005 except for the strike-shortened ‘94 season, holds a unique place in the baseball culture. Anyone over 30 saw most of it unfold every day on cable if they wanted to — my ex-brother-in-law grew up in Pennsylvania with Andres Galarraga’s number painted in Wite-Out on his fitted cap — thanks to the club’s presence on TBS. The Braves’ 22-year World Series drought hasn’t been entirely hapless, and they have had stretches of contention, making the next six postseasons after their ’99 sweep at the hands of the Yankees, even as some of that core aged and/or moved on. Fittingly enough, the final two seasons of their division champions streak ended with postseason losses to the Astros, in both the 2004 (Carlos Beltran’s Godtober) and ’05 (Clemens, Oswalt, Pettitte) NLDS; so too did their tenure on TBS, which concluded with a 3–0 loss in Houston at the end of the 2007 regular season.
Then came, relatively speaking, a swoon. The Freddie Freeman/Brian McCann/Jason Heyward/Andrelton Simmons core drove the Braves to four consecutive 89-win or better seasons from 2010 to ’14, but that group won just two postseason games during that stretch. It was during this time period that Cox retired and a brief descent to the bottom of the division began. The arrival of the current core (Ozzie Albies, Dansby Swanson, Ronald Acuña Jr., etc.) has put them back on top of the NL East for the last four years, and they’ve slowly crept deeper and deeper into the postseason, culminating in this year’s pennant.
Those Astros postseason victories in 2004 and ’05 marked the tail end of Houston’s “Killer B’s” era, dominated by Craig Biggio, Jeff Bagwell, Lance Berkman, and others (Billy Wagner, Moises Alou, Octavio Dotel… these teams were absolutely stacked). Houston finished over .500 ten times in eleven years before losing the NLCS to Albert Pujols and the Cardinals in ’04 and the World Series to the White Sox in ’05 and slowly beginning a fall from grace, both on and off the field. Jeff Luhnow was hired away from the Cardinals front office to helm an intense rebuild that included three consecutive 100-loss seasons, and the draft picks from that stretch produced Carlos Correa, Lance McCullers Jr., Kyle Tucker, and Alex Bregman … as well as the Brady Aiken controversy that would pale in comparison to what lay ahead for the franchise.
Slowly but surely, the Astros got better. They surrounded a core of homegrown hitters with pitchers whose stuff and approach to pitching hadn’t been optimized elsewhere, and a 2017 World Series win marked the start of five consecutive seasons in which they reached the ALCS — a run that was tainted not long after.
There looms the possibility that much of the conversation and media discourse during the next two weeks will revolve around the scandals that each franchise has been party to during the last several years. (It’s simultaneously freeing and grotesque that such conversations could have occurred regardless of who had won each LCS.) The Braves had an international signing scandal that earned then-GM John Coppolella a lifetime ban; he ended up throwing away his career for players who, it turns out, aren’t very good. They built a controversial new stadium in a controversial location. Carter Stewart’s post-draft medical drama was ugly, and it was far from the first time a high school pitcher failed his physical for an Alex Anthopoulos-run team. They still do The Chop. And just this year, Marcell Ozuna was arrested midseason for a domestic violence assault.
As for Houston, there is, most obviously, the sign-stealing scandal tied to that 2017 title, which cost Luhnow and manager A.J. Hinch their jobs and still hangs over the team today. Beyond that, there was the Aiken fiasco, which the organization ended up benefitting from, and a few foreign pitchers had their bonuses reduced after their physicals. There was also the 2018 trade for Roberto Osuna, at the time suspended for assaulting a woman, and then-assistant general manager Brandon Taubman taunting female reporters after Houston’s ALCS win in 2019 by telling them he was glad the team had acquired him. (Taubman was fired not long after.)
There’s no excusing what either team has done in the recent past. It’s also worth remembering that some amount of ethical disregard runs through our game’s most successful franchises, yet another societal microcosm visible in sport. Both Houston and Boston, for example, were party to sign-stealing scandals which resulted in the loss of draft picks and suspended field/front office personnel, with the once-disgraced Alex Cora fired (and eventually re-hired) by the Red Sox when that came to light. Had it been Los Angeles here instead of Atlanta, maybe we’d be talking about Dodgers GM Andrew Friedman’s history of acquiring known bad apples and an international scouting department that was previously at the center of a federal human trafficking investigation.
If nothing else, Astros hitters have proven something this year by having the best offense in baseball while, presumably, not cheating. Their manager, Dusty Baker, is a 72-year-old baseball lifer who has never reached the mountaintop, and there’s strong industry desire to see him get a ring. How discussion surrounding the sign stealing (or whatever the controversy of the moment is) will be presented on the broadcast, and whether it brings about renewed public and journalistic interest, will be an interesting subplot to the series.

Nothing about Atlanta’s 2021 on-paper performance really screams at you. The Braves finished near the middle of the pack in most team categories — both hitting and pitching, both starters and relievers. Acuña was second among Braves hitters in WAR despite playing just half a season. What is remarkable has been how effectively the team was reshaped to give it a shot to withstand key injuries, and the way that a lefty-heavy bullpen seems to be peaking at exactly the right time. While they didn’t suffer quite the same amount of injuries as some other clubs this year, the Braves’ losses, pound-for-pound, were as severe as anyone else’s in baseball (Acuña, Mike Soroka, several weeks of Ian Anderson and Max Fried). Anthopolous, arguably the favorite to win Executive of the Year, had to sew together an outfield around Ozuna’s arrest, Cristian Pache’s developmental speed bump, and Acuña’s torn ACL. Abraham Almonte helped carry the offense for the first few weeks of the season, then trades for Eddie Rosario, Joc Pederson, Jorge Soler, and Adam Duvall around the deadline solidified the group and have had a huge impact on Atlanta’s postseason fortune, especially Rosario and Pederson.
The lefty relievers — Tyler Matzek, A.J. Minter, and Will Smith — had a dominant NLCS, combining to allow just two runs in their 16 innings against the Dodgers; Fried was the lone Brave to throw several innings more than either Minter or Matzek during that series. That southpaw trio will be charged with neutralizing ALCS MVP Yordan Alvarez and Tucker late in games.

Houston has also dealt with personnel losses, though in different forms than Atlanta. Injuries (McCullers, Justin Verlander) and players lost to free agency have put an emphasis on the core of bats that is still carrying Houston. Like Atlanta, the Astros also have a hot bullpen, one that hasn’t allowed a run since Game 3 of the ALCS. Cristian Javier, who has thrown 7.2 scoreless postseason innings, may be a series-altering, multi-inning lynchpin for Houston, whose starters have had a tough time going deep into games, especially with McCullers’ forearm injury keeping him off the roster and thinning Houston’s rotation.

While Atlanta has become a more matchup-centric team since their deadline acquisitions, Houston runs a deep lineup of everyday guys who are unlikely to come off the field during any part of the World Series. As of this writing, it’s still unknown whether rookie Jake Meyers, a logical platoon partner for Chas McCormick in center field, will be healthy enough to make the Astros’ World Series roster. But aside from the occasional left-right interplay among center fielders and the occasional situation in which it’s advantageous to pinch-hit with Aledmys Díaz, Baker has few impactful levers to pull on the offensive side of the ball.

Even without McCullers, both teams have something resembling a traditional postseason pitching staff available for this series. Sinker/curveball lefty Framber Valdez, one of several Astros pitchers who signed later than the typical international amateur player, will take the ball opposite former Astro Charlie Morton in Game 1. The opposite occurs in Game 2, when Fried, who was under Houston’s consideration for the draft pick that became Correa, toes the rubber for the Braves. He is projected to face the seemingly compromised Luis Garcia, who has had a couple rough, short outings amid knee discomfort but tossed 5 2/3 innings of scoreless one-hit ball in the ALCS finale.
From my perspective, this World Series matchup feels apt, as the teams participating in it come from the parts of the country (the deep Southeast and Gulf Coast areas) where an outsized portion of the amateur talent is being cultivated. Atlanta, Houston, and every baseball diamond in between the two have been hotbeds for prospects, and it’s a section of the country that simply seems to care about baseball more than most. Hopefully we have an exciting World Series that aims focus at the game itself and the talent and hard work of those who play it.
Eric Longenhagen is from Catasauqua, PA and currently lives in Tempe, AZ. He spent four years working for the Phillies Triple-A affiliate, two with Baseball Info Solutions and two contributing to prospect coverage at ESPN.com. Previous work can also be found at Sports On Earth, CrashburnAlley and Prospect Insider.
Duplicate
Major eye roll at the entire first half of the article.
Let’s be real, though, these teams have no shortage of controversy. Most casual fans won’t care but most casual fans also don’t care about spin efficiency or split-sample methods when conducting simulations either.
No, most casual fans won’t care because casual fans just want to watch the sport. They don’t care about prospect medical records, locations of stadiums, etc. They care about being entertained. And there’s nothing wrong with that.
You have to admit they laid it on a bit thick with the Braves. Half the things are either not controversies at all or not cared about. I mean, Ozuna is on administrative leave and has been for months. What more do you want? Them to employ a set of fortune tellers to ensure they only hire people who will never break the law? His name would have continued its three+ months streak of not crossing my mind if the author hadn’t brought it up.
It’s almost comical, we’re reaching a stage where writers are going to have to keep spreadsheets of perceived wrongdoings “so-and-so, who once tweeted something marginally regrettable, was mean to a kid in third grade, and whose great uncle on his father’s side is a jerk”, or “welcome to a Super Bowl marred by controversy, as the team bus runs on fossil fuels and several of the players live in dystopian red states” so that they don’t accidentally feel they are enabling anything whatsoever by not constantly calling things out.
Couldn’t agree more, especially the phantom shots at the Dodgers and Sox. There is one team with real controversy in the playoffs, there was ever only one, and even that has mostly blown over..
Phantom shots? One team with real controversy in the playoffs?
There exists substantial evidence that the Dodgers were up to the same thing that got the Braves GM banned for life. While under investigation, the FBI held an event at Dodger Stadium (I belive during the 2018 NLCS).
The Red Sox were one of the teams for which the September 2017 warning was sent out to all the teams. Yet at least some of their players violated the rules again, which would suggest, as repeat offenders, they should’ve been treated rather severely. That same team employs the guy who helped run the trash can banging scheme.
But maybe it’s accurate to say there are two teams “with real controversy” in the playoffs, given that they’ve eliminated the other two.
Your vice signaling has been noted.
The Braves “scandals” may well be worth mentioning, but only in the sense that they exist throughout the league. Stadium funding issues plague many organizations and, sadly, most organizations are affected by domestic violence issues. And, I like the chop. It’s honoring good aspects of an Indian culture. Most people are cool with it; including most people of Indian descent -so no issue.
The Astros scandal, though not limited to them, was (hopefully) only limited to a few clubs. It definitely taints them to me. I’m rooting Braves without reservation. Maybe I’ll even do the chop.
Twice this article brings up the Brady Aiken “controversy” and “fiasco.”
1) What in the world does this have to do with anybody involved in this world series?
2) Haven’t Luhnow and the Astros been vindicated on this?
In the future shouldn’t we refer to this as the “Aiken Hubris” or “The Prideful fall of Brady”?
Brady’s Bunch of Mistakes.
For real. Alice wasn’t a very good housekeeper, and they should never have let Greg have that apartment over the garage…
You might want to fix the spelling of Jeff Luhnow’s last name (unless, of course, it was intentional).
As I asked earlier this summer, is it Fangraphs intention to alienate every team’s fanbase one-by-one?
I mean I guess the controversial stuff is worth mentioning, since the Sign Stealing Scandal is still fresh in our minds. But damn, most of these things mentioned have nothing to do with the teams themselves.
Only certain fanbases.
Only the fanbases that deserve it. Ooooooooohhh diss
‘/s’
Yes, they are. The Meg.
Team Cheater vs Team Racist. At least I’ll get to bed earlier.
Hate the fans, not the team. Roster is full of class acts and likable players.
I don’t think anyone blames the players
How could you not blame the astro players for cheating?
I meant the Braves. Should have specified.
If teams had catchment areas/academies these teams would probably be two of the top 4 (I imagine Dallas and LA would have a say, as would the California Angels of Anaheim of the Block of Los Angeles and TB). Pretty much every guy of a certain age in the southeast- though older than prospect age now, I guess- grew up with the Braves as the only team around (before that it was the Reds apparently?).
According to my dad, who grew up in Florida in the 50s, the Cardinals were the only team he could get on the radio.
No mention of Austin Riley seems weird. Braves OF actually improved after losing Acuña with the trades. Astros also somehow improved the offense without George Springer. Game 4 could see Zack Grienke, Jake Odorizzi and Jesse Chavez in key roles. Who’s the Astros’s third starter? Myles Straw had a pretty good year. Is Phil Maton worth losing him?
Riley is a fantastic player. That’s an egregious omission.
Improved without springer over last year’s “season”? Cause I doubt the Astros’ lineup is better than it was in 2019.
Straw was replaced by more productive hitters and guys who can actually play the position. And they also got a minor league catcher out of the deal, and it won’t have to be special to be worth it.
Also, you look at a map of Atlanta’s season ticket holders and where they live and try to tell me where they moved was controversial. The manner of how they did it? Sure controversial. Moving closer to people who buy tickets? Not at all.
Map in question: https://images.app.goo.gl/oL87ZABzoGQn6vZDA
No. “The franchise’s 15-year reign over the NL East, which it won every year from 1991 to 2005 except for the strike-shortened ‘94 season.” The Braves did not win the NL East in 1991, 1992, or 1993 for the simple fact that they were not _in_ the NL East during those seasons.
This guy 1990s.
This ones for all the AL west marbles (look I don’t even know if that’s true)
That would seem like a basic fact for an author to get right on a baseball site. Maybe less invective about things that have nothing to do with the series next time, and focus on getting basic baseball facts correct.
So since Fangraphs can’t mention the Braves without someone in the comments somehow trying to imply the Chop is racist, can we explain how??? My wife (whose favorite team is the Giants) is Native American and her tribe is the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, she says she loves the chop and doesn’t see how anyone could even begin to think it’s racist… I asked my father in law (whose an A’s fan) what he thinks about the Braves and the Chop, he also being a reservation-land owning member of that same Chippewa tribe, and he said he’s always thought the Braves were a fine franchise and he doesn’t understand what the big deal is… I told him some highly offendable people see the Chop as racist and asked him if he felt like the Chop was an offensive gesture to Native Americans and he just rolled his eyes and said “Come on, now… That’s just stupid people being stupid…”
I grew up near Chattanooga, TN… The elementary school I went to were literally “The Cherokees”… The Cherokee National Forest and Nantahala National Forest are right there along the TN/NC borders… Native American history was a pretty important part of growing up where I was in the south, having grown up right on what was the Trail of Tears…
Now being married to a Native American and having Native American family members, none of who by the way have problems with the Chop or chant, can ANYONE who has actual Native American skin in the game provide any reason WHY the Chop is racist??? Cause I see mostly white people that complain about it, but the Native American family that I’m literally married into sees no problem with it at all and thinks it’s pretty stupid that it’s even a conversation people are trying to have to start with… Or is the whole “yOuR cHoPpInG iS rAcIsT” just virtue signaling???
It’s just an easy way to hate on another team and its fans. If their teams had the chop, they’d do it, too. It’s not complicated at all.
In fact, I’ve never been to an away Braves game where the Braves were losing and the home fans didn’t do the chop to mock the Braves.
I’ve also found that the fans that condemn Atlanta as racist for the use of the Chop are often the first ones to use it to mock us in blow out losses. (Please note this is anecdotal observation)
Some fans honestly do find the Chop problematic and in poor taste. Most just want to trash a team and will use whatever argument available.
No one is implying it’s racist. It’s racist, full stop. Does that clarify? Many articles have been written about why things like the chop and chief wahoo are harmful to native Americans, including on this site (see 2018 articles re lawsuits surrounding chief wahoo). You’re not asking for a good faith explanation, because you’re willfully ignoring that which you have received many times over.
Edit: Lulz the “virtue signaling” finisher. Every single time with the “virtue signaling.”
I mean, some people affected say it’s racist, some don’t. It’s not cut and dried. EBCI nation would have voted on it last year apparently, but the world caught on fire
Well first of all, I didn’t mention Chief Wahoo, we’re talking about the Chop… Those are different things, so stay on topic and try to do better… “Many articles have been written”… Wow, thanks for your help… Many articles have been written about a lot of things, but “articles” aren’t necessarily proof or even offer compelling evidence… In my experience “many articles”, even socially-focused scholarly articles now, are just filled with hyperbole and someone opining on something they don’t like, all the while never listing a citing or a source for the actual complaints… My own first hand observation and interaction with my real Native American family members that say the chop is not racist at all holds more weight than Internet Stranger’s claim “It just is, okay, full stop, like go read an article or something”… I don’t have to read an article, I’m literally married into a Native American family who will be pulling for the Braves this world series… You got anything more substantial than “It just is, okay???”
A) I didn’t link because that sends my comment into moderation hell, but B) I’m not here to do your homework for you, anyway. It’s not like you would have read anything I linked. I’m very glad your family is not offended. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t effect others differently.
It actually is your responsibility to do the homework for me… I don’t have a personal responsibility to go do research on what might be a sensitive subject to other people when those around me who have genuine skin in the game are saying this is not a thing that they’re concerned with… Like I don’t have to go out and try to prove THEM wrong and make Internet Stranger’s point for them… Lol and lol on that idea…
Your idea of “it doesn’t mean it doesn’t affect others differently”, while that may be true, that doesn’t mean that those adversely affected have a more significant weight than those in my own personal day to day life that identify with a Native American tribe… That’s really the whole point here… Yeah, I’m sure someone somewhere is bothered by it… I know someone somewhere just about bothered by everything you can think of… Doesn’t mean they get to dictate policy or my behaviors… I know people that aren’t, so it’s called “suck it up and deal with it…” Just because someone has a complaint about something, that doesn’t mean it gets tossed out the window for everyone… That’s an important lesson here people need to learn… Offendatrons need to chill out a bit with “Whoa, dude, did you know these people over here (supposedly) don’t like this, dude that means we gotta get rid of it for everybody…” Like wtf???
“I don’t have a personal responsibility to do research…” I’m dying. It’s just so perfect
Context can be hard, I know… But the quote you’re paraphrasing includes that I don’t have a personal responsibility to do research on a subject that people who are personally affected by have given me their heavily weighted opinions on, which generally align with my existing beliefs… Like sorry, not sorry, you’ve done literally nothing but pretty much act exactly as I described in my initial post, all the while offering nothing of substance and resorting to “It just is, like go read an article, it’s not my job to educate you… As you aptly pointed out- “it’s just so perfect”…
I’m not sure the whole “I talked only to my own family members who confirmed my pre-existing beliefs and I refuse to do anything else to interrogate my beliefs” thing is coming across how you intend. You don’t have an obligation to do anything else, but like, that’s not the best process for forming a viewpoint, ya know?
It’s a significantly better methodology than reading an article from someone whose motives are unclear and that ISN’T a Native American trying to explain all of the reasons people should be offended for Native Americans all while the Native Americans in my own family are like “This isn’t a thing we care about at all…”
It’s actually a fantastic process for forming a viewpoint… Like people that are directly being potentially maligned by what some people are calling an offensive gesture are telling me “This is not a thing that we find offensive…” The opinions of people directly related to a situation in my immediate family carry a significantly heavier weight than 20-something writer for clickbaity website that wants to tell me how all of the people that do this gesture are morally repugnant… Especially when 20-something writer for clickbaity website already dumps on that region in particular because most of the people there don’t align with their political beliefs to start with… So call me jaded when it comes to this topic…
By the way, I live in Oregon now, my wife grew up in Cali’s bay area, so it’s not like the family I married into is nested deeply in the South and just have a Southern mindset… These are west coast people with no connection to the southeast other than myself…
If it affects others differently…. So what? Are they voting members of a tribe? We’re lucky in this case that there’s an authority that can tell us how they feel about the business, and not the Elizabeth warrens of the worlds joining and writing for the Root after the 23 and me comes back, generating hate clicks to pay for their coke habit.
No one is obligated to give a damn about your feeling or anyone’s offended sensibilities. Nobody gives a damn if others feelings are effected. Much less people who want to pretend they are offended to excuse their bad online behavior.
No one said you have any obligation. Just don’t be all grumpy about it when people say they don’t like something. Living life not caring about anyone else is a rough way to get by in society. I hope you find peace with that.
Hey now be nice to the internet! Even when it doesn’t deserve it. There’s a very good article floating around that I read on this that quotes the actual ECBI position which is “we’re figuring all this out with the Braves organization.” The people affected have a process to decide what matters and what doesn’t. Let them go through it and treat the decision with respect (everyone, not just the comments in the thread). If you aren’t a voting member, I don’t think you have a say, certainly not one you can generalize or make normative claims from.
I do not know who the ECBI is and their opinion caries no more weight than mine does without regard to who they are.
It’s great to be an American.
The eastern band of Cherokee Indians. I think they get a say about what native Americans find offensive. It’s not hard to find, they show up in articles on this issue all the time.
Not to take sides, but bro, what? your family speaks for the entire group of people? You don’t think using anecdotal evidence like this is a poor argument? Seriously bro your sample set of four people, four data points amongst what hundreds of thousands of people? We can do better than that, and I agree if you really wanted an honest answer, there are many you could easily with a simple google search. Soliciting “answers” here is a thinly veiled attempt to spar NOT about baseball.
No, it’s really not racist.
You can argue that it’s in poor taste, because that’s a matter of opinion. But it’s not “prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group.” No one is judging Native Americans when they do the chop, or being antagonistic towards Native Americans. Well, I can’t say “no one.” Maybe a couple morons are. But 99.99% of people who do the Chop are simply doing the Chop.
I can buy the argument that it’s in poor taste – but not all Native Americans agree. But it ain’t racist.
Come on, if the Nation came back tomorrow and said “please stop we think this is racist” you wouldn’t shift your viewpoint?
Polling is hard, difficult and imprecise. But multiple polls have reported +/-10-20% of Native Americans taking issue with team names and gestures (like the chop), as opposed to dressing up like caricatures and wearing headdresses, etc.
The dress-up to me is indeed racist, in terms of creating a caricature. The Chop is not. I respect anyone with a different opinion.
Sadtrombone cited the Fryberg study. But that study has particular limitations in that it was a very small sample, and only included those who self-identified not only as Native American, but as regularly practicing/upholding Native American culture. That is to say, individuals who are Native American but don’t self-identify as regularly participating in cultural practices were excluded. So the study itself is biased by the restrictive nature of the participant group; it is, by definition, not a study of the points of view of all Native Americans.
But you asked me a direct question, and the answer is “I don’t know.” And that’s an honest answer. Appeals from leaders have caused me to rethink my position in other areas. And, there have been instances where appeals from leaders have felt, to me, as though they didn’t seem to represent the majority (or even a 25% minority) of their constituents.
The Chop is pretty awful, and my understanding is that there is actually about as much agreement about it being awful among Native Americans as for the Redskins name, which sounds worse to the general public. Stephanie Fryberg fielded a pretty high-quality survey and found about 49% of Native American respondents objected to the Redskins name and about 49% objected to The Chop (it was literally asked about by name in the survey). For reference, in both cases, about a third of respondents said it was okay, and about 15% didn’t respond. I can’t link to it but the paper is out there.
They asked about some other ones; the worst one, I think, was when fans dress up and pretend to do Native American dances. So it seems like the more effort fans put into it, the more people object. Seems pretty obvious. Interestingly, there does not seem to be much difference based on legal tribal status.
Sampling Native Americans in general is tough, but we do have evidence that The Chop is offensive to about half of Native Americans, more if you decide to exclude nonresponse. The attempts to defend it are nothing more than an in-group defense mechanism, Braves fans getting upset for being criticized. Which is understandable, but, hey, we’re not saying you personally are racist. But maybe rethink how important this one is to you.
Washington post sample for the redskins thing (an out and out slur) found different (basically 9 in 10 didn’t mind- really stunning, and caused me to update my priors). Those results are consistent with Pew Polling throughout the years. I read the Fryberg paper, obviously as it’s a good counterpoint to years of pretty good polling work by Pew and others. technical sample quibbling is possible, but I think it’s fine- to me it seems like the moderator there is age. Fryberg’s sample is high school kids.
The older people are, probably the better they are with these practices like the chop. (Btw the press release links to the wrong article in the wrong journal. Wtf UM)
BTW, fryerberg going after the Pew sample is effing distasteful. You think a Qualtrics panel where you paid $5 a pop is better than pew? And then to say that it wouldn’t pass peer review? That’s just demonstrably false. They spend millions on their Rez sample! That’s how they get more than 17% Rez experience.
(I am not a survey economist- I’m an experimental economist, and reviewers are WAY happier with Pew or RAND than Qualtrics, I just have survey guys in my department).
I don’t really think of Pew as doing high quality research…they’re fine for a polling outfit but there’s all kinds of weird errors in those outfits that you notice when you look at higher quality stuff (like the General Social Survey). And that’s before we deal the problem of sampling Native Americans, which is extremely hard.
I would say in terms of standards of peer review Qualtrics panels is very low on that list- and with such a tricky to get group, you’d want ID verification. Pew reputes to get that. (Should have done RAND guys). In most cases you (I) hand wave away reviewers with dumb selection questions. In this case, where it’s the research question, indunno
A theory based on my personal bias from what is seemingly a relevant experience. Didn’t read the article, just the comments.
Anywho. My high school was named the Redskins. I graduated in 2000, and as I understand it, in 2000 a group representing multiple tribes succeeded in having the seven CA schools still named Redskins change their name. Every kid knew about it, they announced it would be our last year called the Redskins, we had a special celebration for it and a farewell to the name in the yearbook for goodness sake. We didn’t understand what it was all about, not really at all. We talked a lot about it, thinking it was a reference to skin color, we understood how it could be offensive but thought it was taken way out of context, and really we mostly rolled our eyes at it and rationalized with “The NFL wouldn’t use it if it wa actually racist”. Anyway, in 2001 they became the Reds. And probably 2 or 3 years later I learned what the word actually meant. And I wa horrified, at the use, at our class attitude, at MY attitude s ignorance. I’m ten times more horrified now. We all talked about it again at our reunion recently, and all of us were baffled at how emotionally immature we were.
This is all to say that kids in high school are impressionable to their environment and just don’t get it. The world is different now, and high school kids are indeed more ‘woke’ than my generation and information and opposing opinions are much more accessible. But in my opinion based on my experience, they don’t have the life experience to be nearly qualified to be the data pool for this. Because they’re still high school kid, mostly a product of their parents, teachers, friend and media. They don’t even know themselves yet. And I’ll add that while the world has changed immensely since then – I graduated in 2000 from a CA high school, and while smart phones weren’t a thing, most kids had cell phones and we spent plenty of time on Google and Yahoo – so it’s not like I’m starting from the Stone Age chasing a newfangled upright walker off my lawn.
Anyway. I’m not disputing the results or saying 49% of people should not find it offensive. Just saying it shouldn’t be HS kids used the litmus, I don’t like that.
we do have evidence that The Chop is offensive to about half of Native Americans, more if you decide to exclude nonresponse.
Not everything offensive is racist.
The attempts to defend it are nothing more than an in-group defense mechanism, Braves fans getting upset for being criticized.
I’m not a Braves fan.
Braves fans resolving their cognitive dissonance by doubling down and claiming aggrievement and virtue-signaling. Yawn.
Can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into. True for anything, but learned from arguing with Ole miss fans that pre segregation football was the epitome of the sport.
I’ve never implied the Chop is racist. It IS racist.
For every claim that it is, there’s a claim like this (from the New York Times article on the Kansas City Chiefs)
John Learned, a member of the Cheyenne and Arapaho united tribes, led a small group that in 2013 encouraged the Chiefs to break from traditions that involved non-Native people dressing like Indians. But the chop, Learned said, was not offensive because it had no real meaning to Native communities.
“We’re not going to come after the chop, because it’s unique,” he said. “It’s a rallying cry for our team.”
And that’s the thing that gets me most about the Chop.
Chief Wahoo was racist. Dressing in traditional garb as a costume is racist.
But the Chop is not something that bemeans or belittles Native Americans. It doesn’t present a caricature. It doesn’t perpetuate a negative stereotype. And it’s not some symbol of Native American culture that has been appropriated.
It’s literally something that was created in the 1990’s for fans to cheer. That’s it. And virtually no one who does it, does it to create offense, or mock Native American culture, or people. They do it because the players say it pumps them up. That’s it.
Add to that the fact that Native Americans themselves are very much split on whether or not it is offensive — and not everything that is offensive is racist — and calling it per se “racist” is a very weak argument.
I agree. I grew up on a reservation (I am not Native American though) and we would do the chop every single time we got runners on base. It wasn’t until the last few years that I even realize it can be perceived as racist, and even that seems like a stretch. Some people are offended, so I can understand wanting to get rid of it. But my experience is plenty of Native Americans like it as well.
In my experience the only Native Americans who don’t like the chop have barely set foot on a reservation.
Typical arrogant woke people who’ve lived privileged and sheltered lived and come into little or no contact with actual minority groups imagining how members of these groups must feel on the basis of their own ignorance. I’m a jew and my daughters are half korean and we just laugh when we hear ignorant woke white people talking about people like us as if they have any knowledge of us at all. Give me non-woke white people every time. They’re much more respectful in terms of what they know and what they don’t know.
The problem is that there are some of Native American descent that do find it offensive (perhaps most notably for baseball purposes, Ryan Helsley, who had to pitch in a stadium full of people doing the chop). I sort of tend to agree that it isn’t quite as huge a deal as some make it out to be, though. Especially compared to, for instance, the mascot-ification of Native Americans seen in Chief Wahoo. And obviously we can’t stop doing everything that offends at least one person… So, as with most conversations held largely via social media, there is much more nuance that needs to be applied here than the “IT’S AWFUL OH MY GOD THE CHILDREN” or “SHUT UP PANSIES IT’S FINE” lines that are inevitably drawn. No one knows where the right place to draw the line actually is – how many people need to be offended, or how *much* offense do those people need to take before it’s a problem? All “culture” is the appropriation of some other peoples’ culture, so that’s not enough of a reason to stop the chop in and of itself, but idk. Probably the simplest solution is to just not do it, but really it’s just kind of meh, whatever.
Ryan Helsley was using the pressure of the moment with the Redskins debacle to gain a psychological advantage for his team in the opposing teams’ stadium, AND IT WORKED… I think that was one of the reasons the Braves so staunchly after the season said they weren’t changing the name of the team, and the Chop was right back out there to start the next season… The fact that a player on another team got to dictate what went on inside of the stadium of a franchise he was not employed by was one of the more stunning things I’ve ever seen…
Speaking as a jew, i can say that there are quite a few things that a very small number of jews love to whine about as being supposedly anti-semitic–basically for the purpose of getting attention for themselves– which the overwhelming majority of us think are either completely stupid or not worth mentioning, and then some woke pollster comes along with a questionnaire with questions which are clearly worded in such as a way as to produce answers which can be ‘interpreted’ in a way so as to make it appear that we’re all up in arms about it. It would not surprise me at all if the same thing was happening with native americans.
The Chop is racist as hell and as a Braves fan I wish they’d move away from it entirely. The Braves have done an admirable job of reaching out to the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and trying to forge a relationship with them but they need to understand that “Braves Country” is a big place and there are a lot more Native American groups they should be reaching out too. If they insist on keeping the name they need to publicly make their work with local Native communities known and have give and take dialogue which may include changing the name one day.
However I think it’s also important to note that when Native people are polled about mascot names that usually ranks near the bottom or their concerns. Native people are no more a monolith than any other ethnic group. Their concerns for their community run much deeper than mascot names. Changing a mascot name is an easy way for White people to feel like they did something to erase genocide instead of actually working with Native communities to preserve their cultures.
This is a very good point. Native American communities are dealing with about a thousand problems. Forget the search for solutions; the US government didn’t stop actively making things worse until recently. The US still practiced forced assimilation as late as 1953, when the residential school system started to get phased out, and much of the Bureau of Indian Affairs was devoted to political repression until the mid-70s. It seems totally reasonable that a good chunk of Native Americans see this as a continuation and reminder of the barbarism of those years and others probably figure they have other stuff to deal with.
The BIA was always referred to by native americans as Boss Indians Around.
More virtue signaling please.. you are clearly a better person than most
I find the New England Patriots to be offensive and racist. Making fun of Americans as angry fighters. Can you see, you can make up anything and start a race war, its all political to stir up the crowd and get political power.
Media in 2021, I guess? Half the article is talking about ethical crap unrelated to anything we’ll see in the series.
-domestic violence
-racism
-cheating
-some sort of “fiasco” with Aiken, like the big bad corporation somehow screwed over the little guy, right?
-mention of “foreign pitchers”, as if the players failed the physicals because Americans hate foreigners, I suppose
I would argue that this article is a better “societal microcosm visible in sport” than anything mentioned herein.
You have to concede that Marcell Ozuna doing… what he is alleged to do has a MAJOR role in the Braves early season underperformance. Like, I dunno how you don’t talk about it. It’s very relevant!
I would argue that Ozuna leaving the team, and what the Braves did to rectify it, helped them reach the WS
I agree, lets not be the one to throw the first stone. We are all sinners who are hopefully working out our salvation and trying to make our way to see God face to face in eternity forever.
You know, if I was more cynical, the fact that LA and Freidman were allowed to skate while Coppolella was banned for life, I might be inclined to ignore the infractions of either team. Almost like no one really cares as much as they say they do. Can’t be, right?
John Coppolella was banned for life because he got caught and just didn’t own up. Even with the evidence being overwhelming, Coppolella didn’t admit that the Braves had broken the rules. No repentance, no mercy.
Well I can understand that to some extent. Still, the hypothetical cynic will demand to know why we should care about Coppolella owning up when the Dodgers aren’t made to own up?
Did the Dodgers violate MLB’s rules? Dunno. What we do know is that the Dodgers terminated a lot of their international scouting personnel in 2015, possibly in response to perceived wrongdoing on their part. Part of why the Dodgers may not have been made to own up is because they cleaned house on their own.
Isn’t it pretty to think so?
If you want engage in conspiratorial thinking about MLB and the Dodgers, that’s fine. It’s stupid, but it’s fine.
Coppolella made it clear he didn’t care about the rules, and he’d do it again. He was banned for life, and I say good riddance.
Well I guess that the hypothetical cynic could be a conspiratorial thinker, but those would not be conspiratorial arguments. Like that old example (from Hume?) where two men get in a row boat and put their boat in motion without having to say anything. People doing what is in their best interest quite naturally. However, conspiracy theories are about invisible or shadowy agents consciously controlling certain kinds of events and information concerning those events.
This is also a fight for the worlds best strip clubs title. Would love to see someone break that down.
I don’t. Wouldn’t Atlanta have to be the Squaws? Thought the tradiotional dress worn by the right stripper could be so hot as to unite all men.
Atlanta has both the “serious” best strip club in the country in Magic City (go duke) and the Bestworst in the Claremont.
They are well renowned, and deservedly so. 99/100 social scientists maintain that the quality of strip clubs in a particular geo-political sphere, whether specified across all relevant demographics or otherwise, is the primary indicator of such geo-political sphere’s standard of living.
There looms the possibility that much of the conversation and media discourse during the next two weeks will revolve around the scandals that each franchise has been party to during the last several years.
Ummm…ok…. please name these scandals….
The Braves had an international signing scandal that earned then-GM John Coppolella a lifetime ban; he ended up throwing away his career for players who, it turns out, aren’t very good. They built a controversial new stadium in a controversial location. Carter Stewart’s post-draft medical drama was ugly, and it was far from the first time a high school pitcher failed his physical for an Alex Anthopolous-run team. They still do The Chop. And just this year, Marcell Ozuna was arrested midseason for a domestic violence assault.
One of those things – Coppolella’s disregard for the rules – was a scandal. Ozuna’s was a brutal domestic assault that has no place in society…. but it isn’t a scandal. A controversial stadium location is a scandal? Huh?
Feels like you brought your biases to this article and then fit your content to the narrative in your head. Instead of, you know, writing about baseball.
Hipsters are annoyed they can’t walk to the stadium and pick up a $2 ticket. If there’s any voice that’s magnified on the internet, it’s hipsters in southwest Atlanta who like to think they’d go to Braves games. That’s why there’s so much coverage of the thing. Feel like half of SBNation’s staff was there for a while. I was consuming a lot of that content, so it felt like very real grievances…. Of a pretty small slice of Atlanta.
Not gonna lie, it sounds like a really good time to get $2 tickets so I can watch baseball and tell strangers about that time I saw Wilco before everyone knew who Wilco was
More likely to be REM or DMB (C’ville)
“Feels like you brought your biases to this article and then fit your content to the narrative in your head. Instead of, you know, writing about baseball.”
Far too many articles are like this unfortunately.
Yeah. It’s a scandal if Ozuna is a friend or family member. I hope my family would be scandalized if I were to hit my wife, otherwise, gross. But the Braves aren’t involved in some icky scandal because of something they couldn’t have foreseen. So you’re right.
And you know, what on earth does this series have to do with that old braves scandal or the trash can banging bit?
And part of me almost sort of every now and then wonders why upper mid market teams like Atlanta and Houston seem to suffer scandals and fallout worse than that suffered by very big teams for the same transgressions. Almost, as if there’s a kind of dynamic at work, and that it arises from he fact that a significant portion of the league is subsidized by the very large teams. But no, that can’t be. Everyone is just so ethical and pure. They wouldn’t let that happen.
This will be the first year I don’t watch a WS game since 1994.
So you watched in 2016 when a team called the Indians played against a team with a closer not far removed from nasty domestic violence charges?
Also, how in the world could you stomach that ‘95 matchup?
We are here for baseball and have no interest in the complaints of the professionally offended.
This article is offensive in its accusatory treatment of these teams. The ridiculous standards by which you judge them has nothing to do with reality and you should be ashamed of yourself for denigrating the sport in this way. The apology you owe us is not likely to be forthcoming but you should be considering it or be considering employment in some other field.
1) How is Braves management at fault for what Ozuna did? He didn’t have a history like Bauer when they signed him, did he?
2) All this mention of off-the-field controversies and no mention of the All-Star game? If the World Series is a bigger deal than the ASG, it seems inconsistent for MLB to allow Atlanta to host Series games. Houston too – after the decision was taken to move the ASG, Texas approved a similar election law that I think was worse than Georgia’s in some respects – allowing fewer drop boxes in high-population areas than Georgia’s, for example.
3) In this year’s discussion of the Chop, I haven’t seen it mentioned that the Braves version started in spring training 1991 as fans’ homage to Deion Sanders, who had been a college football star at Florida State, which had used the Chop for many years (and I think had an arrangement with a recognized Seminole group).
my goodness do not bring up THAT LAW again unless you actually want to talk about THAT LAW. Think long and hard before you answer.
Unless you live in Georgia that law is none of your business, and as I do not it is none of mine either. But you should be thinking long and hard about making threats to the ether.
Making threats to the ether? Lol. Also how is a voting law that helps to determine nationwide policies none of our business? I think it is quite literally everyone’s business.
Not going to get into the election law specifics, but are you seriously surprised that something that happened a whole three months ago (an ETERNITY by today’s standards for public attention span) is no longer moving the needle? Besides, after the public realized that a good chunk of those people getting screwed by the ASG moving were the people they were purporting to help, that bandwagon cleared out real fast.
MLB never gave a rat’s fart about the law itself. It wanted to avoid any player boycott or other bad press. No chance of that happening here. If you’re really confused about why the ASG could be moved but that MLB isn’t going to change the WS location, please check your head for a lobotomy scar.
” All this mention of off-the-field controversies and no mention of the All-Star game?”
One of the few actual controversies in Baseball this year. I have heard of no plans for remunerations to the team or to the city of Atlanta over that controversy. In this case a real measurable wrong was done and the perpetrators expect the people of the great state of Georgia and the fans of baseball to accept it.
Most of us will be enjoying the game on the field. Sorry that you’re too busy worrying about meaningless stuff to do that.
Weird that Octavio Dotel gets a call out over Oswalt, Clemens and Pettite, or if that was a well executed deadpan I commend you
re: Marcell Ozuna. If a woman came at me with a weapon she’d get choked too.
So my choices are either the trash can or tomahawk. Great……..
What’s the data on how many players are from the area?
Reminds me of the topic from Outliers about the hockey players born between January and March.
Year round baseball really helps- there’s a heavy bias against cold weather guys as a result.
Overall I think a good article. I hope it’s a great series.
I enjoy articles on Fangraphs. I even align myself politically with the way most the writers on this site lean….but like c’mon. What are we doing here? Not gonna even do the whole PC cancel culture blah blah stuff….but like this? Read the title. Baseball hotbeds clash in title bout. Then half the article is just complaining about the players and the organizations. It is weird?
The Astros have done their best to prove that cheaters do prosper.
Many people are saying that certain powers have done their best to ensure that only the Astros are outed as cheaters. Many people. Not me. But others. many of them.
A bit disappointed that this “World Series Preview” discussed more controversy than World Series baseball.