Rick Ankiel (Approaching the Mendoza Line), Sotomayor, Race, and a "Good Story"

Rick Ankiel is a Cardinal outfielder with an "inspiring story". He failed as a pitcher, because of some sort of mental block (now called "social anxiety disorder") which suddenly caused him to be unable to throw strikes. He remade himself into an outfielder, and made it back to the major league Cardinals last year, in that position, with a flurry of home runs.


That shows the difference between sports and the rest of our increasingly leftist society. For Ankiel, and anyone in sports, a "good story" is not enough. In politics, a "good story" (and teleprompter) was enought to get Barack Obama elected PRESIDENT of the United States. A "good story" seems to be the major qualification for Sonia Sotomayor to be a Supreme Court justice.


In baseball, your "story" is not enough. Ankiel had to PERFORM to make it back to the major leagues as a position player, and he will have to PERFORM to stay there. Right now, he is NOT performing. There is something called the "Mendoza line" for a hitter (don't hear the term much lately, perhaps because Mendoza is a "latino" name, which had nothing to do with the origin of the term). That was the term coined, in "honor" of a notoriously light hitting position player, to refer to any position player who approaches a .200 batting average (the "Mendoza line"). Well, Ankiel is approaching the "Mendoza line". In fact, we may have to coint a new term for Ankiel, the "Ankiel line", to represent a player who can't hit more than .100. Ankiel is hitting LESS than .100 for his last 25 or so times to the plate. Further, this is not much of an aberration. After that flurry of home runs when he was first called up last year, Ankiel did not hit well. Further, he did not hit well this year, even before ramming a fence and going on the DL. Ankiel would ot be getting any playing time now, and would perhaps be back i the minor leagues already, except the Cardinals HAVE NO ONE ELSE to play left field who is much better. Chris Duncan is making his own assault on the Mendoza line.


Sports is still an area, and has been ever since Jackie Robinson, where individual merit rules. It is an area pretty much color blind.


You may have watched the All Star game. If you managed to get past the attempt to turn the game into a leftist political commercial, complete with Obama and Carter, you probably noticed the lack of African-Ameridan PITCHERS. Oh, there have been, and are, some good African-American pitchers. But they are not NEARLY so prevalent as black position players. Where is the "affrimative action"? Why not let black pitchers pitch from 50 feet? Why not give them a bigger strike zone.


Take golg and NASCAR. There is Tiger Woods. But name another black golfer! (yes, I am aware there are a few.). Is there any movement to give African-American golfers a stroke a hole? Same with NASCAR. Where is the "affirmative" action? (I know. There may actually be a problem with black drivers getting an opportunity with the racing teams who dominate NASCAR, but the fact remains that any driver who showed real ability would likely get his chance, and auto racing goes way beyond NASCAR, with a limited number of top quality black drivers).


I could come up with all kinds of "socio-economic" reasons why black men dominate some sports (NBA, for example) and/or positioins, and are "underrepresented in others. So What? It is INDIVIDUAL MERIT that matters, and you would be lloked at as NUTS for suggesting that black golfers should get a stroke here and there to make up for their "disadvantages".


You say sports are "different? NO, THEY ARE NOT. The lack of merit of "reverse discrimination" is simply obvious in sports, while leftists DECEIVE elsewhere. How is it different to give a black person 5 points on the LSAT (or some equivalent advantage in the application process for law school) than it is to give a black person strokes at golf (where "handicap" is even part of golf at the club level)? It is NOT different. It is only that leftists can "spin" it differently. In either case it is INDIVIDUAL MERIT that should matter, and not the color of a person's skin.


Yes, we are back to the New Haven firefighters adn Sotomayor. It is like Rick Ankiel overcame his problem throwing strikes (as at least one of the "white" firefighters overcame a type of learning disability), only to be told that he could not go back to the major leagues because of "diversity" requirements. There is NO difference, and leftists are hypocritical liars when they say there is a difference.


Yes, it is SOMETIMES harder to evaluate individual merit outside of sports. That is no excuse for evaluating people on the basis of their skin color--especially when objective measures do exist evaluating individual merit.


How do leftists try to finesse this argument--lying, racist hypocrites that they are? Well, they have recently trended toward the "diversity" scam, which is nothing more than a blatant attempt to impose a racial quota system. However, if pressed, they will fall back on trying to twist the word "qualified".


Do you realize that "qualified" has NO objective meaning? Well, it doesn't. Is Rick Ankiel "qualified" to be playing as left fielder for the St. Louis Cardinals? Not that I can see, but it is a RELATIVE thing. If Ankiel is the best they have at any tiven time (God help them, the way he is now hitting), then he is "qualified". "Qualified" ONLY has meaning in a relative sense. In sports, this problem is handled easily. There are no arguments as to whom is "qualified" to be on the PGA tour. The peoople who WIN the qualifying tournament are "qualified", and the others are not. It makes no difference that many of those who fail to make the PGA tour play pretty darn god golf, and are ALMOST as "qualified" as those on the tour. You are still evaluated on your individual merit, in comparison with other INDIVIDUALS, and not on lyour skin color.


Using the logic of the left, thousands of people are "quafified" to be on the PGA tour, because they play perfectly acceptable golf. What the left is saying is that you don't need to make ANY effort to evaluate the most qualified individuals, because there is always a big pool of people who are "qualfied"--just not equally "qualified". Do you see the DECEPTION here? The leftist idea is that black New Have firefighters will make perfectly acceptable firefighters, and that it is irrelevant whether some white firefighters might be "better". More importantly, of course, the question is why people should be discriminated against on the basis of the COLOR OF THEIR SKIN.


If the left applied the sme logic to the PGA tour, they would argue that preferences for black golfers would not really mean that golfers on the PGA tour were "unqualified". They would still be a whole lot better golfers than you or me. Who would notice if you haved SLIGHTLY less "qualified" golfers? They would still be "qualified", would they not? They would still play GOOD GOLF. After all, every week some of the golfers on the PGA tour play pretty BADLY. How do you know "affirmative action" golfers would do any worse?


What is "qualified"? There is no objective meaning. That is irrelevant to the fact that people deserve to be evaluated as INDIVIDUALS< and not as a member of a racial or ethnic group. Sports (generally) gets this right. Leftists (generally) get this wrong.


Thus, despite his story, Rick Ankiel had better improve, FAST, or he will be back in the minor leagues. I, personally, tink he should be there now in an attmpt to rebuild his confidence, and perhaps work on obvious flaws in his swing. Ankiel's "story" will not ultimately save him in baseball.


P.S. I have no intention of turning this blog into a Cardinals fan site, or sports fan site. However, I do think Rick Ankiel in particular, and sports in general, are useful in proving a point about society at large. The poin of this entry is that people should be treated on their merits as an individual, and not either as members of racial or ethnic groups or based on their "life story". Now "life story" may be relevant in many areas, such as inspirational speaker, but a "life story" does not give you abilities in skilled areas--does not, for example, make you a first quality mathematician or computer programmer.


That said, I have some supplemental comments on the Central Division of the National League. With present balck holes in left field, and at third base, the cardinals are still not a truly "good" team. However, with both Ludwick and rookie Rasmux getting got, they MAY stick around to the end, with a chance to win the division (the wild card still comes out of the West). I now have eliminated Milwaukee, unelss they pick up pitching help. Even though Milwaukee is still second in the divisioin, their pitching is just NOT GOOD ENOUGH (even if "qualified"). Their hitting is pretty good, but can't make up for the pitching deficiency (as the Cardinal hitting could not last year). I now reduce the Central Divisnon race to three--a DIFFERENT "trio" of (mediocore) teams from Dan: St. Louis, Chicago Cubs, and HOUSTON. Houston did not seem to figure, and yet they are playing as well as, or better than, any team in the division. I am TEMPTED to eliminate the Cubs, who have been terrible on the road and have substantial injuries. Even with Derek Lee having heated up, he has had some physical problems. It seems like Ramirez should still be on the DL, although he is back in the lineup. Their catcher is no the DL. I just can't quite eliminate the Cubs, because they have adequate pitching (if healthy), and the potential to eventually catch fire. I don't considrer the Cubs a truly "good" tema, which is my opinion of every team in the division. But I can't quite dismiss them, because of the substaintial flaws in every other team in the division. The team that wins the division will probably be the team that best "corrects" its flaws. The Cardinals, for example, need to do SOMETING aobut Duncan, Ankiel (left field) and thrid base. DeRosa might yet help, but is now on th DL without a Cardinal hit. And which teams will develop MORE FLAWS because of injuries and/or slumps. Baseball players see to suddenlly be very fragile. I still consider the Central Division wide open, but now believe the winner will be one of the three teams named. Isn't it "brave" of me to elminate Milwaukee? I think so.