So Andy Martino, over at the New York Daily News, asked this question on Twitter:
“Why do people compare Francisco to Benitez? There have been many bad closers in the intervening years.”
His implication seemed clear, particularly from the writer who once wrote a piece speculating that Mets fans, who adored Jose Reyes and Pedro Martinez, were sour on Luis Castillo because of race, rather than because of his poor play on the field or that dropped pop up against the Yankees.
From my perspective, I am glad Martino is taking a closer look at the role race plays in the perception of athletes. I think it would be too simple to dismiss the role it plays in many instances.
But let’s try and examine what other reasons fans could have for comparing Frank Francisco to Armando Benitez.
First, the idea that the Mets have had “many bad closers” since Armando Benitez left just isn’t true. Since Benitez left, the Mets have had three regular closers: Braden Looper, Billy Wagner and Francisco Rodriguez. The latter two were among the best closers in Mets history. Looper, obviously, was not.
Aha! And Looper is white! So race must be the reason why Mets fans compare Benitez and Francisco, correct?
Well, there are a number of other reasons, too.
Armando Benitez was a heavyset reliever who threw a majority of fastballs. His second pitch was a splitter. He suffered from command issues with his slider pitches, tended to leave those fastballs over the middle of the plate when he got beaten. He was primarily a flyball pitcher whose velocity tended to hover in the mid-90s. He walked well more than four per nine innings, and struck out better than a batter per inning.
All of these things are true for Frank Francisco, too. All of them. They are both a very specific type of pitcher. They also look remarkably similar, facially, and wear practically the same number: Benitez wore 49, Francisco wears 48.
And Braden Looper was a groundball pitcher who barely struck out anybody. Mets fans weren’t fond of him, but it wouldn’t make any sense at all to compare Francisco to Looper, for reasons having nothing to do with race.
Notice also that despite a general dislike of Francisco Rodriguez within the fan base, no one is comparing Francisco to Rodriguez, despite the two of the being of Latin descent.
Like I said at the top, looking at the role race plays in the perception of athletes is worth doing. Throwing assertions and insinuations about it out there, when there are clearly more obvious reasons for fan reaction, diminishes the careful look at an important aspect of analysis and makes the case harder to present when racial motivations really are present. I think Martino does a disservice to such examinations by saying this on Twitter, just as I believe he did with his Castillo piece.
9 Comments
I think Martino was right in the case of Castillo.
The problem is that everything is seen to some extent through the prism of race. So the fact that a racial/ethnic element may have existed in the fans’ perception of Castillo needn’t lead to the inexorable conclusion that some sort of impermissible racism was involved. Maybe we should just be more accepting of, and less judgmental and defensive about, the fact that race enters into our perceptions.
So I don’t think Martino has done anyone a “disservice” by raising the issue. If people would have a less hair-trigger reaction to discussions about race, no one would need to feel attacked or criticized by someone mentioning it.
Hi Acoustic,
Thanks for the comment. I appreciate where you’re coming from, but let’s take your perspective apart a little bit.
If everything is viewed a bit through the prism of race, and we accept that premise, then there’s nothing particularly remarkable about the particulars of the Francisco/Benitez comparison, or anything else.
I don’t see Andy making the point that the Castillo antipathy, or the Francisco/Benitez comparison, is on par with the universal viewing of everything through the lens of race. He appears to be pointing it out because it is exceptional, in his opinion.
And so if the general reaction to raising the issue of race is fraught- and it is, there’s no changing that reality- I think it ought to be done in instances where that aspect of a conversation is at least significant. There are plenty of those. I don’t think Castillo, nor Francisco/Benitez, qualify. Just my opinion, of course.
If Andy wants to write a book on the subject, he should write about how Lastings Milledge was treated in New York.
Howard—fair points. I don’t know precisely what Andy Martino’s motivations or ultimate point might be. You may be right that he himself is highlighting the Castillo and Benitez/Francisco cases in a way that regards them as especially troubling and not just another illustration of how race always enters the picture in some way. In that case, I grant that he may be pushing the idea too hard here.
OTOH, my experience is that even when one simply attempts to make situations like this an occasion for at least looking, in a non-judgmental and non-accusatory way, at the way in which race may play a role in how we frame and talk about issues, it can be very difficult to avoid defensive reactions from people who just wish they didn’t have to think or talk about race at all, especially in their recreational (but passionate) lives such as following their team.
I will say that I admire Andy Martino for being willing to surface these issues even though he knows it will provoke pushback.
Thanks for your reply.
—Clyde
Get off the race card, bozo, and concentrate on being a sportswriter, not a sociologist.
And another thing, if we had a closer like Mariano Rivera, he could be from Outer Slovobia and named Obelisk Quantanniwitz and he’d be cheered and loved. Same if he was from darkest Africa and named Idi Amin. Grow up!
or, you could just stop reading andy martino. i stopped reading him fairly quickly after he started writing about the mets and i do not regret that decision. it seemed to me that he wrote inflammatory articles (often speculating without presenting evidence) to get his hit count up.
Awesome article..yet again Howard!
I dont care about race, i care about performance. If FF were the next Mariano Rivera i will idolize him. If he sucks I dont care if he is white, green, blue or polka dot, get rid of the bum.
I actually liked Benitez until the 2000 WS. Then a string of high profile blown saves and his status fell like a lead baseball.
Sports and race are a fascinating intersection, because in our culture we consider sports to be the ultimate symbol of meritocracy and fairness. Rules are rules, and athletes are rewarded by their performance, end of story. But, if we want to be more truthful, the story shouldn’t end there. We celebrate Jackie Robinson every five minutes, but we don’t discuss any racial implications in baseball and professional sports today.
I understand people’s reactions to those who bring up the question of race in something that is not obviously a racial matter—they think it’s cheap and undermines the spirit of sports fandom. The question, and this blog post was an interesting discussion. I think Howard is right, that there are some real, non-racial, similarities to Benitez. But, if Francisco was white and from Texas, and had the same pitching style, no one would have made the connection to Benitez.
But more broadly, I agree with Acoustic, that we do see everything a little bit through the prism of race. It is totally normalized within all of us to do so. It does not make anyone a bad person to make such a connection, or wonder whether the connection had to do with race. Both are pretty valid responses, and hopefully part of a larger discussion. Kudos to Andy Martino—a critical eye is simply a mark of good journalism.
What an overwritten, continuously equivocating line of pseudo-intellectual hooey. In your world, everybody’s a victim; there’s a latent ogre hiding behind every tulip tree. Little wonder this world is in the sociological and financial shape that it is.