Skip to main content
One of my friends was asked a question about his favorite baseball team, the Atlanta Braves. All these warm emotions came flooding back, as my affection for the Braves is not small. [Aren't you a die-hard Cardinals fan?--ed.] Yes. But the Braves of my youth in the '90s taught me to love the game more than my team, or at least to see baseball beauty unshaded by the passions of loyalty. [Wow. Pompous much?--ed.] If I write something pretty, I just gotta go with it.

As everyone probably knows, pitching is my favorite part of baseball. I used to pitch to my brother in the backyard; I'll take a 1-0 or 2-1 pitching duel over a home-run explosion any day. And my favorite pitcher by a long way is Greg Maddux. He always had that underdog thing about him, because I never saw him hit 90 MPH on the radar gun, and definitely not later. He surely is proud of the fact that he could out-think the hitters instead of overpower them. No one with 355 wins is actually an underdog, but you know what I mean. A hard fastball is like a SEAL team: it makes up for mistakes. A well-placed pitch, however, reveals greatness. Maddux was the crown jewel of those Braves pitching staffs until he returned to the Cubs in 2004. He needed those extra 5 seasons to get to 300 wins (to leave no Hall of Fame doubts in the minds of stupid baseball writers) but part of me dreams that he would have walked away in 2003. He was at his peak still, then. But aside from my Ric Bucher-like tendency to tell legends when to leave, let me be clear: I loved every second I watched him. I'd pay to watch him now, four years after he threw his last pitch. I'm still proud I traded Albert Pujols in fantasy baseball straight-up for him in 2002. He showed you that pride in being a pitcher that all the best ones have. He made it fun to watch the pitcher, to think like he thinks. He made it cool to like complete games again. And he's the prototype for guys like Halladay and Chris Carpenter, though they throw much harder. Even when he was bad, he was good. He lost some stamina and strikeout ability at the end, but he could still dominate on any given day.

I could tell you so many stories of games I watched where his legend grew in my mind. Not in the prime days, but long after. He was so great and proud to play the game. In my twenties, I followed every game as best I could. If you never saw him, you wouldn't get it. The numbers are epic, but they don't tell you the story. There is a romance to baseball that the numbers only hint at. There is a testimony that a game gives that a box score may not. This is why I appreciate sabermetrics in many respects, but my eyes show me the truth in baseball.

I'm saying that when I dream of Heaven, and pitching on the mound for the Cardinals there, I want to pitch like Maddux. If I have a son who wants to play, (and pitch) I'm going to show him how Maddux did it. If I can find my way to Cooperstown on his day soon, I'll go. And I'll cheer--and probably cry--because few did it better, and with so much class, as Gregory Alan Maddux.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un