Can a Mascot Help Your Team Win?

So, it was Monday or Tuesday this week and I was trying to think of something I could write about that didn’t necessarily have to do with the Yankees. I mean the baseball season is six months long; there will be plenty of time for me to complain about some idle Tuesday that A.J. Burnett gives up 7 runs to the Royals.

In the midst of my brain-storming, I was talking to my friend Amanda and gave her the task of coming up with an out of the box idea that I could research and talk about. And, being the intelligent sports enthusiast that she is, simply said ‘mascots.’ It made perfect sense to me why she would come up with such a random idea such as that, so I’ll briefly explain. Amanda interns for the Syracuse Chiefs, the minor league affiliate of the Washington Nationals. She has also in the past worked for the New Britain Rock Cats and has donned the costume of Rocky the Rock Cat.

It got me to thinking about all those sports organizations that parade around some character or animal in front of the live crowd during games to bring joy to the faces of the children in attendance and rally support for the home team. Webster’s dictionary defines a mascot as “a person, animal, or object believed to bring good luck, especially one kept as the symbol of an organization such as a sports team.”

Do mascots make a difference? Can one figure bring a team from the depths of defeat and transform them into a group of champions?

In January, Forbes Magazine compiled a top ten list of “America’s Top Sports Mascots.” Below is that list:

10. Albert E. Gator - University of Florida
9. Goldy Gopher - University of Minnesota
8. Aubie the Tiger - Auburn University
7. Sparty - Michigan State
6. Mike the Tiger - LSU
5. Benny the Bull - Chicago Bulls
4. Wally the Green Monster - Boston Red Sox
3. Hairy Dawg - University of Georgia
2. Phillie Phanatic – Philadelphia Phillies
1. Mr. Met – New York Mets

Editors Note: I’m refraining from letting my disdain and bias against the New York Mets and Boston Red Sox from influencing any feelings I have towards that list

I decided to dig a little deeper into those particular mascots and took it to the internet to look up the respected teams records of the top 5 mascots over a ten year period; the five years prior to the mascot’s creation and the five years immediately following its debut, to compare the records and see if any similarities can be discovered.


Starting off our top five, we have Benny the Bull (and no, I don’t mean the character on Dora the Explorer), the Chicago Bulls mascot since 1969. Since the Bulls were founded in 1966, I was only able to compile a record for the three years prior to Benny’s debut. Granted, they were a new franchise, so expectations were very timid at the onset, the Bulls struggled with a combined winning percentage of .387, sporting a record of 95 – 150. With Benny the Bull’s introduction at the beginning of the 1969 season, the Bulls increased their win total to a franchise high of 39. For the five year period immediately following his debut, the Bulls were able to turn things around and had a drastic improvement in team play to have a 252 – 158 record, a .614 winning percentage and five consecutive playoff appearances. We have our first instance of a mascot obviously improving a team’s play.

Coming in the four spot, we have Wally the Green Monster, from the Boston Red Sox (give me credit, I’ve refrained from taking any cheap shots. I haven’t unleashed a profanity laced tirade at the mere mention of the Red Sox yet) who made his debut in 1997. For the five year period preceding Wally’s debut, the Red Sox had a combined record of 375 – 367 for a .505 winning percentage and only one playoff appearance. For the five years after Wally’s creation, the Red Sox were able to improve to a 431 – 378 record with a .532 winning percentage and two playoff appearances. So we’re now 2 for 2 with a mascot improving the play of his team.

As much as I hate the Red Sox, I give Wally credit. He, David Ortiz and Jorge Posada did have a humorous ESPN Commercial. That’s the nicest thing I will say about him, because I refuse to mention anything about the Red Sox reversing some supposed curse or winning two world championships in the first decade of Wally’s career. I just wont’ do it. Nobody can rope me into even acknowledging said events exist. It’s all lies and propaganda.

The University of Georgia’s Hairy Dawg is our number three finalist for
America’s Top Mascot. For the five years prior to his debut, the Georgia Bulldogs had a winning percentage of .724 with a record of 42 – 15 – 1. Following his costumed debut in the 1980 Sugar Bowl against Notre Dame (Georgia won the game, capping off their undefeated season en route to the National Championship), the Bulldogs compiled a respectable 45 – 11 – 4 record with a .750 winning percentage. Yet again, the results improved after the mascot was riling the crowd into a frenzy.

World renowned mascot, the Phillie Phanatic finished in the number two slot for Forbes’ list. The five seasons prior to his creation, the Phillies were able win 439 games and lose only 371, for a combined winning percentage of .541. Following the debut of the Phanatic in 1978, the Phillies managed a 410 – 345 record with a .543 winning percentage. While the winning percentages and records for the Phillies both pre and post Phanatic are undeniably similar, what cannot be ignored is the World Series championship the Phillies won in 1980, the first major championship in the Phillies history (and only championship until 2008).

And finally, number one on the list (and not even in the top 1,500,321,138, 231 of my heart), Mr. Met. The first mascot in Major League Baseball to exist in human form, Mr. Met and his gargantuan Barry Bonds-esque head popped onto the scene in the 1964 season for the Mets (Obviously steroids were prevalent during the 1960’s, case in point, the size of that damn head). Obviously it’s difficult to compile records for the five years prior to his metamorphosis into the hearts of millions, since the Mets were exactly two years old at the time of his ‘birth’. So, for prosperity’s sake, we’ll just look at the first 5 years of his Mets career. Always being dubbed the ‘loveable losers’, the Mets were unquestionably terrible during the first half decade of Mr. Met’s adolescent mascot life compiling a disappointing 303 - 506 for a .374 winning percentage. I know the Mets were able to bounce back and win the World Series as the "Miracle Mets" in 1969, but, that was one year too late to be relevant information to my little study.

So there you have it. Did we learn anything about what a mascot brings to a team? It seems that a mascot can positively influence a fan base and a team of players. Granted, my statistics and research would have looked a lot better if 100% of the teams I looked at saw positive results with the usage of a mascot, but of course the New York Mets had to screw that up. So thanks guys. I appreciate it. Way to blow 3 hours worth of research. I’ll remember this if I’m ever at a Mets game and I see Mr. Met. You’re getting a pretzel right upside your steroid induced temporal lobe buddy.

And since it’s been long enough, here’s a shameless plug for the New York Yankees, because I’m sure you were wondering if the Yankees ever had a mascot in their history. Well, I was even surprised to find out, that yes, the Yankees did at one point in time. At the start of the 1980 season, the Yankees introduced a large pinstriped bird named Dandy. He had a mustache eerily reminiscent of former Yankee Sparky Lyle. In typical New York fashion, Dandy was promptly beaten up by fans who didn’t want a mascot and he was replaced within months, never to be heard from again.

In all seriousness though (let’s see how long it lasts), I really don’t know if a mascot can incite a crowd of fans into turning a team around. Obviously the players a team puts on the field or court will play into it a lot and a mascot doesn’t have as much impact on a team as I’m attempting to lead you to believe. Although, I single handedly blame that stupid “Rally Monkey” the Angels have for them beating the Yankees in 2002 and 2005. (so the seriousness lasted a total of one and a half sentences. Not bad.) Seeing that little thing (I just found out it is actually a her, named Katie) jump up and down in a little Angels uniform during the bottom half of innings in which the Angels are trailing, will haunt me for the rest of my life. I need to stop now before that profanity laced tirade about the Red Sox turns into one about a 24 inch capuchin monkey.

A big thanks goes to Amanda for giving me such a good idea to research and for entertaining me as I wrote it. Until the next rant…

Let Manny be Manny

Look at your calendar right now. The date you’re reading is February 26th, 2009. In case you’re wondering, that means Spring Training started exactly twelve days ago. Teams had their first games on Wednesday afternoon. And yet, arguably the greatest right handed hitter of all-time, Manuel Aristides Onelcida remains unsigned. No idea who he is? That’s the birth name of Manny Ramirez, the quintessential power hitter of this generation. Sure, there those individuals who have better career numbers, who are younger (See: Rodriguez, Alex), but Manny brings a different aura to the teams he plays on.

It is exactly because of that fact, that Manny Ramirez would be the perfect fit in the New York Yankees lineup. I know you’re thinking three things right now. 1) He’s too much of a distraction to the teams he’s been on in the past. 2) The Yankees don’t need him, because we already have too many outfielder / designated hitter types. And 3) the Yankees have already spent $423.5 million this off-season with the acquisitions of Mark Teixeira, CC Sabathia and A.J. Burnett, the spending has to stop somewhere.

Well, you’re right and you’re wrong. Hear me out for a minute. First and foremost, Manny Ramirez only caused problems when the Boston Red Sox forced his hand. Never in his Cleveland Indians career did he cause problems. And, if you ask anybody not named Curt Schilling (the loud mouth moron of the Northeast), Manny was the model teammate in his time with the Red Sox. The Red Sox management did what they normally do to an aging star, who they are trying to phase out and that is alienate him from the team, the front office and the fan base and turn them into the enemy (See: Garciapara, Nomar).

On the Dodgers, did Manny ever cause a problem? The answer would be an emphatic NO. And the reason is, because the Red Sox created those problems. They created all of the negative feelings that Manny felt which would cause him to make up phantom injuries to get out of the lineup, because he was unhappy. And frankly, I don’t fault him for that. Yes, he went about things in the wrong manner, but who in life has ever not grown frustrated with their working environment and wanted a change? But, unlike most of us, Manny didn’t have the option of quitting and starting anew. He was forcibly trapped in a place he no longer wanted to be.

Addressing the thought that the Yankees don’t need him because we have too many outfielder / designated hitters as it is. You can NEVER have too many players. Depth is very important. The Yankees as it stands right now are going into the season with too many outfielders and have been exploring possible trades for Xavier Nady or Nick Swisher.

The Yankees could sign Manny Ramirez to a contract that would be sufficient in his and Scott Boras’ (his agent) eyes. Something in the range of 3 years and $72 million ($24 million per year) with a vesting option for a 4th year based on performance for some outrageous figure in the $28 or $29 million range. All winter long, Manny has been clamoring for a 4 year / $100 million contract and with that offer, the Yankees would be offering 3 years and $72 million, with the possibility of raising it to 4 years and $100 million.

This would work out well for the Yankees for the next few years, not just this year. For the duration of the off season, Brian Cashman would reiterate the fact that the Yankees were looking to trim payroll, which even with their additions, they’ve succeeded in doing so (much to the chagrin of the rest of the world). If the Yankees signed Manny, our payroll would obviously increase by nearly $20 million. But, it would save the Yankees money in the long run. After this season, the Yankees will have Xavier Nady ($6.5 million), Hidek Matsui ($13 million) and Johnny Damon ($13 million) coming off the books, in the outfield alone! That’s $32.5 million the Yankees will be looking to replace in their outfield, with a very thin outfield market shaping up in free agency. It makes optimal sense to sign Manny now, take the media scrutiny for the Yankees “buying another championship” and be ecstatic with throwing out a lineup that would boast the most feared 3, 4, 5 in baseball history. Mark Teixeira, Manny Ramirez and Alex Rodriguez would be a new age Murderers’ Row, making the 1927 Yankees lineup surrounded by Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig and Bob Meusel looking like the 1962 New York Mets. The Yankees would also be able to shift things around by dangling Xavier Nady and a prospect or two in exchange for another arm in our bullpen. In doing so, the Yankees would then be able to shift Johnny Damon to right field and be able to slot Ramirez into left field without a hitch.

Coming to the Yankees would motivate Ramirez more so than if he signed with any other team. Not only would Ramirez get to play the Red Sox 19 times a year and exact revenge for his wrong doing, but, he would be coming home so to speak having spent the majority of his life living in Washington Heights.

The Yankees want to bring a World Series title back to the Bronx after nearly a decade of never being good enough. Moving into a new stadium, with increased ticket prices and increasing fan expectations to get back to the promised land, the Yankees front office should be breaking the bank at doing whatever we can to win.

Last season, Yankees left fielders hit a combined .285 with 27 home runs and 113 runs batted in. They also attained a .364 on base percentage with a .351 slugging percentage.

In contrast, Manny Ramirez hit .332 with 37 home runs and 121 runs batted in, while reaching base at an astounding .430 and slugged an astronomical .601. The Yankees would be getting a dramatic increase in production for their lineup, at a time when there are question marks surrounding Jorge Posada (is his shoulder healthy?), Robinson Cano (can he bounce back?), Hideki Matsui (can his knees hold up?) and Alex Rodriguez (did he find another supplier?).

What Manny Ramirez brings in the regular season is nothing short of tremendous, but it’s what he does in the post season where the Yankees most sorely need his bat. Alex Rodriguez is a poor post season performer. It happens to a lot of people. He’s a great talent, works hard and can tear the cover off the ball, but come October, he wilts quicker than his Madonna Lilies (was that a cheap shot?). The Yankees could use the addition of the man who has hit the most home runs in post season history.

Say what you want about Ramirez and the whole mantra of “Manny being Manny”, but it’s all about entertainment. Baseball is a game that’s supposed to be fun. Nobody has more fun than Manny Ramirez; really, he’s just a big kid with a baseball bat. The controversy and public scrutiny the Yankees would receive for signing Ramirez would take some of the pressure off A-Rod and his steroid debacle. Not to mention, it would grab the public’s attention. The rest of the country already hates the Yankees for signing Sabathia, Teixeira and Burnett. Why not just take the final step and sign Manny?

If Manny Ramirez wants to really stick it to the Red Sox, what better way to do it, than going to their biggest rival? I say let Manny be Manny in the Bronx. And I’ll be the first one to stand up and applaud.

Spur of the Moment Creativity

Sung to the tune of “Jack and Diane” by John Cougar Mellencamp:


Barry and A-Rod

Little ditty about Barry and A-Rod
Two baseball players juicin’ up their steroid induced bod
Barry’s gonna be the home run king
A-Rod sittin’ backseat to Jeter without a ring.

Suckin’ on a protein shake outside the BALCO lab
A-Rod standin’ next to Barry
He gives his little needle a jab
Barry say, hey A-Rod I got plans
Let me know if you agree
Let’s give Clemens a call
He’s with Brian McNamee
And Barry say a

Chorus:

Oh yeah, the game goes on
Long after the thrill of juicin’ is gone
Oh yeah, the game goes on
Long after the thrill of juicin’ is gone

Barry sits back wonders if he failed his steroid test
But it don’t matter cause he’s baseball’s star
Well you know A-Rod, Bud said we need some HGH
A-Rod says, baby got it right in the car
Barry say a

Chorus:

Oh yeah, the game goes on
Long after the thrill of juicin’ is gone
Oh yeah, they say the game goes on
Long after the thrill of juicin’ is gone

Gotta deny it now
And deny it then
Let them scream we didn’t
Take no Primobolan
Hold onto the lies as long as you must
Evidence comin’ round real soon
Make us lose all our trust

Oh yeah, the game goes on
Long after the thrill of juicin’ is gone
Oh yeah, they say the game goes on
Long after the thrill of juicin’ is gone

Little ditty about Barry and A-Rod
Two baseball players hopin’ for that hall of fame nod

Who's Next?

Why is there seemingly a double standard in the sporting world when it comes to steroids? Am I foolish to think that Major League Baseball players have been singled out as the main culprits in the steroid debate while other sports and other athletes are merely overlooked?

When somebody thinks of steroids, inevitably, their thought process hones in on the likes of Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds, Jose Canseco, Alex Rodriguez, Roger Clemens, etc. And that's because these men (Rodriguez excluded) were paraded around on Capitol Hill during Congressional Hearings on steroids. It's been beat into our brains that steroids were a persistent problem in baseball throughout the mid-90's, as players got bigger, records began to shatter and the world just sat idly by applauding and clapping with each new record being broken. But, there's never any mention of any other sport. Ever.

You know the names Bonds, Clemens and Canseco will forever be linked to the terms "cheater" and "steroid", but it's unfair to parade these men around Capitol Hill, CNN, ESPN, NBC, or anywhere else that has media representation, while ignoring the fact that steroids, are a problem in every sport.

I'm sure we all know the names of the major polarizing figures of the steroid debate in Major League Baseball, but have you ever heard of these men before?

Lyle Alzado
Rodney Harrison
Shawn Merriman
Bill Romanowski
Dana Stubblefield

Any ideas? Well, I'll make it easier for you. Those are just five men who have been linked to steroids that are/were NFL players.

Lyle Alzado was one of the best defensive lineman during the 1970's. Yes, you read that right, 1970's. Steroids were predominant in the NFL during the 1970's, but you would have never known that, would you?

Rodney Harrison is a sure-fire hall of famer on the New England Patriots. And guess what? He was suspended the first four games of the 2008 season for testing positive for HGH. Did you know that?

Bill Romanowski was an NFL linebacker for 16 seasons and is most well known for his aggressive play and extremely physical nature with opponents and teammates alike. He is the poster-child for "Roid Rage".

Shawn Merriman is one of the best linebackers in the NFL today and won the 2005 Defensive Player of the Year award. And yep, you're right if you're catching on here, he tested positive for steroids in 2006 and was suspended as well.

Seeing my point yet? Steroids aren't just a problem that Major League Baseball has to deal with. It's a problem that's persistent in all avenues of sports. Yet, Congress feels the need to regulate steroids in baseball and turn the blind eye to football and every other North American sport.

It's part of the culture we live in now. Because of the large number of athletes who decide to cheat the game and themselves, it leaves fans, like myself, at a cross-roads. I try to believe that an athlete is succeeding and sheer ability and heart, but, that's not the society we live in anymore. It's a cut-throat world, where everybody is out for themselves and every advantage (legal or otherwise) has to be taken to achieve maximum success.

It is directly because of this that sports will never be the same for me. It can't be. Everything in sports is up for debate now. The next time I see Peyton Manning zip a 50 yard pass down the sideline with pinpoint precision, I'll wonder, "is he?". The next time I see Albert Pujols hit a towering home run 430 feet away, I'll wonder, "could he?". The next time Lebron James unleashes a jaw-dropping move to win a game, I'll wonder, "what about him?". When Tiger Woods pumps his fist in celebration for another Major Championship at Augusta, I'll wonder, "you too?".

It's the world we live in now. For the rest of our lives every athlete who does the unthinkable, defies the laws of gravity, or shows more toughness than we could ever imagine stomaching, we'll always have those lingering doubts of the validity of their accomplishment.

I, for one, am not surprised about Alex Rodriguez's steroid implication. The times of athletes being "heroes" and "role models" for America's youth, are long gone. With countless athletes being involved in heinous criminal activities or steroid scandals, the list continues to go on and on of athletes spreading the message to children that "hey, it's okay as long as you have money".

So, while the rest of America is shocked and angered over Alex Rodriguez's recent admission to steroid use, I can only shrug my shoulders and say "Who's next?"

The Alex Rodriguez Melodrama

For days all we've been hearing about is "Alex Rodriguez took steroids". The baseball world is in uproar that the man who was supposed to save the record books from the villainous Barry Bonds is nothing more than another casualty of the steroid debacle in Major League Baseball. Honestly, it doesn't matter that Alex took steroids for a three year period, because it wasn't yet against baseball rules. The problem at hand, is that his civil liberties were violated. I'm shocked that he has not yet filed a lawsuit against Major League Baseball for this monumental screw up.

In case you've been living under a rock, here's a little recap of what you've missed. Sports Illustrated reported that Rodriguez had tested positive for two anabolic steroids, testosterone and Primobolan, during his 2003 season playing shortstop for the Texas Rangers, the same season in which he captured his first American League Most Valuable Player award.

The information had been part of a government-sealed report detailing 104 major league players (out of 1200 players tested who tested positive for performance enhancers during a 2003 drug survey. Approved by the players themselves with the promise of anonymity, the survey was conducted by Major League Baseball to see whether a mandatory drug testing program might be necessary. The 2003 test results were supposed to remain anonymous and the samples destroyed. However, a coded master list of 104 players was seized during the BALCO investigation, turned up in a 2004 federal raid. So, because somebody dropped the ball, six years later, we find out that Alex was a juicer.

When he says that he only used steroids from 2001 to 2003, the statistics seem to support that. If you look at those three seasons, Alex's average season was a .305 batting average, with 52 home runs and 131 runs batted in. Looking at his numbers before 2001, his average season was a .314 batting average, 36 home runs and 115 runs batted in. Now, looking at his numbers since 2003, in his tenure with the Yankees, which he emphatically states is clean, his average season is a batting average of .303, 41 home runs and 123 runs batted in. The 5 years before and 5 years after his supposed timeline of steroid use, look very similar in home run totals and runs batted in, do they not?

For some people to think that he's been using steroids in his Yankee career is mildly absurd. Since the beginning of the 2004 season, there has been a rigorous testing policy, which Alex has never tested positive during. In addition to that, in 2006 he played in the inaugural World Baseball Classic, which has Olympic style drug testing, also a negative result. In a few weeks, Alex will be playing in the World Baseball Classic again, and I'm sure, once again, will test negative for steroids.