Dennis Claxton wrote:
>
> >
> >They are obsessed with
> > >sports. Why? Maybe because it's a common language?
> > >
> >Or maybe because it's an "even playing field" where physical prowess,
> >skill, and the team count.
> >
> >Joanna
>
> Stephen Jay Gould wrote a lot about baseball. He talks about nobody
> hitting .400 in over 50 years and says people tend to think it's
> because hitters have gotten worse. Gould says it's because
> everyone's gotten better.
The whole book is quite wonderful. It's been a while since I read it, but I believe that discussion of .400 hitters _also_ demonstrates how in evolution the _appearance_ of a tendency towards "progress" disguises the reality of contingency in evolution. I liked baseball as long as one could go to weekday day games, where the park was empty enough so one could rattle around from one seat to another. Harry Heilman, who broadcast games for the Detroit Tigers in the '30s and '40s made listening to games on radio a supreme delight -- he loved the game, refrained from cheerleading, and made that love come across the airwaves. That kind of love for something can turn the oddest material into delight -- See Thomas Hart Benton's Thirty Years View of the United States Senate.
My older daughter and her husband (both IT consultants) are amongst those damned souls who follow the Cubs.
Carrol