THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I really can’t believe he was suspended.  The NHL should realize the average person (aka the guy who never, ever, ever watches hockey) only pays attention to their sport when someone gets seriously hurt, Patrick Roy’s son starts a fight, or Sean Avery does something stupid.  The guy should be leading their marketing campaigns.  Frankly, I think what he said was hilarious and a sport that allows fighting really has no place to be all high and mighty.  Besides, they probably would have been better off letting the two guys just handle it on the ice.

Avery is the final straw. I can no longer support the existence of the NHL.

In the spirit of gender equity, I can no longer support the existence of the WNBA either.

I’m with Reno (#1).  I’m shocked that he could be suspended for making a comment like this. 

Pitchers in baseball get suspended for 5 games for throwing at a batter’s head and potentially ending his career (or life), and this guy is suspended indefinitely for making a comment that’s not out of place in locker rooms, movies, grade-school discussions, etc.

The NHL is so far out of line on this, it’s mind-blowing.

Sure, it’s an immature comment, but it’s not “offensive” in the classic sense.  The comments made by Gary Sheffield are 10 times worse, and even those aren’t particularly offensive.

Uh, one other thing.  I never knew about the “real” meaning of sloppy seconds.  (look it up on urban dictionary if you want).

I interpreted it to mean “leftovers”, as simple as that.  Obviously he did too.  And I don’t find that offensive.

What if he had said “I just want to comment on how it’s become like a common thing in the NHL for guys to fall in love with girls that I used to go out with. I don’t know what that’s about.”

To me, they mean the exact same thing. 

If to others, it means what urban dictionary refers to, then maybe I’m wrong.

I don’t think players should be suspended for saying stupid things. Besides, a much better punishment would’ve been to force him to play; Phaneuf would’ve pounded him into oblivion.

It’s times like this when I wish I had more girl readers to give a fresh perspective.

I’m not going to debate whether I should be offended by the comment or not but I will say this-it’s difficult for me to believe that he meant “leftovers”.

You think he _literally_ meant that the other players are ______________________________ (fill in the blank with the urban dictionary “definition")?

Of course not.  Thus he meant “leftovers”.

Uhhhh...I’ve never heard the term in any other context than the one the urban dictionary suggests so ya, I kinda do (as I kinda doubt an athlete who has reached the 99.9th percentile of his sport and who has a history of dating women considered to be the sexual ideal would be so, uh, naive).

I have no doubt that he meant the urban dictionary definition.  Even so, I find it hard to believe anyone is really offended by that.

If he meant to say leftovers, he would have said leftovers.

That term doesn’t just mean “leftovers”, it’s meant to be far more disparaging than that (both to his exes and their current boyfriends/husbands).

Why is it so hard to believe that the least classy player in the league made a disgusting comment, and fully understood what he was saying?  Any high school male in a locker room knows what that term means.  And most of the females do too.

I think it puts himself, and the league, in a bad light, and I’d have suspended him as well.  Probably for more than a game, but then again if I were the Commissioner, Ulf Samuelsson, McSorely, and a host of others, would have had much shorter careers.

The guy went out of his way offer unsolicited graphic sexual imagery to a group of reporters with the purpose of reducing his former girlfriend to a pleasure toy that he cast aside.

His behavior was about as boorish as it gets.

Like it or not he is a spokesperson for the league and his actions/comments all contribute to the NHL brand.

There is no way that turd would be welcome around my daughters.

he MEANT the explicit u.d. version, because he wanted its demeaning connotations, even though he literally was talking not about sex but about “relationships"--in other words, he meant both meanings.  he meant “leftovers”, and he meant something sexually explicit and crass.  this is how language works.

(also, btw, if I talked about other guys eating my leftovers, hanging around waiting for my table scraps, that’d be pretty damn demeaning all by itself, to the women in question and, in a different way, to the guys)

I don’t follow hockey or Avery enough to comment specifically on the “sports culture” aspect, but I will say that “boorish” hits the nail on the head. While I generally take a laissez-faire attitude towards these things, pro sports teams and leagues have an interest in protecting their public image, and if they feel comments such as these hurt that image, they (within limits) have a right to take actions as they see fit.

That’s a bit cynical-sounding—there’s a gap betweeen the “self-interest” of the team/league and the moral issue of Avery’s demeaning talk. I’ve addressed the first above, the second is more difficult.

I will say that it is clearly demeaning, even if I have far less sympathy for celebrities like Hunter and Cuthbert (Avery and other male atheletes and included), given how much I despise the way “beautiful people” (i.e., those who publicly exploit the media machine until it bites them in the butt, then decry how unfair it is—Cuthbert and Hunter have made a lot of money by being portrayed as sex objects—and Avery got a lot of attention by dating them mutually beneficial relationships) date each other for fun and profit, it seems. I feel far more sympathy for the “regular” women who are implicitly demeaned and probably treated in the way Avery’s tone implies. What’s sad is that many of the player’s angered by Avery’s comment probably share very similar attitudes, but are tactful enough not to say such thing out loud.

The team/league’s decision is clearly mostly interest-based. Society and culture need not legislate anything in order to have an certain kind of enforcement that is appropriate for this sort of obvious incivility.

/incoherent high horse

It’s pretty obviously a wretched way to describe a person, and I would be livid if someone ever referred to my girlfriend that way. I’m just not sure it’s the place of the NHL to police off-ice personal statements.

I don’t see why you would draw the line at “on-ice"/"off-ice", as opposed to arena or other team-sanctioned area.

Avery was specifically in a team environment, surrounded by reporters covering the team.  He was an agent of the team, and the league.  If he wants his right of free speech, he should do it away from the workplace.

Furthermore, he wasn’t trash-talking with other players; instead, he disparaged, essentially, innocent bystanders.

He’s John Rocker, except he yapped it at the workplace, rather than away from the arena.

"He’s John Rocker..”

I think there is a huge difference between demeaning/insulting a single person (or small group of people) as Avery did, and entire class of people (as Rocker did).

I will admit that I would be more open to the team suspending him than the league doing it. 

I guess I’m wrong about the connotation that the term has.  If I was aware of the “real” definition, even knowing that Avery obviously didn’t _literally_ mean that, I may have had a different opinion.

You learn something every day, I guess…

Obviously a boor and an a-hole, but…

I have a hard time calling his ex’es “innocent bystanders”. I highly doubt he suddenly turned into a a-hole at that moment. Even Marcel the monkey would have predicted his BAAAA (being an a-hole above average) as quite high.

His ex’es dated him by choice and share some responsibility for being treated poorly. He certainly wasn’t disparaging people he didn’t know intimately.

Matt

In case some ladies are reading, I completely distance myself from post 18.

For what it’s worth, I asked a few people last night.  A friend, who can be one of the most “boorish” people I know (I call him “charmingly obnoxious"), and he had heard of the phrase (and the U.D. definition), but his immediate response what that it meant leftovers - as in a girl your friend had previously dated.  When I asked about “another, grosser meaning”, he said “well, there’s ______________________ - but nobody means that of course.”

I also told him, his female friend, and my girlfriend about the suspension (while fully explaining the U.D. definition of the term first), and they were all shocked that he could be suspended for that.

Right… when people use the term, they typically don’t intend the timeframe noted in the UD definition.  But they use the term, versus “leftovers” or “table scraps” or whatever, because it evokes imagery that makes the female look like a whore and the speaker (Avery) look like an alpha male because he’s not reduced to such a gross act that other guys supposedly are.

It’s a power thing, and one most likely born out of insecurity.  If I was him and I was done dating those women, I wouldn’t be talking about them.  I’d be talking about the new amazing woman I was with.  Unless I wasn’t as pleased with my current situation as I was before with Elisha Cuthbert or Rachel Hunter.  In which case, maybe I’d make a disparaging remark to hide my current disappointment.  Hmmm…

If Avery were working with Cuthbert, his “joke” is grounds for immediate firing. We had a guy at my job do and say some wildly inappropriate things at the Christmas party a couple of years ago. The next morning he was fired because one of the women flat out said she couldn’t work in the same place with him anymore. And she had universal support on that one. Getting back to Avery, since Cuthbert isn’t a coworker, does it poison the workplace in the same way? Did any of Avery’s teammates (or any other team employees) say they couldn’t work with him after that?

Mike (#21) - I agree and disagree.  For me (and the people I’ve spoken to), the term is completely synonymous with “leftovers” and “table scraps”.

But I do think that using any of those terms does demean both the females (ex-girlfriends) and teh men who are now with them (leaguemates). 

You said they “evoke imagery that makes the female look like a whore and the speaker look like an alpha male”.  Do I think it makes the woman look like a whore?  No, not really.  If Rachel Hunter dated Avery (say for 5 years), then did not touch a man for 2 years, then got together with another NHL player, then that player would still be getting Avery’s “sloppy seconds.”

Maybe it’s a regional thing?  You know, pop vs. soda?  I’m from NY.  I wonder if it has more of a dirty, sexual connotation to people from different areas of the country/continent.

I think I’m in the minority (at least among commenters here), so am happy to agree to disagree.  I’m just continuing to post because I want to know _why_ we disagree.

Because you need to see it from the view of the minority.  If 10% or 20% of the women feel like “sloppy seconds” is a purely demeaning term (that would be some 10 or 20 million adult women in USA), that’s good enough for us to treat it as a purely demeaning term.  I don’t know what threshhold I would need for it to be an over-reaction for the group being targetted.

If in your anectodal evidence you found that it’s not a derogatory term, then you are not really looking too hard or at a representative group of women.

It’s not just the term “sloppy seconds”, but the context to which he uttered it: in a workplace setting that had nothing to do with the relationship, and waiting for the reporters to transcribe his words, so that millions of people will hear it.

***

Anthony: his teammates condemned him right away, if you read the article.  He was already on thin ice with him and management, and so, yes, it’s possible that you may find a revolt here.

I don’t know why I posted. I find celebrity’s personal lives to be able to least interesting thing in the world.

But I feel it necessary to clarify what I wrote for fear I will be perceived as a misogynist (which is not true). My comment was meant in the vein of “tough love” not with any intention that these women deserved it in some way. If my daughter was old enough, I would say, “See what happens when you date a-holes?”

Tango, I think your gallantry is well-meaning, but seeing women as needing protection by men from other men just reinforces their status as perpetual victims. I would love it if one of these women got on TV and dressed Avery down - pointing out that he is obviously an insecure jerk and how pathetic he is.

Matt

"If 10% or 20% of the women feel like “sloppy seconds” is a purely demeaning term (that would be some 10 or 20 million adult women in USA), that’s good enough for us to treat it as a purely demeaning term.  I don’t know what threshhold I would need for it to be an over-reaction for the group being targetted. “

Very good point.  Not sure about the threshold either.

If you wouldn’t say it on a job interview, you probably shouldn’t say it after being hired. You certainly shouldn’t say it while acting as a spokesperson for your employer.

Eh, I think that’s a little overly cautious.  But I guess some people are more PC than others.

I wouldn’t curse during an interview but I curse all the time at work.  As do most people.  If I cursed during a public appearance, I’d expect to be ridiculed, be called a poor role model, etc., but I wouldn’t be suspended. 

Again, the context is everything.  It’s easy to sprinkle profanity into normal conversation while only offending the most overly sensitive people.  Avery certainly wasn’t doing that.

If I went to a conference representing my company, and in my speech I started talking about my “sloppy seconds”, and the CEO heard my comments as well as the CEO of all his potential customers he’s trying to attract, there is no doubt at all that I would be fired on the spot.

You have to understand the context.  Jon, I think you are framing it in such a way that it doesn’t reflect its real-life equivalent.  You are just picking and choosing certain aspects, while not appreciating the entirety of the context.  Tens of millions of people heard a player talk about people who have nothing to do with the game in a demeaning way, under the banner of the NHL.

I guess.  Have you seen this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfIY24BErBE

Not that it’s the same thing, but it’s worth mentioning.  I just think the world is becoming more casual, and things like this will become more commonplace.

Another thing is I think that working for a “normal” company, you’d be held to a higher standard than an athlete is.  Like it or not, I think athletes are expected to be less educated and more crass.  Making a comparison to non-athletes may not really be fair.

While I don’t believe he should have been suspended, this recent story below just kind of makes me sick. This is not about his “sloppy seconds” comment, but this is from a Nashville predators fan.
Deadspin
Also, I am from Boston, and there was also talk of him doing something similar to a female fan at a Bruins game earlier this year. If this stuff is true, along with the “sloppy seconds” comment, it proves he is just a chauvinistic moron, who should be punished.

The press release following that youtube clip:
http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/news.php?yr=08&month=jun&story=gen-en-200608

Given what I see linked from their homepage (NSFW):
http://www.ryanaircalendar.com/?partner=CALENDAR&pos=HOME_CDAY

Ryanair seems to relish in this marketing campaign.

Context.

That deadspin article links to an even better fanhouse article:
http://nhl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/04/one-fans-vulgar-confrontation-with-sean-avery/

What I think looks the worst for Sean Avery in this incident and is what I thinks makes a suspension reasonable is that it seems so premeditated. The way it looks he went out of his way to be mean and hurtful to the people involved.

If this was some intreview where the subject of his x’s came up and he just blurted out “I guess guys in this league just likes my sloppy seconds” then I don’t think that would be nearly as bad. (It would stil make him look bad obviously, but more on a dumb jock puts foot in mouth level.)

In my mind the term “sloppy seconds” has a very specific sexual meaning and if he meant that in the literal sense then it reflects just as bad if not worse on himself than on the woman (or women) involved.

If he meant it in the more casual way of other players just dating his x’s then he just looks like a doork.

In either case I think the women in question should respond in some way, having your current boyfriend fight your x-boyfriend is a little bit too much 20th century and won’t fly today. (At least not in my book.) I’m guessing that for someone who has been involved up close and personal with a guy like Avery there is plenty of mud availible for slinging…

Again, I know nothing about hockey, but I kind of agree with this:

http://nhl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/05/sean-avery-suspended-6-games/

“No argument here. Though, in my opinion, the league suspending him for six games is a little much, considering that’s triple the suspension Jarkko Ruutu received for trying to insert his elbow into Maxim Lapierre’s nostril, for example (and there are more examples).

So, if you’re in the NHL, I suppose it’s better to potentially end a player’s career, as opposed to not having a filter between your brain and your mouth.”

On one hand, I do see that the quote is offensive and reflects badly on the NHL.  On the other, though I don’t agree with the view, I think men have the right to misogynists.  I still don’t interpret the term the way you do but I’m willing to chalk that up to my ignorance so all I’m saying may be moot. 

I think my initial reaction was due to his being suspended.  Suspensions are serious.  The quote above is proof.  Like I said, baseball players get suspended 5 games for throwing at hitters heads.  I cannot think of mere words that could possibly be worse than that. 

Now that I think about it more, I don’t think my problem is that he was punished, it’s that he was suspended.  Because that implies a direct comparison to other actions (i.e. violence) which warrant suspensions.

If they had fined him a hundred thousand dollars, I’d be fine with that.

Again, the context.  Piazza v Clemens on the playing field is not the same thing as Rocker v Gays on the 7 Train. One involves two people who are in the same workplace, both aware that they are competing against each other (and if they cross the line, they know the expected punishment).  The other involves a guy, who may or may not represent the Braves, speaking to a reporter who sees Rocker as a Braves representative.  Avery did worse: he used his workplace to speak his mind on people that are not his competitors.

I don’t know the appropriate punishment, but when was the last time not a single teammate backed someone up on something (seemingly) so trivial.  Is there a single NHL player that has said the suspension was too long?