On Tuesday morning, the Minnesota Twins revealed that their closer, Joe Nathan, had a torn ligament in his throwing arm and would likely be shut down for the 2010 season.
The subsequent barrage of texts, tweets and comments from White Sox fans were overwhelmingly celebratory. As one Sox fan friend of mine put it, "Hell yeah!"
There's no doubt that Nathan being removed from the equation seriously hurts the Twins' chances of winning the AL Central even though it's only the beginning of Spring Training. But the response from White Sox Nation made me wonder.
Is it right to celebrate an injury?
Color me cynical, but I think there's a very clear line between celebrating an injury and being excited about the potential impact the loss of a player on another roster could have on a team's playoff chances. And being happy at someone else's loss is not a bad thing.
Not always.
Take, for instance, the infamous hit Charles Martin of the Packers put on Jim McMahon. Clearly, Martin was out for blood.
You can see a "hit list" on the towel hanging from his belt, and his intention was to take McMahon off the field for longer than a couple plays. History, and Bears fans, would argue that Martin might have eliminated the Bears' chances at a repeat appearance in the Super Bowl with McMahon that afternoon.
Similarly, over this past weekend we saw Matt Cooke of the Pittsburgh Penguins take a blatant cheap shot on Boston's Marc Savard. Savard has subsequently been diagnosed with a level two concussion, and his season is likely over. Cooke, by being a goon, has seriously hurt the Bruins' playoff prospects this season and the career of Savard.
Cheering for a player that goes out of his way to hurt someone is miserable, and players like Martin and Cooke should be required miss as many games as the player they hurt.
But those scenarios are dramatically different than the situation with Nathan. This is an injury that wasn't caused by someone else.
On the most basic level, I see the injury to Nathan as something that sucks for Minnesota fans. They're losing one of only two consistent closers over the past decade. The Twins are now going to have to scramble to figure out what their bullpen looks like with just a few weeks before Opening Day.
But for Sox fans...
For me, the best example of an injury worth celebrating what when Lara Flynn-Boyle, playing the part of Wayne Campbell's psycho hose beast ex, rides her bike into a parked car while harassing Wayne and Garth while they play street hockey.
That's Hollywood (or Aurora), though. This is real life.
A more real example is the devastation that hit the Red Wings roster earlier this season. Detroit lost most of their best players for a, pardon the pun, healthy part of the first half of the season to injuries, and they're now fighting for a playoff spot (at the expense of Cristobal Huet) with a month left in the season.
The line between celebrating an individual's pain and the positive ramifications on a team's postseason opportunity is absolutely something to be explored.
Any fan wants what's best for their team. Look at the excitement in Chicago over the weekend after the Bears signed Julius Peppers. The impact on the Bears' defense will be incredible. Injuries to opposing teams can be seen in the same light.
Privately, and even publically, many Bears fans hoped for the better part of the last two decades that Brett Favre would miss a couple games. Cubs' fans wouldn't mind Albert Pujols taking a couple months off, either. The Blackhawks are going to win the Central Division for the first time since 1992-93 this year, and the ease with which they're going to do so can be credited, in small part, to the injuries the Red Wings were dealt in October and November.
Injuries are part of the game, and should be treated as such.
So my approach to the Nathan injury is the same as it was when Johan Franzen was lost for a couple months: I'm thrilled. Not at the specific player's expense, but because a Chicago team I cheer for has increased chances of winning.
Filed under: Chicago Bears, Chicago Blackhawks, Chicago Bulls, Chicago Cubs, Chicago White Sox
Tags: @Featured, Jim McMahon, Joe Nathan injury, Wayne's World
1st please don't refer to Sox fans as White Sox nation, its tacky and nothing more than a Boo-Yah term for Red Sox nation and the Red Saux fan base. 2nd as Kenny Williams says, "stay out of White Sox business"
I invite you to take a second read of the blog, SouthSider... I'm not hating on the White Sox, nor am I playing favorites. I'm simply using Nathan's injury as a lense thru which to pose a question: is it right to cheer for guys to get hurt? If you read this as me meddling "in White Sox business," I'm sorry you missed the point.
As a Sox fan, I had this very conversation with my father last evening...I hope Joe Nathan is physically okay--I mean, I hope he's not sick.
As far as his "injury"...hell yeah, I'm happy. It wasn't like someone "did it to him"--and he has a guaranteed deal.
I'm good with his arm being bad.
Thanks for commenting, Moby. I think what you say here is what many fans honestly think when they hear about injuries like Nathan's. Nobody did it to him, he's still getting paid, and it helps a Chicago team's chances... hopefully he feels better right after a parade in a different city than Minneapolis
I think you've done very well to find the middle ground on the argument. I'm not sure I want to analyze my hopes--as I may be cheering for Nathan's long, looong recovery. For me, it reminds me of the value of competition and rising above the best. Could we draw in the lack of interest with UConn Women's Basketball new record, or Women's Olympic Hockey? If there is a perceived lack of competition for a victory, is that victory less meaningful? Does Nathan not being on the field diminish the White Sox challenge? Love the article--no simple answers.