Mike Lupica is one of about 3,246 people previewing the Yankees-Sox series that begins tonight. He says something in his preview that a lot of Yankees-types are saying:
The Yankees do not need to sweep the Red Sox this weekend. And even if they take three of four, they don't knock the Red Sox out of the race, they don't prove they are the best team in the league, they don't settle the score for starting out 0-8 against Boston this season. The Yankees just need to do this: Bring an old swagger to a new ballpark over the next four days . . . A good time to make it seem like old times around here. New park, old swagger.
Can someone please explain to me what this means apart from, you know, winning games? The term "swagger" really started getting thrown around in sports with those Miami Hurricanes teams of the 1980s. Back then I took it to mean arrogance or showboating or something, as a swaggering walk (say, after sacking the QB or scoring a touchdown) kind of implied. The term is used so often now that I think it has lost all meaning. Does Lupica mean that the Yankee pitchers should knock down some Sox hitters (if so, read this for a second opinion)? Does he mean that Teixeira should circle the bases with one flap down, Jeffrey Leonard style? I wish he'd explain.
Baseball is not football. There is no physical domination or really a lot of room for style like you might see in the NFL. If you execute, you win. If you don't, you lose. I can't imagine how "swagger" enters into it, apart from providing an empty concept about which sports writers can bleat until the actual games start.
Maybe I'm just missing the point. If so, someone please tell me exactly what "swagger" looks like in a baseball context.
Leave a Comment:
Saving...
It's real simple. "Swagger" = Confidence.
Swagger is stupid. I agree with Craig. "Swagger" is what the Patriots had going into the Superbowl on the VERGE of an undefeated season. Swagger is what guys like TO and Chad Johnson have, despite never winning a superbowl. Confidence and poise - that was Kobe Bryant in game 1 of the NBA Finals. Confidence, focus, and a will to win - that was Michael Jordan every time he stepped on the floor when the Bulls won 72 games and only lost 10.
Swagger means nothing. It means talking the talk and has nothing to do with walking the walk.
JT, what are you talking about? your swag is useless if you cant back it up. Kobe and MJ have all the swag in the world, because they are confident on the court and back it up with exceptional play. TO and OchoCinco may think they have on-field swag, but they can back it up on the field, so their swag is bogus. Now, outside of football, they have each have their own unique swag. Thats all TO and OC have
Your swagger (although most people just say swag now) is your flow, your demeanor, your mentality. It has nothing to do with physical contact, at least not anymore. Its just how you go about things, the air about you, and the attitude you bring.
This is a hilarious conversation to be having...
If this is true, is it possible to not have "swagger?" I mean if it is "just how you go about things . . . and the attitude you bring," wouldn't even the Pirates or Nationals or Yankees or any other team have "swagger?"
Technically no, everyone has swag, but people will say that you dont if your swag is wack or if you keep jocking somebody else's. Even the Nats have swag (and I call myself a fan), but they often come with the weak sauce and therefore you could argue that they have no swag at all. Swag usually refers to something cool, but it can also be really bad like the Nats.
So you're saying that it's possible that the Yankees can have all the swagger in the world -- as the term is defined by mini and Heel above -- but still get swept by Boston this weekend? If so, what's the point of swagger? If not, how is telling a team to "play with swagger" any different than telling a team "hey, why don't you just try to win more?"
Your swag does not make you immune to losses. Its a mindset, and if you have a lot of swag, it can lead to a lot more wins. Theres a difference between players just playing better fundamentally and adopting a winning attitude. If the NYY adopts their old swag, its their old attitude of "we're the Yankees, we're the best, and nobody can touch us".
But swag has really left the sports arena and is just an everyday term now. Its about carrying yourself a certain way. You can have no ties to any sports program and still have swag.
I think the competition for "Most Unintentionally Hilarious Newsvine Commenter" is over.
You guys are all wrong. Swagger is when you go into a game expecting to win. In baseball thats a combination of confidence and history. Since nothing in baseball rivalries is revolved around 1 game, you can go into a series, lose a game, and still come out of the series in a positive light because you won the series, especially if you had the confidence to win. The Yankees are not playing the Red Sox expecting to win anymore, just hoping to win. Thats what the author is talking about. Watch the games, you will see it on the players faces as soon as Boston wins the first game or even before, when they take their first lead.
But what are we -- as outside observers -- basing this assesment of "swagger" on? We say the Yankees are playing the Sox without expecting to win, but that's a post-hoc assessment based on the fact that they didn't win. No Yankee is on record saying that they didn't have confidence the first eight times they played. Mike Lupica wouldn't write a column saying that the Yankees were scared or unsure of themselves before a series. He only writes it afterwards, based on their loss.
I suspect that it's "swagger" when you win, "cockiness" when you lose, and that there has never been a losing team in history that has been accurately described as having "swagger."
It's like "chemistry." We say winning teams have it and losing teams don't, but that assessment always comes after the winning and the losing.
It's typical results-based hogwash.
Results based. Exactly.
I completely agree with your "showboating" definition of swagger. When I think swagger, I think A.J. Pierzynski... which goes to show how much I think of swagger...