After nearly two decades of giving the media what they want (juicy controversy) and having them throw it back in his face, albeit misquoted and misrepresented, Gary Sheffield has finally decided to control his own image. He granted this HBO interview and he answered the questions, which is something to be lauded.
In this day and age where no one talks unless anonymity is granted (regardless of cause), Sheffield is somehow shocking because he agrees to answer questions and actually does so.
But back to the topic at hand -- Sheffield is making a play to control his own history.
Why do I say this? Sheffield obviously feels he was wronged in a number of ways during his tenure with the New York Yankees. Whether he's correct is always a major question mark, although he generally shouldn't be dismissed offhand. However, he's gaining control, a common topic of his. The Yankees won't respond, not because they're "classy" but because they are afraid of conflict (something seen on-field whenever Derek Jeter is plunked and no retaliation occurs). Sheffield gets the last word in on Joe Torre, Yankees management (especially Cashman, who never wanted him there) and the clubhouse atmosphere.
Furthermore, he's on a very good team that nonetheless remains in a dogfight, and even the Yankees are a worry for them. The Tigers, despite having Kenny Rogers, Magglio Ordonez and Ivan Rodriguez, are a faceless team without personality. The focus will be on their play, if they can take the pressure, unless it's somewhere else. Now, all Tigers talk is related to Sheffield, who is Reggie Jackson-esque in his ability to thrive with controversy and grudges. The grand slam Friday night is just a prominent example.
Sheffield has put the pressure on himself, freeing up his teammates such as Jeremy Bonderman, who threw a fine game Friday. He gets pitchers' attention, allowing them to possibly forget Ordonez, the American League's best hitter not named Alex Rodriguez.
But Sheffield has not fully retained control. An incorrect and misleading question by Andrea Kremer tripped up Sheff. When she said the most-prominent player on the Yankees was black, she meant Jeter. But it's an incomplete sentence. He's black and white (one parent each). Imagine the uproar if she or Sheffield (or any reporter) described Jeter solely as white.
Now, does the race question for him mean anything? Probably not. But she brought it up, so one cannot criticize Sheffield for mentioning the biracial Jeter without criticizing Kremer for playing a (incorrect) race label in the first place.
Sadly, Buster Olney, in an otherwise insightful column, confuses the point in two sentences that look as if they are from competing arguments.
(It must come as a great surprise to the esteemed Charles Jeter, by the way, to hear from Sheffield that his son is not African-American. Derek Jeter "just ain't all the way black," Sheffield said.)
First of all, the "just ain't all the way black" comment was a later Sheffield response. In versions of the Associated Press article, Kremer says the aforementioned statement, Sheffield asks "Who (is the black prominent Yankee)?" and Kremer says Jeter. Sheffield simply replies, correctly, "Derek Jeter is black and white."
Olney compounds this error by insinuating that Charles Jeter was indirectly told his son wasn't black. In fact, the only one to make that was Olney in that sentence, albeit mistakenly.
What Olney should have written, to be fair to all sides, was "It must come as a great surprise to Derek Jeter's mother that Andrea Kremer doesn't think her son is white." Jeter's identity likely transcends race, but it is certainly not at the expense of either. If he must be described in terms of race, judging from his long record of praise for his parents, it would seem he would want to be described as black and white. Gary Sheffield's one of the few who is fulfilling that desire, even if it's in an odd way.
Again, is that the most-important part of the interview (or at all)? No -- in fact, there's much more legitimate criticism to be had in the substance of his comments vis a vis Torre. But the fake, misinterpreted race card is the most-controversial for reasons generally beyond Sheffield's control, showing that in the end, it's the media, particularly the parts that hate people like Sheffield, that are still in control.
Amen, brother! Here's what I had to say about this on my own blog:
http://fake-george.blogspot.com/2007/07/gary-sheffields-black-and-white-world.html
Have you heard the interview already? I was under the impression it would not air until Wednesday of this week. I ask because do you think its appropriate to comment on 45 seconds of what was probably at least a minute interview? We don't know the proper context because we have not heard the complete interview or read the complete transcript.
It just reminds me of his GQ (I think that was the publication) where he said his comments about Latin players but if people read the article, that was one of many issues discussed but by the impression the media gave, it appeared as if it was the only topic discussed. I fear discussing Sheffield's interview before it has aired will stereotype what it is all about when only very little of what he discussed is related to the issue of race.
Fair point on holding back. I tried to limit myself to how even the excerpts were being misrepresented. If the AP and other media can't be trusted to not mishandle excerpts, how can they be trusted to correctly judge an entire interview?