The narratology of sports

Why do people like sports?  I have several theories: they enjoy the competition; escapism; they're economic behemoths.  I will always watch sports highlights - this is because I will never tire of watching people performing something exceptionally well.  But the reason above all else that I enjoy sports is because I think they're narratologically fascinating.  The storylines that play out in professional sports are incredible - sometimes because they truly are incredible, and sometimes because it's incredible that the storyline has been created.

If you're a fan of hockey, think back to the 2011 Stanley Cup Finals, and how the narrative of Roberto Luongo vs. Tim Thomas was made.  It was fabricated off of one Luongo quote, the (for some reason) infamous "Pumping his tires" quote.  When asked about the game winning goal from Game 2, Luongo replied that it would have been an easy save for him.  And then the media promptly exploded.  It was the most innocuous of quotes; one that had nothing to do with Thomas, and one that had everything to do with the fact that the Canucks' season narrative had been that Luongo was being forced to play further back in his net due to his new goalie coach wanting him to adjust his style.  From there, every goal that beat Luongo where he wasn't above the top of the crease was chalked up to his "new style".  The goal in question, was a hyperbolic example of a goalie being out of position, so Luongo's comment was poking fun at the Vancouver media.  Due to needing something to write about on non-game days, the media took the quote and ran with it, saying that Luongo was being disrespectful of Thomas, which led to Luongo saying "I've been pumping his tires since the series started."

I think that the whole situation was ridiculous, but very interesting.  Sports narratives are versatile too; they don't apply across the board.  I was part of a conversation online recently regarding the Blue Jays and Marlins trade.  Of the four major North American sports, baseball is the one I am the least knowledgeable about, followed by football, and then I'm well versed in NHL and NBA happenings.  Well someone wrote that they thought the trade was bogus because Miami had traded away good players for monetary reasons, and not, as he said "for baseball reasons".  This struck me as very odd, because, to my mind at least, the two are entirely interconnected.  Professional sports function entirely due to economic reasons, so why should a franchise making a financial decision be invalid?  His opinion was far from unique, it was one I read about several times, despite not having any insight into the fairness of the trade.  I couldn't help but to interject myself into the debate by likening that trade to another one that had happened just a couple months earlier: James Harden's departure from Oklahoma City.  The Thunder traded away a key player because they would have had to pay a luxury tax next year had they kept him.  End of story.  The trade was entirely economic in motive.  Yet no one was up in arms about its validity.  Sure, people lamented that the Thunder didn't suck it up and pay the tax, but everyone understood why it happened.  This disconnect in justification is something I just don't understand.

The most captivating game of the whole NBA season thus far has been the San Antonio Spurs playing the Miami Heat, wherein Spurs coach Gregg Popovich sent his top four players home prior to the game to rest them.  The NBA commissioner, David Stern, announced that serious consequences would befall the Spurs for doing a disservice to the League.  The rationale was that the Spurs benching their stars was Popovich deciding to throw the game.  Stern announced this several hours before the game.  The fact is, Stern was upset because it was a nationally televised game.  End of story.  What unfolded was a basketball game pitting the defending champions against San Antonio's bench, and I couldn't look away.  It was incredible.  Would it have been without Stern's ill-timed comment?  Probably not.  It would have just been a game that was close, in which the Spurs sat their veterans.

I write this, not because I have a definitive thesis on the narratology of sports and what it means, but because I don't want to deal with Canucks fans who will inevitably get caught up in the Luongo vs. Schnieder narrative.  Schnieder's first game as "official starter" went poorly, and at the end of the second period, a CBC poll showed 64% of voters wanted Luongo to start tonight's game against Edmonton.  I implore you, if you are a fan of hockey, just a fan of the Canucks, a Vancouverite who has a vague understanding of the goings-on of hockey, or one who hates hockey and loves reminding people of how stupid the enjoyment other people derive from it is, don't buy in to this narrative.  I've long maintained that Vancouver has some of the worst hockey fans, and I hope that you do a little to prove me wrong.  If you watched the season opener against Anaheim, you would know that goaltending was not the only problem, nor, I would argue, was it the primary problem.  So please, just don't.  I will profoundly enjoy the fact that sports narratives exist, and I am interested to see how this one plays out, but that doesn't mean that I want you to ask me what I think about the idea of the Canucks trading Luongo now.  It will exasperate me, and I don't really want that right now.  Thank you.