Strike while the headline is hot

At the risk of starting up a running theme here, one wherein I don’t talk about things on the day that they happen, when I’m all a-tizzy about them, but rather wait a day or so, let me tell you about my self-inflicted suffering yesterday: I left the house for work without remembering to grab anything to read. I had finished a book on Friday afternoon (and another, different book Friday night, but we’ll get back to those later this week) and somehow let the entire weekend go by without tucking a new bit of reading material in my work bag so that it would be waiting for me to crack open Monday morning on the Metro. I was berating myself pretty heavily as I sat on the train, distractionless.

Despite the book-void, I still refused to take one of the Post Express papers handed out at the Metro entrance; it just strikes me as a gratuitous waste of paper (and besides, if I read the Express on the train, what would I read online when I got to my desk?). But many of my fellow Orange Line riders had copies, and in my boredom I caught a few glimpses of what was in Monday’s edition.

One headline in particular jumped out at me, about MLB’s opening day, which here in the DC area included the extra sizzle of President Obama throwing out the first pitch at the Nationals’ home opener, commemorating 100 years of presidential first pitches to boot. All well and good, but the headline referenced the “Unbeaten Nats”. That gave me a good laugh.


I get that after every team has played their first game, half of them will be unbeaten and the other half won’t. And after two or three games you’ll have fewer and fewer undefeateds, including a not-altogether-outside-the-realm-of-possibility chance that no one will be undefeated at that point. It’s really not that noteworthy to be 2-and-0 or 3-and-0, though, hence the headline-writing dilemma of most sports editors: do you hold off on using the “unbeaten” modifier until it’s really impressive, maybe when a club hits 10-and-0? Or do you pull the trigger sooner, because as soon as the club loses its first game “unbeaten” is completely inapplicable, and you don’t want to miss your chance?

Of course the only time in the season the Express could count on the Nats being unbeaten is before they’ve played a single game and had an opportunity to lose. An opportunity they generally take often, including at least 100 times in each of the past two seasons (not an exaggeration). And I feel kind of bad for the Nats because their home opener was against the NL-champion Phillies, and specifically the Phils’ newest acquisition, ace pitcher Roy Halladay. But bless the Express staff for pulling the “unbeaten” trigger and taking their one-and-only shot. I, for one, was amused.

Please don’t feel that I need to have it pointed out to me that as of this moment the Nats and the Yankees have identical records. I’m well aware. And the Nats have been known to take a series from New York in interleague play, so this is not a case of “the inferior local team makes me feel even more superior about my favorite team” or anything like that. My season as a Yankees fan will have ups and downs, and maybe the boys in pinstripes will acquit themselves well, and maybe they’ll disappoint. You could also say the same thing about being a Nationals fan, I suppose. But there are differences between following the exploits of the Evil Empire versus the lovable, luckless underdogs. I’m fairly glad that, through both choice and circumstance, I’m exposed to both.