The Phillie Phanatic.
Elsa/Getty Images

The Phillie Phanatic is a great mascot, sure. But not all are so lucky.

Foam-headed mascots: Yay or nay?

On the one hand, the San Diego Chicken — which is apparently actually called the Famous Chicken, perhaps to avoid accusations that he is provincial? — drives me bazoo and always has. There are just as many stupid mascots as great ones, even if we just stay with Major League Baseball. For every Mr. Met, there is one like that dumb bear who works for the Twins, who doesn't even have a Wikipedia page, and therefore has clearly made no cultural impact at all.

I am beginning to think foam-headed mascots are not a force for good.

This important issue gets the attention it deserves, after the jump.

 

I will grant you that some are fantastic: The Giant Big-Head Scary-Looking Presidents who race around the field at Washington Nationals games are wonderfully surreal, especially since they wander up into the stands and frighten the children over a bag of peanuts. And the fact that the Phillie Phanatic resembles absolutely no real thing whatsoever (many other mascots that are supposed be random are, let's face it, genetically modified bears) has always been a point of pride for me.

But what on earth is this thing? Or this thing? And how can a thing that looks like a greener, happier James Gandolfini be named Wally, after a wall? The wall is the wall; can't the mascot be the mascot instead of the mascot somehow pretending to personify the wall?

And it's not limited to baseball. Did you even know that the Pittsburgh Steelers had a mascot named — I am not making this up — Steely McBeam? Isn't it likely that this name was submitted in their fan contest as a joke, the same way I might refer to a rude person on the Metro as Elbows Q. Pushington?

So I ask you to weigh in. Foam-headed mascots: Enjoyable diversion/distraction, or menace to society?