Links

Sunday, August 13, 2006

Don't waste your time

It's Sunday afternoon, the Red Sox play at 2:00, and if Boston has weather anything like Maryland right now, it's 75 and sunny out. Do something else with your time rather than read this. This column isn't any fun to pick apart; it's that boring.

It always drives me nuts when the Globe publishes this kind of stuff. There is a game recap RIGHT ABOVE this column. We don't need another one. Especially not one written by CHB. Everything in this column has already been said 800 times in other recaps and it brings absolutely nothing to the table except a life lesson in how to abuse metaphors and similes. For example:

Sometime next winter, when you crack open the Whitman's Sampler of Red Sox 2006 Walkoff Wins, you'll no doubt remember a stunning Saturday in the Park when anything and everything was possible. On a postcard-perfect afternoon, the slumping Sox got back on track, at least temporarily, with a 10-inning, 8-7 victory over their favorite cousins from Baltimore.
How clever! He's comparing it to a variety box of chocolates! That's amazing. Except that compared to some of the walkoffs from this year, this one was not so dramatic. I'm not sure we'll "no doubt remember a stunning Saturday." I'm sure I won't remember what day of the week it was. "Anything and everything was possible?" Can we be any more cliche?

Also, those Whitman sampler boxes only have 4 chocolates in them. The Red Sox have what, 8 walkoff wins? Make that 2 boxes, Dan.

It hurts to say this, but it's hard to imagine the Sox re-signing Trot Nixon in the wake of Wily Mo's recent performance.
Book it: 4 months from now, we'll get a maudlin column about "true dirt dog" Trot Nixon that reams Theo for not re-signing him. Or just reams Theo. I know how this works.

Mass. Pike drivers, already trained to operate in fear, have new concerns when heading eastbound if Peña is at bat.
If every driver on the Turnpike operated in fear, everyone would be a defensive driver and Boston would not have the reputation for having some of the country's shittiest drivers. Just pointing it out. Yes, Boston drivers do suck. I'm from DC, I know what bad driving looks like. But Boston drivers don't operate in fear; this is exactly WHY they're so bad. Or at least a lot of them.

The rest of it is rehashing the recap above. Read this instead.

7 comments:

soxfan living in enemy territory said...

So now Mnookin is calling out the CHB's flip-flopping on his blog. Priceless...

http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/

ObjectiveBruce said...

Actually, Mnookin (he of the lengthy list of errata in the book that many hereabouts seem to take as Bible) makes a rather pointless comment about a columnist being for or against a trade.

Columnists are not necessarily "for" or "against" a trade, but are free to comment on whether it appears to have been successful. They can do it the day of the trade and a year after the trade, any time in between and anytime thereafter. Whether it looks good or not may well change over time.

So What?

As for Mnookin, one hopes he is finished scrubbing his book free of the multitude of errors. But he hasn't caught on to one simple error, that of mistaking the Curse for an actual claim of the supernatural when it was, in reality, a metaphor. But then a lot of less-than-intelligent commentators, eager to rap Shaughnessy, confuse the two concepts.

ObjectiveBruce said...

Oh, and one more thing, Jenny. You really ought to learn to write without resorting to vulgarity. I realize it is difficult for you, but most adults can express themselves without such an infantile crutch.

Perhaps you will learn this as you mature.

dbvader said...

Columnists are not necessarily "for" or "against" a trade, but are free to comment on whether it appears to have been successful. They can do it the day of the trade and a year after the trade, any time in between and anytime thereafter. Whether it looks good or not may well change over time.

That is the silliest bunch of obfuscation that I have ever read.

A columnist's opinion matters only at the time it is made. He can change his opinion at any time. He can be for the Robinson, Brock, and Anderson trades at the moments they are made and then change his opinion when the players turn into Hall of Famers. That is a very brave columnist.

What matters is what people think at the TIME OF THE TRADE. That is the only valid point in time as it indicates the present value of the players. It is real easy to say that Anderson for Bagwell was bad 16 years later, but it took someone with a slight bit of knowledge of Bagwell's minor league stats to raise a red flag.

Bruce's quotation is so absurd that I must conclude that he is a parody of a CHB supporter.

fadedredsoxhat said...

"Bruce's quotation is so absurd that I must conclude that he is a parody of a CHB supporter."

Thats funny, Vader. How about this one: Bruce is a Chief created character? Chief created Bruce to add a devil's advocate personality to the site. No one can honestly be this active in supporting CHB.

fadedredsoxhat said...

"Bruce's quotation is so absurd that I must conclude that he is a parody of a CHB supporter."

Thats funny, Vader. How about this one: Bruce is a Chief created character? Chief created Bruce to add a devil's advocate personality to the site. No one can honestly be this active in supporting CHB.

The Chief said...

I wish I created him. That would mean I could return him to the firepits of hell, too. But alas ...

I would doubt that OB is being serious. Columnists by definition have opinions, which mean they had better be for or against a trade; otherwise, what the hell do we need them for?

Waiting until after the fact to "comment on whether it appears to have been successful" accomplishes what, exactly? Any knowledgeable fan can tell the difference, and could probably explain it better than stats-challenged writers like Shaughnessy.

The beauty of The CHB, of course, is his uncanny ability to make the wrong assessment.