Two Peas in a Pod
saw this passage in peter king's "monday morning quarterback" column today.
if they're saying it, you can almost guarantee that it's going to dead wrong. it's not even like these guys are hitting 50% in their predictions. you could try to be worse than they are, but you'd be hard pressed to succeed if you were giving it an honest effort.
the counter arguments i've heard when people defend them are:
- guys like gammons and king take chances with their predictions to offer a point of view different than you can get elsewhere. (if by different you mean *wrong* then i'm following you.)
- guys like gammons and king make risky predictions because they know that people don't remember them, so if they hit they'll take the glory and if they don't no one will remember. (well this guy remembers, and let me tell you they are wrong waaaaaaay more than they are right).
i have no idea what value they are adding for their readers if they are so wrong about their positions and predictions so often, since neither of them gets you much "inside" scoop either (heck mike florio, a noted outsider, gets more accurate scoop than king, and florio makes half of his stuff up from scratch).
to top it all off, they're not even good writers for cripes sake. king might as well be writing a blog. i know it's his schtick, but come on, can you really get so well respected for just writing a lot of drivel for a long time? (rhetorical question, please don't answer)
the emporer(s) have no clothes! king and gammons you both stink!
I think what makes baseball so interesting, at least to me, was on display over and over in the first week of the season. It's so interesting because it's so ridiculously unpredictable. ESPN's Peter Gammons, who I respect as much as anyone in this business, said somewhere before the season that Baltimore righty fireballer Daniel Cabrera was the best pitcher he'd seen in all of spring training this year.it made me chuckle as i think those two guys could be twins. both are highly respected national writers, who are influential in their respective sports -- when they talk, people listen. yet i think they are both absolute and utter buffoons.
if they're saying it, you can almost guarantee that it's going to dead wrong. it's not even like these guys are hitting 50% in their predictions. you could try to be worse than they are, but you'd be hard pressed to succeed if you were giving it an honest effort.
the counter arguments i've heard when people defend them are:
- guys like gammons and king take chances with their predictions to offer a point of view different than you can get elsewhere. (if by different you mean *wrong* then i'm following you.)
- guys like gammons and king make risky predictions because they know that people don't remember them, so if they hit they'll take the glory and if they don't no one will remember. (well this guy remembers, and let me tell you they are wrong waaaaaaay more than they are right).
i have no idea what value they are adding for their readers if they are so wrong about their positions and predictions so often, since neither of them gets you much "inside" scoop either (heck mike florio, a noted outsider, gets more accurate scoop than king, and florio makes half of his stuff up from scratch).
to top it all off, they're not even good writers for cripes sake. king might as well be writing a blog. i know it's his schtick, but come on, can you really get so well respected for just writing a lot of drivel for a long time? (rhetorical question, please don't answer)
the emporer(s) have no clothes! king and gammons you both stink!
Labels: football
posted by The Mean Guy at 3:18 PM
4 Comments:
The rumor Mill has it that Donovan may want out?!
http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm
WOW, that would absolutely pull the foundation out of this team....
- Joe
i'm not too worried about it. most of his stuff is either made up or pure conjecture.
all the time he's spending on making brett favre look like he's sinister and screwing the packers. i have as many issues with favre as the next guy (except for ben, who has waaay more issues with brett than i do), but on this i think he's seriously just not sure whether he wants to come back or not... and he probably wants to win. who wants to lose? losing sucks.
Here's how bad a manager Charlie Manuel is...yesterday I am watching the end of game one which was won in dramatic fashion and the Phils had their first win of the year. So I am pretty excited as they get off the shnide. With game 2 coming, I figure the Phils pull out a win, take 2 of 3 from the Dodgers and are back on track with series wins at 1-1. Not to say "must win" but it would have been a nice win. so what does Charlie from Mayberry do, he sits Lieby, which is pretty much a given for a Catcher and a double header, Bell, can't hit Righties and Penny is on the hump, but it doesn't end there. He sits Pat the Bat in favor of Delucci which I am okay with, Rowand for Victorino, okay I am starting to get a little annoyed, then the cherry on top....he sits Howard. So a line-up without Howard and Burrell. In an early season, nice to win game, he sits 4 of 9 starters and 2 of them are your big bats. I think people can be rough on Charlie, especially sports radio, but sometimes it is so justified I think that practically any manager in a sane mind wouldn't make some of those moves.....I thought it was petty until someone called in to Jody Mac today....and complained about the same thing....my dead pool on Manuel is probably the all-star break.
I just saw the 5 rumor and got a little worried. Who knows though. Players have a right to be frustrated though after a 6-10 season. At least McNabb's the consumate professional and wouldn't tank a season to get out of a contract.
Post a Comment
<< Home