Grantland

[Leather]

I just cannot believe that Simmons really felt it necessary to lead his thoughts on the NBA situation with an excerpt from "The Godfather," and a cliched one at that.

It's the NBA, his strong suit, and probably the biggest NBA story in decades. Would it kill him to write a serious column and leave his finger paints at home for once?

Christ.

 

[BGrif21125]

The only ones whose material I find consistently hard to read are Kang and Carles.

I don't understand what it is that Simmons & Co. see in Kang. And I really don't understand why they let him write crappy boxing articles when they already have a much smarter boxing writer (Eric Raskin) on staff.

 

[Marciano490]

I don't understand what it is that Simmons & Co. see in Kang. And I really don't understand why they let him write crappy boxing articles when they already have a much smarter boxing writer (Eric Raskin) on staff.

I'm no Kang fan, but I thought the article was decent. I agreed with his point that sometimes a fighter can win more by losing, but I was shocked he didn't reference Lewis' first fight with Holyfield. "Losing" that fight seemed to garner a lot of respect for Lewis, respect he might not otherwise have be given had he just eked out a close decision.

 

[jose melendez]

Yeah Pierce killed it. Picking him up was smart of Simmons, and speaks well of him given their history, and Simmons' own tendency to be thin-skinned. Whatever their past, Pierce can really write and this is one of the best pieces I've read on the Penn State scandal.

Completely agree on this. Pierce has been crushing it, and getting me to read stories on sports I don't care about in a way noone has since Leigh Montville. He's pompus, to be sure, but the SOB can write, and Simmons deserves big credit for putting the past behind him and hiring the guy.

 

[Orel Miraculous]

Uh-oh.

Take a look at Katie Baker's "Careful Analysis of the Tralier for A Warrior's Heart," published today. Then take a look at Andrew Sharp's "Watch the Triler for the Greatest Lacrosse Movie Ever Made," which was published last week. This reaches the Carlos Mencia level of dumb plagiarism:

Sharp:

0:11 — We're at a prep school. Everyone's wearing uniforms. There's a girl doing the voiceover. Going for the Cruel Intentions vibe, I see.

Baker:

0:08: Standard cinematic rendering of a prep school: overly fussy uniforms (betcha there will be an edgy female character who pushes the limits on hers by wearing Doc Martens), brick, and a requisite dark-haired beauty.

0:10: Furthering the Cruel Intentions-y vibe: weren't Kellan Lutz and Ashley Greene playing brother and sister just recently?

Sharp:

0:30 — So he plays lax for BRIERFIELD? Subtle, writers. Reeeeeal subtle.

Baker:

0:29: The school is named Brierfield. I imagine that Boatminster, St. Lakesford, Kingsley Hall, Wealtham, and Waspengrove also came out of the Gossip Girl Prep School Name generator.

Sharp:

1:35 — "It's hard to say if heroes are born, or if they're made by circumstances." Deep.

Baker:

1:31: This voiceover chick could really use some snappier lines. "It's hard to say if warriors are born, or if they're made by circumstances." That's worse than a hacky college sportswriter lede, which is saying a lot.

Obviously I'm all for ridiculing lacrosse and anyone associated with it as much as possible, but can't we at least do it creatively?

Edit: real curious to see what Deadspin does with this. They've been ridiculously over the top with their petty attacks against Grantland, but Katie Baker is their girl.

 

[Tartan]

I doubt his stuff is accessible for most of Grantland's readers, but as a gamer, I thoroughly enjoy Tom Bissell's material. He's possibly the only video game critic out there who writes about games as eloquently and seriously as he does without coming off as comically overwrought (most game critics would have you believe "Grand Theft Auto IV" is as powerful a meditation on the American Dream as "The Great Gatsby"). Hell, most game critics can barely string together a readable sentence. Getting to read Bissell is a treat.

 

[JBill]

Uh-oh.
...
Obviously I'm all for ridiculing lacrosse and anyone associated with it as much as possible, but can't we at least do it creatively?

Edit: real curious to see what Deadspin does with this. They've been ridiculously over the top with their petty attacks against Grantland, but Katie Baker is their girl.

The fact that it's pretty blatant makes me think it has to be by complete accident and just coincidence. Maybe she read the SB nation piece first and just had it in the back of her mind somewhere, without meaning to copy? Granted I wouldn't give a lot of other writers the benefit of the doubt, but I like Baker a lot and can't believe she would be this dumb.

As for Deadspin, yeah if this were Chris Jones I'm sure they would treat it like a war crime. But I don't think they'll ignore it, they'll probably just get her to comment on it first before they post anything.

 

[Zedia]

It's two people fisking the same trailer. Other than both referencing Cruel Intentions (their points being that the movie intentionally invites the comparison) I don't see anything egregious in the given examples.

 

[Average Reds]

It's two people fisking the same trailer. Other than both referencing Cruel Intentions (their points being that the movie intentionally invites the comparison) I don't see anything egregious in the given examples.

Yeah, I have to agree here. When you review identical subject matter, you're going to have similarities.

 

[johnmd20]

I doubt his stuff is accessible for most of Grantland's readers, but as a gamer, I thoroughly enjoy Tom Bissell's material. He's possibly the only video game critic out there who writes about games as eloquently and seriously as he does without coming off as comically overwrought (most game critics would have you believe "Grand Theft Auto IV" is as powerful a meditation on the American Dream as "The Great Gatsby"). Hell, most game critics can barely string together a readable sentence. Getting to read Bissell is a treat.

Bissell's a phenomenally talented writer, his book, Extra Lives, was a must read for any gamer. I have loved his reviews on Grantland. Good call.

 

[JimBoSox9]

Uh-oh.

Take a look at Katie Baker's "Careful Analysis of the Tralier for A Warrior's Heart," published today. Then take a look at Andrew Sharp's "Watch the Triler for the Greatest Lacrosse Movie Ever Made," which was published last week. This reaches the Carlos Mencia level of dumb plagiarism:

Obviously I'm all for ridiculing lacrosse and anyone associated with it as much as possible, but can't we at least do it creatively?

Edit: real curious to see what Deadspin does with this. They've been ridiculously over the top with their petty attacks against Grantland, but Katie Baker is their girl.

You HAVE to be kidding me with the plagiarism stuff.

First of all, if Katie Baker read Andrew Sharp and said "hey, I want to review that trailer too!", that's not plagiarism.

now let's look at this Carlos-Mencia-Level stuff.

Comparison 1:
Even if Baker got the Cruel Intentions idea directly and totally from Sharp - nope, still not plagiarism. She makes an original point about the actors not even mentioned by Sharp. I'll grant that if she was cribbing even a little, she shouldn't have re-used the phrase "Cruel Intentions vibe". Alternatively, watching the trailer, you could maybe make the assumption that two separate people in the whole wide world both saw parallels to Cruel Intentions, maybe from the prep school and identical uniforms and stuff".

Comparison 2:
Again, in a 2-minute trailer, the idea that two people could focus on the name of the school (you know, the setting for the film) isn't all that outlandish. The quotes here aren't even remotely the same.

Comparison 3:
You really didn't start laughing out loud at that line? Didn't think it deserves to be made fun of? AGAIN, the the snippets posted are entirely different texts.

Basically, if you want to cry plagiarism, your entire argument rests upon the use of the word "vibe". I don't think the thesis review board is going to take your case.

If your point is that Baker re-used Sharp's premise and focused on too many of the same things and that is disappointingly un-creative for a site like Grantland, OK, we can at least have a reasonable conversation. Hell, maybe we should applaud her for taking a good idea and replacing lines like "reallll subtle" and "Deep" with words that required actual thought and humor. If you think she plagiarized (a far more serious offense in the world of getting paid for writing and most definitely not a synonym for un-creative), then you're talking out your ass.

http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_article_what_is_plagiarism.html

 

[Orel Miraculous]

You HAVE to be kidding me with the plagiarism stuff.
First of all, if Katie Baker read Andrew Sharp and said "hey, I want to review that trailer too!", that's not plagiarism.

Actually, yep, that's pretty much plagiarism right there. Plagiarism doesn't necessitate lifting someone else's writing word for word. Merely lifting someone else's idea is usually sufficient, even if you change the substance (that's pretty much what Dane Cook did to Louis CK). What you just described is literally lifting someone else's idea without giving them credit and that's plagiarism. There isn't exactly a sub-genre of second-by-second critiques of movie trailers out there.

 

[Spacemans Bong]

Actually, yep, that's pretty much plagiarism right there. Plagiarism doesn't necessitate lifting someone else's writing word for word. Merely lifting someone else's idea is usually sufficient, even if you change the substance (that's pretty much what Dane Cook did to Louis CK). What you just described is literally lifting someone else's idea without giving them credit and that's plagiarism. There isn't exactly a sub-genre of second-by-second critiques of movie trailers out there.

Borrowing someone else's original idea is plagiarism. I take great exception to the idea writing about a trailer is plagiarism. If that's the case then Andrew Sharp probably plagiarized someone else.

 

[Orel Miraculous]

I take great exception to the idea writing about a trailer is plagiarism.

Sure, but this is more than 2 people writing about a trailer. These are both second-by-second reviews that share many very similar jokes. How many reviews for movie trailers are written like that? Is this a meme I'm missing or something?

 

[Zedia]

Grantland has done the "second by second analysis" before.

 

[SoFloSoxFan]

Second by second analysis of video is pretty much the whole schtick of the Rembert Explains the '80s series of articles at Grantland. This is certainly not new ground being broken here.

 

[Tartan]

Bissell's a phenomenally talented writer, his book, Extra Lives, was a must read for any gamer. I have loved his reviews on Grantland. Good call.

I've read Extra Lives. Outstanding book. His chapter on Mass Effect was particularly great. Every sentence rang true.

 

[S4E3P8T7]

Bissell's a phenomenally talented writer, his book, Extra Lives, was a must read for any gamer. I have loved his reviews on Grantland. Good call.

Agreed with all of this.

 

[Spacemans Bong]

Sure, but this is more than 2 people writing about a trailer. These are both second-by-second reviews that share many very similar jokes. How many reviews for movie trailers are written like that? Is this a meme I'm missing or something?

The second by second analysis of a video on Youtube is a staple of pop-culture writing on the Internet. It's as original as writing a song about a relationship.

 

[JimBoSox9]

Actually, yep, that's pretty much plagiarism right there. Plagiarism doesn't necessitate lifting someone else's writing word for word. Merely lifting someone else's idea is usually sufficient, even if you change the substance (that's pretty much what Dane Cook did to Louis CK). What you just described is literally lifting someone else's idea without giving them credit and that's plagiarism. There isn't exactly a sub-genre of second-by-second critiques of movie trailers out there.

Tim Grierson of Screen International posted his review of "The Muppets" on November 17th. Did the 135 writers listed by Rotten Tomatoes who posted reviews after that date all plagiarize from Grierson, or just the ones that also mentioned Jason Segel and Kermit?

You know what, I'm not interested in having a debate about this. I googled "Katie Baker plagiarism" and the results were pretty slim pickins'. Either you're the only one who is capable of doing this detective work, plagiarism by a major media outlet isn't a big deal, or it's simply not what you think it is.

 

[BGrif21125]

I thought this was a great column by Eric Raskin. It really hit home in terms of the conflicting thoughts I experience when watching a prizefight.

Cotto-Margarito II: How Much Punishment Is Enough?

 

[JBill]

This is definitely one of those "only on Grantland" titles, but this was a surprisingly good read:

We Are All 'Closing Time': Why Semisonics 1998 Hit Still Resonates
http://www.grantland.com/blog/hollywood-prospectus/post/_/id/38262/we-are-all-closing-time-why-semisonics-1998-hit-still-resonates

Had no idea the songwriter co-wrote Adele's "Someone Like You."

 

[TheYellowDart5]

This is definitely one of those "only on Grantland" titles, but this was a surprisingly good read:

We Are All 'Closing Time': Why Semisonics 1998 Hit Still Resonates
http://www.grantland.com/blog/hollywood-prospectus/post/_/id/38262/we-are-all-closing-time-why-semisonics-1998-hit-still-resonates

Had no idea the songwriter co-wrote Adele's "Someone Like You."

Woah, when did Steve Hyden start writing for Grantland? Guy has been killing shit at the AV Club for the last year.

 

[johnmd20]

I'm missing Klosterman's stuff on Grantland. He's had 1 column since October 25th and only three columns total since the beginning of October. Simmons-esque.

I have found myself enjoying the Hollywood and video game stuff more than the sports stuff on Grantland. I probably check out the site every 3rd day and it's definitely a goto spot for me on the internet but it hasn't been as good as I thought it would be.

 

[NatetheGreat]

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7319858/the-people-hate-tim-tebow

Klosterman's piece on Tebow is really damn good, and I'm someone who's normally driven to murderous rage by Tebow coverage

 

[weeba]

Woah, when did Steve Hyden start writing for Grantland? Guy has been killing shit at the AV Club for the last year.

Love the tag on that:

Tags:

Finish Your Whiskey or Beer,

 

[Dusty Pagoda]

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7319858/the-people-hate-tim-tebow

Klosterman's piece on Tebow is really damn good, and I'm someone who's normally driven to murderous rage by Tebow coverage

It was a good piece, aside from his absurd suggestion that the basis of Christian belief is feeling

 

[Blacken]

It was a good piece, aside from his absurd suggestion that the basis of Christian belief is feeling

As opposed to...what? Concrete evidence and rigorously considered logic?

 

[johnmd20]

As opposed to...what? Concrete evidence and rigorously considered logic?

Uh oh. But I must agree with the Blacken, what do the religious have to believe in other than faith? And I don't mean to insult religion, I consider myself more spiritual than religious and I most certainly believe in God. But it's a belief and it requires faith in the unknowable. And that was Klosterman's point with regards to Tebow and faith in general. It was a fine juxtapositionl.

It was a fantastic column and I'm glad he's back. It's like he read this thread b/c his column posted 45 minutes after I said he's been AWOL for over a month.

 

[Dusty Pagoda]

As opposed to...what? Concrete evidence and rigorously considered logic?

Perhaps you have heard of something called "theology" (lit. "words about god"), the systematic, rational "science of things divine?"

 

[Spacemans Bong]

Perhaps you have heard of something called "theology" (lit. "words about god"), the systematic, rational "science of things divine?"

Dude...

I believe in a higher being and stuff, but I've heard of an oxymoron and that is the definition of one.

 

[LeftyTG]

As opposed to...what? Concrete evidence and rigorously considered logic?

This is a thread about Grandland and not about the basis of belief in Christianity, so I'm not going for depth here. I understand this position, and frankly, I think it is an indictment on the modern American evangelical church's insistance on dumbing down faith and focusing on the internal and subjective that this is the prevailing mindset. In actuality, Christianity makes a truth claim. It is a claim supported by historical evidence, eye witnesses, and yes, logic. One is free to evaluate the evidence and conclude the truth claim is bogus or insufficient. However, it is possible to evaluate it all and conclude that there is a basis of faith. Belief in Christianity cannot be achieved simply through evidence and rigorous logic. It does take faith in what is unseen, no doubt. However, at the same time, belief in Christianity need not be "blind" and not thinking.

I agree with the poster who took issue with Klosterman's characterization of faith. I don't blame Klosterman, or anyone for that matter, who sees it that way. Like I said, the church has done a disservice (to both its congregants and the secular public) in emphasizing the warm and fuzzy intangible at the expense of an informed faith. But I think it is fair to point that out.

 

[Blacken]

Perhaps you have heard of something called "theology" (lit. "words about god"), the systematic, rational "science of things divine?"

Remind me where the whole "there's a god, no, really!" has been demonstrated via repeatable, falsifiable experimentation? You know that that property is not an optional part of science, right?

Hell, religious bodies (at least, Abrahamic ones) kind of revel in this. "It's about faith!" Faith, as it happens, is a pretty enmeshed with "feeling." Klosterman is an atheist who has demonstrated a history of not being overly fond of zombified Jews, so it's understandable that your butt might slightly be hurt by a dude on the Other Team having the temerity to not acknowledge your Lord and Savior (pass the nachos), but what he said isn't even remotely controversial.

In actuality, Christianity makes a truth claim. It is a claim supported by historical evidence,

The Bible is not historical evidence.

eye witnesses,

The idea that eyewitnesses are at all authoritative for matters of physical fact--and this is distinct from metaphysical handwaving, the deity whose worship has that other guy so butthurt over "feelings" has made actual claims as to the physical world--is laughable. We are strikingly free of the need of eyewitnesses to prove that magnetism--another claim on the mechanics of the physical world--exists, because we can create conditions in which it can be demonstrated according to a set of consistent mathematical rules. If "god" was not an emotional construct of human beings, the same would be possible (aside from that weird pseudo-anthropic argument that leaves even less room for a god).

and yes, logic.

Logic based on a set of axioms may make sense if you inherit or adopt those axioms, but the claim that the axioms themselves stem from a rational or logical basis is distilled nonsense. "There is an omniscient, omnipotent force out there, and it happens to identically match this one that was written down by a bunch of Bronze Age herdsmen and then expounded upon by some dissidents in Roman times" is axiomatic.

One is free to evaluate the evidence and conclude the truth claim is bogus or insufficient. However, it is possible to evaluate it all and conclude that there is a basis of faith. Belief in Christianity cannot be achieved simply through evidence and rigorous logic. It does take faith in what is unseen, no doubt.

I appreciate that you're making my point for me. Sandbagging yourself is unnecessary but appreciated.

However, at the same time, belief in Christianity need not be "blind" and not thinking.

Klosterman didn't say it was. That it is a feeling does not mean it does not exist in the feeler's mind; where Dusty went stupid is in the assumption that his feeling should be treated as something else. Like a...not-feeling. Something of a factual nature--perhaps we could call it a fact, or some other word that isn't accurate either.

Walnut, maybe?

 

[SydneySox]

The Bible is not historical evidence.

Sure it is. Like all historical documents you have to be aware where it's coming from, but there's historical evidence throughout. If you read Cicero at face value, for instance, you'd be totally off base concerning the fall of the Republic. But taken in context and compared to other sources and things we can know it becomes historically useful. The Bible's like that. It's the people who look at every written word inside it as gospel who are unreliable, not the document.

 

[Dusty Pagoda]

Oh my.

Is Richard Dawkins posting on SOSH? Not to turn a Grantland thread into a theological debate, but...

Remind me where the whole "there's a god, no, really!" has been demonstrated via repeatable, falsifiable experimentation? You know that that property is not an optional part of science, right?

You are confusing methodical rigor with natural science; you are taking one type of science (natural science) and applying it to ALL sciences. Theological science has its own method, which cannot be used to "prove" or "disprove" the natural sciences, and vice versa. Political science has its own method, but its claims cannot be "proved" in the repeatable, controlled environment that you apparently demand of all sciences. Is Poli Sci therefore a matter of "feeling?" Likewise for many disciplines, including theology.

Faith, as it happens, is a pretty enmeshed with "feeling."

This is true really only since the time of Kant & Schleiermacher (18th century). Much like what is called the "literal" interpretation of the bible, this is very much a modern phenomenon.

Klosterman is an atheist...so it's understandable that your butt might slightly be hurt by a dude on the Other Team having the temerity to not acknowledge your Lord and Savior (pass the nachos), but what he said isn't even remotely controversial.

I could care less what Klosterman believes/doesn't believe in. I have no problem with anyone's atheism, or his promoting atheism in the public square. My problem is with the distortion of the other side's arguments (Not that I think Chuck is overtly distorting anything, more likely he has simply inherited the grammar of religious "feeling" that LeftyTG noted), and with juvenile comments like yours which add nothing but noise to a legitimate discussion. If you are on the side of truth, then I am not sure why childish name-calling is necessary.

The Bible is not historical evidence.

This is completely absurd. And saying doesn't make it so. Regardless, even if one were to bracket the bible as evidence, there is no lack of other literary, historical, archaeological, philosophical (metaphysical, logical, etc.), artistic, theological, etc. evidence available to draw on.

We are strikingly free of the need of eyewitnesses to prove that magnetism--another claim on the mechanics of the physical world--exists, because we can create conditions in which it can be demonstrated according to a set of consistent mathematical rules. If "god" was not an emotional construct of human beings, the same would be possible

Why should such a thing as a "mathematical rule" even exist? Why does nature obey any laws at all? Where did those laws come from? These questions have absolutely nothing at all to do with "feeling" or emotion and everything to do with rational, scientific, logical thought about the origins of the universe (i.e. philosophy/theology)

Logic based on a set of axioms may make sense if you inherit or adopt those axioms, but the claim that the axioms themselves stem from a rational or logical basis is distilled nonsense. "There is an omniscient, omnipotent force out there, and it happens to identically match this one that was written down by a bunch of Bronze Age herdsmen and then expounded upon by some dissidents in Roman times" is axiomatic.

You might want to take a few minutes and learn what logic is. Here's a basic starting point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

 

[Reverend]

I'm so torn between posting "pssssssssssssst!! Denominational differences!" or just the smiley eating pop-corn.

 

[Mo's OBP]

How dare anyone suggest dinosaurs didn't exist a few thousand years ago.

 

[CaptainLaddie]

I'm so torn between posting "pssssssssssssst!! Denominational differences!" or just the smiley eating pop-corn.

:buddy:

 

[Dusty Pagoda]

Wouldn't be too egregious, since they did (and still do)

 

[Late Yclept Chanticleer]

Klosterman didn't say it was. That it is a feeling does not mean it does not exist in the feeler's mind; where Dusty went stupid is in the assumption that his feeling should be treated as something else. Like a...not-feeling. Something of a factual nature--perhaps we could call it a fact, or some other word that isn't accurate either.

Walnut, maybe?

George Sr. had said "faith is a fact." Unfortunately, it was in the Caged Wisdom blooper bonus footage.

 

[Dusty Pagoda]

These Simmons/Blake Griffin videos are tremendous.

 

[BannedbyNYYFans.com]

You guys debating God are so fucking far off on all your points. Stop relying on Klosterman or Dawkins and quit pointing to faith or science.

Get a clue from somebody who isn't some bullshit scientist or theologian.

Spoiler

Cameron solved this shit a long time ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq7LXn4KSrM

 

[LTF]

The Carlton Cuse piece on Harvard hoops could be the worst thing that's run on Grantland. It immediately called to mind the English compositions my 12-year-old writes. "In closing, I would like to say that I really, really like Harvard basketball and hope they do really well this year."

 

[SydneySox]

But he wrote for Lost.

Your 12-year-old hasn't done shit.

That's why that piece was good and you and your kid suck.

 

[Gravistar]

This Wesley Morris piece - on the rise of the "black nerd" - is one of the few pieces that really uses all the potential of a place like Grantland, because there's no way he could have written this piece for the Globe on the one hand, or a traditional sports site on the other. I don't know if it's a complete explanation for the Durant-James-Wade-Stoudemire nerd style (really, the genealogy goes Carlton -> Kanye -> the NBA?), but a good read nonetheless.

 

[Rudi Fingers]

Ken Dryden's article about the Boogaard fallout is an amazing read.

A great excerpt:

Gary Bettman said in his online video interview with the Times that he hasn't talked to the doctors at Boston University. I hope he does soon. I also hope he has spoken with Derek Boogaard's family and friends to hear, really hear, about what his life was like. And with Paul Kariya, Eric Lindros, and Keith Primeau — in depth — or with any of a number of players who have had their careers ended early, about what life felt like after their injury, and what it feels like now. Or — in depth — with Sidney Crosby. As hard as it was in the 10 months of recovery after his injury — the pain and discomfort, the unknowns, the hopefulness, the crashing disappointments — now must be his darkest time. It was the sheer routineness of this latest hit. So invisible amid the action that observers assumed it must have been from a collision with his teammate Chris Kunitz. So routine it was only on replay: Crosby and Bruins player David Krejci yapping at each other from their player benches — what could've caused that? — then running the action backwards; Crosby and Krejci shoving at each other on the ice after the whistle — what could've caused that? — and backwards some more; Crosby skating toward the puck near the boards; Krejci, the puck in his skates, bent over, his back to Crosby; as Crosby bumps him, Krejci turns slightly, his left elbow striking Crosby in the visor. It was the kind of light blow that is exchanged without notice or consequence hundreds of times in a game. Krejci, in everything that follows, looks befuddled — Why is he so mad? What did I do? But knowing how he feels, Crosby knows.

If after 11 months this is all it takes …

I hope Bettman and Crosby have a good long talk.

 

[Toe Nash]

Rany Jazayerli is a good ol' BP guy who generally "gets it." But his piece today on the Sox shows a real lack of effort:

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/12565/is-red-sox-gm-ben-cherington-off-to-a-shaky-start

Making the trade worse is that, despite acquiring Melancon to take Jonathan Papelbon’s place on the roster, the Red Sox front office has made it clear that they don’t see Melancon as the solution for the closer role. The obvious move would be to give Melancon the eighth-inning spot and move Daniel Bard, who was so effective in that role the last two seasons, to the ninth inning. But the Sox have already announced that they will enter spring training with the intention of moving Bard into the rotation.

It’s hard to convey just how absurd this idea is. Bard started his professional career as a starting pitcher and it nearly destroyed him. In 2007, Bard’s first pro season, he made 22 starts in the low minor leagues. In 75 innings, he walked 78 batters and threw 27 wild pitches. Before the whispers of “Steve Blass Disease” reached a crescendo, the Sox moved him to the bullpen, where he’s been effective ever since. And now they want to send him back into the dragon’s lair?

Rany ignores the fact that Bard didn't suddenly suck because of Steve Blass disease; he sucked because the Sox tried to mess with his mechanics. When they switched him to the pen, they simultaneously let him revert back to his mechanics from college. If Jazayerli had done a bit of research before writing his pompous diatribe he might have found this out (Not to mention his overselling of Lowrie and weak speculation about Cherington and LL's decision-making).

I'm on the record as not particularly liking the trade, but Jazayerli needs to read up on the players he's discussing.

 

[JimBoSox9]

This bit from Justin Halpern cracked me up:

When networks roll out a new show, they usually slot it after an existing, popular show. Their hope is that viewers will watch the show they already love, then keep the channel on and give the show that follows a chance. Coincidentally, both Shit My Dad Says and How to Be a Gentleman followed The Big Bang Theory, which is the second-highest rated show on television. This placement was a huge advantage, but it came with certain expectations for how much of that audience we were expected to retain. In our first airing of How to Be a Gentleman, we held 55 percent of our lead-in. To put that figure in perspective, let’s say David Ortiz is batting fourth for the Boston Red Sox and he’s hitting .320 and the fans love him. Then the Red Sox bring up a kid from the minors and have him bat third, in front of Big Papi, and he hits .170, and then in the postgame press conference drops the N-word. That’s approximately what 55 percent retention signifies to CBS.

http://www.grantland.com/blog/hollywood-prospectus/post/_/id/39614/i-would-like-to-help-you-get-your-show-cancelled

 

[JBill]

I find myself enjoying a lot of his stuff for Grantland, he writes a lot of ridiculous but thoroughly entertaining columns.

Like this one, "Who Won 2011," bracket style breakdown: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7403367/who-won-2011

It's very, very long, good bathroom reading.

 

[Freddy Linn]

Appropriately, Carles tackles the topic of mediocrity, and throws out the following:

Mediocre performers are criticized and 'exposed' as a liability before they are benched, cut, or hidden on the field. Eventually, an athlete's perpetual display of ineptitude is mocked, turning his athletic existence into a highly anticipated blooper reel. The mediocre NFL quarterback is the most prevalent athlete we watch as a comical entity because he has the greatest ability to impact not just a game, but a team's entire season.

...

The 2011 NFL season has treated us to no shortage of mediocre quarterbacks whose names are synonymous with ineptitude. Tyler Palko, Rex Grossman, Kyle Orton, Tarvaris Jackson, Colt McCoy, Curtis Painter, and A.J. Feeley are a few of the most prevalent funny-named humans who happen to be bad quarterbacks. Oh wait, there's also Blaine Gabbert, T.J. Yates, Caleb Hanie, John Beck, Dan Orlovsky, and Matt Moore. I guess you might as well even throw in Matt Ryan, Kevin Kolb, Michael Vick, Vince Young, and Mark Sanchez. I guess we can't all be 'the best' at what we do, but quarterbacking as a job has no place to hide behind accepted mediocrity.

No one in his right mind can call Matt Ryan a mediocre quarterback, and only the harshest critics would call Vick one.


http://www.grantland...fl-quarterbacks