Archives
December 2006
12/15/06
12/13/06
12/8/06
I Renew Correspondence With My Good Friend, Keith Olbermann
12/6/06
12/6/06
12/5/06
Friday, December 8, 2006
Dear Mr. Olbermann,
I recently had the misfortune of reading some of your book, The Worst Person In The World, at my dentist's office. I am sure it was left there by a masochist who begs to have his teeth drilled without any Novocain or nitrous, but I picked it up and flipped though it for shits and giggles since I quit reading your stuff/watching your show circa 2005. In fact, back then, I used to correspond with you when you used to write ridiculous things about steroids.
I lost interest in you when you started hammering Bill O' Reilly, and he started sputtering in return. Oh, don't get me wrong, I abhor O' Reilly and all the stupidity he is a face for, but you attacks were nothing more than intellectual bullyism to draw viewers. So you can kick Bill O' Reilly's ass in a battle of wits; who can't? Tucker Carlson? You are engaging an unarmed opponent, gleefully making him blubber more than he already does. Sure, you get a few cheers from the anti-O' Reilly, but that is like recruiting the AV Club to cheer for a those taking calculus exam.
You don't really think you are going to change the way those like O' Reilly feel about him? Those troglodytes are set in their ways, and anything ill said about the man who brings them their daily fire just makes them want to defend him more. O 'Reilly should be ignored, not slapped down in a gaudy display and intellectual superiority. Your words, while sharp, don't have the intellectual fire power to penetrate O' Reilly's reptilian skin. Watching you two go back and forth is like watching Stay Puff Marshmallow Man and the Pillsbury Dough Boy get in a fight by the keg after attempting to come down from a coke binge by washing down barbiturates with sour mash. The Clash of the Titans it isn't.
I don't besmirch you for attempting to beat up an intellectual cripple; I just choose to ignore you. However, I can across your "One of The Greatest Pitchers Of All Time" in which you listed Roger Clemens as one of your Honorary Worst People of All Time (written 10/24/05). Normally, I wouldn't bother correcting something that written over a year ago, but you just re-published your hatchet job of Clemens in your book, so since you are trying to make money of your tripe, I suppose it is fair game. The gist of your article was that Roger Clemens was some sort of post season pussy who should not be relied upon in a pivotal post season game. Let's take a look at your piece.
First of all, Bret Boone did not hit the game winning home run in Game Seven of the 2003 ALCS; his brother Aaron Boone did. This is one of those embarrassing mistakes that everyone occasionally makes, well maybe not. Confusing Aaron Fucking Boone with his brother Bret is pretty hard to do. The fact that you hadn't corrected the mistake a year later indicates that not many people bothered to read this piece the first time around.
However, the Boone thing is just a mistake, unlike the rest of your article which is a malicious attempt to stilt statistics and history to assassinate someone's character. This garbage goes well beyond the tactics that your pal O' Reilly employs; your slipping Ann Coulter the tongue. In fact, in your zeal to eviscerate Clemens, you make yourself sound like Rush Limbaugh explaining why global warming is a farce.
Your opening salvo against Clemens is that his team have lost seventeen of the thirty-post season games he has started, even though Clemens is 12-8 in the post season. Perhaps you didn't learn this in your time at ESPN, but if the starter is not the pitcher of record, chances are his teammates are responsible for the loss. However, you imply that the reason Clemens' teams lost seventeen times is because Clemens had to leave the games early or because he blew leads.
Let's take a look at Clemens' no decisions that resulted in a team loss:
Game 4, 1986 ALCS -- Bullpen blows a 3-0 lead in the bottom of the ninth, loses the game 4-3 in the eleventh.
Game 6, 1986 WS -- The Buckner game.
Game 2, 1988 ALCS -- Clemens gives up 2-0 lead in the seventh; Sox tie the game in the bottom of the frame, then Lee Smith loses it in the ninth
Game 1, 1990 ALCS -- Clemens leaves game with lead after 6 IP, bullpen gives up nine runs.
Game 1, 1995 ALDS -- Red Sox lose 5-4 in the 13th inning. Yes, Clemens gave up a 3-0 lead in the sixth, but the Red Sox also blew a save in the eleventh, plus they squandered scoring opportunities in extra innings.
Game 7, 2001 WS -- Rivera blows save
Game 4, 2003 WS -- bullpen loses game in 12th inning, 4-3.
Game 4, 2004 NLDS -- Clemens leaves with a 3 runs lead after 5 IP, bullpen gives up 4 runs. Astrosdon't score after the second inning.
Game 1, 2005 WS -- Clemens leaves after 2 IP with injury, giving up 3 ERs. Astros tie game in top of the third, but do not score the rest of the game and pen coughs up two runs to lose 5-3.
In most of those games, it is obvious that Clemens was hardly the reason for his team's defeat. To parade idea that Clemens was responsible for all of his team's seventeen losses is disingenuous. However, from there, you embark into complete stupidity, faulting Clemens for blowing 8 leads over the course of a game in 34 post season appearances (two of which were 1-0 first inning leads; the other six were 2-0 leads at various courses in the game). This shows a complete lack of any sort of baseball context. Clemens post season appearances are very equitable to what a starter would throw in a regular season in this modern era. Would you chastise a pitcher for blowing eight leads, including two 1-0 first inning leads, over the course of the season?
You then said Clemens was no Christy Mathewson or Bob Gibson. Mathewson's team was .500 in the post season when he pitched, just like Clemens. Let's see how these guys did with your dumb stat of "Blown Leads:
G G w/Blown Leads %
Mathewson 11 5 45
Gibson 9 3 33
Clemens 34 8 24
I don' think we need to spend anymore time on this silly stat rooted in ignorance. You thought you could build a case by counting, but evaluating performance is much more than counting, something they obviously don't teach at ESPN. You also said that "[Clemens] is a guy with a post season record slightly less than that of his journeyman teammate Russ Springer," an obvious attempt at hyperbole. Here is a tip, Keith, hyperbole only works in snark if it is grounded in some sort of fact. Russ Springer hasn't even started a post season game.
Your slam on Clemens was baseball analysis at its worst, riddled with factual inaccuracies and absurdly erroneous evaluations of performance. In other words, your piece was what passes for sports journalism these days in media throughout the country, which is quickly dismissed. However, since you sit behind your anchor desk with an air of snarky moral superiority, kind of like a grumpy Stan Laurel devoid of humor, you should be smacked around when you behave like Coulter or Limbaugh. The fact that you read a teleprompter at ESPN when you weren't occasionally being thrown in a dugout doesn't mean you learned much about sports, especially baseball. Sure, you are capable of belittling the dimwitted O' Reilly, but if you are going to talk baseball, you need to bring better stuff. The last thing baseball needs is an aging tall, skinny Coulter/Limbaugh offspring offering baseball commentary on lower tier cable.
bads85 at 3:10:00 PM EST Blog about this entry |
Add to del.icio.us | 
digg this
I Renew Correspondence With My Good Friend, Keith Olbermann
I recently had the misfortune of reading some of your book, The Worst Person In The World, at my dentist's office. I am sure it was left there by a masochist who begs to have his teeth drilled without any Novocain or nitrous, but I picked it up and flipped though it for shits and giggles since I quit reading your stuff/watching your show circa 2005. In fact, back then, I used to correspond with you when you used to write ridiculous things about steroids.
I lost interest in you when you started hammering Bill O' Reilly, and he started sputtering in return. Oh, don't get me wrong, I abhor O' Reilly and all the stupidity he is a face for, but you attacks were nothing more than intellectual bullyism to draw viewers. So you can kick Bill O' Reilly's ass in a battle of wits; who can't? Tucker Carlson? You are engaging an unarmed opponent, gleefully making him blubber more than he already does. Sure, you get a few cheers from the anti-O' Reilly, but that is like recruiting the AV Club to cheer for a those taking calculus exam.
You don't really think you are going to change the way those like O' Reilly feel about him? Those troglodytes are set in their ways, and anything ill said about the man who brings them their daily fire just makes them want to defend him more. O 'Reilly should be ignored, not slapped down in a gaudy display and intellectual superiority. Your words, while sharp, don't have the intellectual fire power to penetrate O' Reilly's reptilian skin. Watching you two go back and forth is like watching Stay Puff Marshmallow Man and the Pillsbury Dough Boy get in a fight by the keg after attempting to come down from a coke binge by washing down barbiturates with sour mash. The Clash of the Titans it isn't.
I don't besmirch you for attempting to beat up an intellectual cripple; I just choose to ignore you. However, I can across your "One of The Greatest Pitchers Of All Time" in which you listed Roger Clemens as one of your Honorary Worst People of All Time (written 10/24/05). Normally, I wouldn't bother correcting something that written over a year ago, but you just re-published your hatchet job of Clemens in your book, so since you are trying to make money of your tripe, I suppose it is fair game. The gist of your article was that Roger Clemens was some sort of post season pussy who should not be relied upon in a pivotal post season game. Let's take a look at your piece.
First of all, Bret Boone did not hit the game winning home run in Game Seven of the 2003 ALCS; his brother Aaron Boone did. This is one of those embarrassing mistakes that everyone occasionally makes, well maybe not. Confusing Aaron Fucking Boone with his brother Bret is pretty hard to do. The fact that you hadn't corrected the mistake a year later indicates that not many people bothered to read this piece the first time around.
However, the Boone thing is just a mistake, unlike the rest of your article which is a malicious attempt to stilt statistics and history to assassinate someone's character. This garbage goes well beyond the tactics that your pal O' Reilly employs; your slipping Ann Coulter the tongue. In fact, in your zeal to eviscerate Clemens, you make yourself sound like Rush Limbaugh explaining why global warming is a farce.
Your opening salvo against Clemens is that his team have lost seventeen of the thirty-post season games he has started, even though Clemens is 12-8 in the post season. Perhaps you didn't learn this in your time at ESPN, but if the starter is not the pitcher of record, chances are his teammates are responsible for the loss. However, you imply that the reason Clemens' teams lost seventeen times is because Clemens had to leave the games early or because he blew leads.
Let's take a look at Clemens' no decisions that resulted in a team loss:
Game 4, 1986 ALCS -- Bullpen blows a 3-0 lead in the bottom of the ninth, loses the game 4-3 in the eleventh.
Game 6, 1986 WS -- The Buckner game.
Game 2, 1988 ALCS -- Clemens gives up 2-0 lead in the seventh; Sox tie the game in the bottom of the frame, then Lee Smith loses it in the ninth
Game 1, 1990 ALCS -- Clemens leaves game with lead after 6 IP, bullpen gives up nine runs.
Game 1, 1995 ALDS -- Red Sox lose 5-4 in the 13th inning. Yes, Clemens gave up a 3-0 lead in the sixth, but the Red Sox also blew a save in the eleventh, plus they squandered scoring opportunities in extra innings.
Game 7, 2001 WS -- Rivera blows save
Game 4, 2003 WS -- bullpen loses game in 12th inning, 4-3.
Game 4, 2004 NLDS -- Clemens leaves with a 3 runs lead after 5 IP, bullpen gives up 4 runs. Astrosdon't score after the second inning.
Game 1, 2005 WS -- Clemens leaves after 2 IP with injury, giving up 3 ERs. Astros tie game in top of the third, but do not score the rest of the game and pen coughs up two runs to lose 5-3.
In most of those games, it is obvious that Clemens was hardly the reason for his team's defeat. To parade idea that Clemens was responsible for all of his team's seventeen losses is disingenuous. However, from there, you embark into complete stupidity, faulting Clemens for blowing 8 leads over the course of a game in 34 post season appearances (two of which were 1-0 first inning leads; the other six were 2-0 leads at various courses in the game). This shows a complete lack of any sort of baseball context. Clemens post season appearances are very equitable to what a starter would throw in a regular season in this modern era. Would you chastise a pitcher for blowing eight leads, including two 1-0 first inning leads, over the course of the season?
You then said Clemens was no Christy Mathewson or Bob Gibson. Mathewson's team was .500 in the post season when he pitched, just like Clemens. Let's see how these guys did with your dumb stat of "Blown Leads:
G G w/Blown Leads %
Mathewson 11 5 45
Gibson 9 3 33
Clemens 34 8 24
I don' think we need to spend anymore time on this silly stat rooted in ignorance. You thought you could build a case by counting, but evaluating performance is much more than counting, something they obviously don't teach at ESPN. You also said that "[Clemens] is a guy with a post season record slightly less than that of his journeyman teammate Russ Springer," an obvious attempt at hyperbole. Here is a tip, Keith, hyperbole only works in snark if it is grounded in some sort of fact. Russ Springer hasn't even started a post season game.
Your slam on Clemens was baseball analysis at its worst, riddled with factual inaccuracies and absurdly erroneous evaluations of performance. In other words, your piece was what passes for sports journalism these days in media throughout the country, which is quickly dismissed. However, since you sit behind your anchor desk with an air of snarky moral superiority, kind of like a grumpy Stan Laurel devoid of humor, you should be smacked around when you behave like Coulter or Limbaugh. The fact that you read a teleprompter at ESPN when you weren't occasionally being thrown in a dugout doesn't mean you learned much about sports, especially baseball. Sure, you are capable of belittling the dimwitted O' Reilly, but if you are going to talk baseball, you need to bring better stuff. The last thing baseball needs is an aging tall, skinny Coulter/Limbaugh offspring offering baseball commentary on lower tier cable.
bads85 at 3:10:00 PM EST Blog about this entry |
Add to del.icio.us | digg this
This entry has 8 comments: (Add your own)
-
>>Reading comprehension is a bitch for you, isn't it?<<
Maybe so, but Wikipedia be damned, Im not the one using made up words like "snarky" to make my point. (Dude, you got PWNED!)
>>I don't like those who snark who do so when they don't know what they are talking about.<<
So if one DOES happen to know what they are snarking about, but are simply snarking for snarks sake cuz its a slow news day, which side of the fence does that put me ... errr ... them on? -
>>>You dont like "snarky" holier-than-thow intellectuals who sometimes to feel the need to sow their "superior" oats by needlessly degrading those lower on the acedemic foodchain?
<<<
Reading comprehension is a bitch for you, isn't it? I didn't like Keith Olbermann on ESPN, and I don't like Keith Olbermann talking about sports on MsNBC. And just what the fuck is an "academic food chain?" A mixed metaphor borne of pop culture and non-educational television? Or does it have something to do with Belushi's "I'm a zit?"
I don't like those who snark who do so when they don't know what they are talking about. When Olbermann goes after a guy like Clemens with stilted arguments and his intellectual postering, not only is he being a dick, he is being an uneducated dick pretending he has his facts straight. In Olbermann's case, he does have a sharp mind, but his snark is often unchecked intellectual laziness. That is a far greater sin that being ignorant. He thinks because he is smarter than the athletes he is snarking, he doesn't have to bother with fact checking.
If I am snarking, I have my facts square, not matter how lowly the target. -
So wait ... You dont like "snarky" holier-than-thow intellectuals who sometimes to feel the need to sow their "superior" oats by needlessly degrading those lower on the acedemic foodchain?
Just checking. -
>>>I am just looking at the way he presents himself and comparing it with the louder, coarser styles of the sportscasters I see on cable.<<<
That is like comparing the skinny Brando to the fat Brando; the porn addicted Pluto to the Born Again Pluto; Fonzie before he jumped a shark, etc.
>>I am not sure that Olberman needs to take shots at the greats. <<<
That is how he made a name as a sportscaster -- he probably was the first snark on the air in sports. He became the anti-Summaral. Snark was a novel then. In fact, Olbermann tooks shots at everyone. His following was a bunch of clowns who thought they were cool enough to get Herr Keith's jokes.
He also once made Suzy Kolbert cry because things weren't going his way. Joe Namath should have kicked his ass.
12/12/06 11:11 PM