Bad Satire
From ESPN's Page 2, comes this column from "Art Garfamundis":
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=garfamudis/080305
I certainly appreciate the satirical point Page 2 makes, but is this the best they could do?
At least this line was funny, kind of:
"If you can't tell how good a player is from basic stats, maybe Timothy Leary was your family doctor, or maybe it's just that you don't know very much about baseball."
55 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Couldn't get past the first sentence
I vote for
Works for me.
by pdb on Mar 5, 2008 1:46 PM PST up reply actions
And look what they did
Space Jam was a great movie.
I disagree.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/i6om0E9y-pU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param>
You should check out his other stuff.
But seriously
Here's his 5 second movies channel
My favorites are Spaceballs, Leathal Weapon, The Matrix, and the LOTR trilogy(which you have to watch in order for it to be it's funniest).
Braveheart and Titanic are the best
FREEEEDOOOOOM!!!!
But my winner:
by PositivePaul on Mar 6, 2008 12:54 PM PST up reply actions
That's....special.
It's also difficult to argue that these newfangled stats make such a break from tradition when even this persona has to acknowledge that 10-11 stats are pretty much okay. Baseball's always been infatuated with stats - the stats chosen were simply inadequate to the task.
A better approach would take that point on squarely and argue that the traditional stats are better because they're 'contaminated' with things outside a player's control. I guess the problem is that many people actually do this (like the arguments about won/loss records), making satire sort of impossible.
Does anyone know
Stephen Colbert interviewed Mike Tyson
You should know better
by pdb on Mar 5, 2008 3:07 PM PST up reply actions
That's happened to me before.
better than getting meatspun
by JI on Mar 5, 2008 4:42 PM PST up reply actions
Google the link address
by Graham MacAree on Mar 5, 2008 3:10 PM PST up reply actions
wow
by Bearskin Rugburn on Mar 5, 2008 2:20 PM PST up reply actions
How is babby formed?
by Phil Hatzenbuehler on Mar 5, 2008 3:32 PM PST up reply actions
this guy is a tool
by Bearskin Rugburn on Mar 5, 2008 2:18 PM PST reply actions
I'm about
I dunno, maybe Art Thiel changed his last name and wrote it for real?
I just tried to read it again
Satire is like poetry. Everyone thinks they can write it well, when in reality, almost no one actually can.
by pdb on Mar 5, 2008 2:38 PM PST up reply actions
Page 2 is pretty solid
Simmons is kind of a tool and a bit of a douche and doesn't know that much about baseball, but he's a talented writer, but I think a lot of his value comes from being a fan of the NBA (that and Gregg Easterbrook's falling off a cliff...)
I think Caple has been great lately - his satire pieces suck, but when he writes about amusing things (e.g. You don't want A-Rod on your team? You're an idiot), he's pretty good.
Patrick Hruby is another one I like - his Week in Review Quiz is often terrific, and his rundown of the Super Bowl parties was ridiculously awesome.
I'm in the minority, but I like DJ Gallo as well. He has a schtick, and does decently with it.
Hopefully Gregg Easterbrook (TMQ) picks it back up next year instead of writing 3500 word columns and basically calling everyone in the world a horrible person for one thing or another, leading to my friend and coming up with the Gregg Easterbrook corollary - "If you selectively present facts, you can prove any point you damn well please."
Him and the two that start off 70% of their stories with "So I'm gay/lesbian and THIS happened to me" probably annoy me the most right now.
OK, sorry, long rant. I just happen to like Page 2, as long as you read the guys who can actually write a little.
I go in phases with Page 2
Caple's the same way - I like him OK, but he's really walking on some thin ice with those satire pieces, and he's writing too many of them.
I read Easterbrook faithfully, even though I don't care about the NFL, because I really like reading the writings of the clinically insane. I mean, damn - he's got a couple decent lines, and then the rest of it is just kinda 30 paragraphs of whaaaaaaaa? I can't even criticize it, because it's so random and weird.
by pdb on Mar 5, 2008 3:57 PM PST up reply actions
My friend and I are actually
Then this year, he spent an entire season harping on things why the government is evil for not proposing better legislation on fuel economy and why science fiction movies and TV dramas are unrealistic, among others. While clearly valid points, A. What does he expect and B. When I went to see Cloverfield, the last thing I cared about was how the monster got so damn big. If I was worried about the realism of the movie, I'd also be a touch worried about a giant monster coming and crushing San Diego as well.
He also starting calling his thoughts "immutable laws," which really annoyed me, and spent every single column talking about how teams needed to go for it on fourth down, and how coaches were more concerned with their jobs than winning (e.g. they would play it safe as to not lose their job for doing something stupid). I liken it to his writing though - instead of continuing with his fantastic column, he started writing with more of a schtick, sacrificing a great column for increased popularity
Lastly, he started making really stupid points and showed that he wasn't doing his research like he used to. He started blaming parents for the decline of the world, and saying things like "talking on cells is super wrong for teens etc," while conveniently ignoring the fact that some states COUGH Washington COUGH do not allow passengers in teenagers cars, thus forcing kids to call others if they need directions, etc.
The TMQ Bad Predictions Review sealed it for me though. He spent that whole column basically being a giant ass to pretty much everyone and anyone who tried to make a prediction, and it was an awful column.
Try Simmons again though - he's gotten a lot better lately. I think he was horrible when he was writing his book, but now that he's focused on writing his column now, he's gotten pretty good again.
Caple just did a pretty damn good satirical piece
"I'm very proud to say that despite the frivolous lawsuits over trademark infringement, the Haarlem Globetrotters have been a huge success as well. Once best known for its beautiful 17th century architecture, the old Dutch city of Haarlem is now world famous for the ballhandling wizardry of its all-white, chest-passing NBA team and their tight satin shorts. I never laughed so hard as when they pulled down Kobe Bryant's shorts in their playoff game against the Los Angeles Lakers of Anaheim. And I don't need to tell you how popular staying in nearby Amsterdam has been with American players."
and linky http://tinyurl.com/2cztxq
I basically agree though. Simmons = good for NBA, but I get sick of him talking about Boston teams all the time. Caple's great, Hruby and Gallo are solid. The rest can just bugger off IMO.
thank you
by pdb on Mar 5, 2008 4:06 PM PST up reply actions
The best way to keep that straight
Yes, this is what a degree in Philosophy gets you.
Nor is the negation of Or, so the truth table for Nor should be exactly the opposite of the Or truth table.
A or B
T--T--T
T--T--F
F--T--F
F--F--F
A nor B
T--F--T
T--F--F
F--F--T
F--T--F
Nor is true only in cases where Or is false.
You can do the same thing with Nand and And.
Nand, if I remember correctly
by tworsandtwols on Mar 5, 2008 8:08 PM PST up reply actions
Define:Nand
Heh I remember in discrete math
The best way? Really?
Can someone explain what this table is supposed to be? Is there a typo in it, or something? I thought I understood it, but TTT followed by TTF makes no sense to me.
by The Alaskan on Mar 6, 2008 9:37 AM PST up reply actions
The middle truth value
So, the statement "A or B" is true in all cases where A is true, and in all cases where B is true. "A or B" is only false when both A and B are false.
Nor works the other way around. "A nor B" is false is all cases where A is true, and in all cases where B is true. "A nor B" is only true when both A and B are false.
As someone who spends some time with Excel,
A or B
TTT
TTF
FTF
FFF
If I'm understanding you correctly, the first and third columns are A and B, respectively, and the middle column is the conclusion? In that case, FTF is incorrect. Perhaps you meant FTT? If, as I originally assumed, A and B are the first and second columns, then TTF is incorrect.
Clearly I'm getting nit-picky about this. I just wanted to make sure I understood what you were trying to say.
by The Alaskan on Mar 6, 2008 9:58 AM PST up reply actions
Whatever
Screw ESPN.

by 









