- 10:31 AM
- 11/21/24
It's basically just greedy -- they all want the money from the extra games. I'm not sure the playoffs aren't too long already; you can almost always count on each team to get blown out in at least one game of each series, because it's basically impossible to maintain that much-vaunted "playoff intensity" the whole way through. Take out those blowouts and you basically have a 5-game series anyway -- just with a smaller take at the gate. In other words, the fans lose out, in the long run, from longer series. We're the ones that have to pay to watch the crappy play that results, while the owners and players get pretty much the same take no matter how poor the games are (in the playoffs, at least).
posted by ajax at 12:11 AM on February 10, 2003
i suppose you would take away everyone's freedom to do ANYTHING remotely dangerous... Starfucker, can you read? Here, for example. What I said was:
I'm not talking about banning anything or protecting anyone. I'm talking about deciding what's the right thing to do.The various soccer organizations are free to decide what they think is best. That doesn't mean that whatever they happen to decide is necessarily the best thing to do, however.
posted by ajax at 10:27 AM on December 24, 2002
Oh, great, the all-caps argument. I tremble before your mighty display of incontrevertible genius and cutting wit, StarFucked. I'm not talking about banning anything or protecting anyone. I'm talking about deciding what's the right thing to do. On the one hand you have an entertainment, an activity people are paid to do so the people who pay them can make money. On the other hand you have the people they make the money off of. Now what you all are saying is, the fucks who make the money shouldn't care if it so happens they're going to kill some of the fucks whose money they take, because... because those other poor fucks just don't know better? Brilliant. You obviously have a profound and subtle understanding of morality.
posted by ajax at 03:07 PM on December 20, 2002
So y'all are saying that whether or not people will die because of them should have no bearing on what the rules of an activity should be? I don't get it. If it were up to me, and I knew shootouts were going to kill people, I'd change the rule as soon as I could come up with a better alternative. What's there to think about? Do you actually believe that because other people will fail to take care of themselves you're somehow excused from considering that your decisions might harm them?
posted by ajax at 02:08 PM on December 20, 2002
I happened to catch this (couldn't sleep), and it was pretty ridiculous. The Lakers were hitting their shots -- but, aside from a couple crazy plays by Kobe, they were wide open. The Mavs just stopped playing defense. And, so many of their points earlier in the game having come off of missed shots on the other end, their offense dried up at the same time.
posted by ajax at 10:29 PM on December 07, 2002
Career decisions are a thing you just have to be greedy about -- i.e., you have to think of yourself first. It's the only way to make them; you can't live your life to make other people happy instead of yourself. But there's no excuse for lying to the community that's supported you and helped you succeed. And leaving without facing -- and acknowledging, not to mention thanking -- the people you've abandoned is cowardly, and disgusting. Fucking prick.
posted by ajax at 11:01 PM on December 05, 2002
Popular Humor Publication Wrings Out Yet More Tired Prose Derived From Mildly Witty Headline "It's not that we don't try to invent anything original," said Shrumlinger. "Well, actually, maybe it is that. I mean, if everybody loves you for mimicking newspaper prose over and over again, why shouldn't you mimick newspaper prose over and over again? We want to be loved, too, you know."
posted by ajax at 05:16 PM on December 05, 2002
(More on Bol here. The interview gets interesting about halfway down, when Bol himself speaks, describing the situation in the Sudan, and also why he did that boxing match. ("That money is not going to my pocket. If it was going to my pocket, I would say yeah, you know, it's bad to do that, you know."))
posted by ajax at 02:03 PM on November 13, 2002
This says it all about the guy:
Bol recently took part in Fox TV's Celebrity Boxing show and beat former football player William "The Refrigerator'' Perry in a bout. Bol agreed to take part, so long as Fox agreed to air a toll-free number for the Ring True Foundation, a West Hartford-based charity he set up to benefit southern Sudanese children. He donated his $35,000 purse from the boxing match to the group.He's got his priorities -- and his heart -- in the right place. Who the fuck cares what other people think, when you're doing good things.
posted by ajax at 10:31 AM on November 13, 2002
He was outed by ABC I believe you mean ousted. Marv's the one what dresses funny.
posted by ajax at 03:50 PM on October 31, 2002
I wonder if it was a good idea to bring the little kids into the dugout for the World Series -- they probably felt a lot of pressure. There was that whole thing about the Giants being undefeated (until game 6, at least) when Baker's kid was a bat boy; I wonder if, when they did lose, he felt like it was because of him. Baseball players are superstitious and all, but maybe they should keep their kids out of it.
posted by ajax at 10:34 AM on October 28, 2002
The moment for me was when Ripken hit the home run in his first at bat in the game he broke the record. I'm with you there. (Though, obviously, I'd forgot about that home run. Must've been blinded by my rage against MLB....) Gibson's homer is also my strongest memory. That was just absurd -- the cripple coming back to save the day for the underdog, in the most dramatic of all possible plays. Crazy stuff.
posted by ajax at 10:58 AM on October 24, 2002
I saw that. I was like, Wait a second -- that's a "moment"? And it's "memorable"? I don't think I can remember a single hit Ripken got.
posted by ajax at 10:19 PM on October 23, 2002
I know. I mean, there's no other possible explanation for how the Skins could lose!
posted by ajax at 10:29 PM on October 22, 2002
Yeah, but what does he do the other 50 percent? Think about it. Suppose in the 9th inning of game 2 just now, Aurelia or Kent had been on base. If you don't intentially walk Bonds, you're giving the Giants a real good chance of tieing the game. A much better chance, I'd say, than if you walk him and make Santiago et al. manufacture the runs.
posted by ajax at 11:21 PM on October 20, 2002
The thing with Buckner is just one more reason to dislike so many Boston fans. The guy played his heart out, and contributed more than anyone ever could've expected. And he gets paid back by being harassed on the street and getting phone calls from journalists who ask him if he contemplated committing suicide after that play. Oh, yeah, it's another reason to dislike some journalists, too.
posted by ajax at 05:39 PM on October 16, 2002
Apparently he'd promised the ball to some friend of a friend (or something) if he caught a touchdown pass, and asked where he'd be sitting. Beautiful.
posted by ajax at 11:12 PM on October 15, 2002
Who's supposed to provide security in these situations? The home team? MLB itself? As soon as a fan starts acting aggressively -- in any way -- toward any team personnel, he should be removed. Stephenson never should've had to lift a finger to get rid of that idiot.
posted by ajax at 11:04 AM on October 15, 2002
The Knicks management has certainly made some dumb moves, but I'm not sure McDyess was so bad a gamble -- I don't think they could have gotten a better player for Camby. I do wonder, though, if you were to make the health/injury resistance of players (and maybe law-abidingness, too) a top priority in putting a team together, how good a record you'd end up with. Probably better than you'd expect....
posted by ajax at 11:33 AM on October 14, 2002
When ESPN initially reported on the trade, they included this quote:
"We're flabbergasted, we're flabbergasted that there weren't more teams that got involved in it," Bills general manager Tom Donahoe said. "Everybody talks about the need for quarterbacks. ... All we know is, we're happy to know that we were in that position and had a chance to do this."But that's how it happened -- the Bills were the only team that was serious about getting Bledsoe, and they went and made it happen. Goody on them.
posted by ajax at 12:25 PM on September 30, 2002
And where's Michael Jordan's tongue? And Dikembe's index finger? Karl Malone's elbow? Dennis Rodman's hair? (And forehead?) ...
posted by ajax at 12:44 PM on September 15, 2002
I like that idea, actually. Long runs don't appeal to me -- too boring, and inefficient -- and you can't only run uphill....
posted by ajax at 03:38 PM on August 14, 2002
Good point, tieguy -- I forgot about the pitching. True enough.
posted by ajax at 11:36 AM on August 07, 2002
The Rangers blew the bank on Alex Rodriguez. They weren't in the running for any other big-name players after that, while the Yankees are always in the running for new marquee players. The Rangers way overpaid -- no other team would have even come close to offering that kind of contract. And the article's analysis of the Yankee's acquiring new players rang true for me -- the only big name they've picked up is Giambi, aside from a few late-season deals for aging sluggers. What's set them apart has been their own talent system (responsible for Jeter, Rivera, Soriano, Pettitte, B. Williams, etc.) and their picking up guys no one thought would matter that much -- Ventura, Brosius, O'Neill, etc.
posted by ajax at 09:08 AM on August 07, 2002
I'm not sure that what the Nets need is more defense, however. They were the second-best fast-break team in the NBA last year. Add one of the league's best defenders and shot-blockers, and give a younger, more athletic forward more minutes, and this year they could be better than even Sacramento at getting easy buckets.... Mutombo will also be a good tutor for Jason Collins, who looks like he can really play. And if Jefferson develops a game for the set offense, the Nets won't even miss Van Horn, who was simply too inconsistent for a championship contender.
posted by ajax at 09:01 AM on August 07, 2002
Pete might not know what else to do with his life -- he's lived and breathed tennis since forever. But given how inconsistent the men's field is and his still relatively young age, there's no reason to think that if he were to be able to refocus (and perhaps the best way for him to do that would be to take a break), he couldn't win another major or two before he's all done....
posted by ajax at 07:51 PM on June 26, 2002
With Shaq playing the way he played the last 6 games (during which the Lakers were, uh, 6-0, including vs. Sacto), it's hard to see anyone beating them 4 out of 7, ever. Even if the refs do call his foul-line transgressions and offensive fouls.
posted by ajax at 12:08 PM on June 13, 2002
whatever happened to "better lucky than good"?
posted by ajax at 11:44 PM on January 29, 2002
Bledsoe throws harder than Brady. Brady's passes wobble. I don't understand why he doesn't get picked off more, actually.
posted by ajax at 07:40 PM on January 29, 2002
USA Today ranks the Ten Hardest Things to do in Sports.
These are all completely meaningless comparisons -- it doesn't mean anything to say one of these is "harder" than the others. The fact is, in order to do any of them, you need to have exceptional physical ability, and you need to train like hell. The only way you could have a meaningful comparison is if you could somehow define a norm for athletic ability, and see how much a person with "normal" athletic ability had to train to do any of them. But you can't. Athletic ability tends to be specialized -- a world-class [sport1ist] is likely to be an average at best [sport2ist], no matter how hard he/she trains. So, whatever -- you can pick whichever one you want, and say it's the hardest; you'll be just as right no matter which one it is.