Reply With QuoteIs there a single topic that you actually have a clue about?
I'm trying to stay away from anti-Media posts, but the jackholes keep pulling me back in with their antics.
I kept hearing "Who's your daddy" stuff about Pedro Martinez. So I was curious... it turns out he said something I consider fairly innocuous...
"Call the Yankees my daddy. I can't find a way to beat them at this point,"
"I wish they would (expletive) disappear. Pardon me for using the F-word. I wish they would disappear and never come back. I would probably like to face any other team right now."
Then I hear about how the Yankees "own" him. Going into this year's playoff series Pedro was 10-10 with a 3.26 ERA against the Yankees. Career-wise he has a .705 winning percentage and a 2.71 ERA, and that includes 5 years in the National League to lower his ERA.
Considering how impressive the Yankees offense has been since Pedro moved to the American League, a 3.26 ERA is probably better than expected for someone with a 2.71 overall ERA. The 10-10 record is probably a bit below par, since the Red Sox have had pretty good run support over most of Pedro's years, but it doesn't seem too unreasonable against a team that usually wins over 100 games a season.
So basically, I disagree that the Yankees are Pedro's "daddy". He performs as well as expected or nearly so against a great team.
Does the Media also disagree? Apparently not, they not only seem to fully AGREE with Pedro but they took this lame pony and tried to win the Derby with it, embellishing things with "owning" and "Who's your daddy?"
Does the media care about the 10-10 record and 3.26 ERA? Do they care about the comments rising out of frustration?
Nope... they just care about their own Talking Points. Their own Story-Building, nevermind that the foundation is made of mud.
Is there a single topic that you actually have a clue about?
The Koontzpocalypse approaches quickly ...
Jackhole?
________
Easy Vape Vaporizer
Last edited by madkevin; 02-18-2011 at 08:01 PM.
OMFG we just lost 4 years :cry:
I've got $5 on it that date gets bumped up to December 23rd, 2012.Originally Posted by Derek Meister
The Koontzpocalypse approaches quickly ...
Koontz, if I gave you a quarter, could you buy a clue?
1) This story is now weeks old.
2) Even if Pedro were wrong about the Yankees being his daddy (and he's not, see below), there were several problems with his statements. First, he had to think that the Red Sox and Yankees would meet in the playoffs. That means he would almost certainly pitch against them one more time (his comments game in his last regular season start against them), possibly twice. You don't go telling your arch-rivals, right before probably playing them in the playoffs, "I can't beat you". It gives a huge mental edge to them. Not to mention, if you pitch in their park, you've just given 50,000 fans a huge chant to pound into the ground every time you throw a ball, give up a hit or a run, or walk a batter.
Not smart.
Anyway, he wasn't talking about his career against the Yankees, or how he did in relation to the league at large. He was talking about how he cannot beat the Yankees anymore, and hasn't done well against them recently. He's 100% right.
Pedro vs. Yankees, 2004.
In his two September starts against the Yankees (the first start came on 9/19, the series in which Boston had their last real shot at making a move on the Yankees for the AL East title. The second on 9/24, after which he made the "Daddy" comments) he went 0-2, 12.1 IP, 17 Hits, 13 ER, 4 HR, 5 BB, 9 K. An ERA of over 9.00. A H/9 IP of almost 13, which is awful. a K:BB of less than 2, from a guy who was over 3.5 on the year.Code:By Opp. ERA W L G GS CG IP H R ER HR BB SO AVG NYY 5.47 1 2 4 4 0 26.1 25 16 16 6 9 24 .245
He lost 11-1, and then 6-4. The 6-4 game, he was struggling, but carried a 3-2 lead into the 6th and gave it up. The Sox gave him another lead, 4-3, in the 7th and he went out in the 8th and gave up 2 more runs to give up the game.
Over the last 3 years in the regular season he's 4-4 witha 4.26 ERA against the Yankees, as a comparison. The only team he's got a worse ERA against in that time is Baltimore, and he at least is 6-3 agains them so it's not as bad.
As the #2 guy (and that's assuming you count Schilling as #1, which you had to stop doing after game 1, until game 6 happened) on a team crushed by fate for almost 90 years, and that has been OWNED by the Yankees when it mattered in recent years, you CANNOT go out to the world and say "I can't beat them. I'm afraid of them. They're better than I am."
Also, "media" is plural.
ASS.
(not you, Matt)
Pedro vs. Orioles, 2004.
1-2, 8.25 ERA, 24 innings.
Pedro vs. Angels, 2004.
1-0, 7.36 ERA, 11 innings.
So I guess the Orioles are really Pedro's daddy. Maybe the Yankees are the older brother.
I agree the comments weren't wise, but Pedro isn't exactly the most diplomatic guy around. Just because the comments weren't wise doesn't mean the media has to overplay it to such an extent. "Pedro is frustrated about his recent lack of success against the Yankees" is sufficient.
Actually, like all collective nouns, it can be either.
Those collective nouns is tricky, I guess.Actually, like all collective nouns, it can be either.
The word "nouns" isn't a collective noun, it's just a plural. A collective noun is a word like team, staff, and media. Generally, in the UK we tend to use collective nouns in the singular, and in America you tend to use them in the plural, but both ways are correct.
The Media is the Massage - Washington Post
"According to recent polls, large segments of the American population think the media is attentive to trivia..." - Michael Crichton, Wired
The new Iraqi media is starting small, finding its feet in a difficult and dangerous environment. - BBC
From dictionary.com...
Usage Note: The etymologically plural form media is often used as a singular to refer to a particular means of communication, as in The Internet is the most exciting new media since television. Many people regard this usage as incorrect, preferring medium in such contexts. ·People also use media with the definite article as a collective term to refer not to the forms of communication themselves so much as the communities and institutions behind them. In this sense, the media means something like “the press.” Like other collective nouns, it may take a singular or plural verb depending on the intended meaning. If the point is to emphasize the multifaceted nature of the press, a plural verb may be more appropriate: The media have covered the trial in a variety of formats. Frequently, however, media stands as a singular noun for the aggregate of journalists and broadcasters: The media has not shown much interest in covering the trial. This development of a singular media parallels that of more established words such as data and agenda, which are also Latin plurals that have acquired a singular meaning. ·The singular medium cannot be used as a collective noun for the press. The sentence No medium has shown much interest in covering the issue, would suggest that the lack of interest is in the means of communication itself rather than in its practitioners.
Aside from the fact that my previous post was an "indabut" (sp? Can it be used as an adjective?) cheap shot, meant to be taken only marginally seriously, the argument being made is that "media" is the plural of "medium" and it's not a collective noun regardless of how often it's misused. As your usage note pointed out. The word has pretty much evolved (assuming there is such a thing) a second definition as a collective noun, which I think would be listed separately, and which some language people don't accept. Here is the part where they argue that widespread usage is incorrect, and everyone laughs at them. Not at me. I was just playing devil' advocate!. Or something.
Some "language people" won't accept videogame for video game, either, but when a word is used by the mainstream media, like the BBC and Washington Post, I will usually consider it acceptable. That language evolves is a fact of life, and one which I mostly enjoy :).
Can we talk about the evolution of the word "Fact"? Or is that in poor taste? :twisted:
"Usage Note: Fact has a long history of usage in the sense “allegation of fact,” as in “This tract was distributed to thousands of American teachers, but the facts and the reasoning are wrong” (Albert Shanker). This practice has led to the introduction of the phrases true facts and real facts, as in The true facts of the case may never be known. These usages may occasion qualms among critics who insist that facts can only be true, but the usages are often useful for emphasis."
:D
Did you read my post, Brian? I mentioned that he had a worse ERA against Baltimore over the past 3 years, but that he may not have felt like he "couldn't beat them" because he was 6-3 over that time.
The Angels stats represent a total of 2 games. He was 1-0, so again there's no reason for him to have thought that he "couldn't beat them". Not to mention his three year stats are in the Dominant Pedro realm against Anaheim.
You started your defense with career stats, then when it's pointed out how you both misunderstood the original comments and are effectively wrong, you pull out a couple of choice "short term" data sets to try to deflect attention (ignoring the fact that I mentioned the Baltimore stats and why he wouldn't feel like they were his Daddy).
The bottom line is, Boston and it's fans have two main desires. Win a World Series and to beat the Yankees (they chant "Yankees Suck!" at home games against any team, not just the Yankees). Until this year, the "curse" left them with pretty much the Yankee goal, and they weren't even getting that done. Results against the Yankees are what Pedro and the media focus on. He doesn't have them of late (and specifically in September's two starts, which prompted the comments). Schilling was brought in for that specific purpose, and wanted to pitch in Yankee Stadium to "shut 50,000 fans up" (even though he'd already done it with Arizona in Game 4).
We've already been through the "last 2 start thing". Its called "Media overplay of Pedro's frustrated comments". The point is, the Yankees have not "owned" Martinez. They are not his "daddy", based on his performance. He's an intense competitor and doesn't like to lose, and doesn't like to have runs scored against him. The Yankees have done better than most teams against him. The Yankees spend large amounts of money to bring in top hitters which makes it all the more difficult for opposing pitchers, and the (usually) top pitchers of the Yankees combine to make it tough to *win* against them.
Forget them being the "Yankees". Take the exact same quality hitters, the exact same quality pitchers. Call them Team X. Does Pedro do any better? I doubt it. The Yankees are a great team, and Pedro executes comparatively against them as against Team X with the Yankees' quality. Schilling's ERA against the Yankees this year (regular season) was 4.82. 2-0 record... apparently the good run support he got means the Yankees aren't his "daddy". Whew, he dodged that bullet!
Schilling is a better pitcher than Pedro is right now (before the ankle trouble). Schilling is also very tough-minded, a better postseason pitcher, probably the best postseason starter of his generation. They brought him in to take their team's quality to the next level, to perhaps enable them to beat the Yankees. Not to *replace* Martinez as the ace, although that turned out to occur. Schilling is like Roger Clemens but with more focus and emotional control.
I was listening to ESPN after Martinez's first playoff start against the Yankees. He gave up 3 earned runs in 6 innings and the commentator was surprised... "Pedro pitched pretty well". I wanted to strangle the moron. The Talking Point continues...
Stories are fine. They can be fun. Stories that are 95% invention and 5% fact are not fun. I get enough of that bullshit from watching the White House carnival.
The Koontzpocalypse has not arrived...The Koontzpocalypse approaches quickly ...
Awesome. Now that's a memory for obscure shit.
I am pleased to have survived.
But have we really survived Big Rod Large Penis Racism? Maybe in this case life is but a dream. The Koontzpocalypse consumes all. Scattered survivors unite; we must survive.
Last edited by McGraw McGraw; 10-03-2007 at 02:03 AM.
Who is your daddy, and what does he do?
I'm a cop you idiot.
If you gaze long into the Koontz, the Koontz also gazes into you.
Holy fuck, I thought he was back.
I am both disappointed and relieved.
Seconded.
RSofaer still gets props for remembering that.
Thirded.
Posting Permissions