|
Mornacale posted:So your premise is that it's alright as long as it's a joke? Well its definitely different than if it were a magazine full of serious articles that were completely wrong/dumb/lazy/stupid/all of the above.
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2011 23:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 00:20 |
|
|
It's a giant joke issue. It's not really a particularly funny joke but it's kind of ridiculous to act like it's some kind of travesty.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2011 23:45
|
|
|
stuart scott irl posted:It's a giant joke issue. It's not really a particularly funny joke but it's kind of ridiculous to act like it's some kind of travesty. Wait is it a real magazine, like people actually spent actual working hours making this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2011 23:49
|
|
|
stuart scott irl posted:It's a giant joke issue. It's not really a particularly funny joke but it's kind of ridiculous to act like it's some kind of travesty. A supposedly-respectable source of journalism putting out a "joke issue" based on favoritism for one of its subjects is actually pretty bad. e: ^^^ And people are paying a subscription to read it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2011 23:50
|
|
|
Akileese posted:Wait is it a real magazine, like people actually spent actual working hours making this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 00:43
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:A supposedly-respectable source of journalism putting out a "joke issue" based on favoritism for one of its subjects is actually pretty bad. Most of the people I know who read ESPN aren't paying anything. I haven't had to pay for it ever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 00:52
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:A supposedly-respectable source of journalism a what now It's a crappy magazine that I think most people only read when they are pooping or in a waiting room somewhere. I think the world will survive one joke issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 00:59
|
|
|
MorningView posted:a what now it is a good pooping magazine, though, you have to admit
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 01:00
|
|
|
That and cheap insider are the only reasons I get it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 01:01
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:A supposedly-respectable source of journalism putting out a "joke issue" based on favoritism for one of its subjects is actually pretty bad. This isn't the New Yorker or the Economist doing a joke issue. And even if it was, its one issue. Sports magazines are not really what I'd call at all respectable sources of journalism. Sports Illustrated has an annual swim suit issue. Big deal. Also even if you did pay for a yearly subscription its what, 13 dollars or something? Mornacale posted:So your premise is that it's alright as long as it's a joke? Yeah pretty much. E: I see MorningView chimed in and yeah. Its basically a magazine you would read to pass a few minutes before a doctors appointment or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 01:02
|
|
|
I didn't even notice the part where the hockey preview was an afterthought to all the bullshit, that actually kinda redeems the whole thing to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 01:03
|
|
|
MorningView posted:I didn't even notice the part where the hockey preview was an afterthought to all the bullshit, that actually kinda redeems the whole thing to me. I'd rather read a real issue where ESPN praises Boston for being the best sports city ever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 01:05
|
|
|
I paged through it and read some of it and it's a bad issue of a magazine and it's dumb. I wouldn't call it a joke issue as there is plenty of serious in between things like dumb columns by Lang and Leary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 01:13
|
|
|
I remember when people from Boston were actually passionate sports fans, not just gloryhunters. I swear if the Eagles don't win 8 superbowls in the next 3 years I will explode with rage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 01:46
|
|
|
There has GOT to be someone better than Denis Leary to associate with Boston. Even for Boston he's an insufferable rear end in a top hat 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 01:56
|
|
|
Transfatuation posted:There has GOT to be someone better than Denis Leary to associate with Boston. Even for Boston he's an insufferable rear end in a top hat ben affleck?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 01:56
|
|
|
dane cook would work but his only knowledge of baseball is how many octobers there are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 02:12
|
|
|
Thank god I have 2 cheap ESPN the Mag subscriptions (I drop the other on in the student lounge), so I can burn a copy in protest.TheModernAmerican posted:I remember when people from Boston were actually passionate sports fans, not just gloryhunters. I swear if the Eagles don't win 8 superbowls in the next 3 years I will explode with rage. As a Philadelphia fan, oh god no please. You've already seen what the Phillies fanbase has become over the past 5 years. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 03:31
|
|
|
I have relatives from Boston and they are absolutely insufferable about sports. Even though the Celtics have won a shitload of titles and the Patriots have been in 7 Super Bowls, they acted so downtrodden until the Red Sox "finally" won (and then again). Come to Cleveland and witness some real pain 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 03:49
|
|
|
So dominant that their hockey has won once in like forty years!
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 03:59
|
|
|
Literally kiss the rings Also, ESPN succeeded by getting people to actually acknowledge the existence of ESPN Magazine
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 04:58
|
|
|
BackInTheUSSR posted:dane cook would work but his only knowledge of baseball is how many octobers there are. No one should want Dane Cook to represent their city ever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 05:41
|
|
|
R.D. Mangles posted:Literally kiss the rings Not everybody 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 06:26
|
|
|
Heaf posted:No one should want Dane Cook to represent their city ever. Gladiatorial games
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 07:04
|
|
|
TheModernAmerican posted:I remember when people from Boston were actually passionate sports fans, not just gloryhunters. I swear if the Eagles don't win 8 superbowls in the next 3 years I will explode with rage. ahahahahahahah this loving guy right here
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 12:36
|
|
|
Sash! posted:So dominant that their hockey has won once in like forty years! i mean at least they're getting a bunch of media attention and they've won in the past 40 years unlike the leafs
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 12:40
|
|
|
Another Moneyball is stupid article from Mr. Oozing pumpkin. I'm pasting it so you don't give him the hits he wants.quote:I won’t be going to see "Moneyball." The movie celebrates the plague ruining sports: sabermetrics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 20:14
|
|
|
That's a really solid article. No one can convince me that Randall Cunningham wasn't the greatest quarterback of all time, I know what I saw.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 20:28
|
|
|
All of my opinions are correct and if you try to refute any of them with tangible evidence you are a nerd who should STFU. The guy who wrote that fucks dogs. I can tell by the patterns in his sentence structure. I know what I saw.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 20:37
|
|
|
"The nerds are winning. They’re stealing the game from those of us who enjoy examining the gray areas of sports. We’re about 10 years away from a computer program that will write stats-based opinion pieces on sports." Please please please let this happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 20:50
|
|
|
I watched ATH yesterday. Bill Plaschke won and used his rant time to say he saw Moneyball and really liked it and sort of apologized for spending years bashing Billy Beane and sabermetrics. Then he backtracked and said it was still mostly wrong and "there's more than one way to build a team." That's still progress, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 20:54
|
|
|
hcreight posted:I watched ATH yesterday. Bill Plaschke won and used his rant time to say he saw Moneyball and really liked it and sort of apologized for spending years bashing Billy Beane and sabermetrics. Then he backtracked and said it was still mostly wrong and "there's more than one way to build a team." That's still progress, right? Ways to build a team: 1) Right way 2) Wrong way 3) Plaschke way* *This is the wrong way but it is a lot faster.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 21:00
|
|
|
Groucho Marxist posted:"The nerds are winning. They’re stealing the game from those of us who enjoy examining the gray areas of sports. We’re about 10 years away from a computer program that will write stats-based opinion pieces on sports." We're 0 years away from such a program Okay, so it's not an opinion piece (which is obviously a huge technological leap), but it basically ingests stats and creates a halfway-decent-if-not-still-somewhat-boilerplate-looking article.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 21:00
|
|
|
SporkOfTruth posted:As a Philadelphia fan, oh god no please. You've already seen what the Phillies fanbase has become over the past 5 years. Yeah I know Philly would become even more insufferable than Boston could ever hope to be if our 2010s are like Boston's 2000s. It will be a disaster for sports writers everywhere. I just want maybe a championship every 15 years. Or at least once in my life. That'd be cool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 21:09
|
|
|
i will say that i watch a lot less baseball than i did pre-sabermetrics but that's mainly because the mariners suck so goddamn bad
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 21:39
|
|
|
Groucho Marxist posted:"The nerds are winning. They’re stealing the game from those of us who enjoy examining the gray areas of sports. We’re about 10 years away from a computer program that will write stats-based opinion pieces on sports." Sabermetrics: totally uninterested in the gray areas of baseball
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 21:42
|
|
|
Why can't he understand that no one is forcing sabermetrics on everyone? He can still enjoy the game any way he wants. Oh right, he's dumb.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 22:43
|
|
|
Michael Wilbon/Bill Plaschke/Generic idiot: "This SABREmetric junk has to go, these bunch of loser stat heads in their basements with their computers, reducing the game to numbers, it's all junk." Next topic, the Cy Young race: "Joe Blow is leading the league with 24 wins and he has the best ERA, he should win it." That's the part that's always cracked me up. It's not that they are against stats, if they were, they'd be anti-baseball. It's that they are against stats that they don't understand and are too lazy to learn. My knowledge of advanced stats is rudimentary at best, but their rise in prominence rekindled my interest in baseball.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 23:48
|
|
|
quote:There’s a stat for nearly every action in baseball. Little is left to the imagination. Sports were never intended to be a computer program, stripped to cold, hard, indisputable, statistical facts. Sports — particularly for fans — are not science. Sports, like art, are supposed to be interpreted. Just gonna requote this awesome bit in response to that Whitlock garbage: Eric Augenbraun posted:Rejecting this claim only requires making the seemingly common-sense observation that baseball is not art. That is, it is wrong to say that baseball must be appreciated in the same ways that art is — as something we admire for its beauty, for the emotions it provokes in us, or for what it tells us about the world – because, unlike art, when the game of baseball is played, a large amount of essentially objective, numeric data is produced. Where there is an element of subjectivity is in how we arrange the data, how we interpret the data, which data we keep, and which data we throw away. With art, there is no equivalent. While we can agree that some art is better than other art, there is no data that emerges from the art itself that can serve as a basis for stating objectively which art is good and which art is bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2011 05:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 00:20 |
|
|
Uhhh watching Kevin Gregg pitch in the ninth inning is, in fact, art I am informed that tragedy and comedy are both classified as such
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2011 05:45
|
|