Murray Chass...(an idiot)...On Baseball
So what kind of conundrum is created when a person who hates blogs and bloggers creates his own blog? Murray Chass, writer for the NY Times, has created his own baseball blog and proceeds to tell us that he hates blogs. I guess he circumvents that by stating that his site is for baseball columns, not blogs. You can say that cow manure is fertilizer, but it is still cow shit.
FJM did an excellent job of reviewing Mr. Chass' blog site and had some insightful thoughts on what his page is about.
However, I am not here to rehash what his site is about. I am here to bash Murray Chass on his first blog, er...column or whatever he wants to call it, regarding the All-Star Game. Murray does not like the All-Star Game format in which the winning league receives home-field advantage in the World Series. The "added" significance to the All-Star Game has not had much influence on the television ratings since its inception after the tie game in 2002. Murray has some better ideas than the "silly scheme" of awarding home-field advantage for the All-Star Game winner.
One way would be to reward the team with the better won-lost record. But that idea wouldn't work logistically. Baseball can’t wait until days or even a week before the World Series is scheduled to start to determine where Series game will be played. Airlines and hotels don’t work that way.
Last time I checked, I'm pretty sure I could reserve a flight and a hotel room a couple of days before I leave.
So let me get this straight. This would not work for baseball even though this is how the finals NBA and NHL determine home-field advantage? Even with the current format in baseball, MLB officials can only narrow down which team will host games 1 and 2 in the World Series to two teams prior to the completion of the Championship Series. If they used the better won-lost record that would only expand the possibility to four teams.
As a Cardinals fan, if I wanted to go to a World Series game in 2006, I new that if the Cardinals won the NLCS, they would be playing in either Detroit or Oakland for the first two games. Since the Tigers swept the A's and the Cards took seven games to beat the Mets, I would have known where the Cards were playing before the end of the NLCS. However, I would have either had to take a chance that the Cards would win and make my flight and hotel reservations early or wait until the end of series knowing that game 1 would start in only a couple of days.
I think MLB officials would be able to handle the additional strain of coordinating everything with four possibilities versus the current two possibilities. I just think you are an absurd idiot for thinking this would not be possible.
Chass has another idea for awarding home-field advantage...
If baseball, on the other hand, based homefield advantage on the outcome of interleague games, the winning league this season would have been known before the end of June, leaving three months, or half the season, to make travel plans.
Using interleague games may actually be a slightly better idea for determining World Series home-field advantage as it uses a bigger statistical sample than one exhibition game and can show which league is better (at that time). However, Chass is either The Amazing Kreskin or an amazing, fucking retard if he knows where the World Series would be played using interleague games results! Yes, you would know if the American or National league pennant winner would have home-field advantage, BUT YOU DON"T KNOW WHICH TEAM, ASSHOLE!!!
Man, what a fucktard!
But the outcome of the interleague schedule would do nothing for Fox and its ratings for the All-Star game. Don’t let a sound idea get in the way of greed.
"Greed, for lack of a better word, is good", or at least it was in Wall Street.
It may be a sound idea, Chass, but those greedy little networks are what help MLB pay the bills. So if Fox or ESPN want to have some input on the game and will put up some extra dough along with that input, MLB may agree.
There is a reason why you receive so many emails from angry readers. When you are wrong, people like to point that out to you, just like I am doing now. That does not mean you are doing some thing "right" by getting such a response from your readers.
I can't say that I'm looking forward to more "columns" from Murray Chass, but I believe we will be seeing a lot more of him on this site.
FJM did an excellent job of reviewing Mr. Chass' blog site and had some insightful thoughts on what his page is about.
However, I am not here to rehash what his site is about. I am here to bash Murray Chass on his first blog, er...column or whatever he wants to call it, regarding the All-Star Game. Murray does not like the All-Star Game format in which the winning league receives home-field advantage in the World Series. The "added" significance to the All-Star Game has not had much influence on the television ratings since its inception after the tie game in 2002. Murray has some better ideas than the "silly scheme" of awarding home-field advantage for the All-Star Game winner.
One way would be to reward the team with the better won-lost record. But that idea wouldn't work logistically. Baseball can’t wait until days or even a week before the World Series is scheduled to start to determine where Series game will be played. Airlines and hotels don’t work that way.
Last time I checked, I'm pretty sure I could reserve a flight and a hotel room a couple of days before I leave.
So let me get this straight. This would not work for baseball even though this is how the finals NBA and NHL determine home-field advantage? Even with the current format in baseball, MLB officials can only narrow down which team will host games 1 and 2 in the World Series to two teams prior to the completion of the Championship Series. If they used the better won-lost record that would only expand the possibility to four teams.
As a Cardinals fan, if I wanted to go to a World Series game in 2006, I new that if the Cardinals won the NLCS, they would be playing in either Detroit or Oakland for the first two games. Since the Tigers swept the A's and the Cards took seven games to beat the Mets, I would have known where the Cards were playing before the end of the NLCS. However, I would have either had to take a chance that the Cards would win and make my flight and hotel reservations early or wait until the end of series knowing that game 1 would start in only a couple of days.
I think MLB officials would be able to handle the additional strain of coordinating everything with four possibilities versus the current two possibilities. I just think you are an absurd idiot for thinking this would not be possible.
Chass has another idea for awarding home-field advantage...
If baseball, on the other hand, based homefield advantage on the outcome of interleague games, the winning league this season would have been known before the end of June, leaving three months, or half the season, to make travel plans.
Using interleague games may actually be a slightly better idea for determining World Series home-field advantage as it uses a bigger statistical sample than one exhibition game and can show which league is better (at that time). However, Chass is either The Amazing Kreskin or an amazing, fucking retard if he knows where the World Series would be played using interleague games results! Yes, you would know if the American or National league pennant winner would have home-field advantage, BUT YOU DON"T KNOW WHICH TEAM, ASSHOLE!!!
Man, what a fucktard!
But the outcome of the interleague schedule would do nothing for Fox and its ratings for the All-Star game. Don’t let a sound idea get in the way of greed.
"Greed, for lack of a better word, is good", or at least it was in Wall Street.
It may be a sound idea, Chass, but those greedy little networks are what help MLB pay the bills. So if Fox or ESPN want to have some input on the game and will put up some extra dough along with that input, MLB may agree.
There is a reason why you receive so many emails from angry readers. When you are wrong, people like to point that out to you, just like I am doing now. That does not mean you are doing some thing "right" by getting such a response from your readers.
I can't say that I'm looking forward to more "columns" from Murray Chass, but I believe we will be seeing a lot more of him on this site.
Labels: All-Star Game, fucktards, Greed, home-field advantage, Murray Chass
posted by Zinglebert Bembledack at
11:18 AM
2 Comments:
I think every time the word "fucktard" is used, the post should get the "fucktard" label.
I'm just saying...
You are correct, Slut. I pondered that after I had posted the entry. The "fucktard" tag has been added.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home