Sunday, June 19, 2011

That didn't last long.

Mets are stale:

"This day curdled early for the Mets - in the second inning, to be precise. That was when Jon Niese's recent stretch of dominance ended, and the Mets effectively fell to two games below .500. Now we ask: When does this dance with respectability cease to be interesting?

...

But their dead-energy 7-3 loss to the Los Angeles Angels Sunday, which clinched a series defeat against a team stuffed with overpriced veterans and who-is-that-guy youngsters, offered a peek at the darker underbelly of where this could go.

Despite playing sharp baseball of late, the Mets are 10-7 in their last 17 games: Good, but not enough to muscle out of a losing record. The pattern has been, lose one, win three. Lose one, win two, lose one. Not sunk, but hardly soaring. And beginning to grow a tad stale."


They're the Rebecca Black of MLB.


Which actually got me thinking: Are the writers who cover MLB out of tune with the pacing of the game?

In the Internet meme / twitter / facebook age, is a 162-game baseball season filled with 3-hour games simply unable to keep their attention?

Does this explain why they're picking MVPs after two weeks and making up nonsense like "Power Ratings" and praising the Mets when they have a good week just to ridicule the Mets when they have a bad weekend?


"A clear-eyed look at Sunday's product could produce no other analysis: This team needs to be a bit better, if it wants to hold our attention."

Okay.

You're the sportswriter who's writing about the Mets.

I'm kind of embarrassed that I bothered reading the article about such a lame subject matter. I'll be sure to read the funny papers next time.


I don't necessarily think it's preferable to offer the Mets false praise ... which, actually, seems to be the typical tone for a $100-million team that's playing .500 ... Collins for Manager of the Year and such ...

I just don't understand why so many baseball columnists seem to dislike baseball so much.


Also, are the Angels really just a team of overpriced veterans and who-is-that-guy youngsters? If you're a baseball writer, why don't you explain to us who-is-that-guy>

No comments: