Excuse me, Mr. Krause, I didn’t know that you were stumping for office. You see, I must admit that you indeed fit the mold. You are quite good at flip-flopping positions and sighting “literary technique” as an excuse for your haphazard quips and careless backstreet follies. Let’s face it, Al. You’re wrong and I expect you to start rolling up your sleeves and kissing babies any minute.
So while you do that, let me play the role of *high-road pundit and pull back the *proverbial curtain on your shortcomings. (*These are literary techniques used to ridicule and embarrass. You see, there is no such thing as an ‘high-road pundit’ and ‘proverbial’ references a really groovy book in the bible. These are techniques that *slick willies [oops, another literary technique known as senseless name-calling] like Allen Krause use when trying to *pull the wool over our eyes [just a dumb cliche].)
“…fans, especially new ones and for better or for worse, are much more
willing to pay money to see home runs than they are to see drawn out
pitchers duels. Do you like the new Busch Stadium? Do you think it
would have been built if the Cards would have had Greg Maddux instead
of McGwire? Yeah, I think not.”
–Allen Krause, The Incredible Lightness of Being…obtuse
First of all, the Atlanta Braves did have Greg Maddux and I’d say he was an integral part (if not the part) that shaped and revitalized an otherwise dying franchise during the 90s. That new stadium they got built down there during his tenure as their posterboy? Uh, yeah, I’m pretty sure the Atlanta fans like it a lot and owe much of its existence to Mr. Maddux himself. So to say fans can’t/won’t appreciate superior pitching because they want more *bang for their buck (literary technique) makes you the blogging equivalent of Michael Dukakis in a tank — it just don’t make sense.
Secondlly, would the Cardinals have a new Busch were it not for McGwire? I think the bigger, more important question is would any team have a new ballpark (or fans for that matter) without McGwire. And I include the fantasyland amusement park known as Comerica in there too. You see, if it weren’t for that magical summer of ’98 when Mark and Sammy brought the game back to the fans after years of bitterness and neglect, we might be talking about the lackluster Reno Tigers rather than the Hockeytown Tigers that are stumbling along right now. For that egregious error, you owe a humble apology to both McGwire and Sosa… and me, of course.
My suggestion for you is the following: in the future, instead of trying to hyperbolize to make a point, try to simply *analyze instead. (*This is yet another literary technique called ‘rhyming’ which is often used by Shakespeare, leprechauns and Method Man with varying levels of success. In fact, it was Method Man himself who once said: “Can’t forget Bobby if I did I feel gip, like my sandwich ain’t a sandwich without Miracle Whip.”)
Don’t hate me ‘cuz I’m right.
P.S. Pop the champagne! The Tigers finally won a game! But they’re still 5 games behind the Royals. And for all of you who demand the Jason Grilli ERA Watch, it now stands at 19.29. Whoa, watch out! He’s on fire!
The score that matters: Cardinals 6, Astros 4
Look who’s in first place.
Note to Brandon Backe: don’t mess with the best, pal.
Mr. Lung. Jeffery, if I may. It seems sad to me that I have to use all these electrons to explain to you the elementary literary technique of hyperbole but unfortunately, it appears this lesson in remedial form is necessary. Hyperbole, as I’m sure you once knew, is the technique by which one makes a point by exaggerating to a ridiculous degree. This is by no means a technical definition but it should be one which triggers those neurons you once used to use so well.
Now, why is this important? Quite simply because it is a method used quite often in all matters of discourse, especially in the arenas of sports and politics. When GW Bush says that electing Democrats to office means the terrorists have won, he doesn’t really mean that the terrorists will win because Nancy Pelosi is now the Speaker of the House. He’s using hyperbole to make a point. Similarly, when I say that Mark McGwire is flexed up steroid freak who single handedly ruined the game of baseball, I don’t really mean that Big Mac destroyed major league baseball. I’m just making a point.
To extrapolate further on this point, when I compare the entire NL to gay p0rn, I’m not really saying they’re making gay p0rn over there (except in the case of Kazuhito Tadano. Although, to be fair, he is actually in the Indians organization). And I actually agree with you that having the pitcher bat makes for a much more strategic game than does the DH. But baseball, like all sports, is based on making money. And fans, especially new ones and for better or for worse, are much more willing to pay money to see home runs than they are to see drawn out pitchers duels. Do you like the new Busch Stadium? Do you think it would have been built if the Cards would have had Greg Maddux instead of McGwire? Yeah, I think not.
So, here’s what I’ll say. I appreciate now that your initial filibuster question was a rhetorical question. And you can now appreciate the hyperbole that ensued. This way we both embrace our use of literary technique and move on to more important issues. Like, when are the Tigers going to win a freakin’ game? Seriously, this is just embarrassing. But, more on that later.