THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I found the article hilarious - last year the Giants were a “pitifuk 44-57”, and this year they are only 7 games back - “a remarkable turnaround”.

At this point you have to realize the author is laughing as he writes this.

"But if you take a good hard look at the numbers, Freddie has been far better in 2008 than Bonds has been in several years.”

Barry Bonds hasn’t had an OPS+ as low as Fred Lewis’ 112 since his rookie year, 1986!

I would say this is almost certainly satire.  I hope.

My favorite part…

“Make no mistake about it – the 2008 Giants are a better team than their 2007 counterpart”

2007 SF Giants: .438 Winning Percentage
2008 SF Giants: .413 Winning Percentage

When I was skimming the article as a first vet, my eyes landed on the part about the Dbacks, and I just had to stop. 

http://www.snpp.com/episodes/1F17.html

Bart walks in with a box covered by a sheet.

Bart: Lisa, here is—as the French say—le fake diorama.  I’ll
create a diversion and you make the switch.
[walks to center of gym]
Hey everybody, whoa!  Look at me, I’m over here.  Turn this
way right now!
Sherri: Hey, it’s Bart!
Milhouse: And he’s doin’ stuff!
[everyone turns to look, fascinated]
[Lisa grabs Alison’s diorama, leaves the other one there, and
hides Alison’s in a trap door in the gym floor]
Skinner: Bart, stop creating a diversion and get out of here!
[Bart caws like a crow and leaves]

Linking to a Baseball Evolution article is like Bart “doing stuff”.  Basically, if it’s on the net, someone will bound to trip over it, causing some publicity.  Since any publicity is good publicity, it creates a vicious cycle.

I’m going to take the Buzz / Chass route on this one.  Goodbye Baseball Evolution.  And please, no one link to this thread, or even quote me at all on this issue.

Come on, that has to be a parody.  What is “Baseball Evolution” anyway?

I don’t think “Baseball Evolution” has progressed to the point that we think they are too intelligent to write an article that by association must be satire.  If BP or THT wrote it, then I can believe their intent.  I think it fails as satire or parody.  It must be at least humorous or thought-provoking.

The sad fact is that it would not be uncommon to hear such idiocy being spouted as being sincere.

As stated on Baseball Evolution’s forum, the article is indeed completely satirical (click name)

"If BP or THT wrote it, then I can believe their intent. I think it fails as satire or parody. It must be at least humorous or thought-provoking.”

Clearly you thought the article was genuine and now are trying to shift the focus away from you by weakly attacking the quality of the satire after the fact. It doesn’t matter what you thought of the article. Its intent as satire was blatant.

Maybe it’s true what they say about you statheads getting your noses out of a spreadsheet—not because you don’t know your stuff, but because it has completely stunted the development of a sense of humor. Go out, get some sun. I promise it won’t kill you.

If you read an article which is a satire and you think it is or might be sincere and don’t even chuckle, I think it is a fair bet that they failed.  When you write a satire, it is supposed to be humorous.

Now just because Tango thinks that the article sucked even as a satire does not make it so.  That is just one man’s opinion and I am sure he would say the same thing. There are no right or wrongs when it comes to an opinion on a piece of art (as a satiric column is).

All I’m saying is he made a most egregious blunder and is now trying to divert the attention away from himself so as not to appear foolish—come on, did anybody honestly think for a second that those quotations from Giants personnel were real?—perhaps most clearly manifest in the previous “no one link to this thread, or even quote me at all on this issue” remark. I wonder why he wouldn’t want to bring attention to such a flagrantly idiotic comment that paints him as a humorless drone?

Was the article funny? Maybe not. Depends on your taste. But was its intent as satire blatantly obvious? For everyone but Tango, it seems.

You’ve made your point.  Thank you.