A-P "So You Think You're A Sportswriter" Thread

[Elster88]

I'll rephrase. Is he the one with the ongoing feud with M&MD?

[HahnSolo]

They've been battling for years, highlighted by Mushnick taking M & MD (particularly Francesa) to task for his comments about Israel in the aftermath of 9/11.

But that's not the only disagreement they've had.

If you ever hear Russo discussing "Mr. Sloppy" he means Mushnick.

[Frayed Knot]

Ya gotta remember also that covering the sports media and those on it is Mushnick's beat meaning that he'd likely consider what he's written about M&MD to be just part of his job description rather than something personal. Sterling too as this is hardly the first time he's teed off in that direction.

That said, the fact that both sides here (Mushnick + M&MD) have hefty sized soap-boxes means that there's been more than a few missiles thrown at each other over the years to the point where you can certainly make an argument that it sure sounds like things have become personal.
My favorite part comes when Francesa claims to not read what's written about him ... before practically quoting the most recent article word-for-word. It almost sounds slightly Cosell-ian.

[Elster88]

When did Francessa make that claim?

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Ed Kranepool wrote: "He knows who I am. He said, 'You wore No.7, too.' I said, 'I had 18 years here with that number.'"

Not really, Ed. You wore No. 21 for two of those years.

[Frayed Knot]

]When did Francessa make that claim?

Oh constantly.
Frequently a caller will bring up a Mushnick column; 'hey did youse guys see what Mushnick wrote about you on Friday?' only to get a response from Mike that not only didn't he read it but that he doesn't read those columns at all and doesn't care what's being said about him.
But then on other days he'll pre-emptively bring up what's been written by Mushnick, Raissman or one of the other sports/media scribes concerning his/their show and will fire back while calling their facts wrong and their journalism sloppy.
btw, I don't really have a problem with him keeping up what's being written about them, I just get a kick out of his participation in a war he pretends to be above.

Like I said, Cosell was famous for dong it too.
He liked to claim that he was so secure in his talent and position that those pathetic writers firing their shots at MNF were nothing more than fleas to be ignored. But Gifford would often describe Cosell approaching him in the office some given morning with a clipped column (much tougher to get in those pre-internet days of course) screaming; DID YOU SEE WHAT THIS GUY IN THE DES MOINES REGISTER WROTE ABOUT ME?'

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

Maybe he means, "I don't read Mushnick, except when somebody tells me that he wrote about me, then I get a copy and see what he wrote."

I could say the same. I don't read Mushnick, but if I found out that he wrote a column about me, I'd be sure to read it that day.

[metirish]

[url=http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkyNjgmZmdiZWw3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTY5NzU0NTcmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2]Where is the love for Willie?[/url]

[Elster88]

]The Met stopped listening to Bobby Valentine by 2001, and never took Howe seriously.

*sigh*

Again?

[MFS62]

HahnSolo wrote: They've been battling for years, highlighted by Mushnick taking M & MD (particularly Francesa) to task for his comments about Israel in the aftermath of 9/11.

Francessa's comments during the post 9/11 days firmly cemented my feelings against him. They would have brought a smile to Mel Gibson's face.

Later

[Elster88]

What did he say? I wasn't in the area in 2001.

[MFS62]

Elster88 wrote: What did he say? I wasn't in the area in 2001.

For 2 or 3 days after 9/11, the majority (if not all) of the discussion on the show turned to politics and terrorism. I didn't hear what started it, but Mike turned calls into a loyalty Litmus test. He began asking callers if they were Jewish. If they said they were, he asked them "Which side would you support if America went to war against Israel?"

I never heard if he explanied what motivated him to ask that. Maybe he was responding to the rumors promulgated in Arab media that Israel was involved in the conspiracy to attack the WTC and that all Jewish employees stayed home on 9/11.

Later

[metirish]

[url=http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkxMDYmZmdiZWw3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTY5Nzk2NDMmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2]Cone calls Glavine[/url]

Check out what Klap calls LoDuca.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

]But if Glavine needs the kind of surgery that Cone ultimately required, his season is history. And maybe the Mets' postseason hopes head for the ash-heap, too. It's hard to imagine the Mets surviving Glavine's absence in October, not with Pedro Martinez having turned into a six-inning pitcher (when he's not on the DL). Losing Glavine wouldn't just decimate the rotation, it would puncture the Mets' psychologically, too. He's classy, trustworthy, as stand-up as Paul Lo Duca is sleazy. The parallel between Glavine and the Yankees-era Cone is so strong, the repeat of history is almost too surreal to believe.

That's beyond idiotic. The Mets can survive Glavine's October absense. It would be a handicap, but it wouldn't be as bad as losing an everyday player like Wright or Beltran or Reyes. Can the Mets win three games in the NLDS if they have starts from Pedro, Hernandez, Trachsel, and Maine? Of course they can.

And the shot at Lo Duca was completely unnecessary.

[MFS62]

metirish wrote: Check out what Klap calls LoDuca.

Given the topic of that piece - Cone, Galvine and a possibly similar medical situation, the shot at Loduca wasn't necessary.

Later

[metirish]

Of course it wasn't necessary,it was a cheap shot and makes me wonder if Klap has some sort of beef with LoDuca, just because Paul is getting divorced and likes the ponies hardly makes him sleazy.

[Guest Edgy DC]

This just in, Klapish takes cheap shots.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

Gambling and divorcing doesn't make him sleazy. The teenaged girlfriends may be a different matter, though. But it's still a cheap shot.

[Guest ScarletKnight41]

It was gratuitous - there was nothing about that article's subject matter that required or justified the cheap shot.

[metirish]

] Sunday, August 27, 2006 By BOB KLAPISCH Willie Randolph was dead-on accurate last week when he nominated the Mets as the National League's premier team. All the evidence supports his theory � stats, personnel, momentum and, perhaps most significantly, the dramatic three-game sweep of the Cardinals, who were supposed to be one of the Mets' only obstacles to the World Series. If they could crush Tony La Russa without Pedro Martinez, Tom Glavine and Orlando Hernandez, it's hard to imagine the suddenly resurgent Dodgers having better luck in October. So if the Mets are theoretically headed to the Fall Classic, how would they match up against the Yankees? Granted, this is a presumptive question, since the Bombers will have a tougher time than the Mets in winning the pennant. Still, there are moments, like in the Yankees' five-game sweep of the Red Sox, when another Subway Series seems inevitable. And unlike the five-game 2000 edition, which was a mismatch between an aging Met team against a Yankee club that was in the latter stages of its late-90s dynasty, Round 2 would be a fiercer battle. The Yankees have better starting pitching, at least until the Mets prove they're healthy. The Yankees have a more dangerous offense, and they'll have the home-field advantage this year. But the Mets are younger and more athletic; certainly they play better defense. Their bullpen is more dependable, too. But most of all, Randolph's club has a certain charm that is periodically bestowed upon a team that seems destined to win it all. So who do you like? Here's an early peek at the possible war of the worlds. STARTING PITCHING: Chien-Ming Wang doesn't have quite the same bite on his two-seam fastball from earlier in the season, but his 3.13 ground ball/fly ball ratio (best in the AL) is still good enough to throttle the Mets. Wang's only demerit is his anemic strikeout percentage (2.96 per nine innings), which is the result of hitters swinging early in the count. That keeps his pitch-count low, but too many balls are put in play � which is always a potential threat with Alex Rodriguez 90 feet away. For now, Wang is the Yankees' best Game 1 option, although Joe Torre will likely give the ball to the effective but fragile Mike Mussina. Randy Johnson has at least recovered from his early season disaster, but his strikeouts are down precipitously as is his velocity. Asking the Unit to hold the Mets to under four runs in seven innings would be unrealistic. Journeyman Cory Lidle, incredibly, is the Yankees' real No. 3 starter right now � which would be scary enough against the Mets, except that Pedro is hurt and Glavine remains a long-term question mark. And with El Duque taking his annual late-summer sabbatical for what the club is calling a "tired body," the Mets can only hope he regains his velocity by October. Of all the Mets' starters, it's rookie John Maine who has the arm strength to neutralize the Yankees; he's the only one who throws hard enough to get swings and misses in the strike zone with his four-seam fastball. Everyone else is relying on deception and change of speeds. That's risky business against one the AL's more potent lineups. Advantage: Yankees. RELIEF PITCHING: Mariano Rivera has that nearly untouchable postseason resume, although the AL's average against him has risen by almost 50 points from last year and his strikeouts per nine innings are down by 33 percent (9.19 to 6.05). Nevertheless, it's hard to say which team has the advantage in the ninth inning, even though Billy Wagner has converted on 24 of 26 save opportunities since May 3 and has 77 strikeouts in 601/3 innings. The real separation between the Mets and Yankees is in the rest of the relief corps. The Met bullpen's 3.19 ERA is second in the NL, no small achievement considering the club lost Duaner Sanchez. Scott Proctor has a better fastball than Aaron Heilman, but with his league-high 65 appearances, is there any doubt he's headed for the same doom as Paul Quantrill and Tanyon Sturtze? The Yankees believe Octavio Dotel will eventually phase out Proctor, but the Mets' secret weapon could be Guillermo Mota. Just a hunch. Advantage: Mets. INFIELD: The most interesting comparisons are found on the left side, where Derek Jeter's bat trumps Jose Reyes'. Defensively, Reyes eclipses Jeter in range and in arm strength. Third base is an even more compelling one-on-one. David Wright's post-home run derby drought (none since July 28, .210 average in August) is odd, although not entirely inexplicable. He just looks and plays like he's burned out (or bored), which is a possibility on a team with a 14�-game lead. Wright figures to recover next month. But will A-Rod? His league-leading 22 errors are baffling, coming from a former two-time Gold Glove shortstop. Rodriguez looks even worse lately swinging and missing at middle-of-the-plate fastballs. If he comes up short in the playoffs � or even more damning, evaporates against the Mets in a Subway Series � he may have to rethink his vow to retire in pinstripes. It might be time to move on. At second base, we'll take Robinson Cano over Jose Valentin, and at first base Jason Giambi over Carlos Delgado, although just barely. Behind the plate, Jorge Posada has a better throwing arm than Paul Lo Duca and hits for more power. But Lo Duca is at least an accomplished gap hitter, batting over .300 with 30 doubles. It's a push between the catchers. Advantage (defense): Mets. Advantage (offense): Yankees. OUTFIELD: The Mets are worse off in the corner positions than they were on opening day; the opposite is true of the Yankees. The Bombers have the better rookie (Melky Cabrera over Lastings Milledge, who was sent down last week) and made the more dramatic trade (Bobby Abreu over Shawn Green). Green is already a crowd pleaser at Shea, but the Mets could still use some of Xavier Nady's home run potential from the bottom of the order. Green's slugging percentage, which peaked at .598 in 2002, has declined steadily to its current .429. In left field, the Mets were clearly disappointed by Milledge's lack of production, albeit in a small sample, once Cliff Floyd became a non-factor. Milledge will get a much longer look in 2007, but in the short term he's been outplayed by Cabrera. You have to at least wonder if Omar Minaya miscalculated when he refused to consider dealing Milledge as part of a deal for Barry Zito. Johnny Damon obviously can't match Carlos Beltran's production in center, but between Cabrera and Abreu � not to mention the expected returns of Hideki Matsui and Gary Sheffield � the Yankees have more firepower than the Mets could cope with in a short series. Advantage (offense and defense): Yankees. MANAGER: Willie Randolph knows every one of Joe Torre's secrets and tactics, the most important of which is keeping his team calm in the face of relentless pressure. Torre isn't perfect; his Bombers melted in the 2001 World Series, and no one will ever forget the 2003 ALCS collapse against Boston. But beating the Sox five straight at Fenway went a long way in proving Torre still has the right touch in the clubhouse. Randolph is just as cool and composed, certainly as confident. All that's missing is the October experience. Advantage: Yankees. Prediction: Yankees in seven.

[MFS62]

That is just the first of an avalanche of similar articles we're going to see in the next few weeks.
How silly will they look when the LAAAAA knock the MFYs out of the playoffs?

Later

[seawolf17]

="metirish"] ]STARTING PITCHING: Chien-Ming Wang doesn't have quite the same bite on his two-seam fastball from earlier in the season, but his 3.13 ground ball/fly ball ratio (best in the AL) is still good enough to throttle the Mets. Wang's only demerit is his anemic strikeout percentage (2.96 per nine innings), which is the result of hitters swinging early in the count. That keeps his pitch-count low, but too many balls are put in play � which is always a potential threat with Alex Rodriguez 90 feet away.

You can't have it both ways, dipshit. Either his GB/FB ratio helps him, or it doesn't. This guy's a clown.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

I don't know who this Alex Rodriguez guy is, but he sounds like he's a terrible player. Perhaps even worse than Chris Woodward.

[MFS62]

Memo to MFS62: Keep reminding yourself that Yancy doesn't include SC ratings in his posts.
LOL!

Later

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

If you have to point out that you're being sarcastic, then you're not very good at sarcasm.

I'd rather risk being misunderstood than announce my sarcasm. I think adding an SC rating to a post is the equivalent of saying "Wokka wokka" after you tell a joke so that people know that you just delivered a punchline.

[MFS62]

So do I.
Does anyone remember who started the SC ratings here and why they were said to be necessary?

BTW- that post was my meager atempt at humor. No sarcasm intended.

Later

[Frayed Knot]

The 'SC' rating started in the old-old forum where there were a sizable number of participants who wouldn't know sarcasm if it knocked on their door and smacked them upside the head.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Yancy Street Gang wrote: If you have to point out that you're being sarcastic, then you're not very good at sarcasm.

Or, sometimes, your readership --- or a tragic portion of it --- is quite daft.

[Willets Point]

Sarcasm content is good for showing the level of which you are sarcastic and serious.

For example:

"The Yankeess will win the World Series this year because they have winners like Derek Jeter and mystique and aura on their side." SC=67

See, that means 2/3's of me is mocking the Yankees and their fans' arrogance and the other third is morose because the team has shown they are locked and loaded for this year's postseason and there's no team that can beat them except by a fluke.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

I just think that SC ratings, like smiley faces and other emoticons, are crutches that impede good writing. The words in the sentence should be sufficient to convey the point that the writer is trying to make.

Also, I had no idea that the SC meter was on a scale of 1 to 100. Most of the time I see it with numbers well over 1,000.