Hey, gang! Guess who’s back! That’s right: it’s everybody’s favourite washed-up asshole fucktard, Jose Canseco! Today he’s saying bad nonsense about Mark McGwire and also bad nonsense about reality. Let’s take a look!
"I’ve defended Mark, I know a lot of good things about him," Canseco told ESPN 1000 radio in Chicago on Tuesday. "I can’t believe he just called me a a liar. Umm, there’s something very strange going on here."
In Jose Canseco’s head — which, during his playing career, was used as a portable locker where he stored an extra glove — writing a book in which one declares that Mark McGwire took a whole bunch of steroids, talks about personally having like big ha-ha steroid fun parties with Mark McGwire, and infers if not states directly that steroids are the only reason Mark McGwire was ever any good at baseball counts as "defending" Mark McGwire, and apparently establishes some special bond of friendliness. I can believe, Jose, that Mark McGwire just called you a liar. If I had some sleazy asshole dragging me through the mud to make a buck, I’d probably call him worse things than that.
But wait! Jose gets even stupider:
"I even polygraphed that I injected him, and I passed it completely. So I want to challenge him on national TV to a polygraph examination. I want to see him call me a liar under a polygraph examination."
First off: go away, Jose. Mark McGwire is not going to present you with yet another opportunity to thrust yourself limply back into the public consciousness. Seriously, you’re like an old weird uncle who just won’t fucking leave, and the family reunion ended hours ago.
Secondly, and more entertainingly, is the well-known and -documented absolute scientific fact that polygraphs are complete bullshit. They don’t detect lies at a rate meaningfully better than just like randomly guessing, and skilled liars can’t be detected by them at all. The one thing I’m given to understand that polygraphs can detect quite accurately is orgasms; is that the issue here, Jose? Is Mark McGwire accusing you of faking orgasms? Just a small hint for you: since you’re a not-woman, there’s a much simpler test available.
"There are some things here that are so ridiculous, and so disrespectful for the public and the media to believe."
Now we finally agree on something! There sure are, Jose. There sure are.
"I’ve proved it. I’m 100 percent accurate," he told the radio station. "I never exaggerate, I told it the way it actually happened. I’m the only one who told it the way it actually happened."
I’m pretty sure that claiming the unreliable, pseudoscientific polygraph test as sufficient proof to claim you’re "100% accurate" is, at the very least, an exaggeration. Really, Jose. Just go away. We’re done with your witch hunt extortion bullshit.
I’ve had a really horrible McGwire article in my making-fun-of queue for a few days; it’s just hanging out, waiting for me to build up enough energy so I can furrow the shit out of my brow and be very angry with it. Probably tomorrow. For now, you get this little apéritif to hold you over.
Yeah, I said it. Apéritif. And I bothered with the accent, because I have more respect for the word apéritif than I do for Jose Canseco.
January 13th, 2010
Posted by
Darien |
Baseball |
no comments
Just me? That’s what I thought. I’ve already read it, but I’m going to link it anyhow. This piece, by Czech ambassador Michael Zantovsky, provides an interesting take on neo-Hegelian triumphalist hoo-hah from the perspective of somebody who spent much of his life behind the Iron Curtain. It’s also a nice bitch-slap upside the face of Francis Fukuyama, which is always welcome. And it’s proof that the Czech Republic makes good non-sword products too!
January 13th, 2010
Posted by
Darien |
Bullshit |
no comments
I haven’t said anything about Mark McGwire admitting that he used steroids, because, frankly, I find the subject utterly boring. I don’t really care about steroids, and the sooner the BBWAA gets the fuck over it, the better.
That said, Bob Costas’ interview with McGwire for the MLB Network was really good. He asks some pretty ferocious questions, and McGwire gives what appear to me to be entirely honest answers. I think it’s a lot better overall than the Peter Gammons / A-Rod steroid interview from last year; Costas asks tougher questions, and Mac seems less like he’s just reading prepared statements from the cards. Also, McGwire is less orange. On the down side, MLB’s media player is howwible.
January 12th, 2010
Posted by
Darien |
Baseball |
no comments
Roger Ebert wrote this blog post about how he can no longer eat, drink, or speak, and what effect this has on his state of mind. It’s a very interesting read. I think I would take it harder than he does; food, and the act of eating and drinking, are of greater importance to me than they appear to be to him.
I remember when I was a kid, and I’d get sick, and I wouldn’t be able to taste anything. I could eat all I wanted, but I couldn’t actually taste any of it. I couldn’t experience it. That, to me, was the greatest torture. The thought of going through the rest of my life knowing I’d never be able to eat or drink again is very unsettling. I suppose, though, that perhaps just knowing it’s final would be a comfort in and of itself; when you can’t taste anything because you’re sick — especially if you’re a kid — part of what makes it so terrible is the anticipation. The thought that, hey, maybe this time will be different! I could see how it could be easier if you knew that, no, it would never be different. It’s over.
No real point here, I guess. Just musing.
January 10th, 2010
Posted by
Darien |
Food |
no comments
but I’m going to do it anyhow, because science is not about your feelings. Or my feelings. Or this guy’s feelings, either, I guess.
Jordan DiPietro is not a baseball writer, and The Motley Fool is not a baseball publication. I guess it’s about stocks or some shit. I don’t really know; it’s not about baseball, so I clearly don’t know anything about it. And he, in turn, clearly doesn’t know anything about baseball. Normally I’d leave this alone, since, as I say, he’s not really a baseball writer, but it’s much too hilarious and adorable.
Growing up, you probably had a favorite baseball player. Being a Philadelphia native, mine was Mike Schmidt. Considered probably the best third baseman of all time, Schmidty led the league in home runs for eight seasons, RBIs for another four, and sits at number 14 on the all-time home run list.
He was a true slugger, and I loved every bit of him.
This is a good start. Made me feel comfortable with the fact that this guy, who is presumably an investment journalist, was going to be slinging around some baseball words. But that was apparently just to get me off my guard, since the very next thing he says is:
Was Schmidt really that good?
Like every baseball fan, I spouted off stats like they meant something, but as Michael Lewis points out in Moneyball, stats are deceiving in several ways. They magnify essentially small differences, they conflate circumstances with skill, and they’re often looking at the wrong thing.
I actually (believe it or don’t) haven’t read Moneyball, though it’s on my to-read list. However, I am familiar with it, and one thing I’m fairly comfortable in saying is that Michael Lewis does not point out that stats are deceiving and don’t mean anything. Stats themselves do not "conflate circumstances with skill" or "look at the wrong thing." Stats always look at the right thing, and always tell you exactly what you asked for. The trick to using stats intelligently is to know what you want to see.
For example, we place absurd emphasis on home runs and RBIs.
No, Jordan, "we" do not. Home runs are pretty important, but aren’t the be-all end-all of hitting ability. I don’t give two dicks about RBIs, and I don’t personally know anybody who does (though, yes, I’m well aware that the law firm of Morgan, McCarver, and Kruk considers them very important).
While RBIs are considered an individual achievement
Only stupid people think that. Like the aforementioned Morgan, McCarver, and Kruk.
to knock runners in, runners have to be in scoring positions. The best swing in the world won’t earn RBI points if the bases are empty.
I appreciate the point you’re trying to make — that RBI is a team-dependent stat — but, really, Jordan, you should try making it without simultaneously being wrong. The best swing in the world — which, for these purposes, results in a home run — absolutely will score you an "RBI point" even if the bases are empty.
And while I’m on the subject, "RBI points?" What’s next? WHIP points?
And it turns out that, in the end, home runs and RBIs are poor predictors of overall success.
Well, not really. They’re pretty good predictors at the team level. The teams with the most RBIs in 2009 were the New York Yankees in the AL, and the Philadelphia Philadelphians in the NL. You might have heard about a series these two teams played against one another, yes? Those two teams also led MLB in home runs. This is because teams that have a lot of home runs and a lot of RBI have really good offenses, and, thus, are good teams.
On an individual level, yeah, RBI is pretty garbage. Home runs are still a useful predictor of playing ability, though. I’d take a dude with a 162-game average of 100 HR even if he, like, never walked at all.
The metrics that matter, however — on-base percentage and slugging percentage, especially in combination — aren’t very well known.
"In combination," Jordan, those two stats are called "on-base plus slugging." Do you see? And OBP, SLG, and OPS are obscure to the point where they’re on the backs of fucking baseball cards these days. They’re really pretty mainstream.
Johnny Bench? Reggie Jackson? They come to mind as some of the greatest players of all time, but what about Stan Musial? Or Mel Ott? Both of the latter players are significantly lesser known, yet the stats that matter are just as good or better.
Don’t you love this part? I love this part. Never mind the crazy idea that Stan Musial and Mel Ott — two players in the Hall of Fame — are unknowns. Never mind the crazy way Jordan overlooks that maybe, just maybe, he’s heard more about Johnny Bench and Reggie Jackson because they played in the 80s rather than in the 40s and 50s like Ott and Musial. Let’s just focus on the fact that he just referred to f(x)ing Stan Musial and Mel Ott as "lesser known" players.
Everybody’s familiar with the baseball-playing abilities of famous baseball player Jimmy Rollins, but I’ve discovered an amazing fact. You probably haven’t ever heard of him, but this obscure player called "George Herman Ruth" actually had better statistics! Astounding!
They’re on the all-time list for walks, and consequently, they have higher OBPs than both Johnny Bench and Reggie Jackson. Oh — and they have World Series rings as well.
Everybody’s on the all-time list for walks, Jordan. You might wish to mention where they rank on said list, which is: eighth (Ott) and thirteenth (Musial). Reggie Jackson is 29th, by the way, which isn’t too shabby. Also, hey, Johnny Bench won two World Series rings with with Cincinnati in 1975 and 1976 (the "Big Red Machine?" No?) and Reggie Jackson has four World Series rings (two with Oakland and two with New York). They called him "Mr. October," yeah? So fuck the heck are you talking about in re: rings?
That’s pretty much it. The rest of it’s boring stuff about stocks. Really the only remaining line that’s worth making fun of on a blog is this one:
Hank Aaron has it all — he’s on the all-time home run list, he’s on the all-time walk list, he has a World Series ring, and most importantly, he has an on-base percentage that rivals most.
Well, no, I would say the most important thing is the home runs. Think about this, people: Jordan DiPietro just mentioned Hank Aaron and downplayed his second-highest-of-all-time home run total of 755 in favour of his fairly pedestrian career OBP of .374.
Insider’s tip, Jordan: if you’re using baseball metaphors in a way that’s intended to downplay the importance of home runs, motherfucking Hank Aaron is not the best choice for your example.
January 8th, 2010
Posted by
Darien |
Baseball |
no comments
Joe Posnanski has written an excellent column about his Hall of Fame choices. There are a few I don’t agree with (Barry Larkin, Alan Trammell, Dale Murphy) and one I’m still stubbornly resisting even though I’m hearing enough good arguments that I’m definitely reconsidering (Robbie Alomar), but it’s a good article nonetheless. Curiously, my yes list — Bert Blyleven, Tim Raines, Mark McGwire, and Edgar Martinez (who I’ve decided since writing my last HoF post is definitely deserving) — is all players Posnanski also votes yes on, leading me to believe that maybe I just have tighter, more small-Hall standards. Which is fine.
Even when I don’t agree with Posnanski — which, given his predilection for weird cherry-pick "combo" things, like his "played 2000 games with a .310-or-better average and a .400-or-better OBP, which is, like, really really arbitrary, is fairly often — he still writes insightfully and respectfully. I mean, sorry, Joe, I still don’t think Alan Trammell should be in the Hall, but you’ve given me a new way of thinking about him. And that’s something, innit?
January 8th, 2010
Posted by
Darien |
Baseball |
no comments
So apparently Tony LaRussa is toying with the idea of having hitting instructor Mark McGwire pinch-hit this season. That rules. I’m in favour of it. Of course, as any fule kno, it’s mainly a gambit to help Mac get into the Hall by freezing out some of the older, holier-than-thou voters who are going to die before he comes back up, while leaving more time for the younger voters to get established.
Jonah Keri, who is awesome, has written on this subject. It’s an excellent post that I wholeheartedly agree with, and you should go read it right now and then come back and tell me what a genius I am for agreeing with it.
January 8th, 2010
Posted by
Darien |
Baseball |
no comments
This is one of the most banal pieces of crap sportswriting I’ve seen in a while. It’s by Stan McNeal in Sporting News, which is more than one hundred years old and is getting damn crotchety in its old age. Get a load of this cranky shit this dude is "hoping" for:
1. Joe Mauer stays with the Twins.
Yeah, that would be sweet, wouldn’t it? Everybody likes Joe Mauer, and everybody likes the Twins, and it would be cute and cuddly if he stuck around. But now watch Stan blow this way out of proportion:
Losing Mauer to a major market would not only be a blow to the Twins and their new ballpark but to the entire game.
A blow to the entire game, you say? Yeah? Why’s that? Because more people would get to see an awesome catcher play baseball?
So the Twins should open up their checkbook. They’ve got their outdoor ballpark set to open, and since they didn’t pony up for a retractable roof, there should be an additional $100 million or so to spend on the reigning A.L. MVP.
You don’t know much about high finance in the world of baseball, do you, Stan. Here’s an insider’s tip: $100 million is nearly the entire amount of money the Twins spent on Target Field. The rest of it was paid by the Hennepin County taxpayers (congratulations on your new, higher taxes, Hennepin County residents!). Here’s another insider’s tip: baseball contracts aren’t just a dollar value, but also, like, a number of years, and your proposal kind of makes it sound like you think the Twins should offer Mauer a one-year extension for $100 million. So what do you mean? Five years? Seven? Ten? Those are unpossible, difficult, and easy for the Twins to handle, in that order.
Over the next 10 years, he will put enough butts in the seats to prove more than worth it.
Oh, ten. Okay. Yes, if the Twins can sign Mauer to a ten-year, $100 million contract, they should do so. Just checking real quick… yeah, looks like Matt Holliday, who put up comparable numbers last year, is three years older, and plays a position way up the defensive spectrum, got a deal just like that. So the Twins should be golden!
What? He actually got 7/$120M? Fuck. Hate to spoil this for you, Stan, but it’s not looking like it’s going to be super easy to get Mauer locked up for 10/$100M after all.
And he’ll be worth more than $10M/year for the next ten years in terms of attendance? You’re sure of that, Stan? Now, this is tough to argue in future terms, but we can look at past seasons. On page 190 of the Baseball Prospectus book "Baseball Between the Numbers" is a breakdown of the cash value to the team provided by every additional regular-season win, and they value that at $747k (they arrive at this value through a lot of really complicated analysis I’m not going to get into here, but suffice to say they’re a lot smarter than me and Wrongway Jones here). Joe Mauer’s WARP1 in 2009 — his MVP year — was 8.1, meaning he was worth 8.1 more wins than a AAA callup. That means Mauer brought the Twins $6,050,700 in revenue, well shy of even your highly rosy $10M cost.
The reality of things is much more complicated, and involves playoff odds and on and on, but here’s the catch: do you really think Joe Mauer is still going to be worth 8+ wins to his team as a 37-year-old catcher? Because that is what he will be at the end of this 10/$100M deal.
Nerd digression ends. Back to mockery.
2. Ichiro Suzuki hits third in the Mariners’ lineup.
I love this one. This is so absurdly, batshit insane. And get the reasoning:
For three reasons: 1. To prove Ichiro isn’t as selfish as he sometimes is made out to be.
To prove Ichiro isn’t selfish, he will hit in the spot in the lineup generally reserved for the team’s biggest superstar. The spot where Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez, Albert Pujols, and Derrek Lee hit. As a display of humility.
2. They have Chone Figgins to lead off, and he reached base more than even Ichiro last season.
He did — his OBP was .395 to Ichiro’s .386. That difference isn’t a whole lot. And, for what it’s worth, Ichiro has a 15-point career advantage (.378 to .363).
3. To see Ichiro have a 25-homer, 100-RBI season to go with all those 200-hit campaigns.
I… what? To see Ichiro… I’m sorry, I need to read that again. Did that really say what I think it said?
3. To see Ichiro have a 25-homer, 100-RBI season to go with all those 200-hit campaigns.
I just can’t… I mean, Ichiro?
3. To see Ichiro have a 25-homer, 100-RBI season to go with all those 200-hit campaigns.
3. To see Ichiro have a 25-homer, 100-RBI season to go with all those 200-hit campaigns.
3. To see Ichiro have a 25-homer, 100-RBI season to go with all those 200-hit campaigns.
3. To see Ichiro have a 25-homer, 100-RBI season to go with all those 200-hit campaigns.
3. To see Ichiro have a 25-homer, 100-RBI season to go with all those 200-hit campaigns.
That is the most insane thing I’ve ever heard. Ichiro Suzuki has 84 career home runs. In nine seasons. His season high is fifteen, and you think that dropping him two places in the batting order will produce a 25-homer season? You clearly don’t know anything about baseball.
3. To not have to type "steroids" or "performance-enhancing drugs" for the rest of the year.
If Ichiro Suzuki hits 25 home runs, you will be typing those words more times than you ever have in your eighty-four years on this earth.
5. Matt Holliday says it was all about the money.
Uh-oh. It’s about to get cranky in here.
The Cardinals are expected to sign the slugger to a long-term contract as soon as this week. When the news conference is staged, both sides can be expected to play happy and Holliday will go on about St. Louis being a great baseball town with wonderful fans and the ideal fit for him. If that’s true, why have negotiations plod along for nearly three months?
I mean, I agree. It was pretty shitty of Holliday to drag the negotiations out like this, when he could have signed up and helped the Cardinals win some games these past few months.
Also — and I know this is a crazy idea — but maybe the negotiations dragged out because there was no benefit to ending them early, and millions of dollars to be gained by waiting. I mean, I don’t know about you, but if I received a contract offer for a job that didn’t start for five months, and I had reason to believe that I could get several million more dollars just by, like, waiting a while before I signed it, I think I’d probably hold off. Clearly, Stan, you don’t know anything about business.
And while on the topic of Cardinals’ press conferences, I’d like to see Mark McGwire talk about the past, finally.
And how does this fit in with your desire not to write about performance-enhancing drugs? Stan, honestly. I’m starting to think you don’t even know anything about what’s coming out of your mouth.
7. Jamie Moyer wins 15 games. The older I get, the more I root for the old guys.
Oh, you’re old? No fooling? I wouldn’t have guessed. That aside, I actually agree with this: I think it would be cool if 47-year-old Jamie Moyer has a good year. And finally Stan isn’t whining about some damn thing!
9. No more instant replay.
You’re whining again, Stan. And being really fucking old. And senile, I think; do you not remember the 2009 postseason, Stan? How the umpires blew, like, a fuckton of calls? Like, including this absolute stunner? Holy shit does baseball need some type of replay/challenge mechanic. Stop being a complete fucking luddite.
While we’re at it, no more designated hitter.
And no more of that god-awful rock and roll music!
No games played in sub-30 temperatures (that I’m covering, anyway).
And why don’t they make that punk kid Tim Lincecum cut his hair and sit up straight!
No more tantrums by Milton Bradley.
Also: no more tantrums by ninety-year-old boneheads who write for the Sporting News.
No more one-sided trades forced by economic disparities.
I agree. It was totally unfair that those poor, small-market Tigers were forced to trade Curtis Granderson for no good reason. I mean, it’s not like it’s their fault that they gave out a metric fuckchunk of terrible contracts! The Yankees should pay for this transgression!
And remember that time when those evil, huge-market Cardinals forced the poor, innocent Athletics to give up the washed-up corpse of Mark Mulder? And how all the A’s got in return was Dan Haren, Kiko Calero, and Daric Barton? Totally unfair.
And please, no more chest-thumping, especially after someone hits a home run with his team losing.
God, I’m with you here. Especially if it’s a three-run homer, since, as we all know, you can’t win ballgames with that shit. Doesn’t help the team at all. It’s just to pad your personal stats. REAL baseball players would bunt every time they come up to bat with the team losing. Even if the bases are empty. They’d bunt for a hit, then steal second, third, and home on three consecutive pitches. And then they’d steal fucking first from the dugout just so they could score again.
10. The Twins meet the Rockies in the World Series.
That would actually be really cool. The Twins and the Rockies are good, fun, young franchises with a lot of talent.
A Series that didn’t end until Thanksgiving because of snow would be enough to convince TV honchos to tighten the October schedule. Wouldn’t it?
Oh lord, he’s just whining again. Stan, cool it. Go take a nap, man. It’s past your bedtime.
January 8th, 2010
Posted by
Darien |
Baseball |
no comments
Everybody knows herbal remedies are bunk, right? No, everybody fucking does not. Despite overpowering evidence that herbal remedies are a complete fucking scam, very frequently not even containing what they’re claimed to contain (and often containing many added things), and despite the fairly obvious lack of logic in the idea that just because people did something back in the stone age means it makes any fucking sense to keep doing it, and despite the obvious, provable falseness of the claim that herbal remedies are "safe" (after all, it’s not like anybody ever died from taking them, right?), and despite the clear idiocy of the conceit that some wack-job herbal voodoo witchdoctor could concoct a safer and more effective remedy than, like, people who know what the fuck they’re doing and have access to tools and methods that might actually work, and who, by the way, measure their ingredients, and despite the glaring stupidity of the fantasy that herbal remedies are part of some sort of anti-big-business movement, when the supplement industry is, in fact, another giant, corporatist group just like the pharmaceutical companies they can’t shut up about, people still think herbal remedies are good for something. I mean, something other than redistributing wealth from uncritical hippies to venal businessmen.
But that’s not what I came to tell you about. I came to talk about baseball.
The Hall of Fame voting results were announced today. Hawk Dawson got in, which was probably an aftereffect of Jim Rice getting in last year. Bert Blyleven missed by five votes (and so will probably get in next year), and Robbie Alomar just barely missed (and will definitely get in next year). Which is fine. But then there’s this:
Mark McGwire, 128 (23.7%)
Let’s not mince words. Mark McGwire is a Hall-of-Famer. The only reason for this nonsensically low vote total is steroids. We already know what I think about steroids in baseball. But you know what I really don’t get? You know the standard steroid defense there? The "evil trainer" defense, where the innocent, unknowing player was given those terrible steroids and told they were flaxseed oil? Here’s my question: why is that even a defense? You’re claiming you took a performance-enhancing drug by mistake because you were misled into believing it was another, different performance-enhancing drug? And people will care about this distinction because that one was "natural?" Fuck.
And while I’m on the subject, why is it that players using amphetamines is a big taboo subject these days, but we don’t care about players abusing caffeine for the same purpose? Is it because caffeine is legal? I mean, hey guys, lots of baseball players have broken the law. I hear some of them even took illegal drugs that interfered with their ability to do their jobs! Dave Parker and Darryl Strawberry were cocaine addicts, and do you think they called Tim Raines "rock" because he was in a KISS tribute band? No they did not. Dock Ellis used a whole shitload of illegal drugs, and even pitched a no-no once while on acid.
And what about all those ballplayers who abused legal drugs? That doesn’t violate the character clause at all? I mean, Mickey Mantle destroyed himself with booze, and Wade Boggs tried pretty hard, and they’re both in the Hall of Fame. Also there was a Yankees minor leaguer of little repute called George Herman Candybar who was known to be a drunkard. Should we kick them out of the Hall for their drug using?
Or is it just because it’s a violation of an MLB rule? Well, I mean, not to put too fine a point on it, but Lenny Dykstra and John Kruk (who is fucking not a Hall of Famer, so shut up about that, Carl) used to smoke in the dugout all the time. That’s against the rules. Michael Barrett cold-cocked A.J. Pierzynski — for which I do not blame him — and got a ten-game suspension, which was equal to the punishment for a first positive steroid test prior to 2005. And what about the dreaded spitball? Do we throw all of those players out of the Hall of Fame, too? Just Gaylord Perry? What?
Seriously. Herbs are for idiots. Which means the crazy moralists at the BBWAA are probably way into them.
Which, in turn, probably explains why you can beg off of a steroid rap by claiming it was an "all-natural" performance-enhancing drug.
January 6th, 2010
Posted by
Darien |
Baseball, Bullshit |
no comments
I’d like to clarify a few things as regards my previous post, wherein I rip some fool from the A.V. Club three new assholes. Specifically, I’d like to point out that I’m not bitching that he didn’t like New Super Mario Bros. Wii. I have no beef with that. There are plenty of things not to like about the game. My problem is that he didn’t talk about those things, instead choosing to ramble aimlessly about the feeling he gets from the game via horrible, strained detention metaphors. I went through the article again, and here is a list of every substantive complaint that John Teti makes in his article ("substantive" meaning that they are actually concrete statements about the game, as opposed to like touchy-feely comments about vibe or some shit). Note that I’m not just listing complaints I agree with; this is seriously every negative point about the game that he mentions in his review:
1) Not enough Yoshi.
2) Ice Flower is "inferior" (borderline, since he never says why, but we’ll allow it).
3) Block-picking-up control is "obtuse and fidgety."
4) Multiplayer co-op is too crowded.
5) Single-player is too empty.
That’s seriously everything he says. It’s right here, so you don’t have to take my word for it. Now, let’s ignore for a moment the fact that points 4 and 5 on that list are very close to contradicting each other (if the addition of one actor to the levels makes them "practically impossible" due to crowding, are they really that empty?) and focus our minds on the fact that, in 464 words of negative review, John Teti mentions only those five things about the game. Here are some other things John Teti mentions:
1) Detention
2) Shigeru Miyamoto created the game (he did not)
3) Happy Days
4) Mustiness
5) Muddledness
6) Vibe
7) Myst
8) Lack of "essentiality."
Here are some things John Teti did not mention in his review:
1) Gameplay
2) Graphics
3) Sound
4) Play control (other than the block-picking-upping)
5) The levels
6) The monsters
7) The new Mario abilities (other than the ice flower)
8) The multiplayer modes other than co-op campaign
9) The completely brilliant boss encounters
This is why I believe John Teti should be fired. He is misleading his readers through omission. Instead of providing them with information that could assist them in making their purchasing decision, He just babbles on and on about nothing at all. He doesn’t like the game, but he doesn’t see any reason to tell us why. As such, he has failed as a game reviewer.
January 4th, 2010
Posted by
Darien |
Games |
no comments
