I was accused by a reader in an email a couple of weeks ago of "over-intellectualizing" things. Big words, you know. Invoking non-baseball analogies and the like. I didn't really have much of a response at the time because I realize that, yeah, I am prone to doing that once in a while.
I have a response now, though: Nothing I've written over-intellectualizes baseball the way this article about A-Rod's contract negotiations over-intellectualizes baseball. Click that link to find references to psychological disinvestment, Calvinism, the progressive income tax, and a theoretical barter economy. There are even footnotes!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Over-intellectualizing? The blog is Shysterball: Baseball (and occasionally the lesser sports) from the Shyster's point of view. The Shyster is an attorney. Am I missing something?
I can't stand "non-baseball analogies" and somebody should put a stop to them!
As K. Lastima used to say "Mi madre!"
How can you 'over-intellectualize' baseball? Even Yogi Berra said that this "game is 90% mental"! OK, he did go on to say that "the other half is physical", but that doesn't change the fact that he recognized that it is a game that requires more than the usual amount of thought.
Hell, that's one of the main reasons I became a fan of the game. It's a skill and intelligence game, not purely a physical one. One of the main reasons I read Shysterball is because more than the usual amount of thought (read: ANY, these days) is applied.
If I wanted uninformed opinions with no analysis behind them, I'd listen to sports radio, or talk to other people (a la 'the watercooler') about baseball.
Please don't follow the trend of every other form of media in this country...don't 'dumb down' your site. I'm not really afraid of that happening, because I think you are the kind of guy who has a need to explain why you think what you think, but if enough people ask for it you might eventually weaken...and we (your readers) would lose something of great value.
No worries osmodious. I have no plans to dumb things down. Or brain things up either. In fact, there is absolutely zero premeditation of the tone (or whatever you want to call it) of what I write here.
Part of that is a function of the time constraints of practicing law, which make it impossible for me to chew over such things all that much (it goes from brain to fingers to page about as quickly as you can read this paranthetical). Part of it is simply because I'm not a trained writer, if those in fact exist. I reckon that if I set out to strike a certain tone, be it dumbed down or highbrow, it would fall flat on the page. Naturalism is all that matters to me, and to the extent my writing seems stilted or overly-intellecutual or stupid and purile, it's because that's what I am natuarally.
At least I hope.
WOW, I tip my hat to you Craig. I think I read some pretty arcane stuff about baseball but you win.
I get her politics - did you check her bio? - and that's cool.
What I don't get is her thing for
Eric Byrnes ( I don't mean that in a sexual way either ). Did you click through the blog link to MLB.com? She's really into Eric Byrnes.
I admire her individuality. She has to be a demorgraphic of 1. Female, activist, liberal intellectuals who are really into Eric Byrnes.
I'll buy you her book of poetry that is advertised on the blog if you promise to read it. Honest Craig. I dare you. Email me your snail mail address.
I appreciate the offer, Pete, but I can't make such promises. If I had to read something in which Eric Byrnes was compared to a leaping stag or something I'd be thrown off my game for a month, and I simply can't risk it. ;-)
Post a Comment