Surprise: Giants starters got a rest today; plus inconsistent Yahoo columnist

OK, not so much a surprise. The bigger surprise is that Felipe didn't just go with an all-rookie team for the most part, but perhaps he included some of the regulars in order to give Lowry a chance to win the game. Snow, Alfonzo, Durham, Alou, and Feliz played with Ellison, Chavez, and Haad. I would have thought they would fit in Linden somewhere instead of Alou or Feliz. Alou could be playing because he is close to the minimum necessary to qualify for the Top 10 in batting, but he needs 24 (or so) AB in 4 games, so that's a long shot at best.

However, it hasn't worked this game, the Giants are out of gas, being 1-hit so far by Lawrence after scoring only 1 run in yesterday's game against a pitcher (Astacio) that the pitching poor Rangers deemed not good enough for their staff (then again, they gave up on Drese also, who then went to Washington and pitched well there before going on DL; the evaluator of pitching talent there has not done well...).

A newspaper reporter lambasted the Giants for falling to Astacio but I guess he didn't notice that he has pitched well with the 'Dres so far, 3.35 ERA, 1.34 WHIP, .247, so it is not like the Giants were the only ones, he has pitched well against the Nationals, Rockies, Braves (in Atlanta), Phillies, Nationals again, Phillies again (in Philadelphia!), with only a bad outing against the Reds.

D*(&#! D-backs won and we lost, we're in third by a game...

Yahoo's Inconsistent (at best) Columnist

I don't remember his name but I noted a few posts back about the guy who said that all Giants fans are "naive bumpkins" for not giving Bonds a bad welcome back, citing Palmeiro's bad reception everywhere he goes. He also claims that it is not a white/black thing because he has said some unkindly things about Giambi as well and, of course, he is white. However, I just realized that the columnist, at minimum, is being inconsistent.

Why is just Giants fans the naive bumpkins? Because, unlike Bonds, Giambi admitted in the illegally released and gotten grand jury transcripts that he took it and then apologized generally during spring training about some unspoken sin he committed, but since the grand jury leak (illegal by the way, shows that the system is corrupt in certain ways and the press doesn't care as long as it got a scoop) is the only thing that came out about him between the end of the season and his press conference, one can only assume it was because of his admitted use of the illegal drug. Whereas the most anyone can prove right now is that Bonds were supposedly given substances similar to what other atheletes were given, we have in Giambi, like Palmiero, a proven user.

But he is not booed everywhere. I don't recall him being booed all during spring training. In fact, I don't hear anything about Giambi getting boos everywhere he goes. Perhaps I just don't know and am totally out of it, even though I've been reading the sports page all season (and closer than past seasons because I'm in a Fantasy Baseball league) but I would think I would have heard something like "for the 150th straight game, Giambi has been booed in the stadium he played in and not one person cheered. Not once. Not even a peep. Nada. Nil. Nyet."

Why aren't all these people "naive bumpkins" as well? What is so special about Giambi that all the fans who were indifferent to him or cheered him is not called a naive bumpkin but when Bonds is treated the same way, SF fans are called a naive bumpkin? And why weren't other fans given the "bumpkin" treatment when they cheered wildly when Bonds hit a homer? Wasn't that even marginally inappropriate according to his ethos on the matter? He had a chance to mention their "bumpkin"-ness as well, he has a regular column, he could have given himself another headline grabbing title "Naive Bumpkins in Washington D.C. Too!" But there was something about Bonds that made his fans "naive bumpkins" but the New York fans not. Hmmm, I wonder what that could be?

Actually, he could have given the Washington fans an even lower designation. I mean, Giants fans would be expected to cheer Bonds; after all, he plays for the home team. What are the Washington's fans logical reason to cheer Bonds? He is playing for the opposing team, wouldn't that warrant something stronger than "naive bumpkin" from this columnist? But, again, he is strangely quiet.

No, instead, he feels quite proud talking about the fan reaction to his column, justifying his stance by touting "Then the rest of the country pretty much supported my original thought..." I guess that makes him feel better that everyone in the country supports his idea. "They really love me!"

Well, apparently not, there must be some non-e-mail enabled fans out there who don't support him because, as I noted, Giambi has not been booed by each and every fan who watched him during the season. Is he less guilty as the season passed? Is there an expiration date on when scorn and hatred should not be rained down upon him? Why do these fans get a pass from the columnist over Giambi? What is so special about Giambi that Bonds is not?

And remember, admitted abuser vs. suspected abuser, quasi-apology that was lame and odd, and his hitting has been all over the place, we don't know if he started using again after being tested since they only test once a year (from what I recall). Doesn't anyone find it odd that he could hit nothing, NOTHING, for half a season then suddenly everything in the world was OK again and he started hitting, and not just started hitting, but homers were flying out all over the place like he was Superman? Yet only Giant's fans are naive bumpkins?


Post a Comment

<< Home