http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/yankees/ny-spwally0712947651jul06,0,1664965.column Wallace Matthews was a mainstay on firejoemorgan.com but I think this latest one takes the cake. The premise of the article is your typical Jeter love letter. Even when he is bad or does stupid things his mere prescence elevates the team to previously unreachable heights etc. Then he inexplicably brings up the Mets and states that their only problem this season is not having Derek Jeter. This next sentence is my favorite though. I mean what could you possibly say to a guy that actually thinks like this? He caps it all off with more Jeter hyperbole and then attributes "probably hundreds" of wins over his career to nothing more than his aggressiveness.
While it's certainly a fluff piece, I find it amusing that you are disparaging use of hyperbole, but title the thread, "The Worst Article Ever Written."
If you think that is the worst article ever written, I highly recommend that you pick up any small town weekly paper and try to read that without cringing. ETA: Sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine... like people who say that their head is "literally" going to explode when they read articles like that.
the hyperbole is hardly the worst part of the article. that's pretty much par for the course when someone is writing about Jeter. "silly quantitative analysis" is his retort for anyone who disagrees with him? if i hadn't read other nonsense from this guy i would've thought this was some kind of parody or joke article.
No, you're missing my point. I know you're not saying the hyperbole is the worst part of the article. But you're obviously saying that hyperbole is not something you value... and you're doing so in a thread you titled, The Worst Article Ever Written. Please tell me you see where my amusement is coming from.
If I say yes will that derail any further pedantic arguments about whether or not this is in fact the worst article ever written?
Perhaps. But I don't think it's necessary to call it a pedantic argument. I just found your points of contention with the article and your title for the thread amusing.
You've hit on why this could easily not be the worst article ever written - he has provided dozens, if not hundreds, of examples of pure garbage through the years, and I'm reluctant to try to pick just one example of his ineptitude as his "best."
