I guess this is what a verbal handjob is.
Here are some highlights from Rob Dibble's most recent column, in which he laments Jeter's failure to make the All-Star Game. He concludes the column with this:
"Derek Jeter is better than the All-Star game. It makes me sick that he won't be there." (author's emphasis)
>I'm not really quite sure what it means to be better than the All-Star Game, but thank god Jeter didn't get enough votes to play, lest he embarrass all the players who were just good enough to be All-Stars.
Also in the column: "Derek Jeter just lost out on the internet vote to Scott Podsednik. That never should have happened. And Michael Young is more deserving than Jeter??? Don't make me laugh."
>Three question marks? Why is Dibble so indignant about Young? Let's forget the 2005 stats that Dibble would not even look at (OPS, RC27, range, etc. -- all of which tilt in Young's favor or are roughly similar), and let's focus on the ones that I'm sure Dibble would say makes a player deserving of a being an All-Star. The amazing stats of Avg., HRs, and RsBI are all in Young's favor as well. So if the important stats don't make Young more deserving, and the unimportant stats also don't make him more deserving, then what stats does Dibble care about? Is there a solid dude metric? I bet Young would take that one as well.
"If I were starting a team right now, the first player I'd take would be Jeter. No one is more clutch in big games than him, no other shortstop in baseball has more championships, and no other shortstop has to play in a tougher media town."
>This is outright moronic. If I were starting a team, I would take Bernie Williams -- he's also wicked clutch, he has a bunch of championships, and I want my team to stink.
>And I'm too tired to comment on Dibble's claim that "Jeter is the Jordan of baseball."
