I am one who said that Gammons et al could shove it after the Boston game, and here is why: he and others made the ridiculous argument that Greinke’s Cy Young candidacy was thin because he had not pitched against the Red Sox or the Yankees, and further, they said that this one start was essentially the litmus test for his entire season.

So I said shove it after he shut them down for six innings. Why? Because I am a fan, and because sometimes fans are like that. Occasionally, when someone slights my team and my guys go out there and play well, I come back at the person with an obnoxious retort. I know it is odd behavior, and certainly not indicative of sports fans as a whole, but I guess I am just an outlier that way.

Seriously, you find it annoying that fans are acting like fans?

Also, it is absurd that a baseball observer/analyst would suggest that any one start out of 34 was determinative of a starter’s Cy Young candidacy. It is silliness, and it exposes a bias that supports shallow thinking and reactive commentary. So, yeah, I said shove it.

Maybe you think that Holliday should get some extra credit for pitching so many games against AL East opponents. Okay, fine. But Greinke has pitched against some prolific offenses this season — Anaheim, Toronto, Cleveland, Texas, Boston — and he has managed to survive quite well. Also, it isn’t as though he is pitching okay against lesser teams; he is pitching lights out against everyone. The guy has allowed four earned runs or more only four times this season! (In fairness, two of those games were against AL East opponents.)

So, yeah, why is one start against Boston so determinative of his Cy Young candidacy? That is what I was reacting too, this idea that having an historic season as an AL Central pitcher is less valuable than pitching well-but-not-great/epic/amazing as an AL East pitcher.

Like I said when I posted, it was a crude response, but it felt good to say. And though I don’t know what sort of fan you are, I suspect that at least once in your life you have responded to criticism of your team with an obnoxious comment.

I would have bought your book just on g.p. and faith. I read your stuff and always enjoy it. And then, every so often, I finish an article and sit back and think about how you are just about the best sport writer since my boy David Halberstam. You have every journalist of every stripe beat, when it comes down to my little opinion.

Confession: I sometimes wince when I get to the comment section of this blog. You have some very eager fans that come here, and there are some pretty overwrought praises sung from time to time. I don’t know how I feel joining the chorus of hosannas, but here I am regardless.

I have never paid a dime towards you and yours even though I read just about everything you write (this crazy Internet, where is the money?). As often as I check in on this site I should buy a copy of your book for that alone. But why would I read everything you write unless I liked what I read? I could give two shits about the 1975 Cincinnati Reds, they truly mean nothing to me. But if they interest you enough to write an entire book about them, I dropped my $20 odd dollars because I bet you can make me interested.

Congratulations on your release, Joe, and thanks for all your work.

Don’t apologise. I’ve been in and around sports journalism most of my working life and I’d be the first to say these guys are poorly placed to adjudicate national awards, especially in a sport with the geographical spread of baseball, when most of them work locally.

A sports writer’s job is to get stories – just as a detective’s job is to get criminals and a salesman’s job is to get orders.

Getting a story involves, in its basic form, watching a game, identifying something outstanding or, better, quirky on which to hang a story then gathering quotes from the principals to illustrate that story.

It’s just not a set-up that leads to an impartial overview on a national scale.

In my mind, Joe overcomes this difficulty by being a baseball fan first, second and third, a writer fourth, then a Kansas City writer fifth.

The best guys to give the voting rights to would be bookies . . . but that ain’t happening.

Holden Caulfield was a complete arse – thoroughly unlikeable, no redeeming features at all. More than that, he was supposed to be what, 17 years old? And acted (or was written to act) like he was 24.

Gimme a break. Bruce Wayne is more believeable.

Now if I can just get someone to join me in putting the boot into Citizen Kane, today will be a worthwhile day.