I've read hundreds of her articles, and hundreds of Molony's as well. As a writer myself, I don't notice a significant difference in quality. If it's so dramatic as you call it, it should be easy to reference examples. If you can't, it comes off looking like an issue of bias. Which "word usage and form" examples are you referring to? As for the conjecture, I've heard this rant from you before, and it's silly. You sound like the know-it-alls who complain every time there's an editorial or column on the editorial page that you don't agree with. Guess what? It's an opinion page - you're going to see conjecture. It's not supposed to be fact based. As for the Astros, that's what Footer's mailbag is... it's essentially the opinion piece of the site. It's conjecture based on what she knows from her position. You can't compare that style to actual articles and actual reporting — the mailbags are entirely different entities. If you don't like it, it sounds like you have more of a problem with the "mailbag" concept than you do with Footer's writing.
It's incredibly difficult to discern when she's giving opinion & when she's passing along first-hand info. Little subtlties like "I think..." and "[Person X] told me..." will clue in only the most meticulous readers. Her heavy reliance on direct quotations is also a problem for those used to reading the Writer of Wrongs et al.
You know I've heard about dude's knees several times but never read an article about them. Also, I *do* remember reading *several* articles about how dude hit the weights far too hard after signing the fat contract and lost a lot of flexibility. I wish him the best. He was a favorite of mine; I always pulled for him to rebound from his career nose-dive.
8 days from now: I'll be driving somewhere in south Texas, listening to the radio, and will finally hear the sweet sound of maple cracking against a ball at 90+ MPH. Can't come soon enough.
The article did say that Scott was not only doing the weights, but also doing the stretching exercises. Getting both more limber and bigger is good....and not just big. I'm assuming that if he's more limber, then he'll keep the bat speed that he had before?
As I understood it, the loss of flexibility hurt a lot more than bat speed. It just screws up one's swing in general.
I already have myself one..minus the red stripe down the side. First hat that I've been satisfied with since my 7 year old, dirty as hell UH cap that I still wear.
Tell that to Jeff Van Gundy ! As for the topic, I think Scott will earn the Right field job...and Hidalgo and Lane will be the backups.... DD
Well, only one at most between Hidalgo/Lane will be able to make the team... unless you're talking about keeping the other in AAA, assuming they pass through waivers.
couldn't it be Burke/Lee/Scott/Hidalgo/Lane as the OFs? esp. considering that Burke doubles as a backup IF if necessary.. I think that assumes Loretta and Lamb are the only 2 backup infielders...and one backup C Am I missing someone?
Don't forget about Palmeiro and Bruntlett. Either Hidalgo or Lane will be on the roster, but not both.
In theory, it could, but there's probably a greater chance of one of us winning the lottery than Palmeiro not making the roster, and Garner has made that fairly clear. I know some people don't like him, but the Astros highly value his left-handed contact hitting, particularly with the situational hitting issues this team has had in recent years. The bench will be: catcher, Lamb, Loretta, Palmeiro, and one out of Bruntlett/Lane/Hidalgo if they open with 13 hitters. Personally, I'd like them to open with 14, because I'd like to keep one of Lane/Hidalgo while also having a legitimate SS glove (Loretta doesn't) on the bench with Bruntlett.
