i always thought new yorkers liked brash. . . .
but the gotham scribes didn't much care for some testy postgame remarks by albert pujols. or maybe it's more accurate to say they did care for them -- the way wolves care for fresh meat.
i don't think the substance of his comments was unfair; as i noted this morning, glavine didn't really pitch his game last night -- didn't get ahead in counts, didn't get groundballs. he did get the cardinals out, but not entirely on his terms -- and i say that with no disrespect at all to glavine. on the contrary, i say it with a measure of admiration: the guy adapted and survived, didn't beat himself, ultimately prevailed. that's one way to stay in the league for 20 years and build a hall-of-fame resume.
alberto might have said it in that spirit -- "glavine didn't have his best stuff, but we didn't make him pay" -- and it wouldn't have played so ugly in the press. instead he wore his frustration on his sleeve. we might say that's refreshingly honest of him, but he's got no right to complain if the new york papers turn it into a different type of storyline, something like: "here's a guy who cracks when he gets on the big stage. here's a guy who can't take the heat. dude's mug is tight . . . . ."
then again, he might want that extra pressure; it might make him better. check out this comment from toris34 in the morning thread: "Over the past 3 seasons, St. Al[bert] has had 9 times where he went 3 consecutive hitless games. In the 9 follow-up games he's 18-36 w/ 7 hr's and 4 walks."
am i alone in thinking it would be a better world if more sportswriters took the initiative to dig up information like that, and spent less time overblowing the words and personalities of the participants ?