Okay, so it’s only Spring Training. The sights and sounds of the game are never going to be the same in Spring Training as they are when the real deal begins. Still, after so many long days without, they sound pretty darned musical to me. So, after two entire Angels games, one of which only aired on the radio and one we watched this evening via that faithful friend of the working stiff, the DVR, I have a few thoughts.
It’s only Spring Training. And believe you me, if it were going badly I would absolutely be emphasizing how much Spring Training games don’t really mean anything, a fact I don’t forget just because things are going well. However, it makes me really happy to see:
- Albert Pujols and that gorgeous swing looking good from the first at bat.
- C.J. Wilson looking like he’s in season shape already or pretty darn close to it.
- The regular infielders doing their regular season thing in the field and at the plate.
- One possible incarnation of the outfield doing their regular season thing in the field and at the plate.
- Alberto Callaspo belting the ball and playing his position with an “Ahem. I’m still here!” swagger and chip on his shoulder.
- Angels infielders turning two in March with a decidedly May kind of ease and precision. Have you ever noticed that the sound of the ball slapping the glove during a solid 6-4-3 or 4-6-3 is just a little different than it sounds during any other play? Three fast, solid thunks in precisely measured succession. It’s a lovely sound!
- Power from the catcher’s position!! Yeah, yeah, yeah. Spring Training ball parks. Blah, blah, blah. I don’t care. I have now seen current Angels catchers look like they actually know what they are doing in the batter’s box in two back to back games. And after last season? Yeah, that’s a big deal.
- Angels ball players looking relaxed, rejuvenated, and very at ease with one another…until they start talking about the coming season and then there is a fire in their eyes. Love that!
Meh. It’s only Spring Training:
- Oh my word, the errors. With every team, in every game. Balls zinging out of gloves. Sailing lazily past gloves. Dropping softly at the outfielders’ feet… Throws going into the outfield. The backstop. The dugout. The stands… And some of the pitching and hitting? Ugh. Yes, this is why we have Spring Training but it is also why Spring Training will never be as good as the regular season.
- I’m not particularly impressed with most of the Angels kids so far. Not last season’s rookies or Mike Trout who spent a fair bit of time in the Bigs last year. I think my appreciation of their efforts and the breath of fresh air they bring has been thoroughly documented on these virtual pages. No, I mean the younger prospects. I really like Alexi Amarista whose gutsy, athletic, maximum effort style of play in a diminutive package reminds a bit of Dustin Pedroia. And I like Andrew Romine who has demonstrated great instincts and a gift for pulling plays out of thin air in the past. Other than that, I don’t see anything that impressive yet…of course, I wasn’t that impressed with Tyler Chatwood last Spring Training, so I can’t claim to have the best eye for the subtle nuances of a rookie-to-be’s performance.
- The usual: No one stays in the game for very long, even when they’re doing well. Small stadiums make for quiet games. Even the announcers…heck, even the sound and picture quality seem to be in training right along with the players.
We got to watch baseball. Real, current – if not precisely live – baseball over dinner for four days running now. And this evening my husband looked from the game to me with a very contented smile, all of the strain of the day gone from his face, and sighed. This is a nice evening, he said. It’s great to have the back game on. I couldn’t agree more…and that part needs no Spring Training specific header. That part is universal.
Well, the Mariners started workouts this weekend at any rate. But everyone else’s pitchers and catchers are reporting this coming weekend, the Angels on Sunday. Yay! Yay! Only 16 more days until they start playing live baseball! Okay, it will be rusty, working the kinks out, preseason, completely unofficial live baseball but I think we can all agree that after several months of nada, live is the only important word in that sentence…for a few weeks at least, until we grow tired of it and beg for the regular season to begin. But, for the time being, I’ll just sit here bouncing in my chair. The Angels have not released their Spring Training broadcast schedule yet, but I can figure some of it out based on the Dodgers posted broadcast schedule and, wow, live Angels baseball is on the horizon. The prospect makes me giddy. *boingy boingy, boingy*
* * * * *
So, remember what I was saying about this being the Hot Stove year of the mystery team? Did anyone see Oakland coming on the Yoenis Cespedes deal? Seriously, anyone? Way to go Oakland! Um…I mean…I know we’re rivals and all that, a rivalry I especially enjoy I might add, and I really want the Angels to beat you soundly every single time our two teams meet, but how about the AL West this season? It’s really nice to be an oft discussed, and with respect no less, division again. It’s been an exciting offseason and I see even more exciting results coming this season. Thank you for continuing the crazy streak of key signings. I mean, seriously. AL East who? They still play baseball out there? 😉 And on the NL East front, I’m sure “AL West” is now a four letter word as far as the Miami Marlins are concerned.
* * * * *
The Angels need a Truck Day! I mean, of course they do have one in the sense that there are trucks that staff must pack full of all of the necessary Spring Training goodies and at some point these trucks do leave the Big A bound for Tempe, AZ. Some fans may even be aware of the date and show up to see the trucks off for all I know. But this is the extent of any Angels Truck Day and that’s only if that last part is anything more than theoretical. I know that I live in L.A. instead of Orange County but, really, if there were a big celebration to see the trucks off, I would have heard something. And a big celebration is what I want – crowds of fans gathering to cheer the end of the offseason, speeches from VIPs, a sort of Angels state of the union if you will, open gift shops with some of the newer 2011 items that haven’t officially debuted yet on sale early and, heck maybe even an opportunity to taste that first ballpark hot dog of the year.
You know, I want what a lot of other teams have. Is that too much to wish for? Oh, and while we’re at it, a multiple day extravaganza of a Fan Fest would be nice too, you know, like other teams have. And, and…basically I wish this was more of a baseball town. Yes, we have two teams in close proximity in the general Los Angeles/Orange County/west end of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties area both of whom routinely fill, nearly sell out or outright sell out, the considerable number of seats in their large stadiums…well, both of them, when folks aren’t justifiably livid with the McCourts that is. But ticket sales do not a baseball town make, at least not on their own. Crazy passionate bleeding team colors fans make a town a baseball town. And while I would argue that the Angels and the Dodgers boast just as many crazy passionate bleeding team colors fans as the next team (check out the blogs if you have any doubt), we just don’t seem to get credit for that.
My unscientific but credible theory on this subject is that our percentages get skewed and diluted by the sheer enormity of the total population out here. Yes, many baseball teams throughout the U.S. reside in populous counties, several of them in counties sufficiently populous to land on the top 15 most populous counties list according to the last census. However, the four California counties I just mentioned (L.A., Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside) plus San Diego to our immediate south make up one third of the top 15 most populous U.S. counties list. We have a lot of people out here, which I think means that we have just as many diehard fans, but significantly more casual fans and non fans (not that I’m complaining about them, enjoy the game however you like) than other places and the combined impression that creates is not one of a crowd that would appreciate, say for example, a Truck Day. Or, maybe it’s just So Cal’s notoriously too hip for the room attitude keeping us from having nice things yet again? 😉
It seems like this time of year everyone starts thinking about making changes and improvements. While changes can be important, experts caution, and rightly so, not to fixate so much on one big change that it starts to seem like a panacea for all of our problems. Great advice, but often a little tricky to follow. I mean, how often do you start to think along these lines? If I could only lose 10 pounds, I would finally be happy. If I could just get a better job, everything would improve, even my relationships. If only we could move to San Jose, we would make it the World Series! Because, oh yes, baseball teams do this too.
Not that I’m mocking the A’s here. I mean, really, it does sound like moving to San Jose could be a very good thing for the team. And while we’re at it, I’m glad the Marlins got to move to Miami and I hope the Rays get the go ahead to build their dream stadium too. However, in order to be able to make (continue to make in the case of the Marlins after this big splash of an offseason) the kind of personnel decisions these teams believe their respective moves will grant them, the new stadiums need to actually bring in more money, a lot more money.
New stadiums in higher income neighborhoods with a theorized greater propensity towards rabid baseball fandom do stand a greater chance of bringing in more fans and, ultimately, more money. But outside of the movies simply building it isn’t always enough to make the fans come, an idea that has been largely absent from coverage of the Marlins move and of the brief rumors that the A’s were making progress on the San Jose front earlier this week.
Hey, I want everything to work out as planned for A’s, Marlins and Rays. Baseball is meant to be enjoyed by as many people as possible, improved attendance for any team helps the entire sport, and largely empty stadiums are a sad sight indeed. But a move cannot cure all of the reasons the current stadiums are empty. For example, the Bay Area and the state of Florida, even in their more affluent neighborhoods, still haven’t recovered from our most recent economic woes…and in both cases not from the economic issues in the decade leading up to that either.
This is not to say I think the teams should scrap plans for (or regret) the moves. (The Miami Marlins should regret those uniforms to be sure, but not the move!) I do think there is real benefit to be gained from moving. I’m just calling for more realistic expectations, especially from the media responsible for informing the fans…a tall order, that. And lest you think I’m forgetting to point out another instance of this panacea type thinking that hits a lot closer to home: Oh, if only the Angels had Albert Pujols, the lineup that was 10th in runs scored and 6th in GIDP in the AL in 2011 would suddenly be fearsome! What’s that you say? We have no lineup incentive to prevent Pujols from becoming the most walked man in the AL 2012 and in 2011 he G’d into more DPs than anyone else anyway? *claps hands over ears* La la la la la.
*clears throat* Ahem. Like I said. Great advice, but often a little tricky to follow.
When I started college, Occidental had just concluded the grand but brief scheduling experiment known as trimesters, basically a tweaked quarter system still in use at some schools. Mine was the first class to start under the “return to semesters” schedule. The reasons given for the switch were, as is typical in these situations, either the exact same reasons given for the initial switch to trimesters or arguments once used against semesters now touted as virtues. With typical Oxy snark, upperclassmen made t-shirts to illustrate this phenomena in hilarious fashion with a chart depicting the arguments for trimesters on one side, culled from the letters sent to siblings and acquaintances on campus during the time of that switch, and the arguments for semesters on the other side, culled from the letter they received prior to the switch. If I felt like digging deeply enough in the back of our dresser, I would probably find that my husband still has his t-shirt! Anyway, for some odd reason I’ve been thinking about that a lot this week. *glares daggers at Bud Selig* I wonder why?
I do not like the impending realignment. Do. Not. Like. I do not think it will ruin baseball or anything drastic like that. I am still going watch easily 150 or so of the Angels’ 162 games plus a number of other random games every season and I will still enjoy them. But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s abysmally stupid to have argued passionately in favor of one thing only to switch the argument on its ear not 15 years later. To wit, ‘We must put up with the small inconvenience of unequal divisions in order to avoid the unimaginable horrors of Interleague play nearly every day and other scheduling nightmares that would occur from having two 15 team leagues!’ becomes ‘We must switch to two 15 team leagues and put up with the small inconvenience of expanded Interleague play nearly every day in order to avoid the unimaginable horrors of unequal divisions.’
It’s not the 15 teams in each league I object to so much, that at least fixes the stupidity having four teams in the AL West and six in the NL Central, it’s the expanded Interleague play (in addition to the revisionist history arguing style going on here). Look, I may be one of the few folks in the blogosphere that actually enjoys Interleague play, but even I would prefer to see it less often and certainly don’t want to see it several times a week, all season long. If we can’t fix the AL West/NL Central situation by adding two completely new teams to the AL – my personal little pipe dream that’s never going to happen – I would rather fix the scheduling difficulties that come from two odd numbered leagues by capitalizing on that other “scheduling nightmare” that Selig adamantly didn’t want all the way back in the late 90s: double headers.
Think about it. Interleague play can remain intact and unexpanded in the middle of the season, thus eating up a few of the near daily odd-man-out in each league situations while scheduling several four-game series with planned single admission double headers for every team can eat up the rest. I know that the players union hates double headers, but if MLB wants something that will solve scheduling woes and really attract fans, double headers are the way to go. A single admission double header brought numbers that could actually be deemed crowds rather than a mere crowd to the Coliseum last season. I saw it with my very own eyes. Now that’s power!
And as for the rest? An additional Wild Card in each league? I didn’t like the first Wild Card additions, but it grew on me. I don’t really like this one either. I guess I’m a curmudgeon before my time when it comes to change in baseball. But if adding an additional Wild Card race makes the end of the next season half as entertaining as the end of this one, it might grow on me too. The Astros making the switch from the NL Central to the AL West? Meh. Returning the Brewers to the AL and switching one of the AL Central teams to the West might have made more sense, given that it would simply be undoing that which was already done. However, I think that wouud require Mr. Selig to admit he is reversing his argument completely and, much like my college administration, I think he’s trying to avoid that as much as possible. Hmmm…do I still know anyone with access to a silk screen press?
And while I am already waxing Suess-ical with all of these do not likes, I do not like Jerry Dipoto’s reported “serious interest” in C.J. Wilson. Not in a box, not with a fox. Not over twitter, not with a dash of bitters. I do not like it. Not one bit. Overpaying free agents may be the new black, but if the Angels are going to grossly overpay a free agent, how about one that swings a bat for power…and, call me crazy, actually makes contact resulting in something other than an out(s) on a regular basis.
I’m still enjoying the post season immensely and I’m rooting hard for the Cardinals and the Tigers to win tonight. Rooting for the Tigers and the Cardinals? Could it be that what I really want out of all of this is epic trash talk on Red State Blue State? While that interpretation of the facts certainly makes for an entertaining story, it is not an accurate statement. Hmmm…could there be a better segue for my review of Moneyball? I think not:
So I saw Moneyball a few days back (Didn’t we all?) and, eh, I didn’t love it, but I did like it. Look, when not stressed beyond capacity I read voraciously, have done so all my life. Given the number of movies based on books out there, the vast majority of them quite loosely indeed, this means I either had to stop watching movies or learn pretty early on to view movies as a completely separate entity from books. …And from history actually because for every cinematic crime against literature, there are at least three against history. Yes, I was a history major. Why do you ask? 😉
Looking at Moneyball strictly as a movie, I thought it was good. Enjoyable. A little overlong in parts – namely the Brad Pitt moping, and worrying and moping some more parts. Some of the scenes with Brad Pitt’s family were forced and trite. On the other hand, the acting was excellent, some of the dialog was genuinely stirring and the story was appealing. I love underdogs. I love upsets. Heck, I was rooting for the movie A’s by the end of it. From a story telling standpoint, especially knowing that Aaron Sorkin was one of the final script writers, I felt it was missing a big, gorgeous, eloquent mini-speech about baseball or two. Also, once the decision was made to concentrate on the 2002 major league team rather than the draft class the book actually focused on, I wish they had also decided to incorporate more of the players’ background stories as presented in the book – especially when given the choice between including 20 extra minutes of Brad Pitt brooding in a car or 10 minutes each of the story behind Chad Bradford’s unusual even for a submariner style and Scott Hatteberg’s need to socialize. A little sarcastic dialog from a 1st base conversation or two would have been a nice way to break up the montages.
So I enjoyed Moneyball as a movie, but what about as a cinematic glimpse of baseball history? Well it wasn’t that at all, actually. Notice I refer to Brad Pitt as Brad Pitt above, not Billy Beane? That’s because the characters in Moneyball were just that, characters in a fictional movie, loosely based on something that actually happened and, truth be told, a loose interpretation of the book as well. The mischaracterizations and inaccuracies were pretty epic. The movie completely forgets to mention non-Moneyball players, even though a Cy Young performance from Barry Zito and an MVP performance from Miguel Tejada might have contributed to the A’s 2002 success, you know, maybe just a little, along with strong performances from the rest of the non-Chad Bradford pitching staff and other returning A’s players. And as for the Moneyball stuff, Carlos Pena wasn’t traded to force Art Howe to play Scott Hatteberg. Hatteberg was already playing more games than not as a DH because, yes, he didn’t just walk a lot, he could actually hit. He also grew into a decent fielding first baseman. And I could go on and on. All of these creative licenses were clearly taken with the intent to make Moneyball into a better story. And, in that sense, I believe that the creative team behind the movie succeeded. But what happens when we change the truth to make it a better story, especially so much of the truth? Exactly.
Okay, so it was entertaining but took creative license to the extreme with the history. So what about all of the folks who don’t know any of the history behind the movie? Are they going to start running around quoting Moneyball as fact? I don’t really see this happening to any degree that should concern. Look, here’s the thing with movies. They rarely if ever get it right and when they do the authenticity usually lies more in the feelings than the actual facts. And for a movie based on history, touting “based on a true story” in the ad campaign means roughly the same thing as using the author’s name in the title of a movie adapted from a book – what appears on screen bears only passing resemblance to the source material. And I think that most savvy movie goers understand this.
What’s that you say? The typical movie goer may not be savvy? Maybe these anecdotes will quell a few fears:
A few weeks ago, a casual baseball fan friend of mine told me about this great looking movie he just saw a preview for, Moneyball. After describing the gist of the plot he had gleaned from the preview he said, But here’s the weird thing. Did you know that they’re using the Oakland A’s for this movie? I mean, using the Cleveland Indians made sense in Major League. But I can’t figure out why anyone would want to use the Oakland A’s for a feel good comeback story movie. My apologies to A’s fans everywhere. These were my friend’s words, not mine. But I relate them here to demonstrate that some folks with more distance from the game than we lot kind of gloss over the “based on a true story” angle and just assume the whole thing is fiction.
And the non baseball fan’s perspective? I was chatting with a good friend a few months back who grasps the concept of baseball and goes to the occasional Dodger game when tickets fall into his hands as they are wont to do from time to time if you live and work in Los Angeles County, but who would not describe himself as even a casual fan. I mentioned enjoying chatting and snarking with a couple of Tigers fans at the Big A on 4th of July. He gave me a really confused look that typically means, “Explain?” So I explained that the Angels were playing the Tigers that night. He repeated the confused look and I gave him one of my own. I mean, what more could one explain?
(Close your eyes Michael David.) I am sorry to say that he then asked The Tigers? That’s not a team I’m familiar with? Okay, this is a very smart man. And he’s up on current events and popular culture. And he grew up in Maryland and went to a few games at Camden Yards as a child so this isn’t some sort of weird west coast bias thing. Apparently if you aren’t really a baseball fan, any team that isn’t the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, your local team(s) or a few isolated others, then that team could be a completely fictional movie team for all that you know…and seeing as fictional movie team comes pretty close to describing the 2002 Oakland A’s as depicted in the film Moneyball, maybe in this case that’s a good thing.
So, if this movie still hath offended think but this and all is…well…if not outright mended, perhaps a bit more in perspective. Those who are close to baseball know how weak and idle this particular theme was from a historical standpoint and those who are not close to the game are very likely to think it’s fiction for a completely different reason. And as for the folks who believe it to be gospel…well…they probably believe almost everything the movies tell them anyway, like the Da Vinci Code is word for word real…and that the 300 Spartans went to war in nothing but teeny, tiny leather speedos…and, and that Nicolas Cage has a broad acting range and can deftly insert himself into the leading role – and accent! – in any action movie.
* * * * *
Notice that I reviewed Moneyball without ever once offering my opinion on Moneyball philosophy and/or sabermetrics? Yeah, I thought I’d be a little different. Besides, there is enough fodder there to declare Moneyball an entertaining movie but a bad “based on a true story” without ever touching sabermetrics. However, for the record, I think that sabermetric stats are one of many great tools available for assessing baseball players but they are just that, only one tool in the belt. I also think that traditional stats, paying attention to a player’s intangibles and also just plain old gut feel, instinct and observation are important tools for assessing baseball players. I think that it makes the most sense for baseball teams to use every tool available. Completely ignoring any of the tools in favor of one particular tool might work on an occasional player by player basis. But you can’t build a team that way…nor, if you read Michael Lewis’ original book was he initially theorizing that you could. He…a…got a little carried away there by the end of the book and strayed from his own premise. But I’ve got a whole post about that back in the archives if you’re really interested in reading my thoughts on the book.
Were you aware that, in addition to being MLB “berth” month, September is both National Wine Month and National Bourbon Month? Whether or not this is coincidence, I can’t help but feel it’s appropriate…unlike some of those other special monthly designations like National Collegiate Alcohol Awareness Month (thanks, but weren’t we all aware of alcohol in college, like extremely aware) and National Pork Month (I’m not entirely certain if this is more of a food thing or an offshoot of National Collegiate Alcohol Awareness thing but I was hesitant to see what the internets would tell me if I looked it up. You understand, I’m sure.) I can really get behind this September last month of baseball/alcohol appreciation tie-in thing. Suitable for comfort or celebrations, alcohol pairs wonderfully with all of your September needs. But I digress…
So, the Angels lost to the A’s and now have a big old E next to their name in the AL West, the last team to fall prey to the dreaded E, though time zone bias did play a role in that. After the loss to the Jays especially, I was expecting this eventually. I am even glad it happened early enough to avoid having to watch Texas celebrate on our infield when I go to the game on Monday, but that doesn’t mean I am happy about it in general, you understand. Even so, Friday night was a good night at the ballpark if for no other reason than aren’t they always?
Fresh off a start on three days’ rest, Jered Weaver was a little overly strong in the first inning, giving up a homerun to Jemile Weeks in the first at bat and hitting Josh Willingham before settling down for six scoreless innings. Really, with 3 runs, only two of them earned, on 6 hits and 0 walks with 8 strikeouts? Weaver pitched well enough to win.
The bullpen, shown here largely in goofier relaxed moments, was solid too with Rich Thompson coming in to record the last two outs in two batters in the 9th.
Sadly, Gio Gonzales was on and, as usual, largely incomprehensible to the Angels while our bats remained…Inert? Immobile? Stuck in customs? Whatever the reason, the team only cobbled together three hits while stranding 10 guys on base, only one of whom (outside of Torii’s solo homerun) actually made it all the way to third. You don’t win ballgames that way, especially against the A’s who, regardless of what their record says this season, can and will make a team pay for mistakes…mistakes like our boneheaded fielding error in the 8th, for example.*face palm*
I was disappointed with the loss to be sure, but accepted what was, at this point in the season, inevitable. I reminded myself that I had enjoyed a lot of the season, had enjoyed this evening out at the ballpark and that the Angels still had a small shot at clenching the wild card. And so I began to watch the final Friday Night Fireworks post game show of the season only somewhat deflated. And I was fine. Really adult about all of it. It’s only baseball, right? …right up until the bouncy Beach Boys soundtrack ended and the next wave of beautiful fireworks launched to the tune of Train’s Calling All Angels. Then the distinct explosions of glittering color blurred into an impressionist knock off of blue and red swirled with green, purple and yellow as tears welled up in my eyes and began to roll down my cheeks.
I am not proud of this fact. I am 35 years old and this was a baseball season, one of many near playoff misses I have witnessed in my lifetime. But…there was a wonderful quote that prefaced the broadcast of the 2010 All Star Game in Anaheim. I have searched and searched today, trying to find the exact quote, but the Interwebs have failed me. The gist of the quote is that baseball is a child’s game and when we watch the game we do so through a child’s eyes and with a child’s glee and so, for the span of a game, can remember however briefly the wonder and innocence of being a child. Baseball always fills me with a child’s excitement and glee, so looking back on last night I think it’s only appropriate that, for a few moments, it filled me with a child’s disappointment, raw and unencumbered by any need to put on a brave face and act the adult.
Ten minutes later and on into today, I have prospective and am back to disappointed but not crushed. Still, for those of us who do embody the quote I can’t find when around this pastime we adore, I think it’s important to embrace and acknowledge this side of ourselves. Even if it means admitting that all too often there absolutely is crying in baseball, this is also the side that allows us to experience unrestrained and darned near unreasonable joy over the feats of 25 men we don’t know on a field of grass, clay and chalk. The side of us that allows us to, for example, cheer again the very next day after a division elimination while we return to torturing ourselves with Wild Card elimination number math. I think it’s the child side balanced with the adult that allows me to laugh when I am happy and search for reasons to laugh even harder when I am disappointed or upset. To that end, I give you the rest of the photos I have selected from the game, all photos that made me laugh for one reason or another:
And, hey, good news this evening! A stronger Angels performance earned a victory while the Red Sox lost to the Yankees…and the Rays won too but what can you do? The Angels also announced their team awards. Congratulations to Jered Weaver for winning the Nick Adenhart Pitcher of the Year award and to Mark Trumbo for the team M.V.P. award – neither a surprise and both extremely well deserved!! So, onward to the last four games of the season and hopefully the last four wins of the season. I am all for the Angels finishing the season as strong as they can whether that means a miracle Wild Card Playoff berth or just a final record that’s that much better.
English is a quirky, hodgepodge of a language. Words that sound quite similar can and frequently do have radically different meanings. Here at TIAVSG, we are all about education and the joy of learning. So allow me to explore this concept a little further with a completely random example. Clearly, this post has nothing whatsoever to do with Angels baseball and certainly nothing to do with Angels baseball over, say, their last road trip or last night or anything like that.Exciting Adjective Producing great enthusiasm and eagerness; thrilling, exhilarating, stimulating Exasperating Adjective Intensely irritating; infuriating
See how these two words sound deceptively similar with their identical beginnings and endings, yet are so different in their meaning that one would probably use them to describe opposite situations. Just in case, let’s try using them sentences, shall we, so their meaning is absolutely clear. Again, I have pulled these example sentences completely out of thin air. This post has nothing to do with Angels baseball. We’re all about education today.
Tie baseball games are exciting! Errors and bad plays are exasperating.
Hitting a homerun is exciting! Giving up a lead is exasperating.
Baseball games that go into extra innings are exciting! Baseball games that go into extra innings because of errors and bad plays are exasperating.
Getting a chance to move ahead in two sets of standings is extremely exciting!! Getting a chance to move ahead in two sets of standings and blowing it is extremely exasperating.
Hopefully these examples have been educational and clear up a few things about yet another quirky nuance of the English language for anyone who could benefit from the refresher…For example, the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. What? Just because this post has nothing to do with the Angels doesn’t mean they can’t learn something from it.
Although, now that I just happened to bring the Angels up – fancy that! – I am heading to the ballpark this evening which is always exciting, no matter where your team is in the standings. Here’s hoping that the Halos can make this game and the rest of the home stand, very exciting indeed!!
So, is one’s team having 0 control over their own destiny from this point forward because they don’t play any of the wild card teams again and only play Texas three times when they’re five games out with only six left to go, exciting or exasperating? A little of column A, a little of column B actually. Which column does it lean towards more heavily? Let me get back to you on that one in a few days.