British phrases and baseball content, name a more iconic duo. There’s actually a lot of better duo’s out there, but you work with what you got, and what I got is a player with a last name that can be turned into a jolly good title (so good we did it twice!), id’na that right gov’ner? But that’s where the accuracy ends, because can you really call Matt Chapman good? We tried a few months ago, and the basic TL;DR was: “He might, and we’ll see!” And of course, he might be a good person, but we’d probably want him to be a good baseball player first. Selfish! I know. And lucky for us and baseball, that definition is a bit fungible in that what he did last season was, you know, aiight. Two “i’s” for that extra vocal confirmation. I mean, the .210 batting average and .314 OBP wasn’t good, but the counting stats? Pretty good, to the tune of 27/75/72. So while we ponder the idea that maybe Chap is just neutral, we can also accept that we are stuck asking if he’s good because of a mediocre title that I locked us into. Don’t forget folks, I was born into mediocrity, molded by it, and we still have the rest of the post to go. That’s not just good, that’s great?
Please, blog, may I have some more?