Thanks for stopping by! If you like what you read, tell your friends! If you don't like what you read, tell your enemies! Either way, please post a comment, even if it's just to tell us how much we suck! (We're really needy!) You can even follow us @JasonBerner! Or don't! See if we care!

Monday, April 13, 2015

Meet the Mets...Later

Does it make sense to record sporting events? I ask this question as I sit here, typing, with the Mets game on--a Mets game that I assume ended several hours ago. I recorded the game because I like the Mets and, living in the Bay Area, I don't get to see them with any regularity. So, on those occasions when they ARE on national TV, I feel almost obligated to watch them--which generally means recording the games, as the games usually start (or in the case of day games like today's, start and end) while I'm at work. But does it make sense?

I mean, I fast forward through the commercials. But when I do that, I think, y'know, I could also fast forward to move more quickly from one batter to the next.  But if I'm going to do that, I could pretty much just skip to "interesting" moments: Maybe I could keep speeding through until I see runners on base.  But if I do that, why not just skip to the end to see who wins? Or just go to Nymets.com and check the score?  Because if I watch the whole game and they actually lost, am I not just setting myself up for disappointment? Leaving aside for the moment the reasonable question of whether being a Mets fan is, by definition, setting myself up for disappointment?  Is watching a recorded sporting event really nothing more than a sort of magical thinking?

1 comment:

  1. And finally, the penny drops.
    Virtually ALL sports (and no, golf is still not one) is comprised of approximately 15 minutes of action interrupted by HOURS of scratching, spitting, and inane chatter by brain damaged sportscasters (redundant, I know).
    That's WHY most people watch it. They can nap and not miss a thing