It was a story that we'd never read before.
But on the other hand, it was a story we'd read all too often.
On a night when Yadier Molina went deep into the Gotham night, we should have known that Jayson Stark would have broken out--yet again--the tired and hackneyed template for The Story We've Read Before.
Oliver Perez pitched well on short rest, so OF COURSE Stark whips out the patented hyperbole. The game was decided in the ninth inning, so you knew that Stark just HAD to make dramatic and overwrought comparisons.
And if you still haven't made the connection, Stark was ready to roll out all the annoying stylistic traits you've come to expect from the master of sarcasm fallen flat:
A) the lettered lists A) B) C) D)
B) the explicitly gratuitous italics
C) All the sentence fragments
D) and twice the hyperbole.
Because this is October, and you never know what to expect--unless it's an overwrought story by Jayson Stark.
I guess it was the straw that broke the camel's back. I never knew I hated Jayson Stark's writing style until I was halfway through his Game Seven commentary, and I was like, "Sheesh, how many times previous have I read this?"
There's nothing wrong with appealing to history, but sometimes you just need to let the passage of time do the work. Last night's game was great; I was pacing back and forth in front of the TV by the fifth inning, and I really had no stake in the outcome. No doubt: it was the kind of game you hope for when you turn on the tube at the beginning of the evening.
But you know what? Let's hold off on the Yadier Molina-Bill Mazeroksi comparisons. Time will tell us. If the compare/contrast is valid, I think that we'll be in a better position to evaluate at some point down the road.
No offense to the guy, I know he's got to post his copy. But I just realized: in appealing to the baseball history he loves so often, and so shrilly, Jayson Stark only cheapens the legacies he's trying to preserve.
And yeah: he should try mixing it up stylistically every now and then.