1. Andy Brandt said...

    I didn’t get this at first.  Then I remembered trying to get people to not boo Izzy last year.

    They are very similar the more I think about it.  I had to defend both of them a lot in their last years.  I had been defending both of these players while they were performing well and it carried over to when they were tanking.

    Izzy because he always “makes it interesting.”  Cards fans would say this if a man got on base in the 9th.  If 1 man gets on base, that’s a 1.0 WHIP.  Not considered bad.

    Duncan was hated because of his defense (even when he was hitting).  Even though his defense numbers weren’t as bad as people thought.

    What does Media Runs On Duncan mean?  I thought the fans gave them this treatment.  At least the unfair treatment.

  2. TUCK! said...

    @Andy Brandt: Thanks for the thoughtful comments.

    As you surmise, I thought Jason Isringhausen might’ve had a different take on (elder Duncan’s) apparent assessment of son Chris’ treatment (apparently, per Dave, at the hands of both media -and-fans).

    And since you asked, the “Media Runs on Duncan” is a play on the Dunkin Donuts slogan (America Runs on Duncan), all the while (also) playing on the St. Louis/local media’s apparently contentious relationship with Dave.\

    Thanks for viewing. See you next week.


  3. Wood said...

    Full disclosure, I am a Cardinals fan.  Chris Duncan would have been fine if he had taken himself out of consideration (because of the injuries he is now using as the excuse for his utter lack of power the past two years) or if the managers and coaches would have stopped playing him.  It’s hard to argue there was no nepotism involved in his playing time considering he was only in the lineup to hit for power and he stopped doing that two and a half years ago.  Duncan’s reactions the past few months only increase the evidence that Duncan was unable to separate the business and performance relationship from the personal.  No one expected Dave Duncan to stop being a father, but he shouldn’t act like his son was singled out because of his name, when it was actually because of his performance on the field (real or perceived).

  4. TUCK! said...

    @Wood: Thanks for your thoughtful note as well; I’ve gotten a ton of response (both here (see: Andy Brandt) and at
    ) pretty much echoing what you’ve posted, so thanks for taking it “public”. It’ll be interesting to see where this goes after the season ends and Duncan’s contract is up.

    I also think it’s interesting that towards the end of Isringhausen’s tenure with the Cardinals, similar sentiments were said (ie, “he was injured, should have taken himself out sooner,” etc.). The parallels here are really interesting. One wonders (Ankiel?) who’s next…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>