Flip-flopping away.

People often flip-flop when writing. One week they might write something, then things might change, and they might write something different the following week. We have all done it. However, flip-flopping, twice, in one article? Call the fellas at the Guinness Book of Records. There's something crazy going on here.

Calvinist in Chief, Dan Shaughnessy, decided to tear into the duck-in-a-barrel that is David Ortiz after last night. Well, first he defended him. Then he attacked him. Then he defended him. Then he attacked him.

It would set your head into an unstoppable spin. if you let it.

First off Dan rationally opined:

‘’Now we know the Red Sox are not going 162-0. Two games is a very small sample.’’

Then he wrote:

‘’The David Ortiz Dilemma is real. Big Papi went 0 for 4 last night and is hitless in the first two games. He made the final out of three innings. He struck out miserably with a man on second and two outs when the game was tied, 4-4, in the fifth’’.

So, which is it Dan, is two games a small sample, or is the Ortiz dilemma, after two games, really serious? You can't have both!

A further double-flip followed shortly.
Again; which is it, Dan?

Quote 1 ''We love the Big Fella, but it looks very much like it’s over''
Quote 2: ''It’s not fair to give up on Ortiz based on a couple of games''

My head is spinning.
I need some Advil and a Red Bull, or to just stop reading Shaughnessy.

How soon we forget...