Sports Journalists Basically Talk to Hear Their Own Voice
Aside from the fact that I use the term "journalists" in the loosest way possible, I have to take issue with something I heard on the radio on my way out to practice at the church tonight.
Some douchebag on the FAN (yes, I listen to sports talk radio now... I blame DC) was talking about how the Cardinals' manager (Tony LaRussa) was silly for bumping Jose Reyes for Jeff Weaver to start tonight, basically because Reyes "earned" the start by pitching really well in Game 1, while Weaver didn't overly distinguish himself in Game 2.
I say bullshit. They were basically equally crappy over the course of the season (Reyes with a 5.06 ERA, Weaver at 5.18)... so wouldn't one think that Reyes' start was an anomoly of the highest proportions? The dude threw an 8-inning gem, whereas Weaver was just slightly worse than normal. Maybe FJM has brainwashed me, but doesn't the term "small sample size" mean anything to these people?!? Pardon a moment of nerdiness, but isn't Reyes more likey to regress to the mean? Or worse?!? Whereas Weaver is a relatively known, while still not overly impressive, quantity?
And don't get me started on the idea of pushing Chris Carpenter back to Game 7 if he can pitch Game 6. Why wouldn't you want your ace going with the chance to close out the series as soon as possible?!? Okay, I should stop. I'm starting to get upset.
Actually, considering I'm arguing the point that LaRussa made the right call, even though I kinda want the Cards to lose tonight (thereby forcing a Game 6 for me to attend!) might be a glimpse into how I just like to argue for the sake of arguing... in fact, I often make wildy inaccurate statements that I don't even believe, just to see if anyone will call me on them. Some might consider this assholish, but I just find it an interesting socialogical experiment...
Or maybe I really am just a jerk. :)
Some douchebag on the FAN (yes, I listen to sports talk radio now... I blame DC) was talking about how the Cardinals' manager (Tony LaRussa) was silly for bumping Jose Reyes for Jeff Weaver to start tonight, basically because Reyes "earned" the start by pitching really well in Game 1, while Weaver didn't overly distinguish himself in Game 2.
I say bullshit. They were basically equally crappy over the course of the season (Reyes with a 5.06 ERA, Weaver at 5.18)... so wouldn't one think that Reyes' start was an anomoly of the highest proportions? The dude threw an 8-inning gem, whereas Weaver was just slightly worse than normal. Maybe FJM has brainwashed me, but doesn't the term "small sample size" mean anything to these people?!? Pardon a moment of nerdiness, but isn't Reyes more likey to regress to the mean? Or worse?!? Whereas Weaver is a relatively known, while still not overly impressive, quantity?
And don't get me started on the idea of pushing Chris Carpenter back to Game 7 if he can pitch Game 6. Why wouldn't you want your ace going with the chance to close out the series as soon as possible?!? Okay, I should stop. I'm starting to get upset.
Actually, considering I'm arguing the point that LaRussa made the right call, even though I kinda want the Cards to lose tonight (thereby forcing a Game 6 for me to attend!) might be a glimpse into how I just like to argue for the sake of arguing... in fact, I often make wildy inaccurate statements that I don't even believe, just to see if anyone will call me on them. Some might consider this assholish, but I just find it an interesting socialogical experiment...
Or maybe I really am just a jerk. :)
posted by Iain @ 9:22 PM
1 Comments:
At 4:25 PM,
Iain said…
I'd argue that while, yes, they are independant events, perhaps I phrased it poorly.
What I mean it this: Jose Reyes sucks. He is HIGHLY unlikely to produce two excellent outings in a row. Meanwhile, Jeff Weaver hasn't pitched well in a month.
Hindsight being what it is, Jeff tossed a gem last night. So in any event, while perhaps my argument flawed, I was right. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home