Barry - 1 more year? What's your take? (+ some commentary)

Dude just responded to himself. Is this when we get the straps and straitjackets out?

Good God.

 

One paragraph of that lengthy diatribe was Bond's related. Shouldn't the rest be deleted?

 

Fixed even better.

 

Very well could be.

 

Here is some of the first concrete evidence that the public's attitude towards Barry Bonds is changing:

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-moneybonds11jul11,1,3219636,print.story?coll=la-headlines-sports

Now, the article is about Barry's lack of marketability, nominally.

However, about halfway down the article is this very telling - and also very altered since similar polls were taken, say, a year ago - piece of information:

Of those surveyed, 40% said they are rooting for him, while 38% said they aren't.

You read that correctly -- a majority of people are now rooting for Bonds to break the all-time HR record.

Expect the strength of that majority to climb in the absence of any new, substantial information being released which implicates Bonds.

If this trend continues, as I believe it will (with the 'new evidence' caveat), how long before those in the sports media most eager to sink Bonds are forced to abandon their Ahabian quest? In other words, how long can the tail of the media 'wag the dog' of the public - it's consumers - when (and if) the consumers declare that they have made their own decision, irrespective of the 'guidance' provided by the media?

Should be interesting, if the trends continue as they are.

Coming back to the core subject of this thread, if the public continues to come to Bonds' side over the course of the next 9 months, how will the media cover him if and when he decides to continue his career next year? With the same level of venom some have employed? More ambivalently, as a figure like Lance Armstrong is often covered?

Peace.

 

Good, good. I was concerned you would not have time to read such a lengthy article. Glad you got a chance to peruse at least two paragraphs of it.

As far as the 'nominally' goes, I guess it depends on what you think is the most relevant aspect of the story. Bonds' lack of marketability has been covered in some detail in any number of articles; his being cheered on to the HR record by a majority of any sample of fans has not. Why? Because such a sample hasn't been existent, at least not in any large, heterogeneous survey.

You are correct, the article is about Bonds' lack of marketability. And on that score I was wrong to use 'nominally.' That was the editor in me getting ahead of myself. When I see such a significant piece of information buried in an otherwise fairly routine article, it sticks out immediately. Perhaps the story was written before the survey results were received. Perhaps the survey results were not what the author and/or editor wished to highlight. Not sure. But if I'm looking to break news, that is clearly the fresh news in the piece.

But I was wrong to use 'nominally.' I admit that. As per usual, that has never been a sticking point for me at SJ. I hope that affliction is contagious.

Anyway, thanks for taking time to edit my post. Much obliged. Any chance you have time to serve as an adjunct spell-checker to myself for my posts? I could use that.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Anyway, time to return to the substance of the thread. Feinstein's mistake when filling in for Rome today was that he was not able to stay focused on his supposed main topic. I don't want to fall into the same trap but for a misused word, or a misspelling, as the case(s) may be. To return to the stunning LA Times information which is at the cutting-edge of the Bonds story - a majority of people now support Bonds:


Of those surveyed, 40% said they are rooting for him, while 38% said they aren't.


If the trend continues, and the public increasingly comes to support Bonds and his HR chase as these amazing new numbers suggest they are beginning to do, how long can the media 'tail' continue to 'wag the dog' of a public - the media's consumers - which could be resoundingly telling its news suppliers that it has moved on? How long can figures such as a Lupica or others who have been hammering at Bonds continue their hounding of a man who has never failed a steroid test and who has not (to this point) been indicted or implicated in the George Mitchell investigation before the public turns on those whom some have alleged are leading a 'witch hunt' against the Giants slugger?

If these survey numbers are to be believed, and in the face of any new, substantial evidence/indictment(s) against Bonds, it would appear we may be on our way to getting answers to the questions posed in the previous paragraph. The next such survey should give us a better indication of where the public is at, and if these numbers are reflective of a momentary blip or else the beginning of a irrevocable statistical shift in public opinion in favor of the 42-year-old slugger.

If Lance Armstrong's saga is any indication, it would appear that the public has it's own 'statute of limitations' on persecuting sports legends who are not definitively proven to have intentionally committed misdeeds. We're all familiar with the reality of "Clinton fatigue," which followed the innumerable investigations into our previous president's (and his wife's) alleged illegal activities. Even after he was found to have committed what ended-up being impeachable offenses, the public yet tired of the constant 'scandal' wolf-crying.

How much faster, then, might the public weary of a story which has to this point resulted in exactly zero indictments, zero failed steroid tests, and zero MLB disciplinary actions against Barry Bonds? The BALCO trial, I believe, has been going on for 5 years. The LA Times survey results seem to suggest that the public might have reached its own tipping point in the media-driven attempts to bring down what is soon to be the greatest home run hitter in American history.

 

Cripes.

A majority of Americans aren't supporting Bonds. A slight majority of people polled are supporting Bonds. There's a difference.

 

Apple not falling far from the tree, eh boys?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/sports/baseball/11fans.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

I'm going to assume that the NY Times and CBS news know how to run a methodologically-sound, representatively-sampled poll and poll analysis. Perhaps that's why the woman who wrote the above column starts out with the words "Americans in general," and not "Sampled Americans in general."

But you never know. The Times has been wrong before. As has CBS News.

And you're correct. 'Majority' is not the correct term to use. 'Plurality' is. Another of my numerous mistakes.

 

Here's the pertinent sentence: The nationwide telephone poll was conducted among 1,125 adults.

 

These might prove useful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_inference

When I said that I trust that the NYT and CBS News know how to run a methodologically-sound, representatively-sampled poll, I was referring to their ability (or whatever 3rd-party agency they may have retained) to use commonly-employed statistical sampling methods which enable the pollsters to make sound statistical inferences.

In English: if you know how to conduct a poll (making it a nationwide poll is a good place to start, rather than, say, a Bay Area poll) properly, you can be fairly certain that the results can be used to discuss whatever larger population you are seeking to describe (America) with a high degree of accuracy. That's why the article's author describes 'oversampling,' etc. at the end of the article, to try to make the poll's methods more transparent and thus believable to those who are conversant in statistical methods. Kind of a 'show your work' thing.

No poll is perfectly representative, which is why you always have a disclaimer of "this poll is accurate within +/- x % points," whatever the number may be.

This isn't a new or untested practice; people (think John Zogby) spend their entire careers conducting polls. Politicians' elections hinge on the exactness of this discipline. It's a fairly well-understood practice.

And that's why the author of the article, again, feels confident saying "Americans in general," and not "Sampled Americans in general." Whoever did the poll told her that she could reliably say "Americans" instead of the qualified alternative. The NYT and CBS News, particularly given recent history, are not in the business of making claims which result in their looking like fools. The poll had to be checked and rechecked, and editor(s) had to approve the usage of "Americans" over "Sampled Americans."

After the poll and its conclusions had been vetted, the author felt comfortable referring to Americans as a whole given the survey results. And so did I.