1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jason Whitlock's column. Anyone else disagree?

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by SkiptomyLou, Sep 22, 2011.

  1. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    Andy Dolphin also runs the best text-based sports simulation games ever written. His football leagues are legendary.
     
  2. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    No one gives a crap how you follow baseball. But when there's a whole school of baseball following that dictates that if I don't accept WAR as the be-all-and-end-all and don't hang Juan Pierre and Joe Morgan in effigy and do say David Price wouldn't have been the worse Cy Young winner last year, I'm a hopeless Luddite, then I think there's a reason for hackles to be raised
     
  3. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    You can enjoy baseball on whatever level you want. But if something can be empirically proven and you reject it, you are wrong. That's okay, lots of people are wrong about lots of things and still live happy lives. It's the human condition.
     
  4. JC

    JC Well-Known Member

    Big difference between not accepting WAR and being deliberately obtuse.
     
  5. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    Baseball isn't some fucking science lab. There are sooo many factors that will take those numbers you think are set in stone and throw them asunder. Shockley said he had empirical evidence, too.
     
  6. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    Argumentum ad hominem. A eugenicist once used science, so therefore it's worthless.

    All I ask is that we cross-check baseball beliefs with facts. If you believe that a player hit 26 home runs in his rookie year, we can look that up. If you believe that Jack Morris pitched better in close games than he did in blowouts, we can look that up. If you believe that some players hit significantly better with runners in scoring position, we can look that up (and, incidentally, they do).

    The entire universe is a fucking science lab.
     
  7. It's a little scary when journalists categorically reject new facts -- or new ways to assess generally accepted facts -- because it makes the old ways less "magical."
     
  8. While there's a distinct possibility I'm wrong, I'm pretty sure this column is the ultimate example of Whitlock writing something just to stir up controversy and page views. And it's sad that it works because I feel like I've read 20 other hacky columns trying to make the same worthless point.

    Hey, if you don't like advanced stats, don't pay attention to them. I don't think I've heard Vin Scully talking about FIP or BABIP lately. Relax, old-timers.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page