"Losing pitcher"

Losing pitcher is a stat.

Stats are what sportswriters write.

Losing pitcher goes in.

Annndddd I don't see what else there is to say....

 

Nothing wrong with "losing pitcher".

In my rookie year of journalism, though, I wrote a column with an apology to a softball pitcher.

In my gamer, I said something to the effect of, "Three errors made a loser out of pitcher Sadie Sixbags."

I felt kind of bad about that when her dad/coach brought it to my attention.

 

The dumbed-down H.S. athletics scene of 2009 has many who are bothered by such terminology.

Let's give everyone who participates a trophy, to commemorate their participation.

 

Exactly. Softening the blow by saying "losing effort" - or not referencing it at all - contributes greatly to this.

 

I don't wonder if some form of "don't hurt the kids'/parents' feelings" is how we ended up with the terms "Sam," "Mike," and "Willie" for linebackers at the high school here.

 

No. Those specific terms have been around for at least 30 years.

And linebackers have been getting code names for at least 50 years, and more likely longer. (As evidence, I point you to Bob Oates' story on LBs in the L.A. Times of 12/6/1973, where Dick Butkus relates the Bears' codes of "Stub," "Mac" and "Buck" for strong-middle-weak LBs. Or look at Arthur Daley's column in the N.Y. Times of 12/4/1960, where Tom Landry used the codes "Sam," "George" or "Walter" depending on where he wanted Sam Huff to line up. In fact, in that same column, Daley says the Giants also used "Sarah," "Meg" and "Wanda" when they wanted a specific linebacker to blitz. How's that for feelings?)

 

True, but it's only been recently those nicknames have become widespread in newspapers. I change them to strong, middle and weak in our copy.

And do not get me started on basketball positions being numbers now.

 

Hmm, I can't say I'd call them "widespread" even today. Are that many writers turning in stories with those terms? I see them occasionally, but not really that often. And anyone familiar with football should be aware of them by now, I'd hope.

Like I said, the New York Times was mentioning it 50 years ago. It's not new.

If it's used in a quote, I think it's fine. If it's used in a story about linebackers, I think it's fine there, too. If a writer's using it on his/her own -- which usually means they're trying to be cute by using the coach's code words for a position -- yeah, cut that shit out. If you can't describe a player or a play without using jargon from the playbook, you shouldn't be writing about it in the first place.

 

I just went through all of last night's AP game stories and didn't find the term "losing pitcher" once.

Is this really a reference worth fighting for and worth angering readers for when it's really not necessary?

(By the way, I think "losing effort" sound worse than "losing pitcher." The former sounds like it's describing the person's play, while the latter sounds like a stat. Anyway, nothing wrong with "took the loss.")

 

I guess it's because of the devil on my shoulder, but I also make it a point to use "loser's bracket." Even when writing about youth leagues.

 

It is. You're always going to anger someone; you can't spend too much of your time worrying about who and when. I'd rather write right.