*Now* Plaschke finally gets it

The L.A. Observed post above certainly doesn't help my argument because of frequency, but I'm going to dive in and make it anyway. I could probably take any top columnist in the country, whoever your cup of tea is, and go through their archives and show examples of places where they expressed one opinion and then later expressed another that's in direct conflict with the first. Most of us probably change their opinions on a number of things several times a month, or week.

I've known Bill for a long, long time. My first reaction was that I thought it was interesting that he was willing to say he was wrong. Maybe I'm missing something on why that's a bad thing.

 

WTF is a wonk?

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wonk

 

Which describes 90% of this board

 

91%, and you don't know it.

 

I don't know if it's a bad thing, but the way he went about it came off was a bit caustic as I read it. He said his first impression of the guy was wrong, but called him:

"Nothing more sinister than a numbers cruncher who just couldn't equate with people."

He also doesn't do that much to admit he's wrong. He makes sure you know Moneyball never won a World Series. He makes sure you remember a pair of intangibles guys were jettisoned for a package that included Hee-Seop Choi (no mention is made of Penny or Juan Encarnacion). So just reading this piece, I don't see much admitting. Just one graf in an overall condescending narrative (really, why bring up the Clearasil thing?).

All told I think the guy is an excellent writer. One of his stories a decade ago helped launch my full interest in sports. But I'm not a fan of this piece.

Also, if you want an example of a guy admitting he's wrong, go up north to Tim Kawakami in San Jose. That guy had to face down strongly advocating for a Tim Lincecum for Alex Rios trade in 2007, and he's mentioned being wrong there plenty of times on his blog.

 

If you're going to link his embarrassments, it would be honest to post his good stuff.

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/aug/19/sports/sp-35951

Every columnist in the business has written excrement at some point or another.

 

The only things he should be writing about are 90 year-old USC fans, or the Compton High girls softball team. He should have the Chris Erskine role at the Los Angeles Times.

There is no way he should be opining on competitive sports.

 

Yes, he's good at these kinds of stories.

He sucks at writing about baseball. And basketball, too, for that matter.

 

Writing that indicates that the writer knows crap about baseball.

 

Depends on what you think crap baseball writing is.

You couldn't fill a sink with what Bill Simmons knows about MLB. Yet he is thought to be a great baseball writer.

The rants at least showed Plaschke doesn't have too much sugar in his blood, like a lot of baseball writers championed around here do.

 

By whom? Of the many people in his target audience, including many big fans of his, only Red Sox fans enjoy his baseball writing.