I’m sure all sportswriters, no matter the platform, know who Jason Whitlock is. In case you don’t know, here’s a brief recap: he’s written for the KC Star, ESPN, AOL Sports and currently, FOX Sports, and has burned bridges with all of his former employers, due in part to his incessant race baiting and all around defiant attitude. An article has been floating around the blogosphere today where Whitlock claims that “stat geeks are ruining sports”. As an avid fan of sabermetrics myself, I found this statement to be incredibly short-sighted and ignorant.
Whitlock opens his piece by claiming that sabermetrics have ruined baseball, because “it’s no longer enough to be down with OBP (on-base percentage). To talk the game, you now must understand OPS (on-base percentage plus slugging), VORP (value over replacement player), BABIP (batting average on balls in play) and on and on.” This is simply not the case. I know plenty of baseball fans who don’t subscribe to sabermetric theories. They understand them, but they don’t treat them as gospel like Whitlock assumes everyone must. Also, trashing OPS? Here’s the formula for OPS: on-base percentage PLUS slugging percentage EQUALS OPS. Oh my god, it’s so complicated. That statistics class I took my sophomore year of college didn’t prepare me for that!
The article then claims that sabermetrics end all discussion on things like the Hall of Fame. I hate to break it to you Jason, but when you’re looking at a player’s Hall of Fame candidacy, what are you supposed to look at aside from statistics? If you ignore statistics, you get joke selections to the Hall like Tony Perez and Jim Rice, because voters look at superficial, non-quantifiable things like “he was feared” and so on and so forth. This isn’t the Hall of Fear, it’s the Hall of Fame. If you’re going to select people for the Hall based on factors like fear, where the hell is the super meancing Al Hrabosky? He wasn’t a Hall of Fame caliber player when looking at his statistics, but dammit, HE WAS A SCARY LOOKING DUDE! When talking about a player’s candidacy, what is the first thing that gets rattled off? Statistics. Bert Blyleven was one of the best pitchers of the 1980s, and almost got screwed out of the Hall of Fame because writers didn’t realize just how good he was. How is Blyleven getting elected to the Hall a negative thing? He was elected solely based on the work of the sabermetric community, who gave one of the most underrated pitchers of his time his due.
To get off the baseball train for a minute, Whitlock talks about the NBA MVP race last spring, mentioning that basketball analysts favored LeBron James and Dwight Howard over Derrick Rose, who’d eventually win the award. He shoots down Howard’s candidacy because Howard was a, and I quote, “whiny, immature crybaby-ass”. So now professional writers are name calling? The only immature one in this situation is Whitlock, who can’t seem to let go of the tenets he’s held so near and dear to his heart for years upon years. Sports are changing before our very eyes, and we can measure things that we’ve never been able to measure before. This should be a very exciting time. Instead, someone like Jason Whitlock is here to drag our sails down and go back to the time where batting average is king.
Then, Whitlock goes onto a crusade against fantasy sports. Without fantasy sports, a hell of a lot less people would give a damn about real sports. If you’re not playing fantasy baseball, why would you care about a Royals-Twins game in September if you’re not a fan of either team? But if you have Billy Butler or Alex Gordon on your fantasy team, all of a sudden that meaningless game means a hell of a lot. Fantasy sports also increases the awareness that fans have towards certain players. If it weren’t for fantasy sports, no one outside of Queens would care about Daniel Murphy of the Mets. But with fantasy sports in the equation, fans across the country can care about this unremarkable guy because he plays multiple positions and is productive at the plate. He’s fallen under the radar of all the mainstream outlets, but fantasy sports players know who he is, and give him his due because of his good season.
“Peyton Manning is the kind of fantasy football, therefore, he is the king of real football”. Peyton Manning: fourth among all QBs in points last season, including behind Whitlock’s beloved Michael Vick. Further proof that Whitlock doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He then goes on to bash Manning’s lack of playoff success. Hey Jason, guess what? Before the final two years of his career, John Elway (who you’re convinced is the best QB or all time) didn’t have a ring. Manning’s got one. Pot, meet kettle.
Whitlock says he wants to discuss and debate sports with people who don’t quote stats. I’d like to hear a conversation about sports without stats.
“That Albert Pujols, he’s a great hitter, huh?”
“Damn right”
:silence:
If you’re not going to talk about any stats, what are you talking about? The stories behind the players? Leave that stuff to Tom Rinaldi. I come to watch the game on the field, and a player’s donations to charity or his benefit programs don’t come into play on the field. If you’re big into human interest pieces, that’s fine. Just don’t disparage how other people enjoy the game, because it’s absolutely silly to do. Whitlock concludes his piece by saying “I hope the sabermetricians STFU”. How classy, Jason. Personally, I hope you go back into your hole and stop writing about baseball. For the record, Whitlock’s last column on FOX Sports about baseball came more than a year ago, where he didn’t explore anything that happened involving the game, but instead, a manager on an independent league team using a homosexual slur towards an umpire. Well done Jason, your article on sabermetrics stuck your nose into a place that it knows nothing about. Take a bow.
