Fire Jim Tracy

Wednesday, March 02, 2005

Must...Save...Energy

I was going to fisk Plaschke today, but I need to save my thunder for the season. It's going to be a long year. So I'm saving it for when it counts. A few random observations, however:

1) The comparison between Bradley and Guillen is at least incomplete, and probably dishonest. Plaschke discusses none of the mitigating factors in the bottle incident (namely, that Bradley had the bottle thrown at him first), nor does he give any evidence that Bradley is like Guillen in "ripping pitchers" or "lying about clubhouse meetings." They're fairly obviously distinguishable. Now, of course, draw your own conclusions about what those distinguishing features mean. But deal with them honestly. And present proof, rather than vague generalities and accusations.

2) Bradley and Drew disagreed about centerfield, then kissed and played nice. Don't believe it? Fine. But isn't it relevant? Of course it is.

3) Plaschke makes the ludicrous argument that the trade (This should have said "suspension." I really need to stop blogging in the morning.) "resulted" in an "amazing division championship." Of course, this same cause-and-effect argument can be made for DePodesta's trade. But to take it one more step, this was Bill Plaschke last year:

"The McCourts deserve a chance. Heaven knows, even with loans, they spent enough for that chance....

It has been 15 years since your team last won a playoff game," he said. My first objective here is to end that drought."

To close this deal, he must pipe down and do it.

Well, he "did it." Right? Cause and effect? Funny how that simple formula gets more complicated when the Dodgers are involved.

4) If David Eckstein's name was Alex Cora, this column would have been about Angel Math. Plaschke's biases are so pronounced, he might as well plug them into a computer and have it generate a column.

It would not surprise me at all if the Dodgers win 75 games this year (all right, that would surprise me a little bit). But why is so much criticism of the Dodgers (and not just in the Los Angeles Times) so lacking in customary intellectual rigor? Are the sportswriters dumb? Or are they writing (or including radio and TV, talking to) for an audience they think is dumb? Neither answer is particularly comforting.

UPDATE: Critical mass starting to gather. I missed the "indeed" because the Plaschkers monster is tricksy. It was in the first sentence of a THREE sentence paragraph.

Meanwhile, Jon Weisman checks in with a thorough fisking of Plaschke, particularly covering the differences between Bradley and Guillen in a far better way than I did. I suspect that Jon stepped in because this one matters more than usual, particularly to Milton Bradley, who would probably prefer to be convicted for his own crimes, and not Guillen's.

UPDATE 2: This may be relevant. (Warning, kids: This one may not be for you. Probably no kids reading, but I like to be thorough when it comes to the kids.)

5 Comments:

  • steve, found your blog through at link at Dodger Thoughts. Doesn't anyone else read this wonderful blog? your comments on Plaschkers are brilliant and I'm in complete agreement. I subscribe to the Times, I hate Plaschke and Simers but I'm compelled to read them...in the same way that people are fascinated in watching slow motion car crashes and train wrecks. you keep writing and I'll keep reading! rgds, will albers

    By Blogger walbers, at 3/02/2005 10:09:00 AM  

  • Steve,

    I can't believe you didn't mention the line, "It starts at the top, indeed" on paragraph 43.

    This column is a new level of suck for Mr. Bill. Just abysmally unfair and biased.

    By Blogger Icaros, at 3/02/2005 10:49:00 AM  

  • I've been avoiding Plaschke and Simers' articles like the plague, but I have to admit I read this one. I feel tainted. This column actually made my blood boil. What is this anti-McCourt and anti-DePo fixation both of them have? Keep giving it to 'em. There's got to be some way to petition for one or both to lose their jobs so that a good columnist can come in (and by that, I do NOT mean Skip Bayless).

    By Blogger jeongers, at 3/02/2005 11:22:00 AM  

  • With regards to the link that you posted about "BS", sometimes I am not even sure that Plaschke believes what he is writing.

    I honestly believe that Plaschke is pandering.

    By Anonymous ladodger34, at 3/04/2005 12:56:00 AM  

  • >>Are the sportswriters dumb?<<

    Doesn't this question answer itself?

    By Blogger Rob, at 3/04/2005 08:24:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home