*Due to the rain out, I decided to post this now, rather than tomorrow afternoon. This is not an open thread, your open thread is below this post.*
The title says a lot about the direction the article is going to go, and in T.J. Simers' article, he definitely followed this idea.
"Marcus Thames can't field, can't hit righties, won't talk about it . . . are you excited yet?"
So, Simers isn't a fan of Marcus Thames', and plans on using statistical evidence to prove why, right?
Simers attacked Thames' character, but used no evidence in the process.
Simers' article began with references to former athletes he has covered that were not receptive to his general disdain toward them. Simers grouped Thames in with that group immediately, due to the sole reason that he was signed to a one year deal.
Simers continued to belittle Thames, and eventually came to his question, one that he asked with no realization of how terrible a question it really was.
"Are you that horrible on defense that teams don't think it's worth playing such a home run threat?'' I asked by way of introduction.
Then, the defense.
Maybe somebody else wastes time schmoozing with Tims/Tems, but he's a one-year rental who has some explaining to do. How bad are you on defense that teams don't dare risk playing you?
Finally, the reference to a completely different situation, one that makes Simers look even worse.
I asked again, because I remember my dealings with [Kenny] Lofton, who would never answer the first question. Eventually he would, while also complaining, "You never write down what I say."
I always told him the same thing. "You're boring, but I come back hoping one day you might say something of interest."
Mr. Simers, aren't you supposed to have a sort of mutual respect with the people you interview? Aren't you supposed to make them not dread talking to you every day, and aren't you supposed to be somewhat appreciative for their responses? Not many players will want to talk to you if you talk to them like that.
Simers babbled more, and finally arrived at the point that everyone in the Dodgers organization is clueless and he is a genius. Of course.After Simers' article was written, I debated whether or not I wanted to write a post about it. I decided not to, as I figured there would never be an article as poorly written as that one.
I was wrong. There was one worse.
In case you haven't heard, after the Giants opening night game at Dodger Stadium a Giants fan wearing a Giants jersey, was brutally beaten by a pair of Dodgers fans.
Bryan Stow, 42, of Santa Cruz, remains in critical condition at Los Angeles County USC Medical Center after a pair of Dodgers fans attacked him after a game Thursday.
Many people are outraged about the attack, including myself. It's almost inconceivable to hear of someone that blames Stow for the attack. Well, John Steigerwald does.
Steigerwald may not have directly blamed Stow for his being attacked, but he made it extremely obvious.
Steigerwald first excuses Dodgers fans, saying that they were just "protecting Dodger turf." Then, Steigerwald wrote another idiotic comment.
Maybe someone can ask Stow, if he ever comes out of his coma, why he thought it was a good idea to wear Giants' gear to a Dodgers' home opener when there was a history of out-of-control drunkenness and arrests at that event going back several years.
There had to have been dozens of Giants fans wearing their teams jersey at the game. There would be dozens of Dodgers fans wearing their jerseys at the game if it was at AT&T Park as well.
Are the 42-year-olds who find it necessary to wear their replica jerseys to a road game, those kids who are now fathers who haven't grown up?
Are there really 40-something men who think that wearing the jersey makes them part of the team? It was cute when a 10-year-old kid got that feeling by showing up at Three Rivers Stadium in a Pirates jersey, but when did little boys stop growing out of that?
Here's tip for you if you actually think that wearing your team's jersey makes you a part of the team:
Steigerwald's belief that adults wearing jerseys is not "cute" is an opinion, not any sort of fact. Suggesting that fans feel like they are part of the team is a generalization, that in my opinion is not even true. When I wear a Yankees jersey I don't feel like I am assisting the team in any way, shape, or form.
Even worse than the two columns is that they have not been taken down, apologized for, or edited properly. Simers' article is a simple attack of a player without justifiable cause, while Steigerwald's is an opinion based nonsensical rant about a tragic event, that shows no remorse for what occurred.
In Steigerwald's article, the only edit reads that the article was read "34174 times."
While the name AND hometown of the injured man were both wrong, they went unedited. Instead, simple boasting about the article being read, mainly by people amazed at how horrible it is.
Articles need to be edited, and sportswriters like Simers and Steigerwald need to be out of jobs. That both articles are still up on their respective websites shows the sad reality of journalism today.