Re: Heh Heh Heh Heh Heh

[Alexander Wang <awang@MIT.EDU>]

Hm, so Way finds some West Coast writer who says that the Boston Celtics 
are a good but not great team. That's supposed to upset us? I think just 
about everyone on the list agrees with that - we're not Sacramento or the 
Lakers - whoa, big surprise. And there's plenty of "sportswriting" in this 
article - writing that wouldn't be accepted as journalism in any other 
field. Really convincing stuff.

Here are some examples:

>Let's take Boston, for example. As solid as the Celtics have been this
>year, does anyone really believe this is one of the best teams in the
>league? Does anyone really think they'll be a factor in the postseason?
>
>If you do, you shouldn't.

Maybe if he means "factor in the championships." Eastern teams play Eastern 
teams until the Finals, so even if five Western Conference teams would be 
favored against them in such a matchup, that doesn't mean that they're "not 
a factor." If all he's saying is that the Celtics are not championship 
contenders, well, that's really controversial, isn't it?

And here's some typical sportswriting:

>If the Boston Celtics
>played the same schedule as a Western Conference team, they'd likely be
>around .500. Maybe.

I guess when you are a sportswriter, you can just casually state these 
things and expect to have them accepted as fact. It wouldn't be that hard 
to find the Celtics' conference records and extrapolate them to try to 
justify this. But why bother when you're a sportswriter?

One initial stab at it: The Celtics are 17-11 (.607) in their conference 
and 6-5 (.545) vs. the West. They play 28 games against the West and 54 
against the East, I believe. If they were in the Western Conference, they'd 
play 30 games against the East and 52 against the West. If you applied 
their current winning percentages to the Western Conference schedule, you'd 
get a 46.5 win team. (Currently if you project using conference totals, 
they'd win 48 games. The differences in schedules isn't as significant as 
might be imagined.)

>Their best player is Antawn Jamison, who has not proven he's in Pierce's
>class. But what about rookie Jason Richardson? If you surveyed the 29
>general managers, it's not a stretch to say most would prefer Richardson
>over Walker, if for no other reason than his potential upside.

I love this statement: IF you actually surveyed the 29 GMs, then "it's not 
a stretch" to say something? What does that really mean? It's 
sportswriter's code for "I think that..." Basically, "I have no evidence 
but I'll try to get some credibility by association by making up quotes 
from actual decision makers." Kind of like Way's "inside sources."

Let's just say in sportswriter terminology that, if you asked the author of 
the article whether he actually watches the Celtics and whether he 
predicted them to finish near the bottom of the Atlantic Division, it's not 
a stretch that he doesn't and he did.

Alex