Steve Henson of Yahoo Sports is the latest baseball scribe to write an article about criminally overpaid San Francisco Giants pitcher Barry Zito based on the false premise that Zito was ever an elite Major League pitcher. In his article, Mr. Henson claims that Zito, whose spot in the team's postseason rotation has been taken by a 21-year-old rookie being paid $250,000, was signed to his ludicrous $126 million contract "based on his mostly seven stellar seasons with the Oakland Athletics." Furthermore, Henson falsely asserts, Zito stopped pitching well "upon collecting paychecks from the Giants."
Both of those claims are patently untrue, as I pointed out in painstaking detail back in this 2008 blog entry during spring training:
http://argyleghost.blogspot.com/2008/03/barry-zito-poster-child-for-medias-need.html
Mr. Henson's Yahoo article all-too-predictably comes with the obligatory picture of the still young, handsome and white Mr. Zito. After all, as I pointed out over two years ago, those were the real qualities for which the Giants organization paid so dearly before the start of the 2007 season.
Sadly, baseball writers - even with all evidence to the contrary at their disposal - still mistake "young, handsome and white" for "outstanding and consistent," which begs the question: if they don't understand this fallacy now, will they ever understand it?
Both of those claims are patently untrue, as I pointed out in painstaking detail back in this 2008 blog entry during spring training:
http://argyleghost.blogspot.com/2008/03/barry-zito-poster-child-for-medias-need.html
Mr. Henson's Yahoo article all-too-predictably comes with the obligatory picture of the still young, handsome and white Mr. Zito. After all, as I pointed out over two years ago, those were the real qualities for which the Giants organization paid so dearly before the start of the 2007 season.
Sadly, baseball writers - even with all evidence to the contrary at their disposal - still mistake "young, handsome and white" for "outstanding and consistent," which begs the question: if they don't understand this fallacy now, will they ever understand it?
No comments:
Post a Comment