Monday, May 22, 2006

Page 2's demise

Page 2. I once revered this section as a comical delight. The writers provided a comedic twist on the sports world that was more daring than the generic breed of writers (that is not to say they were without restrictions but there was a sense of greater freedom). With the growing number of pieces restricted to insider, I've spent more time on Page 2, but have been supremely disappointed by the work of multiple writers.

Part 1: Patrick Hruby's assault on Bonds
I hate Bonds. Steroid user. Racist. Abusive figure that pretends to be a victim. When Page 2 responded to his 714th round tripper I was thrilled. They had done what every statisician dreams of doing in the wake of Bonds' outright cheating: determine Bonds' true home run total without the cream, gel, juice, and whatever other substances entered Barry's system.

Research with steroid and physics specialists, equations and numerical computations...Patrick Hruby was on his way to becoming my hero until numbers don't start matching up. He calls 16% and 22% "in the same ballpark" and somehow considers this massive discrepency negligible.

Then to validify his sub-totals, Hruby approaches Bonds' homers from an aging perspective as opposed to the strength and stamina angle. Surely his calculations will correspond and confirm the numbers that he is essentially deriving straight out of thin. Then out come the two totals: 69 and 83 which is "pretty close".

To utterly erase any shred of authority that article was clinging to, Hruby then pulls a number right out of his ass to signify the number of home runs that we generated as a result of the confidence boost Bonds' enjoyed while using steroids. 15 home runs should be erased (three per year) according to Hruby (who is an expert in what) and one scout's comments on confidence.

Hruby go back to your little useless daily dimes; you should leave the numbers to the big boys. Your statisical approach was abismal and ultimately was a disgrace to guys like Tim Kurkjian and Alan Schwarz, who aren't directly affiliated with any statisical organization but still successfully incoporate numbers into their articles on ESPN.

No comments: