The more things change . . .

The motto over at FJM is "where bad sports journalism comes to die," and while I will rarely approach the high standard they have established when it comes to ridiculing bad sports writing, I hope you don’t mind if I try.

Which brings us this from earlier this week, courtesy of Stephen Miller, a sports reporter for the Allentown Morning-Call. It is edited to reduce the length [and maximize my point of view of course]. Hopefully you will enjoy.


SM: The first full week of January is no time for making final pronouncements on a baseball team's prospects for the new season. Pitchers and catchers still have six weeks to report to spring training. Roster tinkering will continue around the majors.

MM: All true. So I wonder what this Phillies column is going to be about. An in-depth examination of the decision to move Bret Myers back to the rotation? Perhaps a historical comparison of the off-season moves each of the past five seasons that were supposed to take the team to the next level? Maybe even an objective analysis of Pat Burrell's career as he enters the final year of his contract? I'm so excited… What could it be?


With that knowledge, we look at the Phillies at the start of 2008.

Oh.


So better or worse? That is the question of the moment. From here, the Phillies look like a team that should fall two to three games on the plus or minus side of last year's 89-73 record.

Really? That is some top-notch baseball analysis. I happen to agree, but I also don't think it deserves an entire article, especially this far from Spring Training. Then again, you are a professional sports reporter, so maybe you have some insight or access that we don't. Let's hear it.


That sentence is written knowing one significant injury or trade could change the entire equation.

Sure. My bad. I forgot to let you finish with your equivocation. Please proceed.


The Phillies have done an outstanding job of plugging holes during the season in general manager Pat Gillick’s first two years, even if his offseason moves haven't always worked out.

On the whole, I would tend to disagree. And since you don't provide any evidence to back your argument, I won't either. Okay, that's not really fair. The evidence is there, but I'll save it for a separate post. Back to your expert analysis.


As those moves happen, there will be time and space to debate their impact.

Wait. I thought that's what you were doing. What was the point of this article again?


As of today, however, it's hard to see the Phillies leaping into the 95-100 win region or stumbling below 85 wins.

I agree. The past five years they won 86, 86, 88, 85, and 89 games. Your reasoning?


The Phillies' position-player core is nearly identical to the one that ended last season.

True. But it is significantly different from the 2003, 2004, and 2005 teams that averaged about 87 wins. So what else?


Pitching could be better.

Rrriiiggghhhttt... Sure, I agree. But is there a general manager or manager anywhere in baseball who, regardless of their roster, doesn't mutter this in their sleep every night?


This next one is a classic:

Relief pitchers are notorious for their volatility, so it's hard to predict how they will perform from year to year.

Then why did you write this? Why are we reading your article? Cue Admiral Stockdale, "Who am I? Why am I here?"


So overall, are the Phillies better or worse? They figure to have a similar finish in 2008 to the one they had in 2007. [But] we'll save the official pronouncement for the end of spring training.

Good lord... And that's ten minutes of my life I'll never get back…


Epilogue: Now I realize this wasn't the intent of the article (although maybe it should have been), but when you look at the last five seasons (86, 86, 88, 85, and 89 wins), it seems to me that, in order to "leap into the 95-100 win region," the first order of business should be to identify what has remained constant over those years and determine whether or not that is what is holding the team back. So...

Nearly all the players have changed. There has been a managerial change. There has even been a change at general manager. The biggest constant over those years – besides Pat Burrell, Brett Myers, and Jimmy Rollins – has been ownership. It is not my intention to bash them, but maybe the problem isn't the players, or the manager, or even the general manager – although they all clearly share some of the responsibility. Perhaps the owners need to take a good look in the mirror and decide whether they are committed to winning in Philadelphia – or just making money.

Ultimately, this issue is complex enough that it warrants its own post or – hey, here's a thought – it's own article written by a real-life professional sports reporter. Anyone know where we can find one?

---