George Ofman Doesn’t Like When You Draw Negative Conclusions About Him Based On Small Sample Sizes of His Work

In Commentary And Analysis by aisle42460 Comments

Yesterday, George Ofman wrote a post about Alfonso Soriano. I don't have time to fisk the whole thing, and to be honest, I don't really even want to. Soriano has moved on back to New York far away from the meatball lunatics that would boo him based on George's writings, so whatever. But even though it bugged me, I was going to let it go. 

Then I saw a little Twitter conversation between George and Ronan O'Shea:

 

Well, then I just couldn't help myself.

 

 

That got George's attention.

 

We then went back and forth. He stuck with his "BUT IT HAPPENED IN THE PLAYOFFS!" angle and I countered with Andre Dawson and his 2 for 19. Then George came back and said Dawson's CAREER with the Cubs was much better than Soriano's. Then somewhere in there George tried to gloss it all over by saying it was just his opinion.

Of course, as Twitter skirmishes usually do, there were people piling on. Some jumped in on the small sample size argument, some name-called, some tried moving the goalposts themselves, and some pointed out that George has trouble with misspellings in his tweets. George ignored most of that, but seemed to get riled at the misspelling comments, insisting they were simply typos, which they probably were. But that's where I thought I could make a point he might be able to relate to.

George did not like that I had made an assumption about him based on a small sample of his writings and I tried to draw the parallel for him.

And that was the end of the Twitter argument.  Most likely, George just shook his head sadly at his laptop, wondering why I simply. Did. Not. Get. It.  Lord knows, that's how I walked away feeling about him after the back-and-forth.

But I find it hilarious that he took such umbrage at the mere suggestion that someone might, possibly, think about making an assumption about his ability to perform his profession well based on such a ridiculously small sample when he has absolutely no problem doing exactly that to Soriano.

What if I not only decided he wasn't terribly bright because of the typos? What if I decided that George Ofman has the POTENTIAL to be a truly great journalist, but he just won't ever reach that potential because he can't seem to stop making FUNDAMENTAL spelling ERRORS?

What if I started speculating that the reason George Ofman seems prone to making typos in his tweets is because he LACKS FOCUS due to too much time carousing the town, chasing women, and drinking to excess?

Suddenly we have a NARRATIVE!  And then I can start cherry-picking various situations that prove my assertions that George Ofman is a terrible journalist because he is lazy and doesn't care. I can ignore all of the words Ofman spells right and focus solely on the ones he misspells. What fun!

This is what the main stream media does time and time again to athletes, but we can see that when we apply the same type of methods to their own professions/reputations, we can see that George Ofman doesn't like it very much.  Based on this sample, I will also assume that every media member would react similarly and I can say that all media members hate to be treated the way they treat athletes.

I'll say this, it does make writing bold, declarative statements a hell of a lot easier when you can do that.

Share this Post

Comments

  1. Author
    Aisle424

    @ dmick89:

    You spelled Ofman wrong! You are also a terrible journalist! I bet Walter Cronkite never made a misspelling in a tweet or blog comment.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  2. Tim

    George also stated in his article that Soriano’s average WAR with the Cubs was “just of of 1” which is blatantly wrong. I asked George to double check his avg WAR statement via twitter and in the comments section following his article, but no response and no update to the Soriano article. George’s comments simply are not true. Over Soriano’s time with the Cubs, he generated 18.8 wins above replacement, which, averaged over 6.5 seasons, is about 2.9/ Season. If applied on a per game basis to his avg games played, it’s more like ~2.6 or 2.7 / season. Regardless, Soriano’s performance with the Cubs was much better than an average WAR “just shy of 1.” I can’t understand why George wouldn’t correct his statement, or at least respond explaining his approach or source. I guess when the facts don’t support his argument, he chooses to ignore them.

    Here’s the Fangrpahs link with Soriano’s WAR with the cubs: http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2013&month=0&season1=2007&ind=0&team=17&rost=&age=&filter=&players=0

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  3. Author
    Aisle424

    @ Tim:

    Yeah, that’s a whole other thing. I just couldn’t let go him insisting that 28 plate appearances meant anything significant to base a conclusion from.

    It’s not about defending Soriano. There is plenty to criticize Soriano about. Some of it may be his fault, some of it may be out of his control, but it’s not like Soriano was a perfect player.

    But to declare that Soriano was some sort of loser by way of the “evidence” that he didn’t perform well in the playoffs in 2007 or 2008, is just lazy. That’s my problem.

    Now, using blatantly wrong evidence is also bad, but that’s not my point here.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  4. Rich

    And he thinks *you* are making a fool of *yourself*. The man is paid to cover baseball.

    I’m really depressed now.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  5. dmick89

    @ Tim:
    He probably looked around to find the lowest version of WAR. Had all of them agreed, he’d just have made up his own. He’s useless, but I can accept an average of about 1 rWAR per season.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  6. Tim

    Agree with your perspective, I’m just piling on a bit. I’m certainly no Soriano defender, although George’s article is so out of line with reality I find myself defending him, even if indirectly. Soriano is and always has been a flawed player, but that’s no reason to embellish his failures and disregard his contributions. Unfortunately, George probably got what he wanted from all this, more clicks and more attention.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  7. Author
    Aisle424

    Tim wrote:

    Unfortunately, George probably got what he wanted from all this, more clicks and more attention.

    Another reason I wasn’t going to bother with it until the devil on my shoulder got the best of me.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  8. Berselius

    dmick89 wrote:

    @ Tim:
    I agree completely. It always bugged me when all people did was focus on what Soriano can’t do as if that means he’s terrible.

    Same for Castro. Though he has been all-around terrible this year.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  9. Mish

    Soriano was clearly a choking loser when he hit a go-ahead late inning home run in Game 7 of the 2001 WS.

    Too bad that other choking loser, Mariano Rivera, blew that save.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  10. dmick89

    @ Berselius:
    To some extent, I agree. At the same time, I feel as though both the media and the fans let Castro get away with everything his first 2 to 3 years. There was a time (even here to a lesser extent) where it was almost sacrilege to point out Castro’s weaknesses. I know, because I caught some shit for it. It was as if what I had said meant that he was a no-good talent that the Cubs should release on the spot. Had I even dared say on twitter some of the mild criticisms I said here, I’d have been roasted and lost half of the 12 people following me. Half of them would have threatened my life and the other half would have said I should root for the Cardinals and stop masturbating to memorabilia of all their championships. This, by the way, is what I assume most Cardinals fans are doing right now.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  11. EnricoPallazzo

    dmick89 wrote:

    @ Rich:
    That’s my favorite part. He doesn’t realize he’s the fool.

    yeah but he’s getting paid a presumably decent wage so…maybe he’s not the fool? just sayin’.

    rush limbaugh presumably doesn’t believe half of the insane shit that he says. larry the cable guy is a college-educated guy from nebraska who created a whole southern redneck persona to appeal to the lowest common denominator. i could go on but my point is that there is profit to be made by picking a retarded viewpoint and sticking to it no matter what the evidence to the contrary is.

    either way, george ofman is a fucking jerkoff.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  12. shawndgoldman

    I think Nate Silver’s biggest contribution to humanity is an improvement in the understanding of the concept of uncertainty, particularly w.r.t. forecasting systems.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  13. GW

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  14. Rice Cube

    Inside this link is the replay for the play that the internet appears to be blasting Castro about:

    http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2013_07_30_milmlb_chnmlb_2&mode=gameday

    After watching it a few times I THINK they might sort of have a point, but it still looked like a sharply hit ball that would’ve had him slightly out of position. Thing is that with two outs, even with a force at every base, the runners would be going on contact and Castro was being dragged away and I’m not absolutely sure he could have gotten either a force at 2B or the throw off to 1B in time to get Bianchi. I might be wrong about that though. However, if he hadn’t dove, I don’t know whether he catches the ball cleanly or even gets a glove on the ball. My friend who knows baseball better than I thinks it was a tough play but Castro definitely shouldn’t have dove for it. Staying on his feet probably keeps the go-ahead run from scoring.

    What do you guys think?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  15. Rice Cube

    Sorry, don’t mind me…in all the commotion I didn’t realize the ball was a soft liner in the air, and maybe Castro could’ve caught it in the air in a regular manner or played back and thrown across the diamond anyway. Maybe he should have just ran towards it without leaving his feet. Hmm.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  16. Rizzo the Rat

    Mike Trout got on base all 4 times yesterday and all 6 times today. I think he’s developing into a pretty good player, what do you think?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  17. dmick89

    @ Rice Cube:
    I’d say that same type of play is made 70% if the time or better. Like jd said, it wasn’t that tough and should have been made. It wasn’t. I don’t see any real reason to pile on Castro.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  18. J

    Pretty crap play by Castro. He misjudged how hard the ball was hit, and took too shallow of an angle. If he takes a deeper angle, it’s easier to glove in stride, maybe at waist level. Even with the bad angle and awkward dive, it still clunked right off the glove.

    Even a slower SS could probably have laid out for a diving catch. Any MLB player should be able to lay out and catch a softly hit ball. This is the sort of thing 10 year olds in backyards practice doing all the time, and it’s really not hard for a highly coordinated professional athlete to do. It just looks fancy. I’d say it’s a play that gets made 90% of the time.

    On the bright side, by grasping defeat from the jaws of victory, that could easily be worth a spot in the draft.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  19. dmick89

    @ Rizzo the Rat:
    His rest of season ZiPS plus what he’s already done would put him at 9.6 fWAR. If he can be just a bit better than projections he’ll have two 10-WAR seasons after two full seasons in MLB. That’s crazy.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  20. Myles

    I know it’s page-grabby and probably overblown, but it’s conceivable (conceivable, not probable) that Mike Trout ends up the best player ever. He had the best 20-year old season probably ever, and he’s on track to have the greatest 21-year old season ever. It’s hard to start out better than that, and his skillset is such that while he’s at minor risk of speed regression, he has enough power and discipline to still be one of the 5 or so best players in baseball any given year. People might not realize that Trout hit 30 HR last year and is on pace for another 25 or so this year. He’s reduced his strikeout rate while increasing his walk rates (and his ISO has been a steady .237, last year it was .236). If you disregard defensive metrics (which i recommend, generally), he’s better in every single way this year – he might hit 3 less home runs but he’s trading them for 12 doubles and 4 triples. It’s unreal.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  21. dmick89

    @ Myles:
    I’d say he has a chance if he stays healthy, but I’d also say the odds of him ending up being as good or better than the all-time greats is slim. I’d even say that the odds of the Hall of Fame remain pretty small at this point. There’s just too much that can go wrong.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  22. Suburban kid

    The Cubs expect to trade either Schierholtz or DeJesus, tweets Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports, and DeJesus might be more likely. The Pirates are in on both.

    The Cubs appear more likely to trade Schierholtz than relievers Kevin Gregg or James Russell, tweets ESPN’s Jayson Stark.

    Make up your minds, deep goats.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  23. Suburban kid

    There’s also something out there about the Cubs definitely not trading Samardzija at this juncture, so I guess we can expect AC to resurface around March 2017.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

Leave a Comment