A few weeks ago, FOX Sports columnist Jon Morosi wrote an especially frustrating piece on the unexpected woes of the Toronto Blue Jays. It was disconcerting not for offering a particularly revealing examination of an ugly and unconsidered truth, but rather because it was the type of column for which the writer very clearly had a narrative-based idea in mind, and then sought out evidence to support it, as opposed to formulating an idea based on the information collected. The result was a column steeped in small sample citations, cherry-picked data and quotations from questionable sources.
It angered me. And so, I wrote a piece in response to the original article in the heat of my righteous indignation.
It was stupid, not because I was wrong in my criticism, but because I was outraged over a column about baseball. Morosi’s writing was an estimated thirty-five times removed from anything resembling importance or relevance, and yet it succeeded in making me feel petulance to the point of expression. This is only made more regrettable by considering that such a reaction was quite possibly the very goal of the author.
I thought of this last night when social media went berserk over the idea of the Miami Herald’s Dan Le Batard voting for someone other than LeBron James for the NBA’s Most Valuable Player.