If you're following the conversation today, you have no doubt seen some of us in a kerfluffle (a tizzy, perhaps?) about this absolute gem of anti-analysis writing, courtesy of B/R:
Consider this column an open letter to the buffoons, be they professional writers or Red Sox fans, that actually wasted their time and mine by even speculating on Jeter’s future as anything but a Yankee or on his ability to still play the game after an off-year.
Let the education begin…
Now, before you do what I think you'd like, which is to verbally assault this analysis back to the era from whence it came, I want you to do the opposite. Rather than going all-FJM on it (remember: humor is hard), let's take the higher ground and actually analyze, discuss, and reason out how the following arguments are made.
These are the major bullet points of the article:
1. At the ripe old age of 36 and coming off the worst offensive year of his illustrious career, Jeter is apparently done, according to the self-proclaimed Einsteins of the Web.
2. Jeter needs to move to the outfield. His defense is too poor and he is too old to continue to play that position.
3. Jeter is not worth $20 million per year and is not worth what he expects or will ask for.
5. Bottom line, people… Derek Jeter is a Yankee for life. Anyone thinking otherwise is clueless, a disgruntled Mets fan or a wishful-thinking and bitter Red Sox fan. It’s laughable to think anything else.
(never mind the straw men)
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to take this article seriously.
Not because it's good, or smart, or because this person is planning on applying to FanGraphs, but because this is what we're up against. These are the conditions under which those that reject analysis believe they need to assert themselves. This is what happens when we spend years as an exclusive community, deriding others which haven't yet found the saber-light. Your mission is to attempt a civil response, using reasoned counter-arguments in short form.
1. Submit your reasoned response here in this thread, in less than 300 words, to this article explaining how the argument is flawed and how it can be improved.
2. Absolutely, under any circumstances, no personal attacks. Those will be met with a frown from myself and a knowing scowl from those that expect it. Worse, they'll be deleted and nobody will get to appreciate your attempts at humor.
3. You cannot use links in your article to explain your positions. If you can explain it, you understand it. If you can teach it, you know it.
4, Responses with the most recs will win an old baseball card, possibly worth less than the postage required to send it to you.
This is our first attempt at reaching out to those which reject analysis. We will do so in a reasoned, civil way. We're going to explain in simple terms why the analysis is flawed, and we're going to do our best to show how a better argument can be made. Have fun. -jbopp