A sports columnist wrote an article featured in today's New York Post decrying that an athlete playing for a non-New York sports team was selected (currently) as the best pitcher in baseball.  How audacious!  Scandalous, even.  Imagine, out of the 750 baseball players on active Major League rosters at this moment, none of the 50 players of both New York teams were chosen.   Where did the Post author find such sacrilege, the source of this brouhaha?  Why, none other than Sports Illustrated.

Apparently, in the view of the Post's journalist, the author of the Sports Illustrated article failed to take into account a New York pitcher's proven ability based on more than a decade's worth of statistics, All-Star games, and awards.  Clearly, the Sports Illustrated findings are -pardon the pun- way out in left field.  By this reasoning, he argues:
             
              The conversation about the best current pitcher in the majors starts and ends with Toronto's Roy Halladay and [Johan]     
              Santana, because  they have a little something called credentials. In Santana's case, those credentials now include a streak
              of 19 starts, dating to last year, in which he has not surrendered more than three runs. His ERA in that period is 1.65. His
              record is 11-1, and if he played for a team that either hit for him or played defense well behind him, Santana could very easily
              be 19-0 in that period.

So, as I read this, the Royals' ace can't be the best pitcher right now (as the SI article states directly in the headline on the cover) because he wasn't that stellar LAST year?  Well, if we want to look at overall pitching prowess, Cy Young is currently still the best pitcher in baseball because no pitcher will ever match his win total (511) -or his loss total (316).  However, he did have several seasons of barely above a .500-pitching record.  Be that as it may, Denton True Young is by far the best pitcher today based on his previous success.  After all, he has a pitching award named in his honor, further proof of his celebrated dominance. 

But, I'm sure people will nit-pick and howl in protest that I'm clearly wrong in this matter.  After all, he wouldn't stand a chance pitching in today's game; with all the strategy, pitch counts, ballpark construction...and the fact that he's been dead for 54 years this November. 

OK, that's too outlandish.  We can't put too much emphasis on past stats.  So, how are we to determine who really is the best pitcher if we can't rely on stats from the previous year?  I don't know, maybe use stats from the current sports season?  Does that sound plausible?  What adage do fans hear ad nauseum throughout the sports season?  Something to the effect of: "it's a new year, new beginnings, everybody starts at 0-0," et cetera.

Statistics are designed to illustrate a player or team's value in terms of objective values based on performance.  The numbers derived from data samples such as batting average, earned run average, walks/hits per 9 innings (WHIP), among other points, show the intrinsic value of that player and his/her value on one's team.  Stats from one year to the next tell a story all their own, but if given the choice, who would you rather have play for you: the Michael Jordan from the Bulls, or the Michael Jordan from the Wizards?  The exact same player, but in terms of data, most would take His Airness from the Bulls years.  Unfortunately, "credentials" don't travel from one team to the next, as the New York Post author would like.  If each previous year's values carried over to the next year, then -as an example-  I would gladly take my paychecks from my previous job to my current one.  They're both educational institutions, but not the same pay scale.  Life just isn't fair.  Hence the diversion of sports.

I find this article irritating on two accounts.  First, I find it reprehensible that a journalist should deign not conduct statistical research to support the story on either his or SI's behalf.  I understand that the columnist writes for fans of New York City teams, but he can't be bothered to make the New York City sports fans more informed of the player involved and what he has accomplished.  That cheapens the accomplishments of the player while simultaneously insulting the intelligence of the fans by keeping the stats invisible. 

My second bone of contention rests with the same regional consideration; namely, that New York City and Long Island residents can't accurately name their hometown, treating the New York-metro area as its own distinct universe.  If you doubt this, pay careful attention the next time somebody being interviewed says they live on "Long Island" as opposed to give an actual town.  I know Long Island has towns, I lived and worked in three of them.  And let me tell you, if I listed "Long Island" as my town for a mailing address, there would be a lot of undelivered mail floating around the state right now -could that be where all this unclaimed money you see on the Internet is from? 

New York sports fans have been called the most informed fans in the country.  This is due in part to the massive media outlets in the city and surrounding area, but also because New York teams have performed well across the wide range of professional sports.  Perhaps jealousy at underperforming and overpaid athletes justifies his article, maybe he doesn't appreciate non-New York athletes, or he doesn't fully grasp the fact that statistics serve the same purpose as what this journalist fails to be: an objective source for factual and relevant information.