The reason why it was a poorly written article is because it was intentionally inflammatory and insulting to Baker when it didn't have to be. A well written journalistic article would have simply argued the facts, without calling Baker an idiot, without the condescending, know it all tone, without using all caps to make his point.
It read like a post on the ESPN message board, not one written by a professional journalist.
"Man, the pitch looks fast, even in slow motion." Thom Brennaman on Chapman's fastball.
Strong opinion: on average, a cubs fan is more tolerable than a cards fan. Oblivious > entitled. Cubs fans can also out-drink cards fans.
As far as stating your opinion goes, sure, you have the right to do so. But fighting name calling with name calling doesn't really constitute good argument. Neither does backing up your opinion with the statement that you have the right to it.
It's cool, though. I'm not trying to pick a fight. I suspect we ultimately see eye to eye on the Baker issue -- just not on how Schoenfield wrote about it.
Last edited by RedEye; 04-16-2013 at 09:44 PM.
"Iíll kind of have a foot on the back of my own butt. Thatís just how I do things.Ē -- Bryan Price, 10/22/2013