2 Review: Jonah Keri

Well, because of a surprise doctors appointment, I was unable to preview game four of the East Finals, and because the Cavs have played well tonight when I am sort of half-assed paying attention to them, I'm attempting to do that right now, as I introduce the masses to a new column called 2 Review, a look at those who the WWL trusts to write on their "Page 2" section of their website. Jonah Keri drew the short stick, and will be the first person I critique. First of all, Jonah... hard core sports fans don't enjoy puns.

The great irony of this awful graphic is that in most cases, a guy who gets on base 40% of the time is usually good for a slugging percentage over .500. But I'll let it slide considering the fact that Keri is only "Special to Page 2." And boy is Jonah special.

This particular column is one written in a response to an eariler column in which Keri supposedly claimed that the Yankees and Cubs would bounce back to have .500 seasons, that the main reason they were doing so poorly was because of bad luck. Well Jonah then launches into the fact that he has been criticized of almost every sort of bias imaginable because of the column:

I've also been accused at various times of East Coast Bias, West Coast Bias, or playing up the big-name, big-market teams, because those are the ones that get featured most prominently on "Baseball Tonight."

Ok, I have two issues with this. First, if you are a human being and you take the time to e-mail a columnist and accuse him of bias? You have too much time on your hands, and you are a loser. You're also a really huge loser if you watch enough Baseball Tonight, which has really turned into an intolerable show, to know which teams are featured more than others, you should really just forget about waking up tomorrow. Second, if you are a columnist and base your columns on addressing your biases or lack thereof based on reader e-mails? You do not understand why people read columns. If people wanted to read " Boston won, Kansas City lost, Cleveland won game four against the Pistons (hell yes!)" they would not read columns, they would read box scores. People want to read columns because they want more: they want opinions, and ususally those come with some bias.

This next paragraph makes me wish I didn't have retinas:

As the season goes on, I'll revisit many more discussions, to see where I went right and where I dropped the easy pop-up and blew the game (it's early, but the Yankees and Cubs are each 2-5 since I talked them up last week). Got an "I told you so" to pass along? Go for it -- your e-mails have been great and help generate story ideas on a weekly basis. But in doing so, please don't accuse me of being a Yankees or Red Sox fan. I freaking hate those guys. (Kidding!)

Kidding! Does this guy eat at Panderosa? Take a freaking stand! In order to shed his bias, Jonah gives us a list of ten of his random thoughts on baseball, and the leadoff thought is that Davey Johnson should replace Sam (Italian last name) as the Orioles manager. Nice job Jonah in picking a team that absolutely nobody gives a shit about to prove you don't have any bias.

Perlozzo isn't the issue in Baltimore: that division is. They don't have one element of the game that is the best in that division. They don't have the best rotation (Red Sox), lineup (Yankees or, if Yook keeps swining a scorching bat, the Red Sox), bullpen (Sox), defense (Blue Jays), or team speed (Devil Rays). Davey Johnson will not help this, nobody will. Peter Angelos is content to let his team wallow in the nothingness of the AL East ever since the MLB gave the go-ahead for the Washington Nationals to play in what Angelos considered "his area." The Orioles need a new owner, not a new manager.

Thats one point down, nine to go. Point two was about the Memorial Day Weekend series sweeps. That weekend is over by the way. Old news is tricky to write in columns, and it doesn't work here because there were too many, and it really serves no point to acknowedge them all. Describe a trend, note an occurance, but always have a calendar next to your computer when writing a column.

Points numbers 3, 8, 9, and 10 have to do with either the Yankees, Red Sox, or Barry Bonds. Those three items don't get talked too much about, and nobody has ever accused anyone who writes about them to be biased. (Kidding!)

Two other points focus on either how the Reds are bad at defense, which isn't earth shattering considering they always have been, but only last year was it news because they were able to overcome it and contend for the NL Central even into the last week of the season. This year they are god awful, so where's the story? This just in: The worst team in the National League is bad at defense. Wonderful. The other point is how the Rangers should pack it in, and after they are done doing that they should give up on the season (rimshot). Great, two points on how the worst team in each league is bad and isn't getting better. Didn't take much to dig these two up.

The last two points focus on how the Astros can get better (well done) and who could contend for Rookie of the Year honors in a field that is pretty thin (also well done). Two points out of ten are relevant, non-biased, good work. That then is the score I give him. Jonah Keri: 2 out of 10.