George Ofman Doesn’t Like When You Draw Negative Conclusions About Him Based On Small Sample Sizes of His Work

Yesterday, George Ofman wrote a post about Alfonso Soriano. I don't have time to fisk the whole thing, and to be honest, I don't really even want to. Soriano has moved on back to New York far away from the meatball lunatics that would boo him based on George's writings, so whatever. But even though it bugged me, I was going to let it go. 

Then I saw a little Twitter conversation between George and Ronan O'Shea:

 

Well, then I just couldn't help myself.

 

 

That got George's attention.

 

We then went back and forth. He stuck with his "BUT IT HAPPENED IN THE PLAYOFFS!" angle and I countered with Andre Dawson and his 2 for 19. Then George came back and said Dawson's CAREER with the Cubs was much better than Soriano's. Then somewhere in there George tried to gloss it all over by saying it was just his opinion.

Of course, as Twitter skirmishes usually do, there were people piling on. Some jumped in on the small sample size argument, some name-called, some tried moving the goalposts themselves, and some pointed out that George has trouble with misspellings in his tweets. George ignored most of that, but seemed to get riled at the misspelling comments, insisting they were simply typos, which they probably were. But that's where I thought I could make a point he might be able to relate to.

George did not like that I had made an assumption about him based on a small sample of his writings and I tried to draw the parallel for him.

And that was the end of the Twitter argument.  Most likely, George just shook his head sadly at his laptop, wondering why I simply. Did. Not. Get. It.  Lord knows, that's how I walked away feeling about him after the back-and-forth.

But I find it hilarious that he took such umbrage at the mere suggestion that someone might, possibly, think about making an assumption about his ability to perform his profession well based on such a ridiculously small sample when he has absolutely no problem doing exactly that to Soriano.

What if I not only decided he wasn't terribly bright because of the typos? What if I decided that George Ofman has the POTENTIAL to be a truly great journalist, but he just won't ever reach that potential because he can't seem to stop making FUNDAMENTAL spelling ERRORS?

What if I started speculating that the reason George Ofman seems prone to making typos in his tweets is because he LACKS FOCUS due to too much time carousing the town, chasing women, and drinking to excess?

Suddenly we have a NARRATIVE!  And then I can start cherry-picking various situations that prove my assertions that George Ofman is a terrible journalist because he is lazy and doesn't care. I can ignore all of the words Ofman spells right and focus solely on the ones he misspells. What fun!

This is what the main stream media does time and time again to athletes, but we can see that when we apply the same type of methods to their own professions/reputations, we can see that George Ofman doesn't like it very much.  Based on this sample, I will also assume that every media member would react similarly and I can say that all media members hate to be treated the way they treat athletes.

I'll say this, it does make writing bold, declarative statements a hell of a lot easier when you can do that.

aisle424

About aisle424

I used to write lots of things about the Cubs. Now I sometimes write things about the Cubs.

Quantcast