Chad Ford Molests Baby Kangaroos
Another reason I try to avoid the typical "sports writer" column is that I almost inevitably get pissed off. Blatant inadequacy in one's job drives me crazy. I cannot simply think "this guy doesn't know what he's talking about" and let it go.
Chad Ford writes about the NBA for ESPN.com. I read his column pretty often. This, of course, blatantly contradicts what I began this post with. I should have said "I do not regularly intentionally read any specific "sports writers."" The links to Chad's columns just happen to be on the NBA page of ESPN.com. They could link to a 4 year old writing about brussel sprouts and I would probably accidentally read it.
I have read many a negative comment about him in various, unrememberable locations on the internet. I don't recall the details. To me, Chad Ford is simply the "international prospect guy." That's all I can remember him ever writing about. Until today, that is.
Here's an excerpt from today's column regarding the DEN/SA series:
"(2) Spurs vs. (7) Nuggets This could be the best series in the playoffs this year. Based on what they've done since the All-Star break, this could be the equivalent of a Western Conference finals preview. Since George Karl took over in Denver, the Nuggets easily have bested the the Spurs both at home and in San Antonio. I still feel that the Spurs are the best team in the league and will find a way to get past the Nuggets. They have more experience, the best player on the floor and home-court advantage. But this one will go down to the wire. Insider prediction: Spurs in 7"
I have no problems with his prediction; that's largely subjective, and I'll save my opinions for the series preview I'll be posting Saturdayish. Here's what I have a problem with: "Since George Karl took over in Denver, the Nuggets easily have bested the the Spurs both at home and in San Antonio." Now, unlike Chad, I actually watched those two games, so I know that DEN didn't "easily" beat the Spurs in SA. However, just looking at the box score would have been enough. The Nuggets won by THREE POINTS. THREE POINTS. The Spurs led at half time and after three quarters. The Spurs led by 7 with 3 minutes to go and gave the game away down the stretch. How the hell did he come to his spurious conclusion? Wait, there's MORE!
If you order now, you'll get more total bullshit absolutely FREE from Chad Ford! For some reason he neglects to mention that Duncan didn't play in either game and that Ginobili also didn't play in one of them. Isn't that important information, especially if you're going to use the phrase "easily bested?"
People might say that the errors and omissions I pointed out are "small." But isn't getting the facts straight the first job of a journalist? Shouldn't Chad have spent the three minutes necessary to look at the two box scores? If that's not his job then what is?
I mean, shit, if some random guy comes in off the street and finds an error in one of my structural designs I would get canned. Yet, for some reason (that reason probably being the general stupidity of the average sports fan), "sports writers" can fill their columns with total bullshit (whether it be the cliched version of bullshit or the non-factual, unfoundable form of bullshit) and get away with it.