I think it's a little of both. And I loved the Kendall blurb, by the way. I think if media types and beat writers bought wholly into statistical analysis they would become irrelevant. The JS writers could embrace statistical analysis and judge each player's performance based on the best analysis and projections out there. But of course, any of us could that too. And we wouldn't have to travel around with the team, sit in the press room, chum with the players, eat from the press buffet, and collect outrageous expense checks 6 months a year. Anybody can sit at home, watch the Brewers on FSN every night and check the freely available stats online. So the media boys have to come up with something else; some keen ability that separates them from JoeFan and lets them keep their job; some special "insight" you can only get by sitting in the press box, choking down the buffet. They do this by making crap up. They write about intangibles, clubhouse leaders, playing small ball. And they base their grading system on non specific criteria, hinting their keen powers of observation and vast experience have more relevance than any stat. They know Mota was only as valuable as Suppan, because well, they are sports writers and they are paid to know about these things. You, loyal reader, can't possibly understand. And since it's only sports journalism, not real journalism, the editors don't care if it's a bunch of made of crap. And if some loyal readers mock them or try to argue with hard data, well, they're just pocket protecting geeks who probably never played the game and still live in the basement of their mom's house.