The Power of Power
How you, the reader, perceive something is the result of what you know. That is why it is a journalist’s duty to present the most recent, relevant, and accurate information. Even if information is all of that, it does not mean that the journalist has done their job. Often times, they must go further and provide not only context for information they are presenting, they must do so without skewing the information, especially if it involves matters of personal opinion. That’s why good journalism is hard. That’s why not everyone can do it. That’s why it is a job that takes time and experience to learn and is a skill set that you acquire.
This bring us to wondering what is going on with Paul Hoynes and his informative post on power, specifically, hitters in the Indians lineup that hit home runs in a specific game. Hoynes mentions the amount of home runs the team has hit this spring and at the end makes sure to include that last year they finished 13th in the American League. They also finished 11th in total runs scored.
The rest of the section that is talking about power mentions all of the Indians who hit home runs in this specific Spring Training game and gives a quick hit on their track record in terms of hitting home runs. He alludes to the idea of home runs leading to run production by stating:
“Like Lindor, their track records for power have yet to be established, but it's encouraging to see because the Indians are going to need run production from all parts of the lineup.”
While home runs obviously produce runs, it isn’t the only way that run production happens. But as a reader, you would be led to believe that it is based off Hoynes’s statement alone. It’s an shining example of a journalist being recent and accurate, but inadequately informing his audience with a one-sided spin.
So, how would this be specific instance be remedied? By simply countering that spin with the opposite outlook before it is even printed. Do the Indians need run production? Yes. How can the Indians produce runs? By hitting home runs more than other teams? Is that an accurate statement to make?
Using the same measurements that Hoynes did, Kansas City, sixth in runs scored in the American League, hit two less home runs than the Indians did last year. That alone provides reasonable doubt to the initial idea that home runs are the only way to score runs or that it is the primary indicator of a team that scores a lot of runs.
To extrapolate the argument, one can also argue that run production is simply one side of the coin. As long as you produce more runs than you give up, you win the game, and is that not what matters most? Obviously, statistics can be skewed and a team can score a lot more runs than the other team in games that they win, only win a few, and lose by close margins in more games than they win. Relatively speaking though, the idea is to score more than you allow and that is another thing that the American League Central winners and eventual World Series Champions did very well. Just as well as Cleveland did in fact, with them giving up just one more run than the Indians did in 2015.
This, stated or unstated, is all that is missing in the information Hoynes is delivering to the audience. It’s the type of journalism that produces false assumptions or misconceived notions. It isn’t incorrect or factually inaccurate, but if conclusions are going to be drawn, as Paul Hoynes has done here, he could stand to effectively reason to help the reader draw a more fair and unbiased conclusion, instead of one that is heavily skewed in what we can only assume is what he believes.