A-Rod derangement watch: handwriting analysis edition

47 Comments

Yesterday, after Alex Rodriguez released his handwritten apology letter, people began joking about how some newspaper was going to consult a handwriting expert to psychoanalyze A-Rod. Others didn’t joke so much as a bet which paper it would be because, boy howdy, if there was a way to do more armchair psychoanalysis and/or character assassination of the guy, someone would surely take it.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you had The Wall Street Journal in the pool, go to the nearest window to collect your winnings. The WSJ claims it did so in order to “get some insight,” “to get inside the real Rodriguez” and to “tell us  what it all really means.”

What does it “all really mean?” Well, according to the “expert,” Alex Rodriguez “writes like a girl,” is “self-conscious, sensitive to criticism at work, a rule-breaker, and . . . not lacking in ego.” Such insight! How on Earth could anyone have concluded that Alex Rodriguez was an overly sensitive, rule-breaking guy with a big ego absent this keen expert analysis of his handwriting? If only we had some other basis for such things . . .

By now you may have detected a slight dubiousness in my tone. I apologize for that. I guess I just can’t help myself given that it has been unequivocally established that graphology — the examination of handwriting style in order to establish the psychological state of the writer — is utter bunk. Really, it’s total pseudoscience that has been uniformly discredited as akin to palm reading and phrenology. Yet, here we are, with one of the most respected newspapers in the country and possibly the world turning to a graphologist to assess poor old A-Rod.

Why? Well, I suppose A-Rod content is gold, and anything in that regard will do. Hey, we’re not immune to that here. We know how it works. Only in the Wall Street Journal’s case that gold is mined via some cheap, easy and tired jabs at Rodriguez. The sort of which newspapers have been addicted to for years. I mean, what else can describe a newspaper which has won 34 Pulitzer Prizes hiring an outside expert in order to say that a ballplayer “writes like a girl” apart from an addiction?

But hey, it’s just sports. And as we’ve seen over and over again, a lot of newspapers don’t take sports seriously and don’t hold their sports content to the same standards they hold non-sports content. A lot of them, it seems, treat their sports page readers as if they are morons.

Or did I just miss the time The Wall Street Journal hired an astrologist to tell readers how to allocate their 401K investments?

Nationals’ Strasburg ejected for arguing from the stands

Geoff Burke-USA TODAY Sports
3 Comments

NEW YORK — A pitcher getting ejected for arguing balls and strikes – on his day off? And, from the stands?

Nationals star Stephen Strasburg earned one of baseball’s most unique ejections – probably ever – in the third inning of Washington’s game against the New York Mets on Thursday.

Strasburg was sitting in Section 121 at Citi Field in this socially distant season because he’s scheduled to start Friday against Baltimore Orioles. He was apparently unhappy with the strike zone of plate umpire Carlos Torres after Austin Voth‘s 2-2 pitch to Pete Alonso on the outside corner was ruled a ball.

Moments later, Torres ejected last year’s World Series MVP, though it took a few seconds to realize who had been tossed.

Someone was heard yelling: “You’re (expletive) brutal” shortly before television cameras captured Strasburg doffing his cap as he walked up the staircase on his way out of the park.

“Sorry, folks – sorry, FCC,” Mets broadcaster Gary Cohen said on SNY.

The usually stoic Strasburg appeared to be grinning underneath his blue mask as he made his exit.