Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Radraft 1
Radraft 1
Zack Beasley
February 2nd, 2017
RC 2001
Dr. Zawilski
Sports Analytics
The two article being compared come from Deadspin an entertainment/sports website
that posts online articles sometimes by the websites staff, and sometimes by fans who are
allowed to post their own articles, and a research article from the International Institute for
Analytics. The article from Deadspin is titled Sports Analytics is Bullshit Now and focuses on
the fact that what the media is calling analytics isnt an accurate representation of what analytics
really is. The second article is titled Analytics in Sports: The New Science of Winning from the
International Institute for Analytics and focuses on educating readers on what sports analytics is,
as well as to showcase successful uses of analytics by multiple sports franchises. This paper
analyzes and compares the different rhetorical approaches of each article and explain why they
The exigence between these two articles could not be more different. The Deadspin
article seeks to articulate to people that sports analytics is being misrepresented by the media.
Kyle Wagners argument is that there are real analytics being put to work, but the average fan
will never get to see it. Wagners issue, and the exigence he seeks to fill is illustrated in this
quote analytics is posed as a sort of truism engine, a mechanism for coming to the most obvious
Wagner takes great issue with the fact that all analytics is currently doing stating facts that can
already be discovered through much more conventional means. He hopes to expose this problem
by writing on the topic. He also argues that some sports franchises are misrepresenting analytics
Beasley 2
to their own fans as a campaign that essentially says we may suck now, but thanks to analytics
things will get better. Here is another exigence Wagner seeks to fill, to stop franchises and
media from taking advantage of fan bases with false advertising of what analytics truly is.
Analytics in Sports: The Science of Winning takes drastically different approach to the
topic of sports analytics. While both articles seek in some ways to explain what sports analytics
is, the Deadspin article does so by explaining what sports analytics is not. Analytics in sports is a
much more straight-forward, by the book approach to explaining what Sports Analytics. In the
article Thomas Davenport seeks to inform those interested in the field of analytics more about
the topic, as well as convincing those who are doubtful of the subject. There is a common theme
in the sports world that intuition, personal experience and gut feeling are better methods of
predicting success than some fancy statistics. Davenport hopes to convince his readers otherwise,
and to explain the potential that lies within all the data.
website and the other is an independent research study for the International Institute of Analytics.
Deadspin attracts the more casual audience, someone who is interested in sports and maybe
heard the term analytics in a sports broadcast, or someone who wants to read an article that
sounds like they were sitting back and talking to a buddy about what is going on the sports
world. Deadspin is a laid back style of website that does not care much for prim and properness
as is evident through title Sports Analytics Is Bullshit. Deadspin is loud and tries to grab you
attention. The Analytics in Sports article has a more professional and clean cut appeal to it that
attracts the scholars and business types that are likely to read it. It doesnt seek to be flashy or see
how many views or hits it can get. Because its exigence is to inform those who already know
something about the topic it does not have to be bold or exciting to attract more readers.
Beasley 3
Wagner tries to expose and change some of the constraints that exist within the sports
world about analytics. These constraints being that most people dont truly know what sports
analytics is. That is why he spends so much of the article explaining what analytics is not, rather
than what it is. He has to break down the constraints the average fan has regarding the topic.
Constraints that exist within the research article are that not all franchise owners or sports fans
are believe in sports analytics one hundred percent. He argues that for analytics to be successful
there has to be trust and commitment from top to bottom for the usage of analytics succeed. A
quote that illusrates the constraints Davenport faces is Even when considerable data and
analytics are available to support key decisions, they may not employ them over their intuition
and experience. (
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cd75/2a2ff86ff4f6d65efbc0db1ae70c434aa1ca.pdf). Many of
those in the sports world are apt to rely on their experience or gut feeling as opposed to data. In
short, the difference in constraints for the Deadspin article and the research study is that those
reading Deadspin article dont truly know what analytics is, and in the research study people
Ethos is where the greatest differences in rhetoric exists between these two works. The
Deadspin article makes little to no effort to appeal to the readers ethos. The article lists no
credentials, and the only links on the articles page are to other Deadspin articles, or to reference
the ESPN article Wagner mentions. The website contains numerous ads. It is not even apparent
whether or not Wagner is a member of the Deadspin staff, or if he is simply an avid fan who
wishes to educate and inform the public about a topic. Wagners article contain graphics that
dont inform, and the style of writing he uses does not convey one of professionalism or
scholarly work. This is not to say that the writing is poor, but it is a distinct style that Deadspin
Beasley 4
publishes that is akin to talking to a real person rather than reading off what some beat writer
wrote in an article.
Being a research study the Analytics in Sports article makes many appeals to the readers
ethos. The article looks professional and their is no clutter. It was published by the International
Institute for Analytics, lending more towards its credibility. The article itself contains twenty
different citations, and Davenport makes it a point to list his own credentials inside the About
the Author section of the article. Within this section the reader learns that Davenport is the co-
founder of the International Institute for Analytics, he is the President's Distinguished Professor
of IT and Management at Babson College, and is a research fellow at the MIT Center for Digital
Business.
Pathos is where the Deadspin article makes its strongest appeal. A majority of the article
does not focus on statistics or things of the like, but makes frequent appeals to feelings or
opinions of the readers. Wagner uses imagery such as the conventional wisdom of a bunch of
cavemen not letting that one other caveman on their team because he is old and has no legs to
create a style of writing that feels like talking to a friend about the latest sports happenings. He
appeals to feeling of comradery. A topic discussed within this article refers to the notion that
some franchises, the Philadelphia 76ers specifically use the term analytics as a campaign that
takes advantage of the good will and faith of the fans by saying we suck now, but thanks to
analytics we should be better eventually without actually providing the real statistics that say
such a thing. In this section of the article Wagner appeals to the sympathy of the readers for 76ers
fans that their general manager is taking advantage of them. Being a non-scholarly article
Wagner has to make use of pathos to stir up interest in the article where he lacks ethos and logos.
Being a research article Davenports article tries to keep emotion out of his writing. He
Beasley 5
focuses on making fact based claims and cites evidence to get his point across, rather than
appealing to the emotions of his readers. To provide a more personal element to his research
Davenport does make frequent use of personal testimonies and the Leadership Profile sections of
his research. One of the strongest examples is the profile by professional baseball player
Brandon McCarthy who describes his personal experience on how analytics has helped him.
Research studies try to stay evidence based and use facts to strengthen their arguments, but the
leadership profiles appeal to the pathos of the reader by giving it a more human element.
Wagner and Davenports writing vary once again when compared in terms of logos.
There is little evidence within Wagners article as it is mainly an opinion piece. Davenports
however makes many appeals and relies heavily upon evidence to convey his point. He cites
statistics constantly throughout the article and makes a point to cite success across various sports
to prove it not a fluke or a product of its environment. Davenport lets the numbers do the talking
Through the various examples cited it is plain to see the stark contrast between rhetorical
strategies of an academic vs. a non-academic article. The academic article made strong appeals
to the ethos and logos of the reader and this makes sense. There is a saying in sports; numbers
never lie. This quote explains why an academic article regarding sports analytics would focus so
heavily on ethos and logos. Numbers and credentials add weight to an argument, more so than
any personal opinion or experience can especially within an academic article. It also makes sense
that in an article discussing analytics, one would use analytics to prove their point. Wagner
appeals more to the pathos of the audience as it is an opinion piece focused on entertaining the
reader. The two articles take drastically different rhetorical approaches to draw the reader in and
Works Cited
Wagner, K. (2015, February 27). "Sports Analytics" Is Bullshit Now. Retrieved January