Beasley 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

use such techniques.

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

possible conclusion. (http://deadspin.com/sports-analytics-is-bullshit-now-1688293396).

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.

Audiences will differ simply because one is an article from a sports/entertainment

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

know what it is they just dont want to use it.

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

as they hold more weight than his words ever could.

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

explain their point to them.

 Beasley 6

Works Cited

Davenport, T. H. (2014). Analytics in Sport: The New Science of Winning. International

Institute for Analytics, 1-28. Retrieved January 30, 2017.

Wagner, K. (2015, February 27). "Sports Analytics" Is Bullshit Now. Retrieved January

30, 2017, from http://deadspin.com/sports-analytics-is-bullshit-now-1688293396

Beasley 7