Media Analysis: On Criticizing Analysts Who Used to Be Players

Analyzing the media is not something we typically do around here at How To Watch Sports. We analyze sports. That’s what we do.

But every once in a while something crops up in sports media that I think deserves critique. As a sportswriter I’m a part of the media, so I don’t consider myself exempt from any such criticism. I’d like to provide a couple examples of the specific examples of what I’ve noticed, and then address its ethical implications as a journalist.

First example. While driving to the office one day recently, I was listening to a morning sports talk show that I don’t often hear. The topic, a hot one seeing as I live in Phoenix, was former Arizona Cardinals quarterback Matt Leinart.

Leinart had just taken some flak from Trent Dilfer. Dilfer, appearing on The Herd with Colin Cowherd, had dismissed the Cardinals as a contender in the NFC West race because of Leinart’s shortcomings (this was while he was still with the team—apparently Coach Ken Whisenhunt agreed). Specifically, Dilfer asserted that Leinart doesn’t have the leadership presence or command in the huddle—the “it” qualities—to be a good quarterback.

This radio host, in turn, was leveling fireball after fireball at Dilfer—not refuting his claims about Leinart, but instead attacking Dilfer’s career as a player. He insisted that Dilfer’s criticisms were hypocritical, as Dilfer himself hadn’t had those qualities himself as a player.

Second example. This time it was a different radio show, though with a similar situation. This time the topic was former All-Star pitcher Rob Dibble, and his recent criticism of Stephen Strasburg and his injuries (before it was revealed that Strasburg would have surgery and miss the rest of the season). Dibble suggested that sometimes you have to “suck it up” and play through the pain, instead of sitting out. Strasburg, to give context, had just left a game after 56 pitches because of pain in his forearm.

The broadcaster in question had a few choice words for Dibble. He let Dibble have it for criticizing Strasburg while being plagued with injuries during his own playing career—he pitched in only seven different seasons and sat out two entire seasons because of injuries or surgery. (Side note: it appears that the folks at Deadspin offered the same criticism, and likely originated it.)

Third and final example. I’m not citing a specific incident here, as I saw this particular example come up several times. In this case it was shells fired at TNT analyst (and former NBA player) Charles Barkley for criticizing LeBron James’s decision to leave Cleveland and join the Miami Heat—when Sir Charles never won a title himself.

The question, then, is this: is it hypocrisy for a player-turned-analyst to require current players to do what they didn’t?

I asked around and got mixed opinions, but my instinct is that no, it’s not. It’s their job. Playing and analysis use different skill sets, and many analysts didn’t play professionally at all. The implication is that it’s okay for Steve Young to pick apart Leinart’s intangibles, but not Trent Dilfer—and if both are doing so in the chair of a professional sports analyst, then I disagree.

To bag on Dilfer, Dibble, or Barkley in these situations is probably making light of what they learned from substantial careers in the pros. My hunch is that 13 years in the NFL, working with five different teams’ systems and winning a Super Bowl as a starter (all items on Dilfer’s resumé) give insight into the position that a couple decades of watching a lot of football—even with a critical eye—can’t touch.

Further, players with clear weaknesses may actually be the most qualified to comment on that particular skill. Suppose Ron Artest retired, became an analyst (wouldn’t that be the day? I’d watch), and vocally criticized a player for getting into fights and generally being a distraction. You can call him a hypocrite, or you can figure that Ron-Ron knows a lot more about that topic than someone who never threw a punch.

It’s not a perfect science. If Shaquille O’Neal retired and became the newest ESPN guy (man, I’d watch that too), I might hold it against him if he criticized a big man for not making his free throws. And despite my self-righteousness, I’d say we do have to draw a line in quality of players, too—listening to Trent Dilfer is still several cuts above listening to Ryan Leaf.

That said, if Leaf was picked up by the mothership or a major network, you’d have to assume that he’d have at least some decent chops as an analyst. The media outlet would actually add credibility to a mediocre player.

We all get an opinion, though, and even local radio personalities get to say what they think (and got their job via some measure of talent and/or insight). And I do, too. I just wrote about 800 words criticizing members of the media, and I know I wouldn’t be happy if it was leveled my way.

It’s food for thought. It’s a reminder to think before we wage war on someone who disagrees with us, and a suggestion that name-calling isn’t a good replacement for properly refuting an argument.

And if I’m wrong, maybe somebody will flame me out for it.