Colin Cowherd Invades Wrigley

August 01, 2006 | Comments (0) | by T.R.

Before we start with our daily analysis, a quick unfortunate bit of news must be relayed. Apparently Colin Cowherd is going to attend the game at Wrigley tonight. Please throw things at him if you see him, as I will be unable to. To the left is a picture to refresh your memory.

This morning's monologue was somewhat enlightening, but flawed. Colin kicked it off by telling us that we should not make a big deal out of Chase Utley's hitting streak, or any other ballplayer that may in the future push for DiMaggio's record of 56 games. Though the 56 game mark is widely considered one of the most unbreakable record in all of sports, Colin proceeded to tell us how he didn't think it was that big of a deal, and would be broken soon. He then brough up a number of streak and records he considered more impressive, among them John Wooden's 88 game winning streak at UCLA, Ripken's consecutive games played mark, and Wilt Chamberlain's career rebound average.

Now, we all know that the National League is in a miserable funk compared to the American League. What really drove me nuts today was the extent of the NL/AL divide in the mind of Cowherd. He stated on two occasions that an NL batter could go 6 or 7 consecutive series without facing an "ace" pitcher, so an NL hitter like Utley would have a greater advantage over any random AL hitter. Well, we at TMS have some statistics that do not necessarily back up this claim. According to, through July 31, the composite NL batting average was .266, while the AL average was .275. For the ERA in each league, the NL chimed in with 4.57, and the AL at 4.60. As you can see, these statistics between the two leagues are so miniscule, one cannot make a blanket statement that any given player from one league stands a better chance at breaking a record than any given player out of the other league. Regardless of league, if a player can put together another 56 game hitting streak, he is an absolute stud and has accomplished something that few have even sniffed in the sport. For the record, in the modern era, the second-best mark belongs to Pete Rose at 44 games.

Was his topic/view informative?
No, it was merely an outlying opinion with no substance. -1
Did he dig a little deeper than just re-hashing the top story?
Well, at least he didn't harp on the lackluster trading deadline from Monday, so I won't dock him.
Did he give credence to the other side of the story?
He did not research how incredibly difficult a 56 game streak would be, and made blanket statements about the difference between the NL and AL. -1
Did he use a fake voice?
Unfortunately, no, therefore I cannot take a point off.
Did he repeat one thought/idea/analogy incessantly?
I can't really say that he did, and he did bring up some other amazing streaks.
Did he make an assumption or exaggerate to help prove his point?
Yes, undeniably. -1
Did he contradict an earlier stance without saying he changed his mind?
Not that I could tell, although if anyone does break 56 games someday, he has no legs to stand on.
Did he alienate a good portion of his listening audience (like presumably over 30%)?

No, he just sounded dumb to any knowledgable baseball fan.

Final Score: 5 (out of 8), though the stupidity of his NL/AL statements is incalculable.