:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/36541232/453118236.0.jpg)
Andy Martino of the New York Daily News has a fascinating article up today, in which he looks at how he (and most others in the New York media) were on the wrong side of the Lucas Duda v. Ike Davis debate, and wonders how much his opinion was swayed in favor of Davis by the fact that Davis was so media-friendly and easy to deal with. As Martino boils it down:
On a subconscious level, did I convince myself that Davis was a better choice because he was a better quote, a friendlier guy, one for whom I came to feel genuine affection as a person?
We've talked before about how there appears to be a connection between being media-friendly and the media's willingness to talk up a player's abilities -- that was a frequent subject of discussion here in regard to David Murphy and Michael Young, to name examples -- but it is rare that we see someone in the media look back and acknowledge that he may have erred in opining about a player (or in this case, about a pair of players) because of the way the player deals with the media.
Its a thought-provoking piece, worth checking out.
