I like to read sports columns. I'm going to agree with some conclusions, disagree with others. I generally like what I read in Sports Illustrated, and I'm okay with the columnists I see on the ESPN and Sporting News web sites.

I continue to be astonished, however, at how poor the writing, rationales, and temperament is for many of the columnists at CBSSports.com. There are exceptions: Pete Prisco knows his subject, stays within his limits, and calls himself out (for example, he admits today he was wrong on Josh McDaniels and the Broncos, as was I). Mike Freeman is hit or miss.

But Gregg Doyel -- with his continued baiting of his readers and "Bleep you, I have a column" attitude, has just worn very thin. And today's Ray Ratto column reaches new heights of poor reasoning, conclusion jumping, and bad writing.

I should start with staying Ratto's column on the problems the Mets had with Tony Bernazard (7/28/09) made a certain amount of sense (although it seemed a bit overwrought for a writer located 3,000 miles away and not privy to the day-to-day team operations). I did note that Ratto added in his 8/30/09 column (in the Chronicle only) he stated: " Fred Wilpon was a billionaire before he met Bernie Madoff; now, according to a new book, he's down $700 million and probably has to sell the New York Mets."

The Wilpons have denied that they were in trouble and the Mets were having money issues, and, as it turns out, they were right: it turned out Madoff made $48 million for the Wilpons. Rather than reversing course, however, Ratto has doubled down: his column today makes the Wilpons -- and, consequently, the Mets, seem bigger rubes than before. (Because they made money?)

Most people are unaware of how their investments work. They don't sit with their investment advisor on a day-to-day basis and review where every cent has gone. They put a certain amount of trust in the advisor. Bernard Madoff clearly betrayed the trust of a lot of investors. There's no doubt about that.

But here's Ratto's argument, verbatim: "When it turned out the Madoff scheme had bitten a huge chunk out of the Wilpon fortune, people cheered. And now that it looks like they actually made money off Berniegate, the likelihood that they'll have to go to court to defend their relationship with one of the great financial criminals of all time will cheer people as well."

Damned if you did (lose money), damned if you didn't.

Also, I haven't seen any word on the Wilpons going to court. Ratto has jumped to this conclusion without any evidence that either there would be legal proceedings against the Wilpons, or that they would fight any charges.

A few more notes:

- "Ranking this Mets team among Mets teams is difficult only because the first three Mets teams were charmingly inept and so many others were just plain inept."


It took me about three readings before I understood (I think) Ratto is referring to the New York Mets of 1962, 1963, and 1964. (Either that or he's referring to the New York Metropolitans of the 1800s -- it's hard to distinguish what he means by "teams.") Yes, the Mets have had some lousy seasons -- watching them play in the late 1970s, 1993, or 2004 was a painful business. But since 1969, they've been roughly a .500 team, with seven playoff appearances, four pennants, and two World Series during that span. A few teams have won more pennants during that span -- the Yankees have 10, the Athletics six, the Dodgers, Cardinals, and Reds five apiece. But this isn't the Detroit Lions we're talking about either.

- "But knowing the Wilpons, they'd probably blow the other $452 million on the lawyers defending their right to keep the $48 million. It's called the Carlos Delgado Postulate, wherein one wildly overpays for something that made initial sense but eventually became a galactic money pit."

First of all, "knowing the Wilpons" is a stretch for a columnist based in San Francisco to say about a New York-based ownership group. Has he ever met them? Second, I state again there's been no mention of legal action. And third, using Carlos Delgado as an example of a bad baseball move is -- well, a terrible example. Yes, Delgado missed most of last year (so did Carlos Beltran and Jose Reyes -- no one mentions all three, plus David Wright, played 159 games or more in 2008, the first time in many years a team had four players play so many games) with a hip injury that first came up the year before.

Second, let's look at the records:
Delgado, lifetime: .280/.383/.546
Delgado, ages 34-37 (with the Mets): .267/.351/.488

Yes, it's a drop, but not a shocking one for someone of his age. Using a 162-game average (Delgado played 468 games in his four years with the team, having missed 130 games last year with hip injuries and 50 the other three years), he averaged 36 home runs, 117 RBI, and 94 runs scored for every 162 games played. Most teams would be pretty happy with that kind of output from their first baseman -- and most sportswriters seemed at least a little impressed; Delgado finished 12th in the MVP vote in 2006 and 9th in 2008. Pick out Roberto Alomar or Carlos Baerga, both of whom became old men the moment they entered Shea Stadium, but most Met fans were perfectly satisfied with Delgado's performance.

I have a hard time writing about this, because I think beat sportswriters are far better equipped to critique teams and players than columnists -- or bloggers. Some columnists rarely deign to appear at the ballpark; they just take aim and let the chips fall where they may. If I were paid to write about baseball (I'm not) and critiqued a team or players without allowing for rebuttal, I'd expect a backlash; just as if I'm telling the guy in the next cubicle he doesn't know what he's doing when I'm making a mess of things. Ratto -- and the other CBSSports.com columnists -- should expect the same.

(cross-posted to CBSSports.com)