In this day and age, it's surprising to me that anyone associated with sports -- writers, announcers, reporters, anyone -- would fail to embrace statistics in some kind of way. Whether as simple as the age-old stats given in box scores or as far along as advanced stats that have risen to prominence, it's almost a prerequisite to have some basic understanding to make any meaningful analysis. But following Game 1 of the Stanley Cup Finals, one post-game personality on CBC both admitted not liking stats and called those that do "weenies."
On CBC's Seeking Stanley, the post-game show for the Stanley Cup Finals, one of the reporters had this to say while riffing on stats in a back-handed way (paraphrased and via NussCoug).
I don't normally like stats -- I usually think they're for weenies -- but there's one stat I do like, and that's the winner of Game 1 goes on to win the Stanley Cup X% of the time
WHAT? So instead of using a meaningful stat, she picked out one of those odd factoids usually reserved for fun trivia. For instance, Boston is 12-0 on Tuesdays when it's raining outside in the month of December.* Instead of grabbing some kind of meaningful stat, even as basic as Tim Thomas save percentage, the Game 1 winner stat was the one draw out of the hat.
And weenies? I'm offended. I love stats. I know many that love stats. But weenies? There has got to be a better insult than "weenies."
*Not a real stat