OR citiation nazis could just take away the greater lesson that there are two sides to every story and that Cobb's common reputation is probably blown way out of proportion if not outright inaccurate.
But hey, whatever floats you guys' boats.
It could be a bunch of lies. It's poorly written. I deal in facts. I am willing to accept a hypothesis that he is not a bad guy, but show me the proof.
http://baseballguru.com/bburgess/analysisbburgess02.htmlHere's a random guy. He cites some sources and tells some anecdotes. It's not a scholarly paper, that's reasonable. I'll read it when I have time.
But I could write a paper "Tony Armas: World's Greatest Pitcher", make up stories, and someone could read it and believe it. That's the danger of the internet. I don't hate or dismiss out of hand bloggers or freelancers or what have you, but this guy has built no credibility with me and also cites no sources. So while not dismissing his hypothesis, I'm not really interested in his anecdotes. A newspaper like the Washington Post has very strong credibility, so when they don't cite sources, they back their stories with their reputation, and print retractions when they are wrong. Same with the Nats Insider blog. Lots of credibility.
http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/features/00014142.htmlHere's ESPN (yes, a credible news agency), with the counterpoint:
http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/features/00014142.htmlSo do I believe ESPN or Bleacher Report with no sources? ESPN. Will I read the guy who did his homework, yes.