When The Athletic hired Jim Bowden to write a column focusing on MLB’s personnel moves, it seemed a welcome development. Bowden had been baseball’s youngest General Manager when hired at age 31 by the Cincinnati Reds. The team had some success under Bowden, finishing in first-place in 1994 and 1995. Bowden quickly earned a reputation as an apt evaluator of talent. That image was only slightly offset by a quirky personal side as seen by smoe other people.

In the bustling world of sports journalism, insightful analysis and well-grounded speculation can elevate discourse and enhance our understanding of the games we love. However, not all content that hits our newsfeeds contributes positively to the sports narrative. In fact, some elements seem to consistently detract from it. A prominent case in point is the body of work contributed to The Athletic by Jim Bowden.

Jim Bowden, a former baseball executive turned analyst, is known for his articles on Major League Baseball, where he frequently discusses trades, player assessments, and team strategies. While his credentials might appear impressive at first glance, a closer examination of his articles reveals a different story—a mix of groundless predictions, superficial analysis, and a sprinkling of sensationalism that does little to educate or inform the dedicated baseball fan.

One of the major criticisms of Bowden’s work is the shallowness of his analysis. His articles often fail to dig deep into the analytics and metrics that have become so crucial in today’s understanding of baseball. Instead, readers are often treated to surface-level observations that can be gleaned from a cursory glance at player statistics or team standings. This lack of depth is not just disappointing; it undermines the analytical culture that platforms like The Athletic are known to uphold.

Moreover, Bowden’s predictions frequently miss the mark. While predicting sports outcomes is inherently fraught with uncertainty, the consistent inaccuracies raise questions about the value of his insights. His 2021 MLB trade deadline predictions, for example, were widely off, causing unnecessary speculation and confusion among fans. Such a track record does little to instill confidence in his readers, who come seeking expertise and thoughtful analysis.

Another point of contention is the sensationalist tone that permeates Bowden’s writing. Headlines and articles often promise explosive revelations or groundbreaking news, which too frequently turn out to be hyperbolic or based on tenuous assumptions. This style may attract clicks, but it does little to foster a meaningful conversation about baseball. It’s a disservice to The Athletic’s audience—readers who typically seek more than just headlines and are interested in genuine, nuanced discussion about their favorite sport.

The issues with Bowden’s contributions highlight a larger problem within sports media—the battle between substance and click-driven content. As readers, we must demand more from the platforms and personalities we trust for our sports analysis. The Athletic, known for its in-depth coverage and expert commentary, should reconsider the value such contributions bring to their readership.

In Bowden’s defense, the task he has been assigned is truly difficult. He has no power or authority, so basically what he writes is simply what he wishes would happen. He enjoyed some recent success when he said the Tampa Bay Rays should sign catcher Danny Jansen, which they did, and in predicting that Shane Bieber would stay in Cleveland with the Guardians.

The world of sports journalism needs voices that uplift the discourse, provide deep insights, and enhance our understanding of sports without resorting to unfounded predictions and sensationalism. As readers and fans, we deserve better than what Jim Bowden’s current columns offer. It’s high time for The Athletic to lead by example and set a higher standard in sports writing.