Tired Phrase: Baseball's "Small Sample Size"

You know how each year Webster's comes out with that list of overused phrases that need to be retired (e.g. "win-win," "refudiate," "LOL" etc...)? Well, for some strange reason, this is the year "small sample size" became the watch-word in Major League Baseball. I've been a casual passionate observer of most things baseball for going on 50 years now (can't believe I just wrote that), and this is the first time I can ever remember the phrase "small sample size" used so frequently in reference to the unreliability of early season statistics. I understand the intent, but it's like a memo went out to everyone with an opinion that they have to drop this overly-scientific verbiage into their commentary.

I first heard the phrase on the "Mike and Mike" radio show one morning, and immediately thought, "Small sample size? What would Sparky Anderson or Earl Weaver have thought of that high-falutin' terminology? Probably something that bow-tie-wearing, starched-shirted poof George Will came up with."

That night, on ESPN's Baseball Tonight, Buster Olney dropped a "small sample size" on the desk right next to John Kruk, who -- if the size of his suits are any indication -- has never seen a "small sample size" of anything.

In short order, the phrase started popping up all over the place. In this Bill Plaschke column about Lamar Odom in the LA Times for example, in this ESPN.com article about Derek Jeter and in this Yahoo piece about SF Giants rookie Brandon Belt.

When my pal Dave Alles employed the phrase on his local sports talk radio show, I thought, "Something weird is going on."

A quick Google search (Baseball + "small sample size") yeilds 2,230,000 hits. "Small sample size?" WTH?

Back in the old days we'd just say, "It's early and he's a slow starter." End of story.