Thank you. On top of removing agency from the player (and where your lawyer analogy falls a bit short) is the use of "did". That's not passive. That's declaring an act perpetrated by someone (in this case, named). Again, without evidence. With no bias, that statement would have read much more benign and would have pointed out a deficiency in peripheral stats, not an accusation of wrong doing. Doubly so in seven ****ing starts. Fangraphs writers know better than that, which is my real point. Are they attention grabbing ESPN talking heads? Are they Souhan? Or are they Fangraphs writers? I expect better of them because I know they're better, particularly in a situation that was so easily avoidable (and should have been avoidable by default minus bias).