Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Third in a 10-part series

Getting paid to watch baseball and then telling thousands of people what you saw or what you think (or both) -- how did Geoff Baker and Richard Griffin luck into such great gigs?

Okay ... first, there's a story -- perhaps apocryphal -- about the kid who wants to be a sports writer. So he tracks down the local paper's lead columnist and tells him "I want to be a sports writer. What should I do?" The veteran newsie asks the kid "Why do you think you want to do this?"

When the kid replies, "Because I love sports," the grizzled vet laughs and says "No, no, no. You have to love writing."

"Everybody Loves Richard"?
Think these guys are simply "paid to watch baseball"? Nothing could be farther from the truth, no matter what many fans may think about the job of the sports writer. It's not the crazy, carefree, wacky life of lovable sports columnist Ray Romano of Everybody Loves Raymond fame.

"In fact," says Griffin, "I'm always thinking about what to write about next. The average reader does not understand the 24-hour-per-day attention that must be paid to what might become the best column idea. It can consume you. I wish I had an agenda."

Still, he does hear about getting "paid to watch baseball," from the least expected of sources. "The person who says that the most is my wife, Debbie," admits Griffin. "It's because I have more hours at home in this job. When I was in PR with the Expos, I worked seven days a week, with spring training and making all the road trips. Now, as a columnist, I'm home all the time, so she figures I'm not working."

Baker hears it too, but says, "I never get sick of [hearing] it, because I'm a big history buff and realize how lucky we are to see [history] unfolding in a sports context -- and travel to so many great cities. I feel like I have homes in many places around North America."

Warning: No Fans Allowed
"The big price though," warns Baker, "is you don't get to be a fan."

He explains, "You get paid to offer realistic, often critical analysis and then, unlike sports fans -- or editors, for that matter -- have to walk into a clubhouse every day and face the music from players, who, quite frankly, could tear you apart physically. That's the type of daily stress level people don't really understand until they experience it firsthand."

Clubhouse stress is one aspect of the job that Baker and Griffin share -- though Baker's work requires more trips to the clubhouse than Griffin's does. In fact, many readers likely think Baker's primary job as beat reporter and Griffin's primary job as columnist are not only similar, but pretty much identical.

After all, they're both writers and they both have photos and bylines appearing in the same section of the same paper -- in some cases, on the same page -- nearly every day. This, as the great Canadian media guru Marshall McLuhan was fond of saying, is confusing the medium with the message. Do Peter Jennings and David Letterman have the same job just because they both appear on television?

So what are these two jobs all about? Ideas for possible comparisons cascaded from the members of the ZLC.
- "Is it like being a college professor, teaching fans about the game?"
- "A court reporter? Just passing on the facts?"
- "Professional devil's advocate -- challenging the team's authority to sell papers?"
- "Research scientist? Breaking down and analyzing everything?"

Columnists: "Try to Write for Everyone"
"The columnist's job is less like that of a college professor, because a prof knows he knows more than his students. I cannot assume the same thing," says Griffin.

"I [write for] a very much larger spectrum and therefore what Batter's Box [readers] may think is oversimplification, my aunt in Scarborough may appreciate," he explains. "I try to write for everyone."

While dismissing the columnist-as-court-reporter idea, Griffin latches on to the last two comparisons -- devil's advocate and research scientist. "However, 'challenging' [the team's authority] may not be the right word," he clarifies. And clarification is part of his job, he says. "I think [we're] clarifying, interpreting and cutting through the corporate smoke and mirrors to tell fans what's really happening."

But journalism is a business, and part of that business is getting and keeping readers. "The worst thing that can happen to a columnist is to have people read one paragraph and then turn the page," says Griffin. "Therefore, you want a good lead. Reading the whole column is the main response I'm looking for."

Beat Writers: Now for Something Completely Different
"The primary function [of our job] is to inform ... I don't think we make news," says Griffin. "I think we find news."

Baker, whose beat reporter job by definition allows for less subjectivity in his writing than Griffin's columns contain, takes the clarification a step further. "Unlike news reporters, our job is to be both informative, yet highly entertaining at the same time," he explains, so there is some additional "subjective leeway," as he puts it.

"Which is why the best writers tend to be in the sports section," he says unabashedly. "But the journalistic premise is the same. You don't overlook news to spare the team grief. Not when reporters are [literally] dying to get the story out in places like Iraq. That's just taking the easy way out and insulting to reporters everywhere."

The job of the reporter, says Baker, is "a little bit of all four" of the comparisons made by the ZLC.

"You always try to teach folks something they didn't know when you write a story or else, what's the point?" says the former Concordia journalism instructor. However, he notes, "I've taught ... and [this job] is far more patience-testing."

The "court reporter" approach is better in some sections of a newspaper than others, says Baker. "Just passing on the facts is good if you're breaking into the business, covering a town council meeting," he says. But in sports writing you're expected to give more, since many fans are highly educated about facts and stats."

But it bears repeating -- journalism is a business, and part of that business is getting and keeping readers.

"The best measure of whether to trust a paper [is if] we 'get it wrong' and keep getting it wrong," says Baker. "Then readers will stop paying attention." Baker believes he and his Star colleagues do okay in that regard. "I think if you've read our stuff over the years, we've gotten more news breaks than any other paper in Toronto on the big stuff and have almost always been bang-on," he says.

Action, Reaction and Inter(net)action
And the writers do hear about it -- almost immediately -- if they are pereceived as "getting it wrong," especially over the past decade as the Web and e-mail have made the traditional "Letter to the Editor" so much easier to write and send.

"The Internet makes everything much more immediate," says Baker. "It allows instant feedback from fans on your work, whereas before, you would have to wait several days for letters to pour in. I enjoy that feedback, negative or positive."

Negative or positive? "The worst thing is to write a story you felt was good and have nobody notice," explains Baker. And Griffin seems to share this attitude, saying, "I get good and bad mail often on the same column, which to me means it must be balanced." It's better to hear from both sides than to hear nothing at all, then.

"At the same time, you can't be totally influenced by what can be a mob-like mentality of fans because you are getting paid to look at things differently and more objectively," continues Baker. The most prominent examples of such influence, he says, are trade rumours. "It doesn't take much to start a rumour these days and sports reporters have to be far more vigilant at looking into what makes sense and what doesn't."

However, he admits, "This doesn't always happen. Too often, folks throw stuff against a wall and hope something sticks, as my pal Jim Fregosi never tires of saying -- in language a bit more colourful."

Sports Writers Can't Be Everybody's Friend
Speaking of colorful language, a fair amount of that type of verbiage has been hurled Baker's -- and especially Griffin's -- way on Web sites like this one, particularly for their perceived lack of warmth toward the SABR-driven "Ricciardi Way." [Editor's Note: This subject will be addressed more fully in tomorrow's installment of this series.] The vitriol has not gone unnoticed.

"Sure, it affects us," admits Baker. "We're only human. [But] there are times when we are looking at an issue one way and an alternative viewpoint may help us see things differently."

For instance, Baker says, "I know that I came to appreciate the value of OPS in measuring the game's top hitters simply by reading arguments on sites like this one." Well ... the more rational and less vulgar of those arguments, anyway.

As Griffin says, "Wait a minute. It's all right for a very public fan Web site to have contributors label certain writers as 'idiots' and 'morons' and to start a write-in campaign to certain newspapers to have someone fired, but it's not right for anyone to disagree and to criticize SABR. Hmm."

The business of being a sports writer is not for the thin-skinned, then? "You shouldn't get into this business if your goal is to be everybody's friend," says Baker.

Nonetheless, he adds, "I have come up with story ideas by reading [Batter's Box]. This is a very busy job. We don't always have time to cover all the angles. It's nice to check up on the pulse of the public and see what they are talking about. There is always room for an exchange between readers and writers. After all, we are writing for you guys."

But "you guys" represents a wider spectrum than most readers imagine, and it can be difficult -- perhaps impossible -- to respond in such a way that everyone is satisfied.

Griffin explains, "I would hope that I respond to what readers write and say. But ... there are many different types of readers with many different interests. I use [Batter's Box] as one gauge and I use my aunt in Scarborough, with her nine kids and 20-something grandchildren and her love of baseball and her Christian beliefs and her faith in the basic goodness of all people as another."

Baker concurs, saying, "The thing is, not all readers are as informed as others, so that's something we have to weigh when we write."

More than that, though, he says, "We also have to keep in mind that it isn't our job to mirror the thinking of our readers. We have greater access to the team and its inner workings than they ever will and see things they don't understand."

In fact, says Baker, "There have been postings to Web sites that are entirely wrong and could be cleared up in an instant, but they may otherwise seem logical to those not 'in the know.' So, we do have to write from an informed perspective -- and one that will stand the test of time, not simply make us popular for a week or two."

The bottom line, though, says Griffin, is "I have already changed some of my methods and perceptions in response to the Internet age ... it's [more] interactive."

Which, at the very least, leads to opportunities for stories like this one.

The Byline and the Bottom Line
"I do strive very hard to treat the team fairly," says Baker, though he acknowledges "unfairness" is one of the primary criticisms hurled the way of most sports writers. "Few things are worse than a jaded reporter or columnist who overcompensates on the negative side under the guise of being 'objective,' he says.

Objective or not, sports writers can certainly be pragmatic, of course. "Let's face it, I would benefit tremendously from book deals, extra freelance work, paid radio and television appearances and an easier work environment if the Jays ever did contend," explains Baker. "To suggest I, or any beat reporter, wouldn't want that is plain wrong."

Still, says Baker, "I don't want the Blue Jays inviting me home for dinner, helping me write books, or giving me some bogus lifetime achievement award 20 years from now for being a friendly promoter of the team who never questions its party line. Our readers are not that stupid and should not be treated as such."

So, you still want to be a sports writer? Okay, then.

Keep an eye on the bottom line. Develop a thick skin. Forget about being a fan -- or being friends with everyone. In fact, brace yourself for the daily e-mail and blog postings that demand your scalp on a shovel. Sharpen your peripheral vision to keep a clubhouse eye out for those players who "could tear you apart physically." Be informative, entertaining, objective -- and be sure to "get it right." Every time.

Oh, and be sure that you love sports ... and that you love writing.

Next: Hey ... Are These Guys Stat Geeks?
So, You Want to be a Sports Writer? | 41 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
_A - Wednesday, September 10 2003 @ 01:54 PM EDT (#33213) #
I have a lot of respect for anyone able to win (earn) a job as a sports journalist, mainly because of the number of people like me who think they can do it better but are still sitting in the kitchen reading the articles instead of writing them.

Either way, running from city to city covering baseball games in-person is still in my top three of best jobs possible (behind sitting at home and watching the money pour in and picking gold coins off of trees in the yard), regardless of the stringent guidelines of sitting in a pressbox or getting hate mail on a daily basis.
Mike Green - Wednesday, September 10 2003 @ 01:57 PM EDT (#33214) #
What seems fundamental to me is that a good sportswriter will know the sport he/she is writing about intimately, and will also know what he/she does not know, and will find out.

Richard Griffin's comment in his article following the "White Jays" controversy that the Jays would not have been interested in Jackie Robinson because he wouldn't have fit into their offensive philosophy (on-base percentage and power rather than speed and the use of one-run strategies) is a classic example of this. If I were a casual fan, I would assume that he knew of what he wrote and that Jackie Robinson did not get on base much and had little power. Little would I know that this could not be further from the truth.

We all can have our opinions, but getting the facts right seems to me to be the sine qua non of a sportswriter or any other newspaper writer for that matter.

I am eager to hear what the writers say about the substantive issues that arose from their columns this year.
_perlhack - Wednesday, September 10 2003 @ 01:59 PM EDT (#33215) #
"I [write for] a very much larger spectrum and therefore what Batter's Box [readers] may think is oversimplification, my aunt in Scarborough may appreciate," he explains. "I try to write for everyone."

I think this is part of the reason why so many people (read: ZLC types) are upset with Cerutti's babbling on telecasts. Although I'm not fond of it, I do think that someone with little exposure to baseball may find it insightful, and he certainly provides clubhouse anecdotes we cannot dispute. That is, he provides tidbits that allow a novice to learn the game.

Rob Faulds, on the other hand...
_Matthew Elmslie - Wednesday, September 10 2003 @ 02:25 PM EDT (#33216) #
So here's where we start to get into it.

"In fact," says Griffin, "I'm always thinking about what to write about next. The average reader does not understand the 24-hour-per-day attention that must be paid to what might become the best column idea. It can consume you. I wish I had an agenda."

I believe this. I write fewer than one column per month for Blue Jay Way these days, and I'm always stuck for ideas. And I don't have any professional responsibilities the way Griffin does, or any standards to meet beyond what I set for myself.

"I [write for] a very much larger spectrum and therefore what Batter's Box [readers] may think is oversimplification, my aunt in Scarborough may appreciate," [Griffin] explains.

I'm not sure that oversimplification is a charge we've ever leveled at him. I think we get that around here, don't we, that baseball writers sometimes have to boil things down for a wider audience?

As Griffin says, "Wait a minute. It's all right for a very public fan Web site to have contributors label certain writers as 'idiots' and 'morons' and to start a write-in campaign to certain newspapers to have someone fired, but it's not right for anyone to disagree and to criticize SABR. Hmm."

As I say, wait a minute. It's all right for a baseball writer to criticize SABR, or for that matter to criticize sabremetrically-oriented fans, and it's *certainly* all right for a certain writer to not take kindly to a write-in campaign to get him fired, but it's not right for anyone to misrepresent, intentionally or not, the positions of SABR or of statheads in order to score points off them. Which was my objection to those columns. Hmm?

I mean, I like to think that I'm honest enough with myself - taking myself as an example, for whatever that's worth - that I can tell the difference between a real criticism of the school of thought I've aligned myself with on the one hand, and a false characterization on the other.

He explains, "You get paid to offer realistic, often critical analysis and then, unlike sports fans -- or editors, for that matter -- have to walk into a clubhouse every day and face the music from players, who, quite frankly, could tear you apart physically. That's the type of daily stress level people don't really understand until they experience it firsthand."

One of my favourite all-time writers, Roy Blount Jr., spent a year with the Pittsburgh Steelers in the '70s for the purpose of writing a book about them. He remembered a conversation he had with a couple of players in which one of them tried to explain something anatomical to Blount about a throwing technique or an injury or something. He grabbed Blount's arm to indicate the relevant muscle . . . and then released his arm and and grabbed his teammate's arm instead, because that anatomical feature just wasn't present on Blount's arm.

This series of articles is cool. Well done.
_Nigel - Wednesday, September 10 2003 @ 02:37 PM EDT (#33217) #
I agree completely with Mike. I think that both Richard and Geoff have probably been unfairly criticized for some of their writing which is oversimplistic on this site and elsewhere. I can completely understand that in a daily newspaper (as opposed to a specialized publication like Baseball America, etc.) the message has to reach many audiences and hence could/should lead to some generalizations. What I think they should get criticized for is factual errors. Even Richard's comment above about criticizing the SABR approach sort of misses the point. One of the benefits of statistical analysis is to "debunk" myths or popularly held views about something. Jackie Robinson is a classic example of that. SABR should be used as a way to ensure that writers get "facts" right not as an "approach" which should be criticized. SABR analysis is a "tool" to assist in the more subjective analysis of what are good or bad ways to play baseball or spend money or any number of more subjective decisions.
Craig B - Wednesday, September 10 2003 @ 03:00 PM EDT (#33218) #
Great article, Mick. Now we're getting to see how these guys tick.

(I will not yell and scream... I will not yell and scream... I will not yell and scream...)

Griffin said

It's all right for a very public fan Web site to have contributors label certain writers as 'idiots' and 'morons' and to start a write-in campaign to certain newspapers to have someone fired, but it's not right for anyone to disagree and to criticize SABR. Hmm.

And in response I say... "what a drama queen".

This is the thread that Griffin is referring to, where Kent at comment 2 and Ryan Adams at comment 4 discussed the possibility of writing en masse to the Star about Griffin's Jays coverage, which many (including myself) thought was unfairly biased against the team.

It wasn't a campaign to get anybody fired... that's a massive distortion. It was talking about a campaign to make the paper aware of the discontent of some of the Jays' fans. I think their baseball coverage was, and still is, slanted against the team, and no effort is spared to make the organization look bad.

And besides that, nobody was twisting any facts. The complaints about Griffin hatcheting SABR weren't that he was being mean. I don't give a crap if the guy is mean. I *did* find it unforgivable that he wouldn't bother to fact-check. (I also found the word "cult" to be pretty hurtful to the organization. SABR has never done a damn thing to Griffin.)

How Griffin can make the comparison between a couple of posts on a message board that went nowhere, and his hatchet job against a large and respectable organization in a colun in a widely-read newspaper, and expect it to stand up, is beyond me. OK, it's not beyond me. But it is an attempt to score cheap points.

Rich, if you're reading, please please *please* remember that most of us don't want you fired, never wanted you fired, and heck, would probably miss you if you were fired. It's certainly not the BBox editorial position. We just think you're unfair sometimes :)
Craig B - Wednesday, September 10 2003 @ 03:02 PM EDT (#33219) #
Whoops! My link above didn't come out right. So much for "Preview Your Comment".

This is the thread that Griffin is referring to.
_Andrew Edwards - Wednesday, September 10 2003 @ 03:28 PM EDT (#33220) #
It's all right for a very public fan Web site to have contributors label certain writers as 'idiots' and 'morons' and to start a write-in campaign to certain newspapers to have someone fired, but it's not right for anyone to disagree and to criticize SABR.

*choke*

No, actually, both are OK. One can be a very legitimate response to the other.

By way of analogy:

"It's all right for a very public political party to label its opponents 'incompetent', but it's not OK for the other party to accuse them of lowering the tone of the debate?"

Both acceptable.

-0-0-0-

Otherwise, Griffin & Baker's comments are fair. I personally do think that we underestimate how much 'talking down' is nested in a lot of sportswriters' work. Gammons is a great example - he clearly understands sabermetrics very well, but knows that if he wrote like TangoTiger, it would never be accepted by his readership. He seems to feel that he needs to balance the two.

So far what I've heard is that Griffin seems to think he's doing the same. I certainly think he's seriously misjudged where the balance lies, but I don't doubt his intentions are reasonable. (I never really accepted the 'Griffin has it in for Riccardi because he's not connected to the new regime' line.)
Gerry - Wednesday, September 10 2003 @ 03:34 PM EDT (#33221) #
First, I think Mick should have a job at the Star. These stories are superbly written.

When the kid replies, "Because I love sports," the grizzled vet laughs and says "No, no, no. You have to love writing."

We follow the game because we love baseball. Most baseball writers started their career as writers and ended up on the baseball beat. Now they should like baseball, but they come to the job as writers first, and baseball fans second.

Some writers (not implying Baker or Griffin) may not like baseball as much as we do, and may look at it as a part of their job. If baseball were our job, as oppossed to an interest, we may lose some interest over time.
_Matthew Elmslie - Wednesday, September 10 2003 @ 03:40 PM EDT (#33222) #
(I never really accepted the 'Griffin has it in for Riccardi because he's not connected to the new regime' line.)

Me neither. Griffin's columns during the Ash regime weren't exactly models of sweetness and light, although I do think he's carved up Ricciardi and company worse than he ever did with Ash. Of course, we did a bit of Ashbashing ourselves, so that could be subjective, but I think it's still true even with that.

I personally do think that we underestimate how much 'talking down' is nested in a lot of sportswriters' work. [...] I certainly think he's seriously misjudged where the balance lies, but I don't doubt his intentions are reasonable.

I don't either . . . at least in this area. In some other areas, I reserve comment until all ten parts of the interview are in.
_nelly - Wednesday, September 10 2003 @ 03:52 PM EDT (#33223) #
its cool that everyone involved are doing these artices... i look forward to the remainder.

i would agree with matthew's point its not that some readers disagree with mr. griffin that leads to an angry response... its the misrepresentation of positions or factual errors that leads to an angry response.

an example is griffin's article on the four man rotation. neyer (click on my name) points out an important error in a column that followed.
Mike D - Wednesday, September 10 2003 @ 03:59 PM EDT (#33224) #
Mike Green, Griffin's comment that Jackie Robinson wouldn't have fit in with the current Jays wasn't necessarily an assertion that he fell short in the OPS department. At the time, I interpreted the comment as suggesting that Robinson's daring style of small ball wouldn't have been encouraged by the club. And let's face it, it wouldn't have been.

Nobody's suggesting that the Jays sign Alex Sanchez, or have Carlos Delgado bunt. But Jackie's distracting presence on the basepaths was perceived as awfully valuable at the time -- and he also played in a station-to-station, cozy-ballpark, power hitter's era. Isn't it likely that he might have been used at least a little differently under the Ricciardi Plan?

What Rich forgot when he made that argument, of course, was that Jackie was a college player. J.P. would have certainly scouted him carefully, and given Robinson's amazing combination of bat, glove and ability to get on base, would have had him awfully high (i.e., #1) on his draft board.
Craig B - Wednesday, September 10 2003 @ 04:24 PM EDT (#33225) #
Jackie was a college player.

He was, but as Eric Enders has pointed out, he was a really awful one. I think he hit less than .100 in the limited action he saw in college.

He was, however, a very good player for the Monarchs, who played at a much higher level of competition than any college team.

Incidentally, the people who didn't think Robinson could handle the majors weren't fans or anything. It was (naturally) scouts.
_Matthew Elmslie - Wednesday, September 10 2003 @ 04:35 PM EDT (#33226) #
Where was it that I read Griffin's rebuttal to the whole Jackie Robinson thing? I may even have heard it on the radio. Anyway, he made the point that Robinson, as a college player (and possibly even as a Negro Leagues player), had pretty bad numbers and was more toolsy than Weaverrific, and that's why he said that Ricciardi and Beane wouldn't have been interested in him.

My response to that: if that's what you meant, Mr. Griffin, then you should have explained it more thoroughly, because otherwise, nobody will think that that's what you meant. (Some people, having read the above paragraph, probably still don't think that's what you meant.) If true, though, it is acceptable as a rebuttal and we can move on, because the Robinson thing wasn't the main point of the discussion anyway. One point, though: Robinson is now something of a symbolic figure, and to say that the Jays wouldn't have been interested in him - and to say it in the context of the 'White Jays' controversy - is to suggest, faintly, that Ricciardi and the Jays would have been opposed to the breaking of the colour line, and that's not a cool thing to suggest.

Which leads me to Baker's comment above: "There have been postings to Web sites that are entirely wrong and could be cleared up in an instant, but they may otherwise seem logical to those not 'in the know.'"

What Baker is saying is that he is privy to information about the Jays that we as fans don't even suspect. Which I suppose is true. So I guess it's possible that the Jays' front office is rife with racism, that Dave Stewart was right all along, that the 'White Jays' article was a courageous attempt to try to bring some of this out into the open, and that we fans don't know the true story . . . but it's going to take proof and not insinuation to bring me around to that belief.
Pepper Moffatt - Wednesday, September 10 2003 @ 04:44 PM EDT (#33227) #
http://economics.about.com
Where was it that I read Griffin's rebuttal to the whole Jackie Robinson thing? I may even have heard it on the radio. Anyway, he made the point that Robinson, as a college player (and possibly even as a Negro Leagues player), had pretty bad numbers and was more toolsy than Weaverrific, and that's why he said that Ricciardi and Beane wouldn't have been interested in him.

Of course, if this is what Griffin meant, it's still a stupid point. If JP only cared about players who put up big numbers in college, he would have broken the color line well before Robinson came around, as there were dozens of excellent black college players going back to the 1870s. So JP wouldn't have broken the color line with Robinson because he would have already broken it 50 years prior.

Mike
_George Tsuji - Wednesday, September 10 2003 @ 04:45 PM EDT (#33228) #
Fascinating article, thanks. One of Baker's quotes really caught my eye:

"Which is why the best writers tend to be in the sports section,"

I've heard it suggested that writers working on "real" news stories look down upon the sportswriters -- the "toy department", as I've heard. Was that touched upon at all in the interviews?
_Ryan Day - Wednesday, September 10 2003 @ 04:52 PM EDT (#33229) #
If you're going to say that Jackie Robinson couldn't have played Major League Baseball under J.P. Ricciardi's criteria, you'd better be pretty darn precise about what you mean.
Mike D.'s theory on Griffin's meaning lies more along the lines of "If the Jays had drafted Robinson, he wouldn't have been nearly as exciting a player," which would be a valid criticism much in the same way you could say that Vernon Wells should steal more bases. But to say that Robinson, the first black man to play major-league baseball COULDN'T play for the Blue Jays is either a) ignorant of Robinson's actual skills or b) inflammatory.
Griffin didn't write "Robinson had a poor college career but displayed astonishing speed and athleticism that Ricciardi would have overlooked." He said "Under those criteria [Ricciardi/Beane's philosophy of patience and not running the bases], Jackie Robinson could not have played in the majors."
_Mick - Wednesday, September 10 2003 @ 04:57 PM EDT (#33230) #
I've heard it suggested that writers working on "real" news stories look down upon the sportswriters -- the "toy department", as I've heard. Was that touched upon at all in the interviews?

It was not. But I think it may not have been written particularly well (since I wrote it, I can say that. Self-flaming is OK, right Coach?) ...

What I believe Baker meant to imply is that because sports writers are by necessity granted some of the "subjective leeway" he mentions, they have to be the writers the editors and other boss-types trust the most.

It's (relatively speaking) easier for an editor to read the news piece about Tony Blair and GW Bush and fact-check it and scrub it of "opinion."

Because a sports piece, even the game recaps (much less the columns) are infotainment, they actually rely on opinion. So the subjective leeway (seriously -- would that not be a great name for a grunge band made up of journalists?) plays a more critical role.

It's the old phrase "give 'em just enough rope to hang himself" (or herself) ... the good writer uses the rope but avoids the hanging. The ensuing lynching, as we have seen on these very pages, is another matter entirely.
Coach - Wednesday, September 10 2003 @ 05:18 PM EDT (#33231) #
"The big price... is you don't get to be a fan."

I would love to be paid for what I'm doing now as a hobby, and it would be cool to make road trips on an expense account, but that is a steep price. Maybe blogging is the best of both worlds after all. We get to write about the game we love, but it's still OK to have favourite players and teams. To be completely objective might diminish my enjoyment of baseball, and I don't want that.

"I think [we're] clarifying, interpreting and cutting through the corporate smoke and mirrors to tell fans what's really happening."

To a sportswriter, owners probably tend to look alike after a while. Fans have a different perspective. I hated Interbrew because I thought winning was far down their list of priorities. It's really only optimism that makes me hopeful that Rogers will eventually open the vault to bankroll a championship. The fact is, they have cut payroll and are counting on J.P. & Co. to duplicate Oakland's success at fielding a contender on a tight budget. A professional skeptic will believe that when he sees it, not before.

I don't know Paul Godfrey, but he strikes me as someone who likes to win. When the time comes, in 2005 or 2006, that one key free agent might make the difference for the Jays, I assume that he will convince the board to loosen the purse strings. (It would help if TV ratings and attendance continue to rise.) If it does turn out to be "corporate smoke and mirrors" -- ownership still cries poor, and the Jays fall just short -- I will feel betrayed, and gullible.

It wasn't a campaign to get anybody fired... that's a massive distortion. It was talking about a campaign to make the paper aware of the discontent of some of the Jays' fans. I think their baseball coverage was, and still is, slanted against the team, and no effort is spared to make the organization look bad.

Agreed. There has been a feeling for a long time among intelligent, knowledgeable fans (like us) that certain articles in the Star try to influence the casual fan's viewpoint. Rarely, if ever, is this subtle persuasion positive. The "discontent" Craig mentions is not limited to Da Box; many people who had never read this site felt the same way. After dozens of negative pieces, some with factual errors or convenient omissions, a few of us were moved to complain.

Finally, the main reason the J.P. Jays or the Beane A's would have signed Jackie Robinson has nothing to do with his college career, OBP or baserunning. He was a major talent, from a non-traditional pool -- exactly what the budget-conscious GMs are looking for. Sabermetrics is being used as a tool to locate bargains -- its front-office proponents don't think Bobby Kielty is an MVP candidate, they believe he's as effective as a similar, toolsy, $6 million player, for a fraction of the cost.

Mick, you've done an amazing job with this, and it's really just beginning. I look forward to all the remaining articles.
_Ryan - Wednesday, September 10 2003 @ 05:26 PM EDT (#33232) #
\"The best measure of whether to trust a paper [is if] we 'get it wrong' and keep getting it wrong," says Baker.\

This is a good point. It's also why I have little respect for the Star's baseball coverage and Griffin in particular.

Griffin frequently "gets it wrong." The most glaring example of this was the out-clause fiasco last year. Griffin went on for weeks about the out-clause and how Ricciardi was likely to use it to bolt to Boston, but Griffin never bothered to see if Ricciardi could actually use the clause in that way. The six-month waiting period made it impossible for Ricciardi to leave on his own for another club. If the Red Sox had interest in his services, they still had to receive permission from Paul Godfrey in order to talk to him. Ultimately Ricciardi wouldn't have been able to leave unless he had Paul Godfrey's blessing. When the Red Sox did call, Godfrey turned them down and that was the end of it. The out-clause was never an issue and Ricciardi couldn't have left for Boston even if he had wanted to. Instead of taking the time to check the facts, Griffin grabbed a pitchfork and went on a witch-hunt. Not once has he corrected himself since then.

\As Griffin says, "Wait a minute. It's all right for a very public fan Web site to have contributors label certain writers as 'idiots' and 'morons' and to start a write-in campaign to certain newspapers to have someone fired, but it's not right for anyone to disagree and to criticize SABR. Hmm."\

The people who are critical of Griffin base their opinions on the numerous inaccuracies in his column and will frequently cite specific examples of these. Griffin, on the other hand, never supports his arguments against sabermetrics with any kind of evidence. Most people don't have a problem with criticisms of sabermetrics or SABR as long as they are justifiable. Griffin's criticisms have been completely baseless, which is why so many people have reacted angrily.

Griffin's attack a couple weeks ago on SABR was ridiculous. How can he justify attacking an organization and its membership when he doesn't even know what it does? It's not as if SABR is some little-known organization whose objectives are kept under a veil of secrecy. I went to Griffin's column on The Star's website and scrolled to the bottom of the page. At the bottom of the blue column on the left, there's a box to do a Google web search. I typed in "SABR", pressed "GO" and looked at the results that came up. The first website on the list was the official homepage for the The Society For American Baseball Research and on that page is the following:

"The Society for American Baseball Research was established in Cooperstown, New York in August of 1971. The Society's mission is to foster the study of baseball, to assist in developing and maintaining the history of the game, to facilitate the dissemination of baseball research, to stimulate interest in baseball, and to safeguard the proprietary interests of its members' research efforts.

"SABR, which is pronounced "saber" and whose acronym led to the creation of the word sabermetrics (mathematical tools to analyze baseball), is about much more than stats. In fact, only a minority of members pursue "number crunching" research. Rather, SABR offers a community built on shared interests, [...]"

That whole process took me about 15 seconds (yes, I timed it). The information is all there for Griffin, but he apparently couldn't be bothered to look for it. There is simply no excuse for screwing up SABR's objectives that badly in his column. Criticism is one thing, but criticism based on inaccurate information or flawed reasoning is another matter entirely. The latter is why Griffin deserves much of the criticism he gets for his work.
_Matthew Elmslie - Wednesday, September 10 2003 @ 05:27 PM EDT (#33233) #
I hated Interbrew because I thought winning was far down their list of priorities. It's really only optimism that makes me hopeful that Rogers will eventually open the vault to bankroll a championship. The fact is, they have cut payroll and are counting on J.P. & Co. to duplicate Oakland's success at fielding a contender on a tight budget. A professional skeptic will believe that when he sees it, not before.

I don't know Paul Godfrey, but he strikes me as someone who likes to win. When the time comes, in 2005 or 2006, that one key free agent might make the difference for the Jays, I assume that he will convince the board to loosen the purse strings. (It would help if TV ratings and attendance continue to rise.) If it does turn out to be "corporate smoke and mirrors" -- ownership still cries poor, and the Jays fall just short -- I will feel betrayed, and gullible.


I think the difference between Interbrew and Rogers is that Interbrew didn't really want to own a baseball team and Rogers does, for reasons of corporate synergy and stuff. Plus, Paul Godfrey owes his political life to the Jays, basically, so he has something of a personal interest in seeing them succeed. So I do think they're interested in having the team win, but that's no guarantee that Rogers will loosen the pursestrings. I do have some hope that, as the team becomes more competitive, the revenues will rise and the ballclub's cut will get bigger. I think that's somewhat reasonable, although not a lock.
_Scott - Wednesday, September 10 2003 @ 05:48 PM EDT (#33234) #
My 2 cents worth (although for disclosures purposes I will admit to having a burr up my butt when it comes to the media, particularly Cdn newspapers):

I rely on media for information and getting the story out, but the trend recently has been for newspapers to provide me with a columinist"s point of view and not the story. Have a read of the Globe and Mail and pretty much every other page has a column from somebody criticizing somebody or something else. Same thing for the National Post. I don't mind it being in the op-ed section but it has gotten beyond that. Furthermore, most columns, albeit well-written, are wrong when it comes the facts--this is not a problem that Griffen/Baker have monopolized.

I frankly don"t care what Griffen"s thoughts are or Baker"s or Elliot"s. What I want is information so I can make up my own. Why is it that a website full of baseball/blue jay fans have to take it upon themselves to interview the GM or players. Is that not the media"s job? Instead they give us fluff stories on the racial make-up of the team.

But apparently they have difficulting coming up with topics. Well, how about calling up Dick Scott and getting a timeline on Rios, what are his strengths, weaknesses? Or what about pressing JP on Hinske"s defense and suggesting a possible remedy in putting Hudson over there. Or how about interviewing a scout from another team and getting his opinions on the Jays. What about exploring with MLB the possibility of Toronto moving out of the East? What about the Skydome and changes to the playing surface or any resolution in the ownership issue? I could go on for hours about possible articles that I would like to see--but all of them rely on getting out of the house and doing some legwork.

At the end of the day, sites like this one are slowly replacing the traditonal media because they provide better information (both in quality and accuracy). Sorry for the cyncism but like I said at the beginning I have a burr up my butt.
Gitz - Wednesday, September 10 2003 @ 07:30 PM EDT (#33235) #
There is some great commentary here, but I will limit mine somewhat. (And there was much rejoicing.)

"In fact," says Griffin, "I'm always thinking about what to write about next. The average reader does not understand the 24-hour-per-day attention that must be paid to what might become the best column idea. It can consume you. I wish I had an agenda."

Ditto. I echo what Matthew Elmslie says: I have to write a monthy column in a business magazine, and each month I am a week late because of a lack of good ideas. Once a month! For ESPN.com I write twice a week, or at least I used to, and that was a somewhat easier situation because baseball is more fluid than business, despite the daily melodrama played out on Wall St. And even for ESPN.com, there truly are only so many ways to say "Terrence Long stinks" and "Erubiel Durazo is a complete bust." If I wanted to, I could come up with something to post every day on Batter's Box, but I know it would be consuming, and I would have to ignore other similarly unpaid projects such as a script, a novel, or a marriage. In other words, and this is an admittedly poor excuse, I would need it to be my paid job -- above and beyond a monthly column in a stifling, constrictive business magazine.

Wait a minute. It's all right for a very public fan Web site to have contributors label certain writers as 'idiots' and 'morons' and to start a write-in campaign to certain newspapers to have someone fired, but it's not right for anyone to disagree and to criticize SABR. Hmm.

I wish Griffin had used a different argument here, because I absolutely believe this 100 percent -- it's the SABR reference that I don't like. If he had simply said "Wait. People can criticize me for not embracing sabermetrics but I can't criticize them" I would have been far more pleased. Ideally, nobody would like to get into name calling and "I'm right because I say I am and you're wrong because I also claim that," but that is what has happened far too often. Craig and I have engaged in some stubborn arguments, but I'd like to think that neither of us were out-and-out claiming the other person was an "idiot" or that one of our perspectives was "wrong." We were simply disagreeing, and, at times, on very minor points. The simple truth is that if you can't take criticism, don't dish it out. I live by this lesson, both as a creative writer and as a sports writer, and, unless it's excessive and heavy-handed, as in the Jeremy Giambi reference I made the other day, I accept it; and if it's good criticism, I try to learn from it.

At the end of the day, sites like this one are slowly replacing the traditonal media because they provide better information (both in quality and accuracy). Sorry for the cyncism but like I said at the beginning I have a burr up my butt.

In absolutely no way will blogs replace traditional sources of news, the same way that TV hasn't killed radio, that the Internet hasn't killed TV, etc. The cable news market, which has been around for 20 years now, at least in the U.S., is really just a battleground for FOX News, CNN, and MSNBC; while they have usurped some of the audience from ABC, NBC, and CBS, the fact remains that a vast majority of Americans get their news from those latter three giants and, what is worse, from their local affililiates, which are so bad they do not dignify a response.

On the other hand, has TV changed radio? Sure. Has the Internet changed TV? Sure. Have all the media changed the way news is presented? Of course. But will blogs and non-traditional sources -- and "alternative" sources -- of news even change, let alone replace, the way news is presented by the "mainstream" press? I suggest that not only will blogs NOT replace the existing media climate, but that they will also not even change it until some sense of corportate/media reform is in place, because right now the mainstream media companies are gigantic beyond belief, way beyond what the "average" person knows; they do whatever they want, and no "tinhorn blogger" will change their mind, because they're unstoppable monsters.

Has it all been for the betterment of society and civilisation and the common good of all people? That is a thick issue, one I will not examine here.
Gitz - Wednesday, September 10 2003 @ 07:34 PM EDT (#33236) #
Oops. I meant to say ... "Have the media changed the way news is presented? Of course, but for the worse; it has been entertainment for too long, and it will remain that way."
_S.K. - Wednesday, September 10 2003 @ 11:39 PM EDT (#33237) #
Don't want to ramble, as there have been many excellent and wide-ranging comments so far - just wanted to get something quick off my chest.

Griffin complains that people jumped all over him and criticized his SABR criticism. Alright, perhaps we were a little harsh, though I think most people on this site agree that we were justified. However, the main point is this: we are fans, posting off-the-cuff on an internet site. Griffin is a professional writer appearing in one of the most high-profile newspapers in Canada. Who has more of an obligation to be accurate and unbiased? Which of us is expected to be knowledgable and do research beforehand?

It burns me up when professional writers act as if anything they write is gospel simply because they get paid to do it. Both Griffin and Baker say that they accept and welcome criticism of your work, but that it should be informed and fair. Well and good - write informed articles, and we'll see where we get.
_Mick - Wednesday, September 10 2003 @ 11:58 PM EDT (#33238) #
Who has more of an obligation to be accurate and unbiased?

Geoff Baker.

No, seriously. The beat writer has the obligation to be unbiased; the columnist does not. In fact, you can make a pretty decent argument that the columnist not only has the right, but the obligation to be biased. I'm using the term "bias" here in its literal sense (point of view) not its colloquial sense (unfair prejudice).

Also, let's keep in mind that "accuracy" carries different obligations from game report to editorial column. (Yes, Griffin is on the Sports page, but his work by definition is opinion and therefore in the parlance of the journalism trade, "opinion.") Baker may have that "subjective leeway" discussed earlier, but Griffin's work is subjective by nature.

When I was younger, about six careers ago, doing among other things writing a weekly opinion column (not sports), and editor once said to me, "Doherty, lemme tell ya. I know my columnists are doing a good job when they get lots of mail and it's halfway split between those that want to see 'em promoted and those that want to see 'em hung. [dramatic pause] You're doin' your job, son." (This after he'd decided to publish a letter to the editor calling me "the spawn of Satan," and told me it was a high compliment. Actually, come to think of it, maybe it was the homonym -- and there was a high complement of people writing that. Alas.]

Every time someone here calls Rich Griffin a blankety-blank expletive deleted, you're confirming that the man knows his job and is doing it really, really well.
_S.K. - Thursday, September 11 2003 @ 12:02 AM EDT (#33239) #
Mick:
You're right, including "bias" in my argument showed my own bias. However, I still think that Griffin owed his readership (and his employers) the obligation of at least making sure that he knows what he's talking about. Being controversial is one thing, and I have no problem with that, but the controversy should be about matters of opinion, not misrepresentation and incorrect information.
_Lefty - Thursday, September 11 2003 @ 01:55 AM EDT (#33240) #
Well I don't weigh in here very often anymore here anymore because the waters are sometimes a little too acidic for my liking. Though i still read the excellent interventions on the particular topics twice a day. What I can say is that Griffin and Baker get alot of respect from me for wading into the BB. As well I believe this excercise as set out by Kent's ground rules is proving to be wonderfully refreshing in terms of a little personal introspection.

I believe it is imperitive that the Bluejays have to stand before the press and make their case. They are selling a product which we as fans paying them for. I am not one who will ever suffer for blind faith. As coach mentioned loosely, we will have to wait and see if the five yr. plan is just like the 11 previously presented by the PRC.I believe whether we like the smell of it or not Mr. Baker and Griffin are providing this Jay's fan a service. Much or most of what they have written this year is basically what I believe watching just about every game this season. Yes, absolutely theres been some real crap in the mix but what really is the big deal. We should feel so indignant about what really matters in this world, how the story of what matters is presented to us. What is and what isn't told. Baseball and the Jays serve as my escape from all of that, its a game. Its entertainment. It doesn't matter, really.

I am a constantly critical of the global media. From my armchair in hotel rooms around the world and at home I have tried to analyse what they are selling us and selling us I think is the key here.

That being said I think what Mssr's Baker and Griffin explanation of their job and how they approach the job is an fairly fair representation of the working media. I think I know something about this because I date a member of Canwest press. She, who has a very similar life philosophy to mine ..... well, sometimes I can even see the horns of the devil protruding from her pretty forehead.

What I am curious about is what influence the Senior Sports Editor and Managing Editor have on the content and positional style. I know that it is absolutely a very large part of how stories are published here in Vancouver. Unfortunately this is a question that will not be answered publicly by these two fella's because the livlihoods and their professional comfort are in the hands of their masters. I can tell you it is a wonderful experience to while away the hours over a drink with members of the mainstream press. For the most part they are fine people with strong conviction trying everyday to make a difference even if its just simply sliding in two words that might escape the managing editor's notice.

And please make no mistake about my comments. The mainstream corporate media is a cess-pool. There are percentages of people in every profession who are simply pieces of shite. Though most of these in the media are in management. Low skill, no morals and not embarrassed to kiss ass all the way up the ladder. All I am asking is, are we really going to be satisfied by a public/blog rebuking of Mssrs. Griffin and Baker.

Finally as a web reader of the Torstar, man I wish they would start a paper in Vancouver. They would very much improve the Vancouver market.

And Gitz, if your ever up north of the 49th next summer and want to go see the Single A, A's, get in touch.
_Lefty - Thursday, September 11 2003 @ 02:08 AM EDT (#33241) #
Forgot to say, Mick, well crafted and thoroughly enjoyable reading. Thanks for your huge effort.
_benum - Thursday, September 11 2003 @ 03:33 AM EDT (#33242) #
I'm not one of the smart guys around here so my two cents is probably worth somewhere around a peso...but...

My problems with Griffin/Baker are:

1) The 'White Jays' thing. Whatever the impetus behind it, it came across as a 'Villagers, light your torches' crusade. The possible point of the article was informational in nature, but not articulated well at all (it could have been: due to a restricted budget, the Jays are looking at College players. This is a group which is pretty much all Americans and mostly white. As a result, the team may have less minority players in future.)
The article came across as an attack on the management of the team and hinted at racism. I believe that if the team had an unlimited budget, they'd sign players like Vlaad, etc.

I don't see a Woodward/Bordick middle infield with O-Dog riding the pine. I see that Pollite lost the 'closer' role to a Latino Rule 5'er. I think the Manager is from Cuba. I haven't seen Delgado dumped for prospects, blah blah blah

2) The lack of research. The SABR thing is obvious and has been covered better than I can in the preceding posts.

3) The (perceived by me) lack of effort. Why is a public Blog 'scooping' a National paper when it comes to coverage of the Jays? Where is the analysis? If these guys have extra knowledge by way of their proximity to the organization, where are the deliverables?

No offense intended to Griffin/Baker but...the Star would do better to run a battersbox article (with a URL to the site) for Blue Jays coverage. I think they (G & B) should look at someone like Neyer to get an idea on how Baseball coverage should be in the Internet Age i.e. do some analysis, link to the research, keep an open mind).

In closing...sorry, it's my birthday tomorrow and I've had a few too many. Please ignore all spelling mistakes, etc.
_Spicol - Thursday, September 11 2003 @ 08:46 AM EDT (#33243) #
Baker...says, "We also have to keep in mind that it isn't our job to mirror the thinking of our readers. We have greater access to the team and its inner workings than they ever will and see things they don't understand."

Baker said the above but my comment is more about Griffin: If he has greater access to the team and the sport in general, it's his responsibility to reveal and make comment on the positive as much as the negative. What's Rich's ratio of positive to negative columns?

I submitted some questions that touch on this, and I hope they got asked, but I don't think he understands the influence his columns and his paper has on all but the most hardcore of Jay fans. Winning is a much larger component of the fan equation but I really feel that interest in the team is and has been waning, in part, because the Toronto media is more negative than positive about this team. I understand the need to report accurately on the negative but I don't think it's too much to ask that the good stuff gets touched on just as much.

Good job, Mick.
_Jordan - Thursday, September 11 2003 @ 10:29 AM EDT (#33244) #
Been away for a couple days (as usual, lately), but I just wanted to say that not only is this a terrific series of articles by Mick, but it's also been a tremendously good series of discussions, too -- I'm really pleased with and proud of the thoughtfulness and passion that people are bringing to these debates. And again, full kudos to Griffin and Baker for their participation. I sense we'll all be a little wiser and better informed by the time this series comes to an end.
robertdudek - Thursday, September 11 2003 @ 12:32 PM EDT (#33245) #
"Gammons is a great example - he clearly understands sabermetrics very well, but knows that if he wrote like TangoTiger, it would never be accepted by his readership. He seems to feel that he needs to balance the two."

I do not think this is true. I think Gammons may understand some very basic truths related to sabermetrics but isn't particularly up of the kind of nuts and bolts stuff that Tango does.
robertdudek - Thursday, September 11 2003 @ 12:53 PM EDT (#33246) #
"Or what about pressing JP on Hinske's defense and suggesting a possible remedy in putting Hudson over there."

I know that the above was simply an example of a basis for a column, but I think it would not be a good idea to take a very good defensive 2B and move him to a position where his bat is marginal.
_85Jays - Thursday, September 11 2003 @ 02:26 PM EDT (#33247) #
For Griffin:

Since we know now that you read this board, it's a good opportunity to address you directly.

The problem I have had with your columns is that they don't appear to be balanced. They have a very definite "vendetta" feel to them, which I have never understood. Is there a vendetta? Maybe not -- but that's irrelevant. You certainly appear to have something personal against Ricciardi and the Jays, and that is a failing in the way you have presented yourself as a columnist, not in the way readers have perceived you.

I cancelled my Star subscription after the "White Jays" articles, saying at the time that my reason for cancelling was not those articles alone, but the incessant anti-Jays feel of the sports pages.

If the Star ISN'T anti-Jay, it certainly comes across as such.

(Ironically, the only reason I subscribed to the Star in the first place was because I wanted more Jays coverage than my "news" paper, The Globe, could provide.)

I have no problem with views that don't agree with my own. But I have no interest in continuing to read a sports section that appears to have such a disdain for the team I have loved and supported for more than a quarter of a century.

I won't be renewing my subscription anytime soon, because I need to feel that the sports section speaks to me, not against me.

However, I respect the fact that you were willing to come here to face some of those who have been put off by your columns. It shows guts, class, and integrity. It also allows me to say in the future, "I disagree with Griffin, BUT ..."

Hats off to you for that, sir.
_Rich - Thursday, September 11 2003 @ 02:36 PM EDT (#33248) #
We should feel so indignant about what really matters in this world, how the story of what matters is presented to us. What is and what isn't told. Baseball and the Jays serve as my escape from all of that, its a game. Its entertainment. It doesn't matter, really.

In a larger sense, you are probably right. At the same time, if we really viewed the world that way, then people like Richard Griffin and Geoff Baker would have other careers, as we'd just watch the games for fun, and then forget about them when they were over. If they're going to be paid to critically report on and analyze the Jays for a major media outlet, then they have an obligation not to gloss over facts that contradict their points of view. If they're going to write stories with a "political" slant, such as the racial makeup stories, then they have to write them fairly and accurately, and deserve the type of serious scrutiny and potential backlash they receive from doing failing to do so.

When Griffin says getting angry email is satisfying to him, I can understand. That is why I no longer read the baseball coverage in the Star. I have had my limit of the hatchet jobs published there, and not just against the current Jays' regime. I don't think they have a particular agenda, but rather find the ideas for most of their column by picking on their favourite whipping boys (JP, Roger Clemens, David Wells, to name just a few). I get all my Jays info from this site(and the odd Jeff Blair article, who I feel makes a much more successful effort to write fair, informed pieces), and will continue to do so.

I appreciate that Griffin and Baker have come on here; it takes integrity to do so. At the same time it won't make me any more likely to resume paying attention to their work, as I feel they have had their chance to keep me as a reader and they have flushed it away. I no longer care what they write, as I can determine their articles' content from the headline.

There is no lack of intelligent baseball analysis available, like here, Rob Neyer and John Sickels, and the crew at Baseball Prospectus. I am simply not wasting any more of my time on the Star's baseball coverage, and I doubt I am alone.
_pete_the_donkey - Thursday, September 11 2003 @ 05:31 PM EDT (#33249) #
I prefer to just ignore the Star completely.
Bob Elliot and the Jays/baseball writers at the Sun are superb - I'd rather throw my two quarters down a sewer drain than put them in a Star box every morning.
Pistol - Thursday, September 11 2003 @ 09:50 PM EDT (#33250) #
Heck of a job with these articles Mick.

One thing that I don't think that has come up is regarding writing more detailed explanations of things. It's very possible that space limitations is a reason for this. We can write forever on this site, but they're probably limited by x words in a column.

"Few things are worse than a jaded reporter or columnist who overcompensates on the negative side under the guise of being 'objective,' (Baker) says.

This is *exactly* my impression of Griffin's writing.
_Lefty - Friday, September 12 2003 @ 12:56 AM EDT (#33251) #
Newspaper stories are actually measured by column inches. It depends if they run a picture and how big the picture is. This might effect the inches Baker gets but not Griffin. Your point is a very good one though. Writers are always trying to get as much space as they can get. If theres another big story your inches given to you on Monday can be chopped for your Wednesday piece. Copy Editors gennerally carve the piece up. A good copy editor will contact the writer and check that the re-write or carved paragraph doesn't screw the integrity of the story but for many reasons this doesn't always work and the writer is left ompletely unsatisfied. The copy editor feels like a jerk and the managing editor gets on with business.
_Mick - Friday, September 12 2003 @ 10:31 AM EDT (#33252) #
Writers are always trying to get as much space as they can get.
Only the insecure ones.

The copy editor feels like a jerk ...
Hmmm ... not in my experience. The writer might TREAT the copyeditor like a jerk ("You're daring to mess with MY WORDS???") ... but the copyeditor is nearly always right. (Oh by the way ... I'm married to a copyeditor. We have collaborated on several publications, but not since 1998ish, as we learned that you can be co-authors OR spouses, but not both.)
_Lefty - Friday, September 12 2003 @ 02:59 PM EDT (#33253) #
Mick,
Agreed, on every point you make in clarification to mine on the relationship between the copy ed. and writer.

Last night there was a huge debate in one of our cites newrooms. How a story held together. It was going to be front page sensationalism poster tabloid picture and a story in which, the facts didn't hold together. Pick up my copy gal from work fuming. This morning got the paper, different front page story altogether. The pulled front page went to page six, I read the story and couldn't reach a conclusion in the contained facts either.

Yup the copy editor was right and convinced the reluctant managing editor re-think sensation in favour of the facts.
So, You Want to be a Sports Writer? | 41 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.