Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Sometimes I wonder if we don't misinterpret as a sportswriter's malevolence what is actually just his ignorance.



A case in point is Richard Griffin's latest Toronto Star piece, "Sure-hit Griffin looks like a spectacular miss", an apparent hatchet job on Syracuse hopeful John-Ford Griffin.

I won't take issue with the rather puzzling headline, even though the headline writer could probably benefit from a Florida vacation to clear the cobwebs. But an analysis of the article, betrays some glaring misinterpretations and misunderstandings -- as Griffin's all too often do. It's enough to make one wonder whether he's not really trying to backstab and misinform after all, but is himself just oblivious to what we would see as the obvious facts. I think I've misread the poor man all along.

Let's take the second substantive assertion in the article... it has become abundantly clear that John-Ford Griffin is no longer an outfield prospect in the Jays' plans.

Is this true? The implication, of course, is that JFG is no longer in the team's plans. This is incorrect. The team remain fairly enamoured of his bat (which Griffin goes on to acknowledge, or at least repeat, later in the piece). However, JFG's "happy feet" in the outfield have displeased Carlos Tosca, and it may be that a permanent move to first base is afoot. What Griffin seems to misunderstand, is that players are moved between positions all the time. This isn't unusual - Orlando Hudson was moved from second to third and back in the minors. Carlos Delgado was moved from catcher to DH to first base. A positional switch, even where it's due to a player being unable to handle the demands of a position, isn't the end of the road for a prospect. That can be the case even where a player has to be moved to a position of organizational strength, such as JFG being moved to first or DH where the competition (Delgado and Phelps) is tougher.

Let's take the next substantive assertion about JFG, that he can't throw — at all. That is something you can't analyze via roto computer stats without actually having a scout see him. The Jays did see him, of course, but they loved his bat more than hated his arm.

Is the comment really a backhanded shot at the team's management (using the now-familiar loaded terms "roto", "scouting", and "stats") or is it just meaningless bafflegab? The rest of us know that "roto computer stats" is an utterly meaningless phrase. (If it isn't, and there's such a thing as a roto computer stat, do let me know. Griffin may be riding far out on a technological cutting edge that I am unaware of). Griffin says that the team did see JFG play, but they didn't "hate his arm", but for some reason they now do. But he never gets into the reason why matters have changed. Presumably, he thought we'd follow him, and understand his point. Unfortunately, as is all too often the case with the disadvantaged, his inability to communicate clearly does him in before we even have the opportunity to evaluate his assertions and ideas. I realise it's frustrating to read a paragraph like that and be left with the thought "well, what's your point?" But we should be careful not to judge too harshly a man obviously trying his best to overcome the chasm that lies between his world and ours.

Now, it's very unusual for a writer to take a double-barrelled shot at a player who is just a raw rookie - and not even a rookie, but a still-developing minor leaguer with no realistic shot to make the team. I wouldn't count on Griffin understanding that nuance - his roots are in public relations, and he's as ignorant of the "unwritten rules" of the sportswriting trade as he is of baseball. But I don't think this is intended. The tone that would be easy to read as "bitchy" is (it seems to me) better interpreted as "frustrated". Griffin is unable to understand why JFG persists in being treated as a prospect, and it all comes down to the throwing arm. Even when he insists that JFG can hit, he remains utterly baffled by what's going on. Instead of a cruel, bullying suckerpunch on a relatively anonymous prospect, this is a cry for help. And as so often happens with the Richard Griffins in our lives, we are too shocked by the jerky, halting, yet unintentional violence of the action to see that he is reaching out. Attempting to make contact, to understand and be understood.

I'm sure that someone once told Griffin about the five tools that scouts (at least, a dying generation thereof) use in a near-totemic fashion to grade players. Griffin then sees JFG, who just doesn't measure up to major-league quality in one of these, and can't understand how he could still be a major-league player. He can copy down the quotes (Tosca even says to him "If you can hit, they'll find a place for you to play.") but Griffin presumably isn't able to reflect on that. Presumably if he hit .250 but with tremendous power, or was Greg Myers slow, he would feel the same way.

So he launches into a tirade on the subject of JFG's arm, and in particular links it to his being unable to play first base as a result. First base, mind you -- the one position on the diamond where, if you play a month's worth of games, you might make five throws that place any demand on arm strength. Remember, no mention is made of JFG having an inaccurate arm - he doesn't make many throwing errors in the outfield anyway - just a weak one. At first, only the accuracy of throws is routinely tested. A person who understood the games they were watching 162+ times a year would, of course, know this - but if on the other hand we assume (quite reasonably) that Griffin is trying simply to keep up with his scorecard, it's more understandable that that subtlety (if it be such) escapes him.

Is there a more general reason to think Griffin's just ignorant, rather than underhandedly mean-spirited? I think so. It has to do with the stakes of the argument. In order to assume that he is malevolent, you have to also assume that the man is willing to look like a fool in the public prints, again and again, for stakes that are -- in the final analysis -- tiny. What on earth would Richard Griffin have to gain from a campaign of malignant lies and half-truths? Nothing that I am able to divine. A far better explanation, is that he is trying as best he can to understand what he sees in front of him, and coming up just that smidgen short.

There's no shame in being a little slow. There's no shame in being Richard Griffin - crushed under the weight of a world lying a mere fingertip's breadth beyond his grasp. What is needed is compassion, and not to return what we perceive as ill will. It's all very well for us to mock, but brains aren't everything; and as his occasional fine article demonstrates, our less gifted brethren can delight (and even inform) us too.
I've Misjudged Him | 35 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
_S.K. - Saturday, March 13 2004 @ 10:27 PM EST (#76164) #
A very cogent analysis, Craig.
I can't wait to see what Griffin does when Rios arrives... his head will explode at the thought of a position change... "Vernon Wells is no longer in Jays outfield plans", perhaps?
_S.K. - Saturday, March 13 2004 @ 10:28 PM EST (#76165) #
Hm Wells wouldn't actually be moved OUT of the outfield... so that didn't really... oh forget it.
Lucas - Saturday, March 13 2004 @ 10:31 PM EST (#76166) #
Tell us how you really feel, Craig.
Mike Green - Saturday, March 13 2004 @ 11:04 PM EST (#76167) #
I don't know Craig, I felt that there was a lot of misdirected venom in that column. My take was that RG felt that JFG was overhyped last year(he was), and RG thought for some reason that now was a good time to let the air out of the hype at JFG's expense. I'll grant you that it wasn't a particularly accurate or illuminating effort at it.

Here, we aim for more light and a little less heat. Speaking of which, I'm looking forward to the next installment of the college evaluation articles.
Craig B - Saturday, March 13 2004 @ 11:06 PM EST (#76168) #
I would like to say two things, actually, which the piece doesn't cover but which are worth mentioning.

First, is that the contrary view to mine - that Richard Griffin isn't dumb at all, but actually quite clever - is certainly a legitimate one to hold. That would force me into certain judgments about his character that I think are uncharitable to assume about a person.

Second, is that none of this represents the views of Batter's Box. They are mine alone.
Craig B - Saturday, March 13 2004 @ 11:12 PM EST (#76169) #
Here, we aim for more light and a little less heat

Do we? Do we really? Well forgive me. If you're not too busy cursing the darkness, you're welcome to strike any matches you may have in your possession.

He got my goat. Yup. I know that I've been the person to insist that others should ignore the provocations, and I know that this makes me a hypocrite, and I don't care. I don't have to play fair.
_A - Saturday, March 13 2004 @ 11:15 PM EST (#76170) #
Regardless of the merrit for this article, I'd be surprised if Griffin has the guts to march into the same dressingroom as JFG again this spring searching for quotes. Even as a sarcastic jab, referring to himself as one with a better arm than one of the organization's top prospects belongs on a blog (or maybe the Toronto Sun), not in a newspaper column.

I don't mind it when Griffen's off the mark but that piece was neglengent.
_Matthew E - Saturday, March 13 2004 @ 11:59 PM EST (#76171) #
You know, it's odd. My reaction on reading this column was pretty much the opposite - that Griffin's finally written a column that is negative but not unreasonably negative. He points out J-F Griffin's defensive shortcomings, acknowledges his strengths, and provides a plausible assessment of where he fits into the Jays' plans.

There are a couple of places where it looks like he could be taking a shot at the Jays and then doesn't. First, the part where he says you can't tell how bad the guy's arm is from looking at the numbers. That could have been a setup for a slam at the use of stats in player evaluation, but it turned out not to be. Then, instead of criticizing the Jays for picking up this guy, he says that they saw his arm and wanted him anyway, presenting it as a reasonable decision.

Maybe if I read the column again after reading the intro to this thread, I'd have a different reaction. First time around, though, I thought it was a decent effort.
_nunavut greggie - Sunday, March 14 2004 @ 06:25 AM EST (#76172) #
so, when does the throwing challenge take place?....any chance sportsnet will have hazel mae hosting it?

thanx for putting it up craig, i always enjoy a richard griffin bash session...regards
_Jacko - Sunday, March 14 2004 @ 07:30 AM EST (#76173) #

You know, it's odd. My reaction on reading this column was pretty much the opposite - that Griffin's finally written a column that is negative but not unreasonably negative. He points out J-F Griffin's defensive shortcomings, acknowledges his strengths, and provides a plausible assessment of where he fits into the Jays' plans.


But it's not much of a revelation.

Anyone who has been paying attention over the last couple years knows that JFG has a weak arm, and that he is considered a prospect primarily because of his bat. This was common knowledge _before_ the trade.

Is this a case of Griffin not doing his homework, and then being shocked when he saw JFG play in person?

Alternatively it's possible, as some bauxites have already suggested in this thread, that Richard Griffin intentionally writes inflammatory columns, even if they make him look stupid. If it gets people angry, it gets people talking. And that sells newspapers (or generates hits on the Torstar website).

jc
_3RunHomer - Sunday, March 14 2004 @ 09:06 AM EST (#76174) #
One question: why does anyone read Griffin's stuff? That's like voluntarily reading Laura (shudder) Vecsey's dreck in the Baltimore Sun. You're only asking for trouble.
Pistol - Sunday, March 14 2004 @ 09:15 AM EST (#76175) #
I looked at the article as just taking more shots at JP & Co. with JFG the innocent victim.
_Robbie Goldberg - Sunday, March 14 2004 @ 09:33 AM EST (#76176) #
I agree with Craig's assessment and think it's absolutely classless to pick on a guy who hasn't even played in AAA. That's why he's still in the minors --- to develop and refine his skills. And anyways, since when has Griffin been such a "hyped" up prospect --- he's not even in the Jays Top Ten on most lists. Does this mean that RG's next column will criticize Vince Perkins' control problems? Or Brandon League's limited pitching repetoire? Or maybe Russ Adams' defence? For that matter, Griffin can spend the rest of the year taking cheap shots at the shortcomings of anybody in the minors. Regardless, whatever he writes just won't be anything worth reading...
_bloopsingle - Sunday, March 14 2004 @ 09:37 AM EST (#76177) #
I agree with 3RunHomer, I don't read any of his stuff as it makes me stupid!
_John Neary - Sunday, March 14 2004 @ 09:59 AM EST (#76178) #
Was JFG ever overhyped by Blue Jays management? I would think that since May 2003 or so he's been no higher than fourth on the Jays' long-term outfield depth chart -- below Wells, Rios, Gross, and possibly Cat, Sparky, and Werth.

I don't recall ever hearing much about Griffin from the Blue Jays' top brass. If he had been overhyped, I would understand the rationale for a column refuting the hype, but not one attacking the minor-league player himself.

John
Coach - Sunday, March 14 2004 @ 10:20 AM EST (#76179) #
Anything I've ever heard anyone connected with the club say about JFG has been qualified by "if he stays healthy," or words to that effect. The guy has had one physical problem after another in every pro season so far, and hasn't had a chance to show what he can do with the stick over a full year.

Had John-Ford been drafted by the Jays before J.P. arrived, I don't believe this column would have been written. Rich is just planting the seeds for an "I told you so" piece about Ricciardi's trades, if and when JFG doesn't make it. He would tell you that he's completely impartial and unbiased, but after writing something like this, you would suspect that he's secretly hoping for his namesake to fail.
_Wildrose - Sunday, March 14 2004 @ 12:05 PM EST (#76180) #
All I can say is, that it must be tough being Richard Griffin the baseball writer. You have to believe anyone associated with the Jays(or many in baseball thanks to a recent negative S.I. article) think he's a total fool.

Most baseball players have little respect for the print media to begin with. A friend who covers the local sports scene told me that the now departed AAA Calgary Cannon ball players, were by far, the most difficult local athletes to have to deal with. I can imagine their MLB brethren are even more arrogant.

For Richard Griffin hanging around the batting cage sniffing for a story must be sheer hell.I'm certain he's treated with outright contempt and rudeness. Still he has only himself to blame.

Griffins stories(except when he's dealing with historical figures)are imbued with caustic negativity.I believe this is a reflection of the environment he works in. Unfortunately we the reader are left to ponder the results of such a poor situation.
_Robbie Goldberg - Sunday, March 14 2004 @ 12:17 PM EST (#76181) #
I recall one article where Rob Neyer was very critical of Griffin, but what is the SI article you are referring to?
_Young - Sunday, March 14 2004 @ 12:22 PM EST (#76182) #
Coach is right.

(*Wink Wink*) Unless every Jays prospect through trade/draft becomes a superstar, plus the Jays go 162-0 in the regular season and win the World Series without dropping a game, there will always be fodder for one such as RG. (*Sarcasm Sarcasm*)
_Wildrose - Sunday, March 14 2004 @ 12:40 PM EST (#76183) #
Robbie,in the March 1/2004 issue,(Kevin Garnett on the cover),Moneyball author Michael Lewis has a long article detailing the effect of his book on baseball.He derides Griffin in the article regarding the "White Jays" fiasco.
Pistol - Sunday, March 14 2004 @ 12:44 PM EST (#76184) #
I recall one article where Rob Neyer was very critical of Griffin, but what is the SI article you are referring to?

The recent SI article by Michael Lewis which was a follow up of sorts to Moneyball. It was from a few weeks ago (TWolves on the cover).
Coach - Sunday, March 14 2004 @ 01:30 PM EST (#76185) #
It's true that Griffin the prospect hasn't done anything to boost his stock, and his window of opportunity in Toronto could be closing. I've never really thought of him as anything but a 1B/DH, hoping that some day he'd be Olerud without the glove. Now he's hurt again. He should go back to AA for a while and get in a good groove before moving up to Syracuse. There could even be one more trade in his future. Fortunately, Simon Pond is stepping up where many of us expected JFG to fit in by 2005 or 2006.

Griffin the columnist could have spent more time discussing the spring surprises -- Pond, Hall and Singleton -- and less ragging on John-Ford. He's written worse, like his attack on SABR, but one thing is remarkably consistent in the Star. The anonymous headline writer really has it in for the Jays.

Starting tomorrow morning, when Ketzel and I go for our walk, we're going to buy the Globe.
_Roger Davis - Sunday, March 14 2004 @ 01:33 PM EST (#76186) #
http://www.immune26.tv
I remember being in Seattle to see my beloved Jays play in the early 90's and the Mariners had a right fielder named Craven or Crowes or ? ANYWAY, I had seen the guy throw on televised games and I thought his arm was weak. After I saw him in person I realised his arm wasn't weak, it was non-existant. The only reason you couldn't turn a single into a triple against him was becsuse the cutoff guy could throw.

So I sort of know what he means... till you actually see it IN REAL LIFE... the speed, the trejectory, you don't really appreciate what it's really doing.
_Ryan Day - Sunday, March 14 2004 @ 03:44 PM EST (#76187) #
I think, more than anything, that this is just a weird column. Not particularly bad, at least by Griffin's standards, but puzzling.

Griffin's a decent prospect, but I don't think anyone -- either scouts or the "computer roto stat" geeks -- is calling him an elite one. And not only is he not particularly elite, but he's also probably at least a year away from playing in Toronto. If this were Rios or Gross he were criticizing, I'd at least understand it. It's not like Ricciardi even gave up anyone special to get Griffin -- he was the lesser part of the Arnold/Lopez swap; you could mention Jason Perry, but I doubt Griffin even knows who Perry is.

Ultimately, the story boils down to "Decent prospect in AA may not play outfield in the majors", which seems an odd thing to write about when there's so much else going on.
_Norm in Markham - Monday, March 15 2004 @ 12:54 PM EST (#76188) #
I agree with 3RUNHOMER (how do you guys do that Italics thing?)

I do not read Griffin anymore, haven't read him in over a year. Look up MEDIOT in the dictionary - there's a picture of him there.
_Mick - Monday, March 15 2004 @ 01:33 PM EST (#76189) #
Personally, I'm writing the headline for that piece, it reads:
STAR'S GRIFFIN KNOWS ... GRIFFIN NO STAR
_Rich - Monday, March 15 2004 @ 01:34 PM EST (#76190) #
Neyer also told me in an email that he thinks Griffin may well be the single worst sportswriter working at a major North American newspaper (and Rob reads a lot more of 'em than I do).
Gitz - Monday, March 15 2004 @ 01:41 PM EST (#76191) #
I don't know if Rob Neyer intended to make that statement public.
_Rich - Monday, March 15 2004 @ 06:03 PM EST (#76192) #
No, I suppose not. Mind you, it's not exactly a surprising comment seeing as Neyer has taken Griffin to task publicly twice in the past year. I can't think of many other local columnists singled out for criticism (let alone twice) on an international site like espn.com.

To be honest, I'm still not sure why Griffin's "work" even merits discussion anymore.
Gitz - Monday, March 15 2004 @ 06:39 PM EST (#76193) #
ESPN.com is an international Web site? You mean, I'm an INTERNATIONAL WRITER? Woohoo! Take that, 12th-grade-English teacher who never said I'd amount to anything.
Mike D - Monday, March 15 2004 @ 07:18 PM EST (#76194) #
Norm in Markham, check out our FAQ in the top-left corner. It'll tell you everything -- note the italics -- you need to incorporate italics and bold into your posts.

Plus, it's an entertaining read!
_Mayy - Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 03:23 AM EST (#76195) #
I agree with 3RUNHOMER (how do you guys do that Italics thing?)

I do not read Griffin anymore, haven't read him in over a year. Look up MEDIOT in the dictionary - there's a picture of him there.



Well... When someone prints material in the mainstream media that is perceived as slanderous, cruel, outright false or in this case "ignorant" than it becomes somewhat of an outrage to those who're affected by it...

Now, I'm no proponent of censorship in any way shape or form. However, this is a situation where if more people knew that the content of the star's prime baseball writer was this questionable, instead of just a shock job, they might have to think twice about printing his work. Accountability has gotta be a factor somewhere....
_jason - Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 04:29 PM EST (#76196) #
I try to avoid RG, but find myself compelled to read him for the almost masochistic pleasure I take from it. (I used to have the same relationship with Michelle Landsberg, but I got over it; it wasn't easy mind, but I did it.) I also have tried to come to grips with what it is that makes RG so very galling. I think that Craig has come very close to it. It is not that he is mentally deficient, but that he thinks of himself as brilliant. (Which is a mental deficiency in and of itself.)

Look at all the articles that the writers here take the exception to. In each of them is recurring theme: "Only I, RG, am capable of seeing the truth behind the lies of Jays and their proponents. All others are digesters of codswallop, swollowers of noxious tripe and shall be led down the garden path to the pergatory which is the second division." Thus spake RG.

What bothers me most about RG is not his idiocies, and there have been a few. No, what bothers me most about RG is that he treats me like I am the f...ing idiot. (This very well may be true, but I don't like to be reminded of it.)
I remain

jason
_jason - Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 04:29 PM EST (#76197) #
I try to avoid RG, but find myself compelled to read him for the almost masochistic pleasure I take from it. (I used to have the same relationship with Michelle Landsberg, but I got over it; it wasn't easy mind, but I did it.) I also have tried to come to grips with what it is that makes RG so very galling. I think that Craig has come very close to it. It is not that he is mentally deficient, but that he thinks of himself as brilliant. (Which is a mental deficiency in and of itself.)

Look at all the articles that the writers here take the exception to. In each of them is recurring theme: "Only I, RG, am capable of seeing the truth behind the lies of Jays and their proponents. All others are digesters of codswallop, swollowers of noxious tripe and shall be led down the garden path to the pergatory which is the second division." Thus spake RG.

What bothers me most about RG is not his idiocies, and there have been a few. No, what bothers me most about RG is that he treats me like I am the f...ing idiot. (This very well may be true, but I don't like to be reminded of it.)
I remain

jason
_jason - Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 04:30 PM EST (#76198) #
Sorry.
I've Misjudged Him | 35 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.