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.
https://www.battersbox.ca/article.php?story=20040313101541999