The Other Fifteen

It has to be hard to be a beat writer for the Cubs. Piniella mocks you in the post-game press conferences. The fans mock you on your own blog (unless you're Mariotti, in which case you can hide in your Hall of Doom while your lackeys do the dirty work). Sometimes you have to feel underappreciated.

Well, here's your opportunity to make up for that, in cold hard cash!

See this? This is the face of the President who freed the slaves and reunited the Union. He's valid legal tender, and he's all yours... IF you can do this simple favor for me.

Next time you're in a room with Lou in some sort of a Q&A forum, ask him if he's concerned about Theriot's slow start. Pie and Hill have been demoted for less, after all.

Labels: Baseball, Chicago Cubs, Media, Ryan Theriot

Buster Olney chats, I criticize. Deal? Deal!

Gray (Chicago): Buster, with 12 Ks and only 1 BB thus far on the season, is this the new, mature Carlos Zambrano we have been waiting for? After that Tejada HR on Sunday, the old Zambrano would have walked the next batter and hit the one after that.

Buster Olney: Gray: Yes, this is the new and improved Big Z, the real deal. His emotional progress is the reason why I think they'll win the division; he's a great anchor to that staff.

Yep, emotional maturity. That's the only way you can explain a decline in a player's walk rate over two starts.

I understand it has to be difficult to talk about baseball for pay at the beginning of the season. It's probably not endearing to ones editors to say "I don't know what this means" 30 or 40 times in response to questions from paying customers during a chat.

But armchair psychology annoys the crap out of me. I only try to tell you what a player's talent level is based upon his performance, and even then I add in a qualifier now and again. I hardly think it's possible to tell what a player's emotional state is based upon his walk rate.

Brendan, NY: Whats your take on Sorianos proper batting order slot? Any chance they still get Roberts b/c they might resolve a lot of those issues and DeRosas looked pretty bad at second so far.

Buster Olney: Brendan: There is no perfect place to hit him, other than No. 7. he strikes out way too much to hit anywhere from 3-6, and you can't hit him eighth; he'd get less than nothing to hit. You can't hit him seventh, because the Cubs are paying him way too much money to stick him in that slot in the lineup, and he's made it very clear -- in Washington, and with the Cubs -- that he is most comfortable leading off. So Lou basically has to grit his teeth and write in Soriano at No. 1 until the Cubs get Roberts.

I'm not going to rehash Soriano's splits; I've done that already here and here, and don't plan on revisiting that unless something new comes to mind to say on the topic. Olney really puts too much weight on how often a hitter strikes out, though.

I love how Olney acts like it's still inevitable for the Cubs to get Roberts - no need to eat crow on that one!

Mike (cleveland): Buster, Just finished "three nights in August"...the epilogue was very interesting. Buster where do you stand on the current pseudo-standoff between pure stat analysis and traditional scouting and player development? I see the value in both...but I have to say that experience is the best teacher in most pursuits, and I dont see how a statistics degree from MIT should add any level of expertise to scouting. You learn the game by playing it and/or managing no?

Buster Olney: Mike: I think there's a great mix to be found between the two approaches, a middle ground. Some scouts don't pay enough attention to the numbers, and some stats guys don't acknowledge that personality can and does play a role in what happens (for example, the long-held belief that a lot of relievers are interchangeable). The Indians and Padres are the best teams, I think, at combining the two schools of thought...

Bob, Chicago: Soriano had the third best OPS+ on the team. How can you say he can't bat anywhere from 3-6?

Buster Olney: Bob: This is a classic example of the whole scouting vs. numbers thing I just mentioned. The numbers say one thing, but if you've been around Soriano and watched his hitting with RISP, he just is not good in big spots, against good pitchers; he just destroys rallies...

And then, about face! It's not his strikeouts, its his personality!

Here's the thing: we keep score with numbers! If it's about winning and losing, then the numbers are what matters. You want to end the game with more of the right numbers than the other team.

I really hate criticizing Olney for analysis because I don't think it's central to who and what Olney is. But... Olney is bad at analysis. As a clearinghouse for information and sourcing he's good, but he's no Robothal.

Labels: Baseball, Chicago Cubs, Media

It starts off well:

Spring training doesn’t predict anything.

Everything after that is pretty much an utter vortex of suck. Mostly because he ignores those five words, and goes on to talk about how he isn't convinced about Rich Hill.

The best part:

Rich Hill could be a problem for the Cubs this year, not because he’s bad but because he’s being counted on as a legit No. 3 starter. Are we sure he’s that good?

The Cubs have left themselves one front-end-of-the-rotation starter short. They’re counting on Hill developing into that starter, and he might. But at this point, why has he been guaranteed a spot in the rotation at all?

Ohboy. "[W]hy has he been guaranteed a spot in the rotation at all?" Because he was one of the top-ten strikeout pitchers in the National League last season!

I keep telling myself that I shouldn't let myself get so excited about these things; after all, these guys have to write something about spring training, and I'm sure that you don't sell a lot of newspapers by referring to everything as "meaningless" for over a month straight. But sometimes I can't help it.

Labels: Baseball, Chicago Cubs, Greg Couch, Media, Pitching, Rich Hill

Ok, so new media mogul/billionare egomaniac (and would-be owner of the Cubs) Mark Cuban has banned bloggers from the lockerroom at Mavericks games. There are all sorts of weird levels to this, and I'll leave it to others to analyze the intricacies of it. (Or you could just read Deadspin and get a purely emotional take on the matter. Sold!)

But there's three points I want to address here.

First, it absolutely amazes me the amount of control that big-time professional sports leagues want - and end up having - over media outlets. It's astounding, is what it is.

Let me backfill you on my point of reference here. I served in the Marine Corps for five years as a Public Affairs Specialist, which means I've done my fair share of media relations work. For things like the Iraq War, y'know, stuff like the 24/7 live coverage of the initial assault of Iraq, and the first Marine forces to enter Fallujah after the deaths of the Blackwater contractors - so allow me to just say that I understand logistical hurdles to facilitating media coverage.

But we were much more permissive when it came to allowing reporters latitude to report on operations in zone - even while embedded with our units - than organizations like the Mavericks are in allowing reporters to cover their sporting teams. I can damn well assure you that nobody's life has ever been endangered by the Dallas Morning News' coverage of the Dallas Mavericks, too.

It's pretty par for the course these days - teams aren't fond of criticisms, and like to be able to control their image. They also like to monetize their media coverage; witness the NFL Network and the forthcoming MLB network. That doesn't make it any less disappointing.

Second, even if Cuban's motives in this matter are purely what he claims they are - trying to level the playing field for bloggers, so that blogs attached to mainstream media outlets aren't given preferential treatment - is he so tonedeaf as to not see this line of criticism coming? Nobody in the Mavericks media relations department realized that this would be viewed in a negative light? If that's the case, then Cuban either needs to fire his media relations advisors or fire himself from handling media relations. This is basic stuff here, folks.

Third, either Mark Cuban is an idiot or he thinks you're one. Here's his justification for the change:

Should bloggers be allowed in the Mavs locker room ? Conceptually its not a big deal. A blogger, a beat writer, a columnists. The medium they use to deliver their content should be irrelevant. No question about it.

...

Right now we have a situation where a blogger that works for the Dallas Morning News would like continued access to the locker room. Prior to last week, I had no idea this person's primary job at the Morning News is to blog. I hadn't seen or read it. He was just one of the 4 or 5 people from the Morning News in the locker room post game. When it was brought to my attention I immediately made it an issue. Why ?

Not because I don't want this blogger in the locker room doing interviews. What I didn't like was that the Morning News was getting a competitive advantage simply because they were the Dallas Morning News. I am of the opinion that a blogger for one of the local newspapers is no better or worse than the blogger from the local high school, from the local huge Mavs fan, from an out of town blogger. I want to treat them all the same.

Unfortunately, there isn't enough room to allow any and all bloggers in the locker room. There also are no standards that I have been able to come up with that differentiate between bloggers to the point where I should or should not credential one versus the other. My experience in reading blogs has favored bloggers not affiliated with major media companies, but that could be my unique bias.

...

If he is correct and blogging is part of the base job of being a beat reporter, thats a sad commentary on beat reporters. They get 500 words in a story about a game or event, if readers are lucky. If there is excess time, I would imagine that time could be spent offering indepth analysis and access rather than throwing up hundred word commentary on a blog. If there isn't space in the paper, then in depth analysis that takes advantage of the minimal marginal cost of publishing feature stories, IMHO, would be a far better use of a beatwriters time and serve as a far stronger differentiation that would attract readers.

...

As far singling out mr MacMahon, I havent read what he has written, so that is not the case. its an issue of fairness. As a blogger, and someone very familiar with bloggers and the blogosphere, I recognize that a fair policy would apply to all bloggers. There is nothing superior about a blog produced bysomeone in the employ of The Belo Corporation. So there is no reason to give them preferential treatment. Where there is physical room to fairly credential any and all bloggers, Mr MacMahon is welcome. Where we can not accomodate all bloggers, he will be excluded.

Lemme go ahead and whittle that down for you a bit futher:

Right now we have a situation where a blogger that works for the Dallas Morning News would like continued access to the locker room. Prior to last week, I had no idea this person's primary job at the Morning News is to blog. I hadn't seen or read it. ... When it was brought to my attention I immediately made it an issue. ... My experience in reading blogs has favored bloggers not affiliated with major media companies, but that could be my unique bias. ... If he is correct and blogging is part of the base job of being a beat reporter, thats a sad commentary on beat reporters. They get 500 words in a story about a game or event, if readers are lucky. If there is excess time, I would imagine that time could be spent offering indepth analysis and access rather than throwing up hundred word commentary on a blog. ... As far singling out mr MacMahon, I havent read what he has written, so that is not the case.

Ok, so let me parse this for you:

1. Mark Cuban's "experience in reading blogs" does not extend to reading what is probably one of the most widely read blogs covering his team.
2. Mark Cuban is, in fact, so wildly out of touch with such things that he didn't even know that the DMN had hired a writer for this express purpose.
3. Upon learning of that writer's existence, Mark Cuban banned him from the locker room, still without reading his blog.
4. Without reading this man's body of work, Cuban is still entirely confident that the blog is part of a "sad commentary on beat reporters."
5. He is also apparently confident that the blog does not offer indepth analysis and access, again without having read a word of it.

Contrast this to how Cuban thinks a startup company should handle media relations:

NEVER EVER EVER hire a PR firm. A PR firm will call or email people in the publications, shows and websites you already watch, listen to and read. Those people publish their emails. Whenever you consume any information related to your field, get the email of the person publishing it and send them an email introducing yourself and the company. Their job is to find new stuff. They will welcome hearing from the founder instead of some PR flack. Once you establish communications with that person, make yourself available to answer their questions about the industry and be a source for them. If you are smart, they will use you.

Doesn't that seem a thousand miles away from what Cuban is doing in this situation? Maybe Cuban's policies are well-intentioned and as fair-minded as he claims; I'm not a mindreader and so I can't tell you one way or another. I do know that he's handling this in a very ham-fisted and tin-eared fashion, and so he's not making it any easier for those who want to believe those things.

But I do know this: Cuban wants you to believe that he, the new-media titan, the billionaire blogger... nay, CHAMPION of blogging, is so out of touch with the blogging experiences of the dedicated Mavericks fans.

Either he's an idiot, or he thinks you are.

Labels: Mark Cuban, Media, Other Blogs

Rick Morrissey wants you to know that even if that math stuff may have worked in the past, he wants no part of it.

But they don't run the world, yet, which means we can still type in our credit card numbers online without worrying that all our money is being sucked into a fund earmarked for global dominance by a dastardly computer.

Computers have no use for heart, or least they can't quantify it. They can't analyze what's inside an athlete, for example. They can't tell you who has the heart of a lion or the backbone of an earthworm.

Computers can't tell you that White Sox first baseman Paul Konerko is upset with how he played last season. All they can tell you is that he hit .259 in 2007, that he just turned 32 and, therefore, he must be on the downside of his career because that's what the model says is supposed to happen to him.

Right. Computers can only tell you about the relevant facts. God, I would love to see Morrissey cover the financial markets once:

Computers have no use for heart, or least they can't quantify it. They can't analyze what's inside a mid-level sales associate, for example. They can't tell you who has the heart of a lion or the backbone of an earthworm.

Computers can't tell you that Countrywide mortgage specialist John Doe is upset with how he performed last quarter. All they can tell you is that the housing market is in a decline, his company is facing bankrupcy, therefore, his sales and commissions are likely to continue to decline next quarter.

Just once!

The best part, and the part I want to address without mocking, is this:

That the Sox dropped from 90 victories in 2006 to 72 games last season was one of the shocks of the baseball season. But not to Baseball Prospectus, and the people who run it deserve their props. They chalk up a lot of what happened on the South Side last season to the inevitability of time catching up with older athletes. I chalk it up to a number of players having down years at the same time.

Isn't there room for a number of Sox to have good years at the same time? Say, in 2008? If Jim Thome stays healthy, he could have an excellent season. It's a big "if," of course, but not like wondering if, say, the rain can hold off in Seattle for a month or two.

It's possible that a number of Sox players could have good years (that is, play above their expected talent level) at once. I know this to be true, because I've seen it happen; that was the year they won the World Series.

So it's possible. But, and I'm going to try and emphasize this as much as possible:

Projections, in baseball or anything else, are simply the best estimate we have given the data available of the most likely future performance.

When PECOTA (or anything else, for that matter), projects the White Sox to win 77 games, there's a six-win standard deviation on that forecast. Absolutely has to be; in 162 games you cannot get any more accurate than that. So the Sox could win anywhere from 71 to 83 games and the forecast would be on target.

Could the White Sox exceed their forecast by another standard deviation? Sure. All of the aging players on that team could simultaneously "defy" their aging curve, some of their younger players could have unforeseen breakout seasons... a lot could happen. But it's not likely.

The improbable is possible. But there's absolutely no reason to project the improbable.

Labels: Baseball, Chicago Cubs, Chicago White Sox, Media, Projections

It's getting really late and I should be getting to bed soon, so I'm going to just hotlink this and deal with this tomorrow.

But TribCo VP/general council Crane Kenney,  who's apparently been the Shadow Government of the Cubs for some time now, has sat down with the beat writers and gone over the myriad of business issues that face the club.

1. Tribune
2. Sun-Times
3. Daily Herald
4. Cubs.com

I'll be honest - I haven't had time to read all of these yet, just skim them. here's what sticks out at me at first glance:

1. I still am far from thrilled with the angle the Sun-Times is taking on this; it's very tabloidy and sensational. Which, I suppose, is the Sun-Times for you.
2. Apparently payroll is "north of $120 million;" I want to see how that matches up against what's been published. (I haven't updated my salary chart since mid-December, when the Cubs were right around $117 million.)
3. The Cubs seem to be aggressively trying to find new revenue streams; they seem to want to push into Spanish-language radio broadcasts, for example.
4. Kenney claims the Cubs are now actually more independent of TribCo than before, which seems to contract the surface impression but on second blush seems like a reasonable enough assertion.

All of this is going to bear more examination; hopefully I'll return to the topic tomorrow.

Labels: Baseball, Chicago Cubs, Finances, Media

So, Rick Morrissey has written one of those articles you write when you just want to make sure nobody thinks you're a homer. You know, because all of the professors in J-school who got disgusted because you decided to cover sports instead of "hard" news are following your every move and making sure you don't forget everything they taught you in "Introduction to Newswriting." Jay Marriotti is famous for it.

The background: The Bears just resigned quarterback Rex Grossman to a one-year, incentive-laden contract. He'll compete with Kyle Orton for the starter's job; weak-armed backup Brian Griese is going to be cut loose before the team takes a cap hit off of him. Now, for Morrissey:

Cubs fans can tell you all about hope — how to embrace it, how to find sustenance in it and, as an added bonus, how to make paper dolls out of it once the season goes to pieces.

But what are Bears fans supposed to do with hope? Close their eyes and ignore the fact that Rex Grossman just signed a one-year contract to stay with the team?

...

If you thought last season was tough, when the Bears couldn't put together a two-game winning streak until the end of the year, this off-season could turn out to be worse. The only thing that kept people going last year was the Bears' contention that 2007 was a sad, unfortunate fluke and that good times were right around the corner.

Thank you, Rick, for that wonderful and uplifting piece. I'm sure your J-school professors are very proud of you for not going native. But on the other hand, something about "personal integrity" and "facts" needs to come into play here.

If you're going to ask the question, "What are the reasons to have hope for next year?" aren't you kind of obligated to at least address the following:

• The Bears have released underperforming, high-paid players like Muhsin Muhammad, Fred Miller, Reuben Brown and Darwin Walker. That frees up quite a bit of cap space to allow the Bears to fill holes.
• The release of Miller and Brown means that the Bears aren't ignoring their problems on the O-line last season, and it's hard to see how it matters who's throwing the ball if pass protection is poor and the run game nonexistant. The Bears had one of the worse run blocking units in the NFL last season. Of course, part of that is because the guys running from behind the line were inadequate. Which leads us to...
• The Bears aren't planning on Cedric Benson as featured back next season, which can only help matters. It's hard to grade this until we see exactly what the Bears plans are at running back, but it would be hard not to upgrade; Cedric Benson was close to being the worst running back in the NFL last season, and Adrian Peterson (not Purple Jesus, the other one) only looked good when your point of comparison was Cedric Benson.

So that's your cause for hope: you get better blocking and better running and you stop being so one-dimensional, and so you don't have to rely on the quarterback as much. And you force defenses to loosen up a bit, because you have a more diverse offensive attack. And then you hope the Bears can find some reinforcements for the defense while they're at it.

It's a tall order; it's made taller by the fact that Lance Briggs, Bernard Berrian and Brendon Ayanbadejo are all threats to leave in free agency. And the great mystery of Brian Urlacher's health is out there. This is a team with a lot of questions, and next season could end up being bad. You can certainly make the case for Morrissey's conclusions, that the team isn't very good and isn't close to contending.

But it should be an honest case, and that means mentioning the facts that run counter to your argument, even if that just means refuting them or putting them into context. It's probably too much to ask, but it shouldn't be.

Labels: Chicago Bears, Football, Media, Rick Morrissey

Alfonso Soriano, LF
Does he have true leadership skills, as in the kind of ability to lead off for a legitimate pennant contender? That's doubtful, even with 100 percent health in his speedy legs.

Um. Last year as a leadoff hitter he and Curtis Granderson were virtually indistinguishable. Nobody sits there talking about how the Tigers aren't a legitimate playoff contender because Granderson doesn't steal enough bases.

UPDATE: Here's another fun one, from the Northern Indiana Post-Tribune, entitled "Table-setter Theriot has speed Cubs need." The lead paragraph is jut too awesome: "Baseball is a contact sport with shortstop Ryan Theriot. " I have no idea what that even means. Who did he "contact" last season? The writer does acknowlege that there's a chance "Ron Cedeno," who is apparently an "infield predator," beats him out for the starter's job in spring training.

Labels: Alfonso Soriano, Baseball, Chicago Cubs, Infield Predator, Media, Ryan Theriot

Labels: Baseball, Hawk and DJ, Media

Jim Hendry and Lou Piniella were on Chicago Tribune Live last night, and provide probably the best look we've had in a while as far as what the club is thinking right now. Here's a recap - commentary to follow.

Hendry says this year seems to be developing later than usual, and that the Cubs still have something they need to do.

He said the Cubs asked about Santana, and the Twins told him that Johann Santana wouldn't waive his no trade clause unless he was traded to a big-market team out east that trained in Florida for spring training. So the Cubs did inquire on Santana, which is something people were complaining about. [This also explains why the bidding on Santana went down from where it was at the winter meetings - teams figured out that they were bidding against, basically, themselves.]

Hendry says the Cubs are very happy with the infielders at present, and are only looking to add one if its a "marquee player." He says they will definitely add a right-hander who can play the outfield, not a marquee player, to compliment the lefties in center.

Mark DeRosa can, according to Hendry, play anywhere "except for center and catcher" - note that shortstop was not mentioned. The Cubs have no interest in trading him.

One of the reasons the Cubs added Lieber was to get more right-handed in the rotation, because "the division - especially Milwaukee - is so right handed." He noted that Lieber was "not in his prime," which... well, at least you know that.

When asked about power pitching, he says that Hill and Lilly aren't "soft-tossing lefites." Talks about Zambrano and how they're hoping he'll improve this season. He said that Gallagher is a guy that is asked about regularly by other clubs, and that he'll be a great pitcher "for years." Didn't commit to him in the rotation. Also said that he thinks Dempster will pick up some velocity this year, lord knows where from.

Pie and Fuld is going to be a competition. Says Fuld plays "just as good of defense as Felix," which I don't believe. "Everybody in the industry would love to have" him, and the organization feels he can hit, but he won't be simply handed the spot and allowed to take his lumps for a whole season. But he says that Pie could "hit .260" and still provide value to the club.

Then they cut in with Lou for a bit. He says that he won't have to "tinker" as much in spring training, due to familiarity with the players and the players being for familiar with the staff. He says he wants to get off to a better start, and (uh) thinks that may have to do with the early losses in the playoffs.

Lou says center field is the only spot where there will be competition in spring training. (Then again, shortstop wasn't an open job at the start of last season either.) He says the Cubs will also take a look at Dempster and Lieber in the rotation, and he will experiment with Fukudome in both the two and six spots in the lineup.

Lou thinks that if Soriano had stolen bases, nobody would be talking about Soriano leading off. Lou plans on keeping him at the top of the lineup.

Back to Hendry - he also feels that Soriano will return to form with stolen bases, and will be a fine leadoff hitter "in a different style."

He says that when you chase free agents, you can "sell your club," and that players like coming to Chicago. Trades, on the other hand, revolve around the needs of both ballclubs. Some GMs are easier to work with - he says the Ohman to the Braves trade took two hours.

When asked about OBP, he says "you'd like to have both," which leaves out... what's the other element? Adds that Fukudome is viewed as a player that hits lefties well and will complement the lineup. Also blathers about sac-fly RBIs in eighth innings - I kinda tuned that part out.

[EDIT: Going to clarify the above because what he said is getting roundly mocked around the Internet, a bit undeservedly. If I had to guess at what Hendry was trying to say, it wasn't that he doesn't - per se - value OBP. (I don't think he quite does weight it properly, but that's a topic for another day.) It's that you also need guys to knock in runs as well. Had he magically tripped upon the words "slugging percentage" in there somewhere I think people would leave him alone on the topic for now.

That could be me drinking the Kool-Aid, but whatever.]

As far as Fukudome - he says the Cubs are trying to acclimate him to play in the US, and have gotten a strength and conditioning coordinator that speaks Japanese in addition to his translator. They're also providing a translator and English tutoring to his family.

Back to Fuld and Pie - it'll be a full-on competition, Thunderdome style: two men enter, one man goes back to Iowa. Talks about how there will be competition in the bullpen, specifically mentions Lahey and Hart.

What wasn't mentioned interests me almost as much as what was. Marquis came up about once in passing, which makes me wonder if the Cubs aren't trying to downplay him in anticipation of something happening later.

Obviously there were a lot of other things not touched on, but a lot of those are bench player issues that I think Hendry and Lou are leaving until they finish making their trades and seeing how people like Cedeno and Patterson look in camp.

And of course Brian Roberts loomed over the proceedings, and Hendry seemed to dance around the topic without moving in to actual tampering. I get the feeling that Roberts is viewed as a luxury, not a must-have, by Hendry and Lou, which is comforting.

Labels: Baseball, Chicago Cubs, Media

It seems that Plaxico Burress has upset more than a few in the media by guaranteeing the Giants would win the upcoming Super Bowl.

Puh-lease. It's the Super Bowl. I'm excited about it and I'm so far away from being a pro athlete I still have scars I sustained playing flag football. You mean to tell me that Tom Brady was going to sleepwalk his way through this game, but thought better of it because Plaxico Burress talked to some reporters?

Listen to me carefully, folks: the Patriots will be fully and completely motivated to play this Sunday if Bill Belicheck has to kidnap their families and hold them hostage, and that is entirely something Bill Belicheck is willing to do.

Far better that these guys actually say something interesting before the big game - otherwise we have to listen to the same pablum for the next six days or so. Seriously, who talks like this?

"I can't think about that right now. I just have to take it one burger at a time."

"Tony over in accounting is a real gamer. He shows up every day, no matter what, ready to give his best to auditing expense accounts."

"I guess the defense attorney just wanted it more, that's all."

"Individual accomplishments don't mean anything. It's nice having the pay raise and all, but I'm just really happy I could help my software development team meet their quarterly goals."

Yeesh. Spare me, please!

Labels: Football, Media, Super Bowl

Yes, bashing Jay Mariotti is about as fashionable as it is easy. This isn't going to be your traditional piece about him. The Mariotti column I want to talk about actually has some responsible and interesting points and I want to address them seriously. First, a quick little sum-up:

People used to escape life by watching sports. Now, we kind of look forward to road rage, lame health care and consumer fraud. It's torturous enough that each saga is covered by the responsible media like Watergate. But provoking it all is an assortment of warped cybercreeps, who are no more necessary than thongs in Rosie O'Donnell's underwear drawer, posting pictures and spreading misinformation -- do you realize Dana Jacobson apparently never said "(Bleep) Jesus" at the infamous Atlantic City roast? -- while hoping for nothing more in their miserable lives than an ESPN personality finding trouble.

It's not about one athlete defeating another anymore. It's not about the fun, the strategy, the winners, the losers. No, it's about which story can make the most sensational impact on the widest swath of humanity. Forgive me if this sounds like Jerry Maguire's "mission statement," but the games have become a warmup act for the crazy issues. And I'd like to have my games back, thank you.

 

I seriously suggest that you read the whole piece before proceeding. It's rather brief and surprisingly palatable.

What Mariotti is really talking about is three separate issues. The first is the degradation of entertainment media into absolute gutter trash. When he refers to "it's a TMZ.com sewer, we just soak in it," he's about right. And even if you don't agree, I'm sure you at least understand the concept that the paparazzi aren't exactly raising the level of discourse, so no real need to rehash it here.

The second is the notion that athletes and sport are seen more and more as entertainers. This, quite frankly, is an idealization of the past more than it is a fact. For about as long as we've had pro athletes, they've been lumped in with the entertainers, and have often acted like them. During the baseball offseason, before the advent of radio, star players would often travel with vaudeville acts, sometimes showing off their batting prowess, other times participating in the skits and gags, and sometimes just simply being there, letting people see the players they so often read about in the box scored. Babe Ruth was one of many ballplayers who engaged a ghost writer, selling faked columns to newspapers for a public hungry to read more about their heroes.

The larger question is, if athletes aren't entertainers, then what are they? It's hard to conceive of them as manual laborers, or service industry workers or any other such line of work. It's largely a conceit of people who don't want to cop to the essential frivolity of sports that athletics are any more meaningful or deep than, say, Hollywood starlets or pop music.

The third issue is the one that Mariotti doesn't actually explicitly cover in his piece - the fact that sports media is also entertainment, and at times in ways that overshadows the sports themselves. When he mentions Dana Jacobson or Kelly Tilghman - they are media personalities, just like Jay Mariotti. So I'm not surprised that Jay doesn't look too closely under that particular rock.

And now it's time to look at what Jay Mariotti is. He is not an analyst - he doesn't seem to have any particular expertise in any sport, or even to show a passing interest in developing that sort of expertise. Nor does he do any real reporting - it seems almost a perverse point of pride of his that he doesn't show up in the White Sox clubhouse anymore.

No, what Mariotti is is a personality. What he offers is... his services as an entertainer.

If you'll recall, Mariotti wasn't particularly concerned with the purity and sanctity of sport when he was pillorying Ozzie Guille (even if it's pretty clear that Guillen deserved some pillorying there.) He also wasn't concerned about such things when he threatened to punch Hawk Harrelson.

To really have a conversation about the way sports coverage has changed, and how we're heading for the lowest common denomenator - well, Jay Mariotti would have to take a long, uncomfortable look in the mirror, and I don't think he's ready for that. What I think he's really trying to do here is complain about how media personalities like him are now becoming legitimate targets.

Well guess what, Jay. It's a sewer, alright - and you helped build it.

Labels: Jay Mariotti, Media