I’ll be on XM Radio channel 144 with Bill Pidto and Bruce Murray on Tuesday at 9:25 am EDT, and will appear via phone on First Take at either 10:50 am or 11:25 am EDT, time TBD. I’ll also be on with longtime friend Jeff Erickson’s Fantasy Focus Internet radio show, although we won’t do straight fantasy content. If you remember Jeff’s radio show on XM, this is the same show, but he moved it online after the Sirius-XM merger.
My most recent post on my main ESPN.com blog now has BP video of Buster Posey. There’s also video up of Tim Wheeler and Drew Storen in my most recent draft blog entry. I should have more draft notes and videos later this week.
Jason Whitlock had some strong (and dead-on) words about Selena Roberts and accuracy. Shysterball had similar words last week. I’ve pointed this out previously, but Roberts has gone after A-Rod at odd times before, like writing her 2007 World Series post mortem about him, even though he hadn’t played in that or the previous series. Squawking Baseball takes aim at Roberts’ implication that A-Rod couldn’t have tripled his bench-press ability without the use of PEDs.
Is Twitter the CB radio of Web 2.0? (HT to Shysterball.) I kind of hope not, now that I crossed the 1000-followers mark.
JoePo is obsessed with cycles. I couldn’t agree less; I think cycles are boring – statistical oddities that hold no interest for me. One reason is that a player who goes 1b-2b-3b-hr has hit for the cycle and goes on that list that some guy keeps that gets trotted out the next time some Joey Bagodonuts goes 1b-2b-3b-hr, but some other player who goes 2b-2b-hr-hr had a better day and doesn’t make any list, unless there’s some other guy keeping some other list that he really doesn’t get to trot out that often because no one gives a crap about guys who went 2b-2b-hr-hr.
This clip cracks me up: auto-tuning the news. (HT to mental_floss from their post earlier this week auto-tuning.) I’m not sure which I like best – the facial expressions on the guy “talking” to Katie Couric, the angry gorilla, or the ever-present tambourine.
I don’t know how you can accuse someone of tipping other players off as to what pitch will be thrown without a single source. It’s one thing to use an anonymous source to report on A-Rod’s unflattering nicknames, but to use such sources on something to extent of tipping pitches?
The cycle always got me as an oddity for the publicity it got. It means it is an achievement for a player with a double, treble and hr to stop at first not carry on further round the pads when he’s roped it to the fences? Really?
On Ms Roberts hatchet job, 4 letter comes out real bad as well by the sounds of this, I wonder if they will dare publish that book in the UK where the libel laws mean you have to absolutely prove what you wrote – which is far too extreme the other way but there you go. Our courts once found that Liberace was straight! I believe several US citizens have used this method one where only 22 books were sold over here. Did she say if he was on the grassy knoll?
Nice video of Posey. I liked the voiceover too.
I don’t think what makes a cycle so intriguing is the level of accomplishment. Everyone knows that a player who hits two doubles and two homers had a better day. No player who needed a base hit for the cycle would stop at first if he could get extra bases. That’s not the issue.
What makes a cycle intriguing is the balance and symmetry of the act. There are four potential types of hits and the player collects them all. It’s a cool little feat that is derrived from the nature of the game. Baseball is full of cool little things like that, and that’s part of what makes the game so fun.
We like watching back-to-back-to-back homers too, even though homer-out-homer-out-homer has the exact same result. Baseball isn’t always a game about outcome; we enjoy the playing as much as we do the victory, and little quirks like the cycle are just bonus treats along the way.
DCTF: I’m on record as saying I love no-hitters, which, at the end of the day, are no more significant than shutouts, and you could argue that they’re really no more significant than complete games. But I love no-hitters. The tension is unbeatable – one hit, one ball in play not reached, and it’s over. And it’s not a celebration of something that’s really-good-but-could-have-been-a-lot-better like the cycle; there are perfect games, but those are included as no-hitters, and often the difference between the two is something like an error or a bad call by an ump.
Aaron: Glad you liked the VO. Took me six “takes,” including one where I referred to him as “Buster Poisey.”
I think instead of cycles, people should track 10+ total base games. That way, cycles are included, but so are better performances.
Maybe I’m weird, but I think no-walk complete games are better than no-hitters. At least those are entirely in the pitcher’s control; too many scrub guys have thrown no-hitters because their defense continually bailed them out.
Keith,
Thanks for the video and commentary of Buster. I went to college with him for three years, meeting and interacting with him multiple times, and he is my favorite FSU athlete ever. I love following what scouts are saying about him. I was sad that he went 1 spot in front of the Marlins, even if Kyle Skipworth works out.
This is a great week in baseball for me actually, I have known Matt LaPorta since I was 7, through little league and high school baseball, and he hit his first HR tonight.
I realize the cycle is overrated, but somehow there is something about it that exciting, but it is cool to see guys outrun the double to help the team in spite of the cycle.
BIP, Yeah it was still so fun to watch the 11 walk A.J. Burnett no-hitter when he was a Marlin as a fan. But, I agree.
I suppose the cycle is sort of like the triple-double in basketball (those much rarer). Is 10 points, 10 rebounds, and 10 assists better than 30 points, 20 rebounds, and 7 assists? No, and few people would argue so, but there is still just something interesting about the feat. It is an oddity and somewhat arbitrary, but it’s a fun little quirk that, so long as it’s not overblown (entirely too easy to do), I don’t see the harm. I was going to make the point about the no-hitter, though I see it’s already been discussed here.
One note on the cycle: one of the earlier posters mentioned you wouldn’t see a guy stop at 1st to complete a cycle even if he could get extra bases. But there are times where guys try to stretch a hit or maybe don’t try to stretch a hit based on their pursuit of the cycle. Not often, but those instances scream “selfish” more than “cool”.
Keith,
Thanks for passing along Whitlock’s article. He and Craig are both all over this; it’s nice to see both journalistic ethics and the legal perspective from two very different people fall on the same side of the fence.
Whitlock almost had me, right up until the point he (shockingly) played the race card. The next time he writes a column or rants on Sports Reporters without mentioning the color of someone’s skin or the place of their birth, it will be the first. Ironic that he is writing a column on someone else’s credibility. Its similar to CNN.com posting a story about how the media overy-hyped the swine flu coverage…
That said, he is correct about the repeated failures to treat her reports/book with the appropriate amount of skepticism. More sensationalism at the price of accuracy and actual *news*.
Did you know Whitlock is black? ok that joke is out of the way- I think he’s one of the better op-ed sports writers in the country. I often find myself frusterated at his articles and want to write him back telling him why he’s wrong. But at the end of the day he did his job well…I am maddeningly thinking about whatever topic he wanted me to think about. He’ll get me to think and I think that’s a wonderful character in a writer.
And not that I ever want to defend him, but he is only an Op-ed journalist while Selena Roberts is reporting nebelous “facts”.
Whitlock’s major downfall is his unwavering love for Jeff George and while he does bring race into the discussion often, it’s frequently appropriate to do so. Aside from that, I generally appreciate his op-eds if for nothing else than what brian says – he evokes thought on the issues he addresses.
That’s really all you can ask for in an op-ed.
I think it’s perfectly appropriate to discuss race when examining the media’s takedowns of baseball stars. Really, if Barry Bonds was white, if Alex Rodriguez was Alex Johnson, do we think the media’s treatment of these players would have been identical?
Thanks for the heads-up on the Whitlock article. It’s a dead on, and yet it also doesn’t beat the point to death. From time to time the race card is improperly used, but this is not one of those times. Whitlock is/was one of the few reporters I like on the Sports Reporters show, and this article is one of the few examples of how to put this type of “news” into perspective.
KLaw – you’re spot on with the cycle vs. no hitter. I don’t think I’ve ever anxiously awaited someone legging out a double to complete the cycle, but some of my favorite baseball moments have been no-hitters, or the always fun no-hitter until a bloop single with 2 outs in the ninth.
I don’t agree that race is a topic that should be there. Whitlock even goes so far as to mention that it isn’t an issue. He just brings it up because it wouldn’t be a Whitlock article otherwise. His thesis is the S. Roberts isn’t credible and she’s not been questioned about her foibles in the past -creating that distrust. I think we all agree with that even if none of us have read the book. No academic work should be presented without any sources and hiding behind the press’ right is fair if it isn’t so incendiary towards another human being. Especially since it is a lot of “he said she said” type of stuff.
At the same token race perhaps is here (I doubt it but that’s my opinion and another discussion) but Whitlock brought up race and then dismissed it. That’s just his m.o..
That clip is TOO funny.
In one of my law school classes, a girl did a presentation on an American author who got sued in Britain by a Saudi who accused her of libel and false accusations in a minimally circulated book (it is unclear if it was ever sold in the UK). British courts took the case and eventually ruled for the Saudi. Assuming Robert’s book is at least minimally circulated across the pond, A-Rod may have some recourse – sure would be interesting.
I guess I should clarify that the Saudi was suing on the basis of unsubstantiated claims the author made that he was a supporter of terrorist activity. I suppose the gravity of the accusation is different, but the idea is the same.
I don’t know if gravity should have an effect on the ruling, only on the damages awarded.
“If on-base percentage is so important, then why don’t they put it up on the scoreboard?” – Jeff Francoeur
http://tinyurl.com/cdma3j
Woof.
Everyone makes a valid point re: race possibly being an issue, but how subtantial is the evidence of other record-breaking white athletes *known* to use PEDs, lie about it repeatedly, including under oath or on nationally-televised interviews, and also commit other acts of moral turpitude?
Seems to me we’re hearing plenty about what a dirtbag Clemens really is, and I know any time the media needs a divisive topic we hear debate about Pete Rose and the HOF. And I think Bonds and A-Rod are targeted because they’re among the best ever and are/were the best in the game at their peak. Not that the PEDs and their status are related, but part of being the best is that you come under the most scrutiny. So if Alex Johnson was making $25M-plus per year and putting up the HOF and record-breaking numbers, I have no doubt we’d be hearing about it.
In other words, if it was Pete Rosales, would we have people crying about the targeting of a non-white player? Or is it the actions itself and the ramifications on that person’s image and reputation that are attractive? To me, scandal is scandal.
Its apparent there’s some degree of racism in MSM – how often to we read about a missing 8 year-old African-American girl? But with baseball and the PEDs, to me it seems more of the players who are at the top just happen to be minorities, and they’re not being targeted unfairly because of their race.
Jeff Francoeur would say that. Try not making outs at a Pierre-esque rate there Frenchy.
And way to steal my name, jerk. 😛
@Knobbler – the amount of dirt that needed to come out for the media to turn on Clemens was a mountain compared to what it took them to turn on A-Rod and Barry.
amen knobber! i’m sure arods 1/4 billion dollar contract makes him a target – not his race.
I wasn’t referring to the PED allegations so much as the allegations that A-Rod is a douchebag or a fake or a bad teammate or a bad tipper or likes she-males or whatever. We rarely hear that stuff about white athletes; Clemens had to bang an underaged country star who turned into a train wreck (shades of The Reader?) for the media to really turn on him.
I don’t mean to come off as a douchebag, but if someone who follows sports really needs an explanation of why the media coverage of A-Rod has been unfair… well, I guess they just don’t “get it”.
BTW, Keith, are you going to do a food write-up for the San Jose trip?
Keith is exactly right about how race can affect perception of an athlete. As much negativity as there was about Clemens and McGwire it was different than the things being said about A-Rod, Manny, and that were said about Bonds. The perception of those athletes was the same way prior to PED allegations. PEDs are an convenient excuse to pile on a guy nobody likes.
All I have to do to demonstrate this is spout some cliches. “Cancer in the club house” “narcissictic” “not a winner” “not a team player” “not clutch” etc. Those things and more are common when talking about A-Rod, Bonds, and Manny but never about Clemens or McGwire. In fact, I can’t think of one white player who has had those labels.
Jeff Kent. Not that the exception proves the rule, but he certainly carried the CC label.
I think we hear negative things about white people all the time. Lindsey Lohan is a drunk, Brittney spears is a slut. etc etc etc. Is that then misogyny? We live in a culture that thrives on famous people being imperfect. We can pick and choose character assassinations all day long white or black or brown.
Arod is the biggest media star in the biggest media market on the most famous team who also happens to be a bit of a punk b—h. Of course he’s going to be slaughtered. I think it’s a matter of opinion whether or not we’d hear the same things if he was white. I suggest we would, others suggest not.
Is the argument for why he was paid 252 million dollars is based solely on his prowess as a baseball player but the unfair media attention he garners is based on his skin color? Does that not seem silly?
Lindsey Lohan is a drunk, Brittney spears is a slut. etc etc etc. Is that then misogyny?
Of course it is. When was the last time a male celebrity was pilloried for promiscuity? Shawn Kemp’s inability to keep it in his pants is the butt of jokes, not criticism or scorn.
Speaking of which, is Travis Henry trying to grow his own practice squad?
I agree Keith.
magic johnson? (is his name a pun? I was never clear on this). He was a hero. He was crucified, then a hero. Now a successful business man.
Mel Gibson or David Hasselhoff are drunks. Michael Jackson is a Humbert humbert and they’re all white. Rihianna and Chris Brown beat each other. A quick glance through TMZ shows discrimination of no color.
Dead Spin can show the same things. Why don’t we hear about Mike Tirico?
Brian,
How do you know A-Rod is a punk?
Selena Roberts.
Brian,
Michael Jackson is in fact not white.
Brian, I’ve seen you rant on a similar topic recently. Why do you react that way when people of color claim racism? Do you honestly believe minorities are treated as fairly as whites by the media?
These are serious questions, not an attack.
My wife teaches at a school that is all hispanic. It is a sea of black hair kids. There are 3 white kids in the school. I help out there on a regular basis and no matter what I do, I will always be called a racist. Ask a kid to quiet while talking, and a child will respond, “you’re a racist.” I have blonde hair and blue eyes. These kids are being taught by their parents. A kid will be a wretch, have their parents called in, and the parents will suggest that a teacher is picking on the kid because he’s hispanic. All the kids are hispanic. They aren’t being picked on. In our culture, responsibility has vanished and a myriad of excuses appear. I perhaps am hyper sensitive because kids are growing up being taught that because they are hispanic (or black or whatever) they’ll be treated different. I cannot tolerate that and do not wish that upon anyone. When people say, “that’s how it is you have to accept it” then I guess that’s true. No one will just accept someone based on who they are. They foist race into the conversation where it doesn’t belong and things stay the same. What did Michael Jackson say, “I’m looking at the man in the mirror, hoping he’ll change his ways….” He’s not white?
My feelings on this matter are clear. My feelings on Jeff George, though, are as yet unstated. Whoever called Whitlock out for loving Jeff George “too much” is a Georgist. Go back to the 60’s, hippy!
A different response to brian: While I will agree that there are instances in which certain individuals will claim bias where there really is none, or where bias alone cannot explain the situation they have found themselves in, I cannot agree that this discredits all claim of bias. Your anecdote about the situation in your wife’s school, which I will wholly accept as fact at this point, does not disprove the specific examples Keith and others have given (nor is the inverse true). Is EVERY member of the media bias? No. Is NO member of the media bias? No. I would say that there are likely more who are biased than who are not. Even if those who are biased are in the minority, when factoring in how few are anti-bias (very different than simply not being biased), the scales are still tipped in one direction. Our society is still dominated by male and white privilege (among others). This does not necessarily guarantee that individual circumstances will always favor white males but, on the whole, they are likely to be treated far more favorably over the course of a lifetime than those who lack these (and other) privileges.
I don’t really enjoy soul food. I really like Italian and Mexican. That doesn’t mean I dislike the soul culture. Everyone has bias. I am not so sure people act upon that bias in a malicious manner.
I cannot accept evidence of racism based upon the idea that “we know it to be there.” If we know so well…why no evidence? Is it hidden undergirding the entire professional sporting franchise? I am convinced that the idea of “we know it to be there” is more harmful than good.
I think it is an entirely more interesting discussion when we see it and can discuss it. When we say Bonds was picked on because he was black we can just as easily say that he was picked on because he was a guiness world record certified jerk. I think that’s karma.
regardless…this has gotten off topic. my overall point was Whitlock is right in calling Roberts’ credibility into question and it is the media’s job to police that. I’m just not sure why Whitlock brought up race other than to bring it up – sort of like Bill simmons’s streak of veiled references to boogie nights.
brian-
I think you’re really misrepresenting what bias is with your analogy. And just because their is a lack of “proof” that satisfies you doesn’t mean the proof doesn’t exist. Keith, who has worked in the business, has made it clear that much more goes into the assessment of players than baseball things. Is that not proof enough for you? If you are looking for a memo that says, “Treat black players this way and white players this was,” you are not going to find it, but that is not how bias and privilege work.
Regardless, to your point about Whitlock’s article, he goes out of his way to demonstrate he is not insinuating a grand conspiracy, but rather is attempting to draw attention to the media’s inability or unwillingness to look critically at itself. Absent this, there is no challenge to the status quo, which is undeniably tained by bias (of all kinds). If we don’t eliminate the cronyism and old-boys-club of the media, than perceptions that may or may not be accurate go unchallenged.
To quote Whitlock:
“I am not asserting a nationwide racial conspiracy against minority baseball players. I’m in no way stating that Roberts’ pursuit of Rodriguez is motivated by race. I’m asserting that the media’s unwillingness to publicly and aggressively challenge itself breeds unequal and unfair coverage.
We all have biases that must be contested. We’re all capable of getting swept up in the biases of our peers and friends.”
I read the same quote and figured it was about the media and not race- like he said. I think he asks the media is to challenge itself on all fronts. Sort of like congress really. If you want to draw that to race then considering it is Whitlock I’ll accept that. I just suspect accountability is a clear need especially in journalism where awful things can be written and essentially never backed up. Like in this particular forum to be sure.
I 100% agree you should not just account for someone based on their talent as a baseball player. The character of these kids are critical. Paying someone a million dollar bonus to sign and then have that kid end up going off into drugs or something worse is a bad business investment. I think the NFL draft does a great job exposing this. That Boone kid from Ohio State, in his drunken rage, got himself a solid position as an UFA.
Lets revisit bias here: Bias always will exist. I’m always more inclined to like 90’s butt rock more than 80’s glam rock. This is my natural bias (granted a silly example). We live with those and we are not a blank slate with perfect racial qualities. That does not necessarily translate into racism. Further, racism doesn’t necessarily translate into action. To revisit our previous conversation- Rocker should not have been suspended. He has his own bias. His acting on that is the critical issue we’re disputing.
I do not think racism is acted upon. If it is then why don’t we hear about it? We only get “he said she said” type instances where many of the racial undertones can simply be explained with a non racial understanding of the situation. I do think racists are out there, I do think bias existents: I do think that action upon that is minor and rarely happens. I cannot imagine in a multicultural game such as baseball, where millions of dollars are invested into these players, that race has a large part. Why is Manny being paid so well, or Arod or CC?
If you’re going to claim that racist actions exist, then I’d simply ask to have it proven. I’m more than wiling to say, I was wrong.
We can argue in circles about this again, but I don’t see a point. I think people have provided ample examples of situations in which you can see a clear difference in the handling or perception of an incident/individual that can likely be attributed to a racial or ethnic bias. I would like to see you respond to the specific examples illustrated here and demonstrate how you can disprove these assertions, WITHOUT relying upon the characterizations that may be littered with bias. There is no smoking gun. It is more subtle than that. You can likely break down an individual situation, but if you look at a big enough sample size, clear patterns emerge.
And KLaw’s point, if I remember correctly, was not about so-called “character issues”, because there are ways in which those are baseball issues. He spoke specifically about the way race and ethnicity impacts how teams evaluate players, and that is wrong.
An example I just saw tonight in the Sox/Yanks game: Why do we describe every Asian pitcher’s delivery as “deceptive” and then immediately ascribe it to the way “they” play “over there” (see how Saito was talked about). Is Lincecum “deceptive” because of how “his people” pitch? If you really believe that Japanese or Korean or Taiwanese baseball (they’re not all the same) is rife with “deception” to make up for marginal talent, than you have bought into the bias perception being forced by the MSM.
I wrote this big long response and then erased it. We’re are not going to agree. Hegel was wrong and history does not have to end in a dialectic. I am asking for evidence and you’re telling me that evidence isn’t clear. Our disagreement is over that evidence where you simply suggest it’s there and I simply suggest it isn’t. Pretty simple.
I am interested in that piece you spoke about written by Keith Law. Do you think you could link that?
Keith do you know what he’s talking about?
I believe Keith’s “piece” was comments in a blog here. Might have been one of our more recent conversations on this. It wasn’t a long diatribe, but more a few different posts. I’ve pointed out that evidence HAS been provided here, in this post and our previous post.
Let’s start easy: respond to my point about Saito and the discussion/description of Asian pitchers. Explain to be how the immediate characterization of them as “deceptive” (not just their pitching motion, but their actual personality), while this label is rarely, if ever, applied to American athletes, is not twinged with bias. Again, I’m not claiming overt racism; rather, than biases about groups of people impact the perception and therefor the coverage of individuals associated with these groups.
And now for something completely different:
It has been said pigs will fly before there is a black man in the oval office for 100 days.
Well then: Swine Flu.
Thank you.
Brian,
It seems like asking for “proof” that media bias exists is something way beyond the scope of comments on a blog, but maybe that is why you are hanging your hat on that point. It is impossible to proove. That is like saying “proove evolution to me on this blog”.
However, the examples you gave are exactly why bias is a problem. You said that A-Rod was a “punk bitch” and Bonds was “a Guiness book of world records jerk”. How did you get the information to form your opinions about those two players? The media. Your opinions are colored by the spin on the players set by the media and having those opinions further those stereotypes. Thus it creates interest in a tabloid manner that even opens the door for Selena Roberts’ book. So A-Rod and Bonds just happen to be the two worst human beings to ever play the game of baseball? Hardly, but they get so much more ill will then guys who have actually done things that are much worse.
Forgive me but: Was I unclear above? Did you miss the above part where I addressed the very concerns you raise?
Someone above made the point that was ironically directed at me, but I feel is valid to those of us who take the time to post on fabulous blogs such as this… those of us who follow sports and know what is going on are not (hopefully) swayed by what is being presented about these athletes. I really don’t know if MSM is targeting Bonds/A-Rod, or gives them more coverage, because they’re not white. But I know I don’t give 2 sharts what they are, they’re bad humans in my opinion for cheating and/or breaking the rules (written or not) laid down by their sport. Jeremy Giambi is no better just because he’s white. So I personally don’t care what MSM portrays, I consider myself smart enough to see past it.
I will say that the more and more I hear Selena Roberts interviewed, the more I fail to understand how she remains employed. She reminds me of Scott Templeton from Season 5 of The Wire.
Jason Whitlock wrote another column:
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/9542614/Bio-hazard:-A-Rod-author-has-credibility-issues