Tag Archives: Jon Heyman

Scorekeeping: Jon Heyman’s Eternal Hatred for Latinos

Not really.

A friend pointed me to this blog and I gotta say, I’m a little jealous.

While it ranges for all sports, there was a tidy little article on Jon Heyman and his dislike for Luis Castillo/love for David Eckstein.

Eckstein is 36 years old. He has posted a career .280/.345/.355 batting line with an 87 OPS+ and 21.4 WAR.

Castillo is 35 years old. He has posted a career .290/.368/.351 batting line with a 92 OPS+ and 24.5 WAR.

Heyman has been effusive in his praise of Eckstein:

A two-time World Series champ, this all-time scrapper is a big plus for any clubhouse.

And on Twitter:

#phillies should sign david eckstein, who’s hoping for a 2b job, as insurance since utleys still hurting. #mysteryailment

He even went so far as to argue that the Mets should replace Castillo with Eckstein:

#mets should release castillo, bring in eckstein and immediately boost their attitude/karma

Meanwhile, he has bashed Castillo relentlessly for the past few months:

i am sick of luis castillo already this spring, and im not even in port st lucie anymore (and neither is he there, by the way)

Read the whole thing here

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under MLB, MLB history

Comments on the Culture of Sports Internet Commenting Sections from the Troll’s Perspective.

Jeff Pearlman got Goatse’d. That’s what happened. He wrote a bad article, someone criticized him for it, he confronted the person, the person sent him a link to Goatse, and he clicked it in front of his 7-year-old daughter.

Just a heads up, but don’t google “Goatse.” While the content is extremely strong, the joke that Pearlman was the butt (lol) of wasn’t so much his reaction to seeing it, but that his attackers got the best of him.

Pearlman may not have deserved seeing the very wide eye of the Goatman, but people get swept into that sort of thing.

What Pearlman conveniently left out was that he was doing virtually the same thing to Jeff Bagwell that his commenters did to him.

Pearlman wrote one article about how he doesn’t believe Jeff Bagwell should go into the Hall of Fame–because Pearlman believes he did steroids, with nothing more than very loose circumstancial evidence. Even I wrote a post responding to Pearlman about how egregiously off-base and irresponsible that was. He was holding Bagwell to an incredibly high standard–have proof that you didn’t take steroids or else you shouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame–and then not holding himself to, at the least, a similar standard.

*Puts on Jon Stewart wig*

One commenter asked, pretty simply, Why didn’t anyone do any actual investigative journalism and find at least some evidence–including Pearlman, who acknowledged he covered baseball for Sports Illustrated, and Bagwell himself, while Bagwell was playing. Pearlman’s response.

Jonathan—I say this out of frustration, and nothing personal whatsoever. But the ol’ ‘How about a little good old fashioned investigative journalism.” Like it’s so easy, and therefore the media is to blame as much as the players who used.

But … how … No, it’s not easy, but it’s not fair to cast the first stone when you yourself didn’t do the legwork.

The kicker in Pearlman’s Bagwell article is this:

So, again, Joe’s right: Statistically, Jeff Bagwell is a Hall of Famer. And, on a personal note, he was always an approachable and nice guy. But, dammit, thanks to baseball’s meekness (for lack of a better word), Hall of Fame voters (I’m not one, for the record) have the right to suspect anyone and everyone from the past era.

“He was a nice and approachable guy, yet I’m going to take this time to defame him. I don’t even have a reason to.”

Sounds familiar.

In that Bagwell post, there are 106 comments. Five are from Mr. Pearlman himself, none of which address, or even consider, how horribly unfair it is to accuse Bagwell of doing PEDs.

So if he doesn’t hold himself to a standard that he holds a professional baseball player to, why should anyone respect what he writes?

That’s when people took him to task for it. And when it was clear he wasn’t going to respond to well-written responses, a very few though, Well maybe he’ll respond to extremely vitriolic ones. Which he actually did (this was his fatal mistake). And the commenters laughed (“lmao”). And when he started cyber-stalking, two of the commenters were kind enough to not hang up on him immediately and said “Look dude, we were just having some fun with you.”

Note that Andy claims to have spoken with Pearlman for more than an hour and Pearlman used only three quotes.

* * *

The joy of internet commenting is that blogs are, more or less, a meritocracy. The most interesting sites get the most hits, but the most respected sites get the best comments, and most times the least of the worst comments.

Very few sites have that balance between awesome commenters, great content and huge website traffic. Cracked.com and Craig Calcaterra’s Hardball Talk. These are two respected sites. They do their due diligence and their content, though it’s not always Pulitzer stuff, is quite often very good.

And another thing, comment sections are often a reflection of the site itself. And trolls will often avoid doing anything to a site or person that they respect. Not that everyone who’s been trolled deserved it–hell no–but respect is earned on the internet.

The most respected bloggers I know are bloggers who put effort into their posts, respond to decent comments, show intelligent correspondence in doing so, and sometimes correct themselves if they did something wrong. They don’t respond just to the ones that say “That was a great article.” They’ll also tell you they work at keeping their comments section clean–that includes deleting the occasional ad hominem “your a moron” comment.

A respectable journalist would’ve taken the time to find the evidence against Bagwell, asked some clubhouse attendants, asked some people close to Bagwell, and reported if something was off. Pearlman didn’t. He posted a gossip article. You know what happened from there.

Pearlman’s CNN article is pretty decent, if not a thinly veiled attempt to vindicate himself. “Ha! Look, I got them to apologize to me. They actually like me.” People on the internet do enjoy the anonymity. That’s not a shock. That’s one reason why some write some vitriolic statements–another is that they can get away with it. Have I blown your mind yet? And if Andy did love Pearlman’s book, that doesn’t mean he has to appreciate watching Pearlman throw Bagwell under the bus for no reason.

The best any internet writer can do is write to the best of his or her ability–write an essay that’s well-written, has decent support and isn’t some piece of inflamatory garbage–and know that he/she did a good enough job to the point that the story stands on its own. If the writer can look at a dumb comment and laugh, more power to him.

The difference between the well-respected bloggers and the rest is knowing the difference between a legitimate and/or well-written response to a post of yours and reading a comment that’s more or less “your human garbage lol.” The more you respond to the latter, the more you’ll receive.

There. I hope that makes sense. Now go post on your blogs. Delete the bad trolls. Respond to the legitimate gripes. Attempt to enlighten the ones that don’t understand. And be willing to admit you’re wrong sometimes. That’s all we ask.

Leave a comment

Filed under MLB

Some Hall of Fame catch-up material and links.

Craig Calcaterra collected the choicest nerd-raging quotes from around the blogosphere. My favorite:

Drunk Jays Fans: “Today, Andre Dawson was considered by people whose job it is to cover baseball, to be more deserving of the greatest honour a baseball player can receive than Roberto Alomar, Bert Blyleven and Mark McGwire. This is fu**ing dumb.”

One of the biggest concerns stemming from this year’s voting is that the BBWAA just isn’t fit to do their job.  It’s About the Money (stupid!) came up with this fine six-step solution:

  1. Term limits: Those eligible to vote can do so for five years. After that, they must cycle out of the voting pool for at least two years. After that, they can reapply for voting rights for the next five year period.
  2. Voting Board: A group of 10 senior BBWAA members (elected by their peers) who have the ability to remove a writer from the voting pool using a majority vote. This group will be able to decide that if a person, such as Lisa Olsen, who refuses to select any player on any ballot he/she has ever been given deserves to remain part of the BBWAA pool. Making a sham of the vote is reason for being ousted.  Not paying attention is also grounds for dismissal, as what happened last year with Rickey’s vote showed us; sorry, if you’re not taking this seriously, you lose the right to vote.
  3. Credentials: Review the credentials of every person currently eligible to vote for the HOF. If they are not currently writing extensively about baseball, they lose their right to vote. Even if they are in the midst of their term.
  4. Eligiblity: Writers can come from non-traditional media (ie: Internet), however they must be nominated by an existing BBWAA member and must be granted credentials by the Voting Board.
  5. Inclusion of HOF Players: As much as I would like to include all of the living HOF’ers to the pool, I’m concerned about their lack of objectivity. I have heard many HOF’ers the last few days citing the players not currently in the HOF as “guys who absolutely should be in”, though some of these players don’t stand a chance of ever getting in. Especially Tommy Lasorda, who would vote to elect everyone who wore Dodger blue. Also, players from The Steroid Era would face a significant bias from this large group.  Instead of allowing every former player, I would select 20 HOF’ers, on a rotating 3 year term, to vote.  This way, voting blocks would be tough to establish as there were be new voters cycling in every year.
  6. Transparency: Every voter’s ballot MUST be made public. Rationale is strictly voluntary, however.

Probably the best review I’ve read so far, although the selection/de-selection process sounds too stringent.  Maybe just disband the BBWAA and replace it with a group of analysts, scouts and historians who attend the games.  I’ll say it again, reporters have their value in the world, but they’re not analysts and the two jobs should be separated once and for all.  Or maybe make all baseball reporters pass a statistics 200-level course.

Not all of the ballots were made public, but about 70 were this year and The Girl Who Loved Andy Pettitte collected the data and came out with a list of the worst ballots submitted, the worst hypocrisies and the worst attention grabs.

As I wrote in this post, it turns out it wasn’t just Heyman and Jenkins who voted for Morris and not Blyleven.  At least eight ballots mirrored that.

The Jack Morris but no Bert Blyleven Crew

Murray Chass, Jon Heyman, Bruce Jenkins, Danny Knobler, Buster Olney, Dan Shaughnessy, Joel Sherman and Tom Verducci all voted for Jack Morris but not Bert Blyleven. If you don’t think Bert is a Hall of Fame pitcher and don’t buy the arguments of people like Rich Lederer that’s fine.We all have different ideas about what the cutoff for the Hall should be. But if you don’t think Bert belongs then there is absolutely no way that Jack Morris should be one.

Stinks, I’ve always looked up to Tom Verducci as a writer. The rest of the article is pretty good, suggested reading to show that at the very least, the BBWAA is bloated and should be slimmed down.

1 Comment

Filed under Baseball Hall of Fame, MLB