We Don’t Care
A quick response to something that doesn’t deserve anything longer, from Baker’s Blog today:
But it wasn’t only this site that went quiet. Heard no debate about this anywhere else in the Seattle blogosphere the rest of the weekend. Funny, because other sites had plenty to say about the topic earlier in the week before Wagner spoke up and perhaps enlightened some people as to what actually does go on in a major league clubhouse.
You know why we didn’t talk about this ridiculous “talks to the media after the game” story anymore, Geoff? Because we don’t care. Do you know why we don’t care? Because it doesn’t matter to us.
You care, because it matters to you. It doesn’t matter to us. We don’t care if they talk to you or not. We don’t care if you want to equate talking to the media to being accountable. That’s your distinction, based on your experience as a reporter. People who aren’t reporters won’t draw that same distinction because they don’t care if ballplayers talk to the media or not. It doesn’t matter. You want it to matter, but it doesn’t. You can talk about accountability and playing together and being 25 guys going after the same goal all you want, but it’s all crap to give you something to write about because you just don’t want to write that this team isn’t any good because Jose Vidro, Richie Sexson, and Jarrod Washburn suck eggs.
And, really, if Billy Wagner’s on your side, you probably want to change sides.
Great post Dave…I’ve made several comments in the past about how I am sick to death of reporters pumping us with the same old cliches and stock questions/answers…I would love for once, just once, they reported truth and not pandered to the FO and players…I would much rather read an article about how much this team sucks (and they could right an essay on it easily) than the same crap they tell us EVERY NIGHT…
May 20th, 2008 at 9:44 amYeeeesh…. hahaha
May 20th, 2008 at 9:48 amI could not care less if Bedard is surly post-game or not….
May 20th, 2008 at 9:53 amI’m glad that Bedard is surly post-game.
May 20th, 2008 at 9:58 amThese silly things are so annoying. No one that matters cares about who does and doesn’t talk to reporters. There is no magic pixie dust that increases fake chemistry when all the players are skipping through the clubhouse singing show tunes.
Winning creates chemistry. Lousy teams with good chemistry are the way they are because they all know they are lousy. When you build a team with “good baseball guys” who “know how to play the game” you get the 2008 Mariners.
If you look outside of baseball, Randy Moss is a perfect example. The Packers passed up on him because he is a “clubhouse cancer.” The Patriots bring him in, he becomes the big target in a team that wins, and you don’t hear a peep from the guy.
No one likes to lose. Especially guys who make a living out of it. Why do people not see this, and continue to think that grown men, in the highest competitive environment, should smile and be happy when they lose? And why do those same people think that if they fake being happy that it will make them not suck anymore?
When you throw that crap put the window, and build a team based on talent and guys who have nothing to lose, you get the 2008 Rays.
May 20th, 2008 at 9:58 amGod, that entire post on Baker’s blog is awful.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:01 amI have read the standard major league player contract, and it says nothing about “making the lives of the local beat writers easier.” Geoff must be sore because the press box spread no longer includes that French mustard he likes.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:03 amI really don’t know what to think anymore.
I used to love the work Baker did on his blog. His coverage of the winter meetings were fantastic! Now it just seems like he’s taking potshots and picking fights.
I want to like the stuff he’s writing, but I can’t get past how awful his work has been the last month.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:07 amHear, hear. Well said.
Although…I have to admit I am turning a little green with envy right now…I mean, if only I could be one of those “enlightened” few who actually gets to see what goes on in a major league clubhouse! Man! What I wouldn’t give have Baker’s press pass for the day - and the wealth of inside knowledge that must come with it! You can bet I’d start enforcing some accountability around there!
May 20th, 2008 at 10:13 amIn Geoff’s defense, from someone who’s as disappointed with his recent work as anyone:
Think about the job the guy has to do.
His job, what pays his bills, is to write and blog about this atrocious team, which:
-Is playing horribly right now
-Gives no reason to expect they’ll improve anytime soon
-Is managed poorly at best
Not that it defends some of what he’s written lately, but I do sympathize with the guy.
Dave and Derek have invested a lot of time in this site, but at the same time, they can walk away any time they like, or just not write anything for a few days.
But Baker has no real choice in the matter, save finding another job in the dying world of print journalism.
He’s stuck covering the Mariners, and I’d be unhappy about that too.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:15 amBaker is probably suffering from the same malady we all are- overexposure to a terrible baseball team. As fans, we can at least take a few days off to clear our heads and forget baseball for a bit. Baker is stuck watching this trainwreck for another 4+ months. That is enough to make anyone snippy.
That being said, his tendency to use his blog to take shots at the evil bloggers is just silly (and ironic).
May 20th, 2008 at 10:16 amYeah, the opportunity to watch a bunch of guys who think cream pies in the face are the height of hilarity take solidarity showers and team-spirit wet towel snaps together would be the chance of a lifetime.
Oh, wait a minute…pies in the face are hilarious. What could I have been thinking? Okay, bring out the naked ball players.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:18 amGeeeoff really thinks that we are supposed to feel bad for him that the Mariners don’t talk to him?
You’re damn right we don’t care.
And since I won’t dare speak for this entire blog, the only thing this user cares about is winning. Winning baseball games.
To be honest, I really never could care less what these guys say. I can’t even relate to someone making the type of money these guys make, and top it off … the questions these reporters ask are flat out ridiculous (ie: the post about The Art of the Interview).
Maybe Geoff, Maybe just MAYBE, this blog is more concerned with how this team will get better, not how they will talk to you. I dont care what the field looks like before the game starts either. Or after it ends for that matter.
And yes, that post is just awful. At least the Mariners are bad enough to the point of starting a Seattle Blogosphere war.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:19 amIt would help if Baker wrote shorter blog entries.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:20 amI really do understand he’s under stress from covering a bad team (and honestly I feel bad for him), but I can’t excuse the potshots he’s taking at the blogosphere and his own commenters.
I enjoy the work he does covering the clubhouse and front office, but his overly defensive analysis posts are really taking a toll on the quality of his work. They come off as being attack pieces rather than well thought-out, rational evaluations of the team.
He has the ability to write excellent material, we’ve seen it before. I hope that writing touch that made him my favorite beat-writer returns.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:24 amYou’re crossing the line Dave. What if I told you that your photography was just some crap that mattered to you and had no value outside of giving you something to do?
May 20th, 2008 at 10:28 amAmen.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:35 amWait, why are YOU guys talking about Billy Wagner?
May 20th, 2008 at 10:38 amAs a former sportswriter I can attest that post game interviews with players (and any interview with coaches) are worthless and stupid. No one has anything intelligent to say, and they say it over and over again.
Which is why I NEVER read game stories.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:39 amFans are more interested in accountability for performance, not interview availability… and this organization’s pretty good at not demanding the former, considering how bad players like Sexson have been for so long.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:42 amDoesn’t ‘accountabiliy’ mean ‘ability to give an account,’ as in, with words?
May 20th, 2008 at 10:46 amI think Baker is quite consciously positioning himself as a plucky Hogworts wizard facing off against an evil Valdemort-sponsored blogosphere, particularly that part of it that dabbles in the black arts of statistics and relies on their “trusty computers” for guidance.
Substitute “magick” for statistics and “familiar” for computers and you’ve got half of another Harry Potter book outlined but the bottom line is that if the team’s not providing any drama on the field, Baker will drum some up on the printed (or at least phosphoresing) page. And, it’s an effort I’m sure he can put his heart into since across the country internet smarty-pants are putting “professional” journalists of all stripes on the street with disturbing regularity.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:48 amDammit. “Phosphorescing”.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:49 amI think it’s pretty easy to identify Sherrill as the one making an attribution error. No doubt he believes what he says because he’s happy now in Baltimore, but his comments at the time of the trade suggested that he was perfectly content and didn’t sense any big problems in Seattle’s clubhouse. And that team was doing better than his Orioles squad, even if this year’s edition isn’t.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:49 amI don’t understand all the cross0blog sniping. This blog is by a couple of Mariner fans that have a statistical basis of performance analysis. I like reading it for that.
Baker has a blog about a beatwriter covering the team. It’s got behind the scenes looks, player insights, and videos of airplane rides. I like reading it for that.
Yet, there is constant criticism on both blogs about the other doing what it is they were meant to do in the first place instead of being more like the other blog. It’s crazy.
There are literally thousands upon thousands of blogs. If they were all the same what’s the point. Read the ones you want and don’t read the ones that you don’t like.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:50 am24 -
He started it.
at least as far as this user is concerned. I’ve been reading these blogs for a while and it seems only Geoff’s keeps taking shots at USSM … we even link to his Blog and reference his work in this blog.
It doesn’t make sense … maybe hes got Blog envy.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:52 amI have no idea where its posted and I cannot find the link anymore, so if someone can help me in that regards I would be thankful, but I read shortly after the first Baker post on Felix, a post by Shannon Dreyer that refuted Baker’s claims that Felix didn’t make himself available for interview.
Dreyer said Felix came out later than usual, but still within the 45 minutes timeframe alloted, but that most media was gone by the time he came out. She, however, was not, and did a quick post-game with Felix.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:59 amWell, jspektor, that’s only true if you don’t consider this “We Don’t Care” post a shot back. I don’t have any reason to assign degree of blame. Frankly, it seems to me that all of the [Mariners'] fan base is suffering from bad chemistry due to all the losing.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:06 amMatthew:
http://www.komoradio.com/marinersradio/shannon/18965989.html
May 20th, 2008 at 11:17 amI think it’s part of the KultureKampf. Baker, whatever his plusses and minuses, is pretty firmly in the clutch/chemistry/pseudo-roles school of baseball. He may occasionally write something that seems to part with that thinking, but will always return home sooner rather than later. Plus, as someo have pointed out, he puts food on the table doing this sportswriter thing. The big advantage he has over Dave and Derek is that clubhouse pass. He gets to “go inside” and so he has a vested interest (whether he recongizes it or not) in making clubhouse issues out to be really important. If OBP matters and clubhouse chemistry doesn’t, then some guy in East Bufukistan with a DSL link and a pirated copy of Excel could matter more than Baker.
I don’t think it has to be antagonistic. Baker does occasionally ask some great questions, and that sort of insight is occasionally interesting, if not necessarily vital to understanding the win-loss record. But fundamentally, I think guys with Baker’s job feel a need to make a connection between what is essentially gossip (”Bedard and Johjima are having a spat”) with winning, because the typical sports fan (male, 15-40) doesn’t give a rip about the soap opera crap.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:18 amMy favorite announcer Dave Sims (yeah, definitely sarcasm) also spent half an inning beating to death the players for interviews thing. Still has his feelings hurt from when he was covering basketball. I guess everybody’s run out of things to say/write about the Mariners. “They suck” pretty much covers the post-game analysis for me.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:19 amThe thing is, I might actually care if the players were ever asked anything interesting. But they’re not. I can’t think of one enlightening soundbite I’ve heard from a post game interview. This post is right on the money.
Also from Baker’s blog, “there is a distraction involved to being a DH. It’s called sitting around on your butt trying to stay focused and loose for 45 minutes to an hour at a time while there’s a game going on.”
-It’s called getting paid millions of dollars. This sounds insane to me, shouldn’t a DH improve on his hitting since he has that 45 minutes to an hour to prepare for his next at bat?
May 20th, 2008 at 11:19 amPrint reporters sure do like tilting at windmills these days. And you have to love the irony of trashing the “blogosphere” for sounding off on your stupidity with a… blog entry.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:21 amSeriously! When did Baker get so goddamn pissy? Is it the lousy team he’s covering, or the tone of comments on his blog? He’s gotten so bitter in his time here.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:24 am.
Only it isn’t an advantage at all. At the expense of writing about any of a number of more interesting aspects of this organization, this team, this season or this division, he has to justify that insider access by incessantly parsing what few nuggets he gleans for useless “news”.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:28 amBaker obviously cares more than anyone else whether players will talk to him. That said, I do think its horseshit for players to make a policy of refusing to talk to media. Like it would kill Bedard to say, “yeah, my curve was finding the zone today and I got some good support . . . .” They all make a good living from the fan base and most players understand that part of their commercial value (as opposed to playing value) is playing along with the media.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:29 amMy respect for Bedard as a person would evaporate if he started giving cliche interviews. I wish all the Mariners would stonewall and express contempt. It’s a contemptible enterprise, clubhouse interviewing.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:33 amThese old school v. new school arguments keep going around in circles. It’s not either/or, its both/and.
Of course attitude, morale, chemistry, etc., matters. Its a whole lot easier coming to work every day if you like your boss and the guy next to you.
Attitude is particularly important in a team sport. Anyone who has actually played or coached knows that.
On the other hand, attitude can’t replace athleticism and talent. I think the Ms had a great attitude to start the year. They all seemed pumped up and believed in themselves. Didn’t stop them from tanking the first quarter of the season.
Managers and GMs need to have both skill sets. They need to both know what numbers mean, and how to manage people.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:33 amBaker has a blog about a beatwriter covering the team. It’s got behind the scenes looks, player insights, and videos of airplane rides. I like reading it for that.
Well, if Baker stuck to that he’d be fine. Problem is, he likes to dabble in roster management and such lately. That opens him up to debate with some of us that he doesn’t appear to take kindly to.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:38 amUntil the current model changes (which I’d argue is ongoing as we speak), it’s not really feasible for journalists to say “you know what, I’m not writing an article/going on TV today. There’s nothing new to say.”
So you can’t really blame them for trying to get players to talk to them; it’s their primary source of content.
Now, that doesn’t mean it’s justified for Baker, or anybody else, to whine about and paint as a bad guy players who won’t help them do their job; but it’s not like Baker can just not turn in a story for the day.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:42 amFunny that the whole “well, this guy must be a jerk, ’cause he never talks to us after a game” thing is such a big flippin’ deal to so many in the so-called media. Hmmm…I seem to recall this guy who pitched for Cards and Phils some years back who’d mentioned (in a magazine interview after he’d retired) that he had a bad experience with the media (being misquoted, I believe) at a certain point in his career — and, as a result, made it a personal policy from that point forward to politely decline speaking to reporters following his starts.
His name? Steve “Lefty” Carlton.
Boy, he must’ve been really bad for “team chemistry,” huh Geoff?
May 20th, 2008 at 11:42 amLet’s not forget they don’t teach you about baseball at journalism school. Being a baseball journalist is, unfortunately for baseball journalists, not a confirmation of any superior talent or knowledge about the sport they cover. This fact may cause one such journalist to cling to romantic notions of “team chemistry” long after the hometown team built with an eye toward “team chemistry” has bottomed out well below teams with millions less in payroll.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:43 amWhy? What do players gain from speaking to the media? Just as in the general population, very few players have the intelligence, perspective and command of language to provide interesting, quotable responses to a reporter’s questions day in and day out.
And much of what we perceive as canned quotes are simply an appropriate response to an inane line of questioning. If reporter’s are too lazy to find an interesting perspective to discuss, instead asking “Why did you leave that curveball up?”, they don’t deserve real answers in response.
No, they don’t understand that and it isn’t true regardless. Players are hired to play baseball, not talk to the damn media. If the M’s indeed target players for their ability to provide good quote, then they’re putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:46 amDamn, I typed too fast and made a plural a possessive - pet peeve - should be “reporters” in graf 2 not “reporter’s”.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:52 amAs to the cross-blog sniping, this is the first time I’ve seen a post at USSM that is critical of Geoff that did not begin with the preliminary caveat that Geoff is (a) a good guy and (b) a helluva lot better than his predecessor. This particular post, though, comes across as a bit snipy. Geoff’s posts, though, have become increasingly defensive, to the point where it really seems personal to him… which is a ridiculous approach for him to take. Anyway, I really wish Geoff would stick to what he does and focus less on what USSM says.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:52 amI think Eddie Murray was in the same boat, right? Got misquoted and said ’screw you’ to the media for the rest of his career.
The thing that’s irking me about his writing is his notion that it’s the players fault and not management. It’s not really Sexson or Vidro’s fault that they aren’t really good anymore, it’s management’s fault for not having a backup plan ready in the likely event that they stopped performing.
How is this hard to grasp?
May 20th, 2008 at 11:54 amThis is simple. They (media) care because it makes their jobs tougher. And when I say tougher I mean, actually developing and angle and writing about it as opposed to reguretating, “I think ______ is just pressing a little” or any of the various company lines. Funny post Dave but I would have let it be since you can’t not care and care this much. The USS Mariner v. Baker drama makes this site a hoot though keep it up!
May 20th, 2008 at 11:57 amand Six packs (of wins) HO! Go M’s.
The problem is that you guys are being overly harsh on the guy. I mean, you don’t agree with his take and you want to say the same thing stated on this blog and 30 of you repeat it on his and call him, bavasi and Sexson names all at the same time. I’m not sure what you’re expecting to get back.
He can have opinions that aren’t inline with this blog. That is okay. You know the source and you know he’s writing a blog, not the encyclopedia of baseball. If you can’t constructively criticize or comment, I don’t see why you bother posting at all. Ignore him if you don’t like his opinions. I don’t see why it has to dissolve into “i suck? you suck!”
Unfortunately, Baker hasn’t been able to keep his cool and his blog is affected by it. But I can’t say I blame the guy too much when he gets frustrated.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:57 amPrecisely why I like Rob Neyer.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:58 amAmen.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:58 am#43 — I think that casual fans and kids love to hear the players speak. I did when I was a kid. You don’t, so fine, ignore them. If people were seeking true enlightenment they probably wouldn’t be at the park pounding down dogs.
BTW, I don’t know how the Carlton argument plays out here. True, he refused to speak with the media. But he’s basically a sociopath. Don’t raise your kids to be like Steve Carlton.
May 20th, 2008 at 12:03 pmAlso, Steve Carlton and chemistry? Those Phillies teams stunk like month old three bean chip dip.
May 20th, 2008 at 12:09 pmAnd why do you think that? Based on articles written at the time by reporters with an axe to grind since he wouldn’t talk to them?
I’m not trying to pick on you, I just don’t understand the desire to read players giving the same dull responses to the same unoriginal questions, day after day and season after season.
May 20th, 2008 at 12:12 pm51: Just the first example that happened to come to mind (and Eddie Murray was another, too). RJ and Jack Morris were other examples of guys who blew the media off at various points for whatever reason as well.
I agree that the casual fans and kids are into the whole “players’ perspective” thing. But if a guy has an issue with the press corps and doesn’t feel like speaking to them after a particular game, I won’t just automatically vilify him for doing so, either.
May 20th, 2008 at 12:17 pm52: Dave (Palo Alto): True — up ’til about ‘76-77 or so, that is.
And, no matter how moody the guy may have been towards the media, I’ll bet the FO was pleased during those lean years with the attendance spikes they got on his game days.
May 20th, 2008 at 12:21 pm#53, Baltimore Dave — No, Carlton is strange. Ask him about how AIDS originated or the elders of Zion? Listen to his answers and see if you can plausibly come to the conclusion that “You, that guy has his head screwed on straight.”
May 20th, 2008 at 12:21 pmI don’t care if the players speak to the media either. But the fans not caring doesn’t necessarily mean that the players themselves don’t care when another player ducks reporters.
May 20th, 2008 at 12:24 pmNot to completely excuse the guy or anything…but the trolls Geoff has dominating his comments section would drive just about anyone bat-s$!% crazy.
May 20th, 2008 at 12:28 pmAmen to that! I mean, how many times can you hear the same old predictable “Stay within ourselves”/”Take it one game at a time”/”Gotta elevate our game”/”Doing the little things”/blah, blah, blah script over and over again before it starts getting really monotonous?
May 20th, 2008 at 12:28 pmI think Dave in Palo Alto should do a little research on the Philly teams that Carlton was on. 4 division titles 2 WS appearances and a WS title. They stunk eh? OOOOOOOKKKKKKKKAAAAY!
May 20th, 2008 at 12:28 pmBaker’s original point a few weeks ago was that when players duck out on interviews, some other player on the team has to cover for them, as dang says. Baker’s also said many times he doesn’t need player interviews for his stories because they’re essentially worthless. Over time as he keeps coming back to that point, he’s either getting sloppy about articulating it or it’s become something bigger in his mind. Either way, he seems bizarrely and somewhat confusedly focused on it.
May 20th, 2008 at 12:30 pmBaker’s blog has been unbearable for at least a month. His attitude is worse than a building department receptionist! Keep it up, Baker, and lose a few more readers.
May 20th, 2008 at 12:41 pmEveryone’s rushing to Bedard’s defense on this post.
That’s fine, but just remember this is the guy who, when staked to a 5-0 lead in Texas, basically blew the game off to prove his point about Kenji.
That he’s also prickly with the media helps to paint a more complete picture of the guy–selfish jerk.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention he’s also injury prone.
May 20th, 2008 at 12:45 pmYes. There is a major distinction between a blog like this and a sportswriter like Baker: Baker needs to create news to keep his job alive. This blog, and blogs like it, get to comment on things the authors find interesting or things that come up. They don’t need to make up news every day to keep the blog sold.
Things like players not talking to the media are only news because someone decided to make it news. Its much like politics, where every little thing a person says is dissected so the news room has something to say on the evening telecast.
May 20th, 2008 at 12:46 pmThat’s a pretty bold statement …
May 20th, 2008 at 12:56 pmTwo points and then I’ll retreat back into the weeds from whence I came.
First, I’ve never had a problem with a Carlton or Bedard who make it a policy not to talk to the press. It’s a free country. The problem I see is for players that run hot and cold. When things are going well you can’t quote them enough. When things go bad, suddenly they’re stuck in the training room. That, I think, is what gets writers’ goats. Also, remember those writers also have to answer to editors that nobody here has.
Second, when I first mentioned cross-blog sniping, I really meant the commenters far more than the authors. The authors all seem to have mutual respect and only occasional disagreements. I’ve never once read one of them blow the others off completely.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:03 pmRe: Matthew’s query and the article by Shannon Dreyer refuting Baker’s Felix rant…
That kind of thing is what I really take issue with. Regardless of whether you think little post-game interviews have any value (I’m in the camp that says they’re essentially worthless, but who really cares?) unfortunately, that’s Baker’s job. And if somebody like Felix really did avoid him (thus making his job harder) and he wants to lambast him for it in the press, I say it’s irresponsible, childish journalism. But at least you can understand where he’s coming from, and again, who really cares? But when another reputable clubhouse source comes along and says that the entire premise of his rant (Felix acting immature and avoiding him) is just not true…in my mind, that takes irresponsible journalism to a whole new level. Whether you value it or not, how much of his “inside knowledge” can you even trust at that point? His attitued has defnitely become increasingly bitter and pissy, and it seems to biasing almost everything he writes. He needs to get over himself, get over his blockhead commentors, get over the other excellent blogs out there (none better than this one) and get back to doing what he used to do.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:05 pmYuck. Do you have any evidence of this whatsoever, other than he lost?
May 20th, 2008 at 1:10 pmI’m thinking of a word other than bold…
May 20th, 2008 at 1:16 pmSome people enjoy post game interviews, and really want to know what goes on in the clubhouse. They belong to the category of people that read National Enquirer and visit TMZ - which is basically what a large percentage of sports “coverage” is - a gossip fix for the celebrity obsessed.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:16 pm63 - and I’m going to be honest. I think its great how cold blooded EB is to the media. I enjoy a little difference every once in a while.
I read that manuscript of his last interview and haven’t laughed harder since some of Lou’s post game comments.
Lest you not forget the Big Unit… hate em if you want … declaring he threw the game is outrageous.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:17 pmTO be honest, I agree with Geoff. This seems like a very defensive response to his blog which didn’t call out anyone in particular. I really appreciate the differences between this blog and his. You get a fans perspective and a good reporter’s. I see his point. I am a believer in team chemistry and accountability. People can try to break it down but it still exists. Billy Wagner may be a jerk, but it makes sense why he did that.
The one thing to consider, is that whatever you guys post here you can walk away at the end of the day if you chose to. You don’t face or deal with these players at the end of the day. The “shut up Jarrod” post is perfectly fine here b/c it’s a fans blog. It’d be a lot different if you walked into the Mariners clubhouse tomorrow and had to face the guys you butcher at times here (not that they don’t deserve it). Geoff has to face the people he writes about daily, and I think he does a great job. Personally, I think it’s unprofessional calling him out like that. I don’t recall him doing this same to USSM. I hope you guys can respect a viewpoint that doesn’t always agree with yours.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:29 pmBesides the unsupportable assertion that Bedard “blew off the game”, it’s also untrue that people are rushing to Bedard’s defense. We are disagreeing with Baker’s entitled idea that Bedard owes him anything. We’re still free to think Bedard’s being a jerk.
Now this is just silly. If the Phillies lost because of Carlton being a jerk — yeah, a starting pitcher somehow dragging the team down all those other days — how is it that they supported him enough for 27 wins in a year when they won 59, total?
As for stunk, Carlton was with the Phillies for 13 full seasons. In that time, they finished under .500 three times: the first three years he was there. They won a world series, two National League championships, six division titles. Carlton clearly was a huge part in transforming the Phillies into a powerhouse. So what do you think you’re talking about?
May 20th, 2008 at 1:29 pmsmorinj, it is possible to respect another person — as Dave has made it clear many times that he respects Baker — and not respect everything they say.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:33 pm60 — of course I know the Phils perked up in the late 70/s early 80/s when Schmidt, Luzinski, Maddox et al. were mashing. But in Carlton’s career year of 1972, they won 59 (!) games, setting, I believe, a metric for highest percentage of team games won by a single pitcher. Anyway, the original point was in a response to a comment that Carlton must have been a great chemistry guy. And if you measure “chemistry” by number of happy smiling faces, I doubt you saw many in 1972.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:43 pmThe best thing about that statement is that it saved me reading the rest of the post.
Giving away a post’s irrelevance early like that shows a generosity of spirit, in a way. It doesn’t try to fool you into thinking it’s going to be insightful, it says “I know you will think this is ridiculous, so I’m going to save the better read among you some time.”
I wish everyone would do that.
“I’m not a scientist, but you can put your proof away. I know in my heart that the world is only five thousand years old and that my forefathers used brontosaurs as construction cranes…”
“I was watching Farmer Wants a Wife last night…”
“My name is Hillary Clinton…”
May 20th, 2008 at 1:48 pmDave in Palo Alto, that just…. c’mon! 1972 was Carlton’s first year there! They’d lost 95 the year before! In the four years following 1972’s 59 wins, they won 71, 80, 86, and 101 games. How anyone can have a bad word to say about Carlton’s effect on the Phillies is beyond me! I am breaking out in exclamation points all over!
Anyway, no one asserted that Carlton was a great chemistry guy. It was pointed out that Carlton didn’t give interviews, and (sarcastically) suggested this must mean he was a lousy chemistry guy.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:51 pmBesides, Carlton had several “career years” — or at least, if he’s only allowed one, he had several years better than most everyone else’s career year. Four Cy Youngs.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:53 pm“I will answer four questions.”
“Why only four?”
“That’s one.”
It really doesn’t get any better than that.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:55 pm76 -
Hilarious. And true. Let’s not let that last one veer us off into OT land…
May 20th, 2008 at 1:55 pmActually, what’s unprofessional is a professional writer calling out professional baseball players for not helping the professional writer do his job.
So you don’t think
refers to USSM, even indirectly?
May 20th, 2008 at 2:00 pmWe’ve addressed this ad nauseam. Geoff doesn’t have to say USS Mariner specifically for it to be clear who he’s mainly aiming his comments at.
While I’m cool with the spirit of you guys trying to help keep conversations on track, be assured the mods (or authors) will step in if we feel a particular comment is leading things in a dangerous direction.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:06 pmThe best question a reporter could ask in response would be:
“Eric, what is the air-speed of a swallow?”
If he answers with “African or European?” you might have made a friend in Bedard. If not, you at least got a subtle dig in at some of your fellow reporters…
May 20th, 2008 at 2:12 pmWhile I’m at it, I finally got the chance to read Geoff’s whole post, and this last paragraph really tickled my funny bone:
I can’t address the part about the Tigers, but Geoff, there were a LOT of “systems” that pegged the 2008 Mariners at about a 79-83 win team with a significant chance to be even worse.
Some of those probably even involved these new-fangled “computer” things I’ve heard so much about. There might’ve been a spreadsheet or two involved, even.
Here’s one that was handy, but I know there were others done:
Computers are scary, they might be demons in disguise!
Another, with PECOTA pegging them at 73-89. More computers!
But, to say that no one saw the Mariners being a mediocre-to-bad team coming? That’s verifiably not true.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:17 pmPut me in the ” I agree with Geoff” category as well.
Players should to talk to the media. They are being paid millions of dollars to represent the Mariners, and that includes on AND off the field. Looking back at the history of baseball, part of the allure and the interest that makes it the national pastime is due to the great personalities of the game…
What if Yogi Berra never talked to the media? Big loss for everybody.
Even listening to morons like Carl “Jurassic” Everett and John Rocker (OK, bad example) makes the game more interesting. Sometimes, when you’re team sucks, it’s the only way the fans can connect with the team. So it’s really in the Mariners’ best interest to show some guts and answer reporters question.
I think Bedard is gutless for his one-word answers, and it would be fine with me if they traded him for prospects tomorrow.
Whether I agree or not, I usaully find Dave and DMZ’s posts to be good reading. This post is not up to the usual standards… Take the high road, ignore the inferior blogs, less crossfire…
May 20th, 2008 at 2:17 pmGeoff has to face the people he writes about daily (…)
…which is why he’ll never call a spade a spade and say that Miguel Cairo has no place on this team, or that Raul has no business playing outfield, etc. etc. I don’t see a problem with withholding this kind of criticism in your job as a beat writer. (I’m sure a professional athlete’s confidence in their ability to perform can be very convincing.)
Geoff’s problem is thinks his access gives him some kind of superior insight into the “whys” and degrees of performance, and that’s just not the case at all. When he sticks to pies in the face, or Beltre’s bench press max, or the inspirational return from injury, he’s fine. When he starts playing that pathetic mainstream reporter trump card of clubhouse access in the form of baseless claims about team chemistry…not so fine.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:22 pm@ 83
I 100% believe that a reporter is responsible for building relationships with players to get them to talk. If you just had a crappy day at work, do you wanna talk to a friend, not someone who points a mic in your face. Does Baker think calling out Bedard will make him any more likely to interview? Poor form in the least.
Secondly, regarding the blov vs blog sniping, as I’ve said previously, I just don’t go to Baker’s blog anymore. I think he’s a smart guy, using the whole blogoshpere debate to drive hits to his site when the team just isn’t doing it forum. If Baker continues this trend players won’t talk to him, and bloggers will stop visiting his site. If Baker keeps this up he’s gonna be carpooling with BB to the unemployment office!
May 20th, 2008 at 2:23 pm*blog vs blog*
May 20th, 2008 at 2:23 pmI agree. I’d much rather have an inspirational speaker than a good pitcher. I mean, where can you go besides the sports page to read cogent quotes? And the whole “winning games with good players” thing has been done to death.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:24 pm#85 — Why are one word answers gutless? Bedard never avoids or dismisses the questions. If a reporter asks, “What was that pitch?” and Bedard answers “changeup” how is that gutless? Bedard efficiently and accurately answered a direct question. As either DMZ or Dave addressed in a previous post, most questions asked by many (though not all) reporters are mundane and don’t require Dickensian prose.
Also remember that Bedard didn’t learn English until he was 18. He may be as terse with French responses as he is with his English ones, or he may not be as comfortable trying to expound on his thoughts in a second language.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:28 pmAnd how will we know whether or not he thanks God?
Whoa. What if he doesn’t do interviews because he doesn’t thank God?
What if he hates God?? What if doesn’t do interviews because he really thanks Allah?! Bedard hates God and loves Allah?
OmyfuckinggodBedardisaterrorist!
And Baker… Baker tried to warn us. And we didn’t listen.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:31 pm85- No, they’re paid to win baseball games. They do that by… playing baseball. Not by talking to reporters.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:32 pm76, I’d appreciate if you tried to understand my point instead of just discounting it.
I’m a believer in team chemistry because I played baseball for 13 years and noticed how chemistry affected me and other players I played with. Did you play ball at the High School level? College? I did. That is why I posted that. I also had friends who wrote for my university’s paper and who aspired to be sports journalists. If you guys don’t believe it exists that’s fine. I played ball and it affected me and a few of my teammates over the years.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:32 pmThis is a falsehood that somehow keeps being perpetuated. No, players are NOT paid to represent a team in any way to the media. It is not in their contracts, so they are not in any way obligated to speak to the media. And honestly, we as fans shouldn’t *care* if they speak with reporters or not. Players owe their teams - and, by extension, paying fans that support those teams - their best effort.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:35 pmEven if we accept that it makes it more interesting if players talk to the media, that doesn’t make them obliged to do so.
Any argument that depends upon “millions of dollars” is probably missing something on the logical end, because that’s pure emotional appeal. They’re being paid to play baseball. We’re paid to watch them. Reporters are being paid to write about sports. We pay to read them. Reporters are responsible for their relationship with the players. No one is paying the players to talk to reporters. Doing so is a good idea for their careers, in my opinion, given the power that reporters have over players’ reputations and their lack of shame in using that power; but if a few refuse, what’s the big deal? We are not in danger of losing Yogi Berras; most people like to talk.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:38 pmThis is almost exactly the discussion we had days ago.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:38 pm#93 — I won’t discount your point.
The chemistry debate here and elsewhere doesn’t necessarily lie in the question of existence, it revolves around being able to discern it and discuss how and to what degree it affects players and team performance.
Also, just because players perceive or believe that something affects their perfoemance doesn’t mean that those perceptions of beliefs actually do affect their performance. Many players wear those energy bracelets and neckalaces. They believe it helps. It doesn’t.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:42 pmRE: #85
Dude . . . fact is, the world is not comprised of 6,811,825,357 Sean Caseys, Yogi Berras, John Rockers and Ozzie Guillens. Neither is baseball. Neither is your place of business. Neither is your family. The human condition is much more complex than that. It is absurd to expect every person you encounter to conform to some enchanted fairy tale where gregarious rapport is the only way of life.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:42 pmDid you play ball at the High School level? College? I did.
Nice. Because we’re all actually sitting in our mom’s basement doing this. None of us can even throw a baseball.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:43 pmsmorinj, you don’t sound like you’re paying attention. You certainly aren’t responding to the post. You’re repeating the things that people always say about chemistry — including playing the game, as though those you disagree with didn’t — that have been answered many, many times, and you’re not responding to the arguments, just stating your belief again.
We’ve all experienced chemistry. But does it matter? If you can’t create it and you can’t predict it and you can’t measure it and building teams with chemistry in mind fails repeatedly next to building teams with skill, if the only thing we know about chemistry is that it used as an explanation after the fact, what does it matter to building a team, or fixing one?
May 20th, 2008 at 2:43 pmDMZ — Are you saying that we are too verbose and redundant? Maybe we should take lessons from Erik Bedard.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:43 pmYou know what would be interesting? If someone took a couple months and wrote up a ridiculously long post discussing chemistry and what it is and isn’t.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:44 pmYes.
(bows)
May 20th, 2008 at 2:45 pmWe’re paid to watch them.
Sometimes my wishes get in the way of my writing.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:45 pm93 -
Two posts down on the main page… two posts down! is a giant article about chemistry. Giant!
Your experience is not a compelling rebuttal to facts and logic.
I have no doubt at all that you believe chemistry helped/hurt you. Heck, maybe it did in Babe Ruth, when Bobby let you feel up his sister, so you dove a little harder to protect his E.R.A.. But we’re talking about MLB.
I’m gonna let this go, because you haven’t been around here too long, so you don’t everybody’s backgrounds… but John in L.A. is just an alias. My real name is Sadaharu Oh. I hang out here to pick up the idioms in preparation to being named manager of the Seattle Mariners in July.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:47 pmsmorinj, do you think any of those teams won or lost more games than they would have based just on talent? That’s where there’s a difference of opinion, I think. Not whether a group can have chemistry, but whether it affects the outcome of games.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:48 pmI totally played two seasons of T-Ball.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:51 pmI know for a fact that Jose Vidro hasn’t been able to concentrate in the batter’s box since that jerk Silva took the last donut this past Thursday.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:56 pmAnd I think I’d appreciate it if you read some of the other entries here.
Not to be snippy, but if you get piled on for that remark, it’s well deserved.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:58 pmMy real name is Sadaharu Oh. I hang out here to pick up the idioms in preparation to being named manager of the Seattle Mariners in July.
Because you have to master the idioms to have good chemistry. That’s the whole problem with Johjima’s catching.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:58 pmGeoff’s gotta cool his heels and not take the blogosphere or perceived actions of players so personally. And, as Conor and Matthew Carruth referenced, Shannon Drayer’s already refuted his claim that Felix would not make himself available, and maybe, if he hasn’t seen it yet, someone ought to forward her piece to Geoff.
May 20th, 2008 at 3:00 pmI think the things we call chemistry probably do affect the lower levels of sports in a much bigger way than the upper levels, just as performance under pressure probably has a much bigger effect. It’s just that by the time you get to the major leagues, all the guys who can’t play under pressure or can’t play with someone they dislike have washed out.
May 20th, 2008 at 3:00 pm109,
I have read the other entries here and agree with some points but overall just have a little different opinion. Should be no harm no foul right? I’ll admit I made a mistake in that last post, being that I should have stuck to the topic of THIS entry and posted that on the one about chemistry.
May 20th, 2008 at 3:10 pmWhy can’t the team just get a press secretary like Dana Perrino to handle the media? Then s/he can articulate the players’ position (as sponsored by management, of course), and we can then ignore it like we do all WH press conferences. Also, then the journalists have someone interesting to talk to who doesn’t need to be baited to provide fodder–it will be her/his job.
reporter: “Ms. Secretary, can you give us a few remarks about the performance of the team so far?”
press secretary: “Well, we know our stalwarts like Raul and Richie will have their bats come around, it’s only a matter of time. And how about that Carlos Silva? We look forward to the great turnaround in the next few months. Tonight’s game was just the latest in a small string of early season aberrations.”
traditional reporter:
blogger: “Why did Miguel Cairo start and bat second last night? He has no business on a major league roster”
press secretary: “Miguel needs at bats to keep his considerable skillset of gritty clutchness honed. It’s also the natural extension of his invaluable veteranness.”
blogger: “OMFG WTF?!!”
May 20th, 2008 at 3:14 pmWHO. CARES.
I guess this is the reason baseball is referred to as a soap opera for men. Wake me up when we start winning games, until then I don’t give a rip. Especially if all there is to talk about is who’s talking and who’s not talking, and who’s talking about who. This is so 5th grade.
May 20th, 2008 at 3:15 pmNot to offend anyone here, but I think this whole back and forth could have ended after post #25 by OscarM.
To nutshell it: different blogs have different philosophies, and thus have different content to offer. Is it so hard to enjoy reading both blogs, even if you identify more closely with one of them? Yeesh.
May 20th, 2008 at 3:19 pmsmb–Replace “press secretary” with “McLaren” and I think I’ve heard that interview before. Several times. And had the blogger reaction.
May 20th, 2008 at 3:21 pmTeam chemistry goes both ways. “Good chemistry” might help players relax but it might also lead to complacency. Likewise, “bad chemistry” might create unwanted tension but it might also lead to motivation. The problem is you never really know what scenario will create the best results until it’s all said and done . . . and even then, without a time machine there is no guarantee that doing it the other way would have produced more desirable results.
May 20th, 2008 at 3:21 pmMiguel Batista sucks eggs too.
May 20th, 2008 at 3:22 pmThe bench also sucks eggs.
May 20th, 2008 at 3:23 pm93 - I played ball too. Chemistry has little to do with hitting a ball and pitching. If a pitcher didn’t like me, you think he’d hurt his own performance to show me up? No, no he wouldn’t. Baseball is quite the individual sport and it’s masked as a team sport. It’s not like basketball or football where you need everyone performing tip top to win. In baseball, you only need a few timely hits and many decent individual players.
May 20th, 2008 at 3:25 pmRemember when Jeff Nelson piped up about the team needing to do something to improve themselves? They punished him by sending him to the Yankees so he could pitch in the playoffs. I miss that guy.
May 20th, 2008 at 3:27 pmTrue, and remember those games Buhner did in the booth, where he provided more insight and entertainment value in a handful of days that we will get from Sims and Blowers in a season? He commented like he was sitting on the bench, his passion for the team came through in his exuberance and through his criticisms, and the latter made sure he would not be up there for long. I miss Buhner, too. At least Nelly still talks shite on the radio, I guess.
May 20th, 2008 at 3:53 pmIn which case, it’s not about “accountability”, and he should stop throwing the word around.
May 20th, 2008 at 4:21 pmAlways thought Bone might make an interesting managerial pick, too, for that reason. At least if the team was slumping, you could count on him to light a fire under some rear ends.
Literally!
May 20th, 2008 at 4:32 pmHonestly, I do my best not to say anything on here that I wouldn’t say directly to the player and/or person I’m talking about.
To give an example (please don’t derail into a discussion about him), if I were to meet Jose Vidro in the grocery store, I’d be polite to the guy; but if pressed, you’re darn straight that I’d tell him that I think that he’s a drag on the team, there’s no reason he should ever be a DH for a Major League team, and that he’s blocking the team from exploring better options at the position.
So it’s wrong to imply that people here are hiding behind the Internet to say nasty things about players; hell, I post here using my real name, and if Willie Bloomquist wanted to track me down for saying mean things about him from time to time, it wouldn’t take that much work.
I just hope that if he were to try, that he’d use a baseball bat to do it; I should be pretty safe.
May 20th, 2008 at 4:35 pmLOL Jeff. I know this is cliche, but I’d also like to believe that if I were being paid like a major leaguer, I’d take pretty much everything anyone said like a duck takes water. And if something really, really bothered me, that I’d have the sense to sip a thousand dollar bottle of wine, sit in my jacuzzi overlooking Puget Sound, and laugh myself to sleep.
May 20th, 2008 at 5:29 pmjust a reminder that the Mariners were talking about the trade of Nelson for the 2 weeks before he shot his mouth off.
May 20th, 2008 at 5:35 pmWell, then it just looks very rude to bring the subject up and totally ignore what’s been written.
It looks like you’re not paying attention and don’t care to.
May 20th, 2008 at 6:10 pmWe’ve addressed this ad nauseam. Geoff doesn’t have to say USS Mariner specifically for it to be clear who he’s mainly aiming his comments at.
I can’t say that I agree with that statement. For all you know he’s calling out the blog that I write for. If he doesn’t call out the blog by name, how can you be certain that he’s calling out USSM.
I’m fairly new to this little blog.v.blog thing so I don’t know all the story, but I do agree that Baker shouldn’t have thrown another Mariners blog under the bus. All of us are fellow Mariners fans. I don’t see how our opinions on player interviews matter.
May 20th, 2008 at 8:30 pmPlease can someone find a respectable system that predicted a good year for the Ms?
The Steve Phillips bathroom material type “pundits” don’t really count.
To suggest that nobody saw this coming is revisionist history at it’s finest unless the one making that statement is admitting that he completely discounts the opinions of those in the saber community as unworthy of consideration.
What a burrito (and that’s not a complement).
May 20th, 2008 at 9:18 pm