Thanks.

Yeah, I can see that now. But I realized after reading your post that I had left that interpretation of my comment open, so I wanted to clarify even though I wasn’t sure you meant to be critical or just tack on to my riff. FWIW, I always enjoy your comments.

All he really needs to do is three things:

1) Recognize that a lot of people on the internet lose any semblance of manners, social skills, or brains the moment they start typing, and react accordingly (seriously, if I was trying to help moderate that blog instead of this one, I’d go insane, and as far as I know he doesn’t get any help);

Today was the first time I went over to Baker´s blog and first thing that struck me that people there are a lot more agressive and, many times, off topic. Thyt is why I value this blog more. I understand that people get offended by others, I even might understand this post about somebody else ´s bad analysis (even though I don´t think it was ment to be a analysis) but what I don´t get is the reactions of others on Baker´s reaction (which seemed to be pretty natural to me, boy I would spit fire if I would be critised that much ). Guys, and I don´t mean the authors here, stop, please, and go back to real Mariners problems.

I guess I was totally ineffective, but I was actually just continuing the sarcasm riff that I assumed (somewhat correctly, I think) you started with “people who didn’t tread the same arduous path” not “tiptoeing around (Baker’s) ego.” I’m sorry if it came across as critical of you, I actually was trying to further your point, not attack it.

I think you misunderstood me, so just to clarify, that post by me wasn’t a defense of Baker’s original “analysis” or subsequent weakly snarkish responses at all, nor was it any type of criticism of USSM. The sports journalism field is extremely competitive (I interned in sports at one of the dailies in HS), they don’t get paid much, and they have to study hard and work hard for a long time, and also do some crappy jobs before they even get a chance at a gig like Baker now enjoys. Once they’ve earned it by climbing the traditional industry ladder (which one could argue is now crumbling, leaving many in traditional print media positions facing uncertain futures), I think they figure they are done taking professional criticism from anyone they don’t call their editor.

Getting pwned by Derek and/or Dave every time he fucks up at analysis is too much for the ego of someone who had to compete hard for that livelihood, I expect…if you interpret my opinion on that as me saying Derek and Dave don’t work hard, or “fell backwards” into USSM’s success, well, then you read me 110% WRONG. I have and will continue to send these guys money because despite the fact they provide this free service on their own time and of their own free will to us, their analysis is lightyears better than anything the “professionals” give us, and in my book that merits financial support from me as an avid consumer of their work, whether passively solicited or not.

In this instance I see someone who is supposed to be a professional responding to legitimate criticism from blogger-hobbyists of his published work in a way that is embarrassing to even read. The bottom threshold of professionalism in this instance would have been to ignore the criticism, whereas responding with a series of weak strawman (even worse) makes him look like the amateur. Baker is/was wrong on Silva in his post, but from a human standpoint, I can understand where his irrational response to the criticism came from. Doesn’t mean I agree with it, either.

Nothing that a few SP Lagers couldn’t straighten right out.