Geoff Baker, The Media, and Judging Motives
This post is probably overdue. In retrospect, I should have written this a while ago.
A little less than two years ago, we held a USSM/LL Q&A with Bill Bavasi down at Cheney Stadium in Tacoma before one of the Rainiers games. Bill was remarkably good to us, as always, spending a good chunk of time answering questions honestly, giving a section of the fanbase most critical of his performance a look into the front office that was essentially unheard of five years ago. At the same time that Bavasi was talking to us, John McGrath was down on the field waiting to interview Rick Ankiel for a story for the Tacoma News Tribune. Ankiel never showed.
After the game, a friend noticed the juxtaposition of the two events as a highlight of how much journalism was changing. The GM of the major league franchise spent an hour being remarkably candid with a bunch of fans, while a well-respected member of the media was getting stood up by a flame-out former prospect. It’s hard to come up with a better example of how the internet changed the game, and how print journalism wasn’t going back to how it used to be.
The Seattle P-I will probably be gone in a couple of weeks. Art Thiel, one of the preeminent voices in the history of the Seattle sports scene, will have lost his place to scribe.
This isn’t something to be celebrated. That isn’t good news. For whatever reason, real or imagined, there’s been this perception of a struggle for power between upstart blogs and the established media. In many ways, it’s probably fair to say that the rise of sites like this one have contributed to the failing of the business model for newspapers. While I think change is inevitable, that doesn’t mean I have to be happy about it. The P-I going away is a loss for us all.
Which brings me to the reason I’m writing this in the first place. In the comments section of the last “holy crap Griffey make up your mind already” thread, there was a surge of comments based around the problems some of you have with Geoff Baker. It wasn’t just frustration with the Griffey thing, either – a lot of you are obviously upset with the way Baker is handling his role as the Times’ primary beat writer. The accusations were flying fast and furious, and unfortunately, our comments section (which is probably at its all time low in terms of quality) became a breeding ground for anti-Baker sentiment.
That stops now.
Obviously, we’ve had our disagreements with Geoff since he got here. Whether it’s been the value of Adam Jones, the relative importance of tensions in the clubhouse, the necessity of veteran relief pitching, or a couple hundred other philosophical disagreements we’ve had with him, we’ve often come down on different sides of the opinion fence about which way the organization should go in terms of making decisions. And those differences have fed the perception of a USSM vs Baker Blog war that just doesn’t exist at the author level, and shouldn’t exist at the commenter level.
In reality, Geoff Baker is doing fantastic work for the Times. He’s fighting for his profession, and for his part, he’s winning. He’s turned a position that wasn’t much more than organizational mouthpiece into a constant stream of information and quality work. He’s changed the way that the blogosphere and the local media interact, given tens of thousands of readers unprecedented access into the thoughts of people in the organization, and improved the quality of coverage around the team dramatically. He’s made the Seattle Times baseball section relevant in a way it never was before, and that is why the Times hired him.
When it comes to a lot of issues about how baseball teams should make decisions, he and I will have different viewpoints. That doesn’t change that I have a tremendous amount of respect for the amount of work he puts in, or that there’s value in both of our viewpoints being put out there. USSM is a better blog because of Geoff Baker’s work as a beat writer, and I think he’s a better beat writer because of USSM. We’re complements to each other, not substitutes for one another.
We cannot fill the role of a beat writer. We don’t want to, nor are we trying to. It is in all of our best interests that the Times not only survives, but flourishes. Through their better coverage, everyone wins.
Whatever issues you have with how Geoff is doing his job, USSM will not be the host for you to air those to the world. I don’t share your judgments about his character, his motives, or the quality of his writing. I agree that he looks a bit like an Osmond, but that’s the extent to which criticisms of Baker himself will be allowed. That doesn’t mean that we’re not going to expose the flaws in his logic if he proposes trading Gregory Halman for Eric Gagne this summer or that we’re going to give the clubhouse issues the same amount of credence he does, but we’re putting an end to your ability to be openly hostile in our comments section.
I hate the judging of other peoples motivations, and the assumptions about their character that go along with those judgments. Just as we reject the “Ichiro is selfish because he doesn’t dive” rhetoric, I also reject the “Baker is intentionally creating stories in order to further his agenda” stuff. You cannot judge the motives of another person, whether it’s a player, a beat writer, or me. Stop trying.
I like Geoff. I think he does a great job. If you don’t, take it up with him on your own time. We won’t let you turn this into a USSM vs Baker war anymore. Seriously. Consider it part of the commenting guidelines – straying from this will result in a quick exit.
Comments
89 Responses to “Geoff Baker, The Media, and Judging Motives”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Teej – A low paying job doesn’t mean it’s terrible. I have always wanted to be a baseball reporter … and many of these guys do it for the love of the game.
Do you ‘rate’ jobs based solely on income? Seems like it.
One quick comment — I sure hope that the Times picks up Art Thiel’s column. They’ll be missing out on a golden opportunity if they don’t. I interviewed him for a project when I was a college student. He’s a great guy, and really helped with my project.
Art’s column is the best thing about the PI. If it’s gone, it will be missed.
This is, I think, the greatest failing of western legal systems.
But that’s not what Dave said. He said we cannot judge motives, not that we cannot discern them (though I’d agree with that too).
It pays crap, the hours are crap and it’s highly skilled and high pressure. Teej knows what he’s talking about here. It takes a very specific kind of person to do what Baker does as well as he does. Most people don’t have it in them to do the job well, and most that do can make a better living while dealing with far less stress.
A low paying job doesn’t mean it’s terrible.
Agreed. That’s part of the reason I decided to be an editor. If I’m going to be paid dirt, I at least want to set my own hours! Kidding. Kind of.
“Terrible” was a bad word. But being an MLB beat writer is insane. I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy, unless that enemy were dead-broke and without a single family member. The free lunches are nice, but — in my opinion — it’s just not worth it.
Ask Dave what he thinks about sacrificing his quality of life to work in baseball. He has mentioned before that it would take a pretty persuasive offer to get him to leave the life he’s grown accustomed to. That’s natural.
Dave can do awesome baseball analysis from home. Geoff will do the reporting in the clubhouse. I just don’t see what’s so wrong with the current relationship we have right now.
I guess I just resent this idea that anyone can be a baseball reporter. Is anyone here willing to give up their job to cover the Rainiers every day for three years for $30,000 a year until they get the call-up?
I have always wanted to be a baseball reporter … and many of these guys do it for the love of the game.
So did I, until I realized how much effort it actually took. I’m an editor because reporting is obscenely time-consuming. The love just wasn’t enough. Call me lazy, but I don’t want to work 14 hours a day. My girlfriend and my health are more important.
Do you ‘rate’ jobs based solely on income? Seems like it.
If I did, I wouldn’t work for a newspaper.
Wait just a darned minute…
Who is Geoff Baker?
::: grin :::
Thanks, Aaron.
I’ve spent too much time in newsrooms to pretend that bloggers can fill our reporters’ roles.
And I’ve spent too much time at USSM/LL to pretend that Geoff Baker can fill our analysts’ roles.
To me, it’s simple common sense. You agree with someone or you don’t. If you don’t, you state the reasons for your disagreement. Adding a little spice is nice, but that’s a far different thing than impugning someone’s motives. Geoff Baker may analyze some facts differently than I do and it’s my right to point that out. Why he does so is nothing I particularly care about. That he seems to be someone who actually reads what others say about him is something I admire. This is a marketplace of ideas, and the counter to someone’s analysis is your own analysis, not the impugning of character.
I think they’re here. We made a couple of them mods.
Without taking this too far off track, I think a lot of this has to deal with the natural tendency to migrate where you’re comfortable and welcome — I know I’ve seen people I frequently conceded points to and who I really liked seeing comment because I knew it’d be a different viewpoint head off to hang out places where their thoughts are met with simple “yeah!” agreement. I don’t know how to solve that, save for hiring people I like to write for us, and we have no money.
I am happy to see this positive attitude. I have read this sire for a long time now and have been a little scared to join for fear of being abused. Baker seems like a decent writer much better than Kelley IMHO. If Griffey comes or does not it is not really a BIG deal in regards to the future of the team right?
Maybe it’s just me but I love Geoff’s film blogs from Spring Training.
I have since he started doing it.
Just makes you feel like Baseball, Sunshine, and BBQ’s are so close. Even when it’s 38 degrees outside.
Frankly, this sounds like one hellavan over-reaction. As I have made obvious, I find sportswriters in general a useless crowd that more often interferes in my enjoyment of the game than in complimenting it – how very, very rarely does the typical sportswriter’s opinion sound like anything more than cheap fawning or cheap dumping, depending on what the worst LCD fan seems to want that day.
It’s your blog, obviously, and it’s a great one. If you want this to be the way, I can see no damage to its quality, and it may indeed improve the (generally excellent) quality of the comments.
Negative sniping, even on the intertubes, has never made me a noticably better person, or a more insightful one.
Thanks.
IMHO (and everyone can have a different view obviously) if a source is wrong continually about the above issues, then for me as a student of the game, it’s less relevant. I love baseball. Beat writers are essential because they are a conduit between the club and fans. That said, much of their message can be had from secondary sources such as promiscuous sites like mlbtrade rumors etc or by fan blogs. So while a beat writer is essential primarily because of their daily access, reading their work isn’t IMHO. That said, Baker has revolutionized the way beat writers deliver their message in Seattle. Kudos for those efforts.
But really, local beat writers and blogs basically have two different core audiences. While the ven diagrams do overlap in some way, the philosophical views of those audiences tend to be very different. Hence the clashes in the overlapping part when the subject becomes chemistry, intangibles, player evaluation, the value of defense, counting stats versus marginal wins etc.
I’d offer John Erardi as an example. He’s found a nice niche in Cincinnati by trying to bring sabermetrics to mainstream fans. He pretty much gets slammed in his comments section.
Finally, I think it’s an enlightened decision to put the nix on those that want to use USSM and Baker as opportunities to grind the “old school vs stats” axe.
Well said Dave.
This is, I think, the greatest failing of western legal systems.
Not surprisingly, I can’t disagree with you more.
But that’s not what Dave said. He said we cannot judge motives, not that we cannot discern them (though I’d agree with that too).
Well, I think Dave was getting at that we can’t tell what is motivating Baker in his writing, and that to impute bad motives is wrong given that. He may add to that that any judging is bad. But it doesn’t matter. We judge the motives of others in our courts of law (and often it is a jury of non-lawyers/non-judges doing it).
We judge that the wife’s gift out of love is a good and pleasing thing. We judge that our friends’ loyalty and friendship is good, and a sign of a strong relationship. We don’t just look at one another’s motives after we discern them and remain neutral about it. If we learn that Bernie Madoff was motivated by greed to steal billions of dollars, that is something justly deserving of scorn and anger. Our judgment of those who make selfish decisions in our workplace rather than focusing on the team (cut out of work in the middle of the project to hit the beach for instance) is judged as a negative thing. Judging of motives is essential to help others understand the parameters of appropriate social interaction. It comes with penalties ranging from social stigma to imprisonment or, in some places even more severe penalties. We judge the motives of others as worthy or unworthy, and that’s ok with me, where we can know the motivation through personal knowledge or evidence. Most of our daily lives rely on these judgments, to be honest. It’s just not right to impute motives based on speculation or little or no evidence.
I’m not too familiar with Geoff’s writings being fairly new to this forum. But my hat is off to you Dave for taking this to the high road. An attack on anyones character based on an expressed opinion is wrong…in any venue!
I apologize for my italicizing issues above. The first and third paragraphs should be italicized only. The rest is my response.
Morning reflection:
My posts last night tended to veer off the topic of judging motives and more toward “it’s hard to be a beatwriter.” The idea that anyone with a press pass and a tape recorder can be a reporter irritates me to no end, but arguing about that probably didn’t help me make my point. So let me summarize my thoughts:
– Geoff is a talented and prolific reporter, and the fact that he’s not the greatest analyst in the world doesn’t change that. Nor does it bother me, really. I don’t go to Geoff for analysis; I go for information on what’s happening with the team. With all due respect to USSM, the authors aren’t talking to players and team officials every day to dig up news. USSM cannot be your sole source of information about the team, because it is not a news-gathering operation. Journalists report the information, USSM analyzes it. (That’s an oversimplified explanation, because USSM does a lot that isn’t based on the news of the day, but you know what I’m getting at . . . ) One cannot replace the other, and I’d argue that USSM wouldn’t be half as interesting without the stream of news the authors can use as a springboard into their analysis.
– Accusing Geoff of manufacturing drama and/or citing false sources is a serious accusation. When he says something like “I’m in the clubhouse, you aren’t,” I know it rubs some people the wrong way, but it’s an essential point that has to be understood. Geoff knows a lot more about the inner workings of the organization and the clubhouse than we do. I’m blown away by the people who can’t admit that. I’m not prescribing a value to that access, because that’s up to you, but it’s a fact.
– Finally, this whole “bloggers vs. newspaper writers” thing is getting to be as trite and petty as the scouts vs. stats arguments. They’re two different things that serve different purposes. One’s value does not render the other valueless. Take all the information you can get, and be thankful that it all exists for you to read. For free.
I want touch on this point for a bit. I think the whole reason for the post is to point out that this blog will no longer be a launching point for complaints about Geoff Baker.
As I mentioned earlier, the blogosphere used to be fine with describing Baker as “Good Reporter, Bad Analyst.” However, these days it’s more like “Wow, Baker’s an idiot” or “Baker clearly hates Ichiro, loves Silva” or “Baker just loves to hammer the clubhouse story. What a jerk. (even though it was Larry Stone who put the topic back into the forefront with the Putz interview)”
Heck, just in the Griffey Denial thread we had several people questioning Baker’s credibility with his sources for (quite honestly) no good reason just because he said “My sources said that the deal is done” and the saga is still going. Baker’s report hasn’t even been proven false yet and he’ll likely to be proven correct at this point.
That thread is a good example of the Baker talk going overboard. Nobody has to like him but none of the topics here require that we even TALK about him let alone make up some 1/3 of the comments about a particular subject.
Good Lord… if anyone here also frequents Geoff’s Blog, that place has deconstructed into an absurd debate over free speech rights and intents, and whether or not the editors here on USSM restrict free speech.
It’s sad.
For my money, I think it’s admirable that Geoff does very little editing of users’ posts on his ST blog. At the same time, I can understand why the editors here restrict some topics and kinds of posts – it can be a slippery slope, yes, but it also offers a far clearer vision of what should be considered civil and appropriate behavior.
Well said, Teej – HEAR HEAR!
I’m with you. His spring training videos are like buttah.
Really the chemistry issue last year was tantamount to picking a horse with no legs and shooting it with a bazooka . It’s disappointing that ST coverage began by beating the carcass.
Rather than a glimpse into an author’s soul, it mostly just reveals the prism the author uses to better understand what’s happening on the field.
I think the whole reason for the post is to point out that this blog will no longer be a launching point for complaints about Geoff Baker.
I hope you see the difference between the comment that Geoff is a better reporter than analyst vs. Geoff is an idiot (which he clearly is not). Those 2 comments aren’t even in the same ballpark. The first is an observation akin to folks saying I am a better writer than speaker. It’s no attack on Geoff’s character, and says nothing about motive. Erroneously saying he is an idiot clearly is an attack. Saying he’s making things up to create news is a speculation about motive that is wrong to make.
So, I am pressing Dave and Derek a bit to be clear on what the ground rules are. If we can’t say that Baker’s analytical skills fall short in looking at given situations, then it seems foolish to link to his materials and comment on them at all, even in posts. Censor the folks who call him an idiot, but leave intelligent commentary that points out flaws in an author’s analytical framework and approach. Isn’t that what this site does all the time? If critical thought about public opinions on the game is hammered home in the body of the post, it seems like a recipe for disaster not to allow it in the comment section. I don’t think USSM intends to go there, but it’s hard to tell.
Again, impugning Geoff’s character because you think he analyzes a situation improperly is going too far. It should be possible to prevent folks using reasonable but critical assertions with support as a launching pad to devolve the comments threads into a name-calling sessions.
Where’s is line being drawn? I ask out of desire for honest compliance.
We’re not going to say “this is where the line is”, because that will lead to people trying to slip a toe over the line and see what happens.
Use common sense and you’ll be fine, and err on the side of being conservative.
The problem with making the (arguably valid) point that he’s not much of an analyst is that we’ve seen conversations that start from there very quickly lead into the other stuff, time and time again. And that’s what we’re not wanting here anymore.
There isn’t any intent to censor here; the point of ALL of our comment guidelines is to try to raise the level of discussion, and talking about Baker at all is getting dangerously close to the level of steroid conversations, where we just can’t let them happen at all anymore because we know what the endpoint is.
If that comes off as overly restrictive, I’m sorry; but as Dave is saying, there’s no inherent right to post here, and we don’t really ask all that much of you guys as commenters.
If you type “Geoff Baker” into Google (as I do to find his blog), this post is already on the first page of results.
Don’t take this the wrong way but in my two posts I mentioned that we’ve gone AWAY from “Geoff Baker is a better reporter than an analyst” and closer TO “Geoff Baker is an idiot” which implies that the two are vastly different. So yes, I understand the difference quite clearly.
And my point is even if the issue is about Baker’s analytical skills there’s no reason to constantly point it out. Not on this blog, anyway. Sure, Dave and Derek can clarify but I think the line is pretty clear. Based on the front page alone the only topic where it makes sense to talk about Baker’s style is the one we’re in now (if even that).
Or perhaps it’s just easier for me because the “Good beat writer, bad analysis” argument is at least 2 years old with not much changing in between.
I like Geoff Baker. But I think a war between USSM and Baker’s COMMENTERS is completely warranted. his commenters are bad, really bad.
The problem with making the (arguably valid) point that he’s not much of an analyst is that we’ve seen conversations that start from there very quickly lead into the other stuff, time and time again. And that’s what we’re not wanting here anymore.
It makes sense.
It’s one thing to say “[Insert Reporter’s Name Here]’s analysis of the Mariners in today’s story is flawed because of X, Y, and Z.” That starts discussion on the particular issue in question, which is always good.
Saying “[Insert Reporter’s Name Here] is not good at analysis, and today’s story is another example of that” puts the focus on the person and not the issue, and I think that’s what the mods are trying to avoid.
Use common sense and you’ll be fine, and err on the side of being conservative.
. . .and talking about Baker at all is getting dangerously close to the level of steroid conversations, where we just can’t let them happen at all anymore because we know what the endpoint is.
Jeff – I am not trying to be difficult, and I pride myself on thinking carefully about my comments before I make them. The two statements above seem contradictory to me, though. It looks like on the one hand I can point out a flaw in Baker’s analysis (probably in the context of a post by USSM authors that links to and is critical of one of his articles) and on the other hand it looks like we can’t mention his name at all. I am happy to email offline about this, so as not to enable those who might want to push it.
And my point is even if the issue is about Baker’s analytical skills there’s no reason to constantly point it out.
Well, there might be plenty of reasons to mention where the analysis fall short. He’s writing about new topics every day, and the criticism of his approach (or praise of it) is manifested in responses to specific topics that change every day. In looking at a new story on any number of things – a given trade, a story about some controversial topic, an interview of a player who comments on others – we apply what we’ve learned about baseball and either agree or disagree with his take. When the article is linked here and the authors openly disagree with the analysis, is it a reasonable expectation that commenters will not want to follow suit? Cut it off at attacks on Geoff personally, but this site is all about better analysis and that, by necessity, implies comparisons to those who analyze situations differently. Short of not linking to or mentioning Geoff’s work or turning off comments, I am not sure how the authors and mods will get folks to comply without a lot of heartburn.
Or perhaps it’s just easier for me because the “Good beat writer, bad analysis†argument is at least 2 years old with not much changing in between.
I don’t get this point. I’ve been commenting on the Times site since Baker started his blog and have been commenting here for several years now. This isn’t an issue of time. The topics change – DH evaluation, roster construction, the value of cheap pick-ups, etc. Lots of things have changed, and frankly, Geoff’s analysis has been pretty good of the new regime’s moves, in my view. I tell him so as often as I agree, and, not surprisingly, I tell him when I think he’s got it wrong. I don’t think he’s been offended by anything I’ve said, and I certainly wouldn’t be any less respectful about the disagreement when mentioning it on this site. So, even with a per se rule at USSM of no Baker talk at all, I will still let Geoff know what I think of his analysis. I am pretty sure he welcomes that, so long as it is respectful dialogue.
I’m not sure why you’re unclear about this, anyway. From Dave’s post:
Don’t be “openly hostile” or anything that can be construed that way, and you’ll be fine. If you simply HAVE to talk about Baker’s work, keep it civil, and specific to something he actually said. Don’t speculate about his motives for saying what he says, and don’t take personal potshots at him.
All of this talk about trying to “figure out where the line is” frankly makes me think you’re trying to figure out just how far you can go before you get squashed, and that’s not a game we’re going to play.
I will echo, too (without specifically singling anyone out) Dave’s sentiment about comment quality of late. It’s been really, really bad. You guys don’t even see all of the badness, because we catch a lot of it before it gets out into the wild.
So we’re going to be a little bit more hands-on about we moderate until we see that turn around; if the price of that is people thinking we’re trying to infringe on some inherent right to free speech, well, them’s the breaks.
In the Griffey thread that Dave refers to, I asked people politely to turn the talk back on topic when the “bash Baker fest” started; several commenters decided to ignore that and keep right on going.
In retrospect, I should’ve probably gone back and just deleted all of the off-topic posts, but I try not to delete posts whenever possible, preferring to gently nudge conversations back on topic when I see them stray; but that should never be construed as “well, he didn’t REALLY mean that we need to stop talking about this, or he would’ve deleted those posts!”
We try to be reasonably polite when we make moderation comments in a thread, but we’re not “asking” in the sense that you have a choice in the matter.
Sorry if I come off like a jerk, but Dave’s right; this needs to come to an end, and if we have to be jerks for a while to make that happen, so be it.
“All of this talk about trying to “figure out where the line is†frankly makes me think you’re trying to figure out just how far you can go before you get squashed, and that’s not a game we’re going to play.”
I can understand your concern given your point of view as a mod. That said, I am probably the last person that would apply to.
Your clarification helps. I now know that Baker’s work is not totally off limits to commenters, and I suspect my respectful approach to addressing his views in an on-topic comment are in line with the new rule.
If you knew more about my background, you’d probably understand why I have such a strong desire to understand the rules and ensure compliance. It’s actually the exact opposite of what you appear to be thinking.
I am all for cleaning up comments sections. I think you should do whatever you need to do that. I am also all for some jerkiness to get it done. Some of the blogs I have contributed to as an author required me to do just that. I am actually much less tolerant of poor and off-topic comments in those forums, so you won’t see me saying things are getting too tough around here.
If you knew more about my background, you’d probably understand why I have such a strong desire to understand the rules and ensure compliance. It’s actually the exact opposite of what you appear to be thinking.
I think I understand. As you know, moderation is a balancing act. For me, the fundamental take-home message is primarily that the quality of comments has been out of balance, and this is one type where Dave thinks we could shift that balance.
I have no problem with the “Geoff Baker is a good reporter but a bad analyst” type of comment, though it’s been said often enough by now to be a little shopworn. I also think his analysis is a bit more of a mixed bag – some things he can analyze quite well, others not so well and those tend to get harped on. And for signal-to-noise ratio if not entertainment value, it’s much more interesting to have cogent critiques of Baker’s analysis than critiques of Baker himself.
I’m sorry, Steve T, but war between USSM and Baker commenters is NOT warranted.
What’s warranted is for the intelligent commenters to carry on as if the idiot commenters do not exist — by not clicking the “comments” tag over there, and by employing the enhanced moderation techniques over here.
If we go to war with anyone, it’ll be Lookout Landing.
That turncoat Graham will have to determine where his true allegiance lies.
This post has the feeling of the future about it, and it is a fine future indeed. In order for the Blog-o-shpere to survive, professional decorum is key. You will never turn the non-believers to believers by behaving like a petulant brat.
Geoff Baker is the “problem” with print journalism the way Ichiro is the “problem” with the M’s. Which is to say not a problem at all. Just get off it, and focus on the stuff that matters.
Incidentally, credit to Baker for doing the right thing as a reporter, owning up to the fact that he got it wrong on Griffey signing with the Braves. It may or may not have been his fault, who knows what exactly his sources told him, or who they were. And yes, the constant anonymous sourcing of things is hugely frustrating at times. But in general, it’s uncalled-for to accuse him of making up factual claims, as people have sometimes done in past comment threads (made-up analysis might be different).
This was before Geoff assured the public the M’s were pursuing Jason Bay. His conisending writing style gets on my nerves….