Sorry, no, actually, not the last thing
Dave said his would be the last post… but it’s not. Responding to this, specifically, from Baker’s post:
I’ve since been alerted to the fact that the U.S.S. Mariner blog is taking issue with me writing down what Silva said last night. They say he had a less effective sinker because that’s what the vertical drop charts show. And also, they point out that he had more flyouts last night than ground outs. They suggest I listened to Silva and wrote what he said because I’m afraid of losing clubhouse access. Yes, that’s right. I’m afraid of not having access to players that have been almost universally criticized in this space and by me on the radio at various times all year.
The money quote here:
They suggest I listened to Silva and wrote what he said because I’m afraid of losing clubhouse access.
This is absolutely not true.
It’s not there. Read Dave’s post. Tell me where in that post Dave accuses Baker of writing what Silva said because he’s afraid of losing clubhouse access?
It doesn’t. Dave’s point is that he wishes Baker would stop just repeating what players say when it’s clearly incorrect or of no value.
If you want to argue that there are comments that speculate on clubhouse access being a reason why reporters don’t openly contradict players and coaches on points like this, that’s entirely true.
But Baker’s post substantially misrepresents what Dave said in order to make it easily-dismissible. It’s a strawman attack, and it’s disappointing.
Comments
87 Responses to “Sorry, no, actually, not the last thing”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
No worries, Jeff. I can understand why Derek/Dave would be mad. They carefully put together their argument based on logic and sometimes others don’t do the same. I just thought they were preaching to the choir, personally. Anyone who has read their blog for any length of time knows what USSM is about and knows the angle that Geoff Baker takes.
The easy solution is to read the good bits of Baker and ignore any post where it looks like he’s going to try to analyse anything.
Am I the only one who thinks that Baker needs to spend some time in therapy? Anytime someone critiques his point of view, he spins a novel length defense of himself and his point of view.
How are we supposed to know if something’s worth reading until we read it?
How are we supposed to know if something’s worth reading until we read it?
By possessing slightly more foresight than the average chair.
Here’s the thing though: he’s in the PERFECT position to do something really unique, by bringing analysis to the common fan.
As painful as it is to watch an awful team, an awful team gives you lots of opportunities to analyze WHY they’re awful. So the 2008 Mariners could make a great teaching tool for the hoi polloi, and blogging is a great vehicle for analysis of this kind.
I hear there’s a site or two that is pretty successful at it. 🙂
Instead, he’s basically doing boilerplate print journalism online, and that’s a mistake.
Graham – I meant in response to 41.
This silly little pissing match isn’t making the world a happier place.
Pissing match. Ummm.. yeah.
I blame this whole ordeal on the front office. If they didn’t build such a horrible team, and didn’t shell out tons of money for a piece of driftwood like Silva, then this wouldn’t be an issue. A good team = happy fans. A ignorant and inept team = unhappy fans.
I’ve been reading this blog for a very long time and I’ve never felt compelled to comment before now. The insight, research and passion in this blog are the reasons I love it and check it every day.
Unfortunately, this back-and-forth battle with Baker is really disheartening. I know its been a bad season (having watched nearly every game this year, I am all too aware) and that this bad season is the result of bad F.O. decisions; but as a fan of USS Mariner, and a lifelong M’s fan, I am disappointed that it’s come to this.
Going after Baker in the first place was disappointing, but continuing it is, well, beneath fans of your knowledge and insight.
Please stop.
Disagree. This whole thing has entertained me most of the work day! That certainly makes my cube a happier place.
Wouldn’t that bars us from commenting on any outside content anywhere, as it would be “going after” someone?
As opposed to DMZ and Dave who just fell ass-backwards into this huge pile of money we like to call U.S.S. Mariner.
Those two slackers know nothing about putting in years of work on something you love without guarantee of financial security. They should put their pina coladas back in their Bentley’s cup holder and show some respect for people who work for a living.
Hey, they didn’t “go after” Baker, they simply pointed out a questionable assertion and offered contradictory evidence. He responded by slamming them publicly, so they called him on it. I don’t think there’s anything unreasonable in that, as long as they don’t let it develop into a feud, which I don’t expect them to do.
And I can understand why Baker would feel threatened by having to compete with such an active, knowledgeable, and widely-respected community of bloggers as we have. I just hope whoever comes in as our new GM considers the existence of USSM and LL a positive thing and an opportunity to be taken advantage of, rather than also seeing them as competition.
Oh man, he knows.
We’ll have to silence him.
Baker uses a straw man to defend his position? I’m shocked. Shocked! Never saw that coming!
No. And as someone who can recognize a “strawman” argument, you should know better than to generalize a specific statement that I made.
My point isn’t that USS Mariner shouldn’t have opinions on outside content. Hell, it’s your blog and you guys have done a terrific job with it thus far. I read it because I’m a big fan. I guess my point is that, in looking to USS Mariner as my best source for M’s knowledge, I would hate to see the focus shift from the Mariners to arguments between this site and another one.
Anyhow, that’s more than two cents on my part. Carry on. Thanks.
Dizzo… the Mariners chose to make the press part of their organizational approach. They compromised the local press almost beyond use. Most of the local media sources are de facto employees of the Mariners’ public relations department.
It is almost impossible to have a full critique of the organization without also criticizing people like Baker.
I think it is exactly what the site does best – critically evaluate the team’s actions and claims – putting nonsense like (sometimes) Baker’s through the wringer of critical thought.
You want to be irritated at someone because you don’t like conflict, then be irritated at Baker.
I don’t think you’ll see the “focus” of this site shift to responding to what Baker says on a daily basis.
There’s lots of other things to talk about, like Vidro hitting cleanup.
I’ll also admit that this is my first year reading USS Mariner. If tiffs have arisen between USSM and other writers before without it turning into a feud, then that’s great. I admit that I don’t know the history of this site before this February.
I’m just a rookie who doesn’t want to see it escalate.
I’m going to guess a little bit here at Dave and DMZ’s motivations; feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, guys.
Part of the reason that there’s the back and forth dialogue between Baker and the authors here is that he shows flashes of being awesome.
His coverage of the winter meetings was really good, and he’s written plenty of other good pieces as well. He isn’t a bad writer, or a dumb guy.
So I think that the authors here are really trying to help Baker step up his game by trying to help him find his way towards being a more educated student of the game and rising above the usual pablum that passes for sports journalism; they see the potential there.
Of course, it’s going to be tough for someone like Baker to admit that they’re not perfect, so I to a certain extent understand why he picks some of the weird fights that he does; but I think that if Dave and Derek thought that Baker couldn’t eventually develop into a seriously awesome asset to baseball journalism, they would simply ignore everything he writes.
You don’t see refutations here of the horrible crap that Jim Moore spews out, for instance.
Great. Thanks for the clarification, Jeff.
Here’s to Riggles stringing together 3 moderately productive hitters in a row in tonight’s lineup!
Is this like the player who has lots of “tools” but few baseball skills?
Geoff Baker–the Juan Encarnacion of sports writing.
No, he has skills. When he’s not trying to respond to other people, whether it’s his own commenters or others in the blog community, he’s a pretty good writer.
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);
2) Recognize that right now, he’s not very good at analysis, and be more willing to listen to the people who are and not get so defensive when his mistakes are pointed out;
3) Leverage his access to the players (he’s got a legitimate point in regards to this, although he continually overstates it) while realizing that it’s important to not take everything the players say as if it were gospel.
That’s it.
Sorry Jeff, I was just being snarky. My feelings about Baker’s writing are pretty closely aligned with what John in LA wrote in comment #36.
I think what’s happening is that the poison of this awful season is seeping into everyone’s bloodstream. I think Dave and Derek and Geoff are all great guys who are having a bunch of strangers get overexcited about a minor thing because we’re all in such horrible pain.
Nothing that a few SP Lagers couldn’t straighten right out.
I figured you were being snarky, but I thought it was a good springboard to post what I did.
No harm done.
At least you didn’t call him the Willie Bloomquist of sports writers!
John in LA
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.
And I here I thought people would be excited that Silva pitched a good game…
Sorry to rant like that, but I actually found myself personally offended by the intimation that I insulted USSM. Shame of a fanboy, alas.
Hey, you guys, it could be worse, Steve Kelley could have a blog, not just a column… 🙂
smb – I actually agree with your larger point and never thought you were implying that Dave and Derek didn’t work hard.
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.
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 don’t think any GM should view USSM or any other blog site as particularly important at all. It’s just fans reading books and site and then applying people’s work to their team. Anybody could do it if they decided to devote the time to it. I also don’t think they would look down on it though as fan participation is good. Where this site and others goes wrong is somehow believing they are important and that the team should listen to what they say, etc. There’s a pretty good reason why the people who run these sites or the beat writers following them are not in the FO making decisions for the team. So this petty argument between blogging sites on who is smarter is really pretty dumb. Scarcely does a day go by that this site, Geoff’s site, or others is not ripped for this or that.
John in L.A.
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.
Can someone please explain (or link to an explanation of) how the Pitch f/x data is so much more reliable than the oft-disparaged Joe’s Tracer that it refutes conclusively what the pitcher himself has to say?
Thanks.