114 replies to this topic

[Chainsaw318]

In the wake of reading the ever-fun "Worst Baseball Media Person" Thread that is running in the lurker forum, and the recent poor conduct in interviews by local reporters (Bob Ryan to Theo Epstein during a conference call and WBZ's Jon Miller questions to Manny's agents today), I was thinking about who in the Boston baseball media is doing a professional unbiased job of reporting on the team and baseball in general?

The only name I came up with first was the Lawrence Eagle Tribune's Rob Bradford, who's spring training blog has been consistently interesting and original. I also am hardly ever disappoined in Sean McAdam of the Providence Journal, which is damning with faint praise, I guess.

I then realized that neither of these reporters is a member of a Boston-based media entity, while the writers that people around here most take exception to as being unoriginal and unprofessional (CHB, Ryan, Callahan, Massarotti) ARE employed by publications of Boston proper.

So the question to the people is, am I right about this? And if so, why is a town with such a rabid fan base so starved for good baseball journalism?


PS - Please, be gentle. I'm giving a go at starting my first topic here, and Nipper made me do it.

[Nomars Last Twitch]

Godon Edes and Amalie Benjamin are both exceptionally readable writers, as well as being fair to the players.

I think they are probably the most overlooked, becasue they don't bring up trash.







(edit: Amalie not Amelie; sorry for the spelling!)

Edited by Nomars Last Twitch, 26 February 2007 - 11:16 PM.

[satyadaimoku]

I'd take Peter Gammons over any other sports writer in the country, and we only lost him because he was too popular to remain local.

Edes and Cafardo are solid. I also liked Michael Holley a lot, but I guess he's moved on somewhere else.

The real problem is that it is the assholes who make news and create the spectacles - CHB, Tony Mazz, almost everyone on WEEI, etc. Which is, of course, their whole strategy. When interest in Boston baseball is at a 9, while actual meaningful news is a 2, you got two choices: write interesting and subtle pieces about the team and the game, which are hard to write, require creativity and tend not to be read, or take a couple shots at a player and see if you can create some buzz.

[Devizier]

Cities like San Diego and Seattle would love to have baseball coverage half as good as that in Boston. Take it for what its worth; but sometimes the context matters. Its hard to generate solid material on a near-daily basis over the course of several years.

Edited by Devizier, 26 February 2007 - 10:25 PM.

[GriffinDoerr]

Edes is generally pretty good, though he sometimes has a bout of CHB disease (which manifest in outbursts of snarkiness). I'd attribute that to the unfortunate contagion that comes from having to share office space with the guy.

Benjamin is promising; she appears to be following in the mostly sensible footsteps of Chris Snow. Give us the facts, with a touch of humanity and good-natured humor. Hope she stays away from CHB.

IMHO, Nick (Clemens is God!) Cafardo is a hack.

Edited by GriffinDoerr, 26 February 2007 - 10:28 PM.

[Ramon AC]

Art Martone was the voice of reason during the dark, panicked years of 2001-2003, and posted here occasionally with scoops and analysis. He's still the sports editor of the Providence Journal, but has dropped completely off my radar as a writer/reporter. I hope someone tells me he's been writing gems for the last couple years and I've just missed them.

[mabrowndog]

I'd give my left nut to have Jerry Crasnick be a Sox beat reporter. I believe if he and Gordon were going head to head, the competition would spark some of the best baseball writing in these parts in decades.

[paulftodd]

I think the Globe reporting, except for CHB and Ryan is pretty decent. Gordon Edes has a nice blog covering ST to go along with Bradford. I like their daily picture section on the net too except they tend to be too much into closeups at times and overweight on certain players (no pun intended).

I have pretty much stopped reading the Herald (unless someone on SOSH links to a Herald article). Not sure what happened to these guys, I used to prefer them to the Globe.

I also stopped listening to WEEI on the internet, primarily due to my disdain for Gerry Callahan and Mike Adams. I am looking forward to John Rish at 11:00 pm so may start listening again when his show starts up.

Still waiting for the next Peter Gammons to show up, since he left there has been a void. Until then it is the Globe, Eagle Tribune and PROJO for me .

[JimD]

I'll second (fourth?) Gordon Edes - his work seems to be pretty balanced most of the time. And I also read Sean McAdam on a regular basis, although he likes to throw the occasional shot in there. Same with Bradford.

I then realized that neither of these reporters is a member of a Boston-based media entity, while the writers that people around here most take exception to as being unoriginal and unprofessional (CHB, Ryan, Callahan, Massarotti) ARE employed by publications of Boston proper.

I can't lump Bob Ryan in that group - other than his recent anti-JD Drew crusade, he's generally been above the hackery too many other local columnists descend to. He also seems to be one of the few longtime sports columnists in America who truly seems to enjoy sports.

[Mike in CT]

Bradford and McAdam are my favorites. Edes is good as well.

Cafardo is terrible. Every time I see the guy on TV he's bringing up batting average. Some of his answers on SportsPlus (NESN) have left me in awe (in a bad way).

Eric Wilbur is awful. It's hard to believe some of the stuff he's written.

[Everybody Loves Rey Quinones]

As mentioned before, I think MacAdam and Bradford are probably the 2 best local writers covering the Sox. I look forward to reading Amalie Benjamin's game accounts before developing any type of opinion.

Eric Wilbur is very poor. I often wonder if he's even watched the sporting events he writes about or if he's just reading others' blogs and commenting. I enjoy Ryan and Jackie wrt the Cs. I think they're a bit outside their scope when discussing other matters. I noticed Jackie mentioned "Travis Hayes" in her chat today.

[JohntheBaptist]

I'm a pretty big Rob Bradford fan as well, and I actually appreciate some of the stuff Michael Silverman did on Pedro; apparently Pedro liked him, which lead to his getting some real good, in depth quotes. I don't recall him sticking out too much other than that.

Edes is a decent writer, and McAdam is OK sometimes, I suppose.

The rest of them- all of them- I just avoid. Don't really get much from it.

My favorite ever though (in my fan-lifetime) is Martone. Ramon's right though- haven't really noticed his work recently.

[Chainsaw318]

As mentioned before, I think MacAdam and Bradford are probably the 2 best local writers covering the Sox. I look forward to reading Amalie Benjamin's game accounts before developing any type of opinion.

Eric Wilbur is very poor. I often wonder if he's even watched the sporting events he writes about or if he's just reading others' blogs and commenting. I enjoy Ryan and Jackie wrt the Cs. I think they're a bit outside their scope when discussing other matters. I noticed Jackie mentioned "Travis Hayes" in her chat today.

I agree with pretty much everyone that Ede's does a good job with the Extra Bases blog on Boston.com. I went without including Edes in the original post because I sometimes forget what he's penning for the Globe and what Cafardo is writing.

I think Bob Ryan is treading on reputation now, and he's not anywhere close to the pulse of even the NBA as once was. His baseball stuff the last year or two has been horrible, almost Shaugnessy-esque. I think he's fallen prey to believing he has to write a prototype "Bob Ryan" column, which is a trap a lot of bad writers seem to have fallen into, that we want to read them, not the story.

And to pay some respect, Amalie Benjamin is a fellow Newton North High School Alum, so she's at least got a pedigree I can get behind. She's been good so far on the blog. Her personal notes and injections of herself into her stories are for fun and to enlighten the audience on what being at spring training is like, not to promote her theory about what the Red Sox are all about.

[Drocca]

Everyone is a critic without using critical thinking. Are the Red Sox beat writers peandering to you; the obsessed fan? Or is there base something different. Do you have a different POV? Is it interesting? I, and many others like me, will read it if it is. Is it harder than in seems? Is it easier to take a popular view point(the local media sux dude!!!) and run it into the ground than it is to provide alternative analysis and opinion?

[gammoseditor]

Alot of people have mentioned Edes as being good. His feature piece on the Red Sox pursuit of Daisuke was excellet, probably the best sports piece I remember reading in a newspaper in a while.

[Mike in CT]

The nice thing about Bradford's blog is that he asks people to post questions, and then he goes out and tries to get some answers (if he doesn't know already). He also appears to be familiar with our prospects, while soooo many Sox writers basically ignore them. (Edes does a good job there too at times, and McAdam will drop a tidbit from time to time).

Bradford's little blurb about Buchholz's change-up, and Alicea's comments about Buchholz being the real deal... was great... even as minor as it may seem.

IMO, Bradford's piece on John Deeble & Co. quietly following Matsuzaka for years, along with Edes piece on the Matsuzaka saga (as mentioned above)... were the best pieces of the offseason.

Edited by Mike in CT, 27 February 2007 - 12:03 AM.

[Chainsaw318]

DRocca,

The question posited was, why are the best 2 local baseball writers I can name employed by publications outside of Boston proper? I explained how I was percieving the current state of Boston baseball writing and asked if people agreed/disagreed. If they agreed, I wanted to know whay they thought this to be the case.

A lot of what people are saying is that there are writers out there doing a good job, and who are worth reading. Which is pretty cool.


Edited for clarity

Edited by Chainsaw318, 27 February 2007 - 12:05 AM.

[Grubbery]

I have no use for any of the Herald crew, and generally agree that Gordon is pretty solid. My one complaint about Edes is that he's a better beat writer than columnist, which is the bent of a lot of his feature writing these days--he's a better analyst and observer than provacateur, which should be a compliment except he's been doing far too much of the latter the last couple of years, IMO.

Carfado never used to bug me when he was purely a beat writer, but again, I hate his "voice." I believe the Sunday notes are the worst they've been...well, ever. His observations are rarely grounded, and he seems to want to reach for these Gammons-style personality nuggets that come off more like Larry King on a bad night (e.g. the whole "a propos of nothing..." crap).

I think Bradford is the best columnist covering the team. IMO, McAdam is the best analyst (and the closest thing to a Gammons left in the market in terms of observations and parsing the fact from the spin and personal biasedness in his daily coverage). I don't know if he still does the EEI stuff, but I always used to alternately wince on his behalf or feel thankful for the occasional sanity in the sea of perpetual stupidity that dominates Ordway's show.

Ryan used to be a damn good basketball writer. He's a cautionary tale for Gordon, IMO in terms of a good writer letting his personality get the better of his reporting and writing skills. CHB is a Boston Chass: a waste of space I refuse to read.

Benjamin can be a really good writer, but it's too early to tell much about her reporting skills. I thought her Pedroia feature this weekend was really well done, though my one general complaint with her is a compulsion for the clever closure -- but she's a young and talented writer, so she gets the benefit of the doubt while she finds herself. Ending the Pedroia story with a quote was good writing (or editing on someone's part).

I never cared much for Snow. I found him just...blah.

Edited by Grubbery, 27 February 2007 - 12:14 AM.

[JakeRae]

Drocca makes some good points. I think we are overly harsh in our treatment of the (non-CHB) local sports coverage. This board is not the target audience of these reporters. Web sites like Baseball Analysts, Hardball Times, Baseball America, Baseball Prospectus, etc. are the media outlets that cater to the obsessive baseball fan. The beat writers are not in the business of providing in-depth analysis but, rather, of gathering rumors and trying to print the more credible ones. In many ways, this is a much harder job since it is always possible to come up with something interesting to write about by analyzing some new, underappreciated, aspect of the game or providing a new way to analyze old data. On the other hand, it is hard to print interesting news stories when nothing is happening. A Manny being Manny story sells papers both that day and provides a week worth of follow-up reporting that people will actually pay attention to. A story on how Beckett has pitched amazing in BP so far this spring, although interesting to us, is pretty boring to most people.

I was trying really hard to not be elitist, but I don't think I can help myself. Newspapers are a mass media source. They, therefore, target the masses. The masses, as a general rule, do not care about thoughtful and thought provoking analysis. They want something that makes for interesting water cooler gossip. Boston reporters are merely providing what their audience desires. It is true that this is frequently not good reporting. But, if bad reporting is going to sell you more papers than good reporting, why on earth would a reporter waste their time trying to write something good?

I'd like to challenge the critics of the Boston sports media to list the teams in the country that better local coverage. I'm not saying there aren't any, but this might help put things in perspective in regards to Boston coverage.

[Grubbery]

I was trying really hard to not be elitist, but I don't think I can help myself. Newspapers are a mass media source. They, therefore, target the masses. The masses, as a general rule, do not care about thoughtful and thought provoking analysis. They want something that makes for interesting water cooler gossip. Boston reporters are merely providing what their audience desires.

Well, to be fair, the question at hand is less about elitism and points to a larger question of our collective memories. I for one remember the reportage, even amongst some of the current crew, as somewhat better in the past with a sharp decline over the last 5-6 years in the two major Boston dailies.

So maybe that's one question...with the loss of Gammons 10 years ago precipitating the fall.

I'd like to challenge the critics of the Boston sports media to list the teams in the country that better local coverage. I'm not saying there aren't any, but this might help put things in perspective in regards to Boston coverage.

I'd rephrase the question more interestingly:

If you could bring in a baseball writer from another market, who would you get (no...bringing back Peter is not an option...they have to be full-time baseball writers for a major daily)?

My nomination would be Jack Etkin from the Rocky Mountain News.

Edited by Grubbery, 27 February 2007 - 12:26 AM.

[Chainsaw318]

Of course somebody makse my point more simply and forcefully than I did:

Well, to be fair, the question at hand is less about elitism and points to a larger question of our collective memories. I for one remember the reportage, even amongst some of the current crew, as somewhat better in the past with a sharp decline over the last 5-6 years in the two major Boston dailies.

While I do understand what DRocca and JakeRae are pointing out, that someone who posts here is in a specialized market, and that as I find the writer's overly critical, it's easy to be overly critical of them in turn, I have just been stunned at the amount of unprofessional behavior by people who consider themselves reporters in this market (See the two instances I refer to in the first post).

I guess writing mass-consumption pieces is one thing, but showing some professional decorum is a sign of something wrong with the way these people are doing their jobs.

I'm an idealist, I would like people to hold themselves to a standard of quality in what they do. I'm probably just still to young and optimistic in general.

[Mike in CT]

If you're covering one market, there are only a few things you need to know really well to cover your bases...

1. Front Office Philosophy - what they want at the plate, how much/little they value relievers, so on and so forth. This comes in handy when people are in a frenzy about the bullpen, or some dipstick in a chat asks you if we should trade Buchholz for Otsuka.

2. Front Office Personalities - the Theo stories... Lucchino... how about Janet Marie Smith and her changes to the ballpark... etc.

3. 25 Man Roster - the day to day stories about the MLB team. The stories within the stories. The new guys (Pineiro, Drew, Donnelly, etc.) The rookies/young kids.

4. The Minor Leagues - bookmark SoxProspects and the like, find out what's going on from time to time. Talk to their coaches once in a while. It's not rocket science. Did we sign anyone lately? What's up with this Beltre and Tejeda kids? How about this kid we just signed who dominated in the Little League WS not too long ago?

5. The Men Behind The Curtains - The John Deebles after we landed Matsuzaka.... we have more kids making their way up to the majors... our farm system has greatly improved under new ownership.... we've had the #1 and #2 ranked drafts the last couple years.... let's talk to Jason McLeod..... how about these scouts that are grinding away in Latin America... etc. You can go to RedSox.com and print out nearly the entire organizational hierarchy.

6. The Red Sox off the field - Do these guys have other businesses? what are they? how are they doing? family stuff. charity stuff. Interests and Hobbies. Whatever.

The bad writers seems to only know/care about #2 and #3.

It's much easier to give a pass to a guy who covers the entire league. There's no excuse for the guys who mainly cover one market.

Edited by Mike in CT, 27 February 2007 - 01:09 AM.

[behindthepen]

It may be simplistic to put it this way, but I think the level of media competition in this market is what makes the coverage bad.

Here's my perception of what's going on. Edes is a good writer, and generally seems to have decent connections in the clubhouse and around the league. However, the beat writers and broadcast guys are in a competition to 1- break stories and 2- get every angle of a story once it's broken. So Edes is basically forced to sit around the clubhouse and make sure he doesn't miss anything. Meanwhile, Bradford doesn't have that pressure, so he's busy doing journalism like calling up Manny's trainer during last spring training, or actually asking Schilling about his workout program this spring training.

Edes had a shot at some journalism last week when he tracked down the "car show" story, but he forgot to use the smell test and missed the angle that Manny probably never intended to go to the show in the first place. Was it because he was biased against Manny, or the story was just too good to pass up in this market?

Meanwhile, the people who run the papers don't seem to be worried about standards in general and reward that kind of behavior by letting CHB mail in crap and put it on the front page. I guess they're too busy losing money to care.

[LoweTek]

The question posited was, why are the best 2 local baseball writers I can name employed by publications outside of Boston proper? I explained how I was percieving the current state of Boston baseball writing and asked if people agreed/disagreed. If they agreed, I wanted to know why they thought this to be the case.

The Herald (as most newspapers are) is reeling and the Glob is owned by the New York Times which in turn owns a good chunk of the Red Sox; 17% IIRC. You simply will not get "journalism" from writers who are covering their owners' entity; only promotion and agenda advancement or at best factual neutrality or pre-arranged farce. You will not see the Glob breaking the scoop about anything that embarrases or fails to advance the general interest of the Boston Red Sox. NESN is no different for precisely the same reason. I'm not a sports editor but I can imagine those are very difficult circumstances under which to ply a trade that involves any honor or professionalism. I am surprised that more of the Glob writers have not jumped ship in the interest of preserving journalistic dignity. I am sure they have been told their content would not be compromised and that has turned out to be true over time. That would be the only explanation.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

I would say that there are good Sox reporters in Boston.

What I've seen recently is that the younger beat reporters (Amalie Benjamin this year, Chris Snow in previous years, and Mike Reiss on football) at the Globe often do provide a fresh look at the clubs and cover their stories in a different way than the norm. Ah, youthful enthusiasm. For example, when Amalie was blogging spring training down in Florida this year she got extensive, in depth quotes from Mike Lowell on what it's like to have Manny as a teammate. The quotes showed that Manny's relationship with his teammates was far more complex and nuanced than the usual line we've been fed that they all hate him. In this case, Amalie did the extra legwork to get a new view on a stale topic. As a reader I appreciated that.

For the older beat guys and columnists, I get the sense that most of them are just mailing it in. I like Edes' work for the most part, and Silverman is good as well, but the columnists (CHB, Mazz, Buckley, Cafardo, and Jackie Mac recently) all seem to be angling to line up their next television and radio appearance instead of looking at the current situations with fresh eyes. They seem to be more interested in acting as gossip columnists (is it any surprise that they made sure to immediately mention both Manny's hair and his request for folks to move away from his locker) and less as sports writers (I saw no mention yesterday of any report of Manny's physical condition).

I would have to think groupthink comes into play here as well. These guys see each other every day of the season, and on TV and radio as well. It's natural that in the course of their appearances they would come to a sort of collective agreement on certain issues. That's the way it seems to play out to me, anyway.

The one columnist that consistently is the exception to this rule is Bob Ryan, IMHO. He is the only senior writer of the local papers that actually seems to like sports, and it's reflected in his writing. With the exception of his curious blind spot regarding Jason Kidd's wife, he seems to always be able to capture the essense of the event he's covering, whether it's the World Series or Olympic archery. He can support a premise with which I disagree but when I read him I always feel that I've learned something anyway. Sadly, the Globe seems to think that CHB is their star reporter, because nearly every sports-related Page A1 story has been given to Dan over the past 5 or 6 years, including the Super Bowl wins and the World Series triumph. That's discouraging.

[yecul]

SJH makes some good points.

Boston is a big market and baseball is the at the top of the ladder. If you're a feature guy then you're at the top of the sports reporting game. Most of these guys worked throughout their career to climb to this point and really have nowhere else to go.

What does that result in? Eventually everything gets old, tired, repeats, etc. That has to change your outlook, however subtle, and is going to bleed into everything. Not only that, but the opportunity to grow and make money is not going to be in the industry. It's going to be writing books or getting some TV gig.

Why does that matter? Because in order to make that transition you have to become known as a personality, not as some guy regurgitating a quote. So you develop a character that has a unique identity. You coin phrases. You become the villain. You get yourself out there as much as possible. You try to break out of the local/sports audience into a national and/or more mainstream.

In short, I think a lot of them see what CHB has done and what he has accomplished in his career and they want their pie too. The PTI guys are other examples. You don't do that by just giving some analysis and whatnot.

Look at Chass who beat the Drew-Red Sox colllusion angle. It was a dead end, but imagine if something came from it. He would have been THE guy who broke it and would be all over the place talking about it.

This isn't to say they're all like that or that they all are trying to snake their way up. As with anything there are guys who are good and bad at their craft. Since we all have passion for the subject it clouds our judgement one way or the other when viewing them.

Edited by yecul, 27 February 2007 - 09:11 AM.

[Chainsaw318]

Not only that, but the opportunity to grow and make money is not going to be in the industry. It's going to be writing books or getting some TV gig.

This came up in a exchange of PM's I had with a lurker, (Rough Carrigan, I think). The chippiness and agenda-driven nature of the print and radio media may be primarily due to the fact that the TV and Internet media are choking their industry to death.

I would guess as a beat writer, you are at the bottom of the totem poll, so you have to be thorough and earnest in your reporting, in order to save your job. It looks like the columnists and feature writers who are the prime offenders, and that could well be due to the secondary place that print media has been relegated to in the information hierarchy in the last 5-15 years. The newspaper, and accordingly the newspaper writer used to be king.

Edited by Chainsaw318, 27 February 2007 - 09:22 AM.

[Razor Shines]

I've very recently become a fan of Rob Bradford of the Eagle-Tribune. His blog (Bradford on Baseball) provides excellent spring training coverage. Very informative, objective analysis, he offers his opinions, but doesn't beat you over the head with them.

As far as columnists go: Sean McAdam from the Providence Journal is decent.

The Globe? I used to love Gordon Edes' stuff, but he seems to have been infected with some Shaughnessy bitterness in the past year or two. Ironic, because CHB himeslf seems to have toned it down in the past year (his recent Manny attack notwithstanding). I actually enjoyed a couple of recent Shaughnessy columns. I can't remember for the life of me which ones, but I remember being pleasantly surprised by the content.

Edited by Razor Shines, 27 February 2007 - 09:22 AM.

[The Allented Mr Ripley]

This came up in a exchange of PM's I had with a lurker, (Rough Carrigan, I think). The chippiness and agenda-driven nature of the print and radio media may be primarily due to the fact that the TV and Internet media are choking their industry to death.

I had a conversation with a sports journalist for the online division of a major sports publication about this very issue. We were at a dinner party and the talk was very candid (this writer also does TV and radio). It's a reality of the industry now that writers essentially have to become a brand/personality and cross-promote across all types of media, and the first thing that suffers is the print journalism. The nature of the beast has radically changed.

Edited by The Allented Mr Ripley, 27 February 2007 - 09:30 AM.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

I had a conversation with a sports journalist for the online division of a major sports publication about this very issue. We were at a dinner party and the talk was very candid (this writer also does TV and radio). It's a reality of the industry now that writers essentially have to become a brand/personality and cross-promote across all types of media, and the first thing that suffers is the print journalism. The nature of the beast has radically changed.

It's for exactly this reason that I am amazed Bradford and McAdam are still as good as they are. Sure they're on WEEI, but their print stuff is still generally balanced and readable. Of course, they each get to be the foil to their co-host, whose job it is to stir the pot. It really is no wonder that Snow left to actually work in the NHL.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

I guess here's an example of one of my frustrations with the way the local media goes about its business:

Columnists are paid to give their opinions. That is expected and when they do that I am fine with it. That doesn't necessarily mean I like what they're saying, or that I agree with what they're writing, or that they're even good at their jobs of expressing an interesting opinion, but that's their job. I'll call CHB an asshole if I think he's expressing his opinion like one, but his column is a forum for his opinions. It's OK to write negative things about the local club; I want to emphasize that.

A problem to me is that they express the same opinions on the same topics over and over again. Re-hash, re-use, rinse and repeat. We've read the Manny opinion pieces before; every single year he shows up later than his teammates after having demanded a trade in the winter, and every single year we get the same opinion pieces saying Manny is a horrible teammate, we don't know what he's thinking, etc. We've heard it all before; where is the new angle, the interesting take (and presumably these people are being paid for their opinions because they have interesting takes)?

I get the sense that a lot of this is faux-outrage because of the subject matter. It’s Manny, they know him very well by now, know he’s not going to confront them on it and know that he’ll provide ample fodder for columns. Off to the television studio.

Today’s papers provide an interesting situation: Rob Bradford and Steve Buckley both have stories on the same subject matter: the fact that Schilling's new gaming company took up much more of his time this winter than expected, which cut into the time he'd normally spend getting into shape. Bradford and Buckley (in his guise as a beat guy instead of a columnist) both play it straight, which is what they should be doing in this case. These are the facts. They do a good job of telling me the information.

Yet the columnists have no comment on this story (and let's face it, if it were a number of other players it would be a juicy topic to hash around for a while). This isn't an invitation for the columnists to trash Schilling, but rather here's a fresh topic in which they're seemingly uninterested. Why? If these folks are getting paid for their opinions, let's hear 'em. Does Schilling deserve the benefit of the doubt here beacuse of his past performance? Is he getting distracted by post-career plans? How similar is this to the Frank Thomas situation in Chicago (Thomas had a recording business which took up a ton of his time), etc. How do athletes make the transition to post-playing careers? He could throw but could not work out as much; what's more beneficial? There's a ton to talk about.

I get the sense that the columnists aren't interested because it's easier to go back to the same subject they've done a million times before. For baseball it's Manny; for football it's evil Belichick. A new topic requires more research and work getting background, and most of the time they don't bother.

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Well, to be fair, the question at hand is less about elitism and points to a larger question of our collective memories. I for one remember the reportage, even amongst some of the current crew, as somewhat better in the past with a sharp decline over the last 5-6 years in the two major Boston dailies.

I don't think it's a coincidence that we feel that sports writing has declined at the same time that sabermetrics started to take off; I think a lot of it is that we (the population of SOSH) have a lot more knowledge while the writers don't really report that knowledge. And to be honest, I can understand both sides. The Globe is trying to attract an audience, many of whom may not care about OPS, Dustin Pedroia's workout regime, or who makes up Theo's latest gaggle. But they do care when a $20M player is perceived at loafing -- not only do they care, it might cause them to plunk their $0.50 down and buy a paper.

I think the disconnect is that many of us see news as news; while I think most media types see news as entertainment. Mostly because people don't want to pay for news.

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

I think that Boston has a pretty large contingent of baseball reporters and columnists compared to other parts of the country. As many people have said, Rob Bradford is terrific and seems to be fair in his assessment of our team. Aside from her cut and paste job of just about every Dustin Pedroia article I've ever read in the past two years, Amelie Benjamin has done a good job too. The Herald's Michael Silverman isn't too bad either.

And everyone in this thread seems to respect those first two people's opinion and enjoys the way they write. Why? I happen to think it's because those are the new guys on the block and they really haven't said anything critical of the Sox. And please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to call out SoSH for being provincial and only liking to hear about "Camp Sunshine".

But when we have solid reporters like Gordon Edes (Razor Shines says, "I used to love Gordon Edes' stuff, but he seems to have been infected with some Shaughnessy bitterness in the past year or two.") and Sean McAdam (JohntheBaptist: "McAdam is OK sometimes, I suppose.") on the scene and just kind of half-heartedly say that they're ok, it brings up the question, what do you want in a sports writer?

McAdam and Edes have been around the block a million times and they still seem to love their job. Have you ever head McAdam talk baseball on EEI? No matter what those nitwits on the whiner line says, he is genuinely enthused. The same for columnists like Steve Buckley, Tony Massarotti and Bob Ryan. Especially Bob Ryan. The guy has been covering sports since the late 60s for the Globe and he still owns season tickets to the Sox. It has been my observation that he never seems to carry a grudge and is one of the most professional guys in the clubhouse.

I like Buckley most of the time because he loves baseball. Does he come on as a junior CHB now and then, yeah (his stuff about Nomar used to drive me crazy), but in the long run he's a decent read when he's not trying to be Hemingway. And I know that a lot of people don't like Mazz, but I think that he gets a bum rap around here. If you read his book, "A Tale of Two Cities" co-authored with New York writer John Harper, you'll get a sense of how much he loves the Sox. Harper says that Mazz actually takes it pretty personally when the Sox lose to the Yanks and has to deal with NY reporter's ribbing.

And I'm not here to blow smoke up anyone's ass about columnists and writers; there's a lot of people who do crappy jobs and if someone isn't your cup of tea, I'm not going to change your opinion in one post. For me, the bottom line is: the Sox (and baseball in general) is covered 24/7 in Boston by a lot of talented dudes, you could live somewhere in Texas where you get maybe a page of Rangers spring training and a graph or two of Astros' ST, while there is a special section on the Cowboys' spring practices. What would you rather have?

Yes, there are guys who take a more laxed aproach to their job; I'm not a big fan of Nick Cafardo (like his football stuff, I think he has three contacts and works them to death) or Jackie McMullen's baseball stories (her basketball stuff is top notch) and while Shaughnessey has been a bit better lately, I still don't agree with a lot of his stuff.

All I can say is thank God we don't have Murray Chass.

[PedroKsBambino]

Part of the problem is us, though. By that I mean, clicking on them. Ever. And discussing hacks like CHB and Buckley and so forth here inevitably leads to clicks on them...from others here to see what the fuss is about, from lurkers, etc. And so long as they are generating clicks, the papers are getting what they want from the reporter, at least in very big-picture terms (obviously, there exists a credibility issue as part of that, too).

As much as I like BSMW and some of the posters here who enjoy discussing media issues, it's also the case that what will make CHB go away is not trying to prove he's an agenda-ridden clown who mails it in 3/4 of the time (which is true, and has been very well documented imo, often hilariously so) it's ignoring him. No letters to the editor, no showing up at his chats, no clicking on his articles. No calls when he's on the air. That's the solution to these guys, imo.

Just say no to idiot columnists. Don't take the bait. He needs controversy like normal people need oxygen. I plan to give him nothing, instead. Will it take awhile for this to register on Morissey Blvd? Sure, but if I'm not reading him I won't be annoyed by him, either.

[jacklamabe65]

Peter Gammons
Art Martone
Gordon Edes
Nick Cafardo
Sean McAdam
Chad Finn
The Sons of Sam Horn

Edited by jacklamabe65, 27 February 2007 - 10:07 AM.

[JohntheBaptist]

McAdam and Edes have been around the block a million times and they still seem to love their job. Have you ever head McAdam talk baseball on EEI? No matter what those nitwits on the whiner line says, he is genuinely enthused. The same for columnists like Steve Buckley, Tony Massarotti and Bob Ryan. Especially Bob Ryan. The guy has been covering sports since the late 60s for the Globe and he still owns season tickets to the Sox. It has been my observation that he never seems to carry a grudge and is one of the most professional guys in the clubhouse.

This is a really good point I'd sort of forgotten about (in part because my access to EEI and Boston on-air sports stuff is real limited) but you're right- I've actually noted in the time I've heard him that McAdam seems of a different breed when he talks baseball on the air. Good call on this.

The line you quoted was meant more to convey a lack of familiarity w/ his stuff.

As for Massarotti and Buckley, I completely disagree. I sense an affection for what they're covering too I guess, but the former just does not have much of a grasp of the subject he covers (which would be fine if he didn't trot out his analyst hat where it doesn't fit) and the latter is, to me, a cranky old man type columnist. I've never read anything by Buckley and thought "well, that's a new perspective" or "something I hadn't considered," etc.

What SJH points out is a big one to me- I don't want Sunshine PR puff pieces- I want new angles, new perspectives- hunting out stories I wouldn't otherwise know. Case in point- the Dervern Hansack stuff that popped up recently. And, though I know you didn't like the Pedroia article, the stuff from Youkilis re: DP's conditioning and a look at what specifically he did in the offseason was great to me. That's what I want. I can trudge through a few cliches and some hammy writing if it has something new on the team. I'm not really there to find great writing- if it comes, it's a bonus.

Edited by JohntheBaptist, 27 February 2007 - 10:10 AM.

[redsoxstiff]

I really don't expect a lot from journalism and less from sports writers...

Back in the day when there were over five papers vying for your nickel,the competition was fierce and overrode the ranges of rational interpretation...There were no shortages of axes nor grindstones...

In recent times Gordon Edes and Michael Holley have proven themselves a worthy read with breakfast...I read the Glob only...

I have a tolerance for all but Nancy Marapese aka Kneepads...

Jackie MacMullen...Bob Ryan...Gordon Edes...Peter May...Kevin Paul Dupont...are fine ...

Shags is an exceptionally talented writer who has been submerged in the changes in baseball since Curt Flood...His submersion has left him as one sour bastard...

Will McDonough was turned sour too except he cultivated Management and Ownership so that at least a POV was available...CHB is universally despised...He revels in his acidity, and in denial, confuses his bile with objectivity...

In sum ...WE are blessed herein Boston with a relative abundance of sports writing...Many communities are truly sports wildernesses...

[Grubbery]

So I'll ask the more direct questions again.

1) Do you think, on balance, Red Sox coverage by the two major dailies has declined significantly since, say...2001?

2) Setting aside generalists like CHB, Ryan, and MacMullen - if you could get ONE out-of-market baseball writer hired at one of the dailies to be a full-time (or majority) baseball columnist, who would it be?

[PedroKsBambino]

Joe Posnanski of KC Star. And if he won't move, I'd try to get Dejan Kovacic from Pittsburgh next.

Edited by PedroKsBambino, 27 February 2007 - 10:31 AM.

[Joe D Reid]

So I'll ask the more direct questions again.

1) Do you think, on balance, Red Sox coverage by the two major dailies has declined significantly since, say...2001?

2) Setting aside generalists like CHB, Ryan, and MacMullen - if you could get ONE out-of-market baseball writer hired at one of the dailies to be a full-time (or majority) baseball columnist, who would it be?

1) Not really. I think what has happened since that time is that the total volume of local and national sports coverage available--on TV, the web, EEI, etc--has continued to expand exponentially. Among the results this has had is to exponentially increase the number of times that dedicated fans are exposed to the conventional wisdom on every story, to the point where the serious fans are oversaturated with both the conventional wisdom and the more rabble-rousing attempts to go against the CW. So, what would have been a harmless story on Pedroia now gets run through the filter of 2 postseasons' worth of David Eckstein hagiographies.

2) Joe Posnanski.

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

1) Do you think, on balance, Red Sox coverage by the two major dailies has declined significantly since, say...2001?

No way. It's increased 10-fold, I'd say. More ink and paper have been used (in Boston) when describing this team than any story since that year, except for the war on terror/Iraq. Like most people here, when I was a kid I used to read the Globe and the Herald every day and I did a good job of reading every single Sox article. Now, it's virtually impossible to read every Sox article.

As for Massarotti and Buckley, I completely disagree. I sense an affection for what they're covering too I guess, but the former just does not have much of a grasp of the subject he covers (which would be fine if he didn't trot out his analyst hat where it doesn't fit) and the latter is, to me, a cranky old man type columnist. I've never read anything by Buckley and thought "well, that's a new perspective" or "something I hadn't considered," etc.

I guess we'll just have to disagree on this point (and I know my POV on these two guys are in the minority on this board). But I will disagree about Mazz not knowing about baseball. Unless you mean Sabrematrician stats, then I'd agree. However, I think most of the reporting world is ignorant about that.

Which brings up another argument that is usually held here, why aren't there more Sabre-based reporters? I think that the answer is simple, because the average reader doesn't know, nor cares about those types of articles. Most of us work or go to school, ask an average baseball fan what VORP means and they won't have a clue. The only stats they care for are wins, losses, RBIs, batting average and homeruns. Everything else is too "nerdy".

Unfortunately, when you have a business (and newspapers are a business) you have to cater to the lowest common denominator. If Buckley actually wrote about EQA, VORP, OPS+ he'd have to spend two thirds of his column explaining what those stats are and the last third of his column tying it all together. Or say Buckley just assumed that everyone understood what those stats meant, he'd end up writing to maybe a tenth of the people that read his columns today. That doesn't translate into numbers for the sales weasels to sell ads, which reduce paper revenue, which closes a newspaper, which puts Steve Buckley out of a job.

[Drocca]

...And, it's boring. You can enjoy the sabre-side of baseball and learning and understanding the language that comes with it but, in terms of an article or column in a daily newspaper: It's boring.

Edited by Drocca, 27 February 2007 - 11:02 AM.

[The Allented Mr Ripley]

No way. It's increased 10-fold, I'd say. More ink and paper have been used (in Boston) when describing this team than any story since that year, except for the war on terror/Iraq. Like most people here, when I was a kid I used to read the Globe and the Herald every day and I did a good job of reading every single Sox article. Now, it's virtually impossible to read every Sox article.

I think the question was meant to ask if the quality of the Red Sox coverage declined. For me it's hard to say. There are so many other outlets where I can get my Sox fix that I barely read any newspaper coverage anymore. There's a relationship there, to be sure, but I can't say if it's chicken-egg or egg-chicken.

Edited by The Allented Mr Ripley, 27 February 2007 - 11:17 AM.

[JohntheBaptist]

All true re: sabr-friendly reporters/ columnists. To be honest- I'm not sure how interested I'd be in one. If I want that, there's plenty of resources for it on the internet. In this arena, I want to know about the players, and things I have no access to. Not catty gossipy stuff, but info on their backgrounds, their off-field prep work, things that happen in games that we don't see.

To put a finer point on my criticism of Mazz, I think he doesn't do this enough and I think that his tendency to try to be something of an analyst- of any kind, and of whatever ability you're willing to credit him for- kind of turns me off. I can appreciate that this may be more of a personal taste of mine than a valid criticism, but I also think he's kind of a weasel, so that doesn't help either [emoticon.]

...And, it's boring. You can enjoy the sabre-side of baseball and learning and understanding the language that comes with it but, in terms of an article or column in a daily newspaper: It's boring.

I don't buy this. There are a few online columnists who've written from this perspective, and while it's not a daily column, they're regular, and I check them out fairly routinely without being bored. Of course, as JMOH mentioned, it wouldn't work on a larger scale because the average fan just isn't interested for reasons described.

Just on one team year round though- that would be a difficult thing to pull off.

Edited by JohntheBaptist, 27 February 2007 - 11:11 AM.

[The Gray Eagle]

Bill James is the best baseball writer around, I'd love it if he were writing about the Red Sox every day. I guess it's better to have him working for the team though.

Art Martone is great when he writes, he's another guy who's been kicked upstairs. His editing probably makes Mcadam better, so there's that.

Snow did a good job last year, he's been missed.

Basketball writers who shouldn't write about baseball IMO: Jackie Macmullan and Bill Simmons.

IMO, Edes does a good job, except when he lets his personal dislike for certain people get in the way. At the end of the Duquette run, he came off as utterly biased against Duquette because of his personal dislike. Recently with Manny, it somes off similarly, though not as bad as he got with Duquette. I think he was really set off when some jackoff called him at home last year to defend Manny, and it comes through in some of his writing. If it weren't for that, he'd be really good.

But it wouldn't be Boston sportswriting if people didn't use their jobs to dish out revenge and payback to their enemies.

[AusTexSoxFan]

1) Mike F

2) Everyone else

Gordon Edes said it himself last year at ST. All Boston writers fear Mike F because they know his ST reports are far and away better than their own.

[LahoudOrBillyC]

Given the title of the the thread, I am going to assume you mean "reporters" and not "columnists", hence CHB and Ryan are not germane to the discussion.

For reporters, my criticism is really that I don't really care about what they report on. If there is a story about Manny missing practice, its not really the quality of the reporting or writing that bothers me--its that I have no interest in the story at all, even were it written by Hemingway. I went to the Globe site this morning, saw MacMullen's story on Manny, and didn't click on the link. I have no problem with MacMullen, I just don't care at all about this subject.

I wish the reporters would write about baseball. Since there are baseball reporters down in Florida right this moment, and since I am sitting in Oregon watching freezing rain, why not report on what is going on in Ft. Myers? How hard is this? How are the players currently divided up? What are the pitchers doing today, exactly? When do they get up, when do they report to the park, what kind of workouts are they doing exactly? Running? Throwing? Are they working on new pitches, or just getting their arms in shape? Who are the instructors working with? Who is working on their own? Which pitchers seem in shape and ready to go? Who has work to do? What is the complex like--describe it to me. When do they eat? What do they eat? How much free time do they have? Are they working on fielding their positions? Are they working on hitting, bunting, or running the bases? What are the catchers doing? Do they just catch the pitchers, or do they have their own things to work on? How are the minor league people involved in the workouts? Do the pitchers throw off mounds? Are they pitching, or just playing long-toss?

That's just for the pitchers.

Once you add in the other players, I have another 200 questions I could write easily. When do they work on relays? How does that work? If there is a man on first and a ball is hit to the right-center field gap, where does the first baseman go? Why? When they work on this play, are they divided up into defensive groups with one to a position, or do they have a bunch of first baseman standing around waiting for their turn? Who is running this drill? Is he using a fungo bat? What is a fungo bat anyway--what is it made out of?

That's just one play. There are another 50 plays, and 9 players on the field, so its a lot of writing. Be patient, you can do some of it next year or the year after.

Were I a reporter for the Boston Globe and in Ft. Myers, I would ask my editor if I could write a story (every single day) directly relating to the what the people I am covering are actually doing. Rather than be concerned about who is NOT there, I want to cover who IS there, and what they are doing. Heck, you could write five stories like this every day covering completely different areas of the complex, but let's not over-reach here. As a reader who wishes he were there, I guarantee you I would read this story every single day without fail, before I had my coffee.

I have to assume that the Globe understands their audience better than I do, and that they don't believe anyone gives a rat's ass about baseball.

Edited by LahoudOrBillyC, 27 February 2007 - 11:47 AM.

[joyofsox]

I would say Edes is my favorite. I have also really enjoyed Snow and Benjamin. McAdam seems to do more than his fair share of Manny bashing. On the whole, I think I prefer Krasner. As far as the Herald goes, the quality of the writing is really low (are the writers lacking in ability or are they purposefully writing like 5th graders?).

Ian Browne at mlb is also quite good, much more of a just-the-facts guy than the newspaper guys. Which may mean you don't get a sense of his personality, which can add to the coverage, but you rarely sense an agenda from him.

The CHB annoys the living hell out of me, but his game stories during the ALCS and WS in 2004 were top-notch -- great writing. It was put on page one and it deserved to be there. Amazing stuff, mixing the game details with historical context, making it very readable and capturing what I felt was the exact mood of the series. And on a really short deadline every single night. Which means he does still have strong skills.

I have emailed with some of the writers (Edes was one) and they say they are well aware of more progressive stats and use them somewhat, but do not mention them in their writing as there is a general perception (among the editors of the papers?) that the average fan is ignorant or doesn't care. (Art Martone is one exception, but they appear only in his writings.)

Which is a shame, because if these stats and ways of seeing the game were presented on a regular basis, then fans would learn about them and (I believe) accept them. But the media has to take the lead.

Edited by joyofsox, 27 February 2007 - 11:49 AM.

[xjack]

Agree with those who say Edes shouldn't be lumped in with the idiots.

The problem is talk radio. With so many sportswriters angling for appearance contracts or their own shows, the incentive to hype stupid stories or needlessly rile the players is huge. Just look at the ARod-Jeter story from a couple weeks ago. The audio recording of the ARod's impromptu press conference reveals that he only answered the Jeter stuff after being barraged with questions about their relationship. The answer he gave -- they're friends but not like they used to be -- seemed pretty bland, but it wasn't long before columnists and talk-radio types were blasting ARod for even discussing the topic. They were the ones who brought it up!

The standard response from sportswriters and columnists that they're just giving readers what they want. They've got a point -- at least as it applies to radio. If I've got a 2-hour car ride, I'd rather be entertained than hear a statistical breakdown of Josh Beckett's pitch selection. That said, the stories about nothing that play well on radio do not help the Globe or the Herald sell newspapers or sell ads. Circ and ad revenue are plummetting at both papers. Contrast that to the circulation GROWTH of papers like Baseball America and Sports Weekly -- or even Roto publications like Baseball Forecaster -- and it's clear to me that there is a market for smarter baseball reporting that the Boston papers ignore at their own peril.

I live in New York, and my favorite local baseball writer is Joel Sherman, who is exactly the kind of writer the Boston papers should be recruiting or emulating. Sherman isn't afraid to mix it up -- he recently blasted Jeter for not having ARod's back -- but he's fair. And unlike CHB & Co., he he spends more time writing about baseball than the sideshows.

[sfip]

I wonder if another reason the Boston papers don't include more advanced sabermetrics in their articles, even if it's just a writer or two for each paper to solely write sabermetric articles that non-statheads could simply skip, is because many of the people who understand the more advanced stats already have bookmarked sites of blogs, etc., that have this information.

Keep in mind this post is from someone who never uses VORP and couldn't even tell you what's a good or bad VORP without looking it up.