Joe Posnanski: Lord of Lists

LogansDad

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
19,965
Alamogordo
PC Drunken Friar said:
haha, he sure did...
 
:rotflmao:
 
Also from that blog:
 
"Takeaway: The people who do the most interesting Hall of Fame ballots never write stories about them; I wish they would. I wish the voters would explain how, on this ballot, they found room to vote for Aaron Boone and Tom Gordon. Maybe it would be a great story. Maybe Boone or Gordon saved their lives. Maybe Boone or Gordon taught their children how to read. I want the story, I really do."
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
45,249
Things I learned from Strat-O-Matic: http://joeposnanski.com/things-i-learned-from-strat-o-matic/

 
Lesson 1: You really need a defensive shortstop with range.
Lesson 2: On-base percentage! On-base percentage! On-base percentage!
Lesson 3: Ballparks matter.
Lesson 4: Clutch hitting is baloney.
Lesson 5: Don’t use outfielders with no range and low error numbers.
Lesson 6: Matchups matter but …
Lesson 7: Twenties happen.
 
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
27,252
Oh no, Joe.
 
Then there is Joe Paterno. He was head coach at Penn State for 45 years, and assistant another 16 years before that. There is no way to catalogue the almost universal praise he received for his coaching — his teams won 409 games, the most for any Division I coach – and his integrity. His teams consistently graduated a high percentage of players. The NCAA never sanctioned them. His former players consistently call him one of their greatest teachers. The hard-hitting “60 Minutes” once did a segment on Paterno so glowing, that even he was embarrassed. On the November 2011 day of thegrand jury presentment that indicted Sandusky, Pennsylvania politicians were in the process of nominating him for the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
 
Joe Paterno was mentioned only in passing in that grand jury presentment. He was never charged with a crime. To the contrary, he was praised by the attorney general’s office for being forthright in his testimony.
 
Still, Paterno has taken much of the brunt for Sandusky’s crimes.
 
 
 
Ugh. 
 

riboflav

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2006
8,213
NOVA
I haven't read it yet but I assume he goes to talk about the actual victims and how they're the ones who have suffered the most. Right?
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
5,651
riboflav said:
I haven't read it yet but I assume he goes to talk about the actual victims and how they're the ones who have suffered the most. Right?
 
The crimes of Jerry Sandusky against children are terrible and well-known. Sandusky was convicted of 45 counts of child sex abuse. He will spend the rest of his life in prison for them. Three Penn State officials – Spanier, former Penn State Vice President Gary Schultz and former athletic director Tim Curley – were charged with perjury, obstruction of justice and child endangerment. They have all insisted repeatedly and voraciously on their innocence; the charges against them are still pending after more than three years. Court observers say there is almost no chance their cases will go to trial in 2015. They are in what seems a permanent limbo.
 
Then there is Joe Paterno. He was head coach at Penn State for 45 years, and assistant another 16 years before that. There is no way to catalogue the almost universal praise he received for his coaching — his teams won 409 games, the most for any Division I coach – and his integrity. His teams consistently graduated a high percentage of players. The NCAA never sanctioned them. His former players consistently call him one of their greatest teachers. The hard-hitting “60 Minutes” once did a segment on Paterno so glowing, that even he was embarrassed. On the November 2011 day of thegrand jury presentment that indicted Sandusky, Pennsylvania politicians were in the process of nominating him for the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
 
Joe Paterno was mentioned only in passing in that grand jury presentment. He was never charged with a crime. To the contrary, he was praised by the attorney general’s office for being forthright in his testimony.
 
Still, Paterno has taken much of the brunt for Sandusky’s crimes. He said to his death that he did not know Sandusky was a pedophile and did not understand what he was dealing with. Freeh and others said he had to know and understand. Paterno said that with the benefit of hindsight, he wished he had done more. Those words of regret have been misquoted and twisted into a tortured admission of guilt.
 
 
Of all the hills to die on, I'm a bit surprised this is the one Joe's chosen.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
27,252
I used to think his ability to emotionally connect with a subject was his greatest asset as a writer. It turns out his inability to keep an emotional distance, even when circumstances require, may be his tragic flaw.

I mean, 4 years ago it really appeared like this guy was the future of sports journalism. He had it all; old school bona fides as a beat reporter, an understanding of modern statistics, a grasp of how to use blogs and yet still write well in a column form. He was writing good books worthy subjects like the 1975 Reds and Buck O'Neil. He was a fan as much as a reporter, and seemed to be a rare personality that could walk seamlessly between those worlds.

Im afraid he's blown it. He's still only middle aged, but it just seems like he squandered so much on something that was just totally unworthy. Now it appears he's letting the Paternos use him to rehab their image.

What a shame.
 

touchstone033

lurker
Oct 29, 2007
244
Erie, PA
drleather2001 said:
I used to think his ability to emotionally connect with a subject was his greatest asset as a writer. It turns out his inability to keep an emotional distance, even when circumstances require, may be his tragic flaw.
 
I never saw Pos as connecting with or really understanding his subjects. His insight isn't very penetrating. He builds people up. He's an idealist and a romantic. He's great at creating myths and heroes, at connecting people to ideals. And that's great, especially now in these cynical times, where we reject most of our heroes, we learn too much about them, when we're both obsessed and repelled by celebrities. That's why I love his columns. 

But -- and I've said it before in this thread -- he's absolutely the wrong guy to do a hard investigative piece. Pos was the perfect choice to write the literary hagiography Paterno deserved before the Sandusky affair. But as soon the story broke, Pos had a hard, complex story on his hands that demanded he put aside his respect and admiration for Paterno and really worm his way into the story. Which, as far as I can tell, he's completely incapable of doing. Did he actually do any real reporting on Paterno and Sandusky?
 
A shame. He got caught with the wrong story at the wrong time. 
 

WenZink

lurker
Apr 23, 2010
1,066
Remagellan said:
Pos is spot-on about all things Deflategate
Good observation by Joe.  I especially like his comparison of Brady, in his press conference, to Martin Short's SNL "Nathan Thurm" character.  If Brady had handled the issue more forthright, and even acted with some indignity, he probably would have fared better in the court of public opinion, just as we now all side with George Brett 34 years later.  "Give me a bleepin' break!"
 

epraz

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2002
5,831
WenZink said:
Good observation by Joe.  I especially like his comparison of Brady, in his press conference, to Martin Short's SNL "Nathan Thurm" character.  If Brady had handled the issue more forthright, and even acted with some indignity, he probably would have fared better in the court of public opinion, just as we now all side with George Brett 34 years later.  "Give me a bleepin' break!"
 
Brady did say in his press conference "This Isn't ISIS, No One Is Dying."  But do you really think that being indignant would've been helpful?  He would be skewered.  "Arrogant Patriots Cheat Again"
 

WenZink

lurker
Apr 23, 2010
1,066
epraz said:
 
Brady did say in his press conference "This Isn't ISIS, No One Is Dying."  But do you really think that being indignant would've been helpful?  He would be skewered.  "Arrogant Patriots Cheat Again"
A bit OT for this thread, but, yeah, if his attitude had been, "What's the big deal?  Every starting QB wants their footballs prepared for them.  Everyone."  Then today, he could make the case that the two Pats equipment guys were just too zealous in  meeting his demands.  It's not a big deal, really, but Brady's evasiveness, and his inability (I assume) to come clean with Belichick and Kraft will probably lead to his undoing, instead of the NFL fining the Patriots 2 x $25,000 for having two nitwits going to extremes to keep Brady off their backs.  Hell, if Nixon had come clean in June of 1972, and just said, "I told them to take care of things, and my staff hired those 'effin nitwits who decided to become burglars!" he'd have survived easily.
 
Point is, Pos makes the point that Brett had pine tar on his bat above the allowed area.  But everyone had done it.  No big deal. 
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
27,252
WenZink said:
A bit OT for this thread, but, yeah, if his attitude had been, "What's the big deal?  Every starting QB wants their footballs prepared for them.  Everyone."  Then today, he could make the case that the two Pats equipment guys were just too zealous in  meeting his demands.  It's not a big deal, really, but Brady's evasiveness, and his inability (I assume) to come clean with Belichick and Kraft will probably lead to his undoing, instead of the NFL fining the Patriots 2 x $25,000 for having two nitwits going to extremes to keep Brady off their backs.  Hell, if Nixon had come clean in June of 1972, and just said, "I told them to take care of things, and my staff hired those 'effin nitwits who decided to become burglars!" he'd have survived easily.
 
Point is, Pos makes the point that Brett had pine tar on his bat above the allowed area.  But everyone had done it.  No big deal. 
 
Come clean with what, exactly?  That he likes his "balls soft"?  Did you miss the press conference that was mocked by the entire nation where he said exactly that?
 

WenZink

lurker
Apr 23, 2010
1,066
drleather2001 said:
 
Come clean with what, exactly?  That he likes his "balls soft"?  Did you miss the press conference that was mocked by the entire nation where he said exactly that?
 
Pos compared Brady's demeanor in the Press Conference to Nathan Thurm.  I agree with that assessment 100%.  IMO, if he'd come clean with Belichick and Kraft, he would have help in defusing the situation back then.  Instead, 433 pages later, he's lost the case in the court of public opinion and he'll probably get a suspension for a stupid, minor infraction.
 

WenZink

lurker
Apr 23, 2010
1,066
drleather2001 said:
Again: come clean with what?
Come clean with Bill and Bob with whatever instructions/texts/correspondence he'd had with the two clowns that worked on the footballs. Tell them what the NFL might discover. This is not so much a rules-violation matter as it is a PR nightmare.  Most of this was preventable if a PR team knew what they had to deal with at the time.  
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
27,252
And you think that he didn't tell them all this?
 
Why is that, exactly?
 

WenZink

lurker
Apr 23, 2010
1,066
drleather2001 said:
And you think that he didn't tell them all this?
 
Why is that, exactly?
 
Because of the statements of Kraft and Belichick at the time.
 
Look, it's fine if you disagree with Pos and with me.  I thought Brady's presser in January was a disaster, even at the time.  So does Pos.  You think Brady was, at least, adequate.  Good.  We disagree.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
14,922
Maine
WenZink said:
 
Because of the statements of Kraft and Belichick at the time.
 
Look, it's fine if you disagree with Pos and with me.  I thought Brady's presser in January was a disaster, even at the time.  So does Pos.  You think Brady was, at least, adequate.  Good.  We disagree.
 
Brady at the time said he prefers his balls soft.  Based on the texts between the equipment guys, the implication is only that he told them he wants the balls soft.  There's still no smoking gun that he ordered them to deflate the balls below specs or in violation of the rules (i.e. during games/after inspection).  I only read that he asked for the equipment guys to make sure the refs didn't overinflate the balls during inspections as they apparently did at least once (the mentions of 16 p.s.i. and "rugby balls").
 
Brady could have easily told Belichick and Kraft all of that (and we have zero evidence that he didn't) and it wouldn't have changed their answers or responses one iota.
 
I agree with Pos's overall conclusion about this saga.  It's insanely overwrought.  MLB realized how fucking assinine the pine tar rule was and the fact that no one paid any attention to it until that one moment in time, so they overturned the ruling by the umpires and essentially gave Brett a pass.  The NFL should have done the same thing with this...admitted no one gave two shits about monitoring air pressure in game balls and moved on.  Instead, they've turned it into a circus and a witch hunt.
 
If they're going to follow through with fines and suspensions, they had better go the full nine and lock down air pressure procedures for every single game from here on out.  You know, if it's a matter of the integrity of the game, let's make sure that this is the last time these shenanigans happen.
 

VBSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2005
343
Virginia Beach, VA
quick take from Joe on the Dgate penalties handed down. He takes the league to task for their heavy-handedness, and holds the opinion that argument for GOAT now excludes Brady because of "a little bit of air in footballs".
 

WenZink

lurker
Apr 23, 2010
1,066
VBSoxFan said:
quick take from Joe on the Dgate penalties handed down. He takes the league to task for their heavy-handedness, and holds the opinion that argument for GOAT now excludes Brady because of "a little bit of air in footballs".
 
It's a great point.  Arriving at GOAT is always a subjective process.  I still cling to Johnny Unitas because of his high-tops.  Advocates of Brady for GOAT in barroom arguments will get shouted down forever by the memory of Deflate-gate.  And Joe raises the most important issue of all by questioning the wisdom of the NFL in devaluing the greatest star of his era.  The Pats should have been warned before the AFC title game.  Goodell will claim he didn't know beforehand, but I think it's more likely he was willing to sacrifice Brady's rep in order revive his own position, after the Ray Rice debacle.
 
Roger Goodell is trying to be a modern-day Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis.  Of course Landis was a fraud, who helped keep black athletes out of MLB until after his death.  So, "Congratulations Roger!"
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
27,252
I don't put stock in moronic opinions, and neither should you.
 
If the basis of an opinion is stupid, then the opinion is probably stupid as well.   This is like arguing that Peyton Manning isn't in consideration of being GOAT because he lied about how bad his injury was this past season.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
45,086
VBSoxFan said:
quick take from Joe on the Dgate penalties handed down. He takes the league to task for their heavy-handedness, and holds the opinion that argument for GOAT now excludes Brady because of "a little bit of air in footballs".
 
This is a very, very poorly expressed characterization of JoePos's position presented in that piece. Yes, he says that the argument excludes Brady. But you left out the part where he implies that that is a bad thing.
 
Also, in general (this not in response to the quoted posted), we understand that this issue is making people crazy, but if your post demonstrates that you were commenting on a linked to piece and didn't actually read it, well... don't? Please?
 

VBSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2005
343
Virginia Beach, VA
I felt that including the quote of "a little bit of air" from Joe demonstrated that he thought that reasoning was specious. I certainly do, but I will be clearer with any future posts.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,619
Mid-surburbia
Spud said:
The Hall seems to have touched one of Joe's nerves.
 
Indeed, and Question 3 provides the key clue.  Buck O'Neil is Joe's personal baseball hero, and this stands in contrast to the now-defunct Negro Leagues HoF committee and Buck's exclusion.  To say he finds the "Pre-Integration Committee" viscerally offensive is a safe bet.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
50,049
New York City
JimBoSox9 said:
 
Indeed, and Question 3 provides the key clue.  Buck O'Neil is Joe's personal baseball hero, and this stands in contrast to the now-defunct Negro Leagues HoF committee and Buck's exclusion.  To say he finds the "Pre-Integration Committee" viscerally offensive is a safe bet.
 
Safe bet? More like sure bet.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
14,922
Maine
I thought the idea here was that they replaced the old Veterans Committee process with one in which three eras were rotated each year.  The eras being pre-1946 ("pre-integration"), 1947-1972 ("golden age"), and 1973-present ("expansion era").
 
So the question I have is are they specifically not considering Negro League players as part of the pre-1946 era, or did they just happen to not select any Negro League players this time around?  Both possibilities are objectionable and ripe for disagreement, but I think the latter is definitely less egregious and outrage inducing.  One is the whole process being fucked up, the other is the committee members making the decisions being idiots.  I need to know where to direct the outrage and how much outrage is appropriate.
 

BigPapiLumber Co.

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
910
Washington, DC
Red(s)HawksFan said:
I thought the idea here was that they replaced the old Veterans Committee process with one in which three eras were rotated each year.  The eras being pre-1946 ("pre-integration"), 1947-1972 ("golden age"), and 1973-present ("expansion era").
 
So the question I have is are they specifically not considering Negro League players as part of the pre-1946 era, or did they just happen to not select any Negro League players this time around?  Both possibilities are objectionable and ripe for disagreement, but I think the latter is definitely less egregious and outrage inducing.  One is the whole process being fucked up, the other is the committee members making the decisions being idiots.  I need to know where to direct the outrage and how much outrage is appropriate.
 
They are specifically not considering Negro League players.  Here's the 10:
 
http://baseballhall.org/hall-of-famers/pre-integration/2016-candidates 
 

Merkle's Boner

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2011
2,960
ConigliarosPotential said:
This collaboration with Michael Schur on the events in the 7th inning in Toronto yesterday is, quite appropriately, tremendous:
 
http://sportsworld.nbcsports.com/blue-jays-rangers-seventh-inning-jose-bautista-bat-flip-russell-martin-throw/
This was awesome and I would love to hear from Ken Tremendous on how an article like that comes about. For example, do you truly go back and forth or does Pos write something and you add in all of your commentary, fitting it in throughout.

Just in case you're stopping by today.
 

OzSox

lurker
Dec 8, 2005
157
Merkle's Boner said:
This was awesome and I would love to hear from Ken Tremendous on how an article like that comes about. For example, do you truly go back and forth or does Pos write something and you add in all of your commentary, fitting it in throughout.

Just in case you're stopping by today.
 
Joe talks about it himself a bit in this piece on his blog.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
50,049
New York City
edit - just read the whole column. Man, that was really, really awesome. One of the best of the year. That crack about Alvin and Theodore is funny for at least 4 different reasons.
 
Love this line:
 
 
Anyway, you have this conventional game going on in Toronto, so with a runner on first, the Rangers are required by international law to blow an out and bunt over the runner. 
 

BoSox Rule

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,231
I had to stop reading because I was laughing so hard about Bautistas college obviously not being a real place
 

allstonite

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 27, 2010
1,726
It was so great. They should do this for every inning of every playoff game because I'm selfish and want that to happen. This was my favorite line.
 
Kevin Pillar sounds like the name Kevin Millar gave to the cops when they caught him drinking a beer at a house party when he was 17. “I’m Kevin … Pillar.”
 

Tartan

lurker
Aug 20, 2008
361
MA
His latest anti-replay article. He seems to churn them out regularly. At this point, Joe's stance on replay is pretty clear: he doesn't like it because it slows the game down and focuses so heavily on minutiae that it detracts from the experience for him. I don't agree but it's his take, and it's neither an unreasonable opinion nor an entirely unpopular one. But would full-speed replays make anyone happier? Really? TV networks would still show slow-mo. It would take one instance of an important call that's unclear at full speed but obvious in slow-motion to cause a total uproar. Besides, I get the sense that it's not really replay itself that bugs Joe, it's the way it interrupts the flow of the game with umps/refs watching a monitor for several minutes. And I get that. But if a significant blown call arose, I don't think "we have the technology to get it right, we just aren't using it for flow reasons" will fly.