Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Seventh in a 10-part series

Sometimes it's just too easy to focus on the negative, to cat-call and disparage. As the author Henry James -- if you don't know, ask John Gizzi -- once said, "Of course you're always at liberty to judge the critic. Judge people as critics, however, and you'll condemn them all." So rather than further critiquing the critics, today we look at craft.

If it's true that you can judge a writer by what he reads, then Geoff Baker and Richard Griffin keep some pretty select company.


"Joel Sherman of the New York Post and Jon Heyman of Newsday are tough as nails and usually on top of things," says Baker.

"I look forward to reading Ray Ratto in San Francisco, Mark Whicker in Orange County [ed. note: requires registration], Bill Plaschke in L.A.." begins Griffin.

The columnist continues, "Jayson Stark, Peter Gammons ... "

The beat writer agrees, adding "Gammons because there is usually a grain of truth in most of the rumours he floats and he has interesting thoughts on the game."

Griffin resumes, " ... Tracy Ringolsby, Bob Elliott, Murray Chass [ed. note: New York Times requires paid subscription] and Dan Shaughnessy."

Baker adds one more name. "Rob Neyer of ESPN.com ... [he's] taught me to look at the game differently." Besides, Neyer hit close to home, says Baker, noting "I appreciated the thoughtfulness of his feature on the history of Montreal baseball last year, which ran deeper than the understanding of many blowhard U.S. columnists."

Neyer isn't always right, concludes Baker, "but I respect anyone who tries to see things differently from the pack."

From What ... to Who
Sometimes it's those people the writers have as subjects, rather than peers, who see things somewhat differently. Griffin can quickly name the members of his own "All-Interview" team, including current Jay Carlos Delgado and former Toronto players Darrin Fletcher, Paul Molitor, David Cone and Al Lieter.

Former Expos also dot Griffin's recollection, including both Felipe and Matty Alou, Pete Rose and Tim Wallach, the latter also named last week as one of the columnist's favourite players. Hall of Famers Willie Stargell and Ozzie Smith, Yalie Ron Darling and all-around good guy Mark Grace also make the list.

But it's certainly not just the players who are responsible for a journalist's personal experiences at the ballpark; it's the fans, who of course are also the paying customers who buy the most newspapers.

"St. Louis has fantastic fans, year-in and year-out, despite a stadium that is getting ancient," says Baker. "The most obnoxious fans I've seen are in San Francisco, while the apathy of those in Florida is scary," he says.

Back up north, Baker believes that "Montreal fans are some of the best and most enthusiastic you'll ever see, despite their tiny numbers. Witness what the Expos are saying about them now."

Meanwhile, though, he says "Toronto fans, as we've all said countless times, need to get noisier. I'll tell you what, though, they have already gotten more vocal since I joined the beat, especially when it comes to booing players. I saw a definite hike in noise level when it came to cheers in June, when the Jays swept the Red Sox, so I remain optimistic on that front."

From Who ... to Where
Though we've previously covered the favorite cities and ballparks of the Star baseball guys, keep in mind that for the most part, the beat writer on the road -- and the columnist, when he goes there -- spends the majority of his ballpark time in one of two places: the press box and the clubhouse.

"The new parks all have good press boxes," says Griffin. "And the home clubhouse in Phoenix is awesome."

Speaking a little more specifically, Baker says "my favourite press box is actually at Edison Field in Anaheim. Lots of room, plenty of telephones and great sight lines in a warm, outdoor environment overlooking a dining terrace filled with beautiful California women." Asking rhetorically, "What could be better than that?," Baker quickly rejoinders, "Don't answer."

As for a favourite clubhouse, Baker pauses. "Hmmmm. Safeco has a pretty spacious environment for the players," he finally concedes. "A big leather couch and giant screen TV. Also plenty of private lounges and nooks and crannies to hide from pesky reporters."

From Who ... to Why and So What
So, there are players hiding from reporters. Well, no wonder -- good or bad press can ultimately affect the level of fan support, right?

"No," says Griffin. "I think that media influence on attendance has always been overrated and as a PR man in Montreal, I always let my feelings in that regard be known to [General Managers] John McHale, Murray Cook, Bill Stoneman, Dave Dombrowski, Dan Duquette and Kevin Malone."

Baker agrees, saying "I think a team's record has far more to do with it and the Jays, as they've been built and financed, haven't shown anyone for six years that they're capable of anything but third place. That's just mediocrity the way the sport they play in is set up and many folks won't pay for that."

He muses momentarily, "If it was hockey, where more teams make the playoffs, then fans might be interested and hopeful. But," he says, "these are the rules established by baseball and the Jays are doing business in that sport, so they can't exactly complain."

Griffin points out that his criticisms of the team have never explicitly discouraged fans from supporting the Jays when they play. "Never have I said in a column, 'Don't go out to the ballpark,' he says.

"[But] if the team has a great spring and we have been in Florida observing every day, I believe our job is to look down the road and provide a realistic view of the 162-game schedule," he says. "The team's job is to promote the young unproven guys and the retread pitchers as possible wild-card contenders."

Again, Baker agrees. "If fans get the impression from reading our coverage that the Jays won't make the playoffs, then it's an accurate impression based on how things keep turning out," he says.

"If those fans choose not to go because they won't spend money on a non-contender, then there's little I can do. We haven't been wrong about them yet, as per the standings. We also aren't in the business of selling dreams or false hopes -- only the likelihood of how they'll do as we see it, and sometimes, the truth hurts."

Baker carefully defines his place in the Blue Jays cosmos: "A beat writer has to accurately reflect the team's place in the baseball universe and the Jays haven't budged in the standings in my six years of covering them," he says.

In fact, he's careful to point out that the Star has a marketing deal with the team, but he says, "I have never let that impact what I write – as should be obvious."

Wakeup Calls and Long Hauls
What, you think "wakeup calls and long hauls" relates to interminable stays in hotels and packing and re-packing suitcases for West Coast road trips?

Think again. It's actually about the nature of the job.

Baker, who worked on the news and business beats before moving full-time into sports, says no matter the clubhouse amenities or player (dis)interest in responding to postgame questions, "Investigative reporting taught me that sports reporting is not life and death and should never be confused as such."

He continues, "Too many sports reporters treat the teams and games they cover as God-like institutions and the be-all, end-all."

An event commemorated just a few days ago removed any chance of that happening to Baker. "Got a wake-up reminder about that covering 9-11 for the Star at the Pentagon in Washington after the Jays had their series canceled in Baltimore that week," he recalls.

That type of wake-up call doesn't change his overall approach to the profession, though. Upon being nominated for his third National Newspaper Award, Baker told Concordia University's Thursday Report, "I still have a lot to prove. I always tell my students that [journalism] is not a sprint, it's a marathon, filled with highs and lows. You have to be in it for the long haul."
More on Media | 34 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
_Matthew Elmslie - Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 12:01 PM EDT (#14041) #
the Jays haven't budged in the standings in my six years of covering them

Ah, so it's Baker's fault!

I kid. I'm a kidder.

Griffin points out that his criticisms of the team have never explicitly discouraged fans from supporting the Jays when they play. "Never have I said in a column, 'Don't go out to the ballpark,' he says.

You know, I might dispute this. I'm sure Griffin has never explicitly written such a thing, but I do recall more than once coming across an implication that I must be some kind of dupe for continuing to support the wretched hive of scum and villainy that is the Toronto Blue Jays organization. It'd take me forever to find it, though, and it's not work I'd relish. Plus I could be wrong; maybe it was just the way I was reading it.

Toronto fans, as we've all said countless times, need to get noisier.

This is something that ticks me off. I'm not a loud fan. I find that any time I spend making noise distracts me from paying attention to the freaking ballgame. I don't object to other people whooping it up, but I don't like doing it myself. I never buy tickets from scalpers, I usually buy a program and score the game, I stay for all nine innings, pay attention to every pitch and every play, and I'll clap when something good happens. But I'm not loud. Am I therefore a bad fan?

Maybe I am, but I'm the one paying for the ticket, and I'll be as quiet as it pleases me to be. If the Jays want me to make more noise, they can start paying me to go to the games.
Craig B - Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 12:27 PM EDT (#14042) #
Oh this is too much.

Griffin points out that his criticisms of the team have never explicitly discouraged fans from supporting the Jays when they play. "Never have I said in a column, 'Don't go out to the ballpark,' he says.

"[But] if the team has a great spring and we have been in Florida observing every day, I believe our job is to look down the road and provide a realistic view of the 162-game schedule," he says. "The team's job is to promote the young unproven guys and the retread pitchers as possible wild-card contenders."

Again, Baker agrees. "If fans get the impression from reading our coverage that the Jays won't make the playoffs, then it's an accurate impression based on how things keep turning out," he says.


No, it's not that fans will get the impression that the Jays won't make the playoffs. It's that they get the impression that this is a bland, boring, unpleasant team that gives you no reason to come to the ballpark.

I mean... these guys *were* wild card contenders. Remember June? Just when the team appeared to be gaining momentum, the Star comes out with "White Jays", which not only accuses the team of being boring, but of being unrepresentative of Toronto. You couldn't help but draw the conclusion that they were trying to torpedo interest just at the time interest seemed to be on the rise.

On the morning of June 28th, the Jays were hosting Montreal in the middle of a homestand, they'd been drawing their biggest crowds of the year (they got 33,000 that day, and 37,000 the next afternoon), they were 46-34 and a half game behind the Red Sox and A's for the Wild Card. What lands on everyone's doorstep? "White Jays".

So this is self-serving butt-covering bull from these guys.

"If those fans choose not to go because they won't spend money on a non-contender, then there's little I can do. We haven't been wrong about them yet, as per the standings. We also aren't in the business of selling dreams or false hopes -- only the likelihood of how they'll do as we see it, and sometimes, the truth hurts."

The truth is this is a young team on the rise, with a real good offense. Why not write about what a great offense this team has? Nope, all you'll see is "no pitching, poor pitching, bad pitching, retread pitching". What casual fan comes to the park to see pitching? Casual fans should *love* this team... they score runs and hit homers, and they have some terrifically charismatic young players, including a hot young superstar in centrefield.

Plus, these guys aren't the bored, disinterested veterans of the Ash regime. These guys hustle, they smile, they work their tails off. The Star guys *never* mention that, not once.

In fact, he's careful to point out that the Star has a marketing deal with the team, but he says, "I have never let that impact what I write – as should be obvious."

I'll say it's obvious. These guys couldn't market this team with a truckload of free front-row tickets.
_Ryan - Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 12:35 PM EDT (#14043) #
\Baker carefully defines his place in the Blue Jays cosmos: "A beat writer has to accurately reflect the team's place in the baseball universe and the Jays haven't budged in the standings in my six years of covering them," he says.\

I've got a question for my fellow readers and posters here: If the Toronto Star was your only source of Blue Jays news and commentary, do you feel you would get an accurate picture of "the team's place in the baseball universe"? Without looking at the standings, where would you place the Blue Jays based on what the Star's writers have told you?

I would be surprised if most people said they thought the Blue Jays were a .500 club the last six years.
_Ryan - Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 12:43 PM EDT (#14044) #
From Craig:
\No, it's not that fans will get the impression that the Jays won't make the playoffs. It's that they get the impression that this is a bland, boring, unpleasant team that gives you no reason to come to the ballpark.\

From Griffin's May 9th column, "Remember when baseball wasn't boring?":

\American League baseball, the way most teams strategize these days, has become more boring than ever. When is the last time anyone went to the ballpark expecting a great pitching duel? They don't and it's a shame. It's always some huge, visiting slugger that's the draw. The chance to see the jaw-slackening, tape-measure home run. Borr-ing!

When you tune into a Jays game in progress on television, it's not important to know the situation. Just watch the guys swing the bat.\
_Matthew Elmslie - Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 12:44 PM EDT (#14045) #
I would be surprised if most people said they thought the Blue Jays were a .500 club the last six years.

I completely agree. I've mentioned this on this site before, but I have a couple of friends who don't follow sports. They are polite enough to inquire about my interests, though, so occasionally they ask me how the Jays are doing, and recently I've taken to asking them how they think the Jays are doing. Invariably they think the Jays are doing terribly; that's just the impression they picked up out of the air. The last time this happened was June of this year.

I have no idea what the organization can do about this. What good does it do them to win the World Series if everybody thinks they finished last?
Pepper Moffatt - Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 01:06 PM EDT (#14046) #
http://economics.about.com
I wonder if the fact that the title reads "Moron Media" when read out loud was at all intentional. :)

Mike
Mike D - Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 01:10 PM EDT (#14047) #
Quick FYI: The Times isn't a pay site, but it does require registration.
_Ken - Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 01:20 PM EDT (#14048) #
Matthew-

Your example is typical of many fringe sports fans and this is where the media comes in. They have the ability to influence the majority of people. If they gave the jays more positive coverage I believe the team would be recognised as it should be, young and exciting.

However if the jays start winning then I am 100% confident that the fans would return to the skydome. If they won the world series I am sure Toronto would know about it.

Ultimately the media will reflect what the team is doing on the field, but the Star really need to get out of this 'criticize to show we are not biased' attitude.
Coach - Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 02:27 PM EDT (#14049) #
Invariably they think the Jays are doing terribly

Great point, Matthew. My brother-in-law, a news cameraman for a local TV station, worked with reporters covering the Jays in the late 80's and early '90s, even going on road trips. Hasn't followed them since the 1994 strike, professionally or as a fan. He knows Delgado and is becoming aware of Halladay, but the other players are just names to him. When he makes those polite inquiries about my obsession, I've told him there's improvement on the field, hope under this GM and tons of talent on the farm.

This guy is a sports fan, who isn't a baseball fan because the game turned him off nine years ago. He's a Leafs season-ticket holder who listens to The FAN 590 more than I do. Fed up with negative coverage in the Star for some time, he stopped buying the paper this summer, citing the White Jays controversy as the last straw.

I refuse to buy the Sun or the Post. I wish that the Globe would devote three times as much space to baseball -- I always enjoy what Jeff Blair and Larry Millson have to say -- but my 50 cents went to the Star again today. Waymorebaseball.

Griffin has a strong piece on MLB and the Expos, Baker looks at Delgado's MVP chances. There's also a front-page profile of Eric Gagne by Mark Zwolinski. "And he could have been a Blue Jay," says the subheading, with a couple of paragraphs about how the Jays apparently chose Luke Prokopec over his buddy Eric Gagne in the Paul Quantrill trade. This ancient history, we are told, "may be hard for Blue Jay fans to stomach."

It's a team effort, taking shots. Pass the baton. Even if the Jays were offered that choice, there's no effort to put it in context. Gagne was 25, in his third year, coming off a 6-7, 4.75 season. Prokopec, two years younger and less expensive, was 8-7, 4.88 as a rookie despite fading in the second half. Luke hadn't even been pitching that long; Gagne's elbow had been surgically repaired. This part of the "story" stems from a Peter Gammons line, so it's gossip anyway.

Most of the article is about an unlikely Canadian success story, one of the front-runners for the Lou Marsh Award, with a chance at save records, a Cy Young, maybe even an MVP. However, for some reason Zwolinski informs us that Gagne has "outdistanced whispers around baseball that his physical gains were linked to illegal substances," which sounds a lot like whispering to me.
_R Billie - Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 02:48 PM EDT (#14050) #
Well let's be honest...is it any different in other baseball markets? The hatchet jobs were out on Epstein in Boston since the appointment and I'm sure there is still a lot of humming and hawing over whether Boston really can make the post-season and whether holding on to Fossum instead of dealing for Colon was the right move. (In retrospect it sure doesn't look like the right move).

Save for the Yankees market where they are apparently willing to pay $200 million to field a baseball team and the media really has nothing to complain about. Outside of weaknesses of the team which management isn't afraid to throw yet more money at.

The team has to show results on the field over a full season before they are really taken seriously. I think it's unreasonable to expect that to happen in the second year after the management change so we can't fault either the fans, media, or the Jays on this point. What we can fault is whether the media acknowledges progress for the organization.

They finished last season with 78 wins and even if they go .500 against weak competition the rest of the way, the team will finish with about 83 wins. More likely they'll finish with about the 85 that Tosca targeted in spring training, give or take a game or two. That's about 7 games better than last year which is a significant step forward...this despite over $20 million disappearing from the player budget. To not acknowledge this as progress and good positioning for the coming years in conjunction with the highly rated talent in the farm system is more than a little ridiculous.

But of course, farm system talent doesn't count. Despite the fact that nearly every winning team relies a great deal on producing it's own players. Despite the fact that cheap talent from the farm system actually means MORE money to spend on veterans to fill holes. I don't think there's any question that more money would help the Jays compete better...but if there isn't the money to spend without the parent company suffering a great deal then what's the point of driving the team further into a financial hole? I might be the minority among fans but I appreciate far more a team that is smart than a team that is rich...the Leafs don't spend their money wisely and neither do the Raptors. And in the end, neither has accomplished much more than the Jays, with the exception that the Leafs can have a .520 winning percentage and still make the playoffs.
Dave Till - Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 03:30 PM EDT (#14051) #
A few points to add to the (excellent) comments so far:

- I would speculate that baseball writers tend to become jaded about baseball, partly because of the long slog that is the baseball season, partly because many players aren't exactly cooperative or articulate, and possibly because they don't want to look like "homers" in the perception of senior writers. (This last is speculation - I've never been in a press box.) Because they see the players close up, warts and all, their perspective is different from that of the casual fan. After a while, I suspect that they can't imagine what it would be like to root for a baseball team.

- It must have been difficult to be a Jays baseball writer in the Interbrew era. The Dome was empty, the club was drifting, and nobody in Toronto seemed to care. It must have been a drag to keep coming to work day after day. I suspect that some of the writers still bear the scars of this era (just as many fans have given up on the team).

- Related to the above: what I've always disliked most about Griffin's writing is that he seems to look down on baseball fans. A couple of years back, when the Jays were on the fringe of the wild card race, I used to dread close losses, not only because of what they did to the team, but because I knew that Griffin's next column would practically be gloating. This, admittedly, may be just my interpretation.

- Historically, the Jays' beat writers have always dumped on the Jays, after about 1987 or so. (Between 1983 and the Great Collapse of 1987, the writers, like everybody else, were soft on the team.) In 1992, the main beat writers (especially Marty York) were constantly predicting that the Jays would be overhauled down the stretch or in the ALCS. And, as I recall, none of the writers picked the Jays to repeat in 1993. Again, I think it's an extension of the "no cheering in the press box" concept - it's better to be pessimistic about the team's chances than to have your colleagues laugh at you for seeing things through rose-coloured glasses.

Again, I stress that much of this is speculation - I've never met a baseball writer or a baseball player, nor have I been in a press box. (I don't particularly want to do any of these things.) I would welcome feedback from those of you who are more knowledgeable.
_Matthew Elmslie - Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 03:40 PM EDT (#14052) #
I'm not more knowledgeable, but I remember listening to the FAN in 2002 when McCown and Cox were talking to Mike Wilner about the Jays. Cox was pessimistic, Wilner was optimistic, and McCown was skeptically neutral. They asked Wilner how soon the Jays could threaten for the playoffs, and he said absolute best case scenario, 2003; more likely 2004 or 2005. They scoffed, predictably, and he said, "Watch and see." Which got them laughing so hard they just about coughed up a lung. So, yes: optimism != cool.

It must have been difficult to be a Jays baseball writer in the Interbrew era. The Dome was empty, the club was drifting, and nobody in Toronto seemed to care. It must have been a drag to keep coming to work day after day. I suspect that some of the writers still bear the scars of this era[...]

You'd think . . . but then why don't they notice that it's different now? Or if they do notice, why doesn't it make any difference?

Well let's be honest...is it any different in other baseball markets?

I really don't know, and I'm curious. Is it? Is there a team in roughly the same situation as the Jays that we could compare them to?
Mike D - Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 05:03 PM EDT (#14053) #
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/chat/chat.php?chatId=8
I agree with R Billie's "smart vs. rich" dichotomy, but is it really so predetermined that Toronto is intractably out of the "rich" camp?

I ask this because of the recent remarks made by Oakland fans, and indeed by Billy Beane himself (click on my name), in the vein of "Man oh man, can you imagine the complete team we'd be if we still had Giambi around?"

I can easily foresee the Jays letting Delgado walk, developing a dynamic young pitching staff and being on the cusp of something big -- only to ask "If we only still had Delgado..."

If the Jays had an Oakland-type record, they'd blow Oakland away in attendance and TV ratings. No, they can't match the Yankees dollar-for-dollar. But they certainly have a metropolitan market with the inherent wherewithal to avoid the Moebius strip cycle of /let great players go/attendance stays modest/revenues stay modest/so we have to let great players go.

If the Jays don't invest enough to keep their popular homegrown stars, how are fans supposed to react? And how are writers supposed to suggest that fans react?

Delgado will be the acid test. If he signs above market, that's fine...but if he's available at market, I don't want to hear any "we're a $50MM club" nonsense. The next great Jays club will pack the place, I promise.
_Jonny German - Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 05:03 PM EDT (#14054) #
A beat writer has to accurately reflect the team's place in the baseball universe and the Jays haven't budged in the standings in my six years of covering them

Attaboy Baker, way to not budge from your arrogant and ignorant views! Way to focus on third place in the standings and not see past your nose to what's being built here! You read Rob Neyer? Really? Do you understand a word he says? "...blowhard U.S. columnists", huh? I must commend you on your wonderful sense of irony, or did you not actually mean to imply that Canadian writers are any better?

---

Mike Wilner puts the lie to everything these morons say about their need to tell the fans how it is and not swallow the corporate line... Wilner gets it, he sees what's taking form, and he understands he can be optimistic about the team without ignoring mistakes. Credibility is not found only in blind dissent.
Coach - Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 06:13 PM EDT (#14055) #
Wilner gets it, he sees what's taking form, and he understands he can be optimistic about the team without ignoring mistakes.

When Mike is critical, it often echoes what is being said in Da Box. It's obvious that we are watching the same team, in the same games. I think he did everything but chant "Free Josh Phelps!" on the radio, and he's expressed disbelief several times at the bullpen management or certain roster moves. His opinions about other teams and players frequently mirror my own, which makes me more inclined to respect his insights about the Jays.

Wilner may be a Rogers employee, but he's no home team cheerleader. He isn't needed in that role, anyway. As Jonny, Gwyn and I learned on Saturday, Named For Hank is by far the best man for the job.
_Matt - Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 07:26 PM EDT (#14056) #
The Gagne thing was also written up by the hapless Steve Simmons in his Sunday column. No mention of the circumstances at the time or how 28 other teams didn't see this coming(who could?) just another childish shot at Ricciardi.
Pepper Moffatt - Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 08:23 PM EDT (#14057) #
http://economics.about.com
What a lot of people forget about that off season is that the Expos were lusting pretty hard after Gagne. Why would the Dodgers not give Gagne to the Expos for any price, but be willing to hand him to the Jays for Quantrill? Anyone who presents the "JP could have gotten Gange" argument I think needs to explain that paradox.

Mike
_Rich - Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 09:50 PM EDT (#14058) #
Is Steve Simmons actually still permitted to write something about baseball, now that Cito Gaston is here to kick around anymore? I wonder what happened to Simmons on Sunday; did he run out of daggers for the Leafs' blueline corps a few lines too early or something?

Do the people who edit the Star sports section have any ability to identify the degree of bias, unsupported claims, and just outright falsehoods pervading the work of their baseball writers? I'd be very interested to sit in on performance appraisal week. For a while I wondered if it was just me, but I don't think so. I had really hoped that this interview series, which is very compelling, would give me some insight into how and why Baker and Griffin approach the Jays as they do. I have long stopped reading their work, but was interested to hear them explain themselves. Whoever posted on here that the more time the two are given to explain themselves, the worse and worse they come off.
Named For Hank - Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 07:52 AM EDT (#14059) #
Meanwhile, though, he says "Toronto fans, as we've all said countless times, need to get noisier. I'll tell you what, though, they have already gotten more vocal since I joined the beat, especially when it comes to booing players. I saw a definite hike in noise level when it came to cheers in June, when the Jays swept the Red Sox, so I remain optimistic on that front."

Your welcome. :)

I couldn't speak for a week after that series.

This is something that ticks me off. I'm not a loud fan. I find that any time I spend making noise distracts me from paying attention to the freaking ballgame. I don't object to other people whooping it up, but I don't like doing it myself. I never buy tickets from scalpers, I usually buy a program and score the game, I stay for all nine innings, pay attention to every pitch and every play, and I'll clap when something good happens. But I'm not loud. Am I therefore a bad fan?

No. The bad fans are the guys who are quiet and don't pay attention. Especially the guys on their cell phones. Guys who don't chant or scream but who are scoring the game, I can respect that. Guys who turn around and say "Can you lay off with the horn? I'm trying to talk on the phone," (yes, it really happened to me) are losers.

These guys hustle, they smile, they work their tails off. The Star guys *never* mention that, not once.

You just nailed why I love the Jays so much this year.

This guy is a sports fan, who isn't a baseball fan because the game turned him off nine years ago.

Echoes my own baseball-fandom lapse...after the strike, I just stopped watching. Last season I got a pair of nice seats from one of the suppliers I deal with as a thank you, went, and had a good time. My wife and I enjoyed seeing these new guys who could hit something fierce, especially Josh Phelps and Eric Hinske. That game was a 'free ticket' game, so we ended up with a pair of tickets to another game, and by cagily checking the schedule ahead of time we managed to use our free tickets to go to a game where we got more free tickets. Had another good time, saw more of Josh (who quickly became our favourite), and saw a promising debut by Werth, including his first major league hit. And the third game we saw the Jays beat the Yankees. Exhilarating, especially when you have no expectation that they can do it.

So shortly before opening day we see an ad on the back of the Sports section in the Globe And Mail for this Season's Pass thing. $81 for the whole season? So what if they're cheap seats! My wife and I figured we'd go to a dozen games or so, that we'd have something to do all summer long that we wouldn't really be blowing any extra money on. Then we showed up on Opening Day (and yes, I spent a lot of time and money on bleaching my hair and then dyeing it royal blue -- to be honest, I spent nearly as much on that as I did on the Season's Pass) and found out about this True Fan Rewards thing and realized that the seven game reward, a free day car rental, would be really useful on our upcoming trip to Halifax, so we went to seven games in a row.

And we were hooked. As of Sunday I have been to 59 games. I fully intend to see every last one of our final homestand, which would put me at 65. I have had a whale of a time this year, watching an exciting, fun team that's on its way up. I'm really glad that I got to see them at what's pretty much the start of the journey, and can't wait to see where they're headed.

So there you go, Rogers: your evil plan worked. Heck, it worked so well that I bought a block of 60 tickets to give away to my customers (so Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday I will definitely be found in section 525, row 10 or 11 -- come say hi and shout with me). And if the Season's Pass is on again next year, I'll be scooping it up the second it's announced.

Wilner may be a Rogers employee, but he's no home team cheerleader. He isn't needed in that role, anyway. As Jonny, Gwyn and I learned on Saturday, Named For Hank is by far the best man for the job.

Heh, thanks. On Sunday, with friends visiting from California, they only played the bugle call THREE times. Sheesh. What's a fan to do?

I'm going to try to organize this Cheer Club thing. If anyone wants in, e-mail me. I don't know if we'll get anything together for the end of this season (maybe for the final weekend?), but we sure can try. No cheering experience necessary, all are welcome. Even Richard Griffin, if he promises to cheer real loud for the Jays. In fact, if Griffin showed up for the Cheer Club, I would totally and completely forgive him for everything.

And I absolutely love Mike Wilner. He's negative when he sees a real problem, but also holds so much enthusiasm and optimism for the team that he's a joy to listen to.
Gerry - Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 09:02 AM EDT (#14060) #
Do the people who edit the Star sports section have any ability to identify the degree of bias, unsupported claims, and just outright falsehoods pervading the work of their baseball writers?

Those of us who do not work for newspapers assume that news (and sports) reporting is unbiased. But look at politics. The Star is a liberal newspaper. Almost everything Chretien does is fine, while the conservatives and the Alliance are bad. The Globe and the Post are on the other side. I don't think anyone believes the Star is fair and balanced when it comes to politics, so why should it be fair and balanced with the Jays?

Some of the posters here work, or have worked, in the media. I am sure they can verify that fair and balanced does not apply to everything in the newsroom.
_Jacko - Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 09:54 AM EDT (#14061) #

Those of us who do not work for newspapers assume that news (and sports) reporting is unbiased. But look at politics. The Star is a liberal newspaper. Almost everything Chretien does is fine, while the conservatives and the Alliance are bad. The Globe and the Post are on the other side. I don't think anyone believes the Star is fair and balanced when it comes to politics, so why should it be fair and balanced with the Jays?


IMO, the Globe not nearly as conservative as it used to be -- some would go as far as describing it as a liberal newspaper now. At the very least, it's pretty well balanced and well written. Just because they have a decent business section doesn't mean they can't have a liberal point of view.

The Post, on the other hand, is so far to the right of the political spectrum it's almost comical...
_Rich - Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 10:25 AM EDT (#14062) #
Do the people who edit the Star sports section have any ability to identify the degree of bias, unsupported claims, and just outright falsehoods pervading the work of their baseball writers?

What I meant by this is that most of the criticisms of Baker and Griffin that have appeared in this series of articles about them seem patently obvious, in my view - ie. they actively seek to attack the Jays organization, consistently get their facts wrong, and prefer inferrence and innuendo to substantiated arguments. I am asking why it is that the people who supervise their work don't seem to notice or care.
Gerry - Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 10:29 AM EDT (#14063) #
They only notice or care when it hurts newspaper sales.
_Jacko - Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 10:55 AM EDT (#14064) #

They only notice or care when it hurts newspaper sales.


Which means they have officially stooped to the level of the Sun.

Congratulations TorStar, on sinking to new levels!
_Mick - Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 12:04 PM EDT (#14065) #
Quick business note ...
The remaining three parts of the Toronto Star Extravaganza series will be delayed until next week.

"Real life" and all that ... I know you all will be holding your breath for the posts.

I will be unavailable online tomorrow through Sunday. Direct your questions to Kent, who I have told absolutely nothing, and he will invent something plausible.
_Spicol - Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 12:22 PM EDT (#14066) #
Actually, Mick and I spoke and he's being pretty humble about the whole thing but the reason he won't be around is that he's preparing his candidacy for Leader of the Free World. (If he can only keep the nude photos from being leaked, I think he has a pretty good shot.)
Craig B - Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 02:54 PM EDT (#14067) #
The Star is a liberal newspaper. Almost everything Chretien does is fine, while the conservatives and the Alliance are bad.

That would make them a centrist newspaper, which is what they are.
Pepper Moffatt - Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 03:23 PM EDT (#14068) #
http://economics.about.com
Can't we all just agree that these are relative measures and whether a paper is "left" or "right" in your mind is entirely dependent on your own idelogical view.

The whole left-right thing is rather silly anyway, as issues tend to have more than one dimension. I think we spend too much on the CBC and not enough money on the homeless. Does that make me right wing or left (or someone who just loves arbitrary dichotomies)?

Mike
_Spicol - Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 03:45 PM EDT (#14069) #
At least the CBC creates jobs. You want to ditch something, ditch the HRDC.
Pistol - Friday, September 19 2003 @ 09:05 AM EDT (#14070) #
What happened to part 8 & 9 of the series? Lost in the hurricane?
_Matthew Elmslie - Friday, September 19 2003 @ 09:50 AM EDT (#14071) #
According to post #25 in this thread, just a few inches above, parts 8, 9 and 10 will be delayed until next week.
Pistol - Friday, September 19 2003 @ 10:12 AM EDT (#14072) #
According to post #25 in this thread, just a few inches above, parts 8, 9 and 10 will be delayed until next week

D'oh!
_terry - Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 04:03 PM EST (#14073) #
I think this sums it all up: baker and griffin are lowgrade baseball hacks who repeat the same old negativity about the jays whether or not there has been improvement.

However, within the last week we have had some intelligent coverage of the jays by RG

Maybe he's getting the message.
_Matthew E - Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 04:31 PM EST (#14074) #
However, within the last week we have had some intelligent coverage of the jays by RG

Maybe he's getting the message.


Griffin's columns were like this last year in spring training too. Make of that what you will.
More on Media | 34 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.