Todd Jones Column:

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by billfer

I totally understand that during drive time the Valenti and Foster aren't going to break down the strengths and weaknesses of the minor leagues. But the glaring ignorance when the information is so readily available is what frustrates me to no end.

That frustrates me more about print journalists than sports talk radio guys. Yes, I get frustrated that I know more about sports than someone who gets paid to talk about it on the radio, but I feel that the radio guys job is to get people riled up and to call in, not to inform.

But the print guys, they should be the ones who are embracing all the new information about sports. They should be the ones who know all about the minor leagues, they should be the ones who study the baseball statistics, they should be the ones who are keeping up with the minor leagues.

But they don't. Instead they just recycle the same old sorry articles over and over and over again. Baseball writers seem to me - for the most part - to not only be stupid, but also very lazy.

[Oblong]

Originally Posted by billfer

Seriously, repeated mentions as such. And this was during July when it was all talk about trade deadline stuff and who the Tigers should give up. And it wasn't a one time slip of the tongue, or one day when he was just confused. This was multiple days and multiple times per day and no one corrected him. In fact I don't know that I've ever heard Valenti call him Hernandez.

Is it a minor point, probably. But if you don't even know enough about a guy to know his name, how can you possibly advocate trading or not trading him or belittle those who don't share you opinion? And this isn't an obscure prospect. Take a glance at BA's top 10 Tigers prospects or the Futures Game roster.

I totally understand that during drive time the Valenti and Foster aren't going to break down the strengths and weaknesses of the minor leagues. But the glaring ignorance when the information is so readily available is what frustrates me to no end.

The only reason he knew of Gorkys in the first place is because of the Free Press article that appeared just before that time.

[Oblong]

Originally Posted by Buddha

That frustrates me more about print journalists than sports talk radio guys. Yes, I get frustrated that I know more about sports than someone who gets paid to talk about it on the radio, but I feel that the radio guys job is to get people riled up and to call in, not to inform.

But the print guys, they should be the ones who are embracing all the new information about sports. They should be the ones who know all about the minor leagues, they should be the ones who study the baseball statistics, they should be the ones who are keeping up with the minor leagues.

But they don't. Instead they just recycle the same old sorry articles over and over and over again. Baseball writers seem to me - for the most part - to not only be stupid, but also very lazy.

even more so, how hard can the job of a sports writer be if they have time to do a full time radio show and appear on ESPN all the time?

[tiger337]

Originally Posted by Buddha

In talk radio, like most other entertainment mediums, he who talks loudest usually wins. Which says more about the people who listen...

It's not just in entertainment. It's how society often (usually?)works. One of the great things about the internet is you don't need to be loud to be heard. People with in depth ideas have a better chance to be heard here. In fact, speaking loud (all caps, lots of exclamation points, etc.) is often frowned upon on the net.

[tiger337]

Originally Posted by Buddha

But the print guys, they should be the ones who are embracing all the new information about sports. They should be the ones who know all about the minor leagues, they should be the ones who study the baseball statistics, they should be the ones who are keeping up with the minor leagues.

But they don't. Instead they just recycle the same old sorry articles over and over and over again. Baseball writers seem to me - for the most part - to not only be stupid, but also very lazy.

This is another reason I like Henning. He often talks about prospects and even sometimes gets into modern statistics. He doesn't tell any of us here anything we don't already know but I think he educates the more casual fan.

[DTroppens]

Buddha,
You are right. So many times a radio guy thinks he's won a battle of a differing opinion because he controls everything. The caller will bring up a point a guy said a few days ago and then the radio guy will say "I never said that." Prove it. And then rattle off things against the caller's opinion which often has nothing to do with his point. Then he'll give the guy a slanted question which simply can't be answered with a one word answer and then say he was wrong and hang him up.

That's how radio people win their arguments most often. Usually if you got hung up on, you can probably assume you were outwitting the radio guy.

[Oblong]

Originally Posted by Buddha

That frustrates me more about print journalists than sports talk radio guys. Yes, I get frustrated that I know more about sports than someone who gets paid to talk about it on the radio, but I feel that the radio guys job is to get people riled up and to call in, not to inform.

But the print guys, they should be the ones who are embracing all the new information about sports. They should be the ones who know all about the minor leagues, they should be the ones who study the baseball statistics, they should be the ones who are keeping up with the minor leagues.

But they don't. Instead they just recycle the same old sorry articles over and over and over again. Baseball writers seem to me - for the most part - to not only be stupid, but also very lazy.

The reason they don't embrace it is because it rightfully exposes them. If these guys are paid what they are, and many of them make well into six figures, then they should be among the best. But they see these guys doing the analysis and writing for websites and blogs (what many here do) that is much better and they just assume they must not know what they are talking about since they're doing it for free, or minimal advertising money. They are the ones who get the high salaries and expense accounts and air time so they must know it all. Someone like Mitch Albom writes, at most, 2 or 3 times a week. That was even when he was just a columnist in the 80s and early 90s. We have people like Lee and Billfer who write every day and write things much better than Albom or Lupica. Even posters who only write on these forums have bette material.

[DTroppens]

The only time I called a radio personality was when I lived in Illinois. We used to listen to a guy on weekdays late at night (midnight to 2 a.m.) and as an evil to that we also listened Sunday night to these two idiots that replaced him on weekends and were essentially point less.

Well one day they were going off on how 98% of NBA players were using drugs. One of the guys didn't say it just once. He said it time and time again for an hour. If I said he made that comment 10 times in an hour, I'm underestimating it. Well, it got me to thinking. There are about 500 players in the NBA (a bit high actually) at any given time. 2% of that was 10. I made a list of 20 players (ranging with Manute Bol, Grant Hill, Michael Jordan, Shawn Bradley and I think even Joe Dumars at that time. I asked him which 10 were using drugs. By his own admission at least 10 were and probably a ton more - unless I nailed the 10 that didn't use on that list. The other guy backtracked and said "I only said a decent number do" (he was saying almost all but never put a pct on it) and the other guy wouldn't answer the question. I then added, "before you say this stuff maybe you should think what you are saying before you do it" and then he hung me up and said "David from Morris is going anal on us."

I was on for about 90 seconds and they couldn't get me. And when it was obvious I was making them a fool, I was hung up on being called "anal" (which actually was kind of right). Well they continued the subject and the guy kept throwing out those percentages. He said 98% a few more times but also dropped it to 90% a couple of times.

It did feel good nailing them.

[Tigercub33]

It was an interesting column topic, but I am not sure this was the audience Jones had in mind when he wrote it. I think he was writing more for the casual fans as he makes some off the cuff, almost inaccurate, remarks.

I don't listen to local sports shows because I don't care much about local teams here in DC. However, I don't think it is reasonable to expect every talk show host to be an expert in every local sport.

I don't know much about Hockey and Basketball, but I think I could hang with most guys on talk about Pro & College Football and Baseball. There are very few people here who participate in every forum we have, so why expect a talk show host to be the same way. Heck, even the people who are SUPPOSED to know about baseball don't get it right (radio/tv guys and beat writers).

By the way, FIRE MILLEN !!!

[billfer]

Originally Posted by Tigercub33

It was an interesting column, but I am not sure this was the audience Jones had in mind when he wrote it. I think he was writing more for the casual fans as he makes some off the cuff, almost inaccurate, remarks.

This is probably true and I think the article makes for some good discussion. My main issues with it were the:

1. blue socks comment, or essentially since you haven't played the game you can't have an opinion and that ends up going beyond the talk show hosts he's attacking to basically everyone else.

2. the trust the beat writers because they are right. I appreciate the tightrope they walk, and I appreciate the need for selective disclosure. There's a ton of information they probably have that doesn't actually need to be reported. I'd just like for there to be some consistency in how a story is painted both while the player is there and after they leave.

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by tiger337

It's not just in entertainment. It's how society often (usually?)works. One of the great things about the internet is you don't need to be loud to be heard. People with in depth ideas have a better chance to be heard here. In fact, speaking loud (all caps, lots of exclamation points, etc.) is often frowned upon on the net.

WHATEVER!

But yeah, I agree. I like that you can get so many different points of view on subjects. And the internet allows people with certain obsessions - say Tiger baseball or Michigan football - to start their own blogs that do nothing but analyze and talk about these things.

The internet provides so much more information at people's fingertips. Which, again, is why I hate sportswriters. There is so much information out there and, for the most part, most of them ignore it. But that's changing with the new generation (and a few of the older generation like Peter Gammons).

[pfife]

totally unrelated, but I love your sig buddha

[RedRamage]

I think Jones has a lot of truth in what he says. From what I can tell, he's just attacking the Radio Shock Jocks. And I think he's got a good reason to do so. Now, granted, in West Michigan we don't have a whole lot of options, but Bill Simonson, is, in my opinion Horrible as a talk show host. I think he DOES try to find issues that he thinks will get people worked up and then spouts them off to get a reaction. He rarely, if ever, has any good rational behind what he says. I sometimes agree, a little, with this opinion, but more often than not it seems like a ploy just to get people to call.

I fondly remember when we used to have The Ball Team Show here in GR. Granted, they might not have has as popular a following nor did they get as many 'big name' guests all the time, but I actually enjoyed what they had to say and felt like they were knowledgeable individuals who put a little thought into their comments other than: What will get the most people calling.

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by RedRamage

I think Jones has a lot of truth in what he says. From what I can tell, he's just attacking the Radio Shock Jocks. And I think he's got a good reason to do so. Now, granted, in West Michigan we don't have a whole lot of options, but Bill Simonson, is, in my opinion Horrible as a talk show host. I think he DOES try to find issues that he thinks will get people worked up and then spouts them off to get a reaction. He rarely, if ever, has any good rational behind what he says. I sometimes agree, a little, with this opinion, but more often than not it seems like a ploy just to get people to call.

I fondly remember when we used to have The Ball Team Show here in GR. Granted, they might not have has as popular a following nor did they get as many 'big name' guests all the time, but I actually enjoyed what they had to say and felt like they were knowledgeable individuals who put a little thought into their comments other than: What will get the most people calling.

I've been listening to some of his podcasts and I think they're really good. The one with Steve Kerr and the one with Aaron Schatz are both excellent, IMO. He's not trying to be funny and quote Seinfeld and his buddies all the time, it's just him talking sports with other guys who like sports. And it's not just for 5 minutes, it's an hour, so you can really talk to people.

The one with Sugar Ray Leonard was good too. Talked about the Hearns fights. I thought it was really interesting. And I get tired of Simmons' schtick in the articles. But I think his radio stuff is pretty good.

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by pfife

totally unrelated, but I love your sig buddha

Thanks, I stole it from deadspin!

[Tigercub33]

Originally Posted by billfer

This is probably true and I think the article makes for some good discussion. My main issues with it were the:

1. blue socks comment, or essentially since you haven't played the game you can't have an opinion and that ends up going beyond the talk show hosts he's attacking to basically everyone else.

2. the trust the beat writers because they are right. I appreciate the tightrope they walk, and I appreciate the need for selective disclosure. There's a ton of information they probably have that doesn't actually need to be reported. I'd just like for there to be some consistency in how a story is painted both while the player is there and after they leave.

Agreed on both of your points. Honestly, I am not sure his comments were that well thought out.

[Tyrus]

As a beat writer (for crime, not sports), I can understand the importance of not burning sources. So I'd like to put in a word of support for my fellow journalists here.

Basically, when it comes to deciding what to print, you have to pick your fights. For instance, if I were to find out that one of my police sources is putting innocent people in jail, then I don't give a crap whether he'll talk to me in the future or not -- I'm going to write that story.

But I also will overlook some minor things in order to keep the relationship open. You pick which hill you want to die on.

With sports, however, it's usually not that easy of a choice. On the police beat, you're usually dealing with very serious issues. With sports...well, it's just sports. At the end of the day, it really isn't all that important.

One example is something I've discussed here before: GuitarHeroGate. Reporters knew during last year's playoffs about Joel Zumaya's affinity for Guitar Hero. We also knew that team officials were convinced Guitar Hero was to blame for Joel's hand/wrist problems, which knocked him out of the ALCS.

This would have been a huge story, which likely would have made the national wires because it was the middle of the ALCS. But Leyland gave that information to reporters "not for publication" -- which means you're not supposed to use it.

Should the reporters have burned Leyland and printed the story anyway? I didn't, and neither did anyone else. It simply wasn't worth it. Nobody died. Nobody was hurt. So what's the point in burning someone who told you something in confidence?

Same thing with the Pudge/Trammell feud in 2005. If reporters were asked to keep that stuff out of the papers (and I don't know that they were; I'm just speculating), then I don't think the reporters did a disservice to their readers by "looking the other way."

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by Tigercub33

Agreed on both of your points. Honestly, I am not sure his comments were that well thought out.

I am pretty sure they weren't. I don't know the man personally, but from his articles he doesn't seem like the sharpest knife in the drawer...

[Tigercub33]

Originally Posted by Buddha

I am pretty sure they weren't. I don't know the man personally, but from his articles he doesn't seem like the sharpest knife in the drawer...

Probably cause he is a spoon...

[Tyrus]

I agree with most of what Todd Jones said in his column. But here's the sentence that really chapped my behind:

Clearly, the main media guy in the city is Mitch Albom. Hey, you got to respect him. Like him or not, he has Oprah on speed dial, and you know she picks up, so you can't mess with him.

So, according to Todd, you shouldn't "mess" with Albom, simply because he's a popular guy who is friends with Oprah? That comes off very chickenpoop to me.

So is Jones saying it's okay to "mess with" a columnist from, say, the Macomb Daily, because that columnist isn't friends with powerful media moguls?

If a columnist writes something that a player takes exception to, then that player should confront the columnist and lodge his complaint man-to-man -- no matter whether the columnist has Oprah on speed-dial.

That's not to say the player should break the writer's jaw (or even pour water on him). But they should tell a columnist if they have a problem with something they wrote, whether the columnist has powerful friends or not.

[Oblong]

I wish I were a star athlete for just one day who hit a WS winning homer. Then when Albom came to talk to me I'd go off on him. "Who are you again? I've never seen you before. No, you can't be with the Free Press. That's lowe and morosi. Wait? Are you Rosenberg?... no can't be. He has glasses. Album? You worked with Oprah? Get the F outta here."


Absolutely the athlete should talk with the guy from the Macomb Daily who's been there day in and day out. How often do you think Albom's been in Comerica's clubhouse? Yet I'm sure for the playoffs he was right in there acting like one of the boys. Doesn't he have an entourage? A posse?

[Tyrus]

Originally Posted by Oblong

I wish I were a star athlete for just one day who hit a WS winning homer. Then when Albom came to talk to me I'd go off on him. "Who are you again? I've never seen you before. No, you can't be with the Free Press. That's lowe and morosi. Wait? Are you Rosenberg?... no can't be. He has glasses. Album? You worked with Oprah? Get the F outta here."


Absolutely the athlete should talk with the guy from the Macomb Daily who's been there day in and day out. How often do you think Albom's been in Comerica's clubhouse? Yet I'm sure for the playoffs he was right in there acting like one of the boys. Doesn't he have an entourage? A posse?

Albom is a smug tool with no credibility whatsoever. How can he ever criticize anybody after making stuff up out of whole cloth and presenting it as fact? That's absolutely the worst thing a newspaperman can do. How he can still have a job -- and an audience -- is beyond me.

[pfife]

Originally Posted by Tyrus

Albom is a smug tool with no credibility whatsoever. How can he ever criticize anybody after making stuff up out of whole cloth and presenting it as fact?

perhaps you didn't know - Oprah is the fountain of sports journalism credibility.

[Tyrus]

I also hate that Jon Paul Morosi character. Not because he's done anything wrong, or because he's a bad reporter. I hate him because he has my dream job, and I want it!!!!

[Tigercub33]

Originally Posted by Tyrus

Albom is a smug tool with no credibility whatsoever. How can he ever criticize anybody after making stuff up out of whole cloth and presenting it as fact? That's absolutely the worst thing a newspaperman can do. How he can still have a job -- and an audience -- is beyond me.

I liked the book "The Five People you Meet in Heaven" or whatever the title was.


I just thought someone should say something nice about Albom in this thread. That was the ony nice thing I could think of. He stinks at his full-time job. His hobby is much better.

[MotownWebGuy]

Originally Posted by Tyrus

As a beat writer (for crime, not sports), I can understand the importance of not burning sources.

So, you hang out in prision locker rooms then?

[Buddha]

Mitch Albom used to be a very good sportswriter. But then he stopped doing that and started doing other things. Now if he writes a sports column, it's just the same old forumlaic Mitch Albom article. Blah.

But give him his due, he used to be very good. And he's very successful at selling his schlocky books.

[Tyrus]

Originally Posted by MotownWebGuy

So, you hang out in prision locker rooms then?

That has nothing to do with my job -- I do that on my free time.

Don't knock it 'till you've tried it, big boy!

[Tyrus]

Originally Posted by Buddha

Mitch Albom used to be a very good sportswriter. But then he stopped doing that and started doing other things. Now if he writes a sports column, it's just the same old forumlaic Mitch Albom article. Blah.

But give him his due, he used to be very good. And he's very successful at selling his schlocky books.

I agree he used to be a really good writer. But one of the keys to being a good writer is to be self-critical, and I don't think Mitch has that capacity any more. And editors at the Freep are not allowed to touch his copy. So it runs as-is.

And he is indeed forumlaic as you say. Here's what a typical Albom column would look like regarding last night's loss to the White Sox.

He hadn't hit a home run all year until he ran into a Jeremy Bonderman breaking ball that didn't break.

Alex-Bleeping-Cintron.

Bonderman is like the little girl with the curl: when he's good, he's very, very good. And when he's bad ... well, let's just say the guy who cleans the lion cage at the Detroit Zoo doesn't have as big a mess to clean up.

Alex-Bleeping-Cintron.

Hey, let's give credit where credit is due: at least Bonderman didn't give up any first-inning runs. So that's an improvement.

But Bonderman struggled all night. He had about as much command of his pitches as Lindsey Lohan has with a Budweiser in her hand. Bonderman had as much control as Andy Dick on a coffee jag.

Bonderman was supposed to be a star by now. Instead, he looks more like a planet. Saturn. Ring around the collar. Tight throat. Limp arm. Untimely homers.

Alex-Bleeping-Cintron.

All the hallmarks of an Albom column are present:

* Clever catch phrase that you repeat 22 times in your article. Check.

* Inane pop culture allusions that let the reader know you're hep and with it. Check.

* Short sentences. Fragments. But they supposedly read well. Check.

[Imminent Threat]

Originally Posted by RedRamage

I think Jones has a lot of truth in what he says. From what I can tell, he's just attacking the Radio Shock Jocks. And I think he's got a good reason to do so. Now, granted, in West Michigan we don't have a whole lot of options, but Bill Simonson, is, in my opinion Horrible as a talk show host. I think he DOES try to find issues that he thinks will get people worked up and then spouts them off to get a reaction. He rarely, if ever, has any good rational behind what he says. I sometimes agree, a little, with this opinion, but more often than not it seems like a ploy just to get people to call.

I fondly remember when we used to have The Ball Team Show here in GR. Granted, they might not have has as popular a following nor did they get as many 'big name' guests all the time, but I actually enjoyed what they had to say and felt like they were knowledgeable individuals who put a little thought into their comments other than: What will get the most people calling.

I could not agree with you more! Bakita is a pretty knowledgeable sports guy, as was Ryan Shuling back in the day. To this day i would rather listen to Bakita's new show than to Simonson's. The Huge one sure is a Huge one, a Huge Jackass. I called his show once when he was discussing the steroids issue, becuase I did not agree with him, I was hung up on in mid-sentence, even after throwing water on his theory.

[drobones]

But they do get predict the lions to be awful every year, lets give them some credit!!

[Franks151]

Originally Posted by Tyrus

I agree he used to be a really good writer. But one of the keys to being a good writer is to be self-critical, and I don't think Mitch has that capacity any more. And editors at the Freep are not allowed to touch his copy. So it runs as-is.

And he is indeed forumlaic as you say. Here's what a typical Albom column would look like regarding last night's loss to the White Sox.







All the hallmarks of an Albom column are present:

* Clever catch phrase that you repeat 22 times in your article. Check.

* Inane pop culture allusions that let the reader know you're hep and with it. Check.

* Short sentences. Fragments. But they supposedly read well. Check.

You made me laugh so hard I think I may have a sports hernia. I can call it a sports hernia because the injury was suffered while reading a sports related message board. Damn you Tyrus.

[Tyrus]

Originally Posted by Franks151

You made me laugh so hard I think I may have a sports hernia. I can call it a sports hernia because the injury was suffered while reading a sports related message board. Damn you Tyrus.

If you get workman's comp, I want my cut!!!!!

[A.J.K.]

Originally Posted by Tyrus

I agree he used to be a really good writer. But one of the keys to being a good writer is to be self-critical, and I don't think Mitch has that capacity any more. And editors at the Freep are not allowed to touch his copy. So it runs as-is.

And he is indeed forumlaic as you say. Here's what a typical Albom column would look like regarding last night's loss to the White Sox.







All the hallmarks of an Albom column are present:

* Clever catch phrase that you repeat 22 times in your article. Check.

* Inane pop culture allusions that let the reader know you're hep and with it. Check.

* Short sentences. Fragments. But they supposedly read well. Check.

Bwahahaha.

[MackAveKurt]

A bit late getting in on this I guess, but I'll weigh in.

Up front, I am both a blogger and an invited guest on a talk radio show -- frankly it shocks me, too -- and in the employ of a smalltown newspaper. Whether that matters or not, you can decide.

I don't like sports talk radio at all. I view it as hardly above politics talk radio. It's lowest common denominator, he who shouts loudest and is most sure of his opinion wins. Doesn't matter if he just said 2+2=24. If you say it loudly and belittle the other side, your opinion wins. It's pretty stupid.

Obviously, that's not all of them. Some mix in educated guests, insiders, etc. But 80 percent of the time, I don't find it worth my time.

I think some it is that they're generalists. If you ask me about basketball or baseball, I have a pretty good clue. But if I had to have a show that included hockey and football, I'm pretty clueless other than the general themes. So I'm sure that's true of everyone.

As far as the show I was on, and I don't mean to disparage the people who invited me on, but their questions/opinions were hard to respond to without sounding like I was talking down, such as them thinking Cam Maybin was ready for the big leagues, I had to keep myself restrained as best as possible. Or their shock that I couldn't say whether or not this is a playoff team, because it kept going back and forth between looking good and looking bad. When pressed, I said it wasn't, and they were shocked.

But it's part of the show. I assume talk radio people know their audience, know what works, and they're doing a show to bring in fellow opinionated generalists.

It's just not for me.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Hemingway kept it short. He liked it. It flowed well.