Fighting the good phight
I apologize to all of our loyal readers. I feel that we have been letting you down for the last two+ years. It may be due to the fact that we were just a bunch of guys who got together and wanted to blog about baseball, but, we never put forth a mission statement. Something that lets our readers know what our intent is and our purpose. We have the word "Phight" in our name, but I find that we aren't putting up much of a fight at all. We run parallel instead of perpendicular. At least for me, that is going to change.
Philadelphia is known for it's hard hitting sports "journalism" and being tough on the players. The problem is that the "journalists" get a free pass. Well, not from me and not any longer. I am tired of the animosity and disdain that the sports writers have for the general fan and for analytical thought. Below the fold is an example of this vitriol.

In response to this ridiculously awful story that may have taken Marcus Hayes 15 minutes to write and even less to think about, Marcus had received an email questioning the thoroughness of the article. This was the response that he sent:
-----------------------------
Get a grip, sabreboy.
Burrell is paid to produce runs, not get on base. Period. Any season with fewer than 110 RBI is a flat-out failure. He's not paid $13 million to walk. He misses strikes, he slumps, he tries to hit home runs. He is mediocre, at best, at the job to which he is assigned.
Soriano is overrated. Carlos Lee is an RBI machine. I don't know what your problem is with Ramirez, who is arguably the best offensive 3B in the NL since 2003.
OBP and OPS are geek numbers, especially for run-producers. I'd rather have my 3-4-5 guys drive the best strike they see rather than wait for the perfect pitch and jog down the baseline.
Sabremetrics are the bastion of wannabes who never could quite figure out which hand the mitt went on, a false industry created and fueled by people whose association with the game always will be vicarious, and, frankly, pathetic.
Offensively, scoring runs and driving runs in matter in baseball. Everything else follows.
That's it.
Ask any player.
-------------------------
Not only is this ridiculously insulting, it is wrong on so many different levels, it isn't even funny. Time to get to work.
"Get a grip, sabreboy. "
What does anyone do when they know they are wrong? Yeap, call names. I guess this is what they teach in "Journalism 101".
"Burrell is paid to produce runs, not get on base. Period."
The last time I checked, players could not be paid based on ANY statistic at all other than games played. Burrell is being paid to perform as best as he can, end of story.
"Any season with fewer than 110 RBI is a flat-out failure."
A flat out failure? I love the line drawn at 110 RBIs. Obviously he refuses to take playing time into consideration, but I can understand that being too complicated. Of course, did he notice that his RBI machine Carlos Lee has three, count them, THREE seasons of 110 or more RBIs? That is 3 out of 8 previous seasons, for an RBI machine. One whole more season than Burrell.
"He's not paid $13 million to walk. He misses strikes, he slumps, he tries to hit home runs."
Misses strikes? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?! Must be the first player in the history of the league. Slumps, huh? I have mentioned this before, but in the past 17 months of baseball, back to the beginning of 2005, Burrell has had a total of TWO months with an OPS below .826. Both occurred this year, and one of those months was an OPS of .770. Yeah, that's right. 2 months of the last SEVENTEEN (18 if you want to go back to 2004, but that was an injury year and he was, admittedly awful before the injury).
"He is mediocre, at best, at the job to which he is assigned."
Not sure what job he was assigned, but let's look a bit more at this. I presume the job he has been assigned is hitting homeruns and getting RBIs. I apologize for sinking to this level, but lets compare him, once again, to the jewel in Marcus's eye.
Pat:
1 RBI /6.44 PA
1 HR / 22.1 PA
Lee:
1 RBI / 6.34 PA
1 HR / 22.7 PA
Am I missing something here? Even by his own stupid standards, these guys are almost identical.
Ok, now that we have gotten past his excellent analysis and obvious though provoking viewpoint, let's get into the meat of what he was really saying...
"OBP and OPS are geek numbers, especially for run-producers."
Geek numbers? Is he promoting stupidity? Is he REALLY saying that analytical thought is not wanted? Not making outs are NOT good for run-producers? And OPS which is HALF slugging?
"I'd rather have my 3-4-5 guys drive the best strike they see rather than wait for the perfect pitch and jog down the baseline."
Is it better to make an out? You WANT him swinging at pitches he doesn't think he can hit? What kind of sense does that make? Jogging down the baseline, to move runners, not make outs and put MORE men on base for others to drive in is EXACTLY what you want on your team.
"Sabremetrics are the bastion of wannabes who never could quite figure out which hand the mitt went on, a false industry created and fueled by people whose association with the game always will be vicarious, and, frankly, pathetic."
This run-on sentence looks like it was cut and pasted from the idiot's guide to making yourself look smart. Mitt? What is this, 1948? Mitt is on the right hand, a GLOVE can be on either. I love when people who shun objective thought and progressive analysis fall back on the ability to play the sport. And from a sport writer too, who's entire group weighs, on average, more than most offensive linemen.
The real problem here is the loathing. Sports "journalists" have a religion that they have held onto for their entire lifetime. They will fight tooth and nail to avoid anything to show that it doesn't exist. Tough talk is just that, tough talk. He knows it, we know it, everyone knows it. It is sad what this group has turned into.
"Offensively, scoring runs and driving runs in matter in baseball. Everything else follows.
That's it.
Ask any player."
This is where he really hammers it home. Runs is what matters in baseball?!?! Seriously? Wow, they must have taught him that in an advanced class. While he certainly is correct (duh), he fails in understanding what is the root cause for scoring and driving in runs.
My favorite line is the last one. I have a feeling that Marcus was driving home that evening, one hand on the wheel, the other one patting himself on the back when he suddenly veered off the road and threw his hands upon his face. "Ask any player? Oh, man, I forgot to add, BUT YOU CAN'T CAUSE YOU AREN'T A SPORTS JOURNALIST YOU LOSER!!! HAHA" It's always those moments in the car when you think of a great line after the fact. Poor Marcus, we knew what you really meant though.
0 recs |
46
comments
Comments
Re: Fighting the good phight
If you don't mind, I linked to this on my blog. Are you the same person who did the screencap analysis of Ryan Howard's swings? If so, I also linked to that.
Thanks for the excellent work, and don't let the ignorant ones with press passes get you down.
by Baerwcb on Aug 19, 2007 3:56 AM EDT 0 recs
Re: Fighting the good phight
by jonk on
Aug 19, 2007 4:11 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Call me Old Skool
The tone of this article is geared toward the choir and responds to petty empty insults with petty empty insults. This tone will only make a non-believer more defensive and less willing to accept the facts or perspective.
Why not seek to engage and spread good will in discourse?
by VoxOrion on Aug 19, 2007 9:15 AM EDT 0 recs
Re: Call me Old Skool
by Vote for Kalas on
Aug 19, 2007 1:19 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Call me Old Skool
But you have an excellent point here...
"Why not seek to engage and spread good will in discourse?"
I mean, certainly when someone says this...
"Sabremetrics are the bastion of wannabes who never could quite figure out which hand the mitt went on, a false industry created and fueled by people whose association with the game always will be vicarious, and, frankly, pathetic."
I should walk up and hug him and pat him on the back for a job well done.
by jonk on
Aug 19, 2007 3:23 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Call me Old Skool
The funny thing is...I bet that if you "ask any ballplayer", most of them would say something along the lines of, "Sabremetrics are the bastion of wannabes who never could quite figure out which hand the mitt went on, a false industry created and fueled by people whose association with the game always will be vicarious, and, frankly, pathetic."
Well, almost. They'd sub "Sportwriting is..." for "Sabremetrics are...".
Ah, the cycle of life. Hayes knows that the players call him a jock sniffer. He takes it out on bloggers like you. And so it goes.
by Dalton Bouchee on
Aug 19, 2007 9:23 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Call me Old Skool
Personally, I can see how he'd hate bloggers as we generally put much more thought into our work (well, maybe not we since it includes me). But a random fan asking him a question? What a way to increase readership.
by jonk on
Aug 19, 2007 9:38 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Call me Old Skool
Your dissection is fantastic, why obscure in with jabs? At the very least you could prove, by example, that you are more skilled than he despite not being paid, showing up on TV, or having a press pass.
What is more important about your response to Hayes:
- The analytical dissection of his fallacies?
- Your clever ability to insult him (around the bend or however makes it sit well with you)?
As for the discourse, I'm having trouble seeing your point. Do you agree with me? Who said you should pat him on the back and say job well done? Or are you giving me an example supporting some kind of internet "eye for an eye" justice?
by VoxOrion on
Aug 20, 2007 6:46 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Call me Old Skool
Honestly? This is where you are going? If you have a specific problem with me and my "persona" no need to take it out here. If you are trying to tell me that some sarcastic rebuttle to a complete and utterly obnoxious email is having any effect on anything, then, I think you are trying too hard to make a point.
Like I said, I didn't call him any names and anything I attacked was what he had written and nothing about the man himself. Gross generalizations aren't making your point for you. Any "jabs" I took were specifically about what he wrote and how it reflects on him. If I wanted to insult him, I would have. For what COULD have been said and what was actually said, I think you are way out of line on your psycho-analysis of me.
I find it interesting that in your attempt to tell me not to insult, you then insult me so "cleverly". No need to make this about me. Start your own diary and you can have a go there.
by jonk on
Aug 20, 2007 7:24 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Fighting the good phight
by Carson on Aug 19, 2007 9:44 AM EDT 0 recs
wow, what a surprise
i bet hayes is one of those guys that thinks because he talks to professional athletes, he can call them his friends and, in his mind, that places him on the celebrity side of the fence, while the rest of us have to hang out over here on the supposed paying customer, have-nots side.
hayes is stephen a. smith without the energy to put forth the over-the-top personality. i couldn't care less what he thinks, about anything.
by gr on Aug 19, 2007 10:42 AM EDT 0 recs
Re: wow, what a surprise
However, I see very little resemblance between him and Stephen A. Totally different writing styles, totally different perspectives, totally different types of blind spots.
by taco pal on
Aug 20, 2007 12:30 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: wow, what a surprise
by gr on
Aug 21, 2007 2:56 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: wow, what a surprise
by taco pal on
Aug 21, 2007 4:35 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: wow, what a surprise
i will grant you that the bad-reporter-turned-entitled-columnist, or whatever you want to call it, is probably something that exists in every city. i suppose if you want to differentiate between "this kind of bad" and "that kind of bad", you may be right that they're not the same. but to me, they are both concerned with style over substance. that was my original point, and a minor one at that to the larger discussion. one's style is just being very loud and angry. the other is devoid of personality and condescending. pick your annoying poison.
maybe it's not the best comparison in the world, but it's not null and void, either.
by gr on
Aug 22, 2007 5:24 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Fighting the good phight
by Seth on Aug 19, 2007 11:26 AM EDT 0 recs
Re: Fighting the good phight
I keep circling back to one thought related to this response from Hayes.
He was one of the few who would defend Abreu when attacked by similar old school neanderthals and he would use stats to make the case. Why would he do that when Abreu (and stats) seem to epitomize all that he disagrees with?
Lee and Abreu are both hispanics. Hayes is black. Perhaps there is subtle support for minorities he covers versus a white like Burrell? Not sure, but it does seem contradictory.
by Vote for Kalas on Aug 19, 2007 12:24 PM EDT 0 recs
Re: Fighting the good phight
by taco pal on
Aug 20, 2007 12:32 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Fighting the good phight
by dajafi on
Aug 20, 2007 2:09 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Fighting the good phight
I agree with the comment sentiments here (including Vox, though I don't think we have a big enough platform right now to really change minds outside the choir--sad, but true, and probably will remain so unless and until we get a broadcasting license). I just try to keep in mind that for every bloviating jerk like Hayes, there's a Zolecki who's pretty receptive to all kinds of analytical takes, and a Radano who manages to combine both performance analysis (y'know, "stats") and consistently useful reporting.
Hayes's reaction reveals a lot. There's the insecurity, which suggests to me a guy who knows his knowledge is limited and is probably very afraid of getting embarrassed in public. There's the bitterness--the characteristic of many (perhaps most) sports journalists, and the reason why I didn't pursue that career. On some level, it's demeaning to spend your life and earn your living telling someone else's story.
And there's the resentment of the hoi polloi challenging what you're handing down from the mountaintop--what I call the Conlin Factor. It's doubly unfortunate in Hayes's case, because (I think) he's a fairly young guy who never should have gotten that sense of entitlement you can understand in a geezer like Conlin, who didn't come up with e-mail and the internet. Both those things have served to level the playing field and render much of the information previously available just in the press notes out there for all of us to see and use.
As jonk says, one reason we're here at TGP (and we did do a mission statement--I just de-linked it after awhile. Here it is, for the curious) mostly because we love baseball and the Phillies, and partly to push back against the nonsense of the traditional media. At some level, we probably owe Marcus Hayes some thanks for the reminder.
by dajafi on Aug 19, 2007 1:08 PM EDT 0 recs
Re: Fighting the good phight
Well, let's just say that this is a reminder to why we phight.
by jonk on
Aug 19, 2007 3:24 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Fighting the good phight
by dajafi on
Aug 19, 2007 3:29 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Fighting the good phight
by jonk on
Aug 19, 2007 5:21 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Fighting the good phight
I think his sense of entitlement comes from his frequent appearances on DNL and at least biweekly head shots on ESPN's First Take. He is loquacious on any topic and has always brought an arrogance that has no place considering the mediocre state of his work.
I link many Hayes articles to my own blog, but that is going to stop right now. There are much better writers that have much more respect for their critical audiences than Hayes.
by 21McBride on Aug 19, 2007 2:02 PM EDT 0 recs
Re: Fighting the good phight
"Can I just ask why you say it would be "incredible" for pundits to consider what you call Pujols' "perceived" superiority on defense and baserunning in judging who deserved the MVP? Is it because you think those categories should be heavily discounted in MVP voting, or because you don't think Pujols' superiority is significant? I'm a Phillies diehard, and I love Howard and I'm glad he won, but I perceive Pujols' superiority, too, and it's a substantial advantage: Pujols is a converted third baseman with excellent hands and instincts, and it shows, and Howard is a guy whose position, according to Bill Conlin, was "bat," and who is still learning first base, and it shows. First base defense and baserunning are small parts of the game, true, but when you have two candidates who are as close for MVP as these two, surely you have to consider even smaller factors that might separate them?"
Reasonably polite and respectful, I believe.
by The Navigator on Aug 19, 2007 9:27 PM EDT 0 recs
Re: Fighting the good phight
"To use defensive and baserunning abilities as measuring sticks for lumbering first basemen who cannot run and who cannot play anywhere else in the field is absurd when their true value lies in their bats. Neither is especially good at either discipline, despite Tony LaRussa's delusions to the contrary, and, apparently, yours.
Derrek Lee is a good defensive first baseman.
Nick Johnson runs well for the position.
The rest are pretty much even.
Only one writer in the entire country even admitted using defense and baserunning as a separating point, and he's generally considered an idiot.
Aspire for more."
Note - I have not achieved more. I must aspire for more.
by The Navigator on
Aug 19, 2007 9:28 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Fighting the good phight
by jonk on
Aug 19, 2007 9:44 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Fighting the good phight
by Baerwcb on Aug 19, 2007 10:57 PM EDT 0 recs
Re: Fighting the good phight
I was recently back in PA for about a month, recovering from an illness and watching DNL and Phillies games every day. Since I have only recently become more enlightened, watching these so-called analysts on DNL and the post game show (whom I used to watch all the time) was downright comical. It's like they all rely on the same book of baseball truisms so they can never be wrong. When anyone questions them from outside of their realm, their response is always the same, "you don't undersand". They treat Jonk's reasoned arguments the same as the yahoo who calls up Pat Gillick on his weekly show and asks why we didn't trade for Johan Santana at the deadline.
Hayes says "aspire for more". What? Aspiring for more involves looking at only one part of a players game and considering anything else makes you an idiot?
On one hand it is really sad that even in sports the discussion always sinks to the lowest common denominator.
On the other hand, there is no need to try and hang these guys for their opinions, one only needs to give them enough rope...
by PhoenixPhilly on Aug 19, 2007 11:27 PM EDT 0 recs
Re: Fighting the good phight
by das411 on Aug 20, 2007 1:21 AM EDT 0 recs
Re: Ignore the idiot(s)
vr, Xei
by Xeifrank on Aug 20, 2007 3:06 AM EDT 0 recs
Re: Ignore the idiot(s)
by jonk on
Aug 20, 2007 5:02 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Fighting the good phight
by taco pal on Aug 20, 2007 12:36 PM EDT 0 recs
Re: Fighting the good phight
by jonk on
Aug 20, 2007 4:43 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Fighting the good phight
by taco pal on
Aug 20, 2007 5:17 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Indifference is the ultimate weapon
Don't read him, and he'll go away.
by phatj on
Aug 21, 2007 10:20 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Indifference is the ultimate weapon
Sooner or later people will see though the "sabreboy" and "geeks" comments and see the truth for what it really is. But, you need to keep on pointing out the inaccuracies for people to get to that point.
It's like saying that if you ignore Bush, eventually he'll just go away.
by jonk on
Aug 22, 2007 12:16 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Metaphorically, anyway
But anyway, I don't read his columns, so he doesn't bother me. Why others can't do the same, I don't know.
As to whether playing the gadfly will effect change, I think you're overestimating the power that TGP has. As you say, Hayes represents the majority, and most of those folks aren't the ones reading TGP. Therefore, picking him apart in this forum is essentially preaching to the choir, even if it gets picked up by BTF.
by phatj on
Aug 22, 2007 8:57 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Metaphorically, anyway
This is kind of disappointing to hear from you.
by jonk on
Aug 22, 2007 11:46 PM EDT
up
0 recs
What if it backfires?
by phatj on
Aug 23, 2007 7:23 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Fighting the good phight
I find is response to the Pujols/Howard thing to be kind of amazing. All first basemen are the same defensively except for Derek Lee? Nick Johnson runs well and the rest of them are the same?
Wow. Just wow. Hard to believe Harry.
Defensive statistics aren't great but they do exist and you can draw some conclusions by using them. And the funniest thing regarding this is the hard work has been done regarding all of this stff. The smart guys have already done the hard math stuff. All you have to do is look the stuff up.
And a supposed professional sportswriter can even call up some of the smart guys and get further insight -- something we can't do nearly as easily.
It's pretty disgraceful that sportswriters refuse to change with the times for the most part. It's not like it's even hard or anything. If a dope like me can fathom the saber stuff, anyone can. It just isn't that hard.
I guess it turns out that the e-mail referenced in the original article here was sent to a guy who had called Hayes an idiot in his original e-mail. I don't think this really excuses Hayes much. For one thing, he's a guy whose job it is to criticize guys who perform poorly. Given that is his job, he should be able to take some criticism himself -- even if he's called an idiot.
But worse, in his response he really does sound like an idiot. He did not provide a very good defense for himself in my view.
I guess we could ask any player about that though.
by smitty on Aug 20, 2007 5:47 PM EDT 0 recs
Re: Fighting the good phight
I'm Jim from Broad Street Bastards, the guy who wrote the original email to Marcus Hayes. If you go to my blog, you can see it, as well as his response and my response to him (there were 3 emails total).
I don't call him an idiot in it. In fact, I tried to be genteel even though I do get tired of the excessive Burrell bashing that goes on in the media. But then his response was angry and kind of rude, so I got a little pissy myself.
by Jim on Aug 23, 2007 6:35 PM EDT 0 recs
Re: Fighting the good phight
by jonk on
Aug 24, 2007 2:10 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re: Fighting the good phight
Sorry about that. I thought I read that you called him an idiot in the first e-mail. I was mistaken. Hayes' really has no excuse for the tone of his response.
by smitty on
Aug 24, 2007 5:07 PM EDT
up
0 recs










