The Unbelievable, Continuing Ignorance of Sportswriters

[Fuzzy Bear]

Check this guy out:

www.tcpalm.com/tcp/baseball/article/0,1651,TCP_1057_1658316,00.html

Aside from this article being mega-insulting to Gary Carter, this guy has no clue as to who has been inducted to the HOF since the 1940s.

The HOF has not gradually relaxed it's standards so that not "less than great" players like Carter (who, by the way, was clearly a great player, the #6 or #7 greatest catcher of all time) are now in the HOF mainstream.

The HOF inducted players well below the "Ruth-Cobb-Wagner" standard way back in the 1940s. The WRITERS (not the Vets) elected Rabbit Maranville in 1954, Lou Boudreau in 1971, etc. There has never been a time, save, perhaps, for the very first days of the HOF, where you had to be worthy of a life-size statue (as opposed to a plaque) for induction.

Also, why can't this guy recognize that Carter was a great player? Carter was an excellent defensive catcher, 4th on the all-time HR list for HRs by a catcher (since passed by Piazza), and, clearly, the best catcher in baseball from 1979-86. Isn't that what great players do; isn't becoming the best in baseball at your position clearly within the scope of greatness, especially if it is maintained as long as Carter maintained it.

Why can't sportswriters get past the mystique (and high batting averages) of the pre-1950s stars? So much sabermetric and historical information has been unearthed since 1970, yet people like this writer act as if it never existed. I really think that most sportswriters, announcers, and persons designated as "experts" on baseball simply disregard this information as meaningless, simply because it contradicts long-held myths they hold dear, or wish to perpetuate for one reason or another.

I hope that the writer will apologize to Gary Carter for his ignorance and lack of class.

Your thoughts as to why baseball "journalists" keep their heads in the sand are welcomed.

[KCBOOMER]

I emailed Ol' Ray and told him in polite terms what a dolt he is.

[Max Power]

I'm sorry to beat a dead horse, but, Cooperstown is a Hall of FAME not a Hall of THE TOP THREE ALL TIME AT EACH POSITIONS - - - - if you measured everyone v. players like Ruth, as a yardstick, you'd have a room with maybe 2 dozen plaques. Who's going to pay money to view that?

[gyb13]

me :)

[Max Power]

Originally posted by gyb13
me :)

Really?

[gyb13]

sure. heck, even if it was just the Babe there, i'd check it out. I am in favor of an exclusive HoF (maybe not 24 players exclusive, but definitely less than what we have today), and would have a field day with a crowbar at Cooperstown.

[Max Power]

I've said this before - - they need a wing for the greats and one for those who are famous - - hmmmm, what an idea. :stinker:

www.netshrine.com/gallery.html

[KCBOOMER]

When I emailed Ray McNulty two of the points I made were that Bill James credentials on evaluating players were probably better than his and that Don Mattingly (who McNulty says should be a "lock") has next to no chance of being elected by the BBWAA. Here is Ray McNulty's reply to my email:


"I covered Major League Baseball in New York, Los Angeles and Denver as a beat writer and member of the BBWAA, so I'm comfortable with my credentials.
And I believe historical context DOES matter.

That doesn't mean the Hall should've shut its doors years ago. Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Greg Maddox, Mike Piazza, Mark McGwire, Cal Ripken and Randy Johnson -- among others who are either currently playing or recently retired
-- belong in Cooperstown, using any standard.

Carter, a very good baseball player and one of the top catchers of his time, belongs in the Hall based on the standards being used today. But you can't tell me the bar hasn't been lowered.

Maybe they should create a special wing for the Ruths, Gehrigs, Mays, DiMaggios, etc. -- a place to remember the titans.

As for Mattingly, his numbers aren't too dissimilar from Puckett's. And Mattingly was widely considered the best player in the game for a 3-4 year stretch.

Also, defense does matter at first base, as long as the offensive production is there, too. Just ask any Red Sox fan, circa 1986.

Anyway, thank you for reading ... and writing. I welcome all feedback."

Ray"

Nice reply, but it seems to validate Fuzzy's original point about he doesn't know what's going on since 1940.

[WiredTiger]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER

As for Mattingly, his numbers aren't too dissimilar from Puckett's. And Mattingly was widely considered the best player in the game for a 3-4 year stretch.

Also, defense does matter at first base, as long as the offensive production is there, too. Just ask any Red Sox fan, circa 1986.


Ouch, an uncalled for attack against Red Sox fans. I think you could elect 20% of major leaguers if you compared them to the worst selections.

[JamesI]

Originally posted by WiredTiger
Ouch, an uncalled for attack against Red Sox fans. I think you could elect 20% of major leaguers if you compared them to the worst selections.

Someone has to be compared to their own time. Its not fair to compare the questionable choices of the 40's and 50's (and other periods) to the players of today.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by JamesI
Someone has to be compared to their own time. Its not fair to compare the questionable choices of the 40's and 50's (and other periods) to the players of today.

I agree with you, JamesI, on the point above.

In this case, however, Carter is the 6th or 7th greatest catcher THAT EVER LIVED! Is that not a clear cut HOFer by any era or standard?

Even if I were to concede that the HOF has, in effect, "lowered that bar" (and I don't concede that; the Frisch selections were a temporary abberation, and most of us here understand that) GARY CARTER is not an example of that. Gary Carter is at the top of all catchers that ever played, both on offense AND on defense. Gary Carter, with his stats, would have been inducted into the HOF in it's first decade, had he played then. (Yes, they would have looked down on his .262 BA, but had he played in that ERA, his BA would have also been significantly higher.)

One reason I feel good about this thread is the "preaching to the choir" experience here. It is depressing to know, however, that the majority opinions here are not the majority observations of sportswriters and broadcasters.

Could that be why Tony Womack can still get a job as a leadoff hitter? :D

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER
When I emailed Ray McNulty two of the points I made were that Bill James credentials on evaluating players were probably better than his and that Don Mattingly (who McNulty says should be a "lock") has next to no chance of being elected by the BBWAA. Here is Ray McNulty's reply to my email:


"I covered Major League Baseball in New York, Los Angeles and Denver as a beat writer and member of the BBWAA, so I'm comfortable with my credentials . . .

And I believe historical context DOES matter. . .

Carter, a very good baseball player and one of the top catchers of his time, belongs in the Hall based on the standards being used today. But you can't tell me the bar hasn't been lowered. . .

Anyway, thank you for reading ... and writing. I welcome all feedback."

Ray"



Mr. McNulty REALLY DOESN'T GET IT!!!

Carter was not "ONE OF (emphasis added) the top catchers of his time". Carter was THE BEST CATCHER IN ALL OF BASEBALL FROM 1979 THROUGH 1986!

He was the best catcher in the time of Carlton Fisk, Lance Parrish, plus the better years of Tony Pena.

I really find this man, Ray McNulty, to be just plain thick!

[Craig S.]

Boomer, I think it's hilarious that you brought his credentials into question. The fact that he cleared those up before getting to the meat of his reply is a pretty good indicator that your dig bothered him.

I still don't think he's getting the picture, but I think we all have to accept the fact that many sportswriters haven't a clue. I'm sure many people on here could have written a better column than did McNulty.

[LeGrandOrange]

These are the kind of sportswriters that would make me pull a Lee Elia, not with so many swear words but usually cause me to go off. They just reaffirm that all sportswriters get paid for is to be stupid, make illogical opinions, and try to be funny and fail miserably. Which, once again, would be a dream job, I do all three of those quite nicely. But I'll never get it, I hate all sportswriters...

Back to this subject at hand...does this jerk actually vote for the hall? And if he does, why are they allowing this to happen?

[JamesI]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear
I agree with you, JamesI, on the point above.

In this case, however, Carter is the 6th or 7th greatest catcher THAT EVER LIVED! Is that not a clear cut HOFer by any era or standard?


You misunderstood me. I am not saying Carter was not a worthy hall of famer, he had my vote in that thread. My point was it is unfair to compare Carter and Bench since they did not play at the same time. Carter was the best of his time, therefore hall of fame.

[Rinkster]

I laughed out loud when I read the response from the "baseball expert"--McNuthing or whatever.

HE IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF WHY THE BBWAA SHOULD NOT DECIDE WHO BELONGS--AND WHO DOESN'T BELONG--IN THE HALL OF FAME.

What is funny is that he uses the argument of the OLD-SCHOOL BBWAA members in supporting, or in not supporting, candidates by falling into the BATTING AVERAGE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT OFFENSIVE CATEGORY TRAP! Isn't that hilarious?

Of course, there are some writers, usually the ones under the age of 35, who have taken a few sabermetic stats to the extreme.

But back to the point...

Gary Carter was the greatest catcher of his generation, not Carlton Fisk. Actually, Fisk was about the same age as Bench. If you could travel back in time to 1977 and ask every GM to pick a catcher he wants on his team for the next 10 years everyone of them would pick Gary Carter.

For a ten year period, roughly 1968 through 1976, Bench was considered the best catcher in baseball. From 1977 through 1986 it was Carter who was considered the best.

Carter should have been a first-ballot or second-ballot selection.

[LeGrandOrange]

Of course, that argument is obviously flawed when you look at Al Oliver. So thus we can mock that argument...

[KCBOOMER]

I give McNulty big points for his prompt and courteous reply. But two things are clear:

First, he doesn't know who Bill James is and second, he doesn't understand that his reliance on raw BA statistics belies his understanding of historical context.

[Jim Rice]

Polite response or not, this guy is a schmuck.

I share the curiosity about whether this guy is an actual BBWAA voter. Unfortunately, when I asked the Hall of Fame for a list of the voters, they advised me that the BBWAA doesn't publish a list of voting members. They must be trying to hide the identity of the guy who voted for Danny Tartabull.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by Rinkster
I laughed out loud when I read the response from the "baseball expert"--McNuthing or whatever.

HE IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF WHY THE BBWAA SHOULD NOT DECIDE WHO BELONGS--AND WHO DOESN'T BELONG--IN THE HALL OF FAME.

What is funny is that he uses the argument of the OLD-SCHOOL BBWAA members in supporting, or in not supporting, candidates by falling into the BATTING AVERAGE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT OFFENSIVE CATEGORY TRAP! Isn't that hilarious?



Gary Carter was the greatest catcher of his generation, not Carlton Fisk. Actually, Fisk was about the same age as Bench. If you could travel back in time to 1977 and ask every GM to pick a catcher he wants on his team for the next 10 years everyone of them would pick Gary Carter.

For a ten year period, roughly 1968 through 1976, Bench was considered the best catcher in baseball. From 1977 through 1986 it was Carter who was considered the best.



I agree with Rinkster's assessment of the B. B. W. A. A.

I wholeheartedly agree with Rinkster's assessment of Gary Carter's place in baseball history, vis a vis Carlton Fisk. Carter has become obscured by Fisk, due to Fisk's amazing resurgence and remarkable career length. (In 1979-80, Fisk's injuries were casting doubt as to whether or not his career would last very long.)

Fisk may have had a more valuble career than Carter, overall, but during Carter's prime, Carter was CLEARLY the better player. Carter, not Fisk, has the higher peak value; this is clear!

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER
I give McNulty big points for his prompt and courteous reply. But two things are clear:

First, he doesn't know who Bill James is and second, he doesn't understand that his reliance on raw BA statistics belies his understanding of historical context.

Here's something I missed from McNulty's article:

[QUOTE][i]
A great player?

No, not with a .262 batting average.[QUOTE]

Yet Johnny Bench, the greatest catcher of all time, in McNulty's opinion, only had a .267 lifetime BA, while playing in a better hitters park (although I'm sure McNulty doesn't differentiate between Coors Field and the Astrodome).

Give this man a B. B. W. A. A. Hall of Fame ballot and he's dangerous!

[LeGrandOrange]

Can you imagine the idiocy he would've typed out if they had this sort of medium during the time that Harmon Killebrew was on the ballot?

Killebrew was the best slugger of his generation, and I'm pretty sure McNulty wouldn't give a **** and would just point out that he has a .256 batting average...

[Rajah]

Sports columnists are very good at their jobs. Something which many people overlook when they complain about them. A sports columnists job isn't to say things that are necessarily bright, or well researched or even true. Their job is to sell newspapers. Blithering crap such as this particular column makes good copy. How many people have visited TCPalm, and viewed that ad at the top because of this thread? This guy may not have any idea what he's talking about, but this certainly created controversy. For all we know, he voted FOR Gary Carter, then wrote this because it will get read. Because it will piss people off. I have come to the conclusion that the best column a sportswriter can write is one which creates controversy. A column that gets people talking. Because its in human nature to want to read it again. I can't help than to at least read the first few paragraphs of Jay Mariotti, even though he is a moron. If Mariotti were to leave the Sun Times, I'd imagine that the Sun Times circulation would drop, and where ever he ended up would see a rise in circulation. Their jobs are not to be unbiased and factual. Their job is to sell newspapers. I think that while most sportswriters are prone to stupidity, the best are brighter than they are given credit for. The best wouldn't be writing for major news outlets otherwise.

Furthermore, with the players who have "lowered the bar", I'd like to see which ones are vet committe inductions, and which were elected back when there were fewer players in the hall, and therefore may have looked like solid HOF'ers at the time, but no longer appear as such.

And one other thing, isn't it funny when BBWAA members complain about falling admissions standards....

[Skip]

Originally posted by Rajah
I have come to the conclusion that the best column a sportswriter can write is one which creates controversy. A column that gets people talking. So, you are a big Rick Reilly fan then, eh? :D

[LeGrandOrange]

Reilly and all other sportswriters can kiss my ahhh, screw it. Like I haven't voiced displeasure about sportswriters before.

[BigKlu]

Originally posted by Rajah
Sports columnists are very good at their jobs. Something which many people overlook when they complain about them. A sports columnists job isn't to say things that are necessarily bright, or well researched or even true. Their job is to sell newspapers. Blithering crap such as this particular column makes good copy. How many people have visited TCPalm, and viewed that ad at the top because of this thread? This guy may not have any idea what he's talking about, but this certainly created controversy. For all we know, he voted FOR Gary Carter, then wrote this because it will get read. Because it will piss people off. I have come to the conclusion that the best column a sportswriter can write is one which creates controversy. A column that gets people talking. Because its in human nature to want to read it again. I can't help than to at least read the first few paragraphs of Jay Mariotti, even though he is a moron. If Mariotti were to leave the Sun Times, I'd imagine that the Sun Times circulation would drop, and where ever he ended up would see a rise in circulation. Their jobs are not to be unbiased and factual. Their job is to sell newspapers. I think that while most sportswriters are prone to stupidity, the best are brighter than they are given credit for. The best wouldn't be writing for major news outlets otherwise.

Unfortunately, this is, I believe, how journalists (of all stripes) tend to view themselves these days - as vehicles for circulation. This speaks more to the decline in standards among the Fourth Estate than it does to what the job of a journalist actually is (or, in any case, should be).

The value of news isn't that it grabs your attention (although some people - many people - might not call it "news" otherwise), but that it relays new and factual information to you in an informative (and sometimes entertaining) way.

That too many journalists - broadcast or print, sports or mainstream - consider their job to create controversy and to attract readers regardless of the accuracy of their words or the harm they might inflict on an impressionable and uninformed reader, is a testament to the overall poor quality of journalism today.

This guys deserves to be taken to task for that article. It was garbage. In one article the man showed that he was not just unqualified to cast a vote, but that he is unqualified to be a baseball columnist, as well.

[sweaver]

Two notes:

The "selling papers" argument is the New York Times vs. New York Post argument. Do you print the best quality newspaper you can, with "All the news that's fit to print," or do you appeal to the lowest common denominator. I don't know the sales figures. I would guess that the Times sells better across the country, but the Post sells better in the city.

On Carter vs. Fisk: Capt. Carl only had a .269 career average himself, as McNulty states, so ripping Carter for a .262 average seems hardly fair. Is he saying that Fisk is Hall-worthy, but Carter is not, in his opinion? I don't have Win Shares here at work, but a check of Baseball Prospectus' WARP3 figures (wins against replacement player, similar to Win Shares) shows that for their careers, Carter was at 120.6, Fisk 119.8. This in spite of Fisk's longer career. Fisk's highest season total was 9.8 in his rookie year, while Carter posted 5 figures higher than that, supporting McNulty's assessment that his peak value was higher.

So, he's wrong. But, why would he admit it?

[KCBOOMER]

Originally posted by sweaver
I don't have Win Shares here at work, but a check of Baseball Prospectus' WARP3 figures (wins against replacement player, similar to Win Shares) shows that for their careers, Carter was at 120.6, Fisk 119.8.

I would suspect that Ray McNulty thinks a Win Share is something players on the team that wins the world series get.

You know we keep railing about the BBWAA, but on the occasion when I have said "Why can't I vote" you guys laugh at me. You can't tell me that NetShrine members couldn't do a better job than the BBWAA and the VC combined.

[Rajah]

Win Shares:
Fisk, who James rates #6 all time: 368 Career; 33,31,30 top 3; 106 top 5; 23.86 per 162.

Carter, who James rates #8 all time: 337 Career; 33,31,30 top 3; 141 top 5; 23.78 per 162

Looking at the WS book, it appears that Carter may have been the superior defensive catcher. Fisk played longer (1200 more innings than Carter) and has fewer defensive win shares: Carter 120.3, Fisk: 112.2.

And Rick Reilly is the spawn of satan. Doesn't mean he isn't good at his job.

[LeGrandOrange]

No, Rick Reilly does a tremendous job as the Spawn of Satan. All the more reason I hope he dies a fast and painful death. Ever since that mother made that idiotically scathing article on fantasy baseball, I've wanted to see him fry. Actually, frying would be too slow. Anytime I see Rick Reilly on TV, especially on anything NFL Films, I drop at least one four-letter word because he doesn't limit his pissings off to glossy magazine paper...

Of course, I digress. Should've done it awhile ago.

[Skip]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER
You know we keep railing about the BBWAA, but on the occasion when I have said "Why can't I vote" you guys laugh at me. You can't tell me that NetShrine members couldn't do a better job than the BBWAA and the VC combined. Because it wouldnt just be NDF members, it would be the LCD surfers who somehow generate 60,000 votes in a minute during a FoxSports instant poll.