Category Archives: Sportswriters

Will LeBatard’s stunt halt reform in Hall of Fame voting?

Posted on by

One last word on the Hall of Fame voting situation…Or at least until the next last word:

I keep thinking about Martha Burk in regards to Dan LeBatard’s stunt and its impact. Burk, if you recall, made a name for herself when she pushed Augusta National and its chairman Hootie Johnson to admit women to the club in 2003.

I think Augusta actually was heading in that direction. While Burk definitely was right for getting on the soapbox, clearly the club wasn’t going to give her satisfaction by immediately welcoming a woman member. In fact, it took 10 years before it happened.

I’m not saying the same thing will take place with reforms in the Hall of Fame voting. The Baseball Writers Association of America decided in December to re-examine the process.

However, I wonder if the BBWAA will do anything now in light of what LeBatard did. If it does, then he and Deadspin will be credited with sparking any changes. That’s the last thing the BBWAA wants.

I’m sure there’s going to be somebody who says at a meeting, “Screw LeBatard. Let’s keep the status quo.”

Changes definitely are needed, but they could be pushed back now.

Will the BBWAA give LeBatard and Deadspin a victory lap? Stay tuned.

 

Transparency needed for Hall of Fame voting; Who didn’t vote for Maddux? Who voted for Jacque Jones?

Posted on by

Sportswriters spend their entire careers pushing for access and transparency. Yet when it comes to voting for the Baseball Hall of Fame, a veil of secrecy exists.

Yes, a fair amount of voters reveal their ballots However, the vast majority don’t.

And for that matter, fans also deserve to know exactly who is voting and their credentials.

The Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) currently doesn’t disclose that information. However, that could change.

Ken Rosenthal of Fox Sports is among those pushing for transparency in the vote. He writes:

Transparency is essential. The BBWAA should list the names of every voter, just as it does for its annual awards. Likewise, every voter should be required to publish his or her ballot. Many of us are choosing to do just that, and our ballots will be accessible on BBWAA.com starting Friday morning.

Ken Gurnick of MLB.com received heavy criticism for voting only for Jack Morris. Well, at least Gurnick revealed his vote and provided an explanation, however illogical it might have sounded. Fifteen other voters failed to vote for Maddux. And we don’t know who the heck they are.

If baseball writers are going to continue to vote for the Hall of Fame, which I am against, then the BBWAA needs to address this matter immediately. In fact, their editors should insist on transparency. At the very least, we would find out who is Jacque Jones’ friend.

It’s pretty simple: How can writers ask MLB and teams to open their windows, if they don’t do the same for Hall of Fame voting?

Also, regarding the issue of who is voting, Rosenthal writes:

Let’s clean up the voting body and remove those who are not actively covering the game. Let’s reduce the 10-year membership requirement to five to allow newer writers to vote sooner.

Indeed, Rosenthal is right here. Transparency also would show the voters who have no business participating in this process.

 

Philadelphia Daily News’ obit for Bill Conlin: ‘Career ended in disgrace’

Posted on by

I was particularly interested in how the Philadelphia Daily News would write about Bill Conlin, who died yesterday.

Conlin was one of their rocks for a generation of their readers. Yet it all got wiped away with horrible allegations of child molestation in 2011.

Today’s headline read: “Bill Conlin, Daily News sports columnist, whose career ended in disgrace, dies at 79.”

From John F. Morrison’s story:

After Conlin’s death, Daily News managing editor Pat McLoone commented: “Bill’s career ended in disgrace. Speaking to his work, though, his writing was often brilliant. At a time before the Internet and sports-only TV channels, Bill Conlin’s coverage in the Daily News was the primary source of information and analysis for a generation of Phillies fans.”

Daily News executive sports editor Chuck Bausman said: “Bill was one of the reasons I got into this business. His writing was brilliant. He made stories come alive with his prose and insight. However, what was revealed about his personal life was a tragedy for Bill and his family and a painful reminder for the victims.”

 

Update: LeBatard second-guesses decision; Miami Herald sports editor, Wilbon, Kornheiser scold him for Deadspin stunt

Posted on by

Update at 11:30 ET:  Dan Patrick’s producer just posted the following tweet.

******

Dan LeBatard has enjoyed a terrific career, winning many national awards as a columnist for the Miami Herald. It enabled him to go to another level with TV and radio shows on ESPN.

Yesterday, though, wasn’t one of his better days.

LeBatard faced considerable fallout for his decision to give his Hall of Fame vote to Deadspin. It was his way of protesting the voting process. Deadspin turned around and using fan voting to determine LeBatard’s ballot.

He wrote: “I always like a little anarchy inside the cathedral we’ve made of sports.”

LeBatard was feeling a bit cocky in the video. However, a couple hours later, he seemed to be second-guessing his decision on his ESPN radio show by 6 p.m. ET. During the previous hour, Tim Kurkjian and then Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon, men he greatly respects, scolded him for participating in such a stunt. Wilbon called it “garbage.”

“This is egotism run amok,” Korheiser told LeBatard.

Here is a link to the Kornheiser and Wilbon interview.

As I wrote yesterday, all three of them thought LeBatard should have used his own vast platforms to make his point about the process. Kurkjian felt by going to Deadspin, LeBatard made himself the focus of the story, taking away from the intent of his mission.

After an hour of that, and with considerable other criticism coming in from the journalism community, LeBatard seemed overwhelmed at the top of the 6 p.m. hour. You got the feeling he felt, maybe this wasn’t such a good idea.

The reaction got worse for LeBatard, and it came from his own employers.

In a Clark Spencer story in the Miami Herald, sport editor Jorge Rojas said it best. (Note: LeBatard now is technically a freelancer for the Herald):

“Whatever issues might be raised about the Hall of Fame voting process, we do not condone misrepresentation of any kind,” Herald executive sports editor Jorge Rojas said in a statement. “Dan had a point to make. We think there are other ways he could have made it.”

Exactly. A journalist should never misrepresent himself. He accepted the vote from the Baseball Writers Association of America. There is an implied trust that he would use it in good faith. He didn’t.

There’s more. From Miami Herald columnist Greg Cote.

“I love that my buddy Dan must now act as if he’d have preferred none of this get out when in fact this is publicity gold … for somebody with a daily radio show who fancies himself a cutting edge establishment-tweaker.”

Mike Oz of Yahoo! Sports had the reaction from LaVelle E. Neal III, the BBWA president.

“When you accept a baseball writers’ card, there’s a certain way you need to go about your business, a certain conduct you need to have at all times,” Neal said. “It’s disappointing that someone would decide to manipulate his vote in that way.”

More reaction from baseball writers:

“It’s sad that one of our members would do this,” said Bill Madden, long-time baseball writer for the New York Daily News and a member for 41 years of the Baseball Writers’ Association of America, whose most tenured members vote for the Hall of Fame.

Said Mark Feinsand, who covers the New York Yankees for the Daily News: “The writers who cover the sport earn the right to vote and don’t earn the right to allow others to cast their votes. If you don’t think your vote means anything, then don’t vote.”

Meanwhile, a story on ESPN.com had the network attempting to distance himself from the stunt.

“We respect and appreciate Dan’s opinions and passion about Hall of Fame voting,” ESPN spokesman Josh Krulewitz said in a statement. “He received his vote while at the Miami Herald. We wouldn’t have advocated his voting approach, which we were just made aware of today.”

I’m sure LeBatard will get a phone call or two today from top ESPN executives, if he hasn’t already.

Again, serious journalists don’t do something like this, which is disappointing because I consider LeBatard a serious journalist.

 

Why? Disappointed that it was Dan Le Batard who gave Hall of Fame vote to Deadspin

Posted on by

I have known Dan Le Batard for a long time, and I hardly think he is a “scumbug,” which was my initial label for the voter who turned over his ballot to Deadspin.

However, I am disappointed that it is Le Batard who gave his vote to Deadspin. I would be disappointed in any voter who participated in this stunt.

Le Batard writes on Deadspin’s site:

I feel like my vote has gotten pretty worthless in the avalanche of sanctimony that has swallowed it.

I have no earthly idea if Jeff Bagwell or Frank Thomas did or didn’t use steroids.

I think I understand why the steroid guys were the steroid guys in this competition-aholic culture.

I hate all the moralizing we do in sports in general, but I especially hate the hypocrisy in this: Many of the gatekeeper voters denying Barry Bonds Hall Of Fame entry would have they themselves taken a magical, healing, not-tested-for-in-their-workplace elixir if it made them better at their jobs, especially if lesser talents were getting the glory and money. Lord knows I’d take the elixir for our ESPN2 TV show if I could.

I don’t think I’m any more qualified to determine who is Hall of Fame-worthy than a fan who cares about and really knows baseball. In fact, many people analyzing baseball with advanced metrics outside of mainstream media are doing a better job than mainstream media, and have taught us some things in recent years when we were behind. In other words, just because we went to journalism school and covered a few games, just because accepted outlets gave us their platform and power, I don’t think we should have the pulpit to ourselves in 2014 that way we did in 1936.

Baseball is always reticent to change, but our flawed voting process needs remodeling in a new media world. Besides, every year the power is abused the way I’m going to be alleged to abuse it here. There’s never been a unanimous first-ballot guy? Seriously? If Ruth and Mays and Schmidt aren’t that, then what is? This year, someone is going to leave one of the five best pitchers ever off the ballot. Suck it, Greg Maddux.

I’ve become a more and more lenient voter over the years, often allowing the max 10 guys in a year, and I wanted to put in more this year. I happen to agree with most of the reader selections. I was afraid you guys were going to have me voting for Jacque Jones and no one else. I was kind of surprised this particular snark-land respected the process. I found it impossible to limit it this year to 10, but 10 was all that was allowed, so thanks for the help. But why limit it to 10 in a year that has more than 10 worthy candidates, by the way? How dumb is that?

And my final reason: I always like a little anarchy inside the cathedral we’ve made of sports.

I’m not sure what kind of trouble this is going to bring me. I imagine I’ll probably have my vote stripped. But I don’t want to be a part of the present climate without reform anyway. Given that climate, doing THIS has more impact than my next 20 years of votes as sanctimony bars the HOF door on the steroid guys. Because, in a climate without reform, my next 20 years of votes will be counted but not actually heard. At least this gets it heard, for better or for worse.

For starters, at least Le Batard wasn’t paid for his vote. The first Deadspin story said, the person “sold us his/her vote.”

That notion sent me through the roof. Hence, in part, my harsh reaction. Journalists shouldn’t be bought.

Apparently, that first person backed out for whatever reason, and Le Batard stepped in.

Why? Well, it will gain Le Batard a ton of publicity today, drawing attention to his various ESPN shows. Sorry, Dan, but that had to factor into your decision.

Also, Dan, if you are so disturbed about the process, why did you use Deadspin as a vehicle? Surely, you have plenty of your own platforms to get out your message.

All in all, it just seems to me by undermining the process, Dan, you sold out your fellow members of the sportswriting fraternity. Yes, the process is flawed, but your stunt also reflects poorly on people you’ve shared the press box with for years. There are better methods if you truly wanted reform.

Bottom line: The whole thing just doesn’t strike me as something a serious journalist would do. And I’ve always thought of you as a serious journalist.

Anyway, those are a few quick thoughts. Hope you enjoy the fallout.

 

 

 

 

Time to put an end to sportswriters voting for Hall of Fames, other awards

Posted on by

My latest column for the National Sports Journalism Center at Indiana University also is an annual ritual for me: Sportswriters need to get out of the business of participating in Hall of Fame votes and for other awards.

Today, the big story in sports will be who gets voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. The same people who will write that story will have determined the outcome: The sportswriters. As a result, they cross the line and become a big part of the story today.

Here’s why I feel it isn’t right.

********

You may not have noticed, but the recent weeks have revealed an annual winter ritual for baseball writers. Throughout the country, writers have disclosed their ballots for the upcoming Baseball Hall of Fame class of 2014.

Dan Shaugnessy of the Boston Globe wrote about his choices. He still isn’t voting for Barry Bonds. Ken Davidoff of the New York Post went the other way, giving yes votes to Bonds and fellow steroid cheat Roger Clemens.

Ken Rosenthal of Fox Sports wrote about his selections, while the Chicago Tribune, where I work as a contributor, dedicated an entire page of the Sunday paper to allow its five voters to explain their ballots. ESPN.com did the same with its 17 voters.

It all leads up to Wednesday’s official announcement of who will be going to Cooperstown. Unlike last year, when the New York Times sports front used a blank page as a commentary to illustrate how no candidates got in thanks to the residue of the steroid era, two, maybe three or four players figure to be enshrined this year.

As has been the custom, voters eligible from the Baseball Writers Association of America, will again be the gatekeepers in determining who gets through the Hall of Fame’s front door.

Thus, my annual column on how sports journalists shouldn’t be voting for Hall of Fames, and awards such as the Heisman Trophy. Once again, my argument falls under a basic rule of the business: Journalists don’t make news; they report the news.

The writers will be making the news Wednesday. It will be their votes that will be dissected and critiqued. They will be writing stories in which they had a direct impact on the outcome. In many cases, they will be quoted in other stories asking to explain their votes.

An editor wouldn’t allow a court reporter to be on a jury and then write about the case, right? Isn’t this the same scenario? I respect the political reporters who decide not to vote in elections so they can maintain an appearance of objectivity.

 

Ultimately, the writers’ votes not only will be granting baseball immortality to the players selected, they also will be increasing the financial bottom line for the new Hall of Famers. The inductees will be in far more demand to make appearances where they can place “HOF, 2014” after their signatures.

That in itself is a huge conflict of interest. However, the issue now goes deeper.

Thanks to the cheaters, the Hall of Fame voters now are the ultimate judges over the legacy of the steroid era. They will determine whether players like Bonds, Clemens, Sammy Sosa ever get an invitation to Cooperstown. Judging by the initial returns, the answer appears to be an emphatic no.

I’m not comfortable with the writers having so much power here, which puts an even greater spotlight on their selections. The stakes in this exercise have gone much higher.

Ken Gurnick of MLB.com made news yesterday when he disclosed he only voted for Jack Morris. He said he won’t vote for any players who played in the PED era, including Greg Maddux, who never was accused of taking anything.

Sorry, but I have a problem with Gurnick suddenly becoming the story here. It’s not right.

********

Here’s the link to read the entire column.

 

How is it possible that Roger Angell isn’t member of Baseball Writers Association?

Posted on by

It seems incredible that one of the best baseball writers of all time isn’t a member of the BBWA. And that means Roger Angell also doesn’t have a Hall of Fame vote.

“I was hoping to be a member for many years, but it never seemed to be within reach,” Angell said yesterday after receiving the J.G. Spink Award, the highest honor given by the Hall of Fame to a baseball writer.

Angell, 93, wasn’t complaining. That wouldn’t be his style. Rather, he was pointing out that he just wants to be a member of the club.

Yes, Angell isn’t a daily baseball writer or a columnist for a newspaper and website. But surely the magnitude of his writing on baseball merits his inclusion in the BBWA. Obviously, the rules needed to be adjusted a long time ago to get Angell in. If anyone should be voting for the Hall of Fame, it is Angell.

At least, the writers corrected a huge oversight by voting Angell for the Spink Award. This is an honor that is beyond long overdue.

In a story by Barry Bloom of MLB.com, Angell expressed surprised about how much it means to him.

“It’s a great day — for me, if not for baseball,” he said. “I was surprised to find out how much secretly I had hoped this would happen because I was very moved, startled and extremely pleased. I thought it would never happen because I’m not a member of the [BBWAA]. I’m very, very happy and I’m stunned. Old friends and idols have won this award. It’s a great honor.”

Asked if he will be there in July to accept the award, Angell didn’t miss a beat.

“Absolutely,” he said. “Cooperstown in the middle of summer is great and to be there with those three great managers … I got oceans of copy from those guys and I’m friends with every one of them, so I can hardly wait to be there, shake their hands and congratulate them.”

Hopefully, when Angell arrives in Cooperstown, he will be a card-carrying member of the BBWA.

Long overdue: Roger Angell wins Spink Award

Posted on by

Finally, at the age of 93, Roger Angell is going to have his day at the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Angell was named Tuesday as the 2014 recepient of the J.G. Spink Award, the highest honor for a baseball writer.

The long-time veteran of the New Yorker hardly is a typical on-deadline baseball writer. This marks the first time the Spink has gone to an essayist, if you will, like Angell.

While I detailed earlier the split within the BBWA over whether someone like Angell should win the award over a traditional baseball scribe or columnist (Furman Bisher and Mel Durslag were finalists this year), it would have been a huge oversight for him not to receive this recognition in Cooperstown.

Angell is the baseball writing equivalent of Sandy Koufax, a one-of-a-kind artist on the game. Fortunately, unlike Koufax, Angell’s career has spanned generations.

Angell’s writing blows me away now the same way it did more than 35 years ago when I discovered his work as a young kid who aspired to be a sportswriter. I still have memories of being held captive by his first book, “The Summer Game.” Angell’s writing on baseball truly inspired me, and I’m sure many others too.

New Yorker editor David Remnick did this post upon hearing the news.

He will receive the J. G. Taylor Spink Award, which has previously gone to the likes of Grantland Rice, Red Smith, Ring Lardner, and Damon Runyon. With respect to all the writers in the lifetime lineup card, Roger is the cleanup man.

Quite right. He belongs in that fraternity.

 

 

 

 

 

‘Hoops’ Weiss bounces back, and then some: College basketball writer busier than ever

Posted on by

I saw Dick “Hoops” Weiss in Chicago for the Champions Classic games last month. Like everyone else, I offered my condolences about his dismissal from the New York Daily News last spring. We all figured he was having a tough time.

“Hoops” quickly assured all of us that we had it wrong. “Things couldn’t be better.”

Seth Davis of SI.com did on column on how “Hoops” is busier than ever. His story is a rare happy ending in our business.

It was a sad but all-too-familiar tale: a newspaper lifer, the classic ink-stained wretch, made a casualty of the digital age. For someone like Weiss, who is 66 years old, that kind of phone call almost always amounts to an involuntary retirement. Yet there he was on Nov. 12 at the Champions Classic in Chicago, strolling through the pressroom with a credential around his neck, pecking away at his laptop after the games. And there he was again last week in the Bahamas, sitting on press row for all 12 games at the Battle 4 Atlantis. (Except for a couple hours on Saturday, when he ducked away to catch the Auburn-Alabama football game.) Weiss was covering those events for BlueStar Media, a website which tracks basketball around the world. BlueStar is one of several outlets that are employing Weiss these days — including the Daily News, which has hired him on a freelance basis to cover big-ticket events like the BCS Championship and the Final Four.

“I feel like a survivor,” Weiss says. “A lot of people who get out of newspapers disappear, but I’ve been able to reinvent myself.”

Later, Davis writes:

It is remarkable that, at this stage in his career, Weiss is not only surviving but also advancing, chronicling in digital form the cutting-edge emergence of global basketball. But that alone does not explain his upbeat attitude. “I don’t want to be the bitter old guy,” he says. “That’s not me. I never held what happened against the people at the paper, because they’ve always been nice to me. Look, for 20 years I had the best job in America. Newspapers are struggling right now. I’ve been very lucky to be able to find work elsewhere.”

Still, after suffering through the shock of that phone call, Hoops knows better than to spend too much time pondering his long-term future. He hopes to write for BlueStar at least through the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro. He might pick up another book project, although it probably won’t be a memoir. (“I just don’t think it would sell.”) Beyond that, Weiss will keep going until someone, or some thing, tells him to stop. “You’re only as old as you feel,” he says. “I love this game. I still get goosebumps before the Final Four. When I start losing the passion for it, then it will be time to go.”

The day “Hoops” loses the passion will be the day they play basketball with a hockey puck.