Its a point Will Carroll and I have discussed many times, as to how baseball bloggers will be able to gain admittance to the BBWAA.

I also believe I know more about cows than Murray Chass.

While in law school, I saw a lot of this kind of thing for non-sports blogging. It was incredibly intense when it came to politics. They eventually found a balance, and given that even sports pages today have blogs (there's what, five? six? on the Times website), I can't understand why people are still so upset.

Of course, you said it much better than I ever could, Jon.

It is crazy to paint all bloggers with the same brush, esp with you are talking about a thoughtful blog like this writen by a writer from Variety!

I read DT as many times a day as it is new before I'd read the musings of TJ Simers and Bill Plashke. The two of them represent themselves and the Dodger org. in such a less productive way than you do.

I agree that the issue is territorialism esp in the context of newspaper firings. Most bloggers fit their blogging in as a hobby after their full time jobs and their attention to family life is paid.

There are bloggers who spew lies and rumor and there are bloggers who DRAMATICALLY increase the fan's love of the team and also the value of the franchise. I dare say Jon that you are the latter!

The real question is what do you do when the LA Times wants you to be their Dodger blogger?

Some people realize this: Steiner, for one."

Steiner may realize it, but he's not man enough to just say it. When you hung up, he went into "i'm just a confused as ever" mode. Instead of saying something as easy as "hey, the more opinions the better as far as I see it". That would have been the natural conclusion to how he came off with you. But no, he's got to wimp out with some neutral nonsense, and after that New York guy slaughtered bloggers.

I've been Charlie's biggest advocate these last two years. I lost something for him today. Yes it was good to even have you on. But he showed himself to be a fence sitter of the most obvious kind.

Just another game show host in baseball clothing.

George
http://sportstsar.com/

It was like something that might have come out of Katharine Hepburn's mouth in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner -- "but he's one of the good ones!" (So maybe that makes Jon the Sidney Poitier of bloggers?)

Case in point is the way the LA sports media rallied around Juan Pierre this spring. By all accounts Pierre is a good guy who makes life easier for the writers who have to deal with primadonna jerks all the time. When Pierre's job became threatened, they all circled the wagons around him. We joked that the only people in the world who thought JP belonged as a starting OF were Ned Colletti and the Dodger press corps, but it really was the truth.

Jon, if you are ever offered a press pass to the Dodger clubhouse, you should turn it down. Don't get polluted by access.

>> Ned shot down the Giles rumor, said he knew nothing about it. But again, with DeWitt now hitting .625, I'm not sure the Dodgers need anyone else to play 3B. Can you say Wally Pipp? <<

http://www.insidesocal.com/dodgers/

I don't think Charley was wrong to not state an opinion. His show isn't really a Jim Rome type show where he explicitly provides his opinion and point of view. He's merely serving the function of that particular program; I feel like it's obvious how he feels without having to say anything.

Unfortunately, the more that "they" fear, and the harder "they" resist, the worse it will get for "them".
Whatever it is that they think they are afraid of.

Thanks again for hosting this site.
It won't be long and you'll be a name brand like Vin.

If I put myself in Jon's shoes, it would be so hard to come up with a response after essentially getting thrown under the bus by Murray Chass. Jon, you held your own more than admirably! If only I had that kind of toughness and fortitude, not to mention the restraint that kept everything in perspective. Remarkable!

Re: 137

You might be interested to know that we shot that notorious hot-tub scene for the Wyckyd Sceptre sketch at 11PM halfway up a hill at a fairly grim LAPD Sheriff's training facility in City Terrace (near Alhambra). It was right down the hill from Sybil Brand, a (defunct -- and even more grim) women's jail where we had shot the "Sweetie Pie Jones" bits earlier in the day. Yes, we had to bring in our own hot tub.

That was our final location bit for the first half of the 1998 season, and I was bloody exhausted! I got to go home and sleep for a week, but Bob and David and the producers and writers had to charge right into rehearsals for the live show. But the vibe was great, because we were all so glad to be through with those onerous location shoots. Hence the looseness and general hilarity of that scene.

(Their hot-tub ad-libs were even funnier in person -- you should have seen the stuff they didn't use.)

Then multiply by about 10. And that's just people discussing which players should go to A or AA.

I used to tell a colleague of mine who still writes for a newspaper, that the only official difference between bloggers and journalists these days is that journalists still have an editor and proofreader to correct typos and errors. However, I've seen so many bad mistakes in newspapers in recent times I don't even know if there's much difference there either.

Btw, I'm sorry I missed the Mr. Show chat in previous thread, but it did make me want to pop in a Mr. Show DVD tonight.

It also made me think we could combine discussion topics and come up with a good nickname for Loney from a Mr. Show sketch.

Fancy Pants or Blueberry Head anyone?

Van Hammersly?

Btw, nice to see Yhency have a good game tonight, striking out the side for the save. Of course it's AA ball, but still good to see.

http://www.downsidedown.com/news/html/players/player_3973.html

This is the fundamental mistake that the Murray Chasses of the world make when the look at blogging. They will take an average individual article written in the New York Times and compare it with an average individual blog entry, and say: blog entries are crap. And if you measure it that way, they are right.

The problem is, this is the wrong unit of measurement. Newspaper articles live on their own little islands, but blog entries do not. Blog entries are links in a chain. The unit of measurement in blogging is not the article, the unit of measurement is the conversation.

The conversation may start with something Jon writes on DT. But then it continues in the comments. And then ToyCannon or somebody goes and writes something on the SportsBlogs Network, which prompts the other blogs on that network to join in the conversation. And it can spread from there.

The blogger doesn't have to do a bunch of research and paint a complete picture with his blog entry. The picture is painted by everyone who participates in the conversation, across multiple comments and blog entries and blogs. Believe me, if you say something wrong on the web, you will be corrected.

Yes, it's messy process full of noise, but it also is a process that leads, in the end, to a more complete and accurate picture of the issues than the voice of just one person, no matter how talented.

It's the same reason that messiness of democracy and free markets works better than the relative simplicity of dictatorships and planned economies. Progress happens most effectively when the system tests every idea and every ideamaker, and the fittest ones thrive, and the unfit are thrown out. The extent to which blogs do this and newspapers don't is the extent to which blogs are growing and newspapers are dying.

One of the more insightful reads I've had here in 3 years. Thanks.

I can see how Murray Chass could formulate his negative opinion of bloggers from some sports blogs. Blogs without rules can get very tiresome because all sorts of idiots are allowed to use any type of language, and bait other bloggers. On the other hand, a controlled blog like this one encourages more respectful & insightful commentors.

Thank you, Jon, for providing your insight and an informative & entertaining forum.

Jon, you nailed it again, as usual.

Luckily FJM is out there to knock these yahoos down a peg, whether they ever catch wind of it or not.

Dunn: .125/.417/.125/.542

Which means I agree with you, of course.

4
Agreed re Kershaw.

Saw him @ Maryvale last week against the Brew Crew and was impressed.

My wife saw Torre there and said "he's as short as I am!"

It's not an undeserved skewering, to be sure, but it's not easy to be objective when one's writing is being "workshopped" in front of a vast online audience.

I may be wrong, but I seriously doubt he'd have the same opinion of bloggers if he visited sites like DT regularly.

I started a blog in August 2003 when I was 21 years old. As a human biology pre-med major in college, I'd never so much as had an article published in my high school paper. I never would have had the guts to sumbit anything to a newspaper or magazine. I didn't promote it. I wrote for myself, and about five people went to it. And then more people found it and pretty soon I had a decent-sized audience and I found the feedback--positive and negative--to be absolutely exhilarating.

I enjoyed writing every day so much that I knew it was what I wanted to do with my life. So I moved to New York on a whim in October 2003, to become a writer for real. Things have worked out OK so far. I've written for seven or so magazines since being here, and now I'm happy writing about sports for ESPN.

I don't really get irritated when I hear sportswriters griping about bloggers in the locker room, because I know it's fear-based. Ninety-nine percent of the time the whining comes from men who are old enough to be my father, many of whom stopped busting their tails as journalists years ago and started blackberrying in fluffy columns while on break from Around The Horn, etc.

The blog/newspaper debate is a generational thing not unlike the Kent/Kemp debacle of last year. Which is why Plaschke's perpetual lambasting of Kemp makes me chuckle so much. I think Kemp represents the generation of which he is terrified, and I think that can be said for a lot of the older writers.

"hey phil...thanks for the note...that's very kind of you...and, for the record, I do NOT have disdain for performance-analysis Dodger bloggers, or any Dodger bloggers...I read the blogs and respect their efforts and celebrate their freedoms..I'm honored to live in a country where we can so openly share our views...I may not agree with the message, but I will forever defend the right of the messenger to deliver it ...thanks again for reading..."

I caught bits and pieces of your XM appearance, but did not stick with it long enough to get the full story, but it was interesting.

What was it Charlie said about his breaking in the "game" as a long haired young guy with a microphone while the Fedora hatted old timers glowered on? I think that comment summarizes the heart of the matter, well that an argument about economics or maybe who are the consumers of your Dodger Thoughts blog product.

LA Times gets how many readers a day, print, online ? How much money do the readers generate in advertisement prevention for Mr. Zell? DT has no advertisements, and who knows how many views per day, not asking for numbers by the way. So if you're not keeping score with the capitalist measure of success, $$$, then who knows the value of a product?

In terms of credibility and therefore access to players/coaches/management, if people read your stuff because it's interesting or provides another point of view of worth, and they continue to read it day in and day out, must be credible, must have worth. But the other side of that argument of worth is if you don't pay for something, does it have value? Not sure I have the answer to that question/muse.

By the way, please let everyone know if you're going to be on Charlie's show again, it's one of my "must hear" daily shows.

Vlad was way more advanced than Matt Kemp at all levels. Vlad was a freak of nature. He could hit any ball, anywhere in the strike zone or out of it. His arm was also a lot stronger than Kemp's. Kemp doesnt have the plate coverage that Vlad had, nor the bat speed to get to the bad balls. Thats just natual physical talent (bat speed), that puts Vlad in a class above Kemp.

Kemp can be comparable to alot of players, but I'm not seeing the Vlad comparison.

wish i got a chance to listen.

Is that because of Murray Chass, or Plaschke, or anything the LAT or ESPN has done? No, it's because of DT, primarily. (With an assist to True Blue LA and others.)

So maybe Chass is right to be worried and territorial. The territory in play is not journalism jobs, it's readers. Why would I bother reading an LAT game story, or anything Chass might write, when I can learn so much more here?

The only similarity that I see between Kemp/Vlad is their large K zones given their respective heights.

Mondesi had a good career with the Dodgers and I think the numbers Kemp ends up putting up will be close to his. However, even then there are quite few physical differences, the most apparent being height. Raul was only 5'11.

I'd be interested to see how much success players 6'4 and taller have at the plate.

I absolutely love the challenge/response aspect. This is also supposed to be scientific research works, but in reality it often does not.