The New York Times: The Big Lead was bought for a seven figure price by Fantasy Sports Ventures recently, and although I have no connection to that site whatsoever, i'm still happy about it because it's a promising sign for the direction of journalism.
At the current moment, the state I live in is in the process of downsizing from two daily papers to one, and it's not like a merger of this nature is a rarity anymore. After all, it's hard for a paper to turn a profit when nobody is buying your product, which is mainly an effect of all the free online alternatives.
As for the online part of it, it's true that the journalism being done here is thriving in the realm of hit counts, but it's hardly as appealing as a living. Unfortunately, there still exists a sizable gap between being able to provide quality content and getting paid a decent amount for it. In a way, this is likely the worst time to want to be a journalist, but it is a bit interesting to be a part of the generation that will represent a huge shift in the way journalism is done.
The current rambling train of thought you are reading was originally spawned about a week ago when Morgan Ensberg wanted feedback on his criticism of Bill Shaikin's article about the Dodgers being interested in Roy Oswalt and Cliff Lee. Eventually, this ended up as a discussion about journalistic integrity, and why papers were failing.
Ironically, i'm going to ask you to just trust the quotes i'm going to give you, because i'm not linking to all of them. Don't believe me? Fair enough. Go look at the Twitter history of Morgan Ensberg, Jon Weisman, and me.
ME=Morgan Ensberg
JW=Jon Weisman
CM=Chad Moriyama
"Do all readers just believe what they read? This doesn't make any sense"-ME
"Unfortunately, the pressure to say SOMETHING is pervasive in journalism today. And there's little incentive for change."-JW
"well I think that is why newspapers are struggling...they have the power to hold accountability, but they don't care"-ME
"Papers struggling 'cause it's hard to find working biz model when readers don't expect to pay for news, whatever the quality"-JW
"but that sounds like an excuse to me. Papers forgot what they are best at...honest reporting."-ME
"Would you pay 365 dollars a year for honest reporting if similar information was available for free? That's the main issue."-CM
"Then I would pay for that"-ME
"That puts you in a distinct minority."-JW
"I think that is defeatist."-ME
"I'm not saying it as an excuse to use bad journalism. It's just...reality right now. Like Jon said, business model is fail."-CM
"That is because the newspaper has given in. They don't even realize what they could be!"-ME
Basically, Morgan's argument is that newspapers are struggling because journalists are crap and the public can't trust them. Furthermore, he believes that the public would pay for quality services if they existed. The stance that Jon took, which is the same one I take, is that the public wouldn't pay for much of anything no matter the quality.
People want information and analysis, but with so much freely available information out there, it's hard to get people to pay for it. I'm glad Morgan would pay it, but how many of you honestly would? I don't think the Los Angeles Times sports section would be thriving if they added a fee and then replaced Bill Plaschke with Jon Weisman and T.J. Simers with Eric Stephen. After all, since it's on the Internet, the competition would be other Dodger blogs...that are free.
If True Blue L.A. started charging, would people stay there or just move on to Dodger Thoughts? If Memories Of Kevin Malone started charging, would you stay here or move on to True Blue L.A.? Hell, even if the best of the best Dodgers bloggers formed Los Angeles Dodgers Network Incorporated*, would you give in and pay for it, or just move on to the next kid with an opinion who wanted to start a blog about the Dodgers? For the majority, i'm positive the answer is that they'll gravitate to what is free, simply because it's one click away, and so far it seems like the business models designed by people much smarter than me have shown that trend as well.
*Wouldn't that be an interesting experiment/case? Throw out all the logistical nightmares it would take to form such a thing, and I think it might be worth paying for. Eric and Phil from TBLA, Jon from DT, Mike from MSTI, Josh from DD, Brown from LFP, and I guess me (i'm horrid at self promotion because it's embarrassing, but I would hope to be included in any super group, lol).
Jon already has more credibility than most journalists. Eric and Phil already do the best previews and recaps out there. Josh is the leader on all the legal stuff as it is. Brown has the images on lock. Mike already does fantasy stuff for Baseball Prospectus. And i'm probably most known for my prospect work. Most importantly, everybody has a wide range of opinions, and everybody has done hardcore analysis, so there's a ton of that.
Of course, the problem is that I still think people would just gravitate to whatever other blogs I forgot in this spur of the moment tangent (no offense to those forgotten, i'm pulling stuff off who is responding to me on Twitter). I guess the question becomes how far would the proposed network have to expand to monopolize quality Dodgers content on the Internet? Even if we include every single Dodgers blog out there today, I think new ones would just pop up as a rebellion against the network. Even if that didn't happen, and a huge network was successful, it wouldn't be profitable with like 50 people in it, so the whole point of the network would be lost. It's a shockingly fine line between success and disaster even if we assume people would pay. Either way, it's an interesting thing to ponder as far as business models go, and it was a quality brain exercise for me at 2:30 AM. Discuss away if you like. :o
All the problems I have previously mentioned are a part of the reason that I like seeing blogs bought up, because it's a sign that there is promise in Internet advertising, and promise in being an Internet journalist of sorts. After all, if I have to work in a cubicle to make a living, then so be it, but given a choice, i'd much rather be doing this. The future of journalism seems to be coming, but for my sake, and the sake of thousands of others around the country like me, that gap needs to close sooner than later.
FanGraphs: John Ely is like...good and stuff, especially his changeup.
Minor League Ball: Speaking of John Ely, here's his Rookie Profile. It made me think about what I would change about my own profile of him, and I don't think I would change much.
Perhaps his changeup has now proven to have achieved that plus-plus upside I mentioned instead of it just being plus. He has added a cutter that was not there in games that I saw last year. Maybe his control has achieved its plus-plus potential, which is also up from plus. Other than that though? Not much of a revelation has occurred.
In retrospect, I should have thought of him more as a starter, and gave way to his middle of the rotation upside that he seems on pace to achieve, but that's hindsight. A "Likely" grade from me of an effective reliever isn't a negative forecast for a non-toolsy prospect, so I can't even say I regret that. Honestly, with as volatile as prospects are, i'm somewhat proud that I was in the immediate vicinity with the scouting report of Ely, and in the general area with the projection.
Fox Sports: Dayn Perry says to ditch the wins and losses statistic for pitchers. I have to agree. It's pointless, and it causes managers to make dumb decisions. While we're at it, ditch saves as well.
FanGraphs: I've said similar things before, but perhaps it helps to hear somebody else explain it.
"Are you saying Roy Oswalt couldn't help the Dodgers?"
Obviously not, but like Dave Cameron explained above, it's not about simply whether or not it improves the team.
Trading Carlos Santana and Jon Meloan for Casey Blake immediately improved the team, but it has arguably cost the Dodgers opportunities at trading for elite pitchers, if not simply costing an elite catching prospect.
Trading Juan Pierre for John Ely and Jon Link immediately weakened the team, but one of the prospects has since helped stabilize the rotation, while the other could be useful pen arm.
Original Story:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Memori...
At the current moment, the state I live in is in the process of downsizing from two daily papers to one, and it's not like a merger of this nature is a rarity anymore. After all, it's hard for a paper to turn a profit when nobody is buying your product, which is mainly an effect of all the free online alternatives.
As for the online part of it, it's true that the journalism being done here is thriving in the realm of hit counts, but it's hardly as appealing as a living. Unfortunately, there still exists a sizable gap between being able to provide quality content and getting paid a decent amount for it. In a way, this is likely the worst time to want to be a journalist, but it is a bit interesting to be a part of the generation that will represent a huge shift in the way journalism is done.
The current rambling train of thought you are reading was originally spawned about a week ago when Morgan Ensberg wanted feedback on his criticism of Bill Shaikin's article about the Dodgers being interested in Roy Oswalt and Cliff Lee. Eventually, this ended up as a discussion about journalistic integrity, and why papers were failing.
Ironically, i'm going to ask you to just trust the quotes i'm going to give you, because i'm not linking to all of them. Don't believe me? Fair enough. Go look at the Twitter history of Morgan Ensberg, Jon Weisman, and me.
ME=Morgan Ensberg
JW=Jon Weisman
CM=Chad Moriyama
"Do all readers just believe what they read? This doesn't make any sense"-ME
"Unfortunately, the pressure to say SOMETHING is pervasive in journalism today. And there's little incentive for change."-JW
"well I think that is why newspapers are struggling...they have the power to hold accountability, but they don't care"-ME
"Papers struggling 'cause it's hard to find working biz model when readers don't expect to pay for news, whatever the quality"-JW
"but that sounds like an excuse to me. Papers forgot what they are best at...honest reporting."-ME
"Would you pay 365 dollars a year for honest reporting if similar information was available for free? That's the main issue."-CM
"Then I would pay for that"-ME
"That puts you in a distinct minority."-JW
"I think that is defeatist."-ME
"I'm not saying it as an excuse to use bad journalism. It's just...reality right now. Like Jon said, business model is fail."-CM
"That is because the newspaper has given in. They don't even realize what they could be!"-ME
Basically, Morgan's argument is that newspapers are struggling because journalists are crap and the public can't trust them. Furthermore, he believes that the public would pay for quality services if they existed. The stance that Jon took, which is the same one I take, is that the public wouldn't pay for much of anything no matter the quality.
People want information and analysis, but with so much freely available information out there, it's hard to get people to pay for it. I'm glad Morgan would pay it, but how many of you honestly would? I don't think the Los Angeles Times sports section would be thriving if they added a fee and then replaced Bill Plaschke with Jon Weisman and T.J. Simers with Eric Stephen. After all, since it's on the Internet, the competition would be other Dodger blogs...that are free.
If True Blue L.A. started charging, would people stay there or just move on to Dodger Thoughts? If Memories Of Kevin Malone started charging, would you stay here or move on to True Blue L.A.? Hell, even if the best of the best Dodgers bloggers formed Los Angeles Dodgers Network Incorporated*, would you give in and pay for it, or just move on to the next kid with an opinion who wanted to start a blog about the Dodgers? For the majority, i'm positive the answer is that they'll gravitate to what is free, simply because it's one click away, and so far it seems like the business models designed by people much smarter than me have shown that trend as well.
*Wouldn't that be an interesting experiment/case? Throw out all the logistical nightmares it would take to form such a thing, and I think it might be worth paying for. Eric and Phil from TBLA, Jon from DT, Mike from MSTI, Josh from DD, Brown from LFP, and I guess me (i'm horrid at self promotion because it's embarrassing, but I would hope to be included in any super group, lol).
Jon already has more credibility than most journalists. Eric and Phil already do the best previews and recaps out there. Josh is the leader on all the legal stuff as it is. Brown has the images on lock. Mike already does fantasy stuff for Baseball Prospectus. And i'm probably most known for my prospect work. Most importantly, everybody has a wide range of opinions, and everybody has done hardcore analysis, so there's a ton of that.
Of course, the problem is that I still think people would just gravitate to whatever other blogs I forgot in this spur of the moment tangent (no offense to those forgotten, i'm pulling stuff off who is responding to me on Twitter). I guess the question becomes how far would the proposed network have to expand to monopolize quality Dodgers content on the Internet? Even if we include every single Dodgers blog out there today, I think new ones would just pop up as a rebellion against the network. Even if that didn't happen, and a huge network was successful, it wouldn't be profitable with like 50 people in it, so the whole point of the network would be lost. It's a shockingly fine line between success and disaster even if we assume people would pay. Either way, it's an interesting thing to ponder as far as business models go, and it was a quality brain exercise for me at 2:30 AM. Discuss away if you like. :o
All the problems I have previously mentioned are a part of the reason that I like seeing blogs bought up, because it's a sign that there is promise in Internet advertising, and promise in being an Internet journalist of sorts. After all, if I have to work in a cubicle to make a living, then so be it, but given a choice, i'd much rather be doing this. The future of journalism seems to be coming, but for my sake, and the sake of thousands of others around the country like me, that gap needs to close sooner than later.
FanGraphs: John Ely is like...good and stuff, especially his changeup.
Minor League Ball: Speaking of John Ely, here's his Rookie Profile. It made me think about what I would change about my own profile of him, and I don't think I would change much.
Perhaps his changeup has now proven to have achieved that plus-plus upside I mentioned instead of it just being plus. He has added a cutter that was not there in games that I saw last year. Maybe his control has achieved its plus-plus potential, which is also up from plus. Other than that though? Not much of a revelation has occurred.
In retrospect, I should have thought of him more as a starter, and gave way to his middle of the rotation upside that he seems on pace to achieve, but that's hindsight. A "Likely" grade from me of an effective reliever isn't a negative forecast for a non-toolsy prospect, so I can't even say I regret that. Honestly, with as volatile as prospects are, i'm somewhat proud that I was in the immediate vicinity with the scouting report of Ely, and in the general area with the projection.
Fox Sports: Dayn Perry says to ditch the wins and losses statistic for pitchers. I have to agree. It's pointless, and it causes managers to make dumb decisions. While we're at it, ditch saves as well.
FanGraphs: I've said similar things before, but perhaps it helps to hear somebody else explain it.
However, this line of thought shows the flaw of analysis by cliche, rather than by measuring the value of individual assets. If you follow Phillips path to its logical extent, you could justify trading nearly any prospect for almost any major league player, as long as your team was in contention. Any marginal upgrade for a winning team could justify a complete pillaging of a team’s farm system, because, after all, “prospects get a GM fired.”This was the argument I ran into at Minor League Ball about my Roy Oswalt post.
"Are you saying Roy Oswalt couldn't help the Dodgers?"
Obviously not, but like Dave Cameron explained above, it's not about simply whether or not it improves the team.
Trading Carlos Santana and Jon Meloan for Casey Blake immediately improved the team, but it has arguably cost the Dodgers opportunities at trading for elite pitchers, if not simply costing an elite catching prospect.
Trading Juan Pierre for John Ely and Jon Link immediately weakened the team, but one of the prospects has since helped stabilize the rotation, while the other could be useful pen arm.
It’s not that prospects aren’t risky. They are. However, major league players, especially pitchers, are almost equally risky. Just take a look at how last year’s aces are performing so far this year. Zack Greinke, Felix Hernandez, Dan Haren, and Javier Vazquez were among the best pitchers in the game in 2009, and have all struggled (to different degrees) so far this year. Jake Peavy, proven veteran ace, has been a disaster for the White Sox. Ask the Red Sox how their investments in Josh Beckett and John Lackey have gone this year, or query the Braves about Derek Lowe. And we’re not even talking about the guys who have gone down to injuries and aren’t even pitching right now.Yup.
Yes, it’s just two months, and we should expect each of those pitchers to perform better going forward than they have so far in 2010. However, we cannot ignore the significant variance in pitcher performance, especially in just a few month’s worth of starts, no matter how long and impressive the resume of a pitcher may be. Roy Oswalt may pitch well for his new team, but it’s nothing close to a sure thing, and he’s not even that much more of a sure thing than the kid who has never pitched in the majors.
This is the mistake that bad general managers have been making for years – significantly overestimating the reliability of veteran players.
Original Story:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Memori...
