Context and sports commentary

Simers gets no answer to the question, "You're a great streaky power hitter. Why are you so weak defensively?" because he never asks that question.

Instead he gets the answer to the question, "Why hasn't anyone asked you the question it now turns out I haven't asked you either?"

 

I can see that splitting of hairs. Fair enough. But I can also see the confinements of literalism.

 

Even the homerish TV people criticized it last year. Everyone who covered the Yankees wrote that the acquisition of Austin Kearns at the end of July was partly to remedy the fact that Thames was playing bad defense as the fourth outfielder.

But this is not an analytical story, really. You watch the guy out there, you can't question whether he's trying or if he has technical flaws that coaching could remedy. Those are not the issues, and anyone with more than a minimal knowledge of baseball would know this after watching him play more than a few times. He just is not a majors-quality outfielder anymore -- it's that simple, case closed, pay the clerk on your way out of the court.

Has anyone phrased the question precisely the way T.J. did? Who the fuck knows. But very similar questions have been asked, in a much more knowledgeable and professional manner. This likely would not make even Simers' personal top 1,000 of his most penetrating and informed interview questions over the past 35 years. It's even kind of a lazy one by his standards, I think.

 

I would add, too, that Thames appeared willing to take one for the team. Check his stats last year and you will see they put him in at third base once last year for the first time in his major-league career (one chance, one error). I happened to be watching and thought oh good Christ, this ought to be illegal. No one expected him to play well at third, they just needed him to do it. No one with an iota of sense expects Thames to play well in the outfield, either. They keep paying him to do it, though, and he apparently does the best he can.

 

I agree that the fact no one has said to Thames: "Why do you suck defensively?" means that Simers has performed some great journalistic feat by asking. I'm sure a lot of writers have asked Thames about his defense in a more tactful and meaningful way. ("What have you done to improve?")

TJ's shtick is his shtick. That's fine. Works for him. Gets a lot of attention to his stuff. I think it takes writing talent to put the words together to make something entertaining out of what he does in the clubhouse. I am not willing to give him credit for reporting skill simply for foisting himself upon anyone and asking whatever ludicrous question comes to mind without regard for tact or courtesy.

 

What is this whole board?

 

An outlet for sportswriters and people who are particularly interested in the mechanics of sportswriting. As opposed to a general-interest newspaper where people are interested in the Tigers and baseball and not a columnist 2,000 miles away.

 

I hear what you're saying, and it's an important distinction, but ... check out team message boards. Fans (readers) care about everything anyone writes about players, past and present, of their favorite team. And almost no columnist is 2,000 miles away anymore. They're almost all a click away.

 

This is a message board, not a newspaper and we know the bulk of the audience here are either sportswriters or former sportswriters.

I doubt anyone in Detroit gives a shit about Marcus Thames or TJ Simers.

 

On Whitlock's podcast, Marriotti tries to explain why he doesn't go out there the next day and face the people he's slammed and he fails miserably.

That's never been a issue for Simers.

 

T.J. has the professional integrity to play his game right. He accepts the consequences of playing the very old role of rip job artist. I think he's a good sportswriter.
But I couldn't treat Thames the way he did. He's an outfielder who's not a good fielder, not some pol who embezzled from the country government or something. It's not right to browbeat or insult people with questions anymore than it is to do it directly unless they've done something to deserve it or you suspect they have.
Maybe that makes/made me a subpar reporter. If so, fine. I'd rather live with the consequences of how I do things.

 

This is a subtle point, and many won't agree with me, but T.J.'s deal is, "Look. This is sports. It's not life and death. If my making fun of Thames' defense (to his face), and the Dodgers signing him, is the worst thing that happens to him in his life, he's going to have a pretty good life." In his heart -- and I truly believe this -- Simers' belief is none of this matters and that once everybody gets the joke and lightens up a bit, things will be a lot easier for all concerned.

But I'm not naive and know that if you do something for a living, even a game, human nature is you WILL take it personally, and in that, I actually think T.J. himself sometimes misses the point. It might all be a big goof for him, but like it or not, you're insulting the way somebody does the major thing they have chosen to do in their life to this point, and there's no way they're simply going to be able to blow that off.