Siegel's takedown of Boston Sports media

Is the Boston sports media landscape worse off in terms of media-player/coach relationships than other cities? It has always seemed that way to me, and this piece almost makes it seem like the sports earth there has been carpet bombed, salted, laid to waste, etc.

I mean does anybody actually like Shaughnessy? Is the Globe even relevant with younger readers? It's astonishing no younger (or, perhaps just alternative) columnist voice exists there.

In terms of the Globe's ingenuity in digging up the Fried Chicken Scoop, it reminded me of a lost scoop in the Manny-being-Manny days. This was at a time when Manny wasn't doing interviews, or at least not with the Anglos of the "Lodge." Of course, the Globe never thought to try and talk to him in Spanish, but an ESPN Desportes guy did and got a scoop (which now escapes me).

 

You know more of the specifics of the culture there than I do. But in any case, those guys blowing off the idea that any of it could have real meaning is not a great endorsement of their aggressiveness.

 

To be fair to Simmons - I don't think he provided a quote for the story. The author just mentioned old Simmons complaints (which were true). I don't think Simmons cares anymore since he's reached levels of success far beyond what would have been available to him in Boston.

I used to read the Globe sports section religiously every day. Now I honestly can't tell you the last time I bothered to pick it up. Years maybe. When it comes to the Red Sox beat - Abraham thinks snark can replace information so locally people turn to Bradford and Spears from WEEI or Britton from the Providence Journal. No wonder Abraham comes off as clueless.

Someone will also have to explain to me the business reasons for keeping Shaughnessy. I don't know a single sports fan who likes him. I refuse to read anything by him and his appearance on TV immediately makes me turn the channel. How is he adding to anyone's bottom line?

 

Also - I don't think the story mentioned Gordon Edes who used to be the Red Sox and Sunday notes guy for the Globe and who now covers the Red Sox for ESPNBoston. Edes has been and continues to be outstanding in his coverage. Never a member of the fellowship of the miserable.

 

This is how I feel about Steve Buckley.

 

Complaints in the article I found problematic. 1. Loss of journalists to national media outlets. Not specific to Boston, a national trend with a simple explanation. National outlets pay more.
2. Not enough statistical analysis. Should have been "not enough statistical analysis of the kind I like." Daily stories and especially notebooks in baseball and basketball have plenty of numbers in 'em.
3. Not a complaint made by author, but by me about author. Little to no acknowledgment of overall industry trend of financial disaster followed by massive loss of personnel. To compare the Globe sports section of 1986 to that of 2013 requires honest recognition of the reduction in size of the sports section in that time.
4. It was silly to say that if the Sox had made the playoffs in 2011, Hohler's story on why they didn't make the playoffs wouldn't have run. Well, duh.

 

Putting in a batting average isn't statistical analysis.

 

No, plenty of notebooks and game stories present raw data and try to summarize its meaning in some way. Again, they don't do it in a form you apparently like. That's not to say it doesn't happen. There isn't a newspaper on this earth that'll present in-depth sports statistics analysis as part of daily life. It's like using appropriate but too obscure words. If too many readers can't follow it, what good is it?
Take the example of that worthy fellow who made the charts of Ray Allen's shot selection. Interesting information, no doubt. But where does it fit into coverage of Allen's decision to sign with the Heat? In daily reporting, stats are seasoning and sauces. They made the food taste better. But the food itself is who won the damn game.

 

It's possible the Boston media stink on ice. Unlikely, but possible.
I don't read these people often enough to know.
I do know, however, that this magazine piece is an absolute piece of crap that does nothing to advance the case that the Boston media stink.

 

I've always liked Gordon Edes, too. But good lord Shaughnessy is awful, just a morally bankrupt man. I used to read him just to get fired up, and I do respect that quality in some writers, but who hasn't he fully thrown under the bus over the years? And I'm not talking about fair criticism, I'm talking about dirty pool. Nomar, Manny, Pedro, Theo, Clemens (I'm ok with that one, actually), Youk, Tito and so on. It seriously seems to me the reason Theo left Boston. Why would anyone with a choice bother with that f'ing combat zone? I guess that's back to my earlier question -- where does Boston rank in terms of media/pro sports team combativeness?

 

Not that I'm reading. All I'm reading is that Miguel Cabrera is better than Mike Trout because he hit more home runs and that closers are the most important pitchers in baseball (an exaggeration but not by much).

 

Are you reading that?

Or are you just being as stupid and dogmatic about sabermetrics as you think old people are about other things?

I would like to see anyone who made either of the arguments you're stereotyping.