Rays of Light

I’m not one to steal Cork’s thunder and rip on one of the Rays’ columnists (okay, maybe I am), but there was something in Marc Topkin’s article in the Times today that irked me. (St. Pete Times)

No, it wasn’t that he spent 11 paragraphs on Scott Kazmir’s reaction to James Shields’ deal without telling us anything. I’ve come to expect that.

No, it wasn’t that he invoked Toby Hall’s name in there, bringing back painful memories that I’d like to forget.

It was that he said that you could “field a decent team” with the following players still available via free agency:

1B Doug Mientkiewicz, 2B Jerry Hairston, SS Royce Clayton, 3B Jeff Cirillo, C Mike Piazza, OF Luis Gonzalez, OF Kenny Lofton, OF Brad Wilkerson, DH Barry Bonds, P Kyle Lohse, P Livan Hernandez, P Jeff Weaver, P Odalis Perez, P Trever Miller, P David Wells

Seems like an innocent enough comment, right? That is until you realize that lots of people rely on writers like Topkin to give them accurate information. Let’s organize that group into a lineup and a starting rotation, and see exactly what we’ve got.

1. CF – Kenny Lofton, Age: 40 OPS+: 105
2. SS – Royce Clayton, Age: 38 OPS+: 66
3. C – Mike Piazza, Age: 39 OPS+: 96 (And can’t field a lick)
4. DH – Barry Bonds, Age: 43 OPS+: 170 (With a ton of baggage)
5. RF – Brad Wilkerson, Age: 30 OPS+: 104
6. LF – Luis Gonzalez, Age: 40 OPS+: 104
7. 3B – Jeff Cirillo, Age: 38 OPS+: 81
8. 1B – Doug Mientkiewicz, Age: 33 OPS+: 107
9. 2B – Jerry Hairson, Age: 31 OPS+: 42

1. Livan Hernandez, Age: 33 ERA+: 95
2. David Wells, Age: 44 ERA+: 77
3. Odalis Perez, Age: 30 ERA+: 84
4. Jeff Weaver, Age: 31 ERA+: 70
5. Kyle Lohse, Age: 30 ERA+: 100

Why are you lying to us, Marc?!? Why?? This isn’t a decent team at all! This team is AWFUL! It would go like 50-112! Not only that, but it’s OLD so you’d be playing with guys who are even worse for most of the year. Ugh!

There were a few decent tidbits in Topkin’s article, including:

• Carl Crawford is working out harder than ever and could be coming to camp in the best shape of his life. Nice. High-five!
• Keith Law ain’t having any of the James Shields deal. He shares the concerns that I initially had about it until I realized that this was a monumental step in the right direction for the franchise in that it was willing to spend money to reward good performance rather than just selling it off to the highest bidder.
• Rocco Baldelli took in a soccer game, and will be out for three months after a rowdy Celtic supported yelled too loud and ruptured his ear drum. Okay, I made the injury part up. But Rocco does love him some Celtic (that’s KEL-tick) football.
• Jake McGee is hangin’ with James Shields, checking out his workouts.

Alright, time to go run some errands before the NHL All-Star Game. I expect all y’all to tune in, too.

This entry was posted on Sunday, January 27th, 2008 at 11:24 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

4 Responses to “Oh Marc Topkin, why must you lie?”

1. Jon Wolfson Says:
   January 27th, 2008 at 1:07 pm

   Agreed. Perhaps he meant you could field th worst, most injury prone team in history?

2. Bob R. Says:
   January 27th, 2008 at 8:12 pm

   I read it and realized immediately that it was indeed a terrible team. But the article does not lie; it is simply a typical mainstream newspaper article that is more “human interest” than analysis.

   I think a problem that has arisen in the past 10 years or so is that many fans have become more sophisticated as sabermetrics has matured and come to influence through the internet. As a result, light stories such as this one now appear silly or even nonsensical rather than simply amusing. We see through the oversimplification very quickly.

   I call it a problem because one result has been a kind of alienation between fans who rely more on sites like this (and Baseball Analysts and BP and THT) and mainstream journalists who are still writing “old style”. And to many, the progressive group (us?) appears arrogant and dogmatic, and perhaps even a threat. We sometimes write in a way that appears smug and dismissive of those “less enlightened”, missing the purpose behind articles like this one in our smug self-assurance that our way of interpreting is superior.

   Actually, Marc Topkin is among the more enlightened of the mainstream columnists. He has no antipathy to sabermetrics and even refers to it, at least to elements of it, in his writing on occasion. He also has no antipathy to bloggers despite charges to the contrary. So I think it exaggeration to call it lying and doing so only ratchets up the nasty rhetoric that alienates many rather than paving the way to finding a common ground where real conversation can take place.

3. jonwolfson Says:
   January 27th, 2008 at 9:00 pm

   Bob,
   As for me, I was agreeing with Scott that the writer had compiled a poor team, not that he is telling a lie.

   One of, if not the main, the reasons why baseball blogs are so popular, is they cater to a more evaluative genre of fan. Even the rays in the tank in center field at the Trop probably have some grasp of the concept of winning and losing. But blogs are a study of why teams win or lose. With an occasional maniacal rant thrown in.

   If Topkin started focusing on sabermetrics or the complex equations that produce quantitative evaluation of defense, he would be the best baseball writer in Florida. And would subsequently lose his job.

4. Bob R. Says:
   January 28th, 2008 at 12:11 am

   I agree. The blogs offer an opportunity for more sophisticated fans to discuss and think about the game. I do think the press can do more and yet remain popular, but the fundamental style of mainstream journalism and its intended audience precludes in-depth analysis of that type. That, however, is not a criticism. To criticize journalists for not focusing on the details of contemporary analysis easily becomes snobbery. It is like criticizing Dickens for not being Shakespeare and so turning up your nose at him.

   I do think it imperative that the mainstream press take more account of progressive thought. It is part of a journalist’s job to know what is cutting edge and report on it. But that is not the same as insisting they incorporate it fully into their style, nor that progressive analysis is the only or even the best way to appreciate the game. I do think it is a superior way to analyze, but not necessarily a superior way to enjoy or even to apprehend baseball.

   Topkins’ list would not make a very good team, but it includes many recognizable names, a few who may still be useful players and calling it a “decent” team may not be as amiss as we make it out to be. In any case, the list is obviously created in the spirit of good fun, not as a serious analysis. It is more a literary convention to call attention to the big names, if no longer big talents, still available. Maybe we are the ones who need to gain some perspective and not take it so seriously. Good readers who are not sabermetrically inclined might well read it as simply a lark.

   As a former New Yorker subjected to the columnists in the Times, News, Post and assorted Gannett papers as well as national publications, I do consider Topkin an excellent baseball writer, not just by comparison (where he clearly outshines most of them) but on his own merits. I sometimes disagree with his positions, but find him balanced, fair-minded, without malice or intention to stir the pot simply to appear controversial and willing to incorporate some progressive references into his writing. Actually, I think the Times baseball writers, particularly Romano, comprise an excellent staff.