#38 in journalism there are basically two things that are proprietary -- the research/reporting and the prose. When it comes to content, the fact that A-Rod was the #1 pick in the draft is widely known and reported and including that in your article even if you didn't hear it from a primary source is usually ok. However, if you take information that is considered more proprietary, like a scoop that just came out 10 minutes ago, you're supposed to cite whoever first reported it. IIRC, ESPN is often criticized for failing to credit other publications for their scoops or quotes, which may be one reason why people are making a big deal out of this.

Also, if someone does the work of assembling a biography, and you just take all of the information and rephrase it, that's also not kosher even if you're not copying word-for-word. Sometimes there are gray areas but the examples Deadspin gave were pretty black-and-white.

Someone's prose is also generally considered proprietary. If Hoppes can't think of another way to write something without copying it word-for-word, then he should just quote it. Too bad he's not a better writer.

you just take all of the information and rephrase it, that's also not kosher

It's been a while but AFAIK and have experienced, if one amends your phrase to say "much or some of the information...." then it's still plagiarism according to academics, ombudsmen of journalism, and other turf-protectors. It's gone too far, to the point that every "a", "the", and "and" has to have its own citation and the most basic facts about anything or anyone are considered proprietary.