I have no idea what the American Enterprise is, but I loved reading this article.

Nothing pisses me off more than when a professional sports writer dedicates his column to slinging personal insults at those who dare mess with the "tradition," and making a bunch of absent-minded references to computers in some stupid way to make their subject (read: target) look like a "nerd." I can't believe how childish some of these men are.

David Damiani is a total nerd-bomber.

Good article and I am certain that guy reads Primer.

What a nicely-written article with a wonderful message of course. I can easily excuse his hyperbole...

Plaschke=King Ludd

How do you pronounce Plaschke? I've always thought it rhymes with "latch key," but I'm probably way off.

Over here in Philadelphia, this kind of relentless anti-intellectual techno/mathphobia by the sports press is usually called a "weekday." I think a factor in this is journalists' own demographics--as newspapers have struggled they've held on to (fewer) older writers who are as equally beholden to embrace the old ways and the men who sat with them in bars and gave them leads 25 years ago. There are fewer spots for younger guys, particularly to reach coveted baseball columnist spots. For exhibit A of what I'm talking about, I give you Bill Conlin of the Philadelphia Daily News. I can just about guarantee you that the guy's Tuesday afternoon cat naps these days find him back in a Clearwater bar some March in the late 1970s, commiserating with front-office types about which of the Hot Pants girls they would nail that season. Or that, if you ever said the words "Excel spreadsheet" to him, he would look at you through narrow eyes, huff disapprovingly, then look at a far-off corner of the ceiling of the room you're in while pantomiming masturbation.

That said, and also from a Philadelphia perspective, you can rightly criticize DePodesta for falling in love with J.D. Drew's numbers while ignoring a scout's critique of his "makeup." I'm no apologist for the Phillies' failed efforts to sign him upon drafting him, but you couldn't come away from that episode without somehow feeling that this guy is incapable of doing a team much good for the long term. (And injuries have made "long-term" = "whole 162-game season.")

So I can understand why talk radio has to hype the anti-intellectual thing. I know who WIP's audience is, and only a fool would expecte Eskin to do anything other than pander shamelessly to them. Or Cataldi, though when he's on sports, he's notably better. Why aren't intellectual-y people listening to WIP at 3 o'clock? Because they're at work, indoors, in jobs, where you can't blast a radio. WIP is the background music of a thousand union worksites.

But that's not true of the newspaper, especially the Inqy. The mystery, to me, is that they don't try to lure in some of the non-sports readers with some counterintuitive, in-depth stuff. On the other hand, the NY Times has never had much success in getting readers to its sports section that way. And even the Inqy's sports section depends on ads from gambling 900 numbers and strip clubs, so maybe they really don't care. Or maybe it's just the peer pressure.

I'd like to see a paper name its baseball guy a "reviewer" not a "reporter."

What kills me is that Jayson Stark was very sabermetrically inclined when he wrote for teh Inquirer. He's lost a lot of that by going to ESPN.

Plasche = Plash-key.

But that's not true of the newspaper, especially the Inqy. The mystery, to me, is that they don't try to lure in some of the non-sports readers with some counterintuitive, in-depth stuff. On the other hand, the NY Times has never had much success in getting readers to its sports section that way. And even the Inqy's sports section depends on ads from gambling 900 numbers and strip clubs, so maybe they really don't care. Or maybe it's just the peer pressure.

The beat reporter becomes a de facto member of the team. It's hard to publicly hold a philosophy (even if it's your native one) that the players disrespect. Will they give you the big interview, the newsworthy scoop? Columnists are generally old beat reporters. They are often beholden to longstanding managment or players, or are anti for very personal reasons.

It's like the national political press bending over and taking it from the Republican party in 2001-2003.

Bloggers are generally truly independent and therefore worth reading.

I've never read him before, but Damiani's a great writer. This column on the demise of SportsCenter is spot-on.

Good article and I am certain that guy reads Primer.

Yup. From one of his previous columns:

Most importantly, though, sabermetrics is a largely fan-driven phenomenon. It arose from something of an underground baseball culture that challenged traditional ways of thinking, and with precious little media support outside of a handful of columnists, launching a rebellion against general managers' and media members' shortsighted analysis. Through websites like Gleeman's, the inimitable baseballprimer.com, and dozens of other discussion boards and weblogs, the sabermetric movement applies indirect groundswells of pressure against both mismanaged teams and media hegemony.

It's really too bad the domain name changed.

It's really too bad the domain name changed

as of right now that doesn't seem to matter, I type in baseballprimer at work all the time and get here just the same.

houldn’t dare question the press status quo.

one of Michael Lewis' best phrases was in that SI article discussing the reaction to Moneyball, in which he referred to sportwriters as "the ladies auxiliary of baseball"

that being said, anti-intellectualism (especially of the sneering variety) will always have an audience in the good ol' US of A

How do you pronounce Plaschke?

Sounds like "Trashy" if you say it fast.

Other fun facts... in his name you'll find the words BIAS, LIES, SHILL and my favorite... HACK.

What a nicely-written article with a wonderful message of course. I can easily excuse his hyperbole...

point taken. He glosses over the Drew injury, Penny injury, and Encarncion's turnaround.

Conclusions:
1)Plashcke's not a nice person
2)Depo made some errors.

that being said, anti-intellectualism (especially of the sneering variety) will always have an audience in the good ol' US of A

Just like how sneering intellectualism will always have an audience here.

Kyle S:
ah! touche! les mots juste!

Yea, but there is nothing wrong with sneering intellectualism!!... right?

I'm somewhat amused at the following of an AEI article given the left-leaning nature of primer, but its a damn good one.

Let's invite this guy to the next DC Meetup.

Let's invite this guy to the next DC Meetup.

Will...I've already left a message at Damiani's desk.

Repoz, did you call his secretary and say:

"Denise, who is the best looking editor on Primer?"

I cannot see how Damiani makes this connection between idiot sportswriters and the fact that Frank McCourt fired Paul DePodesta. Personally, I would have given DePo more time, but just because McCourt didn't doesn't necessarily mean that some great counterblow has been struck in the epic struggle between stats and scouts. That's ridiculous.

Clearly, McCourt has an affinity for stats analysis, or he probably wouldn't have hired DePodesta in the first place. Just as clearly, McCourt is an impetuous oaf who 1) got spoiled by last year's division title and expected more of the same; 2) was not happy with DePo's communication and management style; and 3) does not give a crap what the LA Times sportswriters think, anyway.

And let's not kid ourselves and start equating the practice of sabermetrics with intellectualism. Come on. That's almost as egregious a mischaracterization as all the stupid "Google Boy" jokes about DePodesta.

I cannot see how Damiani makes this connection between idiot sportswriters and the fact that Frank McCourt fired Paul DePodesta.

Exactly. It's a nice article, but does he prove that the LA sportswriters, however bad they are, REALLY were the cause of the firing, or could it have more do to with Tommy Lasorda, or DePodesta insisting on hiring Terry Collins?

Clearly, McCourt has an affinity for stats analysis, or he probably wouldn't have hired DePodesta in the first place.

Nothing's clear about McCourt, other than he's buried in debt, cheap, and likes to hire his relatives to run the team. Oh, and one other thing, he definitely cares what sportswriters think. He's instructed the PR department to sell the "McCourts" as the brand, not the Dodgers, hired his wife as team president, and his son as VP of Marketing. He craves friendly publicity. Sabremetrics, meh, he can take or leave it.

Sportwriters hurling insults is bad, but wannabe sportswriters hurling insults at sportswriters is... what?

Like I said on another DePo thread, the reaction of the so-called "sabermetric" crowd is utterly predictable.

And it seems no small coincidence that knee-jerkers like the column's author hail from right-wing political institutions like the American Enterprise Institute.

Like I said on another DePo thread, the reaction of the so-called "sabermetric" crowd is utterly predictable.

Pot, meet kettle.

3) does not give a crap what the LA Times sportswriters think, anyway.

Didn't McCourt hire a PR firm to help with the Dodgers' image before the 2005 season? You don't spend the money on PR if you don't give a crap. You can look at the Depodesta firing the other way too: nothing else worked to curry favor with local columnists so he fired someone they despised (they despise the McCourt family more, but he can't fire himself).

Like I said on another DePo thread, the reaction of the so-called "sabermetric" crowd is utterly predictable.

You might want to avoid the hallucinogens until you start making sense. This thread hasn't even reached 30 posts, most of the sabermetric crowd hasn't reacted to the story at all. Maybe it's predictable because you're forcing your own stereotypical script onto a conversation that hasn't taken place.

Sportwriters hurling insults is bad, but wannabe sportswriters hurling insults at sportswriters is... what?

I didn't see any personal instults in this article. No where did he say that sportswriters are bad because they are fat, or because they have zits, or are "nerds" or any of that garbage. If you can't see the difference between this column and Plaschke's first anti-DePo column, then I feel sorry for you.

Sportwriters hurling insults is bad, but wannabe sportswriters hurling insults at sportswriters is... what?

A helluva lot of fun.

Best Regards

John