Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, October 22, 2011

Strauss: Cardinals criticized for not speaking to media after Game 2

Another “prickly enough/La Russa” same sentence alert!

A lack of availability by veterans Albert Pujols, Lance Berkman, Matt Holliday and Yadier Molina following Thursday’s 2-1 loss generated criticism from media who perceived the team was willing to make spokesmen of its younger players while its veterans made a run for the parking lot.

The matter was significant enough for Cardinals general manager John Mozeliak to discuss it with Berkman during Friday’s workout at Rangers Park and prickly enough for manager Tony La Russa to scold media.

“I think we have a responsibility and we’re willing to live up to it. But somebody has got to be fair with us,” La Russa said. “I heard the criticism and it offends me because I know our attitude as an organization is 180 degrees different from the way it’s being portrayed. Nobody asked for those guys, and they got out of there. They had other things to do.”

Hoping for clarification of a pivotal ninth-inning misplay involving Pujols, reporters swarmed around the first baseman’s locker shortly after the game. Pujols, however, was sequestered in a player lounge inaccessible to reporters and said he was not told of their interest until more than 40 minutes later. Pujols said by then he had reached the players’ parking lot with Molina and was committed to leaving with family.

“To try to rip somebody’s reputation for something like this I don’t think is fair,” Pujols said. “But you know what? I don’t throw rocks at you guys. You guys are human. You guys make mistakes just like I do.”

Repoz Posted: October 22, 2011 at 11:48 AM | 67 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: cardinals, rangers

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Rowland Office Supplies Posted: October 22, 2011 at 12:54 PM (#3971278)
“To try to rip somebody’s reputation for something like this I don’t think is fair,” Pujols said. “But you know what? I don’t throw rocks at you guys. You guys are human. You guys make mistakes just like I do.”

How much farther can this guy's stock plummet? Are we talking non-roster Spring Training invitee yet?
   2. There are a lot of good people in alt-Shooty Posted: October 22, 2011 at 01:04 PM (#3971280)
Pujols, however, was sequestered in a player lounge inaccessible to reporters and said he was not told of their interest until more than 40 minutes later.

Yeah. Why would reporters want to talk to a team's uber star after a World Series game.
   3. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: October 22, 2011 at 01:41 PM (#3971286)
Strauss: Cardinals criticized for not speaking to media after Game 2


More accurate headline: Media criticizes Cardinals for not making their job easier after Game 2
   4. The District Attorney Posted: October 22, 2011 at 01:55 PM (#3971289)
Well, I hate everyone involved in this story. The Cards for their perpetual persecution complex and ridiculous "duh, we didn't realize you guys would want to talk to us" alibi; the reporters for feeling like they need to ask these dumb "how did it feel when you missed that ball?" questions in the first place.
   5. Morty Causa Posted: October 22, 2011 at 02:30 PM (#3971297)
TLR and Co. come across like a bunch of cry-babies. The Cardinals seem to want to relive 1985--work their sense of being aggrieved to a froth, then show everybody by proceeding to a meltdown. It's silly and tiresome.
   6. Howie Menckel Posted: October 22, 2011 at 02:47 PM (#3971302)
"the reporters for feeling like they need to ask these dumb "how did it feel when you missed that ball?" questions in the first place."

does not match up with:

"Hoping for clarification of a pivotal ninth-inning misplay involving Pujols, reporters swarmed around the first baseman’s locker shortly after the game."

Should we go back to the 1940s, and just have reporters speculate without even talking to the players?
Or would that, too, be ridiculed on BBTF?

Tough crowd.
   7. Walks Clog Up the Bases Posted: October 22, 2011 at 02:56 PM (#3971306)
This is the downside of the World Series. A maximum of seven games over a two-week period, meaning there's lots of downtime to turn #### like this into a story.
   8. phredbird Posted: October 22, 2011 at 02:58 PM (#3971307)
geez, i guess they were just too stunned to believe they actually lost that game and had a collective postgame brain cramp. not that i'm defending them. but don't wait around hoping they'll say something like 'oh yeah, my bad, i should have talked to you guys.'
   9. Dan The Mediocre is one of "the rest" Posted: October 22, 2011 at 03:42 PM (#3971327)
"the reporters for feeling like they need to ask these dumb "how did it feel when you missed that ball?" questions in the first place."

does not match up with:

"Hoping for clarification of a pivotal ninth-inning misplay involving Pujols, reporters swarmed around the first baseman’s locker shortly after the game."


What sort of question are they going to ask that's more substantial than "how did it feel when you missed that ball?"?

Should we go back to the 1940s, and just have reporters speculate without even talking to the players?
Or would that, too, be ridiculed on BBTF?

Tough crowd.


We've reached a point where they speculate even when they do talk to players. On top of that we have reached a point where anything other than bland, meaningless comments gets crucified in the press. What incentive do players have to talk to reporters? I realize the answer is probably going to be "because the fans want/deserve it" but I somehow doubt most fans care what Pujols is going to say about it.
   10. Morty Causa Posted: October 22, 2011 at 03:47 PM (#3971333)
Yes, the quality of the writing and analysis is awful, but, as Bill James pointed out years ago, you can't have a professional sport on any sustainable scale without media coverage and promotion. Hype. C'mon, people, you're acting like this is just some sort of event that only has to do with the two teams. If it weren't for those pesky reporters, most of those guys would be cutting cane in some Caribbean hellhole of a country in the off-season.
   11. Dan The Mediocre is one of "the rest" Posted: October 22, 2011 at 03:54 PM (#3971337)
Yes, the quality of the writing and analysis is awful, but, as Bill James pointed out years ago, you can't have a professional sport on any sustainable scale without media coverage and promotion. Hype. C'mon, people, you're acting like this is just some sort of event that only has to do with the two teams. If it weren't for those pesky reporters, most of those guys would be cutting cane in some Caribbean hellhole of a country in the off-season.


I'd have to say that post-game interviews are the least necessary part of that coverage. It's really more like voyeurism than actual journalism.
   12. Tom Nawrocki Posted: October 22, 2011 at 04:06 PM (#3971341)
What sort of question are they going to ask that's more substantial than "how did it feel when you missed that ball?"?


Was there a reason you didn't cut it off? Were you distracted by Kinsler rounding third? Did you think for a moment about letting it go through? Did anyone holler at you to cut it or not cut it?
   13. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: October 22, 2011 at 04:17 PM (#3971347)
If I ran/owned a team, there would be a no reporters in the clubhouse policy. Because a) fuck 'em, and b) not the players not having to worry about having every minor act or word scrutinized is probably the best clubhouse chemestry move you can make.

If "journalists" want to get empty quotes for their column, they can wait for a presser.
   14. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: October 22, 2011 at 04:20 PM (#3971350)
The Cardinals seem to want to relive 1985--work their sense of being aggrieved to a froth, then show everybody by proceeding to a meltdown.


At least in 1985 they kinda had a point.

Should we go back to the 1940s, and just have reporters speculate without even talking to the players?


Back in the 1940s, they'd have had plenty of time to ask Albert about the play during the card game on the train.
   15. Forsch 10 From Navarone (Dayn) Posted: October 22, 2011 at 04:37 PM (#3971355)
If I ran/owned a team, there would be a no reporters in the clubhouse policy. Because a) #### 'em, and b) not the players not having to worry about having every minor act or word scrutinized is probably the best clubhouse chemestry move you can make.

If "journalists" want to get empty quotes for their column, they can wait for a presser.


MLB would not allow you to do this.
   16. greenback is not cosmopolitan Posted: October 22, 2011 at 05:12 PM (#3971367)
It's annoying that this and Epstein are the two big stories right now. The Rangers stole a game to tie up the World Series with four "execution" plays in the 9th (Kinsler SB, Kinsler distracting Pujols with Andrus reaching 2b as a result, Hamilton sac fly, Young sac fly), and nobody wants to discuss some really good baseball.
   17. Forsch 10 From Navarone (Dayn) Posted: October 22, 2011 at 05:14 PM (#3971368)
It's annoying that this and Epstein are the two big stories right now. The Rangers stole a game to tie up the World Series with four "execution" plays in the 9th (Kinsler SB, Kinsler distracting Pujols with Andrus reaching 2b as a result, Hamilton sac fly, Young sac fly), and nobody wants to discuss some really good baseball.

This.
   18. Shock Posted: October 22, 2011 at 05:20 PM (#3971373)
I hate the Cardinals but this is the dumbest "controversy" ever. The media can go fuck its collective self. Is game 3 starting yet?
   19. Morty Causa Posted: October 22, 2011 at 05:20 PM (#3971374)
Agree with 16 and 17.
   20. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: October 22, 2011 at 05:23 PM (#3971375)
MLB would not allow you to do this.

Sure, you have to give jornalists access to the clubhouse. If the players are changing and hanging out in private areas not designated to be part of the clubhouse, that doesn't do them much good.
   21. Dan The Mediocre is one of "the rest" Posted: October 22, 2011 at 05:24 PM (#3971377)
It's annoying that this and Epstein are the two big stories right now. The Rangers stole a game to tie up the World Series with four "execution" plays in the 9th (Kinsler SB, Kinsler distracting Pujols with Andrus reaching 2b as a result, Hamilton sac fly, Young sac fly), and nobody wants to discuss some really good baseball.

This.


Strongly concur!
   22. Tricky Dick Posted: October 22, 2011 at 05:28 PM (#3971378)
Talking to reporters is as much a part of the ball players' job as hitting or pitching the ball. People around here may or may not like post game interviews, but the the teams expect players to participate in post-game interviews. They know from the day they are first called up that it's a job requirement. I'm not saying this instance is worth making a big deal over--but given that it's a World Series, every thing gets blown out of proportion.
   23. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: October 22, 2011 at 06:05 PM (#3971399)
but don't wait around hoping they'll say something like 'oh yeah, my bad, i should have talked to you guys.'

Because that would be so very hard to do! Imagine the raw courage it would take! Not even Gandhi or the Buddha would do that.

I will take your advice and not wait for a TLR led team to offer a carrot. </obligatory TLR dig>
   24. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: October 22, 2011 at 06:34 PM (#3971413)
I agree with #24
   25. Srul Itza Posted: October 22, 2011 at 06:35 PM (#3971414)
Following up on Tom:

Given the amount of colloquy that the Jay/Pujols/Kinsler/Andrus play generated here (and elsewhere), including the issue of whether it really was an error, the assertion that the reporters were wrong for wanting to ask about it is pure, knee-jerk, "I just hate the media" BS.

It was a pivotal play in the game, as everybody recognized, and the reporters were absolutely right to want to find out Pujols' perspective on it. Did the ball tail on you? Were you distracted by Kinsler? Did you have enough time to get into the position you wanted to? Did you think you had touched the ball? Do you think an error should have been called on the play?

These and others were legitimate questions. Albert chose to duck out on the media after a World Series game, rather than have to explain.
   26. Morty Causa Posted: October 22, 2011 at 06:53 PM (#3971424)
#24:

Front-runner.
   27. Bob Tufts Posted: October 22, 2011 at 06:53 PM (#3971425)
I wonder what Pujols really meany when he finally met the press and said that his only responisibilities were to G-d and his family.

Does this mean that he believes reporters are atheistic heathen?

Put down the Jesus card, Albert - it's insulting to use it like you did.
   28. simpleton & childlike gef the talking mongoose Posted: October 22, 2011 at 07:01 PM (#3971428)
his only responisibilities were to G-d and his family.


And, of course, the Tea Party.
   29. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: October 22, 2011 at 07:02 PM (#3971430)
I disagree with #29.
   30. simpleton & childlike gef the talking mongoose Posted: October 22, 2011 at 07:07 PM (#3971433)
I'm ambivalent on #30, conflicted about #19, apathetic toward #22 & so gosh-darned enraged about #16 that I could just spit.
   31. base ball chick Posted: October 22, 2011 at 07:09 PM (#3971434)
guess he saw what happened to brad lidge game 5 in 05 - tortured by the media for an HOUR and he stood and didn't flinch. not then, not the next week, not all during spring training not during all of 06

i guess the cut n run is albert's way of making it up to lidge
   32. base ball chick Posted: October 22, 2011 at 07:11 PM (#3971435)
but berkman had NO excuse on this one - he wasn't even involved
   33. Juilin Sandar to Conkling Speedwell (Arjun) Posted: October 22, 2011 at 07:14 PM (#3971436)
I agree with #16, but strongly disagree with #17.
   34. Forsch 10 From Navarone (Dayn) Posted: October 22, 2011 at 07:15 PM (#3971437)
I agree with #16, but strongly disagree with #17.

This.
   35. simpleton & childlike gef the talking mongoose Posted: October 22, 2011 at 07:19 PM (#3971438)
#24 makes me want to kill myself.

#29 makes me want to kill the rest of you.

#34 has me seriously contemplating running outside & killing the neighbors.
   36. Tom Nawrocki Posted: October 22, 2011 at 07:35 PM (#3971441)
#41 is gonna be awesome.
   37. simpleton & childlike gef the talking mongoose Posted: October 22, 2011 at 07:37 PM (#3971442)
Is #39 the stupidest post ever?
   38. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: October 22, 2011 at 07:37 PM (#3971444)
#35 should change his handle to gef the talking lemming
   39. Juilin Sandar to Conkling Speedwell (Arjun) Posted: October 22, 2011 at 07:39 PM (#3971445)
Is #39 the stupidest post ever?

No, it isn't.
   40. Howie Menckel Posted: October 22, 2011 at 07:40 PM (#3971446)
I had always thought that this point was obvious, but when I see some comments like those in here, I realize that I guess it isn't for a lot of folks:

The pre-game and post-game interviews are not helpful only for the write-it-up-quick story of the moment. It also provides time for a writer and a player to get to know each other - very, very well in the case of team beat writers. That gives a good writer a context of what these players are like as people. And that perspective informs their writing throughout the season, not just on "game stories." That's what allows a good writer to be able to inform fans what these athletes are really like.

Someone will claim that they don't care, that the players are just robots to them anyway.
Maybe. But plenty of sports fans DO want to know what the athletes are all about. That helps keep widespread interest alive, which is why leagues would never cut off all media access. That would be detrimental to their business.

So if you support no access for media, don't be a hypocrite and enjoy reading off-day features about players, since so many of them germinated during those "worthless" interviews you so despise.
   41. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: October 22, 2011 at 07:40 PM (#3971449)
This post is not awesome
   42. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: October 22, 2011 at 07:43 PM (#3971451)
Maybe. But plenty of sports fans DO want to know what the athletes are all about. That helps keep widespread interest alive, which is why leagues would never cut off all media access. That would be detrimental to their business.

The Patriots seem to be doing just fine.
   43. Joe Bivens Will Take a Steaming Dump Posted: October 22, 2011 at 08:00 PM (#3971455)
I'm going to Panera Bread tonight.
   44. simpleton & childlike gef the talking mongoose Posted: October 22, 2011 at 08:01 PM (#3971456)
I'm going to Panera Bread tonight.


Disconcur.
   45. Nose army. Beef diaper? (CoB) Posted: October 22, 2011 at 08:18 PM (#3971463)
I'm going to Panera Bread tonight.


Get the thing that they do with the soup and the bread in a bowl-like configuration!
   46. Joe Bivens Will Take a Steaming Dump Posted: October 22, 2011 at 08:39 PM (#3971474)
I get the same thing every time I go...the Mediterranean Veggie sandwich. The only time I deviate is when my Panera Rewards card accrues a freebie.
   47. Dag Nabbit at ExactlyAsOld.com Posted: October 22, 2011 at 09:58 PM (#3971501)
(nevermind, someone already took the joke)
   48. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 22, 2011 at 10:26 PM (#3971513)
I like what Joe Sheehan had to say about this silliness in his newsletter today:

Sorry for the delay in getting a Game Two recap out. I'd love to be able to blame Albert Pujols, but really, I'm just awfully sick.)
...
Much of the postgame and off-day coverage had nothing to do with baseball. No matter how well-written, how sincere, how well-respected the authors, keep in mind that the coverage of a player's post-game availability isn't about baseball. All of the time, energy and effort expended upon this one point, well-intentioned though it may be, would be better spent covering baseball.
   49. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 22, 2011 at 10:27 PM (#3971514)
We've reached a point where they speculate even when they do talk to players. On top of that we have reached a point where anything other than bland, meaningless comments gets crucified in the press. What incentive do players have to talk to reporters?


Yes. I made this point in the other thread.
   50. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 22, 2011 at 10:33 PM (#3971516)
Following up on Tom:

Given the amount of colloquy that the Jay/Pujols/Kinsler/Andrus play generated here (and elsewhere), including the issue of whether it really was an error, the assertion that the reporters were wrong for wanting to ask about it is pure, knee-jerk, "I just hate the media" BS.


The problem is that this is wrong. Many writers have been complaining that Pujols not being available to the media was an issue of accountability. See, e.g., what Jeff Passan wrote:

"Pujols, more than anything, must be accountable to his teammates, those he ostensibly leads. He needs to stand up after losses so Jason Motte and Jon Jay and Allen Craig and David Freese don’t have to."
   51. Lassus Posted: October 22, 2011 at 10:41 PM (#3971519)
He needs to stand up after losses so Jason Motte and Jon Jay and Allen Craig and David Freese don’t have to."

This strikes me as an absolutely huge amount of totalbullshit.
   52. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 22, 2011 at 10:46 PM (#3971521)
This strikes me as an absolutely huge amount of totalbullshit.


It is. As I noted in the other thread, Motte and Jay would have had to "stand up after the loss" whether Pujols was there or not. There is no circumstance in which the media wouldn't have gone to seek those other guys out to deem whether those guys felt sufficiently "accountable" for the loss. Passan's comment makes zero sense.
   53. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: October 22, 2011 at 10:53 PM (#3971525)
The blame here is clearely with Motte/Jay/Craig/Freese, for not being smart enough to bail before the mdia got there.
   54. AJMcCringleberry Posted: October 22, 2011 at 10:54 PM (#3971528)
It's hilarious how sportswriters complain that a player is "causing" sportswriters to be a distraction.
   55. Bob Evans Posted: October 22, 2011 at 11:04 PM (#3971536)
As I noted in the other thread, Motte and Jay would have had to "stand up after the loss" whether Pujols was there or not. There is no circumstance in which the media wouldn't have gone to seek those other guys out to deem whether those guys felt sufficiently "accountable" for the loss.

Anyone who believes the public cares as much about Jon Jay's role in the game as it does Pujols' role, or even that Jay's role in the play in question was equivalent to Pujols', is absolutely nuts.
   56. Bob Evans Posted: October 22, 2011 at 11:04 PM (#3971537)
Edit: double-post, crummy mouse.
   57. Howie Menckel Posted: October 22, 2011 at 11:29 PM (#3971550)
"We've reached a point where they speculate even when they do talk to players. On top of that we have reached a point where anything other than bland, meaningless comments gets crucified in the press. What incentive do players have to talk to reporters?"

That seems like a bias that never gets challenged, because it is so easy to get "validation."

If a player makes a provocative point, and nearly all media members either support the point, support the player's right to make the point, or don't comment, that does not register with people biased in that manner. All they need is some blogger who gets 100 hits a month getting posted here, and there's the old "See, the guy is getting crucified in the press for speaking out. Why bother talking to reporters?"

So congratulations, to those in that camp, for constructing a setup where no amount of new experience can possibly touch that worldview.

Yet in other threads, we see religion-bashing by BBTF folks because "those people" are so closed-minded.

Tip: Is there any such thing as "the press" in the manner intended there? Does it not count if the majority of "the press" (as opposed to the equally off-putting "the homeless" or "the troops" meme) fails to live up to the stereotype?
   58. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 22, 2011 at 11:39 PM (#3971560)
Anyone who believes the public cares as much about Jon Jay's role in the game as it does Pujols' role, or even that Jay's role in the play in question was equivalent to Pujols', is absolutely nuts.


Anyone who believes that's the point that was being made, or even that that was responsive to anything, is absolutely nuts.
   59. Tom Nawrocki Posted: October 23, 2011 at 12:15 AM (#3971600)

The problem is that this is wrong. Many writers have been complaining that Pujols not being available to the media was an issue of accountability.


But that's not what Srul is talking about, or what I was talking about. There would have been real value in talking with Pujols after the game. There would have been many things to discuss other than how he felt about the play. Of course the writers were right to want to talk to him.

Whether he should have made himself available is a totally different question. My feeling on the matter is that Pujols is entitled to do whatever he wants, and if his teammates feel like they let him down, that's for them to deal with amongst themselves.

I heard Passan on sports-talk radio on Friday, saying that he didn't really care whether or not Pujols talked after the game, but that the real issue was that he was being a bad teammate. I actually found this rather laughable; it reminds me of players who say they aren't upset about being released, but just that the team handled it so poorly.
   60. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 23, 2011 at 12:27 AM (#3971620)
But that's not what Srul is talking about, or what I was talking about. There would have been real value in talking with Pujols after the game. There would have been many things to discuss other than how he felt about the play. Of course the writers were right to want to talk to him.


I agree with this. But:

Whether he should have made himself available is a totally different question.


This is what everyone has been upset about. Availability/accountability/leadershipability and all that nonsense.
   61. Bruce Markusen Posted: October 23, 2011 at 01:05 AM (#3971676)
Professionalism, showing respect, and being cooperative. Such nonsensical traits to have.
   62. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 23, 2011 at 01:54 AM (#3971842)
Professionalism, showing respect, and being cooperative. Such nonsensical traits to have.


Yes. If only sportswriters had them.
   63. The District Attorney Posted: October 23, 2011 at 02:01 AM (#3971863)
Robothal concentrates on the "this can make our stories better" argument, rather than the "Pujols is a bad person" argument.

It's certainly a better argument. I would be more sympathetic to it if, when the players didn't give them anything, the writers proceeded to write a different story. But I feel like they don't do that... and that that's a lot more common than the cases when the players do give them something.

One quote that struck me from Rosenthal's article was:
Soccer writers in England rarely get postgame access to players. They’re almost like art critics, writing reviews without talking to the principals. But if that is what major leaguers preferred, it would lead to other problems.
Would it? The way you put it, it sure makes me want to give it a shot.

(And of course, art critics are allowed to talk to artists, and I'm sure many art critics do get to know certain artists very well. It's just that no one makes the artists talk to them.)
   64. Howie Menckel Posted: October 23, 2011 at 02:01 AM (#3971865)
Is there an example of when rampant rhetorical stereotyping hasn't diminished the credibility of the accuser more than the accused? Yet it happens all the time.

Seems like a poor strategy, no?
   65. Morty Causa Posted: October 23, 2011 at 02:48 AM (#3971980)
Professionalism, showing respect, and being cooperative. Such nonsensical traits to have.

Yes. If only sportswriters had them.


Classic.

Really, Ray:

tu quoque

As others have tried to make you see, being a professional in an entertainment industry comes with responsibilities. You come into the profession encumbered with them. Those duties are to the fans (you know, those customers that make it so the players are able to be paid money beyond the dreams of avarice), to your team (players and management), and to the overall collective enterprise (MLB). Indeed, MLB and the team both encumber a player, from his entry into the profession, with an express duty on this score. Moreover, it is to the benefit of everyone involved, even the ingrate player. Maybe especially that player.
   66. base ball chick Posted: October 23, 2011 at 03:06 AM (#3972007)
howie

you have a good point - ESPECIALLYa when you are taliing about the beat reporters who many times have good interviews/good questions especially when they are NOT post game

however

i heard/watched the brad lidge post game interviews/harrassment after game 5 2005

he stood up there and took it in the balls for - what, an HOUR from the media? what is the point of asking - so how does it feel to be the worst person in the world - how do you feel about screwing your team/teammates - why did you hang that slider - how do you feel about being a loser - did pujols just destroy your entire life - how will you ever be able to throw another pitch seeing as how no one in the majors ever hung a slider to pujols who is a lousy singles hitter

blahblahblah

i would have felt like punching every one of em out EVEN if the losing pitcher had been a yankee/redsox because even one of Those Peeple don't deserve an hour of that stupid insulting shtt. hanging the slider and losing the game was bad enough

you know and i know that ballplayers are often asked incredibly STUPID and insulting questions (barry lamar was right) - like - how do you feel about missing that ball

however, like what is he supposed to say besides - i missed the ball, i messed up. any other questions - oh yeah, of COURSE i like being the one who contributed heavily to the team loss especially seeing as how i haven't hit better than any given pitcher. next question

i agree that pujols shouldn't have left jon jay to take all the heat - that was bullshtt. he KNOWS that part of his job is to take it up the wazoo with stupid questions after effing up BIG time in a WS game. and of course he wasn't THE reason the cards lost
   67. Howie Menckel Posted: October 23, 2011 at 03:16 AM (#3972031)
"i heard/watched the brad lidge post game interviews/harrassment after game 5 2005. he stood up there and took it in the balls for - what, an HOUR from the media?"

Notes:
- in a postseason, mega-media, chaotic setting, it's often not possible for all TV/Radio media in particular to get to each player simultaneously.

- that said, it's up to the PR staff to figure out how to handle the details. yes, the player needs to hear similar questions multiple times in that scenario. but as you note, the newspaper beat people who actually know the player would be done already. this secondary stuff is to satisfy the national electronic media, who in too many cases know little about the player.

- that said, the amount of publicity good and bad for each game is quite helpful to MLB, and they know it. based on what you've said, the PR guy probably needed to bark out to the locker room 20-30 minutes in that Lidge would be done soon. Then after that, "Any specific, original angles we may not have talked about yet?"

You accurately see the distinction between beat writers and postseason media, and the related responsibilities.

But even if it isn't always great journalism, the responses can be telling.
I suspect Lidge won over some fans with his ability to take the heat - and it may not have hurt his cause in his 'perfect' season a couple of years later with the Phillies. Maybe the Phillies learned how well he could take a punch before they acquired him, based in part on that post-game scenario.

And thanks much for taking me back to the conversational world of "nuance." Makes for a much easier discussion imo.
   68. base ball chick Posted: October 23, 2011 at 04:14 AM (#3972141)
howie

i think that instead of 80 zillion reporters crowding around some guys locker it would make more sense to do the interview thingy with the guy sitting at the table with the gatorade strategically positioned in front of the camera and ALL the media people in there so that he doesn't get asked the same (insulting/stupid) question 50 times. maybe there would even be some GOOD questions

youneverknow

and yeah, star or no star, i think that no one should be allowed to leave after a WS game without taking questions unless he is going to the hospital.

poor lidge had to take it up the wazoo practically the entire 06 season too - cmon, admit that pujols ruined your life. cmon, admit it, you are mentally deranged by albert. cmon admit it. just confess. cmon, you know you are ruined. finished, why can't you admit it - cmon, confess, cry on TV, give us a story

he did not deserve THAT and nobody called all those guys out for their crap

he deserved every cent he got after that just for the shtt he had to eat from the media all freaking year. the fact that albert never again hit him for spit made no difference

wonder if the texas pitchers are all gonna get asked over and over if pujols hitting 3 homers in a game permanently destroyed the team

i might could be a bit prejudiced in favor of beat reporters because until this year, we've had good ones...

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Phil Birnbaum
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogPat Neshek rips Zack Greinke for not signing autograph | SI.com
(17 - 2:15am, Sep 21)
Last: Baldrick

NewsblogThis is baseball’s home run breaking point | New York Post
(25 - 2:12am, Sep 21)
Last: Baldrick

NewsblogJosh Donaldson Wants You To Know: This Wasn’t A Catch
(48 - 1:49am, Sep 21)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogOMNICHATTER'S not the man they think he is at home, oh, no, no, no, for September 20, 2017
(88 - 1:35am, Sep 21)
Last: LA Podcasting Hombre of Anaheim

Newsblog‘Friends,’ the Sitcom That’s Still a Hit in Major League Baseball
(325 - 1:26am, Sep 21)
Last: Baldrick

NewsblogOTP 18 September 2017: Ex-Baseball Star Darryl Strawberry Criticizes Jemele Hill, Praises POTUS: Trump is ‘A Great Man’
(674 - 1:23am, Sep 21)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogDayton Moore on why Royals did not sell | MLB.com
(13 - 12:59am, Sep 21)
Last: QLE

NewsblogYoenis Cespedes reveals his new offseason training plan | New York Post
(6 - 11:03pm, Sep 20)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

Gonfalon Cubs15 To Go
(67 - 11:01pm, Sep 20)
Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington

NewsblogMets' Jose Reyes: Continues late-season offensive bender
(17 - 10:38pm, Sep 20)
Last: Russlan thinks deGrom is da bomb

NewsblogA’s preferred stadium site criticized for causing gentrification, killing waterfowl | Field of Schemes
(59 - 9:39pm, Sep 20)
Last: Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant

NewsblogHow Tracking Technology Helped Baseball’s Best Fielding Outfielder - WSJ
(3 - 7:24pm, Sep 20)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogIf you’re the Red Sox, do you want to play the Indians or Astros in the divisional round of the playoffs?
(63 - 6:54pm, Sep 20)
Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)

NewsblogMust C: Five straight for Olson | MLB.com (video)
(12 - 5:08pm, Sep 20)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT-NBA off season thread
(2408 - 5:07pm, Sep 20)
Last: PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina

Page rendered in 0.4049 seconds
47 querie(s) executed