They had David Ortiz on the broadcast of a Red Sox game the other day and he spoke glowingly of the new pacing rules. Now maybe MLB's just being thorough about insisting on the party line in broadcasts, but I don't think so--I've heard more than one broadcaster bellyache about the pitch clock. But I do think players and umpires alike will pretty quickly discover that, wow, hey, getting finished a half hour sooner every night is actually really nice.

I wish Posnanski had more seriously engaged with the critics and skeptics in this piece, instead of just writing vaguely about "resistance to change" and similar platitudes. It's essentially a PR piece for Major League Baseball and their bold, creative, visionary ideas.

And I say that as someone who is completely on-board with the bigger bases and pitch clock (I hate banning the shift).

Posnanski, in addition to being a child abuse apologist, is an AWFUL writer.

Now maybe MLB's just being thorough about insisting on the party line in broadcasts, but I don't think so--I've heard more than one broadcaster bellyache about the pitch clock.

Ortiz took more time out of the box than anyone. I doubt he'd be a fan of the clock if he were still playing.

I would venture that the evidence shows a vast majority of people disagree with #3's assessment of Posnanski's writing.
I'm not even going to address the other pejorative.

Bruce Chen's Huge Panamanian Robot Posted: March 06, 2023 at 12:22 PM (#6119641)

Posnanski, in addition to being a child abuse apologist

- like WHAT????

it's a Penn State FB coach Joe Paterno issue.

I don't know any of the nitty gritty other than that Posnanski wrote a book about him and - well, bad things happened under his watch.

somebody here might be able to offer a pro or con timeline re this author on the unspeakable traumas vs. the timing of the writing and of the publication of the book.

somebody here might be able to offer a pro or con timeline re this author on the unspeakable traumas vs. the timing of the writing and of the publication of the book.

As I recall, Poz was there preparing his book on Paterno when the Sandusky thing went down. Joe Poz went forward with his favorable portrait of Joe Pa, who essentially turned a blind eye to the abuse happening under his watch that he was made aware of.

I'm not sure Posnanski ever embarrassed himself as much as Bill James did over Paterno, but his reputation deservedly took a hit.

I read Posnanski because he's an optimist who's fun to read and mixes in the humanity of the game with a sabermetric bent. The Soul of Baseball and the Baseball 100 were excellent books that I'd imagine most people here liked or would like.

He's a gifted writer, but he is not a muckraker and seems conflict avoidant. He was the absolute wrong guy to be at Penn State when the Sandusky scandal came to light. I'm sure he has regrets about how he handled it, but more than anything I bet he wishes he hadn't been there in the first place.

more than anything I bet he wishes he hadn't been there in the first place

A profile in courage, that.

I'm not sure Posnanski ever embarrassed himself as much as Bill James did over Paterno, but his reputation deservedly took a hit.

I'm still shocked James kept his job with the Red Sox for five or six years after that. I remember first reading his defense of Paterno and thinking "well that's that, we'll be reading about his 'retirement' from his Red Sox gig in two days."

Posnanski was in a nightmare of a position, having pretty much finished the book when the scandal exploded, long since spent his advance, and (most importantly to him, personally) made promises to the Paterno family. At that point the book had to be published, and there wasn't time for a major re-write. He could have simply abandoned the project and refused to have anything more to do with it, mortgaging his house to pay back the advance and probably getting blackballed from publishing for a good long time. I'd like to think that's what I would have done, in his position. But I don't know. It was an extremely difficult position.

As far as I know, Posnanski has categorically refused to discuss anything involving Penn State ever since.

I like Posnanski too, listen to his podcast every week, but Steve nails it in #9. His books and columns (I haven't read the Paterno book) are almost always about what is fun, or unusual, or record-breaking. I mean, his upcoming book is called, "Why We Love Baseball". He was in a tough place with the Penn State book, but he didn't cover himself in glory, either. The book probably shouldn't have ever come out once the scandal hit.

Some have predicted that the protests will be so insistent, the pitch clock may even be abandoned.

I've heard that here and elsewhere. I don't understand why baseball players are expected, or allowed, to be bigger babies about this kind of thing than other athletes.

The NBA has made major changes to the actual rules, and to the way its refs operate, on a regular basis, even in my relatively brief lifetime. The 3-point line has been moved around, the shot clock adjusted, hand checking guidance has changed, zone defenses disallowed and reallowed, a "no-charge zone" instituted in the key, and a complete revolution in the supervision of its once-worst-in-the-world officiating has occurred. I'm sure there are other things I'm not thinking of. When one change doesn't work, it's abandoned. The result is that the iteration of the NBA that has existed for the last 10 years or so is just as enjoyable as the somewhat different versions practiced in the 80s and 90s. Have the likes of Kevin Durant and Lebron James downed tools? No, they've adapted. This despite the fact that they're bigger stars than any baseball player could ever hope to be these days.

Meanwhile, these relatively minor changes in baseball are 20 years overdue and everytime you bring them up you get pearl-clutching and foot-stomping. But baseball's unwillingness to make purposeful change has allowed tactical inertia to really screw up the fan's experience of the sport -- which is sort of what started happening to the NBA in the early 2000s.

There's probably an interesting book to be written on the contrasts, but I think it comes down to two things: the NBA's relatively recent past as a basically minor league got it institutionally used to monkeying around in a way that has been reserved to the actual minor leagues in baseball; and the MLB players union has terrified people into thinking that baseball players will never submit to change without going on strike first. But you know what? A pitch clock is not messing with people's paychecks. And that's all MLBPA *really* cares about.

Until they get rid of the fouling at the end of close games I won't watch basketball. Haven't watched any for close to 20 years, and this is the main reason.

I just read about the Elam ending, and it seems like it could solve this problem.

Meanwhile, these relatively minor changes in baseball are 20 years overdue and everytime you bring them up you get pearl-clutching and foot-stomping. But baseball's unwillingness to make purposeful change has allowed tactical inertia to really screw up the fan's experience of the sport -- which is sort of what started happening to the NBA in the early 2000s.

Baseball has always been the most traditional of the major US sports. And it's one where the rules have been the same for over 100 years, virtually no major changes along the way. People still mention lowering the mound in 1969 as if it was radical and completely changed the game. The anti-shift rules are only in existence to force teams back to a traditional model not to change the game. (That's true of some of the NBA rule changes too.)

Until they get rid of the fouling at the end of close games I won't watch basketball. Haven't watched any for close to 20 years, and this is the main reason.

I just read about the Elam ending, and it seems like it could solve this problem.

The timeouts and replay reviews are much worse IMO, but they are easily avoided with a DVR and the 15s fast-forward button.

I just read about the Elam ending, and it seems like it could solve this problem.

If you think that is a good idea, then you really do hate basketball.

I started changing the channel late in close games with all the stoppages, and eventually never went back. So, I guess I do "hate" it now. The timeouts were annoying for sure, but I stopped watching right around when replay became a thing so that never affected me personally.

Ortiz took more time out of the box than anyone. I doubt he'd be a fan of the clock if he were still playing.

I'd nominate Christian Vasquez for that title. After most pitches he would walk halfway to the on-deck circle to futz with his gloves or whatever, then amble back to the box.

Baseball has always been the most traditional of the major US sports.

That's true, and again I'd argue that's because the other ones were basically minor leagues until the late 60s or early 70s. But baseball is no longer the all-encompassing behemoth of American professional sports, and it needs to start acting more like its competitors in this regard.

I don't get the view that Pos is a crappy writer- but to each their own.

I really enjoy his books- The Houdini book he wrote is fun too.

Apologies for going OT here: would a Spring Training Omnichatter be useful about now? I think that the last Omnichatter was a "Hot Stove" edition that's now closed to new comments. Or have I missed something?

Apologies for going OT here: would a Spring Training Omnichatter be useful about now? I think that the last Omnichatter was a "Hot Stove" edition that's now closed to new comments. Or have I missed something?

I'd second that.

I don't get the view that Pos is a crappy writer- but to each their own.

People sometimes say stupid things just to be a contrarian, I find it hard to believe someone actually thinks Pos is a bad writer, the guy is extremely good on subjects he cares about. (his Hamilton take was very well written, pulling on all the emotions of such an article)

9 and 11 also point to a reason to like him and I think 9 pretty much nailed it on the head, it may not have been courageous as post 10 points out, but he's a sports beat writer, not a navy seal or even a professional politician.

I've visited Penn State, and I have a couple of family members who are alums.

There's something creepy to me about how so many people obsessively "love their school" right or (very very very) wrong - and that crew strikes me as obsessed as any out there. (there are other schools I may not name, to avoid taking on shrapnel.)

not a defense of Posnanski - and especially not of the monsters who let that nightmare fester for so long.

I do wonder if he "bought in" on the obsession and became co-opted by it.

I am (ashamed to admit) a Penn State alum, and know many of same, who are exactly the way you describe--I Love My School No Matter What (even if it protected and enabled a decades-long systematic child rape machine under the guise of a charity for endangered children). I've never understood that mindset, either. The bastards still regularly send me requests for money. I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire.

I believe the existence Paterno hagiography that should never have been published is about 90% on the publisher and 10% on Posnanski, though, unless you believe Posnanski knew about the child rape long before you and I did.

Posnanski, in addition to being a child abuse apologist, is an AWFUL writer.

Posnanski is, by far, my favorite sportswriter. I never read his Paterno thing and won't make excuses for him there, but based on everything else he's written (which is a TON), he's earned the benefit of the doubt from me that that was a lapse in judgment or a misunderstanding. (Edit: Or pretty much an impossible position, which is probably closest to the right answer.)

I've read everything else he's written and enjoyed just about all of it, even the stuff that I'm not really interested in. His podcast with Mike Schur is great; listening to those two guys open packs of old baseball cards was a lot more fun than it had any right to be.

His damning thing on Paterno was that in columns and in elsewhere he acted like how he, Poz, always acts and people didn't want that at the time. Like others said Poz was kind of in between a rock and a hard place because he had a Paterno book coming out so of course he was going to get asked about the issue.

PASTE, that is a very open-minded approach - and I empathize.

One alum I know used to give Communion to Mrs. Paterno, and is the absolute salt of the earth, as they say, literally working relentlessly to making the world a better place. but I'm not sure if they have rejected the school - and I am afraid to ask.

we agree on not knowing the details of how the book got published and who had what influence.

and if it's true that Posnanski has avoided the topic - I mean, c'mon. even if he didn't want to wind up in the eye of the hurricane, if you do and if you are a journalist, you can't avoid reporting on it and expect to maintain your credibility.

yes, that's even if he would have to pay a financial penalty for his candor. It's an excuse - as long as you are willing to accept that credibility hit.

per post 23 - sure, he's not a Navy seal or a politician.
but he's a very public figure and purports to be a journalist. and part of THAT job is speaking out even when you would prefer not to do so when you know details that the public has a right to know (at least, some of them). he can't have it both ways.

Penn State fan here, not an alumnus myself (I went to a tiny tech school), but have friends who were.

What Pos did was protect his journalistic integrity relative to his subjects. His next subjects will have more trust in him to protect their interests, since he's proven that he won't flip against a subject even in adverse circumstances. It's true that his readers may be more skeptical of his integrity. But it's a tradeoff that there was no way to avoid.

For Penn State itself, the scandal should have nothing to do with continuing to like the team. The current players and coaches and administrators all had nothing to do with it. In fact they could even commend more respect since they know they're coming in with the burden of overcoming that reputation. (Not as relevant now that the program has pretty much entirely recovered, but it was five or so years ago.)

Even for Paterno himself, there's still a reasonable argument that he did more good than bad over the years, even including the scandal. He helped develop thousands of young men not just as athletes but as students and adults - Penn State's sports graduation rate was always among the highest. Penn State revered him for reasons that went way beyond the field, and all that didn't just disappear.

Any school can manipulate the "graduation rate" all they like - UNC being the most vivid and disgraceful example. So that in isolation doesn't tell us much.

And knowing anything about a frequent pedophile and not immediately alerting law enforcement is a helluva lot worse than whatever else he achieved "on the field."

finally, "journalistic integrity" does NOT involve refusing to speak out against someone when they wind up being complicit in evil. it is not part of the journalist/subject equation. the "tradeoff" is very much avoidable.

Posnanski apparently has just refused to make that trade.

for whatever reason, many BBTFers over the years have posted their mistaken belief that reporters can't tell the whole story because otherwise they will be cut off by their sources. it may feel that way to an outsider, but the reality is that as long as you are fair, most players/coaches/owners actually respect you more if you are willing to publish the whole truth.

Howie's right. Posnanski's obligation to his sources is to quote them accurately and in context when citing them and to respect any requests for off-the-record/not for attribution remarks they might make. In this situation, he could also go back to them once for further comment once the information was learned. But protecting the reputation of a subject because new information is revealed is most definitely not one of his responsibilities.

It's definitely not always easy to do the right thing, and lord knows I have not always lived up to my own ideals either. No matter how you look at it though, merely "wishing you weren't put in a bad spot in the first place" when you have a chance to do the right thing at some personal sacrifice is pretty much the definition of cowardice.

As an East Coaster who went to a non-football school, Penn State was the team I rooted for. I loved that they were independent for such a long time, and had such a good team. I loved the simple white helmets and jerseys. I remember when they were called Linebacker U for all the good linebackers they produced. And I loved the man and myth that was Joe Pa.

The revelation of ongoing criminal conduct that was covered up or ignored -- calling it a "scandal" really downplays what took place -- took away all of that.

I understand the hold that the school had on people. I like Pos and what he writes. I hold no animus to the current team, coach and players.

But some things are a bridge too far. Some things you cannot turn your back on. I think Pos made the wrong call here

But that is easy to say from this vantage, where I have no skin in the game. It is easy to cast stones, but I honestly don't know what I would have actually done in the same situation.

to be clear, no doubt there are numerous conversations that the author had with Paterno that were off the record, on background, etc.
he can't ethically reveal the substance of those discussions.

but he can offer general context about how he believes the disgraceful situation was allowed to fester, and his gut instinct on what Paterno knew and when did he know it. and he can frame that as confidently or as speculatively as he wishes.

it's vitally important - look at the Catholic church scandal, Michigan State gymnastics, etc. - for all of us to gain a better understanding on how the hell these things can happen, and especially how otherwise decent humans can possibly enable it. he'd be doing everyone a favor by offering such insight - very few have been as far inside the belly of a beast like this in real time. and almost no one who has also has a gift for explaining things like he does.

Still like the all white helmets.

Even for Paterno himself, there's still a reasonable argument that he did more good than bad over the years, even including the scandal.

Jesus ####### Christ.

joe paterno became a myth. no matter whatever good he did, he still valued football and his team over some nobody kids. rich and powerful people do not value poor people - they are just throwaways

don't none of us know if pos was told flat out by joe paterno that he couldn't care less about raped children if it meant preventing a scandal and hurting his all important Football Program. i want to believe that even pos wouldn't have shrugged that off, but, well, we just can't know

i seriously doubt paterno confessed his Mortal Sin to pos because people that think they are do gooders want to push that view. pos was almost finished writing about this almost Saint when news of the scandal broke and i would guess that a guy who sees the best in everyone had a real hard time believing the truth that mister Saint was quite comfortable sacrificing little boy butts to the God of Football

this does not mean that pos shrugs off raping children becaus of The Greater Good of Football and Football Coaches

to perhaps close my thoughts on all this.....

I don't know Posnanski, but I probably know 100 people who know him.

there was a path taken by many up-and-coming sportswriters about 30 years ago with the conclusion that becoming a "traveling beat writer" was like being a soldier in the trenches. (not wrong)

so rather than work their way up that usual path, many of his era went to smaller papers to become columnists - and then they entered every writing contest they could.

meanwhile, I don't remember anybody worth a damn on the beats who gave even a tiny crap about awards. the "award" was, you got a pro beat. what else do you need? vastly different paths.

Posnanski is not nearly the only one who chose this direction - some of the most famous and successful sportswriters of today's reporting did the same thing. and I absolutely respect their choice - it certainly was far, far more lucrative in many cases. and I worked side-by-side with a bunch of them.

but finally getting back to the point, good beat writers don't 'fall in love' with their subjects.

I remember when a famous athlete that I had covered extensively wound up being convicted. I sought the proverbial "jailhouse interview."

the athlete's liaison called and asked me if I would be visiting as a reporter - or as a friend.
I took no offense at that, because anyone not in the business might not know, and I had a very good relationship with the athlete for many years.

of course I said "as a reporter" - and I didn't get the interview, which was fine.
(and neither did anyone else.)

I fear that Posnanski - assuming he has never commented on this tragedy, as suggested here - made certain promises to the family that no reporter should ever make.

but he wouldn't be the first columnist/book author to do so.

I later covered a political corruption scandal, and was close to getting the scoop. a source was a little tentative, and it became clear that a very very high-ranking elected official could be implicated. would I resist publishing because of that, he wondered?

I heard out the source, and I responded: "No sacred cows."

that closed the deal, because he knew I was being honest (and btw, I had a good relationship with the person of power in question).

if Posnanski made Paterno a sacred cow - as I fear - then that, to me, was his fatal mistake.

but maybe I'm wrong.