Wednesday a.m. Rangers stuff
by Adam J. Morris on Nov 4, 2009 9:02 AM CST
35 comments
So...the story broke yesterday afternoon that the Rangers have decided on Clint Hurdle as their new hitting coach, and then Jon Daniels denied a decision has been made.
But that denial notwithstanding, it sounds like Hurdle is the guy...Jeff Wilson writes that three sources have said that Hurdle is the Rangers' choice as hitting coach. T.R. Sullivan says that club officials say an announcement should be coming in the next day or two.
These stories got me thinking...we had some discussions this past season about sportswriters using unnamed sources, and whether that sort of thing should be done or if all the sources should be named. Clearly, in this instance, all the reports regarding Hurdle being the next hitting coach are relying on unnamed sources...does anyone really think that this is improper on Wilson's or Sullivan's part?
Richard Durrett says that hiring Hurdle makes sense. Kevin Sherrington says, don't expect Hurdle to have the sort of immediate impact Mike Maddux had (and not to pick on Sherrington, but he erroneously says Marlon Byrd had a career year in 2009, when it was actually his weakest offensive season as a Ranger).
And Anthony Andro has a story about Tommy Hunter getting involved in charity work in the D/FW area this offseason.
0 recs |
35 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Unnamed sources
I think it is a little silly to use them in sports of all things. When you’re talking about Woodward and Bernstein reporting Watergate, then yeah, unnamed sources are appropriate. There are big, time-sensitive issues at stake.
But baseball? Really? I’m as big a fan as anyone but I just don’t see the importance of breaking the news fast (or in the case of the source, risking your job). It is just a case of reporters scrambling to one up each other.
I’d be completely happy waiting for an announcement by JD about the hitting coach, signings, trades, etc. But then again, as we’ve discussed, I don’t need people to be twittering the latest updates about everything,
Go Rice Owls!
by JBImaknee on Nov 4, 2009 9:10 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
are you serious?
you don’t see the importance of breaking the news fast?
"I just want to comment on how it’s become like a common thing in the [MLB] for guys to fall in love with [the Rangers’s] sloppy seconds." (thanks cstorm)
by ab03 on Nov 4, 2009 9:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
regarding the hitting coach?
I don’t see the difference in waiting a day until there is a 100% confirmation as opposed to the very strange “yes he is” “no he isn’t” “yes he is” day like yesterday.
Basically, I’d rather have never seen the info that Matt Purke had signed. And when you’ve got guys jumping at everything, you’re going to have false positives
Go Rice Owls!
by JBImaknee on Nov 4, 2009 10:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
ok
but that’s not how competition in news works. the job of a newspaper is to report what’s happening and do so as fast as possible. that’s pretty much the only real meaningful way that a news organization can distinguish itself – that and analysis. But getting people to agree with your analysis can turn on whether they agree with you generally to begin with. much easier to invest in getting the news first.
and while you claim that you’d rather not have “no he didn’t, yes he did,” the fact is that if a news organization consistently breaks news first, you’ll (or most every other person) will turn to them first. doesn’t matter if it is about the hitting coach or a draft pick (though I don’t know why that should matter – seems like the only thing of consequence in a trivial matter is breaking the news).
like i said, unnamed sources sorts itself out. a radio isn’t going to go back to the same unnamed source if it gets a news story wrong and actually gets lasting egg on its face. but it is still well worth the risk and i’m assuming that most news sources have pretty good success with unnamed sources.
"I just want to comment on how it’s become like a common thing in the [MLB] for guys to fall in love with [the Rangers’s] sloppy seconds." (thanks cstorm)
by ab03 on Nov 4, 2009 10:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
accuracy
Accuracy does matter though. If you break news fast and have to keep retracting it, then pretty soon, people aren’t going to believe you, and then you will also lose that distinguishing factor. Or, you go from being “news” to being “speculation”.
Credibility is important.
by iblum on Nov 4, 2009 10:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Which is what he meant when he said it sorts itself out.
If you unnamed source gives you bad information and you have to retract it, then you stop using that source. Then you won’t “have to keep retracting it”.
"What ... 92 miles per hour?" Feldman scoffed. "That's not gas. Feliz throws gas."
by NorCalRangersFan on Nov 4, 2009 11:07 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This is all much ado but nothing...seriously
is the batting coach on a team really that important?
I wonder if this was some kind of ham-handed attempt to figure out who is leaking stories out of the Ranger FO.
I tend to believe that the Ranger FO wasn’t very pleased with the story RG broke (we may have seen suspected informers given walking papers at season’s end) and considering what a minor story this is, I wonder if this was a test of some sort.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
"Ranger players, especially veterans, weren’t surprised that Daniels couldn’t find a deal"
by Josey Wales on Nov 4, 2009 11:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
A lot of sources will only speak
on the condition of anonymity. So you can either run with an unnamed source, or wait for someone to beat you to the scoop. In the end, that’s what it’s all about in journalism, sports or otherwise: breaking the story.
Having used countless unnamed sources, I can tell you that journos don’t like to do it. It makes people question their/our credibility. But if you have a story, and it’s hinging on an unnamed source, you have to run with it. Sitting on a good story will get you fired.
That's why they call them business sox
by egriffey on Nov 4, 2009 11:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with the media is that they truly believe that the public gives a shit whether the break the news first or not
Nobody cares. In this day in age, news gets around pretty quickly.
Being the ‘first on the scene’ is just standard media sensationalism.
It’s like these mothafuckas that bring us daily Wade Phillips press conferences and pride themselves on being the ‘OFFICIAL Cowboys Station’
Fuck you, nobody cares
by oc on Nov 4, 2009 1:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
sources
In something like this I don’t have a problem with unnamed sources. But when a columnist bases a hit piece on an unnamed source, then I don’t like it.
|Space for Rent|
by RangerMad on Nov 4, 2009 9:26 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Consequences for the Source
If your speculation was accurate a couple of weeks ago as to why those longstanding guys lost their positions with the organization (feeding Galloway info, IIRC), then I don’t really have a problem with the writer using unnamed sources. The problem should be the Rangers employees leaking information when they know it’s a fireable offense, but striking a deal to stay anonymous.
It seems the writer is just doing his job, but it’s the Rangers employees who are blatantly crossing a line.
by FuturePants on Nov 4, 2009 9:31 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
well
If it means the Rangers have to hire lesser talent in important baseball positions because they fire better guys who are susceptible to reporters who are desperate to break a story, then I care.
Obviously the fault lies with the source(s), if they are violating team policy. But I don’t have to like the fact that the ability to resist reporters who will twitter any nugget to the world is a job qualification for a baseball organization.
Go Rice Owls!
by JBImaknee on Nov 4, 2009 9:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The source is. ...
probably Jon Daniels. Or at least he is one of them. One of the others is probably Hurdle. That’’s how it works in the Mainstream Media — that sort of gentleman’s agreement. The club gets the news out a day early and gets another day of coverage, and the MSM gets the story.
When I was in the newspaper business, in the Dark Ages of carbon paper, typewriters and dial telephones, you’d call the GM (or whoever) up. Are you going to hire Smith tomorrow? Yep. Then you’d write it that, with an anonymous source.
Where is Mick Kelleher when we need him?
by 3744nsheffield on Nov 4, 2009 9:42 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
You're probably right,
and in this case it seems ok to me. It get’s confusing and seems unethical to me when it’s something like Randy Galloway’s dark whispers of MLB controlling the Rangers. Unless you’ve got a named source for something like that, to me it’s just sensationalism, misleading and could be damaging to the parties involved.
by jcAustin on Nov 4, 2009 9:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But the way it played out...
Is that something you think you really would have agreed to as a writer or an editor? Jon Daniels gives you the advanced notice and says, get it out there, and then I am going to deny it. I think the writer looks bad there when Daniels comes out and says “Nope, not yet”.
Or maybe they just didn’t talk about what Daniels would do after it is reported, and if that were the case I would be pissed off if I were the writer.
I guess the solace is that once they do announce that it is Hurdle, the writer gets some validation.
I just don’t see this orchestrated of a game going on. Unless Daniels is ordering the leak to occur and can deny from a distance. Anyways, the whole exercise is silly…. I agree JBImaknee on this one. I don’t need it two days early.
Go Rangers! Go Cowboys! Go FSU!
by tdi1985 on Nov 4, 2009 10:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The whole exercise. ...
has always been silly. But that’s how things get done. Coaches have favorite writers, and they’ll feed them stuff before the other writers. I covered a minor Dallas team in the late 1980s, and the coach fed one of the other writers inside stuff all the time. He barely returned my calls.
The other thing is that the public may or may not care about scoops, but it’s the lifeblood of the media, traditional and otherwise. I still get excited about getting a scoop, and the kind I get anymore barely make any difference at all.
Where is Mick Kelleher when we need him?
by 3744nsheffield on Nov 4, 2009 4:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, I encountered the same thing back in the day
but there wouldn’t be a blanket denial within an hour of the story running. I’m sure that is a function of modern communications(ie the ability to get the news out within minutes) which led to this clusterfuck in the first place.
Your 2009 Snow Monkey Ambassador
by Parman on Nov 4, 2009 10:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
In this one case, I dont think it was a deliberate leak initially
I think they had decided on Hurdle, but hadn’t yet worked out the terms of his contract. Once the news leaked that Hurdle was the guy, it puts the Rangers in a weaker position when it comes to negotiating terms. That is why JD initially denied the “rumor”. Once the negotiations were over, JD allowed the “leak”, planning an official announcement in a couple of days. That keeps the story in the news longer.
Pure speculation on my part, but it fits the facts as they’ve played out.
"What ... 92 miles per hour?" Feldman scoffed. "That's not gas. Feliz throws gas."
by NorCalRangersFan on Nov 4, 2009 11:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
unnamed sources
they sort themselves out. writers won’t go to those sources again if they are wrong and it doesn’t take organizations too long to figure out who the leak is so if they really don’t want leaks, they can plug them.
the “unnamed source” is a good signal to readers that, if accurate, you have the inside scoop on rangers news so it’s good for them and us. and, as my fellow chicago friend above points out, it’s good for the organization as well.
"I just want to comment on how it’s become like a common thing in the [MLB] for guys to fall in love with [the Rangers’s] sloppy seconds." (thanks cstorm)
by ab03 on Nov 4, 2009 9:44 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
My first thought on TRs piece was "Well, Didier wasn't his unnamed source".
Actually, I guess Didier could still be an unnamed source if he still had someone in the organization that could feed him this information. Which, would be pretty cool, somewhat sophisticated spy stuff. The informant isn’t really the leak in that case.
Pro baseball has always been a dream, so this is pretty freakin’ cool out here. -- Tim Steggall, undrafted Rangers minor leaguer.
by rooster on Nov 4, 2009 9:47 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
BTW, I don't really care if a baseball organization has leaks.
And, if the idea that informant wasn’t also the leak has merit, then it suggests the decision to fire Didier had more to do with his baseball talent evaluation skills.
Pro baseball has always been a dream, so this is pretty freakin’ cool out here. -- Tim Steggall, undrafted Rangers minor leaguer.
by rooster on Nov 4, 2009 9:49 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Hurdle was probably the most qualified
person for the job but I’m not sure he would have done any better than Rudy J did this past year. You can’t make chickensalad out of chickenshat.
I had forgotten that Fergie helped out Bobby Witt (pissing Bobby V off in the process).
Tom House (pitching coach at the time) probably gave pitchers too much info to process. Fergie probably just told him to quit thinking so much and let his natural ability take over.
Fergie got hold of him in AAA, maybe early 1990 season and when Witt came back he was an absolute monster but then was hurt in ’91 (in the Canseco trade of ’92) and was really never the same.
But that year, he may have been one of the most dominant Ranger starters evah.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
"Ranger players, especially veterans, weren’t surprised that Daniels couldn’t find a deal"
by Josey Wales on Nov 4, 2009 9:56 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Sherrington contradiction?
He writes…
The Angels didn’t become more patient hitters until Bobby Abreu arrived and his approach rubbed off on them.
Followed by…
By the time players get to the big leagues, they’re hard to change, especially if they’re not sure they need to.
He says personnel changes are needed to change the hitting approach of this team. But this is virtually the same team as 2008. The big difference is Milton Bradley.
Are managers and hitting coaches not able to change a player’s and team’s approach at the plate? My personal opinion is it comes down to desire. If a player wants to work the count, draw walks and such, it comes down to his desire to do so.
|Space for Rent|
by RangerMad on Nov 4, 2009 10:30 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
As much of a team game that baseball is...
there are a ton of examples where one player can change the approach and effectiveness of an entire line-up.
Bradley with the 2008 Rangers, Manny with the 2008 Dodgers (who were awful before he arrived) and Abreu this year. Look what Victor Martinez did for the Red Sox this year when he arrived in August.
I hate baseball descriptions like “intangibles,” “presence,” or the all-time vomit inducer “comfortable magnetism” but sometimes the mere presence or approach a hitter takes in a line-up makes everybody else better.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
"Ranger players, especially veterans, weren’t surprised that Daniels couldn’t find a deal"
by Josey Wales on Nov 4, 2009 10:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually I would say
there are a ton of examples of media and fans attributing the approach and effectiveness to an entire lineup to one player’s arrival. I doubt it’s ever that simple.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Nov 4, 2009 11:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
some great quotes in that Hunter article
couldn’t ask for a better attitude
by tangiers on Nov 4, 2009 10:52 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
About Marlon Byrd
AJ, you said that Marlon’s 2009 was his weakest in years, where Sherrington says it was his best. In a way, you are both right.
Byrd set career highs in games, at bats, hits, doubles, homers, rbi, slugging, total bases, sacrifice flies, hit by pitches. The fact that his batting average and oba were his lowest as a Ranger wouldn’t counteract that to a non-sabermatrician. The fact that he played alot more centerfield, and played it fairly poorly, means his WARP was less than last year, but close to identical to the year before.
by iblum on Nov 4, 2009 11:48 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I don't think that just because someone doesn't know how to use more advanced, accurate metrics makes them "right"
Just misinformed.
"It's kind of a new stat that's in vogue" - Joe Buck on OPS
"...he wasn’t a good hitter, just a good middle of the order bat that hit a lot of homers." - NYTXFAN on Mark McGwire
by lonestarJon on Nov 4, 2009 5:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Just cause they are more advanced doesn't make them accurate either
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 5, 2009 8:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Uh yeah, it usually does
"It's kind of a new stat that's in vogue" - Joe Buck on OPS
"...he wasn’t a good hitter, just a good middle of the order bat that hit a lot of homers." - NYTXFAN on Mark McGwire
by lonestarJon on Nov 5, 2009 11:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The traditional stats...
do still mean something. You can’t just disregard them altogether.
Setting a career high in AB’s, hits, doubles, HR’s, TB’s, and slugging is still a pretty good year.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on Nov 6, 2009 12:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Who gives a crap about the sources...
CLINT HURDLE is our new hitting coach. Do you understand how much shit I am getting from everyone out here in Denver? Its terrible.
Guy loses team, edge, whatever and gets fired. Ill take what Sherrington says about his tenure as hitting coach in the late nineties etc but come on people. Rudy’s guys had a down year so we shake a poor contract with insulting incentives in his face and he goes elsewhere. This was a bad move to begin with and is looking even worse now.
Dear Baseball God,
Please help Chad Tracy make the bigs while Hurdle is our hitting coach.
Hugs and Kisses,
SickandTired
Maybe im just having a bad day?
Rocky Mountain Ranger
by Strangers on Nov 4, 2009 1:33 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
unnamed sources
generally, the policy is that the information has to be corroborated and then the writer has to disclose the identity of the unnamed sources (as well as the circumstances of the discussion between the writer and the sources) to the editor who then makes the decision as to whether or not to use a story based on information from an unnamed source… this was essentially the policy that was communicated to me when I was writing for the DMN
it’s a legitimate ethical debate in the industry: is the use of unnamed sources a necessary evil or is it simply unnecessary? is it something that should be done on a relatively innocuous story like this one (where there is no doubt that, eventually, the information will be available from a source willing to go on the record) or should it be reserved only for stories where there is no other way to ever get the information?
while reporters are under pressure to get a story first, getting a few too many wrong will get them fired.
by mjh on Nov 4, 2009 4:15 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
