Paul Hoynes is still dumb.
"The American League stats, not me, say the Indians are one of the best fielding teams in the league. Perhaps their infielders don't have great range, but they can't be penalized for that."
The man charged with informing the Cleveland public about the Cleveland Indians thinks that infielders can't be penalized for having poor range. This explains why writers like Hoynes think Derek Jeter is the best fielder in, like, the history of ever.
Sigh. Read something, Paul. Make an effort.
over 3 years ago
tabler84
89 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I guess “fielding” and “range” are two separate, independent skill sets, according to Hoynes.
Completely nonsensical when you realize that the entire point of baseball defense is turning batted balls into outs, but if this is the way Hoynes, Chass, Plaschke, and other ‘old school’ types really think about the game, I guess that his answer reveals a lot.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jun 29, 2008 4:15 PM EDT reply actions
seems like every one of those guys have a few loose circuits … perhaps that’s why they get selected to vote on such minor things as league mvp’s, cy young awards and a little thing called the hall of fame.
I did a Google search to confirm my suspicion, and “Paul Hoynes is still dumb—Let’s Go Tribe” is on the front page of results.
Steel Nick
Let me elaborate. It’s my understanding that Hoynes is part of an inner circle of BBWAA voters—voters that can let in new members.
Steel Nick
What’s particularly funny is that the headline is actually almost true. Blake HAS been one of the better hitters on the team this year. But, he’s not a good hitter and the fact that he’s one of our better hitters tells you why this team can’t hit. The offense is supposed to revolve around Sizemore, Martinez and Hafner—two of those guys have been AWOL basically all season. Kids and role players can’t carry a team’s offense.
But Hoynes is asserting that players can “correct” a problem such as BA/RISP. Yep, at age 35 Casey just figured it out. His previous RISPs were .254 / .171 / .261 / .190. So Hoynes must think that Blake made a HUGE improvement two years ago, when he gained 90 points. Then last year he “forgot” what he was doing the year prior. Then this year he re-remembered—and also relaxed. Or something. What a train wreck.
Yeah, this assertion is laughably stupid. I just read this article and came here to post the link, but I see Nick beat me to it. Does he really think players can “learn” to hit better with runners in scoring position? It is pathetic to think that this is the man paid to report on the Indians for Cleveland’s newpaper. Unfortunately, his bosses must not know enough about baseball to realize that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
by Buckeye Brad on Jun 30, 2008 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions
Has anybody ever e-mailed him? I see his address is listed at the bottom of the article. I just wondered if anyone here ever wrote him about his articles, and whether or not they got a response back.
by Buckeye Brad on Jun 30, 2008 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions
Hey Hoynsie!! Why are you so ignorant about baseball?
A: I’m a baseball writer for the PD. Now that we have Terry Pluto, I can just make it up!!
In defense of Hoynes—he isn’t ignorant about baseball. He’s just old school, a guy who has seen thousands of games. If he believes in quaint theories about clutch-hitting or defensive range it’s more a function of his age and experience. I think you can read his statement above as Hoynes’ saying that traditional defensive metrics—chances and assists and fielding percentage—do not tell the full story. “The American League stats, not me, say the Indians are one of the best fielding teams in the league.”
Sorry, not buying it. Just because you’re old-school doesn’t mean you’re old-school-smart. Paul Hoynes is most certainly old-school, but he’s old-school dumb.
It’s pretty obvious that he’s never taken the time to try to grasp the evolution of statistical understanding, to say nothing of the fact that he can’t write. I mean, he can’t write even a little. I’ve heard his pre-edited stuff, word-for-word, and it’s off-the-charts bad, only eclipsed by Branson Wright’s grammar-free inanities.
You shouldn’t put up with pure ignorance, occasional arrogance, and laziness—just because it’s old-school. It’s just bad, however you want to couch it.
I don’t want to find myself in the unenviable position of defending Paul Hoynes. He may in fact be dumb. He’s no Red Smith, that’s for sure, but he’s a whole lot better than buffoons like Jay Mariotti. A lot of sportswriters needed editors: Grantland Rice and Ring Lardner certainly did. Nobody says Hoynes is a lyricist, but he’s not a total hack, either. There are plenty of those around.
I am baffled by this whole schism between newspaper guys and bloggers. Bloggers feel it is their duty and responsibility to trash beat writers. Beat writers mostly don’t care. But if you want to surpass the often limited scope of a newspaper writer the way to do it is to write better than that writer does. Belittling or demeaning someone who has spent a lot of time watching baseball games seems ignorant. There’s room for both. I learn things from Hoynes. He occasionally has a perceptive comment. He also has access, another sore point. I don’t expect Hoynes to know who Voros McCracken is—though he probably does—nor do I expect 25-year-olds to understand the tradition of newspaper beat writers.
Here’s my issue: I truly believe that traditional media has an opportunity to progress and adapt, and if they do so, they’ll survive and thrive. You’re right: They DO have the access, and they have an incredible opportunity. So one of two things will happen:
1) The media adapts successfully. There’s no perfect formula, but it goes something like this: Traditional media put together the most effective websites. They add content and generate meaningful discussion. They provide more depth online than they otherwise could in traditional forms. They hire the best writers and sharpest minds to work the beats. They challenge conventional wisdom and lead the new trends instead of reacting when someone else pushes the ideas.
2) The media digs in and refuses to change - or, more likely, makes a feeble attempt to adapt. That’s what’s happening at the PD now. Take a look at their website. Take a look at the content. Take a look at their “blogs.” How much extra content are they adding? How often do you get added depth, whether it’s an extended interview or even a soft feature on a player? Eventually the older generation that grew up with traditional media will pass on, and the savvier, newer generations will find their material lacking. Lacking in content and lacking in quality. Instead of having the best writers - men and women at the forefront of their industry, or perhaps the best baseball minds, converted to journalists—they retain the same old anachronisms.
If the traditional media can successfully adapt, we’ll all benefit. As fans we’ll get better, more insightful coverage. We’ll get better websites and formats with which to interact. But more likely it’s going to be the sites like LGT that offer anything valuable.
Oh, and when it comes to writers, I don’t think I can adequately explain how poor some of the PD’s top writers are. I know folks who edit. If Jay Levin became a PD beat writer or columnist, he might literally change the face of Cleveland sports writing. The pabulum that is currently passable would get laughed into the street.
So believe it or not, I’m actually hoping to see traditional media like the PD succeed. But they deserve the flack they get.
And exactly where is this “savvier, newer generation”? The newspapers and the blogs for that matter are capitolist enterprises. What ever sells the most lives and thrives and what doesn’t garner hits and sales whither’s and dies. So just like television journalism devolved from Conkrite talking about foriegn policy prior to the ‘68 election we get Katie Couric and her colon. With baseball we go from Tony Kubek and Mel Allen and TWIB to Around the Horn with Mariotti etal or Jim Rhome and his idiocy.
The fact of the matter is that, like every thing else, we get the media we deserve.
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay
I agree that the quality of media has declined. But I disagree about the consumer is to blame part here. Print media have gotten worse (and so has TV journalism), but the readership has shrunk at the same time. Supposedly, the PD’s getting set to lay off again tomorrow. Katie Couric may indeed be bad, but no one’s watching her either, by all accounts. I think you can also make the argument that “you make a lousy product, your sales go down.”
OK, then please explain Fox News – and Fox Sports for that matter – to me. Aside from the eye-candy, whatta they got goin’ for ‘em?
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay
Fox News gets ratings and “works” because it caters to a specific demographic within the population — one large enough to produce ratings and make money.
It may not be your cup of tea, Chuck, but it serves the interest of those who do not share the same political persuasion as exists on most network news, CNN, and MSNBC.
Frankly, I think most of what Fox News does is overly-produced dreck, but I can understand why it exists and prospers.
I did a Google image search for "Andy Marte." It turned up zero results.
All I know is this. You read the best newspapers in America – the NYT, the Trib, the Post – and then read the London Times, The Manchester Guardian etc. and it’s amazing the difference in sophistication and level of discourse. One of the best out-of-town articles I ever read on the Indians was in the London Times a few years ago. It’s sad really.
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay
That’s a bit of oversimplification. The writing level of a few English papers is very, very high. But look at the Sun or the Mirror. Would you say those are better than a paper like the Plain Dealer? Of course not.
The English have their own developing sports issue as well. The old guard looks very skeptically at the introduction of statistics into their national pasttime. (Soccer/Football). New, younger, and yes, internet connected, writers push for the inclusion of statistics as part of the game. Recently the Times entered the row when one of their very own online writers atacked a print writer who claimed that Michael Ballack didn’t run much and generally played lazily in the Euro 2008 quarterfinal. The response of the “blogger” was to use the fairly new statistic of kilometeres covered to show that Ballack ran more than any other player on the field. The general response? Don’t tell me what that number says, I know what I saw.
It’s the same there as it is here. Eventually things will change but assuming that mainstream media is the first place to look for that change is a bit naive. When sites like this, FJM and Deadspin continue to add sponsorship and begin garnering a bigger market share, you’ll see ESPN and Fox adapt. Until then, enjoy Tim McCarver.
Proud supporter of the Cleveland.
While the “distance ran” stat was a neat addition to these finals, I certainly hope that soccer fans don’t begin to construct arguments based on it. If the initial argument was as simple as “he didn’t run much”, well then certainly our distance metric will refute that. But if the argument is that he didn’t track back well, or didn’t seem to have that extra gear when running to loose balls…I just hope that no one decides to use it as a crutch that Player A tried hard and can’t be criticized because they ran really far.
by supermarioelia on Jul 1, 2008 9:47 AM EDT up reply actions
That was the gist of it. I know that some clubs are beginning to measure where a player spends his time as well but I have yet to hear of any mainstream acceptance of it.
Proud supporter of the Cleveland.
THe commentators on British TV were disrespectfully dismissive of it, as if there was no way it added any value. Football has never been stats driven like baseball, but surely it can at least compliment what you’re watching
by Luis (Tribe Fan in London) on Jul 2, 2008 3:51 AM EDT up reply actions
Of course they’re capitalist enterprises, but this doesn’t mean they always make wise business decisions. I’m contending that they’ll make more money and give themselves the chance to stay relevant - maybe even thrive - in the future. That is, if they adapt successfully.
Organizations like the PD are literally holding mandatory seminars to teach “old-school” writers how to blog. That’s fine—if the writer is a strong one who simply needs to learn new skills. But they’re going to find more success by actually hiring people from the industries whose territories they’re seeking to poach.
When ESPN hired the best print writers to do television - people like Chris Mortensen; people who were god awful on TV when they started - it was considered risky and potentially revolutionary. Now it’s a standard. Outlets like the PD ought to think pretty hard about taking similar bold steps. Yep, like hiring a blogger. That would be a start.
This is well put. I think we all gain from number one taking place, but as peter m points out below, newsrooms are taking a hit. I know a beat writer in a National League city, who shall remain anonymous. He said his paper has started to make all their writers file stuff on the website as well, for no additional compensation. “What am I going to do?” he says. “I’m a 58-year-old white guy. I’ll do whatever they want to keep my job.”
As for quality of writing. That has always been a rare thing. The best sports writer I’ve ever read was Red Smith. It was a pleasure to read him. But at the same time, in the New York Post, there was Dick Young. A simpleton if ever there was one. Good writers are few and far between. I can’t think of a lot of good sports writers working today.
The buffoons working at ESPN were once good print writers? I didn’t know that.
That 58-year old white guy is right. It’s happening in every newsroom in the country, or at least it ought to be. If you’re not versatile, you’re toast.
I don’t like to see down-sizing; my company laid off 14% of the employees in our building last week, and the majority were in my division. But most of the cuts were justified because too many of us were not contributing on multiple levels. The media’s various products will suffer when employees are asked to do so much that each individual task is in danger of being neglected. Some shops are at that point, certainly. But many shops simply need to push their staff to be versatile and more productive.
If Jay Levin became a PD beat writer or columnist, he would (a) write daily pieces that are a lot more similar to what Hoynes, et al., are churning out than you might guess, and (b) get fired for missing deadlines inside a week.
I do think there is a major quality problem in newspaper baseball coverage, and I think it’s more than fair to compare any local pro writer with the very best team bloggers — "there’s stupid blogs, too" is no excuse for the pros, who at the every least ought to be able to run with the big dog amateurs.
Having said that, I think the major difference between the local pros and the best team bloggers isn’t quality, it’s that we’re doing fundamentally different jobs. That may seem overly generous, but I don’t think it is. We’ve all had jobs, and we all know that our employers set the expectations for us, what behaviors and aspects of performance they’re going to reward or punish.
A lot of what’s gone on with the beat writers is simply that there’s no editorial direction telling them, we want you to be a more sophisticated writer and speak to a more sophisticated audience. The lack of that specific direction may indicate a lack of any coherent direction, or it may be deliberate — aren’t newspapers as a rule written at a fourth-grade level?
Now, could one of these papers do what ESPN did and say, we’re going to have one or two of these writers be a little more sophisticated — get their own Rob Neyer type — to broaden our overall offerings and serve a more savvy audience? Sure, they could that. But they’d have to want to, and they’d have to think there was real money in it.
Therefore, we shouldn’t be amazed when an entrenched Ohio sports reporter writes something that sounds simple to us. We aren’t his intended audience. His audience is mostly people who cannot name 5 players on the team.
This is entirely true. It’s also missing the point. The original point was that Paul Hoynes himself likely does not “believe” any of the new research on baseball, nor does he likely care to even look into it.
You may argue that because of his audience it’s not his job to, but come on.
I wish I could expand on this/make more sense, but I’m a little distracted right now and just wanted to get this aside in.
Steel Nick
I am in fact arguing that because his editors have no interest in any of this, it’s not his job to look into these things. Would it make him better? Yes, but it’s not his job.
“Aren’t newspapers as a rule written at a fourth-grade level?”
That’s probably about right, and I can tell you that we’ve had a lot of conversations in our newsroom recently that go like this:
“Christ, you mean the research indicates people prefer THAT?”
“Sadly, yes.”
“So what do we give them? Do we give them broccoli, knowing they might not eat it, even though we think they need it? Or do we give in and just serve dessert?”
But that’s news. I’m making the argument that if newspapers hired writers who could serve the broccoli more often, readers would actually grow to like the broccoli. It might be a high-minded thought, but sports fans enjoy feeling like they know more about the game. I think there’s more coin to be made from a better, sharper product.
“Having said that, I think the major difference between the local pros and the best team bloggers isn’t quality, it’s that we’re doing fundamentally different jobs.”
That’s true. But I’ll go back to the ESPN analogy. John Clayton (I’m assuming he was in that initial converted group of print writers) is not doing what he was doing when he was only writing. He’s broadcasting; he’s doing radio. However, he also still writes, only he does it for a website.
If a newspaper were to take a bold step and hire a blogger, they could take that hire a variety of directions. But certainly it would make sense to have that blogger continue to blog in at least as similar a fashion as possible. Is that the same? No. Does it change the equation and change the nature of what that blogger is doing? I’m sure it does. But that doesn’t mean it’s not worth the investment for the newspaper. Trial and error is inevitable and important, but pretty much anything trumps what currently exists over there.
I agree with Jay that a blogger’s work might look different if he had Paul Hoynes’ job. That being said I’m pretty sure that Jay, Ryan, Jeff Sackmann, Aaron Gleeman, Jeff Sullivan, John Sickels, Dave Cameron, Dan Szymborski, Rich Lederer, and most of the people at The Hardball Times would all do a fantastic job in print, and likely better than most of the guys with the job. The old guard has access, and that’s really the big reason they still hold the advantage.
While we’re on the topic, I’m happy Gleeman is making the strides he is.
Steel Nick
Did it ever occur to you that it might be a crappy job that few if any of us would actually want, including those who think they want it?
One thing I’ve learned, you have to play to your strengths — or anyway, I have to play to mine. It would be a mistake to think that anyone who’s done some kind of baseball writing really well could be successful in the print world, or with any professional writing. Some certain people, doing some certain gigs, yes. But once you have a real job with deadlines, all of this is harder than it looks.
I included that caveat.
And it’s really not an issue of whether you want the job, because I wasn’t campaigning for you or any of them to get it. I commended their writing and said—in my opinion—that you’d do a good job (caveat or no).
As for Aaron, I would at least hope it’s a job he wants.
Steel Nick
Access isn’t to be diminished. It’s an important [art of a reporter’s job, and not everyone—even some excellent writers—can handle the social aspect of the job. It’s entirely possible that if John Sickels (I’m just using his name; know nothing about his personality) goes into the Cardinals locker room with a chip on his shoulder, maybe he wouldn’t be able to do his job, which is to report on the team using his access and ability to observe and question players. Bloggers sit in their basements writing meta articles about events and sports coverage. It is primarily derivative and secondary work. Beat writers travel with the team, see them in hotel bars, restaurants. They talk to players and team employees who know what’s going on. Without beat writers, as lame and limited and dumbed down as they can be, bloggers would have a difficult time. It’s not easy work. But I bet Hoynes still loves baseball.
I’d rather talk to him than any of the clowns on ESPN.
No, I didn’t think you were, but bloggers complain—whine, sometimes—about how it’s unfair that fat, graybeard sportswriters with crumbs on their Lacoste shorts can get access to the locker room, while the whipsmart, svelte young stathead can’t get credentials and is forced to get his info secondhand. It’s not right! We’re smarter and use science, and these old guys don’t even love the game enough to learn about SNLVR!
Primarily after Tracy Ringolsby mixed it up with Vance Law. When the BBWA wouldn’t admit Law and Neyer in 2007. When sabermatic internet writers could not get credentials because they did not write for newspapers.
Also see Bissinger vs. Leitch on Costas. And Deadspin’s ironic motto: “Sports News Without Access, Favor or Discretion.”
Are you serious?
Leitch was amazingly dignified while Bissinger totally lost his cool — something even he realized later on. How is this an example of bloggers complaining?
Complaining about access would be antithetical to Deadspin’s motto — which is not intended to be ironic, by the way. The Deadspin ethic is that the fact that a writer has access by definition corrupts his perspective, taking him/her away from the viewpoint of a pure fan. That’s not to say nobody should have access — which would be stupid — it’s only to say that there’s also value in maintaining a detached perspective.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here, in that you seem to be misunderstanding what the various sides have actually been saying about this. The word “blog” doesn’t even appear in the interview with Ringolsby, and Keith Law isn’t some random blogger trying to get access, he’s a former baseball industry professional who writes a regular baseball column for the largest sports media organization in the world. What the hell does any of this have to do with amateur or semi-pro “regular bloggers”
allegedly complaining about anything?
by Jay on Jul 2, 2008 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not defending Bissinger. But I wouldn’t use the word dignified in the context of Will Leitch, either. A plague on both their houses, I say.
I referred to the collateral commentary on the battle of old versus new, which focused on the perceived sense of entitlement of old newspaper writers. If you haven’t seen any of this, and you’re calling me on it, I can surely dig up examples of “regular bloggers” complaining that they do not enjoy the benefits—including access and voting for the HOF—of members of the BBWA. Not sure what this will accomplish, though, other than to waste a few minutes of my time.
I disagree about Deadspin irony. I suspect that Will Leitch knows the meaning of the word discretion, and is using it in a balls-out, in-your-face fashion. I know he contends that his lack of access allows a certain distance and objectivity, which is a valid point. Writers are not supposed to be fans: They are supposed to be as objective as possible.
I believe if you revisit the comments addressed to Paul Hoynes—about what an idiot he is—you will find complaints. If these complaints are not literally expressed, they are certainly figuratively expressed.
Regarding Ringolsby and Law, I was referring more to the commentary at the end of the article.
Ringolsby vs. Law and Bissinger vs. Leitch are two well-known battles that reveal a lot about a changing media. But I don’t think ad hominem attacks serve to advance either point. Nor do I think a writer is an idiot because he is either (a) old, or (b) works for a newspaper. I can find bloggers in St. Louis calling Bernie Miklasz an idiot. Bloggers in Boston trashing Dan Shaughnessy. Bloggers in Cleveland trashing Hoynes. Or Buzzy Bissinger attacking Leitch. What does any of it accomplish? Perhaps it serves to heighten the role and importance of the attacker. But to me it contributes nothing to the discourse. I think Hoynes has something to say, and I think Leitch has something to say. To reject either is plain stupid.
Here’s an interesting blog that should remove my comments from the realm of allegation.
It is in response to an article Barry Jackson wrote in the Miami Herald about comments Bob Costas made about access.
I guess the critical point is how you define a blogger. Someone who is paid to write for ESPN.com or someone who writes for the Willoughby high school website. Is everyone who comments on LGT a blogger?
Lest my comments on Bissinger and Leitch appear contradictory (and they appear so to me in rereading them) I was referring in the first case to their behavior on Costa’s show.
I’m not a huge fan of either guy, but I do think Leitch was quite poised and dignified on the Costas show, and if you actually watched it, I don’t know how you could disagree.
Random people leaving comments are not bloggers. What we have here is something a little different than “random comments,” it’s members of an online community contributing in a forum.
A professional writer can also be a blogger, but when you say “bloggers are complaining,” I assume you’re not talking about a pro writer who blogs on the side, or whose pro writing has been packaged into a blog format as ESPN has done.
Is it really that hard for you to understand the word “blogger?” A blogger is generally understood to be an individual who is writing a regularly updated blog without having been hired to do so — amateurs or self-employed in some cases. When people generalize about “bloggers,” that’s who they’re talking about.
Who you’re talking about, I have no idea, and you don’t seem to have any idea, either.
by Jay on Jul 3, 2008 9:27 AM EDT up reply actions
(1) I did actually watch it, on Youtube. I just watched it again, and Leitch was better behaved than I remembered. I’ll concede that point. You are right.
(2) In my limited fashion, I understand the word blogger to mean someone who maintains a regular web log.
(3) Did you look at the links provided above? “Bob Costas Kindly Invited to Lick My Balls” by Withleather? Drunken Jays Fan?
Are these not complaints about the status of sports writers?
Oh, Evan … are you really flattering yourself that news broadcasts are even aiming at as high of a level as newspapers?
Look, it takes a visionary and/or a bad-ass craftsman to serve up something that’s as fortifying as broccoli and as satisfying as steak, let alone offering the pure sugar rush of donuts — and you could apply that concept to almost any media work. If you want to be one of the really good ones, possibly even one of the great ones, that’s the standard you have to aim for, and everything else is probably going to be crap — in fact, everything else always has been crap.
We basically agree on the ESPN analogy. Mainstream newspapers could diversify their content, but nobody’s sure if anything they do online or offline makes any money anyway, and everyone who works there is afraid for his/her job. So you can understand that it’s not exactly a hotbed of innovation, and it may not be possible for them to adapt.
They may simply have to be replaced.
Ha! I harbor no illusions about the reality of my job. Regarding broadcast vs. print, there is simply no comparison when it comes to depth and, usually, quality. Some of us attempt to add depth online, but don’t think I’m confused about my industry. How would you like it if you needed new engineers and your budget allowed you to hire only high school seniors who think Genesis rocks both with and without Peter Gabriel?
Anyway, I was simply pointing out that in all news venues the largest share of the audience wants the sweet stuff. And you’re bang-on right when you say that the best can make the broccoli taste like a sugar stick.
You make another sound point about the revenue capacity of web content. We’re pushing like heck for web sales, but it still makes up a very small slice of the revenue pie—and consider that ad rates are shrinking right along with audience share. I’m just saying that I’d push to innovate and lead, were I the one calling the shots. Not just because I would like the product, but because I think there’s more money in it.
How would you like it if you needed new engineers and your budget allowed you to hire only high school seniors who think Genesis rocks both with and without Peter Gabriel?
This comes up in interviews?
Also! I really like broccoli. That’s all.
Steel Nick
I agree that the blogger vs. beat writer thing is stupid. There’s plenty of dumb stuff on both sides (and also plenty of smart stuff) so that no one can claim a monopoly on wisdom or ignorance. That said, I agree, on the whole, that Hoynes is not a really good baseball writer. I learn a lot from reading print writers - people like Terry Pluto (not a sabermetrician at all) have really valuable insights. When I lived in Boston, years ago, I really learned a lot from Peter Gammons’ writing in the Globe. But, there are also really bad writers/analysts - viz most of the guys in NY. Hoynes strikes me as pedestrian—he doesn’t really have many original insights and a lot of his writing is really just reporting what Wedge said or some other guy said. That’s relevant, but he’s not the kind of guy who often sheds light on a problem that puzzles fans (like why the Indians can’t hit).
I think the Casey Blake as clutch hitter thing is the foolish thing here. The stuff on fielding is less so - he’s responding to a fan and (correctly) pointing out that there’s evidence the Indians actually CAN field. How well is another question - there his point about range gets him into deeper water (and that’s where the fan has a legitimate question). But, it’s also probably true that Hoynes has heard a lot of fans talking about how awful the Indians’ fielding is (which the fan he’s responding to DIDN’T say), so he may be reacting to that as much as to that particular writer. Maybe I’m being too charitable, but that wouldn’t surprise me at all.
Terry Pluto is more of a sabermetrician than most any print writer in his field. At least he’s made an effort.
Steel Nick
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Five tips for Showtime’s second season of ‘The Franchise,’ featuring the Miami Marlins
- The 10 best things about being a Detroit Tigers fan
- Surprise! A’s finally end the Yoenis Cespedes derby with $36 million deal for Cuban star
- The time Whitney Houston sang to Jim Bowden
- Pitchers and catchers! Mariners get early start in Arizona
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
