GatewayRedbirds.com

whyhellothere wrote:

STEVE PHILLIPS
The St. Louis fans are among the best in the game, and I suspect when Ankiel comes up, they will let him know how much they appreciate his perseverance. It is a remarkable story, and he should be credited. I don't know what they're waiting for, because they need to generate offense any way they can. It would be even better if he could pitch and play the outfield, wouldn't it?

there are so many things wrong with this i dont know where to start

I know, he didn't do his homework. Looks like Buster did though.

Buster Olney wrote:
I haven't asked a Cards exec specifically, but I've read (a Joe Strauss piece, I think, in the P-D) about how Ankiel's option situation is a problem. He's not on the 40-man roster, and if the Cardinals add him to the 40-man and to the big-league roster, than they'd have to pass him through waivers if they wanted to send him back to the minors. So from the Cardinals' perspective, the best thing to do would be to wait until they are absolutely certain they're going to keep him for good before adding him to the 40-man and 25-man roster. He's definitely a guy you root for.

See, Steve? That's why.

Hungary Jack wrote:Here is my issue with Phillips: I think he is not fully informed about the situation with Ankiel, and he does not recognize that he is not fully informed about the situation.

This is what I call meta-ignorance: Not knowing what you don't know. It's the worst type of ignorance around.

The problem with Phillips is that he assumes the role of someone who is knowledgeable by participating in the chat while representing ESPN. He responds to the question about Ankiel as if he is fully informed. But Buster Olney, roughly 60 minutes later, demonstates what it is to be informed by offering a very different response to the same question.

Two guys. Same employer. Same question. Different answers. One guy nails it. The other punts it.

Of course, Olney is an actual journalist, whereas Phillips is that bane of modern journalism, the "insider" (I almost wrote ex-jock, but as far as I know, Phillips never "played the game").

This "insider" stuff is what's ruining modern journalism; the notion that because you used to work in the field somehow makes you more qualified than the guys who earned their journalism degrees and paid their dues writing on spec for the Asuza Daily Epistle.

It bothers me, for instance, watching "Baseball Tonight" that Karl Ravech is the only journalist on the show (except on those occasions when Gammons shows up). Everybody else is either an ex-jock (Kruk, Vina, Eric Young, even Eduardo Perez!) or an ex-manager (Showalter, Bowa, now Baker) or an ex-GM (Phillips).

JMo, your point still stands but there's also Tim Kurkjian. And I guess it's no surprise that Gammons, Kurkjian, and Ravech are easily my three favorites on BBTN.

RC21 wrote:JMo, your point still stands but there's also Tim Kurkjian. And I guess it's no surprise that Gammons, Kurkjian, and Ravech are easily my three favorites on BBTN.

Yes, leave them for the studio analysis, and have the ex-players, etc. go on Live At Shannon's and tell their stories in that setting.

Case in point--Dusty Baker. Terrible on BBTN. Awesome on Live At Shannon's.

Which reminds me--we are lucky to have such an awesome radio show on Friday nights. I personally take it for granted, only listening to it occasionally.

--P--

JMo - I think you may have cracked the code on this, at least for me. It makes sense to see this from the perspective of two very different cultures (ie baseball "insiders" vs. journalists / sabermetric types) who approach the same problem with very different analytical toolsets.

I should have remembered Kurkjian.

However, I wouldn't lump the sabermetricians with the professional journalists. Two different skill-sets there, which is why the MVP voting, for instance, is very different if you poll the journalists than it would be if you poll the sabermetricians.

To be honest, one of the things that does bother me about the modern slate of books about baseball history (Neyer's, for instance, and even some of Bill James' stuff - and I bow to no one in my admiration for both men's work) is the application of modern sabermetric standards on the old teams, usually in the context of "so-and-so was really the best player in the league that year" based on some measure that didn't exist in that day.

Fact is, a guy like, say, Matty Alou (to use my own example of my own personal favorite from my early years of fandom) was clearly considered, in his prime, to be a very good major league player, even though through the benefit of 20-20 sabemetric hindsight, he doesn't look as good.

I think, though, it's rather presumptuous of today's analysts to basically imply that we should go back in time and tell yesterday's fans that their favorite stars weren't really that good.

Or maybe I just haven't gotten over Neyer rating Homer Smoot as the Cards' best all-time rookie center fielder.

Hungary Jack wrote:Here is my issue with Phillips: I think he is not fully informed about the situation with Ankiel, and he does not recognize that he is not fully informed about the situation.

This is what I call meta-ignorance: Not knowing what you don't know. It's the worst type of ignorance around.

The problem with Phillips is that he assumes the role of someone who is knowledgeable by participating in the chat while representing ESPN. He responds to the question about Ankiel as if he is fully informed. But Buster Olney, roughly 60 minutes later, demonstates what it is to be informed by offering a very different response to the same question.

Two guys. Same employer. Same question. Different answers. One guy nails it. The other punts it.

I'm not a Phillips apologist, but I think that saying that there were numerous things wrong with his statement, and saying that the statement was the eipitome of moronic is an overreaction.

Phillips didn't know about Ankiel's option situation (and he admitted as much). That's all that was wrong with his statement.

Olney happened to read about it in the PD. I'm sure there are articles that Phillips has read that Olney hasn't.

Well then, technically, Phillips' statement would be "ignorant", rather than "moronic". Of course, the word "ignorant" is considered insulting nowadays, too, even though the technical definition of the word is not insulting at all:

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/ignorant.html

A person can be ignorant (not knowing some fact or idea) without being stupid (incapable of learning because of a basic mental deficiency). And those who say, “That’s an ignorant idea” when they mean “stupid idea” are expressing their own ignorance.

Jmodene wrote:Well then, technically, Phillips' statement would be "ignorant", rather than "moronic". Of course, the word "ignorant" is considered insulting nowadays, too, even though the technical definition of the word is not insulting at all:

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/ignorant.html

A person can be ignorant (not knowing some fact or idea) without being stupid (incapable of learning because of a basic mental deficiency). And those who say, “That’s an ignorant idea” when they mean “stupid idea” are expressing their own ignorance.

I think "uninformed on Ankiel's option situation" would be a better description.

But saying that his entire statement was moronic is inaccurate, as well.