Rhoden - On 2nd Thought It's About Race

William Rhoden decides to play the race card after all on the Willie Randoph story. When story first broke on Wednesday Rhoden wrote a column with no mention of race and pretty much stated that Willie's problems would resolve themselves with winning.

In today's column Rhoden introduces race into the mix.

Wednesday column:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/sports/baseball/21rhoden.html

Sunday column:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/sports/baseball/25rhoden.html?_r=1&ref=sports&oref=slogin

 

Mike Lupica and Peter King weep on this Sunday. Boom passed on them for another of his whipping posts.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is, other than you are pointing out once again that Rhoden wrote about race in sports. There was nothing wrong with either column. He wrote that if the Mets started winning, much of the criticism Willie Randolph receives from the fans and media would vanish. Where, exactly, is the flawed logic? After all, winning cures many ills.

Today, Rhoden wrote about Randolph's view of race and the criticism he has endured. And I'm not sure that's not worth discussion. I will not say the reporters that cover the team on a daily basis hate Randolph because of his race. That is an insult to the men and women on the beat. But I will suggest that a percentage of the Mets fan base--a small but vocal number; distressing that in 2008 that this is still a topic--may not like Randolph because of his race first and his baseball acumen second. Let's be honest. Race is still an issue in New York; it's still a national issue.

 

Boom, were you under the crazy impression this board was about sports journalism, ie, what people write in the newspaper? Did you not check with hockeybeat to see if your topic was thread worthy? What were you thinking?

 

Where did I say his thread wasn't worth discussion?

 

Today's column reads like Rhoden felt he owed it to Willie after not having his back the first time around. I could be dead wrong, but that's how it seems. The problem is, Rhoden doesn't really have his heart in this one. He knows he can't really lay this on race, because Willie's in trouble on his own merits. So he settles for saying that somewhere in all of this, race is a factor, that the country isn't color-blind. That's not exactly a news flash. Rhoden had it right the first time when he said Willie should just concentrate on winning some games. He should have left it there.

 

Exactly - first column Rhoden makes vague reference to race - which seemed odd since Rhoden has never been shy about playing race card. The column reads like he was not even aware of Randolph interview with O'Connor.

Follow up column comes when story does not blow over. In many ways 2nd column contradicts the first.

 

The column is so softly and vaguely written that it's hard to see any definable point as it relates to Randolph.

 

Agreed, and I think that's true of many of his columns. Sad to say this of a NYT columnist, but he needs an editor who will treat him like a beginner: "Bill, sum up the central point of your column for me in a sentence or two. If you can't do it easily, you don't have a column."

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/26/sports/baseball/26vecsey.html?ref=sports

 

No opinion on this column hb?

I do like Vecsey quote on Hillary:

"Randolph has every right to remain suspicious about racial attitudes in America when a presidential candidate can go around droppin’ her G’s like a country singer all over rural America and making a blatant pitch to “working, hard-working Americans, white Americans.”

His timing may be a little off on the Yankees though since they seem to have become energized with return of A -Rod and Girardi getting booted on disputed foul tip.

I Just want to reiterate my original point of this thread- First Rhoden column was clearly odd given that he has pretty much billed himself as the "race" columnist.

 

Not that this has anything to do with Randolph or Rhoden, but this caught my attention from Vescey's column:

So it's MLB's job to tap-dance around the feelings of the Yankees? Bullshit.

As for Rhoden, the Sunday column did read like even he is tiring of beating this drum. Sorry, but Randolph had to know that criticism would come with the job. You couldn't go a month during Joe Torre's tenure without someone writing that he should be fired. And his time there knew nothing but success. They finally ran him off, and look where the Yankees are. Randolph doesn't seem to be treated any different, only he hasn't been as successful as Torre.

 

My opinion on Vecsey's column is the same as the ones I expressed about Rhoden's. All three columns are valid. If the Mets start winning, most of the shitstorm of the last fortnight dies down. However, I believe there to be a small percentage of fans that dislike Randolph because of his race.