Context and sports commentary

[Mizzougrad96]

Do you think anyone in Detroit gives a **** what Tony Paul thinks of TJ Simers?

There is nothing worse than when writers write about what someone else wrote.

Hack 101.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

If you don't like Simers' schtick, I understand that. He's definitely not for everyone.

But after reading Tony Paul's column, I'm just embarrassed for him (Paul).

 

[fishwrapper]

It would be a mistake not to post the follow-up column.
See, the thing with TJ, he always shows up in the locker room. The very next day.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-simers-20110323,0,2631554.column

 

[Azrael]

It would be a mistake not to post the follow-up column.
See, the thing with TJ, he always shows up in the locker room. The very next day.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-simers-20110323,0,2631554.column

So?

If Thames says nothing, Simers gloats in the next column.

If Dodger PR preps Thames to play along, as was clearly the case here, Simers gloats in the next column.

If Thames punches him in the nose, Simers gets another week's worth of columns and a juicy settlement.

Life's all upside when you're Max Mercy.

 

[fishwrapper]

No. What you're missing is, well, the point.

This column (two) is about Marcus Thames. But -- the real point -- is do you know why TJ is successful? It's because players talk to him. What do players, today, have in common with TJ Simers? TJ, close to 60, a bit of a belly and white. Players, many of the ones he pokes, young and millionaires.

Well, care to guess?

They respect him. Because, even now, he's an outstanding reporter. He's interesting. And, he's still relevant today with players when many of his contemporaries have been cast aside.

That "upside" you speak of, you see, isn't given. It's earned.

 

[LongTimeListener]

I found it odd that over the last nine years that no one had asked him about his poor defense keeping him from becoming an everyday player.

"I heard talk, but no one had ever said it directly to me," he says, understandably thrilled now to have it said to his face rather than behind his back.

If this is true, that in Thames' nine major league seasons there was never a reporter who asked him about his defense, then this is a shining example of Simers' method working. He gets an answer to a question that nobody else has had the temerity to ask.

Don't know the man, I know the people who do know him don't like him very much, but you can go through the Dodgers from the days of Kevin Brown all the way to last year with Matt Kemp and you won't find any writer who has given more of a glimpse into the clubhouse. Also throw in the story about Karl Malone hitting on Vanessa Bryant. And one of my favorite columns of all time, when he interviewed Chargers rookie Ryan Leaf and began the column: "Met the punk the other day ..."

 

[Azrael]

No. What you're missing is, well, the point.

This column (two) is about Marcus Thames. But -- the real point -- is do you know why TJ is successful? It's because players talk to him. What do players, today, have in common with TJ Simers? TJ, close to 60, a bit of a belly and white. Players, many of the ones he pokes, young and millionaires.

Well, care to guess?

They respect him. Because, even now, he's an outstanding reporter. He's interesting. And, he's still relevant today with players when many of his contemporaries have been cast aside.

That "upside" you speak of, you see, isn't given. It's earned.

I explain upstream a few posts why I think this column in particular is problematic, even in light of Simers' shtick.

 

[SF_Express]

I've always tried to keep the personal out of this, but some here obviously know that I know T.J. and have for years. Many of the things I have believed in this business for years probably came from my time working with him. His bottom line: It's sports, it's entertainment, it's not life or death, and it should be fun.

I also know there's a lot of people from his days in New Jersey/New York who hate his guts.

But I have no better friend, and I always add "in the business" to that, but in fact, it's pretty much in life.

I suppose I can understand the dickhead label, but people who've had a mere passing acquaintance with him and make that pronouncement don't know the T.J. I know. That T.J. is a great family man, a loyal friend and a person who has done a lot of charity work in Southern California and been responsible for raising a lot of money.

His schtick carries pretty much from his columns into his real life, but it all goes back to something others have mentioned here: He's always right in front of you the next day.

I really didn't start this thread for that -- I really was curious on this whole "tough life" thing, and why it isn't in play whenever any sports writer anywhere rips anybody who might have had some kind of tragedy in their lives -- but I had to say it.

 

[fishwrapper]

No. What you're missing is, well, the point.

This column (two) is about Marcus Thames. But -- the real point -- is do you know why TJ is successful? It's because players talk to him. What do players, today, have in common with TJ Simers? TJ, close to 60, a bit of a belly and white. Players, many of the ones he pokes, young and millionaires.

Well, care to guess?

They respect him. Because, even now, he's an outstanding reporter. He's interesting. And, he's still relevant today with players when many of his contemporaries have been cast aside.

That "upside" you speak of, you see, isn't given. It's earned.

I explain upstream a few posts why I think this column in particular is problematic, even in light of Simers' shtick.

I saw. Here's the problem. TJ wasn't talking to Colletti.

 

[LongTimeListener]

To SF's point regarding tough life, what a good guy Thames is, etc.: If that matters, I expect to see a line from AT&T Park all the way across the Bay Bridge as writers wait to deliver their personal apologies to Barry Zito, who does lots of heartfelt charity work and whose father was dying while everyone gleefully pointed out that the Giants' highest-paid player wasn't on the playoff roster. (EDIT: More accurate to say his father was falling seriously ill, as he is 82 and still not out of the hospital from a heart condition. Zito's mom died in 2008. The point remains, however.)

 

[secretariat]

His schtick carries pretty much from his columns into his real life, but it all goes back to something others have mentioned here: He's always right in front of you the next day.

I certainly can respect your personal relationship and feelings toward Simers, but to this point: So what? That means he's better than Jay Mariotti. Not exactly a high bar to clear.

To fishwrapper's point: I don't think most LA athletes respect Simers. But what are they going to do? Azrael nailed it. They're not going to blow him off, because then Simers wins. They aren't going to hit him, because then Simers REALLY wins. Best thing to do is answer his questions and keep as much dignity as you can. That's the only way to deal with print bullies.

 

[lcjjdnh]

His bottom line: It's sports, it's entertainment, it's not life or death, and it should be fun.

Exactly the reason I like him. Oddly enough, this attitude, I think, is what makes Joe Posnanski great, too-although he, of course, manifests it in a manner about as different as you can get from Simers.

 

[Knighthawk]

I found it odd that over the last nine years that no one had asked him about his poor defense keeping him from becoming an everyday player.

"I heard talk, but no one had ever said it directly to me," he says, understandably thrilled now to have it said to his face rather than behind his back.

If this is true, that in Thames' nine major league seasons there was never a reporter who asked him about his defense, then this is a shining example of Simers' method working. He gets an answer to a question that nobody else has had the temerity to ask.

It's not even vaguely true. I've covered Thames, and he has no problems discussing his strengths and weaknesses as a player.

 

[Azrael]

TJ wasn't talking to Colletti.

He wasn't "talking" to Thames, either. He was trying to provoke him.

That's the point of the Simers shtick, right? To be provocative? To provoke the colorful quote?

And in this case Simers manages to spend two days and the better part of two columns provoking the answer to the question, "What's it like being provoked into answering a TJ Simers question?"

 

[fishwrapper]

Again, like all these TJ threads, we can go around and around. And I have...many times.
That's cool. You don't understand his tact. Not a fan of his delivery. You find him despicable.
I get all that. Really.
What I don't get is how this player has played nine seasons in the major leagues, for four franchises -- including New York -- and not one reporter or columnist ever brought up to him his awful play in the field? That's what I don't get.
What I got from these two columns is something different -- in the truest sense. Something I wanted to read, even if I cringe at some of the turns of phrase.
TJ will keep doing this until he doesn't want to. Sadly, that can only be said for only a handful in our business anymore.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

Tact?

 

[Azrael]

Simers gets no answer to the question, "You're a great streaky power hitter. Why are you so weak defensively?" because he never asks that question.

Instead he gets the answer to the question, "Why hasn't anyone asked you the question it now turns out I haven't asked you either?"

 

[fishwrapper]

I can see that splitting of hairs. Fair enough. But I can also see the confinements of literalism.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

What I don't get is how this player has played nine seasons in the major leagues, for four franchises -- including New York -- and not one reporter or columnist ever brought up to him his awful play in the field?

Even the homerish TV people criticized it last year. Everyone who covered the Yankees wrote that the acquisition of Austin Kearns at the end of July was partly to remedy the fact that Thames was playing bad defense as the fourth outfielder.

But this is not an analytical story, really. You watch the guy out there, you can't question whether he's trying or if he has technical flaws that coaching could remedy. Those are not the issues, and anyone with more than a minimal knowledge of baseball would know this after watching him play more than a few times. He just is not a majors-quality outfielder anymore -- it's that simple, case closed, pay the clerk on your way out of the court.

Has anyone phrased the question precisely the way T.J. did? Who the **** knows. But very similar questions have been asked, in a much more knowledgeable and professional manner. This likely would not make even Simers' personal top 1,000 of his most penetrating and informed interview questions over the past 35 years. It's even kind of a lazy one by his standards, I think.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

I would add, too, that Thames appeared willing to take one for the team. Check his stats last year and you will see they put him in at third base once last year for the first time in his major-league career (one chance, one error). I happened to be watching and thought oh good Christ, this ought to be illegal. No one expected him to play well at third, they just needed him to do it. No one with an iota of sense expects Thames to play well in the outfield, either. They keep paying him to do it, though, and he apparently does the best he can.