Murray Chass is back

[Frank_Ridgeway]

What's really funny is that MLB.com's heds on the speech were: "Chass receives Spink Award/New York Times writer encourages today's scribes"

http://cubs.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20040725&content_id=810238&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=null

Anyway, the speech transcript:

http://apse.dallasnews.com/news/2004/080504murraychass.html

He was pissy and unkind -- and his shot at editors is probably meaningless to anyone outside the business and thus gratuitous -- but what part isn't true?

As for his union/management reporting, it wasn't his job to write something that would validate your personal bias. That's, umm, what blogs are for. Ringolsby had a sane perspective -- they often disagreed, but he admired Chass' ethics and hard work.

 

[JR]

Thanks for posting that, Frank.

The speech was entirely inappropriate, not to mention classless.

Accpeting an award at Cooperstown is not the place to start scolding the children.

 

[Walter_Sobchak]

Then when they write columns, instead of picking their spots to criticize, they often display their ignorance, and worse, show a mean-spirited attitude toward the people they write about.

Murray needs to take a long, hard look in the mirror.

 

[cranberry]

What's really funny is that MLB.com's heds on the speech were: "Chass receives Spink Award/New York Times writer encourages today's scribes"

http://cubs.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20040725&content_id=810238&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=null

Anyway, the speech transcript:

http://apse.dallasnews.com/news/2004/080504murraychass.html

He was pissy and unkind -- and his shot at editors is probably meaningless to anyone outside the business and thus gratuitous -- but what part isn't true?

As for his union/management reporting, it wasn't his job to write something that would validate your personal bias. That's, umm, what blogs are for. Ringolsby had a sane perspective -- they often disagreed, but he admired Chass' ethics and hard work.

I just re-read the speech (delivered about a year after brain cancer surgery) and it was milder than I'd remembered. Vaccaro is probably a little sensitive about it because he's one of the guys who rose to columnist at a relatively young age.

And Murray was right, anyway. There are too many columnists who get big forums based on their writing ability but in the end don't have very informed opinions. Several of them get roasted here quite a bit. Doesn't mean they're not talented; just that they haven't been around and seen enough to have a well informed opinion.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

Thanks for posting that, Frank.

The speech was entirely inappropriate, not to mention classless.

Accpeting an award at Cooperstown is not the place to start scolding the children.

Classless, possibly. But then if he had made those comments in a different venue, they would not have gained as much attention.
I think it's entirely appropriate for someone receiving a career achievement award to comment on the state of that calling.

Now, he could have handled that in a less accusatory manner and in a way in which he didn't appear to be putting himself on a pedestal. Or he could have blamed the assignment editors rather than the beat reporters, whose shallowness in the field is often mandated from above. But his points about the decline of substance -- and basic fairness to the people being written about -- are completely valid.

 

[Walter_Sobchak]

What's really funny is that MLB.com's heds on the speech were: "Chass receives Spink Award/New York Times writer encourages today's scribes"

http://cubs.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20040725&content_id=810238&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=null

Anyway, the speech transcript:

http://apse.dallasnews.com/news/2004/080504murraychass.html

He was pissy and unkind -- and his shot at editors is probably meaningless to anyone outside the business and thus gratuitous -- but what part isn't true?

As for his union/management reporting, it wasn't his job to write something that would validate your personal bias. That's, umm, what blogs are for. Ringolsby had a sane perspective -- they often disagreed, but he admired Chass' ethics and hard work.

I just re-read the speech (delivered about a year after brain cancer surgery) and it was milder than I'd remembered. Vaccaro is probably a little sensitive about it because he's one of the guys who rose to columnist at a relatively young age.

And Murray was right, anyway. There are too many columnists who get big forums based on their writing ability but in the end don't have very informed opinions. Several of them get roasted here quite a bit. Doesn't mean they're not talented; just that they haven't been around and seen enough to have a well informed opinion.

He makes valid points - as you said, just look at any one of the Jemele Hill threads on the board - but given his recent bitterness and refusal to become informed on ubiquitious trends in the game today makes it hard to take his words seriously.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

refusal to become informed on ubiquitious trends in the game today

What do you mean?

 

[cranberry]

He makes valid points - as you said, just look at any one of the Jemele Hill threads on the board - but given his recent bitterness and refusal to become informed on ubiquitious trends in the game today makes it hard to take his words seriously.

Who cares what he says about advanced statistical analysis? You read Murray because he's a guy that usually knows what's going on off the field and has the background knowledge necessary to put it in perspective.

 

[Boom_70]

refusal to become informed on ubiquitious trends in the game today

What do you mean?

I think he meant to say ubiquitous

 

[JR]

Thanks for posting that, Frank.

The speech was entirely inappropriate, not to mention classless.

Accpeting an award at Cooperstown is not the place to start scolding the children.

Classless, possibly. But then if he had made those comments in a different venue, they would not have gained as much attention.
I think it's entirely appropriate for someone receiving a career achievement award to comment on the state of that calling.

Now, he could have handled that in a less accusatory manner and in a way in which he didn't appear to be putting himself on a pedestal. Or he could have blamed the assignment editors rather than the beat reporters, whose shallowness in the field is often mandated from above. But his points about the decline of substance -- and basic fairness to the people being written about -- are completely valid.

Frank, it's a scold. I wonder if he was wagging his finger as he gave the speech.

This was supposedly an occasion to celebrate a career but he comes off as just another bitter old man bitching and moaning about the younger generation.

I don't care whether it's directed at the young kids or thir editors. It doesn't read like a "state of the union" address in the least.

No class, no grace, very little humanity.

 

[Walter_Sobchak]

refusal to become informed on ubiquitious trends in the game today

What do you mean?

I think he meant to say ubiquitous

Yes, I did. Mea culpa on the typo. And yeah, cranberry, it's just his whole attitude toward modern statistical analysis. If stats like VORP and EqA don't interest you, I completely respect that. But he admits that he doesn't know what it means and won't be bothered to look it up, as if being uninformed is a badge of honor.
These aren't meaningless stats - there's a reason why the Red Sox hired Bill James. And yeah, the Sox have a gazillion dollars to spend - but so do the Mets, Yankees, Mariners, etc. Two WS titles in the past four years has to be attributed to something other than money. And other front offices are catching on.
But Murray still wants to perpretate the notion that these "stat-mongers," as he calls them, are ruining the enjoyment of the game. If he doesn't want to get bogged down in numbers, don't write about them. Denigrating those who look at what are proven to be useful tools just makes him seem like a bitter asshole.

 

[JohnnyChan]

At the risk of overstaying my welcome: I have no problem if Murray FEELS that way about the Next Generation, however strongly I may disagree with him. Lord knows he's entitled to any opinion he wants, no matter how broad his brushstroke on that issue may be.

But to raise it at the HALL OF FAME INDUCTION ceremony? How would the reaction have been if Reggie Jackson took time out of his speech to rip Thurman, Nettles, Billy and everyone else who ticked him off as a Yankee?

-- Vaccaro

 

[cranberry]

Cranky guy gives cranky speech a year after he's had brain cancer surgery, so what? And it's not anything like if Jackson had ripped Thurman, Nettles, etc. He didn't call out any individuals. He spoke in general terms.

If any of you are going to judge Murray based on a speech or that he's been cranky in recent years, I feel bad for you because you're completely overlooking a tremendous and honorable body of work.

 

[JR]

I don't think anyone's judging Murray's writing here. I think it's pretty unanimous that he's a great baseball writer with a distinguished career.

But he comes off more than cranky. He sounds like a miserable old prick.

 

[Boom_70]

Here Murray's column on VORP in Times - 2/27/07. I can see VORP stats not flying with Daily News readers but the Times demographic seems like a good fit for the new age stats:

"Statistics mongers promoting VORP and other new-age baseball statistics.

I receive a daily e-mail message from Baseball Prospectus, an electronic publication filled with articles and information about statistics, mostly statistics that only stats mongers can love.

To me, VORP epitomized the new-age nonsense. For the longest time, I had no idea what VORP meant and didn’t care enough to go to any great lengths to find out. I asked some colleagues whose work I respect, and they didn’t know what it meant either.

Finally, not long ago, I came across VORP spelled out. It stands for value over replacement player. How thrilling. How absurd. Value over replacement player. Don’t ask what it means. I don’t know.

I suppose that if stats mongers want to sit at their computers and play with these things all day long, that’s their prerogative. But their attempt to introduce these new-age statistics into the game threatens to undermine most fans’ enjoyment of baseball and the human factor therein.

People play baseball. Numbers don’t.

 

[JohnnyChan]

OK, Cranberry, so let's make it nice and simple: What if Reggie had said, "These new batch of Yankees, they may think they're good, but they have no idea what it is to be a real Yankee."

Is that better?

And is that any better?

 

[poindexter]

But their attempt to introduce these new-age statistics into the game threatens to undermine most fans’ enjoyment of baseball and the human factor therein.

How is looking at a player's VORP going to undermine fans' enjoyment of baseball? Patently absurd.

 

[black dude with pompano]

Here Murray's column on VORP in Times - 2/27/07. I can see VORP stats not flying with Daily News readers but the Times demographic seems like a good fit for the new age stats:

"Statistics mongers promoting VORP and other new-age baseball statistics.

I receive a daily e-mail message from Baseball Prospectus, an electronic publication filled with articles and information about statistics, mostly statistics that only stats mongers can love.

To me, VORP epitomized the new-age nonsense. For the longest time, I had no idea what VORP meant and didn’t care enough to go to any great lengths to find out. I asked some colleagues whose work I respect, and they didn’t know what it meant either.

Finally, not long ago, I came across VORP spelled out. It stands for value over replacement player. How thrilling. How absurd. Value over replacement player. Don’t ask what it means. I don’t know.

I suppose that if stats mongers want to sit at their computers and play with these things all day long, that’s their prerogative. But their attempt to introduce these new-age statistics into the game threatens to undermine most fans’ enjoyment of baseball and the human factor therein.

People play baseball. Numbers don’t.

Sums up his philosophy perfectly. Don't know what it is. Have no interest in finding out.

Ignorance as a badge of honor.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

refusal to become informed on ubiquitious trends in the game today

What do you mean?

I think he meant to say ubiquitous

Yes, I did. Mea culpa on the typo. And yeah, cranberry, it's just his whole attitude toward modern statistical analysis. If stats like VORP and EqA don't interest you, I completely respect that. But he admits that he doesn't know what it means and won't be bothered to look it up, as if being uninformed is a badge of honor.
These aren't meaningless stats - there's a reason why the Red Sox hired Bill James. And yeah, the Sox have a gazillion dollars to spend - but so do the Mets, Yankees, Mariners, etc. Two WS titles in the past four years has to be attributed to something other than money. And other front offices are catching on.
But Murray still wants to perpretate the notion that these "stat-mongers," as he calls them, are ruining the enjoyment of the game. If he doesn't want to get bogged down in numbers, don't write about them. Denigrating those who look at what are proven to be useful tools just makes him seem like a bitter asshole.

I wasn't pointing out your typo, I didn't understand what trends you were talking about that he's missed.

I don't think it's fair to say he's missed any trends. I mean, I was buying and reading Bill James' stuff more than 20 years ago and SABR has been around since the early 1970s. I think Chass made a conscious decision about who his audience is. As James did his -- James wrote a book called "This Time Let's Not Eat The Bones/Bill James Without Numbers," but his primary audience is all about numbers and he knows that, or he wouldn't have resumed primarily writing about numbers. And when he did, that's when I stopped reading. I couldn't tell you if he's written one book or a hundred books since 1990. And I do not care.

I read James in the 1980s because it was vogue at the time, and while I acknowledge that it interests some people, I don't find it interesting, nor do I think that it's a smart use of newspaper resources to fixate on it. There are plenty of people who are willing to crunch numbers (for free), but not a lot of people who have the sources to do the kind of reporting that Chass did. I don't think he "missed" any trends. I think he made a smart choice about what he'd focus on and for whom.

 

[cranberry]

OK, Cranberry, so let's make it nice and simple: What if Reggie had said, "These new batch of Yankees, they may think they're good, but they have no idea what it is to be a real Yankee."

Is that better?

And is that any better?

That would be about equivalent. And while I'd agree that Murray picked the wrong forum to express those thoughts about the industry, I also happen to agree with those thoughts.

Stat guys, I would never read nor care about Bill James' or Rob Neyer's insight on baseball business, either, but that doesn't mean their statistical analysis isn't terrific stuff.

And Boom, I'm still waiting for the examples of when Murray wasn't fair and objective in labor matters.