What are his editors doing? All media has some guidelines around source requirements, they could very easily put together something similar for Nick to help him differentiate between his opinions and factual statements.
Protecting the Shields -- The Nick Cafardo Thread
- Thread starter MyDaughterLovesTomGordon
- Start date
- Status
That was the definition of "mailing it in." Combined with the ode to Mike Lowell he took the time to pen, this Sunday was certainly one of Nick's most pathetic showings of all time, which is saying something.
I really doubt he's using anything other than home runs, but his ISO went from .246 to .116.
-----
And in regards to Heidi Watney "handing Nick his lunch", for the 99.9999% percent of the public that weren't watching a rain delay, what happened?
"Hi, I'm a reporter and am hoping that you can tell me what your playoff rotation will be. You know, the thing that will be announced when the organization has made a final decision and wants it to be made public. You can tell me, right? Hello? Hello?"
"Hi, you're a professional scout in the NL, and I was hoping you could give me a brief scouting report on Aaron Harang for my Sunday baseball notes column. Right now I've written this unsubstantiated throw away line about how Harang might not make the playoff roster, and I think an insightful scouting report would add substance to the piece. Gee, thanks."
"Hi, you're baseball-reference.com, and I'm hoping you can provide me with Aaron Harang's pitching statistics for '10, as well as previous seasons to add context to a baseball article I'm writing for the Boston Globe. Right now I've written 15 bland words about Harang's struggles, and I'm thinking statistics might bolster my analysis and provide insight to my readers....or I could cite Harang's won-loss record, which has been accepted by alert and forward-thinking baseball scribes as the most useless statistic in baseball. Hello? Hello?"
Well, that would make sense if I was calling up the Reds. One would think someone reporting on the Sox for 25 years (but has only met a few ball players who "get it") might have a contact or two. Just maybe.
This isn't the column where you're calling anyone up (the point of a mail-in job like this is that it takes absolutely no reporting, so why would you call anyone?), but I think you're basically making our point for us. Nick probably does just call up the reception desk and ask for the GM.
Our commentary starts here
Basically, Watney came off looking about a thousand times more informed than Cafardo.
I was responding specifically to: "ask a scout/GM/front office executive." No GM or front office executive would answer the question, and the crux of what a scout would say is, "He isn't pitching well and I can see him not being on the postseason roster" [which would be accurate, because Harang probably won't be on the postaseason roster].
I could handle that if the stats he picked were reasonable stats to use (say, looking at WPA versus projected WPA). But the state he used most often was the number of wins each pitcher had. You don't need to understand what linear weighting to know that wins are imprecise measures at best.
David, you know Cafardo enough to understand that this guy is the master of the unnamed quote. All he had to do is call his buddy Sabean, promise to keep it anonymous, and we have a quote on Harang. He does it every, single week. And while it's gutless and boring, at least it requires a bit of work. To me this whole column seemed like Cafardo look at the stats sheet on Friday and saying, "This guy had a good year, this guy had a bad year and whoa! where did this guy come from?" The entire league batting and pitching lines were on the page prior to the Baseball Notes, any one of his readers could have done the exact same thing. There wasn't any explanations on why guys did well, bad or came out of no where.
I understand that everyone needs a break now and then, but this may not have been the best weekend for that break. It's the end of the year, the playoffs begin tomorrow he couldn't have written a little preview about every team? One of the clubs (his favorite team BTW) is at Fenway Park. He couldn't have gotten ahold of Girardi or Pettitte or Jeter and asked a few questions? I'm sure that Texas, Minnesota and Tampa sent a boatload of scouts to watch the Yanks play, nothing from them?
And if he didn't feel doing a quick preview, how about an update on the Giants/Padres/Braves slugfest in the National League? The dude is in Sabean's hip pocket, nothing from him? Jed Hoyer is the Padres GM, he must have a relationship there plus that's an awesome Boston angle to cover. And how about Bobby Cox, this is is his last year (which he's written about no less than eight times this summer) what's this like for him? It's a pretty interesting situation, wouldn't you agree?
There's an interesting situation happening in Seattle with GM Jack Zduriencik getting a vote of confidence from his owner because of the Josh Lueke situation. One of the prospects that the Rangers gave to the M's for Cliff Lee and this also brought the firing of the Mariners' head of scouting. That would be an interesting piece to write about.
The bottom line is this, Nick Cafardo is probably the nicest guy in the world--I have no problems with him personally (mostly because I don't know him). But the issues I have with him are three-fold:
1. His journalistic/reporter instincts stink. In the age of the Internet, if you're a reporter, you better be sure that you can grab readers' attentions, or you're sunk. I think that the reason most of us haven't jumped ship is because this is such an ingrained part of our Sunday rituals, that it would be hard. But the Globe isn't getting new readers with this tripe and I bet that they're losing a lot of folks who aren't as invested as us.
2. His writing is not very good. There are a lot of mistakes that a copy editor should catch, but doesn't for one reason or another.
3. He's using old-fashioned metrics as a way of critical thinking. Listen, there are a lot of times when I say "Wow, look at that guy's batting average!" or "He's got a good Win/Loss record." That's because that's how I was brought up and 90% of the time I move on from those things after my initial look. Cafardo doesn't and he really needs to. Otherwise his paper isss at risk of simply not being taken seriously. The Globe advertises Cafardo as an "expert", but how can he be an expert if he thinks pitchers are good based on wins and losses and hitters are good based on batting average? It would be like going to a doctor and getting a prescription for leeches when you have a migraine.
Ahem
Though I think #5 might be his worst yet. I don't know Nick, why don't you tell us why Brian Fuentes will be with the Sox next year?
Now, I know these are apropos of nothing; but what is a Dustin Pedroia type? Short and white? Gritty? Injured for 1/2 the year?
Though I think #5 might be his worst yet. I don't know Nick, why don't you tell us why Brian Fuentes will be with the Sox next year?
Wow, just...wow. The Posada/Pettitte tidbit is his worst yet. First, Nick doesn't tell us why he thinks Posada's catching skills are better than advertised, and how this somehow manifests itself when he works with Pettitte. This sort of laziness would be laughed out of college classrooms. Second, Posada's catching skills have been universally panned by just about every credible talent evaluator. His receiving skills are a joke. As a former Sox reliever told me, Posada catches an abnormal number of balls in the outer-webbing of the glove, costing his pitchers numerous called strikes because of awful pitch-framing. Third, the Red Sox ran wild on him during their final six games against NYY, exposing his god-awful accuracy and slow transfer.
Don't the Twins have Nick Punto? He's short, gritty, and white. And he was injured for a bit of the year as well.
Ugh.
I think he meant they need one of those MVP type players at second. I really think they would be a better team if they just had some good players. Weird concept, I know.
How many innings could Kalish give as a starter?
How many innings could Kalish give as a starter?
They had Hudson at second this year. He was worth 3.2 WAR. Not exactly a chump.
They had a good roster, decent pitching, the best catcher in baseball, and Jim Thome. And they couldn't even win a single game. Epic fail.
Nick Cafardo is at a again. Building a column out of absolutely nothing and refuting it at the end.
The Zack Greinke out of KC is a legit rumor (as we read about earlier this week) however, he has no trades to Boston and NY. For most writers (especially those that know the Greinke story) that would be the end of the story. Not for our hero. Cafardo said that Greinke could easily be bought out because everyone has a price (little known secret, Nick Cafardo is the Ted DiBiasse of the baseball world). So our hero writes about 750 words about how Greinke is gone and that it's between the Yankees and Red Sox.
Of course that's nothing to his Apropos of Nothing comment where he wonders whether Josh Becket, John Lackey, Clay Buchholz will like the Sox moving in the bullpen a few feet. If only there was a way for him to find out. Damn you Red Sox pitchers and your no-phone-calls-in-the-offseason policies!
The Zack Greinke out of KC is a legit rumor (as we read about earlier this week) however, he has no trades to Boston and NY. For most writers (especially those that know the Greinke story) that would be the end of the story. Not for our hero. Cafardo said that Greinke could easily be bought out because everyone has a price (little known secret, Nick Cafardo is the Ted DiBiasse of the baseball world). So our hero writes about 750 words about how Greinke is gone and that it's between the Yankees and Red Sox.
Of course that's nothing to his Apropos of Nothing comment where he wonders whether Josh Becket, John Lackey, Clay Buchholz will like the Sox moving in the bullpen a few feet. If only there was a way for him to find out. Damn you Red Sox pitchers and your no-phone-calls-in-the-offseason policies!
Gah. Today's "column" was particularly infuriating. It's just a series a spitball questions fired at his own wall of fail answered only by yet another series of questions that lead nowhere.
Do the Sox covet Greinke? Who knows? Would he be a fit? Who knows? Would Lee be better? Who knows? Is Lee worth the price? Who knows? Surely Theo must like Greinke's combination of youth and talent? Who knows? But We do know that the Sox need to make a "splash" in the offseason. What will it be? Who knows?
Do the Sox covet Greinke? Who knows? Would he be a fit? Who knows? Would Lee be better? Who knows? Is Lee worth the price? Who knows? Surely Theo must like Greinke's combination of youth and talent? Who knows? But We do know that the Sox need to make a "splash" in the offseason. What will it be? Who knows?
I dunno, if you were on vacation, your cell phone went off, and you saw that it was Nick Cafardo, would you answer it?
Who knows?
Okay, I'm on record as not being a fan of these type of threads, because I believe it's far easier to criticize when you don't do the same sort of work yourself. That said, it's time to retire Bill Chuck:
Because you're not a hypocrite, I'm sure you don't criticize Francona or any of the players, right? Or books or movies or music. I mean it's only because it's far easier to criticize when you don't do the same sort of work yourself.
Oh, I'm a hypocrite plenty. And I realize Cafardo isn't very good. Just not my cup of tea to dump on the easy target week after week; so I should do us all a favor and avoid such threads.
The Bill Chuck files thing makes me think that Corsi Combover is going to replace the fellow when he finally retires. Corsi can look up player's info on baseball-reference.com with the best of them.
It's remarks like this that make me enjoy this thread more than Nick's column.
How exactly one get at least two of those worthless nuggets simply by looking at a bb-r.com page? Those are Jayson Stark-type meaningless stats, that wasn't quite CC's forte.
The Soria bit is a little interesting, at least less meaningless than the other two. Unfortunately, it's wrong. He gave up 2 runs and blew a save against the Rays in his last appearance.
That may be the most banal tweet I've ever read from a supposed professional member of the media.
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2010/10/29/bondss_interest_draws_balks/?camp=localsearch
n:twit:cafardo
It's been corrected, but he mentioned that Aubrey Huff and Pat Burrell were teammates on FSU (not Miami). That lede just doesn't read right. Why not Bonds'?
n:twit:cafardoIt's been corrected, but he mentioned that Aubrey Huff and Pat Burrell were teammates on FSU (not Miami). That lede just doesn't read right. Why not Bonds'?
OMG. Just when you think it can't get any more embarrassing... today's edition, to borrow a hackneyed term, is EPIC.
The Jose Bautista piece was actually all right, but there's precious little coverage of World Series-related storylines (other than tangential items #5 and #8 in his 'Apropos' section). I've actually been waiting for some kind of "catching up with reformed Red Sox arsonists Javier Lopez and Ramon Ramirez" segment.
And then the ridiculousness begins:
More dry-humping of Dave Roberts and J.P. Ricciardi...
And this sounds like something you'd see from a freshman in the high school newspaper:
The Jose Bautista piece was actually all right, but there's precious little coverage of World Series-related storylines (other than tangential items #5 and #8 in his 'Apropos' section). I've actually been waiting for some kind of "catching up with reformed Red Sox arsonists Javier Lopez and Ramon Ramirez" segment.
And then the ridiculousness begins:
What?
- A-Rod's general idiocy and PEDs
- Giambino PEDs
- Joba's DUI
- AJ Burnett's black eye (fight), cut hands, etc.
- The Texas Con Man, etc.
More dry-humping of Dave Roberts and J.P. Ricciardi...
And this sounds like something you'd see from a freshman in the high school newspaper:
There's more... it's just so disheartening...
The worst of the worst is his writing that JP Ricciardi has been offered a job in the Mets' Front Office but Cafardo wonders if Ricciardi "would...be better off joining
Boston's Front Office?". Why? Because Alderson has a five year deal with New York "while Theo Epstein's deal with Boston ends after ...2012"
So Theo is walking in two years?
And Ricciardi would be the first choice to replace him.....but only if he worked in Boston?
That's exactly what he's implying, without any supporting evidence except his vivd imagination.
Boston's Front Office?". Why? Because Alderson has a five year deal with New York "while Theo Epstein's deal with Boston ends after ...2012"
So Theo is walking in two years?
And Ricciardi would be the first choice to replace him.....but only if he worked in Boston?
That's exactly what he's implying, without any supporting evidence except his vivd imagination.
The assumption that Theo is bailing when his contract runs out (which I actually thought was 2011) is actually the least stupid one in there. He's done it before, after all. What's really stupid is the assumption that because the Trio liked Ricciardi for GM in 2002 that they will like him 10 years later when they now have hard data that he sucks at this job. Also, there's no evidence that the Red Sox want to hire him at all in any capacity: Theo was all over Allard Baird when he got canned and tried to get Kevin Towers, but nary a peep on Ricciardi. Isn't that a bit telling? And where is Ben Cherington in all this? Is he not good enough? Then why was he promoted after Hoyer left?
If Nick's predictions have any merit, Theo's going to be VERY busy this offseason. The first half of the column consisted today of listing every free agent with any value and then who might be interested in that free agent. The Red Sox are going to have to employ a team of 10 temporary negotiators in order to talk contract with everyone they're interested in.
Basically, if the player is at all good the Red Sox, Yankees, Angels, and Mets are interested. Because, you know, they're the rich teams. That's some astute baseball analysis there.
Of course, he lists Jeter, Rivera, and Pettitte in a special Yankees section, because it's a foregone conclusion they'll resign with the Yankees. The Yankees are the only team with free agents that are DEFINITELY not going anywhere.
Basically, if the player is at all good the Red Sox, Yankees, Angels, and Mets are interested. Because, you know, they're the rich teams. That's some astute baseball analysis there.
Of course, he lists Jeter, Rivera, and Pettitte in a special Yankees section, because it's a foregone conclusion they'll resign with the Yankees. The Yankees are the only team with free agents that are DEFINITELY not going anywhere.
Seriously. This was a waste of a column (where have I read that before?). Ninety percent of the free agents were going to one of those four teams. One thing that I found interesting was that the Brewers would be making a run at Cliff Lee. I didn't read that anywhere.
And that list of free agent pitchers (after Lee) is absolutely depressing. Anyone with any baseball acumen knows that there isn't going to be any free agent starting pitcher splash (aside from Lee) and that the big off-season pitching story is probably going to be trades. And that tells you all you need to know about Cafardo: he focuses on free agents in one of the absolute worst year of free agency, instead of beating the bushes and trying to tell the reader about possible trades.
However, I loved this line about Doug Melvin:
Yup, he may make the wrong choices and a lot of decisions are colossal mistakes, but damn it, I love his methods. BTW, to paraphrase Bill Simmons, any time you have an opportunity to hire an 11-year bench coach, you just have to do it.
I personally loved this gem:
Now onto grammar, shouldnt it read "Would you try..... and give the shortstop job"
Why would we want to do that Nick? Is there a particular need we could help fill in this trade? And is it really intelligent to go into spring training with Lowrie at SS considering his injury history?
Now onto grammar, shouldnt it read "Would you try..... and give the shortstop job"
That was a craptacular apropos-of-nothing point, but I think the grammar's okay. The gerund "trading" should be paralleled by "giving", so transitively it reads "would you try trading" and "would you try giving". It's a little clunky sounding, and I'm not a grammar expert, but I think it's okay.
That said, I love a good Cafardo pile-on. In a field as competitive as journalism, there should no room for a hack like Cafardo.
Is the Globe aware that this guy is stealing their money? A.J. Pierzynski is ranked the third best FA catcher because he is "Still a good offensive player." The average MLB starting catcher has a .256 TAv; Pierzynksi since 2003 has gone .247, .244, .255, .243, .251, .257, .242 (which was .270 / .300 / .388 with 17 GDP). So by if "Still a good offensive player" Nick actually means "Never a good offensive player," he's nailed it. Of course, they're probably not paying him enough money for him to actually look up player records instead of relying on his memory of the times he saw him in person (Pierzynski hit the ball well in the 5 games he played against us this year).
It's just a fucking embarrassment.
It's just a fucking embarrassment.
[quote name='Wilco's Last Fan' date='07 November 2010 - 12:13 PM' timestamp='1289150013' post='3241582']
That was a craptacular apropos-of-nothing point, but I think the grammar's okay. The gerund "trading" should be paralleled by "giving", so transitively it reads "would you try trading" and "would you try giving". It's a little clunky sounding, and I'm not a grammar expert, but I think it's okay.
[/quote]
I see, so now I dont have a problem with his grammar but sentence structure, he certainly could have avoided that whole weird sounding issue but that would involve effort.
That was a craptacular apropos-of-nothing point, but I think the grammar's okay. The gerund "trading" should be paralleled by "giving", so transitively it reads "would you try trading" and "would you try giving". It's a little clunky sounding, and I'm not a grammar expert, but I think it's okay.
[/quote]
I see, so now I dont have a problem with his grammar but sentence structure, he certainly could have avoided that whole weird sounding issue but that would involve effort.
I agree, and I think the laziness of his writing style is reflective of a general lack of writing talent on the Globe sports staff (with a few exceptions- I do like Peter Abraham, Bob Ryan, and Chad Finn, for example, and like most here I think CHB has some real talent when he's not forcibly trying to stir the pot). I've also noticed a lot of typos and grammatical/factual errors in boston.com articles (I no longer subscribe to the paper, so I don't know if those mistakes are also being made in print). I honestly feel like I could do a better job as a copy editor for the Globe, and I'm a 19 year-old Music major.
Honestly, there isn't a lot of difference in the quality of the writing you get from the Globe Online as compared to your average sports news/rumor blogs. I actually get more sports news from SOSH than anywhere else, and it's usually better written. ESPN Boston has also become a really good site for centralized Boston sports news and analysis. All of this adds up to me blowing off Boston.com when they start charging their online readers.
[quote name='Wilco's Last Fan' date='07 November 2010 - 08:28 PM' timestamp='1289179690' post='3243463']
I agree, and I think the laziness of his writing style is reflective of a general lack of writing talent on the Globe sports staff (with a few exceptions- I do like Peter Abraham, Bob Ryan, and Chad Finn, for example, and like most here I think CHB has some real talent when he's not forcibly trying to stir the pot). I've also noticed a lot of typos and grammatical/factual errors in boston.com articles (I no longer subscribe to the paper, so I don't know if those mistakes are also being made in print). I honestly feel like I could do a better job as a copy editor for the Globe, and I'm a 19 year-old Music major.
Honestly, there isn't a lot of difference in the quality of the writing you get from the Globe Online as compared to your average sports news/rumor blogs. I actually get more sports news from SOSH than anywhere else, and it's usually better written. ESPN Boston has also become a really good site for centralized Boston sports news and analysis. All of this adds up to me blowing off Boston.com when they start charging their online readers.
[/quote]
You've managed to hit the nail square on the head. Cafardo's stale "apropos of nothing" subsection of The Baseball Notes column is reflective of both his lazy reporting and careless writing. "Would you trade Marco Scutaro to the Giants and trust Jed Lowrie to play shortstop full-time in '11?" is grammatically clearer and thus aesthetically cleaner than what Cafardo wrote.
I have my own personal Cafrado story that captures the banal, often erroneous and sometimes disgracefully lazy analysis Cafardo lends to The Globe.
Thanks to my former employer, I had uninhibited accesses to the press box at Fenway Park in '09. I'd often watch games from the stands, but on occasion I liked to take in a few innings from the press box to hear what the Boston sports press corps was buzzing about. One particular night I found myself seated behind Tony Massarotti, Steve Buckley and our hero in-residence, Nick Cafardo. It was late April, and Saito was on the mound in the bottom of the 9th protecting a small lead (I believe Papelbon was unavailable after pitching back-to-back nights).
With Saito mowing down the opposition with plus command and a sharp-breaking slider, Mazz excitedly turned to Buckley and remarked on how fortunate the Sox were to have a reliever of Saito's caliber pitching in the middle of their bullpen. Buckley concurred.
Mazz then turned to Cafardo for insight.
Mazz: Nick, whadda you think about Saito?
Cafardo: *leans back in his chair, lets out a sigh* "He gives you a different look."
End of his conversation. He gives you a different look...
I agree, and I think the laziness of his writing style is reflective of a general lack of writing talent on the Globe sports staff (with a few exceptions- I do like Peter Abraham, Bob Ryan, and Chad Finn, for example, and like most here I think CHB has some real talent when he's not forcibly trying to stir the pot). I've also noticed a lot of typos and grammatical/factual errors in boston.com articles (I no longer subscribe to the paper, so I don't know if those mistakes are also being made in print). I honestly feel like I could do a better job as a copy editor for the Globe, and I'm a 19 year-old Music major.
Honestly, there isn't a lot of difference in the quality of the writing you get from the Globe Online as compared to your average sports news/rumor blogs. I actually get more sports news from SOSH than anywhere else, and it's usually better written. ESPN Boston has also become a really good site for centralized Boston sports news and analysis. All of this adds up to me blowing off Boston.com when they start charging their online readers.
[/quote]
You've managed to hit the nail square on the head. Cafardo's stale "apropos of nothing" subsection of The Baseball Notes column is reflective of both his lazy reporting and careless writing. "Would you trade Marco Scutaro to the Giants and trust Jed Lowrie to play shortstop full-time in '11?" is grammatically clearer and thus aesthetically cleaner than what Cafardo wrote.
I have my own personal Cafrado story that captures the banal, often erroneous and sometimes disgracefully lazy analysis Cafardo lends to The Globe.
Thanks to my former employer, I had uninhibited accesses to the press box at Fenway Park in '09. I'd often watch games from the stands, but on occasion I liked to take in a few innings from the press box to hear what the Boston sports press corps was buzzing about. One particular night I found myself seated behind Tony Massarotti, Steve Buckley and our hero in-residence, Nick Cafardo. It was late April, and Saito was on the mound in the bottom of the 9th protecting a small lead (I believe Papelbon was unavailable after pitching back-to-back nights).
With Saito mowing down the opposition with plus command and a sharp-breaking slider, Mazz excitedly turned to Buckley and remarked on how fortunate the Sox were to have a reliever of Saito's caliber pitching in the middle of their bullpen. Buckley concurred.
Mazz then turned to Cafardo for insight.
Mazz: Nick, whadda you think about Saito?
Cafardo: *leans back in his chair, lets out a sigh* "He gives you a different look."
End of his conversation. He gives you a different look...
[quote name='Wilco's Last Fan' date='07 November 2010 - 08:28 PM' timestamp='1289179690' post='3243463']
All of this adds up to me blowing off Boston.com when they start charging their online readers.
[/quote]
I relied on Boston.com for hockey coverage for a long time, but Twitter and CSNNE, among other sources, have rendered it redundant (not to mention Kevin Paul Dupont's senility and sheer apathy towards attention to detail). I'm really interested to see if there will still be a market for their pay content. My early guess is 'no'.
[quote name='DieHardSoxFan1' date='07 November 2010 - 08:57 PM' timestamp='1289181461' post='3243491']End of his conversation. He gives you a different look...[/quote]
Well yeah, he's Asian right?
All of this adds up to me blowing off Boston.com when they start charging their online readers.
[/quote]
I relied on Boston.com for hockey coverage for a long time, but Twitter and CSNNE, among other sources, have rendered it redundant (not to mention Kevin Paul Dupont's senility and sheer apathy towards attention to detail). I'm really interested to see if there will still be a market for their pay content. My early guess is 'no'.
[quote name='DieHardSoxFan1' date='07 November 2010 - 08:57 PM' timestamp='1289181461' post='3243491']End of his conversation. He gives you a different look...[/quote]
Well yeah, he's Asian right?
It's less of a Papelscowl, and more of a natural squint.
I wonder how many SoSHers are considering paying for the content on Boston.com; I'd love to see a survey to that effect.
Boston.com's sports content will remain free, probably because there are so many free competitors.
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/48118-boston-globebostoncom-to-charge-online-readers/page__view__findpost__p__3184552
[quote name='Papelbon's Poutine' date='14 November 2010 - 10:49 AM' timestamp='1289749752' post='3250166']
Does the Globe no longer employ editors or fact checkers?[/quote]
I assume they still have an editor or two, but canning fact checkers is an easy way to save money.
Does the Globe no longer employ editors or fact checkers?[/quote]
I assume they still have an editor or two, but canning fact checkers is an easy way to save money.
- Status