The beauty of the Internet, in one post

There are a lot of reasons I love being a Mariners fan. (Yes, you read that right.) One of the big ones is that while I have no empirical evidence to support this claim, I have to believe that we have to be the most information savvy bunch in the major leagues.

I love reading other blogs, especially U.S.S. Mariner and Geoff Baker's blog at The Seattle Times. (You can find the others I love on the right hand side.) I love reading them because I know a lot about sports, but I love to learn, and I always become a better-educated fan when I visit these sites. USSM's knowledge of baseball built as sabermetricians and Baker's knowledge of baseball and the Mariners built as a beat writer make for tons of good information.

The two had basically coexisted separately. Until recently, when their respective blogs crossed paths in a very public way.

It's why I love the Internet.

It started with this post by Baker, on the likelihood a team with an ERA higher than 4.50 (read: the Mariners) will make the playoffs.

I received a very interesting email today from a friend of this blog, Jack Lattemann, who has done an exhaustive study of whether teams with an earned run average of 4.50 or higher can even post winning records, let alone contend for a playoff spot. Jack has graciously allowed me to pass on his findings. They don't look good on the Mariners, who have a 4.84 team ERA despite a rock solid bullpen. He found that no team before 1969 had qualified for the playoffs. Not surprising, given the two-league format. There were a few more, post-1969, that made it. During the two-division format (four teams making the playoffs) from 1969-1993, the only playoff team with a 4.50 ERA or higher was the 1987 World Series champion Minnesota Twins, who finished 85-77 with a 4.63 ERA.

Dave Cameron over at U.S.S. Mariner -- after praising Baker for his coverage on the blog and the work he's done to interact with fans and the blogging community -- took exception to this kind of analysis, as did a number of commenters on Baker's blog. And with good reason.

Where to start with this paragraph - how about with the glaring, obvious problem, and one that I’ve been railing on for years here - Earned Run Average, by itself, is not any real indicator of pitching quality. It’s just not. I know it’s commonly accepted as the be-all, end-all pitching statistic, but the reliance on this inherently problematic stat has led to more bad analysis over the years than just about any other statistic out there. Using ERA to draw broad conclusions about pitching ability is a great way to be wrong on a large scale.

In reality, ERA kinda sorta measures the ability of the team’s run prevention skills when a specific pitcher is on the hill. ERA doesn’t attempt to separate responsibility for said run prevention between pitcher and defenders. It doesn’t attempt to take into account the context of the run scoring environment. And, just in case those weren’t big enough problems (they are), it introduces the biases of ballpark specific official scorers by excluding “unearned runs”, which are often classified as such due to arbitrary decisions on what constitutes an error.

Cameron goes on to explain that you have to consider run scoring environments of eras of the game before making any kind of cross-era analysis.

(P)icking a random ERA number that reflects “bad pitching” and applying it to any context is going to result in a list that means absolutely nothing. If you want to use ERA to evaluate a pitching staff, you’d be forced to come to the conclusion that the Washington Nationals currently have a better pitching staff than the Chicago White Sox. After all, they have a lower ERA. Of course, everyone understands that there’s a huge difference between pitching in RFK stadium against National League hitters and not facing the DH and facing American League hitters in New Comiskey park. We wouldn’t expect Mike Bacsik to post a 4.59 ERA if he was traded to the White Sox. No one would.

Baker's response on his blog?

Back to yesterday's post, I actually understated the infrequency with which teams have made the playoffs with an ERA of 4.50 or more. While the number of playoff teams with an ERA that high, since the advent of the wild-card, was 13 out of 96, the number of teams making the playoffs with an ERA that high was just 13 out of 354. One in 27. Is this all just a coincidence, as some suggest? Is there really no direct relation between ERA and making the playoffs? Well, let's just say that the more runs you allow, the more you have to score to win. The more wins, the easier to make the playoffs. Could we get scientifically more precise? Of course.

But I had no problem with Lattemann using an ERA of 4.50 and higher as a measuring stick. The average ERA in baseball last year was 4.44 and it's averaged out to roughly that since this decade began. So, anything 4.50 and worse would generally stand to be below average.

Some people objected to using ERA at all, while others say we should have adjusted it for park factors -- which looks at the difference between runs allowed at home versus the road and adjusts statistics accordingly. Well, park factors may have been needed if, say, we'd used ERA to gauge a Cy Young Award race. But not in this case, since we're merely looking at who made the playoffs. In other words, who won more games by scoring more runs than they allowed (or allowing fewer runs than they scored?) Park factors are irrelevant here. You score (and allow) the runs where the games are played and that alone determines who wins. At the end of a season, all MLB cares about in deciding a winner is who won the most games, not how easy or difficult it was to score runs in those games because of ballpark intangibles.

Finally, Baker relented in his next post.

First, let me deal with the issue of the posts from this morning and yesterday. You know, when enough people tell you you're wrong, you start to think that maybe they're on to something. So, I went back and had another look at those numbers using the suggested ERA+ method to account for park factors. The reasoning I listened to, from "Sammy" in the comments thread, Dave at the USS Mariner site, and others, has convinced me that comparing teams using a statistic that could adapt to changing year-to-year run conditions -- rather than a static number that couldn't change -- was the best way to go. ...

And the park factors do matter. I erred in saying they didn't. After all, you compete for the playoffs with other teams. The ability of those teams to score and prevent runs, based on the factors in the ballparks of the day, will have a bearing on it.

USSM's response? Big time kudos.

Geoff has been paid to write about baseball for a long time. He’s a very smart guy, and he puts a lot of work into what he does. And yet, when some fans challenge a point he made, he’s willing to listen, evaluate what they’re saying, and take another look at his stance. Truth is more important than pride, and Geoff proved that in spades.

Baker deserves a lot of credit for taking the time to dive into the issue. He’s already set the bar for Mariner beat-writers to follow, and now he’s just pushing it even higher.

Congratulations to the Seattle Times - you made a fantastic hire.

It's hard to imagine that there are very many cities where virtual conversations such as this one take place. And that, my friends, is why I consider myself fortunate to be a Mariners fan and why I love the Internet.

ESPN ombudmen hits the mark on 'tyranny of the storyline'

Tennessee Titans cornerback Pacman Jones is going to be charged with two felonies.

How do I know this?

• Because I clicked my way to ESPN.com, and it's the top news story.
  
• Then I flipped on ESPN's "Around the Horn" as school dismissed, only to hear Woody Paige and Jay Mariotti arguing about whether Jones would play in the NFL again.
  
• Then I watched Tony Kornheiser and Mike Wilbon debate potential punishments on "Pardon The Interruption."
  
• Then SportsCenter comes on. Cue the promo. "Pacman Jones faces two felony counts -- Is his NFL career over?"
  
• After a brief update on the afternoon baseball results, the next two minutes of the show were dedicated to Jones, including the standard and expected overview of the story, then an opinion on Jones' playing status from John Clayton. Then we're told that later in SportsCenter we'll have more on Jones.
• Twenty-three minutes later, Clayton is back on, repeating everything he already said about Jones' status as a player. We are told that we'll have even more on Jones later in SportsCenter.
  

This doesn't even mention all the coverage of the two-week-old Kobe Bryant "trade demand" story, which received only slightly less play on all of ESPN's shows, and immediately followed the Jones story each time.

It's this sort of overkill that has made ESPN virtually unwatchable at times. I tune into SportsCenter to hear the sports news of the day, not to hear 38 different (shouting) opinions on whatever the top story is. It's resulted in the amount of time I watch ESPN having been reduced dramatically over the years, practically down now to just the games the network broadcasts.

It's good to know I'm not the only one who longs for the days when highlights were the centerpiece of the show.

For all the things ESPN does that irritate me to no end, one of the things they do right is employ an ombudsman, currently Le Anne Schreiber. In her latest column, she attacks what she calls the "tyranny of the storyline," in which one supposedly compelling storyline seems to completely take over every arm of the network.

If I were to do a word frequency analysis on the messages I receive about ESPN's coverage, three words at the top of the list would be "Enough," "Stop" and "Way." As in enough Yankees/Red Sox, stop with Roger Clemens, and way too much Barry Bonds, Duke basketball/lacrosse, Brady Quinn, Dice-K and Michael Vick.

In part, these are complaints about the overkill that is an inevitable side effect of 24/7 programming, whether it is CNN and Anna Nicole Smith or ESPN and Clemens. On ESPN, if a story has legs, you will encounter it repeatedly on the daily 12 hours of SportsCenter and on each of the opinion shows that dominate the late afternoon. If you want to avoid redundancy on a given day, the only antidote is to limit your viewing.

The great thing about the ombudsman's role at ESPN is that it gives the network a chance to explain itself. Apparently, ESPN has research that suggests that you only tune in to watch the network occasionally throughout the day -- 49 total minutes, in fact, if you're an 18- to 34-year-old -- necessitating (in their eyes) the incessant overkill coverage of certain stories.

Such as the New York Yankees.

(A)ccording to Vince Doria, ESPN's senior vice president for news: "We think it's a compelling story. The most successful team in baseball, in the throes of a miserable slump, possibly on the verge of missing the playoffs for the first time in 12 years, determines to pay the greatest pitcher of this era a pro-rated $28 million to pitch roughly two-thirds of a season. And in the 22 days since they signed him, they have dropped from 5 1/2 to 13 1/2 games behind the Red Sox. And this is all happening in the heavily populated Northeast corridor, which includes a large number of viewers. People who are not interested in the story may want to characterize it as a last-place team and a minor-league game. I think most reasonable people would see greater news value in the story than that characterization would imply."

I don't disagree with all of this. But does it have to be so much? I know the point of any network is to make money, and I guess the best way to do that is to shoot for the vast majority that doesn't tune in all day long like lots of hardcore fans. But couldn't they do something as a nod to those of us who have an unquenchable thirst for sports, other than repeat the same stuff all day?

Aren't there more compelling sports stories to tell?

Of all the programming on ESPN, perhaps the show I enjoy the most is Outside the Lines. It's broadcast journalism at its finest -- or, at least as fine as sports journalism can get, given the fact that we're talking about sports -- tackling compelling issues with sound journalistic principles. No flash, no sound effects. Just good, solid investigative reporting.

Couldn't we see more of this on SportsCenter? Why does Outside the Lines need to be its own show? Couldn't it be part of the SportsCenter package?

Beyond that, why can we not get some of the other, featurey-type stories on the players themselves? There are so many great stories that are just waiting to be told; we shouldn't have to tune into the Olympics every two years on NBC to find out more -- and not in a "Stray-Rod" kind of way -- about the people we love to watch.

I'm constantly challenging my own journalism students to find better stories, to go below just the surface observations to find out what's really going on.

Shouldn't I expect the same out of a network giant such as ESPN?

Bonds' pursuit of 755 a heck of a lot more complex than we think

For something that mostly operates on a plane outside of anything resembling reality, it's amazing how often they become a microcosm of what's going on in society at large.

It's happening more in Barry Bonds' chase of Hank Aaron than I think any of us wanted to realize.

For years -- ever since we realized 755 was going to be within the reach of a man many believe to have cheated the sport with prolific steroid use that matched his prodigious home runs -- we assumed this was an issue of Big Bad Barry Bonds against the overwhelming court of opinion rooting for him to fail.

We'll make no such assumptions any more. A recent poll found that only 52 percent of baseball fans hope Bonds doesn't break the record, even though 73 percent of them think he used steroids. Beyond that:

Race plays a unique role. Black fans in the survey are more than twice as likely to want Bonds to break Aaron's record (74 percent to 28 percent), and 37 percent of black fans think Bonds used steroids, compared to 76 percent of white fans.

Blacks are nearly twice as likely to think Bonds has been treated unfairly (46 percent to 25 percent). Why? The survey found that 41 percent of black fans think this is due to the steroids issue, 25 percent think it's because of his race, and 21 percent blame Bonds' personality.

For whites who think Bonds has been treated unfairly, 66 percent blame steroids. Virtually none blame race.

As Jayson Stark points out, this takes a lot of commonly held beliefs about Bonds' chase and turns them on their head.

As for me? I'm still not sure how I feel about all of it. Maybe it's because I've been waiting until the moment actually comes before passing judgement; like a lot of sports fans, I find myself conflicted between awe and disappointment. Maybe I'll have more tangible emotions when it actually does happen.

Until then, I'll continue to be fascinated by how it all plays out.

Why Mariners fans have every right to be pessimists

We Mariners fans are a pessimistic lot by nature. That's what 30 years of losing interrupted by only a half-decade of winning that served as little more than a big tease will do to you.

So it always amuses me when someone not from the Northwest comes to town and is surprised by our collective angst.

I love reading Geoff Baker's Mariners blog over at The Seattle Times, but the Montreal native seems perpetually confounded by our consistently negative nature. Baker, who joined the Mariners beat after long-time reporter Bob Sherwin retired last year, never has been one to sugar-coat the Mariners' problems -- a refreshing posture for a reporter in the mainstream media. But he also sometimes seems mystified that we aren't more content with the fact that this team is 12-11 more than a month into the season.

In an effort to assuage the pain of last night's debacle in Boston, Baker illustrated the Yankees' myriad problems in a post today. He finished with this nugget:

So, cheer up Mariners fans. Things aren't all that bad. The team is 12-11, a half game out of first place and that stinker last night only counts for one loss. Let's at least wait and see what happens tonight before hitting any more panic buttons.

My question for Geoff -- or anyone else trying to have a potentially positive outlook on this team -- is this: What in the world could possibly happen tonight that would make any of us feel any better about where this team (and organization) is headed?

Let's say the M's go out and beat up on Kei Igawa, who has been a horrible pitcher this year and move back to two games over .500. What does that prove? If they go out beat the two other guys not named Wang, does that somehow prove that they're for real?

How long are people going to keep asking us to forget that this 12-11 start isn't built on a house of cards?

There's a legitimate reason we all are consistently waiting for the other shoe to drop -- we've amassed the record by playing the worst teams in the American League right now. Yes, the Mariners might have escaped last night with a win -- and it would have made us all feel a little bit better today -- but has there been even a shred of evidence this year that the M's could compete on a consistent basis with a team like that?

The bottom line is that the Mariners do not possess the tools to reach a sustained level of success this season. There are far too many flaws on this team, all of which have been well documented. Wins are preferable to losses, no doubt, but when you start evaluating how the M's got those 12 wins and whether it's reasonable for them to keep playing .500 ball, it's impossible not to be pessimistic. This team is terrible, and at some point, it will catch up to them with another six- to 10-game losing streak.

There's a big difference between enjoying a win and being happy, and it's going to take a lot more than 12 shaky wins to make us happy again.

Don't try to fight it, Geoff.

UPDATE: The Mariners beat the Yankees 15-11 in a battle of whose pitching was less horrific. Congrats, M's -- your pitching sucks less. And, no, I don't feel any better about anything.

The story that won't go away, Part II

So, remember that little post yesterday where I wondered aloud how it was even remotely possible that someone could even consider a shameless self-promoter might actually fake something like a bloody sock in the playoffs?

I'll give you one guess who's using the "story that won't die" to drive traffic to his blog, 38 pitches.com. After spitting his vitriol at everyone from Gary Thorne to any media outlet that picked up the story, Red Light Curt had this to say:

"So for one of the first times this blog serves one of the purposes I'd hoped it would if the need arose. The media hacked and spewed their way to a day or two of stories that had zero basis in truth. A story fabricated by the media, for the media. The best part was that instead of having to sit through a litany of interviews to 'defend' myself, or my teammates, I got to do that here."

That's beautiful, Curt. Please, do us all a favor and stay as far away from any camera that comes your way, so you don't have to put up with the big bad media that built your silly bloody sock into an American legend in the first place.

We bet you a million bucks you can't.

That was sooooooo 2004 ... why are we going there again?

We'll just go ahead and call this the stupidest story that won't go away.

Curt Schilling's "bloody" sock from the 2004 postseason is once again a topic of conversation thanks to this off-hand remark by broadcaster Gary Thorne during last night's Red Sox broadcast:

"The great story we were talking about the other night was that famous red stocking that he wore when they finally won, the blood on his stocking," Thorne told broadcast partner and Hall of Fame pitcher Jim Palmer.

"Nah," Thorne said. "It was painted. Doug Mirabelli confessed up to it after. It was all for PR. Two-ball, two-strike count."

Two innings later, according to media reports, Thorne explained Mirabelli had told him the story "a couple of years ago."

"Go ask him [Mirabelli]," Thorne said.

Of course, Mirabelli denied ever having such a conversation -- even using a four-letter word, just for emphasis -- and Schilling and his manager each displayed the appropriate amount of righteous indignation at the prospect that the great self-promoter Curt Schilling would ever even consider doing such a thing.

But rather than try to get to the bottom of whether Schilling actually was bleeding on that night two-and-a-half years ago, I think I've got a better question:

WHY IS THIS STILL A STORY?

Can't we just call up the guys at CSI or something to test the silly thing for blood so this story will go away once and for all? We're not talking about the Shroud of Turin, here; we're talking about a dang sock. The silly thing is in the Hall of Fame. Besides, if he was bleeding, good for him for pitching through the pain of ankle surgery. If he wasn't bleeding, well, I'm sure he was in no less pain.

Oh, and when I put "bloody" in quotation marks above, it wasn't meant to imply that I agree with Thorne. Really, it wasn't. Far be it from me to "hit below the belt," as Terry Francona put it. I don't need to -- that's why we've got Dan Shaughnessy.

Journalism world mourns the passing of an icon

The passing of David Halberstam yesterday marks the end of what was one of the most influential journalism careers of the last half century -- possible ever.

What made Halberstam so special? One could point to any number of contributions to America, starting with his reporting on the Vietnam War for the New York Times in the early 1960s in which he worked so hard to tell the truth that President Kennedy tried (unsuccessfully) to have him removed from the combat beat.

He won a Pulitzer Prize for his work, and over the next four decades, he would write nearly two dozen books, on topics ranging from war to Michael Jordan. His writing always made his readers think, even if what he had to say often was uncomfortable to hear. But then again, what journalist is doing his or her job if they're not bringing uncomfortable facts to light?

What I will remember and miss most about Halberstam is that he truly was one of the most gifted writers I ever had the pleasure to read. In an industry where the writing has increasingly become more and more bland as we crunch things up into bite-sized chunks for easy consumption, Halberstam's ability to incorporate powerful prose into his narratives was a breath of fresh air for those of us who still value quality writing.

They just don't make 'em like that anymore. Aspiring journalists would do well to read his work and learn what they can from a true master of the craft.

Outside of his books, Halberstam wrote a series of columns for ESPN's Page 2 in 2000-2001. Here are some of my favorites.

• Sports can distract, but they don't heal -- Sports in the aftermath of 9/11
• One splendid day -- 12 hours with Ted Williams
• In admiration of Allen Iverson

Tributes by others:

• A tribute to my hero, by Jim Caple (ESPN.com)
• Greatest journalist of my lifetime, by Peter Gammons (ESPN.com)
• A reporter's memories of David Halberstam, NPR
• One of a kind, by Frank Deford (Sports Illustrated)
• David Halberstam index at the New York Times

How much access is too much in VT killings?

Faithful readers know that sometimes I love to not only tackle sports-related issues, but as a former journalist I often also like to tackle issues related to the media and its role in American society.

The killings at Virginia Tech provided a flashpoint event this week that raises a lot of quesitons about how to cover an event such as this. They happen so infrequently -- and the technology changes so rapidly -- that media outlets have to make many important decisions on the fly without a lot of precedent to refer to.

A big decision was faced -- and continues to be faced -- by NBC with regards to the video the killer sent them immediately before going on his rampage. What to do with it? How to handle it? Those decisions were made early on, and with them NBC gained a fair amount of criticism.

Now, the question remains: Should it be released in its entirety on the Internet?

Many argue that this is precisely what the killer wanted, and that we're providing a blueprint for potential copycat killers who want their stories to be heard. But at least one media blogger -- Jeff Jarvis at BuzzMachine.com -- thinks the world should be able to make the choice of whether to view it, saying "that horse is already out of that barn." I have a hard time disagreeing.

The essential infrastructure of news and media has changed forever: There is no control point anymore. When anyone and everyone — witnesses, criminals, victims, commenters, officials, and journalists — can publish and broadcast as events happen, there is no longer any guarantee that news and society itself can be filtered, packaged, edited, sanitized, polished, secured.

Like it or not, that’s the way it is. But before we start wringing our hands over the unique, one-in-a-billion exception to all rules — the mass murderer with a camera — let’s make sure we remember that this openness is a great and good change. It enables us all have a voice and to hear new voices.

In other words, the greater good outweighs the potential negatives in this specific case. I tend to agree.

National writers picking up on Hernandez story

Jerry Crasnick at ESPN.com has a nice story on Felix Hernandez today. Not a lot of groundbreaking stuff if you've been following the King for the past few years, but a nice primer if you're not familiar with the story.

You can find it here.

I'm of the opinion that the Mariners need as much good press as possible these days ...

'Rape' case should serve as cautionary tale for all of us

Thirteen months ago, three Duke University lacrosse players, all white, were charged with raping an African-American stripper they had hired to perform at a team party. Last week, they were exonerated.

What happened in between should serve as a cautionary tale for Americans everywhere.

Perhaps it was only fitting that on the day North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper declared the three men innocent, his apology was lost in the cacophony of CBS's firing of Don Imus. After all, the media hurricane caused by the allegations against them makes the Imus situation look like a squall.

But as most of America continues to sit on its moral high horse about an ill-advised slur from an out-of-touch shock jock, I'm left to wonder: Where's all the outrage on behalf of three young men who always will have the word "rape" attached to their names for the rest of their lives thanks to a lying accuser and a rogue district attorney?

Where are you, Jesse Jackson, the man who compared the players to slave owners, then offered to put the stripper through school, no matter the outcome of the case? Where are you, "Duke 88," the arts and science faculty who took out a full-page ad in the Duke newspaper condemning the students, then put up "wanted" posters featuring mug shots of the entire team all over campus? Where are you, throngs of protesters who paraded outside the home where the alleged assault occurred, carrying signs that read "CASTRATE"?

The saddest part about all of this for me as a journalist is that the only person to express contrition in this case -- which affected countless other lives when the lacrosse team saw its season canceled and its coach resign amid tremendous pressure -- is Cooper. Nifong's "apology" is half-hearted at best; the university's official statement is hypocritcal, given its initial actions in the wake of the allegations; and even many in the media have refused to make amends, continuing to take pot-shots at the accused. One specific blogger, Terry Moran, asks us not to "feel too sorry for the Dukies":

As students of Duke University or other elite institutions, these young men will get on with their privileged lives. There is a very large cushion under them -- the one that softens the blows of life for most of those who go to Duke or similar places, and have connections through family, friends and school to all kinds of prospects for success.

Then, in a move most often attributed to lawyers defending accused rapists, Moran proceeds to shred the character of the victims, citing their presence at the party in the first place and a two-year-old charge against one of the victims, among other things, presumably as evidence that they at least somewhat were "asking for it."

The irony here is dripping and would be comical if it weren't so blatantly self-serving.

Just like a woman's promiscuity doesn't make her deserving of rape, these students' privilege doesn't somehow make what happened to them any less egregious. Its precisely that privilege that put them in the spotlight in the first place.

Why can't the leaders of our nation's media simply come forward and say, "We're sorry. We were wrong to rush to such quick judgememt, and next time a high-profile case such as this comes along, we pledge to cover it better, exercising appropriate restraint until the facts come to light"?

Why is it so few people can admit when they're wrong?

Moran's main point is that cases of prosecutorial abuse happen everyday all over this country, and that these men only got the apology they did because of their status. That's a short-sighted viewpoint.

Rather than lamenting what seems like special treatment, I'd like to see someone stand up and take the opposite stance, championing this as an opportunity to serve notice to prosecutors everywhere, letting this serve as a catalyst for change in prosecuting crimes all over our country to ensure that the traditionally abused get the fair shake from the justice system.

In a case where there clearly are no winners, maybe some good can yet come from this.

Other thoughts on the exoneration of the ex-Duke players:

• "A Sorry Story, With Apology Yet To Come," by Howard Kurtz, The Washington Post
• "Duke comments, then and now," by Gene Wojciechowski, ESPN.com
• "Imus, Duke case: Lightning rods, tipping point," by Kathleen Parker, The Orlando Sentinel
• "Exonerated ex-Duke players don't deserve scorn," by K.C. Johnson, ABCNews.com

Why is it so hard for Americans to forgive?

I've been thinking for a few days about what, if anything, I had to say about Don Imus and his offensive comments.

Unlike most opinion-mongers on the Internet these days, I wanted to give myself some time to digest as much information as possible before passing judgement on the situation. With the announcement yesterday that CBS has fired Imus over his racist and sexist remarks about the Rutgers women's basketball team, I'm left to wonder:

Why are Americans only satisfied when someone gets crucified?

We always want someone to pay, as if the only thing that can right a wrong is a pound of flesh. (Lawsuits, the death penalty, insurance settlements ... the list goes on.) But instead of looking at every injustice as an opportunity to punish the wrongdoer, why don't we more often look at injustices as opportunities to educate?

There's no doubt what Imus said is deplorable and absolutely unacceptable, but I find it unfortunate that the first reaction of grandstanding third parties is to call for the man to lose his job, as if that was the only thing that could harm Imus enough to right the wrong.

In the wake of the furor he caused, Imus was contrite and sorry. He courageously faced his critics when he just as easily could have hidden and waited for the storm to pass. But of all the people to respond in the media to Imus' epithet, the only ones to seize the opportunity before them were the very people Imus impinged: The players themselves, and their coach, C. Vivian Stringer (in photo, above).

As hurt as they were, never once did they call for his job. Instead, they chose to have a meeting with Imus -- private, behind closed doors, no media invited. They chose, in the end, to accept his apology, and begin the process of forgiveness, which brings its close friend -- healing -- with it.

"These comments are indicative of greater ills in our culture," the team's statement said Friday. "It is not just Mr. Imus, and we hope that this will be and serve as a catalyst for change. Let us continue to work hard together to make this world a better place."

And of all the "reverends" who have been so vocal in the wake of the comments, only one -- Stringer's own pastor, Rev. DeForest Soaries -- eximplified the compassion of his religion.

At a news conference later Friday, (Soaries) announced a plan to hold a town meeting within 30 days on the Rutgers campus involving educators, entertainers, young people and clergy to address a culture that "has produced language that has denigrated women."

"No African-American leader, no national leader should consider this a victory," Soaries said in reference to Imus' firing. "We have to begin working on a reponse to the larger problem."

For those that believe America has taken a step forward because Imus was fired, I beg to differ. Although no hero, is there any better man to share what was learned from this experience than the very man who had to learn the most from the mistake? Instead, the only message seems to be, "Don't say one wrong thing, or you'll lose your job." After all, when Rev. Al Sharpton suggested to Imus that he should not walk away from this unscathed -- meaning he should be fired -- Imus spoke a truthful response:

"Unscathed? Don't you think I'm humiliated?" Imus said. "Don't you think I'm embarrassed?"

No, America will talk a step forward when our society truly understand why words such as his are so hurtful -- something that will only happen when leaders use these incidents as teachable moments rather than opportunities to rage with rhetoric.

Remembering Robinson: Players plan to wear Jackie's number

For once, Major League Baseball got out of its own way long enough to make a great decision.

As a tribute on Jackie Robinson Day, any player who wants to wear Robinson's No. 42 will be allowed to do so. It was the brainchild of Ken Griffey Jr., who put a personal call in to MLB Commissioner Bud Selig.

(Selig apparently had to make "a couple of phone calls" before giving the OK; not sure why, since this is the no-brainer of no-brainers, and the guy is the COMMISSIONER. But I digress.)

It's a great idea for a league that tends not to have very many of them. In fact, three teams -- the Los Angeles Dodgers, St. Louis Cardinals and Pittsburgh Pirates -- will have their entire roster wear No. 42 on Sunday.

"I think the players should wear it who want to wear it," Selig said. "On the Diamondbacks, there are four or five players who are going to do it. [Mets manager] Willie Randolph, I know, is very proud to wear it."

While I know Selig is always reticent to ruffle feathers with edicts, there's still time for Major League Baseball to do the best thing -- mandate that all players on all teams wear No. 42 on Sunday and make it an annual tradition on Jackie Robinson Day.

What a tribute that would be.

Other interesting stuff on Jackie Robinson today -- most of it from the Philadelphia Inquirer, which is doing some amazing work this week:

• Resuming our conversation of African-Americans in baseball, check out this NPR report.
• "Rachel Robinson: Still spreading the legacy," by Frank Fitzpatrick, Philadelphia Inquirer. (A really, really great story.)
• "Another Legacy: College for 1,200," by David Aldridge, Philadelphia Inquirer

Remembering Robinson: Where are all the black baseball players?

With the 60th anniversary of Jackie Robinson's integration of Major League Baseball approaching this weekend on tax day, media outlets are casting a fresh eye on Robinson's accomplishment. Most of the stories are retrospective in nature, either revisiting the initial game or reflecting on its significance.

The very best use it as an opportunity to examine the state of many of the same issues in our current day.

Such is the case with an ESPN report I viewed on the replay of SportsCenter this morning. I blast ESPN about as often as anyone, but today, the four-letter network produced a great piece of journalism that should not be overlooked.

The piece is called "What Would Jackie Think?" and you can find the print version of it here. It centers around this question:

What would Jackie Robinson think about the fact that only 8 percent of Major League Baseball players are African-American?

It's a question for which there are no easy answers, although the ESPN report attempts to find one. Some point to the proliferation of other sports. Some point to the cost of playing baseball at a high level. Some point to Major League Baseball teams' emphasis on scouting outside the United States.

All agree that something needs to be done.

Throughout the week, I'll be linking to many of the best stories I find on Robinson while surfing the Internet. If you're looking for a great place to start learning about Jackie Robinson, check out Roger Kahn's "The Boys of Summer." It's one of the best sports books you'll ever read.

Other stories of note on Jackie Robinson:

• "Newcombe an Eyewitness to History," by Ben Platt, MLB.com


• "The Ground Ball that Changed America," by Frank Fitzpatrick, Philadelphia Inquirer


• "After Jackie," by Cal Fussman

When reading this post, remember: It could be Vitale

As you thirst for more information on this, the day between the Final Four and the national championship game, ponder this -- a fact that was brought to my attention by ESPN.com's Bill Simmons:

Billy Packer has announced every Final Four since 1975.

Just let that wash over you for a second.

That, without a doubt, has to be the most astounding run in sports television. I once read somewhere that all college basketball fans fit into one of two categories: They either are Dick Vitale fans or Packer fans. Their styles contrast to such a great degree that it's virtually impossible to like both. If you like one, you almost by definition have to dislike the other.

I'll admit that I used to be among the throngs who couldn't stand Packer, opting instead for the high-energy antics of Dickie V. When I was in that 18 to 25 demographic, Vitale's catchphrases and volume added to the fun of the college basketball viewing experience.

Then something funny happened: I started watching a lot of basketball. That means watching a lot of games on ESPN, and hearing a lot of games called by Vitale. And I got sick of him. Really, really sick of him.

If you're a casual fan, it probably isn't real noticable to you, but Vitale repeats himself sooooo much. I used to think he knew a lot about college basketball, and it's true he knows a lot about the game. But it's like he learns one little nugget about a player or coach, then repeats it endlessly throughout the season. It becomes extremely tedious.

He also has a tendency to focus only on elite teams -- especially those teams that appear on ESPN. Does he even watch the Pac-10? (I suppose you could make that case for anyone at ESPN, but still ...)

And don't even get me started with the self-promotion -- It's not delivery! It's DiGiorno! Or is it Hooters? Or maybe it's Scott's lawn care products. I've lost track. I have a hard time not wondering if the "passion" he so fervently displays is genuine, or just an effort to promote the Vitale "brand."

This necessarily means I've since come around -- somewhat -- to Packer.

Yes, Packer is an unrepentant curmudgeon who is better than most at torquing people with insensitive comments. But that's what makes Packer pretty good at what he does. He's sincere in his observations, and makes no apologies for anything he says, which he can do because he's not obsessed with being buddies with all of the coaches, a la Vitale. He (appropriately) let's the game be the focus, as he makes clear here with his thinly veiled shot at Vitale:

"I love doing the preparation for the games – the game is the thing, it’s not me," Packer told the (Chicago) Northwest Herald. "I say what I see and based on my judgmnt and the research I’ve done, I have a pretty good record of standing behind what I’ve said. If somebody doesn’t like it, it doesn’t bother me at all. I have a right to my opinion and they have a right to theirs. I don’t ever do anything to create a scene, and if there is a scene, I don’t do anything to try and deflate it. It is what it is."

Packer doesn't spend a lot of time pontificating, and he doesn't spend any time talking about his personal "all-Diaper Dandy" team. He simply calls what he sees on the floor -- a refreshing change.

So now that you've gotten over the shock of never having watched a Final Four without Packer, just remember this.

It could be worse.

It could be Vitale.

Starving for more? Here are some good reads in the aftermath of the semifinals ...

• ESPN.com's "Around the Rim"
• "The Zebras' Whistles Ruin A Classic Matchup," by Bryan Burwell, St. Louis Post-Dispatch
• "Shotmaking is the Missing Ingredient Under Howland," by Bill Plaschke, Los Angeles Times
• "10 Questions from the Semis," by Gene Wojciechowski, ESPN.com

The influence of blogging: You take the good with the not-so good

Friend of the blog Mike Sando -- better known to most of you as the Seahawks Insider -- and I recently were discussing how blogging has fundamentally changed the job of reporters, especially sports reporters.

It has enhanced the experience of sports fans, who often have an unquenchable thirst for information about their favorite teams. The best ones -- such as Sando's blog -- are updated frequently and include breaking news, analysis of the team and players, little nuggets that never make it into the paper, and interesting and quirky tidbits culled form surfing the Internet.

Sometimes, a reporter's effort to provide those things doesn't always pan out the way they hope.

Check out this lighthearted post by Seattle Times Mariners blogger Geoff Baker. In it, he takes a humorous look at his own failings and inaccuracies in the blog world of trying to provide more and better information.

While it's a pretty funny read, it's also a great case example of how this whole blog revolution in journalism is a work in progress, and how journalism is having to evolve with it. We already have an example of what can happen when blogs go wrong, and I think all journalists would do well to follow Sando's tack: Apply the same level of journalistic standards to your blog as you do to the things that run in your paper. Avoid large amounts of speculation, just as you would in a story for print publication.

Be first, but first be right. That way, you can never go wrong.

(By the way, Baker's blog usually is an excellent read, anyway. Check it out here.)

Good riddance, Theismann; Jaworski exactly what MNF team needs

Longtime readers might remember midway through last season I lamented the new Monday Night Football team of Mike Tirico, Tony Kornheiser and Joe Theismann:

My main issue is with Theismann. His egomaniacal style fit pretty well in ESPN's old Sunday night crew with Mike Patrick and Paul Maguire, mostly because I think he viewed Maguire -- anothe former football player -- as a worthy adversary. ... Theismann seems intimidated by Kornheiser's eloquence and quick wit from time to time, and has a propensity to repeat himself over and over and over again.

My solution, way back in September?

What this crew really needs is a hardcore X's and O's guy, somebody who seems comfortable enough with himself to let Kornheiser do what he was hired to do and who doesn't seem to constantly feel the need to assert his manhood.

Apparently, ESPN agreed, removing Theismann from the team and adding Ron Jaworski, about the most harcore X and O guy the four-letter network's got. Don't believe me? Listen to Jaworski himself:

"I'm an 'Xs-and-Os' guy. I love breaking down the game. I love the strategy of the game," Jaworski said in a conference call. "That's the beauty of what I will bring to the table is that insight of 'Xs and Os.'"

Jaworski will be an excellent fit in that booth. He's got a great sense of humor, he's completely unassuming -- unlike the self-absorbed Theismann -- and he already has a strong rapport with Kornheiser, which is evident to anyone who has watched Jaworski appear on Kornheiser's regular TV gig, "Pardon The Interruption."

I think this is a team that really has some promise, and I'm excited to see what it can do.

I still hate CBS, but now I hate KIRO a lot less

As those of you who were reading yesterday know, CBS and its Seattle affiliate KIRO drew my ire when the WSU/ORU game wasn't offered in HD in the Seattle area.

Well, I've got to take a step back, and give KIRO some props.

The fact that there was a separate HD feed got me thinking: There must be a separate feed on their standard definition channel, meaning there might be a chance that there are two different games on. Sure enough, there was a different game on. So I got to flip back and forth between the two.

Then I found out that KIRO has a secondary channel on Comcast digital Ch. 117. Applying the same logic, I flipped over there. Sure enough, I was watching THREE different games -- without paying an extra penny. Sorry, DirecTV suckers.

Sometimes CBS would have the same game on all three -- such as when Texas A&M-Corpus Christi was giving Wisconsin a run -- but most of the time there were three different games on. KIRO even made the Oregon game, which I'm watching as we speak, available on 117 while they showed The Price Is Right on their standard def. main channel.

I'm still a little ticked about the HD, but this makes it almost all better. Thanks, KIRO.

I still hate KIRO, but now CBS is the chump

So, I sent an angry e-mail to KIRO this morning after calling their station, trying to figure out what would possess them to cripple my $2,000 televesion with a worthless standard definition signal.

Here was their response, courtesy of KIRO fall guy Pat Otis:

Jeff, the HD feed that we received from CBS was a flex feed. This means the network doesn't guarantee that they will carry the entire WSU game on that feed. If we had of passed that feed through it is likely that you would have missed portions of the game entirely.

So, it turns out that CBS is the bunch of cheap suck faces who didn't think enough of the Cougars to send an exclusive HD signal to the Seattle market, where most WSU alumni live.

Way to go, CBS: You once again found a way to take some air out of the first day of the NCAA Tournament.

Reporter goofed in handling of Nick Saban situation

I've been asked by a reader of the blog to weigh in with my thoughts on the situation surrounding Alabama football coach Nick Saban. At question is when it's OK or acceptable for a reporter to take off-the-record information and make it public.

Essentially, Saban -- after clearly stating that what he was about to say was strictly off the record -- made some derogatory remarks about a group of people in Louisiana to some reporters, one of whom recorded the conversation. The recording subsequently was leaked by the reporter (who has since apologized).

Here's my take:

When a source asks for something to be off the record, you pretty much have to honor it, unless there is some VERY VERY compelling journalistic need to go public with it -- public safety, corruption, etc.

As a journalist, all you have is your credibility; it's why those SF Chronicle reporters are fighting their subpoena in the BALCO case and are willing to go to jail rather than give up a source to whom they promised anonymity. Once you lose your credibility, you're finished as a journalist.

Is it that compelling that Nick Saban made a racist comment? I don't know the answer. In some instances, it might be. If he was still the coach at LSU, it's probably more noteworthy. Was it worth it to that reporter that no one is ever going to talk to him off the record again? In this case, I doubt it.

That said, Saban is an idiot for not making sure all the recorders were turned off. I know coaches who ALWAYS make sure the recorders are off and notebooks put away before they say anything off the record. If you want something off the record, you should make sure there's no actual record ...

UPDATE: HB 1307 makes it out of committee, off to Rules

About a week ago, I asked for your support of House Bill 1307, and I want to give you a brief update on the bill's progress.

We got a great piece of news Wednesday when the House Judiciary Committee voted 7-4 to send the bill to the next step in the process, which is the Rules Committee. This 24-member committee controls whether the bill eventually goes on to a vote on the House floor.

We still have a lot of work to do.

First off, the committee vote went right along party lines, with the seven Democrats voting for it, and the four Republicans voting against it. I'm mystified as to how free speech is a partisan issue -- both conservatives and liberals benefit from it -- but this is where we find ourselves. One of the keys to getting this bill passed will be generating some bipartisan support. (Here's at least one conservative who sees the value of free speech.)

Second, the half-hearted arguments of the organizations opposing the bill at the hearing will not be a portent of things to come. Each of these organizations have paid lobbyists working on their behalf who will be trying their darndest to kill this bill behind closed doors. We, on the other hand, have a grassroots campaign.

It will be doubly important that those of you who support this bill make your voice heard with your legislators -- especially if they are Republicans. Ask them to have the courage to support this bill, and let them know where you -- and your vote -- stand.

Lastly, this bill is generating a lot of passionate opinions on both sides. We anticipated opposition from those being stripped of their misguided power, but I can honestly say that I did not anticipate the lukewarm-to-outright-cold response we've received from the professional media, seen here:

• Walla Walla Union Bulletin
• The Seattle Times
• The Columbian

The flaw with their logic, of course, is that administration is not the owner or publisher of a student publication. And they also conveniently neglect to mention that six other states have similar laws, and students seem to be doing a fine job there making content decisions. Here is a copy of the text of a letter to the editor I sent to The Seattle Times. (And, by the way, not all professional media are opposed. The P-I's Associate Publisher Ken Bunting wrote this piece in favor of the bill, and also testified for the bill at the hearing.)

As a journalism educator at Emerald Ridge High School, I am shocked and dismayed by your total lack of effort to understand the complexities of the relationship between student journalists and the administrators they cover in your editorial, “Young journalists, meet your editors.”

And as a professional journalist who once worked for one of your competitors, I’m extremely disappointed by your apparent plan to undercut the development of our next generation of journalists.

The relationship of student journalist to administration is not one of writer to editor, as you suggest. That analogy works in a commercial environment, where each party’s goal is to work in the best interest of the publication and the readers it serves.

A better parallel in a school environment is one of journalist to government.

As state employees, administrators are the government in schools. They are the primary decision makers of that community, and they often are the subject of the stories these journalists write – not the case with professional editors. If the Seattle Times was doing an investigative story on potential misconduct by an editor, would that editor be allowed to review the content before it went to press? Absolutely not – it would ruin your credibility.

Student newspapers serve a watchdog role within their schools, and administrators who insist on taking an intimate role in the publication process not only cause major credibility issues for these journalists, but they create an inevitable chilling effect on the free flow of information.

Instead, administrators should concentrate on what has been proven to be the best educational course of action: Hiring or training up highly qualified advisers who teach student journalists how to make responsible journalistic decisions, then allowing students to put it into practice. It’s how my principal operates our school, and how my students have won numerous national journalism awards, including the NSPA Pacemaker award.

I fear for the future of a democracy where our own journalists are advocating for government to determine the content of our press.

As you can see, we have a work cut out for us. Please, actively support this bill!