Baseball Toaster was unplugged on February 4, 2009.
Jon's other site:
Screen Jam
TV and more ...
1) using profanity or any euphemisms for profanity
2) personally attacking other commenters
3) baiting other commenters
4) arguing for the sake of arguing
5) discussing politics
6) using hyperbole when something less will suffice
7) using sarcasm in a way that can be misinterpreted negatively
8) making the same point over and over again
9) typing "no-hitter" or "perfect game" to describe either in progress
10) being annoyed by the existence of this list
11) commenting under the obvious influence
12) claiming your opinion isn't allowed when it's just being disagreed with
Peter Gammons said today on ESPN.com that he had meant, in a sidebar to his column Wednesday, to source Steve Henson and the Los Angeles Times in referring to Henson's feature on Milton Bradley, and apologized for the "inexplicable oversight" that this sourcing did not occur:
I thought Henson's piece was so poignant and interesting, I included a reference to it as a "sidebar" in my column. I was obviously referring to that newspaper piece, and commented on the exchange by writing, "Fascinating. Bradley is a very good person who has long dealt with demons, and this acceptance of responsibility may signal that he is on the right path. Everyone who knows him hopes so."
When I filed the column, however, I inadvertently and mistakenly omitted credit and sourcing to the Los Angeles Times. I thought I had sourced the Times as I wrote the column, and had not. Obviously, I should have. It was brought to my attention late Wednesday night by ESPN.com editors, who removed the "sidebar" while seeking clarification. I immediately admitted the mistake and asked that it be corrected.
I had intended to call attention to what I considered a very powerful story, and made an inexplicable oversight. I apologize to Steve Henson, the L.A. Times, and to ESPN.com readers.
This is a good thing. Again, the point of my original piece was not to accuse Peter Gammons of plagarism - although inevitably, some people were going to draw that conclusion despite my best explicit intentions - but to point out that there was a significant problem on ESPN.com. Steve Henson worked very hard to write a good story based on his one-on-one interview with Milton Bradley. He got Bradley to talk openly about his anger issues. ESPN, by posting text from that interview without attribution or proprietary rights, was taking credit for Henson's work. Just because this happened doesn't mean it wasn't an accident. But just because it was an accident doesn't mean it shouldn't have been corrected. And so it has been. Good for Gammons for handling this so graciously. And good for Henson for producing a good story.
Is that normal? Why wouldn't Gammons just post the piece verbatim and then cite the source? And can Gammons post the piece in its entirety without permission from the Times?
Someone please enlighten me!
No, even if you cite the source, you can't post the piece in its entirety without permission. What you can do is summarize the article, and/or provide a small excerpt that is cited. Many bloggers do this, though I sometimes think they cut and paste too much text and should rely more on summarizing. This is getting into fine distinctions ... what is clearly wrong is (a) reproducing all, or substantially all, of a piece without permission, and (b) copying the text (even with rewording it) without citation.
Look, it took Jon about, what, 5 minutes to figure it out?
Glass obviously had a reason to conjure up bogus material: to get recognition. What's Gammons' reason for "stealing" material?
Say Gammons knowingly failed to cite Henson... Gammons includes the sidebar, and at best, enlightens some readers about Bradley. Is that reward worth the risk of plagiarizing material?
I really don't see any reason for skepticism.
Your Nero Wolfe impression is to be commended. Gammons is probably a blatant thief.
(crickets chirping)
All I was trying to say by invoking Blair and Glass is that writing cheats have very large cojones. I emphatically do NOT think Gammons is an intentional cheater; I do, however, think that if somebody had already decided to plagiarize, the brazenness of plagiarizing a widely-read source like the Times probably would not stop them. Does that make sense?
I noticed that Dodger Thoughts is now mentioned on the Romenesko blog for the first time!
Very good Wolfe site here: (I aided a little in the "What's Wolfe Reading" section).
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8907/nero.html
didn't realize anyone still read those books.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=neel/050414
I always thought more people hated the Giants than the Dodgers though. Could be living in LA for 10 years.
If it weren't for Barry Bonds, I doubt most people would give the Giants a second thought.
Did people chant Beat LA at Dodger games before they started chanting it at Laker games? I don't think so, but not sure.
"Jeff Kent's a club-footed, claw-handed malcontent with a bad mustache,"
I used to love when Chick Hearn would complain about it. To paraphrase Chick "Like we haven't heard that one before".
Just kidding, good catch. I am for more responsible journalism.
Speaking of responsible journalism (although it isn't quite journalism) I found Dan Shulman's play-by-play/moderation very fair and almost pro-Dodgers on ESPN2's Bums coverage last night. He balanced Joe Morgan and even No.1 Reds fan EK.
Pretty good column.
blowhardiness.
And I admit I always felt a bit of scorn for Garvey precisely because he worked just too damned hard at that squeekly clean image. It just never rang true to me. Just another would be politician on the make.
I think Marty's right about the two being lightning rods for non Dodger fans.
But neither one of them subtracted one iota from my love of the Dodgers.
I am not a Dial "fan" and sometimes find him annoying myself, but it's just funny that Gammons is in the following, too:
http://tinyurl.com/67f3w
Just my opinion, but I've noticed his east-coast bias has mellowed over the years, making him a much more enjoyable read. I also appreciate how much of his writing is dedicated to praising players doing well, not Plaschke-ing them while they are slumping. While I rarely learn anything "new" from his writings, at least I'm entertained.
"In actuality, the derisive albeit catchy chant of 'Beat L.A.' did not, contrary to popular belief, start with any L.A. team, per se.
It actually started in the 1982 NBA season with the playoffs between the 76ers and our own beloved Boston green. As our boys were going down to final and ignominious defeat, the great fans of beantown saluted their conquerors by chanting 'Beat L.A.', thus providing a kind of send off wish to the Sixers who would soon encounter the Lakers, who as you may or may not recall were already a secured in the championship round.
Now, if you want to know about the mail delivery of playoff tickets at that time, that's another interesting story..."
(end Cliff Claven impersonation)
By comparison, Mitch Albom, IMHO, wrote an apology that did not go near far enough. I think Albom still has a lot to answer for.
He hit his first home run last night (I was there; it really happened); I think he'll be sad if people don't care about him anymore.
Wrong.
Bruin;
Now that the mighty Choi has found the seats, are you abandoning him for someone more in need of your help?
Can we now look forward to Suffering Bruin's "Fact of Grabowski", or "Bako Bits"?
"Bako Bits"??? High-larious!
It's a Schmoll World
Werth Knowing
Wunschtime (Jon, this is yours, right?)
Tuesdays With Elmer
Giovanni Know About Carrara?
Fhact of Yhency
D.J. Jazzy Houlton
Do you wanna be my Valentin?
The Saenz of the Times
The Lowe Down
Lunch with Uncle Milton
and of course
Dodger Depo
. . . the first time he lifted the family wagon over his head.
. . . reports from the Kent/Drew medical center.
too much
Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.