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
Should I be surprised or just gratified that some readers want the mainstream world to take blogs as seriously as much as writers want them to? Dodger Thoughts reader Terry Austin writes:
Your entry on the "credibility" of bloggers and other online reporters reminds me of some recent mini-research I did on how newspaper editors typically respond to technological matters. It seems most of them get bent out of shape over the latest version of Quark or Photoshop; you can imagine how threatened they feel by something as seemingly complex as the Internet (and, in turn, blogging).
I read the other day a note from the DodgersÕ webmaster (and, I presume, PR flack) to the posters on that site's fan message board. He noted that Dan Evans semi-regularly reads that board to gauge and gather fan interest, opinion and - tell me this isn't scary Ð even trade and signing ideas. Evans seems to grasp the importance of the InternetÕs "grass-roots" nature. But many baseball writers attack online sources as a way to validate themselves: "Internet rumors yesterday claimed X, but GM Bob Smith dismissed the idea as ridiculous." YouÕll note they donÕt do the same to one another. As you pointed out, when's the last time someone took Peter Gammons to task?
The Baseball Prospectus folks may be in for a long wait if they're hoping for ESPN to throw them a bone. The good news is that they Ð and folks like you Ð gain more and more credibility every day where it counts: with readers. Eventually the "big dogs" will figure this out, too Ð such as when the Los Angeles Times contacted you for comment a few weeks back.
The old guard of sportswriters and editors may not welcome or even acknowledge bloggers and online journalists, but that doesn't make your work any less important or valuable. The folks at the Poynter Institute seem to take blogging as a serious newsgathering and reporting medium. A few golden parachutes may have to be opened before mass media follow suit.
What I want to know is, does Dan Evans read Dodger Thoughts? Cause I've had some ideas ...
Austin adds as a P.S.:
Dare we draw any parallels between the steroid "saga" of Derrick Turnbow and the feel-good story of Eric Gagne?
If it turns out that Turnbow's 98-mph fastball perhaps owes some of its oomph to andro, does that (again) cast suspicion on Gagne's mysterious velocity (and weight) gain prior to the 2002 season and his conversion to ubercloser?
I mean this sincerely - don't mean to be pithy in any way - but I guess it casts as much suspicion as you want it to cast.
Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.