4 replies to this topic

[BSLChrisStoner]

NBC Sports / Hardball Talk: Does the BBWAA need more Calcaterra's and Gleemans?
http://hardballtalk....aaron-gleemans/

Interesting piece from Calcaterra here. He stated via Twitter that he has never applied for membership. My contention is that he the lead reporter for a National site, and commentates on MLB daily. The BBWAA should be handing him the keys of membership, without him seeking it.

[Can_of_corn]

I don't think the BBWAA are missing out. I liked him on Shysterball but he isn't exactly a deep thinker when it comes to baseball and he follows it more casually then most folks think.

He is a lot more impressive when the law intersects with baseball then with his other stuff.

[BSLChrisStoner]

I don't think the BBWAA are missing out. I liked him on Shysterball but he isn't exactly a deep thinker when it comes to baseball and he follows it more casually then most folks think.

He is a lot more impressive when the law intersects with baseball then with his other stuff.

He posted a great series of articles at his personal blog (http://craigcalcaterra.blogspot.com/) about the start of Shysterball and how he got to his current position.

I like Craig a lot. I'm biased, because he has been good to me personally.

However, I do think he is a critical thinker with + knowledge. The format of what he does, short takes on news around the game daily, does not really lend itself to a lot of longer, deeper takes. Usually he can make quick succinct points. Nothing Earth shattering, but he consistently has the 'right' take.

It just seems silly to me to have a group of writers that vote on the Awards etc, and to not have the lead MLB writer for a National site affiliated with them.

[Can_of_corn]

I disagree. Like I said when the legal world intersects with baseball he is great. I loved his Bonds and Clemens coverage and the stuff he does with teams trying to get public funding.

When it comes to straight nuts and bolts baseball, I am not impressed. It doesn't help that he has admitted an anti-O's bias in the past.

He also loses points with me by letting his political beliefs filter into his writing. His take on Luke Scott would be one example.

[BSLChrisStoner]

I disagree. Like I said when the legal world intersects with baseball he is great. I loved his Bonds and Clemens coverage and the stuff he does with teams trying to get public funding.

When it comes to straight nuts and bolts baseball, I am not impressed. It doesn't help that he has admitted an anti-O's bias in the past.

He also loses points with me by letting his political beliefs filter into his writing. His take on Luke Scott would be one example.

Re: Nuts and Bolts analysis... Interesting, to hear this. I'll take a longer, critical look at his postings and see if I see what you are saying.

Re: Political beliefs into his writing. I agree with you here. Even when I am in agreement with the obvious political leanings of a sports writer, I cringe when I see that commentary included. To me, you are only going to irritate 1/2 of your potential audience. An audience that was coming to your site for sports.

I think sports should be an escape. I'm often surprised when I see lots of National writers speaking from large bully pulpits expressing their personal thoughts. Part of me respects them for being willing to do so. All of me believes it is a bad business decision from their companies to allow them to do so.