Tricks of the Media: No Treat for the Players

An average athlete’s job goes beyond the playing field. These are the leaders of our favorite teams and role models to our children. An athlete's secondary job however seems to be the most tedious. Every week after the big game or series the players are asked to present themselves in front of the media and answer any questions the media may pose. These are questions that the players are never prepared to answer, yet they are expected to answer each question without flaw. Facing locker room reporters is a task that is becoming more and more difficult because the media representatives are choosing their questions wisely in order to get their big story. Every deliberately probing question is cleverly worded to create a trap. Now our favorite players not only have to watch what they say to preserve their own reputation, but also the reputations of their teammates, coaches, owner, and fans. This obvious line of questioning exhibited by each reporter takes away from the most important aspect of any athletic event (the game itself), and turns a post-game interview into a monetary pursuit.

An article by Ray Ratto entitled, “Media Minds: Read the following 755 words – then quit it!” refers to the dreaded question asked to Ray Lewis (seen above) of the Baltimore Ravens about his coaches' play calling. This, as Ratto puts it, leaves the player with two options, “be politically correct and sound weak and spineless, or attack the coach as requested and then get ripped for being a mutinous hyena.” In either case it is a losing situation. And we wonder why athletes hate the media.

As a result of this questioning tactic some sports figures, such as former NFL coach Bill Parcells and NCAA basketball coach Bobby Knight (seen to the right), have decided that they will no longer answer any questions that they think put them in such a trap by yelling for the next question, simple saying "That's a terrible question," or even insulting the reporter . By handling potentially harmful questions in this way, the person interviewed preserves the dignity of the team and rejects the only question the journalist or reporter is allowed to ask. With Coach Parcells and Knight reporters are now tentative about asking a trapping question knowing that it may be dismissed and they will go home without their story. Unfortunately, these two figures are scrutinized by the fans for their actions. I, on the other hand, believe that we should excuse them for taking this course of action. As John Feinstein points out in his article about coach Knight entitled, "Good Knight, Bad Knight," "Knight plays by the rules" when it comes to the NCAA and that includes dealing with the media. This response does not warrant criticism and should be accepted as a form of dealing with the media in order to protect those being interviewed if they so choose.

With these types of questions making their way into locker rooms and post-game interviews, it is important to ask what this does to the sport they are covering? Being a purist when it comes to the world of sports, I am against this form of “investigative journalism." All reporters seem to be doing is soiling the names of men to sell their products by partaking in the media trap phenomena . This by no means shows any respect for the athletes, but characterizes the news, radio, and television businesses. As a result, these athletes are given bad labels that in turn can hurt their careers. With the actions of competitors on and off the field now being spotlighted in all sports as a barometer of their character, and leading to suspensions and fines in the case of detrimental character, those who are caught in these traps and answer the question receive negative stigma and a possible "week off". Too much of this could not only make the player who was loved by the fans last week into a disgrace to the team name, but also diminish his spot as a role model for America's youth.

I am by no means saying that the players in any of the three most popular American sports (baseball, basketball, and football) should not be made to address the media for a post game interview. Actually, I believe players in each sport should be questioned about a controversial play or action that has caused a rift in character. Current Titans football player Pacman Jones (seen to the left) is an exceptional example of someone who has dug their own media grave and is fair game in my eyes. However, the line of questioning involved in the specific situations I have highlighted here does not cause the character flaw. It is the distinct word trap posed by the reporter that is the problem. I am not advocating the removal of all media figures from the locker rooms but simply asking them not to become a distraction from the game. Report on the play calling, the already troubled athlete, or the fourth quarter comeback, but leave the athletes to play the games on the field and entertain the public; do not make them play games in the media room. This is seemingly another path to unintentionally deface the sports we love.

The Angels Front Office: Do Not Rejoice Yet

Stories from the major league's front offices have been dominated by Joe Torre's decision to decline the offer proposed by the New York Yankees, a decision that will most likely result in Torre not returning to the league in pinstripes. However, a more important change recently took place in the Los Angeles Angles of Anaheim front office. Behind Torre’s shadow, Bill Stoneman (pictured to the left), the now former General Manager (GM) of the Angels, stepped down and gave way to Tony Reagins, who started as an intern in 1992 and has now worked his way up to the GM position with Stoneman becoming a Senior Advisor to the Angels' owner, Arte Moreno. The Angels have been contenders in the American League since their national championship in 2002 but have had trouble recently getting over the hump. This has not been due to a lack of pitching (which may be the best in the league), or an emptied farm system (the Angels are littered with young talent), but rather to a lack of offense, particularly a “big bat” if the average fan is asked. These same fans have asked for change come the trade deadline each season and maybe Reagins will bring it with him this year. However, I would bet on more of the same when it comes to the Angels' mentality at the trade deadline , which just happens to be the right decision for the franchise.

When the news first broke about Stoneman stepping down, the overall consensus showed that the fans were overjoyed. This is illustrated best by the title of an article by Larry Brown called “Angel Fans Everywhere, Raise a Pint." He shares the same view as many Angel fans do about Stoneman; he is a coward, he never makes the right move, and he invests too much in the undeveloped young talent. Ironically an in depth look at Stoneman’s actions prove that these are the very things that have made the Angels a successful organization. To bring hard evidence to the case, just look at Stoneman’s resume. We can easily start at the top with the only World Series appearance and victory (the celebration is pictured here) in the franchise’s history coming with Stoneman at the helm. He was the one that kept highly touted minor leaguers John Lackey and Francisco Rodriguez in the organization at the time when many teams were asking for their services. Those two players also played a key role in the World Series and have turned into all stars. Stoneman also handled the signing of superstar Vladimir Guerrero. The signing and extension both for Guerrero, even in the eyes of Larry Brown, “was easily one of the best free agent steals in the past decade” especially because Guerrero won the American League MVP award that year. There are also many other examples, such as the re-signing of Kelvim Escobar when little was known about him, and the release of fan favorite David Eckstien, which lead to the free agent signing of the significantly better Orlando Cabrera. As far as the young players that Stoneman was stingy with come the trade deadline are concerned, even Brown says, "Sometimes the moves you don’t make are the ones that are better for the club because of what was not lost."

This is the man many Angles fans are happy has stepped down from a position in which he built a winning franchise. Maybe now the Angel fans will get their wish and give up the next Lackey and Rodriguez for that big bat. As an Angels fan, I hope not. Stoneman knew when the right time was to make the big trade and spend the money without damaging the nucleus of a successful team. What many of the fans are overlooking is that Reagins has been trained and will be advised by Stoneman still. If they think that Reagins will bring about a front office 180 when the trade deadline comes, they are sadly mistaken. Their false hope is not a bad thing though. They will be happy that the young talent is there when everything is said and done. Years of contention and success are ahead without a gamble for a one-year splurge.

The Angles were poised to win a championship this year if you asked most professional analysts come playoff time, but slumped in the ALDS. This, however, was with a core of young, undeveloped talent that is only going to get better and a pitching staff that will be solid for years to come. Bill Stoneman did fine, in fact, he did exceptionally well with what he was given to make the team a contender. To be judgmental of his actions is foolish. Most fans would have been happy with a GM who provided a team that could begin each season with a legitimate chance to win it all. Now is the time when we should be thanking Stoneman for what he has accomplished, not “raising our glasses” to his departure.

The NBA: It is Only a Business Afterall

Isiah Thomas, former NBA great, and now front office guru extraordinaire, has been making news lately in a sexual harassment case involving New York Knicks employee Anucha Browne Sanders. Although word of the case spread long ago, the verdict, a cool $11.6 million in favor of Miss Sanders, was recently handed down. However, the one thing that has not made headlines, as pointed out by J.A. Adande in his article, "Stern's silence speaks volumes about NBA's sense of fairness", is the leagues reaction to the case, mostly because they have not made one. The question though is not when the league is going to respond, but why they have not responded yet.

David Stern, the NBA commissioner, has gone through a lot of trouble throughout the past few years to make the NBA attractive in order to "sell its product to Corporate America" as Adande so eloquently put it. As recently as a season ago, a dress code was put into place for the players as they entered and left the arenas. No longer can they wear baggy clothes and be dripping with jewelry, but must be wearing suits just in case they get those two seconds of airtime on the pre-game show for TBS. This was done for the money, for the sponsorship the NBA receives. The more professional and controlled it looks, the easier it is for the big spenders to invest. This is why, as strange as it might seem now, the NBA has not made a real move.

If you are asking why it is strange that there has been no response the answer is easy. Punishing Isiah Thomas and James Dolan, the Knick's owner, would show that there is control of the league by Stern and that instances like these do not fly in the current regime. Who better to make an example of then a former NBA all star and the owner of the largest market team in the NBA? But, this is the snag. They would punish them to make to the league look controlled so the NBA can once again "sell the product" to the investors, but, at the same time, tarnish the image of the largest market team in the NBA costing them fans, in what we know is the most scrutinizing fan base in the U.S. (just look at A-Rod), and ultimately money. The same money they would hope to receive from the investors by punishing these men. It seems to be the perfect catch-22.

A similar incident happened to Jerry Buss, the Lakers owner. He was arrested on DUI charges with a blood alcohol content of .13 and Stern made no move. Could this be for the same reason? Los Angeles is arguably the second largest market in sports and brings in a lot of revenue as well. Plus, owners like Buss and Dolan know how to make the money. How many other owners made as much money as these two did for the league without their respective teams making the playoffs? Many would venture to say there were no others.

Sterns predicament is an interesting one, but the NBA is still a business. They need to make money for the league to run. Stern and his associates must tread lightly, and it seems that they are. Recently, there has been talk of Dolan only having limited say or control in the organization. Sounds like a facade for the fans and investors. However, for now, I am just going to sit back and watch it all unfold. The world will soon see what the NBA is concerned about the most.

Instant Replay: The Answer to Tradition

In the current world of sports the mediators of the game do not make perfect calls, may have some bias, and could even be influenced by the Vegas spread (thank you Tim Donaghy). But these mediators, more commonly known as umpires and officials, will never be free of human error. It has always been part of every game since the beginning of every games existence. There has always been that give and take, and it has always been accepted that you will win a few and you will lose a few when it comes to human judgment. However, a few years ago the NFL and the NBA elected to use instant replay in order to rid the game of any human error in the most important of situations. The response to this at the time was mixed. Now that it is, without a doubt part of the game, most people do not give it a second thought anymore. An article by William Weinbaum entitled, "Froemming draws Pappas' ire, 35 years later" challenges this lack of concern once again, and teases to mind to find the boundaries between acceptable human error and the achievements of the game.

The article recounts a game of baseball between the Chicago Cubs and the San Diego Padres on September 2, 1972. Pitcher Milt Pappas was throwing a perfect game in the ninth inning with two out. Larry Stahl was at the plate and Bruce Froemming, seen to the right, was calling balls and strikes. With Pappas "one strike away from immortality" he threw a slider on the outside corner that he, his catcher, and many others watching thought was good enough to end the game. However, Fromming disagreed, and needless to say, he blew the perfect game with a walk on the next pitch.

Did this play need instant replay? Pappas may have deserved to achieve a feat that very few pitchers even get the chance to accomplish. If you ask me, the answer is no. Instant replay has no place in the game when it comes to personal accomplishment. This is not because the right call should not be made, but because human judgment has been the barometer of success in the game for all players looking to do something special. Sandy Koufax, one of the best pitchers of the century, threw four no hitters (Koufax is pictured here with one ball for each) and a perfect game without needing it. How many more could he have thrown if he had the bonus of instant replay on a check swing or a close strike in any of his one hitters? Football, which uses instant replay now, has the same questions. How many big catches and touchdowns in playoff situations should have been called the other way? There must be some quarterback or receiver out there that thinks instant replay could have gotten them a win if that one play was reversed. The fact of the matter is that judgment calls are part of the game. It is not fair to those who played without it to watch players benefit from it now. If instant replay results in the reverse of a call that results in a record should there be an asterisk next to it? An article by Steve Aschburner, called "Instant Success" even jests in regard to the many times officials go to the replay booth by saying, "Review every call in the last two minutes of every game in which the score is within one possession of the point spread or the over/under line, as determined by Las Vegas sports books at tipoff."

Instant replay does have many benefits. The game has become more accurate as a result, and the fans seem happier that the games they watch are not determined by a bad call, but something must be said about the tradition of the game. The game was invented and rules put into place taking into consideration human error. Go ahead and use instant replay when absolutely necessary, but lets not check down to technology after every controversial play. That is the easiest way to destroy the beauty and fluidity of the game loved by those who came before us.