There are times when the media is simply a convenient — and often unjust — target for those looking to project blame about the ills of sports. In the case of Mariano Rivera, the media deserves to wear a bull’s-eye.
This story has to be one told with as much transparent bias and purposely rose-tinted perception as any sports topic in recent memory.
The problem is, nobody is calling the media on it because everyone pretty much feels sorry for Rivera, the New York Yankees iconic reliever who has 608 saves and a 2.21 ERA in 18 seasons in pinstripes.
Mariano Rivera
So I’ll go ahead and say what the Rivera apologists refuse to acknowledge: the manner in which Rivera was injured, while chasing batting practice fly balls against the Kansas City Royals earlier this week, was as downright dumb as his career is magnificent.
The media won’t dare say this because, well, they like Rivera, and the media plays favorites. So much so, that some of the biggest media outlets spent the day after the incident defying anyone to question the pitcher’s judgment, and to make some ludicrous claims about his place in Yankees lore.
All three major daytime radio talk shows on ESPN wasted the bulk of their air time on the Rivera story, and their premise was consistent: One, that he was more important to the modern-era Yankees than shortstop Derek Jeter and, two, that the manner in which he was injured was excusable because he has long done this to help stay in shape.
The part about him being more important than Jeter is simply inaccurate. Nobody will minimize Rivera’s role over the past two decades, but it does not trump that of someone who plays on a daily basis and has been the unquestioned leader of the franchise, both on the field and in the clubhouse, for the duration of his career.
The radio hosts compounded their argument with a defiant, “don’t-even-go-there” tone about questioning the judgment involved with Rivera, who is neither an outfielder nor a ball boy, crashing into the left-field wall and tearing his ACL while trying to chase down a BP fly ball.
Most people don’t seem to understand the lack of logic involved in arguing that it’s OK because it’s something Rivera apparently has always done. If I made a tradition out of having a few cocktails then taking a motorcycle for a back-country ride, I don’t think law enforcement would buy that it’s justified because buzzed joy rides are, you know, just sort of my thing.
He does it to stay in shape? Most of us who are in the ballpark of age 42 have found other, lower-impact ways to do this, such as swimming, treadmills, recumbent bikes and the like.
My point is, Rivera’s injury is nowhere near as fluky as what has been suggested. Most reports seem to indicate he was gingerly jogging after a lazy fly when the evil-spirited baseball gods zapped him with lightning or something.
Upon further review, it appears Rivera was running full speed and channeling his inner young Ken Griffey Jr. in the process. It looks as though he became determined to rob someone of a BP homerun, and maybe show off a little in the process. Instead, he pulled up lame and crashed into the outfield wall.
Leisurely pursing a fly ball is one thing; what Rivera did was another. It just is. If you haven’t already, check out the video and perhaps you’ll see what I mean.
If John Rocker had done this, it would have been decried as perhaps the coup de grace of stupidity from perhaps the game’s dumbest player. If this were a starter in his prime, such as Tim Lincecum or Roy Halladay, critics would have questioned the judgment of both the player and the manager who allowed him to partake in such tomfoolery.
But it’s Rivera, an icon, a legend, a nice guy and someone who the media admires. So he gets a pass. I’m not saying his injury isn’t sad or unfortunate, but I’ll also say this -– it was a bonehead move.
Pinpointing the real problem with Skip Bayless
There’s a reason why Skip Bayless is the most despised voice in all of sports journalism. It’s just that, until verbal battles with some of his detractors reached a boiling point this week, most of his critics were aiming at the wrong target.
Skip Bayless
Thank goodness for Jalen Rose. With respect to his role as an ESPN analyst, I never thought I’d utter those words. As an NBA studio analyst, I generally find him a little clumsy with words, and his insistence on injecting his awful singing into every broadcast practically is unbearable.
But his televised dissertation on Why the World Hates Skip was dead-on, the voice of reason in a forum that needed one.
In case you missed it, the narcissistic, cantankerous Bayless, co-host of ESPN’s “First Take,” found himself on the defensive his week after a series of criticisms of Oklahoma Thunder guard Russell Westbrook led to something a revolt from the commentator’s critics and the revelation that Bayless was untruthful about his own high school basketball career.
Jalen Rose
Bayless never has had a shortage of detractors, but they came out en masse after his critique of Westbrook dovetailed with another in which he basically accused Kevin Durant of lying when he jumped to his teammate’s defense.
Several notable Bayless bashers, including TNT analysts Charles Barkley and Shaq, weighed in. But their haymakers were off the mark. The general consensus among why there is so much disdain for Bayless, fellow TNT host Kenny Smith told Bayless, is that players and former players simply have a difficult time respecting the opinion of someone who never played the game at a high level.
(It’s worth noting that Bayless responded by telling Smith that there was a correlation between Smith being the best TNT analyst and the worst former player on the set. He said Smith had marginal skills but fell into a good situation in the NBA. A visibly fuming Smith gently reminded Bayless that he was a first-team All-American and college Player of the Year at North Carolina before turning pro. (You can watch it here).
This sounds like a logical theory on the surface, but it doesn’t take long to for it to crumple. If this is the case, then why is Bob Costas, who has never had a Major League at-bat, generally respected as one of ultimate historians on the game? Jim Rome never played a down in the NFL, but players seem to take an invitation to his show as some sort of rite of passage. Michael Wilbon and Tony Kornhesier debate all sorts of sports topics on “Pardon the Interruption,” and you never hear them criticized for not having played the games on which they opine.
Moreover, the opposite dynamic often comes into play. Many current NBA players often have fumed at Barkley for his on-air criticisms of their play. These guys don’t despise Barkley any less because he once put the jersey on.
So why the problem with Bayless? It’s a matter of not so much what he says, but how he says it. I’ve said this for a long time, but Rose was the first among media personalities to correctly identify the core of the issue.
Most observers, even former athletes, are fine with commentators having an opinion. As with almost any other media arena, those who provide evidence-backed claims and do so in a professional manner are going to garner more respect than those who don’t.
Bayless fits the latter category. There’s always been something off about the guy, but to suggest he merely sensationalizes to grab headlines lets him off the hook too easily. There’s something about the derisive nicknames (Chris Bosh as “Bosh Spice,” etc.), the bloated self-importance, the pure vitriol aimed at his subjects that sets Bayless apart.
In other words, Skip has issues. Rose correctly pointed out that, no matter who you are, multi-millionaire athlete or professional couch potato, everyone has a breaking point when someone’s comments turn personal. Bayless simply delivers his message in a manner that suggests some sort of ulterior motive that defies being a professional journalist.
This whole episode did little to help Bayless’s cause. It started off with the comical scene a couple of weeks ago with Bayless referring to Durant’s rebuttal as a “cheap shot” and looking as if he were near tears because of the comment (at the risk of using a cliché, this is one of those glass house-stone throwing analogies).
In an apparent attempt to boost his street cred among viewers and Twitter followers, Bayless sent out a couple of tweets suggesting he knew basketball better than most people might realize, because he was the starting point guard on a high school team that won the state championship.
Any good journalist should have known that his story was going to be checked out. An Oklahoma-based blog called the Lost Ogle did just that, retrieving box scores and stat sheets from Bayless’s alma mater. They discovered that he played on the junior varsity team as a junior and averaged 1.4 points per game his senior season, less than lofty numbers for a self-proclaimed starter.
The next day on “First Take,” Rose called out Bayless on the story, and you could tell the former Michigan star both rehearsed and savored the moment. But it’s hard to blame him.
The show smartly dedicated the next day’s episode to a quasi-forum on where the line should be drawn for criticizing athletes, but Bayless only made matters worse.
In what he called his “nightmare story,” Bayless told his version of the truth behind the tweet. Bayless told viewers he had, in fact, been a standout player as a youth but when he got to high school, found that his playing style clashed with that of the coach.
He went on to say that the coach brought his son in from another school to derail his senior season, and that’s why, despite being so gifted -– a claim a few of his teammates have supported – he averaged just a few minutes and 1.4 points per game.
Although I had a difficult time shedding tears at the story, it was revealing in some ways. Bayless spoke of the experience with the same bitterness and resentment of which he talks about professional athletes, and said his high school days motivated him to do what he does now (which is what, professionally hate those who have something you don’t?).
Bayless speaks as if the incident happened yesterday. Someone might need to remind him that it was more than 40 years ago, and maybe suggests some Eckhart Tolle readings and a little therapy.
There’s a reason why guys like Kornheiser and Wilbon are much more widely respected. They are willing to admit when they are wrong, and often give the caveat before spewing an opinion that the just might be. They are prepared and professional, and don’t pretend to know everything. They laugh and have fun, because, they will admit, talking about sports is a pretty easy way to make a living.
I’ve always liked a motto Wilbon occasionally recites, one that usually surfaces when someone makes a point contrary to his own, but one he acknowledges as valid. He’ll say he’s a believer that more than one thing can be true in any given situation – perhaps it’s about time his ESPN colleague Bayless learned this lesson.