As a professional reporter, I appreciate the Giants' beat writers. Whatever you think of their writing styles, their opinions, their analysis, you can't argue that it's easy work. They drive me crazy sometimes, but that's part of the biz. When you put thousands of words a week out into the public with no backsies, you're bound to chaff people's hides and make some mistakes. So what's it like being on the other end of the laptop? I asked Henry "Hank" Schulman of the Chron, who follows the Giants tirelessly in season and out, to submit to a Malo interrogation last month about his job, the game he covers, and the changing nature of sportswriting. Here's our email Q&A.
It's the off-season. What's the daily grind with no games to write
up?
Beat writers in the off-season take all of their
vacation and comp time at once, and it's a lot, considering how many days we
can work in a row in spring training and the season, with all the travel
thrown in. We're also responsible for monitoring all the off-season moves by
the front office, arrests for pot possession and Panda camps. It's not really
a grind at all, since in the off-season I get to work in my home office wearing
sweats.
- The goal of any beat writer is to keep emotional distance from
the subject. Have you ever become friends with a player or team official you
had to write about? How did you deal with the situation?
I can honestly say I have never become "friends"
with a player or team official, aside from the media relations folks we deal
with every day. I have become "friendly" with many players. But we never go
out together and only have cocktails when we run into each other in the same
pub on the road. I will admit it does become difficult sometimes to write
extremely negative stuff about a guy you're with on a day-to-day basis,
especially when he essentially is a good person. Sometimes, though, as a beat
writer you have to.
- How often do you find yourself holding back opinions about the Giants
on-field performance? How about the front office? With the rise of blogs,
real-time news, etc., do beat writers now have more leeway to be less
objective? If so, is it a good or bad thing?
There is a difference between opinion and
analysis. I can and should write that a guy is stinking up the field, if
that's what he's doing. I can write that the front office seems to have made a
mistake by signing this guy or that. But I cannot and will not say something
like, "The Giants should fire the manager and general manager." That crosses
from analysis to opinion, which really is the realm of columnists, not beat
writers. We do have more leeway to be more analytical, which I think is good,
because our readers do want to know what we're thinking.
- What's harder to write: A game piece in late September between two
long-eliminated teams, or an off-day feature about the spunky new rookie who's
just happy to be here (or pick some other hoary baseball cliche)? Or, to put
it another way, how the hell do you avoid burnout?
The rookie piece is harder to write because the
quotes are so cliche. I've found you can always find something interesting to
write about from a game, even if it means not writing that much about the game
and focusing on one or two of the players in a featury kind of way. The only
time I really have trouble finding things to write about is the middle of
spring training, after you've written all the good features but before the
team makes its final cuts. Burnout is a
different question altogether. It's hard not to get burned out by August and
September even if the team is doing well. The
travel is that difficult, as we must fly commercial and not on the charter.
That is why I always take a road trip off in August.
- A lot of my readers and other Internet baseball geeks are convinced the
mainstream media doesn't know what OPS is, let alone Universal Zone Rating and
other fancy new stats. Baseball fans have been conversant in stats for time
immemorial. Why is it so scary to try out new ones?
I think we have. I get frustrated when I wrote
OPS and my copydesk feels the need to add the parenthetical (on-base plus
slugging). I think we have seen the light that some sabermetric stats, such as
OPS, WHIP, OBP and others like it are very useful. The problem comes with
stats that we view as less useful and subjective, such as defensive stats that
still rely on a human being's opinion on which infielder is responsible for a
particular ground ball. Furthermore, too many stats -- traditional or
nontraditional -- weigh down good writing.
- How has the sabermetric revolution changed the game? More enjoyable?
Less enjoyable?
Listen, I am open to new ideas. I like some of the sabermetric stats. But
I can't imagine enjoying the game as much as I do if I had to watch it through
Bill James' eyes. Look at Keith Law's reasoning behind voting for Tim Lincecum
for Cy Young: Lincecum led in FIP, WAR and VORP. He should have talked
about Lincecum's PECOTA, PATEK and GRUDZIELANEK stats while he was at it. For
fans who love the aesthetics of the game and have an open mind, some of these
things can make the game more enjoyable. For people who look at a real
major-league game like they're watching a Strat-o-matic tournament, well, they
can have it.
- Is there any one new-fangled stat you'd like to become mainstream? Is there an old-fangled stat that should become obsolete? Or perhaps one worth defending?
- Is there any one new-fangled stat you'd like to become mainstream? Is there an old-fangled stat that should become obsolete? Or perhaps one worth defending?
My friend Jeff Fletcher at AOL FanHouse wrote a great treatise supporting
the simple beauty of ERA and opponents' average for pitchers. He said the
object of pitching is preventing baserunners and preventing runs. These stats
(plus WHIP, I might argue) do that perfectly. They are good stats.
I can't think of any stats that should be rendered obsolete, but I will
say that I've evolved to the point where I don't simply describe a hitter
by average, homers and RBIs anymore. I would much rather talk about
average, OBP and OPS (which the Chronicle still won't let me write
without adding a paranthetical (on-base plus slugging). I do wish WHIP and OPS
were more mainstream, to the point that most fans would know without
thinking that a 1.05 WHIP AND .900 OPS are pretty good. We
aren't there yet.
- Who are your baseball writer heroes? Or writers beyond
baseball who influenced your career, your style, your work ethic, and so on?
Kit Stier, who covered the A's for the Oakland
Tribune when I became a baseball writer for that paper covering the Giants,
taught me the proper way conduct myself. He taught me rule number one: If you
write something negative about a player, make sure that you're the first
face he sees that day in the clubhouse. Have the courage to stand behind what
you write. I grew up in Los Angeles, so Jim Murray of the LA Times was someone
I read every day. I learned from reading him that you can be negative without
being disrespectful. There never is a reason for a beat writer to take a cheap
shot.
- What do you think baseball beat writing will be like in ten or fifteen years? Not just because of changes in the game of baseball, but because of changes in the way news is gathered and reported? (For example: athletes doing their own tweeting.)
- How much access do columnists actually have to athletes and execs?
- What do you think baseball beat writing will be like in ten or fifteen years? Not just because of changes in the game of baseball, but because of changes in the way news is gathered and reported? (For example: athletes doing their own tweeting.)
I don't think it will be that much different. No
matter how directly athletes relate to their fans, the fans still want
independent reporting and opining. Fans are more discerning than they get
credit for. They know athletes and team execs often are selling them a bill of
goods. (And reporters and columnists, too). The media will be different. There
will be fewer trees killed to deliver news. And maybe beat writers will be
forced to provide more opinion than they do now, but I doubt it will be
radically different.
- Would you like to be a columnist someday?
I might, although I have to admit I don't care much for some
of the other sports I would have to cover. I'm not huge on the NBA or college
football, for instance. I might like a national baseball writer job, though,
something akin to what John Shea does at the Chronicle.
- Would you like to be a columnist someday?
- How much access do columnists actually have to athletes and execs?
They have the same access that we do, completely.
