"Hearing Trembley threw Rhyne Hughes under the bus and that the clubhouse is turning"

[SteveA]

Meanwhile, I went out to do my weekly grocery shopping and came home to find a statement I made being dissected.

First of all... the only reason I mentioned my feelings about Trembley were to point out that I have not been a Trembley defender, that I've actually been critical of him. I pointed that out because that put my criticism of Carroll in context: I am clearly not some blind Trembley supporter who would have a kneejerk reaction to question any negative report on Trembley. I'm actually the type of guy who would

Secondly, I said it was my opinion that Trembley was unfair to PIe last year. I apparently have been asked to prove that. Well, I can't prove that he was. As I (clearly, I thought) said, it is an opinion. My evidence was last year when Trembley singled out some in-game blunders that Pie had made, in a way that he never did when other players such as Mora or Roberts made blunders. Also, he buried Pie on the bench for a long, long time, while other players who did not perform well did not disappear the way Pie did. Anyhow, that is the basis for my opinion.

[Lucky Jim]

Sorry not seeing the connection you are trying to make.

Last I checked print and electronic media both have rather loose standards, have since the start of things. I used the Griffey case as an example earlier, the paper did not name sources anymore then our tweeter did. Many, many stories go to "print" with annoymous sources.

Sorry - that was worded terribly on my part. What I meant was that exigent circumstances render relying on formal vetting (like a warrant) impossible. If the threat (or the article's importance) are so high that it warrants running the risk of error, that's fine. This is the case in exigent searches, and it should be the case with slimly-sourced articles.

In each case, cost-benefit analysis is at issue.

In some cases, going w/ lightly sourced articles is necessary, or you rely on whatever information you can get, because the story is so important - so necessary - that taking on the risk of error is both advisable and understandable.

When the story isn't that important - like here - there's no reason to lower your source standards. No reason to rush a single leak from the clubhouse to the public. Sportswriters are among the worst on this issue. Including Rosenthal.

[BaltimoreTerp]

It validates it as a source of information. In some cases it may be the only source of information, at which point it may then function as a substitute for journalism.

Exigent circumstances often mean that other, more formalized methods are unnecessary. But simply because, say, sometimes the police must search something without a warrant doesn't mean that warrants should be deemed unnecessary.

So if this information had come in the form of an article, you would be just fine with it?

You also made an interesting assumption earlier when you suggested that this information wasn't "vetted".

That's what I mean by confirmation bias. Despite your statement about "not having a dog in the fight", you seem pretty against the removal of Dave Trembley as manager. And in general, that's fine; just a different opinion. And even if I felt I was misreading your statements and you were playing a lot of Devil's advocate, that would be fine, too. But that's not what I'm seeing here.

In this case, for example, you are using an opinion about Twitter (that it is somehow a "lesser" form of media) to color your opinion about both the information and Will Carroll (because he used Twitter to disseminate the information it must not be valid and he should be questioned as a journalist) and therefore question the validity of the information.

You are seeing what you want to see, instead of what is there.

[dhaze]

When the story isn't that important - like here - there's no reason to lower your source standards.

You have no proof that he did.

Also, some fans would consider the state of a clubhouse important news. Some consider it extraneous, but others are interested.

[LA2]

Well, Patterson has already been doubled-up in the few games that he has appeared in so far...

Playing nearly full-time in 2006 and 2007, Patterson got doubled up a grand total of three times. Not the most important thing for the O's to concentrate on at the time.

[Can_of_corn]

Sorry - that was worded terribly on my part. What I meant was that exigent circumstances render relying on formal vetting (like a warrant) impossible. If the threat (or the article's importance) are so high that it warrants running the risk of error, that's fine. This is the case in exigent searches, and it should be the case with slimly-sourced articles.

In each case, cost-benefit analysis is at issue.

In some cases, going w/ lightly sourced articles is necessary, or you rely on whatever information you can get, because the story is so important - so necessary - that taking on the risk of error is both advisable and understandable.

When the story isn't that important - like here - there's no reason to lower your source standards. No reason to rush a single leak from the clubhouse to the public. Sportswriters are among the worst on this issue. Including Rosenthal.

Ok I now see your point. I still disagree.

I would rather have as much information as possible made available to me since I trust my ability to filter through it and pull out what I need to know.

I don't really want the media to decide what I do and do not need to know.

[Lucky Jim]

So if this information had come in the form of an article, you would be just fine with it?

You also made an interesting assumption earlier when you suggested that this information wasn't "vetted".

That's what I mean by confirmation bias. Despite your statement about "not having a dog in the fight", you seem pretty against the removal of Dave Trembley as manager. And in general, that's fine; just a different opinion. And even if I felt I was misreading your statements and you were playing a lot of Devil's advocate, that would be fine, too. But that's not what I'm seeing here.

In this case, for example, you are using an opinion about Twitter (that it is somehow a "lesser" form of media) to color your opinion about both the information and Will Carroll (because he used Twitter to disseminate the information it must not be valid and he should be questioned as a journalist) and therefore question the validity of the information.

You are seeing what you want to see, instead of what is there.

I'm against DT being removed? Really? Where have you seen me say anything (recently, I guess - though I don't remember being much of an apologist in the past) about Trembley regarding whether he should be fired or not?

I didn't say it wasn't "valid," either. I'm really having trouble following your logic, BT. I will admit that I went too far when I brought agendas into the issue - I do think that agendas (and confirmation bias) cloud the way we weigh our evidence, but I don't have any real knowledge (or belief) that Carroll is biased. That was a knee-jerk reaction.

Oh, jeez.

Yeah, Hughes - the long-time MLB stalwart - was thrown under the bus? Two days ago this team was absolutely ecstatic with its recent play.

I hate this rumor crap.

It may or may not be true. But this is the kind of thing that eeks out only by those with an agenda.

But I made clear earlier that I'm not saying it's "valid" or "invalid" and have not said that it's "fiction."

Absolutely. Something could have happened in the clubhouse, no doubt. I don't mean to imply that I think nothing happened for sure. It's just the watery nature of these kinds of rumors that I dislike.

No context. No source. No nothing.

I just don't like unsourced blasts. To the extent that they diminish the standards of traditional journalism (and I'm fairly sure they do) then, yeah, I guess I think of it as "lesser."

[Lucky Jim]

Ok I now see your point. I still disagree.

I would rather have as much information as possible made available to me since I trust my ability to filter through it and pull out what I need to know.

I don't really want the media to decide what I do and do not need to know.

This is fair - I just think it's a tough call. I love getting raw info from blogs, but I discount it a lot. I find it more difficult when traditional and internet media get blurred, though.

To each their own. I've really not offered anything other than why I don't like this stuff. It's not like I'm going to stop reading Will Carroll, whose articles I enjoy.

[Ohfan67]

Secondly, I said it was my opinion that Trembley was unfair to PIe last year. I apparently have been asked to prove that. Well, I can't prove that he was. As I (clearly, I thought) said, it is an opinion. My evidence was last year when Trembley singled out some in-game blunders that Pie had made, in a way that he never did when other players such as Mora or Roberts made blunders. Also, he buried Pie on the bench for a long, long time, while other players who did not perform well did not disappear the way Pie did. Anyhow, that is the basis for my opinion.

Not to change the subject too much, but a lot of people feel this way and I'm very, very surprised. Pie's resurgence provides strong support for the idea that Trembley handled the Pie situation dead on. Pie was dumped by one organization after not being able to adjust to MLB. The Orioles' handling of Pie seems like a huge success to date to me. Production is the bottom line and Pie's production since Trembley was tough with him has been very good. I think the Pie example suggests that Trembley should be tougher with most if not all of the younger players...probably most given individual variation in players.

p.s. maybe your reasoning is that Trembley wasn't tough with everyone and that's certainly true. He has definitely avoided criticizing young players to the media even when they make totally boneheaded mental mistakes. But that doesn't mean he didn't handle Pie correctly, but it may mean that he hasn't handled the other younger players well.

[El Gordo]

The reason "journalists?" have multiple sources isn't because of some high standards, it's to avoid law suits and sullying the reputations of the paper or magazine doing the publishing. In the case of tweets, these risks do not apply. There's no reason to expect them to be adequately sourced and every reason to be suspicious.

[El Gordo]

Not to change the subject too much, but a lot of people feel this way and I'm very, very surprised. Pie's resurgence provides strong support for the idea that Trembley handled the Pie situation dead on. Pie was dumped by one organization after not being able to adjust to MLB. The Orioles' handling of Pie seems like a huge success to date to me. Production is the bottom line and Pie's production since Trembley was tough with him has been very good. I think the Pie example suggests that Trembley should be tougher with most if not all of the younger players...probably most given individual variation in players.

p.s. maybe your reasoning is that Trembley wasn't tough with everyone and that's certainly true. He has definitely avoided criticizing young players to the media even when they make totally boneheaded mental mistakes. But that doesn't mean he didn't handle Pie correctly, but it may mean that he hasn't handled the other younger players well.

There's a difference between handling a guy correctly(benching him, etc.) and outing him in the press. I don't see how that does anybody any good. And that's why DT rarely does it, except in the case of Pie whom he simply doesn't like IMO, for reasons only known to him.

[Moose Milligan]

The OH loooooooooves a good throwing under the bus.

[Ohfan67]

There's a difference between handling a guy correctly(benching him, etc.) and outing him in the press. I don't see how that does anybody any good. And that's why DT rarely does it, except in the case of Pie whom he simply doesn't like IMO, for reasons only known to him.

But there's a strong correlation between DT's handling of Pie and his production. I bet we all have had coaches in many sports who used embarrassment as a powerful punishment.

[baltfan]

The reason "journalists?" have multiple sources isn't because of some high standards, it's to avoid law suits and sullying the reputations of the paper or magazine doing the publishing. In the case of tweets, these risks do not apply. There's no reason to expect them to be adequately sourced and every reason to be suspicious.

This is just plain wrong. Twitter does not insulate anyone from a lawsuit. The same rules apply. And I don't know why you would think Carroll's tweets, if inaccurate, do any less damage to him or BP then any article.

Finally, your cynicism related to journalists is generally unwarranted. Most of these guys are people dedicated to doing a good job and take pride in their work. Perhaps the same cannot be said of message board posters who choose to assume that tweets aren't adequately sourced without any source whatsoever to back up such assertions.

Those criticizing Carroll remind me a bit of those that criticized writers during the Tex saga claiming the writers were lazy and uninformed for not knowing Tex was on his way to Baltimore. People need to give journalists more respect and credit.

[El Gordo]

But there's a strong correlation between DT's handling of Pie and his production. I bet we all have had coaches in many sports who used embarrassment as a powerful punishment.

I don't think anything DT said about Pie in the press had anything to do with Pie's improvement. I think his work with Crowley did.