Standards

Look, I'm not one of those humorless watchdogs who lose sleep over what gets printed in the newspaper, let alone the sports section of the newspaper, but this, written by the pouting Dan Shaughnessy of the Boston Globe evidences an incompetence so basic that it defies description:

Rice hit for power in a day when power numbers were legit. He was the dominant slugger of his time, a man capable of inducing an intentional walk when the bases were loaded.

Except not once in over 9000 plate appearances was Jim Rice ever intentionally walked with the bases loaded. Never.

Shaughnessy is either blatantly lying about Rice's intentional walks in order to sharpen a point or else he was grossly negligent in not checking such an easily checkable fact. No matter the case, this is the sort of misstatement that would get writers in any other section of a newspaper fired or reassigned, and would foment a correction by the editors.

This is not a matter of stat geeks vs. sportswriters. This is not a matter of Rice backers vs. Rice haters. This is simply about expecting a reporter for a major daily newspaper not to make up facts out of thin air.

UPDATE: I just realized that the headline of Shaugnessy's story is "Nothing False About His Case." How I missed the irony on the first read-through is a mystery me.

UPDATE #2: I just got an email from someone defending Shaugnessy based on his use of the word "capable," and arguing that the use of that word gets him off the hook. I disagree. While it may be one thing to talk about capabilities regarding unknown future events ("Papelbon is capable of saving 55 games next year"), it's not all that different from a lie to assert that a player was "capable" of doing some specific thing he never did when making a case for his past accomplishments. To say that he was in this context (i.e. assessing Rice's career accomplishments) is to intentionally mislead the reader into thinking such a thing actually happened when it did not.

To illustrate the difference, I would ask if anyone would be willing to give a member of the New York press a pass if they said, in an article arguing for Jeter's greatness, that he was "capable" of winning the triple crown in 1999, "capable" of turning five unassisted triple plays in the 2004 ALCS, and "capable" of hitting for the cycle last June 25th? Of course you wouldn't, because it's one thing to say something like "Jeter was capable of hitting for more power if he had tried," or "Jeter was capable of playing Ozzie Smith-level defense," it is quite another to cite specific fictitious accomplishments in an effort to pad Jeter's resume.

And this is what Shaugnessy is doing. Perversely enough, however, by doing so, he's hurting the cause of his beloved Jim Rice. This is because by trotting out such arguments, he is allowing those opposed to Rice's candidacy to accurately say that his supporters have no choice but to lie about his credentials in order to make their case.