Text Size:
A|
A|
A
Email
PrintClick here to submit your question
For no particular reason other than that it crossed my mind on the two-hour drive here to Fort Myers, I came up with this mental list of popular myths about sports writers:
1. We get tickets to games.
No, never. Not even my family lets this one sink in, no matter how often I explain it. We get press credentials, enter through a press entrance and never see a seat or a nacho stand.
2. We cheer for the home team.
Oh, wow ... no. Not in print, and certainly not in the press box where any sort of outbursts are dealt with harshly. (By us, not the team.) The way I always have viewed this one is: They only way you can believe anything I write that is positive about the Pirates is if you read the negative, too.
3. We hang out with the players.
The next time I so much as cross the street with one of the Pittsburgh Pirates -- player, front office, personnel, anyone -- will be the first. In the interest of full disclosure, I once shared a cab with Salomon Torres in St. Louis because we came in on the same commercial flight and were both headed to Busch. Does that count?
4. We travel with the team.
Again, no, never. The Pirates fly Delta charters and stay in non-Marriott hotels. I book my own flights commercially, and I am a total Marriott points junkie. No joint bus rides, either. I take a cab, rent a car or, in the more civilized places, walk.
5. The job is better when the team is good.
I get this one quite a bit. It is almost completely untrue. Almost.
The main point is that the job is better when the stories are better. That tends to happen through dramatic circumstances, be those good or bad. Ask me my favorite game story from last season, and I will cite two horrific losses, one in Kansas City, the other in Los Angeles. And you will have to trust me that, given the nature of the job, I felt great after writing them, no matter the outcome of the games. Not good. Great.
The one area where the myth is reality is that players and front-office types tend to be much more outgoing -- and, as a result, interesting -- when things are going well. That can make for better stories.
In short, it is all about the stories. One can develop relationships with players and personnel on a professional level and, from the standpoint of seeing someone everyday, care about the person as a human being. Nothing wrong with that, so long as the baseball analysis never is affected. But the job is the thing ...
Q: Hey, Dejan, is Tom Gorzelanny a lock in the rotation? Is it inconceivable that both Tony Armas Jr. and Shawn Chacon could make the starting five?
Bill Tarrant of Singapore
KOVACEVIC: A lock? No. Gorzelanny has less major-league experience than the other three young guys and, thus, has more to prove. A poor spring almost surely would have him back in Indianapolis.
He is off to a lousy start, obviously, with seven runs on four hits and six walks in 3 1/3 innings -- fractions in and of themselves are always bad at this time of year -- but it is way early to judge pitching, good or bad. He certainly has plenty of chance to get it together.
Armas and Chacon? Sure, they could both be in. But I would not forget about Shane Youman. Do not underestimate the Pirates' admiration for him, not to mention -- most important -- the good work he has done.
Q: Why would the Pirates send Bryan Bullington to minor-league camp so early after having two great innings of work? Why not give him some more work since the Class AAA team doesn't play for over a week? Compared to the results of other pitchers, this seems odd
S.G. Below of Phoenix
KOVACEVIC: It does, and I wondered the same thing. I watched Bullington pitch in Dunedin, and he looked very good. Used all four pitches, had nice action on them, and had a decent zip to the fastball. Struck me as looking pretty confident, too.
Could be that was the thing.
The Pirates' explanation is that they want Bullington to get on with a regular program to get ready for the season. And that sounds understandable, especially in the context that pitchers coming off shoulder surgery tend to have serious ups and downs in their first full year of pitching. (Look at Sean Burnett's 2006.)
Could be the Pirates wanted to send him off on a good note, leave him with that perfect inning in his mind while he works his way back.
Q: Dejan, I know it's been a couple years now but, to this day, my friends and I can't understand why the Pirates converted John Van Benschoten to a full-time pitcher. It screams of the mismanagement.
To quote "Wikipedia:" "Van Benschoten was a power-hitting star at Kent State University, leading all of Division I in home runs his junior year with 31."
I know of Dave Littlefield's obsession with pitchers, but how does a team devoid of hitters rationalize this decision? Especially with his quick reassignment, along with his arm troubles since joining the organization.
Chris Zivkovic of Scott Township
KOVACEVIC: The Pirates' explanation -- or rationalization, as you put it -- is that Van Benschoten's power would not have translated to the majors, partly because of body type, partly because of the swing itself. You are free to do with that as you will.
As for the decision itself, I refer back to a rant in this space a little while back about using first-round picks on pitchers. Those picks have to be dead certainties, and sticking with everyday players seems to be the best way to raise those percentages.
Oh, and to those who advocate that Van Benschoten still take up hitting again: Forget it. Not going to happen. Even if the Pirates are wrong about the body type and swing, be very, very sure that his left shoulder -- the non-throwing one that also was surgically repaired -- would never allow it.
Q: Just a comment and thanks. As much as I look forward to your reports from Bradenton, it's been the Pittsburgh notes that have grabbed me. You remind me why I love my hometown so much, and you've revealed a couple things I never knew before and you're making sure I come home for a visit this summer.
Jay Phillippi of Mayville, N.Y.
KOVACEVIC: You know, I tend not to print this kind of thing, but that silly feature has ... well, surprised me by the mail it has generated. To be honest, I fully expected to get a whole bunch of stick-to-baseball stuff, and that has been limited to about two or three so far.
The only reason I raise the subject is that I am curious whether the feature is sustainable. Not in my eyes (I could run the list of Pittsburgh things to about a million), but in the readers'. One idea I had was doing the Pittsburgh thing just when I am in some truly culture-challenged place like Florida or Arizona and, when in more interesting places, doing pieces on those places. But that does not seem all that well defined.
Open to suggestions, as always ...
Thing No. 16 that I miss about Pittsburgh: One of the best features of PNC Park -- and one I often point out to visitors -- is that those little square-ish windows lining the street area are modeled directly after the best building in the city, maybe the best building in the country, in the Allegheny County Courthouse.
Glowing about the Courthouse is akin to saying the Beatles had a couple of hits or Salomon Torres is a swell guy, so I will forgo that in favor of advising anyone who visits the place to go beyond just walking around the place or going into the fabulous courtyard. Go inside. Check out the stairwells.
If that sounds boring, take me up on it and let me know what you think.
Anyone is free to go inside the building. You only have to pass through a metal detector, but that should be no problem if you leave your heavy weaponry at home.
Until tomorrow ...
