Thanks for the Hill update, Barry. Sounds encouraging.

I'm rooting for the Dodgers and/or Padres to give it up for Bonds rather than one of our pitchers.

Barry,

I missed all your posts this weekend until reading them today. I feel bad for the car wreck whining about Nats coverage that happened when you gave the commentors the keys. Guess that's what happens when you let 3-year-old baseball fans drive, huh? We need to realize you don't assign yourself or get to do the sports pages layout. Hurts me to say it because I'm one of the guilty ones, but we need to grow up!

I wanted to answer your 3 biggest surprises and disappointments question. I loved that post! It was all baseball, no other "issues", the kind of stuff I look for in this type of forum (or is it genre?)

My biggest disappointments:

1. Nick Johnson - I feel badly for him, such a gruesome injury. I hope he returns to form in 2008.

2. Zimmerman's hitting - I know #1 has a lot to do with this, but I thought he'd be more patient, hit for higher average. Maybe too much to ask to have him hit 3rd, but who else is there? A tie for 2nd is Guzman's season ending injury. He was having a fantastic year. Can't believe the Nats would miss his bat so much!

3. Lopez/Kearns - I expected much more from both at bat - but both have fielded better than expected, especially Lopez at 2nd base. Do you think they let RFK mess with their minds?

Best Surprises:

1. Dmitri Young - enough said on this already. I hope he stays hungry even with a new contract.

2. Matt Chico - I thought they rushed this guy, but he's held up well. Perhaps he's a solid #3 or #4 starter next year and far into the future.

3. Manny Acta - I really think the Nats got a gem with Acta. He's in the Tony Dungy mold - calm, optimistic, intelligent. I'd like to see what he could do with some more talent.

Non-person biggest disappointment - the lousy attendance. I hope baseball reawakens with a new park and a better club.

Non-person biggest surprise - the team's record. Where are the people who predicted 29-39 wins? I know what they'll say, "Yeah, but they're still bad." Yeah, but a much more resilient, hard-playing team than prognosticated.

One aspect of the complaints people have made re: O's, etc. that I think is legit is the MASN deal. I THINK the Nats got shafted and could have made more $$$ with their own deal, but is that really TRUE? Is it as bad as we think? Does it weigh like an anchor on the Nats ability to spend to build the team? Fans think so, but Boz says it's a pretty good deal - $21 mil a year, no risk. Who's right? Do we know yet?

Barry, I'm not your editor, but this issue is crying out for an in-depth piece by one of the Post's top baseball writers. I think you're the man! Any chance we'll see it?

... when Bonds plays against the Nats, I'll be watching/following. Why? Because they'll be Nats games, that's all. I'd pay good money to have manager Bruce Bochy sit him out for all the Nats games. I don't want to see his name in the line-up; I hope Barry never has to add his name to any gamer or feature.

... in a very real way, I'm happy that Felipe Alou, a consummate gentleman if ever there was one, is no longer the Giants' manager, and has to endure this crap.

Nice line for Hill. Thanks for the update, Barry.

Will be looking for the other shoe when and if it drops. In the meantime, Bob James' "Nautilus" will calm me. (That's not ballpark music, by the way; it's therapy for the bloggists, at least this one.)

Natswriter- 3 year old baseball fans... Oh really.

natscan sez (in the other thread); "... and now this: can we hire Hendo as our own personal scout to go to the game tonight in Potomac and report on Shawn's performance? Or maybe someone else would be up for the job."

Well, natscan, as I said earlier, that "someone" should have been someone from the Post. If not Barry, then someone else off their bench. Guess they couldn't spare anyone, huh? But you know, even though there's no Orioles game tonight I fully expect to see an Orioles story of some sort in the Post tomorrow morning - even though the logo on top of the page says "The WASHINGTON Post".

You know, y'all can say all you want that the Post's Orioles coverage doesn't detract from its Nats coverage, but the proof is in the pudding, isn't it? It may be shrill of me to keep mentioning it, and indeed it may be true that no one at the Post is listening, but it's the truth and I'll keep saying it - especially when I can give concrete examples such as this one. And you'd better believe that Mr. Garcia-Ruiz, Mr. Boswell and Mr. Solomon have already heard these same sentiments from myself and others via every available forum over the past three years. They're apparently not listening, but that's no reason for us to quit speaking the truth to them.

Change me NatsWriter. My diaper is full of your post.

(from previous thread):

Hendo comments on Bill Ladson's opinion:

"I think the Nationals have to make a decision between him and Jesus Flores for next year. It's clear to me that Flores is not a bench player. There's no doubt in my mind that he is a star in the making. It would be a waste to see Flores on the bench next year."

Yeah. What he said. Other thoughts?"

... I just don't see the problem with having them both platoon next year, so that in 2009, Flores can take over the bulk of the work, and Schneider can step back a bit. Then in 2010, Jesus will be the main guy, and Brian might very well become a coach in the minors.

Natscan sees the GHF re Schneider and Flores: "... I just don't see the problem with having them both platoon next year, so that in 2009, Flores can take over the bulk of the work, and Schneider can step back a bit. Then in 2010, Jesus will be the main guy, and Brian might very well become a coach in the minors."

Phew. There may be a soft glide path after all. Is that what the Nats FO thinks, d'ya suppose?

But the question is still unanswered: who will the *next* backup catcher be? Don't get me wrong; I love me some Rob Fick, but he's not getting any younger, and our dudes in the pipeline seem not to be getting any better (unless I'm badly misinformed).

Is this substantive concern, or needless worry? I think the former, because it's not as though there are four or five seasons to think about the issue. The catching situation needs to be nailed down sooner rather than later.

I posted in the previous thread that it might be problematic to carry two catchers that don't do anything else, and need to get in some playing time... On the other hand, if the pitching settles down, perhaps we carry one less pitcher, and then we can carry one more bench player.

I say, keep them both.

Wigi, that makes no sense, except it does. (I need to lie down longer.)

Seriously, of course, having two first-line catchers is the situation the Nats are faced with. Other teams should have such problems. Even as we furrow our brows, let us rejoice.

I'm behind in my posts although I have been hitting the site as often as possible. (dang work). I certainly am among those who think the Nats can afford to trade Cordero and Rauch. I like them both and would miss them. They both seem pretty classy. If they can get some solid offense now or in the future for one or both of them, I would like to see them do it. There are several pitchers who could potentially step into the closer role this year and next. Colome, Schroeder, Ayala (he did it before Cordero), Wagner (next year), Booker, and the popular Committee. If you keep one (Rauch or Cordero) you're in great shape. Wouldn't be great to get a player with 40 HR potential and/or .300 average with RBI skills. Go get em JimBow.

from previous thread

There is no reason to trade Schneider (and probably no market right now). But Flores needs some serious playing time during the next two months so that we can see what he can do on a regular basis.

Natswriter said:

"
One aspect of the complaints people have made re: O's, etc. that I think is legit is the MASN deal. I THINK the Nats got shafted and could have made more $$$ with their own deal, but is that really TRUE? Is it as bad as we think? Does it weigh like an anchor on the Nats ability to spend to build the team? Fans think so, but Boz says it's a pretty good deal - $21 mil a year, no risk. Who's right? Do we know yet?
"

Hey man, swanni called and he wants his pants back.

No, seriously, the market was never given an opportunity to bid on the TV rights so MASN got us at an arbitrary price. I have always believed that price to be far, far below market value. As far as I'm concerned, that whole deal just puts money in Peter Angelos pocket.

This catching thing is a non-issue for several reasons. They need both for at least the next three years if not beyond.

1. Bill Ladson aside, Jesus Flores has just 94 big league ABs. I'm not ready to say he's a big league regular yet. Yes, he's done some nice things, but I don't like his swing. He doesn't call a very good game yet, either.

2. Having said that, catcher is a position where you can have two capable players who get plenty of time. Some sort of 65/35 split used to be very common on big league teams and would serve these two guys well. Someone noted that Schneider is hitting .253 v RHP this year. Play him only against RHP. His defense and that BA - probably higher with the extra rest - makes him a pretty good player.

3. Schneider is the guts of this team. You can not just move him out. It would do damage to what is a very good clubhouse. Some may not put a lot of stock in that. I do. Tony LaRussa once said, "A team plays with the character of its catcher." The Nats' moxie is a result of that statement being true.

4. A two or three year transition where playing time slowly goes more to Flores makes perfect sense. By year three, Schneider becomes a Doug Mirabelli, Rod Barajas type - one of those really good back up defensive catchers that always seem to be on championship teams.

5. These two are nothing but catchers. Don't play them in LF or at 1B. With the Hook around, we don't need other guys playing those positions anyway. It would be nice to have a utility guy who can catch in an emergency like Fick - somebody other than him though, please. It would free Manny to use Flores and Schneider as pinch hitters.

This may be one of the few areas where the Nats seem set for a while - as long as those 94 ABs (94!!!) are a true indication of what Jesus can do.

"I feel bad for the car wreck whining about Nats coverage that happened when you gave the commentors the keys. Guess that's what happens when you let 3-year-old baseball fans drive, huh? " - Natswriter

you can stop sucking up I think Barry is married!

i was at the "phitz" tonite to see shawn hill and he looked great. everything was hit on the ground, many of them killed into the ground. manny, chico and redding were there to observe.

Oh no, Natswriter, you've set it off again! [RF].

"the proof is in the pudding", just a note that the proper expression is "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" as opposed to the Bill Cosby slogan for Jello Pudding Snacks.

Hendo asks, "But the question is still unanswered: who will the *next* backup catcher be?" Come on, man, isn't it obvious...

DA MEAT ON DA PLATE!

(I accompanied this with a maniacal laugh)

Either that or I'm sure there's some other Red or ex-Red out there to trade for.

#4 said: "2. Having said that, catcher is a position where you can have two capable players who get plenty of time. Some sort of 65/35 split used to be very..."

Yep, and remember how Schneider's shoulder tends to fade in the last month of the season? Having Flores around will make sure we can rely on Schneider through the end of the regular season (and beyond!).

Section 419, feel free to keep saying it, but you've got to realize that it is IN YOUR OPINION "it's the truth".

Others may feel the same, others may feel differently, and their opinions are no more and no less valid than yours.

The point is, these are decisions made by the editors of the Washington Post (not by Barry Svrluga or by any other reporters, who with the exception of enterprise stories and things they come across while reporting their beats pretty much go where they're told and what to cover by those editors.)

What you've written reminds me of the (I'd guess) ten-year-old kid who was standing near me in Cooperstown Saturday night. We were both part of the crowd waiting for all the Hall of Famers to arrive at the Hall. For some reason, it wasn't enough for him to celebrate Cal Ripken; he had to denigrate Tony Gwinn, as if acknowledging Gwinn's accomplishments somehow diminished Ripken's.

But we know better, right? I mean, we're grownups.

As the great press critic and sports writer A.J. Leibling observed in the pages of The New Yorker nearly 50 years ago, "freedom of the press is only guaranteed to those who own one." So if you want a newspaper with the coverage priorities you set, you're going to have to start one. (I doubt the Grahams would be interested in selling The Post.)

--- --- --- ---

You know, y'all can say all you want that the Post's Orioles coverage doesn't detract from its Nats coverage, but the proof is in the pudding, isn't it? It may be shrill of me to keep mentioning it, and indeed it may be true that no one at the Post is listening, but it's the truth and I'll keep saying it - especially when I can give concrete examples such as this one. And you'd better believe that Mr. Garcia-Ruiz, Mr. Boswell and Mr. Solomon have already heard these same sentiments from myself and others via every available forum over the past three years. They're apparently not listening, but that's no reason for us to quit speaking the truth to them.

Posted by: Section 419 | July 30, 2007 09:17 PM

I just don't get it.

Some people think Young is the heart and the soul of the team. Some people think Bowden is an idiot for not trading him.

Some people think Schneider is the man. Some people think he's a has-been that's taking up space.

Some people want to have Lopez and Kearns fired. Some people want to have them shot.

Yet some people think the Post covers too much of the Orioles and everyone else is complicit in treason to their city. OR some people have a reasonable expectation of the paper, other people are stupid little babies.

Why does this difference of opinion lead to flaming and the other differences of opinions lead to exciting debate backed up by statistics and amusing anecdotes?

Okay, this occurred to me as I was about to fall asleep and it'll keep me up if I don't throw it out there.

We're all baseball fans, right? We love stats.

SO

In exchange for a month-long moratorium on the O's coverage fight, I will volunteer to do a word count every single day of the O's and the Nats and record what page their stories run on. On September 1, I will report back the findings to the blog and we can go back to fighting about it, but with real data.

I'll be checking gamers and notebooks and I don't get the dead tree edition of the paper, so I'll need those of you who do to keep an eye out for articles that aren't gamers or notebooks and alert me of them, so I can count them. For Sunday pages, I'll drive over to my mother's house (I visit her anyway) and swipe her sports section so we can even include that in the content analysis.

Is it a deal? No fighting for the month of August in exchange for me doing a massive amount of work and coming back with something that will lead to a more meaningful head-butting?

Section 506, are you Bill James in disguise? I should come over to your section tonight and give you a grateful hug.

--- --- --- ---

Is it a deal? No fighting for the month of August in exchange for me doing a massive amount of work and coming back with something that will lead to a more meaningful head-butting?

Posted by: Section 506 (After moving) | July 31, 2007 12:05 AM

Well, sections 502 and 506, all I'm saying is that every resource the Post has (person-hour of reporting, column-inch of newsprint, minutes on a cell phone contract, rental car miles, hotel room nights, whatever) can be spent either covering the Nationals or covering the Orioles. One or the other. That's not opinion, that's truth, statistics or whatever you guys would like to call it. We're Nationals fans here, right? We're reading the hometown paper pf the Nationals (or its website), right? Shouldn't we want the coverage of the Nationals in their hometown paper to be as good as it possibly can be? And if it's not as good as it could be, shouldn't we be able to point that out and suggest ways it could be improved?

As it happens, newspaper reporting and analysis is one of the few areas of human endeavor I know of where simply throwing more resources at the effort can vastly increase the quality of the product. That's all I want the Post to do: devote more resources to the Nationals to improve their coverage of the team. I bet you guys would like them to do that too, wouldn't you? Why wouldn't you want better coverage of your team?

But as it happens, the Post seems to have limited resources, so the only way they can increase the resources devoted to the Nats would be to divert those resources from coverage of something else. I'm just suggesting that the logical place to divert those resources away from is the coverage of a team that is not even located in Washington DC, the home of the newspaper and most of its readers. But if the Post decided not to do that, but instead chose to increase its overall pool of available resources so that it could maintain its current level of Orioles coverage while improving its Nationals coverage, why I'd have no problem at all with that. I'm not anti-Orioles, I'm pro-Nats. I don't see my comments as denigrating any team or anybody. I just want to see my team covered to the best extent it can possibly be in its local paper. What's wrong with that?

506, you've got my vote.

506, You need to add at least two categories for the 35-cent edition: PL--Placement (above the fold, below, or inside the E section) and SL--Score location (front page, top of the E section, E section call-out, column of league scores).

Good idea, though. I'm cool with a truce.

I hope everyone realizes you're loosing readers by the second when you get nasty re. the nats coverage in the post, its a moot point, move on.

Also to all those who attacked natswriter, all you're doing is showing how incredibly small and immature you are. This is a forum for debate, respect the other writers here, and we'll respect your opinions as well.

Folks, the 3-year old comment was a, as Max Patkin used to say, "Joke, JOKE!" I'll take the replies as the same.

I'm done - I accept Section 506's challenge. No more until the Post's MASN article comes out.

I'm not offended, nor will stop writing - I'll keep following and cheering on the team we love - the Nats!

Hendo,

... am I crazy? No wait! Wait until I finish before answering. Am I crazy in thinking it has not been unusual in the past for teams to carry two front-end catchers? I can't think of any specific examples right now, but a nagging bell is ringing in the back of my mind that suggests it isn't such a unique situation.

... as for who will be the next back-up back-stop, I think that by carrying both guys in 2008, the team (we) will have lots of time to scout out a prospect- or an everyday guy-by-trade next year.

natswriter sez: "Non-person biggest disappointment - the lousy attendance. I hope baseball reawakens with a new park and a better club."

Interesting that natswriter has no problem citing lousy attendance as a disappointment, yet when I cite one of the possible reasons for lousy attendance as my disappointment, natswriter gets upset at the "car wreck whining" that resulted in this blog when what I initially said apparently touched a nerve, with some people agreeing with me and others not. Let's hope natwriter's disappointment doesn't result in a similar car wreck, eh?

I encourage y'all to tally up the Post's Orioles/Nats comparative stats if you're of a mind to. You might be very surprised at what they tell you, especially if you don't normally read the 35-cent edition of the Post.

"DA MEAT ON DA PLATE!"

Sect506: I love it!

... how about as a closer: DA MEAT FOR DA SERT!

... after an ejection: DA MEAT IN DA COOLER!

... as third base coach: DA MEAT ON DA SIDE!

... as a pinch hitter: DA MEAT AS DA GRAVY!

Sect. 506 is a diplomat, very generous offer, I'm eager to see the results. All the whining about O's coverage, get over it. We have a team! Let's keep some perspective. I've been waiting for a team my whole life! I don't see how a paper can not cover a team that is so close. I'm sure it's been mentioned but does the Baltimore paper give any Nats coverage?

Excellent points on Schneider/Flores. 94 ABs is not a valid sample size, he is still an unknown. Keep them both, Flores is under team control and earns the minimum and Schneider is proven to be one of the better defensive catchers and about average offensively. If Flores pans out great, if not, no harm done. They got through his Rule 5 year so he's all upside now.

Great news on Hill, thanks for the update.

I'm against trading Cordero or Rauch. They are both proven, why give them up? We'll just have to replace them. Sure lots of guys MIGHT be able to fill in but most of the options listed above have had trouble taking the mound when needed. Also, if we do give them up it must be for proven 35-40 HR, 100+ RBI guys, NOT potential. We have guys w/ that potential in the system. They are 1-2 years away but we have them, why give up proven players for more potential. Trade some of those potential arms for potential bats because we have more of the former than the latter.

This just in, Natswriter should henceforth be known as "sycofan."

---

Barry, I'm not your editor, but this issue is crying out for an in-depth piece by one of the Post's top baseball writers. I think you're the man! Any chance we'll see it?

A very small but very outspoken minority continues to rant about the coverage of the Orioles in the Post. I want to thank the Washington Post very much for their continued coverage of the Orioles, the Nats, and all things baseball. I was in NYC over the weekend and of course the NY Times is a wonderful newspaper, but their coverage of the Yankees and Mets combined was less than the Post offers for the Nats alone on many days. The gamer, the notes, the sidebars/top bars, the sportsblog, the Nationals Journal, the podcast, the weekly minor league updates, the chats (Svrluga, Boswell, Sheinin), WPL Live, the broadcasts on WTWP. This weekend there was this little thing called the HOF and the imminent theft of Hank Aaron's record. So if the Post did not pop down to see Shawn Hill throw three innings in a minor league rehab start I can't imagine it is indicative of a lack of commitment to the Nats. For crying out loud, Adam Kilgore (that's his name right?) the Post Orioles reporter was covering the Nationals this past weekend, not the Orioles. Good grief. The idea that the Post is somehow short changing the Nats is so absurd it is not even funny. Completely overblown. Extraordinarily off-course ramblings of lunatic fringe conspiracy theorists with the mental and emotional range of a 600 pound shortstop.

That is all.

Today in the Post (my edition at least), not one Nats story on the front page of the Sports section. But they did find room for a front page article on a new Speedo swim suit.

Glad to see the Post has its priorities in order.

At least they didn't reassign Barry to write the Speedo story.

Yes, it's a deal! Jeez, I'd do anything to have this stop.

You all are killing me. Yesterday, at work, I actually...did work. Teixiera is a Brave. Castillo is a Met. I'm trying to work out a LF/RF/1B platoon for the Meat in the event Dunn arrives via trade. There are baseball things to talk about here.

The Post has an ombudsman. Let her know about your problems with the Post's coverage. Just please, before my company posts record numbers this quarter, let me have my workday back.

-----

Is it a deal? No fighting for the month of August in exchange for me doing a massive amount of work and coming back with something that will lead to a more meaningful head-butting?

Oops, I posted before reading the whole thread, as usual. Guess that I've revealed how immature I am for all the blog to see (unfortunately, such revelations are all in a day's work for me). ;) Anyway, mea culpa.

Truth be told, I've been wanting to use that term (sycofan) ever since I read the signage descriptions in Barry's cover story yesterday and that was the first opportunity to arise.

Um, huh???

---

Extraordinarily off-course ramblings of lunatic fringe conspiracy theorists with the mental and emotional range of a 600 pound shortstop.

Note well that statistic in Barry's post: 0 (zero!) BB ... woohoo! Good job Shawn, givin' nothin' away!

natscan: those were awful. I loved 'em.

506(AM), 502, 419, ... and all you other "upper deckers":

I like the idea of stats, especially if it means we get to avoid the topic for a month. :)

But what of this: "...I don't get the dead tree edition of the paper..." ?! I mean, you don't even smudge your thumbs ignoring the O's coverage, so why does it matter to people like you (and I'm in that group, too) at all? Sure, I'd like more coverage of the Nats in general, but the fulcrum of this whole discussion as I see it is about the limited column-inches you can get for $0.35 and the ratio of Baltimore to Washington baseball news in the Washington paper.

I would say, "feel free to take this discussion off line" but I'm not going to post my email address here, sorry. Or you can come find me in the front row of 418 tonight. =D

Section 506:

If you're starting your count this morning, the tally would be:

Nationals: 1,077 (trade story plus series preview box)
Orioles: 100 (series preview box, no story)

I encourage you to go through with this experiment, if you're up for it. I think it'd be interesting. Obviously, it'll take some time on your part, so if it's too much of a pain, don't do it. But I think it's an interesting idea.

Our little blog has been uniquely and delightfully flame-free for the most part since last spring, but my perception is that this has changed in the last several weeks (and not only over the lastest controversy). Here are a few items that I found while searching for online abbreviation info at one point. I thought there were some helpful ideas there that could help prevent/avoid fanning the flame wars that can sometimes arise when a variety of opinions and viewpoints are voiced online. I've posted this to another forum in the past but never felt it might be needed here until now. Posted in peace.

http://www.windweaver.com/email.htm

http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?FlameWar

http://www.alsirat.com/flame.html

Oh, Natscan, you came so close... and I even clued you in on Saturday night...

After an ejection: DA MEAT GETS DA HOOK!

Not bad, though. 8^D

I can think of one for after an unsuccessful battle with a pitcher, but modesty (and possible misinterpretation) forbids my posting it...

---

After an ejection: DA MEAT GETS DA HOOK!

Not bad, though. 8^D

"Extraordinarily off-course ramblings of lunatic fringe conspiracy theorists with the mental and emotional range of a 600 pound shortstop."

Huh?

Y'all almost had me shut up there. Damned if I will now, though. If this be lunacy, make the most of it.

"Adam Kilgore (that's his name right?) the Post Orioles reporter was covering the Nationals this past weekend, not the Orioles."

Yup he's the one who does not know the difference between Church and Langerhans even with a good seat (he was at the game right?) and a score card.

I really do not care much where the Post puts Nats Information or how much they want cover the O's or anyone else....BUT I do want complete coverage of the NATS and to date we have gotten only improved AP game stories (thanks Barry) and a nice Blog but.... NO Investigative reporting and very little coverage from the Columnists.

This coming Thursday's "This Date in History" will surely contain the following entry:

- 1907: Walter Perry Johnson pitches his first game for the Washington Senators.

And there'll be a story on A1, above the fold, right?

Right?

"This just in, Natswriter should henceforth be known as "sycofan.""

Natswriter, be honored, this is a brilliant pun.

Thanks for the numbers Barry! I'm willing to go through with it to get the blog back to serious discussion. As someone observed, I don't even get the .35 cent edition and have no problem with covering both, but since so many people do, I thought we might as well have some real data.

Right now we're having a philosophical debate about a concrete issue and it's yielding a "yes-it-is-no-it's-not" debate with bigger words. As Hendo points out, it's not really a good idea to ban the topic, since it is an aspect of the team, but it would be a whole lot better if we had some concrete information to argue over.

Who is the Sports editor? Perhaps we can have a guest visit to your chat after the season ends and talk about how coverage decisions are made for the paper as a whole.

We are baseball fans, let's debate issues with the aid of carefully examined statistics, not brute force.

Oh yeah, the deal was SHHHHHHHHHHHH until September 1!!!!

I'm not putting this much effort into something I'm not concerned about unless I get something out of it too.

Hendo, ... of course "DA MEAT GETS DA HOOK", but after that, he is in DA COOLER. A mere point of semantics perhaps, but I'm clutching at any self-defensive straw available.

natsfan1a: ... sorry you feel proscribed from offering your contribution to "Da Meat On Da Plate". Still, I understand your predicament. There are ... rules. :)

... and now this: beginning tonight - i.e. after the trading deadline - the Nats have 57 games left in the season. Their record today is 45 & 60. What do you think their record will be for the last 57?

... my prediction is: 24 W and 33 L.

Just a few comments:

1. People who are critical of the Post's Nats' coverage are neither 3 year olds or lunatic fringe. This is a legitimate area of concern.

2. My criticism of the coverage stems from the first year when the Post acknowledged that it did not know how to balance the coverage. When the Nats won 11 in a row, they article about the streak was placed below the fold on the right side of the front page. Of course the O's had equal coverage below the fold on the left side of the page. That same day I was in Baltimore and picked up a copy of the Sun sports page. Every word on the front page was devoted to the Os. So we can talk about how the NY Times covers the Mets and Yanks, but there are other cities where the medium devotes much more space to the home team.

3. The other bur under the saddle of the Nats' fans is the TV deal which is unfair under any analysis. I would like to see the Post give voice to this concern.

Well, I don't retract my rant, but I certainly should have made it clear that I enjoy hanging out in the blog with the lunatic fringe. I may have had a little too much fun writing that sentence and not put enough forethought into how it might be taken by others. If you might be on the lunatic fringe or know someone who might be on the lunatic fringe, or otherwise enjoy visits to the fringe, please understand that you can frequently find me there walking my dog.

Barry sez: "If you're starting your count this morning, the tally would be:

Nationals: 1,077 (trade story plus series preview box)
Orioles: 100 (series preview box, no story)"

Nothing wrong with statistics, and as I said earlier I encourage anyone who wants to gather them to go ahead and do so. (Even though a big part of me wants to say "Get a life!" But of course y'all are probably saying the same thing about me and my constant ranting on this subject - and you're probably right in doing so...) But keeping in mind the old adage "there are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics" let's not forget what these stats will be enumerating. A word by word comparison of Orioles vs Nats in the Post says a lot of things and can be spun in many different ways. One thing it does say, though, is that every word written about the Orioles is a word NOT written about the Nats. How the Post editors choose to allocate their available words is of course their choice to make. But since there's at least one organ of the Post empire that likes to trumpet that "there's always more to the story", let's look at the portion of today's Nats story that got displaced by those 100 words that were devoted to the Orioles (including of course whatever reportorial and editorial legwork was devoted towards putting those 100 words together).

Sixty six (if I counted right) of the 1,077 words in Barry's trade story this morning were devoted to Shawn Hill's rehab start last night. Basically, those words gave the bare statistical line and led to the conclusion that all is well. But how many times in the past have we had such reportage, only to see the player go back on the DL or even out for the season the very next day? A little more in-depth reporting might help avoid situations like this, if the Post's resources allowed for it. Well, as it happened the rehab start last night was on an off day for the Nats, and was taking place only about 20 miles away from RFK. A reporter, an intern, or a stringer could easily have been dispatched by the Post to get a more thorough account for this morning's story. (You'd better believe that if this was a Redskins QB coming back from an injury taking a few throws in a controlled scrimmage the Post would be all over it with a reporter and probably a photographer too, or screaming like hell if the Redskins for whatever reason were denying them access to the event.) But no one from the Post was sent down to Potomac last night to watch Shawn Hill pitch and file a report from there. Why was that? I don't know, maybe because all of the Post's baseball reporters were covering other stories, or were worn out from a rough weekend covering the Nats, Barry Bonds, the Hall of Fame and yes, the Orioles and were taking some deserved time off. For whatever reason, there were not enough resources to put together some more detail on Shawn Hill for today's paper, but there were enough resources to put together 100 words previewing the upcoming Orioles series. That was the Post editors' call - they previewed the Orioles but did not get more depth on Shawn Hill.

Fortunately for Nats fans, an unpaid blogger (nats320.blogspot.com) did go to Woodbridge last night, and he provided us not only with an independent assessment of Shawn Hill's pitching, but also an interview with Shawn Hill, quotes from Manny Acta, and several photos. If the Post had sent someone down to
Potomac last night, would I have expected the same blizzard of unedited verbiage from them this morning as I found on Nats320? No, of course not. They are professional reporters and editors and would have been able to distill it down to oh, maybe 166 words that would have provided me, the reader, with the same valuable information that I got from slogging through all that I read on Nats320. But I have a much better feeling about Shawn Hill's return after reading Nats320 than I did after reading this morning's Post.

So if I have indeed spawned a grand flame war with now an epic statistical chase to try to resolve it, let me apologize for starting it off in the wrong direction by complaining about the symptom rather than the disease. The disease is insufficient coverage of the Nationals by the Post. The Post's Orioles coverage is merely a symptom.

So y'all have a good month counting up and all. I have games to go to and, oh yeah...a life. So you won't be hearing much more from me about all this, unless something really extraordinary happens.

Barry is gonna get his [RF] fired, God love him.

Well, maybe he's not. But if he were, I doubt the Svrluga cupboard would go bare. And I ain't talkin' bucks from Bristol, either.

re: Post's (non) coverage of Shawn Hill's rehab start in potomac last night:

Let's not forget that this rehab start was for Shawn Hill. Not Roger Clemens. Not Greg Maddux. Not Pedro Martinez. Shawn Hill. He of the 17 total games started in his career! I like Hill and I think when healthy he can be an integral part of the Nats. But he has yet to prove that he can stay healthy. I don't have any problem with the fact that the Post didn't send someone down to report on the game. They didn't do it when John Patterson or Luis Ayala were there for their rehab games. Or when Alex Escobar was there rehabbing either.

Now, can we please stop all this chatter about the Post's coverage and get back to helping the Nats win some ball games?! The Reds and the Cards are in town this week and we all need to be there to root our boys on to another 5-2 (or better) homestand!

Its time for baseball fans to move to Zuckerman's blog Yes, you'll be lonely for a while, but maybe you can start talking baseball again. I only dream.

e,

You miss the point by your qualitative analysis of whether Hill is worth covering. You further prove that you don't Section 419's point by noting that the Nats haven't covered anyone else's rehab.

That is precisely the point. The Post provides minimal coverage of a MLB team. Rest assured, other newpapers in MLB cities would have been all over the story. I go back to the point I made in an earlier post about the Sun having every word of the front page of its sports section devoted to the Os.

If you think the Post covers the Nats in sufficient detail, you have not been around the league enough.

Folks, I don't think Natswriter was calling anyone a 3-year-old, I think he was referring to the Nats only being here 3 years.

We don't have the history, wisdom, time, whatever you want to call it of cities that have had baseball for many years like Boston, New York, Chicago, and, yes, Baltimore. A lot of this stuff is water under the bridge for those cities. In baseball terms, we're still very young.

C'ville-- No, I don't think that the Post covers the Nats in sufficient detail. Quite the opposite. I would LOVE for them to have more info on the minor league teams. There should be gamers and boxscores at least for the AAA and AA teams since most call-ups are from these two leagues. All I'm saying is that the Post's coverage is lacking but at least it's universally lacking. However, if the Nats had a Clemens or Pedro rehabbing, I'd bet that they would send someone down to cover it. Shawn Hill has not warranted this type of coverage (yet). And I would be also willing to bet that if Jo-Jo Reyes or Buddy Carlyle was on a rehab start for the Braves, the Atlanta paper wouldn't send someone down to cover it. They would report the rehab using team sources like most every other team would do with non-star pitchers.