In article <1quonm$24c@network.ucsd.edu> king@cogsci.ucsd.edu (Jonathan King) writes: >There's too many >'s here for my taste by now, which means I've >reached my maximum depth on this thread.  I've cut out some things >below, but nothing that should affect the sense of the discussion.  I agree. I'll delete more as well.  >fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes: >>king@cogsci.ucsd.edu (Jonathan King) writes:  >>Perhaps you can give a more recent citation of any player mentioned as a  >>malingerer? Thanks.  >I guess I don't understand your question.  I was trying to imply that >the accusations of Glenn Davis' malingering were certainly not played >up very much.    Still, if the 'whispers' reached San Francisco, it is certainly possible they were stronger elsewhere. Also, it was teammates making the aspersions. In any event, I know of no other player to be maligned in the last couple years.  >But, in any case, I believe Mike Lavalliere has been accused of poor >work habits and general sloth recently (probably not malingering), >just as he was being released.  It's interesting that nobody heard >much about these problems before if they were so important.  >>I have heard Sanders called many things as well. I have NOT heard him called >>lazy. Given the 2-sport phenomenon, it would be difficult to label him as >>such. > >Exactly so.  Which means his media detractors have had to say other >things about him.  I believe it's a general phenomenon that if writers >don't like you, they'll find a label that will stick no matter who you >are.  I find myself more interested in the selection of labels than in >why writers feel they need to act this way.  (Not that this fascinates >me that much, either.)  Uh, the original author's point was that black and white players were por- trayed differently by "the media", and towards this, he gave a highly selected list to "prove" his case. Sanders' name showed up eventually. I dispute that Sanders has ever been called lazy by "the media".   >>Hmm, big ego, possible club house disturbance, etc. Is that GOOD press? > >No, but it isn't the total extent of the press he received in >Pittsburgh, where he was called all kinds of things including lazy and >spoiled by the local columnists.  Again, the actual words used may >shift around with time and expediency, but "lazy" tends to be higher >on the list for non-white players, at least in my subjective opinion. > >[Aside: it might be interesting for somebody to do an archival study >on player descriptions before and after the color barrier was broken, >and on teams like the Red Sox which have been traditionally white. >Nowadays, most people think of Carl Yastrzemski as one of those >blue-collar, hard-working guys, but in the early 70s he was often >portrayed as a lazy bum.  Really.]  >>>>Hmm. I never heard anyone accuse Canseco of being lazy. Nor Sierra.  >>>I've heard accusations that Canseco was a bad fielder, but could be a >>>great one "if he put his mind to it".  Ignoring whether or not he is a  >>Actually, Dave Stewart is (was) one of the most vocal about this. In any  >>event, that is not "lazy".  >At least one poster in the last week has fired off a major screed on the >Canseco-is-lazy issue, so I think your point is at best a quibble, and >probably weaker than that.  Uh, that poster specifically stated "allow me to be the first". It is NOT a quibble, then, to state that "the media" did not portray Canseco as being  lazy. If the other person chooses to so accuse him, after my post, that does not make it a quibble. And in fact, the media around here tend(ed) to play up his time in the wieght room. Hardly "lazy", and hardly a "quibble". Have you ever seen any "mediot" portray Canseco as "lazy"? Unconcerned with his fielding, yes. Lazy, no.  >>>bad fielder, I think this is still interesting.  For that matter, I >>>think Canseco's colorful off-field antics get lots more national >>>attention than those of, say, Roger Clemens. >> >>Well, he's had a few more of them. > >At least more that you've heard about.  I think one of the questions >here surrounds selective reporting.  Having said that, I have to say >that the selective reporting hypothesis has the potential to be >unfalsifiable, at least by those of us who aren't reporters, police, >or private investigators.  Well, Canseco has been involved in several felonies, including his high-speed record, carrying concealed fire-arms, and of course the domestic violence.  Clemens had a run-in at a bar. Canseco had that, as well, and in both cases, the coverage was relatively minimal.  >>Puckett? Stewart? Jackson?  > >I said "over-represent" non-whites.  Three anecdotal data points don't >make an interesting counter-argument.  BTW--which Jackson are we talking >about here?  Reggie, Bo, Darrin, Danny, or ...?  Uh, if the only evidence offered is anecdotal, how can it be objected that the counter to it is also anecdotal?  >>>And it seems like everybody who has ever won a batting title (among >>>others) has been accused at some time of "caring more for his own >>>stats than for the good of the team".  It also seems to me that you're >> >>Kirby Puckett? I have NEVER heard this accusation made of Puckett. I  >>have heard it of Boggs. Actually, I believe it of him, but that's another  >>matter. > >Not living in Minnesota, I can't say whether or not this line has ever >been used against Kirby there.  As far as Boggs goes, I'm not sure why >you bring him up, since he's one of the obvious prototypes for the line >I quoted (along with Ted Williams, Rod Carew, and many others).  Uh, yes, and I agree with your assesment of Boggs, rather specifically. However, you did say "everybody who has ever won a batting title" has been accused of selfishness. I have not ever, anywhere, heard this said of Puckett. Pendleton, either. Similarly, Brett, B Williams, and others.    >>How about Daryl Strawberry? And I think the plus or minus refers more to  >>the "born again" types, ie, Butler and Gaetti. > >Again, you seem to be making an argument from anecdotes.  On the other >hand, my argument by is of the because-jon-says-so variety if we have >no other data.  I have to admit I have problems generating lists of >non-white players who became (in)famous for their religious or >political beliefs, while names like Butler, Gaetti, Dravecky, Knepper, >Hersheiser, et al. come rolling out.  There are others. Perhaps they are simply not as outspoken, except in the case of the "born-again" types I mention.