Over the Line at the Gray Lady

I’m generally one to let Murray Chass’s columns pass, but this morning’s sad piece of writing is so far beneath any reasonable level of quality that it simply should never been allowed in the Times. There’s no excuse for this kind of slipshod analysis that ignores basic facts about the subject at issue; this wouldn’t even garner a C in a 100 level college exposition class. The Times, frankly, should be a bit more sensitive to the perception of its own conflicts of interest when writing on the Yanks. Though SF will tell you Chass doesn’t cut the Sox much of a break either. Anyway, at least we can all agree on one thing: Murray Chass is doing the readers of the Times a disservice. It’s time for some new blood at the paper of record.

10 comments… add one

  • YF, complaining about the quality of the NY Times these days is liking saying George Bush’s foreign policy is “misguided.” Don’t let it get to you.

    Sam November 17, 2006, 12:24 pm
  • “While Giambi made 7 errors in 477 chances for a .985 fielding percentage, Nevin made no errors in 303 chances (1.000), Hillenbrand 3 errors in 609 chances (.995) and Millar 4 errors in 830 chances (.995).”
    That’s old school stats!

    Lar November 17, 2006, 12:24 pm
  • Lar–
    I made 0 errors in 0 chances at first base last year! That’s got to be worth like 2 years 5 million (4 mil option 3rd year)!

    walein November 17, 2006, 12:39 pm
  • This is a lightweight column, but hardly Chass’ worst. I agree with the general premise of YF’s post, that Chass might not be the best the Times can do, but really, this is the column that put YF over the edge? I don’t get that. There have been several irrationally anti-Boston columns the past few years (the absolute nadir being the one where Chass said that the Sox’ world Series win didn’t get the monkey off their back, only a division win would do that), and this one doesn’t make me nearly as upset as it does YF.

    SF November 17, 2006, 12:42 pm
  • SF: I can appreciate that we’re coming at things from different perspectives, but what irks me here is not a stupid assumption (like the monkey-back thing, which is just a dumb opinion that at some level he can have) but the errors of fact both as represented and by omission combined with the flat-earth analysis. For instance:
    -No other teams are interested in Pavano? Yeah, he’s easy to make fun of, and he deserves what he gets, but this is simply not true. There are teams who would gladly take Pavano, in the right circumstance (Colorado is rumored to be very interested).
    -No mention of the high quality players the Yanks acquired for the “dumped” salary.
    -The moronic comparison of Abreau-Sheff-Giambi and how they fit into the Yankee structure.
    -The ridiculous analysis of first-base candidates
    I don’t read much of Chass anymore; this is why.

    YF November 17, 2006, 1:09 pm
  • Don’t get me wrong, it’s a bad column. I suppose I may have written Chass off a long while ago, so this, to me, seems like more of the same, unsurprising, and therefore not so antagonistically bad as you see it.

    SF November 17, 2006, 1:16 pm
  • “But the run production the Yankees are sacrificing after trading Sheffield could be even more costly”
    Was Murray even around for the 2006 Yankee season?

    Seth November 17, 2006, 1:55 pm
  • Isn’t he like 102 years old? I’m starting to think he just confuses decades and teams.

    LocklandSF November 17, 2006, 3:14 pm
  • I couldn’t agree more YF. This piece was just a complete waste of space. Sadly, Chass doesn’t list his email address like Vecsey and Roberts – I would love the chance to take him to task, like I have Vecsey on occasion.

    Andrews November 17, 2006, 3:57 pm
  • Chass is an ass, but I agree that this is hardly his worst column. He’s written even dumber stuff many times before.

    Hudson November 17, 2006, 7:13 pm

Leave a Comment

Next post:

Previous post: