I mentioned in a chat that I wasn’t doing rumors this year. Since then, I’ve gotten a lot of emails asking why I would kill a popular feature and the thing I do in the baseball off-season. Why would I be going to Vegas for the Winter Meetings if I wasn’t hitting up rumor action?
There’s a number of reasons. First, the market is saturated. At the top, there’s Ken Rosenthal, the ESPN crew, and our own John Perrotto. While it feels good to “beat them” every one out of a hundred times, it’s not worth the beating that I get when I’m “wrong.” Even better, the guys at the top of the game are good guys and I never minded losing to them.
But wins and losses aren’t exactly what people think. The scoops that get things exactly right come seconds before the announcement, not days. Sometimes you get something — Manny Ramirez to the Marlins? — that you just don’t think could be possible, even when told it by a very credible source and backed up with a secondary. Sometimes you get something — “all but done” between Red Sox and Twins — and things go sideways. Both are right, both are wrong, but neither is fact.
Paul DePodesta wrote that 25% of rumors have any basis in fact. I spoke with Andrew Friedman earlier this year and he gave a slightly higher number. I’d say that the number is higher still, probably about 50%. There’s some nugget of truth, some overheard conversation or leak, some good source talking out of school in — just a guess — half. About 25% is chatter - secondary things that aren’t quite right, people talking about things that never quite get to the real talking stage. I can remember a team saying they liked a guy and then a couple weeks later, that guy was in a trade rumor involving the team. It didn’t happen, but someone filled in the gap with something plausible. Not right, but not entirely wrong.
About 10% beyond that is trial balloons. They aren’t facts, but agents and teams like to get stuff out there and it’s useful to some extent, assuming you can pick apart the layers of anonymity. I’d argue there’s real value here in that it helps create action. In Moneyball, Peter Gammons was shown to be a go-between, an information clearinghouse for what teams were trying to do and there’s unquestionably a value there.
It’s the other 15% that’s worrisome. It’s the whole cloth, puff of smoke lies that throw everything off and give the whole process a bad name. I’ll split that into half “good” and half “evil” — the good smoke is just talking points, people throwing ideas on the wall and covering them in a thin candy shell of credibility. The evil smoke is designed to do something, to create action or in most cases, just attention. These seldom hold up very long, but they’re out there and worse, there’s some big name people that do this far too often, likely under pressure of deadline or an editor telling them to produce something.
I’ve often said that someone could have a hit on their hands if they figured out how to “keep score” on rumors and the mongers who sell them. I’m sure that I’ll hear rumors at the Winter Meetings and be asked to discuss them on my radio hits, but after my years in this game, I’ve learned a new trick: shutting my mouth.
I wonder why people like to hear rumors, anyway. It's one thing to hear about a club's direction, but what is the point of wasting time pondering over some specific deal that will never happen? That is a sincere question, if anyone would care to answer. Don't we have better things to do until the facts come in?
Why do women like to window-shop? It appeals to our sense of acquisitiveness, and re sports rumors specifically enables the always-fun wishful thinking. "Boy, if we acquire Ralph, that'll fill that hole, slide everybody else down one spot where under less pressure they'll play oh-so-much better, and enable us to then focus on replacing that awful Julio (of whom I was so wishfully optimistic last year, but let's choose not to remember that)."
Bill James also once commented on this. Once he found out about a big announcement 15 minutes before it went public, and for that 15 minutes he felt like such a big important insider dude! Only contemplating it afterwards did he after the fact conclude that for 15 minutes he'd actually been a big twit.
If you want to fantasize over rebuilding or retooling your baseball team (I have been obsessed by it), you should try a sophisticated fantasy league such as Scoresheet Baseball.
I don't think I'm alone in saying that I don't care who "scoops" a story from the media. I couldn't name a single scoop from the past few years, and even if I could, so what? It's not going to stop how I receive my news and rumors: from a variety of sources. By contrast, I could tell you that Chris Mortensen is almost always wrong, and that Jon Heyman speaks with such definitiveness about every single thing he writes that it's tough to take anything seriously.
I'm sorry to hear that you're quitting Will and would just like to say I did really enjoy reading the BP rumour mill while it was up.
I do have to say you did pick a good year to quit... good grief Ken Rosenthal wrote a column about how Scott Boras may get Texeira to sign quickly with Boston to force Manny and Lowe to NY...
This is an interesting idea.... it takes the is-this-credible-or-is-it-bunk heat off of the reporting, but it allows that "insider" feel for the rest of us.
Consider, ONLY for completed trades, doing a brief postmortem of what else was rumored to be offered & rejected - and why they chose the deal that was executed. After the fact, rumored deals don't have to be terribly credible, but they're just as fun to read.
I don't know. Perhaps, the younger Steinbrenners have more fiscal restraint? Historically, from what I've read, signing superstars such as A-Rod, has been a much better use of dollars than signing second or third tier players.
Ouch. Who knew the whole Johan to Red Sox thing would have such a long lasting effect.
I always liked the reports. Even if 85% of the rumors or whatever are false and are just weather balloons they are telling and provide a little glimpse into some strategy that may or might not be involved during these meetings.
Sure it might be reading tea leaves that don't exist but atleast it's something.
don't underestimate how entertaining and informative these rumors are, true or not.
can someone please tell me why?? no arbitration for burrell???
The World Series champion Phillies did not offer arbitration to Pat Burrell, Jamie Moyer, Tom Gordon and Rudy Seanez. General manager Ruben Amaro Jr. has said that the Phillies would like to bring back Moyer.
I am very disappointed to hear this Will, this was always one of the more interesting features on the site. I really liked how it kind of let the common person behind the velvet rope. I mean who cares if they come true or not, if as you say it is somewhere around 50% true, it's still super interesting to hear what teams/players are thinking, especially at this time of the year when we diehard baseball fans are starving for information.
I think this is a good decision. The market for rumors and tips is clearly saturated to the point where most rumors have lost all value. The only people who care about scoops are journalists themselves and with the blogs and the internet there is no accountability when someone is wrong.
good. we don't need you spreading anymore more red sox propaganda like the "all but done" trade last year which made no sense to the twins and served merely to drive up the yankees price for santana
I just joined the site and now I find out that you will be eliminating rumors which I find enjoyable to read and speculate on their validity.
Re-consider and allow us, the fans, to judge for ourselves their validity. If we wanted to hear it some place else we would go there anyway.... but Baseball Prospectus is where I want to hear from you guys.
25 comments have been left for this post.
I don't know, Will. "John's Mill" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
how about "John's John"?