By In Stuff

Boo Boos

Robinson Cano failed to hit a homer while Kansas City fans booed him Monday. (US Presswire)

I’ve never really understood baseball cheering. Let’s say your hometown pitcher is one strike away from getting the third out of an inning. What’s the sound? You will hear people screaming and stomping and cheering. OK. Now, let’s say your hitter is one hit away from driving in the game-winning run. What’s the sound? Exactly the same thing. You will hear people screaming and stomping and cheering.

So, apparently that same exact sound of screaming, stomping and cheering is supposed to 1) rattle the hitter; 2) inspire the hitter; 3) rattle the pitcher; 4) inspire the pitcher. And it’s supposed to know which ones to inspire and which ones to rattle and vice versa, kind of the way aspirin is supposed to course through your body and find what hurts. All in the same sound. It’s like the players are supposed to interpret those cheers and screams, determine whether they are with you or against you, for you or for the other guy.

But, maybe there’s something to that. Maybe everything in cheering is really in interpretation. Because, if you think about it, why does a “boo” sound more ominous than a “yay” sound? They’re both just sounds. Why should one motivate you while the other alienates? Why should one sound prompt you to play better, while the other deadens your spirit and makes you play worse? It has to be how you take it.

Monday night, you probably heard, Robinson Cano was booed unmercifully by Kansas City fans during the Home Run Derby, and he probably had the worst Home Run Derby round ever. The defending Derby champion did not hit a home run. But perhaps more telling, he fouled three pitches back. Repeat: He fouled back three pitches thrown at batting-practice speed by his father. You can take from this what you will — that the booing got into head, that it just wasn’t his night and the booing did not matter at all, or you can find someplace in between. Whatever, it was striking.

There’s quite a bit to discuss about the ethics and point of all this, but first let’s state the obvious: Cano’s failure to hit a home run while fans booed him is almost certainly the only thing anyone around the country will remember from the 2012 Home Run Derby, maybe this entire All-Star Weekend. I know Bud Selig has called it sad, and others have expressed outrage about it, and maybe it merits both reactions, but one thing that is certain: In meaningless exhibition events like this very little sticks in the memory. I have been to numerous All-Star Games and honestly don’t even remember being there. Josh Hamilton’s crazy Home Run Derby round — that will stick. Michael Jordan’s lean-forward airplane dunk — that will stick. The way defensive players didn’t even try to tackle running backs during the Pro Bowl — that, too, will stick. It was so incongruous to watch a Kansas City crowd boo Cano, and then to watch him fail to hit even a single home run. I probably won’t remember that Prince Fielder won the thing in three days. I barely remember it now. But I’ll probably remember the Cano Boo Festival for a long time.

The basic premise behind the booing was that Cano had selected the American Leaguers to compete in the Derby, and he had not chosen local All-Star Billy Butler. You could argue that Cano had done the right thing both logically (Butler is not a home run hitter; he has never hit more than 21 in a season though he is on pace to hit 30 this year) and strategically (his team dominated the Derby). But it’s not that simple. Cano had basically said before choosing the team that it would be the right thing to pick a Kansas City player. He knew it. And for Kansas City fans — let’s face it — this meant something. This might be the only chance for the Royals to ever get someone in the Derby. They have not had one since Danny Tartabull in 1991. Heck the team home run record is still 36. Repeat: No Royals player has ever come close to hitting 40 homers in a season. And the All-Star Game comes here every 39 years.

Anyway, we’re talking about the bleepin’ Home Run Derby, not selecting who will be should be Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in World War II. It’s all stupid fun. You wouldn’t exactly be marring the legacy of the thing by picking Billy Butler. Hee Seop-Choi was in a Derby. Hee Seop-Choi! Henry Rodriguez, Damion Easley, B.J. Surhoff (average 12 home runs per 600 plate appearances over his career), Alex Rios and, did I mention, Hee Seop-Choi were all in Home Run Derbies.

I hear people talking now about how there should be a “rule” that a local player should be in the Home Run Derby. That’s seems impossibly dumb to me — we need a rule for something that logical? Rule: You should invite the bride’s parents to the wedding. Rule: When hosting a charity roast, invite people who know the subject. Isn’t it kind of obvious that you might want a local player in something as aimless and trivial as the Home Run Derby? It’s a meaningless exhibition event inside a meaningless exhibition weekend — throw the local fans a bone, for crying out loud. Maybe baseball messed up by putting Cano in the line of fire rather than just insisting that a local player be chosen, but come on. This isn’t that hard.

Some found the booing offensive. Some thought it was classless. More than one person ripped KC to me, and later in print and comment. I have to admit, I didn’t see it that way. At all. For one thing, Cano is a Yankee, and the day it becomes uncool to boo the Yankees is the day we need to reevaluate what the national pastime is all about. For another, it’s just booing. I’m not a booer myself, and I usually dislike the “fans paid their ticket they can do what they want” argument, but in this case — you’re telling me that fans who pay 200 bucks a pop to sit in the upper deck to watch executive batting practice should cheer the guy who didn’t take the local player? Seriously? This is Wimbledon now?

Besides, Cano could have ended the booing any time he liked. All he had to do was hit a few home runs. That would have put a serious muffler on it. For somewhat obscure reasons, I was actually watching Cano’s Derby round with Kansas coach Bill Self, and he was sure Cano would use that booing as an impetus to crush home runs. He talked about how much his players would prefer being booed in a full arena than playing in front of relative quiet in a half-filled arena.

 The former catching guru Jim Sundberg told a great story this week about slugger Willie Horton: On Sunday, May 15 — one day after Kansas City’s Jim Colborn no-hit the Rangers — Horton came up against Paul Splittorff and the fans booed him mercilessly. He homered. His next time up, the fans booed harder, and Horton hit a long fly ball to the warning track in right field. The next time up, a few less people booed but there were some, and Horton homered again. Next time up, fewer boos still, and Horton homered again. And that Sundberg said, was pretty much when the booing stopped.

I have no doubt that Cano’s struggles — the fouling back pitches, the way his long fly balls hit the wall — made the fans boo him more. If there’s one thing fans love more than anything it is their ability to affect the game. You’ve no doubt seen the self-congratulatory joy of people waving behind the backboard when a guy misses a free throw. I suspect the fans came in planning to boo Cano, but then they saw him foul that ball back. They thought: Hey, this is working. So they booed him a little louder. And a little louder. And a little louder. Until, at the end, the whole stadium wanted desperately for Cano to hit zero home runs, and the boos expressed that hope.

From what I can tell, Cano took the boos in stride. He tweeted out a couple of funny little bits — “I can’t believe I have so many fans in KC lol” — and he’s now part of Home Run Derby lore. I have little doubt he’ll be fine — he’s one of the great hitters in the game. I also have little doubt he will get booed whenever he comes to KC — it’s grown into legend now. The only thing I wish had happened was for Butler himself to have come out during the Derby, put his arm around Cano, maybe waved a white flag. That would have been cool. And maybe, with three or four outs to go, Cano would have turned the bat over to Butler. They should really have a lot more fun at these things.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

175 Responses to Boo Boos

  1. Mark N says:

    Even better than the booing was the wild cheering after every out. Absolutely hilarious. I can’t believe people are getting up in arms about it.

  2. Josh says:

    “The day it becomes uncool to boo the Yankees is the day we need to reevaluate what the national pastime is all about.”

    USA! USA! USA!

  3. Mitch Hall says:

    The Royals fans have every right to do what they did, as I elaborate here-

  4. I can’t believe anyone attends or watches that turd of an event.

    • Rob says:

      I went as far as not watching at all. I just couldn’t listen to Berman going “Back, back, back, back”. I was afraid I might throw a beer through my TV.

  5. kubiwan says:

    If you believe the thesis in Sportcasting: The Hidden Influences Behind How Sports Are Played and Games Are Won, the main effect (if not the intent) of all that cheering and screaming and booing is to persuade the umpire/referee to favor the home team.

    • Rob says:

      That’s an absurd concept and certainly doesn’t apply to an event that doesn’t even have umpires (except maybe for foul/fair homers, which is hardly worth mentioning). People Boo and Cheer to show excitement, encourage the home team, harass the visiting team & it has nothing to do with the umps. Now there are ump/ref baiters at every game, including the coaches and players. Whether they have an impact, or not, I don’t know.

  6. Dinky says:

    Sorry, Sports injuries, I would attend that event, depending on ticket price (free, yes; $50, no). I have watched it on TV many years.

    Most games have maybe two true sluggers in them. You have to show up hours early to see batting practice. BP is never televised. Here is a chance to see eight great sluggers, facing their preferred soft tossers. And even the best in the game cannot hit a homer half the time.

    When they connect, it’s artwork. When they miss, it’s humanity.

    I would always pay to see Ozzie Smith field, to see Sandy Koufax pitch, to see Rickey and Maury steal. And yes, seeing the home run derby is the artistry of baseball.

    • Evan Lobell says:

      While I agree with your sentiment, you are badly mistaken when it comes to ticket prices. I’m not sure what they were like for last night’s game (though I doubt they were quite as expensive as Joe says, $200 for the upper deck) but when I went 3 years ago in St. Louis, my so so seat were $185. So while the game was fun, and a lasting memory, it’ll set you back well more than $50.

    • Evan Lobell says:

      While I agree with your sentiment, you are badly mistaken when it comes to ticket prices. I’m not sure what they were like for last night’s game (though I doubt they were quite as expensive as Joe says, $200 for the upper deck) but when I went 3 years ago in St. Louis, my so so seat were $185. So while the game was fun, and a lasting memory, it’ll set you back well more than $50.

    • I sat in the upper deck, third base side (Section 409, Row B). Face value on my ticket was $175. Face value for the same ticket for the game on Tuesday was $200.

  7. Robert says:

    This comment has been removed by the author.

  8. Robert says:

    Reggie Miller thinks it’s hilarious that New York fans are up in arms about their player getting booed.

  9. Nick O says:

    “That’s seems impossibly dumb to me — we need a RULE for something that logical?”

    I guess we do, since as best I can tell, the host team has had a home run derby rep exactly once since 2006 (and that was Pujols). The only HR derby participant who probably didn’t deserve to be there going back to 200 was Ivan Rodriguez for the Tigers in ’05

  10. Toast says:

    “[T]he day it becomes uncool to boo the Yankees is the day we need to reevaluate what the national pastime is all about.”


  11. In modern baseball, it sucks to root for a small market team; its an unfair game. Monday nite’s reaction by KC fans shows how even the smallest slight on something as goofy as HR Derby can set them off, especially if it involves the Yankees, who strut around like they own the sport.

    MLB did Cano a disservice by not taking this out of his hands and giving a Royal an invite.

    MLB will now overreact and give Mike Nickeas an invite to next year’s HR Derby.

  12. Mad Guru says:

    I hope the year 2050 comes along and Steve Balboni is still the single season home run record holder for the Royals.

  13. macomeau says:

    Part of this also depends on who you think the derby (and the All-Star festivities in general) is aimed at. Is it mostly for the fans in the host city? Is it for all the people watching on TV? Whose interests should be weighed more heavily?

    I had no interest at all in seeing Billy Butler in the home run derby. I loved watching Mark Trumbo crush the ball. The odds of Butler putting on anywhere near the show that Trumbo did are astronomically large.

    Also: I don’t think I’ve ever laughed as hard at how invested the Royals fans seemed to be at booing Cano. It was a great moment for me to really embrace being a part of the Evil Empire.

  14. Gary says:

    It was nice that Cano could give Kansas City fans their highlight for the season.

  15. antoniomo says:

    I’m a KC fan, though I wasn’t at the Home Run Derby. But I imagine it was FUN to boo Cano, and that no one was taking it all that seriously. Booing Cano was a way to express support for our guy Butler and enjoy the cheap thrill of booing a Yankee. Geez, lighten up everybody.

    • Rob says:

      I have to agree. People are acting like there were death threats. Now, I’m sure a handful of people really were hugely upset and were out of line. But most people, I’m sure, were just enjoying getting into Cano’s head. That’s a real achievement.

    • TSerTheBSer says:

      Well, not really. There’s plenty of space in there.

  16. Someone over at the baseball “subreddit” put together a nice response.

    This is one of the more delightful parts of reddit. Click around to other parts of the site with caution. Heh.

  17. And just for fun, a fastball pitched at .9c (90% the speed of light).

  18. Chris Keefe says:

    “The only thing I wish had happened was for Butler himself to have come out during the Derby, put his arm around Cano, maybe waved a white flag. That would have been cool. And maybe, with three or four outs to go, Cano would have turned the bat over to Butler. They should really have a lot more fun at these things.”
    This is the essence of the article, the essence of the game, the essence of competition, the essence of what would have made that stadium go completely nuts, and the essence of why you are a great writer, Joe.

    • Unknown says:

      I completely agree. I was thinking the same thing after at bat 3 and even tonight I thought Butler still could have found some way to bring closure. He didn’t though, so Cano will be booed in KC for a LONG time. I don’t hate the guy and so now that the Derby is over I’m not booing him anymore (it was fun, though). Hopefully the cheering will continue for Billy even though the spotlight is gone.

  19. pessimist says:

    I think nobody should be hard on the Kansas City fans for this. For FFS this was their ONLY moment in the sun for 27 years. For 27 YEARS they have FAILED to reach the playoffs — they have had ZERO chance to be in the national spotlight.

    This was their last opportunity for maybe 40/50 more years to make it to the national media. Yankees, on the other hand reach the playoffs EVERY SINGLE year. They are in the media spotlight EVERY SINGLE week. Cano should be more than used to these kinds of things. So what’s the issue?

  20. Hoopstar says:

    It is always interesting to me how wrong most people, particularly Yankees fans, get what motivates small market fans like us Royals fans. It has absolutely nothing to do with the irrelevant national spotlight that Yankee boobs cling to. It has everything to do with the team that you love, that you’ve grown up with being good. Royals fans could give a crap less about being relevant in the national spotlight. For crying out loud, just put a winning product on the field. Of course, it’s easy to be on the Yankees bandwagon. Rooting for a winner is easy.

    • Jo Mann says:

      Ok Im a Yankees fan and I Know Cano can take the boos and all but when the Lowly Royals fan takes this out on his Family members then its taking it too far as Some of these Classless fans did. Remember one thing Royal fans your Homerun record holder was a Yankee before he was a Royal, another thing to remember your team was a Yankees farm team way back when and its been 27 years since your one and Only World Series win…I hope you Royal fans don’t see another for 86 years The curse of Cono has begun

    • Hoopstar says:

      If the reports that people heckled Cano’s family are true, that is despicable and it doesn’t speak for this Royals fan.

      Who gives a flip where Balboni played before he played for the Royals. Also, the Royals were not the minor league team to the Yankees. There was a minor league team here that was a Yankee affiliate.

      And you’ve proven yet again why no one can stand a Yankees fan. 27 titles and you’re going to get upset about something like booing a guy? Get a life and get real.

    • Drew R says:

      All this proves is that every team has classless fans. The more successful teams like the Yankees and Red Sox have tons of bandwagon fans, and correspondingly more classless fans. Saying all Yankees fans are boobs is just stupid, since you clearly don’t know all of them. Same goes for the Yankees fans who heard the booing, and started insulting all KC fans as classless and dumb for daring to cheer for a bad team.

      I’m a Yankees fan, because I grew up in that part of the country. I make no apologies for that, but I also don’t begrudge people their right to boo my team. Yelling garbage to the family (which happens everywhere, I know) definitely crosses the line. People need to just relax and remember it’s a game.

    • Byte Syte says:

      Jo Mann: I believe Robbie’s name is Canó.

    • Chuck says:

      Re: JoMann. You should know that the Yankees single season HR record holder played in KC and Cleveland before he went over to the Dark Side. And, oh yeah, thanks for representing Yankeefandom so well.

    • antoniomo says:

      I agree that giving Cano’s family a hard time was out of line. Other than that, though, I still think booing Cano was pretty harmless fun.

    • Hoopstar, I’m not defending Jo Mann’s comments, but people used to joke that the KC A’s were a Yankee farm team because a number of key Yankees (including Roger Maris) were traded by the A’s to the Yankees for practically nothing. Unfortunately for KC, Charlie Finley didn’t try to win until he moved the team to Oakland.

    • Babe Ruth was a member of the Red Sox first. I guess the Yanks have no claim to him.

    • TSerTheBSer says:

      One way for Cano to deflect the heat would be to make statements about his family being verbally abused. I had friends who sat in the next section over from the families of the players and they said there were no such verbal abuse.

  21. Ima Ryma says:

    To boo came from cow sounds ’tis said,
    Though most will say cow sounds are moo.
    And there’s the boo from ghostly dead –
    Ghosts have nothing better to do.
    Some folks pay money to be part
    Of a booing audience – Gee!
    So much to boo in sport and art,
    Stay home and watch and boo for free.
    But booers like their boos to build,
    A feeling of empowerment.
    Shouting out boos and there’s fulfilled
    An “in your ears – bum” message sent.

    To boo or not to boo – the choice
    Faced daily by most any voice.

  22. KHAZAD says:

    I was there, and it was beautiful.

    I believe if Cano had not said anything about picking a Royal, none of this would have happened. But he put it out there, somewhat like Lucy holding a football for Charlie Brown to kick, and then he pulled it back. Then he compounded his lie by giving the lame excuse that he picked his team before the reserves were picked, even though Trumbo was a reserve. (Berman kept saying that KC was mad about Trumbo over Butler. Not True. The ONLY reason Trumbo was mentioned was as proof of Cano’s second line of utter BS)

    I am glad it happened the way it did, though. It gave KC fans a chance to unite behind someone on our team and against someone else. The 0 for 10 was an awesome result, and the crowd being engaged enough to go between the booing and the cheering for the outs (or for Butler being shown on the scoreboard)

    It was a fabulous all star week, overcoming our small market to even sell out Monday’s futures game and softball, (unheard of) and setting attendance records for the 5K and the fanfest. The Cano moment was just us coming together, though, and we don’t give a damn what the rest of the country thinks, especially the national media, including Jon Morosi- who appeared virtually everywhere today to chastise us and posit the opinion that we will never be able to sign any free agents now because we are negative. Poppycock! While there might be money issues, what player wouldn’t want to come to a town where the entire city has your back?

    Your previous statements about how loyal Royals fans have been in the face of adversity is right on. I am older, and was lucky enough to become a fan of the team just as they were on the rise (I was at the 1973 ASG as a kid as well, with my Grandfather), and have a lot of good Royal years to look back on. I am constantly amazed at the core of young knowledgeable diehard Royal fans who have never even seen a team in contention, but still live and die with the team. The Royals had 25 years of baseball before the strike. In only one of those 25 years did they have a winning percentage below what their average winning percentage has been in the David Glass era since the strike.

    The core of fans here are the most diehard and loyal in the face of adversity in sports, and Monday we all got together behind our guy, and called out Robinson Cano for his lies.

    • Jo Mann says:

      Khazad…who are you kiddin your living in a fantasy world Great Years? What Great Years the Yankees beat the Royals every year in the playoffs even The one Good player from those years will tell you that. Your a joke just like the rest of you classless Royal fans dude. And why would Cano pick Butler what has he ever done nothing not even hit 25 homers in a year hes. NOT a homerun hitter as a Loyal Royals fan so you say you should know that first hand…..Get a Grip…

    • Richard says:

      This is the saddest comment in this thread.

    • Left Field says:

      Trumbo made it on the players ballot. Butler was selected by the manager. I’m not exactly sure the timing of these selections and whether or not it justifies what Cano said, but I’m pretty certain the managers picks come last, to round out the roster and make sure every team is represented. So, Trumbo’s presence is not additional proof that Cano lied.

    • adam says:

      Jo Mann,

      You are quite the ass. Have a great life.

    • Gaines says:

      Jo Mann,

      You need to get your facts straight. The Royals did lose to the Yankees in most of those playoff series, but, in the most important one, they swept the Yankees and won on a 3-run blast by George Brett off of Goose Gossage. I remember watching that game.

    • KHAZAD says:

      Jo Mann-

      The Royals made the playoffs 7 out of 10 years in a time that the only way to do so was to win a 7 team division. That is the same number of times the Yankees have won a 5 team division in the last 10 years.

      Left Field- Trumbo and Butler were both announced on a live selection show on July 1st.

  23. jjhukill says:

    Have to disagree, Joe. To me the booing was a pretty sorry display for a nationally-televised exhibition event for charity. If nothing else, it calls into serious question the judgment of those KC fans, considering that this was not just an isolated incident but a premeditated, stadium-wide action. OK, you didn’t like his decision not to take Butler. So you boo the guy during the introductions, get the frustration out and make your point, and be done with it. But to do it continuously is just bad taste. And to those who would make generalizations about Yankee fans or Yankee manners, I don’t think anyone has received that kind of sustained treatment at our ballpark. Even Pedro in the postseason wasn’t booed like this in the Bronx. At some point, the fans just shut up and let the players get on with it. As far as Cano’s family getting harassed, I’m sure it was just a few drunk idiots not knowing who they were, since they probably all had on Cano jerseys. But it leaves a bad taste.

    And yeah, there’s value in knowing the history of why people do things. I feel like I can begin to understand where KC fans were coming from, since I know about Tartabull, the old Royals-Yankees rivalry, and the unfair economics of baseball. But just because you have deep-seated reasons or resentments doesn’t give you the license to act inappropriately. Plenty of people are bitter towards their partners for perceived injustices – is that a justification for cheating?

    It’s really too bad there couldn’t be a better ending to this. I was hoping Butler would have come out, as you described, and made a gesture to allow everyone some closure. Now, it’ll continue, for better or worse. Personally I’m disappointed, because I now have zero desire to visit KC in the near future. As a huge baseball fan, I was looking forward to visiting next year to catch a game at the K and see the city’s Negro League history. Though I am patiently waiting for the next time the Royals come to the Bronx. I guess the KC fans had to support their guy, so now I’m looking forward to supporting mine.

    • Unknown says:

      Never knew Noo Yawkuhs had such thin skins.

    • Unknown says:

      Never knew Noo Yawkuhs had such thin skins.

    • Hoopstar says:

      You know. If Cano had just hit a couple home runs… In the freaking home run derby… You know, the event he won last year. He could have stopped the booing pretty quickly.

    • jjhukill says:

      Hoopstar – true. He should’ve shut them up the right way. Doesn’t really speak to any of my criticisms, though.

      Unknown – you’re right. Next time instead of trying to have a reasonable discussion, I’ll just pour beer on the next person I see in a KC Royals hat.

    • Chris says:


      Do you not see the difference there? You are suggesting that booing a millionaire ballplayer in an exhibition event is comparable to you pouring a beer on someone and potentially starting a brawl. Over booing?!

      Get over it already. When the Royals come to town boo them all you want. I won’t care in the slightest.

      All these Yankees fans suggest somehow that it is the fan’s fault for not having a more relevant team. What the hell can the fan’s do about it. It is constantly talked about on local radio. People are optimistic about the season for about a week and then its back to bitching about how poorly ran our team is.

      We were pissed because this was our one chance to have our guy be in the spotlight. Cano didn’t let that happen. So he got booed. Oh well. He plays for one of the most hated but successful teams in sports, so I’m sure he’ll be just fine when he’s playing postseason ball again this fall.

    • jjhukill says:

      Chris – that was sarcasm. You know, that thing people do on the Internet.

      As a fellow fan, I understand how lousy it must be that your team has been terrible for such an extended period. The Yankees sucked once upon a time too. And of course we don’t really choose which team we grow up rooting for. So that’s why I’m not just telling you to “kiss the rings” or any of that.

      Booing a Yankee doesn’t bother me. Personally I’ve watched ARod in Arlington, Teixeira in Atlanta, and seen my team play in a bunch of different ballparks, so it isn’t new to me at all. I enjoy mixing it up. What I’m saying is that it’s bad form, it’s bad for the game, to do it in that venue and in that way. Just like ARod distracting an infielder during a pop fly, it’s bush league. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.

    • Every time Bo Jackson came to bat the entire crowd chanted “Bo Knows Shit!” Even the hot dog vendors. First time I had ever heard a real person in public say “shit” and it was an entire stadium. I was in the good seats behind home plate.

      I won’t even get into what the bleachers have to say to any right fielder with marriage problems. Bronx cheer.

  24. I was saying “boo-urns”.

  25. raul says:

    Cano handled it with all the respect and the class he could do and he was totally right when he said screaming to his family was totally out of line! Far too much!

  26. JP says:

    The post should have been titled “Horton Hears a Boo”

  27. Mark Daniel says:

    I sure do feel bad for Cano after he was picked on by those notoriously nasty fans in Kansas City.

  28. Rob Pittman says:

    I didn’t even notice the booing. As a life long Red Sox fan I just assumed everybody booed the Yankess that way lol.

  29. mickey says:

    Royals fans have miles to go before they can challenge the obnoxiousness quotient of Yankee Nation, but…I don’t get the logic of the people saying “We would have stopped being so obnoxious if Cano had hit some homers, so it’s his own fault.” Initial booing was understandable, maybe justified if you’re a dyed-in-the-wool Royals fan. But as it continued and intensified, it was just reflected badly on the fans.

  30. Gene Claude says:

    I am a fairly ardent anti-booer, mostly because 99% of the time when it is done it is pointless and mean and not for a very clear purpose. Players make a bad play, ref makes a bad call? They are almost always trying as hard as they can. Why boo that? I screw up 200 times a day.

    This was different, and I thought in generally good humor and fun. Cano made a deliberate choice that deprived 50,000 or so people from one of the highlights of the weekend, AFTER promising them a better outcome. This is right down the middle for Royals fans–false hope followed by disappointment. Personally, I thought the booing was justified in this situation, but more than anything it was fun. People….this is a home run derby. It is a joke, a lark, a beer drinking sort of game made to entertain. The complaints are like saying someone’s joke at the Jack Benny roast was mean. Yes! It is supposed to be mean! That is what it is. I kept saying, during the event, that Cano should have turned around after making his last out and taken a deep bow. The fans would have eaten it up, they were all smiling during the booing.

    I sort of feel like this entire episode was a Rorschach test for sports and social intelligence. This wasn’t angry, vituperative booing, this was the spirit of the event combined with years of false hopes being dashed. Hell, it was half Royals fans recognizing their lot in life. The booing that A-Rod or LeBron get is a billion times worse, because it is mean spirited. Nobody in Kansas City wants Cano to fail/die/explode.

    • mickey says:

      That may have been how it felt in the stadium, but as an Minnesota fan watching on TV favoring neither the Royals or the Yankees, I felt none of the good humor and a lot of disproportionate vengefulness that took away much of the fun from the event.

    • Gene Claude says:

      I was watching the Derby on TV (in Kansas City). The fact that many of the fans were smiling and laughing, that Butler was laughing, that the other players were laughing (and knowing the history of the Royals), and of course, it being a HOME RUN DERBY and not a real live contest, made it all seem part of the entertainment. As I said below, I do think that would be much harder to interpret without being a Royals fan and living in KC for many years. I’ve now talked informally to about 20 baseball fans, both Royals and Cardinals, and everyone was completely blindsided by the criticisms of the booing. This wasn’t booing your starting pitcher because he gave up 10 hits in a row, this was booing someone who made an explicit unpopular decision. Sort of like Mitt Romney at the NAACP convention….

  31. Gene Claude says:

    I should also note that Cano, his very ownself, said something along the lines of “sometimes you have to pay for your mistakes.”

    I do think it would have been very difficult to interpret what was happening without having significant local knowledge. Just like Bill Simmons thinking the crowd was suddenly “behind” Bill Self after he cranked a HR in the celebrity game, after booing him earlier. No, Mr. Simmons, half the crowd is always behind him and half the crowd despises him. We have this state line near here….

  32. Ed McDonald says:

    I thought it was pretty classless when I saw it live but, you’re right, it’s not really that big of a deal and who could possibly be upset by having a chance to be part of Homerun Derby lore?

  33. Disco says:

    I just find it funny they boo him at an ASG, where you get to watch great players and should enjoy that, but cheered like crazy for a druggie and actual inter-division rival players (Verlander, Fielder, etc).

    I can understand a tiny amount when his name was first announced, but I think if Bonds and Clemens were there, their combined boos would have been less than that for RC.

  34. knyc says:

    It’s funny to see KC fans say New Yorkers have “thin skin” when their fan base just put on a hissy fit for the whole nation to observe. It’s not anyone outside of KC’s front office’s fault that they don’t have a power hitter who was truly deserving of a spot in the HR Derby. Just because you wanted your one lone All-Star representative back-doored into the contest he didn’t deserve to be in isn’t anyone else’s fault. So go on yapping about what a “liar” Robinson Cano is. Sad

    And Joe you at first argued that the booing doesn’t mean anything and was all in good fun, then why argue later in your post that Butler should’ve gone out there or something during Cano’s turn? If it doesn’t matter then why do anything to act like it does? You lost me on that logic. And Cano giving up during his turn makes no sense, and even less so to give his bat to a guy who hadn’t prepared or warmed up at all for the contest.

    It’s over now, Robbie can go back to being one of the best hitters and players in the game and can concentrate on the stretch run.

    • Chris says:


      How does one determine who “deserves” to participate in the home run derby? What do you base that on? Past history? Current play? Team? There is no right answer which was Joe’s point. Its not as if Butler has 5 homeruns at the break or something. It is a an exhibition event. Who exactly is being hurt in any meaningful way by Butler taking part?

      Clearly Cano didn’t deserve to take part as he did a horrible job entertaining the crowd with zero homeruns.

      Just because you may think the booing didn’t influence Cano, doesn’t mean that Cano couldn’t realize hey I can let Butler take a few hacks. For crying out loud Granderson and Sabbathia had a mound visit with Cano’s dad. You cling to the rules in this contest like it would have been the end of the world for Butler to take some swings.

      Did Jeter truly deserve to start the game at SS? How about Napoli at C? Probably not, but the fans voted them in anyways. Butler in the HR derby would also be for the fans. Simple

  35. Mark Daniel says:

    With all due respect, I think you are nuts if you were offended by Cano being booed. I mean, good God, these players get paid millions, become famous, get all sorts of fan and media adulation, and at the same time they shouldn’t be subjected to being booed? If he didn’t like being booed, maybe he shouldn’t be a major league baseball player.

  36. Scott says:

    I have quite a few Yankee fans and I have never heard one of them be anything but proud of how obnoxious Yankee fans are. It’s a badge of honor. I get that. It’s annoying but it’s also funny. People care about their team, they don’t care about mine (Royals).

    All we were doing at the derby was having fun and then it became really fun as we sensed it was having an effect. I suppose some might have been really mad but most have a lot of other things in the lives to be really mad about and Cano and a home run derby aren’t on the list. Fans pay stupid money so they can go and yell about things that don’t matter because they usually can’t yell about things that do. Also, because it’s fun.

    Good lord, Bill Self was booed loud and often by half the stadium on Sunday at the celebrity softball game. It wasn’t a life-changing experience. It was Missouri fans showing their “love” for something that doesn’t really matter. Get a grip folks. People were having fun Yankee-style for a few minutes.

    We will now slip back into our normal anonymity and count the precious moments until Yankee fans care enough about us to lecture us again on class.

  37. Gary says:

    I’ve seen a lot of comments on here that equate market size with winning, i.e., the Yankees are successful because they play in a big market while the Royals are unsuccessful because they play in a small market.

    But what is the definition of a small market team and exactly how does that reflect on their ability to win? While it’s true that Kansas City has the second smallest metropolitan area (still larger than Milwaukee), it is virtually identical to that of Cleveland and Cincinnati. While those teams don’t win every year, they are frequently in contention. Tampa Bay, which has a metropolitan area not much bigger than Kansas City’s, has put winners on the field for the past five years.

    Meanwhile, in Chicago, with the third-largest metropolitan area, the Cubs and White Sox have combined for one World Series title in the past 95 years and have made only two World Series appearances in more than 60 years. Many of those years, one or both teams has been out of contention by June.

    St. Louis is smaller than San Diego, but the Cardinals are an upper tier team in terms of winning while the Padres are perennial also-rans. Houston rarely competes in its division despite being larger than Atlanta and the nearly identical to the Rangers’ (Dallas) metro area.

    Kansas City was considered a small market team, especially in comparison to New York, when it fielded winners nearly every year from the mid-‘70s to the mid-‘80s. The Mets play in the same market size as the Yankees but have only periodically enjoyed the success of their crosstown rivals.

    So it seems to me the size of the market has much less to do with a team’s success than the willingness of the ownership to spend money and the management of the organization.

  38. Joel says:

    One thing that has been overlooked in this boo-haha is how our actions in KC disrupted the national media narrative about my hometown being “heartland,” “salt of the earth,” “homespun,” etc. Chris Berman quoted “Oklahoma!” in his pre-game speech (everything is up to date). The media had us painted as a bunch of people who give strangers homemade pies, and the booing ruined that. If this had happened in any East Coast city, no one would have batted an eye.

    • mickey says:

      And that homespun image is what Kansas City has promoted for itself for years…you don’t think that dolt Chris Berman came up with that himself, do you? Why is it that media coverage for the better part of the week in KC has been “what do the people visiting think about our city, our ballpark, our barbecue, our…neediness?” I have lived here for 30 years, and I have never understood this Sally Fieldish obsession with the approval of strangers.

    • Rob says:

      Frankly after 25 years of irrelevance, I was impressed to hear that Royals fans even care about baseball. I honestly don’t think true baseball fans care at all that Robinson Cano, a Yankee, was booed over the silly homerun derby and not picking Billy Butler (who sucks and wouldn’t be an All Star except for the fact that the Royals really suck)

  39. Kansas City says:

    Cano made a mistake, compounded it with a dreadful performance, and paid for it. It you look at the photos of fans, many of them were laughing. I thought the booing and cheering was good entertainment. It is silly to criticize the KC fans.

  40. Which is more likely to ruin the rest of your season?

    Taking part in the Home Run Derby, winning it, and messing up your swing? Or taking part in the Home Run Derby, not hitting a single home run, and being booed throughout?

  41. Unknown says:

    Didn’t see the event live so I didn’t get the feel of how it went down. But re: excessive “booing” – I was at a Warriors game the night Chris Mullen’s number was retired. There was a big to-do at halftime, members of his old team were there, people made speeches. Toward the end of the show – and a show it was, the longest halftime at a basketball game ever – Joe Lacob, spokesman for the new ownership group took the mic for a few words and the arena exploded into BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO and it didn’t stop for about five minutes. It was a bit much. I found myself shouting, “STOP IT!!” into the bottomless pit of noise because jesus, this man was and is not responsible for the Warriors having been a crappy team for the past 20-odd year, but more importantly, the event was to celebrate Chris Mullen, the basketball player and Golden State Warrior, and that was overshadowed.

    If the KC booing of Cano created the same result – making something positive, celebration, into something negative, blame and misdirected frustration, well that does stink. Not that I think it’s a perfect parallel, just sharing a booing experience.

    I’ve been known to boo at a ballgame now and again, though, esp when the Yanks come to Oakland – it’s not excessive, though, and it’s in good fun.

  42. Pat Dunn says:

    The national media and Yankee’s fans have basically ignored Kansas City and its fans for almost thirty years. I think we should return the favor.

  43. Pat Dunn says:

    The national media and Yankee’s fans have basically ignored Kansas City and its fans for almost thirty years. I think we should return the favor.

  44. This comment has been removed by the author.

  45. The best approach I’ve seen to diffusing the boo-birds came from Darryl Strawberry. It was Darryl’s first visit back to Shea Stadium as a Dodger, and the fans (I among them) were booing mercilessly.

    During the middle innings, the boos and “Daaa-ryyyyllll” chants were raining down on him in waves. In response, Darryl turns to the fans along the rightfield line, and starts waving his arms in time with the chants–like a maestro conducting an orchestra. Thousands of people laugh at the same time, Darryl laughs, and from that point on the boos were delivered with a wink and a nod–it was like booing a pro wrestling heel.

    Later in the game, of course, he clangs one off the scoreboard in right center. Ah, Darryl.

    • Rob says:

      Chipper Jones has had a similar relationship with the Mets fans. He expects to be booed and the Mets fans always deliver. He’s hammered the Mets over the years, and so it’s almost become kind of a joke…. the Mets fans have to boo him and then kind of laugh when Chipper delivers another crushing blow. It’s good fun with Chipper even naming one of his kids “Shea” because he’s always hit well there.

  46. rokirovka says:

    I will say here what I know many people are thinking: We are eagerly awaiting Joe Posnanski’s comment on the Freeh Report. There can only be two conclusions: either (a) the Freeh Report is a pack of lies, or (b) Posnanski has been completely wrong about Paterno. In either case, for Posnanski to stay silent is an abdication of his responsibility as a sports journalist.

    I sincerely hope Posnanski takes the opportunity of today’s report to admit he has been wrong about Paterno. As for the book, the best thing to do would be to just kill it before it’s published. Posnanski will have no difficulty earning a good living for his family without the proceeds from the book. His reputation is much more important.

    • Gene Claude says:

      Yes, there can be no room for civil disagreement or opposing views. Everyone must fall in line.

    • Hout Bosques says:

      Surely every library in Pennsyltucky will still buy it. And everywhere else, just label it fiction, either alternative history alongside Turtledove, or books for young people, alongside Clair Bee’s collected works — and failing that, the crim-psych section.

    • rokirovka says:

      Please read the Freeh Report, p.49, 3rd full paragraph:

      “As the investigation progressed, Curley made several requests to Schultz for updates. On May 13, 1998 at 2:21 p.m., Curley emailed Schultz a message captioned ‘Jerry’ and asked, ‘Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands.’ Schultz forwarded Curley’s note to Harmon, who provided an email update that Schultz then forwarded to Curley. The reference to Coach is believed to be Paterno.”

      If the caption and content of this email is accurately reported here, then given the context, OF COURSE “Jerry” refers to the 1998 Sandusky allegations and “Coach” is Paterno. Only a fool or a willful deceiver could argue otherwise.

      So, either the Freeh Report is lying, or Paterno and his family have been lying. It is one or the other. No, Gene Claude, there is no room for “civil disagreement” here.

      Either the Freeh Report is libeling Paterno with false accusations of perpetrating a cover up of child abuse, or Paterno did perpetrate a cover up of child abuse. It is one or the other. There can be disagreement about which one it is, but on such a serious matter it is wrong to be “civil” about it. Both cover up of child abuse and libel implying cover up of child abuse are serious crimes. To be “civil” about such things serves to aid and abet the abuse itself.

    • I didn’t realize Posnanski was implicated in the emails. I also didn’t realize that his book was released, that you all have read it, and that it whitewashed Paterno’s indiscretions.

      Give it a rest until you actually read the flippin’ book. We’re all angry about this, but to target rage upon Joe Posnanski seems awfully misguided.

    • This comment has been removed by the author.

    • Rob says:

      I agree with Daniel in that the book is not out yet. It’s been at least six months since Poz has commented on the JoePa scandal. I have no idea how he’s been processing the damning evidence, but I have to assume he knows he’s not going to be able to white wash the incident without completely losing credibility as a writer…. I think he’ll write a nice book on JoePa and finish up with the Sandusky stuff and will have to, at least, acknowledge that it’s tainted everything JoePa has ever done.

    • rokirovka says:

      The thing is, Joe Posnanski’s career is based *primarily* on his articles and blog posts that appear online. And after the Penn State scandal broke, he chose to dedicate a few of those articles and posts to, in my opinion and the opinion of very many others, defending Paterno and admonishing Paterno’s critics.

      Now if Posnanski wants to change his mind and have the majority of the public and his readership pay attention to him, he is obligated to publicly announce his change of mind in the form of an article or blog post. Otherwise, the public is entitled to assume Posnanski holds the same opinions he put forward before. And in the wake of the Freeh Report, to most people those opinions look very wrong indeed. To demand that we buy and read his book to learn what he thinks now, after we read what he wrote about Paterno in his previous articles and posts, is outrageous.

      I’m going on about this because I have liked Posnanski so much as a writer, so it bothers me and pains me a great deal to see him go off the deep end on Paterno. I actually hope Joe will read my comments, realize I’m right, change his mind, write an article about it, and can the book. I realize there is next to no chance this will happen, but I like Joe Posnanski and I hold out hope he will see the light on this issue before it’s too late for him to save his reputation in most people’s minds. (Most people, that is, outside of the regular dedicated core readership of his blog.)

    • rokirovka: I make no claims to have read everything that Posnanski has ever written, so I could be missing something, but his message at the time seemed to me much more like a plea for patience and to wait for all the facts as opposed to dismissing these accusations out of hand.

      I honestly feel for the guy. He went to Penn State to write a feel-good story about a coach who was (at the time) one of the most beloved figures in college sports. When all of this went down it was demanded of Posnanski to, without thought or reservation, immediately and unequivocally denounce the man who had spent the last six months opening his home and his life to him. I get the sense that Posnanski is a generally positive and glass-half-full kind of guy, so I would guess this situation was something he was particularly ill-equipped for.

      That being said, it is pretty clear with all the facts in that Paterno helped support Sandusky’s vile behavior. I would expect Posnanski’s book to present Paterno in an unflinchingly honest way, otherwise I would agree with you that it shouldn’t be published.

    • CB says:

      I agree entirely with rokirovka above–Posnanski needs to say something online soon, or else the presumption will be that he stands by his previous statements.

      I also see no reason to assume that the book will address these issues in a thoughtful or useful way. First of all, that is not what Posnanski does. Second, the book was reportedly completed before the Sandusky trial was concluded. Assuming that this is case–and it makes sense, since a book scheduled to be released on August 21 would need to be pretty deep into the production process by May or June–then the book certainly won’t reflect the information in the Freeh report in any way.

      Indeed, the only way the book could be substantially revised in light of today’s information would be to push the pub date back. Even if Posnanski wrote and revised furiously for the next two weeks (which would be a very fast turnaround indeed, particularly for someone who’s really a columnist and not a reporter), that would leave only two weeks for copy editing, revisions, galley checks, and printing. Impossible. And I don’t think they will be wanting to push the pub date back, since it was clearly chosen to coincide with the start of the school year and the football season.

    • rokirovka says:

      Daniel, your comments make sense. I know Posnanski was put in a horribly awkward spot by what happened. You are right to say that the book needs “to present Paterno in an unflinchingly honest way.”

      Posnanski just tweeted a couple hours ago: “I dedicated myself to write the most honest book I could about Joe Paterno. Everything I have to say about his life is in it.”

      But doesn’t writing the most honest book about Paterno now require taking up the information in today’s report? So I don’t see how Posnanski can reasonably claim that everything he has to say about Paterno’s life is in the book already. Unless he re-wrote the whole thing between 9am this morning and the time he tweeted this evening.

    • rokirovka- Your point is well taken, I did not realize that the book has already been completed. That being said, I still hesitate to pass judgement on something that no one has read yet.

      Let’s be honest, short of publishing 300 pages of Paterno getting kicked in the face, many are still going to criticize the book regardless. One of the many many sad things about this case is that Posnanski is now equated in many people’s minds with Curley, Spanier, Schultz, and the others who had the real responsibility to STOP the abuse.

      Regardless of how the facts have come out, I think Posnanski’s original request for patience was right. Recent history is littered with the bones of innocent victims of an overzealous media (the Duke Lacrosse players, the Atlanta Olympics bombing suspect, etc. etc.). There are thousands of “journalists” that would have loved to be at ground zero when this story broke and led the media frenzy to greater publicity and fame. Posnanski isn’t one of those guys. Those in the media that jumped over each other in the rush to judgement are just lucky that the facts eventually broke their way, in my opinion.

      Your points are well-taken however and I’m glad we can talk about this thoughtfully and respectfully.

    • Rob says:

      Daniel, now you’re over the top. We’re now 8-9 months clear of the indictments and the Freeh report is printed and available. Sure, pleas for patience in November made sense. There were a lot of crazies defending Paterno at the time, and plenty of calls for his head. It turns out that the detractors were actually understating how bad it was. The defenders have no safe harbor. This is not a snap judgement, it’s a several month investigation by very seasoned law enforcement professionals. The facts are out. If there are any other facts that come out in the future, it will be when dozens of kids file suit against Penn State. We will then get a flavor for how many kids Sandusky was violating & it will be a helluva lot more than eight. No, any new facts will likely make Paterno look even worse as the massive scale of Sandusky’s atrocities, which Paterno didn’t lift a finger to stop, start to become apparent. There are literally no facts that I can think of that will improve things for Paterno. That ship has sailed.

    • Read my post again. I agree that the evidence is in and Paterno is guilty. What I’m arguing against is the idea that Posnanski was wrong in his initial plea for patience and that he owes you all a big apology. If you’re going to go all vigilante on an issue as great as this you should read people’s words more carefully, jesus christ.

      I cannot wait for this to end.

    • rokirovka says:

      Daniel, again your comments make sense. If Posnanski would simply come out and state, like you do, “The evidence is in and Paterno is guilty,” I would be happy to see that. As long as he understands that means guilty of covering up and therefore aiding and abetting Sandusky’s child abuse.

      I disagree with you about one thing. A lot of people, including myself, were incredulous about the “initial plea for patience.” That’s because, knowing what we do about the power of major college football coaches, we found it ridiculous to believe that Paterno had been as ignorant and out of the loop as he claimed about the allegations against Sandusky in 1998, 2001 and afterward. Our incredulity has been proven correct. The plea for patience was naive. A better argument would have been something like, “Given how powerful Paterno was, his claims of ignorance are probably a bunch of b.s. But let’s wait until all the facts are in before we make a final judgment.” I think all of Posnanski’s critics would have accepted a statement like that. But the spirit of Posnanski’s statements were nothing like that at all.

    • Gadfly says:

      We’ll be waiting until hell freezes over:

      Joe, be ethical … donate a portion of book proceeds to a child abuse charity. Show an ounce of humanity.

    • Let it go, folks. I don’t read Joe because of his stances on various issues, although I might find them interestin. I read his posts and books because they are well written and thought provoking. Believe it or not, I could not care less what he wrote about JoePa and Penn State, whether he apologized for it, or anything else. I miss his regular posts about virtually everything else. Final thought: you folks act as if one cannot maintain that the penalties levied against Penn State were a bit over the top without one being a child molester/enabler sympathizer. Baloney. The two can be, and are, mutually exclusive.

  47. wbfarr says:

    I too would like Mr. Posnanski to comment on the Freeh Report. i respected his pleas for folks to wait until the facts were sorted out, I respected his decision to maintain “radio silence” and not read comments, I respected his decision not to comment even as evidence strongly suggested Paterno had to have been aware of Sandusky’s acts before McQueary’s coming to him. As much as he can legitimately deplore the anger that came his way in the comments to his articles/blog entries, surely he understands where it came from. And now that many of the suspicions have more and more evidence to support their truth, it would seem time for Posnanski to say that yes, for all his strengths in other arenas, Paterno failed horribly in this one.

    • Chris says:

      But here’s the thing, the day after telling us all to pipe down he visited a class there at Penn St. telling all the students that everyone was making Paterno the scapegoat. So he didn’t even heed his own advice. But regardless of any differences in opinion when it came to Paterno, I was the most disappointed in Posnanski when he removed comments from this blog. That hit me in a way that none of the other stuff had. The comments section on this site are most a pleasant place and lost some respect for Joe when he chose to silence everyone who may not agree with him.

    • Rob says:

      Matt Millen certainly has been a JoePa apologist, but even he had to accept the fact that Joe knew and did essentially nothing…. possibly even talking the others out of going to the police (which is the implication of his meeting with Curly). Out of character? Not really in that JoePa had a history of preferring to handle problems “in house”. But this time, instead of some QB who got into a bar fight, he was presented with a dangerous child molester. Somehow, he managed, in his mind, to twist, deny or minimize what had happened into something that could again be handled “in house”. JoePa obviously had a very positive impact on a lot of people, so there is a process the apologists have to go through to come to grips with what JoePa did. I’m thinking Poz will have to see that JoePa perpetuated a great evil and that will have to be part of his book.

  48. Rob says:

    Pete Rose was extremely unpopular in Dodger Stadium and was booed mercilessly every time his name was mentioned, every time he batted and every time he even got near to the ball. I’ll go as far as to say it wasn’t even close to good natured booing. One time he threw a foul ball into the stands as, I guess, a good will gesture. The fan threw it right into Rose’s back as he trotted back to leftfield. Now that’s rough treatment from the fans. I also recall him getting a beer dumped on him when he retreated to the wall to see if he had a play on what turned out to be a homerun. By comparison, the treatment Cano got was extremely mild. Let’s keep it in perspective guys.

  49. Craig says:

    I’ve rarely been as disappointed in someone as I was in Joe when the PSU thing blew up last year. I know that sounds melodramatic (and it is), but Joe had always represented what was smart, logical and sensible in sportswriting, and to see him careening from silence to tone-deaf apologist and back to semi silence and then back and forth a few more times was very troubling. When Joe did write about the subject, he always seemed most concerned about what was happening to JoePa and completely oblivious to the enormity of the scandal, not to mention the rot which had caused this tragedy. That rant he went on at that PSU class was just abominably tone deaf at the time, and looks ever more foolish now.

    I never thought I would have seen the day where Joe looked terrible in comparison to almost every other sportswriter hack in America. To be honest, its been difficult to read Joe in the same light ever since.

  50. rokirovka says:

    Here, by the way, is what good, honest journalism about Joe Paterno looks like, from Sally Jenkins in the Washington Post:

    Go to ESPN and you will read a half-dozen or more similar articles. All of them are right.

  51. Grulg says:

    Yeah I’d like to see Joe Poz revisit the whole Penn State thing after the report’s release here, but I doubt he will. Paterno was a willing accomplice in the Sandusky cover-up like it or not, and to not recognize that fact is a disgrace. Period.

  52. Joe says:

    Sorry to turn this into a link depot, but

    I have to echo some of the same sentiments as Craig; I really trusted Joe Poz as a “writing voice” and appreciated the occasional glimpses into his personal life and world experiences that he shared. His was a perspective I could typically relate to, and I’ve enjoyed his writing immensely for some time.

    But worse than his timing may be his judgement. Is it really the time to pause, reflect and “get inside the mind of one of America’s most brilliant and charismatic coaches” as Amazon’s pitch indicates?

    I can’t imagine the pressures of an enormous publisher’s advance; I have no way of knowing Joe’s conflicted feelings in these recent months, but I wish he had pulled the plug on this project, given himself a chance to catch his breath, hit the reset button and maybe go back to it down the road when perspectives were clearer.

    I know Bill James is a contrarian by nature, but it’s apparently not too far a leap to look like an utter fool. I hope Joe Poz doesn’t end up looking the same way.

  53. Alejo says:

    I mean, say something. Explain. Win us back.

    • Rob says:

      The silence is pretty awkward

    • rokirovka says:

      And today Posnanski is moving on and tweeting about “the hippest cat in baseball writing.” Fortunately, when you click on the link to the NY Times article about this hip cat, you get a convenient sidebar listing the most read and emailed stories on the Times site, which include this one, “Paterno Won Sweeter Deal Even as Scandal Played Out”:

      I wonder if Posnanski’s book will report facts like these?

    • Cary says:

      I have to say, with his willingness to speak up as the scandal was getting warm, and his clamming up now, plus no announcement of a delay in publishing the bio, Joe Posnanski is losing my respect more with each passing day. All people are flawed, and nothing will change the positive things Paterno accomplished, but on balance his complicity in the horrific things going on at PSU makes him a rotten person. I would consider converting to Catholicism if they can convince me that Joe Pa is getting buggered by devils with white-hot equipment in Hell. Posnanski, whose writing I have always respected, looks like a shill and a coward right now.

  54. We get to read Joe’s journalism for free and we choose to do it.

    Some of us are rushing to judgment here with more than a touch of sanctimony, though Sandusky is in jail, Joe Paterno dead, and the Freeh report one day old. The imminent danger is past. Calm down. See what happens after Joe’s book has been released and we have a few months’ perspective on it.

    You want to condemn Joe Posnanski over Tim Curley’s writing “Coach is anxious to know where it stands” in 1998? How about getting, first, unambiguous understanding (if that is possible) of “What did Joe Paterno know and when did he know it?” Do we know what Paterno was told about “it” or “where it stands”? Maybe Paterno in 1998 was given and believed a whitewashed version of what a prosecutor presented and the Freeh report concluded in 2012.

    And even if we learn enough to convict, beyond a reasonable doubt, Joe Paterno, how does that convict Joe Posnanski? Take a few deep breaths and some medication if you need it.

    • Rob says:

      I look at the Freeh report much like the Mitchell report. All of the knowable facts that an entity without subpoena power can gather are in there. It may not be ALL the facts, but the facts that are in there are now the gold standard. Nine months and $5M is a pretty good amount of time to get all the facts that are available. With the remaining three “leaders” lawyered up, that’s probably all we will get. So, I don’t see the point in waiting six months to digest the Freeh report. It’s there, it has facts, and it has conclusions. You can disagree, but it’s readable in an afternoon. It’s not War & Peace or the Affordable Care Act. The bottom line, what did Paterno know and when did he know it has been answered. What did he do and what did he choose not to do have been answered. To even hold out hope that some little fact will emerge to make the report less damning towards Paterno is just naive. As for Poz, I think he should follow a lot of public apologists who are offering up mea culpas. The guy fooled a lot of people. He got to the point with his power where he couldn’t distinguish between a QB who got into a bar fight from an evil pedophile using his position at Penn State to lure small boys into his grasp. He felt he was powerful enough to “handle” all issues big and small. The University even used it’s power to exempt itself from being subject to freedom of information requests. Gee, I wonder why they did that?

    • Did you just equate child rape to steroid use?

    • Rob says:

      Biggus, don’t be a tool. I was comparing reports prepared by professionals who didn’t have subpoena power. I think I stated that pretty clearly. I believe I also used the term “evil pedophile”. Sorry if there were too many words for you to read.

  55. rokirovka says:

    Here is the ugly text of what Bill James argued:

    “The Freeh reports states quite explicitly and at least six times (a) that the 1998 incident did NOT involve any criminal conduct—on the part of Sandusky or anyone else—and (b) that Paterno had forced the resignation of Sandusky before the 1998 incident occurred.

    “The 1998 incident was perceived AT THE TIME to involve no criminal conduct. The May 3, 1998 incident was very, very, very thoroughly investigated by at least four different agencies (University police, state police, and two different child welfare agencies), all four of which issued written reports stating that no criminal event had occurred. In retrospect, since the actions were part of a pattern of criminal conduct, it may be said that they were criminal conduct in and of themselves, but no one saw that at the time.

    “In any case, what EXACTLY is it that Paterno should have done? Fire him again? It is preposterous to argue, in my view, that PATERNO should have taken action after all of the people who were legally charged to take action had thoroughly examined the case and decided that no action was appropriate.”

    The point is, Bill, that when it happened again in 2001, all the major players including Paterno knew damn well that there was a history and a pattern to Sandusky’s actions. That makes the decision not to report Sandusky in 2001, a decision clearly influenced by Paterno, even more reprehensible. That is why Paterno and his family insisted so strongly that he had known nothing about the 1998 incident. We now know they were lying. Get it, Bill?

    • Rob says:

      Since the 1998 incident was (supposedly) investigated, you cannot lay that at Paterno’s feet. But when the 2001 incident happened, witnessed by his own staff, well you had a witness and a pattern. Any reasonable person would have contacted the police or CPS and told them what they have. Handling it “in house” is acting as the police, judge and jury. That’s not the way things are supposed to work in this country. We have eight known victims, but there are no doubt countless others that have suffered because Joe and his crew wanted to be “humane” to Sandusky & ignore the potential consequences to the kids. They didn’t even follow through on keeping him from bringing kids on to campus. That’s just self serving and evil.

  56. Mark Daniel says:

    I’m not sure what everybody wants Joe to say. Would you feel better about him if he posted something like, “Hey, I’m just here to say that I think Joe Paterno was a rotten scumbag and I hope he rots in hell”?

    Would something less strident satisfy?

    As someone posted earlier, Posnanski is a reasonable person, and saying something like that would be out of character. I personally interested in what Joe feels is the true reason why Paterno seemed to turn a blind eye. Was it simply to protect PSU from embarrassment? Was it because he was blinded by his own sense of power? The fact is that a massive and tragic failure occurred, and based on the statistics on the prevalence of child sexual abuse in this country, failures like this are occurring everywhere every day. They are occurring right now. Knowing the truth about Sandusky and Paterno will give us insight into how such things can happen even though seemingly good and honest people see evidence of it. Casting Joe Paterno and his PSU lackeys as evil, money grubbing monsters simplifies what has happened. Sexual abuse of kids doesn’t only happen because monsters let it happen. The numbers don’t allow for this to be the case, unless there are a hell of a lot of monsters out there.

    • rokirovka says:

      Here is what Joe can say:

      “Sally Jenkins wrote, ‘Everything else about Paterno must now be questioned; other details about him begin to nag. You now wonder if his self-defense was all an exercise in sealing off watertight compartments, leaving colleagues on the outside to drown. You wonder if he performed a very neat trick in disguising himself as a modest and benevolent man. The subtle but constant emphasis on his Ivy League education, the insistence that Penn State football had higher standards, now looks more like rampant elitism.’ You know, I tried to write a whole book about Paterno’s life, but it turns out Sally summed it up better in a single paragraph.”

  57. brhalbleib says:

    Just like the fans of my Royals to create a situation where Commissioner Selig’s knee jerk reaction (always putting a home teamer in the HR derby), will most immediately benefit a New York team (the Mets next year). Very typical.

  58. jkak says:

    In one of his many posts, rokirovka quoted a tweet from Posnanski: “I dedicated myself to write the most honest book I could about Joe Paterno. Everything I have to say about his life is in it.” Like everyone else in the world other than the editors and publishers, I have not read the book (and I never will, nor would I have read it even if the Sandusky matter had never come to light, just not interested).

    However, I have no doubt that Joe’s statement that the book is as honest as he can make it is absolutely true, and I suspect the book will not delve too far into Sandusky and the ambiguous questions of how to evaluate the moral worth of a man’s life. Joe is not that writer. I’ve been reading him since his early KC Star days, and he never has been that writer, nor do I remember him ever claiming to be. Joe is very good at writing about sports and at writing pretty simple pieces about sports figures.

    But at heart Joe is a sentimentalist, he writes feel-good stories, he is sappy and sweet and sanguine. He likes black and white, but I’ve never read anything by him that strays very far into the many layers of gray that make up life. Why anyone would think Joe would take on the moral issues surrounding Paterno, let alone demand that he do so based on some perceived obligation to the public, is beyond comprehension. Going back to Aeschylus at least, the great works of literature have wrestled with those issues, and thousands of years later there’s no less ambiguity on those matters than ever.

    Joe is a good sports writer, but he doesn’t write literature. He was contracted to write a happy book about Paterno, not a work of literature, and he remains contractually bound to provide a book to his publisher. No doubt the book he publishes will be much different from the book he was writing last fall. However, it will not be the book that objectively (to the extent that’s ever possible) analyzes the evidence surrounding Paterno and Sandusky. Joe is not capable of writing that book.

    And Joe has every right to say “Everything I have to say about [Paterno’s] life is in [the book].” He does not owe anyone an obligation to further comment on the Sandusky matter or questions regarding the extent of Paterno’s culpability. My personal view is that Joe made a mistake by speaking at the media class when he did, and I believe the statements he was quoted as making were wrong. But he does not owe me or anyone else an apology, a retraction, or any further comment.

    • mickey says:

      If the book he ends up publishing is the book you’re describing, it’s the wrong book at the wrong time, and there may never be a time for such a book.

  59. Rob says:

    I think Joe owes more than a feel good book with a difficult ending. He may not be “that writer” but he’s the one who’s there in the middle of it, writing it. If he can’t be objective, and write something thought provoking, then he needs to return whatever advance he received and delete the manuscript. He can then continue defending steroids cheats and writing about Win Shares, BABIP and other esoteric sports topics.

  60. rokirovka says:

    More essential reading, from Rick Reilly:


    “I tweeted that, yes, Paterno should be fired, but that he was, overall, “a good and decent man.” I was wrong. Good and decent men don’t do what Paterno did. Good and decent men protect kids, not rapists. And to think Paterno comes from “father” in Italian.

    “This throws a can of black paint on anything anybody tells me about Paterno from here on in. “No NCAA violations in all those years.” I believe it. He was great at hiding stuff. “He gave $4 million to the library.” In exchange for what? “He cared about kids away from the football field.” No, he didn’t. Not all of them. Not when it really mattered.

    “What a tool I was.

    “As Joe Paterno lay dying, I actually felt sorry for him. Little did I know he was taking all of his dirty secrets to the grave. Nine days before he died, he had The Washington Post’s Sally Jenkins in his kitchen. He could’ve admitted it then. Could’ve tried a simple “I’m sorry.” But he didn’t. Instead, he just lied deeper. Right to her face. Right to all of our faces.

    “That professor was right, all those years ago. I was engaging in hagiography. So was that school. So was that town. It was dangerous. Turns out it builds monsters.

    “Not all of them ended up in prison.”

    I hope Joe Posnanski is reading this article.

    • You have had the first word on this subject, and the most words, and the most self-righteous words, but (maybe) not the last word (we’ll see).

      Where do you work, so I can come over and play Mr. Know-it-all, tediously instructing you on how to do your job?

    • rokirovka says:

      You and anyone else are more than welcome to click on my username, read my blog, and make whatever comments you like under my posts there, just as I have done here. I’ve written two posts about the Freeh Report, which is two more than Joe Posnanski has.

    • CB says:

      @David in Toledo: The post you are responding to is almost entirely rokirovka quoting Rick Reilly. You know, a professional writer and sports journalist? So I think he’s kind of an apropos source when it comes to illustrating how shamefully Posnanski has performed his job.

  61. This comment has been removed by the author.

  62. jim says:

    Oh, get off it, @David in Toledo. Asking people to wait until the book comes out is akin to asking Joe last spring to wait until LeBron’s career is over before he writes about him. You know — we need to know what LeBron knew and when he knew it before we can get the total picture of his career, and it would be unseemly to write about his career as it’s happening. Or something. But somehow Joe has thousands of words of condemnation to write on LeBron.

    Yet he clams up, requesting patience and an abundance of caution when it comes to Paterno. I know the two situations are different and blah blah blah, but for a guy like Joe, who is perfectly okay with sharing instantaneous, contemporaneous thoughts — often times on situations he has no insight into whatsoever (e.g., the motivations of LeBron) — on all things sports, to all the sudden clam up is very, as Joe likes to call his posts, curious.

    It’s this fundamental inconsistency that should lead to a major reconsideration of Joe’s writing.

  63. KHAZAD says:

    Joe doesn’t owe any of you people anything. You have absolutely no right to demand a statement from him.

    It is more than a little crazy to take over the comments on this story to vent. Talk to your friends, start your own blog about Paterno. If you don’t want to read the type of writing Joe wants to write, don’t read it.

    There was a lot damning info in the report about the university, and about the leadership of 2nd chance (who are, as far as I am concerned, the biggest villains in this entire mess, and are not really talked about. I guess it is because they are not famous.) The only “new” info about Paterno seems to be 2 Emails Curley sent, one of which indicated he had informed Paterno in 1998. We don’t know how specific he was in what he said, or whether he even really had the conversation (Curley HAS been proven to be a liar) Even if he did talk to him, he could have just said that there were some allegations that were being investigated, and when there were no charges, he could’ve just told him that it was unsubstantiated. I am certainly not defending Paterno, regardless of what happened in 1998, he should have done more in 2001. But the recently renewed wave of self righteous ire seems to stem from these Emails “proving” that Paterno knew all the details of 1998, and therefore lied about having only vague knowledge of it. Because he is the famous one, we should all rise up in a mob mentality and declare his evil.

    Even if he did lie, there is no need for Joe to say anything about it. In fact, since he is under contract for a book, he definitely should not. Again, he owes you nothing. If you don’t like it, please just go away. Don’t read the blog. Don’t read the book when it comes out. Troll somewhere else please.

  64. CB says:

    Thanks for the lecture, Khazad. Joe will be glad to hear that some of his fans will be with him no matter what.

    As to the rest of us, you’re right, he doesn’t literally owe us anything. He does not work for us, he is not paid to serve us, and it’s a free country.

    However, Posnanski has built an image for himself–a man of integrity, thoughtfulness, empathy. He’s also built a career that depends on having large numbers of enthusiastic fans. This is what allows him to command a generous six-figure salary at SI, and now at USA Today, and to collect $750,000 advances for book projects.

    Thus far, Posnanski’s behavior vis-a-vis Paterno has been less than impressive. He insisted that we avoid rushing to judgment, and then the NEXT DAY spoke to a Penn State class and said that Paterno was being treated as a “scapegoat.” That’s a judgment. Thereafter, Posnanski has made clear he was a supporter of Paterno, suggesting that the coach should not be blamed for “one hazy moment.”

    Well, we know now that it wasn’t “one hazy moment,” it was a longstanding pattern of lies and deception. And every day that Posnanski remains silent, is another day that his reputation and his fanbase take huge hits.

    Right now, I can reach no other conclusions than (a) Posnanski is a coward who is unwilling to either speak out against Paterno or own up to the fact that he still admires Paterno, (b) Posnanski is a hypocrite who was more than willing to look the other way and write his little book as long as it wasn’t HIS kids getting raped, and (c) Posnanski is a naive fool who has no ability to judge the character of others, and is little more than a shill or mouthpiece who can be easily manipulated by coaches and athletes.

    My point is this: Joe Posnanski can remain silent, if he wants. He can write a not-very-critical book about Paterno, if he wants. But if these are the choices he makes, I think he can expect to lose a lot of the respect and a lot of the fanbase he’s built up over the years.

    One last thing: Inasmuch as Joe Posnanski has not poster a comment–or any story of any sort–since the Freeh report broke, then those who would like to oomment on this matter have no choice but to use this thread. It is not “more than a little crazy.” So why don’t you take your judgments and your holier-than-thou attitude and shove them.

    • KHAZAD says:

      Whatever the level of Paterno’s guilt, there is absolutely no doubt that he fits the definition of a scapegoat-one who bears the brunt of the blame for others, one who is the subject of irrational hostility.

      All of these comments are full of judgments about Posnanski and come from a holier than thou attitude, including and perhaps especially yours,so ending your comment with that was quite hypocritical.

      Joe has said he will say what he has to say about the subject in his book. I have no doubt that whatever his conclusions are will be in there. He and his publishers made the (probably difficult) decision to still publish the book, and that is now the proper forum for whatever he has to say, and admittedly probably a more beneficial place to say it for Joe and the publishers who gave him a contract or advance.

      If you need to make holier than thou judgements or condemn Joe and leave his fanbase because he is not leading the lynch mob, then do what you need to do and don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

    • CB says:

      This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  65. Unknown says:

    Or option D.) Joe is going to prove himself a professional man of letters and issue some sort of statement that grapples with the worst sports scandal in American history, in his own time, with his own unique perspective. As a longtime loyal reader, I am willing to grant him that.

    To fail to do at least that–to remain silent–to simply write about Robinson Cano at the All Star Game or the time George Brett told that one joke at a Mookie Wilson fundraiser, is asking his loyal readers (again, of which I am one) to take a Ray Kinsella like stroll through the cornfields. Look at the baseball diamond. Look at the green grass. And forget. Baseball, baseball, baseball…an incantation for some lost innocence.

    Unfortunately, as adults, as readers, we need more than that.

  66. Brian says:

    Reading the comments on here that are actually about the article, it seems there are two camps: people (Yankees fans) who think (incorrectly) that the HR Derby matters a great deal, and people who know it doesn’t matter and that the boos were more about Billy Butler than Robinson Cano. Cano seemed to understand that fact a lot more than his supporters. After a great show (thank you, Mr. Cano) there are no hard feelings. KC fans have been known to organize and protest the politics of the game (see the “Share the Wealth” game from ’99,) and no Royals fan will hold a grudge about this. Doesn’t seem like the same can be said for New Yorkers, but heck, I guess if we made some Yankees angry we did something right. Your ire puts us on the map faster than the Dayton Moore Process ever could.

    • mickey says:

      I believe the chronology of this pissing match would show that those that first made the judgment that the HR Derby matters are the KC fans who took umbrage when Butler was not chosen and then conflated that to a snub of Kansas City and all that it stands for.

    • Chris says:

      How many times does this have to be said for the Yanks fans to get it through their thick heads. It was Cano who said he would take a Royals position player if chosen for the all start game, and then Cano who failed to do so despite Butler being our lone representative.

      I don’t think anybody thinks the Derby is a big deal. I think Yankees fans have decided that booing their players is a big deal.

  67. Alejo says:

    You won´t say anything then.

    At least please spare us the 4th-of-July-American-values-growing-up-in-Cleveland manure in the future. It rings hollow.

  68. KCJoe says:

    Alejo, CB and to some degree rokirovka,

    I’m curious, do you patrol all blogs, journalists and writers on their statements against Paterno? For that matter, do you keep score of all writers globally on their statements against the Catholic bishops of the world who have done far more than Paterno is even accused of? If you do, good for you and the children of the world. If not, why do you spend so much time trolling on Posnanski’s blog?

    Yes I’ve heard all of your arguments: Posnanski brought this on himself. He found himself in the middle of a controversy and didn’t immediately publish his stance on the situation. Then he made statements to PSU students that apparently set him solidly in the Paterno camp. Then he has done nothing but plead for patience from his readers. OK. Got it.

    Posnanski is publishing a book on the subject. If you don’t want to read it, that’s your prerogative but shut up. Posnanski OWES you nothing. If you don’t want to read him, DON”T READ HIM. In fact, do us all a favor and stay off of HIS blog. The fact that your comments haven’t been deleted speaks to Joe Posnanski’s openness to intelligent debate. You are on the edge of unintelligent name calling. Trying to bait Posnanski into writing an opinion when he is under contract for a book that is due out in a couple weeks is stupid. I would assume he CAN’T (by contract) telegraph what he has written in the book or it would hurt sales. It’s not a question of returning the advance. He would probably be in breach of contract. When an adult signs a contract, they fulfill the requirements of the contract.

    I’ve already ordered the book. I plan to read it. If Posnanski whitewashes the Sandusky crimes and Paterno’s handling of them, then I will certainly lose respect for him but until I read what he has written, I am willing to suspend my decision.

    • Chris says:

      Apperently you weren’t here in November when he turned comments off. Not so open then. Personally I have such strong opinions about Posnanski on this subject because I am a long time reader of his and hold him to a higher standard than most other jack off sportswriters.

    • rokirovka says:

      To be fair to Joe Posnanski, he has not turned comments off this past week, and the only comment that has been removed was one where a reader cursed out another reader. Besides that, the many critical comments by myself and other readers have not been removed. I respect Joe Posnanski for that.

    • adam says:

      I thought it was well after November that Pos turned off comments, but I could be wrong. What I remember stated was that someone posted something in incredibly poor taste, it was deleted, and then reposted immediately. I have no idea what it was. Pos then reopened comments a month or so later once he got some volunteer moderators. I have no idea what the comment was, but given the way Pos was excoriated (some unjustly, some justly imho) when the story broke in November and he *didn’t* remove the comments, leads me to believe that he didn’t close the comments to avoid criticism and that the stated reason for comment removal was truthful.

    Черное море отдых
    В свое время Брашов был самый высокий саксонского населения в Трансильвании, на
    Таун-Холл, в середине площади, был построен в готическом стиле, приобретение его нынешней форме барокко в 1770 году

  70. Unknown says:

    I didn’t realize that every Royals fan in the world was passionate enough about this topic to post on it….

    Booing Cano? No big deal. He is a professional, he knows how to ignore fans who enjoy acting like asses.

    As far as Yankees fans being thin skinned…its about loyalty to the players we love.

    I guess the Royals fans were just booing to be jerks, though, since they clearly don’t understand loyalty to a player and team.

  71. adam says:

    I don’t think Posnanski *owes* us anything but I sure hope to hear his current opinion on the subject either in book or on the blog. I hate to say it but I haven’t read his posts quite the same way since the scandal broke.

    When the scandal broke, my immediate thought was that Joe wouldn’t say anything because he was too close to the situation and the story was breaking new information like crazy. That was Posnanski’s statement as well, and I agreed with it, and then there was quite a heated debate here on whether Posnanski should immediately come out and denounce Paterno as the devil incarnate.

    Then the next day he went to that class and ignored his own advice. Facepalm. Very dismaying.

    Then he basically went underground. Fair enough. He had the book to (re)write and the whole premise was thrown out the window.

    I also remember reading that the publish date was moved *earlier*, for some unfathomable reason. I think this was stated in Neyer’s blog but I can’t remember. For this reason it’s coming out next month, right? It’s hard to imagine the Freeh report is covered except maybe as an afterward.

    I guess my point in all this is, let’s wait and see what Posnanski writes about Paterno before tearing him a new one. If he writes a pure hagiography then he’ll get what he deserves. Though it’s impossible to imagine anyone publishing such a book right now.

    Finally, IMHO, if Posnanski addresses this in his book, he’s not necessarily obligated to address it in his blog also. And whatever he does say in the book, I have no doubt we’ll hear all about it without having to go buy the book. Which is good, because if it *is* a hagiography, then I sure as hell don’t want to shill out a single cent for it.

  72. nickpa1 says:

    When the story broke I thought of Joe Posnanski being caught in this mess and I kind of felt bad for him. Writing the bio was a great opportunity and something that I’m sure he cherished, but to be sucked into this disgusting mess was not something he could have ever envisioned.

    But then I thought crisis, breaking news, climactic moments in history…to be at ground zero for an event like this was a “dare to be great situation” that even Lloyd Dobler couldn’t ignore. For an extremely talented writer, this was a chance for greatness.

    I will refrain from passing judgment (especially based on tweets from an unidentified PSU student sitting in a classroom), but I would love to be able to read Joe’s thoughts on what has transpired, and continues to transpire, in one of the biggest stories in sports history.

    Until then, the silence is deafening.

  73. sourcreamus says:

    Joe has no obligation to any one here. He provides this blog to entertain us with his wonderful writing for free.
    The people he has an obligaton to are the people who paid him to write a Paterno book. He obviously has a lot to write about given the events of the last year. If his publishers don’t want him to comment on the Paterno story now but want him to wait until the book comes out it would be unethical for him to say anything now. The book publisher is the one whose money is paying for Joe’s mortgage and for his kids college funds. Until one of you ponies up and writes him a huge check to write a blog post, you should stop whining about the deafening silence and enjoy his wonderful blogging about sports. He owes you nothing.

    • CB says:

      Mr. Posnanski is free to do as he see fits. But, as I have observed above, his high-profile job opportunities and his $750,000 advances, and other perks he enjoys are in large part because he has a loyal fan base. What the comments here clearly indicate are that some portion of that fan base is wavering. So if Mr. Posnanski chooses to say nothing, then he runs the risk of losing fans, which I would think matters to him.

      And you have a very funny understanding of the word “unethical.” I can assure you that for Posnanski to comment on Paterno before the book comes out may be many things–including irritating to his publisher–but it is not unethical.

  74. The Stork says:

    Sourcreams, you are correct. However he has set the expectation by writing this blog on a consistent basis for the past two years.Yes, he owes us nothing, but as his fans, followers the ones who he writes for he owes us everything.

    He owes us an explanation

  75. justsayin says:

    Just because you expect an explanation doesn’t mean Pos owes you one. If I give you a dollar for a month, then one day decide not to give it to you, it doesn’t mean I owe you a dollar, now.

  76. Let it go, folks. I don’t read Joe because of his stances on various issues, although I might find them interesting. I read his posts and books because they are well written and thought provoking. Believe it or not, I could not care less what he wrote about JoePa and Penn State, whether he apologized for it, or anything else. I miss his regular posts about virtually everything else. Final thought: you folks act as if one cannot maintain that the penalties levied against Penn State were a bit over the top without one being a child molester/enabler sympathizer. Baloney. The two can be, and are, mutually exclusive.

  77. rickinkc says:

    Joe surfaces with an article from London under the banner of USA Today.|newswell|text|Olympic%20Sports|s

  78. justsayin says:

    This comment has been removed by the author.

  79. Smart post admin
    I hope to visit my blog and subscribe to me 🙂
    Gonorrhea and Nongonococcal Urethritis

  80. Yes, there can be no room for civil disagreement or opposing views. Everyone must fall in line.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *