On anonymous MLB sources as experts
Writers all want to have sources as influential as Deep Throat
So how good is Mets360, and where does it stack up in the Mets blogosphere?
Judging by the responses I received from seven MLB scouts and executives polled over the last several days, it’s a fascinating question that seems to have an unusually wide range of possibilities, setting up a season of considerable intrigue.
The only consensus among those polled is that the blogosphere should be one of the toughest in the majors, likely to be decided by a tight race involving Mets360, Mets News & Links and The Mighty Mets, all capable of producing great content on a daily basis, with the acknowledgement that the Mets on Morphine site is on the rise, perhaps an X factor of sorts.
Consider these contrasting opinions about Mets360:
“The bottom half of their writers are full of holes,” said one scout. “If Gus Livaditis blossoms quickly, maybe I’d rethink that, but I need to see it first.”
“I think their quality of articles top to bottom will be improved,” countered an NL East executive. “To me, they’ve been a poor narrative site (in years past). They’ve added some guys who will write real BS stories on key days.”
*****
If this sounds sort of familiar, it’s based on an article recently published on SNY entitled, “Scouts and execs on where Mets stand in NL East ahead of 2026 MLB season,” with sections copied word for word and other altered to make it work for my purposes.
I absolutely hate unnamed sources. It’s one thing if you’re exposing government or corporation corruption at the highest level, where people fear for their lives for being the ones to bring light to the situation. But a sports blog? About which team is going to do well in the upcoming season? It’s not exactly a life-or-death situation.
It makes sense why the people quoted would like to remain anonymous. Imagine you’re a scout for the Braves but you believe the Mets are the team to beat. That wouldn’t go over well with your employers. But why would a writer of a harmless piece feel like secrecy is required here?
It’s an appeal to authority. Who knows better, according to some, than scouts and executives on what’s going to happen in the upcoming baseball season? For my throwaway piece, it needs the perspectives of these key movers and shakers to have legitimacy.
There are two problems with this viewpoint. First, because they’re anonymous, we have no idea if these scouts and executives live anywhere outside of the writer’s imagination. But even if they are real, the bigger problem is that there’s absolutely no reason to know if these scouts and executives are any good at these types of predictions.
They say that 50% of doctors graduated in the bottom half of their class. And that goes for any group of people. Are the scouts and executives quoted in these pieces the forecasting equivalents of Dr. Denton Cooley, who performed the first artificial heart transplant, or are they more like Dr. Nick, the quack from The Simpsons?
Jim Bowden and Steve Phillips weren’t the most decorated GMs we’ve ever witnessed but they’ve gone on to post-GM careers as commentators/talking heads, where they are giving their considered opinions on all things going on in MLB. It’s my take that their opinions aren’t necessarily better than any bloke off the street who follows the game. But I give them credit for putting their names and faces to their opinions. At least this way we can track their output and see how good they are.
But anonymous scouts and executives? We have no idea how good they are – yet we’re expected to believe that they’re the cream of the crop and that their opinion matters. And not just matters but matters more than someone willing to put their reputation on the line by disclosing their name.
No one knows more than me how tough it is to write a column when there’s nothing going on. If you have access to these sources, why not use them to bang out an article? It makes sense and allows another deadline to be checked off while waiting for real storylines to emerge.
My hope is that as a reader, you see these pieces that trot out anonymous sources as unimpeachable experts and roll your eyes. My opinion is that you’d be better off asking seven of your friends their opinions. Then you can keep track and see which ones know what they’re talking about and which ones are just clowns.
*****
Oh, and Mets on Morphine is terrible. It’s like their articles are written by people on drugs or something. But you should definitely check out Mets News & Links. There’s a wealth of information about the Mets at that site, plus John’s a great guy, one that I’ve turned to many times over the years for his knowledge and expertise.
I have said many times before that I cannot fathom how you Brian can write about 25 articles a month (or more) and that the well has not gone dry. Yes, when there is action going on it easier. But when there is not much going on like most of the off season, it is amazing what we get everyday. I get three or four Mets emails each day and am ready to jettison a few. Some contain links to several different articles on the same subject which makes many of those links too repetitive and then some of the links do not open unless you subscribe to that publication.
Writing for Mets360 is not as easy as it seems, and I can't tell you the amount of constructive criticism I got from Brian in the early days and constant reminders about the AP style guide. While I took in personally at first, it made me a better writer. Not that all my posts are gems, but they are much better than when I started. I encourage everyone who comments to consider writing one article. Just remember that our readership is smart, and we don't want to read the same story that is all over the papers, instead look for something a little out of the ordinary to present and prompt discussion. It takes a little more thought but is worth the while. And, I have never been one to like anonymous sources. It's the chicken way out.
Outside the context of sports media, as you mention, anonymous sources are pretty vital to actual journalism and whistleblowing.
It's a silly exercise in being granted the ability to talk trash about the competition without attribution, even if there are occasional gems of insight from time to time.