Geoff Baker is the “problem” with print journalism the way Ichiro is the “problem” with the M’s. Which is to say not a problem at all. Just get off it, and focus on the stuff that matters.

That turncoat Graham will have to determine where his true allegiance lies.

What’s warranted is for the intelligent commenters to carry on as if the idiot commenters do not exist — by not clicking the “comments” tag over there, and by employing the enhanced moderation techniques over here.

I think I understand. As you know, moderation is a balancing act. For me, the fundamental take-home message is primarily that the quality of comments has been out of balance, and this is one type where Dave thinks we could shift that balance.

I have no problem with the “Geoff Baker is a good reporter but a bad analyst” type of comment, though it’s been said often enough by now to be a little shopworn. I also think his analysis is a bit more of a mixed bag – some things he can analyze quite well, others not so well and those tend to get harped on. And for signal-to-noise ratio if not entertainment value, it’s much more interesting to have cogent critiques of Baker’s analysis than critiques of Baker himself.

I can understand your concern given your point of view as a mod. That said, I am probably the last person that would apply to.

Your clarification helps. I now know that Baker’s work is not totally off limits to commenters, and I suspect my respectful approach to addressing his views in an on-topic comment are in line with the new rule.

If you knew more about my background, you’d probably understand why I have such a strong desire to understand the rules and ensure compliance. It’s actually the exact opposite of what you appear to be thinking.

I am all for cleaning up comments sections. I think you should do whatever you need to do that. I am also all for some jerkiness to get it done. Some of the blogs I have contributed to as an author required me to do just that. I am actually much less tolerant of poor and off-topic comments in those forums, so you won’t see me saying things are getting too tough around here.

That doesn’t mean that we’re not going to expose the flaws in his logic if he proposes trading Gregory Halman for Eric Gagne this summer or that we’re going to give the clubhouse issues the same amount of credence he does, but we’re putting an end to your ability to be openly hostile in our comments section.

Don’t be “openly hostile” or anything that can be construed that way, and you’ll be fine. If you simply HAVE to talk about Baker’s work, keep it civil, and specific to something he actually said. Don’t speculate about his motives for saying what he says, and don’t take personal potshots at him.

All of this talk about trying to “figure out where the line is” frankly makes me think you’re trying to figure out just how far you can go before you get squashed, and that’s not a game we’re going to play.

I will echo, too (without specifically singling anyone out) Dave’s sentiment about comment quality of late. It’s been really, really bad. You guys don’t even see all of the badness, because we catch a lot of it before it gets out into the wild.

So we’re going to be a little bit more hands-on about we moderate until we see that turn around; if the price of that is people thinking we’re trying to infringe on some inherent right to free speech, well, them’s the breaks.

In the Griffey thread that Dave refers to, I asked people politely to turn the talk back on topic when the “bash Baker fest” started; several commenters decided to ignore that and keep right on going.

In retrospect, I should’ve probably gone back and just deleted all of the off-topic posts, but I try not to delete posts whenever possible, preferring to gently nudge conversations back on topic when I see them stray; but that should never be construed as “well, he didn’t REALLY mean that we need to stop talking about this, or he would’ve deleted those posts!”

We try to be reasonably polite when we make moderation comments in a thread, but we’re not “asking” in the sense that you have a choice in the matter.

Sorry if I come off like a jerk, but Dave’s right; this needs to come to an end, and if we have to be jerks for a while to make that happen, so be it.

. . .and talking about Baker at all is getting dangerously close to the level of steroid conversations, where we just can’t let them happen at all anymore because we know what the endpoint is.

Jeff – I am not trying to be difficult, and I pride myself on thinking carefully about my comments before I make them. The two statements above seem contradictory to me, though. It looks like on the one hand I can point out a flaw in Baker’s analysis (probably in the context of a post by USSM authors that links to and is critical of one of his articles) and on the other hand it looks like we can’t mention his name at all. I am happy to email offline about this, so as not to enable those who might want to push it.

And my point is even if the issue is about Baker’s analytical skills there’s no reason to constantly point it out.

Well, there might be plenty of reasons to mention where the analysis fall short. He’s writing about new topics every day, and the criticism of his approach (or praise of it) is manifested in responses to specific topics that change every day. In looking at a new story on any number of things – a given trade, a story about some controversial topic, an interview of a player who comments on others – we apply what we’ve learned about baseball and either agree or disagree with his take. When the article is linked here and the authors openly disagree with the analysis, is it a reasonable expectation that commenters will not want to follow suit? Cut it off at attacks on Geoff personally, but this site is all about better analysis and that, by necessity, implies comparisons to those who analyze situations differently. Short of not linking to or mentioning Geoff’s work or turning off comments, I am not sure how the authors and mods will get folks to comply without a lot of heartburn.

Or perhaps it’s just easier for me because the “Good beat writer, bad analysis” argument is at least 2 years old with not much changing in between.

I don’t get this point. I’ve been commenting on the Times site since Baker started his blog and have been commenting here for several years now. This isn’t an issue of time. The topics change – DH evaluation, roster construction, the value of cheap pick-ups, etc. Lots of things have changed, and frankly, Geoff’s analysis has been pretty good of the new regime’s moves, in my view. I tell him so as often as I agree, and, not surprisingly, I tell him when I think he’s got it wrong. I don’t think he’s been offended by anything I’ve said, and I certainly wouldn’t be any less respectful about the disagreement when mentioning it on this site. So, even with a per se rule at USSM of no Baker talk at all, I will still let Geoff know what I think of his analysis. I am pretty sure he welcomes that, so long as it is respectful dialogue.

It makes sense.

It’s one thing to say “[Insert Reporter's Name Here]‘s analysis of the Mariners in today’s story is flawed because of X, Y, and Z.” That starts discussion on the particular issue in question, which is always good.

Saying “[Insert Reporter's Name Here] is not good at analysis, and today’s story is another example of that” puts the focus on the person and not the issue, and I think that’s what the mods are trying to avoid.