clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Jose Contreras Update

New, comments

The newspaper reports of Jose Contreras' injured back and sciatica are generally positive.

"There really could have been a good chance he could have pitched [Wednesday] from what he went through Sunday, the pain, and that we had to send him to the hospital for medicine," Schneider said.

"It's just not in his best interests to pitch [Wednesday]. It's only May and as an organization we're looking at the big picture, not the small picture."

I heard an interview on the radio where Kenny Williams stated that Contreras probably could have missed only one start, not requiring a trip to the DL, but they want to error on the side of caution. It's a long season, and the Sox feel better giving up 2 starts in May rather than having a number of ineffective starts and the possibility of greater injury down the road.

From the same radio report, however, I heard Schneider describe Jose's pain on Sunday as excruciating. And the Daily Southtown's Nathaniel Whalen observed him struggling with stairs Tuesday.

Contreras could not walk down the steps straight on -- he needed to go down sideways -- because his leg was in so much pain on Tuesday. The part that hurt him more, though, is that he feels as though he's letting the Sox down.
Those last two tidbits make me think this is a little more than the White Sox just being cautious.

(uninteresting media rant below)

Somewhat related, I loved Scott Reifert's righteous indignation regarding how this whole situation was handled by the media.

When I was in journalism school (now about 20 years ago, yikes), you could not print or report a fact unless you had two sources to verify the information. This made sure the information was correct and also protected the journalist from sources intent on using the media to promote their opinion of someone or something as opposed to supporting factual information.

It amazes me how often this "rule" is ignored now.

Take this report, for example. No one contacted the White Sox to verify any of the information before it was reported. Don't you think someone should have checked? It may ultimately turn out to be correct, Jose could have to go onto the disabled list, but it may also turn out to be incorrect, he may be absolutely fine. Will the reporter and his/her single source be accountable?

This passage was posted Tuesday morning. The were no print reports anywhere that Contreras was definitely headed to the DL. All of the reports from the night before had quotes from Kenny Williams, and said it was a possibility that Contreras was headed to the DL. The only outlets Reifert could be referring to is either radio or blogs like this one.

As for the radio reports, ESPN1000's Bruce Levine, whose report prompted me to go ahead an make an entry, said that he had spoken directly to Contreras. Now I can't verify if that is true or not, but it was good enough for me. There was smoke, and fire engines & ambulances en route, so I assumed there was fire. Turns out there was.

As for blogs in general, I know I'm not going to call the White Sox to confirm a story. That would be a waste of my time. They're not going to tell me squat. There are plenty of bloggers out there who are trying their darndest to score press credentials in the hopes that more access will lead to more info. But, as Deadspin's Will Leicht points out, that's not the case.

MLB doesn't want to credential bloggers because they think they can't control them, which, ironically, is the exact opposite of the truth. Credentialing them is the best way to control them.
Count me in the camp that likes to report all willy-nilly, far from the thumb that keeps the reports in our local papers maddeningly similar.

I read the papers, listen to the radio, and scour the internet for info on the White Sox and their opponents. Then I turn around and interpret what I've found and present it to you. Some of what I write is going to be wrong. I acknowledge that. But I present everything here very clearly. Opinions are clearly labeled as such, and I always link to sources from which I've drawn my conclusions.

I know Reifert wasn't attacking me directly, and he probably never reads this blog, but for some reason I felt the need to defend what's left of my honor.