…Bobby Botz, a soft, white, plump little man who resembled “Spanky” in “Our Gang,” and was just as abrasive. Botz was 26 years old and a proven Triple-A pitcher, although his best fastball would not bruise a baby’s skin. He compensated for his lack of speed by developing pinpoint control, which was sufficient to bring him to the major leagues for a month… before he returned permanently to the minors. Botz would learn nothing at Bradenton… nor did he expect to. He had come only to give his wife a vacation, which, he hoped, would help her forget her recent miscarriage. Bobby never talked about the miscarriage, although he never tired of telling us about his and his wife’s sexual encounters, which he detailed so graphically in the clubhouse each morning that it never failed to embarass me. Bobby took nothing seriously. His humor was acerbic and mostly carnal in nature. He equated the deficiency of his fastball with a deficiency in the length of his penis. He would point to a well-endowed teammate stepping from the shower and say, to our delight and that teammate’s blushes, “Jesus, if only I had one like ‘The Snake’ there — what a fastball I’d have!”

That’s from p. 210 of an old edition of Pat Jordan’s A False Spring, which has more than a few biting comments about minor league players, coaches and managers.

I wonder if Alex’s friend, Mr. Jordan, has an opinion about the McCarthy-Times dust-up?

Alex I honestly don’t see why you worry that McCarthy’s fables set some unreasonably high bar for other writers. I’d say unmasking him as dishonest a fiction writer reaffirms the standards that ought to apply to all non-fiction writers. I’d also think that ‘carelessness’ is a very generous word to use. Was he truly careless, or was he sexing up a story to get to the bestseller list? If the latter, then the analogy to Frey is closer than it looks at first.

I admit I also find it a bit unfair to go after the reporter here because the newspaper has had issues in the past of … well, let’s say more than carelessness!

In fact, as I think about it, those attacking Schwartz this way are kind of making Alex’s point … the lies of some end up reducing the credibility of all.

There is no real reason to doubt Schwartz’s indignation and even outrage at McCarthy (and his publicist’s) ‘handling’ of the post-interview sequence. In fact, I believe the reporter on this flat-out, simply because it is so basic a process. He loses nothing by allowing the interview subject to offer additions or clarifications here … the interview is done, the heart of the story (which is in the book and the facts that refute it) isn’t going to change at that late hour. McCarthy saying he was denied a chance to rebut AFTER the interview based on his misrepresentations is really lame, and suggests spinning, big time.

I think McCarthy is being seriously disingenuous, trying to cast this as just mistakes in remembering box scores. It’s a lot more than that. Claiming that the manager ordered retaliation for two HBPs…when the box score showed no batters were hit on either team, in the entire series? That’s not a misremembered box score, that’s totally made up.

And he wouldn’t show his supposed journals to the reporter. Why not? If it was an honest mistake, why not put your cards on the table?

also, i don’t see any personal attacks by Schwarz in his comments…

re: the Larry King incident.

The Times made it seem like McCarthy quoted Matt Brown (a player who wasn’t there) making profane threats to King’s kid. McCarthy makes it seem like he included him in a list of people who got punched in the nads.

If it’s the latter, I agree that could be seen as nit-picking.

But, if it’s the former, and this is all McCarthy has to offer to clear the air, I’d be disappointed.

The punching incident is on p. 173 of the book, where McCarthy writes:

A few of my teammates were brought to their knees just minutes before game time.

“That little bastard!” mumbled Matt Brown, a baby-faced third baseman from Idaho, as he lay doubled over on the dugout floor. “I’m gonna kill that little shit.”

On this point, at least, the Times has it right. Although probably not slander in the legal sense, McCarthy landed a very low blow indeed (no pun intended) by falsely putting those words in Brown’s mouth. He owes Brown, at least, an apology, and the passage should be corrected.

Moreover, McCarthy’s obfuscating defense – admitting a trivial error to divert attention from a much larger mistake – strikes me as really quite slippery, if not downright shady.

as someone who does qualitative research, i know the difficulty in recreating observations and coversations if you were unable to take notes at the time. so i can understand some of the small details being off.
the bigger concern to me – and this is over any kind of non-fiction work – is if actual events or conversations were flat out created or intentionally distorted. like say pretending a serial killer called your cellphone (that damn templeton again).
the two things from the excerpt that were disputed in the nyt article that are most concerning to me are 1) the player who said he did not pretend to be hurt to collect his check and 2) reagins saying he did not cry when he cut mccarthy (which was something i was frankly slightly skeptical of when i read it in the si excerpt- obviously i wasn’t there – i don’t know what happened – and am not intending to call anyone a liar – just my immediate reaction was i am suprised about that)

what sucks about these stories is how much gets tainted – extending to alex’s concern on the impact to other writers.

Well the book is obviously packed with lies. I mean there isn’t one thing in there about “A-Fraud” or David Wells making lives difficult for everyone on the planet at all, so how truthful can it be really?

/sarcasm off

The Times made it seem like McCarthy quoted Matt Brown (a player who wasn’t there) making profane threats to King’s kid. McCarthy makes it seem like he included him in a list of people who got punched in the nads.

If it’s the latter, I agree that could be seen as nit-picking.

But, if it’s the former, and this is all McCarthy has to offer to clear the air, I’d be disappointed. And it would seem to me that McCarthy hasn’t come to terms with the damage he may have caused by misattributing certain quotes and misrepresenting certain facts.

Obviously, some errors are endemic to publishing. No one understands that more than a daily newspaper such as ours.

Well, I will give The Times that. If there’s anything the New York Times knows, its publishing factual errors

And I actually wanted to read this, has anyone here given it a look? Worth the time? This is gonna be a great summer for baseball (and especially Yankee) books.

Is this guy Schwarz a reporter or a columnist for the Times? If he’s a reporter, it really seems to me like he has a negative biased opinion about McCarthy that makes him unfit to write on the subject. Some of the comments he made in this post are very personal and hateful. McCarthy answers the questions in a professional manner in my opinion, but Schwarz seems to just go on the defensive like he’s backed into a corner, and then he starts mocking and attacking McCarthy. I just get a sense from both the nit-picky Times article that I read and this article that Schwarz is being very subjective with his work. The Times seems like they have a bone to pick with McCarthy.

If you look around the Internet, if this were really that big of a deal, it would be all over the place, but aside from a couple blog posts here and there, the story is dead. And not one of the players that has said none of the stuff is true have done anything about it. It’s just the typical deny, deny, deny defense that we saw with the Canseco book a few years ago.

Anyways, does anyone agree with me that Schwarz seems to be getting personal with McCarthy, which questions his intent on his original article?