How is it possible when any tiny little bit of baseball news on and off the field is reported by multiple outlets that---during a relatively slow time---no one has any details of the job Keith Law was supposedly offered by the Houston Astros?
What you’re telling me is that Jon Heyman, Richard Justice, Tracy Ringolsby, Ken Rosenthal, Jerry Crasnick and Jayson Stark (both of whom work for ESPN with Law) don’t have any details on this bit of “news”? On a baseball news day in which MLB Trade Rumors was posting stories entitled “Phillies Release John Bowker”; “Cardinals Shopping for Right-Handed Reliever”; “Phillies Interested in Jeremy Accardo”; and “Mets Re-Sign Miguel Batista”, the Law-Astros story received no attention and no digging apart from what Law himself said on Twitter?
They’d be ridiculed.
But because of his status as a former assistant in the Blue Jays front office who has carved out a snarky niche for himself as something other than a stat guy and is now a TV analyst and scout, his pronouncements are given credibility.
Do they warrant credibility?
Highly educated at Harvard and other fine institutions of higher learning>>writer for Baseball Prospectus>>former Blue Jays assistant>>ESPN analyst/scouting and draft guru>>interviewing with the Astros.
But is it real?
Should we believe him?
It’s hard to tell.
Weeks ago, it was reported that Law interviewed for several front office positions with the new Astros braintrust led by Jeff Luhnow.
Luhnow proceeded to hire Sig Mejdal as his “Director of Decision Sciences” (whatever that is); and Stephanie Wilka as his Coordinator of Amateur Scouting.
But no Law.
Yesterday Law said the following at about noon Eastern time on his Twitter feed:
I have chosen to stay with ESPN. It was a difficult decision, and I'm very grateful to the Astros for the opportunity.
The opportunity for what is unclear.
Did they offer him a job or not?
The tweet was so opaque and laden with ambiguous phrasing and plausible deniability that it looks like a political cover story to protect Law’s reputation as the ultimate baseball insider; someone who knows his way around front offices, crunches the numbers and travels around doing “scouting”. He has a breadth of experience and knowledge, thereby according him as an "expert" in the media.
But is he?
Where is this story and why doesn’t anyone with inside informers and leaks have the details of the job that Law implies---doesn’t say, but implies---the Astros offered?
The only reporting I can find online ends up back with Law’s pronouncement. Here on Hardball Talk, Aaron Gleeman reports what Law said on Twitter.
No one knows what job he was offered?
And back to Law.
Law has me blocked on Twitter. Why? Probably because I call him an armchair expert who regurgitates scouting terminology. I don't call people names or curse at them; his decision to block me is indicative of a skin far too thin to say the things he does in the tone he says them.
Blocking me on Twitter was, retrospectively, a bad idea. Truth be told, I don’t remember if I ever even followed him (I don’t think I did), so blocking me informs the world at large that he knows who I am. That’s unless he scours Twitter during his off hours and blocks random people. With (at the time of this writing) 364,584 followers, that’s highly unlikely.
Law strikes me as someone who’s very conscious of how he’s perceived and is desperately seeking to maintain and bolster his reputation; but when one is caught in prevarications or twisted facts as he was when he had his somewhat embarrassing slap fight with Michael Lewis over Law’s negative review of the film Moneyball and then backtracks like a trapped waterbug, his agenda reveals itself.
Later, in what was clearly an effort to say, “look, the Astros aren’t done hiring after Mejdal and Wilka”, Law tweeted:
Astros have received permission to interview Cardinals regional cross-checker Mike Elias for a Special Assistant role in scouting
Someone asked if that was the same job Law was offered and he replied:
no, I don't think it's the same job.
Here’s what I suspect: the Astros interviewed Law as a courtesy without any intention of hiring him; the story of said interview was leaked (possibly by Law himself); this was either an attempt on the part of Law to extract a better deal from ESPN or to shoehorn his way into a front office job with a GM in Luhnow who believes what Law believes in building an organization; the Astros may or may not have offered him a position, but that position was such that it was either designed for him to turn down because it was so low on the totem pole or didn’t happen at all and they're letting him kindasorta say they did in a face-saving gesture; and now he’s made a great show of “choosing to stay at ESPN” when he really didn’t have much of an alternative to leave from the beginning.
How is a story that begins and ends with one source---the subject of said story---to be taken at face value?
If I’m wrong, I’ll admit it.
But through the principles of deduction, what we’ve learned so far and from whom we’ve learned it, I don’t think I am.