About those "anonymous scouts"

[Yakuza Rich]

Frankly I think the lady who finds this so "offensive" is the face of the destruction of American society. Everyone's a victim of something. Let's meet at a safe space and talk about our feelings.

I have no problem with anonymous scouts. I understand why they have to remain anonymous. I understand the process. And I don't give a rat's behind if any of their comments offend anyone.

I agree with you on Trask. I didn't find anything offensive about saying 'I don't think Bridgewater can be the face of our franchise.'

I'm not a big fan of anonymous scouts because let's call it like it is....the reporters who are not fibbing about anonymous scouts are just looking for any scout that will say anything negative about a player. And the more outrageous the scout's comments, the more likely they will be published. The reporters are trying to generate Web site clicks and buzz around their reporting and a scout with a fairly positive analysis of a player won't do that compared to scouts that trash players.

Anonymous sources are just like any source...they need to be credible. So with anonymous scouts we don't know what their track record is with evaluating players. You could get a scout that is routinely wrong on player evaluation, but because he's negative on a certain player they are not treated as a credible source of information.

That's why Dr. Z strayed from this nonsense and like Mayock, came up with his own evaluation or would quote somebody like Joel Buchsbaum who had more information. It also created a different story for Dr. Z that separated him from the other writers who decided to just lump themselves in with the rest.






YR

 

[Idgit]

I agree with you on Trask. I didn't find anything offensive about saying 'I don't think Bridgewater can be the face of our franchise.'

I'm not a big fan of anonymous scouts because let's call it like it is....the reporters who are not fibbing about anonymous scouts are just looking for any scout that will say anything negative about a player. And the more outrageous the scout's comments, the more likely they will be published. The reporters are trying to generate Web site clicks and buzz around their reporting and a scout with a fairly positive analysis of a player won't do that compared to scouts that trash players.

Anonymous sources are just like any source...they need to be credible. So with anonymous scouts we don't know what their track record is with evaluating players. You could get a scout that is routinely wrong on player evaluation, but because he's negative on a certain player they are not treated as a credible source of information.

That's why Dr. Z strayed from this nonsense and like Mayock, came up with his own evaluation or would quote somebody like Joel Buchsbaum who had more information. It also created a different story for Dr. Z that separated him from the other writers who decided to just lump themselves in with the rest.

YR

The term used most often is 'anonymous source.' It's not even specifying the person is qualified for the opinion that follows. And it's not the fact that the observations are critical that's at issue. It's that they are anonymous and so the credentials of the person making the assessment can't be measured. And those credentials are what make the difference in determining if the opinion is worth anything at all.