A Critique of Peter Bourjos’ MLB.com Highlight Reel
As Erik Manning is all-too willing to remind us, defensive prodigy Peter Bourjos recently made his major league debut, pushing Angels’ incumbent center fielder, Torii Hunter, over to right in the process.
In their most recent Prospect Handbook, Baseball America calls Bourjos’ defense “game-changing,” and the numbers agree: per Total Zone, Bourjos was worth +76 runs in 360 games started in center field 2006 to 2009.
The question remains, though: of what value is Bourjos to the more aesthetically oriented baseball enthusiast?
In what follows, I hope to provide something like an answer, as I critique each of the eleven videos at Bourjos’ MLB.com highlight reel.
[Note: links to each video are available by clicking on the title of said video. Dates of action are in brackets.]
Bourjos Makes the Basket Catch [04.01.10]
The grainy resolution of the video makes it impossible to regard “Basket Catch” as anything but what it is: the early work of a talented, but immature, highlight-maker. By that criteria, however, it’s a success. Even in this first effort, we see a theme that will recur throughout Bourjos’ corpus — namely, his ability to make the difficult appear effortless.
Bourjos Scores to Win It [04.02.10]
An underwhelming clip from a player still very much experimenting with his voice. Here we see — what? — Bourjos scoring from third on a shortstop Chin-lung Hu’s error, which error occurs with two outs in a tie game. If anything, this work is more about the latter’s identity. “Who is Hu?” one asks. “Perhaps not a major league shortstop,” another is forced to answer.
Bourjos’ Game-Tying Double [04.02.10]
“Game-Tying Double” is the third installment in Bourjos’ spring training triptych, and the first in which we see him at the plate. Like “Scores to Win It,” Bourjos’ contribution is only interesting when considered within the context of the game — a game which, as the title suggests, he ties — as opposed to any sort of conspicuous display of genius from Bourjos. This is a piece whose interest is limited only to aficionadi of his work.
Bourjos’ Strong Throw [08.04.10]
Like a sunrise exploding over the crystalline horizon of the Arctic’s icy plains, Bourjos’ first true mature work is almost too dazzling to behold. This highlight announces Bourjos’ arrival. We see his trademark range as he tracks the ball almost from straight-away, or even right-, center field; the quick release and accuracy (if not strength) of his throwing arm; and, finally, Scott’s reaction, a provocative mixture of disappointment and awe.
Bourjos’ Strong Game [08.04.10]
“Strong Game” is essentially the extended, director’s cut of “Strong Throw,” featuring — in addition to the aforementioned throw — a single off of third baseman Joshua Bell’s glove, a steal of third, and an infield hit also in Bell’s direction. As with other director’s cuts, “Strong Game” (a) is longer and less even in quality than the original and (b) includes a narrative entirely ignored by the cleaner studio version. The narrative in question here is the tête-à-tête between rookies Bourjos and Bell — an encounter won easily by Bourjos.
Bourjos Runs It Down [08.05.10]
The play in question, though excellent, is almost entirely overshadowed by the encounter immediately afterwards between Bourjos and the man whose position he usurped, Torii Hunter. In a brave and refreshing gesture, though, “Runs It Down” totally forgoes the tired Oedipal narrative. Instead, we see the two men celebrating and equaled humbled by Bourjos’ gift. “Bravo, Bourjos. Bravo, humanity,” one is left saying.
Bourjos’ Running Catch [08.08.10]
No player on a field is more isolated, further from his teammates, than the center fielder: that’s the message of “Running Catch.” Here we see Don Kelly line (fline?) a ball to deep center, and see Bourjos — alone, and yet the focus of all attention — make a two-handed grab. For those unconvinced, the Howard’s Appliance and Big Screen Superstore Replay allows us to re-live the action, where we feel the loneliness of the short-distance runner even more piquantly.
Bourjos’ Squeeze Play [08.10.10]
Though still too young to abandon completely all attempts at offensive highlights, “Squeeze Play” serves merely to reinforce the notion that Bourjos’ best work is done on the other side of the ball.
Bourjos’ Diving Catch [08.13.10]
Besides representing yet another instance of Bourjos’ excellent range and body control, “Diving Catch” distinguishes itself for being the first of Bourjos’ highlights featuring a camera angle that allows the viewer to track Bourjos from contact to catch. We see in the replay of said catch, starting at about the 0:25 mark, that the young center fielder begins his path to the ball on contact. We leave duly reassured: Bourjos isn’t merely a showboater, but an instinctual fielder, too.
Bourjos’ Leaping Catch [08.13.10]
As Jonny Gomes is all-too capable of reminding us, not all leaping catches are made the same. Accordingly, the viewer must always question whether a great-looking play is actually a great actual play. As we saw in “Diving Catch,” such concerns are likely unwarranted with Bourjos. As such, we can enjoy “Leaping Catch” unfettered by such anxieties.
Bourjos Is Not Awarded Base [08.14.10]
Make no mistake: in and of itself “Not Awarded Base” is a disappointment — certainly a letdown from the dizzying heights of “Leaping” and “Diving.” But in the context of the Bourjosian oeuvre, it serves as a well-timed reminder: despite the prodigy’s already impressive resume, the Old Guard (and, specifiaclly, Joe West) is not so easily converted.
Carson Cistulli has published a book of aphorisms called Spirited Ejaculations of a New Enthusiast.
This. Was awful.
I’ve thought all season long about writing this, because “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.” But I really want to say it in response to this article, and hopefully some people will agree with me and it might make a difference:
Mr. Cistulli, you write about really interesting topics. I like clicking on your titles because you tend to choose very interesting players or ideas to cover. But then I have to struggle through the most smug, bombastic writing I could imagine. It’s like a college student constantly patting himself on the back as he uses words like “oeuvre,” “aforementioned,” “duly reassured,” “Oedipal,” “aficionadi,” etc.
You’re clearly interested in sports journalism, Mr. Cistulli. Go out and read any great sports journalist and notice their writing style; you are unique, and not in positive way. Every time I trip on another $10 word in your article, I feel removed from the message of the story and instead have to swallow another dose of pretentiousness.
I hope you don’t take this as a personal attack, but instead as a kind of feedback from a guy who reads FanGraphs several times a day. If any other readers agree/disagree with me, let’s hear it.
I disagree completely. I’ll take college-level pretentiousness any day over the barely-junior-high-level grammar and spelling found elsewhere on this site.
And, knowing “aforementioned”, and being able to (correctly) use it in a sentence, doesn’t mean you’re pretentious.
Aforementioned is typically an unneeded worded. It’s only purpose is to be verbose. It adds nothing of meaning to the writing. I still prefer it to ‘above,’ but its safe to assume that the reader will both remember and be able to connect related points–particularly when they are made in consecutive paragraphs.
I agree that the typical grammar found here leaves something to be desired, but that doesn’t mean the opposite style is any more readable.
“Aforementioned is typically an unneeded worded.”
Yes, but it was needed in this context. If Carston had said, “the above throw,” it would have sounded very awkward. What is an above throw? Sounds like the throw was high. He would have had to say: “…the throw mentioned above.” But why in say two words what you can say in one, and further, save a space in the process? I’m all about space-saving, so “aforementioned” is completely cool by me.
Anyhoo, I don’t think “aforementioned” belongs on anybody’s list of $10 words.
Call me when Carston starts abusing “triskaidekaphobia.”
Until then, Carston, don’t you dare change. I’m a huge fan of your writing and all the aforementioned quirks contained therein.
It was not needed. Take out “in addition to the aforementioned throw,” and the sentence loses no context. Similarly you could have left aforementioned out of your last sentence. The context of each statement is already in each sentence.
I also stated that I dislike the use of ‘above’ even more so than aforementioned (above refers to three dimensional space).
For DCE, unthreaded:
Parsimony is clearly your gig, but it’s a choice nonetheless — you’re sounding almost clerical in your moralizing.
Expression isn’t reducible to exposition. If it were, we may as well all write in pseudocode or first-order logical statements. Even when I write code, I comment liberally. There’s no harm in repetition, re-statement, or re-orienting the reader among the many variables. Especially in Carson’s case, where his cascading style sheet is full of ornament and rhetorical feints.
I’m sure he’s not getting paid by the word, so why sound like an auditor sniffing at the budget?
Bah! I enjoyed every word of this post. We need more, not fewer, language nerds in baseball writing. And if these nerds are also smug and narcissistic, so much the better.
I don’t think you “get” Carson. You can enjoy what he’s doing or not, but your criticisms are misconceived.
Should a reader really have to “get” someone writing for FanGraphs?
I don’t know. That’s a big, normative judgment you’re asking me to make! I am just noting that these criticisms make no sense unless you assume that Carson is intending to do serious analysis and baseball writing. He clearly isn’t.
If he isn’t intending to write seriously or analyze seriously, then why bother?
Carson is hands down my favorite writer on this site, and it’s because of, not in spite of, his writing style.
So it is no surprise that you would write something like ‘it’s because of, not in spite of, his writing style.” Obviously if it’s because of his writing style, it is not in spite of his writing style. Cluttered writing detracts from the points being be made.
So it is no surprise that you would write something like ‘it’s because of, not in spite of, his writing style.” Obviously if it’s because of his writing style, it is not in spite of his writing style. Cluttered writing detracts from the points being be made.
It is not surprising you would write something like that. Obviously if it’s because of his style, it is not in spite of it. Cluttered writing detracts from meaning.
Try not to be so wordy next time. Starting paragraphs with conjunctions? Talk about a waste of time, space, and font.
Now Ellis, I think you’re exhibiting some floccinaucinihilipilification. Carson’s diction is warranted and substantive.
The questions in the comments shouldn’t be about whether Cistulli should take artistic liberties but rather whether Cistulli’s post can be judged effective at conveying his point, if there is one.
Q: Does adopting an satirically verbose film critique approach to Bourjos’s highlight reel tell us something about Bourjos or the dynamic between fans and highlights?
Maybe. It pokes fun at mlb.com highlight titles.
Does this article expand our understanding of Peter Bourjos?
I’d say the satire is meant to deflate enthusiasm for Peter Bourjos’s early defensive exploits, but the execution of the satire is too ineffective for me to actually be sure. To understand the AL West, I’d read Dave Cameron.
Does this article make us appreciate baseball?
Possibly, but not for me.
Conclusion: Cistulli makes extended metaphors that aren’t entirely successful. I’d say he has the upside of Christina Kahrl (of Baseball Prospectus). If he matures a bit, he may be promoted to a subscription based site.
Until then, remember that FanGraphs is a wonderful resource that is provided free of charge and you aren’t entitled to anything. Otherwise, go pay for Christina Kahrl at Baseball Prospectus.
I agree with you, it does get annoying. The subject of his articles are always interesting, but his way of going about it becomes dull and takes away from his interesting subject. I don’t think he’s anything, like say “Pretentious”, “stuck-up”, arrogant, snobbish, or a prick. I get nothing about him from his writing. He may be a nice guy, and I do enjoy some of the very things he references, but at the same time. I come here for baseball and anything I find interesting about the game. A reference here is nice, and a joke here is nice. Then again I don’t like anything that puts down another or in any way makes someone the butt of a joke. Onto my point….. Carson does in fact discuss many interesting things about this amazing sport, but like my comment he goes off. Having to look up a word becomes a bother, and instead of bringing people into his writing, he eventually is tuned out by me. Instead of using (as someone put it) $10 words correctly, why not use cheaper words to the same effect. Who cares about space does fangraphs charge Carson by the letter? If so, I suggest shortening his name to C-man. And moving on.
I should note, I usually enjoy his summarizing articles, and whenever there was fangraphs audio, I enjoyed that sometimes as well. It seems that there he gets to a point with those or “highlights” what I desire from the articles.
If he’s as popular as some are leading us to believe, then what happened to fangraphs audio?
Holy cow… aforementioned is a pointless word.
In this post, Carson Cistulli’s talent emerges as a lonesome plantlet amid the wasteland of modern highlight criticism. Bravo, I say, and Huzzah!
Carson, you’re an interesting guy. I enjoyed the post, thanks.
Mr. Custilli, I would like to take a moment to disagree with the two critical posters above me. I find your writing style to be pretty damn fun. Anyone who challenges me to think (even if it involves looking up said 10$ words on Wikipedia), and can write about my favorite sport at the same time, gets approval from me. Keep up the good work, man.
A good way to cover up having nothing to say is to write in this way. I understand that many of your posts are meant to be funny and clever. In my opinion thIs just comes off as obnoxious. Though I do love Colby Lewis.
Carson writes in Chuck Klostermans speaking voice. Take that however you want, but I’ve listened to a lot of Klosterman on podcasts and he narrates every Cistulli article in my head.
“Like a sunrise exploding over the crystalline horizon of the Arctic’s icy plains”
This is a perfect example of what my 10th grade English teacher called “writing much, saying little”
I got a few chuckles, but the style comes off as incredibly affected.
Do you really think he’s being serious, though? I mean, really. Are people not reading his stuff and realizing that it’s pretty much all tongue-in-cheek?
sounds to me like the haters missed the point of this piece–carson’s poking fun at pretentious writing and art criticism by adopting that voice to discuss baseball highlights. brilliant, hilarious satire!
Dude, read any of Carson’s posts. He’s not making fun of pretentious writing; he’s its greatest champion.
Yeah! And while we’re at it, Stephen Colbert’s rampant conservatism makes O’Reilly and Beck look positively socialist!
Great work as always; this reads like a Pitchfork Media sports article would (if people could play sports in backwards haircuts and girl pants.)
Who says we can’t?!
i think the fact that his style of writing alone has caused this much controversy/uproar is cause for praise. being different and controversial are the only ways to really get noticed in this business. keep it up, carson.
oh god. I thought carson was gone for good. god damn it fangraphs.
I think an article like this would get a much better reaction on other baseball sites that do not have such a strident sabermetric slant. Always throw in a stat or two to distract readers of that type.
I kind of like these articles about half the time. Part of what bugs me is that they seem poorly researched. Chin-Lung Hu is as much of a defensive wizz as Bourjous is, he just hasn’t been able to hit since 2007 in the minors and can’t hit at the MLB level. He is basically the Asian Adam Everett.
I figured this post was supposed to be slightly satirical and humerous, so i approve.
As is typical writings from Mr. Cistuli, this is a New World styled piece, with little to no trace of the old school roots of sports writing. Upon starting to read the selection, the reader first sense is that an attempt at spicy writing has been overdone, with an unfortunate mix of incompatible sensibilities.
This Initial vegetal funk gives way to bouquet of earth, pencil shavings, graphite, cedar. These sensations soon meld to create soft awareness with hints of leather, stewed plums, tar, and licorice with mellow tannins.
Best if allowed to set for several hours before finishing.
Ha, this was great. The fact that apparently 75% of readers (or more accurately 75% of COMMENTERS) didn’t “get” it at all shows just how one-dimensional a lot of fangraphs readers tend to be. You could argue that the writing should therefore be one-dimensional as well, but I’d argue that this is a much-needed breath of fresh air.
A lot of you could probably benefit by taking a deep breath, slackening your furrowed brows, and enjoying a witty piece of satire instead of demanding at least one citation to UZR per 100 words. If you’ve ever read any high-minded art of film criticism, you’d get the humor in this article. If you haven’t, it’s probably better to not comment, because you’ll come off as a clumsy, hyper-serious dolt to those snarky few of us who “get” it and think Carson is a great read.
I’ve already read about the metrics that peg Bourjos as a great defensive CF, and I’m sure all of you have as well. Sometimes it’s nice to read an article that doesn’t over-analyze and break every number down into component splits, translations, etc., but instead actually shows you video clips of some of the plays he’s made in a witty and humorous format. I assume (maybe naively) that all of us fell in love with the game itself before we fell victim to the siren song of the numbers behind it. Baseball is fun. Why can’t some of the articles that cover it be fun too?
I have no problem with wit or humor. My problem is that these articles tend to just be self-congratulatory and narcissistic, as if we’re getting a constant reminder that Carson Cistulli aced his SATs and studied Proust in college.
No matter what the topic, these articles always have the strong subtext of “I am Carson, I use words like ‘triptych’, and if you’re as smart as I am then you will comment and praise me.” You’re only proving my point by using phrases like “slackening your furrowed brows.”
Okay, I don’t agree with you (doesn’t seem like it’d be all that hard to give benefit of the doubt in regards to – am I allowed to say “in regards to”, or will that get quoted too? – Carson’s self-awareness), but this was funny:
“I am Carson, I use words like ‘triptych’, and if you’re as smart as I am then you will comment and praise me.”
Any use of triptych in what appears to be Conan the Barbarian syntax is worthy of praise.
Let’s just forget this whole disagreement, Ellis. As a token of friendship, I would like to offer you free admission to the Christina Kahrl Fan Club.
Seems awfully clever that you’re name-dropping Proust while whinging about someone who may (or may not) have read him. Then, as if on cue, projecting psychological complexes onto same dude, using jargon like “narcissistic” and “self-congratulatory”, for — get this — excesses of literary *style*.
Ellis, you’re clearly a literary critic in the making. You’ve displayed all the hallmarks a dreary literary sophomore in the backpages of a short-run art journal: criticism of your sinful peers, pop psychoanalysis, charges of elitism, a deep inferiority complex, a total lack of irony.
What’s double-cute is that this is all done within the forum of a community expected to have some basic comfort with conditional probability, applied statistics, linear algebra and other collegiate fluff. A community itself often charged with elitism and psychological malady for its application of knowledge (“outside the game”) for better understanding of an old subject — or simply for the pleasure of doing so.
I suspect that this is your own stylistic ruse, and you’re just ventriloquizing the typical arguments of the saberskeptic vis-a-vis the saberphile in a new genre context. If so, bravo!
I enjoyed the writing. I mean, the article is an excuse to look at Bourjos’ highlights in quick succession, it’s quite easy to glaze over the writing anyway.
Carson. I hated the first piece that you wrote on this site. Despised it. Utterly. I also hated the first episode of Always Sunny that I saw.
In the past months, though, I have come to realize that both you and Charlie Day are geniuses. This was hillarious. Well done.
Your words too big i dont get y u think its funny. Borgos is not as good as hunter he got ten gold gloves!!!!111thenumeralone
After spending countless hours carving prayer beads into a Peter Bourjos likeness my nicked and bloodied fingers find themselves hiding in shame after reading this post.
For some writing, maximum readability is not the primary aspiration. Maybe your middle school composition teacher told you otherwise, but consider how awful the world would be if she were right.
I imagine most people commenting know who Oedipus was and what “oeuvre” means. So we’re allowed to know these words, but not to use them? What’s the point of that? Or maybe we’re just not allowed to use them when discussing good ol’ down-home salt-of-the-earth country hardball. I personally believe that there are many different ways in which baseball (life?) can be enjoyed.
Regarding “aficionadi”… ok. Mr. Cistulli may have been temporarily overcome by his hereditary Italian-ness. Carson, that’s Spanish word. They’re not pluralized like that.
In regards to the writing (if I may take a somewhat haughty stance): I don’t think the problem is his written voice — obviously Mr. Cistulli is a smart dude, and he can be really funny. I hope that we’re not all so analytical that we can’t have some off-beat stuff on here. I just think that he’s misguided. Most of the pieces I’ve read from him meander from here to there (not this one specifically), and I think that’s the problem people are having. Or even worse, he writes about things that are just of no interest.
He’s a talented writer, and I enjoy reading him, but I do understand the criticism.
carson cistulli for president
I hated the first couple of posts by Carson, but I’ve come around now and very much enjoy his posts. If I start to read a post without looking to see who it’s written by, I always know when it’s Carson, which I can’t say for the other writers here. I like the variety his writing provides, as it’s not stat-heavy and is usually interesting.
In other news, Bourjos better be good because he has to cover 2/3rds of the outfield when Rivera or Abreu are in left.
I Tarzan. You Jane.
Did you know who that was without the byline?
This would be funnier if this were a breakdown of Willie Bloomquist, David Eckstein or since this is a sabermetric Web site, Juan Pierre highlights…
By the end of this season, whether or not he plays like Pierre won’t matter, Bourjos will be tagged as the next great hustling, hard working ballplayer in Major League Baseball.
unlike some of the others, Carson, this was the post that finally won me over to your style.
Its brilliant.
Fantastic writing. Not sure if it was intentional, but I was reminded of some of the film critiques in “Infinite Jest.”
Honestly, you lost me when I had to watch a 20-second ad before the first 20-second (I assume) highlight on mlb.com. If the ad is as long as the video, something is wrong.
Not Carson’s fault, obviously.
This was hilarious. I enjoyed the style of the article very much.
The voice is pretty easy to situate: Will Ferrell doing James Lipton of Inside the Actor’s Studio.
It doesn’t matter that Carson pulls out the baldpate and rhetorical stilts across any number of articles. A funny uncle is still a funny uncle, even when he’s done the same impersonation three decades running.
@TurksTeeth, check out this article by Carson: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/alcs-coverage-proust-probably-wasnt-a-baseball-nerd/
I wasn’t pulling Proust out of thin air – Carson has actually used his FanGraphs podium to show off his literary know-how while making tenuous connections to baseball and statistics. If that’s not self-congratulatory then it’s just flat-out bad writing.
What’s “self-congratulatory” about that post? He calls Proust a nancy-boy, and cites one of the most oft-cited passages in his work. It ain’t hard to grok.
For that matter, I was assigned Swann’s Way in my public high school English class in the 80’s. Having read some Proust is hardly the mark of a self-petter. It’s pretty common in some parts. You can check him out for free anytime you like in your local library.
You should be high-fiving Carson for his Old Spice manliness. He took a ponderous modernist writer and used him as the set-up for a joke. If that makes you feel small, to the point that you remember the slight to your intelligence a year after the fact, it’s time to self-conversate.
Uh, guys? This article is supposed to be a joke. He’s critiquing 45 second long highlight clips as if they are full-length films, or as if they were the work of an artist in a gallery. I don’t think there was an iota of seriousness to be had here. I know that most of the Internet is populated by humorless jerks, but I’d like to think Fangraphs is better than that. Learn to take a damn joke.
Bourjos is the best argument for a designated fielder I’ve seen in a while. He can’t hit if his life depended on it but man can he play center. How can this guy have all the skills of an NFL WR and end up playing baseball?
http://ducksonthepondkid.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/searching-for-stubbs-peter-bourjos/
These The Young Turks are most of the time dead on their political opinions. They endure as a informatave perspective. I hope The Young Turks will continue be corageous enough to tell it like it is and counter the GOP sponsored Fox Network conspiracy.
Very interesing post
I simply had to thank you so much yet again. I do not know what I could possibly have used without these ideas revealed by you about such situation. It actually was a real frightening scenario in my position, nevertheless being able to see the skilled style you treated it made me to jump for gladness. Now i’m grateful for this work as well as trust you realize what a great job you happen to be accomplishing training people today all through your web blog. I am sure you’ve never got to know all of us.