Posted by Eric SanInocencio on Wednesday, June 3, 2009 at 11:34 am

The National Pastime may be lagging in certain parts of the game, but there one are continues to thrive despite the economic troubles that face the country. Baseball coverage is at its apex, with the volume and sheer numbers of people writing and commenting never higher than any point in its history.

A quick Google search of “Boston Red Sox Blogs” brought back over 5.3 million hits, as the internet has exploded into a one stop shop where the games are dissected among its most passionate fans.

With this increased banter comes increased criticism, as today’s decision makers face naysayers both in person and on the web. Follow any game thread at a particular team’s blog, and you’ll find plenty of vitriol and attacks on the people in control of the team they love. There are even websites created hoping for the ouster of a General Manager or particular coach. Times are changing.

Not that we watch the games any differently, as nearly all of us have spent many a night yelling at the television over a call we felt was wrong. Second guessing is part of baseball, and always has been, but has the anonymity of the web made it too easy to criticize?

First off, it is important to realize that all the additional voices brought about by the web have been hugely beneficial in how we watch and analyze what’s happening on the field. Only because of this wave of creative minds do we have new statistical evaluations and more knowledgeable fanbases.

Social media makes any fan one step removed from the “experts” that cover the game, and the rapid speed at which “breaking news” becomes common sense is staggering. The world of baseball is expanding in numbers, but getting smaller as a community. It’s quite amazing to witness.

But, with all this excitement comes into question whether all the added negativity makes the environment worse off. I shouldn’t say worse, more so, is it easier to criticize now because it is all done without a face?

Blogs aren’t just a sideshow item anymore, with many of the best now taking center stage in the pantheon of baseball coverage. Sites such as Baseball Prospects and The Hardball Times are mainstream companies, and Rob Neyer (ESPN), Christina Kahrl (BP) and Keith Law (ESPN/Scout) are now members of the BBWAA, the body of writers that vote for the Hall of Fame.

Law probably shouldn’t be grouped with the rest, because his current job as a talent evaluator (scout) gets him out to the ballpark more than most beat writers. However, the names listed above and the million others who don’t get out to see games in person still have just as big a voice. Of course they deserve it, but does that make their job easier?

Sometimes we often forget we are dealing with people, flesh and blood that comes with emotions that often can cloud one’s judgment. I have found that despite of what I think of someone’s professional capability, that prism isn’t the sole way to determine their worth.

Their background, interests and rationale behind their decisions often matter as much as the outcome of their choice, and give you a better idea why they may succeed or fail at any particular endeavor. If you just look at the outcome, you may be missing out on truly understanding the value of what happened.

This applies to baseball because tough decisions are being made everyday. We aren’t privy to the complete thought process, just the final verdict after an entire organization tries a certain method to improve their club.

Yet, without taking anything else into account, we pass judgment on said move, labeling it a great idea or colossal bust without the proper time to even digest the reasons for what happened. Does that happen because a majority of us ready to criticize are so far removed from what’s taking place? I tend to think so.

When Raul Ibanez was signed by the Philadelphia Phillies this off-season, it didn’t take 10 minutes for Ruben Amaro Jr. (Philadelphia’s GM) to be hammered, called an “idiot” for making such a bad personnel decision. Amaro, a Stanford graduate and former major leaguer with 10 years of front office experience, learned first hand how quickly public perception can change.

Despite his best efforts to explain, many had already decided, and Ibanez was labeled as an overpaid liability that wasn’t a good bet to produce anywhere near was his contract said he should. Three months later, have opinions changed because Ibanez leads the league in home runs? Yes, but should they? Should the move have been panned before the Phillies new left fielder even had an official at bat with his new team?

No, it’s a three-year deal, so you can’t know the answer two months in, good or bad. But read many blogs who cover the team and they knew with absolute certainty it was an abject failure immediately. The question arises, how many of these people have even met Ruben Amaro, or spent time with him talking about baseball? Would that change their opinion?

Again, being critical is not a bad thing. It’s valuable and extremely important so that the wrong ideas aren’t credited with success. I just don’t think it’s fair to view players or administrators under a magnifying glass while those tossing the insults get away without being under the same high-powered lens. Maybe that’s just the nature of the business, but does that make it right? Should accountability run both ways?

I’m guilty of this more times than I care to admit, so when evaluating any move I find it valuable to go back and review what I wrote in the past to learn from the many instances I made a mistake. I even love rehashing those comments publicly, just to remind myself and my readers that what I write isn’t gospel, and that in the end we must all individually decide what’s best based on the information and opinion available.

The question I pose in this piece doesn’t have answer, but doesn’t mean it should be discussed. Again, politics and many other forms of business fall under this same umbrella, but we deal in baseball, so that’s how we explain it.

Robots don’t make personnel decisions, people do. Not matter how much the blogosphere tries to demonize or salute it, in the end we just don’t know all the factors involved. What worries me is that we don’t seem to care about that fact. Is it because we won’t ever have to justify the comment we write to that person face to face? Our anonymity hides us from facing the music, and I don’t know if that’s entirely a good thing. We’ll see.