I’m an Angels fan, and I have a couple of points to make regarding Craig and some of the comments above this.

1. Craig, what you did was fine.  I will agree with some of the Yankee fans that you definitely appeared to have a side in this, but this is your blog, you’re allowed to have opinions.  Even though I didn’t think, given the evidence that I say, that Rivera spit on the ball, I appreciated your input and opinion.

2. I appreciate your general, “Hey, let’s question the status quo” position.  Reputation is certainly relevant, but it’s not enough to dismiss something like this out of hand.

3. For those questioning Halo Heaven - I participate over there and like all team-centric blogs, there are people who are very biased towards the Angels, and ignore logic in their support of the team.  One of those people happens to be the guy who runs the site, which is unfortunate, but there are a lot of good commenters in that community.  You’ll find the exact same types of people in a Yankees blog (where I’m sure no one questioned the sanctity of Rivera) or a Brewers blog or whatever.  Don’t base your opinion of Angels fans on those types of people.

Craig-

We’ve known for a while the commenter gene pool at NBC has its share of anomalies, imagine what it’s going to be like when you are elected the first blogger President.

I think it’s great that you raise these issues, and taking a side in the argument, regardless of which side, is a better way to stimulate discussion than trying to appear dead-even neutral.

When you take a side, especially in the anonymous blogger world, there will be nut-jobs who agree with you and those who don’t, but hopefully a lot more non-nut-jobs reading and commenting because of what you do.

Accentuate the positive: None of us on Shysterball have called for you to be guillotined.
Yet.

Just watch what you say about the A’s

You asked, you didn’t accuse.

You didn’t create a story, you asked if there was one.

Subtle differences, maybe, but well within the rights of bloggers.

Another Yankee fan here.  I had absolutely no problem with how you treated it, Craig.  I didn’t think you were ‘prosecuting’ Rivera at all.  You consistently qualified your statements to reflect the inconclusiveness of what was there while giving your impressions on it.  Well handled on your part, I believe.

Aside from the “working for the prosecution” angle which you only seemed to do more casually than with intent, I feel that you reported this incident with the highest degree of accuracy and professionalism.  And even with the fact that you do seem to argue (IMO, seemingly unintentionally) that he did doctor the ball that is a very minor infraction anyway.

As for the low-life that threatened your well being, that’s just a disgusting low life that probably has the IQ of 4 year old who’s parent just took his favorite toy away.

Keep up the good work Craig.

Wow, Craig, that is pretty nuts. I’ve recently made an effort to limit my comment-reading on a lot of sites, but for whatever reason I have been sucked in to the NBC comments. Some are funny, some are just fanboy ridiculousness. But they do entertain.

The more we learn about pro athletes—through the Mitchell Report and PED suspensions, the police blotter, cell phone cameras, Twitter posts, etc.—the more I realize these guys are fallible human beings who are not morally or ethically better than “normal” people. I think I’ve always known this, this recent phenomenon backs that up. What this illustrates is absolutely no one—including Mariano Rivera—should be given a pass on anything. Sure, they should still be considered innocent until proven otherwise, but that does not mean they are above scrutiny. In other words Craig, you were doing exactly what a responsible baseball blogger is supposed to do.

I love your snarky blog, and have been a loyal Shyster reader. However, as a former college pitcher, I thought that the Rivera blog was not your best work. First, spitballers don’t actually spit on the ball - they scuff it, put pine tar on it, use vaseline, etc. Second, Rivera’s cutter doesn’t behave like a spitter - it’s too consistent in its break, whereas spitters break in all directions (which is what makes them dangerous to throw, and the reason they were banned). Most serious fans (and I count you among them) should know this. Finally, the video was inconclusive, and was quickly discredited by other video/pictures. Maybe you were just trying to bait Yankee fans, but the blog wasn’t funny, and it wasn’t intelligent. If I wanted that type of writing, I’d read the newspapers! Rivera, given his reputation, deserved better, and today’s blog provided fodder for those in the mainstream media who question the responsibility of bloggers. But was it completely out of line? No, just not good. I expect better from shysterball.

I’m someone who rarely makes a substantive comment but regularly throws in some snark.  In this case, let me echo the general consensus—Craig, I have no problem with your article.  You asked questions that needed to be asked, based on the evidence that was available. You dealt with the issue fairly, and when it was shown that Mo had not cheated, you updated the story.  Just because some subset of Yankee fans are inane morons does not mean you’re wrong.

Now, if we can back to proving that Jeter and Mo were deeply involved in the ACORN scandals, we’d all be better off for it.

Another Yankees fan here, and I also am a big fan of ShysterBall…..that said, I think you overplayed this based on pretty much nothing.  The rantings of a poorly written Angels blog is barely noteworthy.  Of particular silliness is the notion that Mo was looking around to see if anyone is looking. First of all, as he knows, millions of people are looking.  Second of all, by turning away from the plate, he gives all of the umpires save the home plate umpire a better look at what he’s doing.

And on top of everything else, has any pitcher since the dead ball era actually spit on the ball?  That in itself marks the “theory” as preposterous.

Craig,

I used to work for many years at an alternative newspaper, which despite being ostensibly a newspaper, is often expected to straddle the same infopiniontaintment line as a good blog (yes, that second t is intentional). I know you’re fond of wading into the comment trenches to engage with the worst sort of eggs, and my bosses used to encourage me to do the same, but I could never bring myself to do it. And despite the fact that I respect your lawyerly urge to do so, I can’t help but feel that it probably makes the animosity between you and the bad eggs worse more than it defuses it. I know you like the comment-conversation angle, but have you ever considered leaving the turds to stink unanswered?