One of the recurring themes in the baseball blogosphere is the difference between what we bloggers do and what a traditional newspaper reporter does when it comes to covering a team. The key issue is access; we bloggers are unlikely to get a chance to ask a player, manager or executive for their perspective on a play, a game or a trade. While that might be seen as a minus by a good portion of baseball fans who really want to know just how Alex Rodriguez puts on his pants, how many games Derek Jeter is looking ahead, or how the Yanks would take to the addition of [insert ace pitcher here], the truth is that the lack of access is pretty liberating. We don’t have to endure the banality of manufactured quotes, the pressures of deadlines and unreasonable editors, press box cuisine, the constricting style of a game report, or the possibilility of being frozen out for criticizing the team.

Furthermore, many of us have a thorough disdain for some of the reporters who do have that access because we suspect that it corrupts their viewpoints and prevents them from approaching things with the necessary objectivity. One can’t write honestly about Derek Jeter’s defensive shortcomings and the wealth of data on same, to use an example, because one can’t afford to alienate Jeter, his teammates, or the mainstream readership who take his defensive excellence as gospel. Further, one can’t show much imagination in the role of a reporter because of the inevitable need to keep the five W’s in mind. Whereas here in the blogosphere we can ramble at length, on our own schedules, about any topic that feels worthy of exploration without worrying what Jeter — or even the scribes who cover him — has to say.

Jon Weisman of Dodger Thoughts has a compelling guest piece from L.A. Times reporter Bill Shaikin on the topic of blogging. Weisman, a former beat reporter himself, solicitied Shaikin’s participation for his “Disposable Baseball Blogger” piece a few weeks back, and while the newspaperman couldn’t meet his deadline, he’s offered up some detailed and enlightened thoughts about the contrast and even synergy between the two types of writing:

The strength of baseball blogging, then, is that it expands a fan’s options beyond moaning about the newspaper coverage or calling a talk show and waiting on hold to deliver a 30-second opinion. Write your own analysis. Use the blessing of unlimited space. I might get four paragraphs to discuss which free-agent pitchers the Dodgers or Angels are pursuing, with room for nothing beyond names and stats, certainly not for the analysis that the best blogs provide.

Shaikin comes off as more openminded to and less threatened by what the blogs have to say than his peers do, and he acknowledges their value to him as a writer.

While some bloggers can be content providing links to various media stories and offering a few comments – and those blogs can be invaluable to baseball writers, myself included – others provide detailed analysis and debate.

Those blogs can be invaluable to baseball writers too. No one writer can think of everything, and if someone else spots a trend before I do, more power to them. The seed planted by a blog can lead a writer to use his access and ask questions of the appropriate parties. I agree with the Dodger Thoughts perspective that the blogs that stand out offer original reporting – not just a “take” and not necessarily comments from players, agents or general managers – but insight and commentary not found elsewhere. I also agree that the site of the late Doug Pappas represented blogs at their best – “baseball news you can’t get anywhere else,” to borrow the motto of Baseball America.

While many blogs tend to use sabermetric tools in analysis and commentary – and often make compelling points in doing so – the best bloggers understand that decisions are not made in a statistical vacuum. After the Dodgers-Marlins trade July 30, I read blogs in which DePodesta was crowned as the winner of the trade on the basis of VORP alone. But there are many other factors that even DePodesta would tell you he would consider – salaries in current and future seasons, eligibility for salary arbitration, minor league depth at various positions, the upcoming class of free agents, etc. that statistics alone do not tell the story.

Good stuff. I was pretty neutral on Shaikin before reading the piece; he’s not one of the odious Dodger bashers at the Times like Bill Plaschke or T.J. Simers, but he’s never particularly distinguished himself to me. Which is actually a positive; I can point to several Plaschke or Simers articles which have pissed me off, but I don’t recall anything Shaikin’s written provoking similar ire. Reading what he has to say in that piece, I think the chances are pretty good he’s stopped by here before, so I’m going to make a point of trying to meet him at the Winter Meetings this coming weekend in Anaheim.