Pat Jordan Responds to My Email… With a Dick Joke


Is that a cigar in your hand, or do you just have a swinging dick?

PJ decided to get all zen on us.

Yesterday, we showed you the email that PJ sent us in response to this post picking apart his article in the New York Times.

PJ responded to our, um, response. A simple "fuck you?" No. Thoughtful prose? No. A very zen-like dick joke? Yep.

Hop it.

This is the full email exchange thus far (from bottom up).

Subject: Re: bc and pj

From: Kyle Scott <>

Date: April 6, 2011 7:17:36 PM EDT

To: Pat Jordan <>

That's very zen of you. But riddle me this: How could you write an entire piece (what was that, 2,000-3,000 words?) on those guys and not mention what is almost unanimously considered their biggest accomplishments? Not to mention the fact that you clearly ignored the PR guy's instructions.

On Apr 6, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Pat Jordan wrote:
kyle, a story. i was once smoking a cigar in a bar. a woman came up to me and said, "Oh, is that cigar supposed to mean you have a big dick?" I said, "Honey, what you think my cigar means has more to do with what's going on in your head, than in mine."
p.s. someone told me conlin wrote a column about my story, so i went on line, since i live in abbeville, s.c., not nyc, and have no access to city papers, and punched in the first thing i saw mentioning my story and conlin, whom i never met, or read, which happened to be your blog. what a treat!
—– Original Message —–
From: Kyle Scott
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: bc and pj

PJ, My point was that sort of out-of-touch writing is one (of many) reasons why more people are turning to blogs and websites for their news. While I thought your observations about the game changing were fantastic, you used those four guys to get your point across. It's clear that you went there with an agenda, and used their brush-offs and perceived lack of personality to take them down a few pegs. How can you write an in-depth piece about those guys and not mention Halladay's two no-hitters last year, or Cliff Lee's tremendous playoff performances over the last two seasons? Instead, you pointed out each of their flaws, Lee's only two less-than-stellar playoff starts, and every other fault you could find with them. Heck, you put-down Lee for having a temper and throwing at Sammy Sosa, yet champion the fact that hitters were afraid of Nolan Ryan. That's hypocrisy, my friend. Conlin, a notorious curmudgeon, agreed with you, showing just how out-of-touch he is with his readers.

You made it clear in this – and other writings – that you have a chip on your shoulder against today's "big time" stars. And your portrait of the Four Aces recklessly depicts that.
Thanks for reading our blog.
Kyle Scott
On Apr 6, 2011, at 12:04 PM, Pat Jordan wrote:
hey, cb. question. if nobody reads newspapers any more, why are you and your readers so worked up over conlin's column and my story?


For those of you who don't get what he was trying to say… basically, our thoughts about his bias have more to do with what's going on inside of our heads than his- we're the chick in the bar. I disagree, but that's a losing battle. What I would still like to know – and what I asked him – is how someone can write a lengthy piece like that and not mention his subjects' biggest accomplishments.

I don't really expect a response… But hey, at least he acknowledged I have good SEO. Thanks, PJ.


25 Responses

  1. Bravo for mentioning his inability (or refusal) to follow instructions. I’ll bet he doesn’t address that.

  2. Bitter old loser. No shock that Bill Conlin likes him. Although Conlin, while a grumpy old dude, at least is very talented. Say what you want, Bill is a terrific writer.
    I bet Eskin LOVED that article.
    It was written for New Yorkers. What do you expect, right?

  3. How could you be an old respected baseball writer and yet never even read Bill Conlin before?

  4. You guys have all missed the point. His response to you was on point. The Nytimes piece had nothing to do with print versus blogs or new and old journalism. It was an interesting piece about pitching and a lousy piece on the personalities (because he didn’t get anything from them)
    Your whole exchange with PJ shows why good writing should be valued. It shows why I go to the nytimes to read good writing and I come here for sports gossip.

  5. ben- you are missing the point. my comment about people not reading newspapers, listed that out-of-touch thing as one of many reasons why more people get their news online nowadays. i ceded that argument and asked him why he wrote such a poor, and unfair, take on the aces. he has yet to address that.

  6. PJ probably would have accomplished more by just ignoring you completely than by responding with this lazy, 6th grade debate-club garbage.

  7. I meant you missed the point of the dick joke.
    You are in touch because you are a fan? How many bloggers are in the locker and actually get close to these guys?

  8. “that out-of-touch thing as one of many reasons why more people get their news online nowadays”
    The biggest, and perhaps most important reason, has to do with economics and younger people who didn’t grow up with newspapers getting their information for free on the internet. Stop pretending that guys like Pat Jordan are the reason the industry is dying. It has more to do with money and a generational transition than anything else. Stop trying force your argument to fit the premise.
    Secondly, just because he didn’t fellate the Phillies pitchers in his piece doesn’t make it a bad piece. Who says that he needs to drool over a great rotation when doing a piece on them? Just because it doesn’t fit your idea of what is good journalism doesn’t make it bad journalism.

  9. He’s out of touch because he went to Clearwater to write a piece about a staff of pitchers that has three cy young winners and a world series MVP and came back with a piece about how pitchers aren’t as tough as they used to be. The reason for the change in approach was because the aces we’re too busy getting ready for the season to have some lousy newspaper write pal-ing around the locker room. A piece about pitching that doesn’t mention the potential of 3 cy young winners on the same stuff is garbage.
    Side note, this burger king looking guy obviously has a litte johnson if he mentions how big it is.

  10. Er, two Cy Young winners.
    Halladay and Lee. Oswalt and Hamels have many other awards and accomplishments, but neither has a Cy Young.

  11. If you count that Halladay won it twice its 3 awards. But if you want to call a piece that just had an overall tone of bitterness good journalism that’s up to the reader. I personally thought it missed.

  12. I’m not shoving my argument about newspapers down anyone’s throat. He’s the one who emailed me about newspapers, I changed the topic to his piece, which he keeps avoiding.
    Did you even read my emails to him? It’s not about newspapers, it’s about the piece of shit that he wrote.

  13. “it’s about the piece of shit that he wrote.”
    Again, it’s subjective. You didn’t like it because he didn’t give lip service to the pitchers. You realize that not every piece written about the Phillies pitchers has to be about their place in history, right? Every other writer has compared them to the Braves or the Orioles or the Indians, so why is this writer held to the same standard?
    You don’t like it because he didn’t start it off with ZOMG PITCHERS ARE GOOD AND PHILLIES #1! Please.
    In your email to Jordan, you write this: “It’s clear that you went there with an agenda”
    Sounds like much of what you write here, Kyle. You had it in for this guy the moment you realized he wasn’t drooling over the rotation. Objectivity much?

  14. It’s one thing to acknowledge a pitcher’s accomplishments and then criticize what you see as their weaknesses. If you then come to a negative opinion about that pitcher, at least you considered all the evidence.
    This guy wrote only about the negatives. It’s not about him giving lip service, it’s about him ignoring one side of the argument.
    As someone with a journalism degree who did not go into journalism because it pays shit and I had student loans to pay off, I thought that the piece was poorly written. It wasn’t about what it represented itself to be about. People went into it expecting a profile of four of the best pitchers in baseball today.
    What they got was a rant about how today’s pitcher’s don’t stack up against the pitcher’s of old, while ignoring their accomplishments (and ignoring the downsides to the old pitchers).
    And while such an argument exists, it was executed poorly.

  15. Oh, ugh, “pitchers,” not “pitcher’s”.
    <---Journalism major is embarrassed.

  16. yeah exactly. it’s not that he didn’t praise them, it’s that he wrote a piece about “their place in the game” and “why they’re not great,” but failed to mention their biggest accomplishments and used their brush-offs of him as a reason why they weren’t great.
    i liked his piece on baseball, and he made good points about them (I disagree with most), my problem, however, is that you can’t write a novel about why these guys are “one-trick ponies” and ignore half the evidence. your one-trick pony threw a perfect game and a playoff no-hitter last year. the other shat on the mound at yankee stadium- twice. “cliff lee looked at me with cold eyes”?? are you kidding me? he was working out. that’s not how you get interviews. the players did all of their feature stuff, pre their first start. this guy, i believe, showed up later and expected to land them.

  17. all of that being said, he reached out to me. i have twice now asked him why he left out that info and he has yet to respond. my emails haven’t been hostile, either.

  18. Nice work all around Kyle…..really enjoyed this and it is awesome to see his responses written with such elementary grammar/typing.
    Great stuff…keep it up man, love this blog!

  19. What the f*ck does Zen have to do with this, laddie-boy? Leave him the f*ck out of it!

  20. It’s weird how you mounted half-hearted defenses of these guys’ characters in your original article. The fact that you felt as if you needed to do that made your piece seem like more of a Philadelphia-partisan defense than it honestly was, because you do have a good point / Crusty Man is being unfairly dismissive of obviously great pitchers. If Cliff Lee really has “never read a book,” or publicly disavows reading or anything like that, then he likely is an idiot. Pointing out his salary in response is awful and juvenile. Same thing goes for Halladay refusing to turn around and even look at this writer when he was at his locker. Dude clearly wasn’t listening to instructions, and sounds like an ass, but I think you could have toed a more disinterested, professional line. Cliff Lee is never going to be your best friend, you don’t have to pretend like you know he is a good or even likable person when you really have no clue.

Comments are closed.