Sources tell me that at the ESPN Zone function today where Jason Bergmann appeared, took fan questions and signed autographs, only five Nats fans showed up. Bergy's had his share of disappointments this season, but this had to be tough today.

This is the first of these lunchtime events I've missed, and usually there's been 50-75 people in attendance. Granted, these were all while school was still out, and despite public reports, brought all types of fans out to the event. Maybe Mr. Oppenheim was closer to the truth than I was willing to admit.

GM Jim Bowden and Ass't GM Mike Rizzo are scheduled to appear Friday at ESPN Zone as previously mentioned (with fake transcript) here. It promises to be must-see tv. I wouldn't miss it for the world. And if only five people come out for that, then that just means more face time for me!

I wasn't going to continue on about the Dukes incident from Wednesday's game. Plenty of others have already fanned the flames on the continuing saga of Elijah Dukes and his episode in New York Wednesday night.

Now The Washington Post's esteemed veteran columnist, Tom Boswell, has chimed in with his opinion, presumably since there are no more swim meets to write about.

First of all, what would Boz know about being toxic in the Nats clubhouse? This is only the second time this summer he's written about the Nats. The Natosphere's long-term criticism of the Post coverage (of lack thereof) for the Nationals is an exhausted subject, including in this space. But Boz takes the cake in today's column, offering conflicting views about who Dukes is, how he acts and how he reacts to events.

In one breath, Boz admits,

In a season of boredom and disappointment, Dukes has been, by far, the best reason to watch the Nats. In their search for core pieces of their future, youngsters Lastings Milledge, Jesús Flores and John Lannan have shown promise, but hardly greatness. Others, including Collin Balester, Emilio Bonifacio and Joel Hanrahan, are on the horizon. But besides Zimmerman, Dukes stands alone.

But then, as if Boz himself has his finger on the pulse of the clubhouse, decrees,

When he smiles, or connects with a fastball, electricity hits his team and you can see the vague outline of a future. But when he beats his chest after a walk-off walk, infuriating the pitcher, or glares at the home plate ump as his walk-off home run is still leaving the park, the Nationals' room grows darker.

Conflicting statements about Dukes are hardly new. Even his own teammates are divided on the issue. Chico Harlan, in his story about the Wednesday's game, offered quotes by Zimmerman, Milledge and Acta, and each had a different reaction to the unpleasantness. But what bothered me in Harlan's gamer was how he seemingly pitted Zim's comments against what Milledge said, and both comments were played down by Acta's statement. In the presentation, it's like Harlan was TRYING to create a rift.

The Post has been timid in it's coverage of Dukes, however, compared to his hometown paper, the St. Pete Times. While a profile of a troubled athlete is a legitimate story, is it necessary to append that article with a list of birthdays, mother's names, and gender of his children? Isn't that just the least bit inflammatory? And forget about the treatment Wednesday's dust-up got in the New York papers. Sensationalism at its finest. You'd think after reading some of these articles, Dukes was the second coming of Edi Amin, Hitler and Kublai Khan all rolled into one. At least the ESPN.com games story mentions the histrionics where it belonged, at the bottom of the article.

With the constant undertones of subliminal racism permeating the media coverage of Dukes, it's no wonder the kid has an over-reaching and potentially dangerous sense of "prove them wrong" mentality. It's obviously what drives him on a daily basis, makes him the ballplayer that he is, but ultimately could drive him from the game and society.

It's true Dukes brings this on himself. Ultimately, it's him and him alone that will -- or won't -- change the public's perception of him. Boz counsels Dukes in his closing paragraph,

The choice is clear. Soon, Dukes has to grow up. Not totally, but enough. Adults adapt. Elijah, you have to be the one to change, because the game, like the world, never will.

Seems like someone that uses redemption as motivation would only use the word "change" as more fuel to the fire. What Dukes did the other night was nothing to warrant investigation, suspension or public reprimand, even if it happened on a once-a-week basis. Dukes knew, when he was hit with a 3-2 change-up to load the bases, that it wasn't intentional. He took his base without incident and the game went on. If he has to change anything, he just has to get used to getting hit. Cause if you're gonna blow a kiss or thump your chest toward the opponent's dugout, you're gonna get knocked down.

Stay classy Elijah. Don't hear the word "change", think "adapt". Celebrate in the clubhouse. Don't let your emotion motivate your opponent. Let your immense talent do your chest-thumping and kiss blowing for you. Others went through worse. Live long enough to become a nuisance.

Stock Photos (c) C. Nichols 2008.

Gabe Oppenheim replied to my comment on his article this morning, and invited me to call him to talk about things. We then exchanged several e-mails and did eventually have our conversation. He gave me permission to paraphrase and use some of his remarks in his e-mails to explain his perspective, but declined to answer directly by commenting on my blog or as a comment to his own story on the Post.

I will start by saying that I believe him to be sorry about the way his article was perceived. But he also admitted that he really doesn't understand how or why people are misinterpreting his story. He said that he understands fan loyalty and passion and thought his article conveyed that, and not the condescending, mocking tone that I, and many others, perceived.

He stated his article was about the certain men at that certain table that he quoted, but readily admitted he did a poor job explaining that in the article. He even mentioned he had some filler at the end about the little boy that got the trivia contest right and won tickets, but that it was "trimmed" by his editor.

He stated in his opening e-mail:

I'm sorry if the story in any way misrepresented the scene. To be perfectly honest, I'm a huge baseball fan and as such, I have great, great respect for fans who follow teams -- especially ones who follow bad teams.

-snip-

I assure you I didn't came in with an intention to mock. I think the words I use in the piece can be taken of two ways: as indicators of the table's ineffaceable dignity, despite the losses, or as sardonic tweaks.

When pressed on the issue of categorizing Nats fans as "men, mostly middle-aged", he replied:

"You are obviously right that Nats fans aren't all middle-aged men, and my first graph is deceptively constructed (not intentionally). I realize now that it seems as if I'm characterizing the whole place, when really I was trying to characterize only the men at the table -- when really, I wanted the article to be ABOUT only the men at my table. But that doesn't come through, and it's my fault.

I did say that the 70 in attendance were "fanboys of various ages," which was supposed to cover the rest of the place. The problem became that people misinterpreted "fanboys" to be a term of mockery and male chauvinism; I assumed women could be subsumed under "fanboys," too, just as they can be under the phrase "you guys.""

We talked about the use of the term "fanboy" and it's generally negative connotation in the sporting world, but again, he didn't understand that and didn't feel the term was negative. And since I am not female, I won't speak to the phrase "you guys" as being insutling to women, but will allow the women who read this tell me if they are insulted that a writer for the Washington Post thinks it's ok to label women as "you guys" and "fanboys".

What is still troubling to me is that after trading e-mails and speaking for about 10 minutes, he still didn't understand why I, and others were upset. He was sorry that we were, and time and again stated that was not his intention, but he still didn't get it. It's not the references to old allegiances that people took exception to. It speaks more to the way the whole theme of the article seemed to belittle the subjects of the story.

He kept saying that it wasn't his intention, but that's obviously the perception.

But there is a larger point. The Post sent a writer from the Style section to cover a sports event, and Mr. Oppenheim did not understand my frustration at all about that distinction. He said,"They wouldn't send me to do a game story." But why not? They have interns write gamers. Why not someone from the Style section. Do you think they'd send Chico Harlan to write a story about the American Urological Association's yearly exhibition?

Mr. Oppenheim also admitted to me that he was unaware of the long-time problems fans have had with the Post's coverage of the Nationals, something he now is completely submersed in.

Here's what it boils down to: the Post sent a Style Reporter with no institutional knowledge to cover a baseball story and he wrote an article that had absolutely nothing to do with why the event was being held and many Nationals fans found it at least troubling, if not down-right insulting. And the author, though honestly sorry for the way his article was perceived, doesn't quite understand why they feel that way.

Photo (C) C. Nichols 2008.

Gabe Oppenheim of the Washington Post attended the Q&A event with John Lannan at the ESPN Zone yesterday, and he must have attended a different event than I did. Apparently, all he saw was middle-aged men giving pathetic worship to even bigger losers--the home team. What shame! Being a fan of a losing team. You can read Mr. Oppenheim's words here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/13/AR2008081304030.html

Even the title "Nats Don't Even Need a Hit to Reach Fan Base" is condescending. How did this get past the editors? I'll tell you why: THEY DON'T CARE. The game story wasn't even on the front page of the section. This is the respect the Major League Baseball team in Washington, DC gets from the local paper. A 24-year-old beat writer on his first real job, a couple of interns, and a hack from the Metro section writing about losers that root for other losers.

Below is my open letter to him, which I posted under the comments to his article. I suggest if you feel the same after reading his article to leave a comment as well.

Mr. Oppenheim,

I was at the event at ESPN Zone yesterday, and your report is misguided at best and disingenuous at worst. This event was attended by a wide variety of Nats fans, adult men, women, teenagers, children; everyone.

The Post's coverage of the Nationals has been much-maligned and criticized, but this is the first time a Post article has outright insulted the fan base. The condescending tone of your article implies that the true Nats fan is a pathetic loser that roots hopelessly for other losers--the only thing missing from your article was a reference to these men getting out of their pajamas and their mother's basements to attend the event.

You so obviously had an agenda when writing the article, since you ignored to speak with--or even mention--any number of the female fans, or the children who asked questions of one of their heroes, or the teenagers in the back of the room that had come up from their group party in the lower lever of the ESPN Zone to see a Major League player speak.

Ask your photographer that was there, she got all our names and hometowns for the pictures she took that never made it into the article since you ignored that section of the audience.

Your article is an embarrassment to what was once a proud, local sports page, but unfortunately now typical of the lack of coverage the Nationals receive. If a visitor from another town picked up yesterday's sports section, they wouldn't have even known there was a local MLB team here, since there was no mention of the only major sports team in season on the front page of the section. There were Olympics stories, and the obligatory Redskins story--but no mention of the Nats. Even when the Wizards and Capitals were truly pathetic, their game stories were on the front of the section. Below the fold maybe, but at least there.

The Nats are bad, but not invisible. And despite your misleading article, they have a passionate, diverse fan base; one that deserves respect, not ridicule.

Dave Nichols

Bottomfeeder Baseball Blog

http://bottomfeederbaseball.blogspot.com/

Gee, look at the diverse crowd at the event yesterday. Women, children, teenagers. Oh hey, even a couple of middle-aged men were there too!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/longterm/general/povich/launch/senators2.htm

The Senators' Final Game

By Shirley Povich Washington Post Columnist Oct. 1, 1971

Everybody in Kennedy Stadium stood up at 7:30 p.m. because the voice on the loudspeaker said, "We ask you to join Robert Merrill in singing the National Anthem." The voice did not bother to explain that Merrill was on wax, and that Robert, baby, was not deserting the Metropolitan Opera stage for this occasion. It was merely one more of management's deceptions Senators' fans had long been taught to live with.

To those among the crowd who had come in sorrow, the Star Spangled Banner never before sounded so much like a dirge. Francis Scott Key, if he had taken another peek by the dawn's early light, would have seen that the flag ain't still there, and lyricized accordingly. It was captured and in transit to Arlington, Tex., which, to embittered Washington fans, is some jerk town with the single boast it is equidistant from Dallas and Fort Worth.

But the jocularity of so many among the 14,460 fans who were present challenged any belief that they had come to a death-bed scene. The Washington Senators, at the end of this game, would be no more after 71 years on earth. The deceased, actually, was a pretty good draw, pulling those who had come to give a last cheer for remembered heroes, or, perforce, to wipe away some tears in public.

But for every mourner who made it to the ball park, there were multiple empty seats to testify that 30,000 others had averted their eyes from the scene, shunning it either in indifference to the whole business or in reluctance to give chortling Bob Short one last handout at the highest admission prices in the league.

Those who were savoring this last, fond look at the Senators let it be known by their cheers that they absolved the athletes of all blame in the messy machinations that rooked the city of its major-league status. Even the .190 hitters heard the hearty farewells, and in the case of big Frank Howard it was thunderous when he came to the plate.

If there was no general wet-eyed melancholia in the stadium, there were still unmistakable pockets of bitterness. From the upper stands hung banners spelling out four-letter words in large design, all of them reviling club owner Bob Short for shanghaing the team to Texas.

Special police dispatched by management to remove the hanging vulgarities in the second inning drew the boos of the crowd, which was making no secret that its sentiments were pro-banners and anti-police. And then in the third inning, the six-letter word made its appearance in the left-field upper stands in a new, vertical banner that read "Short Stinks." There were new cheers for that little number, which had a life of approximately 10 minutes before police took it by storm.

In the stands, neighbor nudged neighbor in glee while pointing to the sprouting number of anti-Short graffiti in the the stadium. But in the sixth inning, with one swipe of his bat, Frank Howard redirected all attention, back to the ball game. He did it with No. 26, one of his super jobs.

It brought on a crowd delirium that for the next many minutes effaced any sadness the people had brought to the stadium on the supposedly sorrowful night. Howard responded with emotion of his own, tipping his hat to a cheering crowd for the first time in his seven years with the Washington club. After whirling his vatting helmet in the air as he rounded the bases, he flipped his soft playing cap into the stands as a fifth symbol of his gladness.

It was four-run inning that tied the score for the Senators at 5-5, and in the eighth they went in front, 7-5, but now, oddly, the temper of the crowd was changing. As if in sudden awareness that the end of major-league baseball in Washington was only one inning way, the mood hardened. "We want Bob Short!" was the cry that picked up in loud and angry chorus, and it was the baying-fury sound of a lynch mob.

Then a swarm of young kids, squirts who wouldn't know what it had meant to have a big-league team all these years, or what it would mean to lose one, flooded onto the field from all points of the stands. A public address announcement warned that the home team could forfeit the game unless the field was cleared, and pretty soon the game resumed.

It got as far as two out in the ninth, the Senators' 7-5 lead intact, no Yankee on base, when one young rebel from the stands set off again. He grabbed first base and ran off with it. Some unbelievers, undaunted by the warning of forfeit, cheered, and from out of the stands poured hundreds, maybe a couple of thousand fans. They took over the infield, the outfield, grabbed off every base as a souvenir, tried to get the numbers and lights from the scoreboard or anything else removable, and by their numbers left police and the four umpires helpless to intervene.

The mad scene on the field, with the athletes of both teams taking refuge in their dugouts, brought official announcement of Yankees 9, Senators 0, baseball's traditional forfeit count almost since Abner Doubleday notched the first baseball score on the handiest twig at Cooperstown. But by then the crowd-mood was philosophical, "So what?"

Or more accurately, "So whatha hell?" The Senators were finished, even if the ball game wasn't.

© Copyright 1971 The Washington Post Company

From the Notebook on WaPo.com:

"All I know is a starter's mentality," Chico said. At least for now, though, his numbers belie that. He has faced 17 batters out of the bullpen, walking one. His back-to-back two-inning stints on Friday and Saturday nights required 85 pitches and created more soreness than he'd feel after a typical start, he said.

Also, welcome to Chico Harlan, who takes over for Barry Svrulga as beat reporter for the Nats at the Post.