has written a column apologizing
for his doomsaying last month.
"When you're wrong, you're wrong," the headline admits, "and I was wrong about demise of Cleveland Indians."
Hoynes engendered the ill-will of fans and the Indians players themselves when he put a fork in the team's post-season hopes after the consecutive losses of starting pitchers Danny Salazar and Carlos Carrasco.
"When a contender loses its No.2 and No.3 starters in September, any plans for an extended stay in October are more fantasy than fact," Hoynes wrote in his latest column.
This is no secret. This is not a fringe view. And yet, fans and players were outraged. How dare
he, was the impression in aggregate. Trevor Bauer led the charge on the player side, calling Hoynes a "coward" for failing to show up at the ballpark the day after his column. Cleveland.com's content VP Chris Quinn even defended Hoynes' column in a column of his own
, adding fuel to a raging fire by arguing that after 34 years of covering the team, Hoynes had earned the right to make fans furious.
The partisan babble blathers on, but now that Hoynes has apologized, fans are welcoming him back to the fold, treating him like a child who properly wiped his butt after a poo.
But what was his "fault" that should be so difficult to "admit"? His prediction? Hoynes declared in strong words what he thought would happen based on statistics, history, and his own experience. This is what beat writers do. The fact that "in playoff baseball, anything can happen" should merely indicate that predictions will be right about half the time. It's always good when writers own up to bad predictions, but this shouldn't be — and should never have been — interpreted as a defect in Hoynsie's character or as a compromising factor in his ability to effectively cover the team.
Cleveland.com Indians beat writer Paul Hoynes