Best-selling author Jeff Pearlman doesn’t want you to buy his book, and after learning more about him, you might not want to anyway.
Pearlman, for the uninitiated, has made a living mostly as a best-selling sports biographer. If you’re not familiar with his name, you’re still likely familiar with his work; the 2022 Max series Winning Time, about the rise of the 1980’s Los Angeles Lakers, is based on Pearlman’s 2014 book Showtime. But more about that in a minute.
Here’s why Pearlman is garnering attention at the moment: Back in 2016, Pearlman released Gunslinger, a book about former NFL quarterback and Pro Football Hall-of-Famer Brett Favre. Since last Fall, Favre has been mired in scandal over allegedly playing a significant role in the State of Mississippi misappropriating $77 million in what was supposed to be welfare funds. Because of Favre’s morally-murky shenanigans, Pearlman now believes you should not read Gunslinger, because his book is mostly a positive depiction of the former quarterback.
Although his don’t-read-my-book tour began in September 2022, it continues with Monday’s recent viral tweet about Favre, which has already been seen by over 1.9 million people.
Yes, Pearlman decided to tweet at the former Green Bay Packers star and call him a “moron,” which might not be the smartest thing to say to someone who is suing multiple people for defamation of character. Yet, Pearlman himself is not without controversy.
It seems Pearlman has recurring difficulties pinpointing how to properly depict people, which brings us back to Winning Time. The show’s controversial depiction of Lakers exec Jerry West as a verbally abusive hot-head received serious backlash from some prominent sports journalists, including from Bob Ryan at the Boston Globe, who covered the Celtics in the ‘80s and thus indirectly covered the Lakers. Pearlman reacted to the pushback by tweeting, “It’s NOT a documentary,” only to immediately add that his source material included conversations with 350 people connected to the organization. Pearlman added that he was “over these takes” like Ryan’s, which seemed to some observers like a flippant entreaty to calm down.
But Pearlman’s controversial takes go back even further; his career took off in 1999, when he wrote a hit piece on Atlanta pitcher John Rocker. This was after submitting a positive article to his managing editor about Rocker, whom he interviewed for Sports Illustrated. After meeting Rocker a second time, though, Pearlman decided he didn’t like him (and when you read Pearlman’s article, you can’t blame him) and chose to write the hit piece instead.
Pearlman later admitted that Rocker was kind to him and that he, in turn, was kind to Rocker, but that he was committed to the story, which became headline news in the sports world when it was published. John Rocker felt backstabbed and was both fined and suspended over the extremely insensitive things he was quoted by Pearlman as saying. Rocker’s career was never the same after that hit piece, something that Pearlman —15 years later — expressed guilt over in an article published by Bleacher Report, especially since his own career skyrocketed because of it.
The wild popularity of the Rocker article didn’t exactly make Pearlman’s job as a baseball reporter easier. Athletes understandably didn’t trust him. One of those athletes was Will Clark, to whom Pearlman introduced himself while visiting the Orioles during Spring training. Pearlman explained in an article for Deadspin that when Clark realized who was talking to him, he loudly called him “Jeff fu**ing Pearlman!” in front of his teammates in the clubhouse and rhetorically asked, “Why the fu** would anyone talk to you after what you did to Rocker?!”
Pearlman used to write often about being bullied in school, and his unfortunate experience affected his handling of the Will Clark situation; his coping tactic was to be embarrassed in the moment of conflict, and later write about it. He went on to explain that years later, he finally stood up to Clark somewhat, after realizing it was OK to stand your ground. But he certainly didn’t change Clark’s mind.
Pearlman also wrote in the aforementioned Bleacher Report article that John Rocker got angry at him after seeing him in the locker room some time after the Sports Illustrated piece was published, and that it took Pearlman a moment of courage just to speak back to him. However, what was Pearlman expecting? Did he think the guy whose career he helped ruin was going to be happy to see him? Did he think Will Clark, or any baseball player, would be happy to talk to him?
It’s worth noting that the featured athletes Pearlman writes about in his books don’t necessarily talk to him either, which is part of the reason why he talks to 350 other people who know the athlete or portions of that athlete’s story. It’s monumental research, which itself is commendable, but what does it say when he admits in an interview that Favre ultimately blew him off and decided that the controversial sports writer wasn’t worth talking to after all? That didn’t stop him, though. He explained that he did speak to Favre’s family and that they were great to talk to, though I’m sure they’re regretting that now.
Pearlman takes pride in not being influenced by the athletes he writes books about. This makes journalistic sense; Pearlman wants the truth, presumably, and the athlete is likely to paint an overly-positive picture of themselves. Yet, Pearlman’s work is obviously hindered, because often he can’t even get the athlete to say a word. Perhaps that’s the real reason why you shouldn’t read his biographies.
The irony over Pearlman’s present stance in regards to Gunslinger is that he wrote mostly positively about Brett Favre and seems to not be happy about that now. Thus, he doesn’t want you to read what he wrote about Favre at all.
I’m sure John Rocker would’ve appreciated that attitude when Pearlman wrote about him.
Now, Pearlman spends significant time on Twitter, often going all-in on being political, not afraid to tell someone to go fu** themselves — a bravery lost in-person when being confronted by Will Clark — and it’s not unlike Pearlman to then delete some of those tweets when he goes too far. Believe it or not, he sometimes comes across as bullying people. It’s difficult to argue against Pearlman on occasion. One can understand why he feels like his anger is justified in some of his responses — just take Favre as the recent example — but I’m sure Pearlman’s high school bully thought he was justified to harass Pearlman also.
In that article he wrote 15 years after the Rocker piece, he called John Rocker “immature” for how he expressed himself. Yet there’s Pearlman, constantly showing immaturity on Twitter by not being able to control his emotions and, unlike John Rocker, no one has done a hit piece on Pearlman.
For a guy who throws slander around pretty nonchalantly, it’s interesting to note that Pearlman also wrote that he once considered suing the Rocker family. Yes, you read that right. Imagine the guy who does a hit piece on you wanting to follow it up by suing you and your family. Why? Well, someone in the Rocker family accused Pearlman of using racial slurs (an accusation Pearlman leveled at Rocker), but very few ultimately believed it, because the accusations seemed like retaliation and Pearlman is, despite my take on him here, not actually a bad guy. He just comes across like one all too often, and sort of does himself a disservice that he is either unaware of, or just doesn’t care about. However, it’s likely just a matter of time before someone decides to sue him — like Brett Favre, perhaps.
Maybe Will Clark was right after all. When you consider what being interviewed by Jeff Pearlman can lead to, or what tweeting with him can turn into, or how he will depict you in a situation, one has to wonder who would ever want to talk to Jeff fu**ing Pearlman?! It’s likely the best question anyone has ever asked about him.