CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com

Baseball Prospectus home
  
  
Click here to log in Click here for forgotten password Click here to subscribe

<< Previous Article
Premium Article Transaction Analysis: ... (07/04)
<< Previous Column
Prospectus Idol Entry:... (06/28)
Next Column >>
Prospectus Idol Entry:... (07/05)
Next Article >>
Premium Article Prospectus Q&A: Brian ... (07/05)

July 5, 2009

Prospectus Idol Entry

Swartz Interview Transcript

by Matt Swartz

Mike Ferrin talks with Matt Swartz in this special edition of Baseball Prospectus Radio. Click to download the mp3.

Mike Ferrin: It's our weekly chat on "On Deck" with one of the folks from Baseball Prospectus, Matt Swartz is our guest today as Matt's taken up some writing duties for BP. I know you're Philadelphia-based and have had your eye on the Phils well, for probably the better of your life...

Matt Swartz: Yeah.

MF: ...but watching what's been a fascinating team this year in a lot of respects because they're able to continue to lead this division despite what has really been a crapshoot in their rotation. What do you see is the biggest key for the Phillies to try and stay atop the National League East at this point?

MS: You know, I mean, the Phillies are a team that hits very, very well and pitches very not so well.

MF: [Laughs.]

MS: So I mean you know they're going to keep hittin' the ball and it's just a matter of keeping the opponent's score down a good bit. I mean certainly adding pitching help would be good but you know in a division that's pretty weak this year, it might not be the smartest thing to go all-out, empty out the minor league system and get a pitcher that's going to help you win a divison that you were going to win anyway, not that they're necessarily going to win, but certainly, it's a risk to empty out the system for a pitcher.

MF: Yeah, and well, and certainly you look at the divison, and like you say, it's weak. The Mets can't hit and they they can't get anybody healthy. The Braves...

MS: Yeah.

MF: Can pitch but they can't hit at all.

MS: Yeah.

MF: And Flor..

MS: Yeah they have a really weak outfield.

MF: Flor... Florida is just so young that there is still a bit of unpredictability despite the fact that these young guys have three and four years of service time at this point. But I am interested in what you said about a pitcher. About not going all out for a pitcher. Listen, we've heard them linked to guys like Jeremy Guthrie, and and you know Doug Davis is certainly available. I'm not sure how much of an upgrade he really serves in a...

MS: Eh...

MF: fly-ball ballpark like Citi... like, you like you know...

MS: Citizen's Bank, yeah.

MF: Citizen's Bank but... you look at an article that you wrote earlier this year about mortgaging your future, so to speak for players to help you reach the postseason. And I'm interested in your take in the idea that a guy like Jason Donald or Lou Marson, who have certainly had a fair amount of hype surrounding them, could land a piece that helps put the Phillies in a better position to repeat as World Champions.

MS: Yeah, I mean for the right deal absolutely. It's not, I mean, you know. The impatient part of me wants to just be like, 'Get get get whatever you can get, go-go-go.' And it's true that the Phillies window to win really is 2009, 2010, and 2011. At the end of 2011, you know, all these guys contracts comes up. Howard, Rollins, Victorino, Lidge, there's other people that I can't... there's there all they have all these contracts, Ibanez, contracts. All these contracts end after 2011 so it's not a terrible idea to to start to make a push I think you just have to evaluate the deal specifically. You don't want to trade top prospects for a for a middling pitcher. And it might not be the most unreasonable thing to just try to go for two mid-level guys. You know, I don't I don't know about Doug Davis's peripherals. They're kind of scaring me right now. But I think that, you know, a couple of mid-rotation guys without emptying out the farm system might be the kind of guys that could, you know, throw three-run, six innings and stuff like that and then let the offense do the trick and that might be better than emptying the farm system for Cliff Lee or something like that.

MF: How often do teams that get a pitcher midseason see that guy help them in the World Series?

MS: Yeah you know I mean I think I use a very specific criteria in one of my articles to look at that. There have been... I forget what the timeframe I looked at, it was something like 30 years. There were only two people that were ever traded midseason to a team and won a World Series game for that team. I mean, you know, the sheer magnitude of that when everyone's like 'Who's going to pitch Game Two of the World Series after Cole Hamels?" Well, who knows? But just because they get Cliff Lee that doesn't mean he's going to secure them a win because every year there is a few teams that pick up a pitcher midseason, and those teams aren't doing it, and the two guys who have done it in history were Jeff Weaver who was, I mean, certainly wasn't a big mid-season pickup that everyone everyone thought was gonna take things over, and Joe Blanton in a trade that was pretty heavily criticized. So I mean not only is there randomness to it but there's just, you know, you can't trust a pitcher to magically have a good game in the World Series, and you can't trust a team to win two short series before that.

MF: We're talking to Matt Swartz from Baseball Prospectus. A little about Phillies, the National League East, and I'm sure one thing that's fascinated you as a Phillies fan has to do with the way this team is built so much through the draft. Why is it you think that teams are unwilling even in large markets to bust slot in the draft for a a better potential player than one that's easily signable?

MS: You know, I think that it's collusion. I mean, the player's union...

MF: Collusion, really?

MS: Yes.

MF: Between the players... between the owners and the Player's Association?

MS: I think between the owners within the division. I mean, if you look at a division like the AL East. The Yankees and Red Sox constantly bust slot, and hey so do the Rays, and they don't have much money. You know, the Phillies and the Mets have plenty of money, and neither of them do it. It's not like they're best friends but both of them know that, you know, maybe they're a weak division but someone's going to win it. And so the the tendency ends up being that, you know, teams will kind of just follow what each other are doing and you can kind of work work out that collusion. It's a much easier collusion to work. You know in the '80s they tried collusion on free-agent contracts, and the player's union, you know, exploded. They they went insane over something like that because the player's union is representing players, but the player's union doesn't represent draftees who are currently in high school. Not until they are actual major league signees yet. So with the bonus that they get makes to get there they're representing themselves. You know, the draft by itself is an anti-competitive process. It's not designed to have teams bidding up for players. And so you get this this end result that you know teams aren't maybe best friends, we'll kind of follow what each other are doing.

MF: So it's not necessarily collusion in the sense that the teams are making a premeditated act to spend this in the draft.

MS: No.

MF: But more if a team a team is willing to spend in the draft you need to be able to spend to keep up with the Joneses, right?

MS: Absolutely and...

MF: So then why don't teams in other divisons do that then? I mean, why don't you look at a team like in the National League Central and see, you know, the Brewers, that are a very good team at drafting. Why aren't they out there busting slot when they have an opportunity to in an effort to try and get people to either, (A) spend more money in the draft to keep up with them, or (B) run away from,,, you know, end up adding a year's worth of talent above or beyond what other teams can do?

MS: Yeah I mean even a year's worth of talent would be tough to get because, you know, everybody knows who the tough guys to sign are. These are the guys with, you know, football scholarships or whatever else that that they have as a good opportunity, and you know they sign themselves a big-name agent that's going to, you know, keep an eye and get a big bonus for them. I mean when you draft someone like that in the first round, hey, there's guys available in the second round that might do that. So you might not even really get that much of a comparative edge. And what you've done, even if you can take one year's worth of talent, you know, draft picks are random. You're not guaranteed to get more than one or two really good players, you know, if that. And you know then it then it flips back, Then all of a sudden the Cardinals and the Cubs and everyone else are paying like crazy because they know the Brewers aren't keeping an eye on what they're doing.

MF: We're talking with Matt Swartz from Baseball Prospectus for a couple minutes here. And another thing and you know and I want to get back more directly with the Phillies here but interesting article that you wrote talking about, Matt, about Ryan Howard and the idea of Ryan Howard being clutch. Now I know you know that's a word that in in stathead circles kind of makes people go "eyew."

MS: [Laughs.]

MF: You know, grab the collar of the neck like it's a cartoon. So why is Ryan Howard clutch, and how can you prove that he is clutch?

MS: Well, I mean, to look at any individual being clutch, that kind of way of looking things is going to come to mistakes, because even if you use some sort of like random statistical benchmark that you need to be, you know, in the in the top five percent of what you'd expect if people weren't clutch. If it's so unreasonable that 95 percent of the time, people people would be, ah, would not succeed this much in that story, you're going to be wrong five percent of the time if you make that rule that you need such an extreme view. So there's really... it's really to me, it's not about trying to get into the psyche of these guys that, you know, have a five-second sound bite on the radio, and you're like, 'oh ,it seems like he's a tough guy. It seems like he can deal under pressure.' I mean, every one of these guys, when the scout came out to see them when they were seventeen years old and trying to decide whether they were going to make them a multi-millionaire, that was when then the pressure was on. I might be someone who completely freezes in slow-pitch softball when the bases are loaded, but I would never have been drafted in the first place.

MF: Right.

MS: The type of guys that are in the league, I mean these, this, the, I guess the... just the mental fortitude they have to have been there, there's not much difference between them. So what you look for is situations where people are, because of characteristics they have, are prone to succeed. If you look at left-handed power hitters... Barry Bonds. You know, Giambi. I'm trying to think of other ones. Ortiz. These guys have histories that show that with men on base, they hit better than with [the] bases empty. And the reason doesn't seem to be more home runs, because they're not. They're not striking out less. They're striking out the same amount. What they're doing is they're getting more hits on balls is play. And the reason is with guys like that, and Howard is a is a great example, is that you know, they shift all the infielders over to one side when there's no one on base. When there's a guy on, when there's bases loaded, you can't really put all the infielders on one side of the infield. They'd, you know, they'd double-steal, you know.

MF: Uh-huh.

MS: They could run all over the place. So, you know, what you get is this limited ability to play defense against them. And when you get this limited ability to play to play defense against them, when there are men on base, those are the high-leverage situations. Those are the situations when they can knock in some runs.

MF: But...

MS: And you know David Ortiz has been, you know, exalted, like he's been the most Mr. Clutch according to according to every publication. And really, it's not that he's hitting more home runs in these situations. Though he has, because he's a home-run hitter. It's that he's getting singles and doubles to fall in where maybe the second baseman will be in some peculiar position in short right field, and would've kept him being out if there was no one on base and the situation wasn't as important.

MF: So you're finding... are you finding then that these guys are actually just hitting the ball in those spots? I mean, do you do you have research that shows that?

MS: I mean I don't have hit charts on on these guys. I looked at Howard, and certainly if you look at where he hits his ground balls.... I think it was a game yesterday. He hit a single to left field when the shift was on. And I think that he said to the first-base coach that he wanted the game ball.

MF: [Laughing.]

MS: I'm not sure. But I'm pretty sure that's what he said. And I think the announcers thought that he had mouthed those words too. It's a rare thing, I mean, he hits his home runs the other way. But it's rare that he actually hits a low line drive or a ground ball the other way. He just hits them to the right side, and that's why that's why the infielders play over there, and that's why they do it with guys like Bonds and Ortiz and Giambi.

MF: Matt, I appreciate the time. Some interesting stuff you brought up tonight. Matt Swartz from Baseball Prospectus. Wrap things up after this here on "On Deck."

Mike talks with Matt in this special edition of BP Radio:


Click to download mp3

Matt Swartz is an author of Baseball Prospectus. 
Click here to see Matt's other articles. You can contact Matt by clicking here

38 comments have been left for this article. (Click to hide comments)

BP Comment Quick Links

TucsonTumbleweed

Wow. I cringed through most of this. I had thought Matt was the one to beat. I cant say that I usually listen to many interviews (BP or otherwise) so even if this isn't his format (not sure we can judge this one due to sample size issues) I will still vote for Matt as I like his writing.

Jul 05, 2009 12:13 PM
rating: 0
 
Scherer

This brings up an interesting point (at least to me). To what extent should we allow prior weeks' performance influence our voting? I, like most others, found this to be a disappointing effort. However, I do not believe that Matt is the weakest of the remaining contestants based on the bodies of work, to date. Should this matter?

Conversely, a different contestant performed very well this week but is, to me, not the right person to be a BP columnist. This is the first week I've even considered a thumbs-up for him (I am a tough grader). Why was this week different? Because he didn't have to write anything. Should my perception of his writing influence this week's vote? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Jul 05, 2009 14:36 PM
rating: 0
 
Richard Bergstrom
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

Suffice it to say, there's a lot of talent. Some of the contestants that I thought were initially weak got stronger and vice versa. I'm trying to use overall performance since a lot of the "potential" area has been mapped out at this point, but all I can really suggest is coming up with your own criteria.

Jul 05, 2009 14:46 PM
rating: -4
 
graignettles

I'm not sure what to do here either. I voted thumbs up for the interview I thought went the best. I thought two others went fairly well for first timers - and then there's Matt's. I've liked Matt's writing the best of all the contestants but I thought his interview was the least strong of the bunch. In keeping with Idol spirit I guess we vote for this week's performers based on this week's performances. Yet 90% of the job will be writing and the best writer could be eliminated based on an unspectacular outing in an area that will be at most 10% of his duties? A conundrum indeed...

Jul 05, 2009 15:07 PM
rating: -1
 
TucsonTumbleweed

For me its who do I want to read each week. For me so far that is Matt. However, I will say that with the last two week's performances, going into the last few weeks of the pennant race, it is too close to call! I vote for Matt as there is no wildcard! That being said if next week his article is the third best than I vote (or unvote) him off. Thats my thinking anyway. It is getting difficult to vote at this point.

Jul 05, 2009 20:13 PM
rating: 3
 
jkaplow21

"Take the flat assertions about the shift not getting made with runners on base--that's just not true. In 2007, when Ryan Zimmerman started almost 40 double plays, that was because the Nats were still shifting with runners on base, especially against divisional opponents like Ryan Howard and Carlos Delgado."

This is a complete strawman argument. There is almost ALWAYS a shift with nobody on. There may be SOME shifts done with a runner on first, but very few if any with a runner on second OR third. You make the assertion that this is not true when it is clearly true more than never (which is all that is needed to at least show that he has a point).

Jul 05, 2009 12:54 PM
rating: 6
 
BP staff member Christina Kahrl
BP staff
(11)

A qualifying statement such as the one that you've just provided would have been required to make my point a straw man; unfortunately, Matt did not, so this wasn't what you suggest. In an interview as in writing, you need to be careful with what you assert, especially while trying to make a controversial point.

Jul 05, 2009 13:22 PM
 
dpowell

No, jkaplow21 is right. You're saying that the effect Matt finds is biased downward since some of the observations he's considering "treated" are actually "untreated." So, really, the effect is bigger. That's not worth a criticism.

Jul 05, 2009 18:32 PM
rating: 3
 
Matt Swartz

Thanks to both of you. I agree that the effect is muted and is actually larger than the nubers state. Mr. Ferrin did an amazing job at digging into our research, but for those who haven't, here is the link to my article on the topic:

http://www.thegoodphight.com/2009/1/29/741980/there-is-clutch-or-the-cas

This was a statistically significant effect of the shift, and it's why Mr. Ferrin mentioned it in my interview. Ryan Howard wasn't the one in my study but shift victims as a whole collectively have this effect in the way that righty sluggers do not.

Jul 05, 2009 18:38 PM
rating: 7
 
evo34

Count me among those who would rather hear directly from someone (Swartz) who has done original research on the topic, vs. someone (Kahrl) who is nitpicking from afar.

Jul 07, 2009 00:55 AM
rating: 5
 
Scherer

I agree with the idea that Christina's criticism was not completely on target. However, to suggest she should not express an opinion does not make sense to me. Her role, here is to judge a contestant's contribution. If something in that contribution strikes her as weak, she needs to bring it up. That's pretty much her job in this competition. If her objection is even weaker, then we can raise that criticism. But I can't buy the idea that she should stay silent because Swartz has done research. Her role is to provide a critique of that research, whether or not her own research overlaps (I have no idea if it does).

And, let us not forget, all (credible) research is subject to peer review. Often, peer review is a process of "nitpicking from afar". If we have the right combination of quantity, and quality, of reviewers, the validity of the research will be established.

In a contest like this, there is an inherent risk of a judge's lack of knowledge of a specific subject impacting the results (Will has been very open about this). Still, this is the lay of the land. And all of the contestants seem to be able to navigate it.

(and I just gave an article-length response to a one-sentence critique. Is it possible I'm really Christina in disguise?)

Jul 07, 2009 17:09 PM
rating: 1
 
greenie55

I have enjoyed reading Matt's writing. This was really awkward...not a good effort. Hope Matt makes it through because I think he has some nice writing skills.

Jul 05, 2009 13:24 PM
rating: 2
 
Richard Bergstrom
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

I'll admit being a bit biased in that I had to pay more attention to the audio while transcribing this, but I thought Matt's interview was the weakest this week. Besides interrupting the host, using inflammatory words like collusion, there were a lot of repeated words which ended up eating a lot of time in the conversation. Also, the "Eh..." line sounded like a groan which can be seen as a bit unprofessional. Matt, in his writing, tends to attack his topics at a ton of angles but it seemed to me that this interview missed the mark.

Jul 05, 2009 13:32 PM
rating: -4
 
Matt Swartz

To clairfy one thing, I realize that saying collusion to non-economists has probably more of a stigma than I appreciated at the time, and that's good to know for the future. Economists often use the word in any sense where two agents respond to each other's behavior in a way that helps each other, because doing so is more useful than being fully self-interested. It is NOT meant to imply a provable collusion in any legal sense, merely a mutually beneficial action. For example, airlines "collude" about prices without ever making an explicit agreement. In fact, by definition, the MLB would fit the economic description of a cartel.

In response to the 'eh' thing-- I was agreeing with Mr. Ferrin when he was expressing his doubt about Doug Davis' ability to be an upgrade.

Jul 05, 2009 13:46 PM
rating: 11
 
Richard Bergstrom

It became clearer to me when listening to this interview, as opposed to the prisoner's dilemma article, that you were using a different version of collusion than I was familiar with... but people did respond to that article with the same kind of shock that Mike Ferrin seemed to, which might have been a key to use a different word or modify the way you use the word collusion.

And I do know you were agreeing with Ferrin and "eh"ing about Doug Davis's ability... but it still felt like a groan and it distracted a bit from what the host was saying.

Part of the problem was also the subsequent analysis where, after the groan, you say "I don't know about Doug Davis's peripherals. They're kind of scaring me right now." When you say "you don't know", the listener wonders whether you have done your research/analysis on Davis's situation, or are merely uncertain about Davis's future. Then you indicate you are scared without saying why you are scared. A bit better word choice and a little elaboration serve better than a groan. Also, by delivering such a critique in more of an impartial tone, you do not risk turning away potential interviewers (or hosts) who might've been listening to this interview on "On Deck".

Jul 05, 2009 14:06 PM
rating: -3
 
BP staff member Will Carroll
BP staff

I'm reminded of the interview with Don Fehr, where he said that terms did not mean the same thing between leagues. Matt was using a term from one "league" and using it in another. The problem is that almost everyone assumed the definition opposed to Matt's usage.

Jul 05, 2009 14:28 PM
 
Evan
(47)

That's a limitation of the medium. If Matt wanted to make that distinction in an article, he could easily have done so.

I always read collusion the way Matt meant it, because that's what the word means. This baseball-specific meaning is just a subset of actual collusion.

Jul 06, 2009 09:54 AM
rating: 2
 
dsc250

I don't get why every "um," "eh," "uh-huh," etc. has been transcribed for Matt but not for any of the others. It's clear from listening to the audio that Matt was indicating that he was listening, not interrupting, as it reads in the transcript. Where's the ums in the other transcripts? The heavy breathing?

I really just don't get the way this was so horribly transcribed and so differently than others. Were you trying to make Matt look like an interrupting buffoon? Because he certainly didn't sound that way. Whereas the others look almost perfect in their transcript. And they certainly didn't sound that way either.

Certainly you can debate the substance. But reading the transcript, which let's face it, most readers are going to do, you've really put him at a huge disadvantage.

Jul 05, 2009 18:23 PM
rating: 8
 
Richard Bergstrom

Since you're curious...

Swartz "um" tally - 3
Cartwright "um" tally - 1
Kniker "um" tally - 7
Funck "um" tally - 12

Also...

Swartz "uh" tally - 15
Cartwright "uh" tally - 31
Kniker "uh" tally - 35
Funck "uh" tally - 25

The "eh" was the best I could do without explicitly saying "[Groans]" which definitely would have been interpretive of my transcription and a possible indication of bias. "Uh huh" was said by the host, not by Matt.

Swartz also had the longest interview time (12:10), followed by Cartwright (11:24), Kniker (10:37) and then Funck (10:00).


Also, per the transcription, Funck and Kniker both spoke while the host was talking (though neither tried to say a sentence as Swartz did with "Yeah they have a really weak outfield") and Cartwright, in fact, talked over the host during one section.

One of the judges also thought he interrupted and none of the judges have said this was a good interview. Besides the "um's" and "uh's", there are a lot of frequently repeated words.

I don't know what else to say except I was as neutral as possible which is a shame because Matt's been my second favorite so far in the competition.

In any event, I recommend going by the source material (the original audio) and not by the transcript, then comment on what he talked about and how effective he was at communicating it.

Jul 05, 2009 21:19 PM
rating: -1
 
Evan
(47)

Wow - Cartwright's read much shorter than the others. He must speak slowly.

Jul 06, 2009 09:43 AM
rating: 0
 
BP staff member Will Carroll
BP staff

Which proves you haven't listened.

Jul 06, 2009 10:44 AM
 
zucca4

I definitely agree with you that people should listen. The unfortunate reality, however, is that a lot of people aren't going to listen. Either for time reasons (it would take about 45 minutes to download listen to all 4-- I did it), or because they're reading it while commuting or from work or somewhere else where it's not ok to have the sound on, or for technology reasons. That's why the transcripts and all their (in)accuracy and bias really DO matter.

Jul 06, 2009 11:29 AM
rating: 7
 
Evan
(47)

I've been open about that; I have no interest is listening to audio content.

Jul 13, 2009 11:16 AM
rating: 0
 
Scherer

So, Swartz, who has been generally savaged for this interview, actually leads the league in UUS (Um/Uh Score), and by an almost 2-1 margin. Clearly UUS is the only completely objective measure available (and this is BP, after all), so Swartz should be waived through with nary a wanding and, Tim Kniker, the only contestant to post a UUS of over 40, should not only be eliminated, but also, very possibly, physically injured. Also, "Kniker", once you know the pronunciation, sounds quite foreign and, most likely, dangerous to America. (My apologies to R. Bergstrom who, inadvertently, provided the UUS "stat" not knowing that an idiot like me would mock it. The above, while offensive to some, is not his fault.)

Jul 06, 2009 19:01 PM
rating: 1
 
Richard Bergstrom

No need to apologize, I liked that quip :)

Jul 06, 2009 20:26 PM
rating: -1
 
fireorlime

I think based on his whole body of BP Idol work Matt deserves to advance but if we're just supposed to focus on this week in a vacuum, I think there's agreement that his interview was the weakest of the 4.

I'm voting for him even if that somewhat abandons the spirit of the rules.

Jul 06, 2009 08:11 AM
rating: 3
 
Evan
(47)

That was my plan this week right from the start - I don't care how these guys do on radio, so judging based on it is pointless.

I'm not a big fan of Matt - I argued he shouldn't have been a finalist based on his original submission, and he wasn't an automatic vote for me this week - but he did earn my top score in weeks 2 and 3, so he has value.

Jul 06, 2009 09:51 AM
rating: 0
 
fireorlime

Well it's not pointless, it's just a single point in a larger set, it should be considered, but it shouldn't be the end all be all in my humble opinion.

Jul 06, 2009 11:54 AM
rating: 0
 
naphtali

Matt continues to impress -- his content and analysis, as they have been since week 1, are insightful and original. I think his choice of words in this interview was, as he has pointed out in one of the comments, misunderstood and out of context to his background as an economist. The ultimate victor will be chosen primarily for his creative analysis and writing skills. He has proven this time and again! I would like him to move on and compete head-on with the remaining survivors. Placing too much emphasis on radio presence does not carry the day for me. I hope you out there who have been following the contest know why his scores have been so high to-date!

Jul 06, 2009 10:22 AM
rating: 6
 
dsc250

I've enjoyed Matt's pieces so far and don't see much to complain about with this interview either. So take this with that bias in mind:

Almost without exception, Matt's entries have generated the most discussion in comments. I know that extensive reader comment is not the ultimate goal of BP, but having an engaged readership is certainly a good thing. And it seems that Matt is bringing that week in, week out.

Jul 06, 2009 12:52 PM
rating: 4
 
Richard Bergstrom

I wholeheartedly agree. I do think Matt has been the best of the finalists at initiating and perpetuating discussion.

Each contestant has put out a lot of effort and shown a variety of skills to get this far. Each week, the voting keeps getting harder and harder...

Jul 06, 2009 20:23 PM
rating: 0
 
dpowell

This actually ended up being my favorite for this week. Matt's biggest "mistakes" were really that he (1) tried to introduce completely new ideas and (2) admitted nuance. You're not supposed to do that on sports radio but that doesn't mean it's wrong. If I had never read any of Matt's work before, this would have been the first time I ever learned something from a sports radio interview/podcast. In other threads, Will has suggested that you're "supposed" to briefly address a subject and then leave it at that unless the host asks for more. But that's why radio intervews suck. I sincerely don't mean this as a slight against the current BP staff (since it's the fault of the medium), but I have never heard any of them say anything interesting on the radio/podcast. It's always, "Player A will eventually start hitting, but maybe not." And that's it. And they make comments which if anyone else had made, they'd write a column detailing why that statement was stupid. Again, that's the fault of the medium - it's difficult not to do that. But Matt actually said new and smart stuff and discussed some more abstract ideas. And I appreciated that.

Also, he did use the word "collusion" correctly and I was happy to hear someone finally do that.

Jul 06, 2009 21:40 PM
rating: 8
 
G. Guest

I couldn't get past the feeling that he was simply a fan on any sports talk radio station.

Jul 07, 2009 12:43 PM
rating: -3
 
dsc250

You obviously don't listen to sports talk radio much.

Jul 07, 2009 17:49 PM
rating: 2
 
You must be a Premium subscriber to post a comment.
Not a subscriber? Sign up today!
<< Previous Article
Premium Article Transaction Analysis: ... (07/04)
<< Previous Column
Prospectus Idol Entry:... (06/28)
Next Column >>
Prospectus Idol Entry:... (07/05)
Next Article >>
Premium Article Prospectus Q&A: Brian ... (07/05)

RECENTLY AT BASEBALL PROSPECTUS
Fantasy Article Expert League Auction Recap: CBS AL-Only
Fantasy Article State of the Position: Relief Pitcher
Fantasy Article The Quinton: Market Corrections and Underval...
The Week in Quotes: February 23-March 1, 201...
Premium Article Rumor Roundup: You Can't Predict Padres
Premium Article Transaction Analysis: It's the Latest Johan ...
Fantasy Article Fantasy Players to Target: Relief Pitchers

MORE FROM JULY 5, 2009
Prospectus Idol: Round Seven - Media Week
Premium Article Transaction Analysis: Wrigleyville Update
Premium Article On the Beat: All-Stars!
Premium Article Prospectus Q&A: Brian McCann

MORE BY MATT SWARTZ
2009-08-03 - Premium Article Ahead in the Count: Runs Per Inning, and Why...
2009-07-27 - Premium Article Ahead in the Count: Aces and Attendance
2009-07-20 - Premium Article Ahead in the Count: Get the Doctor, Now!
2009-07-05 - Prospectus Idol Entry: Swartz Interview Tran...
2009-06-28 - Prospectus Idol Entry: The First World Serie...
2009-06-21 - Prospectus Idol Entry: The 1991 World Series...
2009-06-14 - Prospectus Idol Entry: Ryan Howard, Swinging...
More...

MORE PROSPECTUS IDOL ENTRY
2009-07-05 - Prospectus Idol Entry: Kniker Interview Tran...
2009-07-05 - Prospectus Idol Entry: Funck Interview Trans...
2009-07-05 - Prospectus Idol Entry: Cartwright Interview ...
2009-07-05 - Prospectus Idol Entry: Swartz Interview Tran...
2009-06-28 - Prospectus Idol Entry: Game Story: Cardinal...
2009-06-28 - Prospectus Idol Entry: LaRussa's Choices
2009-06-28 - Prospectus Idol Entry: The First World Serie...
More...

INCOMING ARTICLE LINKS
2009-07-08 - Unfiltered: Prospectus Idol: Week Seven Resu...