CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com
New! Search comments:
(NOTE: Relevance, Author, and Article are not applicable for comment searches)
hey guys, remember this line from Russell Carleton's article a few months back?
"there are things that are generally publicly held as sabermetric doctrine—in some cases, crucial underlying assumptions—that are demonstrably false."
the point being, maybe not the best idea to keep all your eggs in the same place.
also, this isn't the 2005 AL Cy Young voting, which was unjustifiable. both players had great seasons, and i'd wonder whether the landslide had more to do with Cabrera making the playoffs, rather than his Triple Crown achievement. regardless, it's not like we'll look back and talk about what an injustice it was that he got the honor.
personally, i'd have voted for Trout, but the way things turned out seems just fine.
was just about to ask what happened to Tommy. his contributions were some of my favorite on the site. should we expect more from him going forward?
one of my all-time favorite pieces published on BP. brilliant.
echoing the last post - having up-to-date sortable statistics for the current season is one of the most important features offered by BP. ETA would be very helpful.
BP staff: dating back to the comment thread that erupted on the State of the Prospectus leading into 2010, there was talk of how the content had become less "fun" (a sentiment i wholeheartedly agreed with at the time.) since then, we've seen more light-hearted work from some newer and older voices alike, though i've wondered at times whether you heard what we claimed to be missing, some fourteen months ago.
Emma's piece is literally the first bit i've read since that discussion that has fully reassured me, y'all were listening back then.
GREAT article, Emma - can't wait to see what you do next!
as someone who's not involved in fantasy baseball, or uses the PECOTA projections for anything more than personal reference...i have to echo others' sentiments about how disappointing this roll-out has been. i'm mystified by the fact that this transition didn't fully undergo thorough QA testing before replacing the existing methodology to produce the data that is the foundation to the core product.
beyond that, y'all could've communicated to your audience a little more regularly, and broadcast in a different way than has been done. if i were reliant on this information for my draft, i'd be furious.
that being said, i'm extremely sympathetic to the BP staff for the heat they're taking, especially considering the years of quality that have gone before 2010. i'm hoping the staff is learning from their experience to ensure history does not repeat itself.
yeah, it takes me right to All Tomorrow's Parties
or the Velvet Underground song of the same name
because it doesn't cost much, we should be unconditionally satisfied? "gee, this Schlitz beer tastes like it was brewed in a dirty diaper, but look at how cheap it is! i'll stick with it because it's a great value, even though there's equal or better-tasting beer out there for free."
i think you may be missing the bigger picture - our comments and opinions give the authors an opportunity to see what it's readers want, and potentially allow them to increase readership and subscriber count by addressing those comments and opinions. in the meanwhile, we get better content, along the lines of what we feel we've been missing it's a win-win situation, and everyone ends up drinking better beer.
Matt - i don't mean to speak for mssr. connection, but i believe his point is that your article is hard to read more clearly and the conclusion is obscured by the way your ideas are presented within it.
this, in a nutshell, has been my complaint with the more analytical articles published on the site as of late. it's not the subject matter, or the stats, or the tables/charts/graphs - it's that the accompanying writing makes it more difficult to extract the author's point than less.
i mean no offense and don't want to start a fight, this just seemed to be a good example.
sorry, i should clarify my statement about 6-4-3. should've read: "i dunno whether this particular piece was the last one published of its kind on this site, but it feels like it's been forEVer since we saw a reasoned criticism about anything other than a player signing or player management."
i want to see more articles like the ones below:
(Lies, Damned Lies 6/15/06 - Justin Verlander)
one of my favorite BP articles ever. this is one of the most well-presented analysis articles i've digested in my life, it's a well-reasoned piece that features a considerable amount of data and a few charts, but the takeaway is what the article was looking at.
(6-4-3 11/21/07 - ESPN & MLB)
an article that's basically an op-ed on the state of the sports giant, filled with reasoned criticisms. i dunno whether this particular piece was the last one published of its kind on this site, but it feels like it's been forEVer.
(The Numbers Part 1 12/7/01)
really, i'm just linking here because it's something by Doug Pappas. we could use more examinations of how baseball does business, something that BP doesn't really examine anymore. Doug was the best of the best, and while we can't expect the same quality, there's a void going unfilled presently. more by Maury and Neil!
that's just a few off the top of my head, but let me second the comment about Jim Baker leaving...his bits were always a blast to read, and more in that spirit would be a welcome addition.
Could not agree more with this statement. BP content has become more easily pigeonholed into the categories you described, particularly over the last couple of years. it's something that's had me on the fence on whether or not to re-up my subscription in 2010. If so, this would be the first year i've let it lapse, going back to the days before there was any such thing as Premium Content at this site.
BP has, for years, provided an incredible blend of innovative analysis techniques and wonderful, well-written articles - often using the latter to deliver the former. the site is at a point where the writing has almost gotten lost in the analysis, and it's more than just a shame - it's a problem. (i mean, i love and appreciate the stuff a guy like Matt Swartz brings to the table, but if i read one more bone-dry research paper masquerading as a sports article, i'm gonna barf.)
i find myself thinking wistfully of the old days - when we saw regular pieces by Jazayerli, Silver Perry, Huckaby, etc.) we need more from the current group who do this well - more Goldstein, more deMause, more Jacques, more Jaffe - both to balance things out, and to guide the new writers joining the fold. be lyrical as well as analytical, irreverent as well as relevant. use language to explain what the numbers mean. and ultimately, follow in the steps of the BP 'forefathers' - have some fun with it, and let it show!
The stable of fine minds that BP has always kept means that we subscribers should expect and welcome continuous turnover and change, even when it means saying goodbye to some of our favorites. On the flipside, we should also expect the site's standard for quality to remain as high as ever, and at this particular moment in time, it just ain't.
question for Will, or anyone who has good inside info - is it typical practice for the AP (or the BBWAA) to release a voter's ballot before notifying the voter? in the past i've seen plenty of articles by voters who are listing their ballots, before and/or after the process, but i don't recall the AP doing it for them.
it could be that i'm reading this incorrectly, and the reason that Carroll and Law had their ballot contents included in the original AP story is because both were very quick to write articles including those contents, which the AP then picked up. just curious.
congratulations, Ken - great job.
to all the other contestents, you turned in some fantastic work, and we'll look forward to seeing what you do next - i'm sure it won't be the last we hear from any of you.
what a fantastic point, and one i'm amazed no one has noted before now - much like BP Idol's televised namesake, it is to the benefit of every finalist simply to be chosen. the exposure gained by producing even one piece and have it read by an infinitely larger audience than they could've drawn on their own...that's priceless, and it's to the benefit of ALL participants, whether they make it through for another week or not. Matt's work was largely outstanding, and i feel confident saying that this won't be the last we'll read (or hear) from him, whether on BP or elsewhere.
Matt, you'll be missed in the contest, best of luck to you. To the remaining competitors, congratulations - really looking forward to reading your next entries.
so far as whether the interview piece was any good as a weekly challenge, the controversy is completely bewildering. personally, i wasn't so into the interivews, so i voted for EVERYONE. y'all could've done the same - or voted using any other criteria you wished, as everyone who logged a thumbs up surely did. your whining won't change the outcome, and mostly makes you sound like 13 year-olds, bitching about the fact that life is unfair, while indirectly slighting the other contestents with such a statement (intentionally or not).
Brittany's submission failed because it contained factual errors, regurgitated information, and a notable absence of any provokative questions or insight.
that being said - and i'm not trolling with this comment - i read things like "this could be found on AOL/Yahoo/CBS/Majormediaoutletit'sconsideredcooltotrash" or "i can't believe this is on BP" and wonder whether you're actually assessing her submissions based on what they are, or whether you're judging them for what they aren't. it seems silly to knock an article because it doesn't meet some criteria you've invented for BP, a criteria BP would probably be the first to tell you - doesn't exist.
Brittany's approach and background are markedly different from the other contestents, which is to her credit. that said, she's turned in poor work for 2 straight weeks; i hope she's able to harness her strengths and turn in a quality piece, should she be given the opportunity.
i voted for this article before i'd even finished it; the 3rd paragraph alone made it a worthwhile read. Brian really broke away from the niche he'd begun creating for himself with his last 2 entries, giving us his analysis enriched by personal experience and observation. take this snippet:
"I learned that foul outs decreased all batted ball types across the board. With short fences, the outfielders play closer to the infield, allowing fewer singles by catching more short flies. However, playing up allows balls to get through the gaps quicker, resulting in a higher percentage of extra base hits, but virtually no triples."
probably one of my favorite bits ever read on BP (idol or otherwise), he's explaining how the park's structure and the players' adaptation to that structure result into the statistics he tabulated, rather than just presenting the numbers for us.
there were a couple of issues - the piece read a bit clunky, and some of the paragraphs were dense, perhaps unnecessarily so. Those negatives aside, Brian turned in my favorite piece of the week thus far.
it's a worthwhile article, if only because it raises questions that should be more frequently discussed than they are. the piece has its faults - little substance to the conclusion, and could've delved more into the specific obstacles for conversion (perhaps detailing what processes and training the Silver Bullets went through to prepare, as an example). Brian still earned my vote for selecting an interesting topic, and sketching out the history of women in baseball. smart choice.
good to have your writing back, nate.