It is with great pride and not a little physical exhaustion that we announce the completion of the 14th-annual Baseball Prospectus guide to the coming season. In addition to the usual incisive essays, player comments, and PECOTA projections for all 30 teams and more players than you can easily name without having a couple of stiff drinks before making the attempt, Baseball Prospectus 2009 features:
A new mix of statistics, including WARP for batters, Defense-Adjusted ERA for pitchers.
David Laurila’s “Discovering America,” a look at Latinos adjusting to life in the American pros.
BP Professor Emeritus Gary Huckabay’s look at MLB marketing.
Neil deMause’s review of the latest stadium shenanigans.
A new installment of Kevin Goldstein’s Top 100 prospects.
PECOTA leaderboards.
A new foreword by Keith Olbermann
And of course as always, the book contains a War and Peace-Moby Dick smashup’s-worth of the trenchant commentary, humor, and insight from the BP crew that has made the annual stand out from the many disposable fantasy products that come out at this time of year.
BP 2009 is already rolling off the presses as we speak, and will be arriving in stores and at your favorite on-line vendor just after Valentine’s Day. As in previous years, the BP gang will soon after be hitting the road to talk up the new baseball season, sign books, and perform amazing feats of prediction (in some cases while dodging traffic). Watch BP Unfiltered and our Events page for more information in the coming days. On behalf of my co-editor, Christina Kahrl, the assembled BP authors, and myself, I thank you for your continued patronage of our book, very much hope that you enjoy the results of our labors, and look forward to meeting you and talking baseball at a bookstore near you.
As always, I look forward to the book. The criticism of the Olbermann inclusion is ridiculous. The guy is a serious baseball historian, and has been for some time. It's just that reactionaries love to paint with a broad brush, I suppose.
I did not think it possible that anything in this Unfiltered Post could have tempered my enthusiasm for the new book, just like I've had for the last 8 or 9 years. But "new forward by Keith Olbermann" - who I find to be about the most bitter, vitriolic, and polarizing media figure around - has done the trick. I'll almost certainly still buy the book, jeez, Olbermann?
"the most bitter, vitriolic, and polarizing media figure around"
More than Michael Savage, who told a gay caller to get AIDS and die? More than Ann Coulter, who "joked" about blowing up the New York Times building and belittled the 9/11 widows?
Please.
If you're buying the book for the forward in the first place, you've got problems. Just skip those pages--they won't give you liberal cooties.
What a classic Olbermannesque reply! My quote was "who I find to be the most bitter, vitriolic and polarizing media figure". My opinion - clearly labeled as so, not the statement of fact you make it out to be.
FWIW, I don't care for Savage or Coulter either, but they aren't being featured in the baseball book that I look forward to for months, and pick up almost every day all summer.
I don't see a single person in this discussion who has said that they won't buy the book for the forward - but again, why let facts stand in the way of your reply. I do, however, see a lot of people who will be buying the book in spite of the Forward. This probably isn't a big deal, but its at least notable.
Chuck Rhode, I dont know you, but you are already an idol of mine. anybody that can see Olberman for what he is, and say it.. my hat is off to them. Olberman is a squirrely liberal (no, I dont hate liberals, just most of them). I guess I will never forgive him for making Jackie Robinson the greatest athlete of the 20th century or for commenting to Reggie White (who did not like women in the locker room), "Reggie, just put a towel on". its funny, I dont see guys in womens locker rooms. he just has to be politically correct, doesnt he? even beyond the liberalism, he is polarizing, and knows he can get away with it. if he ever had to stand up to somebody, he would run home with his tail between his legs. but he is in a safe evnironment saying what he wants in the media.
I wonder if the guy ever played sports in his life. I would love to see celebrity boxing. put him against pint sized man (or woman) and see him get his clock cleaned once.
I love BP and cant wait for the book. I will simply pray to God (am I allowed to still say that?) that I dont get cooties..
Olbermann is one of the smartest and wisest sports analysts around. It just happens that he also does political analysis and reporting. That's not a crime.
I love his sardonic sense of humor, and I look forward to reading his chapter in BP2009.
I was wondering the same thing. I forget when it came out last year, but I assume it was several weeks after the book started shipping. I'd assume they don't want to undermine book sales.
I recall the Weighted Means Spreadsheet being posted in January ('09 VORP Projections only, with Player Comps listed), and the full-blown PECOTA cards coming out in February.
Yeah, I remember it in January last year as well. We always have our DMB replay draft in January, and last year I'm pretty sure I used the spreadsheet. This year I'm flying blind.
Has definitely been earlier in than mid-February in the past. Two years ago it was mid-January. Last year it was early February - Feb 1st in fact. Hopefully it won't slip further again this year but without Nate around lately, I'm concerned
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.
I know when I think of cogent baseball analysis I think Olberman...after I've thought of maybe six thousand other names. Could you have come up with a worse choice?
Do you really think Olbermann was enlisted to write the foreword in order to provide trenchant sabermetric analysis? That's what the following 700 pages are for. Olbermann, for all his self-righteous vitriol, is still a smart and funny guy with a huge passion for sports. If his name on the front of BP2009 means it sells a few hundred or thousand more copies to passers-by in Barnes & Nobles around the country, be glad -- it'll only make BP better on the whole.
Exactly. Well said. It is an attempt to see more copies of the book. And considering how consistently good it is, I do not blame BP one bit. When your product is as outstanding as BP's annual, these decisions are warranted. As I am assuming the decision was not political in the least, next year, I suggest a conservative, passionate sports well-known to hit that market as well.
Man, what's with all the Olberman bashing? I'm not a fan of the guy at all, but I think it's cool that he's doing the forweword. If anything, it gives me a reason to like him more. He's an interesting guy and he's certainly not dumb (just extremely irritating most of the time), so I can't wait to read what he says.
At least W'd have the advantage of having a direct connection to baseball. Oh, wait, that's right, Olbermann really really liked collecting baseball cards.
Olbermann selective regard for facts and his overtly partisan approach are 180 degrees removed from the thoughtful, analytical 'consider everyting' approach BP has taken. BP has made its name fighting through the rhetoric, taking into account all the data and discovering underlying truths. Olberman makes a living trumpeting partisan rhetoric at the expense of truth.
Sad that this comment is getting negative ratings, as it's the most trenchant thing in this thread. Regardless of how you feel about Olberman's political ends, it's the means that run counter to what this site ought to be about - objectivity and fact-based analysis.
A sad day when shrill buffoons like this are used to sell books. What's next? An epilogue by Bill O'Reilly? Jerry Springer and Bill Maher in a spirited debate about the DH rule?
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.
I would concur that the Olbermann foreward is a great catch for BP. It is a perfect match for a publication which seeks the truth while sticking to the facts in a very presentable and logical manner. By the way, I think we have a pretty good idea that he has a passion for Baseball(much like all of us here) and Politics.
BP: Hey, look, we got a very well-known media figure to do the foreward in our book! Not only could it be interesting for our current current readership, but it could also lead a great deal of those unfamiliar with BP's work to buy the book. That means more people talking about sabermetric analysis, which is what our readership claims to desire! Win-win!
BP readers: WE HATE OLBERMANN BECAUSE WE DISAGREE WITH HIS POLITICS/METHOD OF DISCOURSE/USE OF BIFOCALS. YOU ARE ALL LIBERAL FEMINAZI SECULARIST CHRISTMAS-ATTACKERS. WILL NOT READ. WILL NOT READ. WILL NOT READ.
BP: (collective sigh)
Man, it's a good thing you people aren't as close-minded about baseball analysis as you are hearing what someone whose politics you disagree with has to say about baseball analysis.
Obviously your dismissal of everyone who disagrees with the Olbermann pick was made in the most open-minded fashion, after careful review of the evidence and with a soft touch, but just so you know other people might find your mid-comment histrionics a little hypocritical.
At this time, my reaction to the Olbermann news is basically a shrug. Further reaction deferred until I see what he has to say. That's the important thing, isn't it?
I do hope that the BP team has devoted a little extra effort to proofreading this year. A fact-packed, weighty tome like the annuals is going to have some errors of layout and such, but there have really been too many of those recently. Nothing we can't live with, because the content is so terrific, but it'd still be nice to see improvement.
I keep hearing this from other readers, and it's really nitpicky. This is a book that's almost the size of a dictionary with a much smaller staff than a publishing house editing it. A few of the BP folks are English majors-I'm sure they aren't happy with the mistakes, but it's unavoidable with the tight schedule they have to work with. On the whole, they're excellent writers that never fail to get their point across. Is a typo really that big of a deal?
It may be nitpicky, but I know a few people who would be willing to proofread it for free if only to read the player comments and team essays a little earlier and have their name in the masthead, so lack of time isn't a real good excuse. What if there were errors in the computation of PECOTA that caused them to not calculate correctly? Having typos just brings down the presentation and believability of the entire book.
Not to make too much out of this, but I can hardly see a situation where BP releases content early to a select few to proofread. Knowing how many people would like to see that content early, there would definitely be issues with proofreaders distributing it to their friends and then to their friends and so on. Additionally, I would imagine that errors in Pecota would be much easier to spot. I remember Christina addressing this at a book signing - the typos are partly the fault of the editors, but the printer also bears some of the blame. I'm not sure how typos bring down the believability of an author's opinion about a player or a team but, for me at least, the thoughtful analysis is more important than a few errors that make up .001% of the book.
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.
Big thumbs down to Olbermann....not just over politics....just his entire "Everbody should be as cool as I think I am" personna. His foreword won't sell a single book, seriously who buys a book because someone wrote a foreword? (other then Oprah's Book Club)....but it might cost BP a small handful of sales.
I'm sure Olbermann's comments are a quid pro quo for Nate appearing on his TV show. Don't forget, PECOTA creator Nate Silver is new left wing darling of the blogosphere.
Makes sense. Nate's work on 538 is as analytically prepared as was his work here; I like the irony that his decidely southpaw site is labelled politics done right. ;-)
I'd say, judging by the fact that all of these comments are about Keith Olbermann, that Keith Olbermann's inclusion in the book has people talking. And it will definitely sell more books. That's the way the world works.
I really miss FireJoeMorgan and Ken Tremendous, I hope this self-imposed exile is brief. Perhaps he could be the in-house media critic? Or he could just come out of his hermit-like existence once in awhile and drop some truth on us.
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.
Maybe you can get a Curt Schilling interview where he breaks down and weeps about the tragedy of Olbermann being included in BP similar to Tom Jackson's pitiful un-manly display over the Rush Limbaugh/Donovan McNabb issue.
And anytime you include a political figure, especially a severe left/right figure, in an event, show, or book, you are going to get massive feedback from both sides as it should be. While I love sports, the politics of our land should supercede entertainment.
Comparisons of Olbermann to Limbaugh or to O'Reilly are simply absurd. I'm not a big fan of Olbermann's style (cf: Ben Afleck), but, unlike those others, his show is reality-based.
And many of my stylistic concerns disappear when I read him in print. Plus he loves baseball. So I look forward to BP2009, even more with Olbermann's intro - and I second the nomination of Ken T for BP2010.
A lot of vitriol towards Olbermann. I wasn't aware he was such a polarizing figure.
It's the foreward. He's not going to be writing player commentary, or ranking the prospects, or anything. He's not going to grandstand about politics or weigh in about the Al Franken/Norm Coleman situation. He's not going to offer his opinion on the Remembrance of Things Past vs. In Search of Lost Time title debate. He's going to say "In the last decade, Baseball Prospectus has emerged as a leader in cutting age baseball statistics. Front office executives and casual fans agree yadda yadda yadda."
There is nothing to get hysterical about. The book will still be freaking awesome.
Can we get a BP staffer to post here that the foreword will not include any political commentary? Please???
If so, we can end this ranting. So long as the book in its entirety is focused on baseball and only baseball, I have no problem with getting Olbermann or Dubya or whoever to write the foreword. Get Ric Flair, for all I care.
But if BP can't make that assurance here, then so be it. It would be nice to know, though.
Really? Why would you need that reassurance? Why would the foreword possibly have political content, even if by Olbermann? Did you forget (or were you never aware) that he was first (and, to many of us, remains) an anchor of SportsCenter?
The reassurance is necessary because BP and its writers do not have a perfect track record for leaving political commentary off of this website. And for that reason, I don't completely put it past them to insert such commentary into the annual.
I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm just enjoying my right to reserve some healthy skepticism.
Granting you the point that there is occasionally politics thrown in, so what? Does it compromise the statistical analysis? And if you disagree with it, do you not think it is written well? Isn't that part of what you come to BP for? If not...
Agreed, the baseball analysis is darn good, well written, and in no way compromised by the writers' political agendas.
I can't say as much for some of the political commentary though. Not always written well, usually snarky, sometimes condescending. Check out a Goldman chat sometime. Well-balanced, open-minded viewpoint? I think not.
Right, maybe... but who cares? You're coming here for good baseball analysis. You get it. If someone wants to throw in (what you believe to be) partisan hackery, too, and it doesn't detract from the baseball writing -- why would you care if it doesn't feature opposing viewpoints?
The foreword is non-political, written by a baseball fan, longtime SABR member with an avid interest in the history of the game, former ESPN host, current football analyst, and yes, the host of "Countdown." Keith was asked because he is all of those things, not just the last.
As for the rest, about our occasionally straying off topic, I've been a reader of BP since close to the beginning and have been part of the organization for five years, and 't was ever thus. You can dispute this, but I believe that the reason BP has become the industry leader is not simply because of the kind of analysis we do, or the stats, or PECOTA, but because of the way we go about doing it. As a collective, we have never hidden who we are or the non-baseball fascinations that inform our thinking about the game. Too often, our field is split into analysts and writers. We have analyst-writers, and they are explicitly the sum of their parts. Marc loves video games and Christina could write an encyclopedia about the Napoleonic years and so forth, but what we all have in common is CURIOSITY about the way things work, about what makes the things we like good, and what detracts from that goodness. When we share those things with you, we are trying to pass along that enthusiasm, trying to share the good time we're having chasing that curiosity. In short, we are revealing to you the basis of our understanding and interest in baseball itself. We are also embracing the idea of community, that this thing we are involved with is a two-way street, not just us talking to you, but sharing, and vice-versa.
In practical terms, what this amounts to is a site with 99.5 percent baseball analysis and .5 percent of the occasional digression, including my rare chats with their odd forays into politics and music, and so forth. I always find it shocking when readers object to this, because it is such a small part of what we do, a part which in no way detracts from our central coverage, and am equally encouraged by those many readers who come to chats and signings and bring questions about all the areas of our mutual interest.
Those ideas and interests are always present in what we do whether we talk about them or not, so why not talk about them? Again, to me this gets at the very essence of what BP is about, but the wonderful thing about it is that you can use us as you see fit and ignore that .5 percent if it doesn't float your boat--if you have no interest in those other things we bring to the table, or somehow disagree with them, ignore them. The other 99.5 percent is still here for you. But if you take that path, I don't see the need to get exercised that it still exists, or to require assurances that none of it has worked its way into the book.
Steven, thank you for the assurance anyway. I never required it. I asked for it. I did say please, and I said please sincerely.
I agree with your thoughts on video games, Napoleonic history, what have you. But I do think that the topic of politics is different. I generally abide by "dinner table rules": no politics, no religion. I just don't think you need to go there to make this site entertaining and informative, and I think you and the other BP writers can share plenty about yourselves without touching on those hot-water topics.
Again, these are just requests, not demands. And I speak for myself only and not for anyone else here.
I have to disagree. Shoehorning personal political views into an article most definitely detracts from the topic at hand. I'm interested in reading some bit about 1950s outfielders and the writer chooses to go off on some tangent about Supreme Court appointments in the 1860s and how this justfies gerrymandering of districts in the 1990s. What?
You know, the occasional political joke doesn't bother me at all. But keep the political arguments out of the baseball articles and vice versa. Nate Silver might do politics when he's away from baseball, but I can't remember him mixing the two to any extent. That's an example a few other BP writers would do well to follow.
There are still some of us around who think of Olbermann as a SportsCenter anchor who moved on and is now doing something else, somewhere. From that point of view, it could have been a LOT worse -- it could have been Berman.
While I'm no fan of Olbermann's politics, to say the least, I'm looking forward to his forward. Sportscenter has never been the same without him ("That's a 6-4-3 double play for those of you scoring at home...or even if you're by yourself")
I'll put in another vote for a George Will forward in 2010.
Also, I remember the weighted means spreadsheet coming out in January last year. Please post these soon. It's cold outside and I need something other than arbitration offers to get me through to pitchers and catchers.
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.
Will Carroll,
Based on my careful PECOTA-style analysis of the 'comments' section, it seems like a lot of people are upset at the inclusion of a political figure in our baseball life. It seems like people give similar complaints every time politics are brought up (e.g. Nate and Derek's columns).
Could I politely suggest that next time BP writers check their politics at the door?
I'm in absolute full agreement with you. Not sure if you were calling Will out on purpose, but I've found him to be one of the guys at BP that tries hard not to mix politics in with the baseball. As for some of the others, the result has been more mixed, as you noted.
Thanks for the props. I called him out because he's in charge of BP.com. I agree with you that Will does not mix in politics (he's my favorite author here regardless).
"All of that crap" is one of the reasons I enjoy reading BP so much and was a factor in my purchasing a subscription every year. There are plenty of sites with pages of numbers and charts and analysis, but how much fun is that to read? I'm not into video games, either, but I do have the ability to skip past a few lines and not let it bother me that somebody else is. Besides, you never know what you might learn.
You guys are all aware that PECOTA was, in fact, created by Nate Silver who, along with being the creator of fivethirtyeight.com and an unabashed liberal, has appeared on Olbermann's show numerous times? Is it too much of a stretch to consider that the two sports nuts have befriended one another based on their mutual sports and political convictions, and that Nate said to Keith one day after taping a segment, "You know what would be awesome? If you, being the big baseball fan that you are, wrote the foreword to BP's next book!"
I think all those outraged by Olbermann's presence in BP 2009 should promptly request that Pinko Silver's contributions be removed from all future editions of BP annuals as well. That way, we'll have a book only slightly less useful than the forthcoming "Joe Morgan Guide to Winning Your Fantasy League."
Of course we know that Nate is a liberal. We don't mind it when he talks baseball, but we also see a few jabs thrown in various columns that we feel are inflammatory. We comment about it, but it doesn't stop us from subscribing to the site. In other words, Nate gets away with it.
Same with getting Olbermann to do the Forward. George Will has done at least one book about baseball, but i don't think he is the sort who would be picked to do the Forward (both because he's conservative and he's more "old school).
But Olbermann is beyond Will. He is EXTREMELY polarizing. He is adored by the far left because he says all the things the far left is thinking, but won't say because it is very offensive to the right wing. It would be the equivalent of putting Ann Coulter in the Foreward, if Coulter were a SABR member. The left would be screaming bloody murder.
So the left leaning BP gets a far left pal to write the forward. We love BP enough that we will still buy it. Nate gets away with it again.
Small suggestion. Don't read the foreword. Kinda like an off button on my TV when "reality" shows come on. I think they are the epitome of the worst of America, but hey, I've got sixty other channels and an off button.
If Rush (who I think belongs in the 6th ring of Hell, but not the 7th) were to write next year's Foreword, I would read it. Then, I would take a showere and scrub myself clean!
Drew
So what's the problem with the foreword? I didn't read it last year, and I'm not going to read it this year even after everyone finishes throwing hissy-fits about it.
The Annual hitting shelves is is like Santa's sleigh touching down on the roof, and I don't care about Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer's political views.
I think these comments totally miss the real source of potential outrage - Olbermann's a Yankees fan. PSHAW!
Seriously, Olbermann was writing stories for Baseball Magazine before Rickey Henderson entered the league! He's got the chops, both in general baseball knowledge and in fantasy.
Can we please be adults about this? The occasional political aside from Nate or Christina or whoever doesn't make the baseball analysis any worse. If you don't agree with it, then you don't agree with it. Does hearing the liberal or conservative ideas hurt your delicate ears so much that it's worth making such a fuss about?
I really can't wrap my head around people asking that politics be completely absent from the writers' commentary. Does it really offend people so much? Its not like there are political articles on here, just little occasional toss-off lines, and now a few pages by a former Sportscenter commentator in a 700 page book.
No - I think if you irrationally critique BP your ratings go down. People are complaining about 3 pages that will, more than likely, have nothing to do with politics. Seriously? Is that something chastise BP about? I don't like Olbermann either, but that's such a waste of energy. Complain about poor efforts in articles, etc., not a foreward that maybe/most likely/almost 100% definitely won't have to do with liberal politics.
And Sunshine's comment about the video games - the authors only bring that up in chats, which are available to anyone. I don't care about VG's either, so guess what I do: I skip one inch down on the screen to the next question. Plus, some readers actually enjoy hearing about the author's hobbies and interests. I appreciate Marc's interest in music, and I'm happy to read his chats when he recommends releases.
No one is forcing you to read this stuff. That's a neat aspect of being an adult.
Probably to keep the level of banality found on other sites' comments sections to a minimum and hopefully discourage the kind of ignorant discourse that stands in direct opposition to BP's way of doing things.
No kidding. All I did was suggest they don't put the spreadsheets up at the same time as the book starts shipping for business reasons. I actually think that makes good business sense. I didn't mean it as a criticism. But I got negative ratings. Not that I care, ratings of posts mean nothing, (I only scrolled back up and looked at mine after reading this post) but it does indicate a certain pettiness to have them applied that way.
Just to clarify, I have yet to read a post wherein anyone who does not care for Olbermann states they are not going to buy the book. I'd buy the book if Satan wrote the foreward, although I hear he is a New Jersey hockey fan or maybe he's playing in Pittsburgh.
I guess with the Hall of Fame debates and presidential elections concluded, we just need something to bare our teeth at and this issue was just laying in the field like a wounded deer in mid-winter.
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.
Big thumbs down to Olbermann....not just over politics....just his entire "Everbody should be as cool as I think I am" personna. I doubt anyone buys a book over the prospect of a scintillating foreword anyhow however.
Also a thumbs down to this "reader rating" stuff. What a joke.
I think most of the "Boo Olbermann" posts are getting negative ratings not because they are anti-Olbermann's politics but because they aren't making cogent points as to why a well-known member of the media shouldn't write the foreword.
It's the foreword. BP isn't going to remove it now. Maybe it will be interesting. Maybe it won't. If you can't bear to read a word of what he says, then don't read it. There's plenty of other stuff. Most of these comments are really pointless.
There's a near-perfect positive correlation between the degree to which the comments above are in favor of KO's forward and the users' collective rating of the comment itself. You don't need a WARP3 analysis to determine the ratings are based largely on the support or disdain expressed for KO.
My objection to Olbermann is not based on his politics, but rather on his style: for the last decade his profession has been to use rhetoric to present selected facts in his desired light; this is diametrically opposed to BP's approach, which is to take into account as many facts as possible, analyze them openly and honestly and find the underlying truth, irrespective of whether it supports or confronts a popular view.
Again, he seems an odd fit for BP's flagship publication, at least style-wise.
I could care less about the foreword. I'll read it once, and then dig into the approximately 400 pages of player info, and never look at it again.
I mean, really, if you add up the info on all the famous and obscure players with the last name of name of Gonzalez or Williams, it'll far exceed the foreword. Isn't that the key reason you want this 1 kg pile of data and analysis on your desk?
Who gives a F about a book forward anyway? I say thanks for getting the book out earlier. This is earlier than last year, isn't it? I seem to recall that most years the book has been out far too late for me to really absorb it before a couple of fantasy drafts that start a little early.
For all those who are cringing at the inclusion of K.O., and what he supposedly represents politically, please be mindful that Neil deMause's analysis of "stadium shenanigans" will be much more likely to invoke politics .... and I don't see anybody shying away from the book due to THAT.
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.
Big thumbs down to Olbermann....not just over politics....just his entire "Everbody should be as cool as I think I am" personna. I doubt anyone buys a book over the prospect of a scintillating foreword anyhow however.
I love KO's point of view and his attitude and all that jazz, so I'm glad to see him endorse the book and throw a little media-member marketing weight behind it. Good for BP, says I.
If Bill-O or Rush was doing the foreword, would I care? More than zero, yes, but not nearly enough to make a big deal about it. I don't like what most of what he publicly stands for and how he says it, but if he's a baseball fan that's at least one little thing I have in common with him. And I'd still say good for BP for netting a big name to help the cause.
I'd also be psyched for them if Senator Jim Bunning (who I also find politically disagreeable) did the foreword.
But I'd love the idea of BP getting a double foreword or a combined foreword by KO and Limbaugh or something like that. To show that baseball does stretch across the aisle and unite people in at least one common interest.
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.
Maybe next year, we can get noted baseball fans Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez to chip in a few lines in the annual.
Seriously, what does Keith Olbermann have to do with baseball? That he's a fan? Olbermann hasn't done sports in years. Which makes him every bit as qualified as, um, let me think...oh, yeah. Former sportscaster Sarah Palin. I'm looking forward to her hardball commentary in BP2010.
Hugo Chavez!! Brilliant! I'm sure the crew on staff will be contacting the State Department immediately to make inroads....actually Magglio Ordonez is said to be friendly w/Hugo, maybe they can just ask Maggs to make a call....
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.
Olbermann loves baseball and this is good fit. He has great knowledge and passion about baseball. If you compare him to Lindbaugh, I`m glad I don`t know you----- as one deals in reality--the other makes up things to fit his political agenda.
Olbermann deals in reality? OK. Sure. Didjya watch the other night when he compared not prosecuting Bush for torture to the errors in the Treaty of Versailles that led to WWII? Real trenchant analysis there...
I love these comment rating things! Someone says something stupid, and I just click the little "thumbs down" button, and I feel like I've made a difference. :-)
I didnt realize there were so many bitter baseball fans in the Red States... As a resident of the Northeast, let me just reiterate that most of us dont care about your baseball or politics!
That said, I dont really like Olbermann. I think most of you on both sides of the aisle have missed the boat anyway. Cheering for political parties like they are baseball teams is about the worst, most irresponsible thing an adult can do, in my opinion. Its all the rage in this country and it needs to stop.
Its all a moot point, too - because WHO THE HECK READS FORWARDS ANYWAY? It might be the last part of the book I read, after Ive gone through all the PECOTAs and new Davenport stuff and after its been relegated to my bathroom for >month.
I stopped watching Olbermann long before he chose to show his political side because he was so full of himself at ESPN such that he thought of himself as bigger than any story he could deliver.
His track record after ESPN had been pretty miserable until he decided to become the liberal equivalent of Rush Limbaugh.
Nice move for his career but no so good for his credibilty.
A forward by Ken Burns - now that would have been interesting.
Not going to freak out over Olbermann. What really gets me is the way people rate comments here. The style is dangerously close to people trying to censor ideas they don't like.
Negatively-rate comments like, say, "You're an idiot", or something. Or take away the "viewing threshold". But do something to help keep the comment sections from turning into a bunch of elitists policing people's opinions.
I have to agree with Drew 100%. If you disagree with someone, debate them and win the argument. Don't censor out the opposing viewpoints. Defeat them.
Certainly SportsCenter was never the same once Keith Olbermann left. And his inclusion in the "Football Night in America" halftime show has been up to his previous standards.
Look, we all have jobs, and hobbies outside of that. I watch baseball as a hobby, and I enjoy it with my liberal friends, and with my fellow conservatives. That we disagree on other issues, even on more important issues than baseball, does not detract from the pleasure that our shared hobby provides each of us.
People use Ann Coulter as Olbermann's polar opposite. Well, Ann Coulter has been to fifty Grateful Dead shows. How many who hate her politics share her taste in music? And what is wrong with that?
I think John Kerry is a pompous ass. But every year he rides in the Pan Mass Challenge to support the Jimmy Fund. So while I support almost nothing he does or stands for, every year I support him in that endeavor.
No person is pure good, and no person is pure evil.
If anything, folks should look at this as an opportunity to learn that there is good in every person, no matter how wrong we think they may be.
Nobody is being censored. In fact, I think the BP commenters have been pretty good in that they don't give low ratings to comments just because they disagree with them. The people who get low ratings tend to be nasty and obnoxious, or who contribute nothing to a rational debate. You can debate those who are willing to engage in debate, but when people use the comment section to throw eggs at people or just vent their rage, low ratings are a reasonable way to show displeasure with that.
Sorry, Collins, but my earlier comment was hidden because of negative ratings, even though it was in no way obnoxious. What we're seeing here is politics bringing out the worst in people, which is exactly why I don't like politics brought up on a baseball site.
Shoot -- first thing I do when I come to the Comments section is search before "below" (as in "below the threshold"), so I can read first all those comments deemed unworthy. Gets to the heart of the debate rather quickly.
So who decides what contributions are worthy? You?
One of the best ways of dealing with shameful comments is to expose them as such, not to suppress them.
Besides... I am seeing things like "thumbs down to Olbermann" getting dinged here. That's not especially vitriolic. It's just people trying to suppress an opinion they disagree with. That is censorship.
Teddyballgame,
I was making a generalization, and not claiming that *every* low rated comment was obnoxious. I'm sure there are exceptions. I agree that politics is bringing out the worst in people, both from the left and the right. People are pretty responsible about the rating system especially when it's about baseball.
JSeely,
These emails aren't being suppressed. I, for one, read every email that is designated as below the viewing threshhold -- I pay closer attention to them to see why they were rated lowly. This isn't censorship -- this is the way a community has of expressing its displeasure when other members of the community violate a norm of civility.
I'm assuming, of course, that everybody who won't buy the book because of Olbermann's forward (Olbermann, of course, being a serious seamhead and a member of SABR) doesn't watch the NFL on NBC either. Give me a break.
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.
Frankly, I don't care. I registered a mild approbation on the editor's choice for the writer of the foreword and got censored. If you will look you will see that only people who objected to Olberman's selection were treated similarly. Whether it was the editor's directly or not it still indicates a clear case sense of editorial intent.
I don't understand this at all. If you're going to let the opinions of largely-anonymous masses influence whether you buy the book, then it is likely that your convictions on buying the book weren't very strong to begin with.
I fail to understand how the editor is responsible for the comments of posters.
Echoing CubbyFan23: there is no possible way that any of the anti-Olbermann crowd's dislike of him can begin to compare with my revulsion and hatred for the policies of George W. Bush and for the job he did as President. (Olbermann's just talking, Bush did actual severe damage to the country and probably the planet). And yet if W. had penned this year's introduction, I would be curious as to what he had to say, as someone who loves the game. I'm actually kind of fond of Bush the baseball fan; it's the only aspect of him I find remotely palatable.
Of course, it's a characteristic of the conservative mind that it sees only forests, not trees, and is generally incapable of having a mixed emotional response to different aspects of the same thing (which is why conservatives misread liberal criticism of America as hatred). So it's actually not surprising in the least that the conservatives are incapable of feeling differently about Olbermann the baseball analyst and Olbermann the political analyst.
And George Bush introduced steroids into baseball, loves the DH, hates long, deep, slow kisses that last 2 days and is the cause of every miserable thing that has happened to humanity in the last eight years...
Okay, my response was uncalled for...I'll give myself a - rating...as a minority in America (hockey fan), I can get touchy...I'm hoping Sidney Crosby runs for pres in 4 years so we'll be represented in the US after years of oppression, especially by ESPN...Crosby in '12!!!!
We certainly appreciate you sharing your stereotypical politic views. I am sure the conservatives in the crowd will appreciate you saying they see "the big picture" while you are mired in the details.
All that was objected to here was the selection of a highly partisan political person. I don't care whether it was him or his conservative twin brother. Neither would have been a good choice.
And calling Olberman a baseball analyst is incorrect. He has never done that. He was a sportscaster on a nightly show that reported the scores and news. In no meaningful way did he provide analysis.
1) You might look up the word "stereotypical" in the dictionary. It doesn't mean "widely held."
2) And why should should the politics of the person writing the introduction to a baseball book matter in the least? That's what none of the conservatives have been able to explain.
3) You really expect me to believe you would have been just as upset if Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter had backgrounds in sports commentary and had written the foreword?
4) The funniest thing about all of this is the folks excoriating Olbermann for being biased and hence unscientific and hence inappropriate to write for BP. This is a complaint, mind you, from supporters of an administration who not only opposed the "reality-based community" (their term), but mocked it.
I agree.....thank you for the Feedback Dave, but I can't say two words without getting rated negatively. Even when I say something neutral. Basically, once you get "tagged" by the rest, you're done. It's juvenile.
Thanks for participating in what has been a very interesting discussion here. There's a lot of confusion about the comment rating system, which is understandable, since we haven't gone into much detail about how it works.
We've got a lot of comments attached to some of our articles and Unfiltered posts. I expect a lot more as we ramp back up to in-season content production over the next couple of months and people have more content to comment on. We're happy about that, but we were concerned about the moderation that might be required to keep things reasonably civil and on-topic. As the very minimal code of conduct (see link at the top of any comments section) says, we've all seen commenting systems buried under a blizzard of extraneous tangents, name-calling, and trolling elsewhere, and we didn't want to have that happen here.
We decided to look to our subscribers--who, by the way, are the best--for help.
We keep track of the + and - assigned to each comment by any subscriber, and when they get to a certain threshold, we consider that a vote of no-confidence by the user community and minimize that comment. For the completists and the curious, the thread is still available for view, but a click is required to expand it.
When the complaints about comment ratings started yesterday we checked the code and we actually had a bug in there that was hiding some comments that we didn't intend--the threshold was being computed incorrectly. We've fixed that, and I apologize for the inconvenience.
We're not censoring anybody. Nobody from BP is going through the comment threads and clicking the minus on anything the least bit negative about BP (or anything else, for that matter). We're big boys, and we know we're far from perfect, so if you've got a gripe or critique we're fine with you voicing it here. We *do* have the ability to garble something that we believe to be outside the limits of our code of conduct. We've done that 11 times so far, out of nearly 9000 comments left by our subscribers.
If your comment has been minimized (and it wasn't a result of our computation bug), your fellow subscribers have decided that it isn't adding to the conversation. I've been looking through the minimized comments along with everything else since commenting was introduced and I believe that overall, the community has been doing a good job policing itself in this fashion.
If you've got questions, concerns, or suggestions, we'd love to hear them. You can click the 'contact us' link at the top of any comments section to send them to us.
Is there a way to only read the new comments? The threaded view means if you come back a day or two later, you have to read through everything to see the new comments.
I suggest the foreword every year be an interview of the World Series winning manager from the year before. Ask about use of advanced statistics, new trends in the game, who they like for the upcoming season etc. And ask them how they rate BP's evaluation of the ballplayers on their clubs.
Keith Olbermann is intentionally iconoclastic and outspoken. That may have been pure schtick over at Bristol's cable venture, probably some of it still is in Secaucus- whether over Monica or Scooter or Dick Trickle. That is the point. It is only the irritation of doubt that disturbs settled paths of thought which allows education or new information to enter our heads. You have to subject what you know that is so to the outrageous accusations of idiots and crazy people in order to test it fully if you are ever going to find out what isn't so that you already know. (Or something like that- John Dewey and Mark Twain said it better and more quotably.)
Olbermann is a good choice to stir up the muck where brains are supposed to be. I might never think of giving him an invite to a quiet dinner, but he'll probably be stimulating... just like his name has been in this comment thread.
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.
Chuck Rhode, I dont know you, but you are already an idol of mine. anybody that can see Olberman for what he is, and say it.. my hat is off to them. Olberman is a squirrely liberal (no, I dont hate liberals, just most of them). I guess I will never forgive him for making Jackie Robinson the greatest athlete of the 20th century or for commenting to Reggie White (who did not like women in the locker room), "Reggie, just put a towel on". its funny, I dont see guys in womens locker rooms. he just has to be politically correct, doesnt he? even beyond the liberalism, he is polarizing, and knows he can get away with it. if he ever had to stand up to somebody, he would run home with his tail between his legs. but he is in a safe evnironment saying what he wants in the media.
I wonder if the guy ever played sports in his life. I would love to see celebrity boxing. put him against pint sized man (or woman) and see him get his clock cleaned once.
I love BP and cant wait for the book. I will simply pray to God (am I allowed to still say that?) that I dont get cooties..
Hard to take the Olberman criticism seriously. I agree with very little of what he says but I do recognize his legitimate passion for and knowledge of baseball which is all that is important here.
One of the beauties of baseball is its breadth and inclusiveness. I remember one evening at Shea where I and an associate both in suits and ties were in a concession line with 2 nuns and 2 young men with multiple nose and lip rings. Where else in America... Thaat night , we were all boothers (and siaters) under the skin.
He will have something interesting to say about baseball and that is what I will read
If Olbermann does nothing but give readers a much needed perspective on the phenomenon that is BP it will be worth the price. As others have stated, he's very knowledgeable and he's been around the scene for a while, including for the startup of ESPN. That alone gives him the background to frame Baseball Prospectus and the way statistical analysis emerged from the interest generated by the advent of a 24 by 7 news cycle.
As for his political rants, what did the right wing expect? Ike Newton had it right: to every action ...
Looking forward to the book. My concern is the team writeups considering the offseason moves have been behind the normal offseason timeline. What a tightrope the authors had to walk to talk about 2009 when players such as Manny, Sheets, Abreu and Dunn are still floating out in FA never,never land.
Will there be updates at BP.com on some of the team projections based on later FA moves??
When I saw the book was ready I was considering ordering it but then I saw who you chose for your foreward and I almost choked. I guess I can simply tear out the pages. He is a waste of breath.
If you buy the book at a bookstore, you'll help someone get wages and quite possibly health insurance and a 401K. Preo-order from your local store! You'll be glad you did! It's your job that could be next!
Um, and wouldn't that mean that some poor schlub slaving for minimum wage at Amazon.com will then LOSE his pittance of a 401K and expensive HMO insurance plan? You know, to continue in the class envy vein.
Instead of paying more than I have to for an item, how about if I buy it from the lowest-priced seller, then use the money I save to buy an ice cream cone or a caffe mocha or something, thereby saving TWO jobs, instead of just one? Hey, that second might be yours. I'm guessing in the case of houstonuser, it is.
This kind of mentality is destroying the economy of this country. And how we got here from Keith Olbermann, I'm not sure.
Unless you really can't afford the two dollars or so you save by buying the book at Amazon.com (and my apologies if you can't), why not pick the book up at your local bookstore AND stop at your local coffee shop for that mocha? Shopping locally keeps your money in the community you live in (those businesses pay the taxes that pay for city services) and ensures the continued employment of the people who also live there. I suppose not a lot of people feel similarly, but there is also something to be said about a good independent bookstore (or record shop or hardware store or restaurant) that just can't be quantified or simulated by the internet/big box stores.
I have to say this particular comment section is making me wish BP hadn't added comments in the first place and I wasn't going to add anything else, but I feel strongly enough about this issue to say something. If anything, the search for the lowest possible price at any cost IS what's hurting this country's economy. The big companies in search of lower overhead to pass on to the customer are the ones sending jobs overseas, after all. Voters will support candidates for their views on small business but how many of us support those same small businesses over going to Home Depot or Walmart or Best Buy?
Sounds like most of us need some baseball, and soon. (That is if the entire sport hasn't been ruined by Keith Olbermann's forward in the annual.)
Dude, are you really going to make me do this? See what happens when politics gets introduced to a baseball site...
Let's say I do as you say, buy the book locally AND spend an extra couple of dollars on the coffee. That two bucks didn't appear in my wallet out of nowhere. I now have $2 less to spend at (obvious bait) Walmart or the gas station or whatever, ad infinitum. The buck has to stop on somebody and that's the guy who gets screwed for no other reason than the local bookstore can't compete with Amazon. Why should that guy have to pay for the lousy business
practices of the bookstore owner?
Paying more than you have to for something is up to you. It's your money. Doing it because you think it helps the local economy is ridiculous. That's just grass-roots protectionism and if you think it works, I have a Smoot-Hawley Act for you. The real reason the economy is tanked in this country is because economically ignorant people like you have been in charge of the nations pocketbook for the past 50 years.
-if you have any reservations at all about Olbermann, and you voice that opinion - no matter how politely, you are likely to have your post rated below viewing threshold and hidden from view.
-if you find Olbermann divisive or polarizing, you are part of a monolithic right wing, a right wing whacko, and you worship Ann Coulter, George Bush and Michael Savage.
-if you say you will still buy the book, but still don't care for the inclusion of Olbermann in it - that means, pal, you are biased and that you won't be buying the book.
-if you object at all to Olbermann, you are a 'fucking idiot'.
-if you support BP, and have been doing so for years, even though you might disagree with the politics of some of their writers, and will continue doing so, but still voice the opinion that you don't care for Olbermann, you are a 'fucking idiot'
-if you call an apparently sizable portion of the BP reading public 'fucking idiots', you will get a positive rating on your post.
-there is no problem with the post rating system that allows this to happen. Its just the BP community policing itself.
I suppose this is where we are as a society these days. My opinion is that it started with the Clinton administration, has grown exponentially worse in the Bush administration, and is exemplified by the hateful, purposefully inaccurate and intellectually dishonest rantings of people on both sides - but very notably and publicly on the left by Keith Olbermann. But what do I know, I'm a fucking idiot.
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.
I use to love Baseball Prospectus until now. Including a clown political commentator to the Baseball Prospectus Community is ridiculous. I hope the people at Baseball Prospectus apoligize. No way will I renew my subscription or buy the book. Someone at Baseball Prospectus decided to get political. Very bad decision.
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.
It's actually not that simple. Olbermann is part of Baseball Prospectus now. I'll never be a part of Keith Olbermann. He is a very bad person both on screen and off. If Baseball Prospectus comes out and makes a statement that they made a mistake and apoligize I'll renew my subscription and buy the book.
How can you say he is a bad person just by his political views? I don't care how much you hate his politics, someone's politics are a small part of who they are as a human being. The guy is a baseball fan and that is what it is about.
"How can you say he is a bad person just by his political views?"
Brock, my man, you really need to reconsider that statement. If I'm in support of
Jim Crow
eradication of the Jewish race
forced relocation and reeducation of the entire populace
state confiscation of all private property
suspension of the Bill of Rights
capital punishment without trial for speaking against the state
are you going to tell me I'm just misguided and not really a bad person?
He is a bad person because he is full of hatred and is unprofessional. He has been out of the baseball scene for years. He is now known as an extremist political commentator. Put your love for Olbermann aside and ask yourself if you would be ok with Michael Savage writing a forward. You probably wouldn't be. My point is that Baseball Prospectus should not be partnered up with any polarizing political commentator. Sports and politics should be separate. You stated someone's politics are a small part of who they are as a human being. I'm not sure that's true. You define yourself by your views. If you are right, according to certain sources he is a real jerk in his personal life. I'll say it until they apoligize, Baseball Prospectus made a big mistake teaming with Olbermann.
I would say that's a pretty intolerant stance you're taking. What if the foreword is really good, very well-written, very intelligent, and lacks any political commentary (I'm guessing all of these will be true)? Is the fact that its writer also has political views on an extreme side of the spectrum relevant at that point?
By now you know that Nate has some extremely strong political views. If he wrote the foreword, would you also refuse to buy the book?
What if you found out Will had ten outstanding warrants for his arrest and had been cheating on his taxes for the last fifteen years? Would that stop you from buying the book?
Judge the book by what it has to say about its subject, not by the opinions, personal lives, and hobbies of the writers. You're mad because Olbermann is kind of loud and because you don't agree with his views. It's as simple as that.
Nate Silver does not mix his politics with his baseball to any significant degree. If he did, I'd probably find someone else to read because when I come here, it is to read about baseball, not to be treated to the personal political views of a sportswriter. Signing up Keith Olbermann, and I don't know whose idea it was, is basically the same thing, mixing politics with baseball. Olbermann is a significant political commentator and media figure and you will not convince me that his decade ago stint on Sportscenter and his SABR membership is what got him this gig. Whatever Keith eventually writes in the annual is beside the point.
Would I protest if BP opted for the equally unqualified ex-sports babe Sarah Palin? Of course not. I'd just stand back and let the Olbermann defenders scream THEIR heads off. They'd be right, too. For those of you favoring the "Olbermann will sell more copies" argument, I don't doubt that an annual with Mrs. Palin's name on the cover would outsell the Olbermann version by an order of magnitude.
But I really don't think BP had the intention of prostituting the annual with celebrity for the sake of sales. There are just people on staff who probably know and like Keith Olbermann, find him entertaining and thought it would be a great idea. Well, it wasn't, because there are many readers who intensely dislike Keith Olbermann and he just doesn't bring enough to the BP community to overcome that dislike.
In polite company, you avoid topics of politics or religion so that you can enjoy the matter at hand, rather than get sidetracked into an unresolvable and potentially acrimonious debate that may lead to permanent divisions. You know, like this one.
FWIW, if any of the BP writers committed a series of crimes like cheating on their taxes, etc., yeah, I'd be a lot less likely to read them. Why would I bother to read the analysis and opinion of someone with such little credibility? How would I know if their "analysis" was genuine or just fudged numbers slapped together to support a conclusion?
There is no such thing as separating personal "hobbies" or lives from professional reputation. A guy who cheats at golf or on his wife will cheat you, too, if you are dumb enough to go into business with him. Your character dictates your actions and character is there with you wherever you go and whatever you do. If Bill O'Reilly acts like an ass on TV, I guarantee you, he acts like an ass at home, too.
They definitely lost some customers over it, that's for sure. Not a smart move on their part. I mean if Olbermann were still strictly a sports anchor, no one would care. But he's a snarky politico and it was bound to alienate some readers.
Just wanted to note to the BP staff themselves that I eagerly await the annual as per usual. I thoroughly enjoy the book every year, and always come away feeling I've gotten a huge bargain.
I'm not a fan (nor a detractor) of Keith Olbermann, but I look forward to the foreword nonetheless. I suspect I'll enjoy it.
On a completely unrelated note, I absolutely loved the movie The Godfather. But then I found out that one of extras in the movie is pro-choice. I immediately burned the DVD and refuse to purchase any further Godfather related materials until they digitally retroactively remove the extra from the film.
Keep up the excellent work, BP. Both the annuals and the website continue to be excellent deals for me, even as The Big EconoCrunch (TM) saps evermore money from my meager wallet. Thanks for all you do.
Not to interrupt this charming and enlightening extended political squabble with an off-topic post (i.e. baseball related), but...
I'm interested in the "dramatically revised Fielding Runs."
I've read the BP2002 and BP2004 articles on Fielding Runs, but I guess I still don't have a good feel for what's really "under the hood" on those methodologies.
I'm definitely looking forward to the new article.
We now returned to your regularly scheduled programming.
Allen Iverson's rant on "practice" really wasn't about practice....it was about a book forward:
"We talking about a Forward!?! A Forward!?! Are we talking about a Forward?!? What are we talking about? A Forward? We ain't talking about the actual book? How the hell can I make a book better by having a Forward!!"
211 comments have been left for this post.
Thanks for the heads up. I can hardly wait to get it.
As always, I look forward to the book. The criticism of the Olbermann inclusion is ridiculous. The guy is a serious baseball historian, and has been for some time. It's just that reactionaries love to paint with a broad brush, I suppose.
He may once have been, but at this point there is absolutely nothing serious about Keith Olbermann.