keyboard_arrow_uptop
You need to be logged in to comment. Login or Subscribe
EricMeeker
10/01
Good discussion today. Both topics were well covered.
pobothecat
10/01
I really, really wish you guys would've named names here. As Sam points out, we all have to choose which people-smarter-than-us we can trust. Big part of that is knowing which ones we can't. Anyone else want to point out the column(s) in question here? Enjoyed the "editors no longer exist" point. One of those things I really should've known but didn't.
bornyank1
10/01
Here's a link to the Sean Forman Baseball-Reference post I mentioned. He points to a pair of examples.
rwinter
10/01
how upset was the "Reds-Guy" that Homer Bailey wasn't even mentioned?
bornyank1
10/01
I think we'll say something about that tonight.
EricMeeker
10/01
I'm all for naming names at this point. It advances the cause much faster when there is accountability. Thanks for the link, Ben. Understanding the numbers is essential if you are covering baseball. If a writer refuses to at least make an attempt at understanding the numbers, then he/she isn't taking their profession seriously. Therefore, we the intelligent readers will refuse to take them seriously.
bornyank1
10/01
Yeah, it's not so much that I wanted to protect their identities--when you write for a large audience, you pretty much give up your right to privacy as a professional. It's more that I wanted the focus to be on the phenomenon itself rather than saying "So-and-so is stupid." I figured people would come up with ways to find out if they really wanted to know. And you did! So that worked out well.
EricMeeker
10/02
Because you sent a link that mentioned names.