Jon Heyman calls out statheads, FJM

by Adam J. Morris on Feb 25, 2008 8:46 PM CST in News Comment 89 comments

I wasn't shocked that stats people have taken issue with Rollins winning the MVP award. There are numbers crunchers out there -- including a firejoemorgan.com author who wrote a guest piece in Sports Illustrated last week -- who believe baseball writers rank somewhere between morons and idiots for voting Rollins as MVP over David Wright, who had a higher VORP. The stat people seem to believe VORP -- a Baseball Prospectus statistic that stands for Value Over Replacement Player -- defines a player, but why haven't many of them championed last year's VORP leader (Hanley Ramirez) as MVP instead?

I assume the stats guys favor Wright because he played for a contending team. I guess the rule is this: Highest VORP wins unless the VORP champion is playing for a loser.

* * *

Though the Mets' collapse was no fault of Wright's, for the MVP to come off the all-time choke team, he'd better have a greater advantage in stats than this: Wright outhit Rollins .325 to .296, but both hit 30 home runs and Rollins beat Wright in Runs Created by 13. Wright's big advantage apparently comes down to the fact he got on base more often (his on-base percentage was significantly higher, .416 to .344), usually via a walk (he had 94 walks to Rollins' 49). To the stat guys, walking is more thrilling and much more valuable than actually winning the pennant.

FJM's response is here.

Incidentally, FJM is baffled by Heyman's error regarding "Runs Created," but the problem is that Heyman isn't using the stathead/Bill James-created "Runs Created," but that runs + RBIs - HRs crap.

0 recs | Comment 89 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

members of the mainstream media

will just have to get used to the idea that people with differing opinions (and some that can even back them up with facts) can now voice their opinions and be heard by equally large audiences.

send me nominations for the Hall of the Very Good
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER

by gossamer on Feb 25, 2008 9:07 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

He called them "VORPies."

My head hurts.

Baseball Time in Arlington

by jamcadbury on Feb 25, 2008 9:26 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Rollins

Rollins had a .344 OBP, which is just one measure but a very important one. From 1977 through 2007, 59 offensive seasons were rewarded with the AL or NL MVP, only one - Dawson (.328) in 1987 was worse. And 35 of the other 58 were at least a full 40 points higher.

by Randy Richardson on Feb 25, 2008 9:26 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

And

There's no doubt that the Dawson MVP was by far one of the worst decisions in the history of the award.

by rangeressary on Feb 26, 2008 1:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

1987

Wasn't that the same year Boggs should have run away with it and didn't even get a first place vote?

What was wrong with the voters in 1987?

by philkid3 on Feb 26, 2008 6:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

1987

That was a particularly bad year for the writers.

George Bell (AL MVP) .308/.352/.605

Boggs (9th place) .363/.461/.588

by Randy Richardson on Feb 26, 2008 10:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Can we please

Put an end to the Internet-pithy style which completely dwarfs the conciliatory tone that is far more pleasant to read? One gets the impression that these blog guys pull a Christian Bale in American Psycho and flex in the mirror while banging their whores. We get it--you're proud of the fact that you put an old curmudgeon in his place. You're nerds--we get that too.

I just think it's so sad that these "statheads", or whatever they want to be called, are so concerned with responding to each and every call-out by a meat-headed baseball writer. If they're so confidant, why the insecurity? Dissecting an article clause by clause doesn't indicate superiority, it indicates impotence.

Personally, I don't give two shits about either side, but the high school-ish behavior is pretty unappealing.

by brettgardner on Feb 25, 2008 9:45 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

but...but...

it's really funny!

Seriously. You don't find that humorous at all? I laughed out loud about 4 different times while reading that. I actually almost spit my drink on the monitor at one point.

"sorry, I'm usually a dick by pointing these things out but 'concepted' is classic" - ab03

by Suicide Prince on Feb 25, 2008 9:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Now that was humorous

On a couple of levels...

Pedro: "I wasn't cockfighting, I just have a wide stance."

by tricer on Feb 25, 2008 10:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

Dissecting an article clause by clause doesn't indicate superiority, it indicates impotence.

I've done that before. I didn't realize it had anything to do with my inability to have an erection.

by Adam J. Morris on Feb 25, 2008 10:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Mmm

Funny guy. Funny like Adult Swim or "All Your Base" or World of Warcraft. You crack me up.

by brettgardner on Feb 25, 2008 10:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It really was funny.

It's incongruity.

The Hank Blalock Asskicking Fiesta begins March 31.

by ghtd36 on Feb 25, 2008 11:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

who's conciliatory tone?

example? strange, i wasn't really aware that you were down with conciliatory tones...

by ab03 on Feb 25, 2008 10:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

How surprising

Another troll post from the anti-troll-script guy nobody cares about. You'll not get any more indulgence from me.

by brettgardner on Feb 25, 2008 10:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

why is that a troll post?

genuine question: what conciliatory tone? i haven't seen many baseball writers on either side post in conciliatory tones. maybe I'm not sure what you mean by conciliatory tone.

and if you're offended by the second comment, sorry but suck it up. I think i say something smarmy in 75% of my posts. most people don't care.

by ab03 on Feb 25, 2008 10:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

So

You're proud of it, then? Well we all have our crutch, I suppose.

Don't be so arrogant as to think that your comment was offensive to me. I just thought it was stupid and indicative of your pointless and bizarre obsession to respond to me in a similar manner in numerous threads. Offensive? No. Weird? Definitely.

by brettgardner on Feb 25, 2008 11:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

good stupid and indicative...

are you not going to answer the question?

by ab03 on Feb 25, 2008 11:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Are you not going to recognize your denseness?

This is a pathetic attempt at baiting, from Anti Troll himself.

"I didn't even pay attention to it. I'm so over all of that. I was playing golf." -- Kevin Millwood, on Roger Clemens' appearance before Congress

by Chase Irwin on Feb 25, 2008 11:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

what denseness?

the fact that he's not going answer me?

whatever...I didn't realize that any response by me to him is me baiting him.

i guess i won't ask him questions anymore

by ab03 on Feb 25, 2008 11:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

not baiting

i can see where he's coming from....and it's not in a troll-like fashion

by slash on Feb 27, 2008 3:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What question?

An example of a conciliatory tone? No, I don't have a specific writer in mind when I say that, nor do I have to. If I enjoy a particular writing style more than another, then that satisfies the argument. It's a rather vague concept don't you think? I could ask you to give me an example of a "smart" tone and it would be up to you to determine what exactly that entails.

Any more brain-busters ab03? Is there any other way I can satisfy your never-ending thirst for knowledge tonight? Get the scoop, Dan Rather?

by brettgardner on Feb 25, 2008 11:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yikes

my bad...

by ab03 on Feb 25, 2008 11:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

you seem to be the one

that is arrogant........just stating the obvious, not baiting you or anything....you just seem pretty damn arrogant to be going around giving anybody else that label...

by slash on Feb 27, 2008 3:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

OK

Well please explain your position since it's so obvious. I'm intelligent and I'm very skilled at argumentation. If that's your definition of arrogance, then I'd suggest you check out a dictionary instead of pointing out the "obvious" to me.

by brettgardner on Feb 27, 2008 4:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You lied.

You said he wouldn't get any more indulgence from you.

Liar.

by philkid3 on Feb 26, 2008 6:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I find this irritation...

about the anti-troll script to be baffling. It's a benefit to the community.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 26, 2008 2:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The

point was the irony of the poster who introduced the script constantly trolling and baiting me. That's all. It's a point I would think you should understand more than anyone.

by brettgardner on Feb 26, 2008 2:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Why is that?

...

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 26, 2008 2:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Because

You're another baiter and you similarly praise the script.

by brettgardner on Feb 26, 2008 2:38 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Who do I bait?

I find this type criticism of posters somewhat puzzling coming from you.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 26, 2008 2:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You bait me

pretty consistently, I'd say. And since you seem so puzzled by everything tonight, I'll ask this gently: Why is it odd coming from me? The only poster here that I can ever recall intentionally responding to for purposes other than the message at hand was NYTX or whatever his name was/is, and even that has stopped. I'm just curious where your confusion comes from.

by brettgardner on Feb 26, 2008 2:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think...

that I bait you "pretty consistently." I find your misplaced sense of intellectual superiority somewhat amusing, and against my better judgment sometimes I respond.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 26, 2008 2:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Very misplaced.

I should be praising your mighty intellectual prowess, then? After all, Socrates or Einstein never offered me a wide array of unusual-but-strangely-humorous-and-thought-provoking links.

"Against your better judgment"? Don't be modest, ben--your judgment is beyond reproach. I know I sure as shit trust it. It's not like you ever abused your admin privileges. Nope, you just take a skinny-dip in the gutter every once in a while to see how the other half lives. I get it.

I'm sure all of your internet friends think you're the smartest in the group, but it doesn't translate everywhere. Since we're both in such a humorous mood tonight, I'll tell you what humors me: you deigning to respond to my pitiful, insecure attempts at intellectual superiority by swooping in to remind me (and, presumably, everyone else) that YOU are the hot shit on this plate. Nobody gets to act superior here except you. You crack me up.

by brettgardner on Feb 26, 2008 3:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Ah... okay....

I've apologized to Adam for the incident to which you're referring, but I'm not going to apologize to you. You fluffed your resume and you got busted on it.

Look, I genuinely feel for the position you're in. When you're younger, you have usually been swimming in a fairly small pond that allows you think that you're smarter than everybody. It's a combination of limited experience and hubris. But it's a wide world out there... there are engineers and lawyers and whatever posting here that are smarter and more accomplished than you and they certainly don't need your "Brett Gardner Primer" to explain to them what is funny or what types of writing are valuable to them, for whatever reason.

As for thinking I'm the "hot shit on this plate," I'm smarter than average and write pretty well. If that's thinking I'm the "hot shit," I guess I'm guilty.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 26, 2008 3:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Uh huh.

Well spoken, ben, for a person who knows absolutely nothing of my background. I'll just chalk it up to ignorance which you dress-up as intelligence.

If you're going to get all preachy, then you have to accept the possibility that there are people who are smarter and, yes, younger than you.

So, Mr. World-Traveler, how many countries have I lived in? What ethnicity are my parents? Just how many friends do I have? Or what about you? You seem so world-weary, but how old are you? 30-31 I'm guessing. Wow, not even a decade more experience than me and already so willing to dish out the goods.

Honestly, do you not see the ridiculousness of ridiculing me for offering a "primer" and then launching into a boring, useless tirade about how everyone is better than me? I don't need a benmor78 primer on what kind of writing I'm allowed to enjoy, or what my opinion of myself or others will be.

And you don't write well. Sorry to burst that little bubble. Writing well requires more than non-sequiturs. It requires an organization which is lacking in yours. But hey--I'm of above-average intelligence and I write well, so why does that make me dumb or guilty of a "misplaced sense of intellectual superiority" any more than you?

The truth is you're a hypocrite and I think most people can see that. I may be guilty of being defensive, and even offensive in my defense of myself, but you speak from high like I need your pitiful advice and you don't realize that YOU are not necessarily the smartest person just because I'm not.

by brettgardner on Feb 26, 2008 3:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

"If you're going to get all preachy, then you have to accept the possibility that there are people who are smarter and, yes, younger than you."

I do accept that possibility. Nothing in my post should indicate otherwise.

"So, Mr. World-Traveler, how many countries have I lived in? What ethnicity are my parents? Just how many friends do I have? Or what about you? You seem so world-weary, but how old are you? 30-31 I'm guessing. Wow, not even a decade more experience than me and already so willing to dish out the goods."

What difference does it make how many countries you've lived in or the ethnicity of your parents? Do these factors somehow make "misplaced sense of intellectual superiority" an inaccurate assessment? As for how old I am, I'll give you a hint... the "78" in my username is my year of birth! That makes your "guess" pretty damned accurate! Wow, you are smart!

"Honestly, do you not see the ridiculousness of ridiculing me for offering a 'primer' and then launching into a boring, useless tirade about how everyone is better than me? I don't need a benmor78 primer on what kind of writing I'm allowed to enjoy, or what my opinion of myself or others will be."

I don't think I said everyone was better than you. And I didn't make any statements about what kind of writing you're "allowed" to enjoy. You can enjoy any sort of writing that suits your fancy. But, and this should be interpreted as gentle criticism, dear Brett... the way you voice your opinions is seen by others as obnoxious preening. Get over yourself, Brett, and stop taking yourself so seriously.

"And you don't write well. Sorry to burst that little bubble. Writing well requires more than non-sequiturs. It requires an organization which is lacking in yours. But hey--I'm of above-average intelligence and I write well, so why does that make me dumb or guilty of a 'misplaced sense of intellectual superiority' any more than you?"

By most objective measures, I write well. But, again, just because I find the way you posture on this forum to be irritating doesn't mean I think you're dumb, it just means I think you're obnoxious and that your obnoxious behavior is somewhat typical among younger people.

"I may be guilty of being defensive, and even offensive in my defense of myself,"

We certainly agree on that.

"The truth is you're a hypocrite and I think most people can see that. I may be guilty of being defensive, and even offensive in my defense of myself, but you speak from high like I need your pitiful advice and you don't realize that YOU are not necessarily the smartest person just because I'm not."

I didn't say that I'm the smartest person, and my opinion about my intelligence is completely unrelated to my opinion about your intelligence. Whether you take my advice or suggestions is entirely up to you.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 26, 2008 3:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Perhaps

I'll take your advice, if you take mine: Get over yourself. It should sound familiar, as you just said it to me for some reason I don't quite understand. After all, I doubt there's a more self-deprecating poster on this site. I've never said I was God's gift to anybody. You keep painting me in this light for some reason. I go to an average public university and I have an easy major. I get that.

However, I am about to graduate with a 4.0, and I'm going to law school, so I think I'm doing OK for myself. As for the relevance of the other countries I've lived in, I think it should be quite obvious that it pokes a gigantic hole in your nicely-spun yarn about youth. I have no small group of peers with which to identify myself. Would that I could know the joys of that. No, I've been transferred and shipped my entire life. I have very little doubt that for all your huffing and puffing, I have infinitely more experience dealing with people, thoughts and cultures outside my own than you.

"But, and this should be interpreted as gentle criticism, dear Brett... the way you voice your opinions is seen by others as obnoxious preening. Get over yourself, Brett, and stop taking yourself so seriously."

But the thing is, gentle ben, nobody else goes through such lengths to consistently call me out on how I voice my opinion. Only you. In fact, most of my posts are not responded to, a testament to the fact that we can see something disagreeable and not be moved to agitation so quickly.

You have a problem with me, and I wish that weren't so, because I think it detracts from the overall content of this site. I have no problem with you, except that constantly speak down to me and prop yourself up, only to quickly assure me that the two aren't related.

So take my advice, ben, and get over yourself too.

by brettgardner on Feb 26, 2008 4:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow...

"After all, I doubt there's a more self-deprecating poster on this site."

Perhaps your definition of self-deprecating and that of, I don't know, the rest of mankind differs. Need I remind you of your many years working on Capitol Hill? Or the fact that you're in law school? Or the other things that you claimed about yourself that turned out to be false? I don't think self-deprecating would be an adjective I would label you with.

"In fact, most of my posts are not responded to, a testament to the fact that we can see something disagreeable and not be moved to agitation so quickly."

I find this interesting. If "most of your posts are not responded to and that is a testament that people can see something disagreeable and not be moved to agitation," are you acknowledging that most of your posts are disagreeable?

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 26, 2008 4:13 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Ben is awesome

it's just as simple as that.

this is all.

by alon91 on Feb 26, 2008 4:18 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

I second that.

I don't have anything against you personally Brett, but most of Ben's comments in this thread seem pretty spot on.

Your very first sentence in this thread contained the terms "internet-pithy" (I have no idea what that's even supposed to mean) and "conciliatory" and also included an ill-fitting and rather offensive ("banging their whores") pop-culure reference. Things like that might make an ordinary reader of average intelligence such as myself not even bother going on to read the next sentence.

You and Ben are obviously both intelligent people but where Ben's posts ordinarily come across as funny and engage the reader, your posts ordinarily have a quality of smugness about them that often causes me to lose interest in what you're saying pretty quickly.

by Brian Hayes on Feb 27, 2008 12:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's fine

I really don't care that much about engaging anyone to be honest with you. I think some people here have a longer history with ben and/or they don't really like me all that much, so they enjoy when he speaks to me condescendingly. That's fine. I don't need anyone on my "side" to know that the guy lectures me like he's as old as Methuselah and as wise as Solomon about how life works, when I'm sure he's been infinitely more sheltered than me and he's only got about 9 years on me.

I just think it's so funny that the general point behind all of ben's posts is that I'm smug, overconfident, and not nearly as smart as I think I am, and yet he consistently displays those qualities himself. I've said it before: I think the guy's a natural ball-buster and he doesn't like anyone pushing back. That's OK. I just wish he would recognize his own shortcomings as much as mine.

by brettgardner on Feb 27, 2008 7:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Just that

They may be. I admit that possibility.

As for self-deprecation, it's hardly worth my time to respond to your logical fallacy, but I'll just say that snatching out one moment in time is hardly indicative of anything.

I'm done with you, ben, and I hope that you can move beyond me. I will continue to post my thoughts, and if you continue to speak down to me, then I will respond in kind. Otherwise, I'll hope that you will heed my advice and get over yourself. You're not contributing much by criticizing me, which I think comprises about 80% of your posts here.

I also note your complete gloss over any points which you could not counter, and the reliable transition to the smarmy and smug, which is your crutch for "obnoxiousness".

If there's pity to be had, save it for yourself.

by brettgardner on Feb 26, 2008 4:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Self-deprecating...

"As for self-deprecation, it's hardly worth my time to respond to your logical fallacy, but I'll just say that snatching out one moment in time is hardly indicative of anything."

That "one moment in time" is about as antithetical to self-deprecating as one can get, so to claim that you are one of the most self-deprecating posters here with that little gem in your history is a bit of a laugh. But even taking the rest of your contributions here "in toto," I still think it's fair to say that self-deprecating wouldn't be a very accurate way to describe you.

"I'm done with you, ben, and I hope that you can move beyond me. I will continue to post my thoughts, and if you continue to speak down to me, then I will respond in kind."

Yet I wasn't speaking down to you. We went down this path because I said I find the opposition to the Troll Script insane, and you somehow felt that was an invitation to trade jabs with me.

"I also note your complete gloss over any points which you could not counter"

I don't think that's the case. I ignored points that I thought it was not necessary to counter. If you have some thoughts that you feel like you would like me to address, you're welcome to reiterate them.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 26, 2008 4:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Uh huh

You're right ben. Look at you.

by brettgardner on Feb 26, 2008 4:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Does this mean its over?

I think ya'll should trade emails just in case.

by corbsclinton on Feb 26, 2008 9:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It's not baffling at all

While the anti-troll script may beneficial to the community as a whole it's not beneficial to antagonistic pricks whose sole purpose is to engage in threads that wind up way over on the right side of the screen.

Come to think of it, I am surprised you like the script Ben. :)

by Chris Martin on Feb 26, 2008 6:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hey, Chris...

you wanna go to a Frisco game, or do you want to stand me up again?

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 26, 2008 6:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry, I can't

I am paging on the Hill this Summer during my hiatus from law school.

by Chris Martin on Feb 26, 2008 6:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Keep...

your butthole tight.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 26, 2008 6:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

pithy style

is hardly new, and hardly reserved for the internet. Pithy critical writing has been going on for centuries, regardless of the medium. The slang changes, but the tone remains the same. In this and so many other cases, it's also wrong to single out one side for it's tone. If Heyman disagrees with the "Vorpies" he should simply refute their arguments instead of resorting to inventing a nickname.

A working class hero is something to be.

by t ball on Feb 25, 2008 11:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i don't think heyman disagrees

he writes like that all the time. which is why i made the above comment - in general, it seems like most baseball writers enjoy writing like that.

but i also think they genuinely get angry too.

by ab03 on Feb 25, 2008 11:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow

Thanks. You just opened a door in my mind, man. I had no idea that pithy wasn't invented 6 years ago. You see that hyphen I put up there? I know it's a small little character, but basically it indicates that I was talking about a specific kind of pithy, one which is, for the most part, reserved for the internet.

It's not wrong to single out one side for its tone if only one side's tone annoys me, either. I don't have to present a balanced view of everything to you. Perhaps it didn't come through clear enough in my original post, but I don't like the tone of either side in this "debate" and I care about the merits even less.

by brettgardner on Feb 25, 2008 11:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Of course,

You rarely use a conciliatory tone yourself, so why do you demand it of others? Perhaps it wasn't clear in my post either, but I don't see only one side as having a problem with tone, which is why I said you shouldn't single out one side. If both sides are pithy, why are you only annoyed at one side?

I have no problem with you being a defensive jackass, I just have a problem with you deciding who else gets to be one. I agree that knee-jerk reactions to every newspaper article are no better than the reporters' reflexive bashing of bloggers. That's a conciliatory statement.

And what's wrong with a little pithiness? It just means getting to the core of an issue quickly. The FJM post is the opposite of pithy. Maybe pissy is a better word. Go pith on yourself.

A working class hero is something to be.

by t ball on Feb 25, 2008 11:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Again

I don't understand the comparison between my opinion of article writing and my posts here. What's the connection, except that they use words? If I were writing a popular blog or writing an article for pay, I would write differently than I do here in the comments section of a blog.

My mind hurts trying to understand your logic. One STYLE annoys me, but both ARGUMENTS annoy me. People are allowed to prefer one style over another, and I'm not sure if you're trying to get me to apologize for that or not, but you certainly won't be satisfied if that's what you want.

by brettgardner on Feb 25, 2008 11:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

How much Randy Galloway do you listen to?

Seriously now.

by LiamP on Feb 25, 2008 11:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Are you serious?

That shit is unlistenable. I'm a Tickethead.

by brettgardner on Feb 25, 2008 11:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

my talk radio

is louder than your talk radio!

by bushe on Feb 26, 2008 8:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I find FJM very funny

I think Ken Tremendous relies on many different ways to evoke laughs, even though his style (fisking) is the same. It's not like he uses the same two jokes over and over. He finds a new way to joke about it each time.

The Hank Blalock Asskicking Fiesta begins March 31.

by ghtd36 on Feb 25, 2008 11:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

even if the tone borders on petty, I still don't find that it detracts from the overall humor.

and, it makes it easier to like when they tend to make fun of people who respond like heyman did.

along the same lines, it's sometimes depressing when they make fun of joe morgan

by ab03 on Feb 25, 2008 11:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Making fun of Joe Morgan

is like playing one of those games at an arcade where you play until you win, like the candy crane.

The Hank Blalock Asskicking Fiesta begins March 31.

by ghtd36 on Feb 26, 2008 12:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

wow

I could not disagree with you more. Terrible, lazy, uninformed writers deserve to be mocked at every opportunity.

FJM is the best blog on the internet today.

by alon91 on Feb 26, 2008 3:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Brett Gardner

has big, hairy, dangling, Internet balls.

Glenallen Hill Secrets

by a bebop a rebop on Feb 26, 2008 8:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Funny enough

but I agree with Brett Gardner here (I'm obviously the only one).

Many stat people do act very insecure about their position. To the point where instead of having intelligent conversations with the mainstream that they want to convince, they resort to trying to make those that disagree with them look stupid. It is childish, and overall a bad way to gain respect in the national media. Saying "you're stupid for disagreeing with my opinion!" is a poor way to influence people.

(ironically, this is exactly what Gardner did in his responses to the people who commented on this comment above...)

by JBImaknee on Feb 26, 2008 9:23 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Good one

"having intelligent conversations with the mainstream"

Is this even possible?

"heres to you brett for making me get all wet" -NYTXFAN

by jparks77 on Feb 26, 2008 10:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

How did I do that?

by brettgardner on Feb 26, 2008 10:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

well

thats why i want to see the original FJM article in SI.

but, why fjm is condescending, don't they take great pains not to name call in their article?

by ab03 on Feb 26, 2008 10:21 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

FJM

I don't think FJM is being insecure - I'd say frustrated. A constant frustration with the mainstream media that constantly gets it so wrong. Locally, the casual fan was lead to believe, by DFW sportscasters and columnists, that Sosa was the best player on last years team and that JD/Hicks blew it by not ponying up for Torii Hunter.

by Randy Richardson on Feb 26, 2008 5:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

hey

Did you just call Regis Philbin's daughter a whore????

by Brian Hayes on Feb 26, 2008 11:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Heh,

good one, but I think you've got the wrong writer at FJM. Isn't it Tremendous that's married to her?

A working class hero is something to be.

by t ball on Feb 27, 2008 12:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I have...

VORPies

Stars in a Texas Night Sky, a Dallas Stars blog from a fan's perspective.

by rangers85 on Feb 25, 2008 10:00 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I'm sorry to hear that...

you really should be more careful.

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates

by slc ranger on Feb 25, 2008 11:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Damn.

Wrap it up, man.

The Hank Blalock Asskicking Fiesta begins March 31.

by ghtd36 on Feb 25, 2008 11:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wear a Glove

when you go to bat...it prevents blisters and gives you a better grip.

I'll be a Troll. Try crossing my bridge, Sally!

by Clueless on Feb 26, 2008 11:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

**** the heck?!

That runs created thing had me scratching my head when I first saw it, to.

When I saw their explination I had no idea what to think.

I mean, that. . . what the. . . runs + RBI - HR. . . what is that?!

by philkid3 on Feb 26, 2008 6:33 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Also. . .

Thank you to Brett Gardener, who's name I more than likely misspelled (oh well) for giving me a good laugh.

This was fun!

And VORPies sounds more like an award.

by philkid3 on Feb 26, 2008 6:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The Heyman

Let's call RBI + Runs - HR the Heyman to avoid confusion with the existing Runs Created stat. Also, Heyman sounds like hymen and I think that makes it too funny.

The Heyman seeks to show how much an effect a player has on a game. In this respect it treats those who score runs as equal as those who bat them in. Home runs are subtracted since they counts as both a run and an rbi.

For instance, say the Rangers score 6 runs in a game. In one inning the 4 runs are scored by grand slam from the number 4 hitter batting in the first through third batters. In another inning the third, fourth, and fifth players hit back to back to back doubles to score 2 runs.

In this case the batters, 1, 2, and 3 would get a Heyman of 1 for being hit in on the grandslam and number 3 would get an additional 1 for scoring on number four's double. Number 5 would have 1 for his rbi double. The fourth hitter would have a 4 from the grand slam, 1 from his rbi double, and 1 from his run after his double; giving him 6 total. This means he had a hand in all 6 runs that the team scored.

The reason (I'm guessing) for the Heyman is to show the value of a lead off hitter in equal terms with that of a power hitter. The problem is that both runs and rbis depend heavily on a player's teammates. If you get a hit with no one on base and don't score, you're penalized by the Heyman for factors beyond your control.

All the Heyman does is prove that Rollins was a good player who played on a better team then Wright. It doesn't prove that he was better at being lead off than Wright was at being a power hitter like Heyman would have you believe.

Derek

Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!

by DerekSTheRed on Feb 26, 2008 4:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm just disappointed

there were no mother's basement lines. I thought that was mandatory in an anti stathead article.

"We should have bombed it (Auschwitz)"-President Bush

by DJCahill on Feb 26, 2008 7:33 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I think FJM is very funny

...and not insecure, impotent, rude for being rude sake, etc. etc. It is what it is - a humorous look at the stat side of baseball contrasting themselves against some admittedly stupid comments by some baseball writers.

by FuturePants on Feb 26, 2008 10:31 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Here's the real question

Who won the above catfight between Ben and brettgardner?

The Hank Blalock Asskicking Fiesta begins March 31.

by ghtd36 on Feb 26, 2008 10:34 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Who won? I have no idea

Who lost? That, unfortunately, I know all too well.

by mparks on Feb 26, 2008 11:03 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

the kids?

by Longhorn on Feb 26, 2008 11:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Anyone who bothered to read any of it

by FuturePants on Feb 26, 2008 11:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Who won...

... I'll tell you who won... America (looks solemnly into middle distance as flag waves in background).

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Feb 26, 2008 3:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know

All I saw was Ben's side of it. Thanks ab03!!!!

by Chris Martin on Feb 26, 2008 6:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

wait...

....so brett doesn't like the troll script? and ben likes to argue?...

anyone else get the feeling this a bit of a monkey poop fight at the zoo... two chimps start it and the rest of the chimps end up smelling like crap...

can't we all just agree... some "stats" are good, everyone's "opinion" is up for debate, and comedy is in the eye of the beerholder?

hurler: [inaudible mumbles...] chris young [mumbles more]... [drops whiskey bottle]

by ivysafety39 on Feb 26, 2008 1:29 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

yep

evet--means yes in Turkish

by oldcatsfan on Feb 26, 2008 3:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Gold

in this thread! Glad I checked back in. Ben and Brett are both little bitches I would say from the responses! I don't post a lot here, and never had a problem with either of them, but you guys both have GottaBeRightItis! It's all good. Love more - fight less.

Long live the 60's

by Mike Simonek on Feb 26, 2008 2:26 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Stat Guys

"To the stat guys, walking is more thrilling and much more valuable than actually winning the pennant."

Is this true?

I'll be a Troll. Try crossing my bridge, Sally!

by Clueless on Feb 26, 2008 2:46 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Did anyone actually read the article?

If not, you missed this really bizarre section: Rollins repeated his stance that he loves to see style go with substance, an opinion he said he formed while growing up in the Oakland area and idolizing Rickey Henderson. In today's game, Rollins rated four other players whose style he can admire: 1. David Ortiz 2. Manny Ramirez 3. C.C. Sabathia 4. Jose Reyes Someone asked Rollins if his DP mate Chase Utley shows any style, and Rollins said no, but that he's working with him. With a little work, Rollins said Utley could dream to become "the face of Tasty Cakes.''

by philkid3 on Feb 26, 2008 11:17 PM CST reply actions 0 recs