Ok folks. This post has nothing to do with any statistical analysis, and is only very loosely related to baseball. Furthermore, it's about a subject I don't really know a lot about - I might be two years behind the curve, and I may be talking out of my backside. I'm willing to accept that.
I was just at Grantland.com, and I noticed they have a new function for users to comment on their articles, through their Facebook account. I like this.
One of the best and worst things about the internet is the anonymity it brings. On the positive, it gives people a lot of access to guilty pleasures that might be considered socially unacceptable. Suppose you really like listening to, say, the musical stylings of Jessica Simpson. If this were still 1990, you'd have to go to Sam Goody to purchase her new single. Today we have iTunes and Youtube and heck, you can even join a fan forum for her. Completely anonymously. That's awesome, and just one of about 40 quadrillion ways our lives are better than they were 20 years ago.
On the other hand, anonymity seems to give people the right to say anything they want.. Anything. No matter how stupid, bigoted, deranged, twisted, short-sighted and just plain wrong, people could say anything they wanted. Which is ok - I'm a firm believer in free speech. So why, then, do comments sections turn into such vile cesspools? The problem doesn't come from the fact that people can say what they want - it's the fact that they can say it without repercussion.
The reason free speech works so much better than censorship is because, once a speaker has been censored, he can make yourself into a victim, a political prisoner of sorts. "Look what the man doesn't want you to hear!" This is true, no matter how awful the message. When a racist loser like Fred Phelps (and yes, I'm using an obviously extreme case) can freely be a bigot, it's fine, because in response, I'm free to call him a racist loser. More importantly, most reasonable people can see that he is a racist loser. If he were censored though? It would, in a backwards way, raise sympathy not only for him, but for his pathetic beliefs. "He is just saying what THE GOVERNMENT doesn't want you to hear."
So, it follows that the check on unbridled free speech isn't censorship - it's shame. It's that human nature dictates that people don't want their peers to consider them complete morons. So most people, when entering into an argument with someone, are going to at least try to have facts on their side, rather resort to ridiculous ad hominem attacks about the person they're arguing with.
This doesn't happen in comment sections. Go on any of the very, very large internet sites, read a column, and then try to read through the comment section. If your brain isn't hurting about 30 seconds in, you're either incredibly tolerant of the stupid, or among them. Nearly every comment is met with an outlandishly mean character attack. There is zero intelligent discussion of any issue. Ever. Why? Because there is no recourse. You can write as vicious a reply as you'd like, because there is no shame in being wrong, and no shame in being mean.
(Note. This isn't true of the smaller, better regulated forums out there, which are fundamentally different than major websites for a variety of reasons. These function more like societies, where people will take on leadership roles and call out the foolish on being foolish. Sure, a certain amount of homogenous groupthink will go on, but that's true of any society, really. And, in the better forums, well-reasoned dissent is welcomed and discussed. In my criticism of comments sections, I'm talking more about the large scale, international type sites, like ESPN.com, Yahoo (probably the worst), MTV.com, YouTube, etc, that are essentially impossible to moderate.)
This is why Grantland's decision to have their comments section through Facebook makes so much sense. If someone is commenting on an article, he won't care what blazersgrrl144 or DetroitFan06 thinks of him. He WILL, however, care what that cute girl in his chemistry class or his potential new boss thinks. This will make the responses more measured, and the less measured responses more shamed. A random person saying "hey rotflmaoattheknicks, you're being f*&(^@ mean" doesn't mean as much as your co-worker saying "hey William Johnson, you're being f*&(^@ mean."
Not that the system is perfect. A lot of people don't use Facebook (though I'd imagine 98% of the sort of person who would comment on an ESPN article do), and the privacy concerns are real. Still, even though it's not perfect, it has to be better.
Showing posts with label ESPN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ESPN. Show all posts
Friday, August 05, 2011
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
A Couple Links to Tide you Over
There were a couple links the last couple days that piqued my interest, that I wanted to share.
Link #1:The Platoon Advantage has spent the last few days taking on a hugely entertaining hypothetical expansion draft. When talking about realignment, expansion seems to me to be a much more sensible way than moving a team to a different league, having constant interleague play, and teams dealing with having to play with different rules in random parts of the schedule (it's bad enough they have to play with different rules in a concentrated part).
The idea of expansion drafts, and how different teams would approach them, has always fascinated me (my friend Tim and I actually created a couple expansion teams around 1993 - go San Jose Scorpions!). Plus, they seem to agree with my idea for putting a team in Brooklyn - something I feel strongly about, whether it is the Rays (or another moving franchise) or an expansion team. I would prefer to see Brooklyn get an expansion team and the Rays to get a shot in the actual city of Tampa, I just don't know if that's possible. I digress though.
There are a few quibbles I have (there's no way the Yankees would protect AJ Burnett, or the Diamondbacks would expose Paul Goldschmidt, for example), but overall they came to a very sensible conclusion. Most interestingly, by having a different person choose both teams, each seems to have a specific style/personality - Brooklyn going with a more veteran team, perhaps with the intention of trading players for value, with the Portland team going for a more traditional expansion-style set of choices for young players with upside. I enjoyed the whole exercise thoroughly.
Link #2: Jonah Lehrer has a column on the failings of Sabermetrics at the ESPN spinoff site Grantland. Sadly, instead of addressing some of the more legitimate concerns, he takes a dismissive tone and relies on anectdotal evidence that doesn't really make any sense. The example of the Dallas Mavericks is especially odd, since they are (along with Houston and, to an extent, Portland) the premier franchise that uses statistical analysis. Instead of pointing out how Rick Carlisle was able to use his knowledge of matchups and advanced metrics to his advantage and enable to him to defeat a more talented team, he basically ignored them entirely.
Fangraphs and Beyond the Boxscore had a better deconstructing of this than I could possibly do (Fangraphs has some especially interesting points in the comments section).
One point though. The anti-stat crowd always loves to point out that "statistics can't measure heart!" But really, when evaluating a player, wouldn't statistics do a better job of encouraging a team to draft a physically unimposing player who excels because he has an uncommon drive? My favorite example of this is Dustin Pedroia. In 1990, he would have been a 15th round draft pick, and spent a half-dozen years in the minors, no matter how well he hit, before eventually making it to the majors as a backup. Why? Because he's about 5'5" with an uppercut swing and a mediocre arm. So why did he make it so quickly in the statistical age? Because his results are so excellent, that's why. The Red Sox didn't care that he's short, and has funny swing mechanics and has a chip on his shoulder that might put some scouts off in an interview. They saw him produce at a very high level Arizona State and waited for him to fall into their laps with the 65th pick in the 2004 draft. They watched him tear his way through the minor leagues, straight through to the 2007 Rookie of the Year Award and 2008 MVP. That stats were picking up what some scouts would not - that Pedroia was significantly outplaying what his physical tools said he should. You can argue any reason you'd like for that, be it "heart" or "grit" or "hitting a baseball is a skill, not an exhibition of athleticism" or whatever you want. The fact is, statistical analysis by the Red Sox alerted them to his excellence, and they are now reaping the benefits.
Link #1:The Platoon Advantage has spent the last few days taking on a hugely entertaining hypothetical expansion draft. When talking about realignment, expansion seems to me to be a much more sensible way than moving a team to a different league, having constant interleague play, and teams dealing with having to play with different rules in random parts of the schedule (it's bad enough they have to play with different rules in a concentrated part).
The idea of expansion drafts, and how different teams would approach them, has always fascinated me (my friend Tim and I actually created a couple expansion teams around 1993 - go San Jose Scorpions!). Plus, they seem to agree with my idea for putting a team in Brooklyn - something I feel strongly about, whether it is the Rays (or another moving franchise) or an expansion team. I would prefer to see Brooklyn get an expansion team and the Rays to get a shot in the actual city of Tampa, I just don't know if that's possible. I digress though.
There are a few quibbles I have (there's no way the Yankees would protect AJ Burnett, or the Diamondbacks would expose Paul Goldschmidt, for example), but overall they came to a very sensible conclusion. Most interestingly, by having a different person choose both teams, each seems to have a specific style/personality - Brooklyn going with a more veteran team, perhaps with the intention of trading players for value, with the Portland team going for a more traditional expansion-style set of choices for young players with upside. I enjoyed the whole exercise thoroughly.
Link #2: Jonah Lehrer has a column on the failings of Sabermetrics at the ESPN spinoff site Grantland. Sadly, instead of addressing some of the more legitimate concerns, he takes a dismissive tone and relies on anectdotal evidence that doesn't really make any sense. The example of the Dallas Mavericks is especially odd, since they are (along with Houston and, to an extent, Portland) the premier franchise that uses statistical analysis. Instead of pointing out how Rick Carlisle was able to use his knowledge of matchups and advanced metrics to his advantage and enable to him to defeat a more talented team, he basically ignored them entirely.
Fangraphs and Beyond the Boxscore had a better deconstructing of this than I could possibly do (Fangraphs has some especially interesting points in the comments section).
One point though. The anti-stat crowd always loves to point out that "statistics can't measure heart!" But really, when evaluating a player, wouldn't statistics do a better job of encouraging a team to draft a physically unimposing player who excels because he has an uncommon drive? My favorite example of this is Dustin Pedroia. In 1990, he would have been a 15th round draft pick, and spent a half-dozen years in the minors, no matter how well he hit, before eventually making it to the majors as a backup. Why? Because he's about 5'5" with an uppercut swing and a mediocre arm. So why did he make it so quickly in the statistical age? Because his results are so excellent, that's why. The Red Sox didn't care that he's short, and has funny swing mechanics and has a chip on his shoulder that might put some scouts off in an interview. They saw him produce at a very high level Arizona State and waited for him to fall into their laps with the 65th pick in the 2004 draft. They watched him tear his way through the minor leagues, straight through to the 2007 Rookie of the Year Award and 2008 MVP. That stats were picking up what some scouts would not - that Pedroia was significantly outplaying what his physical tools said he should. You can argue any reason you'd like for that, be it "heart" or "grit" or "hitting a baseball is a skill, not an exhibition of athleticism" or whatever you want. The fact is, statistical analysis by the Red Sox alerted them to his excellence, and they are now reaping the benefits.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Should the Rays move out of Tampa Bay?
Hah, trick question. They don't even play in Tampa Bay!
That's part of the problem, folks.
Today on ESPN there is a well-done (but misleadingly headlined) article by Steve Berthiaume regarding the Rays' tenuous status in St. Petersburg. The crux of the article is that even with the Rays having been one of baseball's better teams the last three years, their attendance and television figures are declining. Berthiaume cites a bevy of statistics regarding the Rays and the area's other two major sport franchises, the Buccaneers and Lightning. I feel like there are a few thoughts regarding the Rays and MLB in general that I wanted to add for consideration.
One major issue is the location of the stadium and its quality. Tropicana Field is universally regarded as the worst stadium in baseball. What's worse is that it is apparently in a somewhat less-than-top-notch place on the outskirts of town. This isn't a place like Wrigley, Fenway or PacBell, with a downtown park where people will walk up and buy a ticket on a Friday evening after work with their friends. People need to make specific plans to go out there. For my Boston friends, imagine if a second "Boston" team was added, so you had no real reason to care about them. Now imagine if instead of having a Boston park, they actually played in Framingham. Would you go out after work and check them out? You would have to wait in Mass Pike traffic just to get to Route 9 just in time for light cycle bottlenecks. Wouldn't that be a huge pain in the backside?
So, in my humble opinion it is unfair to judge based on their league-worst attendance numbers. What's worse is that the economy in the Tampa area is pretty poor, and has been for the entire time the Rays have been any good. So I hate to make a rash pronouncement like "baseball can't survive in Tampa" since there is no baseball in Tampa. In early 2007, when people seemed to assume that the housing market would continue to increase exponentially towards infinity, the (the Devil) Rays announced an ambitious waterfront stadium project. When the economy was collapsing a year later, the financing dried up. So the Rays are stuck at the Trop. Meanwhile, the St. Petersburg mayor Bill Foster is unwilling to let the Rays explore building a part in Tampa "The Rays aren’t going to Tampa or Hillsborough County" is a direct quote from Foster to the St. Petersburg times. Apparently losing the Rays to another part of the country is more palatable to Foster than losing them across the bay.
I don't want to judge how good a market the Tampa area can be based on their attendance numbers. As Berthiaume points out, the Lightning and Bucs had poor attendance numbers last year, which (especially for the Bucs) is not necessarily a terminal issue. Given a downtown ballpark and a better economy, there's a chance the franchise would do pretty well. Damning Tampa while their economy stinks reminds me of the mid-late '90's when the NHL left Winnepeg and Quebec City, and passed over Hamilton for an expansion club because the Canadian dollar stunk. It was a short-term solution for an industry that needs long-term vision for success. 10 years later things evened out and we were left with hot weather cities that didn't care having teams while rabid fanbases who would turn out to their arenas without one.
To me, the bigger issue is the drop in TV revenue. Maybe people in the Tampa area like baseball, but just not heading all the way out to the Trop to spend money to watch them in a crummy stadium. That seems totally rational to me. If that were the case though, wouldn't TV ratings be staying strong? Wouldn't people want to turn in and watch David Price (the most outwardly critical of the Rays players regarding the crummy situation) and Evan Longoria? Well, they're not. In fact, less people are watching than before. It's possible that people don't care.
Anyway, in year 14, I think it's fair to say that MLB pretty well screwed this up. They awarded the Tampa area a franchise without a downtown stadium, and allowed them to get locked into a crippling 30 year lease. That mistake is done though, the question now is how to move a well-run franchise forward.
So, should the Rays move? Yes. If it's not to Tampa Bay, then it should be somewhere else. The problem is what market would support them? Are Indianapolis or Charlotte or Portland any more ready to host a major league franchise than St. Petersburg was in 1998? MLB needs to do their due diligence and make sure a sensible stadium plan is ready in order to sustain a franchise.
MLB needs to let the Rays move where they feel they will be most financially strong long-term. This brings us to the second problem, that being how MLB handles its financials - the old small market vs. big market divide. I should note, I hate the term "market." Houston is a "bigger market" than Boston, but the Red Sox have a better revenue stream. Park of that is built in, part is due to things the organization does well, ranging from marketing to actually winning games.
Teams that do well financially are understandably hesitant to share their revenues. It's important to remember though, that while MLB teams compete against each other on the field, they are financial complements, especially long term. If, say, the Rockies do better at the gate, television ratings and merchandising goes up significantly national contracts are worth more, and the Red Sox earn more money. Meanwhile, if the Red Sox are in town, the Rockies reap those benefits. Unlike Microsoft, the Yankees have no sensible motivation for financially bludgeoning the competition. That said, unlike other industries each individual team exists not only to succeed financially, but to win baseball games.
How to solve this dilemma? Baseball needs to stop pretending it is some sort of free-market cartel. Solution 1: If baseball considers it in their best interests to operate teams in lesser markets, it needs to implement more significant revenue sharing. Not just a payroll tax, but actually sharing of local TV/radio revenue, stadium receipts and merchandising. If YES and NESN and other major team-owned sports media conglomerates continue to underreport the value of their contracts, MLB should be allowed to negotiate the contracts for each team. If you think there's any chance that the Yankees and Red Sox accept these terms, I should also tell you that the word "gullible" is written on the ceiling above you. The simple fact is that real revenue sharing just isn't possible the way it is in football. And that's ok. The Yankees and Red Sox and Phillies, for all of the complaints about them (some real, others imagined) make so much money because they are well run business. Criticize the Yankees for their inability to develop their own players if you wish, but that's a *baseball* complaint, not a business one. The Yankees turn a huge advantage into huge revenues.
Solution 2: If large market teams are unwilling to share their revenues, they should have no right to market exclusivity. The situation with San Francisco right now is ridiculous. For those of you who are unfamiliar, the Oakland Athletics would like to move to San Jose, a larger market in better financial condition. However, San Jose is considered within the San Francisco Giants' market sphere, and they won't allow the move. Even though Oakland is closer to San Francisco than San Jose is. So we have a situation where large market teams not only don't have to share any meaningful part of their revenue, they can make it so other teams can't earn their own revenue. That's less ok. Large market teams are having it both ways, to the detriment of baseball in general.
Which brings us back the Rays. I'm not convinced that, even with revenue sharing, Tampa is a great market for baseball. You know what IS a great market for baseball though? Some hints. It has 2.6 million people over less than 100 square miles. It had a beloved MLB franchise at one time, and many locas still haven't forgiven them for leaving. It will be getting an NBA franchise in 2012. It has a multicultural base that MLB management craves. To say that the local population "proud" of where they live would be a tremendous understatement. Indeed, it's almost impossible to imagine a fanbase not buying about a million hats the moment a franchise was announced. What's even better is that they'd have an obvious geographic rivalry with two teams right in their own division. What more could MLB ask for?
Well, they'd have to ask for the Yankees and Mets to withdraw their territorial rights. I'm talking of course, about Brooklyn - a place the MLB should never have left. A Brooklyn vs. Bronx series would be a marketing dream for baseball. Maybe it's my northeast bias talking, but I don't see how that wouldn't fantastic. (Ok, if I were a Royals fan, Yankees vs. Brooklyn on ESPN Sunday Night Baseball five times a year would get a little tiring, but a rant on how baseball shoots itself in the foot by failing to promote itself nationally deserves an article all its own.) Also, they'd probably need to change their name - Brooklyn Rays sounds like an awesome place to get a greasy thin crust pizza, but a less cool team baseball team name.
As I said above, I'm not ready to hold a funeral for Tampa Bay baseball. There are loyal fans of the Rays who deserve better treatment than they've gotten. I'd hate to make Dick Vitale said. If they do decide to move though, I can think of no better destination than Brooklyn. And the Yankees and Mets shouldn't be allowed to stop them.
That's part of the problem, folks.
Today on ESPN there is a well-done (but misleadingly headlined) article by Steve Berthiaume regarding the Rays' tenuous status in St. Petersburg. The crux of the article is that even with the Rays having been one of baseball's better teams the last three years, their attendance and television figures are declining. Berthiaume cites a bevy of statistics regarding the Rays and the area's other two major sport franchises, the Buccaneers and Lightning. I feel like there are a few thoughts regarding the Rays and MLB in general that I wanted to add for consideration.
One major issue is the location of the stadium and its quality. Tropicana Field is universally regarded as the worst stadium in baseball. What's worse is that it is apparently in a somewhat less-than-top-notch place on the outskirts of town. This isn't a place like Wrigley, Fenway or PacBell, with a downtown park where people will walk up and buy a ticket on a Friday evening after work with their friends. People need to make specific plans to go out there. For my Boston friends, imagine if a second "Boston" team was added, so you had no real reason to care about them. Now imagine if instead of having a Boston park, they actually played in Framingham. Would you go out after work and check them out? You would have to wait in Mass Pike traffic just to get to Route 9 just in time for light cycle bottlenecks. Wouldn't that be a huge pain in the backside?
So, in my humble opinion it is unfair to judge based on their league-worst attendance numbers. What's worse is that the economy in the Tampa area is pretty poor, and has been for the entire time the Rays have been any good. So I hate to make a rash pronouncement like "baseball can't survive in Tampa" since there is no baseball in Tampa. In early 2007, when people seemed to assume that the housing market would continue to increase exponentially towards infinity, the (the Devil) Rays announced an ambitious waterfront stadium project. When the economy was collapsing a year later, the financing dried up. So the Rays are stuck at the Trop. Meanwhile, the St. Petersburg mayor Bill Foster is unwilling to let the Rays explore building a part in Tampa "The Rays aren’t going to Tampa or Hillsborough County" is a direct quote from Foster to the St. Petersburg times. Apparently losing the Rays to another part of the country is more palatable to Foster than losing them across the bay.
I don't want to judge how good a market the Tampa area can be based on their attendance numbers. As Berthiaume points out, the Lightning and Bucs had poor attendance numbers last year, which (especially for the Bucs) is not necessarily a terminal issue. Given a downtown ballpark and a better economy, there's a chance the franchise would do pretty well. Damning Tampa while their economy stinks reminds me of the mid-late '90's when the NHL left Winnepeg and Quebec City, and passed over Hamilton for an expansion club because the Canadian dollar stunk. It was a short-term solution for an industry that needs long-term vision for success. 10 years later things evened out and we were left with hot weather cities that didn't care having teams while rabid fanbases who would turn out to their arenas without one.
To me, the bigger issue is the drop in TV revenue. Maybe people in the Tampa area like baseball, but just not heading all the way out to the Trop to spend money to watch them in a crummy stadium. That seems totally rational to me. If that were the case though, wouldn't TV ratings be staying strong? Wouldn't people want to turn in and watch David Price (the most outwardly critical of the Rays players regarding the crummy situation) and Evan Longoria? Well, they're not. In fact, less people are watching than before. It's possible that people don't care.
Anyway, in year 14, I think it's fair to say that MLB pretty well screwed this up. They awarded the Tampa area a franchise without a downtown stadium, and allowed them to get locked into a crippling 30 year lease. That mistake is done though, the question now is how to move a well-run franchise forward.
So, should the Rays move? Yes. If it's not to Tampa Bay, then it should be somewhere else. The problem is what market would support them? Are Indianapolis or Charlotte or Portland any more ready to host a major league franchise than St. Petersburg was in 1998? MLB needs to do their due diligence and make sure a sensible stadium plan is ready in order to sustain a franchise.
MLB needs to let the Rays move where they feel they will be most financially strong long-term. This brings us to the second problem, that being how MLB handles its financials - the old small market vs. big market divide. I should note, I hate the term "market." Houston is a "bigger market" than Boston, but the Red Sox have a better revenue stream. Park of that is built in, part is due to things the organization does well, ranging from marketing to actually winning games.
Teams that do well financially are understandably hesitant to share their revenues. It's important to remember though, that while MLB teams compete against each other on the field, they are financial complements, especially long term. If, say, the Rockies do better at the gate, television ratings and merchandising goes up significantly national contracts are worth more, and the Red Sox earn more money. Meanwhile, if the Red Sox are in town, the Rockies reap those benefits. Unlike Microsoft, the Yankees have no sensible motivation for financially bludgeoning the competition. That said, unlike other industries each individual team exists not only to succeed financially, but to win baseball games.
How to solve this dilemma? Baseball needs to stop pretending it is some sort of free-market cartel. Solution 1: If baseball considers it in their best interests to operate teams in lesser markets, it needs to implement more significant revenue sharing. Not just a payroll tax, but actually sharing of local TV/radio revenue, stadium receipts and merchandising. If YES and NESN and other major team-owned sports media conglomerates continue to underreport the value of their contracts, MLB should be allowed to negotiate the contracts for each team. If you think there's any chance that the Yankees and Red Sox accept these terms, I should also tell you that the word "gullible" is written on the ceiling above you. The simple fact is that real revenue sharing just isn't possible the way it is in football. And that's ok. The Yankees and Red Sox and Phillies, for all of the complaints about them (some real, others imagined) make so much money because they are well run business. Criticize the Yankees for their inability to develop their own players if you wish, but that's a *baseball* complaint, not a business one. The Yankees turn a huge advantage into huge revenues.
Solution 2: If large market teams are unwilling to share their revenues, they should have no right to market exclusivity. The situation with San Francisco right now is ridiculous. For those of you who are unfamiliar, the Oakland Athletics would like to move to San Jose, a larger market in better financial condition. However, San Jose is considered within the San Francisco Giants' market sphere, and they won't allow the move. Even though Oakland is closer to San Francisco than San Jose is. So we have a situation where large market teams not only don't have to share any meaningful part of their revenue, they can make it so other teams can't earn their own revenue. That's less ok. Large market teams are having it both ways, to the detriment of baseball in general.
Which brings us back the Rays. I'm not convinced that, even with revenue sharing, Tampa is a great market for baseball. You know what IS a great market for baseball though? Some hints. It has 2.6 million people over less than 100 square miles. It had a beloved MLB franchise at one time, and many locas still haven't forgiven them for leaving. It will be getting an NBA franchise in 2012. It has a multicultural base that MLB management craves. To say that the local population "proud" of where they live would be a tremendous understatement. Indeed, it's almost impossible to imagine a fanbase not buying about a million hats the moment a franchise was announced. What's even better is that they'd have an obvious geographic rivalry with two teams right in their own division. What more could MLB ask for?
Well, they'd have to ask for the Yankees and Mets to withdraw their territorial rights. I'm talking of course, about Brooklyn - a place the MLB should never have left. A Brooklyn vs. Bronx series would be a marketing dream for baseball. Maybe it's my northeast bias talking, but I don't see how that wouldn't fantastic. (Ok, if I were a Royals fan, Yankees vs. Brooklyn on ESPN Sunday Night Baseball five times a year would get a little tiring, but a rant on how baseball shoots itself in the foot by failing to promote itself nationally deserves an article all its own.) Also, they'd probably need to change their name - Brooklyn Rays sounds like an awesome place to get a greasy thin crust pizza, but a less cool team baseball team name.
As I said above, I'm not ready to hold a funeral for Tampa Bay baseball. There are loyal fans of the Rays who deserve better treatment than they've gotten. I'd hate to make Dick Vitale said. If they do decide to move though, I can think of no better destination than Brooklyn. And the Yankees and Mets shouldn't be allowed to stop them.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Good Luck Rob Neyer
I was just over at ESPN.com, and I found that Rob Neyer was writing his final column for them. I owe a huge debt of gratitude to Mr. Neyer, because he, more than anyone else, introduced me to the statistics side of baseball.
I've long been interested in the numbers that go into baseball. At 7 years old, I remember looking in the Boston Sunday Globe and writing down every single player in the league, ranking them in some category or another. This was before I knew what a spreadsheet was - I was using a pencil and paper. Through the years, the interest in the statistical side of the game grew. At about 12, I started entering the Red Sox box scores into a MS Office Spreadsheet after every game. A pile of newspapers would be next to my family's computer, a source of constant aggravation for my poor mother. "When are you going to throw those papers away? You can't keep those forever!" I would calculate and maneuver the numbers in every way I could. At maybe 13 or 14, I came up with my first pitching metric, ranking players by a combination of K/BB, H/IP and ERA. It was around the same time I received the Bill James 1995 Season Preview. I thought it was great, and he had a completely different outlook from any baseball writer I'd ever read, but I had no idea who he was. I'd never heard of the "Historical Abstract" or anything else.
My family was a little late on board with the whole internet thing, but around 1998/99. Sports fan that I was, the coolest thing to me about the internet was the fact that I didn't have to wait until the next day to get a sports score. Indeed, I still consider this a turning point in my life. I remember getting up and opening the newspaper every morning. Not just to read recaps and analysis, but because I didn't yet even know who had won or lost. It was a completely different world. Of course, ESPN.com was one of those places I'd go for those score updates. Sure, it was a little slow back in the dial-up days, but it sure beat waiting until the next morning. Browsing the site, I came upon Rob Neyer. I'd never heard of him, but when I started reading him, I was blown away. Here was someone with the same interest in the statistical analysis that I did. Rob introduced me to OPS and other statistics, and reinforced my prior belief that pitching wins were more of a team stat than a personal one. But more importantly, he introduced me to the whole statistical analysis community. I found Bill James and Baseball-Reference.com Baseball Prospectus and the Hardball Times and everything else.
So thank you Rob Neyer. Without you, would I have found this community? Yes, probably- the internet is pretty vast, and it has become pretty easy to search over the years. That's inconsequential though. You are the one who changed my thinking, who enabled me to cultivate my interest in baseball statistics further. So, while Peter Gammons is still my favorite baseball writer, and while Bill James is the most important analyst any of us will ever read, Rob, you have been the writer who has influenced my thinking and analysis the most. I'm going to miss reading you on ESPN, but the impact you have had on me and thousands of others will not be forgotten. Good luck, and Godspeed.
I've long been interested in the numbers that go into baseball. At 7 years old, I remember looking in the Boston Sunday Globe and writing down every single player in the league, ranking them in some category or another. This was before I knew what a spreadsheet was - I was using a pencil and paper. Through the years, the interest in the statistical side of the game grew. At about 12, I started entering the Red Sox box scores into a MS Office Spreadsheet after every game. A pile of newspapers would be next to my family's computer, a source of constant aggravation for my poor mother. "When are you going to throw those papers away? You can't keep those forever!" I would calculate and maneuver the numbers in every way I could. At maybe 13 or 14, I came up with my first pitching metric, ranking players by a combination of K/BB, H/IP and ERA. It was around the same time I received the Bill James 1995 Season Preview. I thought it was great, and he had a completely different outlook from any baseball writer I'd ever read, but I had no idea who he was. I'd never heard of the "Historical Abstract" or anything else.
My family was a little late on board with the whole internet thing, but around 1998/99. Sports fan that I was, the coolest thing to me about the internet was the fact that I didn't have to wait until the next day to get a sports score. Indeed, I still consider this a turning point in my life. I remember getting up and opening the newspaper every morning. Not just to read recaps and analysis, but because I didn't yet even know who had won or lost. It was a completely different world. Of course, ESPN.com was one of those places I'd go for those score updates. Sure, it was a little slow back in the dial-up days, but it sure beat waiting until the next morning. Browsing the site, I came upon Rob Neyer. I'd never heard of him, but when I started reading him, I was blown away. Here was someone with the same interest in the statistical analysis that I did. Rob introduced me to OPS and other statistics, and reinforced my prior belief that pitching wins were more of a team stat than a personal one. But more importantly, he introduced me to the whole statistical analysis community. I found Bill James and Baseball-Reference.com Baseball Prospectus and the Hardball Times and everything else.
So thank you Rob Neyer. Without you, would I have found this community? Yes, probably- the internet is pretty vast, and it has become pretty easy to search over the years. That's inconsequential though. You are the one who changed my thinking, who enabled me to cultivate my interest in baseball statistics further. So, while Peter Gammons is still my favorite baseball writer, and while Bill James is the most important analyst any of us will ever read, Rob, you have been the writer who has influenced my thinking and analysis the most. I'm going to miss reading you on ESPN, but the impact you have had on me and thousands of others will not be forgotten. Good luck, and Godspeed.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)