― gygax! (gygax!), Wednesday, 26 October 2005 20:44 (thirteen years ago) Permalink
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 26 October 2005 20:50 (thirteen years ago) Permalink
― polyphonic (polyphonic), Wednesday, 26 October 2005 21:46 (thirteen years ago) Permalink
Scott Gray is a musician and nonfiction writer. He served as consulting editor on a series of nine sports titles for Ballantine and is the author of:
Chicks Rule: The Story of the Dixie ChicksHeart Song: The Story of JewelOn Her Way: The Shania Twain StoryPerfect Harmony: The Faith Hill and Tim McGraw Story.Livin' On Country: The Alan Jackson Story
He was raised in Oklahoma and lives in New York City and Charlottesville, VA.
I think it's Yanc3y's pseudonym.
― gygax! (gygax!), Wednesday, 26 October 2005 21:58 (thirteen years ago) Permalink
― j blount (papa la bas), Thursday, 27 October 2005 03:49 (thirteen years ago) Permalink
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 27 October 2005 12:18 (thirteen years ago) Permalink
― John (jdahlem), Thursday, 27 October 2005 13:57 (thirteen years ago) Permalink
I can attest that Bill is not as svelte as the bobblehead (last I saw him).
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 27 March 2006 16:36 (twelve years ago) Permalink
--writer Bill James, on using baseball statistics to understand the game (Palm Beach Post)
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 3 April 2006 16:08 (twelve years ago) Permalink
he'll be appearing on The Simpsons this season
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 5 August 2010 21:32 (eight years ago) Permalink
a harvard lampoon alum wrote him in no doubt
― sanskrit, Friday, 6 August 2010 02:17 (eight years ago) Permalink
Different book, but I bought and read this last year:
Truthfully, it wasn't all that exciting. You had a number of contributors saying the same thing 14 different ways.
― clemenza, Friday, 6 August 2010 18:44 (eight years ago) Permalink
pretty sure I overheard Bill telling a Noodles Hahn anecdote this morning
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 8 August 2010 05:03 (eight years ago) Permalink
bought the paperback historical baseball abstract for $1 @ a book sale and there was a $2 bill inside
― johnny crunch, Saturday, 28 July 2012 17:53 (six years ago) Permalink
Hard not to read this thread title as akin to Ronny James Dio.
― congratulations (n/a), Saturday, 28 July 2012 18:27 (six years ago) Permalink
Has he (or anyone similar) ever written about team win/loss streaks... in season only, not the plexiglass principle.
― queequeg (peter grasswich), Tuesday, 31 July 2012 19:37 (six years ago) Permalink
Probably the year after the Tigers' 35-5 start (meaning the '85 Abstract), James wrote a long thing on when a fast start starts to become significant; i.e., 5-0 doesn't mean much, 10-0 means a lot, etc. That's the only related thing I remember.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 31 July 2012 19:58 (six years ago) Permalink
A couple of you in the past have indicated that James may have lost something over the years, that he's now part of the same baseball establishment he once questioned at every turn. Most of the time I still love reading him, but sometimes he'll write things that do make me wonder. There were back-to-back "Ask Bill"s this morning that were puzzling.
1) One thing I still remember from an old Abstract is where he tried to systematically look at a player's IQ based on factors like strike-zone judgement, number of caught stealings, the ability to improve over time, etc. I remember he identified Alfredo Griffin as the dumbest player in baseball--he may have stopped short of using those exact words--and, I think, Lou Whitaker as the smartest. He got a question today complaining about Alfonso Soriano, and whether he still thinks baseball intelligence can be quantified.
"I don't think you can reliably infer intelligence from a player's baseball statistics, no. I do think we could do a better job of charting on-field mistakes, and perhaps in that way identifying players who just don't play the game very well."
2) Right before that, there was a question on whether or not to shut down Strasburg, which was basically the exact same question he fielded a month ago.
(July 13) "No, I wouldn't shut him down. I never understood the logic by which limiting the growth of innings pitched year to year could protect a pitcher, and I think most serious analysts agree that that was just sloppy research."
(today) "Well...I think (shutting him down) is reasonable, yes...Strasburg is coming back from Tommy John, and he is still very young. You're asking him to do A LOT for a pitcher one year away from Tommy John, and you're exposing a 23, 24-year-old pitcher to a full workload."
Not that I know the right answer myself, but there's quite a disconnect there.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 14:57 (six years ago) Permalink
The first problem seemed poorly stated to begin with. And what's so strange about him changing his mind 30 years later? I'm sure that plenty of things in the early Abstracts were written on a whim anyway.
There isn't necessarily a contradiction in the Strasburg stuff ... I would agree that it's reasonable to shut him down, but at the same time, I wouldn't do it.
― NoTimeBeforeTime, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 16:25 (six years ago) Permalink
I'm always quoting and defending James, so it's weird for me to take the other side. Changing or modifying your views over time, especially as it relates to the availability of more and better information, is a good thing--actually, James's vigilance against being boxed in by dogma is one of the greatest things about him. The reason the first one caught my eye is that it does seem to line up with the idea that he's more reluctant to pointedly criticize players since he joined the Red Sox. This makes sense--once you've had more direct contact with players on the inside, it stands to reason you're a little more guarded about doing things like trying to quantify their intelligence. (Not to mention that people generally soften with age anyway.) It's just something I noticed.
With Strasburg (I didn't quote either of his answers in full), more than the first issue, I do find the contrast strange. His first response was an emphatic no, there's no reason to shut him down (the rest of his answer: "I think they need to be careful with Strasburg, perhaps limit his pitches, be extra careful about looking for signs of fatigue. But drawing an innings limit and pretending that that's somehow going to protect him is perilously close to magical thinking"). The second could have come from the Nationals' GM himself.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 16:42 (six years ago) Permalink
did anyone read his true crime book
― turds (Hungry4Ass), Friday, 24 May 2013 17:18 (five years ago) Permalink
Yeah. He's kind of a nut nowadays, but I thought it was a fun read.
― Panaïs Pnin (The Yellow Kid), Friday, 24 May 2013 18:50 (five years ago) Permalink
I read the crime book and--no bias here--liked it fine. Don't think I've read any true-crime books other than In Cold Blood, though, so that was a limitation of sorts.
― clemenza, Friday, 24 May 2013 19:32 (five years ago) Permalink
i heard it was kinda wackadoo
― turds (Hungry4Ass), Friday, 24 May 2013 19:40 (five years ago) Permalink
It is kinda, but that's almost part of its charm. He keeps coming up with formulas to calculate like "how sordid was this crime on a scale of 1-20" or whatever, it's pretty funny.
― Panaïs Pnin (The Yellow Kid), Friday, 24 May 2013 19:50 (five years ago) Permalink
Bobby Valentine said he didn't hear from Bill once when he managed Boston, so if he's a nut he may be crazy like a fox.
― ballin' from Maine to Mexico (Dr Morbius), Friday, 24 May 2013 22:48 (five years ago) Permalink
Won't be able to read this till later tonight. It's long, free for now, and surely has lots for everyone to hate.
― clemenza, Friday, 27 January 2017 23:08 (one year ago) Permalink
mostly just clueless
― mookieproof, Saturday, 28 January 2017 02:04 (one year ago) Permalink
"But it rather seems to me that you could and should have won this election by, oh, I don’t know, 538 to nothing or thereabouts" is a good place to start.
― clemenza, Saturday, 28 January 2017 02:45 (one year ago) Permalink
This is not directed at you personally, mookie, but I don't really understand the ILX tendency to brush aside people like James, Marcus, and Christgau--older writers who don't necessarily have the visibility or the influence they once had; I suspect if Kael were still writing, especially somewhere other than the New Yorker, she'd get the same treatment--with curt dismissals. Your post reminds me of some of the reaction when I linked to Marcus explaining months ago why Trump might win. I don't agree with everything James writes, but there's a lot there, and I'd say at least half of it is spot-on. It's as good an election postmortem as just about anything I've read from people who write about politics for a living.
― clemenza, Saturday, 28 January 2017 14:48 (one year ago) Permalink
haha i actually thought about going deeper last night but figured why bother. 'clueless' was the wrong adjective, tbf.
i haven't read a great deal of james, marcus or christgau. i have nothing at all against marcus. i think christgau is a prick and while i respect his sheer dedication to listening to literally everything, i've generally found his reviews to be useless. it's impressive that he turned being gnomic into a career, but whatever.
i respect james' grasp of statistics and willingness to challenge the received baseball wisdom of 30-40 years ago. he was a pioneer and his ideas have won the day in the game. i don't think any of that makes him a particularly insightful political commentator. among baseball writers alone, i suspect keith law and rany jazayerli and jonah keri have much more useful things to say about politics.
in this particular piece, i find his suggestions risible. these are not ideas on how the democrats can win kansas; they are ideas on how the democrats can win his (idiosyncratic) personal full support.
a package of severe inheritance taxes, intense business regulation, free college education, and massive support for inner cities doesn't really sound like a winner in kansas. nor do these interventionist policies square with his insistence that national health care be jettisoned.
Well, it is every bit as despicable to call someone a racist who is not a racist as it is to actually be a racist; in fact, I would argue that it is more despicable to do this, since it both promotes racism and debases public discourse.
this is straight-up bullshit, as is his insistence that neither trump nor jeff sessions nor anyone involved is a *real* racist.
if bill james wants to talk about baseball i'd be happy to listen. he has no particular expertise elsewhere and his (horribly written) political tracts are no different than any other 67-year-old dude ranting on facebook.
― mookieproof, Sunday, 29 January 2017 01:56 (one year ago) Permalink
Explanations help--much prefer that kind of response than the one-line dismissal.
I think he goes a little off the rails when he argues for the Nazi-in-all-of-us. I'm pretty self-critical, I think--have often written about my passive-aggressive vindictiveness--but I don't think I'm secretly harboring a Nazi inside.
I was surprised he went anywhere near race. He regularly ducks baseball questions that are too close to his job with the Red Sox, so why he thought that would be a good subject to take up, I don't know. I think some of what he says is good: "You’re letting David Duke out of his cage. If you call a million people racists, he’s just one of the millions, just another guy," and "you might as well put $20 in an envelope and mail it to Rush Limbaugh." The line you quoted above--the "more despicable" formulation--no.
I don't know if his prescriptions more accurately represent Kansas or him alone. He's been writing about Kansas regularly for almost 40 years, so I'm inclined to trust that he has some understanding of the subject, but I really don't know.
Other than choosing to write it as an open letter, a device I never like, couldn't disagree more with "horribly written." I think his influence as a writer may even outweigh his influence as a baseball analyst.
― clemenza, Sunday, 29 January 2017 05:54 (one year ago) Permalink
Knowing almost nothing abt SABR/James apart from a skimread of Moneyball once, I gave his true crime bk a go a little while back and thought it was atrocious - ignorant, reactionary, bombastic and self-regarding. And yes, horribly written. I mean, I don't like Christgau, and have huge problems w/ Kael and Marcus, but all three of them can turn a sentence on occasion, whereas James really can't (I was just about to write that he reads like a typical pompous old git on Facebook until I saw mookieproof's final sentence!)
― Bongo Herbert (Ward Fowler), Sunday, 29 January 2017 11:11 (one year ago) Permalink
I read very little true crime, but I liked James's book just fine (since then, I've read books about Paul Bernardo, Charles Whitman, Richard Speck, and Manson). We must have very different Facebook feeds--the people over 50 on mine aren't the problem.
Sensing there's not a great future for this discussion. But I do agree Kael can turn a sentence on occasion.
― clemenza, Sunday, 29 January 2017 14:36 (one year ago) Permalink
That article was very James-ian, that's for sure. I agreed strongly with some parts, shook my head in frustration in other parts, and wondered why he took so long to get to the point for at least half of it. In other words, I had much the same reaction as I do with his baseball writing.
― NoTimeBeforeTime, Monday, 30 January 2017 12:02 (one year ago) Permalink
He just opened it up to reader comments last night--waited two days before doing so; good idea with contentious online material, I think, forces people to think about what they want to say, instead of just venting--and it looks like he'll be putting in some time defending parts of it. (The early focus seems to be the idea that Clinton is as corrupt as Trump.) I like the way one reader puts it:
"I think there's a split in the article, between (1) the basic message -- which I think is just about 100% right on (and yes, as was suggested in a 'Hey Bill' post, I hope it will be widely disseminated); and (2) the specific suggestions, which I think are problematic, no less so than the specific things that the Democratic Party was putting forth."
― clemenza, Monday, 30 January 2017 12:36 (one year ago) Permalink
Blaming Republicans for Trump is like blaming Poland for Adolph. He invaded the party and took over. What were they supposed to do about it?— Bill James Online (@billjamesonline) August 5, 2017
missed this bit of keen political insight
― mookieproof, Friday, 1 September 2017 01:03 (one year ago) Permalink
i'm gonna guess he still doesn't think trump and sessions are racists
― Karl Malone, Friday, 1 September 2017 01:27 (one year ago) Permalink
I can read some of his political stuff; sometimes I just stop and head elsewhere. The worst thing is, when people write in to question him on something, he's at his most abrasive. (Aka, rudest.) I think he said he voted for Hillary, reluctantly.
― clemenza, Friday, 1 September 2017 01:43 (one year ago) Permalink
was there any other way?
― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Friday, 1 September 2017 02:43 (one year ago) Permalink
He's got a new book coming out next week. Not about Trump, so it should be safe. (Evidently co-written with his daughter.)
― clemenza, Tuesday, 19 September 2017 02:15 (one year ago) Permalink
If the Orioles traded Manny Machado, I don't know if they would stay in competition this summer.— Bill James Online (@billjamesonline) May 1, 2018
― mookieproof, Tuesday, 1 May 2018 17:52 (seven months ago) Permalink
Sometimes I feel like a fatherless child.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 1 May 2018 21:41 (seven months ago) Permalink
okay, this was funny
Did you know that Mike Trout has never in his career been credited with a Sacrifice Bunt? Complete player, my ass. . .— Bill James Online (@billjamesonline) May 23, 2018
― mookieproof, Wednesday, 23 May 2018 14:49 (six months ago) Permalink
Giving money to political candidates is NOT helpful. What is helpful is NOT giving money to political candidates. If you have a Dumpster Fire on your left and a Dumpster Fire on your right, you don't put firewood in either dumpster. https://t.co/z8Gtbp9U0a— Bill James Online (@billjamesonline) June 15, 2018
― Jersey Al (Albert R. Broccoli), Friday, 15 June 2018 21:43 (five months ago) Permalink
Is he a libertarian?
Not a Pandora's Box worth opening...
― clemenza, Friday, 15 June 2018 21:47 (five months ago) Permalink
you should never put firewood in any dumpster, regardless of whether it's on fire or not
― obviously DLC (Karl Malone), Friday, 15 June 2018 21:49 (five months ago) Permalink
His Twitter feed is on the front page of his site now. He's got a poll question up there this morning: "If you could have Bryce Harper or Andrew Benintendi for the rest of his career, who would you want?"
Answer aside, I believe that's what's called sticking-it-to-you on Seinfeld.
― clemenza, Monday, 9 July 2018 13:11 (five months ago) Permalink
There's a card of him this year you can also get as a poster.
― timellison, Saturday, 21 July 2018 22:10 (four months ago) Permalink
This is not behind the paywall:
Anyone who's decided he's a useless crank now will have every worst fear confirmed here. Like any crank, he doesn't care.
(One thing that really bugs me is when he complains about people being rude to him. He can be exceptionally rude to some of the "Hey Bill" questioners.)
― clemenza, Saturday, 21 July 2018 22:22 (four months ago) Permalink
I can think of one example specific to my own life where I agree with him 100% (and that I've been complaining about to anyone who'll listen for the past few years): the OSR, or Ontario Student Record. Every kid has a folder that follows him or her around from school to school. They've been around at least since I went to school in the '60s and '70s. Everything goes into the OSR: reports, standardized testing, transfers, anything involving discipline, etc. An average student, the OSR doesn't have a great deal in it; a kid on an IEP, the OSRs are sometimes the size of carry-on luggage.
Every September we have to sign these things in, and in June we sign them out and organize them by next year's classes. A tremendous amount of energy goes into moving them from school to school. The province hangs on to them for a couple of decades once the student is "retired" from the system. They're completely useless--other filing away reports, I might go back and check something about a particular student once or twice a year.
At the very least, they should spend some money to digitize everything. But what they really ought to do is get rid of them altogether.
― clemenza, Saturday, 21 July 2018 22:36 (four months ago) Permalink
― clemenza, Saturday, 21 July 2018 22:37 (four months ago) Permalink
The bigger problem with trying to debate ideas on twitter is that anyone can join in, so discussions run all over the map. A productive discussion pushes toward understanding of an issue. A twitter discussion jumps from one issue to a related issue to a related issue to another, the fourth idea having no relevance at all to the first. Different people pull the discussion in different directions, so no progress is made in any one direction, and the heart of the discussion is almost instantly torn to shreds by the competing efforts to move it in different directions. All discussions on Twitter are drawn and quartered, and then the quarters are drawn and quartered, and then the smithereens are drawn and quartered.
the same diagnosis could apply to discussions on ILX, which i still enjoy and frequently learn a lot from reading, even when the original point is sometimes lost
― Karl Malone, Saturday, 21 July 2018 22:56 (four months ago) Permalink
I definitely wouldn't categorize detours as inherently bad or good; sometimes I enjoy them, sometimes I'm impatient. In my own writing, I veer off into personal anecdote and barely related matters all the time. I mean, that was one of my first attractions to James, as a writer who could do that masterfully--he'd be talking about Steve Sax, then he'd segue into something that happened to him in the army 20 years ago, and eventually he'd make his point and bring everything back to Steve Sax.
I don't read (follow, whatever) Twitter at all, so I can't speak to that.
― clemenza, Saturday, 21 July 2018 23:06 (four months ago) Permalink
haha, yeah well he went on to say that the same problem applies to his website (and to conversations between human beings in general, anywhere, i'd add). i'm interested in trying to get through the rest because it looks like it gets really dark (sample line i skimmed across: "This is not "history"; this is political warfare. Peter Strzok and the semi-attractive woman that he was Strzoking...") but i'm not sure i'm ready to read new yorker length bill james tonight!
― Karl Malone, Saturday, 21 July 2018 23:14 (four months ago) Permalink
the law is basically nothing but old documents ffs. documents from which we are apparently supposed to glean how 18th-century people would feel about machine guns and the internet; documents that establish precedents such that we needn't argue every single incident from first principles.
is he really arguing that brett kavanaugh should be judged on his interview rather than the things he's actually written? i don't care what dumbass ideas bill had in his youth -- if someone is up for a lifetime position that will shape the entire country for decades to come, i'd rather have one of the other 330 million people who *didn't* write dunb shit
i'm not gonna defend twitter or its discourse -- i can totally understand why he or anyone would want to use a different medium -- but nevertheless he remains an utter clown about anything but baseball
― mookieproof, Sunday, 22 July 2018 03:27 (four months ago) Permalink
This Kavanaugh story today should be a good example of why James is wrong--it should disqualify him under the present circumstances.
Of course, it won't matter.
― clemenza, Sunday, 22 July 2018 23:45 (four months ago) Permalink
Sounds like someone is having problems with the IRS.
― Van Horn Street, Monday, 23 July 2018 03:37 (four months ago) Permalink
"Most people--99% of Americans, I would say--feel that we need to find some way to 'come together' as Americans. I don't see it happening, really, and I believe that we are better off admitting that we are no longer one country and dividing peacefully into three or four separate nations; you guys take care of your problems, and we'll take care of ours. But we're not at the point yet of admitting that our marriage has failed and it is time to move on to divorce."
And then you guys can have four presidents, and we can have four simultaneous political threads on ILX.
― clemenza, Friday, 3 August 2018 21:35 (four months ago) Permalink
dividing peacefully into three or four separate nations
i'm sure he has a totally common-sense plan for doing this
― mookieproof, Friday, 3 August 2018 22:00 (four months ago) Permalink
He's a writer; writers do take artistic license. I'm guessing he didn't feel the need to devise a carefully worked-out plan before posting that.
You really do hate him (non-baseball-wise), don't you?
― clemenza, Friday, 3 August 2018 22:03 (four months ago) Permalink
haha not really. i suspect (for no good reason, i guess) that he means well? he just seems to have little sense for politics or history that doesn't involve him projecting his own rather idiosyncratic ideas on everyone else
anyway, fess up -- you absolutely post this stuff to goad me
― mookieproof, Saturday, 4 August 2018 00:14 (four months ago) Permalink
No, not at all, unless there's something subconscious going on there (have you been polite to me over the years? if you have, make that an unqualified "no"). I tend to post things where his idiosyncrasy leads him to some core idea that I agree with, or at least find interesting. Here, it's that that chasm is unbridgeable; I do believe that. Obviously the country's not splitting up any time soon, and I'm sure he's aware of that.
The biggest problem I've had with James lately--I've mentioned it before, and a reader called him out on it the other day--is this blatant disconnect between how aggressively rude he can be to the occasional "Ask Bill" questioner, and how quick he is to complain when he perceives rudeness towards him. But if you were to point this out to him, and try to explain yourself, he'd edit your comments down to a sentence and call you a jackass.
― clemenza, Saturday, 4 August 2018 04:39 (four months ago) Permalink
A recent example of the above--my single biggest issue with James:
Bill, earlier in the year you seemed to have doubt that Shohei Ohtani could be successful both pitching and hitting in the majors. Now that he has almost 300 plate appearances and over 50 innings pitched has your opinion changed on him? Do you think it would be better for him to get Tommy John surgery and both pitch and hit in 2020 or should he just hit in 2019?Asked by: Steve9753
Answered: 9/9/2018I thought events had clearly validated my doubts. Are you not following the news?
I'm assuming James means one of two things (because clearly Ohtani has been successful as both a pitcher and a hitter): that instead of having a very good full-time hitter or full-time pitcher, the Angels have settled for half of both; or, more likely, the injury never happens if he's a position player only.
So all he has to do is say that, instead of responding in a way that suggests the questioner is stupid. And, as I said above, he's forever complaining about perceived rudeness towards him.
― clemenza, Saturday, 22 September 2018 15:54 (two months ago) Permalink
Bill James getting owned by his daughter is one of the best things I’ve ever seen on this site pic.twitter.com/rSv1Q7u4UO— 🎃 Spooky Betts 🎃 (@michaelarria) October 13, 2018
― mookieproof, Tuesday, 16 October 2018 21:22 (one month ago) Permalink
Fess up -- you absolutely post this stuff to goad me.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 16 October 2018 23:24 (one month ago) Permalink
haha, maybe. i don't think you're too invested in his non-baseball opinions, though (or at least i hope)
― mookieproof, Tuesday, 16 October 2018 23:35 (one month ago) Permalink
his current baseball opinions are kinda shit as well
― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 17 October 2018 00:59 (one month ago) Permalink
― mookieproof, Thursday, 8 November 2018 16:37 (one month ago) Permalink
The #RedSox Statement Regarding Bill James’ Recent Remarks: pic.twitter.com/JffB08Hqad— Boston Red Sox (@RedSox) November 8, 2018
― mookieproof, Thursday, 8 November 2018 18:22 (one month ago) Permalink
Billy Beane: "no comment"
― Jersey Al (Albert R. Broccoli), Thursday, 8 November 2018 18:25 (one month ago) Permalink
Bill musta loved that spring training lockout with the replacements
(maybe he was just garbling his admiration for the Stinson brothers)
― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 8 November 2018 18:41 (one month ago) Permalink
BJ needs to stfu before his rep sinks to Goose Gossage level
― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 8 November 2018 18:42 (one month ago) Permalink
I think the idea that vote fraud is negligible is stupid, and the party hurts themselves when they say that. 10-20% of people cheat like crazy in fantasy leagues. It's not credible to suggest that a comparable percentage would not cheat in something that people care so much about— Bill James Online (@billjamesonline) November 7, 2018
― by the light of the burning Citroën, Thursday, 8 November 2018 18:47 (one month ago) Permalink
there's at least one important difference between cheating in fantasy leagues and committing voter fraud, gee, what could it be
james is slowly morphing into scott adams
― Karl Malone, Thursday, 8 November 2018 18:55 (one month ago) Permalink
lol, follow the rest of this thread
Cheating at fantasy football is not a felony and the sad part is many Americans care more about fantasy football than politics.— Scott Harris (@rockthechalk) November 7, 2018
stfu bill james
― Karl Malone, Thursday, 8 November 2018 18:58 (one month ago) Permalink
Is there any such thing as a major league baseball player who is underpaid?— Bill James Online (@billjamesonline) November 8, 2018
― Karl Malone, Thursday, 8 November 2018 19:00 (one month ago) Permalink
brian kenny out here being all 'bill james is a genius who is thinking on a level you don't understand' about a guy who casually interpolates cheating at fantasy football into voter fraud with no evidence
― mookieproof, Thursday, 8 November 2018 19:05 (one month ago) Permalink
he's about 5 or 6 public fartstorms away from getting fired for being a dumbass, at which point he'll portray himself as a victim of the dum-dums and complete his transformation pro blowhard
― Karl Malone, Thursday, 8 November 2018 19:12 (one month ago) Permalink
I think I've removed bookmark from this thread at least a dozen times... why do I keep coming back?
― Jersey Al (Albert R. Broccoli), Thursday, 8 November 2018 19:17 (one month ago) Permalink
ILB’s favourite baseball writer has had a busy day. (Check that--my favorite, ILB’s least favourite.)
I have to read up on the fantasy league/election part of this. I expect the worst.
The idea that all MLB players are replaceable is obviously crazy. Max Scherzer and Jose Altuve and all the way down to the bottom 10 or whatever % of players are not replaceable. Back in the Abstract days, he used to say that MLB treated talent like it was a precious, finite resource, and that some of the time they had players at the Triple-A level who were just as good or better than the Joe Biaginis of the league; I think that was basically the beginning of the replacement-level concept, and that seems defensible. If he’s saying all players are replaceable, then again, crazy.
You can look at the question of players being overpaid in three ways. One, in relation to how much revenue a player generates--the idea of putting a value on every WAR and comparing that to what those wins mean in terms of attendance, merchandising, etc. In that sense, there are overpaid players and underpaid players and players who get just about the right amount.
Or you can start with how hard it is to make it to the majors, the idea that you’re one of the best 1200-1500 baseball players in the country. There are exponentially more doctors and lawyers than baseball players; if you win the lottery, you ought to cash in.
In a general sense, though--how a workaday person views professional athletes--sure, they’re all overpaid, with the exception of journeyman who shuttle back and forth to the minors. I don’t see that as an especially provocative statement. Troy Tulowitzki makes more money in one month than I’ll make in my lifetime. So I don’t have a big problem with that idea.
The biggest problem with James right now is how arrogant he’s become. He was ornery and stubborn when he wrote the Abstracts, but 1) that’s not as annoying when you’re a voice in the wilderness rather than (more or less) a well-paid, establishment guy, and 2) his arrogance has grown a hundred fold since then. And he always excuses this the same way: I was right about how important walks were, and I was right about how overrated stealing and bunting were, and I was right about Bobby Grich and Darrell Evans and the Pythagorean Theorem and just about everything else I proposed 40 years ago, so I’m also right about everything I say now. Very few people realized that then, and very few people realize that now--eventually, everybody will. On top of that, the team that employs him has won four World Series since he signed on--I don’t think that puts much of a rein on this tendency.
I’m actually a little surprised the Red Sox kept him on past his first flirtations with Trump (which mostly amounts with him treating Trump as a legitimate office holder--he insists he didn’t vote for him, and regularly calls him ridiculous; when he says more than that, and readers question him, he gets his back up and sometimes starts digging himself a deeper hole).
― clemenza, Friday, 9 November 2018 00:16 (one month ago) Permalink
He's tweeting a lot today; people get in trouble, they tweet. There's a trace of humility too. I don't want him to start censoring himself (and I don't think he will), but if he reins in some of the rudeness he's sometimes prone to on "Hey Bill," I won't mind at all.
(When Scott Woods started the "Ask Greil" section of his Marcus website, I thought Marcus would be a cinch to be ten times ruder and more impatient than James. Much to my surprise, he's been the complete opposite--even with the occasional rude questioner, he's been gracious.)
― clemenza, Friday, 9 November 2018 01:21 (one month ago) Permalink
would you say that bill james could be easily replaced?
― Karl Malone, Friday, 9 November 2018 01:27 (one month ago) Permalink
major league baseball players are obviously overpaid on a societal scale . . . but it's a $10B/year business. paying the players less means the owners keep more, and for doing what, exactly? now there's a group that's replaceable.
this whole thing arose (i think) from scott boras' comments yesterday about teams tanking/not spending. boras is biased, of course, but i don't think he's wrong.
i don't have the evidence to back this up, but it seems that a team's profit is ever more divorced from its on-field success. there's tv money, profit sharing, parking, free ballparks, whatever. half the teams in any given year aren't even really trying to compete but rather hoping the rewards of shittiness can propel them into an astros situation.
analytics is making this worse! before long, fangraphs is going to tell us that the yankees and red sox are gonna win 95+ games next year, and that the blue jays will win 80 even *with* vlad jr. and everyone will be all like well, might as well keep him in the minors for an extra season of control!
that is a financial incentive to *not* put your best, most entertaining team on the field. imo that, more than infield shifts or long games or pitching changes, is Bad for Baseball. there is no outside force with the authority to make the (anti-trust immune!) teams adhere to a common good; before long we'll have 20 marlins each season and they'll have to expand the playoff field even more just to keep people interested.
anyway, bill james is weird and maybe twitter is . . . an even poorer medium for him than it is for everyone else
― mookieproof, Friday, 9 November 2018 01:29 (one month ago) Permalink
Not at all. Not in the good sense (all the brilliant things he wrote in the Abstracts that shape the way I think), and not in the bad sense, either (his more recent misadventures...he is different).
Another thing I've said before: just my opinion, but I think some of his current orneriness stems from never coming to terms with the acceptance of WAR over Win Shares as the common starting point of sabermetrics today. The old thing about the student parting ways with the teacher.
― clemenza, Friday, 9 November 2018 01:33 (one month ago) Permalink
("Not at all" was in response to your previous post, not the one above.)
― clemenza, Friday, 9 November 2018 01:36 (one month ago) Permalink
Two different posters...I should slow down and read more carefully.
― clemenza, Friday, 9 November 2018 01:37 (one month ago) Permalink
I can definitely believe that he still holds grudges over the failure of Win Shares -- he was convinced that it would revolutionize statistical research and it didn't.
― NoTimeBeforeTime, Friday, 9 November 2018 06:18 (one month ago) Permalink
I bought the big Win Shares book online a few years after it came out. Didn't get very far into it. The explanation of the methodology was pretty heavy going, but the bigger problem was that my copy, which was supposed to be "very good," had pages ready to fall out.
― clemenza, Friday, 9 November 2018 12:33 (one month ago) Permalink
I think one also has to remember that James has been in baseball management for a decade and a half. He’s certainly starting to sound like somebody ready to go to war with the MLBPA, and I think Tony Clark (whose overall job performance is still pretty lousy) was right to issue his rebuke.
― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Friday, 9 November 2018 12:40 (one month ago) Permalink
He was stepping lightly for a day, anyway. He has a Twitter poll up today:
Most Worthy of the Presidential Medal of Freedom
Babe RuthElvis PresleyOrin HatchAntonin Scalia
"Maybe twitter is...an even poorer medium for him than it is for everyone else."
― clemenza, Sunday, 11 November 2018 02:31 (one month ago) Permalink
Bill James is still probably my fave baseball writer by peak value. Like my fave rapper, KRS-One, he passed his prime at least 25 years ago, now says dumb stuff, and i have no reason to believe i'd find the current work of either compelling.
― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 11 November 2018 03:55 (one month ago) Permalink
bill james is a HOF lock by JAWS but needs to retire so he can gain eligibility
― Karl Malone, Sunday, 11 November 2018 03:57 (one month ago) Permalink
bill james is pete rose if he kept going until 1989
― Karl Malone, Sunday, 11 November 2018 03:58 (one month ago) Permalink
bill james productions, statistical minded
― mookieproof, Sunday, 11 November 2018 04:02 (one month ago) Permalink
The Modern Game committee voted Harold Baines and Lee Smith into the HOF this weekend. Is it possible the Russians hacked THIS election, too?Asked by: ajmilner
Answered: 12/11/2018The Russians were exhausted from getting Vladimir elected last year.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 12 December 2018 00:47 (two days ago) Permalink