Bill McNeal wrote:At the game last night they had an ask the phillies feature on the video board between innings, maybe they did it last year, but I don't recall it. They ask all the guys the same question and play all their answers back, last nights question was who on the team would you not want to go on a a long car trip with. Pretty much every ones answer was victorino. When they got to Vic he just shook his head and asked if everyone else said him.

Kendrick was the second most popular pick, I think it was CLIFF LEE who picked victorino AND Kendrick. The rationale behind Kendrick was because you never know what hes going to say, but you get the impression that everyone just fucking hates Kendrick. I wish I remembered all the answers, it was pretty funny, I hope they keep it up all season, it would be cool if they out it online somewhere.

FTN wrote:whoever made the original comment about "wanting to root for a team good at cheap roster construction" was dead #$!&@ on the money. these guys are soooo concerned with what fangraphs thinks of every move we make, or what the fangraphs monopoly money value of player x's performance was last year, relative to what it might be this year.

my big issue is that people really misuse a lot of the data out there to create faulty, incomplete arguments and then say "but the numbers back me up!!!"

which is why i miss nate silver so much. he understood all the numbers. but he could also synthesize a piece of analysis, and he wrote it in a way that asked just as many questions as it answered. people like dave cameron bastardize Bill James, because they want to be him, but they don't realize his style of writing and analysis is nothing like what they do.

its so easy now to be smarmy and assume you are so much smarter than a typical MLB front office. there are some things I wish the Phillies did a bit better. but their scouting department is second to none. and there are things a scout can see that don't show up in a box score. the numbers matter. the stats matter. but baseball players aren't drones. guys develop at different speeds. some guys piss away their talent because of off the field stuff. and that stuff matters. which is what these guys don't understand. because you can't physically touch something or assign it a value doesn't mean it doesn't have a value. phdave went over this a while back.

if you don't think a player's personal life can impact his on field performance, and that he just might not discuss it, then you're probably a deadeyed drone. everyone's personal life impacts every other area of their life. this #$!&@ happens to everyone.

all of the numbers and "evidence" in the world does you no good if you don't know how to synthesize it and bring it to life. these jerkoffs at fangraphs are creating a whole legion of lemmings who can't think for themselves and stop at the end of the statistical line before figuring out how to apply the numbers and factor in other things that matter. the smugness is too much. its still a #$!&@ game. its still a lot of fun to watch. the best team doesn't always win. the best value signing at the time doesn't always end up the best value signing at the end of the season. its a game of gambles, risks, and unpredictability. no matter how hard you try, you'll never figure it out completely. and thank #$!&@ christ for that, because what fun would it be if we had it all figured out?

Bill McNeal wrote:Crashburn shows up with his gas can. This should be fun.

CrashburnAlley wrote:

Bill McNeal wrote:Crashburn shows up with his gas can. This should be fun.

Just for Floppy. He likes to play the role of Mr. Medium.

CalvinBall wrote:You actually are okay with that terrible article being posted on your site?

FTN wrote:

CrashburnAlley wrote:

Bill McNeal wrote:Crashburn shows up with his gas can. This should be fun.

Just for Floppy. He likes to play the role of Mr. Medium.

remember when you were anti-numbers/sabermetrics?

those were fun times.

joe table wrote:I mean the Bauman piece deserved every bit of derision it got on this site. You know well it was complete #$!&@. It was laughably overdramatic and woefully unsupported by any semblance of solid premises, at least within the text of that piece; if the premises exist elsewhere, I don't really have to urge to try to piece together the logic of his ravings from some other output.

I expect you to support it because that's your site, and like you said sometimes there's pressure for fresh content to stimulate page views and pay bills. I don't begrudge that at all, but I also don't think you should be surprised or dismayed (whether or not you are, I'm not assuming you are) by the reaction that piece got here, or the reaction to the podcast that discussed it

CrashburnAlley wrote:On a larger note, I find it absolutely hilarious how, within hours of each other, people are posting about how god damn pessimistic we are, but then saying the exact same thing three posts later. This is why message boards are the dregs of sports discussion, almost as low as talk radio.