You guys at least have skills teams seek. I doubt they are interested in my expertise in Evar Swanson, Tacks Latimer and other little known players.

OK, let's make it simpler then.

If every team and every media outlet started the worship of sabermetrics, would you agree that would result in sabermetricians being more highly sought-after and better paid than they currently are?

So, every single time I mention something that sabermetrics does well or advocate a viewpoint that favors sabermetrics over a subjective measure, am I required to include a disclaimer stating that I would personally gain from an increase in use of sabermetrics?

The answers are “Yes, of course” and “No, of course not”.

But that’s also a FALSE analogy, for two reasons: 1. In your hypo, the increased market for sabermetrics is not a by-product of something you suggested/espoused/proposed.

Thus, there is no real cause and effect to whatever you write.

2. Sabermetrics is a way of looking at baseball. The draft is a part of the business/infrastructure of baseball.

They are different animals (apples and oranges).

Mr. Law did not state or imply anything that would lead one to believe that sabermetric practitioners of prospect evaluations would benefit from his suggestions/proposals.

(and surely you will agree with me that the sabermetric evaluation of prospects is just one way of evaluating prospects, and it’s really not a good way of evaluating HS prospects.)

I worked on the draft too (that was my primary job) and without commenting on anything too difficult, it's abundantly clear there are far too many rounds in the draft. I have no idea what the mechanism is supposed to be that makes the 25th round of the draft useful, but whatever it is it doesn't work.

As far as I'm concerned, if you're not drafted in the first 12 rounds or so, signing everybody else as undrafted free agents wouldn't cause much in the way of problems. Any player likely to spark a bidding war was going to get taken before then anyway.

The draft is a single, specific event that can be packaged and marketed through preview content, through the broadcast of the first round, and through analysis after the fact. Eliminating the draft removes the potential for revenue from this event. I think there's a reasonable argument that in fact total free agency would hurt my career by removing this one, clear, revenue-producing event from which I derive part of my income.

JRVJ, for the last time: my point of view on amateur players and the draft is not, in any way, colored or influenced by my earnings potential. As for whether I'd be aware of it if I had Jayson Stark's job, I worked in a front office and was heavily involved in the draft. I know full well how the draft works and how it screws amateur players.


I don't believe it, and I think you're being dishonest about it.


I'm being honest about everything, and you are completely out of line in accusing me of lying without a single iota of evidence but your own cracked beliefs.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't make sense:

1. Eliminating the draft as a single event may decrease the revenue generating value of that event, but I don't buy the argument that the revenues related to following prospects would decrease, because the media would need even more people following-up on these prospects.

2. I did not say that your view on amateur players is colored or influenced by your earnings potential (I did say that your point of view on the draft has to be shaped / influenced by what you do for a living).

You can confirm this in any of my posts. Just so we’re clear, my posts are number 62, 75, 78, 79, 83, 86, 88, 92, 94 and 102.

3. As to the Jayson Stark reference, I meant if you had no background in the issue of the draft and young ballplayers (I mentioned Mr. Stark because my understanding is that he comes from a newspaper beat background).

Perhaps I should have been clearer on this, but the point remains.

4. As to your final Jeremiad about being honest about everything, I don't believe you because there is no way I can believe someone who says that his point of view on a matter related to his work is not influenced by that work.

But you know what? You admitted my point without realizing it, when you wrote "I worked in a front office and was heavily involved in the draft. I know full well how the draft works and how it screws amateur players."

That's a clear admission that your point of view is shaped by your work, in this case past work.

What I really don't get is why you're defensive about this.

What is wrong about your point of view being influenced by your work?

Instead you chose to get defensive.....

What possible harm would a disclaimer do?

To bring this back to baseball (sorry, guys), I finally read the chat and I was wondering if I could get some clarification on something the Keith said:

also wasn’t on Jed Lowrie because he had one of the worst metal-bat swings I’ve seen to this very day, and was rough defensively at second. It’s probably the biggest delta I’ve seen in a college player between his amateur swing and pro-ball swing, and of course the Red Sox have done great work getting him to play an average shortstop. He hasn’t had success yet in the majors, but he will.


Is there a difference between a metal-bat swing and a wooden-bat one? I was looking at this study, which is a few years old:

In addition, the study confirmed the notion of a “sweet spot” associated with maximum ball speeds – those within the top 20 percent of the fastest hits from each bat model. The sweet spot was located approximately the same distance from the tip of wooden bats as it was from the tip of metal bats, according to Crisco.

Researchers concluded the metal bats produced faster batted ball speeds in part due to faster swing speeds, and, in part, to greater elastic properties found in nearly all of the metal bat models. In general, the lighter bats were swung faster and were associated with faster batted ball speeds.




I'm no physicist or biomechanic, but I'm guessing that this means a metal-bat user can get away with a slower swing.

What is wrong about your point of view being influenced by your work?

This isn't what you've said, and there is no way you don't realize this. You said that my point of view on the draft - reflected in my articles, chats, and this Q&A;- was influenced by the possibility of personal gain. You're accusing me of unethical behavior. It's borderline libel.

My "point of view" is influenced by my work because my point of view is my work. I offer opinions for a living. My point of view is not in any way affected by my earnings or career potential.

Please point out where I wrote that your "point of view on the draft... was influenced by the possibility of personal gain". Again, my posts are 62, 75, 78, 79, 83, 86, 88, 92, 94 and 102.

If you can point that out, I will apologize right here.

If you can't point it out, I would hope for an apology.

Please point out where I wrote that your "point of view on the draft... was influenced by the possibility of personal gain".

"DISCLAIMER: It stands to reason that any changes to MLB's draft procedures along the lines of what I propose will increase the professional demand of draft/prospect experts".

Why would there be a need for a disclaimer?

Do you know why people write disclaimers?

to protect themselves from nit-pickers?

You know, if KLaw's proposals came to pass, writers who follow young prospects would become more valuable and may themselves get fatter paycheck

Now, I'm not saying that's KLaw's rationale, but surely his being close to/an expert on young prospects shapes his POV, doesn't it?

Dude, this was your first post (62):

(1) If KLaw's proposals came to pass, writers who follow prospects would get a fatter paycheck and be more valuable
(2) KLaw is this kind of a writer (not said directly in this post, but surely implied and obvious from the rest of the thread)
(3) His being this kind of a writer surely shapes his POV, doesn't it?

The implication is crystal clear that you want (3) to follow from (1)+(2). And adding the "disclaimer" that you're not saying this is his rationale doesn't really do much to undo the bell that you're ringing.

After all, I'm not saying that JRVJ is a child molester, but I've read that lots of child molesters on the internet tend to use all caps nicknames when they post to message boards. (I'm not saying that of course, just putting it out there. You can draw your own conclusions based on this thing that I'm totally not saying.)

I still maintain that JRVJ is joking. Good one, man.

I mean, seriously, the ridiculousness doesn't come so much from that it's impossible that Keith might be interested in benefiting himself (though I'm not suggesting he would be), but that you're assuming he thinks that his opinion actually affects what baseball decides about the draft. Keith couldn't even get into the BBWAA, but by answering a question (that btw agrees completely with every other economic opinion I've seen him espouse) on a blog I've never heard of and probably no one with any power to directly affect the situation will ever read, he's supposed to think he can effect a major change in draft philosophy? Come on, man. Please. Keith is a man with a long history of extreme and loud opinions that we are all almost always interested in hearing, even if sometimes they are overly caustic. It's just KeithBKeith.

delta,

cmon, you CLEARLY said more than once that keith would financially gain because he is one of the people who follows prospects.

MORE than once

which is why you insist that he has a disclaimer

definition - "a statement, document, or assertion that disclaims responsibility, affiliation, etc.; disavowal; denial."

you want him to disavow or deny that he has any of his OWN financial motives for wanting the draft changed. why should he FIRST have to deny this? it is pretty insulting.

and by the way, i agree with everything keith wrote about how top prospects get screwed out of $$$ and if i had written this exact same thing would you be insisting that i deny i have got a financial motive?

Better not mess with the KLAW.

Mr. Man,

To forestall nit-picks. Writing a disclaimer is not an admission of guilt or a signal of doing anything wrong

Eamus,

(1) Is absolutely right, and I would think its not even up for discussion anymore.

(3) Is absolutely false, as is your masturbatory subsequent fantasy.

(2) Is the crux of the matter. You are inferring that by my stating (1), (2) follows.

I did not state that, but I did say (in my repeated suggestions/requests for a disclaimer) that to avoid the appearance of (2) you need a disclaimer.

If Mr. Law et. al. want to see this as borderline libel, be my guest (you can argue that my line of reasoning is impolite, but libelous? Nope).

Elston,

You do raise a good point - Mr. Law's comments may never be read by people who are in position to do somthing about it.

But you know what? As opposed to Baseball Chick, Mr. Law works at ESPN, and will have the opportunity to espouse many different positions about many different things under the sun, with an impact and readership assymetrical to a lone blogger in his basement.

So while you may be right, it's not as cut-and-dry as you suggest.

Baseball Chick,

If you read my comments to Eamus above, you'll see my reply to your line of reasoning. However, there's a logical flaw in this statement:

you want him to disavow or deny that he has any of his OWN financial motives for wanting the draft changed. why should he FIRST have to deny this?

I am not asking him to disavow or deny that he has any of his OWN financial motives for wanting the draft changed. I am asking him to put up a disclaimer so as to avoid any further speculation on the matter (check the reply to Eamus - if you accept (a), then a disclaimer is the prudent course of action).

As to your final question, notwithstanding the fact that I think Law is dead wrong in his not mentioning MLBPA's role in why the draft is how it is, I was unaware that you worked at ESPN or a similar gateway. Unless you do, and have an impact fairly equal to Mr. Law, I would have almost certainly give you a pass.

It was pointed out to me by someone in an e-mail prior to my final post that what I am calling a disclaimer is probably what is more usually understood as full disclosure.

After reading up on both definitions, I have to admit that a full disclosure note from Mr. Law is more along the lines of what I was trying to convey.

My apologies to all (including Mr. Law) for the confusion, and I sincerely ask that if you re-read my posts, you read "full disclosure notice" instead of "disclaimer".

So Keith Law should include a disclaimer to off the cuff comments he makes in an internet chat? It is not like he is a financial reporter, talking on the nightly news. And frankly, the attacks on Keith Law in this thread have been unprovoked and rude.

Good Lord, this is a train wreck. I vote we talk about wood bats vs. metal bats, and not about the integrity of Keith Law. At this point, this appears to be everyone vs. Delta Socrates; and he seems so dug in that no amount of arguing will convince him to yield. Everyone could let it rest, as I am pretty sure that almost no one reading this will feel that Keith Law has not been adequately and effectively defended. Further piling on buries what was a pretty good thread for the first 80 or so posts.

Or maybe that is just the wine talking...

I did not state that, but I did say (in my repeated suggestions/requests for a disclaimer) that to avoid the appearance of (2) you need a disclaimer.

So you are saying that you think there is an appearance?

That you think there could be an appearance?

Someone else might think there is an appearance but you do not think there is one?

Delta should offer a disclaimer for his comments on this thread. Drunkenness, temporary insanity, recent head injury, etc.

I offer a disclaimer for the photo link above -- I linked to the wrong Klaw photo.

The KLAW

The idea of "objectivity" where people are supposed to speak about matters in which they have a stake as if they have no stake in those matters is an impoverished idea.

Human beings have opinions which are BOTH sincerely held and affected by their occupation, social positions, etc. To say this is simply to say they are human beings.

The reason Delta can't be vanquished in this argument is that he's right in a sense, but a trivial sense: Keith Law lacks a purity which NOBODY ACTUALLY HAS.

I think I liked the first picture better. No, wait, I know I liked the first picture better. I don't look like that any more, though.

Metal bats are yet another reason MLB should stop protecting college baseball. I understand that the three-year rule limits players' leverage to say they'll go to college instead of signing, and that's most likely why MLB has the rule on the books, but in addition to being an unfair restraint on the labor market for players, it's counterproductive in a few ways. One, in theory, MLB teams have more incentive to properly develop players for the long term than college coaches. (I think this bears out in practice, and would point to the still-high pitch counts we see in college ball as circumstantial evidence.) Two, MLB might actually save money on some players - Buster Posey would have cost significantly less (and been available to all teams, since he wasn't going in the first round) had he been part of the 2007 draft, and it's possible he would have signed for $500K or $1 million.

Yeah, but what about metal bat speed?

Thank you for returning this to something worthwhile. It would be nice to see standardized equipment across levels and within sports. Do females still use a different basketball? Certainly, females should play baseball.

I'm not really interested in reading about how Keith Law being a great parent makes him biased toward kids or sending some occasional mail out makes him biased towards mail carriers.

I guess the only people who have a right to comment on anything without 1000s of disclaimers are people who ferociously avoid any and all life experience and then go nuts on people on the internet. How Conveeeeeeeeeeeeient, indeed.

Did GGC double-post upon noticing that his first one was the last on a page?

I think that's a logical thing to do.

The world needs fewer internet disclosures not more. The sidetrack on this thread might have been the dumbest sidetrack in the history of BTF.

What is a metal bat swing as opposed to a wooden bat one?

I have to question the ethics of your move openly - I'm against the intentional double-post for audience reasons.

Dude, I know that I sometimes just scan over the last post of a page. I figured it get more prominent viewing if I just reposted it on the top of the next page. Perhaps I should have just went "Flip!" in post 100. However, looking back on that post after a day or two of reflection, it wasn't really doublepostworthy.

I'm with Keith on this. The MLB draft is one of the most convoluted, awkward, archaic things in sport.

Just do what the NBA does. Everybody who is an amateur and not a college player is eligible for it and it could be limited to 10 rounds or therabouts.