My day was made when I found out that Chronicle writer Jon Carroll visits firejoemorgan.com

Really, the guys at FJM are fighting a war that's already been won. Guys like Jim Armstrong are just the last remnants of a rearguard action.

"In the end, the question is whether their numbers add to the enjoyment of the game. And the answer is no."

"Shut up. Seriously, man, shut the #### up. This is like saying, 'I don't like action movies, so no one can ever enjoy action movies because action movies are terrible.'"

Isn't this the basic theme of every single article on FJM? I just don't get the point of seeking out anti-statistics articles, only to make the same point repetitively.

Jim Armstrong doesn't like statistics: he should avoid them. FJM doesn't like Armstrong: they should avoid him.

President Bush, your basic baseball junkie, needs to swing into action in the best interests of the country. He needs to have his Homeland Security Nazis break into these people’s homes and take a Louisville Slugger to their computers.

Supposedly Jim Armstrong wrote this in his article.
huh?! I just lost track of who he is ripping here.

I just clicked straight through to the Armstrong article, but it is about the worst anti-stats article I've ever read. He piles on cliches, lists a few stats and then endorses government sponsored property damaged because stats bother him so much. He never gives a single reason why stats bother him, although I think it does have to do with the acronyms since he doesn't know what the stats are.

Gotta admit ... that post was classic.

I like stats--I'm not real good at it but it's part of the fun of the game.

To me, anything baseball is good. If it's baseball-related is focks the hucking rouse.

I may never fully comprehend some of the more advanced metrics but in discussing them--does it mean we gotta talk baseball?

I'M THERE!!!!!!

I mean, Jesus Huckleberry Alou there are 1000 ways to make chicken wings and all (or most) of them are awesome--got a new recipe? Let's try it fergawshsakes if it means we're eating chicken wings.

We've got a different way to talk baseball? Let's do it then.

It's. Baseball. Dude.

Best Regards

John

Wait, are we sure the article isn't a parody? Because it deploys SO MANY of the timeworn cliches ("sucking the fun out of the game" "nerds in their mothers' basements," etc.) so quickly in succession that my first reaction is to think it's merely trollbait.

If it's serious, then of course it's pointless to comment. (And I might note that as bad as a sincere Armstrong is, the guys running FJM are hardly much better.) If it's just a dopey mock pastiche of anti-stat arguments...well then it's also pretty pointless.

Isn't this the basic theme of every single article on FJM? I just don't get the point of seeking out anti-statistics articles, only to make the same point repetitively.

Because it's fun? And funny? I think so.

Really, the guys at FJM are fighting a war that's already been won.

Wow. I've been a baseball fan for a long time, and I had no idea there was a war going on. Who was fighting? And what constituted a "win?"

Wow. I've been a baseball fan for a long time, and I had no idea there was a war going on. Who was fighting? And what constituted a "win?"

The decapitation of all our enemies.

Wow. I've been a baseball fan for a long time, and I had no idea there was a war going on. Who was fighting? And what constituted a "win?"

The decapitation of all our enemies.

Take it to the Hunter Pence thread.

He never gives a single reason why stats bother him

Something I think gets overlooked here a lot: the logical and numeracy skills of the average Primate are very good. I'd back the aggregate math SAT scores of this group against that of most large groups of the population at large. But you guys have forgotten about all the dopey kids you knew in high school. The ones to whom algebra was a complete mystery. The ones who could never identify a logical fallacy. All those C students who have been chafing at the bit to get their revenge on you smart kids.

Well, surprise. Some of them grew up to be sportswriters. And the ones who didn't, buy newspapers to read those sportswriters.

Is there decapitation in WoW? I thought that was one of the appeals of Age of Conan?

And, yes, I know that was a joke, but I am kinda curious.

My resident WoW experts inform me there is no decapitation. "The best you can do is a whirlwind attack."

"Isn't this the basic theme of every single article on FJM? I just don't get the point of seeking out anti-statistics articles, only to make the same point repetitively."

"Because it's fun? And funny? I think so."

I initially thought that the website was funny, but eventually it becomes repetitive and pretentious. The site is now like an MIT student who continuously rips on autistic kids for being bad at math.

Is there decapitation in WoW? I thought that was one of the appeals of Age of Conan?

There's no decapitation. However, there are two decapitators anyway.

"Something I think gets overlooked here a lot: the logical and numeracy skills of the average Primate are very good. I'd back the aggregate math SAT scores of this group against that of most large groups of the population at large. But you guys have forgotten about all the dopey kids you knew in high school. The ones to whom algebra was a complete mystery. The ones who could never identify a logical fallacy. All those C students who have been chafing at the bit to get their revenge on you smart kids. Well, surprise. Some of them grew up to be sportswriters."

Actually, many of them are the kids who were very good at English instead of math, whereas good writing to some stats fans is a complete mystery. They excelled in school at math instead.

Not everyone who is different has to be inferior.

All that said, the ignorance of modern Sabrmetrics is irritating for sure.
But tossing out stereotypes isn't exactly enlightened thinking, either.

Actually, many of them are the kids who were very good at English instead of math, whereas good writing to some stats fans is a complete mystery. They excelled in school at math instead.

In my experience the correlation between language skills and math skills is pretty high. And please don't waste your time and effort trying to convince me that Bill Plaschke or Mike Lupica or Bill Conlin have dialectical or rhetorical skills above the 5th percentile of Primates.

The best explanation for this article is that Jim Armstrong at AOL gets paid by the page-view and is intentionally trolling. Seriously. Many blog sites (e.g. Gawker, Wonkette, Gizmodo, etc.) use a page-view based pay system, and it wouldn't surprise me if AOL does, as well.

A link from FJM is probably the best outcome for Mr. Armstrong.

I agree with pyrite, but I'm happy he did it anyway. That was one of the very finest pieces in FJM's illustrious history.

Since March of 2003. You didn't hear? You need a math/science/engineering degree from Harvard, Cal Tech, Harvey Mudd, MIT, or University of Mumbai. Or a Philosophy degree from Pittsburgh.

Whoohoo! My bill finally passed! All you other guys -- off the Internet!

Wow. I've been a baseball fan for a long time, and I had no idea there was a war going on. Who was fighting? And what constituted a "win?"

The decapitation of all our enemies.

Quantifying victory purely by result is an outdated form of analysis. We're winning as long as we inflict more third order decapitations than they do. That way you factor out the luck and boil it down to mathmatically verifiable skill.

He seems to almost be arguing against the principle of any statistics at all, not just new ones. How does he even really know his team is doing well?

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I feel like sportswriters who hate on sabregeeks are so fiercely hateful and hypocritical in the very basis of their argument that I'm starting to feel like it's bordering on sociopathy.

Quantifying victory purely by result is an outdated form of analysis. We're winning as long as we inflict more third order decapitations than they do. That way you factor out the luck and boil it down to mathmatically verifiable skill.

Win.

At first, I thought Fire Joe Morgan was a good site, because the writers there took on a Hall of Famer who obviously has his shortcomings as an analyst. But as pointed out in earlier posts, they have become awfully repetitive, experts at shooting fish in a barrel.

Given the writing talent there--aren't there one or two guys who write for The Office, one of the funniest shows around--it would be nice to see them come up with some "original" articles of their own. They would be far more entertaining if they actually created articles from their own viewpoint from time to time, rather than just their typical "react and pick apart" commentaries.

The talent is certainly there. It's time to graduate from these one-trick-pony commentaries and start doing something a little more challenging.

The whole point of FJM, though, is precisely to shoot fish in a barrel. There are a lot of fish in this particular barrel. Their reason for existence is to call bad journalism out on the carpet. Yes, it does get repetitive--the article in question on this thread was the best I've read from them in a long time, though, let me repeat--but the world needs Bad Journalism Police, and you can find many worse guys to do the job, in my opinion. I don't load up FJM on a daily basis the way I did two years ago--more like once every 10 days or so now--but I hope they keep it up for a long while to come.

They have no aspiration to try anything more challenging; obviously they have a day job that's plenty rewarding and pays plenty well. Away from their day jobs, they're just guys that pick apart bad journalism to blow off steam

Quantifying victory purely by result is an outdated form of analysis. We're winning as long as we inflict more third order decapitations than they do. That way you factor out the luck and boil it down to mathmatically verifiable skill.

Dammit, you stats geeks are taking all the fun and romance out of war!

I agree with pyrite, but I'm happy he did it anyway. That was one of the very finest pieces in FJM's illustrious history.

I concur, I actually found it to be quite entertaining and above their usual fare, where they search for the minutest comment to blow it into a big deal, here it was pretty easy to find the comments to make a big deal out of so they could concentrate more on criticing.