You're missing a big piece of the story. He resigned to go write for espn.com.

Here's the link.

He resigned to go write for espn.com.

Unfortunato...it will be mostly ESPN Insider biz.

What's the real dirt behind this? Anybody know? I only ask because just about everything I ever read by Law on BP exuded this "I'm Keith Law, and you're not" air, which is probably a lot better suited for ESPN than with a real life baseball job.

Plus, he welched on a bet he made with me about the Orioles' attendance going up in 2002, and he still owes me a copy of the latest BP annual, the rat....

If the money's good and you can see that your current organization is going to continue to just tread water in the marketplace might as well jump ship. 'Cause if J.P. goes then his right-hand man gets the axe as well.

What's the real dirt behind this? Anybody know?

He's going to ESPN as a senior baseball writer, covering all levels of baseball. He'll be writing for ESPN.com and ESPN deportes, as well as doing some radio and TV.

Could be a family thing too. This way he gets to move back to the States full time, and probably has a more flexible schedule to be with his kids (if he has any).

Special Assistant General Manager.

Special Assistant to the General Manager.

Could be a family thing too.

[in Ali G voice] Maybe he didn't speak Canada?

So how did the Law Regime fare? Can he be split from JP Ricciardi in examing his progress? If so, on what criteria.

It would seem that Law's stated duties would not cover success and failures in the draft. It would not seem that it would cover promotions/demotions, but that is possible.

It looks like acquisition from other means Maj.L. and Min.L. free agents and trades would be subject to examination.

Plus, he welched on a bet

Actually, I'm pretty sure it's "Welshed on a bet", not welched. It's an ethnic slur, like saying you got gyped. Although, come to think of it, I welshed on a bet with Matt Welch last year, so either one's probably acceptable.

It's an ethnic slur, like saying you got gyped.

I once came up with a sentence that could offend six different nationalities or ethnicities at once: "That Indian giver got my Irish up by Gypping me and Welshing on our Dutch treat, and he got away Scot-free." The English have been particularly adept at insulting their nearest neighbours through language.

Plus, he welched on a bet

Actually, I'm pretty sure it's "Welshed on a bet", not welched. It's an ethnic slur, like saying you got gyped.

Probably my subconscious PC tendencies, which I'm always trying to suppress, not always successfully. I think also that I've always pronounced it as if it were a "c."

So how did the Law Regime fare? Can he be split from JP Ricciardi in examing his progress? If so, on what criteria.

I haven't seen anything from the Toronto F.O. to suggest that you can split his work from theirs. (Not saying that he didn't have specific responsibilities, just that I don't know what we'll ever really know what they were).

The only comment I remember JP making about him is that he (Law) was always trying to convince JP and the rest of the F.O. to use fielding stats, but they preferred to use scouting to assess fielding.

I didn't read alot of BP back in the day, but what did Law write about there? I have a vague sense that he did some of the business writing along with baseball evaluation stuff.

It would seem that Law's stated duties would not cover success and failures in the draft.

I'm pretty sure that Keith was helping actively with the drafts, I recall him telling a friend who interviewed him for a high school project that he was working on the draft at the time.

I didn't read alot of BP back in the day, but what did Law write about there? I have a vague sense that he did some of the business writing along with baseball evaluation stuff.

He wrote the Imbalance Sheet, and he was also their fantasy baseball writer for a while. He also wrote fantasy stuff for ESPN, which I'm pretty sure how I got to BP in the first place.

I wonder if this is why Keith made an appearance here over the weekend. Lots of free time!

I didn't read alot of BP back in the day, but what did Law write about there? I have a vague sense that he did some of the business writing along with baseball evaluation stuff.

I thought that that was Jonah Keri. He daylights at Investor's Business Daily. Which I thought was odd, because it seems to be more technical analysis oriented than most other biz publications.

I wonder if this is why Keith made an appearance here over the weekend. Lots of free time!

If he is writing for ESPN, being here is column ideas, and according to their editors, they don't even have to attribute what they take verbatim.

Maybe it was Buck Canyon's antics that made Keith split...

I know...I'd move as far away as possible.

...according to their editors, they don't even have to attribute what they take verbatim...

Really? Even if we all start inserting little (c) symbols* in our posts? What if Jim decided to add something to the TOS about an implied assignment of copyright?

[* I'm sure someone will tell me how to code the copyright symbol any second now.]

Link. Not much more than we already know, though.

Really? Even if we all start inserting little (c) symbols* in our posts? What if Jim decided to add something to the TOS about an implied assignment of copyright?


I've never seen anyone perform a taking that would rise to the level of a copyright violation. What I have seen is facts taken verbatim, and ideas taken verbatim, with no attribution.

Neither of those would rise to copyright infringement, but they do present a question of journalistic ethics, including the subject of plagiarism.

We had a long thread on this with mixed results among the audience. Two journalists posted, Schoenfeld and Bootsy, who both thought it was fair game. I was going to do a mass email poll, and I admit, I was negligent. I got around to asking two journalistic professors and got the standard "depends", but also an indication that "it does not sound like something we would do without attribution."

I thought that MLB had taken quotes from here verbatim and used them to sell MLBTV, but I didn't know that anything had been stolen for ESPN articles or the like.

Re: Keith Law. It's seemed to me for a while, from the odd comment I've seen in the Toronto Star, that Law doesn't seem to have a lot of traction with the Jays front office. Regardless of what you think about the Jays moves the past few years, the general reaction here was that they weren't great moves. Considering that a lot of people here approach things from a similar angle as the BPro guys (and presumably Law), it wouldn't surprise me if he just got tired of it. I emailed some of the choice comments from the Schoeneweis signing thread here to a friend (early 2005) and looking back, there was a lot of speculation then that he simply didn't fit the organization.

BL:

"Mass email poll"?

Awww, you know about the validity of those electronic polls.................

Couldn't resist.

I've never seen anyone perform a taking that would rise to the level of a copyright violation. What I have seen is facts taken verbatim, and ideas taken verbatim, with no attribution.

Neither of those would rise to copyright infringement, but they do present a question of journalistic ethics, including the subject of plagiarism.

I don't know the specific instances to which you're referring, so I'm not going to comment on them. In general, I'd say the level of attribution should depend on how much original thought or effort went into producing the facts or ideas that were used. If someone looked up some basic stats on bb-ref or Retrosheet, I don't think that specific attribution is necessary once those facts have been confirmed, unless it required the specific recollection of the person to know where to find the stats in the first place.

It happens somewhat often that someone here makes an observation about the White Sox that I mention on my blog. I write it in such a way that the reader knows the idea/observation didn't originate with me. I link back to the thread (often a Game Chatter) if the idea/observation/thread was what generated the blog item in the first place. But if I was thinking along the same lines while watching the game and someone made an observation that furthered my thought in the same direction in Game Chatter, then I usually just write something along the lines of, "I didn't like X move that Ozzie Guillén made, and, further, as someone mentioned to me online...."

I don't know the specific instances to which you're referring

I don't want to "rehash"

In this instance and IIRC, there was an initial observation by Soft Johnny that was rather unique. That observation made it into a Simmons column. Simmons even originally acknwledged he received the idea from an assistant editor. IOW, Simmons did attribute to the same level that you would have attributed.

That was discussed, and Schoenfeld actually admitted in the thread, that we was the assistant editor, he did get the idea and the stats from SJohnny, he validated the stats independently and he didn't attribute it, "because he didn't have too."

That created a pretty long thread.

The long thread which Backlasher mentioned is here.

If he is writing for ESPN, being here is column ideas, and according to their editors, they don't even have to attribute what they take verbatim.

Well played my friend, well played

The long thread which Backlasher mentioned is here.

I sort of remember that thread now. I don't recall if I posted in it or not. I have to check now.

I only ask because just about everything I ever read by Law on BP exuded this "I'm Keith Law, and you're not" air

I never got that. I've exchanged emails with Keith now and then, and he seems like a decent guy. I wish him the best on ESPN, though I'll never read it if its insider.

Nothing against people who want to charge for their internet content, but there's just too much stuff available for free, and if I read any more I probably couldn't keep my job.

So how did the Law Regime fare? Can he be split from JP Ricciardi in examing his progress?

I don't think so, unless you have detailed inside knowledge of the Blue Jay front office. From where I sit, I can only judge Ricciardi. If his assistants are brilliant, Ricciardi gets credit for bringing in geniuses. If they screw up, he gets blamed for hiring dolts.

I'd place JP squarely in the middle of major league GM's. He inherited a 3rd place team, and he's consistently put up 3rd place teams. He reduced payroll, and kept the team in third, then he increased payroll, and maintained 3rd place.

In his division, 3rd place is tough to avoid, as the Yankees and Red Sox are really rich and the O's and D-Rays are really crappy. So he's done what he should be expected to do. No more, no less.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it's "Welshed on a bet", not welched. It's an ethnic slur, like saying you got gyped. Although, come to think of it, I welshed on a bet with Matt Welch last year, so either one's probably acceptable.

It's Welched. Which is still an ethnic slur, but as one of Primer's few people of Welsh descent, it's pretty much on the level of Notre Dame's Fighting Irish, which is "So?".

That's one thread I hoped never to see again.

I never got that. I've exchanged emails with Keith now and then, and he seems like a decent guy.

Same experience here.

I too exchanged emails with Keith once or twice, and he seemed like a really nice guy.

I've never had the least bit of a problem with Keith and he goes well back into the usenet days.

Go back to Cadwygan, you coc oen!

The most shocking thing about that old thread is BL's use of (a form of) my name.

That Indian giver got my Irish up by Gypping me and Welshing on our Dutch treat, and he got away Scot-free."

While leaving you with the French disease?

I too exchanged emails with Keith once or twice, and he seemed like a really nice guy.

Man, I feel so worthless. I always thought I was the only one.

From what I know of Keith, I'm guessing that what happened was that he wanted the Jays to pick up a hot young prospect out of Free Country USA called Homestar Runner. When JP refused, undoubtedly discouraged by the prospect's lack of visible arms, that was the last straw.

I don't want to "rehash"

Really? Could've fooled me the way you're always bringing it up.

Really? Could've fooled me

Fooling you is not a hard thing to do.

So, I take it then that you all believe these virtual interactions with someone you never actually met and have no idea what they are actually like reveals something about their character, background and work habits.

And your point would be....? These comments were in response to Andy's perception of work on BP. Pretty much everyone who responded said that he doesn't come across that way in personal communications. Seeing as how none of us are hiring him, nor are we listed as references on his job applications, our opinions of his character, background, and work habits are meaningless.

Why you don't just come out and tell us what you're getting at, kevin. Stop beating around the bush. So far, from your two posts on the subject, you appear to harbor some anti-Law bias. Tell us, what interactions have you had with him that have led to your apparent dislike?

That's one thread I hoped never to see again.

Weren't you in IRC a few weeks ago (a month?) when it was brought up again? I know spivey, SJ, BL and I were all there, amongst others. A regular Algonquin roundtable.

I don't want to "rehash"

Well played.

I had some exchanges with him on Usenet (dating back to the mid 1990s) and email and remember thinking that he was rather pompous and his writing wasn't among the best that the "Golden Age" of BP had to offer, IMHO. When he was hired by the Blue Jays, my reaction was that he wouldn't be the first BP staffer that I would hire if I were a GM--but that's in large part a reflection of the regard that I had/have for some others at BP.

Best of luck to him at ESPN.com, but if it's not available free, then I'll most likely never read it.

being a baseball writer for BPro is zero preparation for the job he was tasked with by the Blue Jays

That's something of an overstatement, don't you think? Would you say that a financial analyst for a particular industry would have zero preparation for a job with a company within that industry?

I had some email exchanges with Keith the year before he went to Toronto. He always responded to my questions and comments about his articles, and he was cordial and not the tiniest bit arrogant.

This is more than I can say for a few of the other baseball content producers with online audiences.

I had some email exchanges w/Keith as well, but he never really seemed to answer my questions. It was always this crap about some penile enhancement products he had. Every time I requested more details or whatever, he just come back w/a flurry of more emails about how I could finally satisfy my girlfriend, and that despite my telling him over and over that I was married. I found his harping about my "mistress" both presumptuous and rude, in the words of the teacher from Willy Wonka.

So, I take it then that you all believe these virtual interactions with someone you never actually met and have no idea what they are actually like reveals something about their character, background and work habits.

Way to advance the conversation. For all I know Keith Law sacrifices baby kittens to Chris Truby when noone's looking. All I said was from the limited contact I've had with Keith, he seems like a decent guy.


When he was hired by the Blue Jays, my reaction was that he wouldn't be the first BP staffer that I would hire if I were a GM

He wouldn't even have been the first Keith I would have hired. That would be Woolner. Not a dis to Mr. Law, just that I don't remember off the top of my head any of his articles, where Mr. Woolner came out with some really though provoking research.

What's cool of course is my assumption that when they hired Keith Law, they did so on greater basis than what we rely on when we compare them. Presumably Keith was hired b/c he interviewed well, is bright, etc. Some of this stuff sounds awfully silly, if not resentful.

This is more than I can say for a few of the other baseball content producers with online audiences.

It's okay. You can say Dial's name. It's only if you say it *three* times that he appears.

What's cool of course is my assumption that when they hired Keith Law, they did so on greater basis than what we rely on when we compare them. Presumably Keith was hired b/c he interviewed well, is bright, etc.

Wow, what a concept. Imagine if everyone on this thread made that same assumption.

What's cool of course is my assumption that when they hired Keith Law, they did so on greater basis than what we rely on when we compare them. Presumably Keith was hired b/c he interviewed well, is bright, etc. Some of this stuff sounds awfully silly, if not resentful.

I'm sure they did. But, to my knowledge, they didn't necessarily interview the other candidates.

What I find more interesting is the early naughts movement of hiring the sabes and the sabes they chose.

Earlier someone compared it to a financial analyst, and I think that may be apt. Let's take how financial analysts handled the internets in the late 90s. They were buying up stock in internet companies; venture capital was aplenty for internet companies; etc. In many cases, just having ".com" in your corporate name would get you funding even if you had no track record, and no real string of success.

In baseball, you saw people gobbling up sabes. In some cases you wonder if it was just to make sure that some other team didn't have a competitive advantage over them. Based on every thing that Burley ever posted about JP, he doesn't even seem to use/value sabe stuff that much. I honestly don't know.

The truth is you had very little idea what these guys actually did, what sabe stuff they produced, what value it had, and in total what was the positive or negative increase in value.

You have very few tidbits where to piece together the picture. The news releases here indicate that JP liked Law's writing. The hagiographies of Voros indicate that he liked his out of the box thinking (which I presume was the DIPSy stuff).

It doesn't sound like there was ever an effort by the early adopters to figure out what the person was able to do, what value it would provide, and who were the best possible candidates. They played a hunch, and in this game it was a low dollar hunch so it was worth it.

Now, you still see some sabes in the consulting business. mgl actually does slip in some of his work from time to time.

I'm not resentful. I would have never been a candidate, nor would I consider it my "dream job" It would be foolish to even get in a pissing contest over published results even with someone like Vinay, who admits he's not that prolific in doing articles.

The science has grown, and I'd very much to get past the "idiot GM" stuff. There is an output record where we can judge what really has utility. I'd like to know that for my own personal edification. It just seems that much of the output record is hidden.

It may have had a small part to do with his Harvard BA and his CMU MBA, along with his interviews and any personal recommendations JP had received.

Or maybe it was just his usenet posts. That's probably it.

kevin, the "I traded emails with him and he seemed fine" retorts are to this question in #3:

"What's the real dirt behind this? Anybody know? I only ask because just about everything I ever read by Law on BP exuded this "I'm Keith Law, and you're not" air, which is probably a lot better suited for ESPN than with a real life baseball job."

While you may be right about whether Law warranted the job he was given, those replies about email correspondence with Law are pretty damn relevant to the question. Dragging his job worthiness into the mix seems to show you have an axe to grind.

Of course, I agree with your premise that how Law fared in a few email conversations does little to understand who he really is or how good at special asst to the gm he'd be.

No, I don't.

Okay, so how about the (fairly) analogous situation I mentioned? A financial analyst who concentrates on a specific industry. In that job, he will (if he's good, anyway) gain lots of experience in analyzing problems and solutions within that industry. He (or she) will often be recruited by companies within that industry. Would you say that, if he were hired by one of the companies in that industry, his analyst position provides "zero preparation" for his new position?

And if not, what do you see as the differences between the two situations (Law's and the FA) that make you think of them differently?

Man, that thread (the SJ/Simmons/HBP thread) is hilarious. I think that BL tilts against windmills sometimes and plays up a "me vs the world" theme in cases where that is overblown, but not in that thread -- I agree 1000% with him. Especially after the first defense "I checked it myself, therefore it didn't need attribution." Oooh boy.

Not really. I think it harkens back to the uproar JP caused when he made another parallel decision to the one of hiring the inexperienced Law as his asst. GM - that of firing his scouts. He was criticized a lot for that, for reasons that now seem all too obvious.

That's assistant to the general manager, not assistant general manager.

And while JP fired a bunch of old scouts (for example, the Jays had too many guys covering Canada), the never reported part of it is that he also hired some guys to replace many of the ones he'd fired. It's not as though he decided he didn't need scouts because he could look at a spreadsheet and tell you who was a prospect. He evaluated who he had and determined whether or not they were pulling their weight. Maybe that's cruel, but I don't know that it's a bad baseball decision.

That's not the perception of the decision within baseball circles, Paul.

Whether it's the perception or not doesn't make it fact.

Yikes. Obviously, I didn't realize you had posted the link in the very first post in the thread, Paul D. Sorry about that.

I think kevin's got a point that writing for ESPN would seem to be a step down from a dream job inside baseball, but it's also possible that, rather than Keith having failed at the job, the job failed him. I remember there being some patronizing hostility toward him ("Rain Man") from some of the baseball people when he first got there. I'd guess he lost a lot more arguments than he won while he was there. Therefore, I don't think there was any such thing as a "Keith Law Era" in Toronto.

That's not the perception of the decision within baseball circles, Paul. There was a thread a while back about scouts vs sabes and that decision by JP was brought up by one of the tobacco spitters as an example of saber-type naivete.

Fair enough. I'll go look through the depths of the internet, see if I can dig anything up.

Earlier someone compared it to a financial analyst, and I think that may be apt. Let's take how financial analysts handled the internets in the late 90s. They were buying up stock in internet companies; venture capital was aplenty for internet companies; etc. In many cases, just having ".com" in your corporate name would get you funding even if you had no track record, and no real string of success.

Wow. I am extremely dismissive of financial analysts, but this isn't a remotely accurate description of their job responsibilities. FA's don't "buy up stock", they make recommendations to people who may or may not "buy up stock". Financial analysts cover public companies (or soon to be public companies), not venture capital investments. They had little to do with how early stage startups were funded during that era. I say this as a current day investment manager and former software company manager that raised funding for multiple startups during the bubble era.

It wasn't insider knowledge - the Blue Jays replaced a lot of the scouts they fired.

Free Henry Blodgett!

Wow. I am extremely dismissive of financial analysts, but this isn't a remotely accurate description of their job responsibilities. FA's don't "buy up stock", they make recommendations to people who may or may not "buy up stock". Financial analysts cover public companies (or soon to be public companies), not venture capital investments. They had little to do with how early stage startups were funded during that era. I say this as a current day investment manager and former software company manager that raised funding for multiple startups during the bubble era.


Golly. Geez. Generic Exclamation. I guess those people working for other companies calling themselves "financial analysts" are just lying about their position because you didn't approve their job title. Or maybe they call themselves "portfolio managers" or "trustees" or Special Assistant to the Asst. Guy Who Actually Buys things.

And since Law didn't sign any contracts, but recommended to JP what he should do, I guess the situation isn't analogous at all.

Aside from that very, very, very quibbly gotcha is there a point to advance the discussion? I'm glad you got a chance to post your CV though.

So, I take it then that you all believe these virtual interactions with someone you never actually met and have no idea what they are actually like reveals something about their character, background and work habits.


Or some sound bites on TV. I mean you don't know a person and you see 10 minutes worth of sound bites on TV that are bad (because as Rob points out in the other thread controversy sells, not compassion).

Boy, that Bonds is a jerk - oh wait:

"So, I take it then that you all believe these virtual interactions with someone you never actually met and have no idea what they are actually like reveals something about their character, background and work habits."

I think maybe you should write Duke's Business School, they describe a financial analyst as:

The financial analyst is a broad classification for an entry-level position that deals with investment management. This career might begin in the CFO's or Treasurer's office. The financial analyst's responsibilities may include: analysis of the firm's foreign exchange and interest rate hedging strategies, valuation of potential acquisitions (for outright purchase or equity investment), assessing the credit worthiness of certain bonds, and using accounting data to screen potential takeover targets.

This job must be misleading advertising.

We better run tell everyone quick that financial analysts aren't allowed to be invovled in M&A;or deal with non-public companies.

My guess is, after last years dismal failure, he lost any juice he might have had within the organization (or without, for that matter) and was not a factor in the off-season decisions, decisions that are now bearing fruit.

But what is this based off of, other than your dislike of Law? Is there any actual reason to believe that the moves that are paying off would be the kind that Law wouldn't like? I doubt Keith loved Josh Towers and hates Troy Glaus and B.J. Ryan.

Maybe, maybe, maybe.

I found a pretty good battersbox article on how the Jays prepare for the amatuer draft.

Quoting its author Pistol

There's the general manager, assistant general manager, director of player personnel, scouting director, two scouting coordinators, an assistant to the GM, three cross checkers, fifteen area scouts, and three part time Canadian scouts involved in putting a draft together.

I have no idea how many scouts a typical team has, although intuitively, 15 + 3 part timers sounds low.

The article also has a summary of what Law did for the Jays to help them prepare for the draft.

Kevin,

Although the Jays did fire a number of scouts, after new hires the total scouts in the US remained the same.

It was only in Canada, where they had more than a handful of paid guys in addition to 50 or so bird dogs for a market where only a couple dozen at best HS guys are worth going after each year, that they really thinned out. This was somewhat overblown in the media, as the scouts and one the key baseball writers in Toronto are pretty tight.

The Jays were just ahead of the market in that call, as a number of teams have either eliminated paid people or reduced them in Canada.

It's got to be an odd feeling for Keith to be reading all this.

Okay, here's an article by Bob Eliott, a guy who seems to dislike JP because some of the fired scouts were friends of his.
The relevant quote:

<blockquote>And if he stops ignoring Canadian players by hiring someone to replace the nine Canadian scouts who were fired. <blockquote>

Okay, 9 Canadian quotes? I realize that the Jays will want to have a stronger Canadian presence than anyone else, but that's pratcially one scout for each current Canadian Major Leaguer.

Or maybe this has nothing to do with the situation at the Blue Jays. I don't know a thing, but people change jobs/careers for all kinds of reasons, and trying to guess why when you don't have any real information is kind of pointless.

But no way do I put someone in a position of responsibility based solely on what they have written on an internet website.

It should be noted - as Paul D did in #67 - that Law's title was "special assistant to the GM", not "assistant GM". From the job descriptions I've seen for people with that title, it's more like a role where GMs place someone with special knowledge of a particular aspect of the operation, but it's not a "position of responsibility" as I would understand the term - such individuals provide input to the GM, but can't act on any suggestions they might make unless the GM specifically tasks them to do so.

-- MWE

Dial is trying to hijack this thread to talk about Bonds. Like we don't already have enough threads to talk about Bonds

No, I was just pointing out your extent of *actual* knowledge of Bonds. You never met him or ever even spoke with him. You've seen snippets of bad behavior on TV.

And do you have any idea how many books I can dig up on how wonderful every historical figure was? As much as BL likes to write "hagiography" (which he over/mis-uses), whatever the opposite is exist just as much.

Read the Dimaggio tell-all - he was a real jerk too! We *all* are in our worst moments, and some even on just our bad days. The difference is that no one puts the 5 seconds where you gave that lady the finger this morning and called her a stupid mfing "see-you-next-tuesday" on the freeway this morning on TV.

And Gacy? Well, he wasn't lazy; and he was a homeowner.





(re: previous ESPN thread - Here I should cite some comic, but I don't remember who it was, but this joke isn't originally mine).

One reason JP supposedly fired a lot of guys was to right the Blue Jays financial ship, which he supposedly accomplished. It wasn't entirely some stathead manuever.

Let's take how financial analysts handled the internets in the late 90s. They were buying up stock in internet companies; venture capital was aplenty for internet companies; etc. In many cases, just having ".com" in your corporate name would get you funding even if you had no track record, and no real string of success.

In baseball, you saw people gobbling up sabes.

You do realize that the internet bubble did help fund many companies that are quite valuable nowawdays. A lot of companies failed because they weren't real businesses, but the internet has enabled many companies to create real business that generate big financial returns.

Maybe the Jays should hire some nanotech or alternative energy expert as their next GM.

Then why is he quitting, to take a lesser job with ESPN?

I think this is the problem. Without descriptions of his responsibilities with the Jays, and with ESPN, in addition to salary information, travel obligations, etc., how on earth can you possibly claim that the job he's taking at ESPN is "lesser" than the one he's leaving with the Jays? There could be all sorts of reasons for him to change jobs. Money, family considerations, you name it. And maybe, just maybe, the job at ESPN is actually BETTER! But you seem convinced, without any real evidence, that it's a) a step backward, and b) it's due to failure at his previous position. Then you wonder why Dan thinks you've got something against him?

Or maybe this has nothing to do with the situation at the Blue Jays. I don't know a thing, but people change jobs/careers for all kinds of reasons, and trying to guess why when you don't have any real information is kind of pointless.

Ding ding! We have a winner! Hal, tell him what he's won!

Some here have changed jobs like quitting a big law firm to *not do law*. That may or may not be a "step down". Or some owned their own research company (the big dream!) but just decided working for a govt contractor offered something different.

I don't know Keith, I've never interacted with Keith (except when he sued me) and I think even intimating that he changed jobs because he failed or he couldn't hack it is beneath people that should be allowed to post on this site.

Kevin,

That isn't unprecedented (firing before hiring). Scouts' contracts come up at the end of the year (October), and really other than Juco guys, there's not a lot to see until January.

If you've decided that you want significant turnover in your scouting department - and this happens more than a lot of people realise - you don't renew the contracts in October, which is effectively firing the current crop, and then spend Oct-Dec interviewing and preparing the next crew to go hard Jan 15.

My 2 cents. Oh, and Griffin doesn't know that many of the scouts - he came up through the Expos, and the PR side. It's Elliot who is the scout's friend. And I say that with great respect for Bob - no one promotes amateur baseball in this country like him, and he still coaches at least one minor team (15 or 16 year olds).

My axe isn't with Law alone. See BL's post #58. The internet analogy is quite apt here. Back in the eighties, it was biotech. The street got burned there too.

I won't dispute the aptness of the internet analogy in response to my original analogy. All I'm saying is that there is *some* level of preparation in both situations. More than zero, and while I think the FA moves to his new position with much more than zero preparation, I think Law moved in with a non-irrelevant amount, himself.

Whether or not hiring Law was a good, well-conceived, or justifiable move is outside the scope of the argument I made. Worthy topics, yes.

So, on to the response to it:

The key word in that analogy is "experience". Writing anything you want to write about with impunity is no kind of preparation for being the asst. GM under conditions where your decisions, philosophies and prejudices will actually be tested under the spotlight of competition, and where you are being opposed by others who might not share your philosophies but nevertheless are beating your ass.

I disagree here. Assuming I have at least a vague understanding of what his responsibilities were, there were three functions in Law's job. Conceiving (or adapting other's concepts) stratagems for evaluating players, testing those stratagems, and lobbying for the application of those stratagems within the organization.

Certainly, BP gave him no preparation for the third function. It just as certainly gave him preparation for the first, and to a lesser degree the second.

You do realize that the internet bubble did help fund many companies that are quite valuable nowawdays. A lot of companies failed because they weren't real businesses, but the internet has enabled many companies to create real business that generate big financial returns.


Yes, that is the point. We are far enough away where we can judge whether we have an amazon.com or underweargnomes.com when investing. There was lots of wasted dollars, tons of churn, and the bubble did burst devaluing lots of investment. There were more unwise decisions in that sector.

And yes, that happens from time to time. I remember in the late 90s reading a comparison of internet investments to radio investments. People did the same thing in the early part of the century to anybody dealing with radio, tube manufacturers, content producers etc. RCA was about the only company where you could get equal value from the initial investment post-bubble almost 60 years later.

And the radio boom was nice. We got tons of production companies, and some good tube manufacturers. We also got lots of overfunded dogs. The internet boom was nice; we got some nice companies. We also had lots of overfunded dogs. And the sabe revolution should be nice. You should see capable persons finding good jobs. But everyone that styles themselves a saberist should not be in line for some new capital.

My point, which I thought i articulated at the end of that piece, is that the sabe movement, including the "call to war" ya da should be old enough where we can evaluate the good from the bad. The AOL to internet equivalent has happened to---its this website. You have tons of people that think they are net.god or sabe.00001337 that are just running to the movement.

I am just curious about seperating junk from value. I'm not hating on Keith Law. I am trying to evaluate his performance because that's what we do with all baseball performance around here. If he's responsible for something good, I'll give him credit. If he's responsible for something bad, I'll say it. Right now, I don't have much of anything to make that determination.

What this thread badly needs is Burley. I'll be reading battersbox over the next couple of days to see if he has a take.

Or maybe this has nothing to do with the situation at the Blue Jays. I don't know a thing, but people change jobs/careers for all kinds of reasons, and trying to guess why when you don't have any real information is kind of pointless.

Ding ding! We have a winner! Hal, tell him what he's won!

Some here have changed jobs like quitting a big law firm to *not do law*. That may or may not be a "step down". Or some owned their own research company (the big dream!) but just decided working for a govt contractor offered something different.

I don't know Keith, I've never interacted with Keith (except when he sued me) and I think even intimating that he changed jobs because he failed or he couldn't hack it is beneath people that should be allowed to post on this site.

And maybe, just maybe, the job at ESPN is actually BETTER!



Let's change "better" to "more challenging".

Tell me how writing a sports column for ESPN is a more challenging job than advising the GM of the Toronto Blue Jays on personnel/operations decisions?

OK, it might not be "more challenging" but it might be better. Fine. It's a better job that requires less skill.

Come on, kevin. "Better" doesn't have to mean "more challenging". It likely means better hours, better pay, better schedule, better location, better accomodation to family, etc. There are lots of factors that go into changing jobs for anyone. it is certainly possible that Law sucked at his Blue Jays job and is running back to something in which he'd previously had success. A lot of other things are possible, too. It isn't really fair to conclude that because he left the position he must have known he was bad at it. FWIW, I know lots of people who suck at their jobs and yet stay (most are, of course, oblivious to their suckitude).

Let's change "better" to "more challenging".

No. Let's not. Because they're not the same thing. If some wanted to pay me and give me better benefits, all while requiring less work, I would consider that job to be "better", especially if I had a family to think about. We know next to nothing about the relative merits of each job, yet you're not only willing to pass judgment on which job is more desirable, but also why he left one for the other. Then you're surprised when someone thinks you have an axe to grind. It's really quite fascinating.

and lobbying for the application of those stratagems within the organization.

And, I should say, there is a non-zero chance that this wasn't even actually part of his job. It's not outside the realm of possibility that Keith was expected to come up with whatever he was tasked with doing and then giving it straight to someone else, for them to make a decision on. To continue my FA example, he could have been the equivalent of a model wonk (there's a term for them that I'm sure AZ also knows, but I'm just blanking on it at the moment.) They aren't expected to be good at lobbying for the adoption of their models. They're expected to put together good models.

I'm not saying I know the first thing about Keith as a person, about Keith's responsibilities with Toronto, or about why he left. To reiterate, all I'm saying is that the job at BP did not provide zero preparation for the job with Toronto.

Backup. Keith Law sued Chris Dial? WTF? I hate never being on the inside.

I know lots of people who suck at their jobs and yet stay (most are, of course, oblivious to their suckitude).


The Jim tells me I suck at my job, so I guess you can't count me as oblivious even when I stay.

I wonder if alerting me to that fact is "beneath people that should be allowed to post on this site."

model wonk

Quant jock.

Backup. Keith Law sued Chris Dial? WTF? I hate never being on the inside.

Prospectus sent Primer a cease and decist letter a long time ago, and I believe Keith was the signatory. I wasn't aware that an actual lawsuit had been filed, just threatened. Unless of course Dial is talking about something else.

My axe isn't with Law alone.

I interpreted this as dislike. You have to have an axe with Law first to say that your axe isn't with him alone.

Law could have created spreadsheet after spreadsheet saying thay Omar Moreno was the greatest power hitter of all time, what the fallout from that?

Who's talking about fallout?

If a guy moves from a job where he creates spreadsheet after spreadsheet divining values for Omar Moreno (and other MLB players), and then moves into another job where he creates spreadsheets divining values for Omar Moreno (and other MLB players), then regardless of the context or consequences of how or even if those spreadsheets are used by anyone, the first job provides preparation for the second job.

I'm not understanding the disconnect here.

Prospectus sent Primer a cease and decist letter a long time ago, and I believe Keith was the signatory. I wasn't aware that an actual lawsuit had been filed, just threatened. Unless of course Dial is talking about something else.

The C&D;as I recall was that the name "Baseball Primer" was confusingly similar to "Baseball Prospectus" and diluted and potentially infringed their mark.

Quant jock.

Thank you. Quant is what I was looking for.

Oh, boring. I thought Dial ran over Law's dog or something.

BL, based on how much we all post on this site, I'd say we all suck at our jobs.

Except for meatwad, who I believe is paid to post here.

Prospectus sent Primer a cease and decist letter a long time ago, and I believe Keith was the signatory. I wasn't aware that an actual lawsuit had been filed, just threatened. Unless of course Dial is talking about something else.

What is this, retro night? The Schoenfield Thread and the Belated Valentine Thread coming up at the same time.

Not to go into too much detail, but I never got the impression that Keith was the impetus there.

BL and anyone else who's interested, there's a battersbox thread up about this here. Tango's there, but no Burley.

Maybe Keith's dream job is to write for ESPN , not to be the Special Assistant to the GM in Toronto.

Like all of us, maybe he just loves Bristol.

Actually, that having been said, I have no idea about how often (if at all) ESPN.com writers are expected to visit Bristol. I've never seen Neyer wandering the halls.

But certainly the expected career span of a baseball columnist must exceed the life of a baseball front office type - once the Riccardi administration goes, I would expect a "Special Assistant" to be jobless.