I'd say the Rollins comment circa 2004 may be the worst.

“In any event, his power and speed both appear to be dissipating, and without those he won’t hold a starting job for long.”

In some circles, including here, it used to be that Rollins was hardly starting material. Then, once he proved that wrong, the it became that his contract was absurd. Then, once it became clear he was actually great value, he gets ripped for winning the MVP when even B-Pro's main metric (WARP) clearly puts him in the discussion.

What is disappointing about this list is the revisionist statements about players BP was wrong on in prior years. It would be nice if BP acknowledged mistakes in their predictions.

Rollins, Howard, Utley....

Whoever writes the Phillies section should have been fired a long time ago

The 1998 book's comment on Greg Vaughn was way off the mark, but BP had the good grace to laugh at themselves in Vaughn's 1999 comment.

Taguchi has been a failure as a ballplayer. The thing I don't like about this list is that a lot of players they got wrong everyone got wrong. Sometimes players take unexpected turns. Not that big a deal. And a lot of different writers write those player comments, so it's tough to expect consistency. They do fairly often admit when they're wrong (my annuals are all at home, but I seem to remember several comments that admitted their error in judgment).

I think DiFilippo is missing the essential difference between Brantley being wrong in that case and BP being wrong in the cases mentioned. There's a gulf between being wrong about a player because you misjudged his abilities as a baseball player and being wrong about a player because you tried arbitrarily assign a player character flaws based on your whim.

BP may have been wrong about Rollins, but it was because the person who made the comment did not correctly evaluate Rollins's tools and skills. The person didn't say that Rollins would fail because he "wasn't clutch" or that he was emotionally weak or that he was immature or that he was a poor learner.

Ouch! Some of the best ones:

“Taken together, you’ve got someone who should hit like a lesser Preston Wilson, except that he’s a slow first baseman and isn’t getting an altitude boost to his numbers.”

BP 2004, on Ryan Howard

“With the Marlins he has a chance to start at second. The bar is low, but considering he’ll move from low minors hitter’s parks in offensive leagues to a major-league pitcher’s park, the results should be predictably Uggla.”

BP, on Dan Uggla

“There’s no indication that he is ready for the major leagues, but the Marlins are apparently going to let him try.”

BP 2006, on Hanley Ramirez

Hey, if you live by snark...you gotta expect someone to do this.

Bpro also had their own cover curse, right? Where whoever they put on the cover (usually a prospect) ended up pretty poorly. All I can remember is Phelps, but I think they actually discussed it in the issue when Marte was named the top prospect.

a lot of players they got wrong everyone got wrong.

I'm pretty sure for each one of these players Bpro didn't like, there was some scout or rating service that disagreed. On Rollins, for example, almost every OBP-blind Phils fan told you he was going to be great as far back as '03.

Any chance of DiFilippo starting a Fire Joe Sheehan blog?

Joe Sheehan STILL takes swipes at Bill Hall apparently using 2007 as "proof" that 2005 and 2006 were "flukes".

To my mind Hall should be a great story. Guy worked his way into becoming a productive big league ballplayer who can contribute all around the infield.

But to someone like Sheehan, who made up his mind about Hall in 2003 based on someone ELSE'S analytical tools, Hall is a nuisance. A challenge to the system. And therefore any positives from Hall must be undermined under the guise of "pragmatism".

I guarantee, I GUARANTEE, that should Hall recover the ground he lost in 2007 due to the position switch to centerfield (to help the club by the way) Sheehan will STILL find a way to minimize Bill's contributions.

Such a small, small person. And this is someone representing our community to the larger audience.

Good grief....

Hall is having a two-true outcome season so far- 5 HR, 14 K, 1 BB. It all depends on his walk rate- if he can bring it back up to its 2005-6 level, he'll be very valuable...

Szym, did you get my email?

My email's been odd the last week, what's up?

Ah, I'll email you.

“There’s no indication that he is ready for the major leagues, but the Marlins are apparently going to let him try.”

As a Sox fan who was excited about the Beckett trade-- and still remembers the "Anibal Sanchez is the one that's gonna hurt" comments made by some-- I can attest to the widespread consensus on the above comment.

On the other hand, it might be the sort of comment that points up the shortcomings of an evaluation that doesn't incorporate enough scouting. It's possible the Marlins watched him play and said, "He's got the tools to succeed, and he seems to like the spotlight, so let's put him in the majors." And they were right.

Brantley carried himself with class after he was proven wrong

Did he carry himself with class after saying on national TV back in '05 that Beltran was faking his injury and was just mailing it in after signing a big contract?

My favorite Prospecutus take was how they predicted the Braves demise for several years running, were wrong every time, and then one year threw up their collective hands and wrote essentially "we give up, here's their players, you figure it out". I believe that was the year the demise actually arrived.

“In any event, the Cardinals’ first attempt to get in on the Asian invasion was more novelty act than earnest vetting of the talent pool in question. If he goes north with the big club, the Cards have a problem.”

BP 2004, on So Taguchi

Wait a minute -- didn't they get this one right, more or less?

I've been wrong plenty of times. Probably today.

Here's a quick challenge for you -- find someone who made the correct analysis at the time of BP's incorrect prediction. It's easy to check in retrospect, but I'm surprised there's no predictions on this list that are along the lines of "Joe Shlabotnik has all the tools to succeed. I see a future star!" The one I can remember was Jackie Rexrode, which became a pretty quick lesson on why that kind of player seldom succeeds.

I'm not sure, but I believe BPro's player comments are written multiple different authors. So, it's not unreasonable they are often not consistent year by year, but also often inconsistent with what other BPro writers, and their own various metrics, and PECOTA, believe.

“In any event, the Cardinals’ first attempt to get in on the Asian invasion was more novelty act than earnest vetting of the talent pool in question. If he goes north with the big club, the Cards have a problem.”

BP 2004, on So Taguchi

Wait a minute -- didn't they get this one right, more or less?

Taguchi went north with the big club, was a completely fine utility OF/benchplayer, and the Cards won 105 games and the National League pennant. In 2005 Taguchi went north with the big club, provided even greater value than the year before, and the Cards won 100 games and went as far as the NLCS.

Aside from overpaying for Taguchi a bit in 2004 (and they got more performance for less money the next year), what exactly was the Cards problem?

BP 2004, on So Taguchi

Wait a minute -- didn't they get this one right, more or less?

Close enough. Calling Chris Carpenter a 4th starter in the same chapter was a lot worse. Probably addresses WC's challenge as well.

Wait a minute -- didn't they get this one right, more or less?

Well, in the end. He was surprisingly useful the first year or so, though he certainly would never have been a good starter in left.

Will, that's my problem with this article. Cust was someone that BPro had been pumping for years, and then it looked like he had his window and missed it. BPro, somewhat reluctantly, gave up on him. But BPro was one of the only places pushing for him in the first place. Taguchi hit in the .280-90 range, but I think DiFilippo misses the point. I think the more appropriate discussion would be of guys that BPro touted when no one else would, or resisted hype on when everyone else was pumping them. It doesn't look like, in most of these examples, BPro was too far off of conventional wisdom, even if it's conventional stathead wisdom.

The snark factor is tough- at times it goes a bit over the top, but then, the snark is a lot of what draws people to the site, just like BTF....

Here's a quick challenge for you -- find someone who made the correct analysis at the time of BP's incorrect prediction.

That's a fair point, Will, but I think some of the valid criticism of BPro isn't just that the predictions have missed; it's that they do so with absolute conviction and snark.

Put another way, it's one thing to say that Player X "is unlikely to duplicate what he did last year," but it's another to say that he "is a complete flash in the pan -- let's face it, a fluke who's supporters are more likely to have the New Kids on the Block on their iTunes than the New Pornographers."

Frankly, I think BP's a little hard on themselves with guys like Rexrode and Giambi. It's not like Rexrode got an opportunity to prove the stat guys at the time wrong and for whatever reason - he was 21 years old in his last professional season (did he get injured or something? I just don't remember).

As for Giambi, presumably his steroid use in the majors would have also helped his minor league numbers too. I know someone thought he could play centerfield, but I get rsbb comments and BP comments of the era confused. It's not like he didn't hit in the majors though, he did end up with a 111 OPS+ in 1704 major league PA with health issues.

more likely to have the New Kids on the Block on their iTunes than the New Pornographers

Is that an insult?

Put another way, it's one thing to say that Player X "is unlikely to duplicate what he did last year," but it's another to say that he "is a complete flash in the pan -- let's face it, a fluke who's supporters are more likely to have the New Kids on the Block on their iTunes than the New Pornographers."

Put again, there's a difference between snarking on the factual record rather than snarking on the more unknown of a person's emotional profile. A difference between ragging on a player for being a hacker at the plate and ragging on a player for being emotionally weak.

Bobby Estallela: future MVP

My favorite is the annual Mark Buehrle collapse prediction. They were right in 2006, and wrong in every other season of his career.

EDITED TO ADD: In the past, BP also seemed to carry grudges against certain teams and front offices. I detect less of this from them now, in part because their seeming grudges have backfired against them.

There are times when BP is not at all objective.

My favorite one was their prediction of that forgotten Rockies 2B, Jose Ortiz, circa 2001-03.

I think he was in Japan by the time the next book came out, lol.

iirc, the inability to laugh at themselves over that one led me to stop buying the book.

though there were plenty of others.

I always associated this more with Joe Morgan than Brantley. There was a Sunday Night Baseball game in which the As got two runners on base to lead off the ninth inning and he practically went into hysterics because they weren't bunting the runners over; the next pitch, the batter hit the ball out of the park.


But Dan, I have to agree with those who say that with BP, it's more the level of snark than the mistaken prediction itself. Anyone who looks at what hundreds of ballplayers are doing every year will be wrong many times unless one doesn't make any prediction at all. But there's a difference between being wrong about, "He's no good" and being wrong about, "Anybody who thinks he's good is stupider than the crud I scraped off the bottom of my shoe."

(Such statements are also different coming from fans, who are allowed/supposed to be overly passionate, and analysts, who are supposed to be reasonably objective.)

Put again, there's a difference between snarking on the factual record rather than snarking on the more unknown of a person's emotional profile. A difference between ragging on a player for being a hacker at the plate and ragging on a player for being emotionally weak.

I agree, Szym, but that wasn't my point. What I was saying is that when you make a prediction with such definitive language, absolutely certain of your position and downright snarky as well, you draw more criticism on your misses -- and justifiably so, IMO.

Few people are going to come down hard on BPro if they simply said they were pessimistic about someone; they get called on the carpet because they go out of their way to slam the guy, whether it be for his play or for any other reason.

Or essentially what DMN said.

If you go back and read BP's predictions over the years on the White Sox and Williams, it's been hilarious.

They may have done this since I stopped reading, but it would have been a very worthwhile exercise for them to study exactly what went wrong there. I remember them saying something about a great health team, but not much else to make up for the "They are going to play .300 ball from here on out." gambler's fallacy comments.

At least the BP guys got the Pete Rose reinstatement right.

Sure, one could see this article as a little bit cheap, That said, the Snarkmeisters at BP don't usually have much accountability for what they say. Someone like Kenny Williams is a dolt, but when he wins it all, well, he's still a dolt. A blind squirrel and all that. It's so easy in the media to state an opinion and then when you're incorrect either a) ignore it or b) dismiss it as "Well, I was right based on the info I had at the time." Pundits rarely have to worry about being second-guessed.

I'm pretty sure BP said more than once that D'Angelo Jimenez was a better prospect than Alfonso Soriano. Which, again, seems to show the necessity of scouting-- along with statistical analysis-- when it comes to projecting players, especially early in their careers, when they're still developing. And yes, I realize that's not news.

I pretty much stopped reading Prospectus when it became non-free. I'm sure I would still read and probably mostly enjoy it without the paywall.

I don't know, Roy. If the Dodgers experience unusually good health the rest of the year, Slappy has his best year since 2003 while Kemp platoons all year, they get a lights-out year from a pitcher or two, go 93-69 and then get hot in October and win the World Series, does this make Ned Colletti any less of a moron? I say no.

Just saying. Winning a championship doesn't necessary make somebody good at his job. Just in the 2001 world series himself, Bob Brenly was about as terrible as a manager can be, and the Diamondbacks won anyway.

The one I remember -- and this takes me back a while -- was their absolute scourging of Schuerholz and the Braves for signing Andres Galarraga. You may remember the Big Cat's first season in Atlanta, where he hit .305/.397/.595 with 44 home runs and a 157 OPS+.

To be fair, however, the BP crew did forthrightly admit that they'd blown it, and I recall they even made some stabs at trying to figure out why. I don't remember that they ever came to any conclusion on that, though.

To be even more fair, predicting Galarraga to crater wasn't exactly an unlikely bet.

I'm pretty sure BP said more than once that D'Angelo Jimenez was a better prospect than Alfonso Soriano. Which, again, seems to show the necessity of scouting-- along with statistical analysis-- when it comes to projecting players, especially early in their careers, when they're still developing. And yes, I realize that's not news.

PJ, it's not clear to me precisely what kind of "scouting" one can do in order to predict automobile accidents. (We obviously have no way to know what Jimenez would have done if it hadn't happened -- but the season prior to his injury, he had hit 327/395/492 at AAA at age 21.)

To be fair, however, the BP crew did forthrightly admit that they'd blown it, and I recall they even made some stabs at trying to figure out why. I don't remember that they ever came to any conclusion on that, though.

To be even more fair, predicting Galarraga to crater wasn't exactly an unlikely bet.

And that's the issue. Everyone in the analysis game has to make some calls, and no one's going to be 100% right. Or even 90% right. So it behooves the analyst to have a bit of humility. The guys who've read the old Abstracts will have to correct me if I'm wrong, but when James turned on the snark it was about what guys had already done, not about what he thought they would do, wasn't it?

To be even more fair, predicting Galarraga to crater wasn't exactly an unlikely bet.

And, in fact, he did; that first year in Atlanta was the only good year he had left in his career. So it's not clear to me whether there was a reason people should have expected him to have had that kind of year.

I guess it's just me, but I don't mind people being opinionated about their predictions. It's what makes something an entertaining read. I find books or sites or articles full of "We expect that Corey Patterson is most likely to hit something like .260/.290/.400 over a full season, but maybe Dusty knows something we don't" get a little dull after awhile. I don't mind the occasional "Corey Patterson stinks on ice; what the heck was Dusty smoking?"

I can't count how many times people have said that Bill James is Bill James because of the writing, not the numbers. I'm guessing that's the influence and willing to bet that he seldom said "Joe Shlabotnick doesn't appear to be a good player, but maybe if everything goes right, I could be wrong. Check back next year." Scouts, I know, regularly resort to hyperbole to make their points. Players get compared to Hall of Famers, not journeymen.

Of course, I don't write for the books, so take this as just my opinion.

I can't count how many times people have said that Bill James is Bill James because of the writing, not the numbers.

He's also an innovator who asks interesting questions and tries best to answer them without seeming like a snarky know-it-all.

I can't count how many times people have said that Bill James is Bill James because of the writing, not the numbers.

Bill James' writing is not simply snark. That's what too many Bill James fans don't realize.

PJ, it's not clear to me precisely what kind of "scouting" one can do in order to predict automobile accidents. (We obviously have no way to know what Jimenez would have done if it hadn't happened -- but the season prior to his injury, he had hit 327/395/492 at AAA at age 21.)

Yes, though perhaps scouts knew something about his work ethic/"makeup"/whatever that the rest of us didn't. Jimenez was dumped by organization after organization despite performing decently (though far short of the stardom his AAA numbers may have portended) at the major league level, which seems to suggest that he was uncoachable or otherwise a pain in the ass. If that's true, it likely would've reared its ugly head whether the accident occurred or not.

The accident certainly didn't help matters, but that doesn't mean there weren't other factors at play that interfered with his progress, either.

Jimenez was dumped by organization after organization despite performing decently (though far short of the stardom his AAA numbers may have portended) at the major league level, which seems to suggest that he was uncoachable or otherwise a pain in the ass.

From what I remember, particularly when he came to the White Sox, he had the latter reputation -- just a real jerk.

For "the worst", that's not really too bad.

One I find interesting is Howard. BP 2004 got him "wrong"? At that time, he was a 24 year-old who was coming out of high-A ball. Preston Wilson seems generous under those circumsatances.

The Taguchi comment wasn't bad really, it's more an example of another of BPro's occasionally annoying (and occasionally entertaining) habits -- fixations over the fringe players. Whether the job goes to Taguchi or whatever Ken Phelps All-Star BPro thinks should have gotten the job almost never matters. So the problem wasn't their evaluation of Taguchi but in labelling it as a "problem" for the Cards rather than a "sub-optimal decision" ... though also one gets the feeling they wrote that under the impression he might be the starter which would certainly have been a bigger "problem." Anyway, that's about as trivial as a mistake gets.

As to the writer of this piece, I think he's sufficiently "apologetic" at the beginning, making it clear he knows everyone is going to pull some boners and lots of people got these predictions wrong (points people here keep making). But his ordering is strange. The Taguchi comment is at best a tepid example. So is the Leyland one which is full of caveats ("he may find his instincts aren't as sharp"; "comebacks are often more fantasy than reality") and not very snarky. Just not a good way to structure it as it makes him seem nit-picky at the start even though he does have some good examples later.

I haven't bought the BPro annual in ages. My favorite was the Marcus Giles run. They'd spent 2-3 years singing his praises and wondering why Cox didn't give him a real shot. Then after 2002, they finally admitted they were wrong -- and if memory serves did write it off to character flaws at some level. And of course he busted out in 2003.

From what I remember, particularly when he came to the White Sox, he had the latter reputation -- just a real jerk.

Yeah, and the Reds' dumping him later is even more telling, to me--getting rid of a 26-year-old 2B with Jimenez's minor league track record who'd just put up major league average (and OBP-heavy) offensive numbers in full-time play two straight years so you can install a washed-up Rich Aurilia at the position seems a little odd to me.

Bill James' writing is not simply snark. That's what too many Bill James fans don't realize.

That's so true. And James can be as snarky about himself as he is other subjects.

That said, James could flail around in the mud with the best of them. His piece on the Padres from the 1987 Abstract was brilliant, but somewhat less than even-handed (the one where the Lord gives the Padres to select one player in the history of baseball to play for them, and they pick Danny Thompson).

I don't know, Roy. If the Dodgers experience unusually good health the rest of the year, Slappy has his best year since 2003 while Kemp platoons all year, they get a lights-out year from a pitcher or two, go 93-69 and then get hot in October and win the World Series, does this make Ned Colletti any less of a moron? I say no.

Just saying. Winning a championship doesn't necessary make somebody good at his job. Just in the 2001 world series himself, Bob Brenly was about as terrible as a manager can be, and the Diamondbacks won anyway.

But I guess this is my problem. BP understands as well as anyone, the portion of baseball knowledge they specialize in. But when they make the "A reasonable person would assume" arguments + a ton of snark, they always assume that the person should have exactly the same knowledge they do and no more or no less. But they are not omniscient, so it looks colossally self-serving when they simply shrug off instances where they tore someone to pieces and then were clearly out thought by them as "bad luck" and move on without reassessing.

If anything, it's the most devastatingly damaging trait of the old school institutions that BP arose to oppose. Why repeat the same mistakes?

The guys I really remember him crushing, strictly for their play, were Doug Flynn, Enos Cabell, Hubie Brooks, Duane Kuiper and Spike Owen.

And yet...Posnanski remains friends with James.

Here's a quick challenge for you -- find someone who made the correct analysis at the time of BP's incorrect prediction.

Back when the Braves traded Marte, in the threat here Vaux asserted that he would never be a star, and that the evidence was that the Braves traded him. The logic being that the Braves are almost never wrong about these things, so if they were trading the guy, there was something about him that was going to hold him back.

Of course, Vaux also predicts apocalypse every time a major league batter gets a hit, so there's also that. ;)

Also, Marte is only 24 years old, and has been above-average for each of the last three years at AAA. He could surprise us yet.

But when they make the "A reasonable person would assume" arguments + a ton of snark, they always assume that the person should have exactly the same knowledge they do and no more or no less. But they are not omniscient, so it looks colossally self-serving when they simply shrug off instances where they tore someone to pieces and then were clearly out thought by them as "bad luck" and move on without reassessing.

If I might address a couple of things having been co-editor of the book for the last three editions: As far as reassessing within the book, we do what we can where it is obvious that there is a need, and you can find many examples of "last year we said X" in the books. When you don't see that explicitly, it's often tacit, as we review how/why a player who did something contrary to projections did or did not fulfill expectations without taking the space to fall on our swords (or for that matter cheer when we get it right), which we don't have the room to do anyway--as large as the book is, it could easily be twice as large if we said everything we COULD about a player, and the focus has to be on the player, not on us. You can find plenty of that kind of self-examination on the web site, especially in Nate Silver's annual reviews of PECOTA's performance.

As far as "snark" goes, I can tell you that this isn't a priority, isn't even a concept when we discuss the book. All we ask of the writers is that each comment try to convey a complete thought about the player, something relevant and forward-looking and hopefully insightful and written in a compelling way. Compelling does not equal snark or sarcarm, and if we were submitted something that seemed to be trying to score points at the expense of content, we would certainly delete it.

Finally, as far as snark on the web site goes, I would suggest that one do a systematic review of the over 1500 articles a year BP now publishes before one suggests that there is an overall bias towards any form of expression, snark or otherwise.

Eraser-X is dominating this site! Posted: April 13, 2008 at 07:49 PM (#2742468)

... BP understands as well as anyone, the portion of baseball knowledge they specialize in. But when they make the "A reasonable person would assume" arguments + a ton of snark, they always assume that the person should have exactly the same knowledge they do and no more or no less. But they are not omniscient, so it looks colossally self-serving when they simply shrug off instances where they tore someone to pieces and then were clearly out thought by them as "bad luck" and move on without reassessing.

If anything, it's the most devastatingly damaging trait of the old school institutions that BP arose to oppose. Why repeat the same mistakes?

- like we used to say in the old days - WELL SAID!!!

i don't have a problem with BP stating that their position is to judge ballplayers/managers/organizations by numbers only, ignoring scouting reports and stuff like reports that ballplayer X causes trouble and hits on the other guys' wives and managers' daoughters kind of stuff and the other guys don't want to play with him and can't focus blahblahblah. kewl by me.

i DO have a problem with supposedly "objective" analysis being written in a sneering and bytchy way. ESPECIALLY because to solve a problem they INSIST on leaving out all kinds of information and also darn near insist that their systems lack nothing. AND they don't apologise for pointless and false insults - not apologizing for errors/facts - that i suppose i couold handle

but if i want complaining/sneering/bytchiness/unrational dislike of some person i can go to firejoemorgan or any other NON-objective site whose entire purpose is to make themselves look better by spitting on other people

Finally, as far as snark on the web site goes, I would suggest that one do a systematic review of the over 1500 articles a year BP now publishes before one suggests that there is an overall bias towards any form of expression, snark or otherwise.

I'd suggest that the people who want my money try to convince me of it, rather than shout "are not!"

The guys I really remember him crushing, strictly for their play, were Doug Flynn, Enos Cabell, Hubie Brooks, Duane Kuiper and Spike Owen. A little unfairly, IMO, since all these guys played a high-skill defensive position.

Cabell played first, at least at the time I remember James trashing him (during Cabell's Tiger tenure).

but if i want complaining/sneering/bytchiness/unrational dislike of some person i can go to firejoemorgan or any other NON-objective site whose entire purpose is to make themselves look better by spitting on other people

Having shared conversation with you for awhile now, I feel that it's fair to ask whether this actually ever happens--you wanting to read people brutalizing each other, I mean?

Mr. Goldman:
I appreciate your direct response, and I think you present a compelling case. Of course, the content engine that is BP shouldn't be derailed by a few sound bites. Then again, that's the standard we use for the most powerful political position in the world, so a sabersite can't complain too much for being held to the same standard, right?

However, I do think that it was pretty clear that BP either jumped on or jump started the "Kenny Williams is teh BAKA!" bandwagon, and continued to ride it long past the time it had any empirical basis or support.

It was shameful and compromised the values of your site, a site that holds a unique and central importance in the history of baseball.

Kenny Williams, for a variety of reasons, also holds a central importance in the history of the sport. It's too bad you can't take back some of that foolishness.

Here's what ten minute with boogle.com got me:

"Rauch" is German for "smoke," as in "gone like a puff of." Beware the player who offends Kenny Williams' Pecksniffian sense of professionalism; Williams might go do something rash like shoot himself in the foot...

Said GM immediately begins talking up Juan Encarnacion, redolent of either The Manchurian Candidate or a message directed at Kenny Williams (who else?). No trade happens, so the boys in blue are stuck with Encarnacion, who you can order al carbon or con tocino

The majority of the anti-Williams jabs currently reside behind the content wall--a condition that you and your team have earned with your prolific and thoughtful writing for the last decade, but one that also prevents me from citing any other examples.

Eraser-X is dominating this site! Posted: April 13, 2008 at 08:44 PM (#2742559)

but if i want complaining/sneering/bytchiness/unrational dislike of some person i can go to firejoemorgan or any other NON-objective site whose entire purpose is to make themselves look better by spitting on other people


Having shared conversation with you for awhile now, I feel that it's fair to ask whether this actually ever happens--you wanting to read people brutalizing each other, I mean?

- grinning

EX darling boy, i did say "IF"

and no, i really don't LIKE bytchiness. which is different from someone who writes a critical article. for example, any article that john brattain has written about bud selig and his complicity (isn't that a GREAT word) in the death of the montreal franchise

ESPECIALLY because to solve a problem they INSIST on leaving out all kinds of information and also darn near insist that their systems lack nothing.

While also putting in plenty of remarks like "Our system projects Player X to be terrible defensively, but we know he's good defensively, so you should ignore our projection for him. We don't know why our projection makes no sense for him, but you can count on our other projections, really!"

Am I the only person here who read the whole of the Jim Baker article and finds the linked article frankly silly?

The part of the Baker article quoted above, that DiFilippo found so heinous, basically says:
- Brantly was surprisingly adamant, which in my opinion anyone who saw the clip would agree with.
- Fate was unkind to him (true - most of the time Edwin Encarnation would make an out)
- This was magnified by the Youtube age (again true - 10 years ago such a tirade would have triggered a few laughs in some bars in Cincinnati and nothing else)

I don't want to break BP's copyright by quoting extensively, but the rest of the section on this was nicely balanced. In it, Baker:
- Riffs on how unusual it is for a hometown announcer to slam a player so vehemently and speculates on how Dusty Baker might reach given the Steve Stone precedent when he was with the Cubs.
- Speculates on whether bunting is a smart play in the situation, both in abstract and with someone who is such a poor bunter as Encarnacion.
- Says he doesn't really believe in Clutch hitting, but highlights that the RISP numbers that appeared to contradict Brantly are not the last word on the subject - pointing to Encarnacion hitting below his overall line in close and late situations as an example to show that, if you believe in that sort of thing, there are some numbers that could be used as an argument that Encarnacion is not 'clutch'. He concludes "Those of us who don’t buy the concept of clutch as a skill probably wouldn’t put much store in any argument he chose to make, but it would still be interesting to know the origin of his conclusion."

Hardly an amazing piece of analysis or writing (perhaps unsurprisingly in a column entitled "Early Season Miscellany"), but a good deal fairer and more charitable than most of the stuff I read on the interwebs about the Brantly moment, including the thread here. I also disagree with DiFilippo that Baker should have mentioned Brantly's graciousness after the homer run. It is quite simply irrelevant to any point that Baker was making.

I also think that people here are too quick to pile on to BP here. We seem to have got to the point where BP writers can't say anything vaguely critical without being accused of snark. Baker's writing is generally extremely good-natured, yet a whole load of people here who haven't read the article are just itching to jump on the same old tired everything at BP=snark bandwagon.

Wait a minute -- didn't they get this one right, more or less?

Same with Putz. That comment was in the 2004 book. In 2004, Putz had 4.71 ERA, and 47 Ks in 63 innings. I'd say their assessment was spot on. I didn't see anything in there about him NEVER being a good closer.

Besides, the classic BP failure was in 2002. This wasn't in the book, but on their site. In 2002, Sheehan wrote an AL West preview, talked about what a great division it would be, and didn't mention the Angels even once. Not even to dismiss them. Then, after hearing it from a few people, he wrote an entire column on how the Angels didn't have a snowball's chance in hell to compete in the division.

Well, whaddaya know? There are Angels fans.

Before Tuesday, I thought they were a myth, some kind of Disney creation that didn't really exist. Turns out, there are actually people who care about this team, and they have some pretty strong feelings about their chances this year.

They're wrong, but they're devoted. Not unlike Scientologists.

Anaheim Angels, 2002 World Champs.

That said, they'd be pretty boring to read if they didn't go out on a limb. Anyone can play it safe.

Adam S Posted: April 13, 2008 at 09:43 PM (#2742754)

I also think that people here are too quick to pile on to BP here. We seem to have got to the point where BP writers can't say anything vaguely critical without being accused of snark

- nope

because there is a big difference between criticism and snark

you can say - willy taveras seldom takes pitches or walks, which may reduce his effectiveness as a leadoff hitter, whose job is both to take as many pitches as possible and to get on base my any means possible. that is critical. but NOT snark.

this

"Rauch" is German for "smoke," as in "gone like a puff of." Beware the player who offends Kenny Williams' Pecksniffian sense of professionalism; Williams might go do something rash like shoot himself in the foot..."

is not criticism. this is bytchiness. which plenty of people think is just great. unless, of course, it is directed at them...

The guys I really remember him crushing, strictly for their play, were Doug Flynn, Enos Cabell, Hubie Brooks, Duane Kuiper and Spike Owen. A little unfairly, IMO, since all these guys played a high-skill defensive position.

Way back when, I think I was hooked on James when I read his comments on Flynn, I thought, FINALLY!!! someone sees it! [I was not a Flynn fan].

He stomped on Brooks back in 82/83, for whatever reason Brooks was absolutely horrid in 82/83, he was productive in 81, and in 84/85/86 etc... but for whatever reason his 2n and 3rd MLB seasons were absolutely terrible- he may have been the single worst regular in baseball in 83

Just to mention Ryan Howard at age 23/24- how could anyone distinguish Ryan Howard at that age from Brad Eldred?

and WRT D'Angleo Jimenez, he was never the same after the accident (physically), his teammates may have regarded him as a prick, but I think if a guy comes back to play in the MLB after a broken neck that it's pretty hard to claim he has a personality flaw that was going to impede his development no matter what else happened

I liked Steven Goldman's response.

Too late for me to consider the 2008 edition, but at least I'll glance at it next year if the BP predictor gods have now descended from Mount Olympus...

is not criticism. this is bytchiness. which plenty of people think is just great. unless, of course, it is directed at them...

They are also quotes from four freakin years ago that have nothing to do with the article at hand, which is precisely my point. I think BP is MUCH less snarky than it used to, which is a good thing. To me, it also less interesting a read (possibly because what they are doing is now being done well by more other writers), but I think the two are unrelated.

And, in fact, he did; that first year in Atlanta was the only good year he had left in his career.

To be fair to Andres, he did miss the entire next season with cancer. Not everyone can be Lance Armstrong and come back from cancer even better.

I wish they would credit who wrote which chapters, which may explain some of the discrepancies from year to year.

They are also quotes from four freakin years ago that have nothing to do with the article at hand, which is precisely my point. I think BP is MUCH less snarky than it used to, which is a good thing. To me, it also less interesting a read (possibly because what they are doing is now being done well by more other writers), but I think the two are unrelated.

I agree. To me, as a regular reader, the BP described on this thread in no way resembles the BP of the last several years (EDIT- Oops, I actually don't agree that it's less interesting now. There's a greater diversity of content now, which I like). Also:

While also putting in plenty of remarks like "Our system projects Player X to be terrible defensively, but we know he's good defensively, so you should ignore our projection for him. We don't know why our projection makes no sense for him, but you can count on our other projections, really!"

I believe that Nate Silver handles PECOTA, and that most (or maybe all) of the other BP writers have nothing to do with it. So it makes perfect sense for Sheehan or Goldstein or Kahrl to occasionally disagree with PECOTA's take on a given player.

All this kvetching! The B-Pro annual is an entertaining bathroom read, which is all I ask of a baseball book. I don't expect them to be right all the time, or anywhere close to it, but as long as they have reasoning behind their predictions, I can engage it, which is all I want. In fact, the more ballsy they are, the more fun it is--in my mind of course--to say, "Ok smart guys, this where you're wrong." Who wants to read 1,000 player evaluations where the writer keeps hedging with "I think" or "Perhaps". Screw that. I say go for the throat.

"Just to mention Ryan Howard at age 23/24- how could anyone distinguish Ryan Howard at that age from Brad Eldred?"

Better pitch recognition and plate discipline, for one. Howard had high K rates through the minors, but after his first year in the NY-P he always had at least 1 BB for every 10 AB. Eldred, meanwhile, put up a 6/51 BB/K in 147 AB at AA as a 23-year-old.

I can live with blown evaluations, up to a certain point, but what ultimately drove me away from BPro's books was a big string of factual errors. I read the Pirates' chapter one year, and they had one guy throwing with the wrong hand, and Duaner Sanchez listed as a soft-tosser, stuff like that, and I just thought, "Wait a second. I know this is wrong. If they're wrong here, on the Pirates, who's to say they aren't wrong on the other teams too, where I won't be able to catch it?"