Well, now we know that Joe doesn't spend much of his spare time over at Tango's site...

Lane took over Baseball Magazine three months before Fenway Park opened, and died a few months after Yaz retired.

Don:

I am confused. Did you see this note by Joe in the article?

Numerous other people -- Friend of Blog Tom Tango among them

Go away, Poz. I don't want to hear from you anymore, I don't want to read you anymore, I don't give a flying f**k what you think anymore. Finish up writing your Paterno hagiography, collect your 30 pieces of silver, and go to hell.

Esoteric

I suspect Joe understands that he will get soundly criticized unless he goes into the Sandusky situation. And will he be able to get Paterno to discuss the topic?

Doubtful

Go away, Poz. I don't want to hear from you anymore, I don't want to read you anymore, I don't give a flying f**k what you think anymore. Finish up writing your Paterno hagiography, collect your 30 pieces of silver, and go to hell.

While I wouldn't be so colorful, I can't see Poz's name anymore without thinking of his shameful comments -- and then lack of any comment -- on the Paterno matter.

Harv,

Tango found F.C. Lane's stuff well before the Fangraphs article. Actually, Alan Schwarz covered Lane in his book The Numbers Game in 2004. Lane's book was published by SABR in 2001. While Joe is doing a "good deed" by pushing this to a broader (?) audience, he doesn't seem to know that the Fangraphs piece wasn't some startlingly new revelation. Some might find that irrelevant; that's OK, I was just rolling my eyes at the department of redundancy department.

The quote you note doesn't reference the fact that Tango found the articles and commented on them a number of years back, it simply talks about how he's tweaked Linear Weights. Yes, Joe's "honest" about the fact that he didn't know about it, I'm just kinda surprised that he didn't, given how much actual exposure Lane's work has received.

Hmmm...given some of the other comments that have surfaced in this thread, perhaps Joe is trying to curry favor with some of yez who are mad at him for being a human being with foibles and a member of the fourth estate who sometimes has to put a moat around himself...

Go away, Poz. I don't want to hear from you anymore, I don't want to read you anymore, I don't give a flying f**k what you think anymore. Finish up writing your Paterno hagiography, collect your 30 pieces of silver, and go to hell.

Shut up, you sanctimonious idiot.

Esoteric

I suspect Joe understands that he will get soundly criticized unless he goes into the Sandusky situation. And will he be able to get Paterno to discuss the topic?

Doubtful

So Poznanski has the choice of either publishing a shitty, incomplete book or a dishonest whitewash. Why even bother then? Why not just chalk it up to being pissed on by the karma gods, punt the project and go back to being what you are supposed to be, an honest newspaperman?

On the same side of the fence as Eso and Ray. What Poznanski is doing stinks to high heaven.

Here's the link for the SABR Lane book at Amazon for anyone who's interested.

Tango found F.C. Lane's stuff well before the Fangraphs article.

And who honestly cares who found who first. The difference is that Joe actually writes some interesting thing, Tango generally doesn't write in a fashion that makes it pleasureable to read. Much closer to a text book styling instead of entertainment.

On the same side of the fence as Eso and Ray. What Poznanski is doing stinks to high heaven.

And what is he doing?

And what is he doing?

Basically nothing.

Not really sure what he is doing that is terribly wrong except saying

But this is where my thoughts trail off… I’m writing a book about Joe Paterno. I need time. This story, for me at least, needs time. This thing is so vile, so grotesque, that it is human nature to want everyone to pay. Innocent children were hurt, scarred, and as a parent this is something so horrible that I cannot even think of a penalty harsh enough. There is no way to see this thing clearly now, not for me, anyway.

And who honestly cares who found who first.

In this case, I do, just a little bit. And as I said, I don't care if you disagree or find it nit-picky.. I just find it weird that F.C. Lane seems to be getting rediscovered so often these days.

FWIW, I made a similar comment in the thread about the Fangraphs article a few months back when it ran. (Perhaps you said the same thing there, too!)

And you might be surprised to discover that Tango wrote about this particular subject with more panache and nuance--and a similar amount of astonished enthusiasm as that displayed by Joe--than what he's usually credited with.

I won't defend Poz' initial actions/comments in the classroom crap, but I do think some are going overboard in further condemning him out of a sense of outrage about the heinous crime committed. Poz clearly screwed up, but he isn't Sandusky. He isn't even on the same level as any of those who covered up for/failed to report Sandusky. He was too close to a story and spoke regarding breaking news without fully understanding how ugly a situation it was developing into. I've read enough of Poz' writing to have a sense (which could be mistaken) that he is a good and decent man. I was disappointed in him, but I'm not the sort to hate a man merely because he disappointed me. My kids have disappointed me from time to time and I of course love them regardless. I have no doubt that this was a learning experience for Poz and he'll be more circumspect in the future.

And what is he doing?

Hoping that with "time to see things clearly," some miracle shows Paterno to be above blame for acting despicably in not making sure children weren't being raped on his watch, so that Poz doesn't have to write that Paterno's actions deserve utter contempt?

What that miracle is I cannot conceive of.

Poz clearly screwed up, but he isn't Sandusky.

No but he hasn't reversed himself or apologized appropriately either. I think Ray is right that he's hoping it all blows over so he can publish his damned hagiography about Paterno without alteration.

Apologize for what? He didn't really do anything?

Is there a three-sentence summary of why people are so angry at Posnanski? I'm aware of the Sandusky charges and that Posnanski is writing a Paterno bio, but I must have missed whatever it is Posnanski did to make people so angry at him. (Admittedly, I don't follow football at all, so I've only caught the Sandusky headlines.)

I won't defend Poz' initial actions/comments in the classroom crap, but I do think some are going overboard in further condemning him out of a sense of outrage about the heinous crime committed. Poz clearly screwed up, but he isn't Sandusky. He isn't even on the same level as any of those who covered up for/failed to report Sandusky.

Sandusky will get his, and he's too depraved and sub-human to waste brain cells on. Paterno and his crew were the humans in the room who should have put a stop to the evil being visited by Sandusky; they failed to do so. Despite being so-called "educators" in charge of a school.

Posnanski should be able to see that Paterno's actions were despicable. He has failed to do so, or at least to say so.

He was too close to a story and spoke regarding breaking news without fully understanding how ugly a situation it was developing into.

No. First, as Whitlock noted, Poz had been down in Happy Valley for some time researching Paterno to write a book on him. How Posnanski missed that Paterno's world was crumbling is curiouos.

Second, Posnanski's comments were written after the grand jury report came out, and - as I've shown in other threads and as I emailed to Posnanski - Posnanski simply lied about what the grand jury report said. Or was so misinformed that he couldn't possibly have read it before commenting. Either speaks horribly of him.

Ashton Freaking Kutcher realized that he had defended Paterno without understanding what the facts were, and Kutcher was mature enough to apologize immediately and retract his comments. Posnanski was not.

basically Posnanski defended Paterno without jumping to conclusions like everyone else did. Then Joe pointed out that Paterno has become the scapegoat for this whole mess, which really seems to irk people for some random reason. Then Joe realized that insane people are on the internet, and basically stopped talking about the whole mess.

Is there a three-sentence summary of why people are so angry at Posnanski?

Here.

basically Posnanski defended Paterno without jumping to conclusions like everyone else did.

Yes, all those people "jumping to conclusions" by reading of Paterno's own testimony in the grand jury report.

All one needs to do to conclude that Paterno's actions were utterly contemptible is to read of Paterno's own testimony of what (at a minimum) McQueary reported to him, and then understand that at no time did Paterno report Sandusky to the state authorities.

What is the defense of Paterno after the above, which is easily understood?

Here's the link for the SABR Lane book at Amazon for anyone who's interested.

For the few people left here who aren't interested primarily in thread hijacking, that Lane book on batting is one of the most amazing books on baseball ever published. Imagine a book from today with batting tips based on thousands of interviews with the 300 best hitters from the past 15 years, quoting them by name on every page, and you'll get some idea of what Lane's 218 page 1925 book is like. There isn't a single aspect of batting that isn't covered, and covered from every possible angle. I've got scores of those old Baseball Magazines from the 10's and 20's, and Lane's statistical articles are both groundbreaking and fun to read in their own right---but for keeping your ongoing attention, his book on Batting is infinitely more interesting.

And BTW the prices on Amazon begin at all of 57 cents. I can't imagine any real baseball fan not wanting to own and read a copy.

What is the defense of Paterno after the above, which is easily understood?

not sure what Paterno's testimony is, but it really doesn't matter, the person who is at fault here is the assistant he witnessed the crime and didn't report it to the authorities. Paterno is being scapegoated because he didn't act on second hand information, or more accurately he made the assumption that it's his job to report it to his bosses and let them handle the investigation and make a decision.

How come Mike McQueary isn't the guy getting raked over the coals? Oh that is right, he isn't Paterno.

JOST:

You should write a review at the Amazon site. There is none yet. Your comment here with only slight alteration would be good.

Ray:

What's the purpose of a grand jury and the testimony obtained there? Is everything necessarily told in a grand jury proceeding or in the testimony given in a proceeding? This isn't a Warner Brothers cartoon, so stop playing Yosemite Sam. Take it easy. Don't worry. There'll be plenty of time and opportunity for you to lose your head down the road. I realize your reservoirs of outrage are inexhaustible, but try to pace yourself.

How come Mike McQueary isn't the guy getting raked over the coals? Oh that is right, he isn't Paterno.

Um, seriously? McQueary's been raked over the coals as much as Paterno has. The only defense anybody has offered of McQueary is the implication that ratting out Penn State legend Jerry Sandusky would lead to him being fired and blackballed by Paterno.

I really hope that every article Poz writes from now on devolves into ######### about what he should have/should not have said about Paterno within the first dozen comments. That would be so great.

not sure what Paterno's testimony is,

Well, then, you shouldn't go around accusing people of "jumping to conclusions" and being internet crazies when you haven't bothered to inform yourself of the facts. Some of us _have_ bothered.

but it really doesn't matter, the person who is at fault here is the assistant he witnessed the crime and didn't report it to the authorities. Paterno is being scapegoated because he didn't act on second hand information, or more accurately he made the assumption that it's his job to report it to his bosses and let them handle the investigation and make a decision.

How come Mike McQueary isn't the guy getting raked over the coals? Oh that is right, he isn't Paterno.

It is Posnanski's defense of Paterno that has people criticizing Posnanski. And I see you try to excuse Paterno's reprehensible behavior. I didn't say Paterno should be charged with a crime; I said he acted despicably in not making sure it went to state authorities.

In this case, I do, just a little bit. And as I said, I don't care if you disagree or find it nit-picky.. I just find it weird that F.C. Lane seems to be getting rediscovered so often these days.

Actually, I believe I am the one that pointed it out to Tango about 4 years ago. I happened across it while looking through the LA84 site that Joe mentioned in his article. I wasn't the first of course, as it turns out Cyril Morong had several links up at his website for several years when I happened across it.

Batting is great. TFA is pretty good. I like Posnanski. His stance on Paterno, as I understand it (from one of his articles and tweeted excerpts of his PSU speech), is somewhere between really, really wrong and flat out reprehensible. This thread sucks.

I really hope that every article Poz writes from now on devolves into ######### about what he should have/should not have said about Paterno within the first dozen comments. That would be so great.

Lucky for you, I bet you're going to get your wish!

21 & 22 — Thanks for the info./recap.

And I see you try to excuse Paterno's reprehensible behavior

I don't give a crap about Paterno to be honest one way or another. I blame Sandusky, I blame McCreary, then I blame the AD, and then I blame Paterno, and lastly I blame the parents for not raising a kid to speak out.

I don't defend the bahavior of anyone involved, but unlike you Ray, I do understand the concept of the world being not just black and white. There are degrees of reprehensible behavior, and 1. Joe Posnanski never remotely entered that terriotory, and 2. Paterno is about the least reprehensible of the people actually involved.

I understand what Paterno did, I do not excuse it.

and lastly I blame the parents for not raising a kid to speak out

You're a ####### moron.

The worst thing I've heard about Pos is that he's a sentimental human who jumped to conclusions to defend his friend, and now has a lot of crow to eat for defending criminal behaviour, and since he had a book project on him, it is now seen that he has a duty to do this properly.

That's not a shun-worthy offense. What's next, shunning people for belonging to the same high-school class as a serial killer?

Is there a three-sentence summary of why people are so angry at Posnanski?

Here.

So some students at penn state liveblogged something... and deadspin (clearly not a sensationalistic web site, or anything) second-hand liveblogged... and STILL felt like they had to caveat with:

Some Posnanski quotes, obviously out of context and likely not transcribed precisely.

I've been pretty much out of the loop on this whole thing, but this kind of terribly-low quality faux-reporting was surely deconstructed previously on BTF, right? I mean, no one is really going to take seriously third-hand information gathered via college kids tweeting during a class?

and lastly I blame the parents for not raising a kid to speak out

You're a ####### moron.

Cardsfanboy, your above statement would generally make no sense as we're speaking of children 10 or 12 years old, and so the "raising" you speak of had not yet had a chance to run its course. In this specific case, it makes even less sense, because in many instances there were no "parents," plural; there were single mothers trying to raise children on their own, who were being preyed upon by Sandusky, who had set up an elaborate scheme to basically feed him underprivileged boys under the guise of a father figure.

Sandusky set up an organization to help underprivileged kids, and was, literally, raping them.

Sleepy, to the best of my knowledge, that reporting has held up.

I am decidedly not in favor of shunning Pos.

Batting is great. TFA is pretty good. I like Posnanski. His stance on Paterno, as I understand it (from one of his articles and tweeted excerpts of his PSU speech), is somewhere between really, really wrong and flat out reprehensible. This thread sucks.

Joe Posnanski simply declined to make any public judgments about Paterno, his subject, in the immediate aftermath of a scandal that he, Poz, had nothing to do with. If you think this is "flat out reprehensible" or even "really, really wrong" you are completely nuts.

Is there a contest to see who can be the most vehemently anti-child rape? What's the prize?

The worst thing I've heard about Pos is that he's a sentimental human who jumped to conclusions to defend his friend, and now has a lot of crow to eat for defending criminal behaviour, and since he had a book project on him, it is now seen that he has a duty to do this properly.

That's not a shun-worthy offense. What's next, shunning people for belonging to the same high-school class as a serial killer?

The worst thing I heard about Pos is that he painted as a victim a man -- an alleged "educator," no less -- who did not report child sex abuse to the proper authorities.

And who spoke of shunning Pos?

Homer: Wonders, Lisa? Or blunders? Lisa: I think I was implied by what I said. Homer: Implied, Lisa? Or implode? Lisa: Mom, make him stop! ...

Poz's Paterno take does color things. He was pretty crappy/dumb on the whole matter, and that affects future readings for me, I can't say it doesn't.

And who spoke of shunning Pos?

Go away, Poz. I don't want to hear from you anymore, I don't want to read you anymore, I don't give a flying f**k what you think anymore. Finish up writing your Paterno hagiography, collect your 30 pieces of silver, and go to hell.

I'm not sure if you're going with a biblical definition, Ray, but that's a shunning.


ANYHOW, regarding F.C. Lane, I do have his "Batting" book from 1925 and it is quite awesome. I highly recommend it for everyone here.

no one is really going to take seriously third-hand information gathered via college kids tweeting during a class

1. What kind of documentation of a guy lecturing a college class do you expect there to be?
2. What motivation would the student have to concoct this tale?
3. If they had, wouldn't someone else who was there most likely have used their own ability to instantly communicate with the world and say "hey, that's not what happened"?

Do you seriously think that this story is made up?

I do wish that Poz would confront himself over the Paterno issue, but I can't see much point in ignoring everything he writes about baseball just because of it. If I can tolerate the assorted wingnuts and wackos who populate a fair portion of organized sports, I can live with a writer who let friendship cloud what surely must have been his better judgment.

At this site, you can comment directly on what Poz wrote about Lane

http://joeposnanski.si.com/2012/01/01/f-c-lane/

A commenter over there said the system did not include walks. FC Lane’s article on the value of walks is here

http://cyrilmorong.com/LaneBaseonBalls.htm

Also, Lane's book on batting has an interesting discussion on optimal lineups

I scanned it and posted it on my blog

http://cybermetric.blogspot.com/2011/01/fc-lane-on-batting-order.html

One expert mentioned that it was a good idea to bat power hitter Cy Williams 2nd.

cmon guys

posnanski shouldn't be shunned. he certainly did let the godliness cloud of paterno that seems to be state college city affect his judgement. and his mouth, which he opened prior to engaging brains.

but he has NOT published any hagiography.

and perhaps he is doing all kinds of re-writing and/or investigating. and waiting to see what else comes out and seeing if he can perhaps find anyone who will come forward corroborating what seems to be the case that joe swept this stuff under the rug.

that joe pa book may not ever get written. or that joe pa book just might could be a revelation of the 2 sides of joe paterno - and i personally would like to give joe a break here to see what he DOES do. because having to face the depths of paterno's moral depravity after being informed that he was saintly for over a year - that is a real shock to the mind.

and just maybe he is investigating the unsolved murder of the district attorney who WAS gonna prosecute.

i know how people who belong to a tight group will band together to protect the group, no mater what. i know this is true of companies, families, organizations, and obviously, colleges.

to me, what mcqueary did is no different from people who witness a murder who choose to keep mouth SHUT because they are more afraid of what will happen to them than they are of the murderer getting away with it. self preservation over justice for the victim.

to me, the person MOST guilty of sin (and notice i said SIN, not crime) here is joe paterno. he had immense power and he used it to sweep the carcass of little boy butts under the rugs.

kind of reminds me of women who are married to men who beat up or rape their children and they figure it is the price of getting that man's money/position. sort of sophie's choice. but what gets me about paterno is that he COULD have stopped sandusky if he wanted to even if he didn't ever let the raping get reported. he didn't do one thing except for order his "superior" over to his house the next day and tell him about it.

it's a crime against God and humanity, not the State.

Pos wrote this about his discussion with the Penn State class:

I will wait, though. I will have to wait.

But then, yeah, I opened my big mouth. On Thursday morning, I went to speak at the “Paterno and the Media” class on the Penn State campus — I have spoken at the class the last two or three years. This was obviously one day after Paterno had been fired, and the campus had been turned inside out. I woke up wondering if I really should go. But I decided I had to go.

And when I was asked questions, I had to say how I felt. It spilled out of me. I suppose it caused a bit of a Twitter uproar — I say “I suppose,” because for the first time in memory I am not checking Twitter, and I think I’ll stay away for a while — but what I remember saying is:

1. Joe Paterno is responsible for what happens on his watch. Period.

2. People are making assumptions about what Joe did or didn’t know, what Joe did or didn’t do, and I can’t tell you that those assumptions are wrong. But I can tell you that they are assumptions based on one side of the story.

3. We are in a top-you world where everyone is not only trying to report something faster but is also trying to report something ANGRIER. One guy wants Joe Paterno to resign, the next wants him to be fired, the next wants him to be fired this minute, the next wants him to be fired and arrested, the next wants him to be fired, arrested and jailed, on and on, until we’ve lost sight of who actually committed the crimes here.

4. I think the University could not possibly have handled this worse. It was disgusting and disgraceful, the method in which they fired Joe Paterno after 60 years of service, and yes, I do think Paterno was a scapegoat. Of course he was. I’ve already said that he had to be let go. But to let him dangle out there, take up all the headlines, face the bulk of the media pressure, absolutely, that’s the very definition of scapegoat. Three people were indicted and arrested. A fourth, I hear, will be indicted soon. Joe Paterno is not one of the four.

5. It is still unclear what Paterno did in this case. It will remain unclear for a while. You might be one of the hundreds and hundreds of people I’ve heard from who know EXACTLY what Paterno did. He HAD to know this. He DEFINITELY knew that. He COULD have done something. I respect that. Joe Paterno’s a public figure. You have every right to believe what you want to believe and be absolutely certain about it. But since we have not heard from Joe, not heard from former athletic director Tim Curley, not heard from GA/assistant coach Mike McQueary, not heard from anyone who was in the room, I’ll repeat: It’s unclear. A determined grand jury did not charge Joe Paterno with any crime. A motivated reporting barrage, so far, anyway, has not uncovered a single thing that can tell us definitively what Joe Paterno knew.

I wonder why singles and doubles remained the same but triples and homers lost 10% of their value? Random error is is something like stronger outfield throwing arms, more emphasis on power at the expense of speed or something else like that a factor?

Even if Poz wasn't the first to rediscover Lane, I enjoyed this article. He has that kid-in-a-candy-shop approach that has drawn me into Poz's writing for a while. I am glad that he isn't bitter and perpetually cynical about sports as are most of the writers linked here.

On Paterno and Poz's lack of reporting before the story broke, I find it interesting that some of the very same people who bemoaned the illegal leaking of GJ testimony in the Balco / Bonds case, are now becrying Poz being unable to unearth this GJ testimony before it was made public.

I wonder why singles and doubles remained the same but triples and homers lost 10% of their value?

I'd start by guessing it is more a flaw in Lane's findings (either from the small sample size and/or how he was approaching the run value of a fielder's choice) rather than looking for a change in the structure of how the game is played.