I remember when Sports Illustrated did a similar thing in the early 80's. My brothers and I were fascinated by the Scouts' comments on guys. The one I remember best is Gene Richards (Padre LF) was the "worst outfielder since Jerry Lynch in the 50's ". Cracked us up.

Hey, I got an idea. Let's write an article telling everybody how smart we are!!

If [Graig] Nettles ran the 100-yard dash against Lou Piniella, nobody would win

lordy lordy I remember that joke


1984 was the first time I bought a Bill James Abstract.
To say it was an eye opener at the time was an understatement

There's room for both types of books, a fact that continues to elude the smarties. "Analysis" is one way of approaching baseball, but it's merely a niche -- one that's become something of a bore.

I loved those old books. I always thought it would be great to have a book which blended traditional scouting reports with a sabermetric-oriented report.

I haven't been around much lately, but is "The Id of SugarBear Blanks" the new troll? Seems like it.

I would buy that book now honestly, it sounds neat. I'd love to hear scouty thoughts on current players.

I haven't been around much lately, but is "The Id of SugarBear Blanks" the new troll? Seems like it.

His new thing is that baseball statisticians only like stats because it makes them feel superior to people who don't understand them.

There's room for both types of books, a fact that continues to elude the smarties. "Analysis" is one way of approaching baseball, but it's merely a niche -- one that's become something of a bore.

[Bob Horner] is signed to a big contract and is expected to win the Triple Crown before the contract expires

Just because there is room for both, does not mean one at its worse is no better than tabloid journalism... what insight is gained by saying Horner will win the tripple crown. Yea, he was a good to great player when not injured, but he was never going to come close to winning the tripple crown. He hit HRs in the top 5, but he was on a Braves team that rarely scored, and his avg was only top 10 once.

That being said, i can see how this treatment would put off the fans who thinks its useful information. Oh well.

I think Baseball Prospectus is full of much worse stuff than this. Especially since Silver left, their comp lists for every player are at least full of All Stars if not Hall of Famers.

Just because there is room for both, does not mean one at its worse is no better than tabloid journalism... what insight is gained by saying Horner will win the tripple crown.

What insight is lost? Where's the harm?

What insight is lost? Where's the harm?

That's your standard?

Seems...low.

Well you have to parse what the author is saying about Horner to extract the real value - he's saying Horner hits for power, doesn't strike out much, stings the ball routinely, that's he's a good all-around hitter. When I read that I saw the triple crown reference as shorthand for the kind of hitter Horner was. YMMV but I like reading these old reports.

That's your standard?

Seems...low.

It's not my standard; it's two questions. The answer to one of them is that there's precisely zero harm in publishing a "scouty" observation that someone, somewhere expects Bob Horner to win a Triple Crown.(*) And a lot of good -- that's an interesting thing to know.

(*) And if that's the case, then why do people publish 1,500 words on how much smarter they are than baseball watchers in 1984?

Man, it was fun to be a 12-year-old Braves fan in the spring of 1984. Murphy was the reigning MVP, Bob Horner was going to win the triple crown, Brad Komminsk was going to be Rookie of the Year, and you just knew that Craig McMurtry was on the verge of breaking out. Maybe he'd keep Pascual Perez from winning the Cy Young!

I haven't been around much lately, but is "The Id of SugarBear Blanks" the new troll?

In a word: yes.

"Troll" -- what a fresh and clever word!!! You must be so proud.

Man, it was fun to be a 12-year-old Braves fan in the spring of 1984. Murphy was the reigning MVP, Bob Horner was going to win the triple crown, Brad Komminsk was going to be Rookie of the Year, and you just knew that Craig McMurtry was on the verge of breaking out. Maybe he'd keep Pascual Perez from winning the Cy Young!

And they had two guys named Rick ready to take Phil Niekro's place.

The "Triple Crown", boy, that takes me back! Remember when people used to care about that stuff?

In his second year up, at the age of 21/22, Horner finished 5th in BA, 4th in HRs and 6th in RBI, despite playing in only 121 games. That is definitely a player who, if things had broken right, could have won a Triple Crown.

Horner, though, was a fat lazy slob, and never came close after that. But that certainly doesn't make it wrong for people to have expected him to win a Triple Crown. There's certainly value in learning what was expected of players, even if they never fulfilled those expectations.

What insight is lost? Where's the harm?

The insight that is lost is
1) This is 1-2 years after it was even remotely plausible that Horner could be a tripple crown winner.
2) It ignores his already fairly serious injury risks

but yea, those are minor.

In general I don't think there is any harm. I used to think that comments without much thought that appealed to uninformed romanticism were harmful as they reinforced non critical thinking... but I now think that some people will always be non-critical thinkers, and they need an outlet that they can appreciate. Its not for me from an analysis POV, but the colorful language can be beautiful .

In general I don't think there is any harm. I used to think that comments without much thought that appealed to uninformed romanticism were harmful as they reinforced non critical thinking... but I now think that some people will always be non-critical thinkers, and they need an outlet that they can appreciate. Its not for me from an analysis POV, but the colorful language can be beautiful .

Yeah, I think there's a kind of Bill Simmons-ish sports writing that is just uncritically talking about sports. Not all conversations about sports need to be highly serious and informed. It's sports. They're kind of ridiculous to begin with. Some people get really into the theory behind player value quantification and whatnot (ie, this website), and that's great, but every conversation doesn't need to be about that.

However it's frustrating in any subject area when someone not only doesn't seem to get basic concepts that you have spent tons of time thinking about, but they aren't interested in really learning them. At least in baseball the stakes are a lot lower than what I deal with in biomedical research, where there are lots of half-assed opinions about things that really are dangerous.

Awesomeness! I wish I would've had the foresight to keep all of my old baseball magazines from when I was a child. Man, it would be a blast to see them all now for the same reasons as this. Not the "analysis" so much, as the "fun". Good times.

As to the other BS in the thread....just wow....attempts to start conversation are always good. Blatant, unsolicited attempts to use specific words that one knows will incite particular responses and behavior is often the behavior of a sociopath. Just sayin'.

The Scouting Report books were fun. Reports on pitches the pitchers threw, and you got spray charts for hitters. I like them alongside the Abstracts.