Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 1 of 2 pages
There's an acronym called "MILF" that keeps cropping up, but I don't recognize it. Actually, it crops up enough that I think I'll try wikipedia and see if it's there.
Worst thread ever?
What paper (The Gazette?), and what was his name? That sounds like it'd be worth checking out.
There's a good reason people don't spell out MILF.
James is just cantankerous in his old age.
It's absurd that actual footnotes are almost never used anymore, as opposed to the endnotes you're describing. Footnoting was common for much of the nineteenth and early twentieth century, when it was extremely difficult to do given page layouts for presses. Now, when it's unbelievably easy to set true footnotes at the bottom of each page, no one does it.
I kind of agree, though there were probably too many cases BITD where those footnotes overran the page like so much kudzu, especially when those footnotes were long elaborations of an author's point rather than simple citations of sources.
Successful organizations generally don't ask players to do things that tax the limits of their abilities. If there is a pitcher who can post a 3.50 ERA as a reliever or a 4.50 ERA as a starter, a 100-win team will make him a reliever. A 100-loss team will make him a starter.
There's an acronym called "MILF" that keeps cropping up, but I don't recognize it. Actually, it crops up enough that I think I'll try wikipedia and see if it's there
Oh, yeah -- the editor in question is (I'm pretty sure he's still there) Wally Hall. Not for nothing did the local alternative weekly used to have a media criticism column called "The Good, the Bad & the Wally."
This has always bothered me...if he footnote turns into an additional argument or evidence to support your point or just an explanation of that point - just include it in the paper (or book, publication, etc).
The sports editor at my newspaper in Little Rock insisted that his column not be edited, which is how such gems as "not a chinchilla of evidence" & "seated vicariously on a barstool" made it into print, not to mention a reference to "Ted Williams, the Sultan of Swat." (He had no interest in baseball whatsoever but thought that softball was the bee's ####### knees. *sigh*)
I read your first comment and thought, "That sounds like Wally Hall." He's still there, doing his editorials and alternating between making 0 sense, and making sense to the lowest common denominator of Arkansas sports fans. Its funny, I always assumed that he must have been good at what he did at some point, but you don't give me that impression.
But hey, I guess people read him. That's most of the battle; it could be argued, I guess, that that's all of the battle.
I think Bill is correct on this, but he has a way of stating things anymore that make me want to do the opposite, even when he is right
It's OK to use OK? what the hell does OK stand for, anyway?
Ooh! I know this one!
It stands for "Old Kinderhook", aka (also known as) Martin Van Buren, who hailed from Kinderhook, NY (New York). "OK" was used prominently in his Presidential campaign.
chinchilla of evidence is awesome
or we could actually discuss the content of the article instead of focusing on one pretty irrelevant line and end up in 3rd-grade name-calling.
If James wants to point out that the website policy is to spell out Batting Average on Balls In Play, that's fine. Dedicating an entire point to it in a 3 point response does nothing but call out a loyal fan for what's essentially a harmless error.
Spelling it out in the quote would work better, but in any case, the snark then becomes superfluous.
The Dewan claim about shifts is an utter load of nonsense.
I hate endnotes with a passion, though one of the nice things about e-books from Amazon is that the footnotes are hyperlinked back and forth, so you only have to perform a simple click to get to them.
chinchilla of evidence is awesome!
This. If James wants to point out that the website policy is to spell out Batting Average on Balls In Play, that's fine. Dedicating an entire point to it in a 3 point response does nothing but call out a loyal fan for what's essentially a harmless error.
many non-fiction books have pure source notes rather than discursive notes, and those should certainly be in endnote form.
Count me in among those who love footnotes and abhor endnotes. Even if it's just a notation of sources, why are you making me flip away from the body of the text to find where you sourced something?
I'm having a hard time figuring out what the difference between the two is. His first point was to point out that website policy was to ask people to spell such things out. I don't know why it's so bad that he dedicated an "entire point" of one sentence to it.
Sorry Brock, but I don't think I've ever gotten a bigger laugh out of anything I've ever posted on BBTF. I'm not going to keep you in the dark though. This originated from the teen comedy "American Pie" and stands for Mom I'd Like to F***.
People use acronyms far too much. It's egregious hereabouts. If you're going to use an acronym, spell out what it stands far the first time you use it and again in every subsequent discrete revisiting. Every time. That's ninth-grade English, fellas. It's the law.
Quoted for truth.
How you managed not to reply "QFT" is beyond me.
The proper way to abbreviate Batting Average on Balls in Play is '$H'.
"Just a reminder, my policy is not to use acronyms like BABIP. If everyone wants their questions answered, then in the future please type out Batting Average on Balls In Play."
The use of the term “BABIP” is lazy and annoying to the readers, and I would prefer that you not use it
If there is a pitcher who can post a 3.50 ERA as a reliever or a 4.50 ERA as a starter, a 100-win team will make him a reliever. A 100-loss team will make him a starter.
IF defensive shifts have saved 75 runs that would imply that they have saved something like 150 hits, which would lead to a measurable drop in batting average on balls in play (although not anything like 10 points).
Actually, it would be a little more than 1 point, which is well within the realm of YTY variation. Realize that 150 hits = 5 hits per team, and that the typical team allows ~4200 balls in play
If the thesis of all this bristling is that Bill James's social skills are slightly below Miss Manners level, I guess we don't need to continue with this discussion--it's something BJ himself admits he lacks and wishes he didn't. I mean, if you want to keep kicking him around because he may or not be somewhere on the spectrum and wishes he weren't, by all means, have at it, I guess
Also, 75 runs saved would mean 100 fewer hits, not 150. Each hit prevented reduces scoring by .7-.8 runs.
I think acronyms longer than three letters get problematical. Unless you are intimately familiar with the subject, the time to mentally expand the acronym multiplied by the number of readers is orders of magnitude greater than the time saved by the author using the acronym.
Sure, one can easily Google the acronym, but that breaks up the flow of reading. By the same reasoning, the author could easily use the acronym during the first draft and then expand it before publication.
Everyone on the site knows what BABIP means. We use plenty of your acronyms, why do you have so much trouble with this one?
Asked by: ventboys
That's not true; there are lots of people reading this who actually DON'T know what that is. Even if you know what it is, you don't process it the same way you process a word. It catches in your mind for a second, then you unravel it and move on. Writers shouldn't do that to their readers; they shouldn't throw fish hooks into the middle of a sentence. I don't like and don't use ANY acronyms other than those things like RBI, which are SO familiar that readers process them the same way they process any other word.
My feelings about footnotes (not considering their use in fiction) are that they should only be used to source something. No comments. It's not the place for alternate argument or tangential speculation. If the substance of a comment is pertinent, then it belongs in the text proper. If not, then it shouldn't be made at all. If the comments are interesting and applicable they can be included in endnotes, and of course bibliographical endnotes with comments are perfectly appropriate.
Footnotes are the way to go, primarily for sourcing purposes, but some appropriate text within them is not a problem.
If it's applicable to your argument, there's no reason it can't be in the text proper. If it's not, then it's a diversion and belongs as an endnote or appendix or something like that. Or another book or essay. If it's a tangent, you should have to flip away from the main text (or save it for after you have devoted some concentration to the presentation proper. Footnotes should be to source your material, not to give in to an urge to pander to your Attention Deficit Disorder.
For the most part yes, but as mentioned upthread, there are authors who make footnotes into an inextricable part of their style, and their work wouldn't be as interesting without it
That's one of the reasons I'm not yet 100% on board with abolishing the death penalty. What can those people possibly be thinking when they do that? And I see it more and more every year.
If it's applicable to your argument, there's no reason it can't be in the text proper. If it's not, then it's a diversion and belongs as an endnote or appendix or something like that.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (9 members)
Page rendered in 1.7107 seconds, 60 querie(s) executed