Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Cameron: Giving the Finger to BP

The truth is that Derek and I both walked away from Baseball Prospectus of our own accord because we were tired of dealing with those people. It only took me a year to have enough of Joe Sheehan, Will Carroll, and Chris Kahrl. I can’t believe Derek survived in that cess pool as long as he did, and it’s a credit to his willingness to work with less than stellar people that he was never arrested for physically assaulting some of those guys.
[...]

But BP is also heavily influenced by a cadre of people who suck at living as human beings. The person who wrote that comment about Derek is one of them - the person who edited the book and approved it is another. When it comes to being good people, they redefine replacement level.

Oooh, drama!

bibigon Posted: March 06, 2007 at 07:57 PM | 119 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: online

Reader Comments and Retorts

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  1 2 > 
   1. xbhaskarx Posted: March 06, 2007 at 09:25 PM (#2307789)
is this news? actually, i guess it is...

from the USSM comments: "Dave, you’ve made countless snide references to BP and, in particular, Sheehan, here over the past few years."
   2. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: March 06, 2007 at 09:30 PM (#2307792)
Leaving aside Cameron's more general points (for better or worse) am I the only one who finds the original comment in the Annual pretty innocuous? It seems so tounge-in-cheek to me that I'm surprised David reacted as forcefully as he did. Of course, given the other issues, perhaps I shouldn't be.
   3. Hello Rusty Kuntz, Goodbye Rusty Cars Posted: March 06, 2007 at 09:32 PM (#2307793)
We don't need two girl-fight controversies involving somebody named Derek. Why isn't opening day here yet?
   4. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: March 06, 2007 at 09:41 PM (#2307797)
It was pretty rude to do it the way that they did, but at the same time, I think it's legitimate to criticize Derek for blowing the prediction. Even if he was manful and admitted to being wrong, he was still wrong, y'know?

I think a lot of the guys with BPro, both past AND present, could stand to be a lot more humble and respectful in their analyses. None of 'em are perfect, and the only thing worse than a smug analyst is a smug analyst with the wrong take on a situation.
   5. The Ghost of the Bearded Wizard Posted: March 06, 2007 at 09:42 PM (#2307798)
I thought Will Carroll was always right?
   6. Shredder Posted: March 06, 2007 at 09:42 PM (#2307799)
m I the only one who finds the original comment in the Annual pretty innocuous?

I thought the same thing, but Cameron's reaction makes me think there's a lot more to the story that we don't know about. And if there's something sinister about it, it's a pretty stupid comment. I mean, was anybody right about Ibanez? Except the Mariners? I thought that deal was pretty much universally panned at the time.
   7. Justin T has a centaur for a mentor Posted: March 06, 2007 at 09:43 PM (#2307801)
Considering all the points made by Cameron in that piece about the work Derek did there, I think I would have the same reaction he did. I don't consider it innocuous at all. It says, "The guy who wrote that stuff about Ibanez sucked and we got rid of his sorry ass. Now you will only read things from people who are right in every prediction they make. Everything you see in this book is guaranteed to happen, because we got rid of that guy."
   8. Toolsy McClutch Posted: March 06, 2007 at 09:45 PM (#2307804)
Leaving aside Cameron's more general points (for better or worse) am I the only one who finds the original comment in the Annual pretty innocuous? It seems so tounge-in-cheek to me that I'm surprised David reacted as forcefully as he did. Of course, given the other issues, perhaps I shouldn't be.


Me too. When you're fighting a religious war, casualties aren't a concern.
   9. Shredder Posted: March 06, 2007 at 09:47 PM (#2307805)
This is from the comments thread:

Commenter CCW: I’d be curious if DMZ actually gives a rat’s ass about that comment.

Zumsteg: Yes. I’ve talked to responsible parties privately.


Sounds like there's some ill-will perhaps.
   10. Sean McNally Posted: March 06, 2007 at 09:49 PM (#2307807)
I would agree and disagree with RB here.... the comment in and of itself isn't bad, but its the implication that the person who wrote the Ibanez comment was in some way less than and as such got the axe.

I think is indignation is justified here because of that unspoken implication.
   11. The District Attorney Posted: March 06, 2007 at 09:49 PM (#2307808)
Fandom Wank?
   12. Cris E Posted: March 06, 2007 at 09:49 PM (#2307809)
It was pretty rude to do it the way that they did, but at the same time, I think it's legitimate to criticize Derek for blowing the prediction. ...he was still wrong, y'know?

Sure it's fine to make fun of misses, if they're fun, or if you do it rigorously across all predictions, or you have a point about why you missed. This was in lieu of an actual 2007 comment, it was years after the fact, it cut on someone who wasn't around to rebut it, and judging by Derek's comment in the comments it wasn't well-received. I'm with Shredder, there's probably a lot of iceburg beneath this water.
   13. CFBF Rides The Zombie Ice Dragon Posted: March 06, 2007 at 09:50 PM (#2307811)
I swear to God, I saw the title of this thread and thought, "Why does Mike Cameron hate batting practice so much?"
   14. Buddha Posted: March 06, 2007 at 09:51 PM (#2307812)
NERD FIGHT!
   15. Mister High Standards Posted: March 06, 2007 at 09:59 PM (#2307814)
I wouldn't have a problem with BP writing what they did... if they signed their work. They don't, therefore Derek isn't responsible for the comment the brand is. Lacking the courage to sign your work (not Derek, blanket BP policy) means when someone gets something wrong, you all do. But we live in a through someone under the bus culture, where people more often than not will pass the buck, rather than stopping it. It's not surprising.

I still buy the book, and subscribe. Though I skim more than devour the content.
   16. Dag Nabbit at ExactlyAsOld.com Posted: March 06, 2007 at 10:01 PM (#2307815)
I swear to God, I saw the title of this thread and thought, "Why does Mike Cameron hate batting practice so much?"

You weren't alone.

It was pretty rude to do it the way that they did, but at the same time, I think it's legitimate to criticize Derek for blowing the prediction. ...he was still wrong, y'know?

Aside from responses made by others, at the USSM thread, Cameron says DMZ left of his own accord, while the Ibanez comment makes it sound like they dumped him because he was beneath him. Ya, I could see how that would sting.

For me, the interesting thing about the comments in the thread was it made BP sound like the latter day BBBA -- attitude problems and far too many typos.

Cameron does point out in the article that he thinks many of the people he met at BP are fantastic, and his comments aren't directed to all individuals there. I've only had a chance to really speak with two (Dan Fox and the greater Jaffe) and they were both terrific guys.

Needless cheapshot, though.
   17. xbhaskarx Posted: March 06, 2007 at 10:04 PM (#2307818)
if dave really has made countless snide references to BP and sheehan on USSM over the past few years, and he hasn't denied doing so at this point, a snide BP response of "the guy who wrote that isn`t with us anymore" doesn't seem all that out of line to me.
sure it was somewhat of a cheap shot, but "cess pool", "physically assaulting some of those guys", "redefine replacement level", that's taking it to another level.
   18. Who Swished In Your Cornflakes? Posted: March 06, 2007 at 10:06 PM (#2307819)
Agreed with Luis Polonium-210. I've only bought the BP annual for the past three years, but this year I'll pass. Never used the annual that much anyway, and I can get the numbers I want from Baseball Reference or ZiPS. Amazingly, I've been wholly ignorant of THT and will now begin visiting their site.

For what it's worth, I think it's important for someone to realize when they've made a mistake. But I'd say completely missing the projection on Ibanez would be realization enough. It's just ugly to try to push your publication's status up by using a former contributor as a scapegoat.

If that Sheehan story about writing about his drunken snark-fest at a Padres game is true, then yikes. If Adrian Beltre's actually been left out of the 2007 annual, double yikes.

Is the 'Derek' that is mentioned actually Derek Jacques? He's the only one that I can remember with that name on BP.

I've been steadily losing respect for BP lately. Their snark seems to cut deeper and deeper nowadays. I've become disillusioned with Joe Sheehan's work. His is a lot of snark peppered with fact, and it ought to be the other way around. I'm pretty neutral on Christina Kahrl and Will Carroll. There's been an opinion on Carroll floated around here, and I agree with it; namely that I like his analysis regarding medical reports, though any other embellishments seem excessive.

What I've read from Nate Silver I generally like. I enjoy Maury Brown's contributions, and I like the Unfiltered posts they've been doing. I'm sure I've forgotten other contributors but those are the first who come to mind.

From now on I'll likely read the (free) publications on their Web site with closer scrutiny.
   19. Moloka'i Three-Finger Brown (Declino DeShields) Posted: March 06, 2007 at 10:13 PM (#2307823)
I wouldn't have a problem with BP writing what they did... if they signed their work. They don't, therefore Derek isn't responsible for the comment the brand is.


That's an excellent point. (Not sure about the "courage" part thereafter, but yeah---it does seem sort of hinky to extract a not-so-subtle reference to an individual author so flippantly there, when in almost all other contexts the chapter writer's identity is subsumed by the brand.)

if dave really has made countless snide references to BP and sheehan on USSM over the past few years, and he hasn't denied doing so at this point, a snide BP response of "the guy who wrote that isn`t with us anymore" doesn't seem all that out of line to me


This is why people start blogs, right? I'd prefer people keep that stuff on the blogs, therefore.

I've purchased every BPro since about 1998, and this won't stop me from continuing. But the snarky little comment seemed in poor taste and, not having a dog in the fight, I do appreciate Cameron's sense of loyalty.
   20. RobertMachemer Posted: March 06, 2007 at 10:16 PM (#2307824)
When Will Carroll threatened to nuke the entire brand’s reputation with a made up story about Pete Rose being reinstated, Derek stepped up as the face of BP, going on national TV and radio and helping diffuse a terrible situation, helping to save the Baseball Prospectus brand from some of the worst “journalism” we’ve ever seen. Derek put his reputation on the line and attached himself to a story he had nothing to do with because BP needed his help in bailing themselves out of a potential disaster.
This is the part I find most interesting. I remember Will Carroll's "scoop," and how it came to naught... is Dave Cameron suggesting that Carroll deliberately fabricated the rumor? Through his connection to Derek Zumsteg, does he speak from knowledge?
   21. Padgett Posted: March 06, 2007 at 10:27 PM (#2307828)
Is the 'Derek' that is mentioned actually Derek Jacques? He's the only one that I can remember with that name on BP.

Zumsteg.

Aside from responses made by others, at the USSM thread, Cameron says DMZ left of his own accord, while the Ibanez comment makes it sound like they dumped him because he was beneath him. Ya, I could see how that would sting.

That was my read, too: not malicious, but still not a cool thing to say about someone who helped create the BPro brand with a load of content. As much as I respect Silver, his explanation doesn't seem to hold water.

Still, it's a bit ironic that this is about a snarky comment alluding to Zumsteg, who himself wasn't exactly Gandhi when he was a writer there.
   22. Greg Franklin Posted: March 06, 2007 at 10:27 PM (#2307829)
Is the 'Derek' that is mentioned actually Derek Jacques? He's the only one that I can remember with that name on BP.

That's Derek Zumsteg (aka DMZ).

Agree with Robert M, the news to me here was about Will Carroll's Pete Rose reinstatement "scoop." Remember that Pete Rose thread? According to DMZ, the "scoop" was indeed a complete fabrication, intended to put BP in the public eye, and DMZ had to step in and semi-defend the reporting in order to protect the Prospectus brand.

Then he fluffs a player prediction, leaves to do other stuff, and then gets anonymously criticized for his fallibility. That's not gratitude and certainly not caused by any slams DMZ or Cameron laid on them. It's just their house style.

Someone on the USSM comments thread who knew the Prospectistas from the rec.sport.baseball days said something I completely agree with:

And they were then the way they are now. They were the intelligentsia. They were extending Bill James. They were the ones that would carry sabermetrics into the next century.

And they were. But they have, directly or indirectly, dissed everyone that came after them. They’re an echo chamber now. It’s about protecting the brand.
   23. xbhaskarx Posted: March 06, 2007 at 10:32 PM (#2307832)
the pete rose thing: apparently it wasn't just carroll, zumsteg was connected to the original article as well.
http://www.baseball-analysis.com/article.php?articleid=2194
   24. Honkie Kong Posted: March 06, 2007 at 10:35 PM (#2307833)
the pete rose thing: apparently it wasn't just carroll, zumsteg was connected to the original article as well.

RTFA
   25. K-BAR, J-BAR (trhn) Posted: March 06, 2007 at 10:37 PM (#2307834)
As much as I'd like to believe my dislike for Baseball Prosepctus has a rational basis, it's hard to get completely on Cameron's side on this. Except for the swipe at Zumsteg, he doesn't point to any specific instances of bad behavior, so it's pretty much an unsubstantiated smear. Seeing as Cameron himself can occasionally be prickly, I'm not sure I'd trust his judgment as to the human worth of Carroll, Sheehan and Karhl, even though I have read bad things about those three BPro writers. More importantly, this dispute has nothing to do with the quality of their work. Support a boycott of Propsectus because their stuff sucks--at least the last one I bought in 2005 did--not because they treated a former employee poorly.

Silver's explanation in post 40 is unconvincing: it was "meant as a self-depreciating joke to underscore how precarious the art of prediction can be." He'd have been better off saying it was intended to be a light hearted joke poking fun at Zumsteg, since I don't see how it's self-deprecating to make a comment about a former writer.
   26. dlf Posted: March 06, 2007 at 10:43 PM (#2307842)
Agree with Robert M, the news to me here was about Will Carroll's Pete Rose reinstatement "scoop." Remember that Pete Rose thread? According to DMZ, the "scoop" was indeed a complete fabrication, intended to put BP in the public eye, and DMZ had to step in and semi-defend the reporting in order to protect the Prospectus brand.


As best I can tell, that goes a lot further than DMZ has stated. Zumsteg on Rose story Nowhere in what he calls the definitive version of his involvement does he suggest that Carroll fabricated the fundamental story.
   27. Dave Bell Posted: March 06, 2007 at 10:43 PM (#2307843)
Zumsteg was connected to the Rose article in the sense that he himself wrote it, but the sources were Carrol's.

Full description, by Zumsteg, on how the story was broken is here, http://www.zumsteg.net/2005/07/03/hopefully-definitive-and-last-rose-story-post/
   28. For the Turnstiles (andeux) Posted: March 06, 2007 at 10:48 PM (#2307845)
Zumsteg's name was on the story from the beginning, before it was proven false and needed any "bailing out." So if the story was really a complete fabrication on Carroll's part, either Zumsteg attached his name to a story without verifying its content for himself, or he knew it was false when he put his name on it. Either way, that ought to be considerably more embarrassing to him than some off-hand comment about an insignificant prediction from three years ago.
   29. billyshears Posted: March 06, 2007 at 10:50 PM (#2307846)
I didn't know it was Derek Zumsteg who got the Ibanez comment wrong in the 2004 manual. Now I do. The vast majority of BP readers would have read the 2007 Ibanez comment and chuckled a little bit. About 50 people may have read that and thought "I can't believe they said that about Derek." I do believe it was in poor taste to create the implication of incompetence about whoever it was that wrote the 2004 Ibanez comment if it was not justified, but I think very, very few readers would have perceived this comment (accurately or not) as a slam on Derek Zumsteg until one of the 50 who saw it that way decided to go public. I have a feeling that the person who wrote the 2007 Ibanez comment was writing for the vast majority of BP readers and not for one of the 50, so I don't believe it was meant as a personal assault.
   30. K-BAR, J-BAR (trhn) Posted: March 06, 2007 at 10:56 PM (#2307848)
I wonder if they'll give me a refund on the 2004 Prospectus I bought, since apparently it was written by incompetents rather than a "team of experts."
   31. Dunn Deal Posted: March 06, 2007 at 11:19 PM (#2307853)
Well, I must be one of the 50 who guessed right - although at first didn't know if the comment was out of line, simply because I wasn't sure about the current relationship between DMZ and BP staffers in general.

That's the kind of comment I would make about a friend who used to be a co-worker - that's the sort of thing you can get away with when there's an underlying sense of respect. Hell, if that's case, I think it's actually pretty funny. Apparently, though, the state of affairs isn't friendly, and if that's true I think the comment was unnecessary.

Just my $0.02.
   32. Hugh Jorgan Posted: March 06, 2007 at 11:23 PM (#2307855)
He gives a ####, really. Its like 2 nerds with handbags at 20 paces. If these guys were all experts they'd be running real MLB teams instead of having wet dreams about it all the time.
   33. TVerik, who wonders what the hell is "Ansky" Posted: March 06, 2007 at 11:25 PM (#2307856)
Is there an authoritative inside account of Carroll's Pete Rose scoop?

I still think it's a possibility (although I can't prove this at all) that the story was true and the parties abandoned it after it became public.

Which pretty much exonerates Carroll in my eyes.
   34. Zonk just has affection for alumni Posted: March 06, 2007 at 11:28 PM (#2307857)
Captain of the Good Ship Prospectus: Shark ahead! Jumping speed!
   35. Zonk just has affection for alumni Posted: March 06, 2007 at 11:34 PM (#2307858)
...oh, and BTW -- I also was wondering why the hell Mike Cameron was so angrily against taking his cuts in the cage when I first saw this. That's what happens when you let your subscription to BPSoapDigest lapse.
   36. Jason Robar Posted: March 06, 2007 at 11:49 PM (#2307867)
Well, that was fun while it lasted.
   37. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: March 06, 2007 at 11:57 PM (#2307872)
He named some nice guys, and I'd like to add that Michael Wolverton has always been cordial when we've corresponded and grateful for what little feedback I provided him.
   38. kwarren Posted: March 07, 2007 at 12:04 AM (#2307876)
I still think it's a possibility (although I can't prove this at all) that the story was true and the parties abandoned it after it became public.

Which pretty much exonerates Carroll in my eyes.


I don't think that Pete actually signed any document, but I think that both sides were well on the way to that outcome, until the BP story appeared out of nowhere. Once BP published the story about it being a "done deal", I think Selig lost interest in following through.

PS - Cameron is a great guy, one of the few major leaguers who really appreciates how great this playing ball for a lucrative living really is, and loves BP...the on the field variety.
   39. greenback slays lewks Posted: March 07, 2007 at 12:12 AM (#2307881)
<blockquote>I have a feeling that the person who wrote the 2007 Ibanez comment was writing for the vast majority of BP readers and not for one of the 50, so I don't believe it was meant as a personal assault.<blockquote>

Me too, but I still want to give the finger to Will Carroll and to the anonymous BP writer who in 2004 said Chris Carpenter wouldn't be anything more than a solid fourth starter.
   40. Xander Posted: March 07, 2007 at 12:18 AM (#2307882)
Well, that was fun while it lasted.
Looked like Tom Hagen pulled the reins in on Sonny.
   41. Justin T has a centaur for a mentor Posted: March 07, 2007 at 12:20 AM (#2307883)
I don't think that Pete actually signed any document, but I think that both sides were well on the way to that outcome, until the BP story appeared out of nowhere. Once BP published the story about it being a "done deal", I think Selig lost interest in following through.


If there was a deal that Selig backed out of, he backed out of it after Rose's book came out there was a public backlash against Pete. Many people had said that if Pete would just fess up, people would be more willing to forgive and forget. It didn't go down that way, at all. Selig would have seen that he no longer faced any pressure to reinstate Rose, and decided not to.

I don't think the BP story would have played any part in such a decision.
   42. xbhaskarx Posted: March 07, 2007 at 12:26 AM (#2307885)
so the whole post is gone now?
let's all pretend none of this ever happened.
   43. Justin T has a centaur for a mentor Posted: March 07, 2007 at 12:27 AM (#2307886)
Well, Derek's retraction now points out that the 2004 Ibanez projection was in the Royals chapter, and not penned by Derek anyway. So, I guess BP wins this round, and Dave overreacted.
   44. Guapo Posted: March 07, 2007 at 12:27 AM (#2307887)
Well, looks like the link's gone forever. According to the followup:

We’ve been threatened with legal action


You stay classy, Baseball Prospectus. I won't be paying money for any of your products in the future.
   45. NTNgod Posted: March 07, 2007 at 12:28 AM (#2307888)
A Primer Flashback:
Original Primer thread on Prospectus' Rose article (via archive.org)
(~650 posts)
   46. xbhaskarx Posted: March 07, 2007 at 12:31 AM (#2307890)
"Well, Derek's retraction now points out that the 2004 Ibanez projection was in the Royals chapter, and not penned by Derek anyway. So, I guess BP wins this round, and Dave overreacted."

overreacted??
   47. Kyle S Posted: March 07, 2007 at 12:36 AM (#2307893)
Can someone summarize what exactly the post said, now that it's gone? Anyone have an RSS feed of the story or something like that?
   48. jsandman32 Posted: March 07, 2007 at 12:40 AM (#2307895)
I'm betting it was in reference to DMZ. It was just a mistake on the part of the BP author who wrote it, and the BP editor who didn't catch it.

You know, kinda like leaving Beltre out of the book.
   49. xbhaskarx Posted: March 07, 2007 at 12:44 AM (#2307898)
i'd like the full text of the original post as well. this whole thing is pretty hilarious at this point. did derek not realize he didn't write the ibanez comments until BP pointed that out to him? maybe dave cameron is also responsible for the fabricated pete rose story...
   50. 8ball Posted: March 07, 2007 at 12:47 AM (#2307901)
Well, looks like the link's gone forever. According to the followup:

We’ve been threatened with legal action

You stay classy, Baseball Prospectus. I won't be paying money for any of your products in the future.


Given what Dave said about one of the BP writers, I would have been shocked if they hadn't threatened legal action.

It isn't a matter of class...accusing someone of fabricating a story out of whole cloth is an extremely serious accusation.
   51. billyshears Posted: March 07, 2007 at 12:48 AM (#2307902)
We’ve been threatened with legal action

You stay classy, Baseball Prospectus. I won't be paying money for any of your products in the future.

Yeah, people should be allowed to defame Will Carroll at their discretion. Cause he's icky. Damn that BP for responding to damaging falsehoods about one of their authors.
   52. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: March 07, 2007 at 12:49 AM (#2307903)
So they made a mistake in their snark about Zumsteg's mistake? Hoist by your own petard, ne?
   53. NTNgod Posted: March 07, 2007 at 12:49 AM (#2307904)
Can someone summarize what exactly the post said, now that it's gone?

It wasn't so much the post, it was an statement made in the comments section, IIRC; namely, that Zumsteg more or less took a bullet for a story he knew was untrue.

If you're really, really looking for a copy of the comments, I suppose the easiest way would be find someone who had visited the page linked in this thread's intro after the comments were made, but before the changes were made to the comments, and hadn't visited since the deletions. It'll still be in that person's browser cache (choose WORK OFFLINE from the FILE menu), and can be saved from there.
   54. Chris Dial Posted: March 07, 2007 at 12:49 AM (#2307905)
threatened with legal action? For what? Being called names? Hardy-har-har.
   55. 8ball Posted: March 07, 2007 at 12:50 AM (#2307906)
Well, looks like the link's gone forever. According to the followup:

We’ve been threatened with legal action

You stay classy, Baseball Prospectus. I won't be paying money for any of your products in the future.


Given what Dave said about one of the BP writers, I would have been shocked if they hadn't threatened legal action.

It isn't a matter of class...accusing someone of fabricating a story out of whole cloth is an extremely serious accusation.
   56. Greg Franklin Posted: March 07, 2007 at 12:54 AM (#2307911)
For historical reference (from here), the Pete Rose thread.
   57. For the Turnstiles (andeux) Posted: March 07, 2007 at 12:55 AM (#2307912)
You stay classy, Baseball Prospectus.


I'm far from being a fan of Will Carroll, but threatening legal action seems like an appropriate response to Dave Cameron's claim that the Pete Rose story was a complete fabrication on his part - particularly when that claim directly contradicts even Zumsteg's retrospective version of the story.

The fact that Zumsteg was not even the author of the Ibanez comment in the first place just adds a layer of hilarity to what was already a case of Cameron publicly embarrassing himself and his USSM colleague.
   58. Danny Posted: March 07, 2007 at 12:56 AM (#2307913)
It wasn't so much the post, it was an statement made in the comments section, IIRC; namely, that Zumsteg more or less took a bullet for a story he knew was untrue.

Cameron specifically said that Carroll fabricated the whole thing, which Zumsteg completely denies (he says another BP author also had a source). Given that Zumsteg didn't even write the original Ibanez comment, and one of the guys he liked at BP wrote the 2007 Ibanez comment, I don't see how anyone comes off looking bad in this besides Cameron.
   59. xbhaskarx Posted: March 07, 2007 at 12:59 AM (#2307914)
So they made a mistake in their snark about Zumsteg's mistake?

or it could be that it wasn't a reference to zumsteg in the first place.

in the (now deleted) comments, nate silver wrote:
"Rather, it was a coda to the opening line of the comment, and meant as a self-depreciating joke to underscore how precarious the art of prediction can be."

this was originally criticized because it couldn't be self-depreciating if it was about derek, but since it turns out derek didn't write the ibanez comment, couldn't that explanation now be the correct one?
   60. Greg Franklin Posted: March 07, 2007 at 01:02 AM (#2307916)
Whoops. (Note to self, don't do clicky-pop links.)

Pete Rose thread (BBTF style, not archive.org style)

My original opinion from that thread was close to kwarren's in #38 ... something was indeed going down, and the brouhaha allowed Selig to back out with deniability. Which is why it was news to me that "fabrication" was used by David C in today's piece.
   61. NTNgod Posted: March 07, 2007 at 01:09 AM (#2307917)
(BBTF style, not archive.org style)

Yeah, but my earlier link has the thread in its original oh-so-lovely blue-and-red Primer circa 2003 design. So HAH!

:p
   62. greenback slays lewks Posted: March 07, 2007 at 01:11 AM (#2307918)
Which is why it was news to me that "fabrication" was used by David C in today's piece.


It shouldn't be news. Cameron has an axe to grind that even Don Malcolm probably finds overzealous.
   63. Guapo Posted: March 07, 2007 at 01:11 AM (#2307919)
(1) It isn't a matter of class...accusing someone of fabricating a story out of whole cloth is an extremely serious accusation.

(2) Yeah, people should be allowed to defame Will Carroll at their discretion. Cause he's icky. Damn that BP for responding to damaging falsehoods about one of their authors.

(3) I'm far from being a fan of Will Carroll, but threatening legal action seems like an appropriate response to Dave Cameron's claim that the Pete Rose story was a complete fabrication on his part - particularly when that claim directly contradicts even Zumsteg's retrospective version of the story.


Agree with 1. 2 can suck it for being snarky. Disagree with 3 that it was an "appropriate response." An appropriate response would have been contacting uss mariner, informing them that their post was factually incorrect, and asking them to remove it. Threatening legal action doesn't have to be the response every time someone does something bad or unfair to you, particularly when it's a former colleague.

And yes, I am a lawyer.

However, since now it appears that Cameron's initial post was totally off base, I am no longer in the mood to attack BPro or defend USS Mariner. I half expect the whole "threat of legal action" previously referenced to turn out to be false at this point.
   64. Justin T has a centaur for a mentor Posted: March 07, 2007 at 01:12 AM (#2307920)
DMZ now says that he initially read the comment as a swipe at him because it would be natural for people to assume he wrote that evaluation, and thus for them to believe the remark was targeting him. So he remembered that he didn't write it, but imagined up a scenario in which BP was targeting him.

Oh, bother.
   65. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: March 07, 2007 at 01:18 AM (#2307922)
My original opinion from that thread was close to kwarren's in #38 ... something was indeed going down, and the brouhaha allowed Selig to back out with deniability. Which is why it was news to me that "fabrication" was used by David C in today's piece.


I wondered at the time if MLB wasn't using BP to send up a trial balloon to gauge the reaction to a Pete Rose reinstatement, fully intending to require an admission later on to appear to be coming down harder on Pete (to somewhat appease the opponents of any deal). And if it all blew up, as it did, the only organization embarassed was BP, the most vocal of MLB's critics during the previous labor negotiations.

That still seems plausible.
   66. KronicFatigue Posted: March 07, 2007 at 01:24 AM (#2307924)
If you're really, really looking for a copy of the comments, I suppose the easiest way would be find someone who had visited the page linked in this thread's intro after the comments were made, but before the changes were made to the comments, and hadn't visited since the deletions. It'll still be in that person's browser cache (choose WORK OFFLINE from the FILE menu), and can be saved from there.


That's a neat little trick that I never knew. And it worked.
   67. NTNgod Posted: March 07, 2007 at 01:34 AM (#2307930)
I guess the Rose part was in the original post, not the comments section. Whoops! Bad, bad memory. /slaps head

At least I taught someone about the browser cache, so I'm not completely useless!
   68. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 07, 2007 at 01:35 AM (#2307931)
I can't believe I wasted five minutes of my life skimming this thread.
   69. Maury Brown Posted: March 07, 2007 at 01:38 AM (#2307934)
On the Beltre ommission:
The frustrating thing about it was that this was an error generated by an unforseen technical glitch (not an oversight by the chapter authors), and more frustrating still is that we caught this before we went to press while generating the Index. I was assured by our layout team that the missing quartet would get squeezed in, but this was with roughly 36 hours to spare before delivering the finished product to the publisher, and it appears that getting those four guys pasted in got overlooked in the final flurry of activity. We learned of the problem the same time you did–when we opened our copies of the book.
   70. billyshears Posted: March 07, 2007 at 01:41 AM (#2307937)
2 can suck it for being snarky.

Snark is clearly an inappropriate response to a comment that urged somebody to "stay classy" as a way of implying that an organization was in fact acting classlessly, even though they had a legitimate complaint.

Seriously, while I don't advocate making a threat of legal action for every potential claim a person might have, I can't condemn somebody for such a threat if they do have a legitimate claim. If I was a journalist and my only stock in trade was my credibility, I might think that threatening legal action was a very appropriate response to an allegation that I fabricated a story. Serious accusations warrant an aggressive tactical response.
   71. Dag Nabbit at ExactlyAsOld.com Posted: March 07, 2007 at 01:47 AM (#2307941)
. . . Wait, DMZ didn't even write the comment in question? Ay yi yi. What exactly was the slight then?

Sounds like Cameron shot himself in the foot first and asked questions later.
   72. NTNgod Posted: March 07, 2007 at 01:55 AM (#2307946)
Wait, DMZ didn't even write the comment in question?

According to Zumsteg's response post, he didn't write it; it was written by someone who still writes for Prospectus.
   73. David Cameron Posted: March 07, 2007 at 02:00 AM (#2307949)
I'm going to be brief here, since Derek just wants this to die, but just to touch on a few things:

1. Yea, I probably overreacted and this would be an example of why you shouldn't write angry.

2. I said in the comments that I'd be willing to take down the post if Derek got an apology - he did, and so the post is gone. We didn't take it down because it was factually incorrect or because I have egg on my face for what I wrote.

3. I shouldn't have written that Will "made up" the Pete Rose story. I don't know that to be true and I obviously can't prove it.

The rest of the stuff, we'll just keep to ourselves and handle it privately.
   74. Guapo Posted: March 07, 2007 at 02:07 AM (#2307951)
Snark is clearly an inappropriate response to a comment that urged somebody to "stay classy" as a way of implying that an organization was in fact acting classlessly, even though they had a legitimate complaint.

I didn't say that snark was an inappropriate response, I merely invited you to suck it for being snarky. And that invitation still stands.
   75. xbhaskarx Posted: March 07, 2007 at 02:20 AM (#2307958)
2. I said in the comments that I'd be willing to take down the post if Derek got an apology - he did, and so the post is gone. We didn't take it down because it was factually incorrect or because I have egg on my face for what I wrote.

of course, nate silver apologized at 2:11pm, the post was edited by DMZ to remove the Pete Rose stuff around 3:40 and the whole thing disappeared around 4:20.
but it's good to know being totally wrong on every level had nothing to do with the reason why the post was taken down...
   76. David Cameron Posted: March 07, 2007 at 02:24 AM (#2307959)
You know a lot less about this then you think you do.
   77. The District Attorney Posted: March 07, 2007 at 02:28 AM (#2307961)
Shovel?
   78. Greg Franklin Posted: March 07, 2007 at 02:29 AM (#2307962)
Yeah, but my earlier link has the thread in its original oh-so-lovely blue-and-red Primer circa 2003 design. So HAH!

No worries. I didn't have the link to the Primer 2003 version, so I've added your link to Wiki Gonzalez in lieu of the BBTF chopped-and-screwed remix....
   79. Jim Furtado Posted: March 07, 2007 at 02:33 AM (#2307965)
I've closed the repost of the original article. If David and Derek, don't want the article posted on their site I'm sure they don't want it posted here. I kindly ask that the article not be reposted again.
   80. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: March 07, 2007 at 02:39 AM (#2307966)
My opinions on this topic are complex, informed by several years of forming judgments about all the people involved. I could offer a partial condemnation of BP, but I would have to leaven it with several important counterexamples drawn from my experiences.

I'm starting to realize that the life I have led up to this day is not the life I wish to be living.
   81. HowardMegdal Posted: March 07, 2007 at 02:40 AM (#2307968)
I am shocked that through this whole thing, no one has thought to lay blame at the feet of the real culprit: Raul Ibanez.
   82. Padgett Posted: March 07, 2007 at 02:41 AM (#2307969)
If I was a journalist and my only stock in trade was my credibility, I might think that threatening legal action was a very appropriate response to an allegation that I fabricated a story. Serious accusations warrant an aggressive tactical response.

Like Cameron said, we don't have all the facts, but with that said, I'm with Guapo here. Playing the "or I'll sue" card right away is rarely warranted, and usually just plain thuggery. And here there's the added element that BPro has a history of acting thuggish toward other baseball websites -- e.g., something once known as "Baseball Primer." Whether or not Cameron's version of events was accurate, in all this was not a good showing by the Prospectus crew.
   83. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: March 07, 2007 at 03:00 AM (#2307978)
So my question is, "When are they going to fire Sheehan and the others who emphatically stated week after week that 'THIS is the week the White Sox fold! They will play .300 ball the rest of the year! GAMBLERS' FALLCAY is TEH RULEZ!'?"
   84. jss Posted: March 07, 2007 at 03:00 AM (#2307979)
This whole thing baffles me. I think, this is what we know for sure (please correct me if I'm wrong):

1) The 2004 Ibanez comment turned out wrong.
2) DMZ left BP at some point.
3) In 2007, there's a snark to the Ibanez comment and the author no longer working at BP.
4) DMZ did not write the Ibanez comment. (and the person who did write it may still be at BP)
5) David wrote a response in 'defense' of DMZ to the Ibanez comment that says the BP folks "suck at being human beings".
6) David calls the Pete Rose story "made-up" and the "worst journalism ever".
7) DMZ states the Rose story was not made up and stands by the decision to run it.

I fail to see how David's comments and tone were warranted. Why would David take it as a malicious swipe at DMZ? DMZ didn't write it. He's not the only person who has left BP. I've been reading BP since the RSBB Huckabay days, and I wasn't sure who the author was supposed to be. Regardless, I don't see how 2007 is such a horrible comment. Did people really read it as saying the 2004 author was no longer working at BP due to the Ibanez prediction? That seems a a bit absurd to me.

I can't see the justification for David's comments as a reaction to the 2007 Ibanez comment.
   85. 8ball Posted: March 07, 2007 at 03:04 AM (#2307981)
Did people really read it as saying the 2004 author was no longer working at BP due to the Ibanez prediction? That seems a a bit absurd to me.


I can only assume that those who feel that the BP folks "suck at being human beings" are going to be more likely to read it as a cheap shot, since if you have that p.o.v., you are going to be more inclined to read into that comment the most negative possible interpretation.
   86. jss Posted: March 07, 2007 at 03:10 AM (#2307983)
There's got to be a bunch of history and backstory to this. Without that backstory, which few of David's readers knew, DMZ and (especially) David's reaction seems to be way over the top.
   87. Danny Posted: March 07, 2007 at 03:13 AM (#2307985)
Like Cameron said, we don't have all the facts, but with that said, I'm with Guapo here. Playing the "or I'll sue" card right away is rarely warranted, and usually just plain thuggery. And here there's the added element that BPro has a history of acting thuggish toward other baseball websites -- e.g., something once known as "Baseball Primer." Whether or not Cameron's version of events was accurate, in all this was not a good showing by the Prospectus crew.

Threatening legal action may have been "thuggish" (though Zumsteg states in his latest rewrite that the legal action was not from BP), but I cannot see how BP is the bad guy in this. Cameron explicitly claimed in his original post that Zumsteg wrote the 2004 Ibanez comment. Silver went over and explained that it was just a joke and apologized for the misunderstanding. Cameron didn't buy the joke excuse. So Cameron's basic premise was entirely wrong, he used it to talk trash about various BP authors and claim Carroll made up the Rose story despite Zumsteg's account, and then he claims he only took the story down because Zumsteg got the apology he deserved.
   88. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: March 07, 2007 at 03:15 AM (#2307986)
You know a lot less about this then you think you do.

That also apparently applies to you.
   89. Srul Itza Posted: March 07, 2007 at 03:32 AM (#2307992)
I've closed the repost of the original article.

Jim, in the name of decency and humanity, just disappear the whole damn thread, so that no other innocent, unsuspecting person loses a precious 5 minutes of his life wading through this swamp.

Seriously.

It will not be missed.

And if Backlasher complains about it, I'll bite him in the kneecaps.
   90. xbhaskarx Posted: March 07, 2007 at 03:40 AM (#2307995)
There was discussion of legal action, and, to be clear, as I noted elsewhere, this was not a BP thing.

i don't know much about the folks at BP, perhaps some or all of them are a bunch of jerks. but those that have been criticizing BP, first on USSM and now in the comments here, have been wrong about so many things at this point, just in the last six hours, that BP comes off looking pretty damn good.
   91. Padgett Posted: March 07, 2007 at 03:41 AM (#2307998)
Threatening legal action may have been "thuggish" (though Zumsteg states in his latest rewrite that the legal action was not from BP), but I cannot see how BP is the bad guy in this.

Well, I hadn't seen that, and obviously it renders my post inapt. (Though I'll add that I was looking only at the purported legal action, not condoning Cameron's role.)
   92. NTNgod Posted: March 07, 2007 at 03:44 AM (#2308000)
Threatening legal action may have been "thuggish" (though Zumsteg states in his latest rewrite that the legal action was not from BP)

If there was a legal threat, it would have had to have come from BP as an entity, or one of the individual authors, no?
Who else would have cause?

Unless Raul Ibanez happened to stumble through and was shocked and offended by the older remarks about him, of course... :P
   93. xbhaskarx Posted: March 07, 2007 at 03:53 AM (#2308005)
you make a good point, but why would zumsteg deny the legal action was from BP if it was?
   94. pkb33 Posted: March 07, 2007 at 04:02 AM (#2308009)
If it were from one of the authors personally that would be different than being from BP the entity, arguably.

Or maybe it was from Pete Rose, assuming he isn't defamation-proof at this point
   95. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: March 07, 2007 at 04:09 AM (#2308012)
As someone who has conked skulls and asked questions later, I understand Mr. Cameron's reaction and can appreciate being loyal to a friend. Misguided or no, unswerving faith in one's chums is an admirable trait.

And until a doc is telling someone in the ER, "That's gonna hurt for a while", no harm has been done.
   96. NTNgod Posted: March 07, 2007 at 04:09 AM (#2308013)
you make a good point, but why would zumsteg deny the legal action was from BP if it was?

/shrug

I'm not claiming to understand anything.

The statements that...
a. There was a legal threat regarding the post.
b. It was not 'a BP thing'.

...seem to conflict.

Ehh, who the hell knows?
I should do something more productive or important, like watch the just-released DVD of NIGHT OF THE COMET. About damn time it made it to DVD, after the bazillion times it got shown on HBO in the '80s...

THE MANITOU also finally got a US DVD release today (how can you top Tony Curtis fighting a tumor than grows into an Indian medicine man?), but I already have a copy of last year's UK release. This ends tonight's segment of new DVD releases of cult scifi/horror movies... please tune in again next week.)
   97. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: March 07, 2007 at 04:23 AM (#2308015)
Harveys,

I wish the original Primer thread about BP's Rose story had been linked earlier. I surely would have known the correct answer in the guess Harveys' enemy game from a few weeks back based on this classic quote:


Sigh. I really hope my family has forgotten my statement from our summer picnic in 1990. Lighting myself on fire on the steps of Cooperstown on the day of Rose's induction would be a hassle for all involved.
   98. Mike A Posted: March 07, 2007 at 04:31 AM (#2308017)
After reading this thread, I still can't believe it.

I mean....NIGHT OF THE COMET ON DVD?????!!!!
   99. The George Sherrill Selection Posted: March 07, 2007 at 04:37 AM (#2308020)
I didn't even realize people read BP anymore.
   100. NTNgod Posted: March 07, 2007 at 04:43 AM (#2308023)
I mean....NIGHT OF THE COMET ON DVD?????!!!!

Just wait until I start waxing poetic about the fact that HARRY AND THE HENDERSONS is coming out on DVD next month, and MONSTER SQUAD is due out this fall. Some of the last holdouts of sought-after 80s cheese are making it to DVD.

HOWARD THE DUCK is a lost cause, as Lucas likely will NEVER let that see the light of day on DVD.

(Oh yeah, FLASH GORDON this year, too, but I already sprang for the excellent UK release)
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Phil Birnbaum
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 2018 October 15: The shift in focus from sport to politics
(1391 - 5:57am, Oct 20)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogMLB must fix glaring problem that ruined an all-time classic
(56 - 5:28am, Oct 20)
Last: manchestermets

NewsblogLEAGUE CHAMPION SERIES OMNICHATTER! for the 2018 Playoffs!
(2440 - 1:34am, Oct 20)
Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(762 - 1:29am, Oct 20)
Last: Booey

NewsblogCatch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (October 2018)
(535 - 12:07am, Oct 20)
Last: Davo and his Moose Tacos

NewsblogMLB playoffs 2018: Brewers used a fake starter, Dodgers used Clayton Kershaw - SBNation.com
(73 - 10:02pm, Oct 19)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogBryce Harper’s Future in the League
(15 - 9:48pm, Oct 19)
Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington

NewsblogDerek Jeter gets his wish: The Marlins home run sculpture is outta there
(40 - 9:37pm, Oct 19)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogMore questions after Astros get free pass on dugout spying
(25 - 7:38pm, Oct 19)
Last: manchestermets

NewsblogAlex Cora has some words for a vocal critic of David Price | Boston.com
(20 - 5:28pm, Oct 19)
Last: Leroy Kincaid

Hall of Merit2019 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(172 - 5:28pm, Oct 19)
Last: Dr. Chaleeko

Sox TherapyAmerican League Champions!!!!
(29 - 3:40pm, Oct 19)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogTexas Rangers Asking Taxpayers To Cover 60% Of Bribes Related To New Stadium
(2 - 2:47pm, Oct 19)
Last: Jim Furtado

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-17-2018
(34 - 1:38pm, Oct 19)
Last: SandyRiver

NewsblogTaking Back the Ballparks - Dodgers voting thread
(29 - 11:43am, Oct 19)
Last: SoSH U at work

Page rendered in 0.6156 seconds
46 querie(s) executed