Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Sunday, January 08, 2012
Murray Sez… have a Bud and a Jack chaser
When I left The New York Times in 2008 after having written for the newspaper for 39 years, the first offer I received to continue writing came from a high-ranking Major League Baseball official who was in position to offer me a job as a columnist with MLB.com. My initial reaction was to say no, but some people urged me to reconsider and at least talk about and consider that possibility.
Accepting that offer would have turned out to be more economically lucrative than what I have done with this Web site the past three and a half years. But money isn’t everything. Writing for MLB.com just didn’t seem like the right thing to do.
How could I have gone to work for the organization I had spent my professional life covering? Wouldn’t I be compromising my professional ethics by accepting a salary from people I would be in position to criticize and question if necessary? ...
To be sure, MLB.com serves a purpose, even for baseball writers, for whom it can serve as a 30-team research site in one location and a source of comprehensive statistics that are not mingled with WAR and VORP and all of those other metrics, as their advocates like to call them.
But then there are the self-congratulatory articles that can induce nausea. I guess we don’t have to read them, but they are there as propaganda for fans to see and be taken in by. Yes, baseball propaganda. I had never thought about it before this moment, but that’s what it is. ...
And maybe someday, perhaps when he retires, whenever that is, Selig will be big enough to allow an MLB.com columnist to write the truth about collusion and his role in the labor wars.
By the way, this column was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.
Based on e-mail I have received from critics of Morris and me, the Hall of Fame should take the vote away from baseball writers and simply establish statistical guidelines for players’ election. The players over the line make it, those under don’t.
Such a system would eliminate what is perhaps the greatest debate in sports, but that wouldn’t bother the stats zealots. Their numbers tell them who should be in the Hall of Fame, and the writers would be wrong if they disagreed.
That system would also eliminate the aspect of the voting that they hate most. Their opinion doesn’t mean beans. The writers’ opinion means everything.
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: T.R. Sullivan: Of Frank Robinson, Milt Pappas and Jim Palmer (9 - 5:29am, May 26)Last: bjhankeNewsblog: HP: Baseball is leaving the human factor behind (59 - 5:24am, May 26)Last: bjhankeNewsblog: Bud Selig -- No need for more MLB replay for now - ESPN (87 - 3:55am, May 26)Last: Athletic Supporter leads the nation in driftersNewsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread, May 2012 (1834 - 3:06am, May 26)Last: SpiveyNewsblog: Himrich’s Top Ten Target Field Foods (8 - 2:43am, May 26)Last: Long John McCaine Mutiny on the Bounty (scott)Newsblog: Boston.com: Curt Schilling’s 38 Studios lays off all staff (119 - 1:28am, May 26)Last: Swedish ChefNewsblog: Wilmoth: Nate McLouth Designated For Assignment (12 - 12:25am, May 26)Last: TriponHall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1973 Discussion (15 - 12:13am, May 26)Last: DanGNewsblog: The Hall of Very Good: Former Cards Slugger Critical of "LaRussa's Regime" (4 - 11:26pm, May 25)Last: cardsfanboyNewsblog: CSN to host ‘Phillies at the Beach’ on Memorial Day (18 - 11:25pm, May 25)Last: Fielder's the first baseman, Felder is the fielderHall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1972 Ballot (28 - 11:25pm, May 25)Last: lieiamSox Therapy: A Winning Ballclub? (20 - 11:24pm, May 25)Last: DanNewsblog: Matschulat: Did I Miss The "Paul Konerko Is So Overrated OMG" Bandwagon? (27 - 11:16pm, May 25)Last: baudibNewsblog: TBO: Nerdy Rays head north (17 - 10:07pm, May 25)Last: PreservedFishNewsblog: Dodgers want to host NHL's Winter Classic (22 - 9:38pm, May 25)Last: Cris E
|
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.
1. What did Billy Ripken have against Elroy Face? Posted: January 08, 2012 at 09:38 PM (#4031883)I guess that's fair. In fact, I don't like the valuing of my baseball opinion at 0 and some writer, I don't know, Richard Griffin or somebody, at 1. Should I? Do I, in fact, know nothing at all, while Griffin has perfect wisdom? No? Then, no, I don't like the current system in that sense. I don't like it where all these writers publish stupid things about who belongs in Cooperstown and who doesn't, but I'm the idiot for having an opinion.
I feel like he's making this up. We all discuss the HOF a lot, both on this site and in elsewhere, or in general conversation, etc. Has anyone here ever run into a person who advocated that the HOF "should take the vote away from the baseball writers and simply establish statistical guidelines for a players' election"?
I call ########.
At the very least he's taking an extreme crazy email he received and pretending that it represents the thrust of peoples' criticism of him.
I think voters who believe there is one (say....'3003 hits' or '500 home runs' or '300 wins') shouldn't be voters because they are dumbing things down too much.
If forced to choose between a sabermetric dividing line and the kind of voter noted above, though, I would certainly choose the sabermetric dividing line.
Fixed.
i know this is supposed to be some kind of parody, but it's retarded. it's not smart. it's not funny. it's not witty. it's banter on the level of sarah palin. stop it.
AND ALSO LOLCATS
If anyone would know, it's you.
Clearly Chass likes to just throw out straw men and slap 'em down.
The sad thing is, I was with him on his point about going to work for MLB. It's a valid point, worthy of some discussion, and he undercuts it all by taking yet another swipe at saber folks.
Gee Steagles, you need to relax. Sure it's silly, but it's still fun. #13, nice work
Great thing about Chass is you always know what you are going to get. You can't fault his consistency, that's for sure.
The irony meter just went off the charts.
DB
C'mon Steagles. Reading Murray Chass threads that turn into Mr. President one-downmanship contests is probably the closest you'll ever come to the experience of sitting in on ESPN anchors meeting while they're testing out potential catch phrases. Join the fun and unleash your inner Stuart Scott.
Racist!
So, does anybody want to try and guess what Chass likes to call them?
We have post 216 saying . Post 222 agrees, although my sarcasm detector is pre-intertubes.
Hey, Some of my best friends are rabbits.
C'mon, Steagles isn't that bad.
Not literally, but the open hostility and ridicule directed against "writers" in general, and against using any sort of non-statistical criteria (narrative**, character***, etc.) as the basis for a vote, has been so strongly expressed by many people here that it more or less amounts to the same thing. It hardly a majority sentiment, but it's certainly out there.
**The buzzword for dismissing narrative is usually that narrative is "anecdotal", often supplemented by the charge that contemporary eyewitnesses to a player's strengths didn't know what they were watching.
***with the exception of gambling
So would pushing a vegetable cart.
According to Google translator:
Man, I love google translator.
it's not silly. it's not fun. it's the kind of thing that, were you to hear it on an escalator in the mall, it would drive you beat the red-headed step-child who said it.
the akbar thing--funny
ichiro thing--funny
#6 org--funny
never heard him--funny
this is not. let it die.
this is not. let it die.
MURRAY CHASSISMS >>> NEVER HEAR HIM, MR. PRESIDENT.
there goes any respect I had for you as a humor-standard evaluator. The worst chass thing is still funnier than all the "never heard him's" put together....
In Russia, Yakov Smirnoff riffs endlessly on YOU
i mean, the "never heard him" thing isn't exactly the reason why i think of that, but it reminds me of it all the same.
when i see these things, all i can think is jakovasaur. it's not funny. it's annoying. and if any of you can't see that, you need to lay off your mom's crack.
216 doesn't say that he would replace the BBWAA vote with 62 WAR; only that that's his personal line. (But not really, because he excepts Reggie Smith who had a 63 WAR.)
And later in post 239 he specifically states that 62 WAR is an informal line for him, not the final word:
"I probably should've been more clear but: I use 62 WAR as an informal in/out line, then look at other considerations."
And guess who "simply establishes statistical guidelines for players’ election; the players over the line make it, those under don’t"? Writers. 3000 hits means the player is in.
LOU BROCK AND MURRAY CHASS SEND YOU THEIR "REGARDS," MR. PRESIDENT!!!!
And later in post 239 he specifically states that 62 WAR is an informal line for him, not the final word:
Yeah, but even as an informal line, 62 WAR is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too precise. If you said "60-70 WAR", or "55-65 WAR" then I'd be with you.
But, given the precision involved with things like defense, park factors and replacement level (especially over a 100 year period) 62 WAR means between 55 and 70. People around hear have gone crazy to the point where guys with 60+ WAR are considered "no-brainers" and 50-55 WAR no-hopers, without any thought to the uncertainty.
My favorite poster boy for this is Andruw Jones who's 60 WAR depends on you believing that his D was 10 runs per season better than peak Willie Mays.
IN SOVIET RUSSIA IT'S A TRAP MISTER PRESIDENT
If it's an informal line, what does it matter how precisely it's defined? Particularly if the players, not the number, are setting the line (by looking at the grouping of players and finding where the cutoff exists where players above tend to be Personal Hall of Famers and those below are not).
I suspect Murray got two or three e-mails (out of the thousands of responses his idiocy, and Repoz's friendly links, sparks) from overeager stat enthusiasts and decided that was the stats zealots' take on the Hall of Fame. For as much as we like to ##### about the writer's ballots and results, I don't recall a single poster ever suggesting a hard and fast stat guideline for inclusion.
Because it makes you think 62 WAR is conveying some information that it doesn't. Looking at comparing players across eras for an entire career, 62 WAR does not mean anything different than 60, or 58, or 65. We're deluding ourselves as to the amount of information contained in the stat.
But like I said, that's only if you say 62 is the line, and work from there (or hold it as a firm in/out line). But if you look at the players, find that most above 62 had Hall of Fame careers (in your estimation) and most below 62 did not (but don't hold that to be a hard and fast rule), then concluding that 62 as an informal line is perfectly reasonable, and certainly no different than 60-65. I'd only be concerned with false precision if the person felt bound to the number's dictates.
I completely agree, and I made some of the same points in that other thread. But he still did not advocate replacing the BBWAA vote with that. And he conceded that 62 WAR was not the final word.
Granted. I'm just saying that it's a dangerous mindset that you could have an informal line with that precision.
Which is funny because now every time I see a MR PRESIDENT Chass headline, I think of how you get all bent out of shape about them for no apparent reason. (Which is funnier (to me anyway) because the all-caps is an integral part of both that meme and your handles.)
STEAGLES: I AM THE SOLE ARBITER OF WHAT IS AND IS NOT FUNNY ON BTF, MR PRESIDENT!
You're too young to have seen Willie Mays play, so all you're going on is sepia-toned memories of '50s baseball chauvinists and a few grainy clips. Your certainty that Willie Mays was definitely, absolutely, without a doubt at or within a shade of the best it is absolutely possible to be at playing center field isn't any more defensible than somebody being equally sure that Jones was a win per year better.
Was Andruw "dominant"? From their point of view, no... they will see him as a good hitter/great fielder, not all that different from a Mike Cameron. He was normally not considered one of the best players in the league.
What's the "narrative" of his career? To the writers, it will be that he was pretty good for a while, got fat and lazy, and then hung around. They hate players whose careers end with several years as part-timers -- it damages the "immortal" image. And many of them will hold it against a player if they think his decline was his own fault. Think about Dave Parker, who was regarded as one of the best players in baseball at his peak, screwed up his career, came back to have some pretty good years, and he still got nothin'. Or Tim Raines, who was more acclaimed than Andruw as a player during his peak; can't even be blamed for his own demise; and then was a lot better than Andruw during his "hang-around" period.
(I do agree that it's not inherently implausible that Andruw was a significantly better fielder than Willie Mays. He may belong in the HOF... but I don't think it's gonna happen.)
Racist!
Hey, Some of my best friends are rabbits.
I don't like this. The whole rabbit/wabbit issue takes us uncomfortably close to nigger/nigga territory.
So like anything you have ever posted here. Got it.
...and wiggers!
Besides that, Mays only put up those defensive numbers because he was hopped up on amphetamines.
Agreed. Chass claims that MLB.com writers have to deal with a conflict of interest but, in taking more pot shots at those who respect advanced statistics, neglects to mention that some newspapers, including NYT and WaPo, do not allow their scribes to vote for that very reason?
You're too young to have seen Willie Mays play, so all you're going on is sepia-toned memories of '50s baseball chauvinists and a few grainy clips. Your certainty that Willie Mays was definitely, absolutely, without a doubt at or within a shade of the best it is absolutely possible to be at playing center field isn't any more defensible than somebody being equally sure that Jones was a win per year better.
Many, many long-time followers of baseball have judged Mays to be the greatest defensive CF ever. It's a long held consensus. If you want, just substitute "best CF ever" for Mays name in my argument.
Given the number of chances involved, yes, I highly doubt anyone could be 10 runs better than the previous best for a period of 10 years. That seems like a glitch in the metric. There's no reason to believe defensive talent varies that much at the high end.
If some metric claimed a SS was 10 runs per season better than Ozzie Smith, I'd say, check the metric.
Yes. As long as the Vet's Committee that covers his time frame is operational and filled with the types of individuals who have historically handled the role, he's pretty damn certain to go in that way.
wasn't the first appearance 'never saw him pitch', referring to bob feller? tried to find it, but couldn't ...
edit: oh wait. it was 'never heard him', referring to a broadcaster, right?
ichiro thing--funny
#6 org--funny
never heard him--funny
this is not. let it die.
Behold!
No, Ernie Harwell. (It was "never heard him broadcast a game," or something, obviously, but it was about Harwell.)
I think he's saying that if a metric says he was 10 runs/season better than Mays, then we really ought to check the metric to be sure. Certainly I don't have the confidence in any of our current defensive metrics to just accept an idea like Jones > Mays.
Yeah, but that's life. We all know we're gonna die eventually; doesn't stop us from trying to avoid it.
Maybe the next VC iteration will be expert-based, and they'll see through Morris. As long as he's out, we can always hope.
No, it was a reference to Ernie Harwell's death.
That is some kind of logic there.
"His waist size grew by four inches. He's clean!"
Many, many followers of baseball have judged Jeter to be an excellent defensive SS. They are wrong. Why are you so sure that Mays in the best defensive CF ever? Maybe he was just average, but looked good on the field and so was overrated.
I don't have a whole lot of confidence in the defensive stats either, but I find it extremely easy to believe that Andruw >>>> Mays defensively.
Yes, but to be fair, Ernie's death was pretty funny.
Most BTF memes get run into the ground long after they stopped being funny. The difference between most of them and Murray and the Commander in Chief one is that Mr. Prez never was funny.
Who is second to Jones, and what's the gap? I could believe Andruw was considerably better than Mays. I'd have more difficulty believing he ran circles around everyone.
I have no idea, and no argument with what you said. I was just pointing out the absurdity of the position that Mays is the best ever because people who saw him play say he was the best ever and there can be no argument about it. And if any metric rates another player as significantly better than Mays then that metric must be flawed.
Take whichever one or ones you want. All these guys are ~+15 over a sustained peak (~10 years) by BRef. You then have Andruw at +25 for 10 years. I don't believe the gap could be that big.
Agreed. I don't think these two statements are in any kind of opposition to each other.
Seriously, this is comical beyond belief. Not only does it assume that everyone who saw Mays play is suffering from some sort of "nostalgia"-induced dementia, while those who've seen Andruw play are clear-eyed and objective, but it tries to prove its point by citing a half-assed analogy that compares an apple to a carrot to a roast beef sandwich.
I have no idea whether Andruw Jones was a "better" CF in his prime than Willie Mays was in his, though I'm certainly willing to concede the possibility. The idea that he was ">>>>" than Mays, however, is absurd, unless each ">" represents some micro-figure that's the baseball equivalent of a mill.
As for trying to compare Frank Sinatra to Elvis Presley to Michael Jackson in terms of who's "better" or "best", I's eagerly await the first moron who tries to wade into that one. Though "to each his own" might be the only way to resolve that unanswerable question.
It's been a topic of many a conversation with Chris Dial. His theory is that Jones took (almost) all of the discretionary plays. Those plays where it's always an out -- just a question of who records it. These plays carry no signal in ZR.
If your HOF case is based on defense it really ought to show up on both the gridded and non-gridded methods. Ozzie Smith for instance does as well in DA as he does in TotalZone (and we do't have DA for his absolute best defensive years)
Oh and #88 Griffey does very poorly in the gridded methods too. So does Kirby Puckett. Dale Stephenson gets Griffey at -92 runs in 1989-95. Puckett's actually much worse. (-139 runs in CF)
Devon White laps the field in the DA era.
I recall Bill James writing about Nap Lajoie taking all the discretionary plays at 2B while the rest of the baseball world was shifting them to SS. Though it seems like there are a lot more of them on the infield (pop ups, stolen base attempts).
I guess I can picture a lot of discretionary flyballs, but it seems like most of the time the CF has dibs on those.
I was not. I don't think he meant to do it, but Chass just called a whole flock of journalists who went to MLB.com propagandists or money-grubbers.
Every now and then players show up who challenge our basic assumptions about how chances are distributed. Pete Rose's defensive numbers at third depend on how you deal with putouts. His assist numbers aren't terrible, but his putouts are weirdly low. I think that's mostly the shortstop calling him off a lot of discretionary plays. (There isn't a great amount of signal in third base putouts at the best of times. Size of foul territory is far more important than defensive ability)
Rogers Hornsby is a better example. He had an inner ear problem for most of his career that made dealing with popups difficult. Thing is that if the team knows it, it's no big deal. Most infield popups can be dealt with by another infielder. It's still an out. Occasionally a difficult play for either the shortstop, firstbaseman or pitcher, but mostly not.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main