Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Saturday, March 11, 2006

The Baseball Analysts: Lederer: Un-Weaving Some Prior Comments

“The only thing I ever got from you was sorrow”...a Lederer-Goldstein writing session goes bad.

I’m going to preface my diatribe below by saying upfront that I have no reason to dislike Kevin Goldstein of Baseball Prospectus. This is not a personal issue. Rather, I’m taking the time to set the record straight because Goldstein not only mischaracterized my stance on Jered Weaver and Mark Prior recently but did it in such a condescending manner that I felt the need to respond.

For the record, I sent Goldstein an email, informing Kevin that I was “very disappointed in one of (his) initial columns at BP” and letting him know that his comments were “inaccurate” and “patronizing.” I asked him to run a retraction if he couldn’t show me “where I ever said Weaver was as good as Prior, much less better than him.” He chose not to, saying “I feel the link I used showed that.”

Repoz Posted: March 11, 2006 at 08:38 PM | 39 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: cubs

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. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: March 11, 2006 at 10:09 PM (#1893747)
Yawn. God I can't wait for real baseball to start...

FWIW, I think that Rich is right that he never said that Weaver projected as good as Prior and that Goldstein probably could have made the same point (that Weaver's more or less a #3, like his brother) without linking to an old column that really demonstrate the point that Goldstein was trying to make. Now there were people who made the Weaver=Prior comps--but Lederer wasn't one of them.

I don't really have an interest in pursuing this issue any further, but it might be interesting to peruse BP's archives to find any comments that Rany or some of the other dimmer bulbs at Prospectus might have said over the past few years about Jared Weaver--just a thought.
   2. Swedish Chef Posted: March 11, 2006 at 10:13 PM (#1893752)
Just getting this on Hot Topics:

It's impossible to write comments at all if live preview is enabled now. So if there's no comment box disable live preview...
   3. TOLAXOR Posted: March 11, 2006 at 10:26 PM (#1893758)
PROSPECTUS NEEDS CONTROVERSY TO STAY RELEVANT IN AN INTERNET OF DEMOCRATIZED CONTENT...
   4. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: March 11, 2006 at 10:29 PM (#1893761)
Thanks!

As to the linked article. It's not a good start for Goldstein. I hope he apologizes and is a little more careful as he continues to write for BP.
   5. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: March 11, 2006 at 11:11 PM (#1893775)
without linking to an old column that really DOESN'T demonstrate the point that Goldstein was trying to make

Oops. My mistake, my typo.
   6. The Keith Law Blog Blah Blah (battlekow) Posted: March 11, 2006 at 11:31 PM (#1893780)
I would say that the article Goldstein links, if not saying that Weaver WAS as good/better than Prior, at least suggests he could be. Rich clarified his position in other articles, but it's not Goldstein's job to read through the author's entire body of work looking for inconsistencies.

That said, Goldstein is clearly comparing the two as major league pitchers, while Rich's article only considers their collegiate body of work, a very important distinction.
   7. Sean Sweda Posted: March 12, 2006 at 01:24 AM (#1893835)
Sigh... this qualifies as news?
   8. Zoidberg's Platoon Partner Posted: March 12, 2006 at 01:25 AM (#1893836)
Who. #######. Cares.

So Kevin was probably wrong and Rich needs to grow a pair. So what?

PROSPECTUS NEEDS CONTROVERSY TO STAY RELEVANT IN AN INTERNET OF DEMOCRATIZED CONTENT...

APPARENTLY, SO DOES PRIMER, AS EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THIS WAS LINKED TO AT ALL.
   9. SABRJoe Posted: March 12, 2006 at 02:50 AM (#1893905)
"Rich needs to grow a pair"? I believe he's proved he already had a set when he approached a writer, was big-timed by the writer (there's no other reason to explain why Goldstein wouldn't apologize, whether in a retraction or privately in an email), and Rich showed he was mis-quoted.

Also, if you look beyond the "controversy," the linked article is still an interesting retrospect of Weaver's college career.
   10. greenback used to say live and let live Posted: March 12, 2006 at 04:36 AM (#1894010)
Who. #######. Cares.

Ain't that the truth. Prospectus got something wrong and was condescending in the process. That's not news.
   11. xfactor Posted: March 12, 2006 at 08:37 AM (#1894220)
It was widely concluded that Weaver's upside wasn't that of Prior and the marketplace later made that even more obvious. Weaver got maybe 30 percent of what Prior had gotten to sign as an amateur.
   12. Stiff Peter Posted: March 12, 2006 at 12:47 PM (#1894240)
Now there were people who made the Weaver=Prior comps--but Lederer wasn't one of them.

I think the only 'people' who did this was Scott Boras. Everything I read leading up to the draft basically mocked Boras' assertion (even though we know Boras himself didn't truly believe it either).

It was a dick-move by Goldstein to link the column, IMO, as it is basically picking a fight for no good reason.
   13. philly Posted: March 12, 2006 at 02:33 PM (#1894288)
This passage which Lederer somewhat curiously cited in his defense is the reason that Goldstein's comment was not wrong.

Although Weaver has stats comparable to Prior, one could argue that the latter projected to a somewhat higher ceiling owing to his superior mechanics, a 2-3 mph advantage on their fastballs, and arguably better stuff. Jered, on the other hand, has equally good command and control. He is as polished as Mark was at the same stage of their careers. When you shake it all up, Prior comes out on top with Weaver not too far behind.

There is really no justification for the statement that Prior is only arguably projeted to have a somewhat higher ceiling. There is not a single person, perhaps outside of Boras, who made that argument. None. It was essentially unanimous that Prior projected to be an ace #1 starter and Weaver projected to be a solid, nearly ready #2/3 starter.

And yet Lederer wrought that it was arguably who was better, but maganinmously Lederer was willing to conclude that his boy who projected as a #2/3 starter was "not too far behind" the pitcher who projected as an ace.

Imo, all of Lederer's sefl-righteous fury is undone by that passage. Lederer calimed that Weaver was not too far behind Prior as a projected MLB pitcher because their college stats were so similar. That's what Goldstein called him on and Goldstein was more or less corect.
   14. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: March 12, 2006 at 02:33 PM (#1894289)
I remember this debate, and I think Goldman's got a point. This is the key section from Lederer's article
I'm sorry, but it is simply disingenuous to say that there is "no correlation whatsoever" between Weaver's and Prior's stats. Bane knows the stats are incredibly similar so he is trying to play a little three-card monte on the public by proclaiming that they aren't akin to one another.

Boras is believed to be asking for a deal similar to the five-year, $10.5 million contract Prior signed with the Chicago Cubs in August 2001. Given their comparable stats and competition, is that so unreasonable?

The whole thing is really quite silly when you think about the fact that Jered's brother Jeff is scheduled to earn $9.25 million in 2005. I know Jeff is a more proven pitcher at the big-league level, but who would you rather have for about the same amount of money -- Jered Weaver for the next five years or Jeff Weaver for one year?

Another point in Jered's favor is the fact that Prior's contract has proven to be a bargain for the Cubs. I could understand the reluctance on the part of the Angels to give their first-round pick Prior-type money if the former Trojan was a bust in the majors, but he obviously hasn't been. If anything, the Cubs ace should be making more money.

Now I'm not suggesting that Weaver is going to be as good as or better than Prior. Nobody knows that at this point. However, based on his college and Team USA records, I think he has earned the right to a Prior-like contract.

By the way, how much money do you think Weaver would be getting if he were a free agent like Eric Milton, Derek Lowe, or any number of starters who are being gobbled up at $7.5-$9 million/season for three or more years rather than having to negotiate with the Angels only? I think it is high time that general manager Bill Stonewall step up to the plate and make an offer that approaches the contract that Prior got from the Cubs. Period. End of story.
Lederer uses a comparison based entirely on statistics to argue that Weaver deserves a contract comparable to Prior's.

I argued at the time that statistical comparisons of college players have never been shown to mean anything at all. In order for Lederer's argument to make sense, he has to be arguing that the statistical comparability of Prior and Weaver positively means that Weaver's upside and future value are comparable to Prior's. He implicitly depends on the utility of projections based on college stats, even though no one has demonstrated what utility they have.

Goldstein is arguing that because Prior got results by using far better stuff than Weaver, Prior's results and Weaver's aren't really comparable. (That's the same argument made by Eddie Bane in the "Great Debate" article to which Lederer was responding.) Lederer calls Bane "disingenuous" in the above quote, so I might suggest he fired the first salvo here. Bane's argument was that Prior and Weaver are not comparable - and I'm sure Bane was well-acquainted with their statistics - because they have very different stuff.

In other words, even though Weaver and Prior have comparable college statistics, they are not actually comparable pitchers and thus do not deserve comparable bonuses. Lederer argued that they have comparable statistics and thus deserve comparable bonuses. In order for that argument to make sense, he must implicitly hold that players with comparable college stats are in fact comparable players, even though no one has shown that to be true.

Lederer does add that Prior has been better than his contract, and so even if Weaver were a bit worse, he might still be worth the money. The rest of hte argument, though, so depends on the utility of college stats alone in projecting prospects, that I don't think that one side argument invalidates my reading.

I'll add, further:

Mark Prior, $4M bonus, $10.5M major league contract with opt-out clause
Jeff Weaver, $4M bonus, no major league contract (turned down $5.25M major league deal)
   15. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: March 12, 2006 at 02:36 PM (#1894291)
Jered Weaver. Yeah.
   16. pkb33 Posted: March 12, 2006 at 03:07 PM (#1894313)
I would say that the article Goldstein links, if not saying that Weaver WAS as good/better than Prior, at least suggests he could be. Rich clarified his position in other articles, but it's not Goldstein's job to read through the author's entire body of work looking for inconsistencies.

Indeed...Lederer is wrong here, one has to wonder if he bothered to read what he wrote before writing that self-righteous reply. Goldstein's paraphrasing was a fair take on the linked article, and Lederer's lawyerly "I didn't say exactly what you claimed I said" argument is nothing more than a dodge of this fact.

If anyone is trying to increase his profile by taking shots at someone here it's Lederer, and I hope most here see through it.
   17. Jay Reimenschneider, Horse Eater Posted: March 12, 2006 at 03:31 PM (#1894327)
Lederer comes off like a whiny little punk with this so-called debate. Goldstein, in no way, needs to apologize for his statements. It seems to me that Lederer, though a terrific writer, is a tad too sensitive - though not as sensitive as Aaron Gleeman.
   18. Jon W Posted: March 12, 2006 at 03:35 PM (#1894329)
If anyone is trying to increase his profile by taking shots at someone here it's Lederer...

That is simply not what Rich or his article is about, at all.
   19. PooNani Posted: March 12, 2006 at 03:45 PM (#1894334)
He comes off that way with his argument though..
   20. SABRJoe Posted: March 12, 2006 at 05:11 PM (#1894392)
I guess people want to see/read/hear what that want to see/read/hear.

The point is Goldstein said, and I quote, "some started to say Weaver was as good as, if not better than, the last college super-pitcher, USC's Mark Prior" and we all know the "some" is clearly Rich.

If you not only read Rich's rebuttal article but the entire works that are linked in said article, you will NEVER find him saying Weaver will be "better than" Prior, so that is where Goldstein is clearly wrong. Which leaves us with:

"[Rich Lederer] started to say Weaver was as good as, <strike>if not better than, the last college super-pitcher, USC's Mark Prior"</strike>

Now, did Rich ever start saying Weaver "was as good as" Prior? No. Plain and simple and any attempt to prove otherwise is futile because it just ain't true.

What Rich did say is that Weaver had comparable, if not better, college stats to Prior ("If the former University of Southern California ace is the king of college pitchers as many have claimed, then let the record show that Weaver is on pace to dethrone him.") There's no mention of Weaver being a better professional pitcher than Prior. It's clear the context is only their college careers.

The only other time Rich stood Prior and Weaver next to each other was by playing Devil's advocate when it came to Weaver and Boras' holdout. Rich merely said "...based on his college and Team USA records, I think [Weaver] has earned the right to a Prior-like contract." Again, no mention of Weaver being as good, or better than, Prior as a pro.

If you read the linked article, Rich clearly makes professional comparisons for Weaver like "Weaver, more likely than not, will wind up being somewhere between Prior and [Chris] Young. Think Patterson or a right-handed Cliff Lee." and "Given their similar builds, looks, and styles, one cannot dismiss the possibility that Jered may also be comparable to his older brother Jeff, who was an outstanding college pitcher in his own right at Fresno State."

I know what I've read and I still have yet come to the conclusion some of you have come to...I'll say it again: I guess people want to see/read/hear what that want to see/read/hear.
   21. philly Posted: March 12, 2006 at 06:14 PM (#1894460)
Rich merely said "...based on his college and Team USA records, I think [Weaver] has earned the right to a Prior-like contract." Again, no mention of Weaver being as good, or better than, Prior as a pro.

Anytime you talk about contracts for amatuer players, you are talking about their future professional worth. A professinal contract is not a reward for being the King of College pitchers. Prior earned his contract because the Cubs beleived that he projected to be a great MLB pitcher. Weaver did not earn a Prior-like contract because nobody beleived that he projected to be a great MLB pitcher. It's that simple.
   22. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: March 12, 2006 at 06:29 PM (#1894479)
All that shows philly is that Lederer either ignored or didn't understand the factors that go into determining worth for a contract. There are plenty of people who say that some 30 year-old player on his declined has "earned the right" to a superstar contract. Some might mean that he is going to be as good a player over the next few years as some 27 year-old with similar numbers who has the same type of contract, but others just aren't factoring age into contract analysis or are rewarding past performance rather than predicting future performance.

You are reading Lederer's words from your perspective (which may be more informed) and then apply further deductions to put words in his mouth.

There is no need to do this. In his articles, he repeatedly appraises Weaver behind Prior and not a single time refers to him as better. He is equating him to ML pitchers who are quite a bit worse than Prior.

Goldstein's statement is an utter fabrication. Plus, if you read this article closely, you'll see that he says that molesting small animals is as good or better than saving a child from a burning building. How disgusting.
   23. SABRJoe Posted: March 12, 2006 at 06:37 PM (#1894491)
Weaver did not earn a Prior-like contract because nobody beleived that he projected to be a great MLB pitcher.

Ever heard of the term "signability"?

As for "nobody believed that [Weaver] projected to be a great MLB pitcher," I know Rich surely didn't believe he'd be "great" (just look at Rich's comps I quoted in #20).

But I will tell you what people believed about Weaver:

**Baseball America's (a scouting-based publication and Goldstein's former employeer!!)#1 overall prospect heading into 2004 Draft

**Baseball America said Weaver had the "BEST COMMAND" and was "CLOSEST TO THE MAJORS" of all draft-eligible college pitchers.

**Kevin Towers said before the draft that "He's the top player on our list."
   24. The Keith Law Blog Blah Blah (battlekow) Posted: March 12, 2006 at 06:41 PM (#1894498)
I wonder how this affects Frank Tanana.
   25. jmac66 Posted: March 12, 2006 at 06:55 PM (#1894522)
Sabr-cat fight!

you go, girls

about as newsworthy as the Milo Hamilton-dead Harry Carey feud
   26. SABRJoe Posted: March 12, 2006 at 06:56 PM (#1894524)
And let's not stray away from the purpose of Rich's article. Even if he did say Weaver was going to be better than Prior (which he didn't!), it was based on more than stats alone. Goldstein pegged Rich as someone who was analyzing Weaver from a laptop, which couldn't be further from the truth. I'd go as far to say it's almost guaranteed Rich saw Weaver in person more than Goldstein and Goldstein's comment that Rich never talked to scouts was also false, as pointed out by Rich in his article. Rich's assessment of Weaver wasn't based on stats alone, which Goldstein would have you believe. Rich used a combination of stats, his own scouting and talking to scouts and baseball officials to write about Weaver. This is where Goldstein makes his mistake and the reason why Rich felt he needed to clear the air.
   27. Women's Lib is Ms.Guided Posted: March 12, 2006 at 07:05 PM (#1894544)
MCoA,

Check out the paragraph with your second use of bold. I think the first sentence is:

Now I'm not suggesting that Weaver is going to be as good as or better than Prior.


I believe Lederer's point was that part of what made Prior so good was his dominant performance in college and that in that regard Weaver is right there with him.

He contested Bane's questioning of Weaver's stats being on par with Prior's stats, he never put Weaver in the same class as a prospect.
   28. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: March 12, 2006 at 08:50 PM (#1894790)
E-X,

The reason I disagree with that reading is that it makes Lederer's argument pretty much incoherent. He concludes, "I think it is high time that general manager Bill Stonewall step up to the plate and make an offer that approaches the contract that Prior got from the Cubs. Period. End of story."

A couple people have said that philly or I am "putting words in his mouth" or "making assumptions." My response is that, if we don't make that assumption, Lederer is incoherent. The only reason to give a contract to a player is based on the value you will get from them in the future. If Weaver deserves a similar offer, then his projected future value is similar to Prior's at the time.

In other words, I think that, "Lederer either ignored or didn't understand the factors that go into determining worth for a contract," is a far rougher criticism than anything I have leveled. That's really basic baseball knowledge, and I highly doubt Lederer would be so sloppy.
   29. Women's Lib is Ms.Guided Posted: March 12, 2006 at 08:58 PM (#1894803)
The only reason to give a contract to a player is based on the value you will get from them in the future. If Weaver deserves a similar offer, then his projected future value is similar to Prior's at the time.

Absolutely wrong! He explicitly points out that Prior is/was underpaid, which both establishes why he thinks the Angels should have signed Weaver and that Weaver was below Prior in expected major league impact.
   30. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: March 12, 2006 at 09:00 PM (#1894811)
It's a rough criticism, but it actually deals with what he wrote. If you choose to interpret it the other way, you have to ignore ALL of the times he says that Weaver is not as good of a prospect as Prior, and ALL of his actual comparisons to ML pitchers, unless you are also interpreting that he thinks Jeff Weaver is as good or better than Mark Prior.

If Goldstein writes that the idea that good college numbers=earned the right to a contract on the par of Prior is foolish and shows a lack of understanding of what contracts are for, I support him. It doesn't matter than it's not nice--it's supported by the linked article.

When you cite an article that is full of direct reference after direct reference that explicitly say the opposite of what you are paraphrasing, that's a problem beyond being critical.
   31. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: March 12, 2006 at 09:36 PM (#1894932)
Absolutely wrong! He explicitly points out that Prior is/was underpaid, which both establishes why he thinks the Angels should have signed Weaver and that Weaver was below Prior in expected major league impact.
He's saying that Weaver is not quite as good as Prior, not that he's much worse. "Not that far behind," in Lederer's words.
When you cite an article that is full of direct reference after direct reference that explicitly say the opposite of what you are paraphrasing, that's a problem beyond being critical.
Similarly, I don't believe he's saying the exact opposite. Lederer is saying that Weaver isn't quite as good as Prior, but he's saying it's close.

Weaver actually received a far smaller contract than Prior. Prior has $10M guaranteed on top of his bonus, while Weaver has nothing beyond his bonus. So, there's a notable gap between what Lederer called for and what Weaver received. Goldstein, and implicitly the Angels, are/were arguing that gap between the two was large and categorical.

I agree that Lederer never said that Weaver was better, but he did say that Weaver was close. That's where Bane and Goldstein disagree with him. Lederer primarily, if not exclusively used statistical similarity to make that case that the two are similar in what contract they deserve, and I found his arguments unconvincing.
   32. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: March 12, 2006 at 09:48 PM (#1894975)
If you choose to interpret it the other way, you have to ignore ... ALL of his actual comparisons to ML pitchers, unless you are also interpreting that he thinks Jeff Weaver is as good or better than Mark Prior.
Just to address this, too.

I did ignore those arguments. They made very little sense to me - Jered Weaver is not a free agent, he's an amateur draft pick. Weaver won't receive what he would make on the open market because he doesn't have the right to play multiple teams against each other. The Angels won't pay Corey Kotchman the equivalent of his market value either, because they don't have to.

The argument Lederer was making seemed to me to be that Weaver's stats show him to be similar enough in value to Prior such that he should receive a Prior-like contract, especially given that Prior is worth more than his contract.

Eddie Bane and the Angels disagreed, and they were shown to be right about the contract. The different success of Weaver and Prior at this point in their careers further suggests that the Angels and Bane were right not to offer a contract remotely equivalent to Prior's.
   33. philly Posted: March 12, 2006 at 10:10 PM (#1895045)
All that shows philly is that Lederer either ignored or didn't understand the factors that go into determining worth for a contract.

I was actually going to add something like that, but it seems such an obvious point that my attempt was coming off much more snarky towards Lederer than I wanted. I completely agree with MCoA in #28.

Goldstein's characterization is either largely correct (Lederer used college stats to make the case that Weaver was nearly as good - but not better - than Prior) or some of Lederer's comparisons are incoherent if not downright foolish.

In this rebuttal article Lederer mentions two or three times that he was the first to say x or y about Weaver. Apparently being the first to say whatever about Weaver was important to him. I think he let that desire go to his head and he ran with Weaver-Prior comparison much further and longer than he should have.

Does Lederer beleive that every collegiate pitcher who projects to be as good a major leaguer as Jered Weaver is also "just behind" Prior and deserving of a Prior-like contract? If not, why not?
   34. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: March 12, 2006 at 10:37 PM (#1895125)
Well, Lederer would have to answer himself, but it certainly seems possible that he would think that every collegiate pitcher who PERFORMED as well as Prior and Weaver in college is deserving of a Prior-like contract, he would be wrong, and people still shouldn't misrepresent his position when linking to his articles.

So Lederer's comparison may very well be foolish, but the other alternative that Goldstein's characterization is largely correct is not true in any way. If Goldstein had said, "Rich Lederer is someone who appears to have overrated Weaver by overemphasizing his collegiate stats" he would be correct.

If he says that Lederer didn't talk to scouts and said that Weaver was as good or better than Prior, he is a liar.
   35. Women's Lib is Ms.Guided Posted: March 12, 2006 at 10:54 PM (#1895184)
Seems to me like the issue is whether this describes Lederer:

some started to say Weaver was as good as, if not better than, the last college super-pitcher, USC's Mark Prior. Those people didn't talk to the scouts, who saw a pitcher dominating with good stuff and excellent command in a pitcher-friendly park, as opposed to Prior, whose pure stuff was off the charts.

Having read Lederer's full article(s), I don't see where Goldstein can make that case. Lederer explicitly refers to Weaver as not as good as Prior. Lederer also references park factors into his analysis (to downgrade Weaver's stats).

If I were Lederer I would probably be miffed as well.
   36. 1k5v3L Posted: March 12, 2006 at 11:07 PM (#1895222)
Put me down on record: Jonathan Papelbon kicks Weaver's and Prior's fannies. And it's not even close. And if someone wants to devote 245 kb of cyberspace to prove me wrong, I'll hire Rob Base to sue him and take away his children.
   37. philly Posted: March 13, 2006 at 12:55 AM (#1895737)
Well, Lederer would have to answer himself, but it certainly seems possible that he would think that every collegiate pitcher who PERFORMED as well as Prior and Weaver in college is deserving of a Prior-like contract, he would be wrong, and people still shouldn't misrepresent his position when linking to his articles.

This is just going round in circles at this point, but that is exactly what Goldstein was criticizing - the idea that similar collegiate performances justifies similar projections (or contracts) going forward. Lederer's point seems to be that it does. Goldstein's point is that it does not. Now Goldstein also engaged in some hyperbole and condescension and he was wrong to do that, but on what I think was his main, substantive point he was correct.

Btw, does anybody else find it funny that the Goldstein hired by BP thread was overwhelmingly positive about him and now a week later he's getting knicked by the non-BP internet cognescetti for snarky condescension? That's jsut too funny.
   38. xfactor Posted: March 13, 2006 at 04:32 AM (#1896280)
Offended writer comes of a baby.
Prospecter writer comes off as smarmy pedant who seems impressed with himself but in reality set up a straw man and knocked it down.
   39. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: March 13, 2006 at 05:42 AM (#1896355)
This is just going round in circles at this point, but that is exactly what Goldstein was criticizing - the idea that similar collegiate performances justifies similar projections (or contracts) going forward. Lederer's point seems to be that it does. Goldstein's point is that it does not. Now Goldstein also engaged in some hyperbole and condescension and he was wrong to do that, but on what I think was his main, substantive point he was correct.

Btw, does anybody else find it funny that the Goldstein hired by BP thread was overwhelmingly positive about him and now a week later he's getting knicked by the non-BP internet cognescetti for snarky condescension? That's jsut too funny.


I agree with all of this. The problem is that when someone, as a paid internet journalist supplements his main, substantive point not only with condescension by with complete fabrication, it's a really serious thing.

I like BP. I enjoy giving them crap for picking the Sox fourth behind the Tigers last year, but overall I've learned a lot reading their stuff. I have nothing in particular against Goldstein. I just thought that he was terrible unprofessional in this article.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
A triple short of the cycle
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Sox TherapyIt's A Sprint, Not A Marathon
(15 - 10:03pm, Sep 19)
Last: dave h

NewsblogMets targeting A’s Billy Beane as candidate to run baseball operations
(3 - 9:57pm, Sep 19)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogHey, pal, WEEKEND OMNICHATTER's eyes are up here, for September 17-19, 2021
(94 - 9:28pm, Sep 19)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogRemorseful Thom Brennaman deserves to work again now; He’s already suffered 14 months of hell
(47 - 9:25pm, Sep 19)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogNBA 2021 Playoffs+ thread
(4431 - 9:21pm, Sep 19)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogEmpty Stadium Sports Will Be Really Weird
(14003 - 8:51pm, Sep 19)
Last: Mayor Blomberg

NewsblogManny, Tatis have heated dugout exchange
(5 - 8:09pm, Sep 19)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogShohei Ohtani has sore arm, might not pitch again this season
(34 - 7:26pm, Sep 19)
Last: Hombre Brotani

NewsblogBest average in Majors ... but no batting title?
(23 - 5:50pm, Sep 19)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT Soccer Thread - Transfer! Kits! Other Stuff!
(272 - 5:02pm, Sep 19)
Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale

NewsblogCan Milwaukee’s Corbin Burnes Deliver MLB’s First Sabermetric Pitching Triple Crown?
(1 - 4:58pm, Sep 19)
Last: Tim M

NewsblogBaseball Pension Tension
(16 - 2:09pm, Sep 19)
Last: Ziggy: social distancing since 1980

Newsblog8th? BBTF Central Park Softball Game: SEPT 18, 2021
(224 - 12:19pm, Sep 19)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogThe Brown Bombers, a Little-Known Black Baseball Team, Shook Colorado’S Segregated Sports World
(3 - 9:33am, Sep 19)
Last: kirstie819

NewsblogOT - August/September 2021 College Football thread
(202 - 2:30am, Sep 19)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

Page rendered in 0.4701 seconds
48 querie(s) executed