I like Rob Neyer because he does his homework, but I don't read him regularly for two reasons (well, three):
He commits quantification errors from time to time, and insists that such-and-such a thing doesn't exist or isn't true because when he redefines it in quantitative terms and runs the numbers he can't find the thing he just defined out of thin air.
He doesn't stick to baseball. I read him religiously for several months when ESPN first started carrying him (seven or so years ago, if I recall correctly) until one day he compared some aspect of pitching to "children in Reagan's America." It's crass when George Will waxes [nostalgic? pedantic?] about baseball, but it's worse when Rob Neyer does the same about politics.
He doesn't think John Smoltz is Hall of Fame material.
On the other hand, he does run the numbers when it makes sense, he loves Bill James but is reasonably readable, and the only time I ever emailed him he responded.
I didn't know you were a baseball fan, ronebofh. You're not turning into CJ, are you?
D0000d... i've always loved the ol' ballgame. I managed to follow it a bit in Ecuador, and paid closer attention once i came back to the US, but became a more serious fan when i started playing fantasy baseball in `98. I'll cop to being a Yankees fan, but the Series i enjoyed the most was `96, when they went into the playoffs as a wild card and fought for the title. After that, it just wasn't the same.
I love baseball because of the minutiae. Yes, it can be slow and even tedious, but every pitch is a new opportunity. One player can't hog the ball.
1. True, but he's often willing to admit he was wrong. 2. I don't mind this at all. I don't find this crass; i don't find the idea of George Will nattering about baseball per se, but Will is such a schmuck, i find that his blabbering about baseball taints the sport. 3. Hey, Smoltz isn't HoF material. At least, not yet. I do think he has a "legitimate" shot, though, assuming he stays healthy.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
- He commits quantification errors from time to time, and insists that such-and-such a thing doesn't exist or isn't true because when he redefines it in quantitative terms and runs the numbers he can't find the thing he just defined out of thin air.
- He doesn't stick to baseball. I read him religiously for several months when ESPN first started carrying him (seven or so years ago, if I recall correctly) until one day he compared some aspect of pitching to "children in Reagan's America." It's crass when George Will waxes [nostalgic? pedantic?] about baseball, but it's worse when Rob Neyer does the same about politics.
- He doesn't think John Smoltz is Hall of Fame material.
On the other hand, he does run the numbers when it makes sense, he loves Bill James but is reasonably readable, and the only time I ever emailed him he responded.I didn't know you were a baseball fan,
no subject
I love baseball because of the minutiae. Yes, it can be slow and even tedious, but every pitch is a new opportunity. One player can't hog the ball.
1. True, but he's often willing to admit he was wrong.
2. I don't mind this at all. I don't find this crass; i don't find the idea of George Will nattering about baseball per se, but Will is such a schmuck, i find that his blabbering about baseball taints the sport.
3. Hey, Smoltz isn't HoF material. At least, not yet. I do think he has a "legitimate" shot, though, assuming he stays healthy.