A Note on My Criticism of Posnanski

by royalsreview on Jul 2, 2009 4:45 PM EDT in News Comment 24 comments

Here on media relations day in the Royals blogosphere...

Last night, I characterized Joe's blog post on the Royals offense as "cowardly". In particular, I took issue with the post's conclusion/non-conclusion:

And it all comes back to the beginning: The Royals execs are smart people. But the more they do to this offense, the worse this offense gets. The more they hope for things to work out, the less likely it seems that things DO work out. It’s a quirk of baseball — a quirk of sports. I remember talking to an executive once who told me that if you get a left fielder who is a little better than the one you have, a centerfielder who is a little better, a right fielder who is a little better, and so on, you should be a better team. Well … maybe and maybe not. Two plus two does not always equal four in team sports. Sometimes, it equals P4. Sometimes it equals 4-6-3. And sometimes, it just equals another lost year.

Multiple readers have suggested that Joe wasn't being cowardly, but that this was in fact gentle criticism or possibly some kind of ironic handling on his part or a deft way of begging the question. As such, he wasn't being cowardly, he was being clever. If you hold this reading, then my little mini-shot at the illustrious Joe wasn't just wrong and inaccurate, it was itself ironically backwards. He was really giving it to 'em!

Um, I don't quite see it. Just read it again, and still don't see it. The line about team sports, "two plus two does not always equal four in team sports," doesn't seem to fit with the overall thrust of some misty and unseen criticism of Moore. No, it simply reinforces the bizarre gnosticism of the piece, which I still see as the overall purpose: Gee, ain't sports quirky sometimes? We just can't figure it out.

As such, I'm not sure what to say. I feel half-dumb and half-a-jerk. I don't want to be unnecessarily critical of someone for not being critical, when they are in fact being critical. I don't want to be the one guy left not getting the joke, but I don't see the joke! Joe knows 100x more about baseball and baseball writing than I do I, suppose.

In any case, since the post in question was published, Joe P. has been appropriately harsh, which is really all that matters. The next step in all this, for all of us, is to stop fixating on Hillman. Hillman is not the issue, he is a symptom.

1 recs | Comment 24 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

this whole debate was one of the strangest and most nit-picky in my experience at Royals Review

and that’s coming from ME.

I applaud all involved. Kudos, good people.

Rec’d.

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.

by devil_fingers on Jul 2, 2009 5:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

JoePo is truly beloved

I honestly can never recall someone criticizing him. Only Denny compares. Everyone else, if you throw out their name, people will jump on it with “typical _” or whatever.

by royalsreview on Jul 2, 2009 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well, I've defended him a lot, true

and he’s my favorite sportswriter. I don’t mind his tone. I’ve had my problems with him, but mostly minor — I’ve had my differences with you, too. Whatever.

I just couldn’t follow what was going on. Probably because I’ve become a TOTAL Twitter “activist” now, thanks to you.

Excuse me while I drink some Draino.

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.

by devil_fingers on Jul 2, 2009 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

back when the iran stuff went down

I went out to dinner here in DC and stumbled upon a protest. People were dressed in Green and holding signs that said #cnnfail. The use of Twitter speak/message board speak was weird to see in the real world. But I loved it.

by royalsreview on Jul 2, 2009 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm trying to take it easy

you were just kidding about the second-degree bans, right? I "@royalreview"ed you.

IN the meantime, Sam Mellinger has taken a firm stand on this issue. STick it to the Man!.

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.

by devil_fingers on Jul 2, 2009 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

d_f

i’ve got a spreadsheet that i put together comparing team WAR to actual record. not sure what to make of it or if it’s really meaningful in any way.

also, how do i do that cool google spreadsheet thingy or just post a good solid table here?

thanks!

Kansas City Royals - rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic since 1994.

by Home Run Tony Cogan on Jul 2, 2009 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

no idea on how to do google docs

but I assume its easy

by royalsreview on Jul 2, 2009 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I did one last night after our chat, too

I got the Royals at ~38 “wins” (not counting last nights game) by doing [(# of games)*.300] + (fangraphs WAR)

I thinkI let it go. Like I said, these things will be further off the smaller the sample is… In general, they should get closer the more games that are played. We’ll see.

it’s up to you how you do it. Google Docs is really simple if you have a gmail account. Posting tables is tough if you aren’t a moderator (I usually create one at Driveline, then copy it into a post here).

Curious to see your method/results.

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.

by devil_fingers on Jul 2, 2009 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

that's about what I got

and I did basically the same method as you mentioned above. Maybe I’m searching, but I guess if we see that DM put together a .500 team overall, then the fact that we’ve underperformed that level is due to some other factors.

I’m not sure what those factors are, although I’m sure that random variance accounts for a part. what about baserunning? what about the “non error” errors (for example, not throwing to the correct base-would that get measured in zone ratings)?

as you and i have discussed before, i’m not for DM per se, but I would like to find some evidence that he isn’t as bad as we might think at putting a team together.

i will say, today’s events re: rany have really put a damper on my enthusiasm and whether he’s the man for the job. i still think that the “guts” of what he’s doing is good, but if he was responsible for the “ban” then i’ve got to wonder why he’s worrying about that shit and not why in the fuck his manager is letting his prize pitcher throw his arm off. very carl peterson-esque.

i’m hoping it’s just a matter of “tommy boy” (dan glass) throw his weight around a little.

Kansas City Royals - rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic since 1994.

by Home Run Tony Cogan on Jul 2, 2009 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well, for all my "affection" for Dayton Moore

This has Glass fingerprints all over it

I should “retroject” the last few seasons to see how close it gets. Like the Pythagorean win% (which has the Royals right on target), this will vary, but even more because it involves more “moving parts.” that would be my uneducated guess.

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.

by devil_fingers on Jul 2, 2009 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yea... I don't think Moore had much to do with this...

but I guess we’ll never know

by royalsreview on Jul 2, 2009 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

One note about google docs

to but in, once you have a spreadsheet finished you can publish it. Then write it up and link the url. Or I guess you could also screen capture the table and insert it as a picture.

If you were thinking, you wouldn't have thought that.

http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?showforum=129

by Warden11 on Jul 2, 2009 6:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let’s start with this: it might seem like it, but I’m not really commenting on this post. Instead I want to examine the effect of Web 2.0 on modern communications.

This post sucks.

It all comes back to this: Web 2.0. Such is life.

(Just kidding. I mean, whatever the hell I just said, I’m just kidding. Honest.)

by 2X2L on Jul 2, 2009 5:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

haha

I think…

like I said, a part of me DOES feel red-faced about potentially criticizing Joe when it wasn’t justified, that being said, I do not understand what he was trying to say

by royalsreview on Jul 2, 2009 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No question, it leaves its meaning open to question. So what you take away from it is what you take away from it, and nobody can take that away from you.

Seriously, I’ve enjoyed chatting with you over the whole thing. I haven’t hung out here this much since Spring Training, and it surely isn’t the team’s performance that has been the draw. Thanks.

by 2X2L on Jul 2, 2009 5:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like Joe too but..

Gee, ain’t sports quirky sometimes? We just can’t figure it out.

…is a real problem. I put the Buck O’Neil book down halfway through because I got it confused with The Green Mile…or Shawshank Redemption…or some other story where a wink of an eye and a little hint of magic seems to explain real freakin’ life.

by thejosephboys on Jul 2, 2009 5:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm half with you on this.

I’m really a Rangers fan, but I read RR pretty regularly (and thanks to this blog, read JoePo religiously), so you’ll have to forgive me if some of my assessments are off-base. Please feel free to correct my estimations if I’m wrong.

I thought it was a real “aw, shucks” kinda piece. Almost like Poz wrote it to placate the less saber-savvy among his readership. I read it as a “Look, these guys really are trying their best, and had bad luck in addition to making somewhat questionable decisions.”

It gets me that he talks about Moore going after top free agents, losing out on the bidding wars, and then settling for second-best on the market. I think this is where he should be critical. According to FanGraphs, Torii Hunter was barely worth his $12M salary in 2007. Guillen was comparable, but at a far less valuable defensive position. Granted, Hunter probably should be playing COF right now, but that’s beside the point.

To me, the criticism should lie with the talent evaluation and the reasoning used to say “well, we didn’t get our primary target, so let’s pick someone from the leftovers.” Not counting the fact that, well, Torii Hunter really isn’t that fantastic in the first place, and according to UZR, hasn’t had any business playing CF since 2005 (incidentally, it makes me giggle to know that he could put up another stinker of a defensive year for a division rival).

This is a topic of discussion we have sometimes over at LSB: at what point is it the GM’s mistake, and at what point is it a failure of your scouting department? It isn’t your GM’s job to tour high school, college, minor league, or pro stadiums in search for some hidden talent. So in that regard, I think he’s not quite so off about Moore, although it’s pretty damning that Moore hasn’t done anything to rectify this problem within the scouting department (or has he?).

by jwiscarson on Jul 2, 2009 7:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It gets me that he talks about Moore going after top free agents, losing out on the bidding wars, and then settling for second-best on the market. I think this is where he should be critical.

This is what I don’t get: in what way is pointing out the abject failure of each of these consolation prizes not critical? He rolls up the running tally on each one, Guillen et al.

by 2X2L on Jul 2, 2009 7:57 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Again, perspective...

Calling it cowardly was ridiculous, bat all this parsing is even more ridiculous. This was a blog entry. Not an SI.com article, not a KC Star article. He didn’t run it by any editors. He may have proofread it once or not at all.

What’s more ridiculous is that anyone expects (or wants, for that matter) knee-jerk criticism from JoPo. He’s become one of the best sportswriters in the country without it, why would he start now?

There’s a reason he’s beloved, Will, and much of it is because he doesn’t criticize people or call for their jobs or whatever until it’s absolutely clear to him that there is no other way to assess the situation. He’s empathetic. Maybe it’s not for everyone, and maybe you’d rather he have sharper teeth, but his style has worked for him so far, and I wouldn’t go holding my breath for him to change.

by billexgordler on Jul 2, 2009 11:18 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

Calling it cowardly was ridiculous, bat all this parsing is even more ridiculous.

[…]

What’s more ridiculous is

the Royals’ offense.

by 2X2L on Jul 3, 2009 12:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

how can it not be clear to him that treyton deserve intense criticism at the very least?

What he seems like to me is a frontrunner. He’ll be the last one, and one of the loudest, to jump on the bandwagon, but only after the outcome is clear and he wont make any meaningful enemies.

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Jul 3, 2009 1:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He calls ALL his readers "Brilliant Readers"

That should be enough to know how to interpret that article. It felt like he was trying to say the Royals are badly run, while on the surface saying it was “bad luck”. I think some of the gloves may come off after this latest Rany incident. What are they going to do, ban everyone? We could only hope for that, so they can keep us from this ineptitude.

by AxDxMx on Jul 3, 2009 12:28 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm also very interested to see how this one plays out with JoePo and Rany.

I can see a quick mention and skipping along or no mention at all.

I just can’t see him calling out the Royals on this deal. Honestly, I’m betting we get a “this was blown way out of proportion” deal from a lot of the local media.

If you were thinking, you wouldn't have thought that.

http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?showforum=129

by Warden11 on Jul 3, 2009 1:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pos knows

Everything Posnanski writes – and I mean EVERYTHING – is very measured. Researched, studied, edited and then researched again. You get that feeling every time you read even those pieces that appear to be hastily written. This is a man who does not believe in going out on a limb. He doesn’t write with abandon. He has a scientific mind and will always lean on facts rather than hot and unreliable emotion. That’s to his credit. Entirely to his credit. JoPo is a true diplomat with a gorgeous way with words. Most journalists don’t have that capability for inexorable analysis and that’s entirely for the best. If everybody who posts blogs, opinion pieces or editorials checked their pulses at the door, what a boring place it would be. It works for Posnanski, it doesn’t work for everybody. He is beloved perhaps more than any journalist should be, but that’s okay. His followers – and I am one of them – have every right to adore and defend him. At the same time, if nobody disagreed with Joe once in a while, it would be a sure sign that a “Stepford Wives” kind of mentality had taken over and God, we don’t need that. You felt he was cowardly in his stance and stated as much. That’s good. Some will disagree, but let them disagree on the issue, not because you had the scrotum to call out the Great JP. The world needs diplomats (Joe Posnaksi) but it also needs those who will tell the emporer (Joe Posnanski) when he is wearing no clothes. Your readers need to know the difference between respect and fawning.

by LaFLamme on Jul 3, 2009 1:29 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs