View Single Post
  #37  
Old 04-25-2013, 05:23 PM
Milw Milw is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Naperville
Posts: 932
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
I can't defend Law because he does portray himself to be a gigantic idiot, BUT, he's a guy whose worked in upper management in baseball before so he surely does understand the value of traditional scouting. I have a feeling that he is more likely just playing a role for his writing career. Nobody really wants to read reasonable, well thought out dialogue on the internet, they want extremist nonsense. I think he's realized he can make more money by pretending to be the crazy nerdy saber guy instead of the smart, reasonable guy he probably is. That's the best I can guess for him, though, I have a feeling that he's pulling a Skip Bayless on all of us and pretending to be a charicature of himself for exposure.

The FJM guys A) are not members of the established baseball community, they're comedy TV writers and B) I think only took such a ridiculous over-the-top tone because, again, the target of most of their blogs were the equally ridiculous over-the-top old baseball dumb dumbs who think that the only three stats that matter are AVE, HR, and RBI. Remember, one of their best blogs was when they absolutely shredded Phil Rodgers of the Tribune for his ridiculous +1/-1 method of judging a team's off-season. Oh yeah. That was gold. How do you respond to something like that without snarky, insulting prose? It's so idiotic it's impossible.

I think if you talk to most established baseball minds they will tell you the advantages of having a strong scouting system. Even Theo Epstein, THE POSTAH BOY GAWD OF STATS has had poor Tom Ricketts pouring money into the Cubs' scouting department over the last few years.
So then Billy Beane's comment that he'd be a better GM if he didn't watch games is just him playing a caricature for exposure? Or does he not count as a "baseball insider?"
Reply With Quote