FanGraphs Baseball


RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Article for the sake of writing an article, eh?

    Comment by Frito Banditio — May 6, 2011 @ 4:24 pm

  2. Nice take, Matt. One thing I’d point to is that a team .309 wOBA isn’t as hellacious as it might seem when the league as a whole is averaging .312. I’m glad Longo’s back, now I just hope the arms can hold up.

    Comment by Sandy Kazmir — May 6, 2011 @ 5:03 pm

  3. Snarky comment for the sake of writing a snarky comment, eh?

    Comment by Diesel — May 6, 2011 @ 5:27 pm

  4. Who writes a score as 1-6 instead of 6-1?

    Comment by Omar — May 6, 2011 @ 5:49 pm

  5. Obvious comment for the sake of writing an obvious comment, eh?

    Comment by Ricky — May 6, 2011 @ 6:25 pm

  6. Continuing the pattern for the sake of continuing the pattern, eh?

    Comment by filihok — May 6, 2011 @ 6:31 pm

  7. Matt Klaassen

    Comment by filihok — May 6, 2011 @ 6:41 pm

  8. Why do we write 1 for 6 as 1-6 instead of 1/6?

    Comment by Torgen — May 6, 2011 @ 7:08 pm


    Comment by Justin Bailey — May 6, 2011 @ 10:08 pm

  10. Well, hello, Canada… eh?

    Comment by mattinm — May 6, 2011 @ 10:51 pm

  11. Deliberately breaking the trend just for the sake of deliberately breaking the trend, eh?

    Comment by Bryz — May 6, 2011 @ 11:27 pm

  12. I have to agree. On ESPN, in newspapers, etc., it’s never reported with the losing team first.

    Comment by Bryz — May 6, 2011 @ 11:29 pm

  13. Inexplicable lack of real vowels for the sake of lacking vowels, eh?

    Comment by Stringer Bell — May 7, 2011 @ 1:22 am

  14. I believe there is an American/rest of English speaking world split on this one.

    Comment by Will — May 7, 2011 @ 3:06 am

  15. “I haven’t crunched enough numbers to say what is likely, and there are surely plenty of twists and turns left in the season.”

    Decent look at a team that made a big turn around, but crunch the numbers next time.

    Comment by Dan — May 7, 2011 @ 11:50 am

  16. Sorry got to agree here whether its an american thing is irrelevant. This is written for an american audience
    Dont get cute and dont purposely try to confuse your readers. You I and everyone knows that in america the budget score it’s written first. thid isnt tennis. It continues a slightly annoying trend. Like the nevet explained refusal to use L,R,and S for batting handedness in the prosprct write ups.

    Write for your audience please.

    Otherwise a fine piece, but these little things annoy me and add to an already insular and snobbish feel here.

    Comment by Bpdelia — May 7, 2011 @ 3:32 pm

  17. Damn swype “fixing” what I wrote. The winning score. Dont know how my phone chose “budget” there.

    Comment by Bpdelia — May 7, 2011 @ 3:36 pm

  18. Nearly the entire fan graphs community, led by Dave Cameron, was in the fetal position after a week regarding the slow starts of the Rays, Twins and Sox, penning articles of their demise….season wasted and falling out of the race.

    It was embarrassing.

    Naturally come May, we get articles expressing surprise and confusion…

    Comment by LionoftheSenate — May 8, 2011 @ 9:05 am

  19. Well, what I mean by “crunch the numbers” is taking projections for all the players of the Rays and their future opponents, turn it into runs scored/allowed, do a log5/odds ratio thing for the rest of the Rays schedule… that’s a TON of work… dozens of hours. I do research for posts and did for this one (and for the commenter below — I can’t speak for other writers, but I don’t think I was expressing surprise and confusion about the Rays current situation, I certain didn’t mean to come off that way)… but yeah, that’s the kind of “number crunching” I’m talking about. I think it’s understandable if I didn’t do it…

    Thanks for the comment.

    Comment by Matt Klaassen — May 8, 2011 @ 5:51 pm

  20. Not as funny as last year when ESPN practically jerked off on camera for the Sox rotation, then made a million excuses for the team when they didn’t make it. ESPN always overrates east coast teams and then always makes a ton of mistakes for them. I remember in 2007 or 2008, the Braves lost like their top 4 starters, their top 3 relievers, and I think 3 or 4 of their lineup starters and ESPN didn’t make any excuses, but then the Mets lost like just Johan Santana and they were acting like the entire ML roster died in a plane crash.

    People are fickle and when they are exposed for it after publishing their ridiculous opinions they have to backtrack.

    Comment by Antonio bananas — May 9, 2011 @ 4:13 am

  21. You were seriously confused by the fact that he said the Rays lost 1-6?

    Who’s creating an insular and snobbish feel?

    Comment by chuckb — May 9, 2011 @ 8:48 am

  22. The fat cats over at ESPN have to make sure you get your New York/Boston overdose on a daily basis

    Comment by Sox27 — May 9, 2011 @ 9:37 am

  23. “It was embarrassing.”

    Was it? You really think FG writers, with their numerous, near incessant, caveats about small sample sizes, would use *one week* of results to claim the demise of this team or that? Or are you conflating it so you could write a “Haha those FanGraphs dudes are clearly WRONG!” comment?

    I know which of the two I consider more likely…

    Comment by Jason B — May 9, 2011 @ 10:51 am

  24. Killing the joke for the sake of killing the joke?

    Comment by Dan — May 9, 2011 @ 11:14 am

  25. That’s because Johan Santana is the only good pitcher on the Mets staff…

    Comment by Anon — May 10, 2011 @ 12:24 am

  26. Chris Young looked good during his normal stint on the 30-day Abled List (AL).

    Comment by neuter_your_dogma — May 10, 2011 @ 9:02 am

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Current day month ye@r *

Close this window.

0.121 Powered by WordPress