Commenters Are $#!%ing Evil! (And Other Respectful Thoughts)

“I suggest this article is so bad that you should not only be fired but live-sacrificed on an altar to a pagan god of pestilence and your remains fed to gremlins.”

– bc, in response to my 12/30 article, “NHL Winter Classic: I’m Glad Selig Didn’t Think of That”

“Alex, your sabermetrical analysis continues to amaze me. Keep up the good job of destroying FanGraphs with this political bullshit.”

– Part-Time Pariah, in response to my 4/30 article, “Should You Boycott the Diamondbacks?”

If there’s a way to win a popularity contest by writing about baseball online, I haven’t figured it out. In fairness to the collective wisdom of the Fangraphs community, many of the lumps I take are at least somewhat justified — the harshest language is usually reserved for when I speak from ignorance or err in a statement of fact — but few of the insults are quite as well-thought out as bc’s gem, which remains my favorite burn that I’ve ever received. Other commenters don’t seem to really care whether the piece is good or not, and are simply opposed to the simple fact that my columns aren’t statistics-based, like the above from Part-Time Pariah.

Obviously, my experience isn’t particularly unique. Everyone knows that anonymity can bring out the worst in people online, and the longer a comment thread, the more likely it is to fall prey to Godwin’s Law or descend into a morass of personal attacks. Yet despite all that, there is an internal logic to comment threads, whether it’s in the wilderness of unmoderated message boards or a smart blog with smart readers like Fangraphs. The issue came to the fore recently, when Sports Illustrated’s Jeff Pearlman wrote a piece about confronting a few of his online attackers and discovering that they were much more reasonable on the phone than on their Twitter feed. But one of them responded with his side of the story, indicating that Pearlman had somewhat distorted the facts — they hadn’t tweeted @jeffpearlman, they just wrote about him; instead, he had gone after them, confronting them by phone even though they hadn’t directly contacted him.

Craig Calcaterra responded to the Pearlman incident by implying that Pearlman had earned the vitriol by using some injudicious language of his own in the past, calling people “punk” and “evil.” Calcaterra concludes: “A writer ultimately sets the tone for his blog. As such, he should not be surprised when he reaps what he sows.” I wasn’t convinced that it’s that simple. After all, I’ve been cursed out for pieces I wrote despite having never used a swear word. (With one exception: I once used a verbatim profane Ozzie Guillen quote.) So I talked to Craig and two beat writers, David O’Brien, who covers the Braves for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and Geoff Baker, who covers the Mariners for the Seattle Times, to ask them what they thought about the incident and how they viewed online comments.

Calcaterra told me that in his view, the writer sets a tone, but that tone is really maintained and enforced by the community. “People have civility based on how they see other people behaving,” he said, but that really only works for regulars. People who come to the blog from an outside link are more likely to mix it up. As a former lawyer, Calcaterra tends to mix it up with them, and his results were similar to Pearlman’s: “As soon as you confront someone like that, they just shut up, or go away, or say, I was just trying to get a rise out of people.”

O’Brien and Baker said similar things, but with a very different tone. While O’Brien described spending time on the comment threads of his blog as “nothing but a positive,” Baker said, “It’s a struggle.” Like Calcaterra, O’Brien told me that they have found the best way to defuse a situation is to confront it: “I can be as much of a smartass as anyone,” he said. But Baker said that he prefers to engage his respectful commenters, and while he sometimes calls out the gadflies, he would prefer to ignore the rest: “Our commenters account for only a tiny fraction of our daily readership and that’s what I’ve expressed to those I no longer want around. We don’t need you that badly.”

Perhaps a little chagrined by all the negative attention, Pearlman responded to the furor surrounding his piece twice more throughout the week. First, he was defensive: “Why is it wrong for me to contact people who get excessively rude? I mean, it’s OK for someone to call me a f^%$wad, but if I then reply to the person I’m the one open for criticism?” The second time, though, he was more muted. “I was thinking about my relatively thin skin, and why the foul comments particularly offend me,” he wrote. “The answer, I believe, is because writing—if you genuinely care about the product—is personal.”

I think he’s overstating it — after all, it’s one thing to take offense when a guy calls you a f^%$wad, and it’s quite another thing to call his mother to complain — but to some extent, he’s right. I don’t really mind when a commenter tells me to do something unprintable to myself, because that’s not really personal, it’s just someone trying to get a rise out of me. But when a commenter tells me that I’m a moron because I said something ignorant or incorrect, as I did in the hockey piece, I do take it personally.

So, if any %$!&%ing evil punks want to mess with me, they know where to find me. I’ll be in the comment threads of this and every other story I write. Like Baker, I prefer to respond to the people who respond with intelligence — whether they agree with me or they want my remains to be fed to gremlins — than the people who object to my very existence, like Part-Time Pariah. My skin is getting thicker; I hope my columns are getting better. I’m lucky enough to write for one of the smartest online communities anywhere, but even here, some comments are more intelligent than others. I don’t think Pearlman’s approach is the right way to do it, so I won’t be calling any of you up on the phone if you think I’m an idiot. But if you do think I’m an idiot, I’d appreciate it if you say so creatively.




Print This Post



Alex is a writer for FanGraphs and The Hardball Times, and is a product manager for The Washington Post. Follow him on Twitter @alexremington.


135 Responses to “Commenters Are $#!%ing Evil! (And Other Respectful Thoughts)”

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
  1. steve says:

    ahhh the old ‘if i pretend not to care, they’ll stop insulting me!’. at least, i think – i read the opening paragraph and a bit of the last one, why would anyone care enough about this to read or write an entire essay?

    that being said, i don’t recall ever having a problem with any of your articles.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  2. Vinnie says:

    This post is terrible, and your mother’s a whore.

    +48 Vote -1 Vote +1

  3. PJ says:

    Good to know that spring training is just around the corner. Can’t wait to debate the ups and downs of the Major Leagues!

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  4. Statement says:

    I suggest this article is so bad that you should not only be fired but live………ah forget it.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  5. Dave Cameron (and Matt K) shoud write all the articles on this site says:


    Vote -1 Vote +1

  6. Jack Weiland says:

    Not going to get much sympathy on the Winter Classic article. That was, sincerely, the absolute worst article I’d ever read on Fangraphs. Why you chose to bring it up and keep it fresh in our minds is so crazy my brain just melted.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Not asking for sympathy. Not looking to run away from it, either. Like I say, I took the criticism to heart.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Paul says:

      He responded to somebody else’s column last month, the point of which was writers are better off admitting when they make mistakes, agreeing and essentially admitting that the NHL article had some mistakes in it. This article is clearly not re-hashing his wrongness, and if you’ve read anything he’s ever written, you’d know playing for sympathy is unlikely to ever happen. For the record, I criticized him for the NHL article.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • DavidCEisen says:

        It was well beyond having some mistakes. Every meaningful premise in the article was incorrect. It was obvious that Alex Remington had no idea what he was writing about. The same criticism can be extended to the Arizona article. These are complex subjects that go way beyond baseball.

        There is certainly space within the sports writing community to discuss environmental impacts of professional sports and the connection between sports and politics, but Alex should not be the one doing so. The key to winning popularity while writing about baseball is ultimately following the same strategy to gain popularity writing about any subject anywhere: Write what you know and do it well. For the most part Alex does a good job writing about sabermetrics and financial aspects of the game. Do that.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  7. Jack Weiland says:

    On a more constructive vein … there’s obviously a difference between name calling and actual, legitimate critiques of your work. If someone calls you a moron I wouldn’t waste my time thinking about it. But if someone calls you a moron and spells out exactly why they feel that way (as many of us did with the WC piece) … then, yeah, I think you have something to work with/not be so butthurt about.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  8. Kapellmeisters says:

    I started following you after reading your Fu-Te Ni haiku.

    Keep up the good work

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  9. Resolution says:

    i wonder if these strongly worded comments have increased in frequency with the addition of the thumbs up/down buttons. People may be compelled to say extreme or humorous or both comments to see the reaction of others’ just as much as the author’s…

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Jack Weiland says:

      I find (in general, off the top of my head) those comments usually get strongly “thumbs-downed” … don’t you? Or are you saying they’re motivated by a desire to stir things up and get a bunch of thumbs down on purpose?

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  10. Chops says:

    Jeff Pearlman is the most butthurt person I have ever seen on the internet

    +6 Vote -1 Vote +1

  11. Al Dimond says:

    I’m currently reading Studs Terkel’s “Working”, which is a hell of a read. One choice bit (I wonder if blockquote tags work here… well, here goes), from an old pharmacist:

    If I took off and walked down the street for an hour, I like to hear him say, “Where in the heck have you been? Gee whiz, it was busy, I needed you.” Some fellows would call that a bawlin’ out and get mad. I wouldn’t. If you come down and they’d say, “We didn’t really need you,” I might as well quit.

    If I were relevant enough to be flamed on my blog I’d think that was great. I’m not, that’s OK, you are, and that’s pretty great as I see it. Sometimes I get flamed on comment threads. Someone thinks I’m wrong and cares enough to call me a shitdick? It makes my day!

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  12. Rick says:

    Require membership to comment. Ban the jerks from commenting. At least give them a hurdle.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Jack Weiland says:

      +1

      As someone who is already a member … also it’s nice to have some accountability/the ability to go back and see someone’s commenting history.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  13. AK707 says:

    like half of those comments were “Not about baseball” in response to the NHL winter classic post. Notgraphs has eliminated this problem. Now your content can be skewered for quality, not location.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  14. Anonymous says:

    Gay.

    -9 Vote -1 Vote +1

    • tangotiger says:

      One day, but likely not soon, that will be seen as a compliment, not an insult.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • My echo and bunnymen says:

      Natural Selection: Survival of the fittest
      Fittest – greatest ability to reproduce and ensure the survival of the species

      Fags… excluded.

      -8 Vote -1 Vote +1

      • My echo and bunnymen says:

        For those about to hate, I meant that they are excluded from being unfit.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • JohnnyK says:

        I don’t think it matters what you mean as long as you refer to homosexual people as “fags”.
        Or are you a British tobacco lobbyist?

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Sockmonkey says:

        I’m pretty sure queer folk are perfectly able to reproduce, and often do so.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Someanalyst says:

        Fitness is defined in terms of alleles (trait-producing combinations). Not reproducing as an individual is not guaranteed to fail to meet that criterion in a complex social animal. Think kin selection, like those oh-so-useful childless aunts.

        Homosexuals are not, as such, excluded, they are simply a different evolutionary strategy – much like Johnny Appleseed differs from Doting Dad.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • DavidCEisen says:

        Wow its good to see that you follow a theory of evolution that hasn’t been seen as credible by scientists for well over 60 years. But ignorant people often don’t actually care about supporting their beliefs with facts.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • DavidCEisen says:

        Just to be clear I was referring to the commentator with the username of an overrated British band.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  15. tonysoprano says:

    In a perfect world the old “if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all” motto should be applied here. Positive feedback is always enjoyed and welcomed. Negative feedback will start the comments on a downward path.

    If something is factually incorrect, and the poster wants to point that out in a constructive manner, that is fine. But railing against the author is probably unwarranted.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  16. Lewis says:

    Again, why is this here? I feel like you’re just spamming my favourite site at this point.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  17. JR says:

    When are you guys gonna start requiring phone numbers to post?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  18. BagOfHammers says:

    Ummm…..screw you?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  19. Alex Remington says:

    What’s your stance on ghosting?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  20. BagOfHammers says:

    BTW – any time you’re piggybacking on a Pearlman article, you’re starting with 2 strikes against you.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  21. ICEYhawtSTUNNAZ says:

    Speaking of dick comments and Fangraphs, why does Dave respond to people’s douchey comments/”questions” in his chats? I would imagine that people are already submitting hundreds, if not thousands of legitimate and thought-provoking questions that don’t get answered because of time constraints, why even acknowledge or dignify the #6org questions any more?

    YOU KNOW WHAT I’M SAYIN? YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • hunterfan says:

      Dave reminds me of people I used to play quiz bowl with in college. People who went through their formative years as the smartest person in the room (usually even in a room of adults) and therefore were socially ostracized and mocked. These people are usually wonderful people deep down, but have enormous chips on their shoulders from years of bullying and being misunderstood, and so consequently adopt public personas of supercilious bastards, impervious to other’s criticism….thus ironically inviting even more disdain.

      I could go on, but the pop psychology 101 class has adjourned for the day.

      +6 Vote -1 Vote +1

  22. hunterfan says:

    I’ve become angry enough at very few commentators to get outright rude. Most times, I appreciate the fact that they are smart people, with good reasons to write the things they write, even if I disagree with them.

    The ones who make me angry are generally those who adopt a supercilious “if you disagree with me, you’re a bug beneath my notice” attitudes.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  23. Garrett says:

    I wonder if Praiseball will comment on how this is a unique article rather than some halfcocked database query.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Praiseball killed me a while back: “As for the writers who break the mold, in Remington’s case, it doesn’t matter in the end since his articles were–as always–super boring and on the intellectual level of a middle schooler.”

      As Austin Powers would say: very ouch.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • B N says:

        If it helps, you can retort to them that their post is simply a worse rendition of the great Samuel Johnson review:

        “Your manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good.”

        Though, at least for my part, I definitely don’t have a problem with most of your stories or analyses. They generally tend to be fairly well written and thought out.

        However… I am not a huge fan of the topics you typically post on. Looking over the last couple of years of posts here, the themes of cheating, award balloting, umpiring, and managing seem to predominate. Ultimately, those aren’t all that interesting to me. It’s not that they’re poorly written, I just could care less if Jeter gets a gold glove or 10. Considering that so much of the blogosphere writes about these kinds of topics, it’s also a tough sell that even if I DO want to read about those topics that you would be my top choice.

        Ultimately, I think that your big leap forward would be to rescope your niche of topics that you cover. It’s fine to write about non-statistical things, but it’s even better to find topics that can really strike new nerves… but in a good way.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • My echo and bunnymen says:

        ^^^Well said

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  24. Keith-in-Law says:

    This post is horseshit.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  25. hunterfan says:

    Now that I think about it, Pearlman really proved that it “pays” to be a dick on the Internet if you want to get noticed.

    Did Pearlman personally phone call anyone who made reasonable, respectful, and logical arguments about the Bagwell article, to discuss their take on it in further detail?

    It sounds like he didn’t.

    So be respectful = get ignored by Pearlman. Be a douche = get a phone call and your name mentioned in a future column.

    Is this the lesson Pearlman wants to be teaching?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  26. CSJ says:

    I much prefer it when writers respond in the comments below an article. Writing an article and then not responding in the comments is the same as starting a conversation and then just walking away. I understand that it’s very difficult if you have tons of new posts a day (like HBT), but at least make an effort (which Craig does).

    Alex, you’re pretty good at doing this. I’d also like to mention that one time I did make a comment on one of Alex’s posts a while ago about a fact that wasn’t quite right where I might have been a little over aggressive and he responded very graciously and I appreciate that.

    +9 Vote -1 Vote +1

  27. microwave donut says:

    cool story, bro

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  28. Zach says:

    Well that was a complete waste of my time.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  29. mcneo says:

    I read Pearlman’s piece and I thought it was thought provoking. I think it provides us a little insight into human depravity. It’s so ironic that someone being obscenely rude because they don’t like an article; will write something that is 10 times worse. Nobody wants to read that. Comments, by their very nature tend to be “I feel” statements; rather than well thought out rebuttals complete with data.

    For me, reading the comments is the exception; not the rule. 90% of comments are horrible. I think once a site reaches a threshold of around 50% worthless.

    I think it’d be great if there was a page that allowed you to view all the comments for the selected person. So I click on “mcneo” in “mcneo says:” and get a page of all of his comments on Fangraphs. If this functionality exists; I haven’t found it yet. I can click on “Alex Remington” and get a link to Yahoo; but I really want a listing of Alex’s articles and comments.

    There are some comments that are exceedingly insightful; and I’d kinda like to hear more of what that commentator had to say on other pieces.

    I actually liked the piece on the outside hockey game as well. Without re-reading the piece, I think I disagreed with the premise (if I even remember what that was). I just didn’t have a strong opinion on the matter, regardless.

    We don’t want the morons to go way; we want them to stop being morons and write intelligent comments, we want them to grow up.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • mcneo says:

      I should have reread that before I posted. That’s what I’m talking about with comments not being as good as the original article.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  30. frug says:

    Mr. Remington, what you’ve just written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent post were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this comment section is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • frug says:

      On a more serious note this post is absolutely terrible. To compare it and the rest of your writing to childish gibberish would be an insult to an important developmental stage in human development. You are an insult to our species and I hope you are embarrassed by your own existence.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Aaron says:

      EVERYONE in the comment section?

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  31. Telo says:

    I think, as you mentioned, Dave sets the tone of Fangraphs. He is stubborn doesn’t engage people on childish level. The entire 6org fiasco was handled horribly by him, and he was never able to honestly admit he had made a mistake… until he did, tongue in cheek.

    Look at tango or posnanski’s blog. It’s the most civilized internet commenting I’ve ever seen, and it’s because both of those guys have infinite patience, and almost as much wisdom, and treat people the right way.

    It’s no mystery why FG commentors get rowdy, Dave sets the childish tone.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Steven Ellingson says:

      What’s funny about Tango’s blog, is that MGL has a similar attitude to Dave. Tango, along with the fact that the website is very obscure, makes up for it.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Telo says:

        So true. MGL is hilariously an ass. And true, it’s off the beaten path of the mainstream interwebs. That helps the atmosphere.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CircleChange11 says:

        So true. MGL is hilariously an ass.

        When he is, he’s pretty up front about it.

        Tango, also, is up front about when he’s feeling onery.

        The only time I see those 2 dudes get into any trouble with comments is when they’re being sincere, and people assume they’re being an ass.

        People write what the write, and then ultimately it’s left up to how each reader wants to interpret it. That’s the internet.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  32. Steven Ellingson says:

    The best part about this article, is that no matter how many insults you get from it, you can always just assume their joking, because of the content.

    It’s kind of like being a baseball player with an “ooooo” sound in your name.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  33. James Piette says:

    As always, great piece, Alex. Even if, as a statistician, I take severe offense to your non-usage of numbers (NEED MORE SIG DIGS, PLEAZ), I’ll let it slide because you are certainly in the top 10 of the “Articulate/Poignant Baseball Writers” category. I’ll be sure to keep reading your stuff, even if you are a fuckwad ;).

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  34. MrKnowNothing says:

    As someone that is a somewhat high profile Internet writer (it’s ok to laugh, I do) for a different area of life, I think that writers/analysts are amongst the most thin-skinned people around (again, I write this as one of them). A writer on Fangraphs (or anywhere) will write one piece after another about how such and such a GM is making a bad move/is an idiot/etc… but the moment someone does it to them, they get upset!

    Yes, sometimes it’s just a guy trolling you, but some of them are genuine complaints. And I appreciate that it can be difficult as hell to figure out which is which (particularly since sarcasm can be difficult to convey on the Internet), but on balance, I think that people replying to an article should be as harsh as hell while making their points. After all, even if the writer isn’t snarky per se, getting a bunch of snarky responses can keep a guy in check.

    Writer to GM: You’re stupid for making that trade.

    Writer to Self: Good job, you held him accountable.

    Reader to Writer: You’re stupid for writing that article.

    Writer to Reader: You’re a jerk for being so mean.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Telo says:

      Writer to GM: You’re stupid for making that trade.

      Writer to Self: Good job, you held him accountable.

      Reader to Writer: You’re stupid for writing that article.

      Writer to Reader: You’re a jerk for being so mean.

      Hahaha. Love this.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  35. Reuben says:

    My favorite part of this article is how it tricks you into thinking it has a point.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Mike Savino says:

      I mean, right?

      What was the point? Some people are jerks on the internet and its annoying?

      When I post on here or JoePo’s website or wherever, I try to use my real name. Because I don’t want to be an anonymous dick. If I’m going to be a big enough dick that you need to find me, well, I probably deserve to be found.

      That, I think, tempers my comments a bit. It’d be fun to say, “Alex, this article is complete and utter runny poopie” I don’t think its as effective as saying “I know you’re better than this, you write for fangraphs. I’m not going to stop reading but I expect more.”

      This article is like that for me. I expect more than stating that some comments are downright mean. Write more gooder, Mr. Remington. And write something of substance, not this tripe.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  36. SItuation says:

    Alex, I hear you man, just add some interesting content to your articles once in a while and people will stop hating on them.

    I suggest you realize that you don’t need a degree to understand statistics and that most musings in baseball can easily be looked into from a statistical perspective.

    Maybe a requisite peer-read-and-review from all the fangraphs writers before publishing would be effective.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  37. herman bringle says:

    Alex,
    I have noticed a good deal of offensive commentary on blog discussion sites. For this reason, I have been reluctent to make blog comments myself. When I did so once on a political subject, I was called all sorts of names by those who disagreed with me. The worst thing was that I found myself responding in kind; I was becoming what I believed I hated. So let me make amends by saying that while I sometimes disagree with you, I more often have no idea what you are talking about. I do read your blogs avidly and often, however, and sometimes you are even right,(usually when I don’t think you will be). I love baseball for so many reasons, one of them being that bloggers on baseball sites at least often have a sense of humor to mitigate the vitriol. Keep up the good work, I enjoy seeing you roasted in print.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  38. Aaron says:

    The comments here are so much better than those on the average site. Enjoy the praise, take earnest criticism to heart, and ignore (or toy with) the delinquents.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  39. Clint says:

    More baseball. Less pointless navel-gazing. Do that on your Facebook page instead of taking up space on this blog.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  40. Matt says:

    This article sucks. Everyone except Dave Cameron should fire themselves.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  41. Steve says:

    But what if the person really IS a F*@kwad, like Jeff Pearlman absolutely, unequivacally is? Is that different?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • matt w says:

      Yeah, I think there’s some cognitive dissonance here on Pearlman’s part. (Not on Remington’s, necessarily.) How is other people saying nasty things about Pearlman different from Pearlman saying nasty things about Bagwell, namely that he’s a steroid abuser? If anything it cuts against Pearlman, since he’s talking about a factual manner (and doing so irresponsibly), and his critics are expressing opinions of his work; as they say, you’re entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  42. Steve says:

    Also, do you think bc requires that your remains actually be fed to gremlins, or would it be acceptable to feed them to a Mogwai after midnight so that he turns into a gremlin?

    Seems close enough, but I don’t know, bc strikes me as a bit of a perfectionist.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  43. sc2gg says:

    Yeah, I’ve run a website before that no one goes to anymore, and honestly, you can’t fret over this, because no matter what you do, on the internet, you will be insulted for it.

    It’s unfortunate, but probably because people have to be so politically correct all the time in real life.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  44. Peterfox says:

    People who criticize you are probably jealous. The content on this website is based around entertainment, so a mistake, while a bummer, does not truthfully affect anyone. It wouldn’t be possible to do this job perfectly. If you didn’t take risks, you wouldn’t be here.

    You have this job because you earned it and you’re smart enough. There are a lot of people who are smart enough to write nasty comments that can sting you. No one is interested in reading their blogs.

    Keep up the good work. Anything rude that people write says more about them than it does about your writing.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  45. T says:

    Geoff Baker once wrote a post that mocked a USSM writer after he retired, called out two commenters that hadn’t been on the site in a year, and openly bashed several of the people that commented about the ridiculous trade proposals on the blog on other websites.

    So yeah, I think he sets his own tone, not to mention he referred to people that disagreed with him as ignorant, even when they did it civilly. He deserves everything he gets.

    +5 Vote -1 Vote +1

  46. John R says:

    Alex, Would you like some cheese with that wine, bitch.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  47. Table says:

    Loved the article. An excellent call out for witty insults wrapped up in well composed interweb commenting form.

    Sadly I have not the inspiration to be so livid as to write any great insults.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  48. PhillR says:

    What is the secret? How did you contrive to get paid for whining?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  49. Evan Grant, DMN Beat Writer says:

    NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  50. James says:

    Yes, the hockey post was horrible, but we still love you!

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  51. Powder Blues says:

    This should be on a personal blog site – what it has to do with baseball (it has more hockey content than baseball) is beyond me.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  52. Mario Mendoza says:

    I would just like to say that the FG comment threads are the best comment threads on the internet.

    That’s definitely not saying a lot, but it’s still something to appreciate. If you want a comment thread that’s REALLY difficult to get through, go to any news article, ICHC picture, or ESPN story ever written.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  53. Luke Gofannon says:

    I think Comments threads are ruled more by Sayre’s Law than by Godwin’s Law.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  54. Someanalyst says:

    This thread ias now at >100 posts so I will now point out that Hitler disapproved of people criticizing him (excessively and, well, at all really).

    As such, you Mr. Remington resemble the great evil-doer and this thread is now properly conforming to THE LAW.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  55. Twon2012 says:

    Sayre was a Nazi…

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  56. camisadelgolf says:

    Can anyone tell me if the piece got better after the first few sentences? My attention wasn’t peaked at all, and I quickly lost interest. I’m not trying to hate, though, because I go into every article with an optimistic point of view, and Remington has written some good things in the past. I have hope that the story rebounded into something readable, but my time is too precious to find out first-hand.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Luke Gofannon says:

      He gave us the name of the longshot winner of the 5th at Santa Anita. We’ve all retired early on our winnings and are headed for points south on a group vacation aboard a terrific cruise liner.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Jason B says:

      “I have hope that the story rebounded into something readable,”

      So rather than just think to yourself that it wasn’t worth reading, or…you know…actually *reading* it to find out for yourself, you had to let everyone know that you couldn’t even bear the utter indignity of spending 90 seconds to read the article in your super-ultra-mega busy life. NINETY WHOLE SECONDS! I COULDA PLAYED WITH MY KIDS! I”LL LOOK BACK ON MY DEATHBED AND WISH TO GOD I COULD HAVE HAD THOSE SPECIFIC NINETY SECONDS BACK!!

      Even though it took at least that long to post how indignant you were and the post wasn’t at all worth your time.

      Got it.

      (Don’t get me wrong, everyone is entitled to like a post or not, think it is worth reading or not, but to say it was even beneath your reading beyond the first paragraph and “gee did anyone find a point? I just couldn’t *bear* to be bothered to read it at all” is just the height of douchebaggery.)

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  57. BronxBombers says:

    I hate you for the simple reason that you are an A-Rod hater. I, on the other hand, believe Alex Rodriguez is the greatest baseball player of ALL time.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  58. MattM says:

    ANOTHER BORING CHRIS CHASE ARTICLE….. oh wait

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  59. Anonymous says:

    “Report submitted! This window will close in 5 seconds…”

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  60. Where Youre Wrong says:

    Fangraphs isn’t a smart community. The commenters here are as stupid as anywhere else.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  61. Max says:

    I don’t think you can ever take an online comment the same way you’d take one in person.

    E.g. “That was the stupidest thing I’ve ever read” (online) = “I disagree” (in person)

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  62. Alex Remington says:

    Disregard that, I suck cocks.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Current ye@r *