IMO we have more important people in our society to villify other than Bill James. I refuse to pile on this guy if he made an ill advised and poorly thought out comment.
It's like the Michael Keaton character in Multiplicity. Each subsequent version means less to meBut aren't your favorite players replaced by other favorite players? We lose David Ortiz but we gain Mookie Betts.
Of course I have a favorite player. I never made the argument that the players don’t matter. Neither did Bill James. He said they are replaceable. Which is true. The least and most important person in any company are both ultimately replaceable; that doesn’t mean they are equal. The point is that the thing is bigger than the individual.Let me ask you two two part, very related questions: do you have a favorite player, do you have a least favorite player? Why is her your favorite and why is he your least favorite?
On one hand, people talk about how important the players are, on the other hand they are talking about who to replace and who to bring in. Part of the experience of sports is the trade deadline and the off season due to player movement. Players are interchangeable and easily replaced, at least among other MLB talent. Some are harder than others but the Sox are going to be a very good team next year even if they don't re-sign Eovaldi, Kelly, Kimbrel and Pearce.It's like the Michael Keaton character in Multiplicity. Each subsequent version means less to me
Part of the experience of following baseball is following individuals. To say that they're interchangeable, or easily replaced, because it's the game itself that matters misses a great deal of what should be the joy of the game.
Nathan Eovaldi became a hero around here for an amazing performance. That's a personal achievement that -- to coin a phrase -- transcends the nature of the game itself.
It's that implication in James's tweets that makes them so chest-thumpingly ridiculous
Why follow MLB at all? There's minor league ball, independent leagues, collegiate and high school ball. You can watch many of those games for free!No thanks! Players and beer vendors aren't the game. Neither are the grass, police cars, or ham sandwiches. The game is the rules.
Marriage is different than sports, though. After x amount of years of marriage, you aren't granted free agency so you can explore your other options or get a better deal from your wife.For me, even if I believe the more innocent interpretation of his comments--why make them?
JMOH's significant other example is instructive to me. On some level, even if it contains some truth, its like, "well yeah, no shit." Saying it is inherently antagonistic. What point does it advance?
The players you're saying it about are human beings. Why, as someone employed by an organization that includes those human beings, do you need to tell them they're essentially replaceable? The only thing I can come up with is a gross attempt to drive down salaries for people that are making said organization a great deal of money.
No one is vilifying Bill James. I am not advocating for him to be drawn and quartered in Kenmore Square or fired from a cannon into the sun or terminated from his position. I just don't agree with what he's saying and I think that's okay. There are plenty of things that Bill James doesn't agree with and he's not shy about saying them.IMO we have more important people in our society to villify other than Bill James. I refuse to pile on this guy if he made an ill advised and poorly thought out comment.
You're right, a player (singular) is replaceable. But when you specifically say that all players are replaceable then there is a fallacy. While the game of Baseball is bigger than the sum of the players at the major league level, Major League Baseball is not bigger than its players. Because you're right, we all live in areas where we can find some sort of baseball game to watch. Whether it's a town team, high school, Little League, sandlot; whatever. And that's baseball. But it's not Major League Baseball.Of course I have a favorite player. I never made the argument that the players don’t matter. Neither did Bill James. He said they are replaceable. Which is true. The least and most important person in any company are both ultimately replaceable; that doesn’t mean they are equal. The point is that the thing is bigger than the individual.
Right. But just because David Ortiz retires, doesn't mean that you don't like the guy any more. If I ever saw Bo Jackson walking around, I'd freak out. If I saw Michael Jordan at the dentist, even though I know he's probably not the nicest dude in the world, I'd still be pumped to meet him.But aren't your favorite players replaced by other favorite players? We lose David Ortiz but we gain Mookie Betts.
I definitely agree.On one hand, people talk about how important the players are, on the other hand they are talking about who to replace and who to bring in. Part of the experience of sports is the trade deadline and the off season due to player movement. Players are interchangeable and easily replaced, at least among other MLB talent. Some are harder than others but the Sox are going to be a very good team next year even if they don't re-sign Eovaldi, Kelly, Kimbrel and Pearce.
Well yeah, but the analogy wasn't meant to extend across those lines. James himself followed things up by stating that "we're all replaceable," and if that's a problem, "talk to God." Yeah if my wife had grabbed a different dog at the shelter we'd obsessively love her too, but my god what does it serve anyone to litigate that reality? My dog is a perfect creature, full stopMarriage is different than sports, though. After x amount of years of marriage, you aren't granted free agency so you can explore your other options or get a better deal from your wife.
I think he fell back on that defense when he got slammed, then tried to turn the argument around by using that "tell me where what I said was wrong" type of argument in an attempt to aggressively cover his ass.Well yeah, but the analogy wasn't meant to extend across those lines. James himself followed things up by stating that "we're all replaceable," and if that's a problem, "talk to God." Yeah if my wife had grabbed a different dog at the shelter we'd obsessively love her too, but my god what does it serve anyone to litigate that reality? My dog is a perfect creature, full stop
If that's his point, no shit. Why say it? Again, some of those people are his colleagues, none of them really need to be told they're basically replaceable because philosophically speaking he may be right.
And again, if it is some path to making the argument they deserve less of the very large pie they are instrumental in making, I find that pretty shitty.
eta--Bill James has long been one of my favorite writers. I don't hate him, genuinely not sure why this needed to be said.
He's always struck me as a bit socially awkward.Well yeah, but the analogy wasn't meant to extend across those lines. James himself followed things up by stating that "we're all replaceable," and if that's a problem, "talk to God." Yeah if my wife had grabbed a different dog at the shelter we'd obsessively love her too, but my god what does it serve anyone to litigate that reality? My dog is a perfect creature, full stop
If that's his point, no shit. Why say it? Again, some of those people are his colleagues, none of them really need to be told they're basically replaceable because philosophically speaking he may be right.
And again, if it is some path to making the argument they deserve less of the very large pie they are instrumental in making, I find that pretty shitty.
eta--Bill James has long been one of my favorite writers. I don't hate him, genuinely not sure why this needed to be said.
Absolutely, and SJH mentions it, I think he likes delivering "bitter truths," so it is par for this course.He's always struck me as a bit socially awkward.
I agree. It is odd from an older guy, but typical (in my observation) of a strain of internet argument that, as you say, bogs down in pedantry.I think he fell back on that defense when he got slammed, then tried to turn the argument around by using that "tell me where what I said was wrong" type of argument in an attempt to aggressively cover his ass.
And ignoring that a bunch of multimillionaires are reacting as if they're terrified there's a chance the fans who actually pay the bills might think maybe they should make a little less and the beer vendor a little more.You are all arguing past each other.
Everything about this entire thread is stupid.You are all arguing past each other.
First day on SoSH?You are all arguing past each other.
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.Marriage is different than sports, though. After x amount of years of marriage, you aren't granted free agency so you can explore your other options or get a better deal from your wife.
Even in California?Marriage is different than sports, though. After x amount of years of marriage, you aren't granted free agency so you can explore your other options or get a better deal from your wife.
Well, I've been a baseball fan for nearly 70 years and I started playing with stats before I got into high school (I was good in math and had an uncle who was an electrical engineer and who gave me advanced textbooks and answered questions). Would I stop following baseball if the Red Sox replaced their entire 40-man roster over the winter? No. I'd miss some of the players but would soon adapt. If the Red Sox swapped franchises with the New York Yankees (remember the Celtics and Buffalo Braves in 1978), would I become a Yankee fan? Would any of you?Is he trying to say the same thing that James Earl Jones said in Field of Dreams---that baseball rolls on, endures, etc. no matter who's playing?
"It’s been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt, and erased again. But baseball has marked the time."
What about opt outs? Do they favor the player or the team?Marriage is different than sports, though. After x amount of years of marriage, you aren't granted free agency so you can explore your other options or get a better deal from your wife.
I think this is a funny post as I suspect that his point was similar. The players = the trees & the game = the forest.Sometimes even smart people lose the forest for the trees. This is such an example.
Yes, and from his perspective, he’s right. His problem is having the hubris to think that his is the only true perspective. It isn’t. So he’s wrong.I think this is a funny post as I suspect that his point was similar. The players = the trees & the game = the forest.
What makes you say that he thinks his is the only true perspective, moreso than anyone else who offers an opinion on whatever?Yes, and from his perspective, he’s right. His problem is having the hubris to think that his is the only true perspective. It isn’t. So he’s wrong.
His words. He doesn’t hedge (“in my opinion” or “I think...”). He speaks authoritatively and, frankly, dismissively, in the first person: “We would replace them...”. That might be factual, but he sounds like he’s speaking on behalf of the team and telling the players they don’t really matter and the fans who - naively, apparently - pay good money to buy jerseys of specific players that they don’t really understand what “the game” is. As others have said, if you just take a couple steps back, most people would realize how asinine and narrow-minded such a position is.What makes you say that he thinks his is the only true perspective, moreso than anyone else who offers an opinion on whatever?
Guy who is really, really, really good with numbers exhibits disconnect from humanity.
Is that you, Asperger's??
James himself has said that he is capable of communicating in the written word what he is entirely incapable of communicating through speaking interpersonally. I'm reluctant to put any type of label on that, but it's clear the written (or typed on a screen) word is the milieu where he's the most comfortable.Wouldn't go that far, but actuarial types aren't necessarily known or hired for their interpersonal effectiveness. I'm genuinely surprised that this is getting the play in the media that it is if it wasn't for the calendar. There wouldn't have been a tenth of the ink dedicated to this if this happened in July. Too many reporters, too few stories.
That's most likely true, but in his attempts to explain his original tweet, he doesn't understand what the big deal is. In other words, while he may communicate better in prose, the thinking behind it is still lacking the interpersonal perspective. Very logical, not so much on the emotional level.James himself has said that he is capable of communicating in the written word what he is entirely incapable of communicating through speaking interpersonally. I'm reluctant to put any type of label on that, but it's clear the written (or typed on a screen) word is the milieu where he's the most comfortable.
<<Standing Ovation>>What about opt outs? Do they favor the player or the team?
Not sure but he was at the parade.All this beer guy talk is really making me thirsty. Where the hell IS that beer guy??