Stick to the numbers, guys

[calexpat]

Am I the only one who finds Rob Neyer's (espn.com) and Joe Sheehan's (baseballprospectus.com) occasional travelogue-columns excruciatingly boring? I understand what they're trying to do--expand their horizons as writers beyond number crunching. But it doesn't work for me. If I want to read WP Kinsella or Roger Angell (which I don't, personally), I will. What do you all think?

[WiredTiger]

I agree with you. I don't think Neyer's gift is writing stories. He seems to be better when he is talking the numbers.

[Craig S.]

He's good at picking out interesting stats to write about, but poetic writing is not his gift.

[Duque]

I especially dislike it when they go off on tangential semi-political/ethical diatribes, which, to their credit, they rarely do.

[SmedIndy]

That was one of the reasons I didn't like Neyer's latest book....

[cubfan33]

Agreed, but I can't fault Neyer for expanding.

(Says the guy who writes about injuries, but wants to be Kinsella)

[sweaver]

Now this is starting to sound like one of those "other" boards. Guys, this is America, and these guys can write about anything they want, as long as their editors let them.

And I, for one, wouldn't have it any other way. Would I prefer Bill James were still writing an annual Abstract? Sure. But it's not my call.

[SmedIndy]

Just my opinion. Neyer's weakness in writing is putting the personal in it. If his next book is more like the Fenway book I won't buy it. I liked Baseball Dynasties a lot more...

[satchel]

I couldn't agree more, especially about Neyer. He's got lots of good ideas and makes interesting observations, but he's a flat crummy writer. He's not artful at sentence construction, has a fairly pedestrian vocabulary, and his personal observations only reflect his fairly narrow and juvenile perspective.

For a stark contrast and wonderful baseball narrative, cf. Thomas Boswell.

[poorme]

Originally posted by sweaver
Now this is starting to sound like one of those "other" boards. Guys, this is America, and these guys can write about anything they want, as long as their editors let them.


I think he has the right to do whatever he wants. That doesn't mean we can't offer our opinions on his writing abilities.

[KCBOOMER]

It's tough to write great stuff all the time and the fluff pieces give them time to recharge their batteries.

I don't like the fluff peices but if its the price I have to pay to get the good stuff so be it.

[Skip]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
Just my opinion. Neyer's weakness in writing is putting the personal in it. If his next book is more like the Fenway book I won't buy it. I liked Baseball Dynasties a lot more... I agree, but didnt think BD was all that great either - one of those enjoyable, lazy Sunday afternoon reads that you've more or less forgotten by the next Wednesday.

Neyer's writings are accessible and likable, but I dont consider him a substantive analyst (at least anymore) or a strong writer on personal/subjective topics. He's certainly constrained by the broad audience he must reach via ESPN and has even claimed in writing that he's not really a mega-SABR type guy, just one who respects statistical analysis and want to share that type of thinking with others. He's really a middle guy, not super-strong in either area, but maybe with enough of each to reach a big audience. I presume ESPN thinks so.

In any case, I still applaud his efforts to write in non-"numbers" areas, as well as in the stuff that he's most known for. If he can do so well enough to get/keep/expand an audience then good for him.

Just my :2cents:

[soxfan121]

I think Neyer is unfairly held to the Bill James standard; the theory being, Neyer was James's protege - why isn't he as good as James?

I liked "Feeding the Monster" and I liked "Dynasties" for entirely different reasons. I often find I disagree more than I agree with Neyer's columns. However, Neyer is a GOOD columnist, because he is very good at starting discussions with his writings.

His travelogue writings are average; neither frivolous nor impactful for me.

As for Sheehan, he should stick to the numbers. He's not a good writer (IMHO) and his strengths lie in statisitcal analysis and anomalies.

[SmedIndy]

Soxfan -

I read Neyer before I realized he was a James protege (I wasn't plugged in too much in the early 90's with that medium), and frankly, the personal stuff in "Green Monster" I didn't care for.

James irritates me too at times, when he seems to have an opinion and not a lot of facts to bear for that opinion, he'll launch into "this is my book and this is what I think, and to heck with the rest of ya" mode. Neyer doesn't do that, which is good. But he should write what he knows.

[Skip]

Originally posted by soxfan121
I think Neyer is unfairly held to the Bill James standard; the theory being, Neyer was James's protege - why isn't he as good as James?Not for me. I'm a latecomer to the stat side of the world and hadn't read James till after Neyer. I found Neyer to James about simultaneously, rather than following James to Neyer.

I like Neyer but don't think he's the end-all. But likewise I feel that way about James. I respect James' contribution from a historical perspective, but I'm sure I suffer somewhat from hindsight since most of what he wrote way back "in the day" I've read only in the past few years. Those books were great, but by the time I'd read them it was "yeah, but what about ...." On the positive, he opened up a whole realm of research and analysis and that will forever be an amazing thing. On the negative, he is arbitrary, rude, unwilling to explain himself, and self-important.

James beats Neyer as an analyst. James beats Neyer as a writer about the game. Neyer beats James as a short-subject writer for the masses. Pick your poison.

Two more cents worth from me. :)

[sweaver]

Originally posted by satchel
I couldn't agree more, especially about Neyer. He's got lots of good ideas and makes interesting observations, but he's a flat crummy writer. He's not artful at sentence construction, has a fairly pedestrian vocabulary, and his personal observations only reflect his fairly narrow and juvenile perspective.

For a stark contrast and wonderful baseball narrative, cf. Thomas Boswell.
Or Roger Angell, my personal favorite. But Neyer is what he is, the "sabermetrician" to the great unwashed, the guy looked down upon by the "real scientists" because he writes stuff that is accessible so a general audience can learn.

At this, Neyer is very good.

To me, Sheehan is not so much a writer as the ringleader/point man of Baseball Prospectus. I get the feeling it is he who keeps the whole thing together, and mostly he just writes the notes column. In this role, he is again very good.

Neither will ever be mistaken for Red Smith, or even Bill James. But they are competent writers who accomplish what they need to for the furtherence of the study, and for our enjoyment of the Great Game.

[Skip]

This column is a perfect example of Neyer's middle-ness between analysis and generalization. It's based on stats and purports to tell us how important new studies are, but doesn't really tell us anything except in extremely broad brush strokes.

http://msn.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1401991.html

[Pilgrim]

I like Rob Neyer's writing. I don't think it's brilliant in terms of being poetic or lyrical, but that's not what I expect from him. He does strong middle-of-the-road analysis, and I don't think he considers himself a great writer or tries to write "outside" himself. I have been moved by him on occasion...I thought the recent piece he did on Montreal was nice, and he did one last year on walking around New York that was very good.

Although I don't always disagree with him, I don't think there's a better "writer" than Tom Boswell.

[VNV Nation]

I like reading both of these guys, but neither are all that terrific as analysts. It seems to me that everything any analysts write these days are rehashes of classic James articles, which can be classified under a few headings:

1. The luck thing
"I can't really explain this, so it's probably just luck."

2. "...isn't one of the 30 best players in the league"

Bill James argued that Andre Dawson, 1987 MVP, wasn't one of the 30 best players in the league. That was certainly shocking and probably correct, but it loses its impact the 10th time you hear it.

3. Everyone in baseball is an idiot

"Roberto Petagine is better than Rico Brogna, but he's in Japan, so everyone in baseball is an idiot."

[calexpat]

But they do better James impressions than they do Kinsella impressions.

BTW, someone PMed me about this thread, but PMing was closed before I could read it. If it was important, email me.

[Duque]

This is a good example of a baseball writer straying too far:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/20020708daily.shtml

What qualifies Zumsteg to make generalizations about national security, religion, or anything else non-baseball?

[VNV Nation]

Geez. Good illustration of why we aren't winning the war on terrorism. This guy can't deal with security checks and hearing "God Bless America?" I guess he'd be downright ballistic if he had to deal with meatless Fridays and wheatless Tuesdays.
When did we become a country of selfish whiners?

[soxfan121]

Originally posted by VNV Nation
When did we become a country of selfish whiners?

January 12, 1989.

Or was this rhetorical? :D

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by Duque
This is a good example of a baseball writer straying too far:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/20020708daily.shtml

What qualifies Zumsteg to make generalizations about national security, religion, or anything else non-baseball?

What qualifies every other pundit and editorial page writer?

He has views, and a forum to express them. No reason not to do that. Personally, I prefere God Bless America or America The Beautiful over the Star Spangled Banner anyway. I'm personally already sick of the grandstanding about the pledge.

[sweaver]

Speaking of straying, we are off the topic. Anybody got anything else, or are we done here?

[calexpat]

Well, there seems to be a consensus that Neyer/BP are closer to being heirs to James than to Kinsella and Angell. I'll post the obvious follow-up in a new thread: who are the heirs to those guys?

[gyb13]

Originally posted by Skip
This column is a perfect example of Neyer's middle-ness between analysis and generalization. It's based on stats and purports to tell us how important new studies are, but doesn't really tell us anything except in extremely broad brush strokes.

http://msn.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1401991.html
I think you missed the point on this one, Skip. What Neyer is doing here is bringing analytical research that the casual baseball fan doesn't read and making it accessible. He is using his own (high-profile) medium to inform Baseball Joe about people like James and McCracken...in the end, this may be Neyer's legacy - acting as a medium between the average fan and sabermetric analysis.

[Skip]

Originally posted by gyb13

I think you missed the point on this one, Skip. What Neyer is doing here is bringing analytical research that the casual baseball fan doesn't read and making it accessible. He is using his own (high-profile) medium to inform Baseball Joe about people like James and McCracken...in the end, this may be Neyer's legacy - acting as a medium between the average fan and sabermetric analysis. You are likely right, and if so, that's a good thing. I just think Neyer has missed that middle audience and tends to write to the SABR type crowd (not really SABR, but the wannabees) while not realizing that he is missing a larger pool. He does act as the middleman, but isnt middle enough for that audience; and isnt SABR enough for the audience here. That said, I do tend to enjoy his short essays on human (baseball) interest type stuff - just so long as I dont have to read a book full of it.

[gyb13]

Originally posted by Skip
You are likely right, and if so, that's a good thing. I just think Neyer has missed that middle audience and tends to write to the SABR type crowd (not really SABR, but the wannabees) while not realizing that he is missing a larger pool. He does act as the middleman, but isnt middle enough for that audience; and isnt SABR enough for the audience here.
I dunno...when I was 'just a casual fan' and started reading Neyer, it was like the baseball domino theory - neyer, james, baker, bp, sinins, netshrine, etc....he sparked interest in things i hadn't thought of before, and the only reason it was accessible was the fact he writes on espn (that's the good thing).
of course, after reading through much deeper analytical studies, neyer does seem to simplify a few things, and omit other things here and there, thus losing some of the sabr crowd's interest (bad thing).

Different point - I don't think he's missing the middle audience. In fact, I think he's creating a dangerous middle audience - a casual baseball fan with some sabermetric knowledge who chants 'obp is life, james is god' without deeper research/analysis.

[mkempton]

I'm a late comer to this forum and to being a big baseball fan in general. I started reading Neyer's column during the '97 WS to get his take on my beloved Tribe. It opened a whole new world for me. I like that he's not too nitty-gritty with the numbers. Though I enjoy what numbers can do for us, I don't have the time to dig through the details all the time, so I like that he brings the ideas to the masses and then encourages them to look further if they're interested.

As for his non-numerical writing, here's my recent experience. I received "Green Monster" and the new James' Abstract for Christmas. I wasn't thrilled about the idea of the non-technical book from Neyer, so I opened the Bill James book first. But since I was taking a road trip in January, I grabbed "Green Monster" and ended up not putting it down until I finished. For someone who reads maybe one book a year from cover to cover (I mostly buy reference books), that was a surprise. And I loved it. I just like his tone and approach. It feels like I would write, and not like he's better than me or something. And he made me care about the subject, which I never expected. As you might guess, being from Cleveland, I hate everything about Boston, especially the Red Sox. That's what impressed me the most.

Just wanted to throw out an alternate view.

[SmedIndy]

Welcome to the forum! Please post about yourself in the Icebreakers forum!

[NCFella19]

"Green Monster", although I enjoyed it, seems to me to have been published only because Neyer had "Baseball Dynasties" under his belt. If Joe Writer brings it up as his inaugural work, I don't think it gets published....at least not outside of the Boston area.

Sidebar - welcome mkempton! Vote for our Tribe here! (http://www.netshrine.com/vbulletin2/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2145)

[gyb13]

let's keep this discussion on topic....to discuss 'feeding the green monster' only, check out http://www.netshrine.com/vbulletin2/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2056

[CpUltravox]

I liked Sheehan and BP better when they disseminated numbers.

But now it seems to be becoming "All baseball people are stupid, for not having Pentagine," or "Owners stink."

I want my baseball stat site back!

Thank goodness for the daily EQA and Relievers reports.