Remember me
Forgot your username/password?
 
Print
Home>Articles

Broken: The Voter

By Roel Torres
September 8, 2008

“Shout, shout, let it all out/These are the things I can do without

Come on/I’m talking to you, Come on”

          --Shout, Tears for Fears (Songs From the Big Chair, 1985)

 Another Storm on the Horizon

I need to warn you.  You should be warned.  My head hurts.  I’m about to start writing, and I don’t know where I’m going.  I don’t know how it’s going to end.  Normally, I have an outline, I have a structure.  But not today.  Not now. 

Okay.  I have to apologize.  I should be better than this.  I should rise above.  But...  I’m human.  Sometimes, I can’t help myself.  Sometimes, life gets the better of me.  I start thinking about the idiots and the fools and the stupid people running around in this world.  And they start to make me angry.  They make me practically blind with rage.  I don’t know what to do about it.  When I’m good, I fight it off.  I ignore it.  I move on.  But when I’m weak, I give in.  Even though I know it’s a bad idea, I give in.  And the fact that I am writing this essay means I was weak.  The fact that you are reading these words right now means that I gave in.

This is not the piece I planned on running this week.  I had another, different essay ready to go.  It was relatively interesting, it looked a lot like my previous work.  You would have recognized it.  It was familiar.  It was written and structured and there were themes and transitions.  It was titled Broken: The Home-Run King.  I was going to email it to our trusty administrator, Pat, and we would have posted it.  It would have been fine.  No harm done.  We’ll probably run it next week.

Then I made a mistake.  I started reading the Sunday paper.  I was flipping through the sports section from the weekend edition of the Boston Globe.  And I couldn’t believe what I was reading.  I shook my head.  And I started writing this essay.

Like I said when I started: I’m sorry.  You deserve better than this.  I deserve better than this.  The world deserves better than this.  But unfortunately, this world is a strange and imperfect place full of mysteries beyond my comprehension.  I constantly find myself walking through this world full of incredulity trying to make sense of the chaos and confusion that bombards me.  Some days, I come up with answers.  Today, all I’ve got is this essay. 

Let’s do this.

The Dangers of Reading Recklessly

Jean-Paul Sartre was a writer, an existentialist, and a philosopher.  I’m not Wikipedia, so I won’t give you the exhaustive summary of his life.  I trust you.  I know that you can look it up on your own.  In his play No Exit, Sartre wrote “L’enfer, c’est les autres.”  Translated, it means “Hell is other people.”  He knew what he was talking about.

On Sunday, September 7, 2008, Nick Cafardo wrote a column for the Boston Globe titled Mets Aren’t Looking Behind.  About halfway through his piece, he mentions that, with about 85% of the season over, he wanted to know the front-runners for the AL and NL Most Valuable Players.  “It doesn't hurt to ask the folks who vote on the award what they're thinking,” Cafardo wrote.  So he put together a “poll of prominent baseball writers.”  He asked twelve men who vote on the award for their choice on the 2008 National League Most Valuable Player.  Finishing first with seven of the twelve votes was Albert Pujols.  Finishing second, with two votes, was CC Sabathia, and finishing tied for third (with Brandon Webb and Ryan Howard) with one vote, was Manny Ramirez.

Manny freakin’ Ramirez?

I…  I was stunned.  Stunned.  I mean, do you know what it means to list Manny Ramirez as your first choice as the 2008 National League Most Valuable Player?  Do you know what kind of mental gymnastics you have to perform in order to justify that answer?

Cafardo, writing for the Globe didn’t even comment on the selection.  He didn’t discuss the sheer audacious absurdity of it.  He just jotted it down like it was a perfectly normal, perfectly sane choice, then he moved on to other business.

Look, some of those other votes are pretty questionable as it stands.  Two votes for Sabathia?   A vote for Ryan Howard?  Those are bad.  Those are not good votes.  Those votes really don’t reflect well on the sportswriters who cast them.  It really damages their credibility.  Ryan Howard has 17 win shares right now.  That’s fourth on his own team, behind Pat Burrell among others.  So the advanced metrics are not kind to him.  And his more traditional metrics ain’t so hot either.  He’s batting .235 with a .326 OBP and 183 strike-outs in 536 at bats while playing a position at low end of the defensive spectrum for a team that’s second in their own division.  I mean, what the hell?  You looked at every single player in the National League and you came up with Ryan Howard?  Really?  Can you give me one good reason why I shouldn’t punch you in the face?

So good.  Now I’m warmed up.  Now I’m properly riled.  And we can, I dunno, discuss the idea that Manny Ramirez is the one, true MVP of the National League.  Yeah.  Okay.

Let’s look at some stats, shall we?  Manny has played 34 games in the National League.  Thirty-four.  You know, there are people who say that K-Rod shouldn’t get any AL MVP votes because his contributions are limited in comparison to other candidates.  He’s appeared in 66 games.  He’s appeared in twice as many games for the Angels as Manny has for the Dodgers. And K-Rod’s a closer!  I believe that a position player can’t be the NL MVP if he plays less games than a closer.  I think that’s a rule.  I’m pretty sure that Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis wrote that into the rulebook back in the twenties, before closers were invented.

Manny has 11 win shares for the Dodgers.  That puts him seventh on his own team.  I don’t care what Justin Morneau tells you, it is statistically impossible to be the most valuable player in the league when you are the seventh most valuable player on your own team.  A partial list of National Leaguers with more than Manny’s 11 win shares includes Chris Snyder, Yunel Escobar, Edwin Encarnacion, Jorge Cantu, Ty Wiggington, Rickie Weeks, Jayson Werth, and Jody Gerut.  You should probably read that list of names again, because it’s quite awesome in its underwhelming mediocrity.  Manny has had less value in the National League than Ty Wiggington – and I positively dare you to suggest handing the 2008 NL Most Valuable Player trophy to Ty Wiggington. 

Let’s look at a couple more stats.  Manny has 48 hits for his new team.  Forty-eight.  He’s scored 23 runs.  He has 34 runs batted in.  If I told you about a left fielder (an atrocious left fielder by the way), who didn’t always hustle (he’s been timed to first base in around six seconds, or about the same time it takes an arthritic walrus to make it down there), who played 34 games, had 48 hits, scored 23 runs, and knocked in 34 RBIs, would that sound like the NL MVP or some guy that you ship off to the Nippon Ham Fighters for cash considerations?

His 48 hits have him tied for 159th in the National League.  He’s got fewer hits that Omar Quintanilla (50 hits, tied for 154th in the league), Chris Gomez (50 hits, tied for 154th), and Martin Prado (55 hits, 152nd in the league.)  Manny is a staggering 16 hits behind the immortal Emmanuel Burriss.  Burriss has 64 hits at the moment and he’s such a dominant offensive force that I did not know he existed until I started doing the research for this essay.

Here’s the deal.  Somewhere, out there, we have a man who is paid to write about baseball for a living.  Somewhere, out there, this man who votes for the highest honor in the National League was asked to name the most worthy candidate for the 2008 season.  And instead of naming Albert Pujols, or Lance Berkman, or Hanley Ramirez, or Chase Utley, or David Wright, or Chipper Jones, or anyone else worth voting for, he decided to choose a guy who can’t field, doesn’t run, and has played a total of 34 games in the league. 

(Newsflash: even if you added in Manny’s stats from his time in Boston, he still hasn’t had as good a year as Lance Berkman.  Truly, it boggles the mind.)

To top it all off – and I know that this is piling on, but what the hell, we’ve started down this dark, depressing road so we might as well go full speed ahead into the heart of madness – it hasn’t even been a world-shattering 34 games.  Over a four year period between 2001-2004, Barry Bonds played 573 games for the Giants.  His lowest on-base percentage and his lowest slugging percentage in any of those four years is still higher than Manny’s on-base percentage or slugging percentage in these 34 games.  If you take the worst full season of Bonds in a four-year stretch, it’s still superior to Manny’s 34-game hot streak.  That’s how unspectacular these 34 games have been.

Ladies and gentlemen, Manuel Aristides Ramirez – your 2008 National League MVP…

There are Consequences to our Words

Last week, I posted a piece called Five Minutes Inside the Mind of Scott Boras.  And near the end of the essay, I raised some questions.  I wrote:

“Listen, I want to ask those guys a question.  This is what makes you mad?  This is what makes you angry?  This is the target of righteous indignation?  Not Rwanda, or Chechnya, or Bosnia?  Not Starvation, or Poverty, or Racism?  Really?  You guys are getting worked up over an agent asking a cheap, greedy owner for more money?  Do you think maybe you’ve missed the point?  Do you think maybe you’re off the mark?  Because, if so, you might want to take a second to look yourself in the mirror.  Frankly, you might want to think about the things that are truly important in life.  I strongly suggest you pick another cause.” 

I thought that was a pretty good passage.  I thought those were powerful words.  I was bewildered by all the outrage directed at Scott Boras, all the outrage directed at such a frivolous situation.

And now, I find that I am asking those questions again.  But this time, I am asking them of myself.  Unreal.  How did this happen?  How could I spend last week mocking all the people who got angry at a sports agent asking for money, but the very next week start ranting and raving over a random anonymous sportswriter’s NL MVP vote.  It’s so contradictory.  It’s so damn hypocritical.  And I know that it’s terribly counter-productive.  What the hell am I getting worked up over?  Why do I even care?  Practice what you preach, man.  Gotta practice what you preach.  Last week, I was advising people to keep things in perspective, not to blow things out of proportion.  This week, I’ve lost all perspective and I’ve blown things completely out of proportion.  Good work.  Nice job there on my part.  Well done.

I should just learn to let go.  This life would be so much easier if I could just learn to let some things go.

Poor Boy Looks so Lost, Brother, Won’t You Lend a Hand?

I am realizing something more and more clearly as I get older.  There is a distinct separation between my rational life, and my emotional one.  Most of time, they co-exist peacefully.  But sometimes, they clash like angry mountain goats, colliding on a distant rocky bluff.  And even though I am aware of this essential conflict, I am not strong enough to untangle it.  Most of the time, I am helpless in its wake.

A recent example of this came from my essay on Nick Esasky.  See, I’ve got this philosophy.  It’s pretty simple, but it works for me.  I try to be conscientious of the readers, the people who look at my work, the folks who leave me a note when they’re done.  I’ve read every message that’s been addressed to me, and I’ve written a response in every instance.   Well, after I wrote Broken: The Slugger, a reader named ‘Shrewd Honus’ left a comment that said: “The problem with this article is that it is 5% Nick Esasky, 95% Roel Torres. That's not a good ratio. If you're going to do something like that, say so right up front. I was expecting, and hoping, to hear a lot more about Nick Esasky.”

When I read that, I was okay with the idea that Shrewd Honus didn’t enjoy the essay.  And I was okay with the fact that he didn’t like the ratio of personal reflection to baseball content.  I get that.  It makes sense.  That seems like a legitimate and valid complaint.  I’m not a traditional baseball writer.  I don’t compose conventional baseball essays.  That seems like a common observation on my writing – that there’s too much personal material and not enough baseball analysis.  My style can be an acquired taste, and not everyone’s going to like it.  So that was fine. 

What upset me was his suggestion that I had tricked him.  That I was misleading.   That I had been deceptive.  If you're going to do something like that, say so right up front.  The comment really threw me because, if anything, I had been striving to be painfully honest in my writing, in some cases to my personal detriment.  Self-deprecating, self-critical, I often took a harsh assessment of my own life.  I figured, I couldn’t always be insightful.  But honest?  I knew that I could always be honest.  That, I could control.

So the criticism got to me.  I mean, “Say so right up front?”  From the very first piece I posted here I thought I made it pretty obvious that I was going to write about myself.  I never felt like I had been hiding my intentions.  In my initial essay, I wrote: “Instead, here I plan on writing about broken things.  Broken players, broken games, broken teams.  Guys like Herb Score.  Like Pete Reiser.  Like John Rocker or Brien Taylor or Toe Nash or Nick Esasky.  Vessels for our hope that got a little lost along the way.  I’m going to write about them because deep down, I’m broken – just like them.  And my hope is that by writing about these things, I can lessen the pain, and the hurt won’t be so bad.  Maybe I can take steps towards feeling better again.  Start feeling more complete.  Start feeling whole.” 

And when Bill James introduced me to his readers, the very first words he wrote were: “We are introducing another new writer today, who is Roel Torres.   Roel’s writing is very personal, so it doesn’t really seem to be necessary to introduce him beyond that.” 

Those were the very first words about me on the site.  “Roel’s writing is very personal.”  That was the introduction.  Say so right up front?  How much more up front do you need?

But of course, this was my emotional side talking.  The part of me that was impetuous and impulsive.  The side that was quick to act but slow to think.  Not the rational side.  The irrational one.

I mean, in my rational mind, I got it.  There was a good chance that the Nick Esasky piece was the first essay of mine Shrewd Honus had ever read.  He probably hadn’t read the Bill James intro.  He probably hadn’t read my earlier essays.  It was his first taste of my writing.  There was a little culture shock, he was disappointed, and he left a quick note in the comments section.  It all seemed perfectly reasonable.  He felt tricked.  Bait and switch.  Which makes sense.  I mean, have you read my work?  Can you really blame the guy?

But despite that, I still spent three days debating Shrewd Honus in my head.  Three days.  I kept thinking of all the things I wanted to say to him.  I lost sleep over it.  I showed up for work exhausted and unhappy.  I did not want to be seen as a guy who deceived the readers.  I did not want to be known as the guy who tricked people and lied to them.  I kept thinking about how unfair his criticism was, how uninformed.  How many essays do I need to write before you realize my writing is personal?  How many signs should we give you before you catch on? 

And even as it was happening, even as I stared at the digital reading on the clock flashing one in the morning, then two in the morning, I kept asking myself: What the hell are you doing?  Why are you getting so upset over this?  Get...  Some…  Sleep...

One sentence.  All it took was one reader to leave one comment where I focused on one sentence, and suddenly I was a complete and total wreck.  Just like that.

Every time I write something on Bill James Online, there are hundreds and hundreds of strangers reading it.  I know this, because there’s a counter on the bottom of the page that tells me that information.  And not all of them are going to enjoy my writing.  I know this, too.  Because you can’t make everyone happy.  And because I write a lot about myself, sometimes at the expense of talking about baseball.  And if someone feels like I deceived them, like I misled them, like I promised them an essay about Nick Esasky and tricked them into reading about my life, I should probably learn not to take it too hard.  Learn not to take it personally.  Because life it too short.  And I think I might be wasting it, like some sad, delusional modern-day Quixote, imagining dragons that aren’t there, tilting at all the wrong windmills as the days continue to pass me by…

The Anger and the Darkness

“Everybody's got a secret, sonny
Something that they just can't face
Some folks spend their whole lives trying to keep it
They carry it with them every step that they take
’Til some day they just cut it loose
Cut it loose or let it drag 'em down”

          --Darkness on the Edge of Town, Bruce Springsteen (1978)

Anger is a strong emotion.  It can wash over you like a flash flood, drowning out all your senses before you have a second to breathe.  Why do people get angry at Scott Boras?  Why do people get angry at MVP voters?  Why do writers get upset over reader comments?  I believe the answer is, it’s easy to get angry at anything and everything.  We are always on the edge, on the verge.  The world is full of antagonism.  There is no shortage of it.

And because of that, the trick might be, how long are you going to stay angry?  How long do you carry your rage?  How long do you hold it inside and let it burn?  Will you let it wear you out?  Will you let it grind you down?

Or will you find a way to do something constructive with it?  Maybe put your frustrations into words.  Write them down, set them on a page.  Publish them, post them online.  Get them out of your system and share them with the world.  No matter how petty and flawed you end up looking during the process.

This essay makes me look petty.

This essay makes me look flawed.

Oh, yes.  It surely does.

Look, I’m an imperfect creature.  I’m a work in progress.  I know this.  Some days, I’m a complete mess.  I walk this planet, a loose collection of complex and contradictory notions.  I don’t think I’m alone in this.  We all have our share of virtues and shortcomings.  I get angry at the wrong things.  Then I lack sympathy when other people get angry at the wrong things.  It’s a little ugly.  I’m not too sure what to do about it.  Grow as a human being, I guess.  Become more enlightened.  I don’t know.  It’s worth a shot.  All we can do is try.

So if you’re one of the people out there who gets mad at Scott Boras – I get it now.  I was dismissive.  I was quick to judge.  I can see how that might make you angry.  Last week, I missed it.  This week, I see it.  I’m sorry.

And if you’re the anonymous “prominent sportswriter” who told Nick Cafardo that Manny Ramirez is the 2008 National League MVP, well, that’s fine.  It is.  It really is.  They asked you to vote for an award, but they never bothered to define the criteria.  That’s not your fault.  That’s the system’s fault.  I can’t blame you for that.  Vote for the guy you want.  Hell, I voted for myself as high school prom king back in 1991.  Seems fair.

And finally, Shrewd Honus, if you click on this post, I should probably warn you that the ratio for this essay is about 5% Manny Ramirez and 95% Roel Torres.  So you might want to go ahead and skip reading it.  We’ll probably both be better off in the end...  

If you have any thoughts you want to share, I would love to hear from you.  I can be contacted at roeltorres@post.harvard.edu.  Thank you.

 
 

COMMENTS (29 Comments, most recent shown first)

RoelTorres
Manny for NL MVP update:
(Instead of throwing on the brakes, Nick Cafardo has opted to jam his foot on the accelerator.)

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2008/09/14/just_how_valuable_is_he/
12:56 PM Sep 14th
 
RoelTorres
Hi Clay,

Kinsler seems like a good comparison. He had a tremendous partial year. But when voting on season awards, tremendous partial years will pale to tremendous full years. And the more partial a season, the greater the separation.

Folks like Quentin (130 games), Kinsler (121 games), Manny (approximately 50 NL games), deserve credit for having excellent years but will run into opposition when compared to players like Morneau and Pedroia (AL) or Pujols and Berkman (NL) who will play full seasons -- and will continue to pad their counting stats as they go.
2:26 PM Sep 13th
 
clayyearsley
This might tie in better with Dave's article on Sabathia, but I'm too lazy to go back there.
It's a shame that Quentin got hurt and will miss the last few weeks of the season, clearly decreasing his chances of winning the MVP award. I'd like to compare him to another player who also got hurt late in the season, who might have had a serious MVP argument, but who wasn't even going to get any consideration before his injury: Ian Kinsler. At the time he was hurt, Kinsler was leading the AL (maybe all of baseball) in Win Shares. He led MLB in runs scored, still has the longest hit streak of the season, draws his share of walks, has great pop in his bat, runs the bases extremely well. He was the catalyst of the Rangers offense. Of course, this relates back to whether or not a guy on a .500 team (which Texas was when Kinsler got hurt) can win an MVP award. I don't know if he should or not, but some consideration would have been warranted.
Anyway, chisox, we'll never know how MVP voters would have viewed Quentin or Kinsler had they played the full season. If Pedroia is the MVP, Kinsler and Ranger fans can take some satisfaction that the writers at least bothered to consider something other than HR and RBI (not that 80+ RBI is anything to sneeze at from a top-of-the-order middle infielder). Kinsler and Pedroia were having comparable seasons - Kinsler ahead a bit when he got hurt, which was right about the time Pedroia went on a real tear.
12:25 PM Sep 13th
 
chisox
Roel,

I gotcha on what you're saying about Manny's line.

I take full responsibility for it sounding like I was taking it personally when I mentioned the whole "dig" think. I was trying to be funny/lighten the mood and it just didn't work.

-Chisox
3:07 PM Sep 12th
 
RoelTorres
Hi chisox,

Some of your comments are in quotes, and my responses are preceded by a dash.

“Finally, I realize that while I might think my critiques of your writing are impersonal, writing is, ultimately a very personal thing so that I can understand how you might consider them personal attacks.”

--No, actually, I agree with you that your critiques with me are impersonal. I do not find them personal. I think that many of the readers who came to my defense were upset because they thought the comments were personal attacks. As I mentioned, this confusion probably stems from the fact that I use my life for content and subject matter. It can be difficult sometimes to realize that “my writing” is different from “my life” because I am often “writing about my life.” But it’s an important distinction to make in this case, and it’s one that I’m comfortable with.

“Now, back to Manny. I have to admit you are making a point about Manny that I am just not grasping. If I heard about a player who had those numbers in 34 games I would grab him in a heartbeat (even more so with the new line I listed yesterday). If what you are saying is that it’s been a 146 game season and here’s the line of a guy that’s only played in 38 of those 146 games then I guess I understand your point, but I don’t think that’s a fair analogy. Perhaps it’s an apt analogy for MVP voting, but not for making a Ham Fighter out of him.”

--Well, I’ll take a final stab at making the point, but it’s possible that you and I just won’t be able to come to the same conclusion. Yes, I would “grab Manny in a heartbeat.” But “taking a player for your team in a heartbeat” is very different from “voting him the NL MVP.” What I was trying to say was, if you went through the history of baseball and took a look at a long list of players who played 34 games for a team in a season, then separated them into a category of how many of them got an MVP award (zero), and how many of them got released in the off-season (some players, a number that is more than zero), exponentially more players who contribute 34 total games to a team get released than received MVP awards. I’m not saying he should be a Ham Fighter. I’m saying that his National League counting stats (counting stats, not rate stats) bear a greater resemblance to players who get shipped out than to players who win the MVP.

There are really only two opinions you can have on voting for Manny as the NL MVP. 1) Yes, he is deserving of the NL MVP, or 2) No, he is not deserving of the NL MVP. You keep pointing out that he’s a good player, and that he’s an asset to a team, and I have never disputed any of that. That doesn’t make him the NL MVP. My outrage is not at a sportswriter who declared Manny was a good hitter. My outrage was at a sportswriter who declared that Manny was the most valuable player in the National League in the year 2008. I’m not sure how else to put it.

“Next, I caught the dig about why you did not make a more detailed analysis of why you think that MVP voter was nuts: Why, dear reader, that argument is so obviously ridiculous, I won’t insult you by responding to it. I got it.”

--I didn’t mean any digs, and I’m sorry if it came across that way. I made those comments respectfully. If you check all my previous comments, I consistently mention that everyone should try to address you with respect, and that I think your opinions are valid. All I was trying to say was: “I think you are taking me to task for a statement I did not make. I never said Manny should be a Ham Fighter. I never said Manny wasn’t a good addition. The only thing I said was that he shouldn’t be the MVP. And maybe you mis-read my intentions?”

I do have to say that it feels a little odd that you pointed out my writing was over-dramatic, overwrought, and pretentious and that I feel those comments seem reasonable. But when I ask you to go back and re-read my essay in case you misinterpreted things, it becomes a “dig.” Chisox, I suspect that you and I just have difficulty communicating with each other. Or, more accurately, the things I say just come across wrong somewhere in the translation. I don’t know what to do about that. But I do think we have some breakdowns in our communication.

“Would we deny MVP consideration to a player who missed 20 games in April, May or June but then came back to do the things Quentin has? Of course if the Sox do hold on to win it while he’s out I suppose someone could say he wasn’t that important after all. You know, I could be talking myself into it!”

--I don’t think we would deny a player the award because he missed 20 games. Instead we would be rewarding players who continued to contribute for those 20 games. We are not punishing Quentin for his absence. But rather, we are noting that 162 games of excellence is better than 142 games of it, all things being equal.

Thanks for your assessments on Kenny and Ozzie. It’s good when a fan likes his management team. It makes it easier to root for the franchise.

Cheers.

2:36 PM Sep 12th
 
chisox
Hey Roel,

First, I have every intention of reading your future columns (and, for what it’s worth, I completely agreed with your Scot Boras column. He’d be my agent if I had any talent.). I enjoy the variety of voices presented here and in life. I guess I enjoy the chaos of it all. Second, and I hope this doesn’t sound patronizing because that’s not how I mean it, but, if this style is your real voice, then be strong and go with it. Don’t worry about what people say about it. You will either find a receptive audience or not. But I think if you try to alter your voice/style to try to satisfy someone else then this just won’t work out. And, I think it’s reasonable to expect your voice will evolve over time. Finally, I realize that while I might think my critiques of your writing are impersonal, writing is, ultimately a very personal thing so that I can understand how you might consider them personal attacks. I don’t know how to get around that problem, other than to say that it in my mind it’s analogous to saying that Joe Blow is not a good ballplayer because he can’t hit or field. That’s within appropriate boundaries. But to go on and say that because Joe Blow is a not a good ballplayer then he is a bad person, then that is out of bounds. Of course it can be hard to accept that distinction when one is on the receiving end of the criticism of one’s work product, because we are so ingrained with “We are what we do.”

Now, back to Manny. I have to admit you are making a point about Manny that I am just not grasping. If I heard about a player who had those numbers in 34 games I would grab him in a heartbeat (even more so with the new line I listed yesterday). If what you are saying is that it’s been a 146 game season and here’s the line of a guy that’s only played in 38 of those 146 games then I guess I understand your point, but I don’t think that’s a fair analogy. Perhaps it’s an apt analogy for MVP voting, but not for making a Ham Fighter out of him.

Next, I caught the dig about why you did not make a more detailed analysis of why you think that MVP voter was nuts: Why, dear reader, that argument is so obviously ridiculous, I won’t insult you by responding to it. I got it.

I think I agree with your Quentin response. But let me play Devil’s Advocate for a moment. If the criteria for MVP is the best player on the best team (and I know there really is no agreement on the criteria for MVP) then I think it’s at least arguable over Pedroia and Morneau if their teams don’t get in the playoffs. Remember, Quentin will only have missed a small number of games in the regular season (20 or so, I think). Would we deny MVP consideration to a player who missed 20 games in April, May or June but then came back to do the things Quentin has? Of course if the Sox do hold on to win it while he’s out I suppose someone could say he wasn’t that important after all. You know, I could be talking myself into it!

As for Ozzie and Kenny, I’m generally a fan. This is their 5th season under Ozzie. In that time they’ve won one Serious and have been in playoff contention 3 of the other 4 seasons—let’s just forget 2007 shall we. I can only see this stuff from a very long distance, but, from what’s available for me to review, he seems fun and colorful. Does he sometimes say things I wish he didn’t? Sure. But I think he’s like that crazy uncle you love and tell stories about so long as you keep him away from the likker and the kids: You’ll miss him when he’s gone.


As for Kenny, I think he took a cheap shot in “Money Ball” that wasn’t really deserved; after all, how many World Series winners has ‘ol Billy brought in. I do wish he were more in tune with--or even seemed to have awareness of-- some sabrmetric principles. However, as sabrmetrics becomes more mainstream he will have to learn them or be left behind. It seems to me the team has got old, fat, and slow in a hurry, but I have to give him props for putting together a Serious winner. He absolutely stole Quentin and Alexei Ramirez. I will like Ramirez more if he ever learns about OBP; right now his B/A is .298 and his OBP is .317, not a good ratio in my mind. I don’t like that they rely so much on the HR, although in the “Hey Bill” section Bill indicated that’s not necessarily a bad thing in the playoffs.

It’s funny, and perhaps being from Boston you can understand, but based on last year’s performance and the off-season moves, no one expected the Sox to be very good this year. Now they’re leading their division with only 16 games left; instead of being giddy with joy about that, we’re all miserable, having to be talked off the ledge with each loss, dreading that last 3 game series up in that *&%$# dome.

Go figure.

--Chisox

11:28 AM Sep 12th
 
RoelTorres
Hi Tim,

Well, Jason Bay came from the Pirates. Really, the Dodgers only gave up prospects, the best of whom was Andy LaRoche. So it seems like a reasonable deal.

(I do like Jason Bay, though. He seems like a solid ballplayer, from what I've seen so far.)

In the end, my entire argument on Manny not being an NL MVP rests on the fact that he spent 2/3rds of the year not in the NL. I don't really think we need to say more beyond that, right?
10:06 AM Sep 12th
 
timconnelly
The acquistion of Manny cost the Dodgers the bat of Jason Bay. While it's true that Manny is absolutely knocking the cover off the ball, he's replacing a .300 hitter with a .530 slugging average. You can't accurately say that Manny is bringing all the home runs he hits to the Dodgers- in reality he's only bringing the additional home runs he hits beyond what Bay hits. That still gives him plenty of value but it does not make him a serious contender for MVP.
10:05 PM Sep 11th
 
RoelTorres
Hi chisox,

Welcome back. It’s interesting, I started out by focusing on the voter who named Manny Ramirez the NL MVP. But even as I was writing that section, I felt internally like I was cheating. It seemed to me that anybody could write a paragraph about why Manny is not the NL MVP. I worried that I didn’t add anything to the discussion, and that I didn’t bring anything to the table. Basically – at the exact point you would have preferred that I stop reaching and strive to maintain my focus, that was the moment where I felt most compelled to get self-reflexive and bring in other ideas. I chalk it up to different instincts on our parts, and a desire to see different things accomplished within the development of the essay. You wanted me to prove the point that Manny doesn’t deserve to be the NL MVP. I felt that point was rather self-explanatory, and tried to go to a different place.

As a courtesy heads up, if you can tolerate any more of my writing, I think my next piece “Broken: The Home-Run King” has a much higher Baseball to Roel Torres ratio than usual. (I am also amused that it has become common practice for me to start thinking about the “Baseball to Roel Torres” ratio in my writing. Who woulda thunk it.)

I do think that my words are being slightly misunderstood, so I should take a moment to clarify. I asked, if you heard about a player who played 34 games, with 48 hits, 23 runs and 34 RBIs – what would your assessment be? I didn’t say Manny deserves to be sent to the Japanese League. What I was saying was that the value of the season numbers above are unimpressive and are more comparable to the season stat lines of fringe MLB players instead of NL MVPs. I think that if you go back and read that section again, it will seem less of an indictment of Manny, and more of an indictment of the writer’s MVP vote.

At no point do I argue Manny is not a good addition to the Dodgers. At no point do I argue he’s a bad hitter. At no point do I argue that he’s not an excellent threat in the middle of the lineup. I just said that he’s not the NL MVP. That was the only point I wanted to make there.

In terms of Carlos Quentin, I think we should see how the rest of the year plays out. I think he might have been the three-quarters year MVP. But it might be hard to vote for the guy if other players continue to put up the counting stats. Justin Morneau and Dustin Pedroia are still healthy and continue to contribute every day. It would be very difficult for voters to ignore that Quentin wasn’t around for the September and October stretch drive.

Hey chisox, since you’re here I figured I should ask – what’s your take on the abilities of Kenny Williams and Ozzie Guillen? It seems to me that a couple of years ago, Williams was considered unqualified and Guillen was seen as a lunatic. Now Williams is seen as competent, and Guillen is given the benefit of the doubt (“crazy like a fox.”) Do you like the guys in charge of that club? Just curious.

3:47 PM Sep 11th
 
chisox
OK, I’m back----I hate when work intrudes on what’s really important. Anyway, it seems to me that somewhere in all of this there’s an article Roel wrote that deserves review, response, and discussion. And, I think, that’s the problem with Roel’s writing style. I think he was writing an article bemoaning the ignorance of the guy who said he would vote for Manny as NL MVP. In my opinion, that kind of article requires persuasive writing. Persuasive writing requires the marshalling of facts, figures, and arguments presented in a fairly standard, ordered format. That style might not seem very creative or personally enriching, but it gets the job done. But when the writer employs—in my opinion—a style not suited for his purpose then that can be frustrating for the reader, and, I presume, the writer. Then the issue becomes one of style over substance which seems to me is not what the writer typically wants. Maybe I should have put it this way in the first place....Anywho, on to the meat of the matter....I agree that it seems absurd to vote for Manny. As Roel correctly notes, Manny has only 11 win shares in 34 games with the Trolley Dodgers which has him in 7th place on his team. Roel further notes that Manny has the following stats in those 34 games: 48 hits; 23 runs scored; 34 RBI, which should get him banished to the Nippon Ham Fighters (a team name second only to the UC Santa Cruz Banana Slugs). As of 9/11 BJOL shows him with 12 win shares, still good for 7th on his team. Per ESPN.com his other stats as of 9/11 are 38 games played, 53 hits, 27 runs scored, 40 RBI, 14 HR, .396 B/A; .488 OBP; .776 slugging; 1.264 OPS. In only 34 games. At the time of the trade I believe the Dodgers were in second place, one game behind the D’backs. Today they’re in first place by 3.5 games over the D’backs. And for that he gets banished to Nippon? If those numbers get him shipped anywhere, please dear God, let it be to the White Sox for the rest of the season. He hits like that for the Pale Hose and helps them beat the Cubs in the World Series, he gets elected mayor....Be honest, if you have a team in a tight race, don't you want him hitting for you? So, MVP? Probably not a serious consideration. But I think it required a better rebuttal than it received....Finally, perhaps a corollary issue: Up until he lost his fight with the baseball bat, many commentators considered Carlos Quentin a serious AL MVP candidate. If the Sox go on to take the division without him in the lineup do you all think he can still be considered a legitimate MVP candidate?
2:45 PM Sep 11th
 
RoelTorres
Sorry, I caught one typo. That last sentence is supposed to read: "and I can only hope that I MANAGE to entertain more readers than I alienate." Not MANAGED. Future tense, not past.

Um, what I was trying to say is that I hope you guys like my writing in the future. Yeah.

Okay. I'm going to leave now.
9:58 PM Sep 9th
 
RoelTorres
Aaand, I’m back. I had some lasagna and sliced watermelon, in case you were wondering. Let’s continue…

8) Hi Ryan,

Thanks for trying to reduce the tension in the arms race. It was a generous gesture. I appreciate the attempt to introduce civility to internet arguments. It’s a novel idea, and one can only hope that it catches on.

I think that one of the factors we need to appreciate in chisox’s orginal response is that I think he was trying to write a response in a style that was similar to the way I wrote the essay. I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but I think that had some influence on it. Basically, by insisting on writing about myself so relentlessly, and making everything so personal, and bringing the focus on every essay “Roel Torres”, any kind of criticism might come across as a little too vicious and unnecessary.

I think what happened here is that chisox was critical about my writing style and my content. But because I write about myself so much, people almost feel like he’s attacking me. Which he’s not, of course. But “over-wrought, over-dramatic and pretentious” are certainly reasonable reactions to my work.

Thanks for your level-headed moderation of the discussion. I appreciate you comments.

9) Hi Tangotiger,

I would like to highlight your comment that the Bill James Online site has some tremendous assets at its disposal, not the least of which is Bill James himself. But John Dewan, Matthew Namee, Scott Ham, Dave Fleming, Sean Kates, and Matt DiFilippo are very good baseball analysts and excellent writers. In addition, the readers themselves add some tremendous baseball commentary on a regular basis. I think in some ways I add a little diversity to the group, but if my writing is not to a reader’s tastes, Bill James Online is still a very rich reading experience.

10) Hi chisox,

I am in danger of repeating some of the things I’ve said in previous comments, but I do want to make sure I address your post. I agree that “overwrought, overly-dramatic and pretentious” are adjectives that reflect your opinion on my writing style. I suspect people came to my defense because they saw those adjectives as personal attacks on me. And really, I bring that upon myself because I use my own life as subject matter with notable frequency.

And while “in your mind this is a site for baseball writing. Baseball. Entertainment. Trivial. I don't think it's the place for baring one's soul,” I just have a different interpretation on things. I don’t necessarily think that the definition of “trivial entertainment” is always going to work.
So, chisox, I do hope that I write something in my future work that will entertain you. The last thing I want to do is alienate readers. But if not, I do appreciate the fact that you took the time to read my entire essay. That’s all I can ever ask of any potential reader. Thanks.

11) Hi chuck,

I suspect that you are right that if I start writing material Bill James disapproves of, he would let me know in a hurry. The site bears his name, he personally handpicked this initial group of writers, and he is clearly involved with the site on a hands-on level. As I mentioned, I’ve met with him and talked to him and I have a pretty detailed set of Guidelines to work from. I feel comfortable that I am meeting his expectations. I’m appreciative that he’s given me this opportunity and this forum, and I intend to do my best to hold up my end of the bargain.

I appreciate your suggestions on how to handle criticism. I understand that I can’t take all criticism personally, but as I wrote in my essay – even though I understand things on a rational level, things get away from me on an irrational level. I’m working on it, though. Wish me luck.

12) Hi evan,

While I certainly agree that this is Bill James’s website, and that he did select me as one of the site’s writers, I don’t know if that necessarily means we have to paint things in terms of “my supporters winning,” and “my critics losing.” There’s no reason chisox needs to “lose” in this scenario – he can simply enjoy all the other fine work on this site.

13) Hi nick,

I appreciate your spirited defense on my behalf. It’s nice to have reader support. And while you make some really good points – that there is plenty of excellent baseball writing on the site, and it is pretty impressive that chisox managed to read my essay – I don’t think we need to be too hard on him. He was merely expressing his opinion, and in some ways it’s good to have critics to keep me on my toes and to keep me honest.

14) Hi J. McCann,

I’m glad you enjoy my writing. All you can do as a writer is hope to connect with some of your readers. You can’t achieve perfect success, but it is gratifying that I’m reaching some people.

I don’t know if the original criticism from Shrewd Honus ended up as fighting words. In a lot of ways, I felt bad. I don’t want readers to feel like I’m tricking them. It was definitely a misunderstanding that I wished I could clear up.

I agree that there are a lot of excellent ways to measure an MVP. To be honest, I felt that as a guy who writes for Bill James Online, I should opt for win shares. That was the logic behind it. Seems reasonable, right?

--Okay. Is that everybody? Did I miss anyone? Whew… That was a workout.

Thanks to all who have jumped into this conversation so far. I respect chisox for voicing his discontent with my work, and I am grateful for all of those who felt compelled to serve as my advocates. This has been the most animated comment thread on any of my essays so far, and that’s quite impressive since I was hanging out inside the mind of Scott Boras last week. Thanks again to all parties, and I can only hope that I managed to entertain more readers than I alienate. Cheers. RT.

8:44 PM Sep 9th
 
elricsi
I love your writing, but I can see how it's not for everyone.

Also, it's funny that we all seem to have "trigger words". People can say the nastiest, most horrible stuff about me, and I laugh most of it off, but it the word LIAR comes up, then I lose my mind.

P.S. Win Shares alone is maybe not the best number to use for MVP. WSAB, WARP, or especially win shares with loss shares work better. I also wonder if that guy threw out the Manny vote just to get a reaction, in which case it worked.
8:10 PM Sep 9th
 
RoelTorres
Okay. I’m out of the office and at home now. Let’s see what we’ve got.

1) Hi chisox,

It’s funny, but I would have had an easier time if Shrewd Honus had told me that he thought my writing style was overly-dramatic, pretentious, and overwrought. I can see that. My anxiety came over the fact that he seemed to think it was deceptive and misleading. And that troubled me. Being a bad writer is a matter of ability. Deceiving people is a matter of intent. I’m okay with the idea that people my essays are bad writing. I certainly don’t want them to think I tricked them into reading my bad writing. That doesn’t seem fair.

Also, I think everyone who complains that I write too much about myself and not enough about baseball has a legitimate and valid complaint. I don’t think I can even argue that point. What I do want to say is that at least I am consistent in my efforts to write too much about myself and not enough about baseball. I’m not trying to pass myself off as a statistically oriented baseball analyst. Hopefully, folks will recognize that my essay writing is different from other forms of baseball writing. Then they can choose whether it appeals to them or not.

I appreciate your thoughts, and I think there’s a lot of truth to your comments. I’m sorry that my writing doesn’t appeal to your sensibilities, but all I can do is write each essay to the best of my abilities. Hopefully I don’t continue to upset you in the future.

2) Hi Tangotiger,

Your comments on the problematic nature of expectations are very astute. And while it’s true that the writer is in charge of the journey and the reader is a passenger, I think I’m still learning how to keep the reader in mind. It’s a tricky concept, and one that I’m sure I don’t grasp fully. I’m working on it.

(I’ve told Tangotiger this in confidence and also posted it in the comments section of his blog, but his support has really been invaluable in my writing. He was instrumental in helping me land my gig at The Hardball Times, and it’s really helped my self-confidence corresponding with him. Thanks, Tom.)

3) Hi evanecurb,

I think that the ancient Greeks would characterize the process you’re describing as “catharsis.” I agree that we have frustrations that build up in our life, and its important to find an outlet. But we also need to be fully aware of how to channel things constructively, and not in an unproductive manner. But clearly, yes, I am in favor of any measures that would spare us from kicking dogs.

4) Hi evan,

I think that the general consensus is that my essay on Nick Esasky didn’t really have a lot of baseball content. If you avoided reading it for that reason, it might be worth your while to give it a shot. Thanks.

5) Hi Ryan,

I’ve read one of Nick Hornby’s books, High Fidelity, and enjoyed it a lot. It’s an interesting comparison, and one that’s never really occurred to me before. I wouldn’t be surprised if I have been subconsciously channeling some of Hornby’s influence. Well, I’m sure I’ve been channeling a lot of different influences. It’s rather inevitable once you start to write.

It’s true that there are certainly many resources available to readers that are much heavier and substantive in their baseball analysis. That’s one of the joys and beauties of the internet age, is that we can find the voices that truly appeal to our interests.

6) Hi chisox,

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to visit Bill James Online for baseball analysis. That seems like a fair assumption. The thing is, when Bill was looking for writers, he sent all prospective applicants an attachment detailing the guidelines for his writers. The document is three pages long and it is very explicit in stating what kind of writing he encouraged, and what kind of writing he would not tolerate under any circumstances (for anyone who’s read Bill’s essay on GymMax, I think we all know how detailed he can be in explaining his thoughts…) I’m not going to quote the document directly, because I’m not sure Bill ever meant it for public consumption, but I will say that I have done my best to follow his directions. I’ve met and talked to Bill, and he wrote a response piece on this site to one of my essays, and he seems supportive of my approach. (Well, for now, at least.)

What I’m trying to say here is that Bill James Online will have lots of excellent, top-notch baseball analysis. But my essays are going to add something different to the equation. I’m not really a baseball analyst. But hopefully some folks will also enjoy the type of writing I bring to the table.

7) Hi Tim,

I think that your comments do a very good job of summarizing what I’m working through. It’s absolutely correct that I am a young writer, that I am getting exposure for the first time, that I am having to deal with criticism, and that I am going to need to learn to deal with handling criticism better. And I think there is a lot of truth to the notion that my writing style might wear on readers over time (or immediately, in some cases.) I’m keeping an eye on that. Not exactly sure what I intend to do about it, mind you, but I’m aware of the potential problems.

You’ve done a very nice job of capturing a lot of my thoughts on writing. Basically, I try to write with as much emotional honesty as possible. I feel like it’s the only approach that will work for me. Still, I can see how other people won’t find that interesting. It’s certainly not to everyone’s tastes.

I’m glad that you enjoy my writing, thanks for the nice things you said, and I appreciate your support.

--Okay, folks. I need to take a break and get some dinner. I run the risk of writing more text in the comment thread of this essay than in the actual piece itself. Which is a little scary for all of us. More to come.

Before I go, I do want to add that I think we should all go easy on chisox. All he’s trying to say is that my writing style is too melodramatic for his tastes, and that’s fine. It’s a sensible response. I understand his point of view, and I think he’s earned the right to express it.

Dinner now. More comments later. RT.

6:21 PM Sep 9th
 
nickblakeley
Chisox, are you somehow missing out on valuable baseball content? Not including Bill James's works, there are pieces from eight other writers on this site. Why would you even bother to finish reading if Roel's essay didn't meet your expectations? Why not shrug your shoulders and click over to one of the other articles? Why take the time to bag on someone's writing that you probably wouldn't continue to read anyway? Maybe you ought to read the rest of Roel's stuff. You might learn something about life that doesn't include OBP or stolen base percentage.
4:42 PM Sep 9th
 
nickblakeley
Chisox, are you somehow missing out on valuable baseball content? Not including Bill James's works, there are pieces from eight other writers on this site. Why would you even bother to finish reading if Roel's essay didn't meet your expectations? Why not shrug your shoulders and click over to one of the other articles? Why take the time to bag on someone's writing that you probably wouldn't continue to read anyway? Maybe you ought to read the rest of Roel's stuff. You might learn something about life that doesn't include OBP or stolen base percentage.
4:38 PM Sep 9th
 
RoelTorres
Woo... There's a lot of comments here. And I'm stuck at my day job at the moment. But I'll start responding once I get home from the office.

Thanks to everyone who has participated in the discussion. It's interesting stuff to read and to think over. I'll be back later tonight to join the fun.

Cheers.
4:15 PM Sep 9th
 
evanecurb
chisox,

This is billjamesonline.net. It is Bill James' site. Bill picked Roel as one of the site's writers. You lose. We win. So there.
1:29 PM Sep 9th
 
chuck
Roel,
I remember vividly a time in the mid-80s I happily sat down in a bar in NYC (corner of 73rd & Amsterdam) to watch a baseball game on tv. A guy at the end of the bar, who obviously was there to drink, sat watching me for a bit; then asked: "Why do you watch that?". It was such a bizarre out-of-the-blue question, and from a stranger, that I was flummoxed. Plus, I'd never thought about why I watched baseball before or why it made me so happy to. This stuck in my mind ever since. At times the answer is: "To divert myself from what I should be doing but am too lazy to or don't want to," and at times: "because every thing about it- its structure, look, pace and slowly building history- are beautiful to watch."
Another moment that sticks in my head is the day after I began a religious phase in my life. I mean the very next day, a stranger walking towards me said as we passed: "See you in Hell." The timing couldn't have been weirder, and I still am upset about that guy, 25 years later- both for: "Why do people act this way?" as well as: "I wonder if I really will see that guy first thing in Hell."

The message I got from your column is that what sometimes outrages you is people who don't think things through before acting or speaking. The fact that one of these is a writer entitled to vote on the game you love, it's understandable to be disgusted. And the other is a reader that had expectations that weren't met; it may or may not have been the first piece of yours he read. By now, most everyone should know what the difference will likely be between your columns and Dave Fleming's or Matthew Namee's. Bill James didn't put you on the site to write like everyone else. That's one of the reasons he's great as a writer, is that in addition to the crystalizing and innovating analysis, the historical knowledge, the obvious passion for the game, he writes in a personal style- it feels like he's talking to you. Plus, he at times champions the obscure, the common player's history, and writes of their trials as people. I'm sure if he wants you to stop writing so personally and to start filling up your columns with more player history or stats, he'll let you know. Until then, write however it pleases you. And if a criticism sees justified, value it; if not... There's a story about Max Reger, composer, who wrote to a critic who had panned one of his works: "Dear Sir, I am currently sitting in the smallest room in my house with your review in front of me; and soon it will be behind me." You might instead try the Abe Lincoln approach and write nasty letters in reply, but keep them in your desk, never sent. A columnist doesn't owe a response to anyone, and letting stuff roll off your back seems to me to be one ability of many needed in order to write well.
1:27 PM Sep 9th
 
chisox
OK, one last stab at this without trying to start a flame war. In my mind this is a site for baseball writing. Baseball. Entertainment. Trivial. I don't think it's the place for baring one's soul. And, I think Roel seems to recognize that somehwere in his article. Then he kind of goes off the rails and here we are. I think overwrought and overly-dramatic are the correct, technical words a newspaper critic might use to describe his writing style. Pretentious? Perhaps a word too far, perhaps ad hominem (perhaps) but again a technical word a newspaper critic might use. Go ahead and like him. He's not for me. Just don't hate me for being beautiful.
1:25 PM Sep 9th
 
tangotiger
I agree with Ryan's sober response with regards to the use of adjectives as a way to put down someone. Surely, it's enough for us to say that Roel is different without us needing to debate if that's a good different or a bad different. He's going to attract the crowd that sees it as a good different and repel the ones who see it as a bad different. If he were to change his writing style (to minimize those he repels) that is not necessarily "better".

This is the proverbial beer & nuts argument. We can drink the Bill James Lager and not eat the Roel Torres Honey Roasted Nuts, and be fine. We don't need to have the John Dewan Cracker Jacks at every ballgame, do we?
1:19 PM Sep 9th
 
RyanTorres
Arguing on the internet is useless. No one convinces anyone else, flame wars ensue and so forth. So let me apologize for calling you close-minded, but I do think that when you use terms like "overwrought" or "overly-dramatic" and "pretentious" that you attempt to insult a man whose writing is admittedly personal. If you don't like his work and style then fine. You won't allow it into your definition of good baseball writing, that's your prerogative. But instead of stopping reading, you put up a less than constructive criticism in the comments. Something akin to blowing a raspberry and thumbing your nose.

So you look to baseball writing as only analysis, fine okay. I apologize if I think that that is close-minded, maybe I should have used a less-loaded term. How about narrowly defined? So whatever, you'll probably flame my comment now, so I'll let you get the last word. Just ask yourself how ad-hominem attacks feel to you.
12:55 PM Sep 9th
 
timconnelly
As a young writer getting exposure for the very first time, Roel's having to deal with criticism- some of it fair, some of it unfair- and he's expressing his anguish in having to work through it. If Chisox finds that inappropriate for his taste in what he wants this site to be, fine. All of us have our personal tastes, our likes and dislikes- that's to be treasured.

Roel admits to being very sensitive and it's likely he's going to need to be a lot better at handling criticism if he's going to last in this business. But with that said, I find his willingness to bare his soul to be exceptionally fresh. His writing evokes feelings. It makes you think about things a little deeper. It's anything but run of the mill.

My wife made a point that one of the good things about the current Macintosh commercials is that neither the Mac or PC characters tend to irritate. It's because of the lack of intensity that we're able to receive them week after week into our homes. It's likely that Roel's intensity might wear on readers over a period of time just as it has worn on Shrewd Honus and chisox rather quickly. But you know- Madonna has changed directions many times. Bill James stopped doing the Abstracts many years ago. Roel is an intelligent man with terrific insight and a willingness to absorb from all of his influences. His writing reflects where he's at now. I'm excited about seeing where his growth/changes will take him. But I also enjoy his current perspectives because they are genunely authentic. There's nothing more interesting than reading something that comes straight from the heart.

Although I enjoy all of Bill's writers, Roel is the one who is different. Different means you stick out. It means you're more likely to be criticized. It means you're more likely to gnaw at the nerves of those who like things a certain way. Bill James is an example of that. He has probably been more criticized than any baseball writer of his generation. Bill has a "don't give a shit" approach that allows him to work through any and all criticism that comes his way. I kind of like Roel's sensitive approach. I don't want him to be a carbon copy of Bill James. Finding a middle ground where you don't lose sleep over criticism and where you can learn from it is the Zen approach to this. Here's to hoping Roel finds it without becoming jaded, without losing that certain something that those of us who enjoy his style are getting from his writing.
12:53 PM Sep 9th
 
chisox
Ryan, Nowhere in my note did I say I wouldn't allow Roel's writing (whatever that might mean on a website I don't control). What I did say is that I don't like his style or his content. Perhaps I would appreciate his content more if his style were better, but, then, we'll probably never know. This is a baseball blog; this is where I go for baseball analysis. When I want dark night of the soul stuff I'll read Sartre. When I want political analysis I'll go to the appropriate journals/newspapers.....If you like Roel's columns by all means keep reading and enjoying them. But don't call people who don't like his work close-minded. That's what's really close-minded.
11:43 AM Sep 9th
 
RyanTorres
There are all forms of writing chisox, and I am sorry if you are too close-minded to allow all types. I've read the work of "king of the male confessional" Nick Hornby and realize that the soccer content (Fever Pitch) and vinyl record content (High Fidelity) is low compared to the drama and narrative. It is a lot like Roel's work and I for one find it a breath of fresh air to see something less about statistical amalysis and the same re-hashing of whether Josh Hamilton is inspirational or not and more /well/ to use the key word of the essay, personal. This is a freaking blog site after all. But there is analysis in this piece, as well as a lot about older essays and comments that have been made about them. So if you want the same-old-same-old, there are many places on the internet you can stop. http://espn.com/baseball comes to mind. If you want another voice that doesn't always give you what's expected then maybe give Roel's work more of a chance.
10:36 AM Sep 9th
 
evanecurb
I enjoy Roel's writing. I didn't read his Nick Esasky piece because I already knew the story of Nick Esasky. Now that I know it was mostly about Roel's feelings about it and not about Esasky, I may go back and read it.
10:29 AM Sep 9th
 
evanecurb
Sports can be a healthy outlet for displaced anger. We all face frustrations in our daily lives that anger us, and it is probably a good thing to vent our anger against Scott Boras or a baseball writer or Jeff Gordon or the Dallas Cowboys. Letters to the editor and essays posted on the internet are a very healthy place to vent. The anger has to go somewhere; we all know it doesn’t stay bottled up for long.

Spectator sports are entertainment. They are a diversion from our responsibilities and serve us as a bonding activity. If they result sometimes in feelings of anger, frustration, or other emotions that seem to be out of proportion with the importance of the event, it’s probably displacement of anger about something else. And that may be OK. Certainly it’s better than kicking the dog.

10:20 AM Sep 9th
 
tangotiger
I had a long post, but it seemed to self-indulgent. So, I'll just say it quickly.

We each bring our own perspective to the issue and the surroundings. We have expectations, and we project those to our environment. MVP? We expect sanity and we project our analytical mind to the process. Bad idea. Baseball site? We expect the life and times of Nick Esasky and we have certain expectations to be met. Bad idea. All we can fairly do is let the writer make his case on his own, and evaluate it on those terms. The writer is in charge of the journey, and the reader is simply a passenger.
10:00 AM Sep 9th
 
chisox
Maybe what Shrewd Honus was trying to say was that he doesn't like your overly-dramatic,pretentious writing style. Maybe he would like more baseball analysis and less Roel-Torres-overwrought-writings on a baseball analysis website. Sorry to be so blunt, but it seemed the appropriate style reply to this posting.
10:00 AM Sep 9th
 
 
©2024 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Powered by Sports Info Solutions|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy