Meg Rowley FanGraphs Chat – 2/24/2021

4:01
Meg Rowley: Hi everyone, and welcome to the chat – thanks for hanging out and for tolerating my absence last week during Prospects Week.

4:01
Meg Rowley: Let’s get started.

4:01
LLW: You are given ten pills, each of which will increase the baseball talent of the person taking it by 1 win over the course of the 2021 season. Do you allocate all ten to Mike Trout so we get to watch the greatest offensive season of all time, spread them out among guys you like who are struggling, or something other strategy?

4:02
Meg Rowley: What if I gave one to Mike Trout and the remaining nine to the Angels rotation, so that we see both Even Better Trout and Even Better Trout in October.

4:02
Meg Rowley: My other answers involve Nolan Arenado and Francisco Lindor, but they are overly mean, so let’s stick with the thing everyone actually wants.

4:04
Jeremy: Thoughts on Kelenic’s open dissatisfaction? I think he has every right to be upset, but shouldn’t he have to prove it in Spring Training first before saying he belongs on the team?

4:06
Meg Rowley: I can’t begrudge him for saying that he thinks he belongs on the Opening Day roster when the team basically granted that premise and would have had him up if he had agreed to an extension that almost certainly would have been in the team’s favor.

4:07
Meg Rowley: The Mariners shifted the terms of this discussion, not Kelenic.

4:10
Meg Rowley: There are prospect folks who think he could use a little time. Others think he’s ready now (I’m of that same mind). Absent an admission of service time nonsense, that would have been the issue in question, and I think despite his obvious skill that Seattle could have gotten away with keeping him down for a bit. But Mather said both that he would be up in April and that he wouldn’t be up right away. That if the team had had a COVID outbreak that his clock wouldn’t have been started even though they lacked other players to fill in the gaps. That the team offered him an extension, but he turned it down to bet on himself.

4:10
Moose_Bolton: Hi Meg. I loved hearing Luis Scott-Vargas on Fangraphs Audio last week. Two of my favorite things in one podcast. I’m hoping to tell Eric as well on Friday how great that interview was. Can you give any insight into any other potential upcoming guests that might be a bit unexpected like LSV was for me?

4:11
Meg Rowley: I’m so glad you liked it! As someone who started learning to play MTG during quarantine (I’m just really deeply cool), I thought it was really great, too. No one quite like LSV comes to mind, but we’re always happy to hear suggestions for FG Audio if there’s someone listeners think we should be talking to.

4:11
Interested Reader: Has FanGraphs hired a FanGraphs writer from the January 27, 2021 job posting?

4:13
Meg Rowley: We aren’t quite done reviewing resumes. We really appreciate everyone’s patience as we’ve navigated a big server migration and Prospects Week. We’re hoping to update everyone on where they are in the process soon.

4:13
Benintendi: How do you feel about Fangraphs taking such a political left turn in recent years?

4:18
Meg Rowley: I don’t grant the premise of your question. If what you mean (in my experience, this is what folks mean when they level this charge) is that the site, like sports media more broadly is trying to grapple with where baseball and society overlap and influence one another, and that we’ve more critically engaged with the claims of ownership on the economic side, I think that’s true, though as you note, it’s not a new phenomena. Culturally, I think we’ve come to understand that that stuff isn’t distinct from the game; indeed, it is impossible to imagine the game without it. We famously live in a society! There’s plenty of bread and butter stats analysis on the site, and I’m really proud of the work we do there, just like I’m proud of the work that taking a more expansive view of what is baseball allows for.

4:18
Cherington: Could it be beneficial for the Mariners to swap some prospects after for a fresh start? What would it take for me to acquire a vexed Kelenic or Rodriguez?

4:20
Meg Rowley: What it normally would: a whole lot. Nothing about their value to the organization, or on the trade market, has changed.

4:20
BringBackDeSpanielHair: Please tell me I can survive till they start showing spring training games!

4:21
Meg Rowley: May I interest you in some college baseball?

4:22
Jarred Kelenic: If I’m not on the opening day roster, how good are my chances if I file a grievance against the Mariners?

4:25
Meg Rowley: This remains a difficult question. I have to think the candor with which Mather spoke, and the combination of his comments about the team’s top prospects not coming up regardless of the circumstances on the active roster with Kelenic’s refusal to take an extension that almost certainly would have cleared those issues up is pretty compelling. I’m still inclined to think he won’t prevail – not because he shouldn’t but because even Bryant didn’t, but this is the loudest an exec has said the quiet part, so maybe.

4:25
Bill: Does JBJ lower his demand to two years only, thereby perhaps getting some offers from Houston or Boston? Can’t see Astros sticking with Straw as their CF, can you?

4:27
Meg Rowley: I’d imagine he and his reps are waiting for a camp injury or two to move the market, or as you suggest, someone to really falter. I still can’t believe the Mets are satisfied with their outfield configuration.

4:29
Mather’s Mistake: Meg Rowley for Mariners CEO? 🤔

4:29
Meg Rowley: I am not qualified to do that job.

4:29
Bill: Are Addison Russel and Roberto Osuna effectively bring blackballed by MLB (to quote Seinfeld “not that there’s anything wrong with that”)?

4:33
Meg Rowley: I think Addison Russell wasn’t all that good in the KBO and has long had an underwhelming bat, so you’re banking on his defense to carry him, which is probably less appealing at 27 and a position that has better options. There are baseball reasons to go “eh” and that’s before you get to his history off the field. Osuna’s elbow caused him to be shut down in August and the initial recommendation was TJ, though I think there was a second opinion, and I’m not sure where he stands now.

4:34
Meg Rowley: Which is likely enough for teams who don’t want to bring him into their clubhouse to say no thanks.

4:34
resumeman: Any idea if/when we’ll get the usual fantasy summaries on player pages this year? And can you confirm if you’ll be hosting SaberSim again? Thanks for a great website

4:35
Meg Rowley: My understanding is no fantasy summaries, but that we’ll likely have SaberSim again (Appelman is confirming). Thanks for reading!

4:35
GenericDodgerFan: Meg! Hope you and Ben discuss the Mather sitch on Effectively Wild

4:35
Space Ghost: How upset are other owners/presidents/CEOs about what happened with Seattle?

4:36
Meg Rowley: I’d imagine very – not because they take such different approaches in their own orgs but because they’re gearing up for a contentious CBA negotiation and now there’s this out there.

4:36
matt: Are the Mariners upset about what Mathers said or the fact that people heard it? Did he really just say the quiet part loud?

4:37
Meg Rowley: It very much depends who you ask. I imagine the ownership group is mostly peeved he said the quiet part out loud. I think a lot of folks who work for the org and really want the team to win and its players to succeed and be treated with dignity view what he said as genuinely offensive and disheartening.

4:38
Lukas: What are the chances that the NL has a DH This year?

4:38
Meg Rowley: Well I assigned myself the DH blurbs for positional power rankings since there are only 15 of them, so at least 90%

4:38
Meg Rowley: (I don’t think they will)

4:39
Halo fan: It’s hard to believe the Callaway investigation is still ongoing.  Seems very possible that it ruled in his favor, hence the silence.  Is it just a matter of him either resigning or getting fired, or are the Angels in a tough spot if it did rule in his favor?

4:41
Meg Rowley: It is very strange that it is still ongoing, though I’d be very surprised if the team, which I believe is conducting the investigation in conjunction with MLB, were forced into keeping him if they want to get rid of him. But I agree that it is weird. Not sure what exculpatory evidence they could find here, and his reputation wasn’t exactly a secret, as The Athletic piece noted.

4:41
matt: When do you predict you’ll see a baseball game in person?

4:42
Meg Rowley: As media? Pretty soon. As a person in the stands? Not until I’m vaccinated.

4:43
Myfanwy N.: Hi Meg! Let’s hop on the magic school bus back to an alternate reality where the designated hitter is designed to replace catchers, not pitchers in the batter’s box. With no mandate to be two-way players, just how much better would catchers be league-wide? Would Jeff Mathis have a HOF career?

4:44
Meg Rowley: At catching, you mean? Some, but probably less that you think. The position already allows for some truly putrid bats to get good framers back there.

4:44
Lunar verLander: What’s your most “Am I out of touch? No, it’s the children that are wrong” opinion related to baseball?

4:44
Meg Rowley: Not keen on a robozone.

4:45
Meg Rowley: The good reason being that the tech isn’t there just yet. The less good reason being that I think framing is really cool and enjoy watching it.

4:47
Guest: Am I the only one who thinks Lindor is overrated?  As a CLE fan, I wasn’t upset when Lindor left.  His defense, while great, is declining and his offense has been empty stats for awhile now.

4:47
Meg Rowley: You are the only person who thinks this, but also, if thinking this eases his exit from Cleveland for you, I think it is fine to feel that way.

4:48
NF: How many years do you think it will take for a team that’s not the Dodgers or Padres to win the NL West? I see no chance in sight for the next few years at a minimum, but I’d be interested in your thoughts.

4:51
Meg Rowley: I think that Arizona’s farm system is very impressive, but their owner seems disinclined to spend. San Francisco might spend, but has further to go with their farm, though it isn’t bad. The Rockies exist! The thing with the Dodgers and Padres (also the Padres! what a delight to say!) is that they’re good at both. Hard to disrupt the perpetual motion machines. But also, five years is a long time in baseball! Let’s say six. I am not confident!

4:53
Fanhandrew Zaidman: Andrew Friedman has said a few times this off season that the Dodgers don’t analyze their yearly payroll in a vacuum, but rather in 2, 3, 4 year snapshots. Is that process industry standard, or is this the Dodgers zigging while the rest of the league zags?

4:56
Meg Rowley: Pretty standard. Because CBT penalties escalate based on how many years a team is over the various thresholds (and how much over they are), it’s pretty common for teams to think about when they want or need to go over and then try to dip under in the years leading up to that to minimize the penalties.

4:57
Kite: From a financial perspective from MLB and the MLBPA, isn’t league expansion the easiest way to increase revenue?  More fans, new cities, etc.  I assume both sides will agree like the DH and have trouble in the new CBA with this.  Why?

4:57
Meg Rowley: A not small part of it is that the existing owners aren’t keen on making less: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/league-expansion-interest-rates-and-other-…

4:57
Meg Rowley: Wow Ben and I really gave that one an alluring name, didn’t we?

4:58
Eric the Red: One of the toughest parts of the Mather debate is that there is absolutely nothing that Rodriguez or Kelenic can do. They’re bound to the Mariners for at least 6 but most likely 7 years. What do you think is their best recourse to air their frustration?

4:59
Meg Rowley: Airing them, and then filing grievances where appropriate and hoping the terms of free agency change so as to alter this equation in the future.

5:00
Meg Rowley: In the case of Julio, where the issue is one of respect and dignity, he’s a walking counterpoint to Mather’s (excuse my swear) bullshit.

5:01
Meg Rowley: (Julio actually does need more time in the minors imo, so the grievance bit isn’t relevant there yet, just to be clear)

5:02
Meg Rowley: I talked about this on Effectively Wild but jeez, imagine getting the absolutely middle-middle pitch that is “Tell us about Julio Rodríguez” and going where Mather did. And with such speed! What an absolute moron.

5:05
Meg Rowley: What a cruel direction, too. If Rodríguez wanted to speak through an interpreter his whole career, that would be totally fine, but his fluency (and he is fluent!) with English is clearly very important to him. It’s a point of pride. It suggests that Mather doesn’t know the dude at all, but thought this was how you denigrate someone like him. So gross! Glad he’s gone. It doesn’t solve the broader issue, but hey, one less dude like this.

5:06
Bill G: Hi Meg.  I think you mentioned that you play in a sim league.  What software package do you use?  I would like to see one of your authors do a comprehensive analysis of the various sim packages, like DMB and OOTP.  Thanks!

5:07
Meg Rowley: I play in Diamond Mind and thank you for reminding me that I need to ready my profile this week!

5:07
Pumpsie Green: Kelenic has zero chance in a grievance. Determining a player’s readiness is a management right. Craig Edwards might have something to say about fixing a broken system, though!

5:09
Meg Rowley: I think this is an overly simplistic read – when Bryant lost his grievance, the arbitrator specifically said he wasn’t ruling on the broader legality of service time manipulation. The fact that management generally searches for excuses suggests there is line. And this was literally management saying he was ready (with the talk of the extension and that he would be up in April this year). Not saying he’ll win, but there’s both smoke and fire here.

5:10
James: Could you rank your top 3 or 4 grievances with everything Mather said? I’m kinda surprised to hear people so up in arms about him bashing Everett’s facilities and manipulating service time. These are things people already know, right?

5:15
Meg Rowley: Not sure how I would rank them but I will say on the service time point: In addition to all the ways it sucks for the players, the Mariners were what, two games out of a playoff spot last year? José Marmolejos played 35 games. Phillip Ervin started 20 something games? Jake Fraley started seven games I think?

5:15
Meg Rowley: Maybe you don’t think Kelenic is ready for full-time duty, but don’t you wanna see if he’s better than those guys?

5:18
Meg Rowley: Ok, pals, I have to get rolling. I’m sorry for what I didn’t get to this week. Thank you for the great questions. See you next week, and until then, be well!





Meg is the managing editor of FanGraphs and the co-host of Effectively Wild. Prior to joining FanGraphs, her work appeared at Baseball Prospectus, Lookout Landing, and Just A Bit Outside.

newest oldest most voted
Maggie25
Member
Member
Maggie25

Asking the managing editor if they like the direction the site has gone while that person was managing editor is the clearest of bad faith questions.

tomerafan
Member
tomerafan

Posting the question and responding with “ I don’t grant the premise of your question” is so dismissive and haughty and quite frankly ridiculous. Plenty of members – not posters or trolls but paying members – have a concern that the Editor and staff are not even willing to hear or entertain. Plenty have explained that it’s not about the social moment but rather the lack of objective coverage of topics. It’s tone dead for the site to continue to ignore the feedback of members. It’s dismissive and haughty and outright rude to say “I don’t grant the premise of your question.” Which only reinforces the objection that people have – the writing here has descended into groupthink of like minded individuals rather than a critical and analytical look at topics.

I just can’t understand the slap in the face. It’s one thing to say “I don’t agree.” But to say “I don’t grant the premise…” as members are canceling is either shortsighted or completely indifferent and I’m not sure which is worse.

Smiling Politely
Member
Member
Smiling Politely

What’s dismissive? If I say to you, “As a person who enjoys poison, what’s your favorite kind?” you’re not being dismissive by saying, “I don’t actually drink poison. You might not appreciate black coffee, but it’s a major agricultural crop as well as one of the world’s most consumed beverages, so calling it *poison* because you don’t like it isn’t asking me a question so much as it is demanding I agree with you or explain why.” And that’s the *definition* of being disingenuous.

tomerafan
Member
tomerafan

I explained what’s dismissive. Plenty of members – not trolls, not people here for Trevor Bauer day, but members who’ve been here a while, reading a while, commenting for a while, are regularly making this point. Meg dismissed the question and then deflected with comments about the social moment which isn’t necessarily the question. My time and money is where my mouth is on the importance of the social moment; I am in it every day and my wife has chosen addressing it as her vocation and calling in life. But believing in social change (which is a human rights issue) isn’t the same as the lack of objectivity in reporting on anything that has to do with living in a capitalist society… or mocking Christianity, as happened on a recent EW podcast… or the type of bias that impacts most things posted here these days, which are the types of bias often associated with a left-leaning political bent even if the discussion at hand is not directly political.

Signed, someone who donates to and campaigns for Democrats and still is independent enough to feel this way, and to feel that all voices have merit, not only the ones who agree with me, and believes that we learn more by challenging our beliefs and assumptions than we do by succumbing to groupthink.

docgooden85
Member
Member
docgooden85

Today I learned Tomerafan thinks he is not a troll. What a crazy world we live in.

Maggie25
Member
Member
Maggie25

“I don’t grant the premise of your question” is a legitimate response to a question that assumes a premise and then asks how you feel about it. Honestly I think Meg gave a pretty thoughtful response to a question that was clearly trolling.

tomerafan
Member
tomerafan

Clearly trolling? Really? If I wrote the question it would have said “anti-capitalist” rather than “political” but I can’t presume whether or not the author of the question would say the same.

In the midst of the labor issues before the 2020 season, Fangraphs regularly dismissed any claim that the owners might have some merit to their argument, brought on Eugene Friedman as about the most pro-labor voice in sports without engaging any different viewpoint, and saw the lead author of labor articles leave this site to go work with the Union. Do you think that topic was covered objectively and without a hard-left political bias? Do you find it ludicrous that many commenters and members (and now former members) found that whole discussion infused with the political bias of the author and the staff and the Editor, who routinely complains about capitalism as a concept in writing and on the podcast? And that’s just one example.

TKDC
Member
Member
TKDC

You do realize one writer has left Fangraphs to join the Union and about 10 or more have left to join teams, right? But you think it is pro-Labor? It only seems pro-Labor because so much of media and so much of society is pro-Management. This is one of those situations where equal treatment (or more equal treatment) feels like bias, but really the bias is the norm. And it is for Management.

tomerafan
Member
tomerafan

I am clearly referring specifically to one set of articles over the span of several months, where the comments (mine and others) regularly cited material omissions and gargantuan leaps-in-logic in the author’s work and then said author went to work for the union. If you want to expand it out beyond a concrete example of where objectivity was lacking, be my guest, but that’s not the point I made and not an argument I’m going to have.

In addition bias needs to be overcome regardless of the direction. Either or both pro-labor and/or pro-management bias needs to be acknowledged and overcome to take a credible look at the topic – not just one or the other. Unless the piece is being written with an agenda and/or bias.

TKDC
Member
Member
TKDC

Hired by a team = must be a smart analytical mind with a lot to offer. Hired by PA = must be shill who can’t see straight.

Those leaps-in-logic you saw may relate to your own biases.

Maggie25
Member
Member
Maggie25

Yes, I think it was clearly trolling to ask the managing editor of the site that question worded in that way. I am not making a comment on your opinion about how the site covers labour issues, I’m really not. I will say that I don’t know how you’ve jumped to the conclusion that that is the issue the person was talking about since all they said was “political left turn”.

My point is, Meg is the managing editor, you have to assume she approves of the site’s direction. So if you ask her how she feels about the site’s direction in a way that clearly suggests you don’t like that direction, you are not asking a good faith question. It’s not that different from asking “Meg, how do you feel about fangraphs’ decline in quality the last few years?”

If you posted an honest question about fangraphs’ labour coverage I feel like Meg would give you an honest answer. But if you said “how does it feel to be a raving lunatic anti-capitalist” I think she would say she rejects the premise. To be clear, I am not accusing you of saying that! The lunatic part I mean.

tomerafan
Member
tomerafan

Asking Meg about a “decline in quality” would be a shot at her work.

Asking Meg about the political bias inherent in articles and whether Fangraphs is being objective is a fair and valid question of a Managing Editor. Some would say that ensuring the writing is objective was once considered part of the job description of a Managing Editor outside of the op-ed page.

I will say that I don’t know how you’ve jumped to the conclusion that that is the issue the person was talking about since all they said was “political left turn”.

Meg referenced the site’s coverage of labor issues in her response to the question. That’s kind of my point. She acknowledged one of the issues that really bothered a lot of people, and dismissed it out of hand by refusing to grant the premise. She further wrote “we’ve more critically engaged with the claims of ownership on the economic side, I think that’s true.” How can a Managing Editor make that statement without addressing the question that’s been asked elsewhere – was that coverage *objective* or was it rooted in bias? I am all for engaging critically with the claims of ownership… but were the MLBPA’s claims engaged equally critically? Was the coverage fair, especially when the lead writer uses his platform to then go work for the Union? These are fair questions of a Managing Editor but they are dismissed out of hand.

Bias OF ALL KINDS is bad… including a bias so hard that one assumes that there is no merit to a question that is legitimately asked.

tomerafan
Member
tomerafan

By the way, a google search of one of the definitions of bias in editing is when a reviewing with strong opinions on a topic allows those opinions to cloud whether or not an argument has merit. Literally, part of the definition. In the scientific community, it’s a big part of the question with peer-reviewed work. All types of bias must be addressed in order to overcome them.

docgooden85
Member
Member
docgooden85

People are not required to grant your premise just because you throw some bad faith sh!t against the wall. This is how trolls operate…luckily you are not one.

averagejoe15
Member
Member
averagejoe15

This is coming from someone who generally agrees with the perspectives of the authors on this site. But the site as a whole has intentionally or unintentionally become biased (at least as it relates to labor and social issues) by hiring so many like minded people without actively seeking out different perspectives. This is actually a pretty common issue in hiring.

This does not mean that individual articles by individual writers on this site are biased (some may be). Each author has their own perspective and, while some may even be biased, I don’t find that to be the case across the board as it relates to labor and politics on the site.

However, I do have to agree that the chat question that lead us down this rabbit hole was pretty clearly written in bad faith.. There are better ways to voice displeasure with the editorial direction of the site than by asking snarky questions you don’t expect an answer to.
(But that’s just my perspective, I realize you have, and are entitled to, your own perspective).

TKDC
Member
Member
TKDC

It was. My only objection would be why she posted that question instead of my question about Jake Lamb. The whole “cancel culture” and “silencing conservatives” is bad faith nonsense.

TKDC
Member
Member
TKDC

I’m a member and if FG ignores reality to placate conservatives that are either completely out of touch or having an identity crisis, that would piss me off. The leader of the right is the leader of a movement based largely on hating the left. In a sense you do have to pick a side. But I’m sorry they are not equal choices.

averagejoe15
Member
Member
averagejoe15

Not everything needs to be so staunchly right or left, conservative or liberal. Society no longer values or accepts differing perspectives. This all or nothing approach has killed the art of compromise and is frankly making us all a heck of a lot unhappier.

It doesn’t make you a conservative if you look at a set of facts related to baseball’s labor relations and decide that you see more merit to the ownership perspective or you simply want to write about the issue from the ownership perspective. Sure it’s a conservative viewpoint, but it doesn’t make you inherently conservative. Being a conservative also doesn’t mean you support the extremists with the loudest voices either.

If someone considers himself generally conservative, that doesn’t mean he can’t or doesn’t see or experience some things from a liberal viewpoint. And having a liberal viewpoint on something doesn’t inherently make you a good person (or openminded for that matter). We could all use a little more exposure outside of our own bubbles

TKDC
Member
Member
TKDC

I was not referring to all conservatives, but just the ones that constantly whine about a Fangraphs’ writer having a different opinion than them. It’s a tired, bad faith claim that should be dismissed. Instead of arguing the points writers make, these trolls try to make the argument about whether Fangraphs is biased or not. The thing is, there is no pleasing these people. They’re anti-thought, anti-science, and anti-social. Trying to reach them or meet them at their level is a monumental waste of time.

averagejoe15
Member
Member
averagejoe15

This is honestly what kills me though. The crux of the issue is that differing perspectives exist but the individual writers on this site tend to share a similar perspective on social and labor issues. Whether intentional or not, that makes the site biased.

What ‘these’ readers are really asking for (albeit in a poor manner in many cases) is to just simply hire or source content from individuals who have a different perspective on these issue to share. That’s how objective coverage is created.

Saying that ‘these people’ can’t be placated, are anti-thought, anti-science, and anti-social is just as much of a troll comment as what you are accusing them of. You’re dismissing them as quickly as they dismiss you.

All of this back and forth is ultimately due to a lack of open-mindedness on both sides because no one even knows what being open-minded means anymore.

TKDC
Member
Member
TKDC

The vast bulk of the complaining is from people who clearly don’t want things like Mather’s comments to be covered. You say different perspectives should be included, but I’m sorry all perspectives are not equal and having some stooge apologist write an article about how Mather is right and a good guy is not what is needed. FG writers give coverage to what happens in baseball in a fair manner. Yes, if you spend too much time listening to conservative fever dream media you may not recognize this. Fair may look like biased. Like equality feels like oppression to the oppressor. The idea that there is too much bias towards labor is ridiculous. All of baseball media and sports media in general is heavily slanted towards pro-management. The fact that FG hires free thinkers that challenge narratives doesn’t make them pro-Labor. The fact that MLB teams routinely hire FG writers absolutely obliterates this theory. It’s just wrong. I’m sorry. Some things are just wrong.

averagejoe15
Member
Member
averagejoe15

I agree with you that some things are simply ‘wrong.’ Mather’s comments being an example of that and I am in no way saying the site needs to cover ‘pro-Mathers.’

But, to take a less extreme example, saying teams ‘should be spending more money’ is not inherently correct or incorrect, it’s not fact. It’s a perspective, a perspective that the vast majority of writers on this site share.

I’m not asking you to agree with (or even like) an article laying out the merits of ownership’s current approach to spending, but it is a topic that can be written about in an intelligent manner.
I’ve had some interesting back and forth in the comments section of articles with individuals with that very perspective and while I generally don’t agree with their stance, there is merit to some of what they say and I’ve learned more about in the issue as a whole by taking the time to understand their perspective.

I just feel like people on both sides tend to overgeneralize groups of people based on their own bias, give too much credit/attention to the most extreme of examples/behaviors (behaviors shared by both sides), and dismiss opposing viewpoints out of hand without even attempting to understand.

‘The idea that there is too much bias towards labor is ridiculous.’
I’m in no way implying that ‘there is too much bias towards labor.’ What I’m saying is not every labor issue has a ‘correct’ perspective and FG tends to have a shared perspective here.

‘The fact that FG hires free thinkers that challenge narratives doesn’t make them pro-Labor.’
Never said it did! I’m all for free thinkers, but the fact is, this particular group of free thinkers shares a perspective on issues such as labor relations. This is limiting to readers who want to really understand the issues from both sides. The best way to beat the other party in negotiations is to understand their position better than they understand it themselves. This is why the owners continually get the upper hand on players. They understand the player’s perspective better than the players themselves, while the player’s focus more on what they want, not what ownership is trying to achieve.

‘All of baseball media and sports media in general is heavily slanted towards pro-management.’
Maybe I’m too far into the ‘pro-labor bubble’ but the majority of coverage I read leans pro-labor pretty solidly. Most media coverage for ‘the other side’ is far less robust than the typical work at Fangraphs. This could mean those positions don’t have much merit, but I’ve seen enough intelligent commentary in the comments here to decide it’s probably a mix of a (potentially unintentional) bias that sites like Fangraphs have in their hiring process along with self non-selection (writers not wanting to work somewhere where they feel like the odd man out).

TKDC
Member
Member
TKDC

There was literally an article written two days ago about why teams don’t do deals like Tatis. It was written largely if not entirely from the team perspective. “Why teams do what they do” is well worn chum on FG.

tomerafan
Member
tomerafan

Bingo. Well said.

To share my own fangraphs commenting perspective…. I was flamed from the “right” when I commented in support of the social moment and from the “left” when I commented in support of fair and accurate portrayal of the owners’ claims (and not support of their argument) and a disdain for some of the tactics of the MLBPA and the “leadership” of Tony Clark. That tells me that I’m being true to myself…but it also means that many people are reading and processing information from the perspective of their political tribe rather than from the perspective of seeking to engage different viewpoints and learn counter-arguments even if those thoughts are not ultimately persuasive.