Meg Rowley FanGraphs Chat – 2/24/2021
| 4:01 |
: Hi everyone, and welcome to the chat – thanks for hanging out and for tolerating my absence last week during Prospects Week.
|
| 4:01 |
: Let’s get started.
|
| 4:01 |
: 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 |
: 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 |
: 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 |
: 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?
You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.
|
| 4:06 |
: 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 |
: The Mariners shifted the terms of this discussion, not Kelenic.
|
| 4:10 |
: 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 |
: 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 |
: 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 |
: Has FanGraphs hired a FanGraphs writer from the January 27, 2021 job posting?
|
| 4:13 |
: 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 |
: How do you feel about Fangraphs taking such a political left turn in recent years?
|
| 4:18 |
: 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 |
: 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 |
: What it normally would: a whole lot. Nothing about their value to the organization, or on the trade market, has changed.
|
| 4:20 |
: Please tell me I can survive till they start showing spring training games!
|
| 4:21 |
: May I interest you in some college baseball?
|
| 4:22 |
: If I’m not on the opening day roster, how good are my chances if I file a grievance against the Mariners?
|
| 4:25 |
: 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 |
: 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 |
: 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 |
: Meg Rowley for Mariners CEO? 🤔
|
| 4:29 |
: I am not qualified to do that job.
|
| 4:29 |
: Are Addison Russel and Roberto Osuna effectively bring blackballed by MLB (to quote Seinfeld “not that there’s anything wrong with that”)?
|
| 4:33 |
: 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 |
: Which is likely enough for teams who don’t want to bring him into their clubhouse to say no thanks.
|
| 4:34 |
: 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 |
: My understanding is no fantasy summaries, but that we’ll likely have SaberSim again (Appelman is confirming). Thanks for reading!
|
| 4:35 |
: Meg! Hope you and Ben discuss the Mather sitch on Effectively Wild
|
| 4:35 |
: How upset are other owners/presidents/CEOs about what happened with Seattle?
|
| 4:36 |
: 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 |
: 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 |
: 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 |
: What are the chances that the NL has a DH This year?
|
| 4:38 |
: Well I assigned myself the DH blurbs for positional power rankings since there are only 15 of them, so at least 90%
|
| 4:38 |
: (I don’t think they will)
|
| 4:39 |
: 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 |
: 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 |
: When do you predict you’ll see a baseball game in person?
|
| 4:42 |
: As media? Pretty soon. As a person in the stands? Not until I’m vaccinated.
|
| 4:43 |
: 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 |
: 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 |
: What’s your most “Am I out of touch? No, it’s the children that are wrong” opinion related to baseball?
|
| 4:44 |
: Not keen on a robozone.
|
| 4:45 |
: 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 |
: 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 |
: 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 |
: 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 |
: 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 |
: 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 |
: 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 |
: 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 |
: 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 |
: Wow Ben and I really gave that one an alluring name, didn’t we?
|
| 4:58 |
: 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 |
: 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 |
: 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 |
: (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 |
: 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 |
: 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 |
: 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 |
: I play in Diamond Mind and thank you for reminding me that I need to ready my profile this week!
|
| 5:07 |
: 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 |
: 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 |
: 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 |
: 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 |
: 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 |
: 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 editor-in-chief 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. You can follow her on Bluesky @megrowler.fangraphs.com.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Today I learned Tomerafan thinks he is not a troll. What a crazy world we live in.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
I’m sorry you found my response dismissive. I could have simply left the question in the queue and not answered it at all, but because I have seen some members express concerns about what they see as “politics” on the site, I thought it was important to address. I also thought that understanding how we conceptualize the coverage of labor and social questions – as inextricably linked to the game’s operation and well-being rather than something that can be siloed away from it – would be illuminating. To pick one issue, that many of the site’s writers do not find the arguments of ownership compelling is, I assure you, a result of their careful analysis of those arguments. There are certainly instances when the Players Association is deserving of criticism – I’m not a fan of the deal minor leaguers and early-career big leaguers got in the last CBA, for instance – but the PA’s failures on some questions do not mean we have to balance the scales on others where their position is actually persuasive. Beyond that, I don’t think that say, discussing Trevor Bauer’s online harassment, which was an important part of his free agency, or being critical of Kevin Mather’s comments, or noting the failures of the league and the players when it came to COVID protocols, is outside the scope of the site. I want FanGraphs to speak to what is shaping baseball so our readers can better understand the game. Sometimes that is going to mean diving into seam-shifted wake or how defensive positioning is changing how teams evaluate infield prospects; other times it is going to be a hard look at sexual harassment in baseball. If the latter isn’t for you, I hope you’ll find the former compelling. But all of it is baseball, and we’re here to cover baseball, warts and all. I hope that helps to clarify things a bit, and thank you for being a Member.
How did the league fail with covid protocols? Seemed like they had more than plenty of protocols for it. Which is why the Dodgers won a covid title. Will fully enjoy baseball again when all of these protocols are gone.
Good question!
Nothing is explained by the statement “noting the failures of the league and the players when it came to COVID protocols.”
The MVP of the national league had COVID. This represents an uplifting triumph against the disease not a failure.
The league completed 1796 of 1800 scheduled regular season games, a 99.7% success rate, another triumph.
Justin Turner celebrating with his teammates after an asymptomatic positive test was vilified by the baseball press. Yet not one transmission or positive test was traced to that celebration much less an illness, hospitalization, or death.
What is totally lost in the shuffle of politicizing COVID and covering it from an agenda driven viewpoint is all the jobs and livelihoods saved by the courage of everyone involved with MLB to carry on and the inspiration the baseball season provided to America.
Unless of course you think inspiration, saving jobs, and showing courage are bad things.
Couldn’t agree more.
I appreciate and thank you for commenting back. I also think, as respectfully as one can possibly dissent on the internet, that for some people (read: me but also others that have posted similar comments in other threads), you’re missing the actual question of some because of what you rightfully and legitimately believe are the motives of others.
Those things you cited ARE all parts of the story of baseball and the story of the moment and I’m not suggesting Fangraphs shouldn’t cover them. The question is whether Fangraphs is tackling those stories objectively, or whether Fangraphs is tackling them with a preconceived notion or bias or leaning that must be understood and questioned to search for the opposite side of an argument, even if you disagree with the premise.
I ask – you allowed comments mocking Christianity to remain in a recent podcast that could have been edited out. Would you have allowed the mocking of literally any other faith, or any other athlete based on their faith or lack thereof? (Please, before someone else comments, not all Christians are conservatives. I am proudly one of those things and respect everyone’s right to choose their faith or whether it’s even important to them.) If Mather had mocked a player’s expression of faith, that certainly would have been added to the justifiable litany of grievances against him. Do you not see the double-standard and opportunity for claims of bias when you allow the mocking of Christianity and an athlete’s outward display of his faith to be a part of your content?
Being mocked is truly the worst thing anyone can imagine. Truly how different the world would be without the fragile egos of (let’s just say “people” so no more snowflakes get their feelings hurt).
I meant men. Just to be clear. Downvote that, man. It will be soothing for the damaged ego.
Also, and dang this is going to seem petty but it proves the point:
I’m sorry you found my response dismissive.
The number of times I’ve heard the EW podcast rightfully call people out for “I’m sorry if you were offended”-type apologies that actually insult more than apologize is numerous… and I think I just got a slightly different version.
I thought the joke about Tebow fell on the right side of taste – pointed but on the right side of the line – but clearly it didn’t land how I thought it would. I’m sorry for that.
As for the objectivity of our coverage, I am satisfied with how we covered last summer’s dispute between the league and the PA. A large part of why it focused on the claims of the league was because the owners were the ones who sought to reopen bargaining; their claims about league revenues and losses were the ones we had to assess and scrutinize. I’ll also note that I don’t think the conclusions we derived from those assessments were materially different from those of other mainstream baseball outlets.
In these replies, I have endeavored to explain both our coverage and my intent in answering the question in the chat. My response was not meant to be dismissive of the chatter’s concerns or yours, though I still find the question’s premise to be faulty. Still, I thought it was worth engaging with to illuminate my thinking on these questions, especially since the feedback of our membership does matter to me.
I do, truly, appreciate you engaging in the conversation and providing your perspective. It means a lot that you would care enough to pause and consider it.
Agreed, tomerafan. I’m not a fan of the direction the site is going either, but Meg is a pro and she’s willing to engage. I’m happy that she’s willing to at least engage with members who are voicing their concerns.
As long as the rules of baseball allow for service time manipulation to impact what the organizations spend and how long they can keep a player, then clubs are in every right to do it. The change the players need to push for is making major league service time irrelevant. Service time with the organization should start the moment you sign the first contract with them after being drafted. That would push teams to get their best talent up to the major league level as soon as they are ready and not keep them in the minors longer.
But they don’t allow for manipulation, only intentional placement (which is why GMs lie about it, and why lying about it is actually a breach of the CBA). That clubs can get away with it is *not* the same thing as a collectively bargained agreement, but *is* a reason that I’m glad Craig Edwards joined the MLBPA because goodness, have they had their asses handed to them for a decade or two
Intentional placement then. Call it what you want. They can intentionally place a player in the minors for a few weeks as a business decision. It is a business that they are running. If they believe doing so benefits their business, then it is the right decision. The problem is the total amount of control the organizations have over players career for such a long period of time. That is what players need to address in the CBA as much or more than anything else.
It is also a zero-sum game that does not actually hurt the players overall — the dollars the owners saved this year by holding players back 7 years ago were just extra budget that went to Bauer and Springer and Realmuto and the rest of this year’s free agent class. If the players want minor leaguers to be called up independent of service time considerations, they need to collectively bargain for a system that does not provide the extraordinary incentive of having a player for 6 23/24 seasons instead of 6 seasons merely by calling him up two weeks into the season instead of having him break camp.
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.
Watching framing is cool? Of all the unreliable defensive metrics outs there I think framing is #1. I think it was Ben the other day that had fun takes on all this.
Hear, hear. Framing is awful, and I’m slightly disheartened that Meg is apparently a fan.
Not a fan of pitch framing for catchers. I’d rather see them hold it tight and not move when they catch it. Watching them move it all over trying to steal a strike, if I’m an ump and I see the catcher move the glove that much I’m assuming it was a ball, done. Also, keep human umps, no need for robo strike/ball calls
Really good framing—and I mean really really good, subtle framing that redefines a pitch in an umpires eyes—is one of the most impressive defensive actions in the game. It’s a full body movement that comes to a defined point at the mitt and it’s glorious.
Bad framing, where a catcher yanks their extended arm 12” toward the middle of the plate, is horrendous and is infuriating when rewarded by an umpire. I don’t want to lose the former to throw out the latter.
I’d rather not have either. I want the ump to call the strike/ball based on where they saw it cross, not based on where it was caught. Hell, a ball can cross through the zone and be caught out of the zone, thats a damn good pitch right there. Many times I’ve seen that called a ball because of where it was caught, though it was actually a strike. Need to focus on the plate, not the glove.
Framing is just institutionalized cheating and the best umpire (except Tim McClelland) is still terrible. Throw the bums out and get the calls right.
Clearly you guys werent catchers in little league
I did not play C! They made me fill in one day when the kid’s nuts got nailed (maybe 11 years old?) and I might as well have been playing a whole other sport for as incompetent as I was. Regardless the strike zone is explicitly defined and can be measured accurately. Why get it wrong on purpose?
P.S. That said I played 3B my entire life thru high school with no cup and never paid for it. Consider it a glove incentive. I never took a play off.
Catcher? No thanks, much preferred the mound.
Really enjoyed the chat. I’m hoping Kellenic makes the OD roster. I think it will go a long way in restoring faith between the players and management.
It isn’t just a matter of whether he is ready for it or not though. He is unhappy with the organization. They should keep him down for those couple weeks, save the year. That will add to his trade value for another team.
I assume the real reason Seattle owners are mad at Mather is he probably cost them a year of Kelenic.
Jarred Kelenic needs to visit the Mariner’s coat room to check his attitude. Evan White is the poster boy for skipping AA to the big leagues. Call Seattle after you hit AAA pitching Jarred and not before.
Any MLBPA lawyer making an argument that Kelenic not making the opening day roster is “service time manipulation” got their license to practice law at MacArthur Park.
How do those boots taste?
I log onto FanGraphs and see 39 comments on Meg’s chat transcript and I immediately knew it’d be a bunch of angry bros mad about something they view as political.
I’m so tired of it. Honestly, when I became a member I didn’t expect the community to be as inherently toxic as an ESPN or Barstool comment thread.
This website does a tremendous job handling all sorts of issues with nuance, empathy, and scope. It must be nice to just be mildly inconvenienced by social issues, while many of us are radically impacted by them.
In the past, I’ve been very anti-closed comments sections, but I think at a point we need more moderation to keep discourse civil or outright not allowing comments. I was sad in recent weeks to see some comment sections closed because I wanted to thank a writer for a great article. But after seeing more and more toxic comment feed blowups, I just know we’d be better off without all the public discourse.
It is not angry about something being political. As has been stated multiple times, it is about wanting both sides of the coin represented and written about. Nothing wrong with handling an issue in society that relates to baseball, but when there are so many different views it would be nice to see both sides represented in the writing.
So you’re looking for the Fangraphs article that argues that Trevor Bauer’s behavior is really cool and edgy, right? That’s what you want? That would make you happy? That’s what you need to make your experience here worthwhile? Do I have that right?
Not talking about any specific situation. As for Bauer, the only thing I recall he really did wrong was throw a ball over centerfield during a game. That was childish.
Of course not. You can’t make this about a specific instance because then you’d be forced to argue on the merits instead of holding up “silencing conservatives” or some other vague nonsense as your talisman against the mean liberals.
Just because it isn’t about one specific situation doesn’t mean there aren’t many situations that would come in to play here. Why focus in on ONE when there are many that seem to have the same tone here. “mean liberals”? Often misguided, yes. But mean, no, that would require taking much of what they say seriously.
You’re awfully damn dedicated to this cause for some one that supposedly doesn’t care.
Doesn’t care about what?
I totally disagree, that was a great throw.
Billionaires Taking Money From Foreign Teenagers: Why It’s Actually Really Good
Minor Leagues: Reeks of Poor People, Let’s Get Rid of It
Ayn Rand For Commissioner
Look man, there is a bankruptcy of ideas popular with the public on one side now, which is why you see one party now being open about misinformation and voter suppression and gerrymandering and enforcing minority rule. It stopped being about ideas and policy and governing long ago but it got really bad when the polling got irreversible. If you can’t win on ideas you have to subvert democracy or lose.
Remind me to never again begin a paragraph with “Look man” — Biden stole my rhetorical flourish and I don’t need it back because it’s cheesy AF.
ETA – I also HATE that George Thorogood song (shudder). You can have a 15 minute song but it can’t just be 3 verses and 25 choruses. Gotta have some solos in the middle! Even people addled enough to like Phish don’t want to hear the chorus repeated for 10 minutes. Bob Seger, I see you too bud.
To be clear, and forgive me if I’m out of context, you want to FG to censor opinions/concerns that go against groupthink? Even if you think someone’s opinion sucks, there is no reason it should be deleted if it is not hurtful or inflammatory.
It’s not a “mild inconvenience” either. It’s a shift in tone from what drew a lot of us to FG in the first place. You have the right to voice your concerns for social issues, and we (especially paying members) have the right to voice our concerns in a respectful manner.
Yeah. Bad opinions don’t deserve to be broadcasted. No, I’m not talking about yours, but others I’ve seen. I’m just so sick of it. I’m sick of the apologists for billionaire owners, the people who choose team colors over holding horrible humans like Trevor Bauer accountable for their actions, the people who think social issues such as race aren’t prominent in the sport. Why bother tolerate that? It’s hazardous. And I’m so sick of it. How is that productive?
There’s no shift in tone. You’re upset because you want to ignore everything that happens in the world that you’re too privileged to experience. That’s the truth. This sport is as white and right-winged as it gets.
What more do you want? This website has only improved year after year. There’s constant interface updates. They got Roster Resource last year. There was just an incredible week of prospect coverage. ZiPS is one of the premier projection models available to the public. And above all else, there wasn’t a remote dip in quality of content despite the fact the staff was likely on a significant pay cut. And you’re mad there’s 2-3 articles a week that tackle the social issues that are extremely prevalent to the future of the game? Come on.
What’s been said that has put you off? Kevin Mather wasn’t worth covering? It’s not right to mention Trevor Bauer’s history? Covering Mickey Calloway/Jared Porter isn’t important? The racial unrest last summer and MLB’s poor response just isn’t worth it? A lot of shit happened. Nobody attacked anyone. People from different backgrounds shared their perspective of why these issues are integral to the game’s future on a litany of fronts. That’s not some political shift – that’s important commentary. Because you don’t face it doesn’t mean it’s not worth it.
I think people just want to complain. Is the site as incredible as it was when Jeff and Dave were here? No. How could it be? They were brilliant and there’s a reason they were hired for prominent positions with teams. The public sphere of baseball analytics grew exponentially because of their contributions. But the people here are also great. Guys like Jeff and Dave aren’t easily replaceable, but Meg and David did a great job.
You can ignore the social commentary. There’s plenty to read, plenty of queries to run, and plenty of tools for analysis. I just don’t get it. Yes, as a paying customer, by all means bring issues up to those in charge. There’s stuff I don’t love either and I make note of it in the comments when I feel the need to. However, this is becoming ridiculous here. This is a chat transcript. Who comments on a chat transcript? There was one aggressive comment Meg chose to take and it somehow made people mad. She addressed it in the chat and in the comments. Frankly, the “Oh shucks Fangraphs ain’t what it once was” just feels like people who for some reason dislike Meg and want to create some ridiculous narrative.
I don’t know. I’m just over it. The comments on this site have become toxic. The fact people don’t just ignore content they aren’t interested in and just read things they are interested in baffles me. But to insinuate this site is worse because you choose to be insecure is absolutely ridiculous
You seem extremely bitter. Bauer a horrible human being? Wow, very harsh, and I thought I was a judgmental person. Love the comments about “privilege”. Life is not fair, get over it. People are born into many different situations, what you do to improve your situation is what matters. The racial unrest and MLB’s poor response? You mean the riots and looting that occurred thought-out the country? Yes, that should have been covered and condemned more.
The problem is not covering all of the different things you mention, the problem is there not being multiple sides to what is covered. One of the aspects that has made this country great for so long is the ability to have different/opposing views on topics, discuss them openly, continue to disagree at the end of the discussion, and walk away still respecting the other person. Sadly, that has been lost and it has become more of the mentality that, “if you disagree with this side, you are a bad person.” Makes that side that judges that way, lose most of its credibility.
Bigots don’t need a platform. It must be nice to be as privileged as you. Guess it’s just “tough luck!” to people who were never given a chance in America. Contrary to what Tucker Carlson tells you, many don’t have a chance.
But, I’m not going to indulge an idiot. Your hateful views don’t deserve a platform or representation. You are privileged enough to turn the other cheek and be mildly convinced by headlines of articles you don’t read and express your unfounded displeasure in the comments.
I’m tired of being on here and trying to have discourse with idiots who don’t care. If you want people who represent you, go to Barstool. I’m glad FanGraphs is a platform that I never need to log on and worry about something out of touch that a writer said or doubt the credibility of the management team. That’s sincerely how I feel.
Your views aren’t worth dignifying with further response. Don’t use your bipartisan establishment excuse bullshit to try and give more idiots a platform. More than enough do. Again, this is a chat transcript that got overrun with idiots because they want to complain. And again, I hope perhaps comment moderation is more closely monitored, because this Barstoolian aura of the comments section concerns me.
Yeah, I’m mad. Mad that people still choose to be so ignorant. It’s 2am and for some reason I decided to circle back on this. Alas.
You seem to be the one spouting hate on here. Hate doesn’t do anyone any good, learned that a long time ago. No need to hate anyone. Tucker Carlson, I know the name, never have listened to him though. Bigot, idiot, ignorant, out of touch, privileged; you disagree with someone so your course of action is to just spew insults their way, very sad mentality.
You need to sit down around a fire with a few beers and just hang out with people who think differently than yourself and just talk. Might do you some good and help keep that anger at bay.
This from the same person that bitches and moans endlessly about FG because they say stuff he disagrees with. Sometimes I am honestly jealous of the ability to live in such an absurd fantasyland as you people seem to inhabit.
Maybe you have missed the numerous times where it is stated that the issue is not about an opinion one disagrees with, but that the other side of the coin is not also represented. That is the heart of the issue. There is nothing wrong with, its even beneficial, for there to be different opinions, but we need to be able to respectfully discuss those different opinions and not simply shout insults towards others because they aren’t of the same mentality.
Other side of what? Bauer being an asshole? MLB trying to change the rules of a bargain after the fact? But no. You don’t argue with the analyses or even the conclusions of the writers. You just drive by with an amorphous complaint of bias. There is no reason to take it seriously. You people got extremely butthurt about Trevor Bauer being used as a comparison to Marcell Ozuna. You find grievance everywhere, and then whine when people dismiss your whining as childish nonsense. I’m sorry that I don’t think your undefined ramblings about bias are worthy of discussion. I don’t think FG is missing anything in regards to worthwhile positions to consider. Most of what is written on FG is inherently written from the team perspective. But you can’t see that because some level of balance looks like extreme bias to you. But that’s because you’re working from a starting point that expects the team perspective to be king. But why? It’s because you’ve been duped. I don’t say that as an insult. It’s just the truth. Most people have been duped by pro-management and “America” culture into lionizing ownership. Maybe you should grab some beers and sit by a fire and think about that?
@TKDC you have made me feel sane throughout this entire thing. I swear sometimes it feels like it’s 200 people like this and that’s it.
I think there are really way more sane people, but most of them are not so dumb like we are to get suckered into a 80-comment troll-fest.
Not sure what you are referring to with the Bauer and Ozuna comment and who this “you people” group are you are referring to there.
It is obvious that you don’t see a need for the other perspective on different topics because you view yours as right, no need for a counter argument if you think the side you are on is the only one that can be good.
“You people” are the drive by trolls that provide nothing but amorphous complaints of bias. And as a thought experiment why don’t you read your second line and apply it to yourself? You are so sure there is some nefarious bias but you won’t for a second consider that perhaps, maybe, possibly, it could just be the case, that you’re wrong? Quite the irony.
I agree that those who simply complain aren’t helpful to the conversation. I also think you are still completely missing the point. The point isn’t about who is right or wrong. It is about sharing both views, or in some cases more than two views on a topic and simply hearing others out. We can hear one another out, walk away disagreeing and still respecting one another. That is what seems to be missing in so much communication nowadays. Instead there is a lot of “you are wrong, and you are a bad person.”
I also want to support my favorite team in this competition I am going to help you in making FanGraphs sustainable. Will you please tell me how to do it. If you are starting a new business in pig farming then I suggest you https://www.ogscapital.com/article/pig-farm-business-plan-template/ this site. Their services are very good and they have experts who make your business plan. If you take their services you never regret.