Master Index of Archived Threads


Jon Heyman resolves to be an idiot.

metsguyinmichigan Jan 03 2011 12:23 PM

Here are some selections from the cliched New Years resolutions column he mailed in today, with the usual Jeter love and Mets cheap shots. Jerk. [url]http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/jon_heyman/01/03/new.years.resolutions/index.html 7. Brian Cashman. I will continue with our efforts to build our farm system ("the Yankees have one of the best around,'' says one competing GM) but next time I have a chance to acquire a true difference maker, I will not let an Ivan Nova or an Eduardo Nuņez stand in the way. I will also try my best to make nice with Derek Jeter. 8. Derek Jeter. Hard as it might be to avoid carrying hard feelings into the season, I will put them aside for the good of the team and continue to carry myself with dignity and class. 9. Alex Rodriguez. I will continue to avoid putting my foot in my mouth, and continue to avoid hanging with my cousin (at least not at the ballpark). 17. Bert Blyleven. I will consider myself fortunate when I am voted into the Hall of Fame, and understand that while I had a great career, I am not Tom Seaver or Steve Carlton but rather Don Sutton and Phil Niekro, near-great pitchers who were borderline candidates who gained enshrinement. I will also thank the small coterie of Internet zealots who kept calling attention to the value of strikeouts, shutouts, complete games, longevity and durability and helped me rise from 14 percent of the votes in my second year of eligibility to more than 75 percent and act gracefully upon hearing the expected good news. 18. Roberto Alomar. While tempted to lash out about the first-ballot oversight last year, I will take the high road and accept my fate as a second-ballot Hall of Famer. 19. Dave Parker. I resolve to get my own Internet campaign going, as I have to be the most underappreciated player of my generation. I know I was a better all-around player than Jim Rice and others that are in the Hall but if my new campaign doesn't take hold, I won't let it consume me. 29. Carlos Beltran. I will hope my knee holds up and I can put together a great first half so I don't have to spend more time than that playing for the Mets. 30. Jose Reyes. I will make the most of my walk year. 31. Jason Bay. I will do my best to prove I am worthy of my $66-million free agent contract.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 03 2011 12:26 PM Re: Jon Heyman resolves to be an idiot.

Rumor has it that Beltran would prefer to play in Beirut.

metirish Jan 03 2011 12:29 PM Re: Jon Heyman resolves to be an idiot.

These assholes always pepper their articles with shit like this " "the Yankees have one of the best around,'' says one competing GM)" , they are such fucking twats.....

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 03 2011 12:31 PM Re: Jon Heyman resolves to be an idiot.

I will also thank the small coterie of Internet zealots who kept calling attention to the value of strikeouts, shutouts, complete games, longevity and durability... Otherwise known as "everyone else in sports journalism this side of Chass."

Ceetar Jan 03 2011 12:36 PM Re: Jon Heyman resolves to be an idiot.

Heyman has been on an anti-Nats tirade for a while now, about how Grienke dissed them (I'm actually not sure if it's anti-Nats, or pro-Nats as a darkhorse 'good' team.) he seems to come out with new info all the time about how he didn't want to go there. (And I really thought I'd unfollowed Heyman. wonder if people are retweeting him too much.) Also, I'm pretty confident that Beltran would like nothing more than a contract extension and to stay with the Mets. And personally, I'd love it if he can have some sort of health "breakthrough" that would make it not a poor decision from the Mets side.

Edgy DC Jan 03 2011 12:40 PM Re: Jon Heyman resolves to be an idiot.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: I will also thank the small coterie of Internet zealots who kept calling attention to the value of strikeouts, shutouts, complete games, longevity and durability... Otherwise known as "everyone else in sports journalism this side of Chass." Strikeouts, shutouts, complete games, longevity and durability? Who are the dorks that value these things and why are we letting them ruin baseball? What exactly am I supposed to value again?

Ceetar Jan 03 2011 12:48 PM Re: Jon Heyman resolves to be an idiot.

Heyman responding to people more often lately it seems. Having a debate with Megdal on twitter right now.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 03 2011 12:50 PM Re: Jon Heyman resolves to be an idiot.

Isn't that strange? Is there anyone who doesn't think that "strikeouts, shutouts, complete games, longevity and durability" are good things? I'm not at all convinced that Blyleven, Niekro, and Sutton belong in the Hall of Fame (if it were up to me, the Hall would be very exclusive) but I definitely want guys on my pitching staff who provide strikeouts, shutouts, complete games, longevity and durability.

Edgy DC Jan 03 2011 12:54 PM Re: Jon Heyman resolves to be an idiot.

You're just another internet shutouthead. Guh! You make me sick!

metsguyinmichigan Jan 03 2011 01:30 PM Re: Jon Heyman resolves to be an idiot.

Edgy DC wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: I will also thank the small coterie of Internet zealots who kept calling attention to the value of strikeouts, shutouts, complete games, longevity and durability... Otherwise known as "everyone else in sports journalism this side of Chass." Strikeouts, shutouts, complete games, longevity and durability? Who are the dorks that value these things and why are we letting them ruin baseball? What exactly am I supposed to value again? Intangibles. of course. Blyleven is a borderline guy, and I don't think the Hall would be shamed by his presence. Rizzutto, Gordon and Lazzeri take care of that. But I hate the whole "Internet campaign" thing he keeps throwing out there to cheapen people's opinions. What, these days, is NOT an Internet campaign? Does he think that the campaign to get Rizzutto in the Hall, if conducted today, would not be the Internet? Since Heyman himself is on the net, is he an "Internet zealot?"

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 03 2011 01:40 PM Re: Jon Heyman resolves to be an idiot.

Edgy DC wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: I will also thank the small coterie of Internet zealots who kept calling attention to the value of strikeouts, shutouts, complete games, longevity and durability... Otherwise known as "everyone else in sports journalism this side of Chass." Strikeouts, shutouts, complete games, longevity and durability? Who are the dorks that value these things and why are we letting them ruin baseball? What exactly am I supposed to value again? WINZZZ! WINNERZZZ MAKE WINZZZ!

Valadius Jan 03 2011 01:46 PM Re: Jon Heyman resolves to be an idiot.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: I will also thank the small coterie of Internet zealots who kept calling attention to the value of strikeouts, shutouts, complete games, longevity and durability... Otherwise known as "everyone else in sports journalism this side of Chass." Strikeouts, shutouts, complete games, longevity and durability? Who are the dorks that value these things and why are we letting them ruin baseball? What exactly am I supposed to value again? WINZZZ! WINNERZZZ MAKE WINZZZ! And, apparently, we're supposed to value All-Star teams and Cy Young votes, despite the fact that neither are actually earned by any physical motion on a baseball diamond.

seawolf17 Jan 03 2011 01:48 PM Re: Jon Heyman resolves to be an idiot.

Valadius wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: I will also thank the small coterie of Internet zealots who kept calling attention to the value of strikeouts, shutouts, complete games, longevity and durability... Otherwise known as "everyone else in sports journalism this side of Chass." Strikeouts, shutouts, complete games, longevity and durability? Who are the dorks that value these things and why are we letting them ruin baseball? What exactly am I supposed to value again? WINZZZ! WINNERZZZ MAKE WINZZZ! And, apparently, we're supposed to value All-Star teams and Cy Young votes, despite the fact that neither are actually earned by any physical motion on a baseball diamond. I think All-Star teams and Cy Young votes are extremely relevant in the HoF discussion.

Edgy DC Jan 03 2011 01:49 PM Re: Jon Heyman resolves to be an idiot.

Yeah, well, Phil Niekro has more WINZZZ than Tom Seaver. I think what he values is guys who were the shizzle at their peak, however misrepresentative that may be of their careers. He wants a few 22-6 years in there.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 03 2011 01:51 PM Re: Jon Heyman resolves to be an idiot.

seawolf17 wrote: Valadius wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: I will also thank the small coterie of Internet zealots who kept calling attention to the value of strikeouts, shutouts, complete games, longevity and durability... Otherwise known as "everyone else in sports journalism this side of Chass." Strikeouts, shutouts, complete games, longevity and durability? Who are the dorks that value these things and why are we letting them ruin baseball? What exactly am I supposed to value again? WINZZZ! WINNERZZZ MAKE WINZZZ! And, apparently, we're supposed to value All-Star teams and Cy Young votes, despite the fact that neither are actually earned by any physical motion on a baseball diamond. I think All-Star teams and Cy Young votes are extremely relevant in the HoF discussion. They're evidence of evidence. Not that how others once viewed the thing at a very particular moment isn't interesting, but I'd rather look at the thing itself. /Keep on Nestin'

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 03 2011 02:06 PM Re: Jon Heyman resolves to be an idiot.

Edgy DC wrote: Yeah, well, Phil Niekro has more WINZZZ than Tom Seaver. I think what he values is guys who were the shizzle at their peak, however misrepresentative that may be of their careers. He wants a few 22-6 years in there. Blyleven DID have a couple of years that were great like that (1973 and 1974... 1985, 1988). It's just that Heyman's looking at the wrong damn thing to judge individual performance/greatness. In 1973, he put up a 2.52 ERA and 158 ERA+ while striking out 258, walking 67 (!) and putting up a league-leading 9 SHO and 25 CGs (!!) in 325 innings... but he was 20-17. So he finished in the voting behind guys like Catfish Hunter and reliever John Hiller, all because of wins. He was almost as good the next year-- 249 Ks/84 BB, 2.66 ERA, 142 ERA+-- and got NO Cy votes (see: 17-17 record). Hell, he had a couple more years in the 150 ERA+ range or 5-6 WAR range in which he got no Cy votes. So, yeah, what I'm saying is, he had something of that peak, only without wins... and that using Cy voting to figure out HOF-iness is kinda sucky methodology.

seawolf17 Jan 03 2011 02:11 PM Re: Jon Heyman resolves to be an idiot.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: I will also thank the small coterie of Internet zealots who kept calling attention to the value of strikeouts, shutouts, complete games, longevity and durability... Otherwise known as "everyone else in sports journalism this side of Chass." Strikeouts, shutouts, complete games, longevity and durability? Who are the dorks that value these things and why are we letting them ruin baseball? What exactly am I supposed to value again? WINZZZ! WINNERZZZ MAKE WINZZZ! And, apparently, we're supposed to value All-Star teams and Cy Young votes, despite the fact that neither are actually earned by any physical motion on a baseball diamond. I think All-Star teams and Cy Young votes are extremely relevant in the HoF discussion. They're evidence of evidence. Not that how others once viewed the thing at a very particular moment isn't interesting, but I'd rather look at the thing itself. /Keep on Nestin' Problem is, you have to look at context, because whereas the thing is important, context is relevant for sports. You can't ignore the fact that Ozzie Smith won thirteen Gold Gloves and started twelve ASGs at short or whatever; there are situations where the HoF should transcend statistics, both for good and for bad. It's not just about magic numbers.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 03 2011 02:19 PM Re: Jon Heyman resolves to be an idiot.

seawolf17 wrote: seawolf17 wrote: Valadius wrote: Edgy DC wrote: I will also thank the small coterie of Internet zealots who kept calling attention to the value of strikeouts, shutouts, complete games, longevity and durability... Otherwise known as "everyone else in sports journalism this side of Chass." Strikeouts, shutouts, complete games, longevity and durability? Who are the dorks that value these things and why are we letting them ruin baseball? What exactly am I supposed to value again? WINZZZ! WINNERZZZ MAKE WINZZZ! And, apparently, we're supposed to value All-Star teams and Cy Young votes, despite the fact that neither are actually earned by any physical motion on a baseball diamond. I think All-Star teams and Cy Young votes are extremely relevant in the HoF discussion. They're evidence of evidence. Not that how others once viewed the thing at a very particular moment isn't interesting, but I'd rather look at the thing itself. /Keep on Nestin' Problem is, you have to look at context, because whereas the thing is important, context is relevant for sports. You can't ignore the fact that Ozzie Smith won thirteen Gold Gloves and started twelve ASGs at short or whatever; there are situations where the HoF should transcend statistics, both for good and for bad. It's not just about magic numbers. Magic numbers... like 12 or 13 Gold Gloves? One big problem is that All-Star voting (and Gold Gloves, frankly) is mostly a popularity contest; this was even truer-- regardless of whether it was fans or journos or players voting-- prior to the internet's existence. There are FAR better ways to compare candidates to their peers by era/year-- hell, why than by looking at what other people's ill-informed opinions of their performance. You're not getting performance context when you look at awards/votes... you're getting political context. Plus... even assuming performance/voting-result fidelity within ASG/award votes... what if a guy's only the third-best center fielder of his era, but, say, the fifth or sixth best of all-time? A guy shouldn't be double-penalized for playing in a loaded era, no?

Edgy DC Jan 03 2011 02:20 PM Re: Jon Heyman resolves to be an idiot.

Yeah, but the All-Star Game: [list:2liew7pk][*:2liew7pk]is voted on by children, to a degree;[/*:m:2liew7pk] [*:2liew7pk]is selected by a single manager (sometimes a particular less deserving player's manager), to another degree;[/*:m:2liew7pk] [*:2liew7pk]self-perpeutates it's participants, to a degree;[/*:m:2liew7pk] [*:2liew7pk]rewards first halves over second halves, to a large degree;[/*:m:2liew7pk] [*:2liew7pk]has a selection system that guarantees one selection per team.[/*:m:2liew7pk][/list:u:2liew7pk] It's not a particularly fair picture. And we're going for the fairest. I'd want my career judged with some scientific detachment.

metirish Jan 03 2011 02:22 PM Re: Jon Heyman resolves to be an idiot.

All this quoting, I have a pain in me eyes..... The HOF becomes relevant five years after a certain player retires.

Edgy DC Jan 03 2011 02:23 PM Re: Jon Heyman resolves to be an idiot.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Plus... even assuming performance/voting-result fidelity within ASG/award votes... what if a guy's only the third-best center fielder of his era, but, say, the fifth or sixth best of all-time? A guy shouldn't be double-penalized for playing in a loaded era, no? Duke Snider, a top-ten or so all-time centerfielder, even though he woke up most mornings as the third-best in town. Trammell, of course, has to deal with the quality --- and insane popularity of --- Ripken, when he counts up his All-Star trophies.

Valadius Jan 03 2011 02:23 PM Re: Jon Heyman resolves to be an idiot.

Here's the problem - we all know that the process for selecting the All-Star teams, Gold Gloves, and Silver Sluggers is rife with inherent flaws and lacking in transparency, and that voting for MVPs and Cy Youngs failed to account for a variety of then-discounted or uninvented statistics in those years and wildly overweighted wins and winning percentage. So why should we put so much stock in honors that are conferred by secret ballot, ballot-stuffing, or general ignorance rather than what someone actually accomplished on the field?

Benjamin Grimm Jan 03 2011 02:24 PM Re: Jon Heyman resolves to be an idiot.

metirish wrote: All this quoting, I have a pain in me eyes..... Yes.

seawolf17 Jan 03 2011 02:26 PM Re: Jon Heyman resolves to be an idiot.

I'm not saying it's solely based on the voting, but public opinion of a player's "fame," if you will, at the time he or she played, should be a piece of the puzzle.

metsguyinmichigan Jan 03 2011 02:27 PM Re: Jon Heyman resolves to be an idiot.

I can see All-Star seasons and Cy Young votes as only one part of the discussions. Fan and writer votes? Ick. But I think writers tend to use those to support decisions they've already made to vote for or against a candidate. Remind me again how many Cy Young awards Nolan Ryan has? Yet he was a first-ballot. Bret Saberhagen has two of the awards, and he's not going to Cooperstown without a ticket. I suspect Hayman will happily vote for a Yankee schulb like Andy Pettitte, and suddenly the number of Cy Young awards won't matter.