from Amazon
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Unearned things
Because I can’t stand the concept of “unearned” runs, while at the same time not having an “unearned” hit and “unearned” strikeout and “unearned” walk (if you are going to reconstruct the inning, don’t just obviate the runs… obviate all the events), I enjoyed reading this article again.
The entire concept of doing a half-a$$ed job of an arbitrary, biased, and capricious nature bothers me like crazy. Let the data recorders record, and let the data analysts analyze. I don’t want the data recorder to start tell me what is earned and not, and what things would have happened by reconstructing innings. Ugh.
While there are no right or wrong positions to take on matters of opinion, this one is an exception. As Michael noted in the article:
If it were proposed today, this idea would be dismissed out of hand, no matter who advanced it. If it had come from the blogosphere, people would use it as an example of the inferiority of the Internet. If it had come from a respected columnist like Peter Gammons or Thomas Boswell, people would wonder if senility was setting in. Absolutely no one would take this idea seriously. So why should it be any different just because the idea originated in 1888 instead of 2004?
This mode of thinking is one that often guides me. Draw a blank slate. Would you actually propose this rule? No way. Michael is right.
Did you know that NJ has some laws on its books (in force right now!) that treat women as property?
So, f-ck historical idiocy. ERA is dead. Long live RA9.
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 1 of 344 pages 1 2 3 > Last »Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date