State of the Prospectus

Great news (except for Joe leaving). I'm very excited about Cot's Contracts as well as the other additions. I'm curious - will Nate be writing some articles in 2010?

Very excited about the new content. Keep up the good work.

I want to note that I am sad to see Joe go. I'm a longtime subscriber, and increasingly, there seem to be mainly two sorts of articles at BP--articles focusing on increasingly marginal statistics using highly complex math, that don't really argue anything or come to some major conclusion, but instead spend paragraphs giving complex methodology to measure something, followed by a list. The list is sometimes merely a short list of leaders and trailers. If the teams/players you are interested in are neither, you never even see where they rank or rate. I think there is a place for work like this, but it is losing my interest. For example, reading pages of math on a computer screen to find out the Colorado Rockies were three runs better at something than the Reds last season, well, I've forgotten it an hour later.

The other type of article is the statistically informed opinion piece, filled with attitude and wit. I love these--this is mainly why I subscribe--and Joe and Christina are the main sources of these, and with Joe gone, that worries me.

This is a gross overgeneralization--Will's pieces don't fit into these category, and are great, and there are other exceptions as well. But overall, I'm worried.

I wrote something that was considered and tried to be balanced. Something about Joe leaving not being the last straw, but possible the straw before the last straw. But then the comment submission ate my comment and it poofed (not the first time this has happened!). So maybe it was the last straw.

Tarakas somewhat made the same point I was trying to make right above. Too many of the former, too few of the latter. I really hope the new writers are good at the informed opinion piece, because really, after 10 years of BP being my go to fix for baseball writing, the former just doesn't do it for me anymore.

(this time cut-n-pasted just in case...)

Oh, and Kevin .... and time to make the BP Annual available for download! :-)

As a long time Pittsburgh Pirates fan and Perrotto follower, I am very pleased to see his full time addition to BP. I'll miss Joe though. I always thought he would make a wonderful in studio analyst for one of the networks, as they lag so far behind the times in terms of bridging the gap between old school baseball thinking and modern day statistical analysis. Every front office seems to be featuring a stats guru now; why not the networks? Is the MLB Network a potential new gig for Joe? How cool would that be to see him working to get their in studio experts a little bit more versed and accepting of modern day statistical analysis?

Welcome on board John! Take care Joe! Looking forward to more from both of you.

Kevin: I'm sorry, but you buried the lead. You're the managing partner, the Lew Wolff of BP? Congratulations. Can you explain a bit about the ownership structure?

Please accept the directness of the question as exactly the type of thing you guys would ask of a baseball team.

Thanks.

Echoing some above sentiments, I hope that Sheehan's departure was his choice and not BPro's, and I hope Christina did not want to do TA anymore, and not BPro, b/c those are two of the last really good reasons to come here. I always felt their writing was the competitive advantage that kept BPro relevant compared to other sites....I'm just not sure what's left that's worth paying for.

Joe Sheehan is BP. Kevin, you've been a fantastic addition to the site (just as Jay and Nate have/had been before you). And of course Chris, Rany, Gary, Clay, et al., all deserve ample credit for their contributions over the years as well. But it was Joe's writing that brought me here, and that filled the huge void left for me during the late 90's and early 00's when Bill James wasn't publishing much of anything. That Joe filled that void with pieces written in the classic James style (terse, witty, intellectually honest, at times brash, but ultimately always well-reasoned) is what made me a devoted follower of the annual book, and eventually, this website. For the last several years, the annuals have suffered noticeably from Joe's absence, and now I believe the website will as well. I'm sorry, it's just a fact. You can still call it Van Halen if you want -- and, well, Eddie is still here -- but you done lost your lead singer.

The comment from Tarakas is exactly on point.

It seems to me that BP, in adding to its roster, is not asking the basic question "Is this person a good read?" Joe is a good read. CK is a good read. Steve Goldman, during one of his rare appearances, is a good read. Matt Swartz? Eric Seidman? Sorry, no, they are not good reads. Plowing through those articles is akin to grading term papers. John Perrotto? Wire service-style rehashes of topics covered multiple days earlier by Ken Rosenthal or MLB Trade Rumors or a dozen other free sites.

This is supposed to be fun. I think BP is losing sight of that.

Genuinely strange to realize Kahrl was BP's "Editor-In-Chief". Whenever reading CK my dominant reaction is "This indiviual would benefit greatly from some serious editing". One word, Kahrl. No, not "plastics"...pithy. Pithy is your friend.

How about a BP app for mobile phones .... ?

holgado said it all!

Change can be good...I'm not opposed. But, in order for my cash to continue to flow to BP, whatever replaces Sheehan better be darn good.

In addition to Joe's pieces i'm also gonna miss the chats, he was the best at sticking around and getting to almost all the questions. Will be missed.

We all subscribe for various reasons that likely distill to the content on the site--it is a media outlet after all. We pay because the content is worth it. Joe Sheehan is very good, attractive content--attractive in the sense that once you started reading him, you probably came back. Others are good, too.

What I find curious (and not pejoratively, rather intriguing) is that in this piece the site first touts its upcoming statistical development for the way it will advance how people think about the game, rather than the quality of the writing that will be adversely affected with Joe's departure. It's not really any of our business how you decide to deploy our subscription dollars until it starts to impact why we subscribe. It's the writing and analysis that most people pay for, not so much new metrics that may catch on in a few years. It's just something to think about.

Kevin,
That was a lame sendoff to Joe Sheehan, who is the best baseball writer around in my opinion. There are other writers at BP I like but like a number of other subscribers have already said, a lot of articles now read like homework.
The content ain't as fun as it should be.

Thanks, Nick

It seems trite to say "ditto", but I agree in principle with most of the "Joe is leaving!?" comments left so far. I will most certainly continue to give BP a chance (since my subscription runs through the summer), but I have my doubts about whether the articles - sans Sheehan - will be able to hold my interest. Prove me wrong. (Please.)

And to Joe Sheehan: you rock, and, as a fellow Yankee fan and great writer, will be missed.

BP would be better off forgetting trying to develop new metrics all together. It's always funny to see Christina try to use FRAA or similar BP-branded metric that has long been forgotten due to better data emerging.

Losing Joe isn't an issue with me, I've read 90% of his pieces on the site and in the past 12-18 months it's all become the same. I don't need to read Joe to know what he thinks about something, he's hammered his thought process home and I know where he will land.

I also much prefer Kevin, Christina and Steve's qualitative writing over the recent 'Prospectus Idol' trend of what seem to be auditions for a job as a high school statistics teaching position. Those writers are talented and the pieces seem well researched and well writen, I just don't really care to know which player gained 3 runs over the course of the season by being able to block the catcher's throw to second on attempted steals.

I'd probably stick around just for the TA's and Future Shocks but I don't read nearly as high a percentage of stories as I used to. The deal with Cot's sounds great and Christina spending more time writing is great news too. I can promise you that the one thing I don't need is a 5% improvement on QERA. I'd rather read Joe's 51st rant on the Marlins not spending revenue sharing then get another metric that is just telling me almost the same exact thing that 5 other sites have developed at the same time.

I just want to say that I'm here for KG & CK. The site is better than when I joined, and I'm happy CK is writing more. My only suggestion is that the sortable stats be made more universally sortable (like, why can't I just have access to *every* stat that there is, advanced or otherwise, through a selection process, on one page?).

Oh, and can CK write a book in which she Greil Marcus's Earl Weaver? Please?

Oh, and can we have 3 Future Shock Top 10's this week? Please?

Thanks for the update Kevin. I am grateful for the improved content in recent years. The addition of contract info is very exciting. I think BP is headed in the right direction as a one-stop shop for my baseball news and analysis needs. I know the site has statistical roots, however the news and commentary articles are of more value to me nowadays. I will miss Joe's chats, but not his pompous Yankee-centric commentary on the league.

Two items on my wish list:
1. Mobile app
2. A biography section on the site with contributors' backgrounds, interests, favorite teams, etc.

I had thought this update would be a little more, I dunno, dramatic. It seems like a shuffling of the deck chairs.

I agree there doesn't seem to be "fun" writing on the site anymore. To me, the articles look like BP stats in search of a story rather than a story that utilizes stats to make it better.

So much on the site seems forced into this method. I can't read the fantasy articles at all and the newer things appear to be efforts to produce statistics that have no practical meaning.

I hope this is just temporary like SNL biding time between quality casts. Where is you Eddie Murphy?

It's going to be a strange spring, reading BP without Joe and watching BBTN without Gammons. I really hope I don't spend the entire month of March staring wistfully at two very big pairs of empty shoes.

1. I will miss Joe immensely. He, and Kevin are the main reasons I subscribe.

2. Love the content here and appreciate the work you folks are doing to provide more. I echo the need more "good reading" sentiments, hopefully you guys are listening.

3. The main issue I have with BP.com is the website presentation and layout. I appreciate the fact that the site looks basically the same as it did when it first started (free of side clutter and ads w/in articles) but the usability has suffered immensely because of it IMO. Why is it such a pain to search and look at stats here? You mentioned new searchable Pecota cards which sounds great but frankly they're late. I've been a subscriber for several years (reader for longer) and plan on renewing again but my use of free sites, esp fangraphs and baseballreference have increased this past year and prob will continue simply because of their presentation of stats and ease of use (esp. sortability). Speed is an issue as well the articles are free of clutter but why do they take longer to load? I understand I talking about waiting 5/6 seconds more to load a page but it speaks to the general utility of the site from my POV. I could go on and on but my basic point point is- please update the website. The content here has never been and hopefully never will be the issue.

Thank you Joe for many insightful articles. Good luck!

Thank you remaining BPer's for a great site. Keep working on it.

I reiterate many readers' point that interesting reading (SG, KG, CK, et al.) is one of the main attractions here, so please keep it in mind. I also, however, like the additions (PizzaCutter, Colin, Eric, Matt) as I think there is still lots to be revealed stats-wise. Lots to do in pitch-by-pitch analysis and defense.

I think John Perotto is head-and-shoulders above 'wire service', by the way. And Matt and Eric have the writing chops---give them time to develop.

A lot of the fun left with Jim Baker. Not saying that BP hasn't remained interesting and informative but a little more whimsy while doing both would be welcomed.

The comment by Tarakas is up to +43 as I write this, so I know BP readers want to see more well-written "big picture" pieces.

BP sees what we want. I'm looking forward to finding out if the new hires and the new website format can deliver it.

No more Joe Sheehan? I guess I'll have to get my daily allotment of snark and passive aggressiveness somewhere else.

KG,

Thanks for the update. I'm excited about Cot's, and really excited about an updated player-card interface. I'll second the thought that I'd pay $60 for a subscription that has the player comments integrated.

Change is always tumultuous, and always invokes protests. We know how good Joe has been, we don't yet know how good the new blood is going to be here.

BP staff, who all seem to be on board for the big announcements:
This is great news! I find it all very exciting as I have felt for a while now that BP was losing it's edge on the competition, at least a bit. Becoming an even more rounded enterprise is the right path. Not to compare to loathsome big box stores, but one stop shopping is the way to go. I look forward to seeing it come on line.

As for Joe, it's his time to move on. I will miss his antidote nature as well, but surely he will appear elsewhere and still be our friend. I wish him the best and hope to read him in the highest profile locations possible.

Change is good. ;-)

Many others have covered my thoughts, but I wanted to add something here. (I too will miss Joe, though I'm sure he will pop up somewhere else we're familiar with anyway.) But the thing I want to bring up is the difficulty in finding a direction for BP and other sites in 2010 and beyond. A lot of the basic questions of statistical analysis in baseball have been, for lack of a better term, 'solved' for some time now. There are closer approximations here and there for hitters and pitchers, etc., but we have very good data now where we didn't 25 years ago. Furthermore, applications of this data have ranged far and wide. I think what many people here are complaining about, and which I agree with, are the often pedantic, squeezing-blood-from-a-turnip approaches to maybe suggesting an answer to a tiny question that comprise many articles here at BP. I used to read every. single. article. here, but now I often take a quick look and skip over to the next one. It’s not that I can’t handle the math – I love me some math - it’s that it’s not worth it. I’m a scientist; I understand that knowledge progresses by tiny incremental steps, but one still has to be interesting.

I think what most BP readers tend to find new and exciting are two things: One, fundamentally new additions to the available data, and their applications, foremost among them these days being Pitch f/x data. I would also count among these being able to look in detail at defensive statistics, and also added depth in contract and payroll analysis which has taken off in the last couple years, at BP and elsewhere. Will’s continuing evolution vis a vis his changing focus as an analyst of the meaning and significance of injuries and treatments is an excellent example of what BP ought to be doing more of. It seems to me that Kevin’s missive addresses these points more or less satisfactorily, though I would like to see one or two people at BP doing full-time Pitch f/x work. The second thing I believe BP readers want is good writing. I think that while we all justifiably scorn the ignorant, pot-stirring nature of much sports ‘journalism,’ we still like to read someone with strong opinions. The difference is that BP (or Fangraphs, or THT) readers will expect the opinions to be backed up with data. Joe carried much of this weight and it is for this reason that he was probably more important to whatever balance BP had than any other single writer. Hopefully the incoming people, and perhaps the existing writers, can cover for this absence, but his loss represents a weakening of BP’s already biggest weakness.

I expect that my $40 will constitute money well spent for 2010 and years to come, but I would ask that the BP staff constantly think about what it means to be in the forefront of baseball writing. It seems to me that by and large BP is doing a good job of things, but often tends on the statistics side to just kind of throw some pedantry up on the website until there’s a comfortable amount of number-crunching present. Numbers in the service of ideas, guys. We’re here for the ideas, the numbers come second, and sometimes need not come at all.

Good lord, give it a chance people.

I'm excited.

Kevin, with all this talk of fun and readability-clutchy-ness, can I make a plea to bring back the Prospectus Triple Play?

It would be great to have during the season every weekday (with a set schedule), a 3-team article, with capsules from TA (Christina), UTK (Will), notes (John), fantasy (Mark) and trends with a statistical slant. Let's capitalize on this cross-functional, cross-commenting trend, with a bit of aggregation, humor and style, by gosh.

Just my 2 cents, which can come from my premium subscription.

Oh, and Ken Funck, the BP Idol winner, can definitely be a fun writer. I would love to see him take over BP Today or something like it. Nobody here has mentioned him, and I think he was a very deserving winner of that competition. Use him!

I'll miss Joe, and I hope we hear something about where he's going.

That said, BP has found new voices over the years to keep me interested in the site; Will Carroll made me interested in sports medicine, Goldman made me (much!) more interested in the minors, and Perrotto made me more interested in the kind of writing I avoid elsewhere. All three came along when I was feeling a little bored with the site; I have faith that the site will continue to pique my interest in new ways.

I thought Joe was the best writer here. Joe has a distinctive voice, something that takes quite awhile sometimes to develop. I may learn more from other articles, but on the days that Joe posted, I generally read his article first.

I'm pessimistic about new statistics being developed within the closed BP community. The baserunning statistics developed by Dan Fox and housed here are the best on the Internet, but that tends to be the exception. Much more typical is that writers quote FRAA five years after play-by-play fielding metrics are available elsewhere. Surely, Russell, Eric, Colin, Tommy etc. are aware of this.

Kevin wrote: "Our goal is to overwhelm you with information, and keep you returning to the site several times throughout the day." Ugh. I'd rather visit the site once a day and be able to print or read all the new content quickly without having to check a series of blog entries that don't print right. I want quality analysis, not to be overwhelmed with information. Whether I'm in the majority or minority of your readers in this regard, I don't know.

My sense is that John does not replace Joe. His writing is competent but I don't think he resonates that well with your readership. He certainly doesn't seem to draw as many chat questions, and his writing seems similar to what I can get for free elsewhere.

Anyway, even though I'm grumpy hearing about Joe's departure, there is plenty I do like about BaseballProspectus.com. I've been a subscriber since you switched to that back in 2003 or so and hope that I keep finding it worthwhile to renew. Please make the most of my time and don't just deluge me with more articles written for ESPN.com readers.

I've been a BP follower since the beginning, and a subscriber since the site went to pay. I've turned many people on to this site, having highly recommended it for years, precisely because of Joe's contributions. But now with Joe gone, unfortunately, I won't be renewing. He was the one person left on the site that I still read.

Alright, a fair number of you have suggested that BP would do better with less of this or that in our articles. I ask you as a real live BP writer, and in a spirit of actually wanting to deliver a better product to the customer, what exactly is it that you are looking for?

I can understand not wanting to read things that sound like academic journals. What would you rather it sounded like? More snark? More Miley Cyrus references (oh yeah, I totally would)? I want to put the emphasis on the word "more" though. More looking at recent events? More looking at history? More work explaining how WXYZQQFJLDAs work? More application to individual players/teams?

If all I hear is that we want less of something, I soon have nothing to write about. So, start your sentences the way that Britney Spears would "Gimme gimme more..." I can't guarantee that I can give you everything you hope for, but if you've got an idea and it makes sense... well then I'd be a fool not to take it.

Allow me to interject a brief explanation of why the widely decried trends towards more arcane stat development and pigeonholed niche writing styles seem to be unstoppable.

I think baseball analysis / sabermetrics / whatever you want to call it is over the hill. Up until the 1980's it was a mega-business that was often being run like a flea market stall. There were massive inefficiencies in the market and that created great opportunities for those willing to take a more informed approach. Every Bill James Baseball Abstract annual throughout the decade introduced new, game-changing metrics and concepts that had immediate, real-world applications.

As we enter the tweens, this dynamic has shifted dramatically. We have reasonable estimations of value for almost all quantifiable aspects of the game. Decades of work by inspired minds has given us imperfect but acceptable answers to the majority of big-picture questions posed by James et al in the 80's. Advanced analytics are a major part of every MLB organization and this 'private sector' is now directly utilizing many of the best minds and researchers out there.

Enjoying baseball as it is played, evaluating personnel decisions of the past and present, and historical writing of a nostalgic or researchy bent will always be a wonderful thing to do. There are still important advances to be made: better defensive evaluation, trustworthy college / semipro league translations, and pitchFX and its cousins are all interesting fields of work, just to name a few.

But in the big picture of the development of baseball analysis, the majority of the work still to do is around the margins. Things like improving QERA by 5%. Those who were only invigorated by the huge, fast leaps forward have changed their focus. Bill James stopped writing his annual long before he was hired by the Red Sox. Nate Silver moved on to other work after creating a workable PECOTA system. Moneyball became a bestseller and a screenplay.

I'll always read BP and as much baseball writing as I can find time for, and I'll enjoy it as much as I ever have. But I recognize that the field as a whole is different than it was 20, 10 or even 5 years ago and have different expectations accordingly.

One quick additional comment about BP vs Fangraphs and other sites. First off, both sites are great. Second, as long as BP costs 40 dollars and Fangraphs costs No dollars, picky BP customers will expect the difference in quality between the sites to be proportional to the difference in price between the sites. Dividing by No dollars poses a problem, thus there will be an endless stream of "FG is a better value" comments.

I think the new developments at BP sound perfect. Use your subscriber base, funding advantage, and reputation as industry leader to hire everyone talented you can get your hands on, and let everyone do what they are best at. Dry sciencey writers, do your thing, do your research, contribute to the stats end of things, and I can read your abstracts when I'm in the mood. CK, your dense thickets of prose will always be unique, and always be my first read. Perotto IMO is a boring writer but will probably be a fine editor. Overwhelm us with content and stats, but make the presentation manageable and the UI simple. And if you want to really make people happy, get on the front of the internet intellectual property cost curve, and cut your price in half while you double your content.

Joe Sheehan not only was my favorite writer at BP, but my favorite writer period. His wit and humor combined with analyzing my favorite sport made me look forward to reading each and everyone one of his articles. I'll still remain a subscriber to BP for now, but he was the #1 reason why I pay a fee for BP.

Are there any non-obscure reference to 16th century Belgian military tactics?

Kidding aside, I am really excited about the blog portion. It basically sounds like you will use it the way people use Twitter, except you keep it on your site. For the life of me, I cannot understand why other web services use their content and hand over traffic to Twitter.

Wow, a ton of comments... and I've never seen any comment get a +96.

My take on the cacophony... I liked reading Joe because he always had an interesting, and at times, controversial perspective on things. He definitely had a unique voice. Yet, it seemed he was getting a bit burned out/bitter judging from some of the comment threads. I like him and I miss him, but I'll also wish him well.

As far as the value of a subscription goes, I can't read most of the content/columnists on ESPN.com nor many major or minor newspapers such as the New York Times, etc. I like the quality and variety for the price here. Of course, there are free statistical analysis sites out there, but if subscription models become the basis for internet business, I'm not sure how long those sites (or more importantly, the authors) will last as independents.

I am glad Christina will be writing full-time. Though she had a hectic job wearing both hats as a writer and as an editor, this should allow her to focus more on the writing side of things (and perhaps, free her from having to respond to typo complaints).

As far as the whole statistics vs style debate, I don't care as much about the "3 runs difference" question as I do about finding new ways to look at, analyze, compare baseball. Hit f/x, pitch f/x, heck even metrics like The Good Face. :) I love Eric's work primarily in that vein, and the works of some of the new authors like Colin and Russell, and our favorite Idol contestants. Shawn Hoffman's written some neat stuff too. It'd be nice to see a Silver or Rany piece once again, though.

Here is what I do care about though. If 2009 was a successful year for PEV, then why is the Baseball Prospectus 2010 clocking in at 24 less pages than 2009's Annual and $3 more expensive? 600 pages is the smallest annual since 2006 and even in 2009, the annual didn't even have an index. We've added all these new, wonderful writers to the site but they weren't invited to write anything? I liked the days where I could enjoy reading about EqBRR or MORP and 600 pages just seems a bit too small if there are as many new writers and new ideas at BP as is suggested...

My appreciation of BP's work, and my willingness to pay for it aren't contingent on whether or not Joe Sheehan is writing here, just for the record. He was a major part of the site, but so was Nate, and so were all the other major parts that left before them. They haven't been replaced by junk, and I look forward to seeing what BP has in store for 2010. Maybe we can relax with the rending of garments and "It'll never be this good again" hysteria until we actually see what a post-Sheehan BP looks like.

Improving the accuracy of the stats is a wonderful thing. And I think many here are thinking that there will now be more articles about stats. The stats will remain on the stats pages. The analysts will still be analyzing. The stats that they are using in that analysis will be better and more telling than in the past.
Some recent articles were a bit descriptive in the stats explanations (as opposed to analysis of same), but that is necessary when new concepts (and some of these are very new concepts - the economics angle is fairly fresh) are introduced. I trust the process.

Will BP continue to contribute to ESPN.com? The reason I ask is Neyer, Law and Grey are a pretty good 3, 4, 5 in the lineup and with BP articles sprinkled in, how is that not a better option at the same price?

I am debating making a switch, not enough time to keep both and isn't this setup the best of both worlds?

Clearly, the site re-design is going to have to wait so it can be Tablet ready ...

bflaff's comment above (which I couldn't directly reply to, for some reason) is exactly on point.

I've been a diehard BPer since my Strat-O-Matic league commissioner (C. Kahrl) convinced me to buy a copy of the very first BP annual. BP has always been, and will always be, a collective. There's a reason they don't put authors' bylines on the team comments, people; it's to emphasize the fact that BP is a collective.

I'll miss Joe; just as I missed Nate, and Gary, and Rany, and Keith Law, and Derek Zumsteg; and just as someday I'll miss Eric, and Colin. BP is dead; long live BP.

Is Nate Silver going to publish any articles going forward or is he strictly working on 538 now?

It seems I'm way behind on throwing in my two cents, but if anyone is still reading here it is, in brief:

1. It's redundant, but I'd be remiss not to mention how much I've enjoyed Joe's writing over the years. He'll obviously be missed.

2. More than I care about upgrades in some of the stats, and I'm not saying they're not important, I'd like to see a change in the structure and presentation of the stats currently available (and the site as a whole as well).
I think DanUpBaby of VivaElBirdos.com put it best:
"How useful would these BP stats be if their website wasn't designed and hosted in some wormhole that connects 1998 to 2009?"
I think I read above that this is being addressed and is, by far, what I most look forward to seeing.

3. Maybe I speak in the minority here, but one of the primary reasons I began subscribing to BP was for PECOTA projections. I'm glad to hear it's being moved out of EXCEL, and I hope many improvements will follow. That's the other thing I would most like to see.

I appreciate the open honesty and, while reserving judgement, I look forward to seeing the results of these changes.

I don't have any stake in BP or know any of the parties personally, but I am comfortable making the statement that if anyone can produce a writer of the quality being discussed (Silver, Sheehan, etc.) that will work full-time forever under the revenue model this site operates with, I'm sure BP will be happy to hire them. Seriously, for $35 a year, how much money do you think is here for these guys to split up? (I don't think the subscriber number is public and I don't think it should be. It's not our business.) These guys are at or near the top of their profession and should be compensated that way - even if they need to go somewhere else to get it. I would much rather lose the occassional writer to opportunities that improve their lot than have the BP team not reinvest in their product. If the departing writer wants to write about baseball, we will see them somewhere else anyway. I can go out on the weekend and spend $35 faster than Joel Zumaya can say "kegstand", so for 50+ hours a year of entertainment, I say it's a heckuva buy.

In summary, I don't hold BP's management team responsible for things they may not be able to control, only what I know they can control. I'm excited to see the forthcoming changes.

While I'm bummed to see Joe go, I'm excited about the influx of new talent to BP and the expansion of articles, writing styles/etc, and new/more accurate statistics and analysis.

Also, I can't wait to see the site redesign--a mobile friendly version of the site and/or iPhone app would be great to see!

Let me see if I can sum up the responses, and correct me if I get something wrong.

1) Most of you would like to see us inject a little bit more of our scintilating personalities into the work, so that BP doesn't start reading like the Journal of Applied Statistical Science. Extra credit will be given to obscure references to 16th century Belgian military history. Fair enough. (Note to self: go to library this weekend.)

2) People prefer applied topics or at least, as my grad school advisor liked to say, a good story to go along with your table. OK. Connect things in so that they are relevant. Sound advice for any writer.

3) People here aren't stat-phobic, cuz ummm, that's kinda the whole point... anyway, it seems that most people don't mind if we break out the major numerical nerdiness. (Y'all know that there are some writers who are more prone to that than others. Personally, I know that I look for excuses to pull things out of my statistical tool belt.) It's not everyone's thing, and that's cool. But it seems that people are hungry for more than just tweaks in the methodology, or at least to know what difference it makes if we tweak the formula for WXYZ42BNL makes a difference.

In other words, after the digit gymnastics, we need to be able to answer the question "So what?"

Joe is an excellent writer but over time I enjoyed his tone less and less. As someone mentioned earlier, his views became predictable and while he work was always thought-provoking, I found his writing to become increasingly arrogant over the past few years. I can't say BP will be better off for Joe's departure but there are many writers still here who make a subscription worth keeping in my view.

I do wish Joe well but I hope he can reintroduce more of a sense of fun into whatever he chooses to do next and discards some of the sarcasm and disdain that seems to shine through on anyone who dares disagree with him.

Does Tim Marchman have a full-time gig these days? He's an entertaining writer with a good grasp of the advanced metrics. He'd be a good fit for BP IMO.

Frankly, I like the more blogs idea.

I would love to see BP become more like fangraphs - well written, intelligent blurbs on what is going on. Ive never cared for Transaction Analysis or Hit List. The format is the issue - not Christina's writing style. They give me nothing I cant get elsewhere. Break it up into little pieces easier to digest and get them out quicker. Ive usually ready three or four analyses by the time TA is out. BP needs to stop being reactive and start being proactive again.

Not to go all Shakespeare on you, but the writing's the thing.

Look at the quality of the writing in the comments...this is a crowd that is intelligent and who, for the most part, can figure out how to put the peg from noun A into the slot of verb B. And those are only the subscribers who comment! Imagine the overwhelming majority who are just taking it all in without commenting.

Look, most are here for good writing about baseball, whether it's a style piece or a stats piece, whether it's the game, or the injuries, or the prospects, or the finances, or the history. If you write well, readers are engaged and want more. Even if they don't agree with the writer's point of view. Even if they don't understand the math. Even if they root for a small market team that will break the North American professional sports consecutive-losing-season mark this year and see yet another article about the blah, blah, blah effect on the Yankees' blah, blah, blah unless the Red Sox can blah, blah, blah. Ahem.

So there you have it-- if it's well written, we'll come and read it and enjoy it. So write well.

In that regard, I think having a professional writer turned editor in John Perrotto will help. Even good writers rarely get very far without good editors. And good editors make mediocre writers good and good writers great.

Finally, I'm glad there will be site changes. This thing looks and handles like something a sophomore computer nerd wastes time on in study hall. Circa 1998. Good lord, my 8 year old daughter's blog is smoother and crisper and more accessible. Gotta work on that, and I'm glad you are.

Looking forward to the season and to good writing from BP...

Cheers!

My goodness. I think people need to remember that we're paying under $40 a year for this site. We're paying like $3 a month. Something like 10 cents a day. While seeing Joe Sheehan leave is genuinely disappointing, I think people need to take a step back and realize that, while Fangraphs, etc is a great value for $0, Baseball Prospectus continues to be a great value for 10 cents a day.

I think one things that stands out in the above comments is that everyone really wants to see the quality of the writing remain high. I supervise/hire statisticians and analysts myself, and am painfully aware that finding an analytic mind that can also write is like discovering gold. What most impressed me the most about BP and led to my subscription was how tremendously accessible the writers made their analysis. Some of the articles by Nate Silver could easily have been used as examples of accessible analysis in graduate level courses.

I don't share as many of the concerns about the internal movements at BP, as long as BP realizes that it would be a mistake to sacrifice writing ability for statistics. Keep the analysis coming at a high level, but please stake your name on the ability to make it accessible and interesting.

I seem to fall on the opposite side of the spectrum from most commenters here. The reason I subscribe is so that I can read about cutting edge sabremetrics. While I loved reading Joe's pieces, baseball writing is ubiquitous. Stats articles are too, and it was getting to the point where I no longer felt BP was at the forefront of analysis. However, with the influx of these highly respected names for the first time being paid to work together, I am highly optimistic about the future of this website.

Others may be less likely to renew now based on the changes that were mentioned, but consider me one of the counterbalances.

Sad to see Joe go, but I have been sad in the past to see some of the other writers leave and BP keeps going on. This is my favorite website and it is one of the pleasures of my day to read the new content (or the old, try going back to some of the TA articles from several years ago; it is a blast to read analyses for deals and then have the advantage of hindsight).

I am reading a lot of negative comments about the site here and it disturbs me for two general reasons. One, we are talking about baseball; even when it is bad, it still pretty good. Secondly, the game has so many different angles to view it through that no one is going to love everything posted. I have read articles that have made my head hurt from all of the stats, but I am sure others loved it. I am also sure that I have read other articles that I adored that others hated. It is just human nature.

I have also seen comments about how certain statistical analyses do not provide a conclusion. Is that not the nature of stats? Sometimes, stats do NOT tell the story. Sometimes they are inconclusive. But a snippet of information from one study plus snippets from other studies can sometimes be put together to give you a conclusion. The pitch f/x studies earlier this year (I am still waiting for more) were wonderful (in terms of how the location of the pitch, release point, etc. all contribute to the effectiveness of the pitch). Sometimes you can’t get the whole story looking at just one angle.

What a lot of sound and fury. It's all a part of the new rush to judgment that is endemic throughout society. The new UI hasn't even come out yet, the new stats are unseen, and already people are writing 1,000-2,000 word comment screeds ripping it. Get a grip, people. You'll just have to wait and see. If this comment board were a class it would just be a bunch of people who are totally in love with the sound of their own voice, no matter how ridiculous or illogical their point. And seriously, edit yourselves. Blah blah blah

Good luck Joe - all of your fans here will find you wherever you write. That's another thing for all of you hand-wringers, you'll be able to find Joe. So you'll have more content, with BP blogs etc. AND Joe wherever he lands. Breathe in, breathe out. It'll be o.k., I swear.

After working with Tommy since he came onto BtB, I knew that he would be moving on up. His writing is heads and tails better than just a couple people out there. He will be a great addition and it will different not working with him.

After acquiring Marc and Tommy from BtB, who is next to join the BPro, Harry?

Agree with MightyMoGreen above...while I do appreciate the passion and sincerity evident throughout this comment thread (seriously...I've been riveted, I think its been great), I feel its important to remember two things.

First, that Joe leaving BP and new authors/statisticians joining BP are not necessarily intertwined events. Just because they are both happening around the same time does not mean that one decision caused the other.

Second, we haven't seen the changes yet. Kevin has stated that he believes we'll be impressed. It may not be a very BP-like thing to say, but I for one am willing to take him at his word. He and others have earned that level of trust from me over the last 12 years.

Rather than just take KG's word for it though, for what it is worth to people, here is a post from Tom Tang
o on the recent additions to the BP lineup:

"I love PizzaCutter as much as a virtual saberist can love another virtual saberist. Colin is great and I knew that Jeff was a perfect match for someone (BPro, B-R, or Fangraphs), and Idol or no Idol, it was a given that both these guys would make it to BPro if that’s what either wanted. Tommy is great and is a cross of Neyer and Phil. Eric has been excellent wherever he was. This is about as good as a Tango-approved team that BPro could have brought on board." (http://www.insidethebook.com/, blog post Jan 4. 10:43 am)

Now, my impression of Tango is that he is unafraid to be critical of front offices, other saberists, farm animals, and little old ladies if he feels that the criticism is warranted. So for him to endorse the new authors means something to me.

Is the new beer vs tacos debate?

Some of us want hard core, stats development/refinement articles that explore new terrain or nail down the nth decimal place.

Some of us want content-driven articles that are supported by relevant statistics.

Both have their place on BP, as both have driven my support of BP over the years, as I think is true with many of us.

But, I do second (or is it fivehundredthirtyeighth at this point?) the motion for the stats-only articles to have a better presentation. As said before, these articles do need an introduction, solid analysis, followed by a true conclusion. The intros and conclusions have been lacking of late.

All that said, I still love BP, and do hope the BP team take all the comments in this thread as they are meant, which is constructively.

OK folks .... raise your hand if you would buy a BP-logoed hat, shirt, jacket or similar item.

I know I would like to provide some free advertising for this site, and show my (financial) support for it as well.

Kevin ... can this be fit into the Prospectus Entertainment Ventures business plan?

The challenge for BP is to avoid what already appears to be a balkanization of the user base. Right now half the content seems to cater exclusively to the newer, less statistically-oriented users who have found BP as it has grown in fame. I put John's beat reporting, Kevin's scout-quoting and Marc's fantasy content here. Another bloc of writers seem to cater primarly to the really hard-core stat guys who seem interested in the stats for their own sake.

The middle ground is where I consider my interest to be. Intelligent use of statistics to make an interesting point is really what has kept me coming to BP. It's what Joe was best at and why he will be so powerfully missed. Christina, Steven and Jay are also very good at it, but their time commitments to the book have kept them off the site, to its great detriment. BP has to find new voices, or to increase the exposure of the ones it has, in the middle ground between the stat-heads and the drop-ins to keep its content fresh and unique and worth reading.

My unsolicited 2 cents. Some structural editing would be useful. Briefly mention your conclusion upfront, then statistically how and why you arrived at it, then finish with why the conclusion matters. It's easy for the guy who did all the research to shortchange the front and back parts. An editor can and ought to provide a useful check on that. Style editors are plagues. Structure editors return great value.

A certain percentage of your readers are angry that Brian Sabean is GMing the Giants and they're not. Joe fed into that anger pretty well. Those readers loved it when Joe ranted and raved about idiot baseball management, he spoke for them. I personally can do without that, very well, thank you. But if I were runnning PEV, I suppose I'd be looking at serving that part of my customer base, and refilling that emotional void somehow.

The question being raised here is this:

What are (and what should be) BP's core competencies?

If developing advanced stats is a core competency, then BP needs to invest in that and make sure that the stats they develop are better than those available for free. This is difficult, since there's a lot of competition, requires a significant investment, and does not allow for any period of neglect. I personally don't care as much about who's doing this job or the details of the stats - I just want to know that the stats are sufficient to the task for which they're being employed. But this is a case where if you're not going to invest in being the clear leader, then you should consider getting out of the business.

If providing informed commentary on current goings-on in baseball is a core competency, then BP needs to invest in writers who are informed, have a grasp of the relevant stats (wherever they may be developed), are good, engaging writers, have strong opinions, and are willing to write these kinds of pieces on a regular basis. This is what Sheehan did (and why he'll be missed), and what I enjoy most about BP. The danger here is that there are many many places throwing out opinion pieces, and you have to work hard to differentiate yourself, in BPs case by actually having brains.

Currently, BP appears to be trying to be a one-stop shop for everything - we have the injuries guy, the prospects guy, the contracts guy, the transactions gal, etc. - and that's fine, but comes with certain risks. There's a huge advantage (to me) that I don't have to click around to multiple sites to get all my info. On the other hand, it's impossible to stay "the best" at everything when you spread yourself thin - someone with a narrower focus can eventually beat you out in any particular specific area. And of course you'll alienate people who come here with a particular focus - the stats folks, for instance - and don't find the differentiation they're looking for.

It seems to me that some people want you to be "Science" and others want you to be "The Economist". None of us want you to be "Newsweek" or, God forbid, "ESPN The Magazine".

At the moment, I'm not convinced BP knows what it wants to have as its core competencies. Hopefully, they'll sort it out. Either way, I'm here for the duration, as I have been since rsb back in '89. Good luck.

Considering everyone here will have a chance to renew or not renew when the time comes, it just seems to me like while there has definitely been some interesting conversation here, an awful lot of the comments here are toying with some odd kind of Internet-age straw man.

I was a little surprised to learn BP writers are on contract rather than just salaried. I guess it gives both parties a little added flexibility.

BP needs a serious upgrade to the fantasy side. Norm does a good job but its not enough.

am I wrong in thinking the Joe Sheehan has had a sabbatical/break/change of gear from BP.com before and that it kept turning?