Conlin’s Losing Numbers [UPDATED TWICE: See end]

by Bill Baer on November 23rd, 2007
Posted in MLB, Media, Philadelphia Phillies, Sabermetrics | Print | 67 Comments »

As you might recall from late August, I picked on Marcus Hayes of the Philadelphia Daily News for his close-minded and immature diatribe against proponents of Sabermetrics in baseball.

I’ve found another target. Bill Conlin, also of the Philadelphia Daily News, recently wrote an article called Rollins’ Winning Numbers. Fire Joe Morgan has done a great job of dissecting his article.

I sent Conlin an E-mail, but before I reveal those, I’d just like to point out the snippet of his article which deserves much ire.

Despite his defensive contribution being backhanded by Red Sox front office stat man Bill James – baseball’s most influential cybergeek – the league’s managers and coaches awarded him a Gold Glove.

Apparently, James decided that a Range Factor based on successful chances (putouts plus assists) times nine innings, divided by number of defensive innings played is more important than the result – for example, a friggin’ out. Despite his No. 3 fielding percentage of .985 (behind Troy Tulowitzki’s .987 and Omar Vizquel’s .986) Rollins rated No. 15 in the James Range Factor. Fortunately, the baseball men who vote for the Gold Gloves depend on what they see, not laptop science. Jose Reyes, a nimble windshield wiper, ranked No. 25 in RF.

Here’s the Cliff’s Notes version of that article:

  1. Conlin attempts to insult Sabermetricians, who devalue Rollins’ defense compared to baseball statistical traditionalists, because he was given a Gold Glove anyway. Remember how meaningful the Gold Glove is when you are reminded that Rafael Palmeiro was given a Gold Glove at first base in a season in which he logged just 28 games at that position.
  2. Conlin shows his ignorance of basic math by making Range Factor out to be more complicated than it really is. Range Factor is (Putouts plus Assists) divided by Innings Pitched. Fielding Percentage is (Putouts plus Assists) divided by (Putouts + Assists + Errors). Which one is more “complicated”? In addition, he wrote, “James decided that a Range Factor [...] is more important than the result – for example, a friggin’ out.” If only the result of putouts and assists wasn’t “a friggin’ out.”

As many other “cyber-geeks” did, I decided to send Conlin an E-mail.

Hi Mr. Conlin,

Hope all is well. My name is Bill as well, and I run a blog called Crashburn Alley. Needless to say, I’ve read many of the blogs bashing your article, such as Fire Joe Morgan and the discussion at Baseball Think Factory.

So, I’m not going to bash you since it’s already been done. And hey, I already picked on your colleague Marcus Hayes.

I do want to ask you, though, what makes Rollins better than New York Mets third baseman David Wright as a National League MVP candidate?

Wright hits for more power (.546 SLG to Rollins’ .531), gets on base at a higher rate (.416 OBP to Rollins’ .344), fields his position about equally as well as Rollins fields his (shortstop is defensively more demanding, however, but not enough to make a huge difference), and has comparable speed to Rollins (34 SB, seven less than Rollins’ 41).

The Sabermetrics really make the case for Wright, but I know you’re not a fan of those and won’t waste your time with them.

What does Rollins do better, besides being a hairline better than Wright defensively and on the basepaths (whereas Wright is more than a hairline better than Rollins at getting on base and slugging, the two things a hitter is paid to do)?

My personal top-five NL MVP rankings would go Wright, Albert Pujols, Chipper Jones, Rollins, and Matt Holliday.

It’s a bitter pill for me to swallow — to make the case against Rollins — being a die-hard Phillies fan, but I try to be objective. I don’t even think Ryan Howard deserved the NL MVP award last season over Albert Pujols.

Thanks for your time,

Bill B. (Crashburn Alley)

Conlin deftly dodges my questions and stated facts with a simple response.

Know what, pal? Bash this. . .Tell your bloggers, my career against theirs. . .

If I felt like being smarmy, I could have pointed out to him that this is just an appeal to authority. A statement is not any more right because someone more important is saying it. For instance, is 2+2=4 any more correct if Albert Einstein says it than if George W. Bush says it?

Anyway, I let him know I was disappointed in his failure to address any of my points.

Well, Mr. Conlin, I have to say that I’m disappointed. I know your colleague Marcus Hayes responded with little tact, but I guess it’s a trait of those who work at the Daily News.

I will take it by your evasion of my questions and the facts I’ve stated that you are unable to make any legitimate case for Rollins over Wright for MVP. But, hey, whatever helps you sell papers.

You have given me an easy decision, with your tactless, factless response, not to ever buy a newspaper from the Philadelphia Daily News or to watch their program on Comcast SportsNet, at least until you and Mr. Hayes resign, or in a more likely scenario, are fired.

Hope you had a nice Thanksgiving.

– Bill B. (Crashburn Alley)

Note in my initial E-mail to Conlin that I identified myself as a Phillies fan, and in both E-mails, I linked him to my blog. So, there should be no confusion that I am a fan of any other team but the Phillies, right?

Wrong. He responded thusly.

Don’t you need to contact the 30 electors–including the two Mets beat writers–who failed to give write a single first place vote instead of a commentator who does not vote for the awards. You’re a Mets fan and you had your little bubble of arrogance and smugness burst. Your team choked big time, an epic gagaroo. At least the 1964 Phillies had an excuse–they were probably no more than the Cardinals, Reds, Braves, Dodgers and Giants that year. One question: When a Mets team chokes in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a gagging sound? Next time bring more to the table than wishful fan numbers that bear no semblance to reality. I wonder how it feels to be the Phillies bitch

That would hurt so much… if I was a Mets fan. I’m a Phillies fan making an objective case for David Wright.

So, this is twice now that a journalist from the Philadelphia Daily News has been both tactless and unable to present a legitimate factual case for anything they’ve posited. I truly hope that Conlin isn’t a microcosm of American sports media — ignorant and close-minded.

As for Wright over Rollins, the facts make it plain to see.

Rollins

.875 OPS (.344 OBP; .531 SLG)

41-for-47 in stolen bases

9th out of 14 qualified NL SS in Revised Zone Rating; third in Out of Zone plays.

Wright

.962 OPS (.416 OBP; .546 SLG)

34-for-39 in stolen bases

5th out of 12 qualified NL 3B in Revised Zone Rating; first in Out of Zone plays.

And that’s only using the most basic of Sabermetrics, and only for defense.

Wins Above Replacement Player (WARP), which accounts for both offense and defense in one handy statistic, puts Wright at 12.7 WARP. Rollins is at 11.5. For fun, Matt Holliday is at 11.9, but he’s purely a product of Coors field.

So, not only was Conlin disrespectful and close-minded, he was flat out wrong.

CORRECTION: Thanks to reader Double D for correcting me. I had said that Conlin voted for the awards this off-season, but Double D asserted that only active beat writers get to vote.

UPDATE: Conlin just responded with what may be the quote of the decade

I said:

Mr. Conlin,

I linked you to my blog, and I called myself a die-hard Phillies fan in my initial message to you. Remember? I said:

It’s a bitter pill for me to swallow — to make the case against Rollins — being a die-hard Phillies fan, but I try to be objective.

So, I enjoyed the Mets’ collapse as much as you did. :)

Though I don’t appreciate your tact, I do appreciate that you respond to those who contact you. A lot of journalists don’t even do that.

Toodle-oo,

Bill B. (Crashburn Alley)

Conlin said:

The only positive thing I can think of about Hitler’s time on earth–I’m sure he would have eliminated all bloggers. In Colonial times, bloggers were called “Pamphleteers.” They hung on street corners handing them out to passersby. Now, they hang out on electronic street corners, hoping somebody mouses on to their pretentious sites. Different medium, same MO. Shakespeare accidentally summed up the genre best with these words from a MacBeth soliloquy: “. . .a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. . .”

UPDATE #2: Conlin clarifies his Hitler statement. Before that, though, he said:

Just make sure you bring a higher level of literacy to go with your decimal points. Most of you guys are unreadable. That’s one of my gripes. And while many of you–not all–can get away with a level of insult and ridicule that would be actionable in a publication governed by standards and libel and slander laws, professionals must abide by those standards and laws. My columns are read by a minimum of three editors for fact, style, fairness and balance. Despite that scrutiny,errors still filter by the goalies. In my Rollins column that has upset so many of you, the only thing I would remotely take back was having Holliday performing his Game 163 heroics against the Diamondbacks when, of course, it was the Padres. D’Backs were on my mind as the soon-to-be-vanquished division champions when I wrote the line. Any editor worth his salt should have caught the error. However, most of them are so intent at catching the bad stuff they let the obvious error slip by. Who checks your facts and deletes a line that is over the edge of good taste or might demean or defame an athlete or subject? Did you take a course in the libel and slander laws? Or do you merely throw it against the wall and see what sticks? That’s what most of you do. I can’t pin that on you specifically because I have never read your blog.

I said:

Mr. Conlin,

Unfortunately, your words about Hitler have sparked quite a firestorm. I don’t think you actually meant what you said there…

As for your last response to my E-mail, you bring up a host of great points. Bloggers don’t have anyone to answer to besides advertisers (if any). However, the lack of censorship can bring about a lot of good things. Subjects that you’d never be allowed to touch (for instance, would you be allowed to have a pro-steroids article published?) can easily be covered by bloggers.

The hard work you and others have put in as journalists is something I truly admire and is something I am currently striving for myself. So, yes, I am familiar with libel and slander and all that journalistic stuff.

If you responded to your readers the way you just responded to me, you’d probably enjoy bloggers a lot more than you currently do.

Please let me know if you’d like me to post a clarification of sorts on my blog for you, as a lot of people took your words the same way I did — not very kindly. I never set out to sully your name, and feel bad that you’ve drawn much ire. And hey, it might be a golden opportunity to turn over a new leaf with bloggers.

Thanks for the discourse,

Bill B. (Crashburn Alley)

Conlin responded:

I think I’ll let the words I wrote after the death of my dear friend and colleague, the former local Associated Press Bureau Chief Ralph Bernstein and the nearly half century relationship my wife and I have had with Ralph and his family through good times and bad represent me against any contrived and baseless attempt to slime me as an anti-Semite. I was a speaker at Ralph’s Memorial service. Quite obviously, the Hitler line was used in a satiric response to what has turned into a concerted assault on my Jimmy Rollins column and on my career. It was quite obviously used in a personal e-mail. I did not publish the insulting things said about me. As editor of the Temple University News in 1960-61, I received death threats from the White Citizens Council after writing an editorial denouncing Gerald L. K. Smith and his anti-black and anti-Semitic hate-mongering newspaper “The Cross and the Flag.” I was one of the most outspoken critics of Marge Schott’s blatant anti-Semitism to the point some of my columns had to be toned down. Ditto my stand on Al Campanis, a friend, by the way, and Jimmy The Greek Snyder. I also had a long and close relationship with the late, great Dick Schaap, who wrote about my impact on The Sports Reporters at length in his autobiography, “Flashing Before My Eyes.” I am heartened that both a clear conscience and the First Amendment will be at my side.

  1. 67 Responses to “Conlin’s Losing Numbers [UPDATED TWICE: See end]”

  2. By John Brattain on Nov 23, 2007

    (shakes head)

    Well, I think I’ll comment on this at TPoSGD.

    Bottom line … I’m embarrassed by my profession.

    (sigh)

    Best Regards

    John

  3. By CharlieH on Nov 23, 2007

    I AM a Met fan, and Conlin’s comments don’t hurt me at all.

    The man is a fossil, raging against the passing of his obsolete epoch…

  4. By J on Nov 23, 2007

    Ahh, nothing like an exchange with Conlin. Well done on your part and I commend you on your restraint.

    Check out this one blogger’s exchanges with Conlin. Classic stuff. http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2006/12/another_small_s.php

  5. By guelphdad on Nov 23, 2007

    Look just because there is a wasps’ nest overhead and just because there is a handy stick just lyin’ there on the ground doesn’t mean you have to poke the nest now does it? ;-)

  6. By Ryan Dragoon on Nov 23, 2007

    Good Stuff. I don’t even know this guy and I already know that he’s an absolute toolbag and a joke.

  7. By John Brattain on Nov 23, 2007

    Bill:

    I posted a response for you on TPoSGD … both on your post and the addendum.

    Conliin’s last remark floored me. I had a hard time keeping my update civil. I added the comment in my post–I think it deserves as many eyes as possible.

    Best Regards

    John

  8. By DMtShooter on Nov 23, 2007

    Conlin is also morbidly obese. Which means, one supposes, that he’s more successful than the bloggers, who haven’t the means to acquire such girth. Once again, Bill’s career carries the day.

  9. By Signal to Noise on Nov 23, 2007

    Wait a second. Weren’t those pamphleteers back from Colonial times also the ones who loudly supported and wrote articulate reasons supporting American Independence (Thomas Paine, Sam Adams, et al.)?

    God, Conlin’s dumber than I thought.

  10. By RJ on Nov 23, 2007

    Ben Franklin wrote a pamphlet or two as well, but I’m sure Hitler would have gotten rid of him too.

  11. By DJ on Nov 23, 2007

    Want to have some fun? Forward the email with that last quote in it to the editor of the Daily News…and to the Anti-Defamation League. I don’t believe that remark to be anti-semitic, but it’d be worth a look to see if the ADL raises an issue with a major newspaper hiring someone who thinks that Hitler “eliminating” people would be a “positive thing.”

    By the way, does Conlin realize that the “Colonial pamphleteers” he’s comparing to bloggers were the ones who instigated and led the American Revolution? So he’s placing bloggers in the company of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, and Alexander Hamilton…and siding with Hitler and King George III.

    Who’s the idiot supposed to be, again?

  12. By Chris on Nov 23, 2007

    Did he really spell David Wright’s name “write?”

    “Don’t you need to contact the 30 electors–including the two Mets beat writers–who failed to give write a single first place vote instead of a commentator who does not vote for the awards. “

  13. By John Pelkey on Nov 23, 2007

    At least Conlin is consistant…I’m not sure I could take it if he ever said anything intelligent…or acted like a human being…maybe he’s just pissed because no one made him his own personal turducken for thanksgiving

  14. By Caspian Forsyth on Nov 23, 2007

    Conlin probably needs a bit of a history lesson, as Hitler did get rid of pamphleteers, such as Sophie Scholl.

  15. By dajafi on Nov 23, 2007

    The Good Phight has your back. What a bastard he is.

    And great point by the commenters who observe that in any historical sense, the pamphleteers are pretty unambiguously among the good guys. This was kind of my point in the post on our site–and that they, like bloggers today, represent a threat to anyone who prefers one-way communication, as Conlin does.

  16. By jonk on Nov 23, 2007

    Not only does TGP have your back (we are mostly Jewish over there and we are ALL bloggers) but I am going to send this around to everyone I can find. This is anti-semetic (equating bloggers who he despises to Jews) and disgusting in terms that he wishes we were all dead.

    I understand that they feel we are moving in on their turf, and ridiculous comments like the ones Hayes makes I can deal with. But this is beyond that. I won’t rest until he is on Hannity and Colmes telling the world that he wants to be buried in the same ditch that 500,000 Jews were thrown into in the Warsaw Ghetto.

  17. By jonk on Nov 23, 2007

    News
    City Editor Gar Joseph
    josephg@phillynews.com

    Assistant City Editor Barbara Laker
    lakerb@phillynews.com

    Opinion
    Sandra Shea
    sshea@phillynews.com

    Sports
    Pat McLoone
    mcloonp@phillynews.com

  18. By Ken Fang on Nov 23, 2007

    So Conlin compares bloggers to the Jews who were persecuted? What is he thinking? So he advocated wiping out bloggers? Just what has Conlin done to feel he’s the almighty?

  19. By Ken Fang on Nov 23, 2007

    I will also link to this entry on my blog tonight. Fang’s Bites has your back.

  20. By Chris on Nov 23, 2007

    Once while covering a basketball game, I was trying to get to my seat and the aisle was blocked by Conlin. I said excuse me and asked him if I could get by and he said he couldn’t move in anymore, without even looking up from his computer. (Apparenty, he also couldn’t get up and allow me to pass).

    Later, I ran into a colleague of his at the Daily News – a friend of mine – and told him the story, capping it with “I just wanted to punch him in the face.” The Daily News colleague replied “Get in line.”

    He’s a boorish dinosaur who takes glee in others’ misery. A real jerk.

  21. By EricW on Nov 23, 2007

    Ken: not only that, he was comparing blogger to colonial pamphleteers, too. And what good did THEY ever do us, with their “throw off the shackles of the Crown” and their “these are the times that try men’s souls”? And really, what have THEY done for us lately?

    Conlin sounds like a real genius. With a capital J.

  22. By rebecca on Nov 23, 2007

    It’s almost like he’s responding to someone else’s e-mail – that’s the only explanation I can think of for someone who is actually PAID TO WRITE to be able to shoot off this venomous drivel. He’s lashing out blindly like a wild animal. It’s almost justifiable for him to be this defensive if he’s really this clueless; surely his publication will catch onto the fact that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about EVENTUALLY. Then again, Tim McCarver still has a job…

  23. By Double D on Nov 23, 2007

    I’m not getting in the middle of this, but I’d like to correct you on your comment that Conlin gets to vote on awards. No, he doesn’t. Only the active beat writers do. So just keep your fallibility in mind when you send out the e-mails.

  24. By KRH on Nov 23, 2007

    Who’s Bill Conlin?

  25. By t. bickle on Nov 23, 2007

    I saw this article via a link to ballbug.com. Having now read thru all this I have only a few thoughts : Conlin well may be a jerk. You may be a philly fan. The mvp award is not based on stats. Sabermetric people are interesting only to the point when they become nothing more then stat geeks. Everyone is aware that gold gloves are not always given to the best fielder. But stats do not prove who is the best fielder. And lastly: there are just as many know it all baseball blogers as there are know it all pig headed sportswritters.

  26. By Nick on Nov 24, 2007

    Did anyone catch how he mispelled Wright’s name? (Write)

    What a douche.

  27. By patriotschick on Nov 24, 2007

    The World According to Bill Conlin:

    “Hitler would have gassed Thomas Paine. That would have been a good thing!”

    What a moron.

  28. By Ricahrd Alleger on Nov 24, 2007

    Where did Wright LEAD his team? To a collapse. And Rollins? To the top.

  29. By John Brattain on Nov 24, 2007

    A follow up on Conlin’s follow-up.

    http://tonycastillocausedmyfacialtic.blogspot.com/2007/11/bill-conlin-is-not-anti-semite.html

    Best Regards

    John

  30. By jonk on Nov 24, 2007

    He might as well have said, “Look, I have a friend who is black. I CAN USE THE N WORD!”

  31. By willie on Nov 24, 2007

    I’m confused. Are we angry because he made a borderline inappropriate hitler comment or because he disagreed with numbers in a game that relies on so much more, or because he ripped blogging in the first place?

    I like all the parties involved. While Conlin may have turned into a bit of a blow hard I still read his column as does the rest of you (hence the controversy). this kind of seems unnecessary or at the very least a means for more traffic.

  32. By Anon on Nov 24, 2007

    Wright made 21 errors

  33. By John Brattain on Nov 24, 2007

    I’m confused. Are we angry because he made a borderline inappropriate hitler comment or because he disagreed with numbers in a game that relies on so much more, or because he ripped blogging in the first place?

    I think it’s because (1) he advocated that certain voices (read: the ones who disagree with him) should be silenced and (2) his rebuttal to the points made was little more than ‘I know more than you therefore I am right and you are wrong’.

    Extolling on your credentials or pointing out lack of same is not a counterargument. It is the equivalent of being 40 years old with a family and your father ordering you to do something because ‘I’m your father and I said so.’

    It was my main peeve about his remarks.

    Best Regards

    John

  34. By Anon on Nov 24, 2007

    What a bunch of racist rants!!!! What else do you expect when there’s a full moon? All the loonies come out. How in the hell can you pick a left fielder or a 3rd baseman with 21 errors over a guy who played 162 games with outstanding offensive and defensive stats? And then send the readers to “Fire Joe Morgan.” So much for credibility, I guess.

    What about Tulo? He got robbed!!!

  35. By Ryan Brodeur on Nov 24, 2007

    Wow. I’m not gonna lie, that’s probably the most unprofessional series of responses I’ve ever seen. I’ll be sure to hook any of my readers up with this post.

  36. By Chip on Nov 25, 2007

    I emailed conlin, mainly comparing the OPS+ numbers of every player he mentions in his article. i dont think many people here will find it surprising to note that rollins 2007 season was not quite as good as a few of the players he compared him to (mays and banks especially). I also mentioned how he tried to ignore the OBP issue, and how fielding percentage is an antiquated measure. I feel highly confident saying that I was nowhere near being out of line. And his response?

    “You think I’m going to screw up Thanksgiving with your sophomoric crap? You’re blocked.”

  37. By patriotschick on Nov 25, 2007

    Reply to John:

    Thank you – well stated. I was going to respond but thankfully read all the comments first.

    PatriotsChick

  38. By David Wilkinson on Nov 25, 2007

    I see your point but the Mets didn’t win. Although that is not a requirement, it has grown to mean to and more in the recent past. I also know a lot of people don’t count locker room presence snd what it means to the team.I give Rollins the credit for being the soul and without him, would the Phillies have beaten out the Mets?. I think not.

  39. By John Spagnolo on Nov 25, 2007

    I commend you on your tact with this moron, Bill. As a fan, I am Yankee Fan, who grew up in NY, and now live in South Jersey, 20 minutes from Philly. So since I live in Philly suburbs, I don’t get NY stations, I get the Philly stuff. I have seen this guy on Comcast Sports Net, and never thought much of the guy. He reminds me a lot of Peter Gammon, who I deplore. As a blogger, I did write a Yankees blog for a while (still linked from my website), but I didn’t have the time to keep doing it, with 2 babies in the house. So I am offended by his comments on multiple levels.

    His argument defending his referral to Hitler, is based on a friendship with a Jewish guy, and his articles against anti-Semitism. Huh? OK, I guess that carries some weight that he isn’t a racist, but so what? To suggest that Hitler SHOULD have balled bloggers in with all the other “evils of the world” in his mind, is plain ignorant. To suggest that Hitler could have, or did do anything “right” just doesn’t make sense.

    He is just jealous because he knows there are blogs out there, written by mere mortals like you, that get thousands more hits than his, and his other “real writer” friends ever get. We (bloggers and commentors) also are not normally censored as he states, which bugs him too. We can say what we feel, not what sells papers, or may insight a law suit. Of course, we are just as accountable for libel as he is! It’s just assumed by people there would be nothing to be gained by suing us, vs. suing the NY Times, or the Philadelphia Daily News.

    Keep up the good work!

    John Spagnolo aka “Spags”

  40. By Mike McGann on Nov 25, 2007

    As a resident of the Delaware Valley and Editor of FlushingUniversity.com, I took the issue with Michael Day, the editor in chief of the Philly Daily News. While I have been a blogger, I’ve also been a newspaper reporter and editor, as well as a magazine editor for more than 20 years and find Conlin’s unprofessional conduct here unacceptable.

    Hopefully, Day won’t condone a writer who supports the genocide of bloggers and force Conlin to blog himself in order to be read. Frankly, he hasn’t been good in more than a decade anyhow, so maybe the time has come to retire.

  41. By dadlak on Nov 25, 2007

    Conlin must be ready to retire very soon to unleash such invective against someone who merely tries to bring more objectivity to an otherwise somewhat subjective issue. I had Wright as the NL MVP with a month to go in the season, but recognized that his candidacy probably wouldnt survive the Mets’ collapse, even though he wasn’t a contributing factor (I didn’t realize that he played so well in September). As a Phillies fan, I’m happy that Rollins won, but willing to consider that he might not have been the most deserving candidate. Good job hanging in there with this blowhard.

  42. By Chuck Hildebrandt on Nov 26, 2007

    Beat writers and columnists in traditional media are invested in the status quo. Of course they are threatened because they recognize their readership is being diffused, they see that the blogosphere is only growing, and they’re not participants in it. So it’s hard to fault someone for being threatened by that, especially someone as old as Conlin.

    It’s true that Bill Conlin’s responses were mostly caustic, but that he spent so much time and effort to respond to you tells me that he recognizes that bloggers are not unimportant — otherwise he would not have bothered to respond at all. (Either that or he’s the kind of guy who can never let anything go, no matter how insignificant that opponent is. I suppose that’s possible here.)

    I do not agree, though, that you were 100% tactful and inoffensive in his correspondence to Conlin, even though you did give quarter to Conlin’s profession. Statements such as “I know your colleague Marcus Hayes responded with little tact, but I guess it’s a trait of those who work at the Daily News” and “You have given me an easy decision, with your tactless, factless response, not to ever buy a newspaper from the Philadelphia Daily News or to watch their program on Comcast SportsNet, at least until you and Mr. Hayes resign, or in a more likely scenario, are fired” seem to me to be designed to inflame and draw the caustic response that it did. True, Conlin complied and looked bad, but you did light up Conlin to some degree, too. So you need to accept some culpability for that.

  43. By Justin on Nov 26, 2007

    You see a lot of blog-hate from traditional journalists, and it’s more common among members of the old guard. Quite simply, they made their names in an era where sports reporting was done from on high – the reporters/columnists, would spout out their views to an entirely passive audience.

    The blogosphere has opened a whole new can of worms, where people with dissenting views could expand their own (often dissenting) viewpoints to a larger audience than their group of friends. Plus, blogging is a far more interactive experience, leading to the exchange of discourse and opportunities for others to get involved in the discussion.

    With the status quo effectively being challenged, traditional journalists were given an ultimatum of sorts: adapt or risk slowly sliding into obsolescence. It’s quite obvious on which side of the fence Conlin sits.

    Switching gears for a moment and getting into the Wright vs. Rollins debate, had the Phillies and Mets swapped pitching staffs for the last week of the season, the Mets would have won the division. Did Rollins “lead” his pitchers to better performances than Wright did his?

    For a team sport, baseball is quite individualistic in nature – the biggest showdowns always boil down to pitcher versus hitter. It’s what players do in those showdowns that separates the stars from the stiffs, and their success or failure is best shown statistically (incidentally, Rollins did have more chances than most to impact his team, as shown by his record-setting number of at-bats, during which he compiled the 18th-most outs – the worst possible outcome for a hitter apart from GIDPs – in history).

    Don’t get me wrong – Rollins had a very good season. If you go barking up certain trees, you can certainly make a case for him as MVP. But given the ever-expanding base of knowledge by which people are coming to understand “value” in sports, those trees – the ones that unadaptable dinosaurs such as Conlin have apparently come to look at as gospel – are being exposed as the wrong ones.

  44. By CMTP on Nov 26, 2007

    Well, this sure was an interesting read.

    The only response I can muster is, what more could David Wright have done? Have you seen his August/September numbers? I’m pretty sure he did all he could. The Mets, as a team, folded under pressure.

    But that’s only my opinion. I’m not going to damn anyone to hell or HItler’s wrath for not agreeing. =)

    There’s a difference between intelligent baseball talk and an ignorant, obese, possibly mentally-challenged man fighting a weak, weak position. I hope his job is snatched from him, much like Griffey used to dingers back in the Kingdome. Conlin thought he hit a home-run, but the bloggers scaled the fences and brought it back.

  45. By This Is Not Sports Journalism on Nov 26, 2007

    This Is Not Sports Journalism salutes you.

  46. By Brandon on Nov 26, 2007

    Well, Conlin’s support for a hypothetical Blogocaust is bad enough.

    What I find interesting is him hiding behind the First Amendment with his remarks.

    If Conlin remembered anything from his journalism courses in college, he’d realize that the First Amendment doesn’t afford him any protection should The Daily News choose to fire him. It only affords him protection against punishment from all local, state, and federal government entities.

  47. By Tim on Nov 27, 2007

    Anyone else think of this (http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com/ ) when he brought up Ralph Bernstein? I can understand an old school writer not liking the emergence of blogging, but I don’t condone his responses. He brings up standards and formal review, and then references Hitler? It is a wonder he still has a job, because he sure doesn’t come off as credible.

    As for David “Write”…..his homer-ism shines through.

    Should out to the Met Refugees.

  48. By henry baker on Nov 27, 2007

    One thing that sabrmetrics doesnt account for is the fact that jimmy rollins played 162 games, and was the spark plug of a team that made the playoffs by 1 game, as oppossed to wright, who was the best player on an underperforming team that missed the playoffs by one game.

    jimmy rollins at times carried the phillies. was wright valuable to his team? sure i guess, i mean they probably wouldve finished 5 or 6 games out without him instead of 1 game out. big deal no one cares. Was Rollins valuable to his team? The Phillies wouldnt have won the NL East without him. so which was more valuable to his team? its not even close.

  49. By Sons of Steve Garvey Steve Sax on Nov 27, 2007

    Thanks for this post, it was illuminating. As a former journalist and current blogger, I find it hilarious and ironic that Conlin cites all the editorial review that his articles undergo, as a testament to their professionalism, yet he emails with hyperbole and slander and reckless abandon as if he was a five-year old on a school playground. Why professionalism doesn’t extend to emails–particularly those that would inevitably be reprinted in a blog–is beyond me.

    You don’t give a child a gun because the child cannot yet be responsible. So why should Bill Conlin get a keyboard and an email account if he can’t use them responsibly?

    Sorry your Phillies are stuck with an infantile newspaper staff. At least you have Tamala Edwards on TV, though.

  50. By Carl Hess on Nov 27, 2007

    Bill Conlin is a miserable old man, who presents his opinion as a fact. His whole gimmick/act has been getting old for awhile now. Hes mad his eyes are so bloodshot that they look like there bleeding from the fat that is trying to get out of any opening in his body. He makes sense about 5% of the time so lets just remember that. Its like debating with a 5 year old who suffers epilepsy and mental retardardation. Hitler would of cared less about Bloggers in the United States. Im not so sure hes the most heterosexual individual either. Marcus Hayes is a dope also.

  51. By june on Nov 28, 2007

    Gee, threatened much, there? WOW.

    There are so many things wrong with every word Conlin wrote you that this is the least of them, but since no one else addressed it so far — I can’t let the Macbeth quote pass — that line not only has nothing to do with computers, basement dwelling computer users, baseball, or sabermetrics — it is about, among other things:
    (1) LIFE and how PATHETIC it is that people’s lives end up petering out so uselessly, and
    (2) a little self-deprecating joke by a writer about how pointless and inadequate he feels their own work to be.

    Sound familiar, buddy? Don’t appropriate things that don’t apply to the topic at hand, that you’ve misinterpreted, and that you know nothing about. Oh wait….

    PS- also, if it signifies nothing, why is he frothing like a lunatic about it? I don’t know about you all, but if something truly signifies nothing and is no threat to me qualitatively, I can’t be bothered to waste any brainpower or time on it. All this mad-dog-like defensiveness is maybe just a big compliment, despite his worst intentions.

  52. By june on Nov 28, 2007

    ^”his own work”, not “their own work”, obviously

  53. By Travis M. Nelson on Nov 28, 2007

    I sent Conlin an email about ten years ago about an article he wrote comparing the ‘97 Phillies to the ‘97 Yankees – a real stretch – full of anectodal “evidence” and unmeasureable bullshit. He never responded. I’m not sure he knew what email was at the time. Or the Internet, for that matter. At least Baer got a response. Lots of them.

    The thing about his Hitler comment that I find sort of morbidly amusing is not that his statement suggests that he is an anti-Semite (it doesn’t) but that HE WISHES THAT SOMEONE WOULD KILL ALL THE BLOGGERS!! I mean, isn’t that bad enough?! Forget whether or not he likes the 12 million Jews in the world! (Well, don’t forget it, exactly, but that’s not what he meant anyway.) They’re small potatoes compared to the literally billions of people in the blogosphere! That alone should be enough to get the man fired.

    And if not that, then the fact that he has absolutely no idea what the hell he’s talking about.

  54. By TZig on Nov 28, 2007

    I didn’t take the Hitler comment as racist. Look at what Conlin said:

    “The only positive thing I can think of about Hitler’s time on earth–I’m sure he would have eliminated all bloggers.”

    He did it for effect. He took one of the most recognizably evil people in history and inserted him into his ‘prediction.’ It was absolute hyperbole. Insert: Jim Jones, Charles Manson, etc. for the same effect. Still, while not in good taste, it worked for him.

    Conlin even says the “ONLY” positive thing… Again for effect. Conlin obviously does not care for bloggers and I believe wanted to paint an extreme picture.

    I’m no Conlin apologist, but I really don’t see the Hitler comment in this context as racist.

    My two cents.

  55. By Joe on Nov 28, 2007

    I honestly don’t think he was attempting to be anti-Semitetic. But, even if he was simply joking – what kind of person makes jokes about the systematic murder of an entire class of people?

    Imagine two candidates for elected office debating a contentious topic and one jokes about the other side – “The only positive thing I can think of about Hitler’s time on earth–I’m sure he would have eliminated all (insert political party here).”

    I think it is safe to say that would be a career killer.

    Perhaps, at the very least, this fella will realize that joking about genocide reveals very poor taste and a complete lack of class.

  56. By paul on Nov 28, 2007

    I truly believe that the hitler comment was the most rational thing to come out of his keyboard. I mean, homer was called ‘worse than hitler’ for smoking 2 cigarettes in the dmv in a nationally aired cartoon (sure it was the 90s). Conlin should get a pass as an anti-semite but be taken to task for antiquated measuring sticks. People who refuse sabermetrics are probably similar to those who balked at the idea of wheels, pulleys, levers and all other significant cultural advancements cause if my pappy carried a bushel of mountain side then gosh-darn i can too.

  57. By MLB on Nov 28, 2007

    I work in MLB; I read this with amusement after following a link from Rob Neyer’s blog. I sent an informational email to Conlin a few years back — this was just general info.; I wasn’t refuting anything he had said or written — and Conlin replied by saying he wished someone “would have me whacked.” (This was in the early “Sopranos” years; Bill must have been a big fan.)

    Somewhat incredulous, I asked for a clarification, and what followed was Exhibits A thru Z of what an imbecile the guy is. (Think 2,000-word, single-paragraph emails chock full of every spelling and grammatical error known to the English language.) I still have the whole exchange; might make for good blog fodder someday.

    Anyway, I guess death is Conlin’s default wish for anyone who crosses his (very large) path. He’s been borderline irrelevant in MLB circles for a long time now, and I’m sure he’s well aware of that fact.

  58. By BaffledFemme on Nov 28, 2007

    Bill will refer only to the fantastic Bill of crashburnalley, and Conlin will be used to refer to Mr. Conlin.

    Regardless of the Hitler comments, I’m quite astonished that Conlin (who derides editors who miss glaring mistakes) managed to miss yet another glaring mistake– Bill’s own Phillies love.

    Conlin’s own err in assuming that Bill was a Mets fan is clearly the same mistake he is scoffing about in relation to bloggers and their lack of, for lack of a better word, professionalism…quite impressive. (My brain is amazed: I mean, c’mon Conlin, you call yourself a journalist and you condemn bloggers for their own errors and for their own perhaps lacking editing, but at least *you* have a chance at redemption via an editor’s editing skills (or lack thereof)). It seems that Mr. Conlin is feeling threatened by the blog community, or perhaps he is simply feeling shaky in his own journalistic writings.
    My hat’s off to you, Bill, for managing to not snap back at Mr. Conlin’s cross emails!

  59. By completely irritated on Nov 29, 2007

    This is all so ridiculous. First of all, I am so sick of living in an over-sensitive society wherein one cannot even mention Adolf Hitler’s name without fear of repercussion or retribution. The man did exist, he was surely one of the most sinister, wicked and horribly cruel individuals who ever walked the Earth, but to pretend we may not even utter his name in gregarious email banter between two individuals is ludicrous. There was nothing anti-Semitic in Conlin’s comment; it was merely crass and unprofessional. And as he was not writing anything which he intended to be published, he was not being held to a professional standard. He was invoking the name of the most notorious mass murderer in human history to make the point that he would be more comfortable in a world without bloggers. He was not in any way advocating what Hitler’s true aim in life was. I am not defending his opinion or his choice of metaphor, but the man now faces a professional backlash over something so insignificant and pointless.

    Second of all, Conlin is a moron. But stop with all the journalistic comments, grammatical criticisms, and spelling reprimands. Sports writers are sports experts; they are not nearly the highest class of journalist. They may not want us to think so, but most career writers will tell you that sports writers are the lowest common denominator of the journalism industry. I daresay no sports writer has ever won a Pulitzer. And this is not a column, it is not a published piece (or was not meant to be), it is an email. Has no one ever been guilty of a typo in an email? However, all that being said, Conlin is and always has been a baseball expert. He is widely regarded in the baseball community as one of the more brilliant analysts of the game. His career speaks for itself. Think what you want about his pompous demeanor, or his antagonistic way of framing his viewpoints, but his knowledge of baseball is second to none. Besides, isn’t arrogant, pompous and antagonistic what our society wants? Isn’t that why Simon Cowell stars on the most successful show on telelvision, or why Chef Gordon has his own prime time television program, or why sports fans listen to the moronic viewpoints of Stephen A. Smith and Jim Rome?

    And whilst I acknowledge the accuracy of your points that the same colonial pamphleteers to whom Conlin refers were the same brave and noble men responsible for the birth of our great nation, stop with the comparisons between them and bloggers. Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson must be turning over in their graves at the thought. Few bloggers, if any, ever touch on such socially relevant and morally poignant points as what the colonial pamphleteers were, and even those that do, do so with nowhere near the personal risk to their lives and livelihood. Not to mention that very little blogging, deep down, is truly intended to serve a greater purpose; typically it is far more born from a selfish and arrogant need to have one’s innermost thoughts and feelings heard and read by others, so that we can feel as though our opinions make a difference. By and large, they do not. No one cares. 99% of the people reading are either bored with nothing else to do, or desperately seeking someone who thinks the way they do so they can have conversation and even debate with total anonymity, so as not to have to suffer scrutiny or ridicule for erroneous or idiotic statements. And this is not even a relevant blog, it is a frigging baseball blog.

    Third of all, let us also not overlook the fact that this entire situation was born from a desire to start trouble in the first place. Any denial of such is ludicrous. While the original email inquiries may have been worded politely, the entire point, as Conlin correctly picked up on immediately, was for a run of the mill baseball fan to question the knowledge and integrity of a widely regarded baseball expert, which in turn questions the man’s passion for his favorite pastime as well as devalues his entire career achievements. I doubt any of you would respond any more favorably to such an indictment; you who thrive on anonymity and hiding behind a computer screen, where you can say whatever you want without fear of repercussion or reproach, because any response you don’t care to read can be easily deleted. A professional does not have that luxury. A professional has to be public, subject to scrutiny, responsible for the feeling and opinions of those who read their thoughts. You can sugarcoat your comments as much as you like, but I have known enough manipulative people in my life to spot an attempt at being manipulative. You were looking for an argument, and you got one. You went about it politely in an attempt to absolve yourself of any responsibility afterward. I, for one, don’t buy it. You were more responsible for the situation, and unfortunately Conlin is the only one who has to pay for it. He would have been wiser to delete your email with no response.

    And lastly, your original point was ludicrous. This is why Sabermatricians are so passionately hated and devalued by so-called “purists”. You have the math stuck so far up your backsides that you refuse to see the logic. I will acknowledge the importance of statistical analysis in baseball, as it is far more significant and important, not to mention a pivotal part of the game’s history and popularity, than in any other sport, but Sabermatricians refuse to admit that there are things that cannot be measured statistically. I am a fan of mathematics and statistical analysis myself, because, as I often say, numbers make sense, people rarely do. But to call into question Jimmy Rollins’s defense prowess based on the strange sabermetric defensive ratings makes no sense. And here is the reason: those numbers cannot account for many pivotal factors, over which the defensive player has little or no control, that influence a player’s ability to field a batted ball. This includes factors such as the height and thickness of the grass; the positioning of the fielder prior to the pitch; the hitter’s tendency to pull, or hit to the opposite field; the pitcher’s tendency for fly balls versus ground balls against; the speed at which the ball is hit toward the fielder; or the range and fielding prowess of the position player adjacent to said fielder. All of these factors play some role in a fielder’s ability to field any batted ball, and none are accounted for in statistical analysis. That is why you cannot call into question a fielder’s defensive prowess based solely on numbers. You cannot even gauge it on fielding percentage or errors committed. The fact of the matter is the more spectacular fielders often commit more errors, due to the fact that they get to more balls, make more diving or backhand stops, and are frequently making more rushed or otherwise difficult throws. For my money, the best defensive third baseman I ever saw was the late Ken Caminiti (I have very little vivid memory of Mike Schmidt, and what I do remember is of his last two or three years when his back was so bad he could barely bend over far enough to field a ground ball). But Caminiti often made errors other third basemen wouldn’t make, because he was rushing the throw after a spectacular diving stop no other third baseman would’ve made, or, in one famous instance, literally throwing the ball from foul territory beyond third base, while sitting on his backside. But you cannot penalize him too much for the error, because even if a wild throw ends up with the batter on second base, he would’ve been there anyway had Caminiti not gotten to the ball in the first place, as the original ground ball was likely a double into the left field corner. One must actually watch the games, and the players, see how often Jimmy Rollins gets to the ball deep in the hole, how easily he makes that longest throw on the infield look. See how many backhand and diving stops he makes, yet pops up quickly and smoothly and fires a perfect strike nearly every time. Anyone who claims Rollins is not a Gold Glove Caliber defender, either has never seen him play, or is a complete moron. As to whether or not he deserved the Gold Glove more than Tulowitski, I cannot say, as I did not see nearly enough of Troy Tulowitski to judge him fairly. But these are the subtle nuances of baseball that Sabermatricians rarely take into account which often offend the baseball “purists” and cause them to accuse Sabermatricians of never watching games, just reading box scores and playing fantasy baseball. Consider that the trendy, beloved OPS statistic is a pointless stat but for the very best players in the game. Most hitters, depending on their skill set and position in the lineup, are judged by one or the other. Guys who hit at the top of the lineup are expected to get on base; guys who hit in the middle of the lineup are expected to slug. Combining the two undermines the significance of both stats, and does a greater disservice to the little guys, the lead-off hitters, the top of the lineup spark-plugs, as even the best On-Base Percentage is going to be substantially lower than even a mediocre Slugging Percentage. This stat only serves to measure the most elite of hitters, Alex Rodriguez and Albert Pujols, Barry Bonds and Miguel Cabrera, David Ortiz and Vladimir Guerrero. It is unfair to everyone else.

    Here is why Jimmy Rollins deserved the MVP: His job was to score runs. He did. He led the league, in fact, set a Major League record for runs scored by a short stop. That is pretty remarkable considering he has 125+ years of baseball history, and who knows how many Hall of Fame short stops, to compete with, not to mention current greats like Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez (ok, former short stop, but he was spectacular when he was). And not only did he do that job better than anyone else, he did it despite a modest On-Base Percentage, while also driving in 94 runs, a ridiculous 88 of them from the leadoff spot; and all of this on a team that lost its two best offensive players to injury for a minimum three weeks each, while also losing 5 starting pitchers and 2 closers to significant injury. The reason the offense didn’t miss a beat, and the team could overcome not only the injuries to the pitching staff, but the pathetic performance of the guys who did pitch, was because of Rollins’s remarkable year. Let us not forget that in 125 years of Major League Baseball, no one has ever done what Jimmy Rollins did: Hit .295 or better, score over 100 runs, drive in over 90 runs, steal over 40 bases, and record over 200 hits, and record over 30 doubles and 20 triples. That is unbelievably remarkable offensive production for a lead off hitter and a 5’8” short stop; and it was necessary for his team’s survival. David Wright had a terrific year, and was one of two or three Mets who continued to play well as his team collapsed around him. Yet his great play made no difference, did not help his team out of its funk, so where is the value in his performance? Rollins’s performance made a difference, Wright’s did not. Hence, David Wright should not even be an MVP consideration (as he was not on most ballots) because the V does still stand for Valuable, not Statistical. Unfortunately for Matt Holliday and Rockies fans, clearly the voters punished him for the remarkable disparity between his at home performance versus his road performance. Personally, I would’ve voted for Prince Fielder, because in my estimation a baseball player’s Value is determined by the difference the player makes in Wins and Losses, and even though you cannot measure it, from what I saw of the Brewers this year, with Prince Fielder they were a playoff contender, without him they would’ve been fortunate to win 70 games.

    But can we please end these pointless debates? There are Sabermatricians, and there are purists, and nary will the two sides agree. So what is the point of always arguing with each other? And more importantly, what is the point in taking the argument so far as to jeopardize a man’s career (even if he is pompous and obnoxious)?

  60. By MLB on Nov 29, 2007

    Wow, that last post is the very epitome of going “messageboard fanboy.”

    Anyway, Conlin hasn’t been “widely regarded in the baseball community” for *anything*, let alone expertise that is “second to none,” since the ’80s.

  61. By Miracle on Nov 29, 2007

    Entertaining and informative as usual.

    Mike

  62. By completely irritated on Nov 29, 2007

    “Wow, that last post is the very epitome of going “messageboard fanboy.””

    You will have to pardon me if I am not up to speed with the code of ethics of blogging. I usually wouldn’t bother responding at all, but this whole scenario bugged me tremendously, and yes, I have a tendency to rant.

    “Anyway, Conlin hasn’t been “widely regarded in the baseball community” for *anything*, let alone expertise that is “second to none,” since the ’80s.”

    Perhaps not. But if that is true, it makes no sense. The guy knew the game then, and he knows the game now, even if he doesn’t know how to communicate with people.

  63. By d on Dec 28, 2007

    Did Conlin ever get reprimanded in any way by the Daily News?

  64. By PhilCali on Mar 29, 2008

    I know it’s been ages since this thread has been opined on but just came across it.

    I’ve had a few quaint exchanges with Conlin regarding mostly Phillies facts/history. He has an extraordinary wealth of baseball knowledge.

    However, he is smug, arrogant and paraphasing one blogger, splays masturbatory prose, historical facts and run-on sentences at the expense of his readers.

    Strange dude who I think has some issues we’ll never know about.

    Kudos to Crashburn Alley for keeping his cool and trying to have an intelligent ‘normal’ conversation with Conlin.

    BTW, I don’t agree that ‘write’ deserved MVP over J-Roll. Rollins did something no other player in the HISTORY of baseball did last year, let alone at SS. Also, Rollins was instrumental in the comeback against the choking Mets. I recognize Wright as being close in that race and if the Mets had won I would probably lean toward him over J-Roll even with Jimmy’s historical season.

    Peace.

  65. By Bill Baer on Mar 29, 2008

    Phil, I urge you to read this article — we might both be wrong!

  66. By Alberto Nadlan on Apr 7, 2008

    A simple mis hap. But what to do, the name of Hitler still arouses immediate reaction (as it should of course). He apologized and clarified his statement, so lets just move on :)

    Alberto Nadlan

  67. By nonsequitur on Aug 7, 2008

    I have had my own experience with bill1chair. I knew Conlin had an ego and was abrasive, but found out how petty and vindictive he was after responding to an article he wrote in the fall of 2007. In the article Conlin praised the Phillies for extending Charlie Manuel’s contract.

    I couldn’t believe the man that dubbed Manuel, “Elmer B Fuddled”, could be onboard with the Phillies decision and said as much in my email. I also included several of the on-field gaffs that probably had something to do with Conlin referring to him as Elmer, along with several more recent questionable moves.

    I actually didn’t expect a response, but the one I got really floored me. “I don’t explain myself to Manuel-haters, which you obviously are beyond all reason” (Note: I was not the one who called Manuel “Elmer B Fuddled” in a public forum, but the nonsequitur was probably Conlin’s attempt to gain the high ground in a battle of words). He then took us on an ego trip replete with more nonsequiturs — “I’ll match my career with yours any day, pal” — “you have never been in a big league clubhouse or traveled with a big league club, which I did for 21 years” —- you have no idea what goes into those nine innings or how many decisions have to be made, problems addressed, injuries evaluated, scouting reports digested, so many things you don’t have a clue about.” — “It’s not Legion ball, pal. . .” Never once did he address the substance of my email.

    I never expected to have an ongoing correspondence, but I had to respond, “You don’t have to be a wildlife expert with 21 years experience to know that if it looks like a duck and it waddles like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. Your 21 years of clubhouse experience, I imagine, has garnered you a vast storehouse of knowledge, but you make the mistake of equating knowledge with intelligence. They are two totally different things. Instead of comparing something as diverse as careers, let’s compare something we have in common, IQs. As a member of the Triple Nine Society, I know where I stand and can only guess (but it’s probably a good one) from your response where you stand. In a battle of wits, it is not wise to come unarmed…”

    I knew the IQ thing would have to strike a nerve and he would certainly have to reply. He did and it was a tirade similar to ones above and never really addressing anything I mentioned. However, I made the mistake of sending the second email from work hour and Conlin tried to use this to his advantage (apparently I gave him little else). “I wonder if your employers know that you are using company resources to carry on your nonsensical correspondence…” he went on. Though he never actually stated that he would contact my employers, I have no doubt it was a threat, He came across as vain and vindictive so I would not have put it past him.

    My company is very liberal in that area, but I didn’t need someone complaining to them that I was using the company’s email to send out “spam” or wage a vendetta or whatever Conlin’s convoluted mind might concoct. I could have used my home computer, but I really didn’t expect him to be any less petty, inane or arrogant. I said all I had to say and let the aspiring king of the world have his last say.

  68. By Shower Enclosures on Jan 28, 2010

    Excellent ideas here, have emailed my mum so expect a big reply!!

Post a Comment