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.

Alberto Nadlan

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.

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.

Mike

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

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)?