mlb.tv fail

I love that I can watch any baseball game I want as long as it doesn’t involve the Yankees or Mets on my computer and Roku box and iPod Touch. I pay MLB $120 to watch on my computer and Roku box, and another $15 to watch on the Touch, but it’s worth it. Really.

Except, like tonight, when I tried to check into the Anaheim-Seattle game in the 9th inning. I’m logged in at MLB (they know my name), and my bills are paid (though I’m not including a copy of my receipt here, but trust me), and when I try to check into the game (which ironically enough is the “free” game of the day) I get this:

What’s the problem? I don’t know. I do know that they know I’m logged in to the site, and I’m logged in from my home network, and I’m trying to watch the game that is the “free” game, and I’m paid up, so I also know they’re just failing totally.

If you’re a fan and you understand the blackout rules and you’re okay with them, this is still a great service. But this bogus verification step makes me mad. I’m the customer. When your verification systems fails, give me the game, and sort our your problems on your own time. (Oh, it’s over now. Too late.)

I’m still mad.

Do you know Bill Veeck?

In this piece at Baseball Prospectus, not written by a BP writer and thus available for all of us, Tim Marchman talks about one of baseball’s greatest, Bill Veeck.

The trigger for Marchman’s highly enjoyable story is a website called mediaburn.org, a repository for a Chicago guy’s video archive which includes lots of Veeck’s vlogging efforts back in the 50s. Yes, vlogging.

Lots of baseball history is nostalgia, the tinted memories of a better or less challenging time, but Bill Veeck isn’t a nostalgic figure, he’s an exemplar. A working guy who worked his way into the baseball game and never seemed to forget that the game was meant to be remunerative and meaningful for the players and fun for the fans. Plus, he was vlogging back int he 50s. Amazing!

Thank you, Carter, for the heads up on this one!

Murray Chass on WAR

For much of my long adult life, Murray Chass wrote about baseball for the New York Times, my hometown paper. His old-school ways provoked the enmity of bloggers and sabermetricians and a few years ago the Times chose not to continue to employ him. But thankfully Murray soldiers on, because despite his myopia about the numbers of baseball, he is a fine prose stylist with a well-stocked rolodex of baseball contacts. His voice is of value, even if he’s not au courant.

I’m writing this because of a recent Chass post on his website (at which he writes short articles about things that interest him twice weekly while abjuring blogs) about the relationship between the Hall of Fame Ballot, which was due last Friday, and stats like Wins Above Replacement, which try to objectify a player’s value to his team. You can read Murray Chass’s blog post, er, article here.

I don’t read Murray Chass’s site regularly, and in fact came to this story via Tom Tango’s The Book Blog, where Tom tried to answer some of Murray’s questions about WAR the other day. Interestingly, his post provoked an avalanche of debate at Baseball Think Factory about whether Tom’s tone was inclusive or condescending.

Tom says he was trying to be helpful. Murray says he thought Tom was trying to be helpful. Case closed. But the lengthy discussion reveals lots about the issues. We love baseball because it’s a game played by humans, in all their variety, that excites us because of the skill of the players.

But we also love baseball because it is a game played outdoors in warm weather. Baseball provides spectacle to fan and family member who couldn’t care less alike about the actual game, but enjoys the experience visiting the ballpark provides.

And some of us love baseball because it is a closed statistical system, that allows us to munch and crunch the numbers in many clever ways to discover things that may not be directly related to describing the humans who play the games, but does give us insight into the way the game works.

I think Murray Chass is wrong about bloggers and sabermetricians, but I think bloggers and sabermetricians are wrong about Murray Chass. We need all the voices who know anything at all about baseball contributing if we’re to get our analysis and history right.

An Interview with Oakland GM Billy Beane

John Sickels of Minor League Ball

I was working on Brett Wallace yesterday for the Guide (on sale in January!), and came to the conclusion that Wallace can hit and the A’s can use a third baseman, though he may not be that good a defensive player. Billy Beane agrees!

Nice interview by John, and Billy gives thoughtful answers. He just doesn’t trash anyone. Oh well.

salary vs performance

ben fry

There has been a lot of talk about the Yanks buying the pennant, which ignores the fact that for eight years they bought the pennant but lost. I have a hard time working up to umbrage, but I do think it’s hard to judge the Yanks a great team because of all the extra money they spent.

Or rather, they may be a great team, but that’s because of all the money that was spent. The good news is that Cashman finally got it kind of right.

Ben Fry has charted the standings for the 30 teams based on their standings throughout the season. I’m not sure you learn anything concrete from this, but it’s a beautiful chart nonetheless. Have fun with the slider up top.