Comments on: Farewell and thanks This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 By: Andy Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:02:28 +0000 We're alive and kicking over at High Heat Stats.

By: Bob Wayland Fri, 11 Nov 2011 13:58:28 +0000 I've been away for awhile and just discovered the B-R blog was discontinued.
I used to drop by and sample Andy's opinions and will miss him. Where did he wind up?


By: MikeD Sat, 05 Nov 2011 07:42:38 +0000 Wow, totally unexpected and totally sad to read.

I've been posting here at B-R for the past three years, even though I've been mostly quiet the past six months due to some life craziness. While my online voice of late has been quiet, my online reading has not, checking in daily on what Andy and company had to say, as well as all the denizens here at the B-R blog.

I of course will be coming back for the simple reason that Baseball Reference is an invaluable resource. I'm not quite sure, however, that I will be coming back as often every day with this community silenced. That is the sad part. A blog is a community, and I will miss the many voices here that brought me back reguarly.

Good luck all.

By: KJ Fri, 04 Nov 2011 22:12:23 +0000 Andy,

Thank you for your response. I appreciate your time, honesty and transparency in this. Not to mention your proactive efforts in starting High Heat.

From what I can see, this is a money decision. Sean has limited resources and he wants to use them to further enhance the stats. To keep B-R on the cutting edge of the numbers.

But, what is so difficult about this decision is that this is the art of the site. This is the public park of the site. Museums and parks do not make money. They exist to enhance experience. (I realize that I'm engaging in a bit of hyperbole here.)

Paying writers most certainly had a hand in building this blog into what it was. But I believe it had reached a point of quality, regard and esteem where payments could have been reduced or eliminated and the community would have stood. Maybe there would have been fewer posts. But, it would have endured. Because some very talented people would write (albeit, less often) for the love of it.

Dismantling and scattering this amazing blog community without at least trying rework the system was just very, very disappointing.

If this blog does not fit in with the mission of Baseball Reference, it should.

By: Richard Chester Fri, 04 Nov 2011 16:12:06 +0000 @51

Did you mean to reply to my post #4? If so, thanks. Yes I will blog on High Heat. Now all I need is someone to 'fess up to Dave Kingman and also Alvaro Espinoza.

By: Tom Fri, 04 Nov 2011 14:51:23 +0000 Just wanted to add my thanks and farewell. I didn't grow up on baseball so this blog really helped turn me on to some of the history and explain a bunch of stats. I definitely enjoyed the looks back for historical significance and, in my experience at least, it generally seemed to offer a middle ground between, say, ESPN and certain "stats are everything" websites.

BR is still an awesome site and I look forward to the new blog that i just bookmarked!

By: barkie Fri, 04 Nov 2011 14:51:15 +0000 the King is dead....


By: Andy Fri, 04 Nov 2011 12:05:52 +0000 KJ, a few responses:

I cannot speak for certain about many of the issues you raise, but I'll take a stab with my best guesses:

1) It's not that there was a specific page-view threshhold target per se. The blog was created initially as an unpaid venture. It was converted to a paid venture for reasons about which I can only speculate, but I suspect the corporate structure required it so that there was no question about content ownership. Once it was paid, it needed to justify its existence through revenue created--hopefully breaking even. This blog did not break even in terms of ad revenue or PI memberships. It simply does not make financial sense for Sports-Reference to spend MORE money to try to make it break even--unless it could be grown by more than an order of magnitude, that's just not going to work.

2) Sean made the original decision to invite JA as an author. John delayed for a long time coming on board. I recognized that the blog was stagnating, and that John was posting all that great game-recap commentary, and I pushed him to come on board as an author. In this way, his addition can be viewed as a "last ditch" effort to breath new life into the blog. And although John's performance was excellent, it didn't translate into more pageviews, and thus didn't produce more revenue.

3) The blog was not viewed negatively internally. It just doesn't fit with the overall mission of the site, especially in view of #1 and #2 above.

Just to reiterate--I am somewhat guessing here, and/or these are my perceptions. They don't necessarily reflect what Sean thinks.

By: KJ Fri, 04 Nov 2011 11:42:29 +0000 Again, I'd like to say thanks to everyone who wrote and contributed. What a pleasure this has been to read.


I get the sense from your posts that there was some type of numeric (page view) threshold that was hoped for with this blog. Is that the case?

Most everyone who comments about discovering the blog element of B-R (including myself) found the blog by accident. Sometimes after years of visiting B-R. I don't really understand how numbers could be expected for the blog when it was so subtly presented.

And as far as stagnation, I'm not so certain that can be measured with blog numbers. What little I know about any aspect of sabermetrics I've learned on this blog. And I share this knowledge my friends who are more casual baseball fans than those who would read this blog. There are at least a couple of dozen people who do not read this blog, but who now have some understanding of WAR because I've shared what I've learned here.

This termination was just such a shocking thing to find as a blog reader. And judging from others comments, I was not the only one who was completely taken aback by this. Everything seemed great. (Things like adding JA as a writer this year seemed to be a sign that things were gaining momentum.) So it's so surprising to hear your comments on how the blog was viewed internally. (As a stagnant detriment.)

By: rico Petrocelli Fri, 04 Nov 2011 06:00:06 +0000 #2

Rico Petrocelli here. Touched that you thought I might be the MAN. Brooklyn born but never made the bigs. See you on High Heat?