I’ve read quite a few comments on various blogs along the lines of “Boy do I wish Fire Joe Morgan was still around.” FJM, as Fire Joe Morgan is affectionately known, was a blog dedicated to taking members of the mainstream media to task for any uninformed, biased, or lazy pieces of journalism they might produce. The FJM writers, writing under the pseudonyms Ken Tremendous, dak, and Junior, championed sabermetrics for player evaluation above subjective measures like leadership, grit, and swagger. Joe Morgan is featured in the blog name because he is a member of the media well-known for his anti-sabermetrics stance. His reader chats on ESPN.com, or “JoeChats”, have become the stuff of legend, with the Big Red Machine, consistency, concetrating, and Gary Sheffield among his favorite discussion points. FJM was well-written, snarky, and downright hilarious at times. It’s not often I’ve ever laughed out loud while reading, but multiple posts at FJM elicited such a response.

When it was revealed that Ken Tremendous was actually Michael Schur, a writer/producer of the popular television show “The Office,” FJM seemed to reach a new level of popularity. Who knew that Mose Schrute was also into sabermetrics? The blog also introduced some to advanced baseball analysis for the first time, and showed that maybe OPS+ and VORP weren’t just for stat-geeks and Billy Beane. FJM ended its run last fall, but produced some entertaining and informative content during its run. However, there is a downside to all of this.

The Internet is full of opinionated dissenters, and these dissenters are most definitely present on baseball blogs. The comments section of many blogs will have atleast a few nitpickers ready to play Ken Tremendous, no matter the quality of the post. Jesus Christ could write a near-flawless piece about defense independent pitching statistics, and the first commenter will be someone named “JudasRoolz” who writes: “What a joke that you used FIP for this analysis. Ever heard of something called tRA? Didn’t think so. Thanks for wasting everyone’s time.” Not every FJM-style comment will be as scathing as that. Nonetheless, sometimes it seems people read posts with the intention of pointing out faults or errors, rather than first seeing if the author has some decent insight. This is the titular “Fire Joe Morgan Effect”. The venerable Joe Posnanski touched on this topic in a post to his blog a few months back, writing:

I guess I just find it annoying to think there are people who read this blog HOPING to find mistakes.

Joe is mainly referencing readers pointing out grammar and factual mistakes, but the point rings true here. This is not to say that everything written on your favorite baseball blog should be met with a resounding “great job!” and a pat on the back of the author. There’s nothing wrong with intelligent disagreements. In his farewell post to Beyond the Boxscore, “iamawesomer” had some solid thoughts on the topic of baseball analysis (which also apply to analysis of anything):

I live by the ABQ of life, Always Be Questioning. Never just accept what you hear or bow to conventions, always think about why something is the way it is, and if it can be improved. Remember it was thought for a long time that RBIs and Fielding % were the best measures of offense and defense (and probably still in too many places really), and only after someone questioned these beliefs were we able to see that’s not the case.

These words sum up the original goal of sabermetrics, and I agree that discussion and commenting are integral to discourse on the Internet. Nevertheless, it’s one thing to respectfully disagree when a significant error is made and there are facts to back up assertions, as Rob Neyer did for a post by R.J. Anderson about Evan Longoria at DraysBay. It’s another to nitpick things when it’s not warranted.

Considering all of this, here are some commenting suggestions (which I’m probably not qualified to create, given my own history of derisive commenting on MetsGeek, Amazin’ Avenue and a few others):

1. Avoid name-calling. Telling someone they’re an idiot is not going to accomplish anything except adding kerosene to the fire.

2. If you disagree with someone, and use facts to back up your assertions, make sure the facts are accurate. Double-check them.

3. Keep an open mind. Despite popular opinion, knowledge of higher-level statistics does not detract from enjoyment of the game. I’d argue that it makes the game more enjoyable. Ken Davidoff of Newsday is an example of a mainstream media member who kept an open mind about stats, and it has only enhanced his already strong writing. It also led him to reconsider his annual Hall of Fame ballot:

Let’s begin with a confession: I am a Hall of Fame voting flip-flopper. A year ago, I’m not even sure I fully understood OPS+ and ERA+. Now, they are staples of my analytical diet. Perhaps I will be using more sophisticated tools a year from now. My point being, to lock in on a Hall of Fame decision and stick to it is to rule out future, deeper levels of understanding - that we’re all trying to attain, at everything we do.

High-level stats aren’t for everyone though, but that doesn’t mean those who are into stats should all be classified as geeks trying to ruin the game. This leads into the next suggestion.

4. Learn about something before criticizing it. I had a college roommate who gave me a 20-minute speech about why all the facts and religious aspects of the book “The Da Vinci Code” were totally wrong and a slap in the face to Christianity. His words were well thought out, if probably stolen from someone else on the Internet. I then asked him what he thought of the book – was it entertaining? Which characters did he like or not like? He responded that he hadn’t actually read the book. So here he was, going on about why this book was a load of bunk, when he hadn’t actually read it. This applies to commenters on saber-inclined baseball blogs. There’s nothing wrong with taking issue with a stat because of a flaw, i.e. OPS stinks because it undervalues on-base percentage. There is something wrong with criticizing a stat, or someone for using a stat in their analysis, without understanding how it’s calculated and what it measures.

5. Pick your battles. I’ve seen commenters who feel the need to voice their usually cynical opinion on everything posted on a given blog. Save the ammunition for when it’s worthwhile. Before clicking “submit comment”, take a couple deep breaths and ask yourself if you are adding something worthwhile to the discussion. Is it really necessary to complain that a writer didn’t include baserunning runs in his wins above replacement analysis?