I was just thinking, does anyone else think the struggle between many bloggers and people like Joe Morgan or sportswriters kinda reminds you of the issue of religion vs. science? on a much smaller and less significant scale, obviously.

Look at the way bloggers like Jeff or Dave or DMZ are treated by casual fans or certain sportswriters. They are constantly written off as if they don't already have a huge following, but sometimes these sportswriters will lash out at them and bloggers like them as if all of the sudden they are a threat. Like fundamentalist christians who don't think that athiests are significant enough to really matter vs. the majority, but get all worked up on the "omg WAR ON CHRISTMAS AND JESUS!". which makes it obvious that they feel threatened and angry at them sometimes.

The way sabermetrics developed also mirrors science vs. religion. At first, it was really only "baseball people" who had been in the game for a long time that could really decide who was good and who wasn't. But now, billy beane and others are proof that there are different ways of evaluating talent that work fine. so you could liken a scout to a priest and a "stathead" to a mathematician or scientist. which would make LL and USSM readers students of the bloggers.

it would also explain the argument between scrappy, hard-working white (sorry, "blue collar") players and "selfish" power hitters who "clog up the basepaths". Just like people who think abstinence is always the key to happiness and alcohol is the devil or sex is evil or whatever can be compared to writers who think that someone like Reggie Willits or Willie Bloomqist is more valuable than someone who isnt so scrappy and wasn't a punter for Nebraska (did you know Darin Erstad punted for Nebraska? how scrappy of him!); those values are simply outdated and not realistic in today's society.

so basically Bill James = Socrates wow that sounds weird but whatever.

kids, never major in Philosophy. it will fuck you up forever.