Jon Heyman - enshrined in shitty baseball writer Hall of Fame



I'm pretty sure I've already made it my business to officially not read anything he ever wrote, but if I didn't before I'm making it official now. Maybe before I just banned myself from reading analysis, but allowed myself to read his reports on free agent and trade rumors. I will now not even read those articles (hopefully he has a more adept rival and finding out news.) He's just too stupid

Of course he's been a grade A moron for years, but what immediately sets me off is his comments related to Bert Blyleven and the Hall of Fame:

"I never thought [Bert Blyleven] was a Hall of Famer when he was playing, and I saw him play his entire career."

"[His popularity] is based on a lot of younger people on the Internet who never saw him play."

"It's not about stats...it's about impact."

- Jon Heyman on MLB Network, 1/12/09

Rich Lederer takes on the comments here - the gyst being that Heyman's an idiot - that the word impact is meaningless gibbrish, and that how could Heyman known Babe Ruth was a Hall of Famer, if he didn't see him himself.

Of course maybe if this incredibly moronic Hall of Fame statement was the only thing of this nature to come out of Heyman's mouth (or pen? or keyboard?), maybe he could deserve a second chance. But here are some of Heyman's other greatest hits (I've taken some of the links from firejoemorgan's excellent cataloging and comments):

- Actually I'm putting this first but I doubt anything else I see will top this for idiocy - selecting Francisco Rodriguez as his choice for AL MVP in 2008 - it is really hard to top putting a reliever for MVP, let alone a reliever who was at best the fourth best closer in the league.

Honestly I can't top this - just read the firejoemorgan page for more -I'll steal a clip as a tease though:

In a Heyman mailbag:

Still using wins to judge a pitcher? I thought we'd moved out of the Dark Ages. Beckett has received almost 7 runs per game of support, whereas guys like Haren ( 5.44), Santana (5.24), and Bedard (4.60) have all received considerably less. Or are they supposed to will their teams to play better with their magical clutchness and playing of the game the right way like Beckett does? Also, VORP (one of those spooky, newfangled computer stats) has Kelvim Escobar first, followed by Santana, Bedard and Haren. Beckett is a distant seventh.
--Rob, Southington, Conn.

There goes that VORP again. When the standings are determined by VORP, I think I will take it more seriously. But as you know, they still go by wins and losses. Like I said, I am an admirer of Bedard's. I had him second. Why don't you send your insults to Jim Leyland, who didn't even pick him for the All-Star team?

So Heyman will only use statistics that determine the standings. Of course you realize this eliminates at-bats, hits, walks, strikeouts, stolen bases, doubles, triples, home runs, RBIs, Batting Average, on-base percentage, and slugging percentage. Not that Heyman would use those last two anyway, because, you know, 'on-base percentage?' That could mean anything! Now, win-percentage. Theres a stat I could get behind. Or lose percentage. Another great stat. Why don't these stat geeks program their computers to do that? Huh!?! I gotta sit down...