Temporary new look
Posted: June 29th, 2009 | Filed under: Media | 30 Comments »
Well, you will notice the much plainer blog look. There’s a very specific reason for this … the blog (as many of you have noticed) has been tough to load lately. I’m trying this simpler look for a while to see if I can get to the heart of the issue. And, well, I kind of like the simpler look. I know there will be complaints but … hey, I’m a doctor, Jim, not a Web designer.
Loading ...
Circle me, Bert!!
Hey Joe (long time reader first time… blah blah). If you need any web help, let me know, I’d be more than happy to lend my expertise.
I like this new look, even if it is temporary.
Like listening to Vin Scully, there doesn’t need to be any added distractions.
I like the simpler look. But then, I always prefer websites that don’t try to assault my senses. Keep it simple…not so distracting from what I’m trying to do at the moment — which is read. It’d be different if I’m at a game website or something more media focused.
This is good.
I like this look okay. Only thing I ask for is a quick link so I can get to your next post with one click. Or am I missing one that’s already there?
I like it
Joe, if it’s ok with you, it’s ok with me.
Hey Joe
Love your stuff, but that SI.com story on the age of 33 was woefully, woefully thin. A full 24 of those guys listed had significant bounceback years at 34 and beyond. Many had several good years, some even career-type years. Only a couple of fatties (Luzinski, Fielder), some injured guys (Albert Belle) and a couple of others actually fit the “full decline” pattern. A couple had actually begun their decline earlier than 33 as well. And a couple were just fortunate to have career years at age 32, then slipped back to normal for several years before petering out. I’m amazed you didn’t offer some of those numbers, instead of a passing “a couple of guys did OK after” comment. It’s like you plucked the number 33 out of the air, dropped in a few guys to support the argument, but didn’t bother to do anything else. I’m truly disappointed.
i haven’t to agree with craig. you surely didn’t make a very good argument, and even when you were, you were at the same time offering up counter-arguments which nullified the entire point, which i didn’t understand.
*have
also, i don’t mind the new simplistic look, and i’m usually pretty critical on your new looks.
Joe, I like the clean look, but I do like to be able to click on things that change color on the roll over. You mentioned Jeter at short at the top of your page. It turned blue when I rolled over it, but no click. Just last night, Joe Morgan and co. were talking about where Jeter should go now that he’s older. Is he making errors I missed?
I love the blog, but hope the new look is only temporary.
Part of why the new SI piece seemed so thin was that Bill James wasn’t doing anything for the column. Joe would offer up a couple paragraphs of commentary, then Bill would be all, “Right, here’s the batting average, homer, and Rbi numbers of 12 other guys who had dropoffs at their age-33 season.” C’mon Bill, we all know you can do better than that.
Thumbs up on the new look of the site. Simpler is better, IMO.
I also like the simple look.
I like the look. I worked in commercial printing with guys that worked with “hot” type. They expounded on the virtue of using white space. Your look does that for me and helps focus on the content. Great job.
It is not certain that Labour is a failed government and that Gordon Brown is afraid of the voters wrath. Mr. Prime Minister, grow a backbone and CALL THE ELECTION!
Also, this new simple look seems fine, but how long before you change it once more?
Much prefer the new look. Much better for blackberry readers.
Also, every time I had to see the picture of that Amish dude from Parks and Recreation my soul died a little. So that’s a plus.
Love the new look, but can we bring back the “Print This Post” feature.
I look way more productive at work reading some paper rather than staring at a screen, which my co-workers can see.
It’s nice to be able to print the posts without all the comments.
Just my 2 cents.
Wasn’t the ‘Amish dude from Parks and Recreation’ actually Mose from The Office, a/k/a Ken Tremendous? I know he went on to work for Parks and Rec, but if you watched his scenes on The Office, your soul would soar.
Joe, my favorite new look will be the one where you find a way to keep firsties/Berties from posting.
The previous version seemed easier to read, but maybe that’s just me. But — more importantly — it still took me about 15 tries to get the site to load, so if the new look was intended to make it easier, it’s not working.
Love the new look
Please bring back the links to the next and previous entries on each page — makes it much easier to browse on a cell phone. Thanks!
Joe, while the new look is fine, I don’t like that you lost the next button on the bottom of your posts. I haven’t been able to read your blog while at camp and now was in catch up mode but it’s suddenly become a lot harder.
Hey Joe,
Don’t like the new look at all so I hope it’s temporary. But more to the point, I check in everyday and I have never noticed even a slight problem getting the blog to load since you switched to GoDaddy.
Apparently other people have had different experiences, but it’s been nothing but instant loading up for me.
After reading Joe’s SI column with Bill James, I was curious enough to pull every season this decade by players 30 or older who qualified for the batting title.
Below are BA/OBP/SLG numbers by age just from 30-35:
Age 30 116 players .283/.356/.470
Age 31 106 players .285/.357/.468
Age 32 88 players .287/.362/.466
Age 33 86 players .282/.358/.460
Age 34 68 players .280/.355/.452
Age 35 59 players .278/.359/.461
Not that this is a conclusive way of looking at it, but just looking at these numbers I don’t see anything all that special about age 33. If anything, 33 sticks out as the exception to the rule of steadily fewer players being able to play every day as they age.
Beyond age 35 looking at this decade becomes unreliable because the samples are so small that Barry Bonds skews the results by himself.
Only 4 of James’s 33 examples are from the current decade. Maybe age 33 was more of a milestone in earlier eras and has become less significant with modern conditioning (or modern juice, if you want to think that way). Not saying it has or it hasn’t, just that it’s possible and I haven’t looked at earlier decades. Maybe someone else here will take a look.
Yeesh man. Could’ve like, done something a little niftier than just plain white!
E-mail me if you want/need help with anything design wise.
Joe, check out this site that was linked on the freakonomics blog today. http://www.flipflopflyin.com/flipflopflyball/index.html
there are some interesting baseball charts that I think you will get a kick out of.
Joe, it’s the words that matter…not the site design.
wow, thanks for the flipflopflyin link! what an awesome site