From: doctor8@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Jason Abner Miller)
Subject: Re: Eck Wins MVP in Horrible Voting
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University - HCF
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 03:54:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.193209.15405@adobe.com>, snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes...
>In article <23NOV199213035032@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu> doctor8@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Jason Abner Miller) writes:
>>	Mike Devereaux played nearly every day for the Orioles.  Along with
>>Brady and Mussina (also MVP candidates), he was the most consistent player
>>on the team, and it's hard to imagine the Orioles playing as well as they
>>did without him in either the #2 or #3 spot where he played all season.  True,
>>he was helped tremendously by having Brady right in front of him, but that 
>>doesn't make him look any worse.
> 
>Jose Lind has played almost every day for the Pirates for the last few
>years, and he's been a consistent performer offensively.  Yet, nobody in
>his right mind would promote him as an MVP candidate.

	Yes, especially after Game 7 of the NLCS :)
	Seriously, though, and looking at all the confusion this net
has gone into, let me explain what I mean by "consistency" in the case of
Devereaux:  he made excellent contributions, both offensively and defensively
to a ballclub that needed it.  His glovework in CF was nothing short of
spectacular, and his offensive numbers were quite impressive (take away Brady
and his RBI totals will of course go down when he batted 2nd, but they 
would still be very productive numbers).
	Lind won the Gold Glove, and has been the key portion of the Bucs' 
infield in their last 3 N.L. East (only) winning seasons.  But his offensive
contributions, how shall I say, don't quite match what Devereaux did for the
O's.  I believe someone else on this net referred to him as the "anti-hit",
and that made me chuckle.
	For a "consistent" performer to be a legitimate MVP candidate, he
should hit AND field extremely well, unless the offense is so incredible
(say, a Danny Tartabull in '91), that his defense can be overlooked.  In
Lind's case, just that Gold Glove won't get him any MVP votes.  But
with what Devereaux did, he was a legitimate candidate.  I have said that
Brady should have finished ahead of him, but I still like Devereaux.

> 
>There is some value in playing everyday, but if another player has
>outperformed the everyday player in fewer games, I find it hard to buy an
>argument that the everyday player is better.

	My earlier anti-Rickey comments are, of course, shaded by what I
saw him do for the Yankees in the late '80s.  I've seen enough numbers
thrown around here (except for his triple crown stats, which I like to look at),
that I'll be willing to say he helped the A's out.  But he was not their
MVP, or close to it.  Your mediot does not like walks, and although I like 
them (especially in a leadoff hitter), I don't see them as MVP credentials.
In my Little League career, I was 0-22 with 22 walks and some hit by pitches,
but I didn't get any MVP votes for my .517 lifetime OBA (alright, silly
comparison).
	I will not say the MVP votes are right or wrong.  I won't air out
my Rickey views here anymore because they're not designed for this mathematical
environment. Tony Phillips had comparable numbers (although not the stolen
bases), but where were his votes?  But if you want to win that award, voted by
the sportswriters, contributions have to be more tangible than walks.  It's
not right or wrong, it just is.

> 
>Sherri Nichols
>snichols@adobe.com


							Jason Miller
	Now STEVE Henderson, THERE was a player :)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball