From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Least Valuable Players (career)
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 03:24:31 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.231642.28284@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca>
 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (gut feelings...) writes:
>In <1992Apr12.221120.28401@Princeton.EDU>
 roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:

>>In article <1992Apr12.034822.4514@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca>
 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca ( ) writes:
>>>In <1992Apr12.022606.28258@Princeton.EDU> 
roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>>
>>>>In article <1992Apr11.234752.671@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca>
 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca ( ) writes:
>>>>>In <204766@unix.cis.pitt.edu> 
dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>An even worse example if Alfredo Griffin,
 who played 140 games at shortstop
>>>>>>in 1984 for a team that had Tony Fernandez.
  Fernandez was only 21, but he
>>>>>
>>>>>Griffin played 6 years in TO, 3 in OAK and 4 in LA.  Toronto, a defending
>>>>>champion, just reacquired him.  These 3 organizations are 3 of the most
>>>>>successful in the game.  Are you implying that they don't know what they
>>>>>are doing?

>>>>Yes.  

>>>>On the other hand, what can you say of Cleveland, who let go of him
>>>>after three years in order to hold onto the immortal Tom Veryzer?

>>>Well I guess that tells you a bit about why cleveland hasn't shared
>>>the success of TO/OAK/LA

>>Because they didn't get a good enough whiff of Alfredo Griffin?  Uh
>>huh.

>HAHAHA!!!!
>Griffin's first year in Toronto earned him rookie of the year. 

And he never again did that well.  It was his best year.  Ever.  

And his team LOST six games more than it had the previous year.  

>>>>btw, acquiring Griffin turned Toronto from a 59-game winner into a
>>>>53-game winner.  Then 57, 57 (projected from stike-year pct.), 78, 89,
>>>>89.  The last year was 1984.  Then they traded him and won three
>>>>division titles in seven years, and came within a game of a fourth.

>>>>They didn't improve because of Griffin.  They became winners by adding
>>>>Upshaw, Barfield, Mulliniks, Cliff Johnson, and -- Tony Fernandez. 

>>>What are you saying?  That they steadily improved with Griffin in spite of 
>>>him?

>>No,  I'm saying they SUCKED with Griffin.  The first three years were
>>dreadful.   Then they added some good players, and got rid of deadwood,
>>and eventually figured out that Griffin was among the deadwood.  Then
>>they started to win like crazy.

>They traded griffin to OAK for bill caudill who was 27 and coming off of
>36 saves.  they thought Caudill was going to be the stopper they needed.  
>I wouldn't call that "getting rid of deadwood".

Fair enough.  But It wasn't El Caudillo who put them over the top that
year.  He went 4-6 with 14 saves, 2.99 ERA.  Fernandez, on the other
hand, played 161 games at SS and wielded a pretty mean bat.  didn't take
himself out of too many of those games, either, it would seem; 618 PA.

>It's just as easy for me to say they sucked because of other players
>as it is for you to say they improved because of other players. 

It's hard for you to read.  I never said they sucked BECAUSE of Griffin,
just that they sucked about equally before and after he joined the club.
When they added several good hitters (and pitchers), the club improved.
Not when they added Griffin.

>>>in 88 griffin started 93 games and had 316 at bats.  he was their
>>>number one SS. He started every game in the NLCS and the world series.

>>Right.  They straggled home first in the NL West, which nobody else
>>wanted to win.  And did very well in the postseason.  They have been
>>called the worst all-around team EVER to win a WS.  I can't disagree too
>>hard...
>
>Who calls them the worst all-around team?  those who judge the worth
of
>a team by individual player's statistics i suppose.  Everybody else
>thinks that they were better than OAK 4 games to 1.

Doesn't make them a good team, as you know.  A short series proves
NOTHING about the all-around worth of a team.  In any case, they fell
apart like a house of cards the next year, with similar personnel.  

Who called them that?  Lots of people.  Everybody was amazed at LaSorda
for taking that bunch to a pennant.  

No, the winner of the WS is NOT always the best team.  They were the
best  team FOR THAT SERIES, but they can be an all-around mediocre team
that got lucky.  

Luck does play a part in baseball, you know.  Or perhaps you don't know
-- something that goes with believing in "choke."

>>>Who knows?  maybe griffin was the reason LA beat OAKLAND that year...

>>Right.  Not hershiser.  Not Gibson.  Not even Hatcher.  Not Sciosia.
>>Griffin.  Tell me aobut it.

>my tongue was firmly planted in cheek...

Repeat after me: colon, dash, close-paren.  Now type it.  Otherwise,
expect people to take you seriously.  (Well, no.  Don't raise your hopes
THAT far...)

>>>>>  No, I think the problem might be found in your one-dimensional
>>>>>analysis of a player's worth.

>>>>He can't hit for power.  He can't hit for average.  He can't walk.  He
>>>>fields adequately at best.  His only adequate year at the plate was in
>>>>the 1970's.  That's FIVE dimensions right there: four skills and his
>>>>age.  I bet he can't pitch very well, either, over the long haul.
>
>>>of course his stats stink! but there must be a reason he has stayed
in
>>>the majors all these years...that reason is the "other dimension" - the
>>>dimension that can't be measured statistically.

>>Frankly, I think front-office stupidiy has a lot to do with it.
>>Everyone "knows" that shortstop is a defensive key, so they don't look
>>for hitting.  ANY hitting.  Big mistake, especially when the defense
>>isn't all that hot.

>MVP's were won by ss's with big bats in 82,83 and 91.  Trammell finished
>second in 87.

So?  Lousy-hitting SS's keep their jobs.  And there are far more of
those than there are excellent-hitting ones. 

PS: who finished 8th in 87?  That's right, Tony Fernandez.  Had he not
broken his leg, Trammell would have finished third, behind Fernandez and
Bell.  Everybody loves a winner, you know.  And votes for one.

>>>>>Alfredo Griffin is reported to be a really nice guy, a positive influence
>>>>>on the bench, in the clubhouse and on the field - if not at the plate.

>>No, they get released when someone BETTER comes along.  And when they
>>have no trade value anymore.  Griffin got displaced by Veryzer, replaced
>>by Fernandez and Weiss and Offerman.  None of them exactly HOF.

>Nobody said that a ss had to be hall of fame material to replace
griffin.

Truer word was never spoken.  But none of the SS's we're talking about
are HOF quality, except for Ripken and maybe Trammell.  

>Veryzer beat out an unknown quantity, Fernandez and Weiss were both
>projected as future stars and Griffen was traded. Offerman beat out an 
>aging shortstop.

Which begs the question: has Toronto no better use for that roster
spot?
>>>>>Making him the butt of your little statistical jokes shows a complete
>>>>>lack of respect for a man who commands a lot more respect from his peers
>>>>>than Tony Fernandez.  Ask the players if he made a "measurable" contribution.
>
>>>>Tell me about 1987 again.  Fernandez' injury cost them the pennant.
>>>>Would Griffin have helped?  Would they have been CLOSE to a pennant iwth
>>>>Griffin in there?  How many players said, "gee, if we only still had
>>>>Griffin."  

>>>manny lee filled in OK.  Ernie whitt's injury might have been more costly.
>>>Maybe if they had griffin the Blew Jays wouldn't have choked...

>>If they'd had Griffin they'd have been eliminated a week before the end
>>of the season.  Fernandez' hitting won them many games that Griffin
>>couldn't have had an effect on.

>>Ah, the "choke" bullshit.

>>They lost 4 out of 7 games at the end to the team that DID win.  That's
>>not a choke.  They lost those games because another team played better.
>>Now, I know you don't want to give the Tigers any credit, and that's why
>>you say "choke," but the fact remains: both teams played hard, and only
>>one team could win.

>next to mauch's phillies the blew jays orchestrated one of the great chokes
>of all time.  What was it now?  they lost the last nine games by a total of
>nine runs?  I can't be sure - I repressed that memory...

And much more, I'm sure.  They didn't lose the last nine games, for one
thing.  

And when you're in every game until the end, it's not choking.  Choking
is when you get blown away.  Choking is when you panic.  Which is what
Mauch did, using Bunning and SHort until they gave out; Short was
terrible and got bombed again and again.  

Remember, there was another team playing, which WON those games.  And
hard-fought games they were, that Toronto played.  And they played them
with their catcher and shortstop out, and went 3-4 in that series.  

>>>>And tell me: which of his peers are you talking about?  Which ones do
>>>>you know ?  Which ones have you talked to?  

>>Unfortunately, Reporter Average doesn't win games.  cf. Rickey
>>Henderson.

>Yeah henderson is a classic case of wasted potential. 

Remember, folks, you heard it here first.  

> great tools.
>can't win though.  Just think what the A's could of done if they had
>their egos in check.

Ah.  I see.  The season counts for nothing.  Excellence over 162 games
is trivial; only performance in a short series counts.  Henderson has
been on FOUR pennant-winners, and one WS winner.  Also two Yankee teams
that were each about two players away from division titles.  

Now, unless you allow Henderson to bat first AND fifth, there's little
more he can do for his team.  

tell me how the A's egos lost those games, while you're at it.  

>>>Tony would take himself out of games because he didn't feel like playing.
>>>not an exaggeration.  once he even gapped an at-bat.  

>>Not an exaggeration?  How the hell do you know what he felt like?  What
>>was his health like?  What's your source for this?  The same reporters
>>he didn't get along with, of course.  

>I watched it happen.  Excuses were later made for him but nothing was
>said about injury.  he was depressed because he wasn't playing as well
>as he thought he could...

I get depressed when I see Alfredo Griffin in the lineup, and playing as
well as he CAN play.

>>Guess what?  Players who give good interviews get called "team players."

>>Players who get HITS and RUNS are called hitters.

>and players with World Series rings are called winners. 

Even when they're bad players who hurt the team.  Yes, even WS winners
have bad players on the team.  You can be a winner in a team sport, and
still suck.  And you can play for a last-place team and excel.  Life is
like that, and pretending that team victory equals individual virtue is
nonsense.

> I hope griffin gets his second this year...

Surely you hope the JAYS win, not Griffin! If you want the former,
you'll probably be happy if they bring somebody to the club who can more
profitably fill the roster spot he's taking up.

Roger