From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Eck Wins MVP in Horrible Voting
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 01:48:08 GMT

In article <22NOV199220212782@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu> doctor8@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Jason Abner Miller) writes:
>In article <1992Nov22.212257.7862@panix.com>, spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira) writes...

>>>for a while.  But for League MVP???  What good are those great numbers
>>>if you're gonna play 3 or 4 times a week. Devereaux played every day, 
>>>and was a consistent part of the O's rush.  I think Mike Bordick was
>>>several times for valuable to Oakland than Rickey the Dude was.

>>Bordick had all of 67 more plate appearences than Henderson.  67.
>>Bordick batted .300/.358/.371, Henderson .283/.426/.457.

>>Considering that Henderson's OBP and SLG were both higher in '92
>>than his career OBP and SLG, I don't see how you can say that he
>>played poorly for someone of his caliber.

>	How productive can a Henderson be in only 375 AB?  OK, maybe
>his numbers were impressive, but doesn't mean he deserved any MVP votes.
>For a position player to be an MVP candidate, they should have played
>nearly every day (I won't go into the whole pitcher as MVP debate right now)

First of all, Henderson had *490* PAs.  (396 ABs)  Which is the relevant
factor, since we're worried about playing time.  Secondly, the anwser
is, very.  Playing *WELL* is much more important than playing often.  

Comparing Devereaux to Henderson, as you did in an earlier post, and
saying Devereaux was more valuable because he played more, makes no
sense.  It's like defending a running back by saying he gets a lot of
carries, even though he doesn't do very much with them.  Or a basketball
player by saying he gets a lot of playing time, even though he can't
shoot or dribble.

(I'm not claiming Devereaux is awful; but in comparison with Henderson,
there is no contest.)

>>According to Jeff Sagarin's markov chain analysis, Rickey created 87 runs
>>this season while Bordick created 70.  Henderson made 287 outs, Bordick 372.
>>17 more runs using up 85 less outs is a lot of offensive value.
 
>>Now, granted, offense at a middle infield position is worth more than
>>offense from a left fielder, but that doesn't make up the huge difference
>>in offensive contribution between Henderson and Bordick.

>	I know Bordick did not have MVP numbers.  But he was the strongest
>glue in that infield that looked like it would have gone to pot early in
>the year.  Bordick stepping up there and hitting .300, playing every day
>when no-one expected him to, provides a bigger team contribution than the
>17 extra arbitrary runs that Rickey provided.

Playing unexpectedly well is an unexpected surprise.  That doesn't give
it more value.  

>>And, by the way, Tony LaRussa insists that Rickey is not lazy, and in fact
>>told the press at least once that he played Henderson when Henderson 
>>shouldn't have been playing because of his injuries.  I see no reason not
>>to believe Rickey when he says that he's hurt.  Baseball people, fans,

>	I watched Rickey not play for the final 3 years of his Yankee tenure.
>He basically not played his way out of New York.  He has a long rep of
>not playing when he feels like it, and even if LaRussa will step up there
>and read what the management tells him to say about Rickey, doesn't mean
>I believe him.

I, too, watched Rickey in NY.  He was the best player on the Yankees, by
far.   He has a reputation.  So?  What that means is that he doesn't get
along with the mediots.  That's IT.  Just because they parrot something
doesn't mean it's true.  The fact that he snarled at them a lot does NOT
lessen his on-field contribution.  Mattingly *wishes* he could not-play
as well as Rickey.

He went over to Toronto after the playoffs to congratulate them.  Why?
Maybe because he isn't some evil person who can't get along with people.
*Despite* his reputation as being impossible.

>>Baseball people, fans, and the media seem to think that they can determine
>>when a player is or isn't in pain; I'm rather skeptical that anybody has these
>>kinds of telepathic powers

>>Eventually, this attitude is going to kill someone, as it almost did J.R.
>>Richard a decade ago.

>	WHAT?  Where on EARTH did J.R. Richard come into this??  The man
>had a nearly-fatal stroke, for goodness' sakes!!  Are you trying to suggest
>that he had a stroke because people questioned his heart (and no one ever did)?
>This statement makes no sense at all and has no place in your posting unless
>you can clarify what that's supposed to mean.  I assume you'll be hounding
>Jeff Gray next because his stroke cost the Sox the pennant in '91.
>	Rickey does not have a life threatening condition.  He never has had.
>Please don't make these unfair comparisons unless you can back them up after
>you make them.

No, he ISN'T questioning Gray's (or Richard's) heart.  And he doesn't
think you ought to question Rickey's, either.  It's not your place, not
seeing whether he's really injured, to claim that he isn't and is just
faking it.  There's this ideal in baseball (and other sports) that you
should prove your manhood by not admitting pain and playing when hurt.
People are praised for it all the time.  It's a dumb thing (stupidity)
to praise people for.   When he's hurt, not playing is not a bad thing
to do.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "If America is a Christian country because a majority
niepornt@phoenix.    | of the population is Christian, is it also a female 
   princeton.edu     | nation?  Or a white nation?"  -- Michael Kinsley,
Roland:Sign Treadway | to Governor Kirk Fordice of Mississippi.