From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Nixon & Sanders
Date: 22 Nov 92 00:46:16 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <P9NkuB1w164w@campbell.Gwinnett.COM> bc@campbell.Gwinnett.COM (campbell) writes:

>   Regarding Braves protected in the draft, Mark Mitchell posts...

> > And if Scherholtz was told - by Kasten, Ted Turner, or even Ed Turner
> > (no relation, president of TBS) - that he had to protect Sanders, he
> > could have bumped Otis Nixon instead of Nied.  Scherholtz is for 
> > some reason absolutely bonkers over Nixon though.

>   Maybe it has something to do with the fact that they would not
>   have won either division championship without him.

>   There!  I said it!  Now I feel better!  And I don't even care if
>   anyone agrees with me or not!

Well, I suppose someone will, but that's probably the same person who
can't spell "potato."  They won by *how* many games this year?  Do you
*really* think Otis Nixon is worth that many games?

>   I realize it's debatable if he should even be allowed to be
>   playing baseball given the drug suspension.  But given the fact that
>   he was not permanently suspended, the Braves were smart to keep him.

He wasn't playing baseball during the suspension.

>   He has the speed they need in the outfield, he is still the most
>   disruptive baserunner the team has, and his hitting is significantly

Which makes him qualified to be a pinch runner, not a starting outfielder.
Disruptive to whom, anyway?  The pitcher, or the batter? 

>   better than anyone could possibly have expected.

Which isn't saying much, given that you could have expected him to be
the worst player in the league, given his track record, and he's
actually only mediocre.

>   Given a full chance, it's quite likely that Deion Sanders would
>   have had an BETTER year than Nixon but it didn't happen that way.

Huh?

Otis Nixon: 	294/348/346
Deion Sanders:	304/346/495

Gee, it looks like it *did* happen that way.

>   Both players are very popular here in Atlanta.  I like both of
>   them myself but it wouldn't have surprised me to have seen Sanders
>   unprotected before Nixon even with the age differences...I also can't
>   help but get the feeling that Neon Deion will eventually be his
>   own undoing.  Whether or not it will distract from his considerable
>   athletic talents remains to be seen.

>   I guess it just surprised me to see so many people stongly state
>   that it was stupid to protect Nixon.  Sanders will probably be a
>   good leadoff hitter in his career.  Nixon already is.  And his team
>   won 2 division titles in a row largely because of it.

Otis Nixon has had *1* good year in his career.  One.  1991.  And it
wasn't great.  Just good.  This year was okay, nothing special at all.
With park adjustments, he was probably average or below this year, actually.

Teams don't win games because of one player.  They win because of all
their players.  In 1991, Otis Nixon was a major contributor.  In 1992,
he wasn't; he wasn't very good.  They had several people they could have 
replaced him with and done as well or better.

"Largely because of Nixon???"  How about Glavine,Smoltz,Avery,Liebrandt,
Gant,Justice,Bream,Pendleton,Blauser and several others who I can't think of 
at the moment?  You don't think it was more largely because of them?

No team wins largely because of one player.  Not unless we're talking
about Babe Ruth.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball