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 01:36:26 GMT

In article <22NOV199212300507@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu> doctor8@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Jason Abner Miller) writes:
>In aBy4Jt6.Cqv@cs.dal.ca>, niguma@ug.cs.dal.ca (Gordon Niguma) writes...
>>In <21NOV199212140657@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu> (Jason Abner Miller) writes:
>>>In <1992Nov20.184840.9657@Princeton.EDU> (David Marc Nieporent) writes...
>>>>In <BxzrFM.9tJ@cs.dal.ca> niguma@ug.cs.dal.ca (Gordon Niguma) writes:

>>    [discussion regarding MVP balloting idiocy deleted]
 
>>>>MIKE DEVEREAUX FINISHED AHEAD OF FRANK THOMAS!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
>>>	Damn straight.  Played great D, and was a huge Orioles Catalyst.
>>>Thomas had another generic Barry Bonds season, but is virtually unknown in
>>>the media and is a mediocre defensive 1B - not as valuable as a great CF.

>>  The fact that Thomas may or may not be known to the media really should be
>>irrelevant shouldn't it? What kind of justification is that for sportswriters?
>>"Oh, yeah his numbers are great, but I never heard of him so he can't be good"
>>doesn't cut it. If you're a sportswriter you probably should be familiar with
>>Frank Thomas because he's the best hitter in baseball, or damn close to it.

>	I happen to agree with you.

>>  I also don't think Devereaux is that well known either. Was he on the All
>>Star team before (I don't know but I don't think so)? Has he won a Gold Glove
>>before? No. I don't think he's actually as well known as Thomas, but that's
>>subjective anyways.

>	Yes, but consider that Devereaux came out of nowhere and had a 
>tremendous season, after virtually no-one knew anything about him

What is this "tremendous" crap?  He had an okay season.  Outfielders who
had similar years: Brunansky, Belle, Sierra, Canseco, Maldonado, Mitchell,
Carter.

OFs who had better years include Puckett, Mack, Griffey, Anderson, Raines,
Deer, Tartabull, Rickey, Gonzalez, Winfield.

This was just OFs; I didn't even look at other positions.  *This* is an
MVP candidate?  Not.

>beforehand.  Frank Thomas, meanwhile, had another superb season, but not
>as superb as his '91 campaign (although not by much).  So, while Thomas
>was doing the same thing, Devereaux tremendously improved his "mediot" stats
>(i.e. BA, HR, RBI, SB) and consequently received a lot more attention.

Again, not a defense of the mediots.

>[numerous pro-Thomas stats (all correct) deleted]

>>You seem to ignore offense in this discussion: that's because Devereaux isn't
>>nearly as good as an offensice player; not in the same light year. It is
>>true that Devereaux has more defensive value than Thomas. But then again so
>>does Devon White. So does Rickey Henderson. So does Pat Borders. So does
>>3/4 of the regulars in the league. Denfense helps but offense is much more
>>important.

>	I know he's not a great offensive player, but he was certainly
>the Orioles' co-MVP (along with Brady) in '92 and got more attention.  I'm
>not saying the voting was correct statistically, I'm just saying that
>Devereaux got more attention for what he did.

Bwahahaha.  Mike Devereaux is the Orioles co-MVP like I am.  (After all,
I went to a lot of games, giving them lots of money.  That means I
contributed to their future success.)

Orioles more valuable than Devereaux include Gomez, Hoiles (though you
could argue that his limited playing time evens it out), Mussina, Mills,
and Frowirth.  

>>>>Rickey Henderson got *no* votes, while GEORGE BELL got some?

>>>	Why should Rickey get votes?  Did nothing this year.  Then again,
>>>neither did George Bell, so you're about right on this one.
 
>> Rickey Henderson did nothing this year? Yeah I guess 207 times on base is 
>>nothing. Of course he only ate up 295 or so outs so he couldn't have been
>>any good. (Deveraux was on base 224 times, but made 481 outs). Rickey only 
>>stole 48 bases while being caught only 11 times. That's nothing. Rickey only
>>hit 15 HR; that's nothing. OK, now I see your point.......

>	Yeah, I guess that Devereaux couldn't have had nearly as big
>an impact batting 575 times for the Orioles as Henderson did batting 375
>times for the A's.

First of all, Rickey did *not* bat 375 times.  He had 396 ABs + 95 BB,
for approximately 490 PAs.  (Devereaux had about 700)

Secondly, Devereaux certainly did have as big an impact; it just wasn't
all positive.  Comparing Devereaux to Henderson, Devereaux had 200 more
plate appearances; he ALSO had 200 more outs.  That means the equivalent
of all his playing time was getting out every extra AB he had.  What
good is that?

Devereaux -- PAs 697  Hits 180  Walks  44  Outs 473
Rickey ----- PAs 491  Hits 112  Walks  95  Outs 284

>	Maybe Henderson was impressive during the times when he decided
>to get off of his lazy *** and play poorly (for someone of his caliber)
>for a while.  But for League MVP???  What good are those great numbers

First of all, Rickey did *not* play poorly.  He played (as usual) quite
well.  He hit 283/426/457.  Secondly, he is *not* lazy.  *SOME* people
-- the mediots, NOT his teammates or the opposing team, dislike him.  I
don't consider that a flaw at all.  But he is not lazy.  

Or if he is, who cares?  I don't care if a player *could* hit
400/500/600 but is so lazy they only hit 280/420/450.  I care how they
*actually* did.  And Rickey actually did quite well.

As for his lack of playing time, he was *injured.*  I'm sure *you're* so
smart you can tell when a player is injured better than the team and
the player himself, but I can't, so I'm going to take their word for it.

>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.

He played every day, but playing *well* is more important than playing
every day.  And Devereaux simply did not play that well.  He's just
another low-OBP slugger, and he doesn't slug enough to even begin to
make up for his low OBP.  Great numbers *once* a week are more valuable 
than mediocre numbers.  

Bordick played a lot.  So?  He wasn't doing that much when he did play.
He got on base some, but nowhere near as much as Rickey, and hit for no
power at all. And he only had about 50 more PAs than Rickey.

>>>>Juan Gonzalez got more votes than Ken Griffey.

>>>	Griffey didn't have a GREAT year, while Juan Gone! captured the media
>>>with his 43 Deep Drives.  Another media-influenced vote, although not really
>>>a bad choice.
 
>>  Griffey had a MUCH better campaign than Gonzalez. Take away his 43 HR and
>>Gonzalez played very poorly,while Griffey excelled in most phases of the game.
>>Even with Gonzalez 43 HR he was still outslugged by Jr. Throw in the fact
>>that Griffey hit 48 points higher in BA than Gonzalez, drew more walks and
>>played superior defense then you've got a better player than Gonzalez.

>	Just remember:  43 HRs is a stat the mediot loves.  I don't think
>Griffey had half of that (correct me if I'm wrong - don't have my numbers
>handy).  Again, not saying that means Griffey's offensively worse, because

27 HRs for Griffey

>he's certainly not, but his generic Griffey-type season went virtually
>unnoticed while Juan Gone! did something Griffey has never done - compete
>for the HR crown, perhaps the most important Mediot stat.

>>>>John Olerud got *no* votes; MIKE BORDICK got some.
 
>>>	Olerud should have gotten as least as many as Bordick

>>>>Mickey Tettleton didn't get any votes; Pat Listach did.
 
>>>	That's cause Listach had a good year.
        
>>  How exactly did Listach have a good year while Tettleton did not? This is
>>probably the most foolish part of the entire voting! Tettleton was on base
>>227 times this year while Listach was on 223 times. Tettleton had a superior
>>OBP (.379 to .352) so obviously he's making fewer outs. Listach, of course
>>was a productive base stealer though, 54 SB, 18 CS which accounts for about
>>6 runs of offense added because of this. Tettleton had 0 SB-6CS so he cost
>>Sparky about 3 runs of offense. So the stolen bases cost Tettleton about
>>9 runs on Listach. 

>	More stats.  Tettleton hit .238. Listach hit well over 50 points
>above that.  OK, Tettleton walked 122 times.  Big deal.  He bats in the
>heart of the Tigers' lineup - is it his place to clog the bases that
>many times instead of driving in runs in those opportunites?  Listach

Yes.  If Listach had only clogged the bases as much as Tettleton, they
would have scored a lot more runs.  It isn't as if Tettleton was busy
walking every time he got up (even if he was, this would have value); he
also hit 25 doubles and 32 home runs.

>is leadoff hitter, so he should walk and get on base often.  Tettleton is
>a run produced.  2-out walks generally don't produce runs.  It's an 

They produce a hell of a lot more runs than 2-out outs.  And he only
bats with 2 outs 1/3 of the time.

And EVERYONE is a run producer.  And EVERYONE has to get on base, or
your offense dies.  EVERYONE has to drive in runs.  Everyone's job is to
create runs.  People who do both exceptionally well, like Tettleon, 
are MVP-candidates.  People who do one of these things well, like
Listach, are good players.

>impressive walk total, but I like them better on Tony Phillips' line
>because he batted leadoff most of the season and provided many of those
>RBIs for guys like Cecil, Mickey, and Deer.

And Tettleton provided ALL the RBIs for everybody below him in the
lineup.  Certainly Cecil Fielder didn't; he rarely got on base, and
since a good percentage of the time that he did was on HRs, there was
often no one to drive in.  Not to mention all those innings he ended
before the people below him could get on base.

>[more pro-Mickey stats deleted]

>>  How can Listach be considered a better player in 1992 than Tettleton?
		
>	Your friendly neighborhood mediot loves leadoff hitters who
>come from deep within the minor leagues to hit close to .300, play
>good shortstop (in their eyes, if not in the eyes of the Number Gods),
>and win the Rookie of the Year voting in a town that hasn't seen it in
>several years, if ever.
>	Listach captured more attention among the sportswriters than
>Tettleton did.  Tettleton was the 2nd best catcher in the A.L. last year
>(I personally like Steinbach slightly better, flame wars to follow), but
>238 hitters generally don't rank high in MVP voting no matter how much
>else he produced.

Not.  Hoiles was the best, over less playing time.  Tettleton was miles
ahead of Steinbach; getting on base more and slugging a lot more.

>>>	Remember, a "Mediot" doesn't drool over OBP.  They see intangibles
>>>as more important to the team as RC/27.  The voting is not as accurate
>>>as it should have been, and many sentimental favorites (i.e. Cecil and ACK!
>>>Morris) did better than true stars, but as long as Rickey Henderson got
>>>0 votes, I consider it a year well done.
 
>>  This may be the gyst of the argument. What I am saying is that the mediots
>>SHOULD realize that OBP counts more than any single piece of offensive data
>>you can find (except maybe RC or something like that). I can certainly
>>understand why they voted as they did (in a nutshell, because they are really,
>>really stupid) but I can't see how they can justify it.
>>  In the case of Tettleton vs. Listach, I see absolutely NO WAY that this is
>>justified. Any possible angle you could take on it puts Tettleton in front.
>>If anyone still thinks that BA is as important as OBP, you should go back to 
>>watching some other sport.

>	I understand your point - that baseball is best seen through
>the eyes of mathematics.  But sportswriters are not that kind of fan.
>They prefer to watch their favorite players who are most appealing
>to the average fan who doesn't know what RC is if it's not a type of soda.

And a good one, too.

>Maybe their method of judging players isn't the most accurate way, but I
>don't see it changing in the near future.
 
-- 
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.