From: spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira)
Subject: Re: The Monthly Cecil Fielder Thread
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:34:08 GMT
Organization: Boo! 
Keywords: Responding To Posts like this makes me worry about the future of us

In <1992Sep9.145836.1347@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:

>In article <1992Sep3.225329.15167@panix.com> spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira) writes:
>>In <1992Sep3.180423.4371@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1992Sep1.164007.5432@panix.com> spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira) writes:

>>>>They are?  Silly me - I thought they were paid to help their team win!  Now,
>>>>once again, someone informs me that they're paid the club pays them to
>>>>accumulate lots of RBIs, even if it costs the team wins!  Will I never learn!
>>
>>>Silly you is right. They are paid to increase revenue for the team. Winning
>>>helps, but it's not, by any means, the only factor. Hence, an ineffective
>>>Nolan Ryan still helps the team. Hence, an ineffective, aging superstar
>>>(Mantle, Kaline, Yastrzemski, Mays, Jackson, etc) can still help the team. 

>>True, of course, but that doesn't really have much to do with my point.

>Then what was your point? Have you shown that (in this instance) Fielder costs
>the team wins? You can pretty easily show that the Tiger STAFF costs the team
>wins, but that's another matter. And if the above-mentioned people draw fans
>into the park, then of course, they are HELPING the team, regardless of whether
>their stats are anywhere near the best in the league.

My point was that whoever I was replying to claimed that Fielder was paid
to drive in runs, period, and that I was questioning that, because RBIs
are only part of Fielder's responsibility and because a player who costs
his team too much in the way of outs while trying to pile up RBI totals
is hurting his team.  As far as Fielder costing his team wins, I can't
answer that unless I have a compared to what.  But it has been shown here
by others that if you put an above average first baseman out there instead
of Fielder, the Tigers will probably win more games.

>>>>Nonsense. There are a number of players who have been better at driving
>>>>in runs over the past few years.  Leading the league in RBIs does not
>>>>indicate that you are the best in driving in runs - it just means that
>>>>you have driven in more runs than anyone else.

>>>Nothing wrong with that.

>>Never said there was anything "wrong."  It's just not the same thing.

>It is certainly not a bad thing, however.

Never said it was.  Just that I don't think its a particularly meaningful
bit of statistical information compared to other information we have
available to us.

>>Well, Dawson for instance.  The point, of course, is not that players who
>>lead the league in RBIs aren't good players - it's just that RBIs aren't
>>particularly helpful in distinguishing between players.

>Well, the TEAM gets runs out of them, and it's not at all certain that the
>player(s) hitting behind the guy are going to get the runs home, now is it?

Certain?  No, but its not certain that the earth won't blow up in the
next 5 minutes either.  There are no 100% guarantees in life, but that
doesn't stop us from trying to achieve our goals in a way that is designed
to produce the best likely outcome.

>>Mike, this is silly.  Over the past twenty years, the writers generally
>>award the MVP to the RBI leader or the seemingly best player on a winning
>>team.  Throwing out pitchers who've won doesn't change that.

>OK, this modifies your statement somewhat, and makes it a BIT more reasonable.
>However, in the AL, over the last 20 years (1972 -1991), the RBI leader has one
>8 times (D Allen, R Jackson, J Burroughs, J Rice, D Baylor, D Baylor, D
>Mattingly, G Bell, and J Canseco). I lok at those years and don't see any stiffs
>for that year. In the NL, in addtion to those mentioned, add J Bench and G 
>Foster, for a total of 9 players. Now, other than Dawson, who's undeserving?

Well, I'm not going to go back and look.  The one name that jumps out at
me as undeserving is George Bell, who got the award in a year when Alan
Trammell produced more offense and had tons more defensive value.  George
had more HRs and RBIs, as I recall.  I'm sure I would find more that I
would disagree with if I looked.

>Ok, let's look at that forest. I believe your exact words were "But baseball
>writers have a habit of translating MVP as "Player Who Came Up With
>The Most Runners On Base."" How true is that? Doesn't appear to be at ALL true,
>yet you don't question YOUR statement. How can a pitcher POSSIBLY be considered
>for MVP by your expressed criterion? Looking simply at BATTERS, however, your 
>statement STILL looks WRONG. Not a single player for whom I have complete stats
>in fact had the most runners on base and still won an MVP. 

Well, my statement was meant to be a bit of hyperbole.  Let's change it
to "Player Who Came Up With Tons of Runners On Base And Drove A Decent
Enough Percentage of Them In To Make Him THe League Leader In RBIs or
Very Close To It Unless That Player is On A Loser, In Which Case A Player
Who Is Almost As Good In Those Respects And Has Supposed Leadership
Qualities, Unless There Is No Such Person In Which Case The First Guy
Is Looked At Again, And If There's Still Something They Don't Like They'll
Take A Look At A Pitcher"

I would guess that definition will work in about 85% of the votes since
1970.

>>>Probably if you run a simulation on the Tigers current lineup, you might find
>>>that they don't score as many runs as the real team.

>>I don't see any obvious reason that would be true.

>Sooo, how'd your simulation of the Orioles and Tigers do in predicting which
>would score more runs?

Well, I've never done a simulation in my life, I leave those to others
who know what they're doing.  As has been discussed here before, the Tigers
are likely scoring more runs because the walk/home run combination is
probably more efficient than more of a mixture of different types of
offense, and runs created etc. doesn't adjust quite properly for that.
If that is the case, however, I see no reason that a simulation won't do
just as well as the real thing.

The Orioles are a different story, and I don't have the data available 
to look at why they are the one team that is underproducing so much.
However, even then, its quite possible that if you run the Orioles through
a simulation with the worst possible lineup (that is, the one that Johnny
Oates has used most of the season), the simulation will underproduce as
much as the real thing.

Greg 
-- 
  spira@panix.com       "The one-O delivery to Fisk.  He swings.  Long drive,  
 cmcl2!panix!spira      left field!  If it stays fair, it's gone!  Home Run!"  
158-17 Riverside Dr.                     Ned Martin, 10/22/75   
Whitestone NY 11357          (Insert your favorite baseball moment here) 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball