From: spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: The Monthly Cecil Fielder Thread
Keywords: Responding To Posts like this makes me worry about the future of us
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:53:29 GMT
Organization: Boo!

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.

>>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.

>>Well, its quite possible that Fielder would have won a MVP.  But baseball
>>writers have a habit of translating MVP as "Player Who Came Up With
>>The Most Runners On Base."  

>Really? Hmm. In the AL 80's/early 90's, Canseco, Mattingly, and Bell won MVP
>in the same year they led the league in RBI, and each of them had pretty 
>decent years in other respects. Not much of a "habit". In the NL, Schmidt (3x),
>Murphy (2x), Dawson, and Mitchell. Again some pretty decent years. Only a 
>couple I'd question.

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.

>(BTW, if they DID award it on the basis of "Player Who Came Up With The Most 
>Runners On Base", why didn't Sierra win it last year over Ripken? Bonilla in 
>91 over Bonds? etc)

>(BTWII, how many runners did Clemens have on base when he won the MVP? Fingers?
>Hernandez?)

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.

Please try and see the forest in addition to the trees.

>>At this
>>point, he's about the 5th most valuable player on his team.  The Tigers
>>would lose a lot less by replacing Fielder with an replacement level
>>first baseman than they would by replacing Whitaker, Phillips, Tettleton,
>>or Fryman with replacement level players at their position.  Run a lineup
>>simulation, and the results won't even be close.

>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.

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