From: spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira)
Subject: Re: Eck Wins MVP in Horrible Voting
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 05:58:56 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Boo!  

In <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...
>> 
>>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)

Well, i didn't view Henderson as a serious MVP candidate.  I might've
thrown him in as a 10th place vote, but he did not play enough to be
a serious contender.  But a player with 500 plate appearences can easily
be more valuable than a player with 700 plate appearences, like
Devereaux.  If Babe Ruth came in and hit for 500 plate appearances like
he did in 1927, and was hurt and missed 200 plate appearances because,
at the age of 90, he's not that fit anymore, I would still vote
for him for MVP.  What matters is what a player does for his team
overall, not what he didn't do.

And will you please stop using his at-bats figure.  His walks and hpbs
are plusses, not minuses.  If he had walked 300 times, would you still
complain that he had only 350 at-bats?

If Rickey had had one more plate appearance, mlb would've credited
him with a full enough season to be eligible for the average title
etc.  

But my point before was that when he played you said he played poorly,
and yet he produced above his career norms.  The latter clearly
conflicts with the former.

>> 
>>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.

It's silly to say a contribution was greater because no one expected it,
which is esssentially what you're arguing.  Bordick did help the As;
there's no denying that.  But I don't see where the surprise factor
makes him any more valuable than if he were to have this season
every year.  And since when are runs arbitrary?

I think the As, in all likelihood, would have suffered more in the
W-L column if Rickey had sat out the season than if Bordick had sat out
the season.  
>> 
>>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.
   
See below.  I know Rickey's rep, but I have no more reason to buy the
mediots' views of Rickey's injuries than their view of Joe Carter's
value to the Blue Jays. 

>>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.

Okay, I should've explained this better.  What happened with J.R. Richard
was this: For a while before he had stroke, Richard had been complaining
about weakness and generally feeling awful.  He felt that there was
something wrong, and that he probably shouldn't pitch.  The Astros didn't
believe him, and pushed him to pitch.  He was portrayed as some kind of
wimp who didn't want to pitch just because he was a little under the
weather.  And then he had his stroke.

My point is this: No one but Rickey is really in a position to jydge
whether Rickey is healthy enough to play.  Its possible that he's being
lazy, but it's just as possible that he does get hurt often and knows
exactly when he should play and when he shouldn't.  In my opinion, the
former is the version propogated by the media because Rickey just isn't
everybody's favorite person; he hasn't exactly made himself endearing
to the media, fans, or his own team.  But I see no reason to believe that
just because Rickey isn't Mr. Sunshine we shouldn't take his word regarding
his fitness to play when he's injured.

The degree of the situation is irrelevant here.  Rickey doesn't have 
a life threatening injury, but it doesn't take a life threatening problem
to make sitting out games the right thing to do.  I saw Rickey play here
for 3 years too, and I saw the press label him as a lazy malingerer.  But
I never saw any evidence ever that anybody used to show that was true.  It
wasn't like Rickey was spotted dancing the night away when he was injured,
as other ballplayers who claimed injuries were.  No one ever gave me
a single real reason to believe that he wasn't as injured as he said he
was.  And I don't think we should doubt a person's word unless we have
reason to.  And the only reason I ever heard was that that was what
the media reported, and that that was what Lou Pinella believed.  

The Richard story is completely relevant here.  Rickey isn't in danger
of dying, but maybe if he had listened to the chorus of "you lazy bum"
and gone out and played when he shouldn't have, he might've hurt himself
in a way that would've ended his career.

I assume this has clarified what I meant.  I should not have assumed
that everybody knew what I was talking about; that was stupid on
my part.

Greg