From: sinhaa@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Anand Sinha)
Subject: Re: Value of Stats
Organization: Department of Computer Science, McMaster University
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:37:57 GMT

In article <Brr235.D8s@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> djohnson@cayley.waterloo.edu (David Johnson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.160012.29170@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> sinhaa@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Anand Sinha) writes:
>
>Getting bunt singles and stealing bases by a 40 year old sounds like a
>good effort to me.  Having a good time also creates a good atmosphere in
>the clubhouse and this can create better performances on the field than
>if he was not having fun.

Are you sure that having a good time creates a better atmosphere? How do 
Rance Mulliniks, Derek Bell and Rob Ducey feel about Winfield? Could they 
blame him for lack of playing time? I don't know, but it's a worthwhile
consideration.

> 
>>
>>And speaking of George, he smiled a lot at games, and early in his career
>>was very good with the fans.  But let me ask you a question.  If the fans
>>were booing you, would you be happy playing where you weren't wanted? Would
>>you want to sign autographs for the same people who were abusing you
>>during the game?  I know I wouldn't.
>>
>>As for George speaking out openly...what exactly is he supposed to do? In any
>>reports I read (unfortunately I have to use the media..), he never criticised
>>other teammates, or management, save for Jimy Williams' DH idea.  As for 
>>criticising the fans, well, I think he has a right to complain about fans
>>who verbally abuse him when he is trying to do his job. 
>
>The first reason the fans were booing him is because he refused to DH which
>was obviously good for the team (as explained below).  This gave him the
>reputation of not being a player who wants to help out his team win the
>division.  Fans booed him for this.  When George started speaking out
>against the fans, the fans booed him even more so George made the problem
>worse.

Hm. "Obviously good for the team"?? How is it "obviously good for the team" when
it meant that Syl Campusano had to play the OF and Cecil Fielder got no PAs? Let's
not forget that this is what would have happened in 1988 if George DHed. Also, 
since Gruber took over the 3rd base job that year, Mulliniks would have gotten
fewer PAs.  Time has shown that Campusano was *not* a ML caliber player, and
that Fielder and Mulliniks still were productive.  In 1988, Bell was *still*
the 3rd best defensive OF that the Jays had.  Who was it "obviously good for
the team that he DH" to? The sportswriters? I doubt that they know much about
the game.  After all, their profession is writing, not baseball.

>
>>One more thought, you say that George did not give 100%. If that's true, why
>>did he always come to play whether injured or not?  He kept trying his hardest
>>to play LF, no matter how much pain he was in.  Sounds like 100% effort to me.
>>
>>Oh, I know, you will use the "well, if he was hurt, he should have DLed himself
>>so someone healthy could play". Much like Gruber this year. And I bet you think
>>that Gruber is "slacking off", not giving 100% etc. You can't have it both
>>ways...
>
>If Bell was hurt (bad knees and/or bad shoulder) he should have realized that
>this was even more of a reason to help out the team and agree to DH more often.

He did. In '89 and '90, he DHed more often than 1988 when he wasn't hurt as much.
I guess he wasn't helping the team then.  

>>See above. Why *should* he sign autographs for the same people who abuse him?
>>Finally...how do you *know* that he did not sign autographs for people? From
>>the newspaper columns? The same reporters who did not like George? Sounds like
>>a fishy source to me...
>
>If he wants the fans to get back on his side he should not abuse them even
>more than he was.

Why should he *want* the fans back on his side? If he played his hardest, 
that's about the best he could do. He did his best. He was the main offensive
threat that the team had in 1988 and 1989. Personally, I agree, he should have
risen above the drunk crowds at Exhibition Stadium and Skydome.  Unfortunately,
he did not. He also did not live up to the unreasonably high expectations 
that fans had of him after 1987.  The local media and fans expected him to 
put up Babe Ruth like numbers, which he did not do.  When the team did not
do well in 1988, the media crucified him, made him the scapegoat, and the 
local fans picked up on this.  The numbers that he put up in '88, '89 and 
even '90 were very similar to the numbers he put up in '85 and '86.  Anyhow,
the fans treated him badly after George gave them all he could.  He got fed
up with being a scapegoat.  It happens to the best of all athletes.  Check
out Sittler, Darryl of the Maple Leafs.  
>
>>
>>Hmm. Whom did the Jays have to play the OF to replace Bell? Syl Campusano? 
>>Rob Ducey? Mookie Wilson? Let's face it, Bell was the 3rd best OF the Jays
>>had in the organisation that could play at the Major League level. He knew it.
>>And the Jays knew it.  Now, I don't know Dave Winfield's situation, but 
>>didn't Dave demand to play in the OF 2-3 times during a week? Even though he
>>rarely gets to a ball? No, Dave should not play the OF, not with his lack of
>>mobility. It is not good for the team for Dave to play the OF. Yet he demanded
>>that he play there.  Doesn't seem like he's in it for the best of the team.
>
>If you remember Mookie DH'd quite a bit that season and so by putting Mookie
>in left you improve defense and the offense would remain the same.  Also
>it would have been nice to see Ducey get a chance to play because I think
>that he could be better than average defensively and and OK offensive player.

Mookie was a non-useful player after his brief 1989 spark which helped the 
Jays to the division title.  Personally I also agree about Ducey. But the 
Blue Jays management, for some reason, does not see Ducey as a useful ballplayer.
In any event, in 1988 when the Bell to DH move was first mentioned, there
was no other OF to replace him. So why move him there at the expense of 
Fielder and Mulliniks.  Consider this. If Bell moves to DH in 1988, we have
Campusano in the OF, and do not a Fielder/Mulliniks platoon at DH.  A small gain
in defense (Campusano was not a great defensive OF) vs. a large loss in 
offense.  Again, it does not look like moving Bell to DH was good for the team.


Um, BTW, you never addressed my comment about Winfield. I'd like to hear your
explanation about Dave's request.  
>
>>Hmm. Let's see, during George's time with the Jays they won 2 AL East titles,
>>lost one in the last week of '87 (when he was giving 100%), lost in '86, '88 
>>and '90 by less than 5 games. Sounds like he "knew how to win" and "created
>>a winning atmosphere". 
>
>I don't credit George solely with those wins.  The Jays have had a good team
>for years and maybe should have won more than 3 times so far.

Hm. Do you blame Bell for the Jays *not* winning in '87? You seem eager to blame
Bell's influence for the team not winning the other years, why not give
him credit for the team winning in '85 and '89? 
>
>>Do a quick check on Dave Winfield's career. How many times has *his* team won
>>a Division title? How many times have they been close?  Take a look at his
>
>Ken Griffey's team hasn't won and won't for a few years so does that mean he
>doesn't "know how to win".  No it means he hasn't had the chance to win with
>a good team.

Ken Griffey has been on his team for 3 years.  Last year was the first year
in which he really showed his offensive potential.  Surprise surprise, it
is the first year in which the Mariners had a winning season.  As for whether
or not his team won't win for a few years, don't count your chickens. They've
got Griffey, Edgar Martinez and new ownership, so they have a very good chance. 

Again, you are avoiding my question.  Nevertheless, Dave Winfield was on a lot
of *very* good Yankee teams in the early- to mid-80's. Why didn't his "do
everything to help the team" attitude help them win the division? Why was he
so upset at being forced to DH when Jesse Barfield went from Toronto to NY?  He
also whined about being compared to Reggie Jackson, the man he was supposed to 
replace in New York. This was a)unreasonable to expect out of Winfield as Reggie
was one of the best power hitters since the '61 expansion, b)Winfield should
have done his job and not publically whined if he was a team player.

>
>Good.  This is what I wanted.  Arguements with no or little stats.  It was
>nice to read and it shows that you know more about baseball than just the
>numbers you read in the paper.  This post showed how someone can make a good
>arguement without stats.

Don't flatter me.  You managed to cut out the most important part of my post,
that *all* of the "statheads"(tm) started out as baseball fans and can give
you the exact same argument.  Most of them (us) want to know *why* and *what* 
shows that Bell didn't play 100%, Winfield is a better team player etc. And
as I've done, they can all give you counter examples to show that Bell did
give 100% and that Winfield is only looking out for himself and trying to get
himself into the Hall of Fame. Without stats. Looking at subjective impressions.
Unfortunately, subjective impressions don't necessarily show anything.  As an
example, subjectively to me, Dennis Cook of the Indians must be a great
pitcher, because I've seen him pitch (on TV many times, in person once), and
he is great in every game I see. He had an almost no-no against the Dodgers
when with the Giants.  He had a 4-hitter against the Jays this year. But, I 
look at his numbers and realise that he's not quite as good as I thought, 
I've been lucky to see his *few* good starts. 

Anyhow, please answer my questions about Dave Winfield.  I've tried to show
why (again with stats) George Bell may have been more of an asset than you
think he was.  Show me, with or without stats, why Winfield is more of an
asset to the Jays than George was.

Anand Sinha
Jays #1 -> all the way in '92.
ROBBIE (not Sandy) Alomar for MVP
JUAN (not Jose or Johnny) Guzman for Cy Young