From: djohnson@cayley.waterloo.edu (David Johnson)
Subject: Re: Value of Stats
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 22:41:08 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.193757.8909@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> sinhaa@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Anand Sinha) writes:
>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.

If Rance Mulliniks, Derek Bell, and Rob Ducey don't think that a .300 hitter
15HR and 50 RBI man so far shouldn't be playing then they shouldn't be
considered team players as well.  

>>>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.

It is obvious that the team didn't think much of Cecil at that time as they
let him leave for Japan.

>>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.  

He wasn't exactly jumping for joy at the thought of DH'ing but finally decided
that it was a good idea.  Probably a year or two late in my opinion.

>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.  

This is what happened to Gruber after his great year.  

>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.

Even if the Bell to DH move would be a bad one Bell should have respected the
manager and either agreed to play there part time or privately ask for a 
trade like some players.  If he had of been a little quieter about him not
wanting to DH but still privately discuss the issue with management then
the fans would have never booed him and he may still be in Toronto (Awful
Thought).

>Um, BTW, you never addressed my comment about Winfield. I'd like to hear your
>explanation about Dave's request.  

If you remember Dave said that he would bring his glove to spring training
and try and show the Jays that he can still play the outfield.  I recall him
saying that he thinks he still can play outfield and would like to play out
there a little but I don't recall him demanding to play in the field.

>>>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? 

I never said I didn't give Bell credit for those wins but what I said was
that he is not the sole reason for them winning.  One player cannot make a
team win (If anyone could I wonder how much he could get as a free agent).
In '87 I blame it on injuries in the last few weeks and outstanding pitching
by the Tigers in the last week to beat the Jays.

>>>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.

     a)Right but the management critisized him for not doing this.
     b)If the management doesn't respect you and doesn't think you
       are doing a good job, why should he have to respect the management.

>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. 

I never said stats shouldn't be used but they should be used with other
information like which we have discussed here.

>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.

I think that George was an asset (probably the best Blue Jay prior to Alomar
and Carter) but he could have been better off the field.

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