From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: The Monthly Cecil Fielder Thread
Keywords: Responding To Posts like this makes me worry about the future of us
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:58:36 GMT

Then don't.

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.

>>>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.

>>>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.

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?

As for "RBIs aren't particularly helpful in distinguishing between players"
that is of course your opinion, but certainly subject to debate.

>>(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.

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?

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

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. 

>>>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.

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

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - I'm only doing what the little voices tell me to do. 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball