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 16:00:12 GMT

In article <Brp97A.Drx@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> djohnson@cayley.waterloo.edu (David Johnson) writes:
>
>It is hard to actually prove Winfield puts 100% effort into the game and Bell
>didn't but if you watch Winfield he is always having a good time and obviously
>enjoys what he is doing and Bell didn't always show this.  I think that in
>any job that you can perform better if you are enjoying what you do.  Bell
>speaking out too openly is his main problem.  By doing this he got the fans
>booing him which creates a bad atmosphere on the field for both himself and
>the team.

It *is* possible to have a good time playing baseball and not put 100% effort
out.  Is it possible that Winfield is thinking "Geez I'm getting $2.2mil for
swinging a bat, and getting myself into the Hall of Fame"? Now, don't get
me wrong, I've always *liked* Dave, but "smiling" and "having a good time" 
don't translate into 100% effort. 

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. 

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...


>
>Bell may not be as much of a problem as some players but he certainly didn't
>do anything to improve the atmosphere on and off the field.  Speaking his
>mind is his main problem as stated above.  Actually late in his career as
>a Jay he started to be a problem with kids.  A few times after a bad game
>and Bell was booed a lot he refused to sign autographs for kids and even
>used harsh words to autograph seekers.  

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...

>
>His injuries were a problem late in his Toronto years but i think that he
>could have put more effort and enthusiasm into playing and this is a good
>reason why he should have been DH.

And, again, I maintain that he put 100% effort into playing LF. He played as 
hard as he could through his injuries.  Playing hard though injuries generally
means one is giving 100% effort. Now, as to whether it helps the team or 
not, but that's not the point.
>
>>
>>(3) George didn't flatly refuse to DH, he said he would DH some of the time. 
>>    Having the ego/machismo he does and coming from the Dominican, he felt 
>>    that DHing made you less than a complete ballplayer. The Jays (and Jimy 
>>    Williams) approached this matter all wrong with Bell. They basically 
>>    served an ultimatum to him the year after he won the MVP award, telling 
>>    him he was going to DH. Is it any surprise, with Jorge's pride and ego, 
>>    that he didn't take too kindly to such a forced action? 
>
>I agree that the matter was approached in the wrong matter but if the same
>happened to Winfield he probably would have agreed to DH because he would 
>realize that it was best for the team.  Bell is less of a team player
>than Winfield for this reason.  Also when Bell refused bunt if he was asked
>to because he thought he was too good to bunt.  Winfield would do anything
>the manager asks because he respects the manager and his decisions.

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.
>
>>
>>  Everything I've seen/heard/read wrt Bell that wasn't spewed by a mediot has
>>actually been pretty complimentary. He's often described by teammates as
>>someone who cares more about winning than anything/anyone else. He really
>>softens up around kids and starts to resemble a teddy bear more than a 'nasty
>>Dominican'. 
>
>Wanting to win is only the first step, knowing how to win and create a winning
>atmosphere is more important.

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". 

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
career numbers sometime. They show a drop off during the season. I am surprised
at how strong he is, this late into the season.

>
>> 
>>  Having met George briefly after a game once to get an autograph, I got the
>>impression that he was a very funny, likable guy. He just happens to be very 
>>cynical of mediots and people that he perceives are after him for something. 
>>I can't say I blame him. 
>
>The two major problems with Bell are the fact that he speaks his mind too
>much and in situations which it is not needed and his lack of respect for
>managers decisions even if he disagrees with them.

"He speaks his mind too much". That's part of his personality. Again, show me
an instance, save for 1990, when he *knew* he was leaving Toronto, where
he said something derogatory about teammates or management.  As for managers
decisions, he *only* ever disagreed with Jimy Williams. he got along fine
with Bobby Cox (as far as we could tell anyhow), and Cito Gaston as well. 
Jimy Williams and George Bell did not get along.  I leave it to you to determine
which of the two I'd go with for managerial strategy. (Hint: Anyone who can't
spell his own name right has to have some problems).

>
>>
>>>Now for all those people who rely only on stats to compare players, I will
>>>tell you to wake up and watch some baseball, not only read the news paper
>>>and piles and piles of stats.  For real baseball fans the game is more than
>>>just numbers it is a game which can be enjoyed both on the television and
>>>in the news paper.  Stats don't tell everything about a player so don't
>>>base your arguements on stats alone.
 
(this is an older posting which started the thread).

I gave you a reasonable argument, with NO STATS involved. I love baseball. Its
my second most passion in life. (Wife and daughters are first).  I listen to it
on the radio, I tune in any game I can find. I follow all the players on my
team, and those on other teams that I really like. I watch any and every game
that I can, not just the Blue Jays, but I (try to) watch the ESPN/TSN Sunday
night game, the occasional CBS game and minor league ball. The short season A 
(NY-Penn) league has a team in Hamilton, which I follow closely. I also
watch the London Tigers(AA), and listen to them when I can.  I, as most of the
other "stats people" here (not that I consider myself in their league), enjoy
baseball first, and use statistics to enhance our appreciation of the game.
After all, most of us started to follow baseball, grew to *love* the game, and
then discovered the statistical nature of the game. 

As for enjoying a game on TV...not likely, especially with Fergie Olver(tm) 
or Buck "I used to be a ML ball player so I know more about baseball than
any one else" Martinez covering the Jays.  Both are horribly misinformed, are
terrible journalists, and rarely have any useful insight.  Try LISTENING to a 
baseball game. Tom Cheek and Jerry Howarth are great at describing the game,
the mood, the position of players, etc. It's a *real* experience. 

Anand Sinha
Blue Jays #1 -> all the way in '92. 
Robbie Alomar for MVP
Juan Guzman for Cy Young (let's start the campaign early :-)


From: mjs@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Marc Sabatella)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:39:13 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Red Sox - The long term
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA