From: doctor8@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Jason Abner Miller)
Subject: Re: Eck Wins MVP in Horrible Voting
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University - HCF
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 17:30:00 GMT

In article <By4Jt6.Cqv@cs.dal.ca>, niguma@ug.cs.dal.ca (Gordon Niguma) writes...
>In <21NOV199212140657@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu> doctor8@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Jason Abner Miller) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov20.184840.9657@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes...
>>>In article <BxzrFM.9tJ@cs.dal.ca> niguma@ug.cs.dal.ca (Gordon Niguma) writes:
> 
>    [discussion regarding MVP balloting idiocy deleted]
> 
>>>MIKE DEVEREAUX FINISHED AHEAD OF FRANK THOMAS!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
>>	Damn straight.  Played great D, and was a huge Orioles Catalyst.
>>Thomas had another generic Barry Bonds season, but is virtually unknown in
>>the media and is a mediocre defensive 1B - not as valuable as a great CF.
> 
>  The fact that Thomas may or may not be known to the media really should be
>irrelevant shouldn't it? What kind of justification is that for sportswriters?
>"Oh, yeah his numbers are great, but I never heard of him so he can't be good"
>doesn't cut it. If you're a sportswriter you probably should be familiar with
>Frank Thomas because he's the best hitter in baseball, or damn close to it.

	I happen to agree with you.

>  I also don't think Devereaux is that well known either. Was he on the All
>Star team before (I don't know but I don't think so)? Has he won a Gold Glove
>before? No. I don't think he's actually as well known as Thomas, but that's
>subjective anyways.

	Yes, but consider that Devereaux came out of nowhere and had a 
tremendous season, after virtually no-one knew anything about him
beforehand.  Frank Thomas, meanwhile, had another superb season, but not
as superb as his '91 campaign (although not by much).  So, while Thomas
was doing the same thing, Devereaux tremendously improved his "mediot" stats
(i.e. BA, HR, RBI, SB) and consequently received a lot more attention.

[numerous pro-Thomas stats (all correct) deleted]

>  You seem to ignore offense in this discussion: that's because Devereaux isn't
>nearly as good as an offensice player; not in the same light year. It is
>true that Devereaux has more defensive value than Thomas. But then again so
>does Devon White. So does Rickey Henderson. So does Pat Borders. So does
>3/4 of the regulars in the league. Denfense helps but offense is much more
>important.

	I know he's not a great offensive player, but he was certainly
the Orioles' co-MVP (along with Brady) in '92 and got more attention.  I'm
not saying the voting was correct statistically, I'm just saying that
Devereaux got more attention for what he did.

> 
>>>Rickey Henderson got *no* votes, while GEORGE BELL got some?
> 
>>	Why should Rickey get votes?  Did nothing this year.  Then again,
>>neither did George Bell, so you're about right on this one.
> 
> Rickey Henderson did nothing this year? Yeah I guess 207 times on base is 
>nothing. Of course he only ate up 295 or so outs so he couldn't have been
>any good. (Deveraux was on base 224 times, but made 481 outs). Rickey only 
>stole 48 bases while being caught only 11 times. That's nothing. Rickey only
>hit 15 HR; that's nothing. OK, now I see your point.......

	Yeah, I guess that Devereaux couldn't have had nearly as big
an impact batting 575 times for the Orioles as Henderson did batting 375
times for the A's.
	Maybe Henderson was impressive during the times when he decided
to get off of his lazy *** and play poorly (for someone of his caliber)
for a while.  But for League MVP???  What good are those great numbers
if you're gonna play 3 or 4 times a week. Devereaux played every day, 
and was a consistent part of the O's rush.  I think Mike Bordick was
several times for valuable to Oakland than Rickey the Dude was.


>>>Juan Gonzalez got more votes than Ken Griffey.
> 
>>	Griffey didn't have a GREAT year, while Juan Gone! captured the media
>>with his 43 Deep Drives.  Another media-influenced vote, although not really
>>a bad choice.
> 
>  Griffey had a MUCH better campaign than Gonzalez. Take away his 43 HR and
>Gonzalez played very poorly, while Griffey excelled in most phases of the game.
>Even with Gonzalez 43 HR he was still outslugged by Jr. Throw in the fact
>that Griffey hit 48 points higher in BA than Gonzalez, drew more walks and
>played superior defense then you've got a better player than Gonzalez.

	Just remember:  43 HRs is a stat the mediot loves.  I don't think
Griffey had half of that (correct me if I'm wrong - don't have my numbers
handy).  Again, not saying that means Griffey's offensively worse, because
he's certainly not, but his generic Griffey-type season went virtually
unnoticed while Juan Gone! did something Griffey has never done - compete
for the HR crown, perhaps the most important Mediot stat.

> 
>>>John Olerud got *no* votes; MIKE BORDICK got some.
> 
>>	Olerud should have gotten as least as many as Bordick
> 

>>>Mickey Tettleton didn't get any votes; Pat Listach did.
> 
>>	That's cause Listach had a good year.
>        
>  How exactly did Listach have a good year while Tettleton did not? This is
>probably the most foolish part of the entire voting! Tettleton was on base
>227 times this year while Listach was on 223 times. Tettleton had a superior
>OBP (.379 to .352) so obviously he's making fewer outs. Listach, of course
>was a productive base stealer though, 54 SB, 18 CS which accounts for about
>6 runs of offense added because of this. Tettleton had 0 SB-6CS so he cost
>Sparky about 3 runs of offense. So the stolen bases cost Tettleton about
>9 runs on Listach. 

	More stats.  Tettleton hit .238. Listach hit well over 50 points
above that.  OK, Tettleton walked 122 times.  Big deal.  He bats in the
heart of the Tigers' lineup - is it his place to clog the bases that
many times instead of driving in runs in those opportunites?  Listach
is leadoff hitter, so he should walk and get on base often.  Tettleton is
a run produced.  2-out walks generally don't produce runs.  It's an 
impressive walk total, but I like them better on Tony Phillips' line
because he batted leadoff most of the season and provided many of those
RBIs for guys like Cecil, Mickey, and Deer.

[more pro-Mickey stats deleted]

>  How can Listach be considered a better player in 1992 than Tettleton?
		
	Your friendly neighborhood mediot loves leadoff hitters who
come from deep within the minor leagues to hit close to .300, play
good shortstop (in their eyes, if not in the eyes of the Number Gods),
and win the Rookie of the Year voting in a town that hasn't seen it in
several years, if ever.
	Listach captured more attention among the sportswriters than
Tettleton did.  Tettleton was the 2nd best catcher in the A.L. last year
(I personally like Steinbach slightly better, flame wars to follow), but
238 hitters generally don't rank high in MVP voting no matter how much
else he produced.

> 
>>	Remember, a "Mediot" doesn't drool over OBP.  They see intangibles
>>as more important to the team as RC/27.  The voting is not as accurate
>>as it should have been, and many sentimental favorites (i.e. Cecil and ACK!
>>Morris) did better than true stars, but as long as Rickey Henderson got
>>0 votes, I consider it a year well done.
> 
>  This may be the gyst of the argument. What I am saying is that the mediots
>SHOULD realize that OBP counts more than any single piece of offensive data
>you can find (except maybe RC or something like that). I can certainly
>understand why they voted as they did (in a nutshell, because they are really,
>really stupid) but I can't see how they can justify it.
>  In the case of Tettleton vs. Listach, I see absolutely NO WAY that this is
>justified. Any possible angle you could take on it puts Tettleton in front.
>If anyone still thinks that BA is as important as OBP, you should go back to 
>watching some other sport.

	I understand your point - that baseball is best seen through
the eyes of mathematics.  But sportswriters are not that kind of fan.
They prefer to watch their favorite players who are most appealing
to the average fan who doesn't know what RC is if it's not a type of soda.
Maybe their method of judging players isn't the most accurate way, but I
don't see it changing in the near future.

> 
>						Gord Niguma
>						(fav player: John Olerud)
> 

						 Jason Miller
						(fav player: Paul Molitor)