From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Least Valuable Players (career)
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 22:11:20 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.034822.4514@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca ( ) writes:
>In <1992Apr12.022606.28258@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Apr11.234752.671@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca ( ) writes:
>>>In <204766@unix.cis.pitt.edu> dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:
>>>
>>>>An even worse example if Alfredo Griffin, who played 140 games at shortstop
>>>>in 1984 for a team that had Tony Fernandez.  Fernandez was only 21, but he
>>>
>>>Griffin played 6 years in TO, 3 in OAK and 4 in LA.  Toronto, a defending
>>>champion, just reacquired him.  These 3 organizations are 3 of the most
>>>successful in the game.  Are you implying that they don't know what they
>>>are doing?

>>Yes.  

>>On the other hand, what can you say of Cleveland, who let go of him
>>after three years in order to hold onto the immortal Tom Veryzer?

>Well I guess that tells you a bit about why cleveland hasn't shared
>the success of TO/OAK/LA

Because they didn't get a good enough whiff of Alfredo Griffin?  Uh
huh.

>In 3 years at cleveland he had a total of 49 at bats...

Right, and they STILL got rid of him.  

>>btw, acquiring Griffin turned Toronto from a 59-game winner into a
>>53-game winner.  Then 57, 57 (projected from stike-year pct.), 78, 89,
>>89.  The last year was 1984.  Then they traded him and won three
>>division titles in seven years, and came within a game of a fourth.

>>They didn't improve because of Griffin.  They became winners by adding
>>Upshaw, Barfield, Mulliniks, Cliff Johnson, and -- Tony Fernandez. 

>What are you saying?  That they steadily improved with Griffin in spite of 
>him?

No,  I'm saying they SUCKED with Griffin.  The first three years were
dreadful.   Then they added some good players, and got rid of deadwood,
and eventually figured out that Griffin was among the deadwood.  Then
they started to win like crazy.

>>Oakland, too, got rid of Griffin, and won three pennants -- IN A ROW.
>>LA won one pennant in his four years there: the year they only played
>>him part-time.  

>Oakland got rid of him to make way for Weiss who was a hot-shot rookie.

I've seen hotter shots.  And so had they.  Why do you suppose they were
so eager?  Usually, a 30-year-old vet who's been playing regularly is
worth keeping around for a while, just in case.

>in 88 griffin started 93 games and had 316 at bats.  he was their
>number one SS. He started every game in the NLCS and the world series.

Right.  They straggled home first in the NL West, which nobody else
wanted to win.  And did very well in the postseason.  They have been
called the worst all-around team EVER to win a WS.  I can't disagree too
hard...

>Who knows?  maybe griffin was the reason LA beat OAKLAND that year...

Right.  Not hershiser.  Not Gibson.  Not even Hatcher.  Not Sciosia.
Griffin.  Tell me aobut it.

>>Tell me again about the "success..."

>>>  No, I think the problem might be found in your one-dimensional
>>>analysis of a player's worth.

>>He can't hit for power.  He can't hit for average.  He can't walk.  He
>>fields adequately at best.  His only adequate year at the plate was in
>>the 1970's.  That's FIVE dimensions right there: four skills and his
>>age.  I bet he can't pitch very well, either, over the long haul.

>of course his stats stink! but there must be a reason he has stayed in
>the majors all these years...that reason is the "other dimension" - the
>dimension that can't be measured statistically.

Frankly, I think front-office stupidiy has a lot to do with it.
Everyone "knows" that shortstop is a defensive key, so they don't look
for hitting.  ANY hitting.  Big mistake, especially when the defense
isn't all that hot.

>>>Alfredo Griffin is reported to be a really nice guy, a positive influence
>>>on the bench, in the clubhouse and on the field - if not at the plate.

>>Bench and clubhouse, fine.  Field -- perhaps he's better than most
>>Dodger fielders; I mean, we're talking about the Bill Russell Memorial
>>Infield, here.  But think how much MORE effective he'd be if they didn't
>>play him at all, and he didn't screw up so many innings with his
>>ineptitude at the plate, and just spread his niceness all over the
>>clubhouse and let somebody else on the roster.  He's so nice the Dodgers
>>unhitched him the moment Offerman was ready.

>ALL players get released when someone else comes along.  

No, they get released when someone BETTER comes along.  And when they
have no trade value anymore.  Griffin got displaced by Veryzer, replaced
by Fernandez and Weiss and Offerman.  None of them exactly HOF.

>>>Making him the butt of your little statistical jokes shows a complete
>>>lack of respect for a man who commands a lot more respect from his peers
>>>than Tony Fernandez.  Ask the players if he made a "measurable" contribution.

>>Tell me about 1987 again.  Fernandez' injury cost them the pennant.
>>Would Griffin have helped?  Would they have been CLOSE to a pennant iwth
>>Griffin in there?  How many players said, "gee, if we only still had
>>Griffin."  

>manny lee filled in OK.  Ernie whitt's injury might have been more costly.
>Maybe if they had griffin the Blew Jays wouldn't have choked...

If they'd had Griffin they'd have been eliminated a week before the end
of the season.  Fernandez' hitting won them many games that Griffin
couldn't have had an effect on.

Ah, the "choke" bullshit.

They lost 4 out of 7 games at the end to the team that DID win.  That's
not a choke.  They lost those games because another team played better.
Now, I know you don't want to give the Tigers any credit, and that's why
you say "choke," but the fact remains: both teams played hard, and only
one team could win.

>>And tell me: which of his peers are you talking about?  Which ones do
>>you know ?  Which ones have you talked to?  

>>Or do you just read what the sportswriters, who are basically paid to be
>>boosters, write in the Toronto papers?  

>Yes I read the Toronto papers.  Toronto, with 3 major dailies, is the most
>competitive newspaper market in North America.  Writers for the Globe and
>Mail cannot be accused of "boosting" anybody.  It's usually the opposite.

Yeah, right.  

Look, NY has four major dailies, and the Star-Ledger across the river.
Most of sports journalism here, too, involves dumping on players.  But
they do have their favorites, and it has little to do with the way they
play.  on Mattingly STILL gets hero treatment, even though he's rapidly
becoming a lead weight.

>The same reporters that "boosted" Griffin, also shit on Fernandez.

Which tells you what? That Griffin's nicer to reporters, that's what.
Unfortunately, Reporter Average doesn't win games.  cf. Rickey
Henderson.

>Tony would take himself out of games because he didn't feel like playing.
>not an exaggeration.  once he even gapped an at-bat.  

Not an exaggeration?  How the hell do you know what he felt like?  What
was his health like?  What's your source for this?  The same reporters
he didn't get along with, of course.  

Guess what?  Players who give good interviews get called "team players."

Players who get HITS and RUNS are called hitters.

Roger
Organization: Doctoral student, History, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA