From: niguma@ug.cs.dal.ca (Gordon Niguma)
Subject: Re: Eck Wins MVP in Horrible Voting
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 20:11:01 GMT

In <22NOV199212300507@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu> doctor8@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Jason Abner Miller) writes:

>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 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.

  OK now, are you defending the mediots vote or are you just stating why it
happened. I can understand why Devereaux placed ahead of Thomas; it's because
mediots don't understand baseball and most importantly don't understand the
value of a base on balls. I understand that mediots tend to look at triple
crown stats, who played for contenders, who has a good realtion with the media
and who came out of obscurity to play well. What I don't understand is why 
these mediots vote based on these credentials. Who cares if Devereaux had his
best season ever, if it's still not as good as Frank Thomas's then why vote
for him? 

>>  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.


  OK, I agree with this. This seems to indicate that you agree with me on 
"WHY" Devereaux got votes not whether they were justified or not. I agree that
mediots have predictable tendencies to follow and that this Devereaux example
is pretty typical. I will not agree that their reasoning is sound.

>>>>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.

  I'd be willing to challenge this point if I had a RC simulator around. It's
very obvious that Henderson is more productive "when playing" than Devereaux
is. It's a matter of greater quality vs. greater quantity here. 
  I'd also like to note that you bias the difference in playing time between
Henderson by noting their comparative differences in AB. This really should
be in plate appearances because Rickey drew more than twice as many walks as
Devereaux, thus making the margin smaller.

>>>>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.

   Again, along the same lines. Essentially we agree, however we are arguing
on two different topics; I argue whether the mediots are justified in voting
the way they do, while you argue that the MVP vote is consistent in what
mediots usually vote for.
   A side note: Griff did hit more than half as many long balls as Juan Gone,
he hit 27 HR.

>>>>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

  No, his job is to create runs for the Tigers, which is something he
did MUCH more effectively than Listach. Who cares if Tettleton hit .238?
He got on base more often than Listach did. Which was Listach's job as a
leadoff hitter right? So if Tettleton hit first would that make him a
more effective leadoff hitter than Listach.
  OK, so Tettleton's job you state is not to walk but to drive in runs. Did
he do that? He drove in 83 runs and hit 32 HR. That's pretty good for a 
player that hits fifth or sixth.                  
  Are you saying that it doesn't matter that Tettleton walks because he hits
in a different spot in the lineup? This is dead wrong and can be demonstrated.
  EVERY player's role on a team while hitting is to create runs. It doesn't
matter if you steal bases, walk alot or hit for power; you MUST create runs.
You are penalizing Tettleton for being very effective by hitting for power
and for drawing walks; both of which are valuable commodities to score runs.
Listach only gets on base and steals; but he gets on base LESS than Tettleton
and do you really think his SB outweigh Tettleton's humongous edge in power?

>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 

 No. Tettleton is a run-producer AND a leadoff hitter. Listach is only a 
leadoff hitter. Tettleton is effective not only as a player who can drive in
runs AND leadoff innings by getting on base. Listach is almost worthless in
situations where an extra base hit is needed. 
 How do you know if Tettleton's walks are 2-out walks? Do you have stats to
prove this? And even if they are, who cares? Him being on base gives a chance
for a guy like Deer to drive home even MORE runs because Mickey's on base.
But really, do you think a guy with 122 walks is only getting those walks
in two out situations? That's pretty naive.

>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.

  And where did Phillips finish in MVP balloting? 
  Why do you insist on punishing Tettleton for his huge amount of walks. The
walks ARE useful you know.

>>  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.

 Yup. But just cause the mediots vote that way doesn't mean it's true. They   
think Jack Morris is a better MVP than Clemens for Chrissakes.

>>>	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.

 OK, I agree. I still hate mediots though for feeding the innocent baseball
fans drivel from a mental institution. I still disagree strongly that 
Listach is better than Mickey Tettleton. I do understand that mediots vote 
this way; but I also know that they don't know what the hell they are talking
about.

>						 Jason Miller
>						(fav player: Paul Molitor

  Molitor was a legitimate MVP candidate, probably more so than Listach. If 
Winfield garnered so many votes, why not Molitor? Did he get any?

						Gord Niguma
						(fav player: John Olerud)

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball