A low down dirty shame
dgbaseball
Posts: 825 ✭
in Sports Talk
dgbaseball
Posts: 825 ✭
Comments
I'd have given Ortiz a slight nod, but this is hardly a grave injustice.
Not that I'm a huge fan of the D.H. in general, but I just think the whole argument about him not playing the field was blown way out of proportion and set a bad precedent for D.H. in the future.
On the other hand, I really don't care who wins any of these awards anymore.
The only legit explanation for the icon is that it was just the first normal one I found when I signed up. I really don't care what it is..
The stat about how many HR's of Ortiz tied or put them ahead (to me) is an irrelevant statistic...an RBI or HR is an RBI or a HR, whether they take place in the first or eighth inning.
Let's say their offensive numbers are complete washes (which for intents and purposes they were), wouldn't Arod's excellent third base fielding by default give him the nod? I mean his taking away runs by playing incredible defense would be the same as adding more offense, right?
And if you don't believe me , try taking a listen to sport talk radio here in N.Y
And the talk shows in NY are full of loud and obnoxious radio hosts, and even more annoying 'fans'.
NY fans can be annoying at times but i've never heard anyone ever question their knowledge of the game of baseball.
Well, in theory the MVP is most valuable player, not best player award. Stats about how many HR's tie or win games, or hitting in the clutch and late are not irrelevant. They epitomize the notion of defining "most valuable" to one's team.
All you have to do is look at the voting to see this award was given to the "best hitting non-DH" and not the "most valuable" player. According to the voters (and corrupted by the stupid 10 pt voting system), Rodriguez had 3 teammates considered by voters to be "more valuable" to the Yankees than every other player in baseball was to his respective team (other than Rodriquez, Ortiz, Vladdy, Ramirez, Hafner, Konerko, and Teixeira). So, many of the voters thought other Yankees were the most valuable player on the Yankees last season.
I don't think it really mattered how well Rodriguez plays the field. It's just the fact that he does that makes a difference. If he were just an average fielder, he's still 100% better fielder than Ortiz.
Plain and simple, he won because Ortiz is a DH. Not because he plays the field so well and not because he was the most valuable player on his team. While every Yankee fan will whine that he won and he's the greatest and all that, you'd be hard pressed to find a logical Yankee fan (hard enough to begin with) who would claim with a straight face that they felt Rodriguez was the most valuable Yankee on the team last year.
Brian not really. Situations dictate alot here. A HR in the 6th inning when the team is already ahead by 13 runs does not carry as much weight as one that wins a game say in the bottom of the ninth. The stat that ortiz had in which you quoted is remarkable.
A hr is a hr .........I disagree.
In any event I thought Ortiz should have won the award.
Steve
That would have been mariano imo
Steve
A DH will probably win eventually, but this was not the appropriate year for it.
Ortiz is a great hitter, but truly didn't deserve to win it this year over a more deserving Arod.
That's simply and seriously unfathomably untrue.
Without Ortiz, the Sox are barely a .500 team. Without Rodriguez, the Yankees still probably win 90, as evident by Jeter, Rivera and Sheffield also finishing in top 9 for most valuable player. Which is why I think the player most valuable to his team did not win the award. If you take each player off his respective team, the Yankees win the division by 5-6 games. Given they finished the year with the same record, that pretty much sums up who was more valuable to me.
Perhaps you meant a "serious statistical argument by someone who didn't watch either team play very much this year"? I'm sure most Red Sox and Yankee fans who watched all the games will agree.
<< <i>Without Ortiz, the Sox are barely a .500 team. Without Rodriguez, the Yankees still probably win 90 >>
!00% correct maybe they win a playoff series too!
Did not Ernie Banks win an award as MVP while his team finished last or next to last ? If he was not playing his team would have still finished last or next to last...so how does the premise of "valuable" as opposed to "best" player work in that kind of situation ?? I feel it's probably a combination of overall stats AND how important a part to the team and the team's results a player was.
Ted Williams won the triple crown one year, led in BA, HRs, and RBIs, yet due to some fued with a sportswriter deemed qualified to vote on MVPS, he DID NOT win the award !
<< <i>
That's simply and seriously unfathomably untrue.
Without Ortiz, the Sox are barely a .500 team. Without Rodriguez, the Yankees still probably win 90, as evident by Jeter, Rivera and Sheffield also finishing in top 9 for most valuable player. Which is why I think the player most valuable to his team did not win the award. If you take each player off his respective team, the Yankees win the division by 5-6 games. Given they finished the year with the same record, that pretty much sums up who was more valuable to me.
Perhaps you meant a "serious statistical argument by someone who didn't watch either team play very much this year"? I'm sure most Red Sox and Yankee fans who watched all the games will agree. >>
Just would like to know why you think without Ortiz, the Red Sox and their $135 million payroll would only win 80 games. I'm not sure how you can state so certainly that without Ortiz the Sox stink, and without Arod, the Yanks would still win 95 games.
Just seems so hypothetical, yet you seem so dead set in believing in it.
I'm dead set on believing it because I watched every game. Honestly, there's no other way to put it. Looking back over the season, aside from just the literal game winning hits and HRs, he had so many game tying hits, HRs to pull them back in games, big hits to start rallies to come back or to take the lead etc etc. And a September matched by few others in recent history with regards to carrying the team on his back.
I feel confident saying he made a positive difference in more of his teams games than any other player in the league. That's most valuable to me.
Maybe I'm underestimating Rodriguez' roll on the Yankees, but from what I observed, and what other Yankee fans have said, and what the voters obviously believe given they voted excessively for three of his teammates, Rodriguez really wasn't a huge factor in many of the Yankee victories this season. Without him their lineup was still quite potent, so maybe they only win their games 8-5 instead of 12-5.
I don't understand the relevance of mentioning a $135 million payroll?? The Red Sox and a $135 billion payroll are still a .500 without David Ortiz last season.
p.s.
jaxxr, amazingly Ted didn't win the MVP in EITHER of his triple crown years.
I am not sure why, but Arod just doesn't get the respect the greatest player of this generation deserves. Without fail his most minor of setbacks is blown up to epic proportions, and his greatest achivements get left clouded in doubt.
Is it the money? Does his earning $25 million a year make people think they earn the right to try to pull him down at every opportunity? Is it the lack of anything that would cast a shadow on his character, so people have to find ways to bring him down? Manny Ramirez, who is the anti-Arod in terms of character, gets by with a 'that's just Manny being Manny'. What kind of uproar would it cause if arod did half the things he did?
I think there is a huge, huge anti-Arod sentiment around the country....and the amount of negative pub his winning the MVP award just proves it.
I still am not convinced that a home run in the late innings of a game is any more valuable than one early in the game (and never will be, to be honest).
<< <i>
I don't understand the relevance of mentioning a $135 million payroll?? The Red Sox and a $135 billion payroll are still a .500 without David Ortiz last season.
>>
1. The relevance of mentioning a 135 million dollar payroll is that the Red Sox outspend every other team in baseball BESIDES the New York Yankees. DG, welcome to the high society club, like it or not.
2. The Red Sox with a $135 BILLION dollar payroll are light years better than .500 WITHOUT David Ortiz. I understand your point, it is valid, but don't get ridiculous validating it.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
I agree with that 100%. A lot of it has to be the money, just makes him an easy target. Going to NY certainly didn't help.
The relevance of mentioning a 135 million dollar payroll is that the Red Sox outspend every other team in baseball BESIDES the New York Yankees. DG, welcome to the high society club, like it or not.
OK, I guess you assumed the question was redirected to you Softie. So...what the hell does the payroll have to do in any way with David Ortiz being the most valuable player for the Red Sox last year?
-Without Ortiz, the Sox are .500 ball club. He was that valuable to the team last year.
-They spent 135 million dollars.
-What does that have to do with anything?
-Welcome to the high society club.
Another brilliant post. Thanks Softie. If you want to contribute to the conversation, please fill in the blank below.
"DG, you believe the the 2005 Red Sox would've been a .500 ball club without David Ortiz. However, they spent $135 million, which is entirely relevant to this point and discussion because ____________"
Thanks.
<< <i>Without fail his most minor of setbacks is blown up to epic proportions, and his greatest achivements get left clouded in doubt.
I agree with that 100%. A lot of it has to be the money, just makes him an easy target. Going to NY certainly didn't help.
The relevance of mentioning a 135 million dollar payroll is that the Red Sox outspend every other team in baseball BESIDES the New York Yankees. DG, welcome to the high society club, like it or not.
OK, I guess you assumed the question was redirected to you Softie. So...what the hell does the payroll have to do in any way with David Ortiz being the most valuable player for the Red Sox last year?
-Without Ortiz, the Sox are .500 ball club. He was that valuable to the team last year.
-They spent 135 million dollars.
-What does that have to do with anything?
-Welcome to the high society club.
Another brilliant post. Thanks Softie. If you want to contribute to the conversation, please fill in the blank below.
"DG, you believe the the 2005 Red Sox would've been a .500 ball club without David Ortiz. However, they spent $135 million, which is entirely relevant to this point and discussion because ____________"
Thanks. >>
Your welcome DG. I try and help as much as possible. I understand the sensitivity involved when your fav. ballclub spends more money than everybody else. DO you really believe that David Ortiz was in fact the only difference between a playoff club AND a .500 club? Stop it please.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>a serious argument simply can not be made that the offense of Ortiz was more valuable to the Red Sox than the combined offense and defense of ARod was to the Yankees
That's simply and seriously unfathomably untrue.
Without Ortiz, the Sox are barely a .500 team. Without Rodriguez, the Yankees still probably win 90, as evident by Jeter, Rivera and Sheffield also finishing in top 9 for most valuable player. Which is why I think the player most valuable to his team did not win the award. If you take each player off his respective team, the Yankees win the division by 5-6 games. Given they finished the year with the same record, that pretty much sums up who was more valuable to me.
Perhaps you meant a "serious statistical argument by someone who didn't watch either team play very much this year"? I'm sure most Red Sox and Yankee fans who watched all the games will agree. >>
The question of whether or not it is untrue, I will leave open at least until someone attempts a serious argument to the contrary. And, no, merely stating what your pscychic abilities tell you each team's record would be without each player is not what I would call a serious argument. But, if you can use those abilities to tell me the winning Lotto numbers, I will certainly start to take what you say much more seriously.
And, just because nobody else has called you on this silliness, not a single MVP voter put any other Yankee on any ballot in a higher position than they put ARod. You've made a couple of odd references to other Yankees on the ballot as if that means something - it doesn't.
I also don't understand mocking me for saying I watched all the games and the Red Sox would've been a .500 club without Ortiz. A good response would've been "wow, I had no idea since I didn't watch many Red Sox games". Instead you opted for the canned arrogant stat nerd response that actually watching games is not proof or a "serious argument". That's the problem with you stat nerds. It's never good enough to just actually watch and understand the game, so it would be pointless to go any further with that discussion.
<< <i>MVP = Most valuable Player ???
Did not Ernie Banks win an award as MVP while his team finished last or next to last ? If he was not playing his team would have still finished last or next to last...so how does the premise of "valuable" as opposed to "best" player work in that kind of situation ?? I feel it's probably a combination of overall stats AND how important a part to the team and the team's results a player was.
Ted Williams won the triple crown one year, led in BA, HRs, and RBIs, yet due to some fued with a sportswriter deemed qualified to vote on MVPS, he DID NOT win the award !
Jaxxr, that is why the MVP, IF IT IS BEING BASED ON HOW GOOD or NOT GOOD YOUR TEAMMATES ARE, makes it a meaningless award. Same for the Cy Young. Colon won it based on the ability of his teammates, and not because HE was better than Johan Santana. Those awards are only truly meaningful if they are based on how good the player was. Once teammates come into play, as in "So and So has worse teammates so wtihout him his team would be worse," the award become almost trivial. So in essence, the TBP shouold be the award ...The Best Player, if you want any true significance attached to it.
Dg, some of us 'stat nerds' watch just as many games, if not more. I've spent entire summers going to both Cubs and Sox games. I've spent countless hours watching the old ESPN triple headers. Now with the MLB package, the sky is the limit. REcording and quantifying things always tell a better picture than memory or perception. This stat nerd certainly has the memory and perception to add to the pure facts of what actually occurred, to come up with something that is as close to 'truth' as can be. I'm sure Dallas possess both as well, as evident of his first hand knowledge of 70's/80's first basemen.
DG, I, like you, don't really care for these awards anymore. Maybe they fascinated me when I was very young, but when I recognized how faulty and inconsistent they were with their voting, I realized that they were nothing more than basically a novelty.
As for who won the award? I'm not even going to bother to make a case, because the logic currently used to decide it is faulty, AND "People tend to see what they want to BELIEVE," anyway. So I'd rather let the fan who lives by these awards get their vaaagina all wet because their hero won the award. To the fan who's man crushed hero didn't win it, then they can brood for nothing if they wish to, I'm not going to convince otherwise .
Currently I am more interested in the very faulty logic that is always on display in the sportsworld. I am also more than happy to point out the self-serving bias and hypocracy that is rampant in the sports world, and that has RULED our lives in general since the the dawn of civilization, just ask Captain Jack, Modoc.
It is so easy to point out how incorrect people are when their views are based on feelings, perception, bias, man crushedness, self-serving agendas, and hypocracy. They will never hear it because in the end they will always believe what they want, regardless of what is really at work.
I just thought it was funny to see someone equate the ability to watch every game and express a "serious argument" about what would've happened under different circumstances, with predicting the lottery numbers.
Anyways, I think your last post is quite accurate. Really isn't worth arguing these awards, which wasn't my intent to begin with.
<< <i>Many voters thought Jeter, Rivera and Sheffield were the MVP of the Yankees. I don't see how you can claim it doesn't mean anything. You have to make your arguments within the voting structure as it is, and as it is, 84 voters thought Sheffield was the MVP, 59 thought Rivera, and 23 thought Jeter.
>>
No, no, no, no, no!
Not one voter, not a single voter, none of the voters, thought that anyone other than ARod was the MVP of the Yankees. 28 people voted and every single one of them voted ARod either 1st, 2nd, or 3rd overall. The highest vote any other Yankee got was a single 3rd place vote for Rivera, and the voter who put Rivera 3rd had ARod either 1st or 2nd.
Sheffield did NOT get 84 votes of any kind - since there were only 28 voters - he got 84 POINTS while ARod got 331. Sheffield averaged 3 points per ballot, ARod averaged just under 12 points per ballot. (14 points for 1st, 9 for 2nd, 8 for 3rd, etc.)
Personally, I think the MVP voting system is a much better system than the systems used for the other awards; and while I do not challenge your right to have a different opinion, I think you need to understand how the system works before you criticize it.
6 voters picked Jeter, 15 Rivera, and 19 for Sheffield.
So what does that mean? I have no idea. My point is the voting system is stupid. What is the purpose of voting for more than one person when only one person wins? You say it's a great voting system, but at the same time claim it doesn't mean anything that 3 other Yankees received so many votes. I don't understand that logic. And it's not a slamdunk to assume the voting would be the same as the first place votes if they were only allowed to pick one. So I think it's flawed and silly, but you think it's great, but you think it's irrelevant, and I still can predict the lotto.
Not one voter, not a single voter, none of the voters, thought that anyone other than ARod was the MVP of the Yankees
That's a little hard to believe, since there are very few people in the rest of the world who think Rodriguez was the MVP of the Yankees last year. There are plenty of people who think he's the best player who wasn't a DH in the AL last year. But most valuable Yankee? I think that's a stretch, at least from what I observed and heard talking to Yankee fans.
Anyways, I've lost track of what we're arguing. My opinions were:
The voting system itself is stupid.
The MVP isn't necessarily (or even often) awarded to the Most Valuable Player
Ortiz was more valuable to the success of his successful team than Rodriguez was to his
It's unfortunate Ortiz did not win, as it pretty much sets a precedent that a DH will never win
The awards are pretty meaningless anyways
That is all.
By the way
the voter who put Rivera 3rd had ARod either 1st or 2nd
How do you know that? Are the ballots public for these awards? I'm completely serious, as I'd love to see them and see who voted for whom. Please post the link if there is one. Thanks.
<< <i>Not one voter, not a single voter, none of the voters, thought that anyone other than ARod was the MVP of the Yankees
That's a little hard to believe, since there are very few people in the rest of the world who think Rodriguez was the MVP of the Yankees last year. There are plenty of people who think he's the best player who wasn't a DH in the AL last year. But most valuable Yankee? I think that's a stretch, at least from what I observed and heard talking to Yankee fans. >>
Hard to believe or not, it is certainly true; ARod got a first, second, or third place vote on every ballot. I heard some discussion of Rivera being a contender for the CYA, but if there was any serious talk of him winning the MVP it was obviously very misguided, and I never heard any of it.
<< <i>The voting system itself is stupid.
The MVP isn't necessarily (or even often) awarded to the Most Valuable Player
Ortiz was more valuable to the success of his successful team than Rodriguez was to his
It's unfortunate Ortiz did not win, as it pretty much sets a precedent that a DH will never win
The awards are pretty meaningless anyways >>
1. I disagree, but that's only an opinion
2. I agree - Willie Hernandez in 1984 and Willie Stargell in 1979 being the most absurd examples in my lifetime
3. Since "most valuable" means whatever one wants it to believe, it's impossible to say for sure. The voters, to me, seem to have gotten it almost exactly correct this year, both in who won and in the margin by which he won.
4. I hope you're right
5. I agree for the most part; but anything that so many people care so much about can't be entirely meaningless
<< <i>By the way
the voter who put Rivera 3rd had ARod either 1st or 2nd
How do you know that? Are the ballots public for these awards? I'm completely serious, as I'd love to see them and see who voted for whom. Please post the link if there is one. Thanks. >>
Because ARod was 1, 2, or 3 on every ballot. So, on the one ballot that Rivera got the 3rd place vote - the only remaining places for ARod to appear on that ballot are 1st or 2nd. I think many of the voters divulge their ballots in their hometown newspaper, but I don't think MLB ever publishes them.
Dallas, hopefully this is a "serious" enough argument about the value of each player and their contributions to the # of wins for their respective teams. Next time maybe just take my word for it
Stark
For those who don't want to read the article, here are some of the more interesting parts:
------------
Alex Rodriguez had 24 more at-bats with runners in scoring position than David Ortiz this season -- and still drove in 18 fewer runs. That ought to tell you something. But if it doesn't, we'll spell it out for you.
Ortiz hit 62 points higher than A-Rod did with runners in scoring position (.352 to .290) overall. And that's an awfully large gap in a race this close. But that's in all games, in all RBI situations. If you keep looking, you find that as the games got tighter, that gap just kept getting bigger.
In the late innings of close games, A-Rod hit .176 with men in scoring position; Ortiz batted .313. That's a humongous, 137-point difference. But why stop there?
In the 20 games each of their teams won by six or more runs, A-Rod hit .549, had an OPS of 1.793 and racked up 46 of his 130 RBI (35 percent). Ortiz, on the other hand, batted .277, had an OPS almost 800 points lower than A-Rod's (.999) and drove in only 33 runs (22 percent of his overall total).
But in close games (games that either went to extra innings or were decided by one or two runs in regulation), the numbers look a whole lot different.
In those games -- and each team played exactly 65 of them -- A-Rod batted only .243, had an OPS of .805 and drove in just 38 runs (29 percent). Ortiz, meanwhile, clearly tapped some mysterious force that made him even better in moments like that -- batting .321, running up an OPS of 1.116 and knocking in nearly a run a game (62 -- or 42 percent of his overall total).
Some people discard those hitting numbers you(Stark) used as a random occurence, and some may very well be. However, in terms of the value a player provided to his team, and in terms of what REALLY happened as opposed to just averaging it out, I would say that those numbers tell a lot on which player was responsible for winning more games(and that is the whole purpose of the players job). You want the guy that creates the most runs, which ultimately leads to the most wins. Men on Hitting matters.
I would say that the Men on numbers show that Ortiz's hits carried more weight, plain and simple. The late inning stuff is always more hazy, but you can't deny that it happened, and it doesn't have to be ignored like it usually is. THe sample size is usually the problem.
Dg, kudos to you for taking it the extra step with some facts!!
THe men on stuff is one area I differ with the typical sabermatrician. IT happened. IF you can show that one guy had more of his hits with men on, then his hits carry more weight. If you can show that it happened quite often over a career, then darn right it counts.
<< <i>THe men on stuff is one area I differ with the typical sabermatrician. IT happened. IF you can show that one guy had more of his hits with men on, then his hits carry more weight. If you can show that it happened quite often over a career, then darn right it counts. >>
Two guys come up, each with 2 outs in the bottom of the ninth, game tied; each guy gets a double, their team wins. All traditional stats capture the indisputable (I think?) fact that each of these two players contributed exactly the same amount to the victory. When you start adding in that the first guy got his double with the bases empty, and the second guy got his with the first guy in scoring position - and if you believe that the second guy's double is "worth" more than the first guy's because it came with RISP - I would argue that by adding that additional information you have now been led to a less accurate result.
OPS+ and James' Runs Created stats, in combination with common sense, capture virtually everything worth knowing about a player's offensive contribution. The example above - and I'll think up a hundred more if anyone cares - shows that situational stats can be very misleading. I do not beleive that they add much at all to the "traditional" stats in capturing a player's offensive contributions; in any event not nearly enough to be used as anything more than a tie-breaker.
I will agree that there MAY be valuable information contained in some of those stats; which stats and how valuable are still open questions for me though.
Your last post completely lost me. And please don't bother clarifying, I honestly don't want to be found on this one..
Whatever floats your boat, I guess.
Cheers!
In 1985 Mike Schmidt and Eddie Murray had identical OPS+, and identical Batter Runs (Linear Weights). In no way was that telling the whole story on how much those two men contributed to their team in terms of runs, and wins.
1985 Murray OPS+ 149. Schmidt OPS+ 149. Looks identical, but NOT.
When you look deeper, Murray had 264 at bats with men on, and Schmidt 254.
With Men on, Murray's stats were BA. .361, OB% .438, SLG% .647!
With Men on, Schmidt's stats were BA .264, OB% .377, SLG% .429!
With RISP Murray batted .371, and slugged .717! Bases loaded Murray batted .444, Slugged 1.222.
As you can see, the OPS+ doesn't tell near the story. There is no doubt that Murray's hits provided more runs, no doubt!
Sabermatricians tend to dismiss men on stats because they even out a BIT over time, but not in all cases, example MURRAY. Regardless of any spin that is put on it, Murray did some MAJOR damage to the other teams, and that cannot be disputed, not even by a supreme being.
How about from 1982-1985? Eddie Murray was downright Ruthian with Men on Base from 1982 to 1985. In 1,295 plate apperances with men on, here are Murray's stats.
BA .339, OB% .440, SLG% .593.
For MLB who played all four of those seasons, that is a TRIPLE CROWN in those categories! Murray was also incredible in close and late those years too! He was responsible for a lot more runs than what OPS+, or any sabermetric measurement shows. When you add the late/close to the men on, it goes in leaps in bounds in how many more wins he was responsible for than what a standard line shows. Murray never won an MVP. He finished a close second to SS's with career years(should got nod over Ripken). He should have won it in 1984 but his teammates cost him the award by being bad. With this information available and used back then, it may have been a different story.
Dg, if you were going to Fenway those years, I am sure you felt in a similar manner as Bob Stanley when Murray came to town
Skip.
Even with those numbers is it possible that Schmidt's hits won more games? Meaning his hits were the difference? Surely that must be possible? baseball is a game of averages yet games are not decided by averages.
Murray could have done all that damage many times in games that were lost. While Schmidt could have made the difference more often in total wins yet not in average.
Steve
Arod not only plays the field, but is a stolen base threat where Ortiz stole ONE base all year (to Arod's 21). Arod's OBP was 20 points higher, BA 20 points higher, 30 points higher in OPS.
Throw in Arod's gold glove caliber play at third base, and you have a solid reason that Arod is the winner.
A low down dirty shame? Hardly.
1. If Murray hits better than Schmidt with RISP and late, and if Murray and Schmidt hit equally well overall, then it must follow that Schmidt hits better than Murray with no RISP and early.
2. Late vs. Early: Given that Murray is hitting better late, it follows that Murray is winning more games than Schmidt in the late innings (or, as WinPitcher notes, it PROBABLY follows - but for the sake of argument let's assume it definitely does follow). It seems to me that it follows in exactly the same manner that Schmidt is winning more games than Murray in the early innings. It makes no difference in the win column if a team gets ahead early and coasts (the Schmidt model) or plays a close game and pulls it out in the ninth (the Murray model). But the assumption behind every stat you referenced is that it is more valuable to hit a 2-run homer in the 9th than to hit a pair of solo homers in the 1st and 3rd. It is not obvious to me that that assumption has any merit whatsoever.
3. RISP vs. no RISP: I refer back to my earlier post regarding the back-to-back 2-out doubles in the ninth. It is not clear to me why the second hitter is more valuable than the first - neither has any impact at all on the win column without the identical contribution of the other. More generally, who is it that is being driven in by Murray? For the most part, it is someone who got his hit when there were no RISP. Someone has to be the "R" in RISP, and all of the situational stats you reference assume that the hit by "R" that got him "ISP" is less valuable than the hit that comes next - that finishing a rally is more important than starting one. There may or may not be any truth to that - I have an open mind on the issue - but I have never seen any demonstration that a Murray actually wins more games for his team than a Schmidt. I know I invite charges of hero-worship, but Bill James has considered the issue and decided that RISP stats are relatively unimportant; unless and until someone else can show me the stats that support their value, I consider them a curiosity only. I can see that a Murray would be of somewhat more value than a Schmidt in that, in the games in which they do not start, a Murray would be more valuable to have on the bench for a late inning pinch hitting appearance - so given identical overall stats, I would probably pick a Murray over a Schmidt using that as a tiebreaker.
{For the sake of argument, and for the few years you have referenced, I have no problem talking about Schmidt and Murray as if they were equals; absent those qualifiers, Eddie Murray was a great player, but he was no Mike Schmidt.}
Eddie Murray got a higher proportion of his hits with men on, as did Schmidt, thus Murray's total hits created more runs than Schmidt that does not show up in the traditional stat line. In those years, Murray's prime, the difference is very large, when this is considerered. Here are there men on % from those years
Schmidt .266, .390, .507
Murray .339, .440, .593
Pure logic is going to show that since Murray did most of his damage with men on, that it lead to more runs, and the total stat line is flawed. Pure fact, when looking at the play by play analysis will show the exact same thing!
2. Close and Late. It does matter. Why do you think closers are brought in late and close? If it didn't matter, then you would start your closer in the first inning. Though, my main point is the total men on hitting. Sample size is a problem in close/late.
If somebody is piling on the HR's in blowout wins or loses, then those don't have the same value(in winning games) as when hit in close games. This would have to be shown to be able to make any claims. This does have some merit.
From 1982-1985 Murray hit 125 HR. 84 of those occured within a 1-run environment. 19 in a 2-run environment. 7 in a 3-run. 7 in a 4-run, and 6 'meaningless'.
WINPITCHER, did Schmid'ts hits win more games? How good your teammates are may ultimately decide that. If Murray hits a two run home run to take the lead in the ninth, and his closer comes in and gives up a three run homer....But that can be checked in the play by play analysis. But if a guy is hitting extremely well in close and late games, it should be obvious that those are meaning more wins. It can easily be checked in the play by play though. It isn't a mystery. To James it was.
Clarifications...
1) Bill James didn't use play by play data in those writings. Bill James can be taken to task.
2) Career wise, Schmidt was better than Murray. Partly because Murray had more VERY YOUNG, and more VERY OLD years to bring down his overall %totals. Had Schmidt tacked on another 1,500 old man years like Murray, his %totals would have come down a lot. Had Schmidt tacked on 1,200 very young years, his totals would have come down a lot.
In their primes, when everything is looked at, Murray is definately the superior hitter, and nobody created more runs in MLB at the plate than Murray did in his prime. Schmidt closed the gap with playing a tougher position, but that is another issue I take up with the SABERS. It should only be how good they are against the typical defensive player at their own position. Murray was also well above average defensively at his position. In all, they were pretty close in their primes, but hitting WAS NOT as close as the typical Saber ine shows.
Then there is the technical aspect, the switch hitting ability of Murray. This comes into play in close and late games. IN a close/late game, the other team could bring in a tough righty to neutralize Schmidt a little. You could't do that to Murray. This is what I call the McCOvey factor. Bring in a lefty to face him, and he isn't near the same. This goes a long way in winning or losing games!
This is again, REAL LIFE examples(just like men on), the stuff that Sabers ignore because they can't account for, and the stuff that gets guys like DG pissed off because they know it is real. That is what sours guys like DG on Sabermetrics, and clouds all the good stuff Saber does.
But it is possible that it does not mean more wins too.
I guess my point is that stats never tell the whole story.
SD
You can go back and look at EVERY at bat to see. I have looked at the at bats, and I know that it lead to more wins. I'm not hypothesizing, I am stating what actually happened. If you want to call that a stat, fine, but it is best to be called REALITY. I've looked at the info enough that when I see the Ortiz numbers that I already know it is going to lead to more wins. I've already studied the Murray ones, and I already know it lead to more wins. Bill James did the hypothesizing.
More about men on base. If Mike Schmidt and Murray each hit 30 total HR in a season, it looks the same. If Schmidt hit 30 solo Home Run, and Murray hit 30 2-run home runs, isn't it obvious on which was responsible for more runs?? Schmidt's team got 30 runs as a result, Murray's 60. Then isn't it obvious which team benefitted more? Then what if Murray also hit a higher proportion of those close/late, doesn't common sense dictate what would happen as a result?? That is an extremem example, but that is what is at work.
Sabermetrics. They equate the average home run to be worth about 1.4 runs. So in their computations they multiply Schmidt's total Home Runs in a season by 1.4. They do the same for Murray. Well, that does not tell the whole story! Murray hit a higher portion of his with men on, and specifically with the bases loaded.
So to take a page out of DG's book, is some 'nerd' with a notebook going to come down to Sparky Anderson as Murray is crossing home plate after just hitting a game winning grand slam and say, "Sparky, according to our records, the average home run is only worth 1.4 runs, so those four runs that came in on the Murray home run don't count. You are still winning!" That is exactly what the traditional Sabermatrician stat line claims about Murray. Dallas, you might say that the guys on base get credit for getting on, and THEY DO! But Schmidt also had the chances to do the same thing with guys on, and he just didn't do it as often with Murray with men on. So Murray's hits carried more value than what the traditional Saber stat line says!
I got a lot more on this subject, and others. There is enough that Sabers don't account for that makes a difference. PLAY by Play is reality, it is what happened, and it happened enough where sample size is not a problem.
The Willie McCovey factor is another thing. Bring in a lefty, or in McCovey's case, just don't play agains the tough ones
<< <i>Dallas, you might say that the guys on base get credit for getting on, and THEY DO! But Schmidt also had the chances to do the same thing with guys on, and he just didn't do it as often with Murray with men on. So Murray's hits carried more value than what the traditional Saber stat line says! >>
My point in that regard is not that unnamed OTHER players don't get credit for getting on, it is that the player you are not giving credit for getting on is Schmidt himself. Cal Ripken gets a double and Murray drives him in with a double vs. Schmidt gets a double and Luzinskl drives him in with a double. All four players just did exactly the same thing, but because Schmidt had no RISP you are saying that what Murray did "wins more games". Again, it is not at all clear to me why that would be so. Other than homers - and it is obviously true that getting a disproportionate number of homers with men on is more valuable than the opposite - for every run that has ever been produced SOMEONE got on base first, i.e., with no RISP. That first hit was every bit as important as the hit that came second in generating that run; I accept that Murray got more of the second hits, but then Schmidt must have gotten more of the first.
And yes, James ignores the RISP and late stats which means he is overlooking some information. But the amazing thing about James' work is that based on only what he does consider, he can tell you within an incredibly small margin how many games a team won if you give him all of the stats and the league averages. That he doesn't need the situational stats to do this verges on a statistical "proof" that they are not significant. In statistical terms, if the predictive value of the 20 variables you start with gives you an R-squared of 99% (and I think James' R-squared is at least that for predicting team wins), then any information you could add must be reflected directly or indirectly in the information you already have.
Upon reading and rereading what I've just written, I will make a concession. While James' system works extremely well, it is based on the assumption that many things will "average out" over the course of a season or a career. That his system works so well is "proof" that, in fact, these things DO average out. But, Nolan Ryan DID go 8-16 in 1987, so they don't always average out. So, while I remain very skeptical that RISP and late inning stats are of significant value as a general rule, I can certainly see that Eddie Murray in his prime may very well have been winning more games than the traditional stats might show. But I think you may have discovered an exception, rather than the basis for an improved statistical method.
The late/close stats I am relatively confident are meaningless. A game is close in the late innings because someone didn't come through early; to give extra weight to a ninth inning homer when the same player struck out with the bases loaded in the first strikes me as absurd. ARod hits a grand slam in the first inning of a game that the Yankees win 4-0 and that's not as important as Ortiz hitting a single in the ninth with the bases loaded in a game the Red Sox win 4-3? I've stepped in arguments with more merit than that.
Murray gets a double with a man on second. One run scores. Next two times up he makes outs.
Schmidt comes up with man on second, and makes an out, no run. Next time with nobody on he doubles, and doesn't score, no runs. Next time is an out.
They both have a .333 BA, .333 OB%, and .667 SLG%. The difference is that Murray's team has a run, while Schmidt's doesn't. THe traditional stat line does not give Murray the proper credit for adding more runs for his team.
***They also both got onto second base and provided the rest of their lineup the same chance to drive them in. The difference is that Murray's double came at a more opportune time and already drove in a run, PLUS HE IS LEAVING HIS TEAM WITH ANOTHER CHANCE TO SCORE,(as that is the same thing Schmidt did, but without the run already in). Timely hitting in real life is what wins baseball games.
Don't feel bad if you overlooked that as the book Total Baseball made the same mistake in looking at the exact same thing you are looking it, and they PUBLISHED IT. It was a flaw.
Every time Murray is getting hits with men on he is also getting on base for the next guy, but now his team has runs, AND the chance to score more. If Schmidt is just hitting with nobody on, his team is missing the runs on the board, and he is only leaving his team with the chance to score more. Murray is doing both. That is the difference.
Late and close does matter, though not to the same extreme. If a team is bringing in left handed pitchers ONLY in the late innings of close games vs. McCovey, they are then maximizing their chance to win more games, because he doesn't hit lefties well. So if McCovey or Anyone, is only hitting his home runs in 7-1 games, and he is getting neutralized in the late innings of close games, his team is going to lose more often. If McCovey hits a home run off a garbage reliever in the 8th inning of a 9-2 game, so what? Let him, it doesn't matter anyway. If the game is close, he probably won't hit the home run because my best LH pitcher is going to go after him. Conversely, if Murray faces Quisenberry in hte 8th inning and hits a game winning hit, that is big. If the next night, Murray comes up down 8-2 in the 8th and strikes out vs. a buster, so what? They are going to lose 99.9% of the time in that situation anyway. Would you rather have Murray hit his home runs down 8-2 in the 8th, or tied 2-2 in the 8th? Always is extreme of course, but I am using it to exemplify that it does matter. The probability of winning and losing a game changes depending on the score and inning.
<< <i>Every time Murray is getting hits with men on he is also getting on base for the next guy, but now his team has runs, AND the chance to score more. If Schmidt is just hitting with nobody on, his team is missing the runs on the board, and he is only leaving his team with the chance to score more. Murray is doing both. That is the difference.
>>
You are right - that is exactly the point I was missing; something about my example was nagging at me and as soon as I saw your post I knew that was it. That helps my understanding of your argument a great deal, but I still have one mental hump to get over:
In your quick example, Schmidt came up with the bases empty, doubled, and was stranded. The example you left out is where both Murray and Schmidt come up with the bases empty and the next batter gets a hit. Schmidt's team will have a run more often than Murray's team will. Given that they will both come up more often with the bases empty than with RISP, does the extra contribution of Schmidt with the bases empty balance out the extra contribution of Murray with RISP? It must at least offset it to a degree, but how can you determine how much that is? Here is each situation at issue:
1. No RISP, next batters all out: advantage Schmidt (if he hits a HR, or a 2B or 3B with a runner on first)
2. No RISP, next batter gets a hit: advantage Schmidt
3. RISP, next batters all out: advantage Murray
4. RISP, next batter gets a hit: advantage Murray
Murray has a clear advantage in both RISP situations, Schmidt has a clear advantage in one "no RISP" situation and a smaller advantage in the other. But it seems to me that while Murray's advantages are probably greater, that they come in situations that will probably occur less frequently. I am more willing than ever to admit that I'm still just missing something, but it is still not obvious to me that over the course of a season or career, the situational stats have added anything of significant value.
James' answer, implicitly, is that the advantages/disadvantages offset exactly which is likewise not obviously true. But, can you explain to me why Bill James can take the non-situational stats from the '84 Orioles and the '80 Phillies and run them through his laptop and tell me how many games each team won? If these stats are really that important, then James' model shouldn't work - but it does.
As for the late/close issue, can you tell me what is wrong with this quickie summary:
1. McCovey was a great hitter and generated a mountain of runs
2. McCovey was a poor hitter in late/close games for the reasons you cite
3. McCovey must have generated a ton of runs in the early innings
4. The Giants played in (and won) a greater than expected number of games that were not close in the late innings only because of the runs McCovey put on the board early
5. Over the course of a season or career, McCovey's Runs Created accurately reflect his contribution to his team's wins
ok I believe that you looked even further and can attest that Murrays hits won more games then Schmidts.
All one ever has to do to see how stats can be misleading is by looking at the 1960 world series. the Yanks outscored the Pirates by a very large margin but lost the seriies.
I guess we have been agreeing all this time then.
Steve
But for Murray and Schmidt, you are correct that RISP happen less frequently, and in 1985 it was figured to be about 12 extra runs produced for Murray over Schmidt when Murray's men on hitting is added. Over the course of Murray's career it was about 6 runs per year on top of his Linear Weight runs assigned. So it isn't going to turn Bill Buckner into Johnny Mize. But for guys like Murray it does show the extra value he had. When you said tiebreaker initially, that was close to what I say too, though a little larger breaker in some instances.
I don't even know McCovey's late inning hitting. I was just using a great player who I knew had a hard time against lefties, espeically early on in his career when he dodged them. It was a hypothetical scenario. He may very well have murdered some guys in those situation. The point was that a guy could be neutralized by a situational split, and that it was an actual example of how some late inning numbers could have validity. There is a lot of noise when looking at those numbers, and the only thing we know is what happened. As for how many wins the Giants got, his teammates play a large role in that, not just him. But if McCovey hypothetically produced more of his runs later in the games in blowouts etc...then it wouldn't be as valuable as if he produced those late inning runs in close games...that was the main point. Those were all hypothetical scenarios. I don't know what McCoveys late inning hits were. I just knew he was bad against lefties, and not great with Men on.
As for James, are you referring to the pythagorean theory? If so, it isn't 99% accurate.
WIn, that is an example of how averaging the total runs can be misleading, though it is only a small sample, and it would even out more in time. Kind of like the Packers this year. There are lots of variables that determine an actual win or loss, and that is tough to figure. But it is easier to figure exactly what a player contributed towards that win or lose and compare it to other players.
The correct measures are NOT misleading. James is NOT misleading. I like narrowing it down to the nitty gritty.
There is nothing misleading when Eddie Murray comes up X amount of times in X situations and gets X hits, doubles, hr etc...
Then to compare that to Schmidt, or Winfield, or McCOvey or whomever.
There is nothing misleading at looking at the thousands of times of what happens when there is a man on second to lead off an inning. It isn't misleading to know the percentage of times that the runner will score. It isn't misleading to know then that if a player gets on 2B, he has an X percent chance of scoring...given a neutral environment(the same hitters behind him).
I could spend hours trying to narrow it down to that degree of certainty, or I can just look at the work already done and be at least 90 percent there already.
Dallas, I will try and type some of the base/out info for you later on so you can see the cumulative efforts of the play by play data. That was not done by me! It does show what a typical hitting event is worth, based on actual play by play data collecting.
I hope this post clarifys my stand, as my other posts do seem to give the impression that James is waaay off, which isn't true.
6 runs per year is in the range of what I meant by "tiebreaker" - near the high end, but still in the range. I agree that we are no longer disagreeing very much, and thanks for clearing up my muddled thinking on a couple of things.
I understood your use of McCovey - I was just using him the same way to advance the discussion. I just don't see, even in the event that everything you said about McCovey is true, that it matters much or at all. McCovey (or whoever) generated his runs somewhere, and it seems to me that generating those runs early - and thus making the game a not-close game when the late innings roll around - is exactly as valuable as generating those runs in the late innings of a close game. In any event, where RISP stats can add 6 runs per year to Murray, I would be surprised if they could add as many as 2 runs per year to any player. I don't get the sense that you disagree with that.
When I mentioned James I was referring to his Win Shares method (encompassing hitting, pitching and fielding), which I believe is similar in some respects to the Pythagorean method for hitting stats, but not identical (he discusses why he believes that Win Shares is an improvement on the Pythagorean method, but I do not remember what his reasoning was). An R-squared of 99% means, roughly, that 99% of the time the method will be able to predict the outcome within an accepted level of accuracy. So, no, it is not 99% accurate as that word is normally used. But any method at that level of accuracy will be predicting outcomes extremely well, and the errors are generally random "noise" that can not be improved no matter how many additional variables are used. Murray's 6 runs per year fall well within the margins of error of the method. James' method would assume, then, that Murray's 6 runs were random noise; based on your arguments, it seems likely that while his method may be predicting team performance very accurately, he has probably undervalued Murray by one or two Win Shares per season, and mis-assigned those Shares to one or two other players on his team.
Some of the "mystique" about the MVP award is the very undefined, subjective nature of the actual award. If it was based only on particular pre-selected stats, there would be no real anticipation, no real need for any debate such as this one. If a player has a truly monster season, his team wins the WS, and he has no social problems, then and only then should the award be un-controversial. This is part of what makes baseball so entertaining and maybe still our natonal pastime.
Just to enter into the statistical mazes many have expounded upon..............., no mention has been made of stats AFTER a team has clinched its divison, they can't possibly be as important as those while still in the race. .......no mention of the quality of the pitcher whomever faced while obtaining any specific stats,...........how about stats derived when playing in day games following a night game or the second game of a doubleheader. they must be tougher than in regular games or games after an off-day,.......what about the guy who follows in the lineup, Babe Ruth had Lou Gehrig "protecting" him while Ernie Banks had Lee Walls, Walt Moryn ?? following him,..........what about weather conditions, what about the speed of the runner in scoring position, what about maybe several hundred other variables which make any and all stats somewhat subject to interpretation ???
This all is, again, part of which makes baseball so enjoyable, no one can really say for absolute, positive, 100% sure who the MVP should have been. I do feel Arod was a reasonable selection, as did most of the baseball writers, but can understand different views.