FIRE JOE MORGAN

I want to stop writing about Jon Heyman. We're not targeting him, we're not keeping an eye on him, we don't have anything personal against him. Honestly: you send shit in, we read each thing, and then we decide which things make us angry.

This makes me angry.

I mean, look, it's late, I just ate a giant bone-in ribeye and I'm sleepy. But a quick rundown here: guess who Heyman picks for AL MVP?

(Easy one. Just think about who would make you the angriest.)

Yeah. It's K-Rod. The same K-Rod who ranks something like 80th amongst relief pitchers in WHIP. Behind dudes like Tyler Walker and Mike Lincoln and other made-up names of guys who went to your high school. Don't like WHIP? Fine. He was also only fourth amongst relief pitchers in the AL in WPA.

It gets better. Numbers one and two on Heyman's NL MVP ballot were Manny Ramirez and C.C. Sabathia, two men who combined to play something like 4 total innings in the NL. I'm not even being nitpicky here. Take a look at the MVP criteria:

The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:

1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.

2. Number of games played.

3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.

4. Former winners are eligible.

5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.

See number two there? Yeah. Apparently the rules of voting don't mean a goddamn thing to Jon Heyman.

So here's my secret way to win the MVP. Play 50 games really well, then sit out the rest of the year. Say you injured your biceps, your triceps, your quadriceps, and your quinticeps (these are fake muscles). Then wait until the end of the year and pray that your team narrowly makes the playoffs. You point to your amazing 50-game run and Jon Heyman and his ilk immediately choose to ignore the literally hundreds of players who played full seasons in blatant disregard for the rules of voting.

Or how about this: people like Heyman say that if your team doesn't make the playoffs, then the whole season is essentially completely devoid of value. Nothing -- nothing you do can redeem your individual performance. But let's take it a step further. No one remembers who gets eliminated in the NLDS. Hell, who cares who loses in the World Series? The only team that has a season of value at all is the team that wins it all. So let's wait until the absolute end of the playoffs, until the final out is recorded, and every year we'll give the MVP to the guy who has the ball when the World Series ends. 'Cause fuck every guy who's not on a winner. Fuck you if your teammates were only good enough to get you to within one win of the wild card. That renders your season moot.

I will insert a baseball-playing tarsier at first base in Game 7 of the World Series, and when the closer fields a comebacker to the mound and flips it to that tarsier, I will declare the tarsier the MVP of baseball because without him who knows what would have happened to the team during that final out and isn't that the definition of value? Yes. Yes it is.

Labels: jon heyman, mvp, tarsier

posted by Junior # 3:16 AM

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Holy Cow, Does Jon Heyman Hate VORP

I just crunched some numbers and data about various things that exist, using a scientific process verified by several mathematicians at top universities, and I came up with some interesting results.

Here are the five most boring things in the world, in order:

5. Slowed-down time-lapse photography of a small puddle of room-temperature water evaporating.
4. Two people you have never met, wearing identical colorless shirts and pants, talking about the dreams they had last night.
3. Debating what "Valuable" means w/r/t "Most Valuable Player."
2. Lying in a sensory deprivation tank and staring straight ahead at a blank wall while you listen to white noise.
1. Ann Coulter

So right away, we're on risky ground with articles like this one from SI.com's Jon Heyman -- it's the third most boring thing in the world, according to science. And beyond that, it's borderline hysterical in its boring and righteous anger:

Once again, VORP has nothing to do with MVP

Zero. There's a number the stat people will understand.

That's the relationship between VORP, the stat that the stat people love, and MVP.

Well, that's just not true.

If you hate the stat, you hate the stat. I'm not sure why you should hate a stat that uses a relatively sophisticated model to calculate not just how good a guy's stats are, but also what position he plays, and essentially evaluates how hard he is to replace (the true measure of "value," to me...oh God...I'm the third-most boring guy in the world right now). But if you hate it, you hate it. Not much I can do but keep posting on this blog.

You cannot, however, say that there is "zero" relationship between VORP and MVP. Because even if you choose to ignore it, it exists. Last year ARod won the MVP, and was 1st in baseball in VORP. Rollins, kind of a crummy pick, was at least top-10 (9th, actually, in the NL, behind several other more deserving candidates). People were generally happy with the choice of Ryan Howard in 2006...and it just so happens that he was 2nd in the NL in VORP, right behind Pujols. Morneau was a terrible choice, much-reviled and controversial...and he was 13th in the AL. I don't really remember anyone complaining about Pujols or ARod in 2005...and they were 2-3 in VORP in all of baseball. Only DLee was above Pujols in the NL, and if he had won, nobody would've been angry.

Keep looking at the list. The MVPs of the league are generally very high VORPulators, year-to-year. So it makes some sense that in order to predict who will win, or who should win, we can look at VORP. Right?

Baseball Prospectus, as of a few days ago, had Alex Rodriguez leading the AL in VORP (which stands for (Value Over Replacement Player) the stat its enthusiasts think is the best stat in the world to determine player value, and also the best to help determine who's the Most Valuable Player.

Maybe not "the best," but, you know, pretty effing good, I think. Better than batting average.

But as you can see, while VORP may tell you something, it shouldn't determine who wins the MVP award. Beyond containing two of the letters in MVP, there appears to be almost no relationship whatsoever here.

But...I just...we...you...I...facts...

I happened [sic] to love A-Rod. He's turned himself into a very good third baseman (he's probably the best defender on the Yankees), he's a three-time MVP (though I don't believe he deserved it the year his Rangers finished last), he's the best all-around player in the game and he's not among the prime list of reasons for the Yankees' demise this year (though, there are plenty of Yankees officials who'd have him on that list).

Yet, A-Rod shouldn't sniff the MVP award this year.

I'm with you on this, for the record. Like every other bored American who is bored at the yearly debate over what boring ways we should boringly parse the boring term "Valuable," when there is no 100% obvious winner, like Barry Bonds the year he steroided .370/.582/.799 with 46 contes for a team that made the playoffs, I take the famous approach espoused by Supreme Court Justice Stewart in reference to pornography, who said, "I can't define exactly what pornography is, but oh lordy, this FMF pictorial has me hard as a diamond." In other words, given a number of players with roughly equal stats, there is a kind of gut-level instinct one uses to cast the tie-breaking vote. That could be: did the guy's team make the playoffs, and was he an important part of the stretch run? Did the guy happen to have a lot of hits in crucial situations? Did other players on his team go down with injuries, making his production even more important to his team? And perhaps most importantly, is this guy a SS or CF or C or something, meaning that his production from that position is even more valuable, given the paucity of high-production players at that position?

(In other words, in addition to whatever kind of gut-checking you want to do, you can look at VORP and WPA and stuff like that.)

For the record, again, ARod's WPA is barely above 0 this year -- 0.28. Look at Mauer's. Or Pedroia's. Or a bunch of other people's. He is not the MVP this year.

If devotees of VORP (I'm already on their bad side after calling them VORPies last year) think their stat is key to determining the MVP, they should think again. It's worth a glance, at best.

It's worth a glance at least. It's a measure of how valuable a player is, compared to other people at his position. What is the downside of looking at it very seriously?

But VORP is supposed to be an all-encompassing stat,

No it's not. Doesn't account for defense, and doesn't account for "clutch" the way WPA does. No one is arguing it is all-encompassing. No one. What people do argue, occasionally, is that if a guy isn't even in the like top 10 for VORP or something, like Justin Morneau that year, maybe he shouldn't be the MVP.

and it led some numbers people to determine that Hanley Ramirez was a viable NL MVP candidate last year. And led many to say that David Wright was the NL MVP in a year in which Wright's Mets choked (Wright himself says no way was he MVP).

1. HRam was, indeed, a viable candidate.

2. What is Wright supposed to say? "I know my team choked harder than any team in the history of sports, but: Me for MVP!"

3. I don't understand why people debate about whether a guy's team has to make the playoffs to win the MVP, and some say "yes" and some say "no," but when a guy's team just barely misses the playoffs at the last possible second, meaning that they were in the race the whole year, and the guy in question hit .352/.432/.602 in September with 6 HR and 9 2B, it's like, "No fucking way that guy is teh MVP!!1!!!!!111!!!"

VORP, like other stats, doesn't come close to telling you everything. It doesn't take into account how a hitter hits in the clutch (oddly enough, some stat people think that's just luck, anyway),

See above. Then see WPA page. Then remember that no one in the world with a brain thinks that the MVP award should be blindly handed out to the guy with the best VORP.

As for "clutch" "just being luck," what we actually think is that it's very hard to be "clutch" year in and year out. (For example, ARod's WPA last year was 6.85. This year it's 0.28. Two excellent offensive years, two wildly different "clutch" results.)

or how many meaningful games he played in (at last count Grady Sizemore was high up on the VORP list, as well). VORP has some value. But like all other stats, it doesn't replace watching the games or following the season.

I have never watched a baseball game, so I can't speak to this. I'm not even sure what it is. What I can tell you is: watch live baseball all you want. I'll be in my grandmother's attic (following a legal dispute over squatter's rights with my mom w/r/t her basement), staring at my computer, looking at a little thing I like to call "data." That's all I care about. Data. Raw data. Baseball is good for one thing only: the production of data. That's what I believe. If I and my friends had it my way, the games wouldn't even be "played," but rather "simulated" by 1000 PCs, and the results would be downloaded directly into my brain through Optical Quanta Resonance (OQR), and instead of "discussing" the games the next day, my friends and I would just await the Retinal Scans and then text each other brief congratulations, depending on whose favorite "team" won, and then we would all go on with our lives, grateful that the annoyance of actual "baseball" had been removed from our lives, allowing us to spend more time writing code for our start-up social network site, which we are I think going to call "Together-ing!"

A-Rod may have the best VORP. But he shouldn't be on anyone's MVP ballot, much less at the top of the ballot.

I now want ARod to win.

Labels: arod, jon heyman, statistics, Together-ing, vorp, VORPies

posted by Anonymous # 8:10 PM

Monday, February 25, 2008

I Just Made A Man Invent The Derogatory Term "VORPies."

It's a historic day. For years, man has waited for just the right term to use when insulting other men who love baseball numbers just a little too much. (What are they, gay for numbers? Probably.) And now, just like the wait for Shrek 3, that wait is ogre.

Jon Heyman has called us VORPies.

Sorry VORPies, Rollins was the right choice

I can't decide what the funniest voice to read this in is. Prohibition-era gangster? '80s-movie-antagonist-and-eventual-ski-race-losing-preppy? Daniel Plainview?

Rollins acknowledged that his brash "team to beat'' prediction probably helped him win the MVP. Of course, it didn't hurt that he hit 30 home runs, scored 139 runs and slugged .534 while batting leadoff and playing a superb shortstop for a division champion.

He had a very good year and an even better storyline. That he won the MVP was wholly unsurprising, I suppose. But I am a VORPy, sir, and VORPies wear the VORPy family crest (a ThinkPad with a griffin's tail) and sing the VORPy national anthem ("God Save PECOTA (Not That We're Certain God Exists)") and by God (if He exists), above all a VORPy abides by the VORPy code, which we sing thunderously from the mountaintops and tattoo onto our left biceps:

Be reasonable, and be reasonably objective. Please. At least try.

We're working on pithy-ing it up.

The Rockies' great slugger, Matt Holliday, finished second, but even a Rockies person told me in the playoffs last October that Rollins deserved the MVP, just as that Rockies person believed their shortstop Troy Tulowitzki deserved the Rookie of the Year (the Brewers' Ryan Braun wound up winning a close vote for that award).

Hear that? Hear that, VORPies? One person -- a Rockies person! -- would have also voted for Rollins! Disband the VORPies! Cancel our convention (VORPyStock 2K8) at the Twentynine Palms Holiday Inn! Defenestrate in perpetual shame!

A Rockies person quietly whispered softly in Jon Heyman's ear, and like that, the debate was over.

That person believed that great offense combined with stellar shortstop play should have been enough to take the awards, not a bad thought at all.

Not a bad thought, maybe. Not really a great thought, either, if you think about what kind of thought it is.

Great offense + stellar shortstop play = MVP

What about Even greater offense + stellar catcher play? Or Best offense in history + okay left fielding? Or Slightly better offense + slightly worse shortstop play?

Even non-VORPies might admit that we need a more versatile equation than

Great offense + stellar shortstop play = MVP

if we're going to be serious about discussing the MVP. But that's me talking. I'm trying to be reasonable and reasonably objective. Such is my burden. I am a VORPy.

Even so, I wasn't shocked that stats people

Please -- VORPies.

have taken issue with Rollins winning the MVP award.

Very diplomatic of Heyman. Even though ONE ROCKIES PERSON told him he preferred Rollins, he refuses to be shocked that anyone else would disagree. Open mind full heart can't lose.

There are numbers crunchers

VORPies

out there -- including a firejoemorgan.com author

That's me! Please, "firejoemorgan.com VORPy" will do next time. Whatever I am currently doing, "authoring" is way too generous a term to describe what it is.

who wrote a guest piece in Sports Illustrated last week -- who believe baseball writers rank somewhere between morons and idiots for voting Rollins as MVP over David Wright, who had a higher VORP.

To be fair to this firejoemorgan.com VORPy, the piece was a little more indignant about Juno, Crash and Forrest Gump. Rollins over Wright is wrong, I think, but within earshot of being debatable. It's not Dawson-wrong or perhaps even Morneau-wrong.

But you're right, David Wright had a higher VORP than Jimmy Rollins. And a higher EqA. A higher OBP. A higher OPS. More Win Shares.

The stat people

VORPies. Come on, not that hard -- you're about to mention VORP in four words --

seem to believe VORP -- a Baseball Prospectus statistic that stands for Value Over Replacement Player -- defines a player,

Sure, I'll look at VORP. And EqA. And OBP. OPS. Win Shares. Various fielding assessments. Games played.

Somewhat counterintuitively, the Additional Credo of the VORPies along with the "Be reasonable" one is "Don't just look at VORP. That would be stupid."

but why haven't many of them championed last year's VORP leader (Hanley Ramirez) as MVP instead?

Hanley Ramirez is terrible at defense. All of the different fielding metrics and all of the guys who judge fielding-type things often disagree to the point of cacophony, but they seem to be pretty in sync on this point: Hanley is a Bill the Butcher-level butcher in the field. (Yo, two DDL characters in one post. Big ups, yo!)

So yeah, H-Ram led Wright by 8 runs of VORP (which already makes a positional adjustment), but by most estimates he gives that away and more in the field. Reasonable, huh?

I assume the stats guys favor Wright because he played for a contending team. I guess the rule is this: Highest VORP wins unless the VORP champion is playing for a loser.

Nah. Defense.

If Wright's offensive stats were slightly better than Rollins', and I will accept that they were,

Sweet. I know about this club. It's pretty exclusive. We have an awesome secret building, though, and on Thursdays we get drunk and watch Yahoo! Gamecasts. If you're open-minded enough about baseball, we just might let you start the application process.

What's the name of our club? I'll give you a hint: it rhymes with WORPies and is VORPies.

shouldn't Rollins get points for playing a superb shortstop compared to Wright's slightly-above average third base?

Yes. Defense counts. And both Rollins and Wright are very good at it. Rollins is probably a little more valuable in the field. By Win Shares and WARP, which both include defense, Wright still comes out significantly ahead. By John Dewan's Revised Zone Rating and Out of Zone plays made, Wright and Rollins both score relatively well, which doesn't indicate that Rollins should overcome a pretty large offensive deficit.

And shouldn't Rollins get credit for showing extraordinary initiative and leadership?

To the extent that you believe he leadershipped J.C. Romero to a 1.35 post-ASB ERA and initiative-d Ryan Howard to a 1.043 September OPS, sure. You can give him some credit. Me, I'm not doling out entire wins for that kind of stuff. Maybe in the case of a tie? I don't know. Trying to be reasonable here. KT would kill me for even suggesting intangibles could break a tie.

For helping his team barrel into the playoffs from seven games back with 17 to go, as opposed to Wright's team, which perpetrated a historic choke?

Very enjoyable to read "perpetrated a historic choke" followed immediately by the words:

Though the Mets' collapse was no fault of Wright's,

A little gunshy, huh? Just go the whole fucking hog: blame Wright for the choke. Do it. Feel the dark power coursing through your veins. Yes. Feels good, doesn't it? Soon you will be able to shoot lighting bolts from your hands. Unlimited power!

for the MVP to come off the all-time choke team, he'd better have a greater advantage in stats than this: Wright outhit Rollins .325 to .296, but both hit 30 home runs and Rollins beat Wright in Runs Created by 13.

Heyman is using Runs Created in the sense of Runs + RBI - HR. This is bad. Do not do this. There's an alternative: actual Runs Created. That's right. It's the one you get if you type "Runs Created" into Google and click I'm Feeling Lucky. You're already arguing using a stat called Runs Created. Why not simply use a better one?

According to their Baseball Reference pages, Wright out-run-created Rollins in the better sense of the term Runs Created, 146 to 135. This is, completely unsurprisingly, in line with their standings in essentially every other semi-robust offensive statistic ever invented.

Wright's big advantage apparently comes down to the fact he got on base more often (his on-base percentage was significantly higher, .416 to .344),

Yes! Hooray! You've been inducted into the VORPies! (Pops champagne cork, cues Handel's "Messiah.")

usually via a walk (he had 94 walks to Rollins' 49). To the stat guys, walking is more thrilling and much more valuable than actually winning the pennant.

Ooh. (Stuffs cork back in champagne, cues comedy record scratch sound effect.) Jon, as one VORPy to one near-VORPy, let me just say: for us, it might not ultimately be about what's more thrilling. We, the VORPies, are sort of trying to figure out who was more valuable at playing baseball, and sometimes this means looking at things that aren't that thrilling. Non-VORPies are telling us this all the time: taking the extra base, sacrificing, hit-and-running -- these things aren't thrilling, yet they're constantly heralded as intensely, team altering-ly valuable.

Well, walking is definitely kind of valuable. It means you're not out-ing. David Wright was spectacularly, thrillingly good at not out-ing last year. And he hit the ball far. And he ran the bases well. And he was a good defender. And hey, his team wasn't unconscionably shitty. I think he was good enough to be MVP. I guess we could agree to disagree, but there's no fun in that. Let's disagree to agree.

Labels: david wright, jimmy rollins, jon heyman, mvp, vorp, VORPies

posted by Junior # 5:20 PM

Friday, December 28, 2007

Ugh

Okay, fine. More fun from Heyman.

3. Andre Dawson. On ravaged knees, he made eight All-Star teams, hit 438 home runs, drove home 1,591 runs, won eight Gold Gloves and finished in the top two in MVP voting three times, winning for the last-place Cubs in 1987.

I don't understand why Dawson supporters always cite his "ravaged knees" as a like thing that makes his numbers be better than they are. "He had bad knees! He gets bonus points!" You wouldn't say about Tony Gwynn: "The guy hit .320 every year -- and he was fat!" The Hawk had bad knees. That happens to athletes sometimes. Lou Gehrig had fucking ALS and he was still better than basically everyone else.

Despite the fact that The Hawk had bad knees -- which is immaterial -- he was a very very good baseball player. A baseball player who made crazy amounts of outs (evidenced by his career .323 OBP). The Gold Gloves are essentially pointless, the MVP voting is suspect at best, and his career numbers just don't stack up. Sorry. I loved the guy. I watched a lot of Cubs games on WGN and he was super fun to watch hit. But look at his career, man. I crunched all these #s for this post, and I'm too bored to do it again.

4. Rice. An absolutely dominant hitter for a decade in Boston. Like Morris, I think, Rice loses points on personality. And that's not right.

You know nobody loves Jim Ed more than I. But again...he just wasn't as dominant as everyone says he was. Look for yourself. It's true. He was awesome for like 3-4 years, but then his eyesight went south -- which maybe Heyman thinks should work in his favor -- and he had injuries and stuff. Then he had a resurgence later as a DH, but it was too late, and he was done at like 33.

People always say that Rice was "the most feared" and the "scariest guy to see at the plate" and stuff...but for many of the years he played, he wasn't actually the best hitter, or player, on his own team. Look at Rice, and now look at Dewey. And remember that Rice was not the greatest OF, and that he DHed a lot, and that Dewey was an excellent RF. Why Dewey doesn't get more love for the Hall I'll never know. I don't think he should be in, but he never even sniffs a "Consider This Guy" article, and Jim Ed gets them all the time.

Anyway, the point is, Jim Ed = no, not quite, sorry. Love you. First Sox jersey was 14. Saw you hit a mammoth HR at Fenway in 1984 that might still be airborne. Just didn't play long enough, or well enough.

5. Dave Concepcion. This is his 15th and last year on the ballot, and he's probably going to get his usual 10 percent of the vote again. The reason I am in that 10 percent is that I think he was perhaps the best all-around shortstop of his generation and an underrated piece of the Big Red Machine. Great defender (five Gold Gloves) and superb stealer (321 stolen bases), his career looks a lot like Hall-of-Famer Phil Rizzuto's to me -- without the announcing, of course.

Great fielder. Couldn't hit a lick. (And yet, still had the same OBP as Dawson, which should be the thing that closes the book on Dawson. If you're a big feared power hitter and you don't walk enough to have a higher OBP than Dave Concepcion...).

The only thing he has going for him is that he was an excellent fielder. He was not a "superb" stealer -- he stole 321 bases, which is good for 130th all time. Just ahead of Gwynn, who was fat, and just behind Gary Redus. He was also caught 109 times. That's about a 75% success rate. Eh. Pretty good. But the only thing he was "great" at was fielding. If he had 580 SB, like Ozzie Smith did, then maybe you have an argument. But he did not.

6. Dave Parker. He was an MVP,

That's good.

an All-Star Game MVP,

That's almost completely pointless. Jesus Christ. He was 1-3 with a walk and an RBI. This is a credential for the Hall of Fame?! On the same level as like, "He had 3000 hits!" or whatever? Lunacy. (He did have 2 assists, though, which is pretty awesome, to have 2 assists in an ASG. Maybe he should be in.)

(Ironically, BTW, one of them was Jim Rice, at 3rd.)

a two-time batting champion,

Not bad.

a seven-time All-Star

I am asleep. You just put me to sleep.

and a three-time Gold Glove winner.

He has that in common with Minnie Minoso, Joe Rudi, and Eric Davis. Ugh. Now I'm in a coma. Look what you've done.

Here are some people Heyman says are "close, but not quite Cooperstown."

7. Mattingly. Every year, I am more and more tempted to vote for him.

Yes...like a siren song, the pleas of thousands of impossibly under-informed dummies from the Hudson River Valley waft through the air and strike the cochleae of willing BBWAA numbskulls..."He was gooooood...he won a baaaaaaaating title...his nickname has the word "baseball" in it...that has to mean something...".

Don Mattingly gets into the Hall of Fame, I quit. Everything. I quit everything. He is nowhere close to being in the ballpark of being in the discussion of people who might possibly begin to be considered as potential people who might someday be on a long list of people who should be considered as people who might someday be considered to one day be part of the discussion of who are the players who maybe should be thought about as potential people who might one day be considered by the Committee to Discuss People Who Should Maybe Be Thought Of As Potential Hall of Famers Someday.

But this makes it eight years I've resisted so far. One of the game's best players from 1984-89, a back injury sapped his strength and greatness.

Do you get more HOF points for a back injury or bad knees? Can someone look that up?

Won an MVP, a batting title, nine Gold Gloves and the hearts of New Yorkers.

He had some very good years. The Gold Gloves are essentially pointless. And winning the Hearts of New Yorkers is not, the last time I checked, a fucking qualification for anything, least of all the Baseball Hall of Fame. You know who else has won the hearts of New Yorkers? Darryl Strawberry, Lenny Dykstra, Turk Wendell, and Luis Sojo.

8. Raines. He made the All-Star team his first seven seasons, then didn't make it the next 16. Certainly appeared to be on his way to Cooperstown early, and he lasted long enough to compile some impressive numbers, including 2,605 hits and 808 stolen bases. But for two-thirds of his career, he was merely a very good player, not an All-Star player. Good enough for review in future years, though.

I feel bad about how over-the-top I was in re: Mattingly. But as you all know, my computer's delete key is broken. So instead of going back and revising what I wrote about Mattingly, I will simply exercise admirable (yes, I said it) restraint when I argue for Raines.

Rock, who actually had 811 SB according to BP (but 808 according to Baseball-Reference), is lumped into the "maybe someday we'll think it over category." Excellent. Raines stole a crazy number of bases, at like an 85% success rate. His career OBP stands at .386, which is very very very good for a man with 9000 AB. The man had a .307 career EqA. He is borderline, I think, but a much better candidate than many other people on this list.

See? I can be reasonable.

Labels: andre dawson, dave concepcion, dave parker, don mattingly, hall of fame, jim rice, jon heyman, tim raines

posted by Anonymous # 9:15 PM

Jack and Bert and a Hallway Where Famous People Go

It's the most wonderful time of the year -- the time when sportswriters spell out their mostly embarrassing Hall of Fame selections in their columns and pre-emptively get defensive about them, as if they know deep down inside that they're wrong, but they just can't help themselves. With the way some serial FJM offenders have started peppering their work with more nerd-baiting barbs than ever before, I'm beginning to think that they want to be caught -- maybe the traffic they get from our site is, perversely, helping them keep their jobs. Take Jon Heyman.

Enshrinement in Cooperstown shouldn't be about numbers.

It should be about guessing. Waving your hands in the air and shouting baseball players' names. Loud. Getting piss-drunk on Schlitzes, beating up some Finnish guy for looking gay, putting more Schlitzes in your gut and then using that gut to remember who was great. Because who remembers better, guts or numbers? Guts. Guts remember.

If anyone thinks so, let's trash tradition and have a computer select the honorees.

You know who a computer would probably pick? All of his computer friends. Hope you like a Hall of Fame full of Commodore 64's, ENIACs and vacuum tubes, you number-loving asshole.

The Hall of Fame should be about who starred and who dominated. And about who made an impact.

It should be about greatness.

And how do we determine these things? Simple. Jon Heyman's brain matter. It's a little-known fact, but Jon Heyman's brain matter has been scientifically determined to be the most infallible substance on the planet Earth. Jon Heyman's brain matter has retained every scrap of information it has ever received through Jon Heyman's sensory organs. Jon Heyman's brain matter can tell you the number of hairs on the skin of a Lhasa Apso Jon Heyman's eyes saw in 1974, though of course it would prefer not to, because that would be a number, and numbers are insignificant to Jon Heyman's brain matter. Jon Heyman's brain matter specializes in the recognition of domination, star power, impact and greatness. It does not need numbers to aid it. It simply knows. We must trust it.

I know my annual ballot would be rejected by stat aficionados, number crunchers and many Moneyball disciples. I have one player with a .323 on-base percentage on my ballot, and another even lower, at .322. But numbers don't tell everyone's story.

I believe guys should be given some extra credit for miraculous games, postseason heroics, historical performances that become part of baseball lore. They better be pretty damn miraculous to outweigh a .322 OBP, though.

Nobody's ballot is perfect. Like Roger Clemens' overzealous lawyer, I am conducting my own investigation.

This investigation, at least according to the first sentence of your column, "shouldn't be about numbers." So what would it entail? My guess: Jon Heyman, magic mushrooms, a MIDI keyboard and GarageBand.

Also, sure, you say that nobody's ballot is perfect. But what better way to absolutely assure imperfection than to ignore swaths of readily available information? This is like Clarence Thomas blithely throwing reams of legal documents into an In-Sink-Erator while happily chattering "No one's judicial opinions are perfect! La la la la dorp!" I believe this happened in 1998.

It's an inexact science, to be sure, and part of the imprecision involves the few idiots who get to vote.

Again, it's a science made especially inexact when you throw out all of the data before you even begin. I love, of course, the irony of Heyman calling some other voters idiots -- I think this irony isn't even lost on him.

Some may call me an idiot, as well.

You saying that doesn't mean you aren't one.

But one thing I have going for me is that I am old enough to have seen and followed the entire careers of 24 of 25 players on this year's ballot (I was two when Tommy John broke in so I missed some of the pre-surgery John).

I think this is relevant. Watching all these guys can only help augment your careful research of their playing records --

That in mind, I don't feel the need to study the stat sheets too hard. I look, but I don't obsess.

I think I know who was great, who was close to great and who doesn't even belong on the ballot.

Oh. So you're saying you can remember off the top of your head exactly how great 24 of the 25 guys are. How dominant. How starry. How impactful. No obsessing for you! Just sleeping in a hammock, playing the harmonica. Hall of Fame, here we come! No need to study. You just know! Whee!

Bert Blyleven is one Cooperstown candidate who stirs a lot of emotion, sometimes from folks who barely saw him pitch and instead spent the past 10 years with their heads buried in a stat book.

Barely saw him pitch. Wasn't born yet. Then was too busy drawing dinosaurs in crayon. Have spent the past 10 years living and sleeping inside a giant copy of Bram Stoker's Dracula, not a stat book.

Blyleven did some great things in his career, and he pitched a lot of dominating games. Yet he never had a truly dominating season.

158 ERA+, 2.52 ERA, 1.117 WHIP, 258 Ks, 325 IP. Even 20 (bleah) wins. He was 22 years old.

142 ERA+, 2.66 ERA, 1.142 WHIP, 249 Ks. The very next year.

I'll stop boring you, since all numbers should be thrown out. But Bert went on to have four more years of ERA+s over 133. Jack Morris, a man of whom Heyman says "it's an abomination he may never get in," had exactly zero seasons that good. And if ERA+ is breaking your brain with its unbelievable complexity, Morris also never had an ERA under 3. Blyleven did. Nine times.

He threw 60 shutouts --

Wow, that's good!

-- but won 20 games only once in an era when 20-game winners weren't nearly so rare as they are today.

Let me use your own words against you, Jon. "Enshrinement in Cooperstown shouldn't be about numbers -- especially not numbers that are exceedingly arbitrary and almost completely divorced with actual quality (e.g. winning 20 games in a season)."

Your hero, Nobel Prize and Peabody Award winner Jack Morris won 21 games in 1992. His ERA+ was 102 and his plain ol' ERA was 4.04.

I do admire Blyleven's talent, and his longevity as well. But I still think Blyleven falls into that group of great compilers who weren't quite great enough players to make Cooperstown. Lee Smith, Harold Baines and John also fit that category -- though Blyleven's the closest of that group to making my ballot.

Add "compilers" to the list of "words people use when they don't have a substantive argument when talking about the Hall of Fame." I think there is probably some useful way to use the word -- a guy might be a compiler if he is good over a very long career and doesn't have a peak period of sustained greatness. But Blyleven was better than Morris in so many ways for so much longer...it just doesn't make sense here. Bert Blyleven was so much better than Harold Baines, the comparison is almost absurd.

Heyman will go on to spit out the word "compiler" several more times in the article with contempt, as if these guys selfishly chalked up statistics without even playing the games. This also doesn't make sense. Playing is playing. If Bert could've played on better teams, I'm sure he would've. As it was, he did win two World Series and recorded a 2.57 postseason ERA, compared to vaunted playoff performer Morris' 3.80.

Skipping ahead now:

THE CHOSEN

2. Jack Morris. The ace of three World Series teams, it's an abomination he may never get in. Morris made 14 Opening Day starts, tied with Steve Carlton, Randy Johnson, Walter Johnson and Cy Young, behind only Tom Seaver's 16 (the others already are or will be in Cooperstown).

Saying that you hate numbers and then using the number of Opening Day starts made as a criterion is like eschewing movie reviews...except for this one IMDb commenter, SandlerFan1993 -- he has such insightful opinions! Jack Morris made the Opening Day start for the Blue Jays in 1993. He went on to post a 6.19 ERA and a WHIP of 1.664. Inexplicably, he again was named the Opening Day starter the following year, this time for the Indians. At the end of the season, he could look back on a sweet 5.60 ERA and 1.627 WHIP. And we're giving him Hall of Fame credit for these meaningless Opening Day nods?

The only two reasons I can think of for him not making it are: 1) he got hit hard his final couple years and finished with a 3.90 ERA, and 2) he was no charmer. Neither is a good enough reason to omit him. His impact was great.

Well, look, you sort of glossed over the main reason, and that's his ERA, which is a halfway-decent measure of how many runs a guy tends to give up. Shouldn't that sort of be important when you're determining how great, impactful, dominant, or starry a pitcher was? Idly, I'd like to casually suggest some more reasons why Jack Morris might not be the best Hall of Fame candidate (don't take these too seriously -- like you, I don't obsess over these things!):

1. 3.90 career ERA (okay, the first one's yours)
2. 105 career ERA+ (100 is average! Not average Hall of Famer. Average! Jamie Moyer's career ERA+ is 105.)
3. Never finished in the top 4 in ERA in his league. (So undominant!)
4. Never ever ever had an ERA under 3.
5. Zero seasons with a WHIP below 1.16 (an arbitrary cutoff point; Blyleven had nine such seasons)
6. 3.80 postseason ERA (not exciting anyone)
7. 4.87 LCS ERA (6 games, who cares, but if you're going to give him credit for his World Series performance...)

You get the picture.

Moving along...

10. Blyleven. Stat gurus love this guy, and it's understandable. One of the great compilers of his generation, he's fifth all-time in strikeouts, ninth in shutouts and 25th in wins. There's no doubt he was a superb talent who played a long time. But he was rarely among the ultra-elite in his 22-year career.

That's right. Jon Heyman thinks Bert Blyleven is 10th most worthy of the guys on the Hall of Fame ballot this year. And there's "compiler" again. This guy didn't play baseball! All he did was compile! What a jerkbutt. Not voting for this ass-toucan.

Really, though, fifth all-time in strikeouts. Wow. Out of the top 17 guys, I bet all of them except Bert and maybe Curt Schillseph make the Hall. And Bert outpitched the strikeout leader, one Mr. Nolan R., to the tune of seven points of ERA+.

There's more in this article -- Dawson, Rice, Parker, Concepcion (!). Maybe KT will read it and go berzerk later.

Labels: bert blyleven, compiler, hall of fame, jack morris, jon heyman

posted by Junior # 5:21 PM

Monday, October 29, 2007

HatGuy, Red Sox, Heyman, A-Rod, And Super Special Surprise Guest!

It's all happening at once, people. Let's savor this, the day after the final day of baseball, before we all begin obsessively following Memphis Grizzlies basketball and Columbus Blue Jackets hockey and Columphis Blue Grizzlies Lazyjokemashupball.

HatGuy, your entry please?

The Red Sox had generations of teams that were characterized by 25 players taking 25 cabs. No wonder they spent 86 years between championships. Now, they’ve won twice in four seasons by becoming a band of brothers who seem to genuinely enjoy each other’s company. They have stars, but you think of them as a true team.

Of course! Fuck! Why'd they wait 86 years? Friends are what win in baseball! Friendshipball! Watch out, Red Sox. Your 2008 favorites for the championship: my uncle Steve and his friend Mike. So what if they're only two guys instead of twenty-five and Mike has a shriveled left arm and Steve drinks crystal meth dissolved in Mountain Dew Game Fuel, the Halo 3-themed Mountain Dew. They go deep-sea fishing on the weekends! They're friends!

Now let's readjust our monocles and look at the bread around this idiocy sandwich:

That’s why he won’t end up in Boston. The Red Sox had generations of teams that were characterized by 25 players taking 25 cabs. No wonder they spent 86 years between championships. Now, they’ve won twice in four seasons by becoming a band of brothers who seem to genuinely enjoy each other’s company. They have stars, but you think of them as a true team. To add a person who has never had many friends in the clubhouses he’s inhabited doesn’t make sense.

Zero guesses as to whom HatGuy is referencing. Negative three guesses. Yep, you got it, and I took guesses away from you before you made any. There you have it. Not enough friends = no deal. I like the image of A-Rod calling up his old teammates, begging them to tell the Red Sox that yes indeed, I, Hank Blalock/Jay Buhner/Bobby Ayala/Hideki Irabu, was A-Rod's friend you better believe it.

I am undecided whether A-Rod will be worth the hundreds of millions of dollars he will be seeking, but the number of friends he has on Facebook will be low on my priority list.

Now you, Jon Heyman, sally forth with your offering!

The Red Sox disproved the old "crapshoot'' theory espoused by a lot of folks who keep losing in the playoffs. The best team won in 2007, and that is no fluke.

Look, I'm not losing in the playoffs. My favorite team isn't losing in the playoffs. Joe Torre has won a lot in the playoffs. Joe Torre often disagree, but he and I agree on two things: Top Chef is now more enjoyable than Project Runway and as long as the series remain as brief as they are, the playoffs are distinctly, perversely crapshootish. The best team probably won in 2007, but how about just last year? 83-78 sound right to you, Jon? Was that a fluke?

And finally, we grow closer to the emergence of our special guest star for the evening, who appears courtesy of Bob DiCesare:

Rodriguez appeared in the American League Championship Series twice with the Mariners, once with the Yanks, and distinguished himself in none of the three.

Exactly right. None of the three except for the first two, in which he slugged .773 and .516 and slammed a combined 4 HR and 10 RBI. And hey, in that last one he OBP-ed .353 and hit a horrible, team-damaging solo home run.

One number echoes within the mountains of glorious statistics compiled by Rodriguez throughout his career:

13.7, his earth-shattering WARP3!

zero, his number of accrued World Series at-bats.

Oh.

Fact is, the Yankees are in far greater need of a Scott Brosius, a Bernie Williams, a Paul O’Neill than an uninspired (and uninspiring) A-Rod.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Brosius nostalgia tour continues. May his glorious name live on throughout the offseason and for all offseasons throughout eternity!

Labels: a-rod, HatGuy, jon heyman, mike celizic, red sox, scott brosius

posted by Junior # 9:36 PM

Thursday, September 06, 2007

FJH

Another column, another litany of blunders for Jon Heyman.

Today's the day to sing for the unsung, to herald the unheralded, to praise the overlooked.

So this piece is of the Under-the-Radar, Bet You Haven't About These Guys variety. Fine. Standard. The whole thing is a little paint-by-numbers, and I was tempted to run through the entire article. There's a sweet Eckstein ref (very original, comparing Reggie Willits to Eckstein -- if there were a Nobel Prize for Originality, Jon, they would immediately rename it the Heyman Prize, only you would insist that they rename it again with a more original name); a couple of obvious BABIP, small sample size wonders (Matt Diaz*, congratulations on your .392 BABIP); and a few just plain head scratchers (Rudy Seanez? Really, who cares?)

But there were two selections that went above and beyond the run-of-the-mill idiocy of the rest of the list, primarily because of the reasoning behind them. The first:

There's also Jose Vidro in Seattle. It's hard to be unsung when you're so highly paid ($7 million). But Vidro, who once combined with Vlad Guerrero to make Montreal a threat, has been forgotten. He shouldn't be, not with his .306 average.

First of all, his average is .310. It hasn't been .306 since August 1st. I have no idea how you got that figure. Secondly, who cares? Batting average is a number best appreciated by elderlies and pre-multiplication-table-age children, and 2007 Jose Vidro is a perfect representation why.

Let me explain: sure, Jose Vidro has gotten a hit 31 out of every 100 at bats, but virtually none of those hits have been for extra bases. He's slugging .389 on the year. Three. Eighty. Nine. Did I mention he's also a DH? That's right. He has no defensive value.

So Jon Heyman wants us to heap more recognition on a player who does not play defense, gets paid $7 million a year (as he himself mentions), and has six home runs all year? How much, exactly, should we be singing about and heralding this guy? I have a limited heralding budget. You would not believe how much professional heralds go for these days.

What's that? You want me to be even more long-winded and belabor this point further? Don't mind if I do. There are seven DHs who qualify for the 432 minimum plate appearances. Of these seven, Jose Vidro is dead last in OPS. Now yes, five of these guys are pretty damn good, but Vidro is trailing even sometime first baseman, full-time idiot Kevin Millar, who makes way less money, gets nary a herald now that he's on a bad team in a small market, and has 14 home runs in 90 fewer at bats than our good friend Jose. The other five full-time DHs all have 21 or more home runs. Vidro, if you have a short-term memory deficit a la Guy Pearce in Memento, still has 6.

Why am I harping on this so much? 1. I am not a good or useful person and 2. it was only seconds ago, it feels like, anyway, that Heyman was pontificating on how he would never ever use something crazy like VORP and how VORP is un-American and that VORP probably didn't help Pavarotti live any longer. Well, let me say now that VORP would likely have helped you, Jon Heyman, recognize that Jose Vidro isn't having that great a season after all, that he's been completely ordinary, and that an empty shell of a .310 (or as you believe, .306) batting average does not necessarily make you anything more than the 7th or 8th best DH in the league. Jack Cust, a .261 hitter, has been 50% more valuable.

But of course, VORP is a made-up statistic, and real men do not stoop to such lows. Never mind that batting average itself is, of course, made up in its own way -- no one could simply watch twenty games and immediately know what a specific player's batting average was without doing some (nerd alert) math. You want to talk made up? How about ERA? Totally mathy. How about saves? Heck, how about the weird, arbitrary rules that determine what the hell counts as a pitching "win"? They are all made up, my friend. Some of them are simply more useful than others.

Let us continue, now, to the second blunder, this one far more straightforward and perhaps slightly more humorous:

There's Kaz Matsui (.292, 29 steals) with the Rockies, who got him for next to nothing after he flopped with the Mets. Who'd have thought that the star from Tokyo would take to Colorado more than he does New York?

Yes, indeed, who'd have thought that a baseball player would hit better in a stadium three hundred miles in the air than in a stadium three hundred miles long in every dimension? Who'd have thought that a hitter might benefit moving from Shea to Coors? Which Nostradamic mind could divine such wondrous futures? Truly, an unanswerable mystery.

Enough cheap sarcasm. Here are the facts. His first year in New York, Kaz Matsui batted .272 (who cares?) and posted an OPS of .727. He was lambasted as a disaster of Irabuian proportions.

His first full season in Colorado, away from Coors Field, Kaz Matsui has batted .262 and OPSed .672. That's right. Worse than his debut with the Mets (for whom he managed a .723 OPS on the road). In the thin air of Denver, Kaz has smoked the ball to the tune of .325/.374/.462 (OPS of .835). But that's not altogether unpredictable, is it? It's Coors fucking Field. If Heyman had taken two seconds and traipsed on over to Kaz's B-Ref page, he would've discovered that Kaz's 2004 OPS+ (park- and league-adjusted) was 88, and his 2007 OPS+ so far is ... 89.

I just find it so amusing that Heyman completely forgets or ignores the extremely obvious park factors at play here (again, I.C.F.F. (it's Coors fucking Field)!) and then posits that Kaz enjoys the city of Denver more than the city of New York and thus magically became a better player (seriously, reread what he wrote -- "Who'd have thought that the star from Tokyo would take to Colorado more than he does New York?")

Maybe he's onto something. Maybe all these years of offense haven't been due to the fact that Coors Field's atmosphere is less dense than any of Mars' moons'. Maybe Denver is just a nice place to live. Yeah. That's it. Denver: Any citizen, professional baseball player or not, will gain 100 points of OPS simply because they live here. Clearly, the second-level move now is for players to just make their homes in Denver while they play for other cities. The hitting benefits will be obvious.

Have I digressed enough? You're welcome.

---

ADDENDUM:

Reader demand has convinced me to at least mention this phenomenal last graf:

Anyone who thinks A-Rod isn't a "true'' Yankee is nuts. You want the truth? Without him the Yankees are 11 back in the wild-card race instead of three in front.

Heyman is guesstimating that A-Rod has been worth 14 wins thus far in the season, presumably using the completely fictional "wins created" metric he wrote about last time out. How is wins created calculated? It's a three-part process.

1. Heyman hears a player's name.
2. Heyman thinks, for one second, about what that player's name means to him. Is the player famous? Is he sort of a prick? How did he play last night?
3. After one second, Heyman writes down a number. This number is the number of wins the player has created.

This formula has the advantage of being extremely fast, easy, and verifiable only by Jon Heyman.

For those of you interested in non-Heyman-invented statistics, A-Rod is sitting at a pretty sweet 5.9 Batting Wins (Pete Palmer's tool measuring hitting wins over an average player) and 9.7 WARP-1 (which measures wins over a replacement player). There's also the possibility that Heyman had a moment of weakness and checked A-Rod's Baseball Prospectus DT card, because Mr. Rodriguez' WARP-3 (adjusted for all-time rather than just this season) sits at 13.6, which rounds to 14, which is Heyman's WC for him! But Heyman would never resort to that. Would he have?

The numbers in the preceding paragraph are all approximations subject to untold degrees of error, except of course the Heyman Number, which as he so humbly reminds us his column, is simply "the truth."

---

*It's been pointed out to me by reader Eric that Matt Diaz, amazingly, has posted the following BABIPs over the past four years:

2004 Durham (584 PA) - .378
2005 Omaha (278 PA) - .418
2006 Atlanta (322 PA) - .373
2007 Atlanta (329 PA) - .392

Eric also says "You mentioned in your post blasting Jon Heyman that Matt Diaz is an 'obvious BABIP, small sample size wonder.' I couldn't disagree more" and "I fail to see how this year is flukey or a product of small sample size."

Thank you, Eric, for your input. I did a little digging to see if there's any precedent for this type of consistently outrageously high BABIP. Hitters, I think, have been known to control BABIP a bit better than pitchers. This is extremely unscientific, but I quickly checked some good hitters' career BABIPs. Here's what I found:

Alex Rodriguez .326
David Ortiz .310
Albert Pujols .318
Gary Sheffield .292

Again, completely random. Not serious analysis. But Diaz is at .392 this year, and of course that's not sustainable. It's just not. Is Diaz a good hitter? He is, although as Eric pointed out to me he hasn't gotten enough of a chance to prove this at a major league level.

But his numbers are a little inflated this year by that .392.

**One more edit. Once again, I've been rescued by a reader who knows much more than I do about everything. Michael?

Junior,

Rather than comparing Diaz to Arod or Sheffield, you might want to note that the standard formula for BABIP is line drive rate plus .120. Since Diaz’s line drive rate this season is 21.2%, his expected BABIP is .332, 60 points below where he is now. Furthermore, the two stats that might inflate a player’s BABIP (groundball rate and infield hit rate) do not predict a bump in BABIP for Diaz. Unless there is something unique to Diaz that has not affected any other major league baseball player in history, you are correct about Diaz’s BABIP due to regress to the mean and reader Eric is wrong.

Michael

Thank you sir. I would add that reader Eric is right that Diaz could definitely be an actual decent major league hitter. His BABIP could regress and his numbers would still be respectable, since right now they're sensational.

Labels: jon heyman

posted by Junior # 8:09 PM

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Hey Man, It's A Heyman Mailbag Mailbag.

You readers can't get enough Jon Heyman, the man who promises to commit seppuku if he hears the word VORP again (I'm paraphrasing). Hold on to your brains, here. I'm about to quote from e-mails we've gotten about Heyman's responses to e-mails he's gotten.

Matt points out more VORPage:

Still using wins to judge a pitcher? I thought we'd moved out of the Dark Ages. Beckett has received almost 7 runs per game of support, whereas guys like Haren ( 5.44), Santana (5.24), and Bedard (4.60) have all received considerably less. Or are they supposed to will their teams to play better with their magical clutchness and playing of the game the right way like Beckett does? Also, VORP (one of those spooky, newfangled computer stats) has Kelvim Escobar first, followed by Santana, Bedard and Haren. Beckett is a distant seventh.
--Rob, Southington, Conn.

There goes that VORP again. When the standings are determined by VORP, I think I will take it more seriously. But as you know, they still go by wins and losses. Like I said, I am an admirer of Bedard's. I had him second. Why don't you send your insults to Jim Leyland, who didn't even pick him for the All-Star team?

So Heyman will only use statistics that determine the standings. Of course you realize this eliminates at-bats, hits, walks, strikeouts, stolen bases, doubles, triples, home runs, RBIs, Batting Average, on-base percentage, and slugging percentage. Not that Heyman would use those last two anyway, because, you know, 'on-base percentage?' That could mean anything! Now, win-percentage. Theres a stat I could get behind. Or lose percentage. Another great stat. Why don't these stat geeks program their computers to do that? Huh!?! I gotta sit down...

And from Kevin:

You missed a tasty nugget in Heyman's mailbag. First he says, in re: the AL MVP:

However, I only wanted to mention players I thought had a chance to win the awards. In this rare case, I think only Alex Rodriguez and Magglio Ordonez realistically can win, with A-Rod's chances about 95 percent now. In the unlikely event the Yankees and Tigers fall completely out of the race or A-Rod (who incidentally has been terrific in the field and on the basepaths) gets hurt, I might have to re-evaluate. In that case, I'd put Ichiro and Vladimir Guerrero at the top of the next tier.

OK. Ichiro. Fine. But then, in the very next question, re: the AL ROY...

In your list of AL Rookie of the Year candidates you neglected two other Red Sox rookies: Dustin Pedroia and Hideki Okajima. Yes, Dice-K was the big name at the beginning of the season but others are out there also.
-- Henry, Homestead, Fla.

I'd still have to go with a front-line starter over a singles-hitting second baseman and a setup man. Matsuzaka had all the expectations and pressure on him, and he delivered in such a way that hardly anyone is questioning the team's financial outlay for him. Pedroia has been superb in his role, and Okajima even better. But I am afraid they are handicapped by their roles.

So....Ichiro, as a singles hitter, is a possible candidate for AL MVP, but Pedroia, a singles hitter, isn't a possible candidate for AL ROY? Huh?

Good point, Kevin. I very much enjoy that both of these reader e-mails include bewildered "Huh?"s as ultimately, the only reasonable response. Heyman has simply rendered some people dumbfounded.

Some numbers: Ichiro has 192 hits on the year, with 30 of them being the extra base variety. Pedroia checks in with 128 hits and 35 XBH. Even though Ichiro's batting an absurd .353, he's only outslugging Pedroia .439 to .438.

Ichiro is a terror on the basepaths and by all accounts a phenomenal fielder. But he is decidedly a singles hitter.

Also, getting back to VORP -- isn't a tiny part of Heyman's grooveless, reptilian brain* flickering just the slightest in response to the fact that a growing percentage of e-mails he receives at his job as a baseball writer refer to some newer baseball statistics? Shouldn't that mean anything to him?

*Brain may actually be human

Labels: jon heyman

posted by Junior # 6:24 PM

VORP Rhymes With Dorp.

I am convinced that 80% of recalcitrant old baseball men's aversion to VORP and WARP and the like can be attributed to the fact that the acronyms sound sort of dorky. Or specifically, dorpy. If the stats were called something cool, like Thunderbird Number or Obsidian Blade Value, I think more guys would get on board.

Anyway, remember that week in 2006 when Ken Tremendous went to Argentina and made a big deal out of it? I just got back from Brazil and did not make a big deal out of it, mainly because I failed to post anything about deficient baseball commentary or gormless sportswriting while in Brazil. I consider this an enormous failing on my part.

But I'm back now, and Jon Heyman has welcomed me home with a big dumb load of stupid.

Your title:

What the VORP?
Performing under pressure a big factor in MVP debate

Yeah. It's that sweet an article. Actually, it's a mailbag, and Carolyn from Boca Raton, Florida (beautiful, charismatic, saintly Carolyn) starts us off right:

Regarding your NL MVP candidates, how about those two guys in Florida? Yes, the Marlins are not in playoff contention, but it's hard to ignore Hanley Ramirez and Miguel Cabrera, especially considering they're first and second, respectively, in the NL in VORP, and rank in the top three in Runs Created. It looks like you went through all the playoff-contending teams, and chose a "good" player from each. Let me ask you: If Cabrera were on a playoff-contender this season, would there be any doubt who the MVP was?
-- Carolyn, Boca Raton, Fla.

Carolyn makes a lot of good points, and I imagine she lives in a gleaming white Spanish-style home in Boca Raton and rides horses bareback in the springtime. But back to the point: yes, Hanley Ramirez and Miguel Cabrera sit 1-2 in the NL VORP standings (BP subscription req'd), followed very closely by Misters Wright, Jones (Larry, not Andruw), Utley and Pujols. A San Francisco outfielder ranks seventh.

So yes, Carolyn, Cabrera would be a very strong MVP candidate if his team were any good, as would Hanley. As for your accusation that Mr. Heyman only looked at playoff-ish teams --

Actually, you're right. That's exactly what I did, and how I came up with Prince Fielder as my NL MVP leader. His "good'' year is actually more than good, and the Brewers are right in the thick of the playoff race.

Prince is having a terrific year, and he probably actually is the lead dog in the NL MVP race because it's an award voted on by guys exactly like Heyman. Is this just?

Well, he's 10th in the league in VORP, a full 21 points behind both Cabrera and H. Ramirez. He has an excellent EqA (.322 -- lower than Cabrera's, Pujols', Bonds', Utley's, Jones', heck, even Hanley's), and he plays indifferent to bad defense at the easiest position on the diamond. To be honest, I don't think he's all that strong a candidate.

But wait, says Heyman. I have more to say --

While I understand your sentiments, I am more interested in "wins created'' than runs created.

Really. Wins created. What, exactly, is Prince Fielder's wins created on the year? How about Gabe Gross'? His team is in the thick of the playoff race. They have wins -- well, some, anyway. They actually have a losing record. If they were in the AL East, they would be 15 games out. Prince Fielder is also on this team. I wonder if Heyman's considering any Blue Jays or A's for AL MVP? They're neck and neck with the Brew Crew at this point.

Since you totally made up the phrase wins created and it's meaningless, I will say Gabe Gross has 10 WC and Fielder has 68.4. (The rest of the Brewers account for negative wins.)

And the day I consider VORP is the day I get out of the business.

Enthusiasts of sabermetrics often get accused of zealotry. This, my friends, is zealotry of the highest level. Doesn't this sentence sound like some Sinn Fein IRA terrorist shit or something? "The day I break bread with the Protestants, Danny, is the day my bonny Irish heart stops beating." Or something. I don't know anything about Ireland.

The idea of the MVP is to honor the player who has had the biggest positive impact on the pennant races.

This line is perfectly acceptable if it's changed to "Jon Heyman, and Jon Heyman alone's idea of the MVP is to honor the player who has had the biggest positive impact on the pennant races." And a useful disclaimer would be: "Jon Heyman does not acknowledge any leeway for nuance, subtlety, evidence, or critical thinking in the determination of the MVP."

Here's a fun thing: from 1911 to 1914, Hugh Chalmers of the Chalmers Automobile Company handed out a sort of proto-MVP called the Chalmers Award, given to the player who "should prove himself as the most important and useful player to his club and to the league at large in point of deportment and value of services rendered." Sounds a lot like the nebulous BBWAA MVP award, doesn't it?

The 1913 NL Chalmers, the third (and second to last) ever, went to one Jake Daubert of the Brooklyn Superbas. The Superbas' record that year was an underwhelming 65-84, good for a winning percentage of .436.

Today, Miguel Cabrera's and Hanley Ramirez' team, the Florida Marlins, sit at 58-75, for a winning percentage of ... also .436.

Eerie, isn't it? Aren't you glad I'm back from Brazil? I am.

Labels: brazil, brooklyn superbas, hugh chalmers, jon heyman, vorp

posted by Junior # 1:18 PM

Monday, May 21, 2007

Why?

SI.com's Jon Heyman has a list of trades that "should happen." Here's #1:

1. Scott Rolen to the Dodgers

Los Angeles is desperately seeking additional power, and Rolen fits the bill.

In that he's slugging .318 in 129 AB this year, has an EqA of .230, is 32 and expensive, and is always injured? Is that the "bill" he fits?

Ned Colletti, one of the game's more aggressive GMs, has looked just about everywhere for power, which is the glaring weakness on an otherwise well-balanced team. Colletti recently said he wasn't going after Blue Jays third baseman Troy Glaus. But he hasn't denied interest in Rolen.

Troy Glaus: 30 years old, slugging .614 with a .346 EqA. This = better. (Edit: I am getting slammed on e-mail, so I will hereby add what I thought, on May 20, was an implied: Small Sample Size Alert!!! The original point was: Glaus is younger and equally injured and hitting better.)

The Cardinals have not yet signaled they're ready to throw in the towel, but if things continue to go south, it would make sense to trade Rolen, who has an uneasy relationship with manager Tony La Russa and would have some market value despite his awful start (.215). (Rolen has three years and $36 million remaining on his contract after this season.) The Dodgers have prospects to trade, including a third baseman, Andy LaRoche, plus young pitchers.

Who would be dumb enough to trade for Scott Rolen? Who is dumb enough to think that Scott Rolen will provide "power" for a team, especially one that plays in a cavernous stadium? And who would be dumb enough to trade Andy LaRoche, who is 23, cost-controlled, and 7-for-his-first-27 with 2 2B, for Scott Rolen, who will be paid $12m a year until 2009?

Oh -- hang on. Ned Colletti is dumb enough.

This trade will probably happen.

Labels: jon heyman, ned colletti

posted by Anonymous # 5:17 PM

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Parse This!

I dare you.

This is SI.com's Jon Heyman explaining where Cardinals' owner Bill DeWitt, Jr. went wrong in the last off-season.

Jocketty brought in Kip Wells (1-6, 6.59) for $4 million for 2007, Adam Kennedy (no home runs, .239 batting average) for $10 million over three years and brought back a recovering Mark Mulder (who could be ready for the second half) for $13 million over two years, when even the notoriously cheap team across the state that hasn't won a thing in decades spent $55 million on Gil Meche (wisely, it turns out).

Meche has been great, and it's nice that the Royals have an "ace." But it's probably premature to say that the Cardinals should have spent that money for him, or that it's already "worth it." The other moves are pretty standard, and haven't worked out super well, but remember -- last year was a terrible free agent class. Whom should they have signed? Carlos Lee? For $100M+?

But here's where it gets crazy...

The Cardinals offered postseason hero Jeff Suppan $18 million over three years, and it's no surprise that Suppan more than doubled that bid, going to the division rival Brewers for $42 million, where he's 5-2 with a 2.63 ERA.

Jeff Suppan is a mediocre pitcher who strikes out 5 guys per nine innings. His 2007 OPS against is 60 points lower than his career average. His DERA is 1.5 runs below his career average. He is soaring high above his 90th percentile PECOTA projection. I would bet -- no, sorry, I will guarantee -- that he comes back down to earth by the end of the year, if not before the All-Star break. If he doesn't, it will be one of the flukiest things in baseball this year.

Now, he's better than some of the scrubs the Cardinals are throwing out there these days, but 4/$42m is a lot to pay for 32 year-old Jeff Suppan after last year. (The BrewCrew also gave him a 2-year no-trade clause and a further 2-year limited no-trade clause.)

But now, let's get really nuts.

The Cardinals offered Jeff Weaver $10 million over two years to stay, and La Russa called Weaver to tell him they needed him, that they'd be in trouble without him. Weaver said he'd love to stay, and that he'd even stay for no raise, for the same $8.325 million he made last year. But when the Cardinals said no, he got his money in Seattle instead. Duncan brought out the best in Weaver, certainly better than the 15.35 ERA he is now toting as a Seattle Mariner, and that was another loss.

Wow. I truly am baffled by this.

The Cardinals offered Jeff Weaver $5m a year for two years. Weaver said "No thankee -- but I will sign for $8.325m a year. The Cardinals said, "No thankee. Enjoy Seattle." Now Jeff Weaver is 0-5 with an ERA over 14. He has given up 50 hits in 22 IP. And the Cardinals made a mistake, somehow? This was a "loss?"

How do you sit down to write an article about the Cardinals' off-season mistakes, and look at Jeff Weaver's 14.00 ERA and $8.325m contract with Seattle, and say to yourself, "Not only am I going to include these facts in my article, I am going to somehow make it seem like facts that support my thesis that the Cardinals should have signed him."

What kind of writer writes that? What kind of editor allows it to pass? What kind of world are we living in, friends? A scary one. A terrifying one, where insane loony crazies like Jon Heyman are allowed to roam free in the hallways of our nation's leading sports magazines and write whatever they want with no repercussions.

Well I, for one, have had enough. That's why I am announcing my candidacy for President of America.

But first, here's one more weird thing from this article:

Jocketty did try to sign Randy Wolf and Jason Schmidt. But Wolf only wanted to pitch in Los Angeles and Schmidt wanted to stay somewhere on the West Coast.

Well, now, there you go. They did have a plan, and it was a good one. Schmidt is good. Wolf is younger than Suppan, for example, and strikes out 2.5 more guys per nine IP than Suppan. He was a much better bet. It isn't Jocketty's fault he wanted to pitch in L.A. I guess it might be DeWitt's fault for not upping the $$$ available to pry guys like that away from the West Coast, but on the other hand, maybe no amount would have gotten it done.

Hear me now, American citizens: When I am President of the U. States of A., the very first thing I will do is fire Jon Heyman. That is a guarantee! Then I will take a brief nap and meet with my advisers. Then probably a light dinner and maybe turn in early. I have to pace myself.

Labels: jeff weaver, jon heyman

posted by Anonymous # 11:40 PM

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Managers

SI.com's Jon Heyman lists his top 10. And away we go:

1. Tony La Russa
He put to rest the notion his players tighten up come October with one of the great managing jobs of our time last year. It's no easy thing to make an 83-win team believe it can win. Now he's made me believe. He's an original thinker who's unsurpassed strategically. "I have tried to guess along with him on what moves he'll make next,'' David Eckstein told me in spring training, "and it just can't be done.''

If you haven't already, I invite you to read Buzz Bissinger's book 3 Nights in August, about La Russa. The purported aim of the book is to show how brilliant La Russa is as a strategist. The actual accomplishment is to make one feel like one wouldn't trust La Russa to take care of one's cats, much less one's baseball team. It starts with an anecdote about how Albert Pujols has a severe arm injury -- one that allows him to swing a bat but not throw. La Russa wants to play him anyway, to like intimidate the other team (which doesn't know about the injury), so he puts him in left field and tells him to casually underhand the ball to the SS if it gets hit to him. A doctor has told La Russa that Pujols, the most important player on the team by a factor of fifty, is risking severe like career-threatening shit if he throws a baseball. This is a not-super-important game. I mean, what the hell?

Avid readers of this blog might remember many months ago when I wrote that I was going to do a lengthy review of this book. I started reading and making notes. By page 80 I had filled ten notebook pages with scribbles and exclamation points and frowny faces, and decided the task was just too big.

And before we go talking about how La Russa is a master strategist because his crappy team won the WS after winning 83 games last year, let's all remember that he controlled three of the most disappointing WS teams in recent history -- the 88 A's (104 wins, McGwire/Canseco, 3 16 game winners and Eck, blown out in 5 games by the Dodgers), the '90 A's (who got humiliated by the Reds) and the '04 Cardinals (who won 105 games and got brushed aside like sidewalk trash).

2. Jim Leyland
Perhaps he isn't the master strategist that La Russa is, but as a salesman and motivator, no one's better. His only blemish is his short time in Colorado, when his heart wasn't in it.

I fail to see why it's okay that his heart wasn't in it when he had a tough job. As opposed to when he managed the '97 Marlins, the best team money could buy, or the ultimately disappointing 90's Bucs. I think he's a fun guy, and a good manager, but shouldn't a big part of a manager's evaluation be how he does when he gets handed a pile of crap? (And please don't tell me the '06 Tigers were a pile of crap. They were well-positioned to be a solid team with that pitching.)

3. Mike Scioscia
Smart and solid, he's extremely even-keeled, and his players have bought into his aggressive, NL style.

Whatever. He's fine.

4. Joe Torre
Fourth place for the four World Series rings. But can he please take it easy on his favorite relievers? He especially needs to be careful with Andy Pettitte and Mariano Rivera.

I don't really know what to make of Torre. I happen to think that the most important job a manager does is handle the clubhouse and the owner. He has a tough clubhouse and a terribly whimsical/crazy owner, and is always even-keeled, so, to quote that weird guy who writes a weekly column about Starbucks and The Sopranos for SI.com, I think I think he's good. He also has a $200m payroll every year and occasionally makes some really odd decisions.

5. Lou Piniella
He didn't do his best work in Tampa, and baseball people noticed. Plus, he's been cited by some for mishandling pitchers. He certainly can lose his cool, as well, but that's part of his charm. Wouldn't want to have to match wits against him in the postseason, though that might not be anyone's worry this year.

I believe Sweet Lou is insanely overrated. Tampa never seemed one ounce better off with him than with anyone else. But what really irritates me is that he's sitting here at #5, and is followed by

6. Bobby Cox
I'm sure most would rank him higher. But since the goal is to win titles, that has to be seen as a failing.

I mean, you've got to be kidding me.

Figuring out what effect, if any, a manager has on a team is very difficult. Moneyball famously talks about how Billy Beane loved Art Howe because Howe sat stoically in the dugout and stared straight ahead and had the appearance of a leader, while essentially just following orders. He presided over those overachieving computer-generated teams that everyone loves to call underachieving because they got terribly unlucky in October, and then he went to the Mets and stunk up the place.

As I said, most anecdotal evidence (because empirical evidence with managers seems misleading) says that managers' most important job is that of a sheep dog -- herding the players in the same direction, keeping them from going astray over the course of a long season, focusing them on the task at hand, that kind of thing.

If that is at all true...who is better than Bobby Cox? He didn't win titles? He won every division title from 1844 to 2005. He throws some of the best player-protecting temper tantrums in the game. His guys love him. He handles veterans and rookies and retreads and rich guys and does gutsy things like make John Smoltz a closer. If I were GMing a team, I might get Bobby Cox to run it. Assuming he secretly agreed to run it Moneyball-style.

7. Grady Little
He was knocked hard for sticking with Pedro Martinez in the 2003 ALCS, when his critics apparently would have rather seen him turn the game over to a very iffy bullpen. He's a low-key guy who doesn't get the plaudits he deserves.

Grady Little is a bad manager. He is a very nice man who says pleasant things in a pleasant drawl. He has no business being anywhere near a dugout. And this is not sour grapes. This is common sense.

9. Ozzie Guillen
It may look like he's managing on emotion, but few know the game better.

He hits Podsednik first, doesn't care about OBP, thinks everyone should steal, bunts all the time, and says racist and insulting things. But he has a fun accent!

10. Terry Francona
The Red Sox skipper keeps his cool in a tough environment. He manages both the clubhouse and game well.

If these are your criteria: put Torre first, Terry 2nd, Cox 3rd, and everyone else 4th.

11. Ron Gardenhire
Always has the Twins hustling, just like in the Tom Kelly years.

He also thought Luis Castillo was worth 15 extra wins for his team. He seems decent, I guess, though he does some funky things with his line-up.

Managers are a mystery. Uneven payrolls and the large element of luck in short series make conclusions about their abilities very difficult. In general they should probably be judged on their overall team management skills, on and off the field -- controlling their players well and also letting them have fun without letting things get out of control...all that jazz.

However, I believe -- and this is from memory, so correct me if I am wrong -- that it was Rick Pitino who once said that the only time a basketball coach really has any tangible influence over that fluid game was coming out of a timeout, when (s)he could set up a specific play. If there is any corresponding truth in baseball, then people who famously make bonehead moves at crucial situations should never be on the list of best managers in baseball.

I'm looking at you, Grady.

Labels: grady little, joe torre, jon heyman, managing, moneyball, tony la russa

posted by Anonymous # 11:25 PM

Tuesday, January 02, 2007

Happy 2007!!!

From all your friends at FJM.

In other news:

I love it when people write articles explaining who is and who is not worthy of inclusion in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Such articles are almost always straight-up nutso.

Jon Heyman, a BBWAA Hall of Fame voter, has told us for whom he intends to vote. Let's take a look-see, shall we? (I will skip the explanations when they are logical or when it suits me to do so.)

My Hall of Famers

1. Cal Ripken Jr.

Excellent choice.

2. Jack Morris.

Really?

He doesn't receive nearly the support he deserves. Beyond being the winningest pitcher of the '80s, he made 14 Opening Day starts and was the ace of three World Series winning teams, not to mention the MVP of the 1991 Series. He was one of the best ever.

I think there is a theoretical argument for Jack Morris. He threw a ton of innings at good ERA+ for many years. His 10-inning masterpiece in '91 was one of those "signature moments" which voters tend to look for, despite the fact that they are the definition of "Small Sample Size." But I don't think you could argue he was a "dominant" pitcher -- he was very good, but his K/BB ratio for his career isn't even 2:1. His numbers are generally south of Don Sutton's, but Sutton pitched longer and more efficiently. Get this: Sutton walked 47 fewer guys than Morris did, despite throwing 1400 more innings. Think about that! That's nuts! And Sutton, many people think, is borderline for the HOF, so Morris, well, he's one of those second-tier guys, who had wonderful careers but don't quite measure up to the Hall.

Anyway, Heyman didn't say any of this. What he said was:

HE MADE 14 OPENING DAY STARTS. HE WAS ONE OF THE BEST EVER.

I bolded and 'talicized that for you, so you can more easily focus your eyes on it. I need you all to focus your eyes on it, so that you can realize how moronic it is to say that (a) someone should be in the HOF because he started opening day 14 times. And (b) how truly, madly, and deeply insane it is to claim that Jack Morris is one of the best pitchers ever. That is criminally, indubitably, fantastically insane.

3. Goose Gossage. I agree with him when he says he is one of the greatest closers ever.

A new voting process: ask the players themselves if they think they were good enough.

4. Tony Gwynn. Eight batting titles makes him an automatic selection.

No argument from me. I would cite his .306 career EqA instead of his stupid batting titles, but still, no argument from me. Side note: Did you know that Tony Gwynn struck out only 434 times in 9288 AB? Wowsers. (This also allows me to bring up one of my favorite stats ever: that in 1950 Yogi Berra struck out, in 597 AB, twelve times.)

Anyway, Tony Gwynn, absolutely, no argument from me.

5. Dave Parker.

Argument from me.

A great all-around talent who practically goes unnoticed at this time every year, quite possibly because he used drugs (though not the performance-enhancing kind). He could do it all, placed in the top five in MVP voting five times and was a better all-around player than Jim Rice, who also makes my ballot.

Dave Parker, career:

.290/.339/.471/.810 (121 OPS+)
683/1537 BB/K
339 HR
EqA: .284

He had five WARP3 years over 8.0 (I'm counting his 7.9 in 1985), including a stellar 10.3 in 1977. The rest of the years are a lot of 2s, 3s and 4s. He was very good at baseball. But:

CAREER WARP3:

Dave Parker: 86.3 (2466 games)
Dwight Evans: 119.1 (2606 games)
Jim Rice: 89.2 (2089 games)
Paul O'Neill: 98.6 (2053 games)

That's just the first three guys I decided to look up.

6. Andre Dawson.

Ugh.

A tremendous all-around talent who lasted 21 years on ravaged, wrecked knees, which was long enough to hit 438 home runs and steal 314 bases. While I don't believe he should have won the 1987 MVP as a member of the last-place Cubs, he'll always be a Hall of Famer to me. Unfortunately, not enough other voters agree.

I think you meant fortunately, not enough other voters agree.

I've been through this before on this site, but (a) who cares if he had wrecked knees? You don't get extra HOF points for that. And (b):

ANDRE DAWSON

.279/.323 (!!!!!!!!!)/.482
.285 EqA
1509 Ks and 589 BB in basically 10,000 at bats.

I think I could walk 589 times in 10,000 at bats.

Andre Dawson was below the league average in OBP 14 out of 21 years he played. That = not good. He did have a 109.5 career WARP3 in 2627 games. But that's still far less than Dwight Evans with the same career length. And no one ever talks about how Dewey should be in the HOF.

7. Rice. The one player I've changed my mind on. His six top-five MVP finishes reflect that he was one of the game's best players for a decade. He was fairly one dimensional and didn't play long enough to crack 400 home runs, but I'll give him a "yes" for the second time.

It pains me to say this, but I don't think Jim Rice should be in the HOF. He simply wasn't good enough for long enough. He was feared, dominant, all those things. He had back to back years of an OPS+ over 150. But come on. Is he one of the best players ever? With a .287 career EqA and basically 11 years of play? (Just for comparison, at random, I chose Reggie Jackson and Willie Stargell for career EqA: Reggie is .303 and Willie is .315). Sorry, Jimmy.

8. Steve Garvey. A consummate winner, at least during his playing days.

Not a qualification for inclusion.

It's a wonder he doesn't get more support, what with a record 10 All-Star appearances at first base, eight .300 seasons and a litany of fielding records and NLCS hitting records.

All-Star appearances are complete and utter bullshit. Meaningless, pointless, unimportant, stupid bullshit. .300 seasons are fine indicators of the possibility that you are a valuable player -- not actual indicators that you are a valuable player. NLCS hitting records? Are you kidding me? Bernie Williams holds like every ALCS record ever, because he is a pretty good baseball player and because his team is always in the ALCS. How in the world can you use, as a criterion for anyone, records that can only be attained if your team happens to be good enough to reach the playoffs a bunch of times?

Also, just for poops and chortling:

Steve Garvey, Career EqA: .281
Cecil Cooper, Career EqA: .281
Kenny Lofton, Career EqA: .287
Al Oliver, Career EqA: .287

And because I cannot resist, ever:

David Eckstein, Career EqA: .260 (also league average)

9. Dave Concepcion.

Um...

Career OPS+: 88
Number of his 19 years he had an OPS above the league average: 7
Career SLG: .357.

Read that again.

Career SLG: .357.

Let it rattle around your brain.

Career SLG: .357.
Career SLG: .357.
Career SLG: .357.
Career SLG: .357.
Career SLG: .357.

Sorry. Got carried away.

Career SLG: .357.Career SLG: .357.Career SLG: .357.Career SLG: .357.Career SLG: .357.Career SLG: .357.Career SLG: .357.Career SLG: .357.Career SLG: .357.Career SLG: .357.Career SLG: .357.Career SLG: .357.Career SLG: .357.Career SLG: .357.Career SLG: .357.Career SLG: .357.Career SLG: .357.Career SLG: .357.Career SLG: .357.Career SLG: .357.Career SLG: .357.

Oops. Again, sorry. Let's just move on to the next--

Career SLG: .357.

That's the last time. Promise.

Do you know what Joe McEwing's career SLG is? .355.

He wasn't the player A-Rod or Derek Jeter is, but in his time he was the standard for shortstops, making nine All-Star teams and quietly helping the Big Red Machine be what it was.

You know what's funny about juxtaposing "All-Star teams" and "Big Red Machine?" The fact that there is a very famous scandal involving Reds fans stuffing the All-Star ballot boxes and getting every single dude on the Reds on the All-Star Team. Remember that, Jonny? Still want to vote for him?

Amazingly, Davey C. does have 109.7 career WARP3 -- but it's entirely due to his fielding. His career EqA is .257, or 3 pts below the average MLer. And in case some of you want to argue that he deserves to be in the HOF on fielding alone, Ozzie's career WARP3 is 139.3, in only like 100 more games. And Ozzie's career EqA is .262.

Close but not quite

10. Don Mattingly. It's not a bad case. He had a very similar career to Kirby Puckett and was one of the game's best for at least a half-decade before a bad back sapped him of his greatness. Mattingly also was one of the finest-fielding first basemen of all-time, not to mention a legend in New York (and very likely the next manager of the Yankees).

Fun FJM Home Game: Which of these things is relevant to the argument that Don Mattingly should be in the Hall of Fame?

A. Not a bad case.
B. Similar career to Kirby Puckett
C. Bad back sapped him of greatness
D. Legend in New York
E. Likely next manager of Yankees
F. D and E
G. None of the above

11. Alan Trammell. The best argument I have heard for Trammell is this question: Would the Tigers ever have traded him straight up for Ozzie Smith? While the answer probably is no, Smith gets extra points for fame, acrobatics and probably being the greatest ever defensively.

I only include this uncontroversial paragraph so I can lay this little stat on you:

Ozzie Smith FRAA, Career: 288
Alan Trammell FRAA, Career: 64

Wow. Ozzie was good.

Also, real quick -- Dave Conception's career slugging percentage was .357.

12. Tommy John.

If you tell me he should be in the HOF because he has a surgery named after him, so help me God...

The man lasted forever, and he won 288 games, which is certainly Hall-worthy. He also gets an extra point for being the guinea pig for the game's most famous surgical procedure.

What did I just say?!

He was not among the best often enough during those 26 years, though.

Correct.

15. Bert Blyleven, Stat freaks love this guy. It's true that his 3,701 strikeouts (fifth all-time) and 287 career victories are numbers that are generally good enough for enshrinement, but unlike a lot of those stathounds, I saw the entirety of his career and he was rarely one of the best.

New requirement for inclusion: Heyman has to witness your career and declare it "best-worthy."

And I resent being called a "stathound." I prefer: "Collector of Vintage Erotica."

Labels: hall of fame, jon heyman

posted by Anonymous # 10:39 PM