FJM is a closed forum, but we welcome reader feedback. We're especially interested in corrections of our work, and research (usually number-crunching) that we may not be able to do ourselves. Please check the comments section as well, where we often post readers' opinions, and, less frequently, announce that we were wrong about something.
You can e-mail dak,Ken Tremendous,Junior,Matthew Murbles, or Coach individually.
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.
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 Referencepages, 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.
Jim Rice, Hall of Fame, we're all sick of the argument. He's borderline-ish, probably on the side of not Hallworthy. Buster Olney has this, defending his pro-Rice article (which we'll hopefully get to also) from yesterday:
If you want to quibble with the fact that he won the award in 1978, or with his placement in some particular year, OK, I get that. But to ignore the MVP voting entirely, as if it isn't at least some kind of barometer of his play over the course of his career, is embarrassing. This is like saying, "Hey, forget the Oscar voting of the 1950s. Marlon Brando was clearly overrated."
I don't ignore MVP voting entirely. I take it with a Ganymede-size grain of salt. And I, as do most sentient human beings and well-trained domestic helper animals, do the exact same thing with Oscar voting. Your argument doesn't only rely on Marlon Brando. It relies on Forrest Gump. Crash. Marisa Tomei. You, Buster Olney, are saying that you will be happy when Juno wins the Oscars for Best Screenplay, Best Actress, Best Director, Best Documentary, Best Animated Film and Best Supporting Actor (the film itself will win this award, not a person).
Sure, the MVP is "some kind of barometer." But the kind of barometers that pick Pudge Rodriguez over Pedro Martinez in 1999 or A Beautiful Mind over any movie ever aren't necessarily devices I want to hang in my home.
Gump beat Fiction. It beat Shawshank. Heck, I'd take Quiz Show over Gump 10 times out of 10. Not the Academy's finest hour.
Someone somewhere is assembling a comprehensive year by year comparison of Best Picture winners and MVPs and analyzing who did a worse job, the Academy or the BBWAA. I await the results with bated breath.
Thanksgiving? More Like Nothanksgiving (I'm Talking About Bill Conlin)!
Hey, Bill Conlin just wrote an article about Jimmy Rollins winning the MVP. Guess what? Squanto could have written a better article. That's right. I said it. Squanto. (I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, can't I read just one sabermetrically-inclined meta-commentary "comedy" blog without running into a Squanto joke? The answer: no, you cannot. Squanto.) Bill Conlin | Rollins' winning numbers
I'm guessing Conlin didn't write this headline. Numbers can't win, dummy! Teams win. Players win. Guts win. The only numbers that matter are the numbers that measure the size of your heart (and guess what: these numbers don't exist because heart can't be measured!!!)
TO APPRECIATE the sheer scope of Jimmy Rollins epic run to yesterday's MVP award, you almost have to forget he plays a position where defense has always been the No. 1 priority.
Keep this in mind while you read this article: Jimmy Rollins did not -- emphatically did not deserve to win the MVP award, because he was indisputably not close to being the most valuable of players. He was, humorously, something like 9th or 10th, or hell, if we're being friendly, maybe in the top 5. Maybe.
And while the American League has had two freaks of nature who have put up engine room numbers at shortstop - Cal Ripken and the pre-third base Alex Rodriguez - the National League hasn't seen anything quite like the season the Flying Fireplug regaled us with last season since Ernie Banks. Not from a shortstop.
Yes, perfectly valid, except for the fact that Rollins was offensively outplayed by a shortstop in his own league this very year. 2007. The year we're talking about.
Shitty Assplug plays for the Florida Marlins. So yeah, instead of saying "the National League hasn't seen a season quite like this one since 1842!" a better thing to say would be "a season like this hasn't been seen since a season happening at this exact same time, only totally better in almost every way!"
No middle infielder has ever stocked a trophy case in one season with a record 716 at-bats, 212 hits, 139 runs scored, 38 doubles, 20 triples, 30 home runs, 41 stolen bases, 380 total bases and a big man's slugging percentage of .531.
Shitty Assplug, Redux: 212 hits, 125 runs scored, 48 doubles, 6 triples, 29 home runs, 51 stolen bases, 359 total bases, and a shitty man's slugging percentage of .562. Fewer at bats, and 68 fewer outs.
Jimmy Rollins made more outs than any MVP in the history of the National League.
I defy anyone to show me the trophy you get for having a slugging percentage of .531. In my imagination, it's shaped like the numbers 531, made of osmium, and totally invisible, because it doesn't exist EVEN IN MY IMAGINATION.
Rollins became just the fourth player in big league history to have 20 or more doubles, triples, homers and stolen bases in a single season, joining the 1911 Cubs' Wildfire Schulte, some guy named Willie Mays and 2007 Tigers centerfield dervish Curtis Granderson.
Another guy who played this year. And this quadruple-20 shit is so meaningless it's embarrassing. How many baseball writers do you think allowed that to influence their vote? All of them? I say all of them.
Do you know only one man in history has accrued 16 doubles, 83 runs, 6 walks, 42 hit by pitches, and 134 caught stealings? That man is Alan Alda (2004 Diamondbacks).
Jimmy Rollins is what you get when you cross a ballet dancer with a bulldog.
The other thing you get when you cross these things is a horrifying pornographic film. Then boom, Rollins pops out.
Despite his defensive contribution being backhanded by Red Sox front office stat man Bill James - baseball's most influential cybergeek - the league's managers and coaches awarded him a Gold Glove.
Apparently, James decided that a Range Factor based on successful chances (putouts plus assists) times nine innings, divided by number of defensive innings played is more important than the result - for example, a friggin' out. Despite his No. 3 fielding percentage of .985 (behind Troy Tulowitzki's .987 and Omar Vizquel's .986) Rollins rated No. 15 in the James Range Factor. Fortunately, the baseball men who vote for the Gold Gloves depend on what they see, not laptop science. Jose Reyes, a nimble windshield wiper, ranked No. 25 in RF.
And "laptop science" goes directly into the Label bin. Thank you, Bill Conlin.
The diminishing criticisms revolved around an on-base percentage that just didn't equate to the demands of a table-setter.
How were we to know that what Rollins had in mind was not only setting the table, but consuming the meal and then clearing it with a dish-scattering flurry of offense?
Food metaphors. Gold mine. Loving it. Hey, Bill, also, great point you're making here that totally undermines your article. Jimmy Rollins was fucking 47th in the NL in OBP. 47th. Shane Victorino out-OBP-ed this flying fireplug. Rollins was 7th in the league out of 14 qualified shortstops. Lower than Jack Wilson.
Now Conlin gets really crazy and starts comparing Jimmy to Ernie Banks.
Banks was superb in 1958-59, leading the league in homers and RBI, but Rollins scored more runs this year, had more hits, more steals, doubles and triples. Banks had 32 errors in '58, just 12 in '59 but his range was starting to erode by then.
Since you're really close-minded to new ideas, I'm going to be super ageist and assume you're very, very old -- that you reek of embalming fluid and Centrum Silver, that you give out buckwheat pennies at Halloween -- so I'll speak up: YOU CAN'T COMPARE COUNTING STATS ACROSS ERAS AND BALLPARKS.
The league OPS in 1958 (adjusted for Banks' home ballpark) was .752. This year it was .794 (adjusted for Rollins' home park). If you insist on getting really dumb, the batting average in 1958 was .267, compared to .279 this year. I feel dirty just writing that, but maybe, just maybe, it will help Bill understand what he's doing wrong. PEOPLE SCORED MORE RUNS THIS YEAR.
Banks OPS+ 156 Rollins OPS+ 118
This is stupid.
I was concerned that Rockies hitting dynamo Matt Holliday, the close runner-up, might steal the election with the hanging chad of his heroic batwork in the Rockies dramatic comeback playoff victory over the Diamondbacks. I could envision BBWAA ball writers ready to e-mail the results of a season extended to 163 games, needing just to fill in lines 1 and 2.
And just when you think Bill Conlin is done -- just when you think he can't top the inanity, uninformeditude, and just plain willful ignorance he's exhibited in the first 95% of the article, he slams you with the hanging chad reference. Well played, Conlin. You may not be knowledgeable about baseball, but you're a hell of a comedy writer. You've just made a believer out of me.
Sportswriters: when you make an argument, it's cool to back it up with evidence. It just is. It gives you more credibility. It makes people think you're a conscientious writer who's paying attention. And sometimes, it validates the headline of your article (which I'm aware is often written by an editor. But still.)
For example, Joe Christensen of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune just wrote a column called Why Morneau, Not Jeter, Deserved the MVP. I will now document for you how many sentences in this column explain why Morneau, not Jeter, deserved the MVP.
I am brainless. I have no clue. I attend about 150 major league games per year but never watch a pitch. I have clubhouse access four hours per day, but I'm too busy twiddling my thumbs to glean any insight from the players and coaches.
Not a good start. Joe starts off on the defensive, complaining about people who complained about his MVP choice. That's four sentences of sarcastic crying, zero sentences of evidence (unless you count the oblique appeal to authority that he's talked to players and coaches and therefore he knows better than you). In other words, I was one of 28 members of the Baseball Writers Association of America entrusted with an American League MVP ballot. If you spent time in the blogosphere this week, perhaps you read about morons like me.
More crying, this time specifically about the blogosphere. Hi Joe! Six sentences, no Morneau explanation.
ESPN.com called Justin Morneau a "laughable" choice for MVP. Foxsports.com called his selection "downright criminal."
I mean, those aren't really even blogs. Those are big mainstream sites. Maybe they're onto something, Joe. Eight sentences.
My ballot went like this: 1) Morneau, 2) Derek Jeter, 3) Frank Thomas, 4) David Ortiz, 5) Joe Mauer, 6) Jermaine Dye, 7) Travis Hafner, 8) Carlos Guillen, 9) Jason Giambi, 10) Johan Santana.
We're getting warmer. That's some information, at least. Frank Thomas, by the way, finished 22nd in the AL in VORP, a purely offensive stat. You may be aware of the fact that Mr. Thomas also does not happpen to play a defensive position. I'll count this list as one sentence, so that's nine so far. Look, I welcome any and all criticism. Just don't assume I didn't give this a shred of thought beyond home runs and RBI.
More defense. I particularly enjoy the "Look, I like it when you criticize me" defense in the first sentence. (These are the tenth and eleventh without Morneau info.)
I looked at OPS (on-base plus slugging percentage). I looked at month-by-month statistics, averages with runners in scoring position and two-out RBI.
Here we go! The meat of the argument! Here's where Mr. "I have four hours of insight-gleaning clubhouse access every day" convinces us all! Oh. Uh oh. These statistics aren't great. They aren't great at all. OPS vastly overrates SLG over OBP. Averages with runners in scoring position? Two-out RBI? Yeesh. I don't think those stats should even crack the top ten of numbers you look at when determining which player is the most valuable. Two-out RBI?
Also, by the way, Mr. Christensen, what were the results of your looking at OPS and looking at two-out RBI? Not gonna tell us? Cool. I don't read newspapers for information.
I'm pretty sure saying "I looked at OPS" doesn't count as evidence, so we're on a sweet 13-sentence data-less streak here.
I had conversations with coaches and players from around the league, many off the record. Let there be no doubt: The Twins themselves felt Morneau was their MVP.
I've been thinking about it, and I don't think this is a very good way to pick your MVP. Let's perform what our good friend Hans Christian Orsted would call a gedankenexperiment. Say there's a fictional professional baseball team with two really good players on it. One of the players -- we'll call him Player Shithead -- is a real shithead. The other one is a seriously awesome, totally sweet dude -- we'll call him Player Dickface. Now say one year Player Shithead totally outplays Player Dickface. I mean, on the field, he's clearly more valuable -- 13 more points of EqA, 2 more wins by WARP3, plus he plays a more difficult defensive position considerably better than Player Dickface. But that same year, Player Dickface keeps being the same seriously awesome, totally sweet dude and he buys all his teammates Bentleys for their birthdays. Meanwhile, Player Shithead lamely sends his bros birthday E-cards -- that is, if he even remembers, that shithead.
The point is, everyone on that team picks Player Dickface as their MVP. Because of the Bentleys and stuff. But I think Player Shithead should be the MVP because he's a better, more valuable baseball player.
These two sentences are the first Christensen's written that even approach something resembling evidence for Justin Morneau. Since they're so crappy, I will count each as half a sentence, making him one for fifteen.
He gave them the run-producing presence they had sought for years, and his transformation changed the team's entire season.
Ugh. Doesn't matter what the Twins did last year, or in 2001. Doesn't matter. Half credit. 1.5 out of 16.
Eventually, my top choice came down to Morneau and Jeter. Morneau had the statistics, especially over the final four months.
Wow. There you go. Morneau had the statistics. Morneau had the statistics. It's as simple as that, you bloggy eggheads! Blogheads. Eggblogs. No elaboration necessary. No explanation of how, why, or in what way Morneau had the statistics. Can't fit that in this column, what with the thirteen-sentence whiny prologue.
We've been over this before, but I'll type out here what I think some of the relevant statistics are.
Jeter WARP3: 12.1 Morneau WARP3: 8.6
Jeter Win Shares: 33 Morneau Win Shares: 27
Jeter VORP: 80.5 Morneau VORP: 52.0
Jeter EqA: .324 Morneau EqA: .315
Jeter RC: 138 Morneau RC: 121
Jeter FRAR: 39 Moreau FRAR: 16
Jeter WPA: 5.98 Morneau WPA: 4.46
Jeter OBP: .417 Morneau OBP: .375
(By the way, I'm counting "Morneau had the statistics" as part of Christensen's argument. See how generous I am? 2.5 out of 18.) I also believed if you took Jeter away from the talent-rich Yankees, they still win the AL East. Take away Morneau, and the Twins don't make the playoffs.
Right -- because the Blue Jays and the Red Sox were terrible, Justin Morneau deserves the MVP. You know what, Christensen? I'll give 'em to you. 4.5 out of 20.
Finally, I wrestled with the "homer" factor. Was I picking Morneau simply because I cover the Twins? Quite frankly, I might have listed Santana in the top seven, if I hadn't listed two other Twins so high.
These sentences have nothing to do with the discussion of whether Morneau was better than Jeter. Your objectivity should be a goddamn given. 4.5 out of 23.
Let's just say I felt better when the 27 other ballots drew similar conclusions. I know most of these writers very well, and I can assure you they agonized over their choices just like me. Criticize us all you want, but I believe these awards are in very good hands with the BBWAA.
Thanks, I did criticize you. It felt great. Of course you believe the awards are in "very good hands" -- they're your hands. Anyway, that's the end of the article. That's it. Ends in more defensive bullshit. Twenty-six sentences. Four and a half of them (maybe six if you're feeling really charitable) deal with the substance of the argument: was Morneau in fact more valuable than Jeter? None of them do so in a serious, thoughtful way. Don't we deserve better than that?
Here, it's not my job, but I'll make a quick attempt at an argument for Jeter over Morneau. Jeter led Morneau in many (most/all?) of the semi-robust offensive metrics: EqA, VORP, RC, WPA. Moreover, Jeter had a forty-point advantage in OBP, and the single most important aspect of a hitter's job is to get on base. Forty points isn't a trivial lead -- some players who trailed Morneau by forty points, for example, include Willy Taveras, Jose Bautista and Alfredo Amezaga. Morneau did have a staggering advantage over Jeter in power, but it's my contention that Jeter's on-base lead overwhelms that advantage, and the metrics bear that out. On top of all this, Jeter plays a premium defensive position, one that is difficult to fill, with adequate skill. Baseball Prospectus has him at 39 fielding runs above replacement, which is actually better than adequate. Morneau, meanwhile, plays the defensive position at the very top of the defensive spectrum, and he doesn't do it particularly well by most accounts. BP has him at 16 FRAR. In other words, most baseball players could step in and do what Morneau does defensively, but the same is not true for Jeter.
Hey, see that? It's nine sentences and sixteen lines of data (earlier in the post) about Derek Jeter and Justin Morneau and the results of their play on baseball fields. All that stuff plus the rest of the nonsense making fun of Joe Christensen took about twenty minutes to write while I also watch the USC-Notre Dame game. Couldn't Joe Christensen have done at least that much?
By the way, the stats for Dickface and Shithead are correct for Morneau and Joe Mauer. But I'm pretty sure that Mauer didn't send anyone an E-card for their birthday this year. I think he gave Nick Punto one of those customizable teddy bears that comes inside a balloon.
I realize that you're talking about a hypothetical "Team MVP" vote, but I feel it's once again necessary to point out that the BBWAA clearly state that character evaluation is not only allowed as part of MVP voting, but indeed listed one of the very criteria.
3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.
Now. I have no idea if Mourneau is a better dude than Jeter. But, I still believe that a case could easily be made that Jeter's actions/words re: A-Rod's alleged "slumping" were demonstrative of questionable character and loyalty (in an otherwise unblemished character-career).
More importantly, we may not like it for many reasons, but certainly these writers are in a much better position to judge players' characters, dispositions and loyalties than we are. Now, that doesn't mean that they'll necessarily make the right judgment. But we simply have to concede that the MVP race -- as it is now -- is not simply meant to be a measure of which player was "the best" or, in a broader sense, which player had the "Most Valuable" on-field performance.
In a way, talking to teammates and managers could be considered doing the same kind of homework that we're doing by looking at (more relevant) numbers. (Again: like it or not.)
And I know, Junior, that your point is larger than MVP voting -- that, say, if building a team from scratch, you'd rather have the really good dickhead on your team than the mediocre saint. So would I. Yet I think any stat-based criticism of MVP voting warrants the long-winded caveat our readers are currently not enjoying in any way.
Yeah, I remember that third criterion. But I choose to weigh it significantly less than the baseball-related qualifications. Plus, if you read what Christensen wrote:
Let there be no doubt: The Twins themselves thought Morneau was their MVP.
I think it sounds like he's defending himself from the numerous people who were saying Mauer or Santana were more important to the Twins. I agree with those critics because in my opinion, their baseball contributions overwhelm what their teammates think of them.
There's a good continuation of this Morneau vs. the field debate over at Lone Star Ball. The guy compares second-half OPSes and two-out RBI, which Christensen seemed to weigh super heavily. (Hint: some guys who did really well in two-out RBI included great MVP candidates Hank Blalock, Richie Sexson and Torii Hunter. Also: A-Rod!)
Again, I am very very cautiously on Team dak here. I would add, in JR.'s defense, that this dummy didn't get anywhere near quoting the official BBWAA criteria for MVP, nor did he suggets in any way that Jeter's behavior in any way affected his vote.
I think what dak and a very cautious KT are saying, really, is:
the MVP has weird and vague criteria, and it's essentially a popularity contest, and people like Terry Pendleton win it for like "veteran leadership" and shit, and there's not really a whole lot of value in sportswriters even trying to justfy their vote, because the criteria are in fact so vague that they can kind of do whatever they want and justify it "officially."
What still burns me, ironically, is Jeter winning the Aaron Award for Best Offensive Player. Because when you take away the position he plays (not that you should, at all, for things like MVP, I think, but in the case of the Aaron Award you must,) and simply assert that he is the best offensive player, then, my friend, you are an idiot.
Derek Jeter. The Captain. Intangibles tangible-fied. The perfect biological specimen. God's real son. Jeter.
Most people know him as the late character actor Michael Jeter's little brother, but to me he'll always be the only baseball player whose tears cure malaria in whales. There's been a lot of talk about Jeter in the last few days. Men who deal with numbers have declared him overrated, almost to the point that many are now saying he's underrated. This discussion bores me. How can you overrate or underrate a glorious sunset? A sunset just is. That's Jeter.
Wallace Matthews agrees with me. In the span of three days he's written two paeans to Jeter, one before the American League MVP vote and one after. Here are some excerpts from the first:
He's won it clearly, cleanly If you can give baseball's most prestigious honor to Barry Bonds six times and to Alex Rodriguez twice, don't you think it's about time the academy showed some love for Derek Jeter?
Yes. Yes. A thousand times yes. I've heard of Derek Jeter. I know him. That's why he's the MVP. I've heard of Barry Bonds and Alex Rodriguez too, but they're bad men. I know this to be true. Bonds won it six times? Surely Jeter deserves it at least that many as well. He's nice.
I know, the MVP is not supposed to be a lifetime achievement award, but it's not supposed to be a stats competition, either.
Amen. Stats can't capture Jeter's essence. He's more than a ballplayer. If you wanted to describe the most beautiful songbird in the world singing a Mozart sonata to an innocent child, would you use numbers to do so?
Jeter has been in consideration multiple times in his 11-year career, but always there was either some guy with eye-popping numbers to go along with his forearm veins, or else there were simply too many other Yankees with legitimate claims to the award and they canceled each other out.
Jeter doesn't have veins in his forearms, just rivers of quicksilver and liquid gold that spring forth from his luminescent heart. You probably didn't hear about this because he hates publicity, but Derek Jeter saved Christmas last year.
The perception that the Yankees never quit, that the Yankees play smart baseball, that the Yankees will find any way to beat you, all come from Derek Jeter. He doesn't represent the Yankees so much as the Yankees represent him.
The Yankees are but a collection of mortal men. Derek Jeter is infinite. Eternal. Every time Derek Jeter steps on a baseball field, a town in India sees their food troughs fill with millet.
It is amazing - and in a way frightening - that a 32-year-old man with so much out there for him away from the ballpark can remain as single-mindedly focused upon baseball as Jeter has all these years.
Frightening and awesome, like seeing the face of God, but better. Sexier. Granted, those are tickets to Cooperstown, not the MVP award, but if we are going to reward numbers, artificially enhanced or not, then for once, why not reward "intangibles," the qualities that can't be juiced?
Here Mr. Matthews is uninformed. In the late 1960's, a group of baseball players came into possession of a serum developed by Japanese scientists that exponentially increased one's intangibles to dangerous, superhuman levels. Calling themselves The IntangiBros, these players quickly left the game of baseball to pursue higher callings. Unbeknownst to the public, they fought injustice around the world and in the late 80's brought about the end of the Cold War. Derek Jeter is an honorary IntangiBro.
So what if Mauer edged him out for the batting title on the last day of the season, or if Morneau hit twice as many home runs as Jeter did? Despite what A-Rod told Esquire, I have yet to hear anyone in baseball say, "We better not let Joe Mauer beat us." I have heard plenty say it about Jeter.
This is beyond baseball. What Wallace Matthews has heard about Derek Jeter is what should determine the MVP award. It's only common sense.
Unfortunately, the villainous intangi-haters emerged victorious on election day, and the extremely mortal Justin Morneau walked away with the trophy. Never fear, though, because Wallace Matthews knows what Jeter thinks about all this:
Crowns most valuable for Jeter
If it's any consolation to Derek Jeter, in 1980 "Ordinary People" won the Oscar for Best Picture over "Raging Bull." A quarter-century later, people laugh about that one and someday, they'll laugh about this one, too, the year Ordinary Player, otherwise known as Justin Morneau, was named the American League's MVP for 2006.
In fact, Jeter's probably already laughing about it.
Ordinary Player indeed! Matthews, you know how to keep it current, my friend. If I may extend the analogy, I think you will have no argument with the proposition that Joe Mauer is The Elephant Man, Frank Thomas is Tess, and David Ortiz the beautiful Coal Miner's Daughter. Jeter's detractors use a lot of insults to describe him: cold, condescending, aloof, bloodless, a robot programmed to play baseball.
Every time I open up the paper I see some guy saying that Derek Jeter is a robot programmed to play baseball. A condescending robot. That's why I stopped reading and started feeling. The truth that Derek Jeter is the MVP isn't out there. It's in here. (I'm pointing inside my heart.)
But Jeter doesn't exist to placate teammates or the media, or to accumulate statistics and accolades. By all available evidence, he exists to win baseball games, not awards.
That is the best summation of Derek Jeter I have ever read. Sprung forth whole like Athena from Zeus, Jeter won a game in his first minute of life, 1-0 on a beautiful squeeze play. People aren't aware of this, but on days when the Yankees lose, he actually doesn't even exist.
[Y]ou know that if Alex Rodriguez dies without a World Series ring but with his two MVPs, he will die smiling.
Wallace Matthews will test this theory at 10:30 pm Eastern time. I will not reveal how or where, but the plan is in place.
The Yankees who won four world championships in five seasons never had an MVP. and they certainly don't need another one now.
MVP? More like MV-pee-pee! More like MV-poo!
What they need is a return to the hunger and drive and resourcefulness that Jeter has embodied since he was a rookie and that he continues to bring to the park as he approaches his mid-30s. A-Rod, Giambi and Johnson have their awards, but they don't have a trace of any of that.
That's why none of them have ever won a championship. Ever. Especially Randy Johnson. I refuse to look this up, but I am 100% certain that Randy Johnson has never won a World Series because he lacks the necessary hunger and drive and resourcefulness. And he isn't performing now because he is so full and undriven and resourceless. It's not because he's old. For Jeter, it would have only served as one more reminder of what has gone wrong with the Yankees over the past six years.
Too many MVPs. Not enough rings.
Matthews is right. Jeter isn't about the MVP. Jeter didn't want the MVP. If Jeter had won the MVP, he would have donated it to Mother Teresa, and when he found out Mother Teresa was dead, he would have buried it with Pat Tillman, because after all, he's the real MVP. Besides Jeter, that is. Because the real real MVP is the guy with the rings. Not Pat Tillman.
Stephen A. Smith, Mr. Quite Frankly himself, is apparently still slumming it in the newspaper business every now and then. To comment on Stephen’s latest piece, we’ve invited a very special guest blogger to join us here at FJM. Please welcome Stephen’s polar opposite, Dr. Frank Quietly.
Dr. Frank Quietly: … (quietly) Hello. (gently sips a cup of chamomile tea)
Dr. Frank, as is his wont, is going to offer reasonable opinions about reasonable things at a reasonable volume. His thoughts will appear in a normal, reasonable typeface, Stephen A. Smith’s in bold.
Stephen A. Smith | Only one clear choice for National League MVP
Stephen, I respect your opinion, but I’m afraid I’m already going to have to disagree with you here. There are at least two legitimate candidates for the NL MVP, with the most qualified probably being Albert Pujols.
We don't know much about the Phillies these days, and to tell you the truth, we really shouldn't care. When you lose perpetually, give 101 lessons in the art of public non-relations, keep missing the postseason, and evidently are allergic to progress, it's pretty difficult to ask anyone to stand up and take notice.
If you didn't have Ryan Howard.
It seems you will be endorsing Ryan Howard for the award. I’m open to this. I’m sure you’ll provide a well thought-out rationale for your opinion.
Except the Phillies do have Ryan Howard. The same kid who smacked 58 homers, drove in 149 runs, batted .313, and had a .659 slugging percentage.
That’s a good start. These numbers are impressive. Pujols trailed Howard in home runs and RBI but led him in batting average and slugging. Quite a race we have here!
He symbolized the only reason fans had for showing their faces around Broad and Pattison during summertime.
All right, Stephen. Interesting. I’m not sure how heavily we should weigh fan appeal, or more specifically Philadelphia fan appeal, in the MVP selection process, but do carry on.
Oh, did I mention he should also end up as National League MVP?
To be honest, the title of your article gave me more than a little hint. And oh, by the way, if you wouldn’t mind, the proper sports commentary protocol is to employ “And oh, by the way …”, not “Oh, did I mention …”
The result of the voting for the National League's most valuable player is expected tomorrow and, with apologies and respect to Albert Pujols, the vote shouldn't even be close.
I’m only one man, but it strikes me as somewhat disrespectful to Mr. Pujols to say that the vote shouldn’t even be close. He did lead Mr. Howard in WARP3 by the count of 12.9 to 9.4. Your turn, Mr. Smith.
Of course, there are naysayers who'll spew otherwise, vociferously pointing out how the league's 2005 MVP still had 49 homers with a better batting average and slugging percentage than Howard - despite missing 15 games in June because of an injury.
Consider this my vociferous spew, then, my dear Stephen! Pujols also led Howard in VORP, 85.4 to 81.5. VORP does not take into account defense, which even the staunchest Howard supporter will admit is not his strongest suit.
They'll be the same people I accuse of not paying much attention last season.
I … I don’t understand, Stephen. We are all baseball fans here. No need for personal attacks. A civil discourse is all I ask! (Pujols is also a better baserunner than Howard.)
You don't just look at the stat sheets or the box scores to measure the impact of Ryan Howard.
Then where, pray tell, might we look? I must confess I’m growing rather impatient with you.
You view the landscape of MLB then ask yourself, "Where did these fans come from?"
Fan appeal? Again? “Landscape” of MLB? These are your MVP criteria? Pujols EqA: .357. Howard EqA: .346.
Who are all these people who weren't watching the Phillies before? This franchise hasn't made the postseason since 1993, so why on earth are stadiums packed whenever they come to town?
People interested in a playoff race? Also, were stadiums really packed for the Phillies last year? More importantly, you still haven’t convinced me that this has very much MVP relevance.
Where did all the African American fans come from?
Now Albert Pujols has to draw fans of a certain race to compete for the MVP? Good God, Stephen, I don’t mean to shout here, but be reasonable for one second!
Why haven't we heard about steroids? Mark McGwire? Barry Bonds?
Apologies to Mrs. Quietly and those with delicate sensibilities, but WHERE THE FUCK HAVE YOU BEEN LIVING? People were still talking about steroids all year – how the new policy would affect home run rates, the Roger Clemens rumors, even Kenny Rogers’ (re?)surgence. And ESPN was running a Bonds HR count on their ticker all year. People talked about Bonds a little less because he was no longer OPSing 3.000.
The answer would be because there's no need. Because Howard is the real deal. He's the modern-day athlete major-league baseball was starving for.
Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Ahem. Sorry. FUCK. Stay calm., Quietly. Reasonable. Serene. Ryan Howard saved baseball?!? He’s like the fiftieth most famous guy in the league! According to Quite Frankly over here, he single-handedly stopped people from even thinking about steroids. How is that possible when Mark McGwire is still four hundred times more famous than he is?
"I care about winning," Howard told me several weeks ago, right before he left town to smack homers all over Japan. "I care about winning and doing it the way it's supposed to be done. Everyone wants to get paid, to be successful. But sometimes it's as much about how you do things as well as what you do. I know that. I'm aware of that."
The same can be said of Pujols, who is as big-time as they come.
So even you admit there was no point to that quote.
The St. Louis Cardinals would not have sniffed the postseason without him, let alone captured a World Series championship. But the reality is the talent that is Pujols, while fairly unique, is a dime a dozen in the laundry list of Latin talent that has invaded baseball.
There are so many problems with that last sentence even I, Dr. Frank Quietly, can’t let it go. Pujols, while fairly unique, is a dime a dozen? “Dime a dozen in the laundry list” is an amazing two clichés in seven words. Invaded? Invaded? Jesus, that’s negative. What if someone wrote that African-Americans invaded the NBA? That would sound terrible. Albert Pujols led Ryan Howard in WPA, 9.24 to 8.20.
When you think of Pujols, you also think of Manny Ramirez and David "Big Papi" Ortiz or Alex Rodriguez.
What? What?! What in the -- ? I’m sorry. (Goes to get a drink of water. Paces around a bit. Pets a friendly dog. More water. Sits in an easy chair. Smokes a cigarette. Another cig.) Okay, I’m back. When you think of Pujols, you think of Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz, and/or Alex Rodriguez? What kind of statement is that? Because they all speak Spanish, you lump them all together? A-Rod, by the way, was born in the United States, just like Ryan Howard. When I think of Albert Pujols, I think of Chris Carpenter and Scott Rolen, because they’re his teammates. Or I think of Derrek Lee, because in 2005 they both hit for crazy average and crazy power, which is pretty unusual. I certainly don’t think of fucking A-Rod.
They play great baseball, but that's it.
Yes, David Ortiz plays great baseball and that’s it. No one’s ever talked about David Ortiz’s personality. He has no charisma whatsoever. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him smile. What a lifeless Spanish-speaking fuck, just like Alex Cintron, another Latino-or-whatever man who plays baseball. (Hey, Stephen A. Smith, this is Dr. Frank Quietly, and I’m being a fucking sarcastic asshole because of you. I hope you’re happy.) In Howard's case, not only has he performed, he's single-handedly transformed the focus of a sport, forcing baseball - and possibly the rest of us - to take a closer look at potential African American prospects perhaps through something more than Reviving Baseball in the Inner City (RBI) programs.
Look, Ryan Howard had a great year. Is it possible – possible – that you might admit that what you wrote here is hyperbole, Stephen? Held back - some might say hidden - by the Phillies for far too long, Howard has burst onto the scene in less than two years in the majors. And he's done it with a Magic Johnson-like smile despite the Phillies' unwillingness to show him some money and his being surrounded by limited, wannabe talent.
The Phillies hated and discriminated against Ryan Howard so much they traded away Jim Thome to make room for him. Ryan Howard has had to play in a lineup surrounded by no-talents like Chase Utley, Bobby Abreu and Pat Burrell. Ryan Howard, FRAR: -4. Albert Pujols, FRAR: 28.
Meanwhile, we'll pray they get rid of Pat Burrell and his $27 million over the next two years for a leftfielder who actually looks interested in playing 150 to 162 games a year.
Funny you should mention him. Burrell, 2005: 154 games played. Burrell, 2006: 144 games played.
In the meantime, there's Howard, who ranked either first or second in homers, RBIs and slugging percentage. He's given Phillies fans a reason to hope for a change.
Yes, you made note of his home runs, RBI, and slugging percentage already.
Numbers are being retired all the time. Baseball prides itself on setting precedents while maintaining tradition.
Honestly. I mean – Jesus. What in the fucking bloody vag does a sentence like “Numbers are being retired all the time” have to do with Ryan Howard for MVP? (Ed. note: Please excuse Dr. Frank Quietly’s vulgarity. Dr. Frank Quietly’s words do not reflect the sensibilities of the editors of Fire Joe Morgan.)
Awarding a difference maker on the field - and in the community at large - has always been baseball's version of a home run.
Huh. I always thought that baseball’s version of a home run is the motherfucking home run itself.
Pujols deservedly got his recognition last year.
It's Howard's time now.
It doesn’t matter who won last year. To recap:
Pujols WARP3: 12.9 Howard WARP3: 9.4
Pujols VORP: 85.4 Howard VORP: 81.5
Pujols EqA: .357 Howard EqA: .346
Pujols FRAR: 28 Howard FRAR: -4
Pujols WPA: 9.24 Howard WPA: 8.20
Pujols Number of Times Single-Handedly Saved Game of Baseball: 0 Howard Number of Times Single-Handedly Saved Game of Baseball: 1
I’m not really that angry that Ryan Howard won the MVP. He had a legitimately wonderful season, and after all, it’s just the MVP, so who cares? In the grand scheme of things, there are a lot of far better reasons to become extremely angry. Like Stephen A. Smith.
Junior here. Reader Andrew provides this amusing information: "As a side note, Smith suggests that Howard's success should encourage scouts to focus more efforts on recruiting black, inner-city talent. Please note that Ryan Howard went to the same high school (Lafayette Senior High) as my girlfriend. That school's student population is 84% white."
Alert: Ryan Howard may not actually have been a rich white suburbanite. Brad writes: "I just wanted to let you know that there is a high probability that Ryan Howard is actually from the city of St. Louis . Lafayette is in St. Louis County which is predominately white, but kids from the city are bused out to the suburbs through a de-segregation program in order to make more diverse classrooms."
If anyone's still reading down here, Andrew wrote back in to say that Ryan Howard's father is a doctor who provided a nice suburban home for him. Also, rather humorously, his name is Ron. Ron Howard.
After an extremely cursory search, I didn't find a definitive source to back up the doctor part, but his name is definitely Ron.
There's this series of kids' books out called the Harry Potter books -- pretty sure you've never heard of it. I only know about it because I'm such a voracious reader. Anyway, Harry is this little wizard kid who runs around doing magic and such, and one of his fun toys is a cloak that turns you invisible. Sort of a level one idea in a story about magic, but I digress.
The point is: I'm 99% confident that Derek Jeter possesses and wears a cloak that causes other people to see his intangibles instead of his physical form. I'm going to call this thing the Cloak of Intangibility because it's a name that makes a lot of sense. The science on the cloak is fuzzy, but intangibles aren't about facts or science. Intangibles just work. So it was that everyone who saw Derek viewed him through a hazy, intangibly prism. I mean, look, we'd heard for years how special he was -- how captain-y, and how Truly Yankee-y. That cloak was working like gangbusters for Derek. But today is a banner day, because today Phil Taylor turns Derek Jeter's Cloak of Intangibility against him. It's all there in the title:
Jeter's no MVP Captain's lack of leadership sank Yankees' hopes
Delectably crazy already.
Now that baseball's postseason is over, the individual awards will soon be handed out, including the American League MVP. Boston's David Ortiz and a trio of Twins, Joe Mauer, Justin Morneau and Johan Santana, are all viable candidates for the hardware, and there will be no complaints from this corner if any of them win. The only injustice would be if the award goes to the player who may just be the favorite: Derek Jeter.
We've gone over this many times on FJM. Derek Jeter led the AL in VORP by a hair over Travis Hafner. There are arguments to be made here, but none of them end with the conclusion that giving the MVP to Jeter would in any way be an "injustice." Let's save the word injustice for the Rwandan genocide.
There's no question that Jeter had a fabulous year, finishing second in the AL batting race
Don't care.
and helping the Yanks to the best regular-season record in the league.
Care just a little tiny bit maybe.
But Jeter, the Yankees captain, was also derelict in his duty this season. The supposed team leader led everyone in pinstripes except the teammate who needed him most -- third baseman Alex Rodriguez.
He led the fuck out of Brian Bruney. He grabbed Bernie Williams by the scruff of his neck and willed him to that .768 OPS. He kidnapped Chien-Ming Wang and read the entirety of Nietzsche's Human, All Too Human to him despite the fact that Wang speaks little to no English. Jeter didn't care. He read it aloud in its original German -- a language neither of them understand.
Jeter is the Yankees' Teflon shortstop, the golden boy to whom no criticism ever sticks. He is a clutch player, to be sure,
It's in plain view! When I look at him, I see only a halo of clutchness, no mortal body. This entity has transcended the plane of tangibility. Where was I?
But in the most crucial area, the A-Rod area, he was a crashing failure. Rodriguez was a psychological mess by the time the postseason rolled around, desperate to be accepted as a "real" Yankee,
Please -- it's True Yankee.
Manager Joe Torre buried him in the eighth spot in the batting order in the final game,
An act we can, in hindsight, completely blame Derek Jeter for.
So now the Yankees have an emotionally fragile star on their hands and no idea what to do with him. Trade him, rehabilitate him, what? It's sad to see a great player fall so far so fast, but the saddest thing of all is that Jeter might have been able to keep the situation from getting this bad.
Because of his special powers. Just imagine: what else does Jeter have besides his cloak? A Leadership Hat? Hustle Stirrups? Scrappy Shoelaces? Remember, the issue we're discussing here is the MVP. A-Rod is a man of tremendous insecurities, even though he struggles to appear as though he has none. He craves acceptance, and on the Yankees, there is only one man who can bestow that him, and that man is the sainted Jeter. All the Teflon shortstop had to do, at any point in the season, was to let it be known that he was on A-Rod's side. The rest of the Yankees, and then the public, would no doubt have followed suit.
Still talking about the MVP award. Did I mention Jeter had a .324 EqA, his best since 1999? And while his power wasn't stellar, he did OBP .417. But let's get back to the real MVP nitty-gritty: how well did Jeter make A-Rod play?
A few words of support to the media would probably have done the trick. Jeter's never been much of a talker, so perhaps that was too much to ask, but words weren't even necessary. It would only have taken a token gesture from Jeter -- a hand on A-Rod's shoulder,
Gayer, please --
some horseplay in front of the television cameras
Thank you.
And now a scene from Phil Taylor's forthcoming stage play MVP!:
MVP Committee Chair: Let's not mince words, Derek. You were a great hitter and an adequate fielder this year. Derek Jeter: Where did I go wrong? MVP Committee Chair: There was one area in which you were startlingly deficient. Derek Jeter: Oh no. It's not what I think it is, is it? MVP Committee Chair: Yes. I'm afraid so. Derek, this year you were absolutely terrible at televised horseplay. Unbelievably bad. The last time someone was this bad at televised horseplay was Edd Roush in 1923, before the invention of television or horses. Derek Jeter: I -- I understand. MVP Committee Chair: Now would you please tell Mauer to come in here? We have reason to believe he failed to give enough hugs to Nick Punto this past season. But the Yankee captain couldn't bring himself to do that. By his silence, by his body language, he sent the unspoken message that he had no interest in helping A-Rod out of his funk. Go ahead and boo him, go ahead and rip him in the press, Jeter seemed to be saying. I don't like him any more than you do. By all accounts Jeter has never forgotten some mildly disparaging remarks A-Rod made about him years ago in a magazine article. But apparently he has managed to forget that Rodriguez switched from shortstop to third base when he became a Yankee rather than ruffle Jeter's feathers, and that he has deferred to him at every turn ever since he came to New York.
I suspect that some of this utter speculation is true. But how does this fit into anyone's conception of how the MVP should be awarded? Let's blackball David Ortiz because Josh Beckett didn't pitch well. Screw Jermaine Dye -- what did he do to prevent Neal Cotts from imploding? Phil Taylor, you're just building my case: Derek Jeter owns a piece of clothing that causes people to forget about baseball and needlessly make up stories about what kind of person he is. It may be a cloak. It may be a coat. It may be a knit cap, although I find this proposition to be laughable.
Whatever sin A-Rod committed against Jeter, he has more than paid penance for it. Jeter is no one's MVP until he finds a way not just to accept A-Rod, but also to help him.
I think Phil Taylor will be surprised when he wakes up on November 21st and reads that Derek Jeter has handily won the 2006 AL MVP Award when everyone knows he is no one's MVP.
I will not be surprised, however, when the following unfolds at Derek Jeter's open-casket funeral in early 2008:
Joe Torre: To me, he was the Captain. The Truest of Yankees. The Zeus of Clutch. The real President of the United States -- forget who's in the White House. (A young boy walks up to the casket, and before anyone can stop him, he pulls back the Cloak of Intangibility. The crowd gasps.) Hideki Matsui: It can't be! Jason Giambi: This man -- Jorge Posada: This god -- James Earl Jones: -- is just a baseball player. Yes: an earthly, human baseball player with no magic in his bones nor sorcery in his blood. (A lengthy, solemn silence.) Phil Taylor: Whoa! No fucking way!
You're all going to think I'm crazy, but I sort of -- sort of-- agree with this guy's point.
The BBWAA have criteria for MVP voting. To keep things in the family, you can find that stuff here, in the middle of an old JoeChat.
The third listed criterion is: 3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.
I'm looking at general character and loyalty. Now, I wish these things weren't in the list of criteria for MVP voting, but they are.
Here's what I think: I don't think Jeter necessarily did a bad job of leading A-Rod. I disagree with Taylor on that point. But I do think that Jeter had plenty of opportunities to say that any talk of A-Rod struggling was absolute 100% butt-a-fucking hogwash. He never did. He didn't quite throw him under the bus, neither. I have to paraphrase here because it's late and I don't feel like looking up quotes from the year, but I remember his general take being "whatever happens, we're right there with him. Through his good times and bad."
I think he was a total dick. I think a good teammate stands up and says: "he's not struggling. He's awesome. Write a new story. This is bunk. I'm going to start a blog making fun of sports reporters because of the things you say."
And I don't know excactly what's meant by "character" and "loyalty," but I could see Jeter's actions in re: A-Rod's performance counting against him. Don't think it's a huge deal, but I just barely agree with this guy's point, so I wanted to write something to stick up for it.
Don't get me wrong -- it's a terrible article and his reasoning is generally awful. Let's just not toss the whole notion out; I think it has some merit.
I'm aboard the dak train on this -- though I buy my ticket regrettably. The thing I keep going back to is when HGH Boy was hitting like .190 in April a few years ago with like no HR, Jeter stuck up for him hard core in the press -- he said something like "We need Giambi to help us, and this booing stuff ain't helping." (That is assuredly a direct quote -- don't bother checking my facts.) But with ARod it's "he doesn't need me to stand up for him."
Whatever. Jeter is a sensitive guy who's still upset about that dumb like GQ article. I think he's lame for that. I don't know if that should impact the MVP. But then again, all BBWAA-voted-on awards are stupid anyway, as evidenced by Mo Vaughn beating Al Belle for MVP the year Belle had 100XBH, mainly beause no one liked Belle and they thought Mo was like a "character" guy, even though Mo was always stumbling drunk out of strip clubs.
Or how Jeter just won his motherhumping third Rawlings Pepsi Burger King Microsoft Vista Gold Glove Award, despite being terrible at gloving things.
If the baseball writers thought that Vaughn's character was much "better" than Belle's, than they were not only allowed to, but actually instructed to weigh that in their consideration.
While it may be ridiculous to try to judge one's "character" for a baseball award, it would be more ridiculous to ignore the rules entirely.
As I have clearly seen, from the barrage of electronic mailings I received after touting Derek Jeter for AL MVP a few days ago -- mailings which ranged from begrudging agreement to violent assailments on my character -- reasonable (and unreasonable) people can disagree on season-ending awards. Partly because the criteria are so vague. Partly because statistics and anecdotalism more often clash than mesh perfectly. And partly because institutionally-designated recognition is a dicey business in any arena. (Remember when "Crash" won Best Picture?)
But even the most unreasonable person would not, in a season-ending round-up of award suggestions, deny that Travis Hafner had a great year, right?
Thanks to a tip from reader Sean, we can see that SI's Jon Heyman thinks the top 20 for AL MVP are:
Johan Santana, Frank Thomas, Derek Jeter, Joe Mauer, Justin Morneau, David Ortiz, Jermaine Dye, Johnny Damon, Carlos Guillen, Jason Giambi, Chien-Ming Wang, Mariano Rivera, Justin Verlander, Torii Hunter, Michael Cuddyer, Joe Nathan, Jim Thome, Joe Crede, Vladimir Guerrero, Paul Konerko, Nick Swisher.
Granted, Haf only played in 129 games. But in those 129 games he did this:
He also had a Pujolsian .363 EqA, and an 8.9 WARP3.
Just...I'll pick one person from his top 20 at random. Torii Hunter is a lovely man, a fantastic defensive CF, a great baseball player. A great baseball player who did this:
.278/.336/.490. .280 EqA, 6.2 WARP3.
All of Heyman's top 20 might deserve top-10 votes. But come on, people.
Okay, so he only picked dudes from teams that either made the playoffs or came close.
What I don't get is how you separate, say, the Angels from the Indians? What's the arbitrary line you draw in the missing-the-playoff sand? Six games back? Eliminated within the last week of the season?
What sort of "value" is there in missing the playoffs by 4 games that missing the playoffs by 18 games doesn't give you? Ticket sales?
Also -- tangent, sorry -- have you noticed how often people say things like "like it or not, the MVP goes to a team in contention." Or "maybe it shouldn't necessarily go to a team in contention...but it has for the last 60 years! So my vote's for Chump X from Good Team Y!"
I don't get it. I don't get why the MVP isn't the best player award. That makes the most sense to me. I see zero in the criteria listed by the BBBBWWAAA that should lead voters to vote for teams from playoff teams vs. non-playoff teams, ceteris paribus.
Reader Kevin chimes in, with some thoughtful zazzle:
...Did you catch the fact that [Heyman] ranked Morgan Ensberg as his least valuable player in all of the NL? Sure, Ensberg didn't have anything close to his 2005 season, but he did this:
.235/.396/.463/.859 (walked 101 times) with 23 HR, a .295 EQA, and 6.3 WARP3. He was, by my count, 48th in the NL in VORP.
What the hell is Heyman talking about? Seriously. That is a very, very solid year. Like I said, it wasn't his 2005, but it's good. And he's the Least Valuable Player over, say, Clint Barmes and his .220/.264/.335/.598 line (at Coors Field) or his teammate Adam Everett and his .239/.290/.352/.642 or David Eckstein and his .292/.350/.344/.694? Oh, that's right. David Eckstein is scrappy, does all the little things right, knows how to play the game, and has a huge heart. Silly me.
Although you could argue that those teams, while their records are identical or nearly identical to the Indians', were actually in contention in the awful NL. End sentence fragment.
11 of his 20 AL MVP candidates were Yankees or Twins.
Good Lord, HatGuy must be the most consistent idiot in the vast, vastly important world of Internet sports journalism. If for some reason everyone started calling retarded MSNBC.com columns hits instead of retarded MSNBC.com columns, he would have crushed Joe DiMaggio's hit streak like six years ago. Even when he's right, he's wrong. Refresh my memory. Haveweeverwrittenaboutthisguybefore?
Anytime a ballplayer starts arguing his own case for a major award, it means just one thing: He doesn’t think he’s going to win it.
Wrong. It could mean that. It could also mean he thinks he's going to win and he just wants to make sure of it. It could mean he's bored and he decided to answer one question out of a thousand honestly instead of diplomatically. It could mean he's under a lot of stress because Wily Mo stuck a banana in the tailpipe of his GMC Yukon. That’s certainly the case with the Boston Red Sox's David “Big Papi” Ortiz, who spent time Sunday presenting his AL MVP portfolio to ESPN. Everything he said is pretty much right on. He confessed to having the best offensive season in the American League and to be deserving of the award.
Wrong. He's not pretty much right on. Travis Hafner is having the best offensive season in the AL thus far. He probably won't finish with it now that he's hurt, but still. Check this page out. Or this page. You will find that David Ortiz ranks fifth in the AL in VORP and fourth in EqA. Hafner is first in both.
If he doesn’t get it, he went on, three other very worthy candidates would be Jermaine Dye and Paul Konerko of the Chicago White sox and Justin Morneau of the Minnesota Twins.
Or, I don't know, Hafner. Of course he won't get it. He's out with an injury. And his team isn't playoff-bound, so he's automatically not valuable. Papi was my choice for MVP last year, when he carried the Red Sox into the playoffs and was what he is this year — the best clutch hitter in the game.
Alex Rodriguez of the Yankees collected the hardware instead, despite the certain knowledge among Yankees fans that, despite a statistically terrific year, he wasn’t even the MVP of his own team.
You couldn't be more wrong. Who, HatGuy, was the HatGuy Most Valuable Player on the Yankees in 2006? Please, if you're reading this, let us know in your next completely, utterly wrong column. (Last year, Alex Rodriguez posted a .351 (!) EqA.)
Papi argued that if A-Rod could be MVP for a last-place team, he can be MVP of a Boston team that finishes out of the playoffs. There’s nothing wrong with his logic. I disagree with the premise to start with and would never choose a player from a losing team as the most valuable in the league.
Because you, HatGuy, represent everything that's wrong with MVP voting -- again, a thing I shouldn't care about at all but is still fun to get all snippy about. There you go being wrong again.
In my book, to be MVP, you have to be the most important player on a team that wins something, or, at a minimum, comes within a whisker of winning.
A whisker being a baseball term for "a measure of whatever I feel like determining when I put my hat on in the morning." Your book = W is for Wrong (FINALLY A SUE GRAFTON PARODY ON FJM).
I would never have given the award to Ernie Banks when he played for the pathetic Chicago Cubs, if that’s not redundant.
It's not. Your sense of humor is wrong, though. I wouldn’t have given it to A-Rod when he played for the Rangers, either.
Let me think what you would have been that year, then ... oh, right: wrong.
The award isn’t for the best offensive player in the game. It’s for the most valuable player, which is why pitchers get to win it now and then.
No, it's not. It's for the Most Valuable Player on a Team That Wins something, or, at a Minimum, Comes Within a Whisker of Winning. Unless, by your own standards, you're admitting you're wrong.
But the MVP is so poorly defined, that writers have on occasion handed it out to players whose greatest value was helping their team to finish within 35 games of first place instead of 45 games.
How does that contradict the definition of the Most Valuable Player being the most valuable player in the league? If Weird Al Yankovic were writing a song parody about this article, it would be a Sisqo takeoff called "The Wrong Song" (FINALLY A SISQO MENTION ON FJM). This year, it’s a different story. No one other than Ortiz is having the kind of year offensively he had last year.
David Ortiz 2005 EqA: .333 Manny Ramirez 2006 EqA: .345
Jim Thome and Hafner are also up there. Heck, Jeter's at .324.
I happen to think Jeter should get the hardware, but that may be because I see him more often than I see the others.
Wait. Are you saying you watch the Yankees more than any other baseball team? Huh. I'm going to have to revise my assessment of you, HatGuy. Youareblowingmymind. All I know is that the Yankees lost Hideki Matsui and Gary Sheffield early on for nearly the entire season.
I'd like to think that HatGuy is making a profound statement here. Like seriously, the information in this one sentence is all I know. I don't know how to operate a toaster. I cannot recognize the secondary sexual characteristics of a female human. I don't know the difference between right and wrong.
They had multiple problems with the pitching staff. They lost Robinson Cano for a stretch and have seen Jason Giambi miss time. For long stretches, A-Rod has been all but invisible.
But, but -- I thought all you knew was ... never mind.
And through it all, Jeter has been the glue that’s held it all together, hitting anywhere manager Joe Torre needs him and doing all the little things that add up to winning ballgames.
Doesn't Joe Torre get any glue credit? Certainly Torre is a little gluey. What about Dam
