FJM has gone dark for the foreseeable future. Sorry folks. We may post once in a while, but it's pretty much over.
You can still e-mail dak,Ken Tremendous,Junior,Matthew Murbles, or Coach.
Albert Pujols Was Not A Good Enough Pitcher To Win The MVP
I for one can't wait for the deluge of Ryan Howard-for-MVP columns from older dudes wearing RBI Glasses™. RBI Glasses™: Available at ShittyLensCrafters all across the country. Hey, here's the first one, from Bob Klapisch.
Me: Bob Klapisch, you're writing a column about your awards picks. What are you going to call it?
Bob Klapisch (stopping to think for exactly 0.00038 seconds): The Klappie Awards! I'm on break.
Bob Klapisch's Klappie Awards
MOST VALUABLE PLAYER, NL: Ryan Howard, Phillies.
Nope. Wrong. So so so so so so so wrong. You should be criticized on some sort of hypercritical baseball blog for that opinion.
We’re prepared to face the firing squad on this one, having passed over Albert Pujols.
Klapisch is talking about a literal firing squad. He has written his farewell notes to his wife and kids. But he's doing this because he's a man. A man taking a stand. A man choosing another man who is ranked 30th in his league in VORP for MVP. These are the kinds of causes for which a man like Bob Klapisch is willing to stare death in the face.
Mark DeRosa and Cristian Guzman had higher VORPs than Ryan Howard. VORP is not the final word by any means; it obviously has deficiencies. But hey, also: Ryan Howard was 6th on his team in OBP. Think about that.
But as unthinkably dangerous as the Cardinals’ slugger was, he couldn’t get his team to the postseason. Howard did.
You're right. Albert Pujols did not nearly pitch well enough, or for enough innings (Can you believe zero innings? What a bum!) for the Cardinals to to make the playoffs. (The Phillies had a team ERA of 3.88; the Cardinals 4.19. Albert Pujols? More like Albert Not A Very Good Pitching Coach!)
Pujols should have lobbied to have St. Louis the city moved to Oregon, where his Cardinals would have won the NL West by two games and he would be lauded as a clutch MVP baseball superhero with quality intangibles and a leader with the uncanny ability to come through when it counts. But unfortunately, Pujols has never been good at getting entire cities to spontaneously change their geographical locations.
Ryan Howard batted .168 in April. Albert Pujols' batting averages, by month (and I know batting average doesn't matter. Here they are anyway): .365, .373, .302, .347, .398, .321. Bob Klapisch, do you think for some reason that games played in April don't count in the standings? Ryan Howard batted .213 in August.
But Howard was in another reality in September, when impact players make their mark.
But "Hole in the Wall" and one very funny moment where a guy couldn't fit through the hole in the wall, and that is the kind of impact that impact TV shows make when it counts.
While the Phillies were catching and passing the Mets (again), Howard batted .352 and hit 11 home runs — one every eight at-bats.
While the Cardinals were playing baseball, Albert Pujols batted .357.
Ryan Howard hit behind Jimmy Rollins and Chase Utley. If Albert Pujols hit behind Jimmy Rollins and Chase Utley, he would have had 493 RBI. Do the math. It checks out.
He finished the season with a mediocre .251 average, but otherwise led the majors with 48 HR and 146 RBI.
Sure, he hit by far the most home runs. RBI are bullshit. Here are things he didn't lead the majors in:
EqA VORP WARP1 WARP2 WARP3 OBP OPS SLG WPA BB BA R Literally any defensive statistic. Any of them. Just pick one.
You know who led or was damn close to the lead in a shitload of those statistics? Albert Pujols. The 2008 NL MVP.
I know you probably think you're a guy who "doesn't rely on stats" and "thinks there's more to the game than numbers," but I submit to you that the only reason you selected Francisco Rodriguez to be your AL MVP (MVP!) is that he corralled a large (a record, in fact -- !) number of saves. Saves, as I'm sure you've been told many times, are a ridiculous stat, the kind of stat that gives stats a bad name. So you really shouldn't use them when making such important decisions as selecting your fictional #1 MVP choice on your fake MVP ballot.
I will now list various players, persons, and other entities in the American League of U.S.A. professional baseball who were more valuable than Francisco Rodriguez:
Grady Sizemore Joe Mauer Dustin Pedroia Alex Rodriguez Carlos Quentin Josh Hamilton Milton Bradley Aubrey Huff Miguel Cabrera Kevin Youkilis Ian Kinsler Brian Roberts Nick Markakis Vladimir Guerrero Mark Teixeira Jermaine Dye Cliff Lee Roy Halladay Ervin Santana Joe Saunders Jon Lester Daisuke Matsuzaka John Danks Joe Nathan Mariano Rivera Joakim Soria Joe Maddon Terry Francona Mike Scioscia The crowd at Camden Yards A replay monitor Heart, the intangible quality Heart, the band Ed Hochuli The wind Chief Wahoo Jim Abbott Curtis Pride Gravity Roberto Petagine Levi Johnston Birds -- all of them. Just birds in general. This guy Rick who fixed my rearview mirror Monster.com Zombie Bernie Mac I bet if Scot Shields or Jose Arredondo were the closer they would have broken Bobby Thigpen's record too, I'm just saying -- does this count as an entity? Evan Longoria
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.
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.
P.P.S. Heyman also ranks Sabathia and K-Rod below other pitchers in the Cy Young races despite placing them at or near the top of the MVP races. There are no words for this level of lunacy.
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.
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.
Sorry for the delay folks. Let's chat this shit up!
Buzzmaster: Send in those questions. Joe will be here shortly! Buzzmaster: So, what's on peoples' minds today?
Mark: Buzz, any sign of Joe?
Buzzmaster: He'll be here at 11:30 ET. Joe's a busy man. We're kind of at the mercy of his schedule. We get him when we can.
dak: Joe is too busy not watching baseball games and not keeping up on his favorite players to give vague and wandering answers right now. Sit tight.
Heath (NYC): Joe, how do you explain the A's getting hot seemingly every August?
Joe Morgan: They've done that a couple of times. Last year they got hot earlier, but then couldn't close the deal. They haven't played well in September the last few years. We'll have to wait and see how they do this year. They have more veterans to deal with the situation this year.
dak: So, listen. I'm filling in for Ken Tremendous. He ususally takes the JoeChat; Junior's filled in a couple of times. But this is my first crack at it in a while, and I realize now the hardest part of this thing is simply where to fucking start.
Let's start with the obvious: he doesn't answer the question. At all. Doesn't offer any single piece of explanation. More amazingly, he misses a free shot at Billy Beane and the modem he uses to make trades. Haven't we all heard that the A's have been great second half teams at least in part because of the trades that Beane has made in past mid-seasons? Wouldn't Joe Morgan want us to believe this is wrong?
Then there's the thickheaded fallacy: wins in September are more important than wins in, like, May. The season is 162 games long. Every win counts the same, except, one might argue, for games that are played against the team directly above or below you in a pennant race. Sure, games in September seem more important; there's only like 15 games left, you're down 2 in the standings or whatever...I can understand why they seem so important. I can even understand why they seem more important. What I can't understand is how a baseball analyst can get away with implying that they actually are more important.
And oh! the ridiculous, yet difficult to disprove: the key factor in wins down the stretch will be veteran leadership. That's right folks: Frank Thomas is going to teach Eric Chavez how to win in September. I mean, what did you think -- that Major League baseball players were born with the ability to win in September? No. They have to learn from sage veterans like Jay Witasick.
Bonus wrongness: I realize that this isn't exactly the same as having veterans around, but it's worth noting that this year's Oakland A's team is slightly younger on average (28.5 years old) than last year's team (28.6 years old).
What's that? Keep it shorter?
Tim (Rochester, NY): Joe, Have not heard about Johnny Bench in a while. Can you tell me how he is doing?
Joe Morgan: He just had a son, Justin Palmer. He was born April 1. He still works with the Reds, he has some title. He does a lot of appearances, speaking. I talk to him a lot. We talk on the phone a lot.
dak: I did a little internet research, and it turns out Joe Morgan is totally right about the name and birthdate of Johnny Bench's son. And as a result, I'm a little disappointed. So that's what my life has come to, I guess.
I like the Yoda-ish sentences in the middle, though. And the vague details. Joe, you sure he works for the Reds? "He has some title." Oh, ok. Mea culpa. You really talk to him a lot? "We talk on the phone a lot." Oh, the phone. Yeah. I guess you do. Jim (Det): Joe, how impressed are you with the Tigers?
Joe Morgan: I've been very impressed. I think they'll finish strong. Success breeds confidence.
dak: "Success breeds confidence?" What the hell does that mean?
Joe Morgan: They've had a lot of success, so their confidence is high.
dak: Nonono. I mean, "what the hell does that mean?" as in, "what the dick kind of meaningless baseball pseudo-psychology is that?" Not "explain to me what 'breeds' means." Christ, Joe. Ben (NY): You know, I don't think the MVP award is all about stats. Stats aren't everything. Do you agree?
Joe Morgan: There is a criteria for the MVP award. It goes something like character, contributions to baseball, contributions to your team, so there are more than statistics involved.
dak: "There is a criteria?" Did you mean, perhaps, "there are criteria" or "there is a criterion" or even "there is a a set of criteria"? Paging Doctors Strunk and White, am I right you guys? Haha!...ha. [Coughs quietly to self.]
I don't think that stats are everything when it comes to MVP voting. Of course, in essence we're looking at how good a player was in a given year, and the easiest way to quantify and compare these things is...well, it ain't stories, anecdotes and gut feelings.
However, character should be an issue (and it is -- more on this later). And I'd even go so far as to say that "clutchness" should play a factor.
Now, let's get it straight: do I think players should be rewarded a little more for putting together a number of so-called "clutch" hits in a season? Yes. A little. Do I think that players are born with a preternatural ability to perform in the clutch? Not really / I'm not sure / not significantly more or less than their almost-equally talented peers.
From JoMo's description of the criteria for MVP voting, it sure sounds like they make a big deal out of "contributions" and "character" and everything. Sounds more like we're voting for Secretary of Lincoln High's Key Club.
Now, here's what the BBWA says about MVP voting (which, incidentally, is surprisingly hard to find anywhere on the internet): There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.
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.
Break it down:
1. "Strengh of offense and defense." I see little use in anything other than numbers to help me reach my conclusions of how strong a players' offense and defense are. 2. Albeit a simple one, this is a straight-up statistic. (How many people, by the way, had "number of games played" as their guess for second official criterion for MVP voting?) 3. Okay, fine, character. And of course, loyalty, which unfortunately rules out Nick Punto this year, who was found guilty of treason. Tough break, Nick. Let me throw some names out there: D. Ortiz; T. Hafner; J. Mauer; D. Jeter; J. Giambi...whoever. Do any of these really stand out among the others in "disposition"? "Effort?" Hey, I'll consider it in my hypothetical voting -- it's in the criteria listed by the BBWA -- I just don't see it making a big difference in the way I hypothetically vote. 4. and 5. They must have meant something about "contributions." El Centro, Ca.: Joe, will you ever manage in the majors?
SportsNation Joe Morgan: I don't think I will manage in the major leagues. I never use the word never. I did have some interest at one time. I went to sleep one night thinking that I would take a job and woke up changing my mind. I've done that twice since I retired.
dak: Note that JoMo doesn't say anything about how interested teams were in him -- only that he was interested in managing. I like to think that he just went to sleep one night after not watching baseball, thinking, "I'm going to call the baseball teams tomorrow and take a job as a manager."
Come on Joe, get crazy!
Bob Mozitis (Philadelphia): Are you excited to be doing the Little League World Series? Those kids play with passion and don't worry about the stats. They are like Derek Jeter in that regard.
Joe Morgan: I think it's great because it's the reason we all played the game. We just loved baseball and that's all they cared about. I think it's great to see kids play the sport. At one point, I was like they are. I didn't play in the LLWS, but I was at their age playing baseball.
dak: If I'm not mistaken, Joe Morgan just took credit for having once been a child. Justin (Chicago): Whos the best CF in the game today?
SportsNation Joe Morgan: That's difficult. There are a lot of great centerfielders. Are you saying defensively or overall? Center field is really a defensive position. It's the normal guys you'd look at, Andruw Jones hit 50 HRs last year and won a Gold Glove. Jim Edmonds has won a lot of Gold Gloves. That's a tough question unless you are asking a specific question of whether you're talking defensive or overall.
dak: Jesus H. this guy is lazy. Why doesn't he want to talk about baseball instead finding any excuse to not answer a question? Why not answer the question both ways? Why not assume that he meant overall since that's what people usually mean when they don't specify defense? Why not say Vernon Wells is 3rd in all of baseball with a VORP of 55.9?
Mike (Morgantown, WV): Game 7: Koufax, Gibson, or Clemens...who do you choose to pitch for your team?
Joe Morgan: Obviously, that's very difficult for the first two. It would be either Koufax or Gibson, because I've seen them pitch a seventh game. I've never seen Clemens pitch one. Koufax can dominate a lineup, but Gibson was one of the best competitors I've ever seen.
dak: For those who haven't e-mailed us about this already, JoMo has just told us that he did not watch:
1) Game 7 of the 2001 World Series (the World Fucking Series) 2) Game 7 of the 2003 ALCS (possibly the most anticipated pitching match-up of all time, Pedro v. Clemens) 3) Game 7 of the 2004 NLCS (last game of a fantastic series) 4) Game 7 of the 1986 ALCS (dak was 8 years old and in the stands)
Four Game 7's that Roger Clemens started. Or, as Ken Tremendous likes to call him, Rogcar Clemtron. (He tells me that would have been his name if he were a robot.)
That's our Joe!
Bobby ( Staten Island, New York): When Mike Piazza gets inducted into the HOF what hat do you think he should wear?
Joe Morgan: What we do as the board at the HoF, we look at what team he had the most success and what team he was most identified with. When it's a close call, we do take into consideration what they want. But they don't get to choose, because some teams have offered to pay players to wear their hat when they go into the HoF.
dak: Huh. Okay, I think I knew that already, but that was pretty informative. NOW WHAT FUCKING HAT DO YOU THINK PIAZZA SHOULD WEAR?
A lot of you got all up in it after I said Derek Jeter is a terrible choice for MVP. I was hoisted on my own petard, as e-mail after e-mail slammed me with VORPs and WARPs and even a few Win Percentage Added arguments, which is getting really hard-core nerdy, and God bless you all for it.
I stand by my assertion that to give Derek Jeter the MVP this year -- even for the first half -- is dumb. However.
On Mike 'n Mike in the Morning today, Eric Kuselias and Buster Olney played "Are the Fans Right?" with all-star predictions. Kuselias, who is, by ESPN Radio standards, a friggin' genius, said that Michael Young should be the starting SS for the AL. Why? More 2B than Jeter, more RBI than Jeter, and, in part because, and I quote: "He won the batting title last year."
He won the batting title.
Last year.
Derek Jeter 2006 OPS: .882 Michael Young 2006 OPS: .817
Derek Jeter 2006 SecA: .317 Michael Young 2006 SecA: .211
Derek Jeter 2006 RC27: 7.53 Michael Young 2006 RC27: 5.53
Now, Baseball Prospectus actually has Young above Jeter in WARP1, 4.3 to 3.6, largely because they list him at 12 FRAA and Jeter at -2 FRAA (take that, people who yelled at me). But come on. Jeter is the choice.
Now stop e-mailing me and telling me I am biased against Derek Jeter, that overrated, overpaid, iron-gloved, pretty-boy turd muncher.
