Practically everyone knows St Louis Cardinals' pitcher Bob Gibson had one of the most dominant seasons ever - in 1968 - featuring that legendary 1.12 ERA which made him a unanimous pick for the National League Cy Young Award. He was not only the best pitcher in the game that season - he was also the best all-around player in the game that season - not only winning the league's Most Valuable Player Award, he also had the highest WAR in the game: 11.9.
The next highest WAR did not belong to AL CYA & MVP Award winner, Denny McClain - 7.3. In fact, McClain didn't even have the highest WAR among AL pitchers. Luis Tiant came in at 7.8. Among position players, Carl Yastrzemski was tops in the AL: 10.5 - so yeah, he should have won back-to-back MVP Awards. Brooks Robinson came in second among position players: 8.4.
If this makes no sense to you, or you don't adhere to any of this saber-metric mumbo-jumbo, you may not agree with the revelation I happened to discover, just the other day:
Gibson was not only the best all-around player in major league baseball in 1968 - he was also the best all-around player in '69 and '70, as well.
The fact that Gibson didn't win either the NL Cy Young Award, nor the league's Most Valuable Player Award in '69 means nothing. Tom Seaver was a natural choice in '69 for the CYA - pitching for the team that made the postseason for the very first time, and of course, he had a wonderful record (25-7 - 2.21 ERA).
Likewise, Willie McCovey was a natural choice for the NL MVP Award in '69. He led the league in home runs (45), RBI (126) and slugging percentage (.656), and his team - the San Francisco Giants - finished a close second to the Atlanta Braves in the newly-formed NL West division.
As we have seen over the years, voting for Most Valuable Player Awards is generally weighted heavily in favor of players putting together "big numbers" on teams that either reach the postseason, or teams that played well above nearly everyone's (so-called baseball experts) expectations. Generally, position players tend to get more support than pitchers, for two reasons: (1) Pitchers have their "own" award, so let them have that instead of this, and (2) pitchers generally only pitch once every five days, so there's no way they can help their team win more than guys who play every day. Which of course, is total nonsense.
In 1969, McCovey had an MVP-caliber 8.1 WAR - Seaver had a CYA-caliber 7.2 WAR. However, Gibson's was 11.3 - surprisingly, nearly as high as the 11.9 he posted the previous season - when he won both awards.
In 1970, when Gibson won his second NL CYA, he still had the highest WAR in major league baseball: 10.1 - although strictly as a pitcher it was 8.9. The reason his overall WAR was higher is quite simple - Gibson had a great year as a hitter (.303/.347/.404) with two home runs and 19 RBI. Also, defensive metrics come into play - getting a boost from the fact that he was a Gold Glove Award winning pitcher, year in and year out.
Those three years - 1968 - '69 - '70 - were Gibson's saber-metric peak, when he was the best all-around player in the game. Now you know.
Showing posts with label saber-metrics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label saber-metrics. Show all posts
Sunday, June 8, 2014
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Musial: The Greatest Ever?
It has been one week since St Louis Cardinals icon Stan Musial passed away. In that brief period of time, Stan the Man has received more media attention and adulation in death than he ever experienced over his entire 22-year Hall of Fame career. It's nice that he's finally getting some publicity, along with some well-deserved recognition for his greatness; not only as a baseball player, but as a human being.
Musial always seemed to be overshadowed by the likes of Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio early in his career, despite being the best player in the National League; at least until Willie Mays came along in the early '50s. As Musial's career reached its peak by the mid '50s, Mays' and Mickey Mantle's were rapidly ascending - and grabbing all the headlines. By the time Musial retired in 1963, he had quietly compiled a Hall of Fame career that was worthy of a first ballot induction at Cooperstown in 1969, with 93.2% of the vote. What's puzzling to me is how 6.8% of the voters could justify excluding him from baseball's highest fraternity. Go figure.
Recently, when MLB Network's sabermetric-obsessed expert Brian Kenny compared the career production of Stan Musial to the likes of Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle and Henry Aaron, his conclusion may surprise the vast majority of baseball fans outside of St Louis: "Saying Stan Musial was among the greatest to ever play the game is probably selling him short. He may very well have been the greatest all-round player in major league history."
Not to mention its most under-rated superstar, by far.
He was certainly under-rated back in 1999, when MLB decided to let fans vote for the players they felt worthy to be on the All-Century Team. The top nine vote getters among the outfielders would make the squad (100 total candidates were previously selected by a panel of experts). Musial finished eleventh in the fan voting, behind Pete Rose - the guy with the most hits in the history of MLB, as well as the guy who made the most outs. It took a special veteran's committee to add Musial and some other all-time greats who played so long ago nobody had ever heard of them. Honus Wagner? Who's he? (Arguably, the greatest shortstop of all-time) Warren Spahn? Never heard of him. (The winningest left-handed pitcher of all-time with 363)
A couple of years after the All-Century Team was chosen, the Godfather of Sabermetrics - Bill James - did a little independent research of his own, and concluded that Stan Musial was the second-best left-fielder to ever play the game (behind Ted Williams) - and the tenth-best player, overall; even better than Pete Rose.
As early as Musial's first full season (1942), it seemed as though this humble 21-year-old kid with the unique batting stance was destined for greatness. He played on three World Championship teams for the Cardinals in the '40s - just before the Television Age brought the Fall Classics into millions of homes from coast to coast. He also won seven batting titles and three Most Valuable Player Awards - the last coming in his greatest season - 1948. Unfortunately for Musial and his team, St Louis barely missed winning another NL pennant that year; or any other year for the rest of his career, for that matter. While his destiny for greatness had already been realized, his accomplishments were almost taken for granted; destined to be overlooked by the casual fan.
Case in point: In 1948, Musial led the National League in every major offensive category, except home runs. Perhaps Mother Nature is to blame for Stan the Man coming up just one home run short of winning the Triple Crown. Officially, he is credited with 39 home runs. Unofficially, he hit 40, but one of those came in a game that was eventually rained-out; so it didn't count.
Just for the sake of argument, let's suppose those rain clouds never materialized; let's suppose all of Musial's 40 home runs counted that year. With that minor revision to baseball history, add in his .376 batting average (with a .450 OBP) and 131 RBI which also topped the Senior Circuit, and he'd have that coveted Triple Crown. But he was just getting started. Musial also led the NL with 133 runs scored, 46 doubles and 18 triples (He led the NL in triples five times in his career). This combination of pure hitting, remarkable plate selection, power and speed has really never been matched in MLB history. In fact, no other Triple Crown winner has ever taken the triple crown, as well.
Even minus that extra home run, Stan the Man racked up an astounding 429 total bases while becoming the first National League player since 1930 to have a slugging percentage over .700 (.702 SLG to be exact); a feat that wouldn't happen in the NL again until 1997.
Getting back to reality; Musial's incredible 1948 season is often mentioned merely as a footnote to his storied career accomplishments. Thanks to some lousy weather, he not only was deprived of a home run title and a Triple Crown of historic significance, he was also deprived of a much higher level of adulation from fans, in general. Of course, all that stuff didn't matter to him; in fact, he seemed a bit embarrassed when people noticed his greatness. In 1952, the irascible and brutally honest Ty Cobb created a bit of a stir when he was quoted in a Time Magazine article, "Stan Musial is better than Joe DiMaggio." Deep down inside, Stan the Man may have agreed with the Georgia Peach's bold assessment, although he modestly replied, "I don't think I've ever been as good as DiMaggio."
Many people would beg to differ, taking into consideration the total package that Musial brought to the ballpark on a daily basis; the key components that made him so great. Not only was he an elite hitter who rarely struck out; he was incredibly durable - rarely missing a game until the tail end of his career - and he was able to sustain a high level of performance for well over two decades. Those attributes are rare enough; added to the mix was Musial's genuine humility, his kindness towards everyone he came in contact with, and his unwavering positive attitude. Essentially, he was a truly great person in all facets of life.
MLB Network analyst Brian Kenny's closing comment says it all: "If you had to choose one player in the history of major league baseball you'd want to be on your team for twenty years - you'd want Stan Musial."
Millions of grateful Cardinals fans who will always cherish the Musial legacy, agree wholeheartedly.
Musial always seemed to be overshadowed by the likes of Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio early in his career, despite being the best player in the National League; at least until Willie Mays came along in the early '50s. As Musial's career reached its peak by the mid '50s, Mays' and Mickey Mantle's were rapidly ascending - and grabbing all the headlines. By the time Musial retired in 1963, he had quietly compiled a Hall of Fame career that was worthy of a first ballot induction at Cooperstown in 1969, with 93.2% of the vote. What's puzzling to me is how 6.8% of the voters could justify excluding him from baseball's highest fraternity. Go figure.
Recently, when MLB Network's sabermetric-obsessed expert Brian Kenny compared the career production of Stan Musial to the likes of Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle and Henry Aaron, his conclusion may surprise the vast majority of baseball fans outside of St Louis: "Saying Stan Musial was among the greatest to ever play the game is probably selling him short. He may very well have been the greatest all-round player in major league history."
Not to mention its most under-rated superstar, by far.
He was certainly under-rated back in 1999, when MLB decided to let fans vote for the players they felt worthy to be on the All-Century Team. The top nine vote getters among the outfielders would make the squad (100 total candidates were previously selected by a panel of experts). Musial finished eleventh in the fan voting, behind Pete Rose - the guy with the most hits in the history of MLB, as well as the guy who made the most outs. It took a special veteran's committee to add Musial and some other all-time greats who played so long ago nobody had ever heard of them. Honus Wagner? Who's he? (Arguably, the greatest shortstop of all-time) Warren Spahn? Never heard of him. (The winningest left-handed pitcher of all-time with 363)
A couple of years after the All-Century Team was chosen, the Godfather of Sabermetrics - Bill James - did a little independent research of his own, and concluded that Stan Musial was the second-best left-fielder to ever play the game (behind Ted Williams) - and the tenth-best player, overall; even better than Pete Rose.
As early as Musial's first full season (1942), it seemed as though this humble 21-year-old kid with the unique batting stance was destined for greatness. He played on three World Championship teams for the Cardinals in the '40s - just before the Television Age brought the Fall Classics into millions of homes from coast to coast. He also won seven batting titles and three Most Valuable Player Awards - the last coming in his greatest season - 1948. Unfortunately for Musial and his team, St Louis barely missed winning another NL pennant that year; or any other year for the rest of his career, for that matter. While his destiny for greatness had already been realized, his accomplishments were almost taken for granted; destined to be overlooked by the casual fan.
Case in point: In 1948, Musial led the National League in every major offensive category, except home runs. Perhaps Mother Nature is to blame for Stan the Man coming up just one home run short of winning the Triple Crown. Officially, he is credited with 39 home runs. Unofficially, he hit 40, but one of those came in a game that was eventually rained-out; so it didn't count.
Just for the sake of argument, let's suppose those rain clouds never materialized; let's suppose all of Musial's 40 home runs counted that year. With that minor revision to baseball history, add in his .376 batting average (with a .450 OBP) and 131 RBI which also topped the Senior Circuit, and he'd have that coveted Triple Crown. But he was just getting started. Musial also led the NL with 133 runs scored, 46 doubles and 18 triples (He led the NL in triples five times in his career). This combination of pure hitting, remarkable plate selection, power and speed has really never been matched in MLB history. In fact, no other Triple Crown winner has ever taken the triple crown, as well.
Even minus that extra home run, Stan the Man racked up an astounding 429 total bases while becoming the first National League player since 1930 to have a slugging percentage over .700 (.702 SLG to be exact); a feat that wouldn't happen in the NL again until 1997.
Getting back to reality; Musial's incredible 1948 season is often mentioned merely as a footnote to his storied career accomplishments. Thanks to some lousy weather, he not only was deprived of a home run title and a Triple Crown of historic significance, he was also deprived of a much higher level of adulation from fans, in general. Of course, all that stuff didn't matter to him; in fact, he seemed a bit embarrassed when people noticed his greatness. In 1952, the irascible and brutally honest Ty Cobb created a bit of a stir when he was quoted in a Time Magazine article, "Stan Musial is better than Joe DiMaggio." Deep down inside, Stan the Man may have agreed with the Georgia Peach's bold assessment, although he modestly replied, "I don't think I've ever been as good as DiMaggio."
Many people would beg to differ, taking into consideration the total package that Musial brought to the ballpark on a daily basis; the key components that made him so great. Not only was he an elite hitter who rarely struck out; he was incredibly durable - rarely missing a game until the tail end of his career - and he was able to sustain a high level of performance for well over two decades. Those attributes are rare enough; added to the mix was Musial's genuine humility, his kindness towards everyone he came in contact with, and his unwavering positive attitude. Essentially, he was a truly great person in all facets of life.
MLB Network analyst Brian Kenny's closing comment says it all: "If you had to choose one player in the history of major league baseball you'd want to be on your team for twenty years - you'd want Stan Musial."
Millions of grateful Cardinals fans who will always cherish the Musial legacy, agree wholeheartedly.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Chapman to Rotation Makes Sabermetric Sense
The Cincinnati Reds' plan to move lefty power-closer Aroldis Chapman and his 100 mph fastball into the starting rotation has drawn the ire of many baseball analysts, including MLB Network's Mitch "Wild Thing" Williams. For that reason alone, the decision makes sense, since the inaccuracy of "Wild Thing's" assessments and predictions is nearly 100%.
Aside from that compelling bit of logic, Chapman's transition from the bullpen to the starting rotation would potentially give Cincinnati around 200 innings pitched*, as opposed to the 71.2 he logged in 2012. Those extra innings - assuming they are "quality innings" - would translate into more wins for Cincinnati; a scary thought for the rest of the NL Central, considering the Reds already won 97 games in 2012.
*UPDATE: Word from the Reds' front office is that Chapman will be under an innings limit when he goes into the rotation. No word on what that innings limit will be, however.
The saber-metric evidence is compelling: Good starting pitchers are more valuable than even the elite relief specialists; sometimes, significantly more valuable. Observe the disparity in the ERA+ of Chapman over the top four starting pitchers in the 2012 NL Cy Young Award voting; then observe the disparity in the Wins Above Replacement (WAR) of the four starters over Chapman:
ERA+ WAR
Dickey - 140 5.6
Kershaw - 150 6.2
Gonzalez - 137 4.5
Cueto - 152 5.8
Chapman - 282 3.6
Chapman's ERA+ is roughly two times better than the four best starting pitchers in the National League; yet the limited use of his talents translates into fewer wins for his team than the other four. As an aside, it appears that either Kershaw or Cueto might have a stronger case for the CYA than Dickey; however, somebody else can write about that.
Historically, even when relief specialists get the nod for either the Most Valuable Player Award and/or the Cy Young Award, they don't compare favorably to other players in the voting mix, from a purely saber-metric perspective. Here's the evidence - the award winners who were strictly relief specialists - their WAR, their rank compared to other players receiving votes, and the player who actually had the highest WAR:
WAR Rank Highest Player
1950 - NL MVP Jim Konstanty (PHI) 4.2 16th 7.8 Eddie Stanky (NYG)
1974 - NL CYA Mike Marshall (LAD) 2.9 5th 7.5 Phil Niekro (ATL)
1977 - AL CYA Sparky Lyle (NYY) 3.5 9th 8.0 Frank Tanana (CAA)
1979 - NL CYA Bruce Sutter (CHC) 4.9 3rd 7.0 Phil Niekro (ATL)
1981 - AL MVP Rollie Fingers (MIL) 4.1 10th 6.6 Rickey Henderson (OAK) &
Dwight Evans (BOS)
1981 - AL CYA Rollie Fingers (MIL) 4.1 2nd 4.3 Steve McCatty (OAK)
1984 - AL MVP Willie Hernandez (DET) 4.6 14th 9.8 Cal Ripken (BAL)*
1984 - AL CYA Willie Hernandez (DET) 4.6 4th 7.6 Dave Stieb (TOR)
1987 - NL CYA Steve Bedrosian (PHI) 2.2 8th** 6.8 Bob Welch (LAD)
1992 - AL MVP Dennis Eckersley (OAK) 2.8 17th 8.4 Roger Clemens (BOS)
1992 - AL CYA Dennis Eckersley (OAK) 2.8 6th 8.4 Roger Clemens (BOS)
2003 - NL CYA Eric Gagne (LAD) 3.6 3rd 7.2 Mark Prior (CHC)
Notes: *Despite having the highest WAR in the AL in 1984 (before WAR was even devised), Cal Ripken garnered the grand total of ONE POINT in the MVP vote! **Steve Bedrosian (who saved 40 games) had the lowest WAR among all pitchers receiving NL CYA votes in 1987! Surely, there were others not receiving votes that had a higher WAR than Bedrock's 2.2.
The impact on MLB history may not seem significant if the players with the highest WAR actually won these awards, but it surely would've gotten Phil Niekro in the HOF sooner had he won both the '74 and '79 NL Cy Young Awards! Ironically, a knuckleball pitcher won the NL CYA this past season - RA Dickey - and it was the first time in MLB history that had happened; but it should've happened 38 years ago.
In the "borderline" case of Dwight Evans, perhaps winning the 1981 AL MVP Award would've put him over the top with the voters; he certainly belongs in Cooperstown. Hopefully, as they become more saber-metrically informed, worthy players like Evans will finally get their just rewards.
Although some may disagree with the evidence, it seems apparent that a great starting pitcher is comparable to a great everyday player, in terms of the value they provide for their team. The argument baseball analysts (like Mitch Williams) use when trying to dispel the notion that no pitcher should be considered for a Most Valuable Player Award - because they're not "everyday players" - is saber-metrically unfounded. Some of the highest WAR totals over the years belong to starting pitchers; just not relief pitchers.
Another compelling piece of evidence: The elite relief specialists obviously receive a lot of media attention for racking up a lot of saves; but it appears the "save" may be one of the most overrated statistics in MLB history. That probably explains why a fairly mediocre relief pitcher like Steve Bedrosian - with those 40 saves in 1987 - was able to capture the NL Cy Young Award that year. Strangely enough, the greatest closer ever - the New York Yankees' Mariano Rivera - never won a CYA, although he finished second once and third twice.
It's also interesting to note that for whatever reasons, no team has ever won a World Series with a closer that has recorded 50 or more saves; it's happened on nine different occasions, but has yet to help produce a World Championship for any team. Go figure.
That gets us back to the Aroldis Chapman debate. Quite simply, if he's able to still pitch effectively as a starter and give the Reds somewhere around 200 IP next season (assuming he stays healthy), he'll be helping them win more games, and that seems to be a gamble worth taking; a no-brainer, especially for a team with no left-handed starters currently in the rotation.
Taking it one step further, if Chapman even comes close to matching the level of performance he produced in 2012, the next NL Cy Young Award winner may well be a former flame-throwing, somersaulting, left-handed relief specialist currently employed by the Cincinnati Reds; who were smart enough to put him in a role that made saber-metric sense.
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Cabrera-Bashing Tarnishes MVP Honor
If you regularly watch MLB Network's Clubhouse Confidential segment - hosted by the analytically brilliant Brian Kenny - chances are, you're gaining insight into the saber-metric side of baseball; and that's a good thing. Unfortunately, Kenny and his legion of saber-metric fanatics may have gone too far with their relentless attack of American League Most Valuable Player, Miguel Cabrera - you know; the guy who won the AL Triple Crown (last accomplished by Carl Yastrzemski forty-five years ago) while leading his Detroit Tigers team into the postseason for the second straight year (the first time that's happened since 1934 and '35).
While Cabrera's historic season should have made him a lock to win the AL MVP Award (in fact, it did), the saber-metrics community felt otherwise; essentially drawing a line in the sand in support of LA Angels of Anaheim rookie sensation, Mike Trout. Okay; Mike Trout is a better all-round player than Miguel Cabrera, but under the subjective nature of this award, not necessarily "more valuable". Hence, the MVP Award went to Miggy and the debate intensified to epic proportions; saber-metric Cabrera-bashing became the latest trend, and leading the charge on MLB Network was the uncompromising Brian Kenny, who refused to believe anyone with a brain could possibly support the Detroit slugger. Such a travesty.
What Kenny refuses to accept is the reality that voters (sportswriters) are usually impressed by big offensive numbers, especially when they help carry a team into the postseason. That makes for good copy. Sometimes, big offensive numbers plus a last place finish is even good enough to win (1987 - Andre Dawson - 49 HR/137 RBI). Talk about a travesty.
In the aftermath of the Cabrera MVP Travesty of 2012, Brian Kenny has paraded various guest saber-metric analysts on his program - including the witty and smug Keith Olbermann - decrying the injustice and outright stupidity of it all. One of Kenny's guest saber-geeks solemnly remarked how "sad" it was that the sportswriters did the unthinkable, thus depriving the 20-year old rookie of the award he so richly deserved. Oh, the humanity. This may be worse than the Hindenburg Disaster.
I'll tell you what's sad. It's how the game's greatest pure hitter - Miguel Cabrera - finally wins his first MVP Award, and is being declared "undeserving" by the Brian Kennys of the world, who apparently don't like being on the losing side of their saber-metric arguments. We're talking about an individual award to a ballplayer coming off a terrific season. Let him bask in a little glory; not stick him under the microscope and comment about all his deficiencies. To say there have been far less-deserving players over the years who were chosen "Most Valuable" in their league is an understatement.
In defense of the current crop of voting sportswriters, they've been doing a credible job of selecting players who are at or near the top of the Wins Above Replacement (WAR) saber-metric guidelines; at least in the current millennium. How all this mumbo-jumbo is calculated is beyond me; however, when Albert Pujols won it on three separate occasions (2005, 2008 & 2009), he indeed had the NL's highest WAR each season. In fact, he also had the highest WAR on a couple of occasions when he didn't win (2006 & 2010); and I don't recall anybody complaining about those two snubs. The great Stan The Man Musial - who recently celebrated his 92nd birthday - only won three MVP Awards, but could have easily won another three or four.
Ted Williams was never very popular with a lot of the sportswriters, which partly explains why his incredible season in 1941 - featuring his iconic .406 BA - was trumped by Joe DiMaggio's equally iconic 56-game hitting streak. Perhaps the most galling snub came when a Teddy Ballgame Triple Crown-season in 1947 was clipped by a rather mediocre Yankee Clipper-season, by a single point.
Many other all-time greats like Mays and Aaron have been consistently snubbed over the years by the likes of Maury Wills and Dick Groat, among others. Generally speaking, if a player wins a batting championship on a pennant winner (Groat) or establishes some new MLB (stolen base) record (Wills), sportswriters eat that stuff up. Every now and then, superior players on bad teams are selected (Ernie Banks in '58 and '59), but once their "quota" is fulfilled, they'd really have to go wild to get another one. Banks had another great year in 1960, but winning three times in a row just wasn't happening.
A couple of my favorite MVP's - Kenny Boyer (1964) and Orlando Cepeda (1967) both led the NL in RBI's playing on pennant winning St Louis Cardinal teams. Much to my surprise, there were several other players with higher WAR totals than the former Redbird heroes; especially surprising, since the vote for Cepeda was unanimous in 1967. Go figure.
Meanwhile, as the outrage over the selection of Miggy over Trouty was starting to wane, our saber-metric hero on MLB Network decided it would be fun to review previous MVP selections on his Clubhouse Confidential program which he deemed "wrong". I wonder if I was the only one surprised when he chose to nitpick the 2005 NL MVP Award which went to Albert Pujols of the 100-win NL Central champion-St Louis Cardinals, instead of Derrick Lee of the sub-.500 Chicago Cubs. Both had very similar offensive numbers, but Lee's slugging percentage was about fifty points higher, plus he won the Gold Glove and Silver Slugger Award. I suppose a clean sweep of the awards would've been nice for Lee, but for some reason those crazy sportswriters took the guy from the 100-win team instead. "What were they thinking?" suggested the irrepressible Kenny.
I'll tell you what they were thinking, Brian. They were thinking Pujols was the best player in the National League that season, who played a key role in the success of his team. His "value" to his team is best measured by his NL-leading 8.2 WAR. I'm surprised Brian Kenny failed to realize that before he decided to tell his viewers something that made no saber-metric sense whatsoever. And that's a travesty.
No, the real travesty is subjecting the likable and extremely talented Miguel Cabrera to unfair scrutiny of an honor he deserved - American League Most Valuable Player - 2012. The last time I checked, Andre Dawson got to keep his; along with George Bell, Don Baylor and Jeff Burroughs, for that matter. None of those guys won the Triple Crown, by the way.
While Cabrera's historic season should have made him a lock to win the AL MVP Award (in fact, it did), the saber-metrics community felt otherwise; essentially drawing a line in the sand in support of LA Angels of Anaheim rookie sensation, Mike Trout. Okay; Mike Trout is a better all-round player than Miguel Cabrera, but under the subjective nature of this award, not necessarily "more valuable". Hence, the MVP Award went to Miggy and the debate intensified to epic proportions; saber-metric Cabrera-bashing became the latest trend, and leading the charge on MLB Network was the uncompromising Brian Kenny, who refused to believe anyone with a brain could possibly support the Detroit slugger. Such a travesty.
What Kenny refuses to accept is the reality that voters (sportswriters) are usually impressed by big offensive numbers, especially when they help carry a team into the postseason. That makes for good copy. Sometimes, big offensive numbers plus a last place finish is even good enough to win (1987 - Andre Dawson - 49 HR/137 RBI). Talk about a travesty.
In the aftermath of the Cabrera MVP Travesty of 2012, Brian Kenny has paraded various guest saber-metric analysts on his program - including the witty and smug Keith Olbermann - decrying the injustice and outright stupidity of it all. One of Kenny's guest saber-geeks solemnly remarked how "sad" it was that the sportswriters did the unthinkable, thus depriving the 20-year old rookie of the award he so richly deserved. Oh, the humanity. This may be worse than the Hindenburg Disaster.
I'll tell you what's sad. It's how the game's greatest pure hitter - Miguel Cabrera - finally wins his first MVP Award, and is being declared "undeserving" by the Brian Kennys of the world, who apparently don't like being on the losing side of their saber-metric arguments. We're talking about an individual award to a ballplayer coming off a terrific season. Let him bask in a little glory; not stick him under the microscope and comment about all his deficiencies. To say there have been far less-deserving players over the years who were chosen "Most Valuable" in their league is an understatement.
In defense of the current crop of voting sportswriters, they've been doing a credible job of selecting players who are at or near the top of the Wins Above Replacement (WAR) saber-metric guidelines; at least in the current millennium. How all this mumbo-jumbo is calculated is beyond me; however, when Albert Pujols won it on three separate occasions (2005, 2008 & 2009), he indeed had the NL's highest WAR each season. In fact, he also had the highest WAR on a couple of occasions when he didn't win (2006 & 2010); and I don't recall anybody complaining about those two snubs. The great Stan The Man Musial - who recently celebrated his 92nd birthday - only won three MVP Awards, but could have easily won another three or four.
Ted Williams was never very popular with a lot of the sportswriters, which partly explains why his incredible season in 1941 - featuring his iconic .406 BA - was trumped by Joe DiMaggio's equally iconic 56-game hitting streak. Perhaps the most galling snub came when a Teddy Ballgame Triple Crown-season in 1947 was clipped by a rather mediocre Yankee Clipper-season, by a single point.
Many other all-time greats like Mays and Aaron have been consistently snubbed over the years by the likes of Maury Wills and Dick Groat, among others. Generally speaking, if a player wins a batting championship on a pennant winner (Groat) or establishes some new MLB (stolen base) record (Wills), sportswriters eat that stuff up. Every now and then, superior players on bad teams are selected (Ernie Banks in '58 and '59), but once their "quota" is fulfilled, they'd really have to go wild to get another one. Banks had another great year in 1960, but winning three times in a row just wasn't happening.
A couple of my favorite MVP's - Kenny Boyer (1964) and Orlando Cepeda (1967) both led the NL in RBI's playing on pennant winning St Louis Cardinal teams. Much to my surprise, there were several other players with higher WAR totals than the former Redbird heroes; especially surprising, since the vote for Cepeda was unanimous in 1967. Go figure.
Meanwhile, as the outrage over the selection of Miggy over Trouty was starting to wane, our saber-metric hero on MLB Network decided it would be fun to review previous MVP selections on his Clubhouse Confidential program which he deemed "wrong". I wonder if I was the only one surprised when he chose to nitpick the 2005 NL MVP Award which went to Albert Pujols of the 100-win NL Central champion-St Louis Cardinals, instead of Derrick Lee of the sub-.500 Chicago Cubs. Both had very similar offensive numbers, but Lee's slugging percentage was about fifty points higher, plus he won the Gold Glove and Silver Slugger Award. I suppose a clean sweep of the awards would've been nice for Lee, but for some reason those crazy sportswriters took the guy from the 100-win team instead. "What were they thinking?" suggested the irrepressible Kenny.
I'll tell you what they were thinking, Brian. They were thinking Pujols was the best player in the National League that season, who played a key role in the success of his team. His "value" to his team is best measured by his NL-leading 8.2 WAR. I'm surprised Brian Kenny failed to realize that before he decided to tell his viewers something that made no saber-metric sense whatsoever. And that's a travesty.
No, the real travesty is subjecting the likable and extremely talented Miguel Cabrera to unfair scrutiny of an honor he deserved - American League Most Valuable Player - 2012. The last time I checked, Andre Dawson got to keep his; along with George Bell, Don Baylor and Jeff Burroughs, for that matter. None of those guys won the Triple Crown, by the way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)