BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Joe Posnanski Blog: Why We Need Numbers

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Joe Posnanski Blog: Why We Need Numbers

Uhh, because we put them on houses…so T.R. Sullivan can find his way home?

Is Jeff Kent a Hall of Famer? I sure never thought so. But, yes, that’s why we have numbers. That’s why people keep up with this stuff. What really bothers me about Bert Blyleven is that his pitching brilliance wasn’t fully appreciated in his time, and BECAUSE of that, it’s not fully appreciated now. We keep twisting around in the same circle. It’s like we keep trying to justify our own notions and convictions, even if it means making the same mistakes. I saw someone, in making the Hall of Fame case for JIm Rice, pointed out that he was the highest paid player in baseball for a few years.

That’s great. But you know what? Rice already got paid for those years. The part that makes sense to me about the Hall of Fame is perspective, it is that a Hall of Famer’s career should stand up long after the trends and quirks of the time have faded, long after the camera has panned back. If a player’s career looks better in reverse — Bert Blyleven, Lou Whitaker, Dan Quisenberry, Ron Santo, Dwight Evans on and on and on — we should honor that, give them a fair Hall of Fame hearing, one that isn’t marred by hunches of the time that might not have been right in the first place. And if a player’s career doesn’t stand up to the scrutiny of the years, well, that’s why we wait five years before voting. I look at Jeff Kent’s numbers now and — well, he won’t be eligible for five years so things can change. But I would predict that, when we look back, Kent’s career will look awfully good. I’ll bet it will look like a Hall of Fame career.

Repoz Posted: January 27, 2009 at 01:06 PM | 190 comment(s) | Login to Bookmark
Related News: General, History, Hall of Fame, Sabermetrics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 2 pages < 1 2

101. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 27, 2009 at 06:36 PM (#3061669)

Everybody, the way they boo ####### Griffey and everybody else. And you #############, all you cocksuckers with a ####### pen , and a ####### tape recorder, you can turn it on and take it upstairs to the fat man! Ok? Cause I'm ####### sick of this ####### ####! The negative ####### ########, you got it? Everything that you guys read, write, these ############# read, these dumb ####### in the seats! Yeah, you turn it on. Turn it on your crazy ####. Yeah, they read everything that you ####### write. And we hear the same ####### lines, you know what I mean? ####### negative #############. No wonder you're ####### carrying a pad and a ####### paper around. You ain't worth the ####### #### to do anything else. You mother #######!

102. Robert Machemer Posted: January 27, 2009 at 06:37 PM (#3061670)

Another reason is that right up until the Blue Jays collapsed, Trammell's run wasn't part of what was seen as a real race. In fact the biggest story was more Toronto's choke than the Tigers' heroics---the Blue Jays lost their last 7 games and blew a 3 1/2 game lead.

Why on earth was it not seen as a real race?

August 31, 1987:

ALE     W   L    GB
DET    77  52     - 
TOR    77  54   1.0

September 7, 1987:

ALE     W   L    GB
TOR    83  54     -
DET    82  54   0.5

September 14, 1987:

ALE     W   L    GB
TOR    86  57     -
DET    86  57     - 
 
September 21, 1987:

ALE     W   L    GB
TOR    91  59     -
DET    90  59   0.5 
 
September 28, 1987:

ALE     W   L    GB
TOR    96  61     -
DET    93  63   2.5

October 4, 1987:

ALE     W   L    GB
DET    98  64     -
TOR    96  66   2.0 

Up until the second-to-last week of the season, the teams were neck-and-neck. That seems like a pretty real race to me. One might as well claim that September of 1978 or September of 1949 weren't real races.

And that's the point, isn't it? Why on earth should we care what the perception was? Chris Dial's argument (and I agree with it) is that we have the ability to right the wrongs of the perception-at-the-time. If Trammell didn't get the due he deserved, if his team's stretch run wasn't properly recognized, we are not beholden to say, "Well, then they weren't that great." They were great. It was a great race. And Trammell was magnificent. If observers at the time didn't notice, that's a knock against the observers.

We might as well say that evolution really isn't that big a deal because the Linnean Society president thought "nothing of importance" had been presented that year.

103. Chris Dial Posted: January 27, 2009 at 06:38 PM (#3061672)

I think I owe HGM a coke.

104. Steve Treder Posted: January 27, 2009 at 06:38 PM (#3061673)

The fact that the larger point is wrong is what invalidates the larger point. Blyleven, John and Kaat all have similar W-L marks, but only one of them gets any support in the Hall of Fame voting. Jack Morris has a nearly identical W-L mark to Bob Gibson; one is a Hall of Famer, and one isn't.

Which would be significant, except that the actual quote of mine you're responding to was this:

My point is that W-L, raw W-L, is indeed just about the only thing they look at. ERA too, and that's just about it.

105. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 27, 2009 at 06:38 PM (#3061674)

We're just arguing about the definition of "preponderance." I can accept that the media directs and shapes most of the fans' perceptions, but David and Chris appear to be arguing that the fans have almost no ability to think for themselves.

I never talked about a lack of "ability" to think for themselves; only a lack of willingness to do so. What they lack, however, is an ability to (readily) gather information that would enable them to think for themselves. You're not in the clubhouse; how do you know whether a player is a veteran leader or an unpopular, self-centered mercenary jerk who only cares about his own stats? In theory, you can now find out whether a player is "clutch," but it takes work; if the media is always telling you he is/isn't, how do you decide otherwise without doing that work?

106. JRVJ (formerly Delta Socrates) Posted: January 27, 2009 at 06:40 PM (#3061676)

I wasn't responding to Dial. I was responding to post 19 from the District Attorney, both what I quoted in post 95 and this quote:

This is why I am so thoroughly against the idea that "name value", "place in the narrative of baseball", etc. should be significant HOF factors. That's like saying "let's immortalize our mistakes." (Again, "our" here doesn't mean "writers", it means everybody.) We should put someone in because they've already been given too much credit and attention for their accomplishments? Being overrated is an actual, distinct qualification? It's just complete baloney IMHO.

107. Chris Dial Posted: January 27, 2009 at 06:44 PM (#3061681)

I can accept that the media directs and shapes most of the fans' perceptions, but David and Chris appear to be arguing that the fans have almost no ability to think for themselves.

I would go in depth, but David makes it pretty well. Fans just don't "have the ability"? Never suggested it. The "appeal to authority" is firghteningly common in everyday life, where the media is viewed as the authority. I think I opened with "the media directs and shapes the fans perceptions". Obviously, since there are lots of us here I am certain lots of fans can and do think for themselves, but teh scientists I work with still get most of their exposure through MSM, and it's brutal to listen to when they aalk about "count the rings". And soand so is a winner. Those are media constructs.

108. SoSH U at work Posted: January 27, 2009 at 06:50 PM (#3061689)

It doesn't "appear" to be anything definitive. Are you famliar with the internet? Do you require "IMO" after every post on the internet?

Produce some contemporaneous quotes of players saying as I said, or I'll believe that "most feared" is a media construct. I'm surprised that "most feared hitter" as a media construct is such a controversial position.

OK, as long as we're just spouting opinions, I'll continue to believe that "most feared is a media construct" is a Chris Dial construct. While I have no doubt the media helped propel the idea, and probably embellished it, I don't believe the beat guys and play-by-play writers crafted the image out of whole cloth. I suspect that it was a by product of their conversations with those pitchers, since, you know, they actually talked to the players and didn't just project onto them what we think they must be thinking, like we do.

109. HGM Posted: January 27, 2009 at 06:51 PM (#3061690)

I wasn't responding to Dial. I was responding to post 19 from the District Attorney, both what I quoted in post 95 and this quote

You referenced Dag Nabbit (Chris Jaffe), which is the Chris I was referring to. :) Sorry for the confusion.

110. JRVJ (formerly Delta Socrates) Posted: January 27, 2009 at 06:51 PM (#3061691)

No worries.

111. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 27, 2009 at 06:53 PM (#3061694)

You have to look at the context in which these players came to the national consciousness. For Sandberg, that 1984 game was his coming-out party after two unspectacular seasons as a regular; the fact that it was the Game of the Week (when that meant something) and that Whitey Herzog (not a member of the media) immediately pronounced him the best player in baseball meant that for a lot of people, their first perception of Ryne Sandberg was that he was a young superstar. Then the Cubs went on to complete their miracle season, with Sandberg not just their best player but the best player in the league, and his perception was complete.

Trammell, by contrast, took a much longer time to get noticed. As late as 1982, in his fifth year as a regular, he hit just .258 with nine homers. By the time he got really good, in 1983-84, his reputation was as a guy who was a decent shortstop, but not nearly as good as Cal Ripken. On that great 1984 Tigers team, he was considered at best their third-best player, behind MVP Willie Hernandez and Kirk Gibson.

I'd buy that, except for the third great shortstop of the 1980s: Robin Yount. Yount took until his seventh season to have a really good year. Yes, that was pre-Cal, so he had a chance to avoid being overshadowed, but why didn't that length of time hurt his chances of being respected? And yet he was a superstar who was always a future HOFer, as I recall.

As for the 84 Tigers, you're begging the question. Why was he considered their third-best player behind Hernandez and Gibson? Why would anybody following the team have thought Gibson better than Trammell?

112. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 27, 2009 at 06:58 PM (#3061696)

I never talked about a lack of "ability" to think for themselves; only a lack of willingness to do so.

THis is a meaningless distinction. I think the fans can and do form opinions on their own.

What they lack, however, is an ability to (readily) gather information that would enable them to think for themselves. You're not in the clubhouse; how do you know whether a player is a veteran leader or an unpopular, self-centered mercenary jerk who only cares about his own stats? In theory, you can now find out whether a player is "clutch," but it takes work; if the media is always telling you he is/isn't, how do you decide otherwise without doing that work?

Does this apply to you and me and everyone else in this discussion? Do you think we're the only ones who put in the necessary "work"?

113. Robert Machemer Posted: January 27, 2009 at 07:03 PM (#3061701)

OK, as long as we're just spouting opinions, I'll continue to believe that "most feared is a media construct" is a Chris Dial construct.

Perhaps it is, but in the grand scheme of things, it's irrelevant.

Which is more likely to be named as "feared," a hippopotamus or a spider? Hippos kill more people per year (and adjusted for numbers of hippos vs. numbers of spiders, hippos are a TON, no pun intended, more dangerous). And yet there is no water-horse equivalent of arachniphobia. (One can likely find lots more comparisons like these). Fear is not necessarily rationally applied. The most feared person might not be the most dangerous person. Giving any sort of weight to Rice's being most feared misses the point -- if he doesn't perform as well as another player, it really doesn't matter that he's more feared or not, the other player is better and deserves more recognition for actual contributions than Rice.

Who was more feared from 1975-1986, Jim Rice or George Brett? Let's grant that it was Rice. That just tells us that the "fearers" weren't as rational as we can be in determining "most dangerous" or "best." Why give it any credence or weight?

114. Obama Bomaye Posted: January 27, 2009 at 07:11 PM (#3061707)

There are no hippos in my apartment. In fact, I've never seen one anywhere on my block. But if I ever do catch one hiding under my bed, I'll make sure to be scared.

115. SoSH U at work Posted: January 27, 2009 at 07:12 PM (#3061709)

Perhaps it is, but in the grand scheme of things, it's irrelevant.

Which is more likely to be named as "feared," a hippopotamus or a spider? Hippos kill more people per year (and adjusted for numbers of hippos vs. numbers of spiders, hippos are a TON, no pun intended, more dangerous). And yet there is no water-horse equivalent of arachniphobia. (One can likely find lots more comparisons like these). Fear is not necessarily rationally applied. The most feared person might not be the most dangerous person. Giving any sort of weight to Rice's being most feared misses the point -- if he doesn't perform as well as another player, it really doesn't matter that he's more feared or not, the other player is better and deserves more recognition for actual contributions than Rice.

Who was more feared from 1975-1986, Jim Rice or George Brett? Let's grant that it was Rice. That just tells us that the "fearers" weren't as rational as we can be in determining "most dangerous" or "best." Why give it any credence or weight?

I've never said it had any relevance, in any thread.

I would say that the bandwidth SABR-friendly writers used disputing whether Rice was actually feared was counterproductive to the cause of demonstrating that Rice was not worthy of the Hall of Fame. Arguing that Rice wasn't feared invited the kind of "you had to be there" counterargument from people who, like me, remember Rice being routinely referred to in that way when he at his peak. Arguing the relevance of that fear would have been a much wiser strategy.

116. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 27, 2009 at 07:13 PM (#3061714)

I think you're wrong, Chris. Most fans back in the 1970s thought of Blyleven as a .500 pitcher on .500 teams. There were other pitchers working for primarily mediocre teams, like Perry and Ryan (and Seaver, though not to the same extent), who were perceived as being better than their teams.

I don't recall that view of Ryan at all. I recall Ryan as being thought of as (duh) a dominating pitcher, when he was on, but as a rather disappointing pitcher overall who never was much about .500 because of his lack of control. You remember the infamous Bavasi line about being able to replace him with two 8-7 pitchers, which, though obviously an exaggeration even at the time, expressed the view of him as never really pitching as well as he should have.

117. SoSH U at work Posted: January 27, 2009 at 07:21 PM (#3061725)

I don't recall that view of Ryan at all. I recall Ryan as being thought of as (duh) a dominating pitcher, when he was on, but as a rather disappointing pitcher overall who never was much about .500 because of his lack of control. You remember the infamous Bavasi line about being able to replace him with two 8-7 pitchers, which, though obviously an exaggeration even at the time, expressed the view of him as never really pitching as well as he should have.

Yup, that was my recollection. It wasn't until later in his career where Ryan's reputation began to shift, and then was given a singificant boost by the no-hitting and Ventura-rustling he was doing as an old man.

118. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 27, 2009 at 07:23 PM (#3061730)

Does this apply to you and me and everyone else in this discussion? Do you think we're the only ones who put in the necessary "work"?

On this subject, yes. On other subjects, no. As Treder referenced on the previous page, I'm a casual football fan, and my views on that subject are shaped by media coverage. Were I to express an opinion on a player in the NFL, my views would simply parrot those of what the media tells me, even though I assume that NFL reporters are all dumbasses too. I have no basis for forming other conclusions.

119. Steve Treder Posted: January 27, 2009 at 07:26 PM (#3061733)

It wasn't until later in his career where Ryan's reputation began to shift, and then was given a singificant boost by the no-hitting and Ventura-rustling he was doing as an old man.

And the fact that he was an old man, and just went on and on and on, really stoked the growth of Ryan's reputation (and, as far as that goes, it well should have). But in the '70s, even in Ryan's peak years with the Angels, he was regarded as much more a high-talent enigma than a great pitcher.

120. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 27, 2009 at 07:34 PM (#3061740)

On this subject, yes.

I don't think the pool of serious baseball fans (fans like us) is nearly as small you're suggesting. We're not that special.

On other subjects, no. As Treder referenced on the previous page, I'm a casual football fan, and my views on that subject are shaped by media coverage. Were I to express an opinion on a player in the NFL, my views would simply parrot those of what the media tells me, even though I assume that NFL reporters are all dumbasses too. I have no basis for forming other conclusions.

What about other friends who are serious football fans?

121. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 27, 2009 at 07:37 PM (#3061746)

What about other friends who are serious football fans?

Unless they are studying the game films, which AFAIK are not available to the public, they are likely to only be able to form an educated opinion on a few skill positions.

The "Football Outsider" guys are doing good work with stats, but, to seriously evaluate most football positions, you've got to have the film.

122. Bob Dernier Cri

Posted: January 27, 2009 at 07:38 PM (#3061751)

I was hugely skeptical of the Rangers' signing of Ryan, figuring that he would be just a crowd-pleasing gimmick of sorts. His first three years in Texas, though, he was simply outstanding. His control was remarkable; he was just a changed pitcher. It wasn't just the boots and Ventura's blood on his jersey; briefly, he was a damn good complete package as a pitcher (in fact, from about 1987 in Houston through 1991 in Texas, he was astonishing). And you can read this in the stat lines; it's not just the Texas media influencing me :) He made one leaderboard in WHIP during the 1970s (8th in 1973), despite being harder to hit than any pitcher in history. He led the AL in WHIP in 1990 and '91, second in 1989. It wasn't just that he lasted past 40, but that he finally put things together at 40 ...

123. Dag Nabbit and his imaginary friends Posted: January 27, 2009 at 07:42 PM (#3061761)

The typical sportswriter, let alone the typical fan, hasn't conducted nearly that detail of research into Blyleven's numbers. They would see doing so as laughably esoteric.

?

?

?

Huh? You think that level of research is needed to draw that conclusion? That's utterly wrong. All that showed was that Blyleven continually posted .500-ish records for .500-ish teams. That's what people would notice. We're talking PERCEPTIONS here. Not doing better than lackluster teammaetes is a great way to establish the PERCEPTION that you're not a first-rater.

124. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 27, 2009 at 07:43 PM (#3061762)

My recollection is that the "turnaround" moment for Ryan's reputation came after 1987, when he led the NL in both ERA and strikeouts by decent margins, but had an 8-16 record. The "unfairness" of it worked as an antidote to the "spectacular .500 pitcher" meme that had dogged him.

125. Mike Green Posted: January 27, 2009 at 07:43 PM (#3061764)

There was a point that newspaper writers (as a whole) knew as much about the game as anybody. OK, that's not literally true. Branch Rickey knew more about it than any of the ink-stained wretches. Now, writers on the whole know little more than the casual fan, save for gossip about the teams they cover.

For instance, teams almost uniformly realize that the single most important part of offence is reaching base. They post seasonal on-base percentages on scoreboards. Trammell's single most impressive easily-understood qualification is a .352 on-base percentage from a long-career shortstop, but the writers on the whole continue to see on-base percentage as a strange number and so are unable to comprehend the number or its meaning.

126. Chris Dial Posted: January 27, 2009 at 07:44 PM (#3061766)

Arguing that Rice wasn't feared invited the kind of "you had to be there" counterargument from people who, like me, remember Rice being routinely referred to in that way when he at his peak.

"Routinely referred to"? Cite? By whom?

127. Dag Nabbit and his imaginary friends Posted: January 27, 2009 at 07:46 PM (#3061772)

Why did those fans choose those numbers?

Because that's what they learned from their fathers. Who learned it from their fathers. And if you go back in time, win-loss records were decided as a good way to evaluate pitchers in the misty early days of baseball. Sportswriters played A role (not THE role) in popularlzing them. They caught on because fans and players both found them a good shorthand tool for gauging value. The accuracy of that decision was a whole other story, but it was in place longer than the memories of everyone alive by the time Bert Blyleven made his MLB debut.

To argue it was some sort of conspiracy of nefarious sportswriters who sought to subvert America's undestanding of baseball . . . man, if I wanted to put up with that analysis, I'd listen to Geraldo Rivera complain about how Governor Blagojevich is being unfairly railroaded into an ill-deserved impeachment.

128. SoSH U at work Posted: January 27, 2009 at 07:49 PM (#3061778)

"Routinely referred to"? Cite? By whom?

Play by play guys. Beat writers. Unlike you, I wasn't in direct contact with any big leaguers.

129. Steve Treder Posted: January 27, 2009 at 07:49 PM (#3061779)

To argue it was some sort of conspiracy of nefarious sportswriters who sought to subvert America's undestanding of baseball

Oh, come on, Chris. No one has argued anything of the sort.

130. JPWF13

Posted: January 27, 2009 at 07:56 PM (#3061788)

Bert Blyleven (287-250), for all the cavilling around here, gets a lot more HoF support than Tommy John (288-231).

That goes to another issue- campaigning
Blyleven has been the beneficiary of an ongoing campaign to get him elected - neither Tommy John nor Jim Kaat have been so blessed.
There was in the last few years an ongoing campaign in favor of Jim Rice.

I bet if the Yankee media office (or whatever team Don Mattingly works for now...) starts feeding writers tidbits like "at the time Don Mattingly's 145 RBI in 1985 were the most for a 1b since 1938" and "during his peak from 1984-89 Don Mattingly had 49 more RBIs than the next best batter- HOFer Dave Winfield, and 78 more than HOFers Eddie Murray and Mike Schmidt"...
you'd see those tidbits creep into print come HOF voting time and his vote total will spike noticeably.

131. Dag Nabbit and his imaginary friends Posted: January 27, 2009 at 07:57 PM (#3061789)

Expecting a Hall of Fame caliber pitcher to considerably exceed his teammate's mediocre winning record over an eight year period is by and large a perfectly reasonable expectation to make.

Except approximately *ZERO* fans have any idea what a pitcher's winning percentage is in relation to his team's percentage. Run that blurb for Jack Morris.

Well, the blurb said "his teammate's mediocre winning record." I thew it mediocore for a reason. It's more impressive to go .540 for a .540 team (or .600 for a .600 one) than it is to go .510 for a .510 one.

But on to the larger point . . . . Blyleven't prime was 1970-77, during which he had a winning percentage 9 points higher than his team (or 11 points if you deduct Blyleven's own decisions).

Jack Morris, 1979-87: 158-99, .615
Tigers: 1979-87: 777-626, .554
non-Morris Tigers, 1979-87: 619-527, .540

The non-Morris Tigers would be expected to go 139-118 over 257 decisions, while Morris went 158-257.

Finally, you missed the main point - 99 out of 100, when looking at a pitcher unable to win more frequently than his middling teammates, it's reasonable to conclude he isn't first-rate.

Blyleven is the exception. But I understand why someone would miss than at the time. Also, it's perfectly reasonable to wonder why he didn't win more games than he did. He should've in those years, even after adjusting for run support.

132. Chris Dial Posted: January 27, 2009 at 07:57 PM (#3061790)

Play by play guys. Beat writers

So, the media. Did you hear it from me back then? No?

Unlike you, I wasn't in direct contact with any big leaguers.

You believe the media when they tell you what big leaguers said - why won't you believe me?

133. Dag Nabbit and his imaginary friends Posted: January 27, 2009 at 07:59 PM (#3061793)

JRVJ: I don't think Chris is arguing against Blyleven belonging in the Hall.

Does this mean me?

I think Blyleven belongs in. I'm just addressing the problem of perception with him.

134. Chris Dial Posted: January 27, 2009 at 07:59 PM (#3061794)

Finally, you missed the main point - 99 out of 100, when looking at a pitcher unable to win more frequently than his middling teammates, it's reasonable to conclude he isn't first-rate.

You seemed to have missed my main point - those with the access to address hundreds of thousands have an obligation to point out the exceptions, not to just dumbly drag along with teh crowd.

135. SoSH U at work Posted: January 27, 2009 at 08:00 PM (#3061795)

What AL pitchers were you in contact with in the late 1970s, early 1980s?

136. Chris Dial Posted: January 27, 2009 at 08:02 PM (#3061800)

To argue it was some sort of conspiracy of nefarious sportswriters who sought to subvert America's undestanding of baseball . . . man, if I wanted to put up with that analysis, I'd listen to Geraldo Rivera complain about how Governor Blagojevich is being unfairly railroaded into an ill-deserved impeachment.

Well, you *do* go along with it. You support it. You say so here: "99 out of 100, when looking at a pitcher unable to win more frequently than his middling teammates, it's reasonable to conclude he isn't first-rate. "

So why bother looking for exceptions? In fact, if a player hits 300/30 HRs/100 RBIs, then he's usually a really good player. Except for when he isn't. Excusing laziness isn't something I am wont to do.

137. Chris Dial Posted: January 27, 2009 at 08:03 PM (#3061805)

What AL pitchers were you in contact with in the late 1970s, early 1980s?

I'll have to check. Are you suggesting that only AL pitchers in that particular era may have used the term "feared" wrt a hitter? That somehow pitchers before and after are unfamiliar with the concept? Or since no other group faced Rice those pitchers don't understand what it means to fear a batter? That's an odd position.

138. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 27, 2009 at 08:04 PM (#3061807)

Unless they are studying the game films, which AFAIK are not available to the public, they are likely to only be able to form an educated opinion on a few skill positions.

The "Football Outsider" guys are doing good work with stats, but, to seriously evaluate most football positions, you've got to have the film.

Are you saying that it's impossible for someone to form an educated opinion about the NFL without either studying game film or doing sophisticated statistical analysis?

139. Chris Dial Posted: January 27, 2009 at 08:05 PM (#3061810)

SOSH, I get it - you're a Rice fanboy. Move on.

140. SoSH U at work Posted: January 27, 2009 at 08:09 PM (#3061813)

I'll have to check. Are you suggesting that only AL pitchers in that particular era may have used the term "feared" wrt a hitter? That somehow pitchers before and after are unfamiliar with the concept? Or since no other group faced Rice those pitchers don't understand what it means to fear a batter? That's an odd position.

That would be an odd position, and I have no idea why you would come to that conclusion. I'm saying that NL pitchers' opinion of Rice in that era is irrelevant, since they wouldn't face him (as would AL pitcher's opinion of Parker, Foster be equally insignificant). So if you were busy peppering Bob Knepper with questions, I'm not sure I'd be throwing a lot of value on his opinion.

Edit to address this nonsense:

SOSH, I get it - you're a Rice fanboy. Move on.

No, Chris, I'm actually not even close to being a Rice fanboy. And if you read all of my posts on Rice, including in this thread, you'd realize this.

141. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 27, 2009 at 08:25 PM (#3061827)

Are you saying that it's impossible for someone to form an educated opinion about the NFL without either studying game film or doing sophisticated statistical analysis?

I'm saying it's impossible to have an educated opinion (to the extent educated baseball fans can) about the quality of most NFL players (linemen, LBs, DBs, even WR to some extent) w/o doing those things, or listening to/reading someone who does.

A standard TV production shows very little of the field of action. w/o access to the game films, it is very hard to know who is doing a good job and who isn't., e.g.
- an awesome CB can go unnoticed all game b/c he is blanketing his receiver and no throws go that way
- an awesome OL can be pancaking his man all day, but if the other 4 OLs suck, the running game will sputter and the QB will get killed
- an awesome DL or WR can do nothing b/c he is double and triple teamed all game
etc., etc.

Even the guys at "Football outsiders" readily admit that they are very limited in their analysis b/c they can't get the game films.

142. bads85 Posted: January 27, 2009 at 08:29 PM (#3061829)

the NFL without either studying game film

In Soviet Russia, the game films study you.

143. Chris Dial Posted: January 27, 2009 at 08:31 PM (#3061830)

So if you were busy peppering Bob Knepper with questions, I'm not sure I'd be throwing a lot of value on his opinion.

Because Bob Knepper would have *a feared batter*, if he feared batters. My point is that pitchers do not fear batters. they believe they can get them all out; you seem to think they don't think this way, or that only pitchers that faced jim rice know what it means to "fear a batter".

144. jmurph Posted: January 27, 2009 at 08:43 PM (#3061845)

I'm saying it's impossible to have an educated opinion (to the extent educated baseball fans can) about the quality of most NFL players (linemen, LBs, DBs, even WR to some extent) w/o doing those things, or listening to/reading someone who does.

145. Chris Dial Posted: January 27, 2009 at 08:45 PM (#3061847)

Snapper, I agree with your larger point, though I'd suggest "impossible to have an educated opinion" is a little harsh. There aren't as many measurables but you can still see a lot of the things you describe (if Freeney, for instance, is getting double-teamed all day by the opposing teams best linemen, that's a pretty good indicator that he's a quality pass-rusher).

I agree with this. You could have had previous experience with "how to study film", and it isn't that hard to do with game coverage today. With all the video available. Not an "every player every play" analysis, but you can know lots if you have a practiced/trained eye.

146. SoSH U at work Posted: January 27, 2009 at 08:48 PM (#3061849)

Because Bob Knepper would have *a feared batter*, if he feared batters. My point is that pitchers do not fear batters. they believe they can get them all out; you seem to think they don't think this way, or that only pitchers that faced jim rice know what it means to "fear a batter".

Chris, in an absolute sense, I agree. Other than Bonds in the early part of this decade, I don't think any batter has been truly feared. But "most feared" is more of a graded concept, and one that suggests the player that is most likely to cause concern/worry/sweat (as seen in this Gossage quote about Rice:
"From a pitcher's standpoint, no one scared me – but he was one of the guys that came the closest.”)

Is it likely the BBWAA and announcers condensed that type of opinion from numerous pitchers into "most feared," and was that extrapolation an overstatement? Probably. But it also wasn't created out of thin air, as far as I could tell either then or now.

147. Chris Dial Posted: January 27, 2009 at 08:58 PM (#3061855)

Is it likely the BBWAA and announcers condensed that type of opinion from numerous pitchers into "most feared," and was that extrapolation an overstatement? Probably. But it also wasn't created out of thin air, as far as I could tell either then or now.

The rhetoric that he was feared as a batter appears to me (from your Gossage quote) made up. I didn't fear Jim Rice, but he was close." Says "No one is feared", not that Jim Rice is feared.

Fear is a word with significant connotations, and the writers took "I don't fear anyone, but Jim Rice was a good hitter" to be "Jim Rice was a feared hitter". he was not. For me, that's "made up".

148. Chris Dial Posted: January 27, 2009 at 09:04 PM (#3061862)

And actually, SOSH, I have no problem with people that watched him play say "Man, he was a monster." I have a problem with that rhetoric making it into the vocabulary of LOTS of fans today that never saw the 1978 Jim Rice.

I also don't think "fear" is a HOF criterion.

149. Tom Nawrocki Posted: January 27, 2009 at 09:09 PM (#3061865)

ERA is involved, too, especially when it's on the order of 1.12. And of course a couple of other issues like no-hitters, and striking out 17 batters in the opening game of the World Series and such. The point, of course, is that the MSM's "analysis" goes no deeper than that, doesn't engage in such things as year-by-year comparisons of W-L against team W-L, etc.

You know, if you say the MSM only looks at W-L records, plus maybe ERA, and I can point out several examples where that's not true, and your response is, yes, because they're looking at these other things in those cases.... That supports my point rather than yours.

150. Chris Dial Posted: January 27, 2009 at 09:10 PM (#3061866)

You know, if you say the MSM only looks at W-L records, plus maybe ERA, and I can point out several examples where that's not true, and your response is, yes, because they're looking at these other things in those cases.... That supports my point rather than yours.

What would you say is the norm?

151. Steve Treder Posted: January 27, 2009 at 09:14 PM (#3061869)

What would you say is the norm?

Indeed. As in actually confronting the gist of the issue.

152. Andy H. Posted: January 27, 2009 at 09:17 PM (#3061873)

If you want to compare casual fan opinion to media opinion, I think All-Star voting would be a good start. It's the one place where fans decide something (for position players at least). I suppose there would be examples of the fans electing someone to the dismay of members of the media. Most of the examples I can think of would be where a long-time great (Ripken, for example) was elected well after their prime.

153. sardonic Posted: January 27, 2009 at 09:23 PM (#3061878)

Snapper, I agree with your larger point, though I'd suggest "impossible to have an educated opinion" is a little harsh. There aren't as many measurables but you can still see a lot of the things you describe (if Freeney, for instance, is getting double-teamed all day by the opposing teams best linemen, that's a pretty good indicator that he's a quality pass-rusher).
I agree with this. You could have had previous experience with "how to study film", and it isn't that hard to do with game coverage today. With all the video available. Not an "every player every play" analysis, but you can know lots if you have a practiced/trained eye.

You could also get out of your mom's basement and go to a game... (kidding! Actually I have no idea what the view is like at an NFL game, having never been, but you can pick up stuff at college football games, even from the student section).

154. SoSH U at work Posted: January 27, 2009 at 09:24 PM (#3061879)

And actually, SOSH, I have no problem with people that watched him play say "Man, he was a monster." I have a problem with that rhetoric making it into the vocabulary of LOTS of fans today that never saw the 1978 Jim Rice.

I also don't think "fear" is a HOF criterion.

I don't disagree with any of that. My objection throughout the lead up to the HOF voting was to the idea, offered by a lot of folks here and elsewhere, that the reputation of Rice didn't exist, and the attempts to disprove the reputation through flawed metrics such as intentional walks drawn (yes, that is one way in which we can assess how a player was perceived, but there are way too many other variables in that number to be perfectly aligned).

I'll say what I've consistently said about Rice: In the late 70s, early 80s, I believe Rice was the batter most American League pitchers feared making a mistake in the zone to. He could be retired on pitchers at the fringes/off the plate (which I think kept those IBBs down), but if you made a mistake in the strike zone, he was the player that was going to cause the greatest damage. And frankly, if AL pitchers didn't have this assessment of Rice, then they weren't paying attention.

But whether the reputation was well-deserved or even if whether it actually existed in the minds of American League pitchers doesn't change the fact that fans of 1970s/early 1980s AL baseball did hear Rice referred to regularly in such a way. And so writers of today who try to argue that the reputation didn't exist were, in my opinion, doing a disservice. It would have been better to argue "yeah, he was feared, so what?" then try to argue that fans/writers memories of Rice's reputation was incorrect. It invites the kind of "You had to be there" defense that is damn near impossible to overcome with logic.

155. Harveys Wallbangers

Posted: January 27, 2009 at 09:41 PM (#3061895)

I can't speak for ALL American League pitchers, but I know the Milwaukee Brewers staff after 1980 was far more concerned with first Dwight Evans and then Evans and Boggs on the Red Sox then Jim Rice.

Rice hit the Crew pretty well over his career but most of that damage was done early on. Later on in the words of Vukovich, keep it away and it's a double play. That was Pete's attempt to artistic license.

And I know other teams staffs held similar views. If you made a legit mistake to Rice you could pay. But if you pitched halfway smart you would win more times than not..........

156. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 27, 2009 at 09:46 PM (#3061897)

Snapper, I agree with your larger point, though I'd suggest "impossible to have an educated opinion" is a little harsh. There aren't as many measurables but you can still see a lot of the things you describe (if Freeney, for instance, is getting double-teamed all day by the opposing teams best linemen, that's a pretty good indicator that he's a quality pass-rusher).

I agree with this. You could have had previous experience with "how to study film", and it isn't that hard to do with game coverage today. With all the video available. Not an "every player every play" analysis, but you can know lots if you have a practiced/trained eye.

I didn't mean that you couldn't know anything. I meant educated in the sense of "know as much about football players performance as we know about baseball players using modern offensive/defensive stats".

If you're knowledgeable and watch a ton of games live and on TV maybe you can get to a "1970's baseball analysis" level of "education".

To reach a "modern baseball analysis" equivalent, you really need the films. I doubt even the most advanced football stats guys would claim they know as much about performance as we dedicated fans do in baseball.

157. Srul Itza Posted: January 27, 2009 at 09:50 PM (#3061899)

I recall Ryan as being thought of as (duh) a dominating pitcher, when he was on

I can remember conversations in 1988 about whether or not he was a Hall of Famer. At that point, he already had the K record, but not yet the 300 wins, and of course he had all the wildness. What turned the conversation for us was the 5 no-hitters he already had. We figured that would get him in the Hall. Of course, after that he turned into the beloved ancient fireballer, throwing lightning into his mid-40's

158. Srul Itza Posted: January 27, 2009 at 09:52 PM (#3061902)

remember Rice being routinely referred to in that way when he at his peak

I can recall a lot of guys being called that by TV and radio announcers at different times -- a way to hype the action. For some reason, it did not become part of some overarching mythos.

I get the impression that we will keep re-fighting the Rice Wars year and year, like a bunch of obsessed Civil War Re-enactors.

159. SoSH U at work Posted: January 27, 2009 at 09:57 PM (#3061907)

I can recall a lot of guys being called that by TV and radio announcers at different times -- a way to hype the action. For some reason, it did not become part of some overarching mythos.

See, I really don't recall that many guys being spoken of the same way in the AL (or at least as consistently). In fact, I've wondered why Sheffield never really got that reputation, since he had many of Rice's qualities (the ball jumping off his bat, good power, surly/bitter personality), while also having the advantage of being a significantly better hitter.

160. Tom Nawrocki Posted: January 27, 2009 at 10:00 PM (#3061909)

What would you say is the norm?

I would say that the norm is that won-lost record tends to track pretty well with pitcher quality, especially over the course of a long career, so it's hard to find paired examples of pitchers with similar W-L's where one was clearly better than the other.

But when they do, sportswriters are perfectly capable of sorting through them, and seeing, say, in the knot of Blyleven, Kaat and John that Blyleven is the best of the three. Or that Bob Gibson is better than Jack Morris. No one thinks that Tom Glavine (305-203) is as good as Tom Seaver (311-205).

If sportswriters weren't accounting for much more than W-L records, they wouldn't be able to discern these differences.

161. Srul Itza Posted: January 27, 2009 at 10:06 PM (#3061917)

My point is that pitchers do not fear batters. they believe they can get them all out

Based on how Barry Bonds was being handled in the first half of the 2000's, I am not sure I would agree with that -- unless your definition of "no fear" expands to include no fear of Barry Bonds hitting, so long as he was willing to swing at pitches 2 feet outside the strike zone.

162. Srul Itza Posted: January 27, 2009 at 10:08 PM (#3061918)

See, I really don't recall that many guys being spoken of the same way in the AL (or at least as consistently)

I don't recall Rice being spoken of that way consistently, either -- except by the Boston Media. For most announcers, it is a throw-away line -- like "one of the hardest throwers in the league"; "one of the most respected managers", and so on.

163. bads85 Posted: January 27, 2009 at 10:12 PM (#3061919)

See, I really don't recall that many guys being spoken of the same way in the AL (or at least as consistently). In fact, I've wondered why Sheffield never really got that reputation, since he had many of Rice's qualities (the ball jumping off his bat, good power, surly/bitter personality), while also having the advantage of being a significantly better hitter.

I believe the term "feared hitter" went out of vogue for a while --- I remember it being around during Rice's time, dropping off the radar in the mid nineties and becoming somewhat fashionable again when Albert Belle helped lead the Indians' resurgence.

164. JPWF13

Posted: January 27, 2009 at 10:21 PM (#3061923)

so it's hard to find paired examples of pitchers with similar W-L's where one was clearly better than the other.

I immediately thought Morris and Gibson... but you covered that.

Then I thought Milt Pappas and Don Drysdale.

No one thinks that Tom Glavine (305-203) is as good as Tom Seaver (311-205).

I'm sure there's a small minority that does.

How about this, why is Jim Bunning in and Mel Harder out?

165. Steve Treder Posted: January 27, 2009 at 10:33 PM (#3061930)

If sportswriters weren't accounting for much more than W-L records, they wouldn't be able to discern these differences.

I think you're carefully dancing around the periphery of the issue, instead of dealing with its core.

If indeed the typical sportswriter was capable of/willing to invest in more than the most superficial analysis of W-L/ERA, then Blyleven would long ago have been elected to the HOF. Giving them kudos for recognizing that he's better than John & Kaat isn't nearly so much the issue as the fact that they haven't recognized that he's better than the average pitcher already in the HOF -- and by far the most important reason they haven't is because they haven't seen past his W-L record, including his failure to break the magic 300 barrier.

The typical sportswriter hasn't even performed the year-by-year comparison of Blyleven's W-L with that of his teams, let alone the kind of sophisticated runs-prevented-above-average kind of stuff that statheads perform.

166. Chris Dial Posted: January 27, 2009 at 10:51 PM (#3061943)

Based on how Barry Bonds was being handled in the first half of the 2000's, I am not sure I would agree with that -- unless your definition of "no fear" expands to include no fear of Barry Bonds hitting, so long as he was willing to swing at pitches 2 feet outside the strike zone.

We excluded him early in this. He's clearly the exception.

167. Tom Nawrocki Posted: January 27, 2009 at 10:54 PM (#3061945)

If indeed the typical sportswriter was capable of/willing to invest in more than the most superficial analysis of W-L/ERA, then Blyleven would long ago have been elected to the HOF.

The problem is, we're arguing two different things. I'm saying sportswriters are smarter than you give them credit for. You're saying that sportswriters aren't nearly as smart as you are.

168. Chris Dial Posted: January 27, 2009 at 11:03 PM (#3061949)

Tom,
*is* there (IYO) a differentiation between Blyleven and Kaat/John?

I mean, people used to think all sorts of stuff (liek the sun revolved around the earth). Publicity of facts is paramount to changing how the public thinks of things. THe public would never have come around to "Oh, the earth revolves around the sun" without media. They wouldn't have "figured it out for themselves". The same with understanding how a pitcher with a similar W/L record can be differentiated from like records. Once this is revealed the 4th estate damn well better publicize it, and act on it. Otherwise they are perpetuating ignorance. Yes, AaronGleeman.com is awesome, but that doesn't reach the circulation of Sports Illustrated.

People that never saw Rice play will say "He was the most feared hitter". Why? Because they are *told* he was. Well, I want the MSM to stop it.

Poz says this correctly (the part about righting a wrong), but this type of ignorance is still perpetuated by the Ryan Howard MVP votes. So, for all your W/L records sort them out, BA/HR/RBI certainly does not.

This needs to end, and the only people with the reach to end it are the people who simply will not say that the emperor has no clothes. They said he had clothes earlier, and they are not going to change now.

169. Steve Treder Posted: January 27, 2009 at 11:03 PM (#3061950)

The problem is, we're arguing two different things. I'm saying sportswriters are smarter than you give them credit for. You're saying that sportswriters aren't nearly as smart as you are.

I guess so, in which case maybe we're both right, and/or both wrong. Fair enough.

170. Steve Treder Posted: January 27, 2009 at 11:06 PM (#3061951)

People that never saw Rice play will say "He was the most feared hitter". Why? Because they are *told* he was. Well, I want the MSM to stop it.

Poz says this correctly (the part about righting a wrong), but this type of ignorance is still perpetuated by the Ryan Howard MVP votes. So, for all your W/L records sort them out, BA/HR/RBI certainly does not.

This needs to end, and the only people with the reach to end it are the people who simply will not say that the emperor has no clothes. They said he had clothes earlier, and they are not going to change now.

This gets to the heart of the issue. Well said.

171. JPWF13

Posted: January 27, 2009 at 11:08 PM (#3061952)

This Treder/Dial lovefest is making me feel ill...

172. Chris Dial Posted: January 27, 2009 at 11:11 PM (#3061954)

Us too. Hey, we're allies with Germany (to some extent) these days.

173. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 27, 2009 at 11:35 PM (#3061965)

I don't recall Rice being spoken of that way consistently, either -- except by the Boston Media. For most announcers, it is a throw-away line -- like "one of the hardest throwers in the league"; "one of the most respected managers", and so on.

I would have no idea how Rice was being spoken of by the Boston media. My baseball media consumption consisted of the opionons of a) Scooter, White and Messer; b) the Daily News; c) the Game of the Week crew; d) SI; and my favorite, e) Jerry Girard. I never went on the Internet in the late 70s/early 1980s to see what CHB's predecessor was saying about the Sox.

174. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: January 28, 2009 at 03:23 AM (#3062040)

This is great reading.

175. Howie Menckel Posted: January 28, 2009 at 03:59 AM (#3062057)

http://books.google.com/books?id=cDQDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=jim+rice+pitchers+hate+face+baseball+digest&source=bl&ots=9jkfkec-05&sig=NCV15VCExlSPhLyCB8GWHaM8zLc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA1,M1

That's an August 1978 Baseball Digest article titled, "Why Pitchers Hate to Face Jim Rice"

spoiler alert: It may appeal most to those who insist Rice WAS described as so feared by sportswriters, but it doesn't have a single P, iirc, quoted.

FYI, I not only was a subscriber to this mag at the time (as well as Football, Basketball, Hockey and even Soccer Digest), I also bought the magnetic standings board in the ad at the bottom of the article.

FYI, this is the entire magazine. The ads alone are worth a peek, if you can't stomach another Rice meal...

176. Chris Dial Posted: January 28, 2009 at 04:30 AM (#3062067)

Thanks for that link. Rice is the most feared. No one says anything like that, except the author and maybe Johnny Pesky his coach. I guess, if George Foster was also feared, then Reggie Jackson.

177. Chris Dial Posted: January 28, 2009 at 04:41 AM (#3062072)

Again thanks. You can google "feared hitter" in there and get lots of stuff:
"[Al] Oliver was among the National League's most feared hitters..."

I guess he was among them at the All-Star game.

178. villageidiom Posted: January 28, 2009 at 04:57 AM (#3062077)

Produce some contemporaneous quotes of players saying as I said, or I'll believe that "most feared" is a media construct. I'm surprised that "most feared hitter" as a media construct is such a controversial position.

April 1979 Baseball Digest, poll of players, managers, and media, Rice was unanimously selected as the "most dangerous hitter" in the AL. If you want to go down the pedantic path of "most dangerous, sure, but it doesn't say they feared him", good luck with that.

As far as the contemporaneous direct quotes from players... How many players back then would go on the record with something like that? I reckon none. You only got that kind of talk from players of that era once they were done. Why would any player of that day volunteer that kind of info about a player they were going to face, especially when nobody else was talking about fearing anyone? Who wants to be the first one to 'fess up? These days it's not hard to get players to say something, even about players they'll soon face, but back then it just wasn't done.

Do you believe everything in Ball Four was made up, too? There's a lack of contemporaneous quotes about the things Bouton described. If someone chooses to believe it's all made up by Bouton on the basis of a lack of contemporaneous quotes, how obtuse would you think they were being?

You can believe what you want. You just seem to be taking a bizarre conspiracy-theory tack on this. I find it to be far more plausible that the present-day media is simply hammering away at one annoying talking point as though it's the only thing that matters, than that 30 years ago the entire baseball media world conspired to fabricate flattering stories about a player they didn't get along with very well.

179. RayDiPerna

Posted: January 28, 2009 at 05:29 AM (#3062088)

And the fact that he was an old man, and just went on and on and on, really stoked the growth of Ryan's reputation (and, as far as that goes, it well should have). But in the '70s, even in Ryan's peak years with the Angels, he was regarded as much more a high-talent enigma than a great pitcher.

I started watching baseball in 1986 (Red Sox) and my image of Ryan was formed in his Rangers' years, when as an old man he would come into Boston and the writers would wonder if one day Clemens would grow up to be as good as his idol. Meanwhile, the only thing that seemed to matter to them about Ryan's performance was how many batters he struck out.

180. RayDiPerna

Posted: January 28, 2009 at 05:34 AM (#3062089)

As Treder referenced on the previous page, I'm a casual football fan, and my views on that subject are shaped by media coverage. Were I to express an opinion on a player in the NFL, my views would simply parrot those of what the media tells me, even though I assume that NFL reporters are all dumbasses too. I have no basis for forming other conclusions.

I'm in the same boat, and I find it frustrating when I think the media view of a player/team/offense/coach is wrong, but I don't have any foundation for seriously disputing it.

Does anyone else get annoyed at the NFL tv coverage, specifically the announcers? They seem to live in a world in which every player is above average. As long as he's a starter, he's good. They show some non-descript receiver making a good play, and all of a sudden he's Jerry Rice. John Madden will repeat the guy's name over and over again and tell us how great he is.

181. Robert Machemer Posted: January 28, 2009 at 06:32 AM (#3062101)

April 1979 Baseball Digest, poll of players, managers, and media, Rice was unanimously selected as the "most dangerous hitter" in the AL. If you want to go down the pedantic path of "most dangerous, sure, but it doesn't say they feared him", good luck with that.

And, in fact, this is EXACTLY the right moment in time for Rice to deserve to be called the most feared/dangerous/valuable hitter in the American League. 1978 had just passed and Rice had been the best hitter in the American League. He wasn't the best hitter in the league in 1977, he wasn't the best hitter in the league if one combines 1977 and 1978, he wouldn't be the best hitter in the league in 1979, but based on the exploits of the previous year, at that moment they were right to fear Rice most.

182. Exploring Leftist Conservatism since 2008 (ark..) Posted: January 28, 2009 at 06:54 AM (#3062108)

I have this same memory. I'm still trying to figure out when the perception on these two changed.

Yeah, when I was growing up, Alan Trammell was my favorite player and Lou Whitaker was my brother's favorite. This colors my perception, but it always just seemed to be a given to us that they were HOFers. I was really, really surprised when the tone people used to describe their careers completely changed in just a few years after they retired. Still makes me mad, and I don't think my brother has really gotten over it.

I wonder if it has something to do with Trammell being, well, not good in his last six years. He had the one good year left, and otherwise was barely a part-timer. Whitaker, on the other hand, was still a terrific hitter right up until he retired.

So, never mind.

183. Jittery McFrog Posted: January 28, 2009 at 07:07 AM (#3062109)

For those who said that fans can form their own judgments, ask yourself this: based on what?

There are three things:
1. How the player looks on the field.
2. The player's numbers.
3. How the media describes him.

But "the media" is comprised of many voices. It's not some undifferentiated univocal blob.

On this very thread Poz has been acknowledged as being a standout member of "the media". Well, there are plenty of others. In fact, there have been standout members of the media throughout baseball history.

Fans who care about baseball can -- and, I think, do -- discern which members of the media are worth reading/listening to/watching. And in that way, fans can form their own judgements.

If that's the case, then we should see examples of players whose image among fans differs from their portrayal by reporters. Is there some player who fans think of as a jerk even though the media loves him? Or vice versa? Is there some player who fans think of as being a choker, as not seeming like a non-HOFer, etc. even though the media tries to portray him as a winner, portray him as a future HOFer? Or vice versa? Surely if fans form their own opinions, they must occasionally come to different conclusions than the media.

Okay, what sort of evidence would prove to your satisfaction that a player's "image among fans" differs from his portrayal in "the media"? Surely we can't use accounts from "the media" of what fans' images are. A number of posters have suggested examples based on anecdote and impression (which aren't especially testable) to which you've replied with contrary impressions (likewise untestable). You've made a claim that isn't readily testable, and then demanded falsification.

What they [the fans] lack, however, is an ability to (readily) gather information that would enable them to think for themselves. You're not in the clubhouse; how do you know whether a player is a veteran leader or an unpopular, self-centered mercenary jerk who only cares about his own stats?

So which stats do you use to decide whether a player is a jerk? And since the answer is "None, stats can't tell me that", do honestly claim to have no sense whatsoever about which players are jerks/gentlemen, fiery/calm, etc.? I'm guessing you do, and that those impressions are formed by watching players, by watching interviews of players, by reading profiles of players by journalists you respect. And I think that's what many committed fans do too, and these are the sorts of bases on which they form their own judgements.

184. greenback

Posted: January 28, 2009 at 07:25 AM (#3062114)

But "the media" is comprised of many voices. It's not some undifferentiated univocal blob.

It's even more complicated than that, since many in the media are stating what they believe their readers want to read. This is driving force behind the whole Fox News phenomenon.

185. Will Shave Off My Listach for an O's Win Posted: January 28, 2009 at 10:06 AM (#3062123)

For Trammell, I can remember some books saying they thought he and Whitaker should go into the Hall together, circa '88 or so.

I also wonder if maybe a certain Bill Madlock slide on Tony Fernandez that took Toronto's star SS out of the game... had just a little bit to do with Trammell not getting the MVP award. No logical reason for it, but... that play stuck with everybody (Tank McNamara did a cartoon about it...)

186. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 28, 2009 at 11:49 AM (#3062128)

This is driving force behind the whole Fox News phenomenon.

The whole Fox News phenomenon is very simple. They have all of the conservative viewers, while liberal viewers are split up between the other networks.

If Fox had a nightly news program for their affiliates, it would eventually best the nightly news shows on CBS, NBC and ABC, too.

As long as there is only one conservative-leaning network to go to on cable, Fox News will be at the top of the heap.

187. Chris Dial Posted: January 28, 2009 at 01:26 PM (#3062147)

April 1979 Baseball Digest, poll of players, managers, and media, Rice was unanimously selected as the "most dangerous hitter" in the AL. If you want to go down the pedantic path of "most dangerous, sure, but it doesn't say they feared him", good luck with that.

Well, that's accurate. For two seasons, Jim Rice *was* the best (most dangerous) hitter. But that doesn't mean teams/pitchers feared him. Their behavior is clearly different from that view. To call is fear, is well, fear-mongering, creating a different view of how good Rice was. Barry Bonds' performances were performances to be feared. They were other-wordly. Rice simply had some good seasons. Which present dictator does the US fear the most? Which is the most dangerous? Words have meaning and project a status. Rice simply didn't have that level of dominance.

As far as the contemporaneous direct quotes from players... How many players back then would go on the record with something like that? I reckon none. You only got that kind of talk from players of that era once they were done. Why would any player of that day volunteer that kind of info about a player they were going to face, especially when nobody else was talking about fearing anyone? Who wants to be the first one to 'fess up? These days it's not hard to get players to say something, even about players they'll soon face, but back then it just wasn't done.

So you are saying the players *didn't* say they feared Rice, and the media just made that up?

Do you believe everything in Ball Four was made up, too? There's a lack of contemporaneous quotes about the things Bouton described. If someone chooses to believe it's all made up by Bouton on the basis of a lack of contemporaneous quotes, how obtuse would you think they were being?

Are you familiar with "Ball Four"? It is written by a player. It has lots of contemporaneous quotes. Hell, everything about it is. Do I think Bouton made up some of it? Probably. You seem to think everything in there is gospel, and moreover understated.

You can believe what you want.

Thank you. I was waiting for your permission.

You just seem to be taking a bizarre conspiracy-theory tack on this.

No I am not. the only people that find this so objectionable (thusfar) are Red Sox fans. How odd.

I find it to be far more plausible that the present-day media is simply hammering away at one annoying talking point as though it's the only thing that matters, than that 30 years ago the entire baseball media world conspired to fabricate flattering stories about a player they didn't get along with very well.

It isn't "conspired" (as I have said repeatedly, but you seem to ignore). They don't really *CARE* who the best player is, but who they can write a better story about. I wouldn't be surprised if you can't find contemporaneous quotes that Ryan Howard is teh most feared hitters these days. That's an utterly idiotic position. But you seem to subscribe to it. "Because it isn't a conspiracy, they write what the public thinks".

188. Chris Dial Posted: January 28, 2009 at 01:36 PM (#3062152)

So which stats do you use to decide whether a player is a jerk? And since the answer is "None, stats can't tell me that", do honestly claim to have no sense whatsoever about which players are jerks/gentlemen, fiery/calm, etc.? I'm guessing you do, and that those impressions are formed by watching players, by watching interviews of players, by reading profiles of players by journalists you respect. And I think that's what many committed fans do too, and these are the sorts of bases on which they form their own judgements.

I'll go first. I don't generally care if a player is a jerk. And second to that, it requires players saying they were jerks, and usually multiple jerks - direct quotes from the player that are jerky,and/or MY specific interactions with that player (or that player with friends of mine). I NEVER care that a player was reportedly a jerk to the media. NEVER. There's no such thing that isn't as simple as a media member being slighted.

The best example of this is the incident where Bonds was reported in a few hundred media outlets that he said "Back up or I'll snap", which was later revealed that he was talking about crushing in on his son.

Moreover, look at the media treatment of Manny in Boston. Up until he was persona non grata, he was a lovable goof-off. Manny being Manny. Then he refused to play (or something) and whoosh, it was all different. Then he tore up the NL, and he's back to being awesome. It isn't simply reporting, it is injecting your personal feelings into the situation. Rick Reilly asking Sosa to take a pisstest.

The number of MSM that write like Poz are, well, Poz. Every other one falls into the traps of "how this impacts me". For every one that stands out there are tons that do not give one whit about OPS+ or VORP. And here's a hint, Rob Neyer isn't MSM (yet). Even some that like to use OPS+ and VORP often, will slide right back into voting for Ryan Howard over Albert Pujols (or Carlos Beltran). I mean Juan Gonzalez has TWO MVP awards. And outside of our community, people don't think it is a sham.

189. RMc's grumbling has gone far enough Posted: January 28, 2009 at 04:16 PM (#3062316)

In 1984, Tram and Lou were generally considered future HOFers, or at least on pace to be. Then:

1) They made the playoffs only one more time, choking to the inferior Twins;
2) The Tigers began to suck late in their careers, then suck and blow for a decade after they retired;
2a) Tram managed the 2003 Tigers, arguably the worst MLB team since the Cleveland Spiders;
3) Tram and Lou played their entire careers in...Detroit. Enough said;
4) Other shortstops like Ripken et al began putting up big numbers, making Tram's look weaker;
5) Lou was quiet, black and had an airhead reputation. No five percent for you!
6) Did I mention they played their whole careers in Detroit?

190. Tom Nawrocki Posted: January 28, 2009 at 04:41 PM (#3062346)

Tom,
*is* there (IYO) a differentiation between Blyleven and Kaat/John?

I think so. Blyleven has the best ERA+ of the three, 118 to 110 (John) and 107 (Kaat), and also the most innings pitched. To my mind, Blyleven's greatest qualification is the fact that he finished in the Top Ten in ERA in ten different seasons (12 seasons for ERA+), and in the Top Five in seven seasons (also seven seasons for ERA+). That's pretty heroic.

Note too, that John and Kaat each won 20 games three times while Blyleven did so only once, further dampening the "W-L is all sportswriters look at" theory. Also, for the hardy few still believing there's a Hall o Fame conspiracy against players in small markets, note that Tommy John spent almost his entire career in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles.

And can somebody fix the widths on this thread?

Page 2 of 2 pages < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Joe Posnanski Blog: Why We Need Numbers

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics