11/23/24
October 28, 2006
Derek Jeter wins American League Hank Aaron Award: as the best offensive performer in the Junior Circuit.
Definetly given to the right player. As much as I am not a Derek Jeter fan, he goes out and puts up the numbers. And I agree with you dyams. If it were not for Jeter, they would not have had 85 wins.
posted by Ghastly1 at 09:06 AM on October 28, 2006
grumbait.
posted by goddam at 09:53 AM on October 28, 2006
Dyams, ghastly, did you read the links? This isn't the mvp, this is the hank aaron award, strictly the best offensive player in the league. So this kept the team clicking through the injuries the team experienced and the on-going A-Rod fiasco. If Jeter would have had a poor year with the bat, I doubt the Yankees make 85 wins means nothing. You can throw out playing through injuries, great in the clubhouse, good defense, kept his team in first place etc. etc. Offensive numbers is the only thing that counts. Jeter will probably win the mvp, and I don't have a problem with that. But his winning the hank aaron award, when there were better choices imho, pretty much shows what a farce end of season mlb awards are.
posted by justgary at 10:39 AM on October 28, 2006
grumbait. When I saw the news scroll by the bottom of the screen on the local sports station, I thought the Hank Aaron Award was something the MLBPA voted on. In which case, I'd have no problem with his peers selecting him as he did have a great year (combining offense and defense) and he would be a pretty good choice. Now I read that it's just for offensive value, and I'm going to have to agree with most of what was written in that second link. It's a bad choice. Not "George Bell, 1987 MVP" bad, but bad nonetheless. I also feel he was what really kept the team clicking through the injuries the team experienced and the on-going A-Rod fiasco. It could also be said that he had a role in the "on-going A-Rod fiasco".
posted by grum@work at 10:57 AM on October 28, 2006
Travis Hafner is a better hitter than Derek Jeter. So are lots of other people. Its a shame Hafner never gets the recognition he deserves.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 12:07 PM on October 28, 2006
What I said: I think the award is well-deserved. Jeter's offensive numbers this year speak for themselves, but his consistency throughout the year was what really struck me. What justgary said: Dyams, ghastly, did you read the links? This isn't the mvp, this is the hank aaron award, strictly the best offensive player in the league. What the story (which I did read) said: Jeter ranked second in the American League with a .343 batting average and 118 runs scored, fourth with a .417 on-base percentage and sixth with 34 stolen bases. Jeter also drove in 97 runs out of the No. 2 spot in New York's lineup. According to the Elias Sports Bureau, Jeter became just the fifth player in the past 75 seasons to hit .340 or higher, drive in at least 90 runs and steal 30 or more bases in the same season. The others were Larry Walker (1997), Ellis Burks (1996), Willie Mays (1958) and Jackie Robinson (1949). So I know what I was commenting on. I believe my first sentence stated this. Just because it's the Aaron award doesn't mean it needs to be about strictly homers and RBI. Sometimes stolen bases and runs scored need to be taken into consideration as offensive categories. What I said about the Yankees benefiting as a team was only meant to back up how impressive Jeter's stats were. Maybe you believe others deserved this (possibly) more than Jeter, but the award isn't a "farce" because he received it.
posted by dyams at 12:17 PM on October 28, 2006
Jeter became just the fifth player in the past 75 seasons to hit .340 or higher, drive in at least 90 runs and steal 30 or more bases in the same season. Wow. I abuse stats more than most people, but at least I don't try to shoe-horn them into a narrow context like this. .340? 90? 30? These seem to be the most arbitrary of numbers. Let's compare the numbers: Jeter: .343/97/34 Walker: .363/130/33 Burks: .344/128/32 Mays: .347/96/31 Robinson: .342/124/37 It looks to me that the numbers were set to make sure Jeter qualifies, and happened to catch Mays in the same net. The telling value is RBI, as the other three qualifiers (Burks, Walker, Robinson) blow by the limit set. As well, the usual comparison point for RBI is 100 (like 100 runs). Throw in the fact that it was limited to just 75 seasons, and it smacks even more of "shoe-horning". If you drop that limitation and allow any season in MLB history where these stats were tracked, the number jumps up to...79. If you were to keep the 75 year limitation, and make the each of following small changes individually, you'd add the following seasons: Drop batting average to .330: Edgar Renteria (2003) Vladimir Guerrero (2002) Roberto Alomar (2001) Rod Carew (1976) Willie Mays (1957) Drop stolen bases to 25: Darren Erstad (2000) Drop RBI to 80: Gregg Jefferies (1993) Willie McGee (1985) Rod Carew (1975) Jeter had a good year, but it's not some mythical season like the ESB is trying to imply with their statement.
posted by grum@work at 12:49 PM on October 28, 2006
Its a shame Hafner never gets the recognition he deserves. It would definitely help his cause if he could play more than 140 games in a season. For the past 3 years (individually and collectively), he's had the best batting rate numbers of any player that qualifies (502 PA minimum), but his low number of plate appearances (compared to his competitors) has hurt his HR/R/RBI ("award numbers") totals. Throw in the fact that his team doesn't play in a major media market AND hasn't made the playoffs either, and it's hard for him to get the recognition he deserves.
posted by grum@work at 01:07 PM on October 28, 2006
I thought the Hank Aaron Award was something the MLBPA voted on. this was voted on by the fans, right? kind of like the david eckstein award holiday inn look again player of the year. seems like every year they add another award or two, brought to you by one the official sponsors of mlb. oh, and no, jeter didn't deserve this award. but when fans can't get the all-star game right, do you think they're always gonna get this stuff right too?
posted by goddam at 01:41 PM on October 28, 2006
Fan voting accounted for 30% of the points, with broadcaster and analyst voting accounting for the other 70%. (link) Broadasters, oh lord. Maybe you believe others deserved this (possibly) more than Jeter, but the award isn't a "farce" because he received it. Well, I had used the word joke, and thought that was too strong. Unlike the mvp where you can bring in all kinds of intangibles, you can pretty use stats to come up with the winner. Others didn't 'possibly' deserve it more, they did deserve it more. When the award should have easily come down to two or three players not named jeter, and jeter wins it, it devalues the award. Is that better than 'farce'? If you believe the second link is wrong, I'm open to hearing why, other than 'jeter had a great year so I don't have a problem with his selection'. I read the stats you commented on also. The second link and stats are much more convincing. These two things are possible. Jeter had a fantastic mvp type year and yet was not the top offensive player in the league.
posted by justgary at 02:40 PM on October 28, 2006
Fan voting accounted for 30% of the points, with broadcaster and analyst voting accounting for the other 70%. thanks gary. maybe the fact that the yankees have about 100 broadcasters had something to do with how the voting went this year.
posted by goddam at 03:03 PM on October 28, 2006
It would definitely help his cause if he could play more than 140 games in a season. It would also help if he wasn't a DH in the same league as the mystical David Ortiz.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 04:01 PM on October 28, 2006
Well, if you consider VORP and Win Shares: Jeter had the highest VORP in the AL this year (80.5 - behind only Pujols and Ryan Howard in the ML). Second was Hafner (79.7), Ortiz (76.8) and Sizemore (69.1). Jeter was 1st in Win Shares in the AL as well (33), just ahead of Mauer (31), Ortiz (29) and Ramirez (29). So, he's got that going for him. Which is nice.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 05:04 PM on October 28, 2006
Plus, he's dreamy.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 06:52 PM on October 28, 2006
Jeter had the highest VORP in the AL this year (80.5 - behind only Pujols and Ryan Howard in the ML). Second was Hafner (79.7), Ortiz (76.8) and Sizemore (69.1). That's value over a replacement player at that specific position. Shortstop is a much weaker hitting position than DH, so it is much easier to have a higher VORP at SS than it is at DH/1B/OF. In fact, a replacement player at SS is well below average for a major leaguer, so even being "average" with the bat would give you a big VORP. If you take pure value of the offensive contribution, MLV (Marginal Lineup Value, a measure of offensive production created by David Tate and further developed by Keith Woolner. MLV is an estimate of the additional number of runs a given player will contribute to a lineup that otherwise consists of average offensive performers. It is a component of VORP), then the rankings in the AL would be: 1: Hafner: 67.5 2: Ortiz: 62.2 3: Jeter: 44.5 As you can see, it's not even close. Jeter was 1st in Win Shares in the AL as well (33), just ahead of Mauer (31), Ortiz (29) and Ramirez (29). Win Shares are composed of offensive and defensive contributions. Throw them out, as we are only talking about offensive contributions.
posted by grum@work at 07:44 PM on October 28, 2006
Okay - straight batting Win Shares, he's second. Just behind Ortiz. (C'mon - you of all people shouldn't expect a high number of defensive win shares for Mr. Four Steps to His Left.) As you can see, it's not even close. Yes, but when it's ALL considered - the traditional and non-traditional stats - I keep coming up with Jeter in the top four in virtually every category save the power numbers. I think it's fairly safe to say that he's an impressively productive hitter without having the advantage of power. In fact, in some eyes, that makes his production all the more impressive. I would agree with you that statistically, the most impressive hitter in the AL is Hafner - just ahead of the Boston twins - but Jeter clearly belongs in the discussion. Perhaps, only for this year - but his numbers are impressive. Shortstop is a much weaker hitting position than DH, so it is much easier to have a higher VORP at SS than it is at DH/1B/OF I think that's a little simplified. There are good hitting shortstops that don't have Jeter's productivity. If it's so easy to have a high VORP in a weak hitting position, that should be reflected historically - so let's look: In 2006 of the top 10 VORP numbers - 7 of them came from 1B/DH/OF - the only SS was Jeter. Others in different positions were Cabrera and Mauer. 2005 - 7 1B/DH/OF - 2 SS in there (Michael Young and Tejada) 2004 - 9 1B/DH/OF - no SS 2003 - 7 1B/DH/OF - 2 SS (ARod and Renteria) And so on. It would appear that the majority of high VORP numbers come from, quite simply, the players that are having the best years, and their position is tangentally related - but it's certainly doesn't seem to be skewing the numbers in the favour of weak-hitting positions.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:22 PM on October 28, 2006
Plus, he's dreamy. true, but he's no ron duguay.
posted by goddam at 09:09 PM on October 28, 2006
There can only be one.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 09:17 PM on October 28, 2006
There can only be one. Wow, I work with her! How'd she end up on here?
posted by SummersEve at 07:55 AM on October 29, 2006
justgary, You should read your own links. Its justyou that interprets 'best offensive performer' as best offensive statistics. Multiple paragraphs in first link with both Aaron and Selig talking about how Jeter 'carries himself' off the field as being the reason he won.
posted by sfts2 at 08:29 AM on October 29, 2006
thanks gary. maybe the fact that the yankees have about 100 broadcasters had something to do with how the voting went this year. Heh. I think it comes down to laziness, and one too many awards. Jeter had a great offensive year, and he'll win the mvp, so they just get lazy and hand this one to him also. No one's really going to complain. You should read your own links. Its justyou that interprets 'best offensive performer' as best offensive statistics. Multiple paragraphs in first link with both Aaron and Selig talking about how Jeter 'carries himself' off the field as being the reason he won. posted by sfts2 And you might want to read slower. No where do they say jeter won because of the way he carried himself off the field. They praise jeter for it when discussing his winning. It would be as if you won the spofi award for best link, and I said "sfts2 came up with an amazing link, and he's a great guy in real life also". Doesn' mean it had anything to do with you winning. The hank aaron award is Best Offensive Performer sfts2, that's it. I'm not sure how to make it any clearer, or get you to understand. That's all that should be considered, and if other's considered more, as you did, then as I said before the award becomes meaningless.
posted by justgary at 10:05 AM on October 29, 2006
Grum, I'm afraid your statistics are like a lightpost to a drunk man -- it provides more support than illumination. .340? 90? 30? These seem to be the most arbitrary of numbers. So are .400. And 100. And 40/40. Tony Gwynn hit .394 and George Brett .390. But Ted Williams is the last man to hit .400. What does that mean? Alfonso Soriano is a 40/40 guy, but Vlad Guerrero isn't (39/40). What does that tell you? You argue that so many more people would be included into Jeter's select company if you just reduce the SBs by 25% or the RBIs by about 20%. Those seem like more than the "small changes" you claim they are. You can't have it both ways. Either the numbers mean something or they don't mean something. When I read this... 1. We can predict, quite accurately, how many runs a team will score if we know the team batting average, on-base %, and slugging average. (Also stolen bases and caught stealing, but let's keep it simple for a moment). This relationship is the team Runs Created measure discussed above. 2. This being the case, it is reasonable to say that a given player's contribution to the team offense is summarized by the effect he has on the team BA, OBP, and SLG. ... I don't know what to say. I wish I was an actuary, because it would save me from hours of having to watch a bunch of baseball games. I love Hank Aaron, and I am sorry that he is now connected to this really stupid award. I don't think Jeter deserved it, and I wish he hadn't won it. I cringed when I heard the news because I knew this was just the sort of opportunity Jeter-bashers love to use as a springboard to pull out a host of evidence of his suckiness using statistics I've never heard of and couldn't calculate without a spreadsheet and a scientific calculator (not just you, grum -- I'm responding as much to the whiny Fire Joe Morgan link... but still, you said you were done bashing the guy).
posted by BullpenPro at 11:50 AM on October 29, 2006
I wish I was an actuary, because it would save me from hours of having to watch a bunch of baseball games. Completely dick thing to say. Argue the point, not the man. Play the puck.
posted by yerfatma at 12:08 PM on October 29, 2006
I don't think Jeter deserved it, and I wish he hadn't won it. I don't get your anger bpp. You admit he shouldn't have won it. It's an award that gives itself to raw stats, much more than the mvp award, so it seems the use of as many stats, in every conceivable way, would be warranted. Would it be better to just link to another yahoo article on why jeter shouldn't have won based on some sportswriter's opinion? And yes, the writers at firejoemorgan are smartasses, but they are about everything, and I've never seen any bias against jeter, or the yankees for that matter. Of course, maybe I'm biased since I tend to like the site (though I often disagree with it). I haven't seen anything here that would be bashing jeter. It's the voters who got it wrong.
posted by justgary at 12:45 PM on October 29, 2006
.340? 90? 30? These seem to be the most arbitrary of numbers. So are .400. And 100. And 40/40. See, I think you are deliberately being obtuse here. Please tell me where people celebrate players that get 90 or more RBI? I can point out many places (and players) that are celebrated (or denigrated) for getting over (under) 100 RBI. Joe Carter's entire value in baseball literature is based on his consistent basis for getting 100 or more RBI a season. There are many popular statistical benchmarks in baseball. 90 RBIs is definitely not one of them. I knew this was just the sort of opportunity Jeter-bashers love to use as a springboard to pull out a host of evidence of his suckiness...but still, you said you were done bashing the guy How did I "bash" Jeter? I "bashed" the silly stat about Jeter's inclusion into some arbitrary "club" of .340/90/30. My comments were: "When I saw the news scroll by the bottom of the screen on the local sports station, I thought the Hank Aaron Award was something the MLBPA voted on. In which case, I'd have no problem with his peers selecting him as he did have a great year (combining offense and defense) and he would be a pretty good choice." "Jeter had a good year, but it's not some mythical season like the ESB is trying to imply with their statement." I have no idea how you can consider that "Jeter bashing". The fact that I don't think he had the best offensive season in the American League is not a "Jeter bash". Hafner and Ortiz put up bigger numbers, and that's what the award was supposed to be about.
posted by grum@work at 12:53 PM on October 29, 2006
Argue the point, not the man. I fail to see how being critical of the creators of some formula (MLV) for their attempts to reduce the game of baseball into a mathematical formula is a more offensive act than being critical of any other sports figure. I'm not sure if you missed my point or if you are for some reason holding me to a higher standard, but I'm not sure how I can express my disdain for the act without getting into the motives of the individuals undertaking those acts. I don't get your anger bpp. Sometimes it feels like nothing has done more to advance the invention of new statistics than the intent to discredit Derek Jeter. And sometimes it feels like, as soon as somebody points out that his stats are good in one area, suddenly those stats actually aren't all that telling, but this other new stat says more. And look, Jeter sucks in this one. I am an unapologetic fan of Jeter's, and it is sad that I have to root for him to get no personal accolades because it means lots more reading about everything he doesn't deserve. It is so, so tiresome.* On edit: Grum, the fact that benchmarks like 100 RBIs are widely recognized doesn't make them less arbitrary. The cavern between 99 and 100 is artificially created. To say that any set value is arbitrary should be obvious. Your argument came across as a little bit of witchhuntery due to your diligence in discrediting some arbitrary numbers with other arbitrary numbers (my perception). I am, sincerely, sorry if I misinterpreted your intentions. *(Unnecessary undertones of excessive anger and frustration may or may not be a result of a week that saw the end of a romantic relationship, the loss of a big project for my company, and my apartment building caught fire at 3am Wednesday morning and my apartment now smells like smoke and urinal cake for some reason.)
posted by BullpenPro at 01:02 PM on October 29, 2006
You argue that so many more people would be included into Jeter's select company if you just reduce the SBs by 25% or the RBIs by about 20%. Those seem like more than the "small changes" you claim they are. You can't have it both ways. Either the numbers mean something or they don't mean something. The numbers usually don't mean anything when you start combining 3 or more of them together to suggest some "elite" club. One of them (AVG, HR, SB) is a good measurement of a single skill. Two of them (HR/SB or AVG/HR or AVG/SB) is usually a good measurement of a combination of skills. But when you start dragging in 3 or more stats to make a "club", it gets very dicey. It starts to look like you are trying to make a specific "club" for a specific player. It gets REALLY obvious when one or more of the limits set for the club is below what is usually considered a benchmark in that stat (90 RBI instead of 100 RBI, 25HR instead of 30HR, .290 AVG instead of .300 AVG). At that point, the stats-bullshit-meter goes off in my head and I want to investigate why those limits were chosen. In the end, I've learned one very important fact: Larry Walker's 1997 season is one hell of a monster.
posted by grum@work at 01:04 PM on October 29, 2006
And look, Jeter sucks in this one. No, he finished 3rd in the AL in that stat. Finishing third behind 2 full-time DHs in not "sucking" by any stretch of the imagination. That means he beat out all the 1B and corner OF. For a shortstop to do that, is quite remarkable. Only a few SS in history have that sort of offensive contribution. To me, it seems like if someone doesn't praise Jeter explicitly, or suggests he's not the greatest player on the planet, you take it as "bashing". Sometimes it feels like nothing has done more to advance the invention of new statistics than the intent to discredit Derek Jeter. Is there a term for this? Persecution-complex-by-proxy? The advancement of statistical analysis was probably powered by the need to compare Jeter to his peers and those players before him. It was so that people could do a comparison to the greats of today to the greats of yesteryear, without having to listen to people say "Jeter's okay, but he's no [insert ancient SS here]." Most of the statistical analysis is done to provide some sort of "normalization". Park effects and changes in the game make it almost impossible to properly compare players of this era with those of the 1970s, 1960s and earlier. In 1991, Cal Ripken had a .940 OPS, with 210 hits, 34HR and 114RBI (in 162 games). In 1904, Honus Wagner had a .943 OPS, with 171 hits, 4HR and 75RBI (in 132 games). Standing alone, it seems pretty obvious that Ripken had a better season. But in the context of the game that was played at that time, Wagner's season is actually the better one. Without new ways to examine the data, great seasons like Wagner's would be eventually overshadowed by the high-offense era of the modern game.
posted by grum@work at 01:22 PM on October 29, 2006
jg, Read the article again. You can pick any nits with my wording that you want. If you want to really refute my point, find somewhere where it says what the criteria is for selecting this 'awardee' and find something that says that it should be based on any kind of statistical measure. Some people, including many who actually played the game or are actually involved with it in roles besides being a fan, don't weigh stats so heavily as fans do. Except of course, come contract time.
posted by sfts2 at 09:41 PM on October 29, 2006
Just as a very quick check on the utility of statistics as a measure of baseball performance, you know, the kind where you actually step between the white lines and stuff. The Cards ranked 17th, 16th, and 11th in the league in hitting, pitching, and fielding. FWIW
posted by sfts2 at 09:57 PM on October 29, 2006
If you want to really refute my point, find somewhere where it says what the criteria is for selecting this 'awardee' and find something that says that it should be based on any kind of statistical measure. From mlb.com: This coveted honor is awarded annually to the best overall offensive performer in both the American League and National League. You tell me sfts2, how would YOU measure 'best offensive performer'. What are you using besides stats? Throw out defense, how a player carries himself, how he is in the clubhouse, etc. etc. I'm open to suggestions. The Cards ranked 17th, 16th, and 11th in the league in hitting, pitching, and fielding. FWIW Which proves stats don't win games. That's why we don't play the game on paper. However, we're talking about an award here. Your argument holds no water. including many who actually played the game or are actually involved with it in roles besides being a fan, don't weigh stats so heavily as fans do. I played for many years, so you can drop that angle. I just want to hear how you would measure an award given strictly for offensive performance since you have a problem with using stats.
posted by justgary at 11:16 PM on October 29, 2006
Sometimes it feels like nothing has done more to advance the invention of new statistics than the intent to discredit Derek Jeter. I know how you feel bpp. I'm a big ortiz fan, and I think he's a hell of a clutch hitter. And yet I've read many times, including on here, multiple stats to prove he's not. And I really don't care. Game on the line, I'd bet on ortiz over any player I've ever seen. Ortiz and Jeter are two players that get so much praise there's a backlash, some of it bs, some with a little bit of truth. I have no problem with Jeter as mvp, and I don't think most people do. He had a fantastic year. In fact, I think he's such a lock that the voters for this award just gave it to Jeter when, because of slightly different criteria, he's not the best choice (though he's very close, and weedy made some good points). But I didn't post it as a "Jeter is overrated" link, and I hope you don't think I did. sorry 'bout all your problems. hope things turn around soon (and I never knew urinal cakes had a smell...eww)
posted by justgary at 11:25 PM on October 29, 2006
To me, it seems like if someone doesn't praise Jeter explicitly, or suggests he's not the greatest player on the planet, you take it as "bashing". Totally guilty as charged. Living in Connecticut, I get exposed to three types of people when it comes to Jeter: Yankee fans, Red Sox fans who respect Jeter and won't say anything bad about him (whether they think bad things or not), and Red Sox fans who will go out of their way to tear Jeter apart at the slightest provocation. I guess I've become programmed to brace for that third category any time there's any argument that appears to drop Jeter on a list. That's no excuse for overreacting here or anywhere else -- it's a programming bug. I'm working on it. Persecution-complex-by-proxy? That's fair, I guess, but the fact that I'm paranoid doesn't necessarily mean nobody's after me. I was introduced to VORP in a discussion (maybe here, maybe not, I can't remember) that was trying to prove that Jeter was just about the last shortstop you would ever want to have on your team. Now Jeter is rating pretty high in VORP, but, well, actually, that may not tell you a whole lot and here's another brand new stat I've never heard of called MLV in which Jeter, yes, is third, but "not even close" to the top tier there. See what I'm saying. I'm sure your argument is totally justified and makes all the sense in the world. And I wouldn't vote for Jeter. I don't need MLV, though. You can just use the old-fashioned HR & RBI argument. You can even throw in OPS if you want (though it really taxes my long division skills). Ortiz, Hafner, Dye, Thomas -- give it to one of those guys. Persecution complex? Lately I'm hearing that A-Rod's problems this year are Jeter's fault because he's not a good enough captain. And nobody seems to want to invent a stat that proves how rotten A-Rod really is. I guess that's being left to me. I'm gonna need a paper clip, some metal filings, a mirror and some ball bearings.
posted by BullpenPro at 09:36 AM on October 30, 2006
As I suggested before, I don't think the A-Rod stat you want is all that hard to come by. Look at his performance by win expectation and you should have the stat that either proves or disproves his ability to pad his stats in meaningless situations.
posted by yerfatma at 10:19 AM on October 30, 2006
justgary, I am not voting for best offensive performer or any other award, and I don't care how anyone selects one. My point is only that if you read the original link, and you can denigrate that it doesn't specifically say 'this is why' he was selected, you have the individual for whom the award is named, and the Commissioner of the body awarding it both talking about 'intangibles' in the context of why he was selected. I guess you can feel free to seek deeper meaning, I'm just reading and taking things at face value. Whatever. I don't have a problem using stats, I have a problem with just using (abusing) them. However, that point of view isn't really relevant to my original post at all - which was basically what seems to me to be ignoring what was obviously a highly critical criteria for the award, and reducing it to an argument of statistics. Its really less of any problem with what you might have written and more with the Fire Joe Morgan blog. Having said that, and in a desire to answer your question, you said it above, stats don't win games. Best offensive performer would be selected by based upon my judgment based upon my observation of a significant body of work, and potentially somewhat tempered by stats on who best helped his team win games and championships from the offensive side. Its a subjective thing, and rightfully so. Trying to reduce it to, and argue it using win shares and VORP and the rest of it loses much of what is fundamentally true about the game of baseball as played on the field. In my opinion.
posted by sfts2 at 11:06 AM on October 30, 2006
Missed the 3 minute edit rule. Upon rereading much of you wrote above, I do question, this comment. "Offensive numbers is the only thing that counts." because I think this is just your opinion, and not necessarily what the individuals who vote for the award take into account given that they might not be as stats oriented as you and many fans are.
posted by sfts2 at 11:19 AM on October 30, 2006
I do question, this comment. "Offensive numbers is the only thing that counts." because I think this is just your opinion, and not necessarily what the individuals who vote for the award take into account given that they might not be as stats oriented as you and many fans are. When I say offensive numbers are the only thing that count, I'm going by the definition of the award. It's offensive production, period. There's no way to spin it. There's no way to get around it. If the voters, or you, are adding more into the equation, then you're changing the award and it becomes meaningless. You might as well scrap the award. As far as being stats oriented I have no choice in this case, because one, it lends itself very well to stats (offensive production) and two, I haven't observed jeter, ortiz, hafner etc all year long, and I doubt the voters have seen much of every player in contention. How many of these voters have observed a significant body of work from the top 4 guys on 4 different teams? Do I trust the stats in this case or the 'observation' of fans and broadcasters? It's an easy choice. Almost everyone in this thread believes there was a better choice, some stronger than others. If you believe differently, I'm open to reasons, but only reasons pertaining to offensive production.
posted by justgary at 11:41 AM on October 30, 2006
Now Jeter is rating pretty high in VORP, but, well, actually, that may not tell you a whole lot and here's another brand new stat I've never heard of called MLV in which Jeter, yes, is third, but "not even close" to the top tier there. I agree that I didn't properly explain the difference between VORP and MLV, and it comes across as "I found a different stat to prove you wrong!". If I had explained it properly, I would have mentioned that MLV can be thought of as a raw value, while VORP is the refined value. Basically, Jeter is MILES ahead of a replacement player at SS because (in general) replacement shortstops are brutal with the bat (they usually get called up for defensive reasons). If they were any good, they'd be in the majors. Ortiz and Hafner are not as much ahead of replacement DH/1Bs because the position is usually filled with guys who do nothing BUT hit, even in the minors. But when you compare the replacement level SS to the replacement level DH/1B, it's no contest. VORP is the comparison by position. MLV can be thought of as the raw totals. And since the Hank Aaron award is NOT based on positional value (just "outstanding offensive performer in each league"), then there is no reason to baseline each performer by the position they play. If the award was "most valuable offensive performer", then Jeter's results would definitely put him at or near the top (with Joe Mauer), since having a player produce results like that at a position that normally doesn't makes him quite "valuable".
posted by grum@work at 11:57 AM on October 30, 2006
Kiss and make up?
posted by qbert72 at 12:14 PM on October 30, 2006
Jater is the best SS in the Game of Baseball. This years American League MVP. Great Season Jeter, better luck next year.
posted by yachts360 at 05:25 PM on October 31, 2006
I think this is just your opinion, and not necessarily what the individuals who vote for the award take into account given that they might not be as stats oriented as you and many fans are. posted by sfts2 Almost everyone in this thread believes there was a better choice, some stronger than others. If you believe differently, I'm open to reasons, but only reasons pertaining to offensive production. posted by justgary Well, I tried.
posted by justgary at 11:18 PM on November 02, 2006
I think the award is well-deserved. Jeter's offensive numbers this year speak for themselves, but his consistency throughout the year was what really struck me. He never went though any real slump. I also feel he was what really kept the team clicking through the injuries the team experienced and the on-going A-Rod fiasco. If Jeter would have had a poor year with the bat, I doubt the Yankees make 85 wins.