Life of Boswell
Posted: November 19th, 2008 | Filed under: Baseball | 120 Comments »
Tom Boswell is one of my sportswriting heroes. Boz has written eloquently about baseball and sports for some forty years now. I have also talked with him at various events, and he’s an extremely nice man who, it seems to me, usually has an interesting view of the world and of sports. His back-to-back columns on the Sugar Ray Leonard-Roberto Duran fights — the first where Duran mauled Leonard, the second where Leonard mocked Duran into saying “no mas†— is like a sportswriting clinic. You could teach entire classes on just those two articles.
There, now that I am done telling you how I feel about the man and his work, I must say that I read this from the man and I find myself sitting here in stunned and rather gloomy silence. I have actually read several columns the last couple of days that make what appears to be Boz’s main point — the main point being, I guess, that baseball writers are becoming too geeky and VORPy, and are ignoring what is obvious and right in front of their faces. And this is best proven by the baffling MVP choice of Albert Pujols over Ryan Howard for MVP.
Yes, I’ve read other columns along these lines, but the other columns I’ve read were from hometown Phillies writers or people I do not have any particular opinion about. I love the Boz. I respect the Boz. I read columns from the Boz and, even if my starting opinion is precisely the opposite of his, I find myself halfway through thinking, “Well, maybe he’s right and I’m wrong.â€
And yet this column is overwhelmed with such twisted logic that I’m sitting here doing all sorts of Shawn Johnson mental gymnastics in order to come to some sort of peaceful resolution between my love of the Boz and this opinion wreckage.
The key line in Boz’s column seems to be this:
When stats WILDLY contradict common sense, always doubt the stats.
That sounds good. It really does. I read that sentence, once, twice, five times, and each time I read it I liked the rhythms of it, I liked the construction, I liked the use of all-capital letters in WILDLY. When stats WILDLY contradict common sense, always doubt the stats. Yes, this seems a solid premise.
Only, you know what? It isn’t. It is, when you think about it, a horrifying premise — I cannot believe that Tom Boswell, my hero, really believes that. Common sense says that the universe revolves around the earth. Common sense says that thunder clapping means God’s angry. Common sense says that when your car is sliding you want to turn your wheel away from the skid. Common sense says that a fast guy with no power who might or might not get on base is the perfect guy to put in the leadoff spot. Common sense that the queen of spades is the middle card. Common sense says that if you put Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg together, you will get an entertaining movie. Common sense says that the best way to hit a golf ball far is to swing harder. Common sense says a lot of incredibly stupid things and if you are going to automatically choose common sense over, you know stats and facts and results, well, that’s a good way to crash into trees and lose your shirt in a card game and get stuck with Omar Moreno.
But, forget that for a moment. There’s a larger point … so let’s remember the line: When stats WILDLY contradict common sense, always doubt the stats. Boz was using this line to point out that the gulf of a difference in VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) between Pujols (96.8) and Howard (35.3) is so massive that it simply cannot be right, it bends common sense. I mean, that says Pujols is, what, 61 VORPies better than Howard, that just seems wrong, wrong, wrong. And based on the Rule of Boswell you have to doubt the veracity of VORP.
Now, one thing I should say is that I don’t really see how the huge difference in VORP really cuts against common sense. Pujols hit 106 points higher than Howard. His on-base percentage was 123 points higher. His slugging percentage was 110 points better. It doesn’t seem too much of a stretch that Pujols had a much, much better season and that this would be dramatically reflected in their VORP. And VORP does not even consider the massive differences in their defensive ability (Pujols is a better first baseman) or their base-running ability (Pujols is a better baserunner) or their various splits (Howard was more or less helpless against left-handed pitchers). It seems pretty obvious from just about any angle you look at that Albert Pujols is a much better player than Ryan Howard, and he had a much, much, much, much, much, much, much better season — would say at least 61 VORPies better.
But — I told you there would be some mental gymnastics here — let’s play along. Let’s say that the VORP difference does indeed give pause … hmm, this says that Pujols was three-times the player that Ryan Howard was in 2008, and that just doesn’t pass the smell test. So where can we turn to offer a little common sense in this sea of numbers confusion?
Here’s what Boz says: “Sometimes you have to underline the obvious; for example a first baseman with 146 RBIs is ‘more valuable,’* especially when he plays on a first-place team, than a first baseman (Pujols) with 116 RBIs on a fourth-place team.“
*I’m not entirely certain why Boz put â€more valuable“ in quotes. I have this friend who does that, who puts those little air-quotation marks around the strangest words. He will say things like, â€I have ‘to’ go to the bathroom,“ or â€This chicken salad is very delicious ‘but a’ little bit dry.“
OK. So here’s where we are now. Tom Boswell, who just crushed VORP for the way it crosses logic (and, later in the article, he does the same for runs created, OPS and TOTAL AVERAGE, which he invented), now explains that the only way to judge these two men, the only logical and common-sense way to measure the 2008 baseball achievements of Ryan Howard and Albert Pujols, is to look at:
1. The number of RBIs they drove in.
2. The finish of their teams.
That’s it. Don’t analyze beyond that. In fact, to quote Boswell’s next sentence, â€Don’t analyze beyond that.“ See? The man who is basing his entire argument on that Boz Premise (to remind you: when stats WILDLY contradict common sense always doubt the stats) is now choosing RBIs — FREAKING RBIs — over common sense. I mean RBIs. Do we need to really go over this RBI thing again?
And I know that Boz understands that Pujols is a much better player because he spends the next paragraph pointing out that, yes, Howard can’t field, and yes Pujols outhit him, and yes Howard strikes out a lot while Pujols walks a lot. He knows this to be true. But you know the Seinfeld line about how impressed he is that the Chinese are sticking with chopsticks (”Oh, they’ve seen he fork. They don’t care. They’re sticking with the chopsticks”). Well, Boz is sticking with those RBIs.
And he follows with these gems:
â€But none of it outweighs Howard’s RBI total, built on his .320 average with runners in scoring position.“ Pujols hit .339 with runners in scoring position and reached base more than half the time.
â€For what it’s worth, Howard wasn’t even in the top half dozen in baseball in runners on base when he came to the plate.“ This is true; Howard was eighth with 483 runners on base. But you know what? That’s a lot of runners. A LOT of runners. That’s 47 more runners than Pujols. And Pujols was also intentionally walked 34 times (to Howard’s 17).
â€(Howard) is Mr. Multi-Run Homer.“ Howard hit 26 of his 48 homers with men on base, that’s 54%, which is pretty good. League average is closer to 44%. Pujols was at 46%. However is should be noted that Howard also CAME UP up with men on base a touch more than half the time. And while Pujols hit six homers with multiple men on base (including a slam), Howard hit five. I’m not reserving â€www.MisterMultipleHomer.com“ just yet.
King Kaufman over at Slate Salon (sorry King) wrote something the other day that I really liked. He wrote that the methodology for some voters seems to be: “Figure out who you like as MVP, then fashion the current year’s definition of ‘valuable’ to fit.â€
I think that’s about right. I understand why people would want to vote for Ryan Howard as MVP. It fits a neat story line. We don’t want our MVPs to just be the boring ol’ best player — no we want them to be superheroes, we want to ascribe to them some sort of mystical talents that lift teams above their modest means and carry them to unforseen heights. We want to believe that the MVP — and the MVP alone — could have lifted them higher than they’ve ever been lifted before.
Sure, the Phillies were defending division champs. Sure, they have better players than Ryan Howard, including the guy who plays right next to him. Sure, they had a couple of very good left-handed starters and a closer who did not blow a save. Sure Ryan Howard, coming into September, had been absolutely terrible (.234/.324/.490 — but lots of ‘dem RBIs!). Sure the Phillies pitchers gave up three runs or less in 12 of the last 16 games as the Phillies overcame a sinking Mets team.
Sure, we all KNOW that baseball is a team sport, and that one player can only do so much, and that if Albert Pujols would have been in Philadelphia instead of Ryan Howard his numbers might have forced a Florida recount. Sure. But it’s so much more poetic to give the credit to Ryan Howard, who had an excellent September and banged some big home runs down the stretch. It’s so much more fun to believe the most valuable player always plays on the best team, and that he wills his team to victory with his great strength and will and heroism and timely home runs. The trouble is that this doesn’t really resemble life. And it means sometimes ignoring everything you know to be true and, instead, spreading the gospel of RBIs.
Boz, in the column, proceeds to explain why K-Rod should have won the American League MVP, but I’m to tired to go into that.
Loading ...
[...] Random Feed wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptTom Boswell is one of my sportswriting heroes. Boz has written eloquently about baseball and sports for some forty years now. I have also talked with him at various events, and he’s an extremely nice man who, it seems to me, usually has an interesting view of the world and of sports. His back-to-back columns on the Sugar Ray Leonard-Roberto Duran fights — the first where Duran mauled Leonard, the second where Leonard mocked Duran into saying “no mas†— is like a sportswriting clinic. You coul [...]
Boz blew it, as you demonstrate. I’m afraid King Kauffman’s analysis is too frequently correct for awards and HofF voting.
Maybe this will bring FJM out of retirement.
This article was like a friendlier version of FireJoeMorgan
Tom Boswell, in the 1980s, invented a statistic called Total Average, which divided bases into outs and purported to proclaim the best player in baseball. Boswell’s effort prompted Bill James to pen the following: “The world needs another offensive rating system like Custer needed more Indians…What we really need, as I wrote three years ago, is for the amateurs to clear the floor.”
Wow. I also love Tom Boswell. The greatest thing about moving to the Washington DC area was probably the fact that it intoduced me to his writing. But sometimes I just don’t understand him. This is one of those times. Another was when he scoffed at WP Kinsella’s writing. Part of the reason I love Tom Boswell is that his writing about baseball illustrates he loves baseball. So I still can’t reconcile how he can discount WP Kinsella’s writing. Sure, Field of Dreams is in many ways more effective than Shoeless Joe (the book it’s based on), but there are some things in the book that the movie can’t match, like the line, “A baseball stadium at night is more like a church than a church.”
Boz’s online column today, which I discovered thanks to Rob Neyer, just made me sad. I was ready to post a comment there and then I realized that I just have to cross him off the people I read.
It’s been awful, watching him cheerlead for the woeful Nats, that each move is a step in the right direction. (He always couches his compliments, and often says that the fans won’t be patient forever — to his credit.) But I swear, he has agreed with every little move Bowden and Kasten have made even as the team gets demonstrably worse and Trader Jim was unable to move anything valuable (Soriano, Christian Guzman’s expiring contract, Chad Cordero before he got hurt) and just tinkered around the edges.
And now I see why: despite Joe’s compliments above, Tom Boswell doesn’t know very much about baseball.
A majority of Americans believe electricity moves faster downhill.
Haha. Common sense over objective things. That’s why they’re called “Flat Earthers” . . .
Who do Brian “The Boz” Bosworth and Thomas “The Boz” Bosley (”Happy Days” and “Murder, She Wrote”) think should have been the NL MVP? Their takes might make more sense than Boswell’s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Bosworth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Bosley
Unfortunately, this has been going on with Boz for some time. He always had the big romantic streak, and when he used it properly in the first couple decades of his career, we got to read some great columns. Now, however, he doesn’t constrain or shape that romanticism anymore. His writing with regard to the Nats has been more or less uniformly horrible, because from the moment they arrived he viewed them as his family, his cause, his natural allies in the war against reality, and bent every piece of evidence he was presented to fit that personal celebration of need.
Whenever I look at a Boz column now, I scan the first couple of grafs to get an idea how lost his writing will be in the wilds of his personal fantasies about how the world should work and what would be a great narrative. If he’s waxing euphoric about some story that turned out just right, you can close the page and move on to something else.
im glad i didnt grow up reading boz or idolize him in any way so i dont have to feel guilty about thinking he totally sucks after reading his terrible article. regardless of if he was ever any good, he is a straight up hack now.
“A majority of Americans believe electricity moves faster downhill.”
That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard in a while. I’m going to use that all the time now if you don’t mind.
***
So… yeah. I think it’s safe to say Boswell missed the boat on this one. Badly.
So my wager is there will be a post up within the next two hours breaking down the Coco Crisp trade. Any takers?
Pujols/Howard is a case where you can compare apples and apples.
If Pujols had been playing first base for Philadelphia, they’d surely have won more games. Even Boz would have to answer “yes” to that. And Howard at first in St. Louis would have dragged down the Cardinals.
In fact, Pujols is credited with 35 win shares for 148 games; his subs, perhaps 2. Howard’s win shares at The Hardball Times for 162 games are 25. If the difference is 12 ws, that’s 4 games (in theory, all theory).
So the likelihood is that with Pujols the Phillies would have gone 96-66 rather than 92-70. With Howard, the Cardinals would have been looking at 82-80 instead of 86-66. Is winning valuable in baseball?
I’ve lived in DC since 1998, and I can’t remember Boz being anything but awful. I’ll always remember him saying the day after ARod signed the $252 million contract with the Rangers that, based on stats, ARod was no better that Mike Sweeney and Richard Hidalgo. This is the guy who so many better sportswriters consider their hero?
Speaking of funny voting results, there are at this moment 874 ballots and only 868 votes for Greg Maddux. Who are the six voters who think he doesn’t yet have Hall of Fame credentials?
First, let’s properly recognize what Boswell did here. He cited one or two basic/old stats to make his pointed, dismissed another, blasted bunch of complicated/new stas and utterly ignored the medium stats.
On-base % is easy, and not new-fangled. Same for slugging %. They make the point really well, and aren’t so crazy that they can be easily blasted.
The really odd thing, in my view, is his dimissal of the most holy of baseball statistics: batting average. It’s old, it’s traditional and it’s (almost entirely) understood by all baseball fans.
So, what does this teach us about Boswell? It teaches us that he is now distrustful of division. I don’t mean divisional play, I mean the mathmatical operation.
So Joe, are you going to post about the Coco Crisp trade?
But there’s a larger point here, one that is competing with baseball in 2008 as the main theme of Joe’s post.
How do we evaluate the potential tensions between faith-based or conclusion-driven reasoning (my term for arguments made to support a previously decided upon conclusion) and research or expertise.
We saw this on the largest stage possible in the last 8 years through the Bush administration. I don’t mean to be political here, but rather to to learn from the past. If the experts are ignored, bad stuff happens. If the researchers are ignored, bad stuff happens.
What is “common sense”? It’s traditional collective widsom, and sometimes the collective is not very big.
We see this play out in the debated over education policy — my field, by the way. There is no evidence that charter schools are better than than regular public schools. Rather, there is evidence that some charter schools are really good, and they appear in exactly the same proportion as really good regular public schools. There is no evidence that merit pay for teachers improves teaching. There is no evidence that schools in states without collective bargaining rights for teachers unions are better than those with such right.
But there are people, because of their world views or their beliefs about “human nature” insist that the studies, the data and researchers cannot be right.
This is dangerous stuff. WILDLY dangerous stuff. And it should be called out whenever it is given a platform to weaken the minds of the American people.
Following up on Alex: Pujols’s batting average was over 100 points higher than Ryan Howard’s.
It’s amazing that Boswell could have written that piece.
Joe, I love your site. But I have to beg you. Please stop referring to it as RBIs. The plural version of RBI is still RBI. Not RBIs.
The rest of the article is awesome. But I had to point that out.
Thank you, Joe. Today has been a surreal day.
BR: Pujols most similar batters thru Age 28:
1.) Jimmie Foxx
2.) Hank Aaron
3.) Frank Robinson
4.) Lou Gehrig
5.) Ken Griffey
6.) Vladimir Guerrero
7.) Mickey Mantle
8.) Joe DiMaggio
9.) Juan Gonzalez
10.) Mel Ott
Howard’s #1 comp??
Cecil Fielder.
…Case Closed…
Why doesn’t Boswell just come out and say that one of his criteria for MVP is playing on a playoff team? I’m actually fine with that.
baseball writers:baseball analysts :: baseball writers:baseball players.
They think they are both. They are neither. You being one of the obvious exceptions.
Sometimes Isaac Newton spends the last years of his life defending Biblical Literalism. Such is life. Why Time Begins on Opening Day still sits on my bookshelf.
Ryan Howard is hugely overrated. He either strikes out or hits a home run. Thats it. He doesn’t walk, he can’t run the bases, he can’t field, he can’t work the count. How is someone in the running for the strikeout record an MVP? Pujols is a much more complete player and its not his fault the rest of his team stinks. That said, it is ironic that he and Howard have switched positions from a couple years ago.
I don’t like the Coco Crisp move. He doesn’t add enough to the Royals to be worth $5 Million. The budget is going to be tight this year and he doesn’t do much for me. In most respects he is a very average player and it seems to me like the Royals need more than average.
Yet again, Joe, you force me to write that you are a credit to your profession. Please move to Milwaukee (great beer!) and replace Tom Haudricourt, who placed Pujols 7th on his MVP ballot.
The Rays fired their mascot. No word on if they’ll pull the plug on the lame cartoons that attack stats.
http://blogs.tampabay.com/rays/2008/11/fired-mascot-sp.html#more
I think this finally proves that Boswell has started to lose his mind. In one of his chats earlier this year, a reader asked why the Wash. Post hadn’t covered (or even mentioned) the Nats Minor League Single-A team’s playoff games (and subsequent championship win). This was Boz’s reply:
“I have covered baseball for the Post since ‘75. If been to minor leagues from Spokane to Salt Lake City to tiny towns you can’t name. But I’m not sure, until recent weeks, that I had ever HEARD of the Potomac Nationals. Or the’P'Nats.’ ”
Granted,the P-Nats have been a Washington Nationals affiliate since only 2005, but they have played in Woodbridge, VA (about a 30-minute drive right down I-95 from DC) since 1984 (and actually played just outside DC in Alexandria, VA from 1978-83).
How he can call himself a baseball expert and not know that a minor-league team has played in his backyard for the past 30 years, with alumni such as: Barry Bonds, Albert Pujols, Jorge Posada, Mike Cameron, Bernie Williams, Andy Pettitte, Bobby Bonilla and Coco Crisp is beyond me.
Boz lost me for good in 2001 when he wrote that Barry Bonds couldn’t be the MVP because too many of his home runs were solo shots. Seriously, he said that. In a newspaper column. Rob Neyer pummeled him online the next day, but out of respect did not mention his name. Having read the column, though, I knew exactly who he was talking about. And it’s sad because Boz was one of the early champions for rational analysis.
I looked at the Hall of Fame voting, and while HoF arguments aren’t really my thing, here’s what surprised me:
1. That anybody would vote to keep out Maddux.
2. That ten times as many people who voted to keep out Maddux voted to keep out Randy Johnson. Come to think of it, voting to keep out Unit is just as surprising to me as wanting to keep out Maddux.
3. That if this population were the actual voters, Frank Thomas wouldn’t make it into the Hall of Fame (as of my typing this he’s at 73%).
I’d probably vote them all in, but like I said, I’ve never been to adamant about my HoF arguments.
“Howard’s #1 comp??
Cecil Fielder.”
Which is particularly perfect, as back in 92 Boswell was writing “NOTHING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN RBI” when praising Cecil in 92? when it looked like he might put up 400 RBI in three years.
To those of you who live elsewhere and are currently calling to see if we have room on the couch January 17-21:
Welcome to our world. Tom Boswell was once a great sportswriter and now he is a ghostly pale shadow of his former self. To say he has jumped the shark would be an insult to sharks. And jumping. And “the”.
The only thing more depressing than suffering through the Nationals losing 102 games this season was watching ol’ Boz fumble, bumble, and stumble through his analysis of the team.
It would be sad if it weren’t so irritating.
Bring back Barry Svrluga!
I had to laugh in the link that Mr. Kerfeld provided … the Rays’ spokesman’s name is Rick Vaughn.
I loved this column because it was our fascination with RBIs that gave Don Mattingly the MVP award over George Brett in 1985, when in fact Brett was probably one of the most valuable players in the history of the game that year, if you boil down “MVP” to its truest definition. Like, really, sure, the Royals that year had its incredible pitching staff, but without an offense, you don’t win, and the Royals offense was Balboni’s 37 HR, a good second half from Big Mac, and, um, George Brett, George Brett and, oh yeah, George Brett. When the Royals needed to win 3/4 from the Angels to even get to the playoffs, Brett put up softball numbers, hitting 5 HR.
But Mattingly had 145 RBI because he had about a billion people on base all the time that year, so he won.
This piece reeks of someone trying to start an argument at the watercooler. Columnists, as John rightly pointed out, aren’t analysts. They don’t have to be right, they just have to be loud. At least that’s the common sense justification that Boswell would give you if you cornered him and asked him if he truly honestly swore on his mother’s grave that Ryan Howard was really more valuable than Albert Pujols this year.
This is a shame, because being right clearly works as a business model. Look at Nate Silver. He’s turned BP into a mini-empire of sorts, and gained hundreds of thousands of followers during the election for quietly, but confidently predicting things more accurately than anyone else, then backing up his predictions with analysis (which includes hedging in case he is wrong).
Judging by the reactions, Boswell certainly did generate a lot of buzz on this particular day. He may have won the battle, but he lost the war–he will surely lose readers as a result of this, readers who will flock to writers like Joe and sites like HBT, BTF and BP.
PS: King Kaufman writes for Salon, not Slate. He’s a must-read.
Yeah, Barry was decent. I liked Boswell’s books on baseball in the 80s, but he’s been writing about golf too much it seems to notice that he once was among those trying to figure out statistically how good a player is with his Total Average statistic. And RBI is another damned statistic, so these guys still like some of them and don’t rely on remembering the player who did well in the few games they saw them play against their home team. If I remember right, there’s nothing in the voting to tell you the MVP has to be on a winning team.
>>”The Rays fired their mascot.”<<
I’m not a mascot guy, and for the most part don’t like them or understand their value, but that girl was pretty good as “Raymond.”
Nicely done, Joe.
On the “plural of RBI” comment– I like the FJM (God rest its…bandwidth?) option, RsBI, But I don’t think there’s anything wrong with RBIs, either, since RBI is kind of a word unto itself.
These people (or this person) I have never heard of an know nothing about agree(s) with me: http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/rbi.html
I wonder if the media mob put an oriole head in his bed one night in the late 80s to stop him using new statistics to support his prose.
I’m worried the next Tampa Bay mascot will be Sting.
Joe, King Kaufman writes for Salon, not Slate.
Forget about the curveball, Ricky, GIVE HIM THE HEATER!
I’ve always liked Boswell, but from his poetic, Angellian side, not from the stat side. Baseball Prospectus is the current Holy Bible of Baseball Analysis, and if their writers say Pujols is MVP, I tend to believe them. Did anyone else other than BP predict Tampa to have a good year? Anyone?
Funny. I just read that column and I immediately came here to send Joe an email about it.
Ah, RBI. By Boz’s argument, Jose Guillen should have gotten a few down-ticket votes for AL MVP. He had more RBI than Pedroia, right?
@ DC in DC
“Welcome to our world. Tom Boswell was once a great sportswriter and now he is a ghostly pale shadow of his former self. To say he has jumped the shark would be an insult to sharks. And jumping. And “theâ€.
Sadly, I think you could take two other once-great Washington Post columnists (who are likely on TV as I type this) and put their names in that paragraph.
Dave Sheinin realllllly needs to take over that column for Boz.
Then take Svrulga back from 5th string Skins coverage and have him do Sheinin’s long-form national baseball coverage — although that’s probably a demotion in this town.
JOAKIMSORIA
Joakim Soria.
I know this is off topic (completely), but, Joe, I need you to write about Joakim Soria.
Use the power of your mighty pen.
The Royals have to take this chance.
Ryan Dempster is the proof:
*multiple pitches
*not a max effort closer
*not a “one excellent pitch†guy like Mariano
worst case scenario? send him back to the ‘pen
best (and VERY possible) case? maddux, glavine, smoltz. hudson, mulder, zito. these guys took weak/average offenses to the playoffs.
gil is in his prime. greinke likely has two years left in blue–max.
The Royals Have Not Had A Better Chance In Two Decades. Don’t you have to try? It’s not a sure thing. But. don’t. you. have. to. try?
more home runs and les norman.
[...] the player’s team finished as anything other than a tiebreaker is just plain silly, and, well Joe Posnanski writes a nifty refutation of Boswell’s position which says all that and [...]
I think the best sportswriters tend to be people from cities with no team or woefully historically bad teams (hi Joe!) – they have perspective. Tom had perspective before the Nats arrived, and since then its been a sales job, as if his column is a tool of desperation to convince people that DC is a baseball town; to sway 11 more people per day to the stadium so that they don’t move the team to Havana for the ‘13 season.
I agree with Joe, as always. I teach stats in college, and I believe that Joe hit the nail on the head. People have an opinion and then go and look for stats to prove that opinion. Stats are not supposed to be done that way. You figure out your criteria, and then you look at the stats.
I remember a show where people put Hank Aaron ahead of Babe Ruth because he had more RBIs. Now, Hank was great, but he hit a home run every 18 at bats or so. Babe Ruth hit a homerun every 12 at bats or so. Which stat is more telling? I believe that it is obvious that hitting a homerun more often is better than playing several more years and getting a few more RBIs. (How many times did the Babe come to bat with the bases empty because Lou just hit a homerun?) Besides the fact that the Babe won 90 games as a pitcher and is considered by many to be the best left handed pitcher in Red Sox history.
I have to admit, the first thing I thought of when I read “Tom Boswell,” was Homer J. Simpson’s spiel about losing his car in a pool-hall hustle, until “my Dad Tom Bosley had to go and get it back.”
“Dad, that was Happy Days.”
“No, they weren’t all happy days.”
I’m with Boswell here. If you uncritically accept what VORP says, then you need to conclude that Pujols was 2.74 times more valuable than Ryan Howard this year (taking Pujols’ VORP divided by Howard’s). That’s insane. In other words, suppose that right now you have 2.73 Ryan Howards in your lineup. According to VORP, you should trade me these 2.73 Howards to get my 1 Pujols in exchange. If you really would do that trade, you’re a sucker. And if you woudn’t do the trade, then you’re agreeing with Boswell: when VORP varies with commonsense, go with commonsense.
Larko, if you can figure out where to play 2.73 Ryan Howards (without having your pitching staff mutiny), you’re welcome to them…
And even *that* undersells Pujols, because he does it all as ONE guy — your 2.73 Howards don’t make up for the 1.73 other players you’re displacing from your lineup to make room.
I think they use RBIs as the plural of RBI because RsBI would look about as dumb as a box of rocks
then too, if you look at each individual RBI as a single set, then the collective (pick a number, say 146) would indeed be that many of the individual sets (ie, 146 of those RBI things … 1 card or 52 cards) and thus “Howard had 146 RBIs last year” would be grammatically correct (146 units, each unit being a single RBI – run batted in)
“I think they use RBIs as the plural of RBI because RsBI would look about as dumb as a box of rocks”
Nah, they use RBIs as the plural because they are sheeps.
Llarry, the players being displaced are faceless “replacement players” (the guys who put the RP in VORP). So, here’s another way to put the idea: would you rather have (a) Pujols batting 3rd (or wherever), faceless RP batting 4th, and faceless RP batting 5th; or (b) Ryan Howard batting 3rd, Ryan Howard batting 4th, and .73 of Ryan Howard batting 5th? It’s obvious the choice is (b). That’s not to say that Howard is really better than Pujols — I could maybe believe Pujols is worth 1.2 Howards — but it is to say VORP is all screwed up on this particular case.
Larko,
Even if you’re right and VORP is off (I think it’s awfully close, and definitely a LOT more than 1.2), there’s a lot of room between that and agreeing with Boswell’s lunacy. VORP being off doesn’t make “commonsense” = Howard is MVP. Commonsense in that case would be “Pujols is much, much better than Howard, just maybe not quite THAT much better.” There’s nothing commonsense in Boswell’s article at all.
Poll question: can one of the one in five people who put Glavine in and Mussina out please explain his logic? I’ve never been a huge Mussina fan, (and to be honest, I despise the Yankees), but I just don’t see where Glavine is a better pitcher.
Mussina’s better than Glavine in WHIP, ERA+, Ks, and BB (in some cases by quite a lot). Glavine’s ahead in wins, the dumbest of all pitching stats, although if you look at his first 18 seasons, Mussina’s got him there too.
Is 300 wins really the criteria for starters? I’m honestly curious how the logic works on this.
This is for Larko–
Ryan Howard, in 265 plate appearances against lefthanders this year, hit .224/.294 /.451. That’s about what a typical backup catcher with pop hits over the course of the year.
Albert Pujols batted .333/.437/.626 against righthanders, where mortal hitters are supposed to have a platoon disadvantage.
Basically, 40% of the time Ryan Howard came to the plate this season, it was really Matt Nokes at the plate (and that’s being kind–Nokes OBP was .308).
With that in mind, I am VERY VERY comfortable with saying Pujols is twice the ballplayer that Ryan Howard is, not even factoring in his far superior defense. No MVP should turn into Matt Nokes 40% of the time he is at the plate.
Notice how I didn’t use VORP at all? I’m using common sense! How can the most valuable player in the league turn into an almost automatic out by bringing in a lefty reliever late in the game?
All of this is no knock on Howard. He is a very good player, but only because he is one of the best home run hitters in the league. Albert Pujols is an otherwordly, top 10 hitter of all time. We honestly shouldn’t even be comparing the two. As for the RBI thing, Howard had Rollins, Utley, and Werth hitting in front of him, while Pujols had Skip Schumaker and Aaron Miles. It’s all about context.
Kudos to the writers who put Pujols’ performance in context.
As someone new to VORP, I don’t really understand how Pujols being 61 “Vorpies” above Howard means he’s “2.73 x better” (from Larko OR Joe). If VORP is essentially how many more runs created over a replacement, how does that translate to 2.73 x better? It’s not like Pujols is producing 3 times better Howard; he’s simply producing 3 times better ORP. No?
I just totally confused myself…
Don, I think you’ll find that the answer to your question, “How many times did the Babe come to bat with the bases empty because Lou just hit a homerun?” is zero. Ruth hit 3rd, Gehrig 4th. That’s actually how they got their uniform numbers when the Yankees first started wearing them.
Larko, I could be misreading your intent, but it appears that you’re attempting to pack as many logical fallacies into your argument as possible. You must be a philosophy professor utilizing the “Bearenstein Bears” method of instruction.
Students, please analyze Larko’s comments. Identify as many fallacious arguments as you can. I’ve provided some guidance below–the list is by no means comprehensive. Refer to your textbooks if necessary.
Hint: Some assertions may fall into more than one category.
1) There are only 2 choices: VORP or common sense.
2) Common Sense can lead to only one conclusion–a conclusion universally easy to deduce and agreed upon by everyone.
3) The ratio of 2 players’ respective VORPs can be seen as a direct reflection of their trade values in a 1 for 1 exchange.
4) You must agree to this hypothetical trade, or agree with Boswell.
Ryan Howard finished third in league with homers against lefties annnnnd he struck out a lot. So basically Ryan Howard was Ryan Howard against lefties. I don’t want to argue too much, those who say Pujols deserved it this year should agree Howard deserved it a couple years ago (great years, kept the team in it until late in the year). The world should be at ease. The 18-12 first place votes sound good to me.
Just a baseball comment… Can somebody link to your musing on you apparent hate of RBIs. I’m a huge baseball fan but aside from on base percentage, I really haven’t gotten used to/into the new stats (yes, i realize using “new” there is like saying hey did you catch that new movie TITANIC).
So, the closest thing to a replacement-level 1B in the NL this year is Chad Tracy. .267/.308/.414. I’m mixing two very different systems here, but if you project Tracy’s Runs Created to 600 PA, you get 70 just about on the nose; knock it down to 65, because he’s actually just over 0 in VORP. Pujols is at 160 (150/600) and Howard is at 113 (97/600). So:
Pujols + Tracy + Tracy = 280
Howard + Howard + (.73*Howard) = 265
This is terrible for at least two reasons: I’m not great at math, and it’s not entirely fair to reduce Howard’s PA to 600 (though there definitely has to be some correction for the fact that he took so many more outs to create 47 fewer runs, and Pujols loses some PA in the process too). But I hope it’s enough to at least suggest that it’s not at all crazy that Pujols + two scrubs = 2.73 of Howard, offensively speaking. (Imagine if we added in the difference in defensive value…)
I see that, while I was typing, my point was addressed by other readers.
I love this blog.
Somebody- it doesn’t take a whole long post to explain why RBI doesn’t tell you much (though I’m sure you could find several with a good hard googling). Basically, they’re way too dependent on having players get on base in front of you.
For example, Justin Morneau was 2nd in the AL in RBI with 129. Joe Mauer was way, way behind him with 85. But if you take that as a statement of their relative abilities–EVEN JUST OF THEIR RELATIVE ABILITIES TO DRIVE IN RUNS–it’s terribly misleading. Morneau hit 14 more HR than Mauer did, so give him 14 extra RBI for driving himself in. ALL the rest–30 RBI–come from additional opportunities.
Mauer and Morneau actually drove in runners on base at almost the exact same rate (19.0% to 18.7%)–it’s just that Morneau had many, many, many more opportunities. Part of that is because Morneau got to play all 163 games because he didn’t have to catch, but at least as much is, ironically, because he had Mauer getting on base at a .418 clip in front of him, whereas Mauer generally had low-OBP guys batting in front of HIM. Crazy, right? Morneau looks like the better runner-driver-inner than Mauer (and he is, by virtue of those 14 HR), but most of his advantage is created by Mauer’s own on-base abilities.
And, no, Howard was not Ryan Howard against lefties. Even with the HR, those numbers are unspeakably terrible. A smart/gutsy manager would pinch hit for him against a situational lefty in the 8th or later almost every time.
It’s important to note that VORP is not actually a zero-based stat. 0 VORP means that you are producing no more than a Replacement Player, but that is not zero production. An average player, by definition, has an EqA (Equivalent Average) of .260; a replacement player ends up at about .210 (give or take positional adjustments). A Replacement Player hits somewhere around .200-.250, doesn’t walk much, gets a couple of HR, a couple of doubles and probably 20-40 runs and RBI (with a lot of help from his teammates). That’s not nothing, in fact, it’s better than most pitchers and Tony Pena Jr.
So, if Pujols has 3x the VORP of Howard (I’m going to round up to three just because it’s easier to type…), we can look at it this way:
x= replacement player production
y= Howard’s VORP (expressed in Runs, remember)
x+y = Howard’s production, therefore
3y = Pujols’ VORP and
3y+x = Pujol’s production
As long as x>0 (as stated above)
3 (x+y) > 3x + y
Which means, that even if Pujols’ VORP were three times Howard’s, that would not actually mean that he was a full three times as productive.
Does that “sound better”?
I’m a subscriber to the Washington Post, but I missed the article because I spent most of the day in Tennessee. All I can say is, ‘Wow.’ Boswell sure missed the mark with this one. The ironic thing is that the Washington Post has generally embraced the newer stats like VORP in their Sunday Baseball special sections.
I found this to be pretty funny. Boswell writes, “All of the encompassing offensive stats…run the risk of overvaluing walks and singles while undervaluing the bases-clearly game-changing power of extra base hits.” Well…I looked it up, and Pujols had 81 extra base hits to Howard’s 78…in over 50 fewer plate appearances.
“King Kaufman over at
SlateSalon (sorry King)”Of course you know this means war.
Joe, all the more respect for you for calling out an idol. It had to be done. What I’m amazed at in the poll is the over 300 people who don’t think Barry Bonds deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.
That is WILDLY uninformed if you ask me.
Common sense told me that the Cardinals, with the players they fielded this year, should have finished well below .500. That nasty W-L stat told me that they spent most of the year in contention for the playoffs (to this Cub fan’s surprise & irritation).
In other words, what is strange is that the value of Pujols was more visible to common sense than ever.
Joe,
Which Tom Hanks Steven Spielberg movie didn’t you like. Saving Private Ryan was great, Catch me if you can good, Terminal was below average but still better than most.
Spielberg didn’t direct but produced Joe versus the Volcano. Which isn’t great but not that bad.
Lots of critics; here are my replies…
1. 3rd Period Points: I never claimed it’s commonsense that Howard should be the MVP, and that’s not what Boswell said in the quotation I was defending. In my mind, it’s an open question who should be MVP with arguments to be made on both sides. What *IS* commonsense, according to both me and Boswell, is that the difference between Pujols and Howard is not as great as VORP says. And surely, this is commonsense. (You might think commonsense is wrong, that the real truth is Pujols is just that much more valuable, but that’s a separate point.)
2. VORP is still a good stat, it’s just that sometimes even good stats get things wrong. Happens all over the place, including outside of baseball. Here is one of those cases.
3. TB: I don’t see why lefty/right splits should be any more relevant than, say, July/August splits. If there was an “MVP vs. LHP” award, Howard wouldn’t get it. But should he get the regular old MVP award? For that question, I take it that splits don’t matter. What matters is overall stats.
4. Llary: point taken, as far as VORP not being 0-based. But I don’t really see how it affects my argument. Again, would you rather have lineup (a) Albert Pujols and two shlub replacement players (better than Tony Pena, but still shlubs), or would you rather have a lineup with (b) 3 Ryan Howards? (Here, I’m following your lead and rounding up.) If you base your trades or player evaluations on VORP, you should prefer (a): that gets you the higher sum VORP. I don’t see how your production/VORP distinction affects this basic point.
For those who bite the bullet and say they would prefer to have (a), the 1 Albert Pujols, I don’t really have much to say, other than that you’re crazy. Let me grant: Albert Pujols is really, really good. One of the best of all time. Let me even grant he’s significantly better than Ryan Howard. But really, you think he’s worth 3 Howards? Why stop at 3? Why not make it 9, or 25, or a ga-jillion. The people who say they would rather have 1 Pujols over 3 Howards sound kind of like the prognosticators who predict, hey, the Royals are bad, I say they’ll only win 12 games next year. And hey, the Red Sox are good, I say they’ll win 157 games.
Larko-
Just have to respond, I realize there are a lot of critics, so I hope you’re not taking it personally.
Lefty/righty splits are more important than July/August splits because of managerial tactics. Howard’s inability to hit against lefties means that managers can effectively neutralize him in the later stages of the game without having to intentionally walk him. It means, as I said before, that a manager can turn Ryan Howard into Matt Nokes. So such magic button exists for Pujols.
If we’re talking common sense, I feel it is far beyond the realm of common sense to suggest that a player so easily neutralized is more valuable than Pujols.
I’m not suggesting that this should be the sole criterion. Since you are obviously not swayed by VORP, I was just trying to appeal to your common sense side.
no i mean i get the general RBI principle. but to say howard is a worse player because he knocks in rolllins doesnt make much sense to me. so pujols has a worse lineup, i get that. I’m a yankee hater, so i’ll do anything to diminish A.Rod, but at the end of the day i realize he’s a good player. That’s what people don’t understand. Again, Pujols was the MVP, but the reason Howard bats against lefties (as opposed to so taguchi) is because he doesnt get on base(walk) he wins games. That’s a fact. So, yes, i understand there is more to baseball than RBIs(sorry about the s) but the RBI wins games not slugging.
To follow on from TB, Howard’s inability to hit lefties means he can be nullified when a good at-bat is most valuable- in high leverage situations late in games. Howard put up a .643 OPS in late and close spots this year and fared poorly in WPA. Part of it is small sample size, but I think this will be an ongoing issue for Howard.
“Figure out who you like as MVP, then fashion the current year’s definition of ‘valuable’ to fit.â€
This is a fantastic line, and I couldn’t agree more.
Llarko- you responded to everybody’s point but my (crude) showing that it’s entirely feasible that Pujols and two scrubs would be worth 2.73 Ryan Howards. If the ONLY thing you have going for you is your own “common sense,” it’s probably not all that common or sensible. And you acknowledge that VORP isn’t 0 based and then come right back out and ridicule VORP for saying Pujols was 3 times better than Howard, which it obviously does not.
Somebody- no, that’s not a fact, that’s your opinion. And whether it’s right or not depends on your perspective- he “wins games” as opposed to an average first baseman (though not all that many games), and he wins many fewer games than Albert.
Nobody’s saying that Howard is a WORSE player because he knocks in a bunch of runs, or knocks in Rollins (?) or whatever. Except in a really extreme circumstance, you need to be a very good hitter to have 100 RBI in a season. It’s just beyond that, it doesn’t tell you anything at all. A guy with 110 RBI is not super likely to be better at anything than a guy with 90, and it’s entirely possible that a guy with 100 is a better hitter, and even a more productive run-driver-inner, than a guy with 140. It’s a bad stat not because RBIs themselves are bad, but because there are many, many other stats that do a better job of telling you the one thing that RBI purports to measure.
…and against lefties, he loses more games than he wins.
In response to Matt, I’m one of the 20% who voted for Glavine but not yet for Mussina. (I may be overinfluenced by Mussina’s 2004, 2005, and 2007.)
I might vote for Mussina after he’s been retired for five years. But my presumption is for Glavine now, because he’s accomplished MORE over his career. Some of his rates may not match Mussina’s, but Glavine’s totals (years, innings pitched, etc.) are larger (see the case of Don Sutton). If rates are more important than totals, let’s put in Bret Saberhagen. [The longer you last, the likelier your rates are to drop.]
No, 300 wins aren’t everything. Blyleven should be in; Pedro should go in even if he never pitches again. And rates sometimes matter more than totals (see the case of Sandy Koufax). However, I don’t see Mussina’s rates as overwhelming. At this point, I see Glavine as a 75% guy (just in) and Mussina as a solid 65-70% (not in). One more good year from Mussina or 5 years to think about it would/could raise my evaluation.
Actually, the sidebar poll (at the moment, Glavine 75%, Mussina 58%) seems “in the ballpark.” In comparison to Maddux 100%, Johnson 95%, Smoltz 75%, Schilling 40%, Blyleven 85%, Pedro Martinez 85%.
Or career win shares: as of now, Glavine 315, Mussina 274 (with 300 a good “presumption line” for a full-career starting pitcher). In comparison to Maddux 395, Johnson 327, Smoltz 288, Schilling 254, Blyleven 339, Martinez 251 with amazing rates.
If the poll represents “common sense,” win shares may be a new-fangled stat that corresponds pretty well with common sense.
first, before i forget marco is right that the best line ive read about the MVP thus far anywhere is “Figure out who you like as MVP, then fashion the current year’s definition of ‘valuable’ to fit.â€
ha yeah i undestand the difference of 100 and 90 could be luck or whatever factor you want to name. i get that the same goes for 100 and 110 or anything of that nature. but the difference between 146 and 116 is no longer random market fluctuations. Thats a chunk, and a rather sizeable chunk at that.
i also get the downside to RBIs but i just wanted to read it in mr psonanski persuasive style
To say he has jumped the shark would be an insult to sharks. And jumping. And “theâ€.
Still laughing.
i think to still be defending boswell’s argument at this point you have to be either a) a relative of boz or b) a few nutcakes short of a fruitbasket.
I can’t see how anyone could like the Crisp trade and hate the Jacobs trade, so I’ll wager that Joe hates the Crisp trade. It’s basically the same kind of deal — it’s a fair exchange of value, but it makes no sense conceputally:
1. Having traded their two best short relievers, there’s now no chance the Royals will move Soria back into the rotation.
2. Crisp can be a borderline-valuable regular on a team that had no viable CF and if he bats ninth. You know that the Royals are going to lead him off, though.
3. And wasn’t the whole point of the offseason to ADD OBP?
4. And how many left fielders does this team have now?
Not to pull rank or anything, but I used to be a university lecturer in medical statistics. One of the things we used to teach students was: “DON’T just take statistics at face value. If they look wrong, then look more closely. You may well find that there’s a confounding variable*, or some other flaw…or you may indeed find that your expectations were just wrong. Either way, you’ve learned something interesting”.
*e.g. Player A has more RBIs than player B, not because he’s better, but because he has more PA with men in scoring position- the confounding variable is that number of PA.
And so I would agree with the notorious Boswell statement: “When stats WILDLY contradict common sense, always doubt the stats.” In fact, say you look at the long list of discredited baseball stats, starting in the 19th century with runs scored, then moving onto RBI, wins, saves, GWRBI, errors, maybe range factor… the reason why they’ve been discredited is because someone, often Bill James, examined the mismatch between the numbers and his own opinions. Which is a lot better than saying: “Just look how many games he won! Put him in the Hall!”
Of course, Boswell then completely blows the investigation of the difference between VORP and RBI, mainly because he doesn’t bother to investigate it at all. Someone else might like to make an interesting article by explaining why Pujols had fewer RBI, maybe with a table showing PA with runners on each base. Indeed, I guess someone has.
Rob Neyer did a good piece like this the other day. Win Probability Added had given the surprising conclusion that the NL Most Valuable Hitter was not quite Pujols, but Lance Berkman. (Howard was back in 23rd place.) Neyer worked on an explanation, which is more than Boswell did, and found that Berkman did indeed have an amazing slugging percentage in close late situations. (Stats 1, Commonsense 0) This doesn’t prove that Berkman was the MVP, but it is at least one data point in favor of WIn Probability Added.
No-one ever reads comments after about 50, so I’ll stop now.
berkman had a monster first half. he’s due for hardware soon. if they had a half year award he would have deserved over the more popular utley and chipper.
i guess thats the question. if one batter hits more RBIs because he has more oppurtunities. but he wins more games because he has more oppurtunities. isnt that still most valueable?
Somebody- yeah, 146-116 is a pretty good sized chunk. But that doesn’t make it any more likely that Messr. 146 RsBI is a more productive player than Messr. 116. First, it’s still entirely possible that the latter did a better job of driving runners in than the former, and just had that many fewer opportunities. Andruw Jones in 2005 is a great example of this, in addition to, again, Mauer v. Morneau.
Second, if the guy who gets 30 more RBI takes 100 more outs to do so (i.e. doesn’t get on base), odds are he’s much less productive because he’s depriving his teammates of many MORE chances to produce runs. That’s the main difference here; Howard was a LITTLE more effective at driving runners in (I stress, only a little; he had many more opportunities), but used 111 more of his team’s outs in doing so. That’s one, enormohugantic difference between the two of them, much bigger than the 30 RBIs (there, used all three!).
Maybe you should do a poll, “Who is in your Hall of Fame now?” with just three choices — Greg Maddux, Mom, and apple pie — and see if any of the three gets 100%.
Somebody- I suppose that’s at least debatable, except no way, no how did Howard “win more games” than Pujols.
I’m surprised by the lack of love Hoffman gets.
Boswell’s turnaround feels like Dennis Miller’s change. You read the words and you don’t understand how they could come from the same person you knew.
The “great” Murray Chass has weighed in. No more discussion needed.
http://www.murraychass.com/?p=313
Holy crap. I mean, it’s infinitely less surprising, but that piece by Chass has to be the most vapid thing ever written about baseball. Almost enough to make me support all those bad things Chass used to say about bloggers…
Thomas Boswell is, for lack of a better word, an imbecile. COMMON SENSE indicates that Albert Pujols is SO much better than anybody else in the NL (and apart from A-Rod, the AL too), that the only question we need to be asking is why the guy doesn’t have four or five MVPs already.
And I especially love his “Ryan Howard hit .320 with runners in scoring position!”
Ofcourse, conveniently forgetting to mention that Pujols in that situation hit .339. And OPS’ed 1.201. Compared to Howard’s 1.020. In situations deemed Late and Close, Howard completely vanished, OPS’ing a Neifi Perez’esque .643. Pujols in that scenario OPS’ed 1.044.
Ah, cherrypicking, how we love thee.
(This is, btw, a favorite method of the mental midgets at the BBWAA. Remember 2005, when everyone was bleating about how Clutch Big Papi was, and that he had hit 19 homers that either tied the game or gave his team the lead? And how that was SO MUCH better than A-Rod, who is after all the absolute President of Choke-Land?
Yeah, A-Rod hit 20 such homers. Nobody ever mentioned that.)
Tom Boswell’s argument is, thus : Because Ryan Howard has FAR better teammates (who picked his sorry ass up during April AND June AND August), he is the MVP.
Bravo Tom Boswell. You’ve just made the dumbest argument you can possibly make in baseball.
But wait, you aren’t done. K-Rod is the MVP! It doesn’t matter that he’s not even the best RELIEVER in baseball, it doesn’t matter that he’s not even one of the ten best PITCHERS in baseball, he got 62 saves because he played on a team with a fairly inept offense so more games were close and lead to a save situation!
I can guarantee that nobody in ten years is going to remember that “K-Rod” saved 62 games in 2008. You know why? Because nobody FREAKING CARES.
Tom Boswell, you, sir, are a relic. An unnecessary relic that we’d all rather just fade away; much like hippies. Please do everyone – including common sense – a favor and retire.
Failing that, someone please cut the man’s cable so he can’t pollute the internet anymore.
Larko: .” Llary: point taken, as far as VORP not being 0-based. But I don’t really see how it affects my argument. Again, would you rather have lineup (a) Albert Pujols and two shlub replacement players (better than Tony Pena, but still shlubs), or would you rather have a lineup with (b) 3 Ryan Howards? (Here, I’m following your lead and rounding up.) If you base your trades or player evaluations on VORP, you should prefer (a): that gets you the higher sum VORP. I don’t see how your production/VORP distinction affects this basic”
If you read what he wrote he answered that question. He’d rather have three Ryan Howards than one Pujols and 2 schlubs. That’s why he said , “Which means, that even if Pujols’ VORP were three times Howard’s, that would not actually mean that he was a full three times as productive.”
Maybe it will help to think of it this way: Let’s say for the sake of discussion that an average employee at joeblogcorp makes $40K a year. Ryan makes $60K a year. Albert makes $100K a year. Ryan makes $20K more than the average and Albert makes $60K more than the average. Albert doesn’t make 3 times as much as Ryan, but he does make 3 times as much more than average.
The point being, yes, it’s silly to suggest that Albert Pujols is three times as good as Ryan Howard, but that’s not what the VORP stats are saying and, with due respect to Mr. Boswell, common sense says you should actually understand what a stat is telling you before you declare it to be WILDLY wrong and discard it.
I’m not entirely certain why Boz put â€more valuable“ in quotes
Because he’s a hack.
A writer widely known among his peers and co-workers as a shameless plagiarist who, if he’d been anyone but Tom Boswell, would have been gloriously fired and career ruined and to whom La Russa once called “Abner Doubleday” in mock of Boswell’s self-importance and arrogance?
That’s some hero you got. Fortunately, many of us know better.
PokerPeeker, completely agree that Brett deserved MVP over Mattingly. Brett led my Strat team to a 12-0 run in the playoffs (hard to do in PBM). But the true MVP that season was Rickey Henderson. Brett had a fine year, but not one of the best of all time for a slugger. Henderson’s was one of the best all time for a leadoff hitter.
As for Howard versus Pujols, I’d put it similarly. Pujols just had one of the best seasons of all time, especially for a right handed batter. Howard didn’t have one of the best seasons of all time. Pujols kept the Cardinals close to the top of the NL Central most of the season, pretty much singlehandedly. Howard is about the third most valuable player on his team. After Pujols has won four or five MVP awards, then I’ll stop complaining about him losing to a Howard, the same way that Jordan lost a couple because people wanted a change. But this was only Pujols’ second MVP; it’s too soon to be tired of him.
Know what guys….hate tos ay it (as it sounds whining and self-pitying) but the writers all favor the coastal players in all things. Period. Put Maddux in a Yankee uniform and he’s past Whitey Ford. Frank in NY or LA? First ballot HOF. If Pujols were on the Mets he’d be the new Gehrig. He is the most complete ballplayer I’ve ever seen, or even imagined. If you had one player from the past 60 years to build your team around, you’d be crazy of you didn’t pick him. He probably could be MVP if he only played 81 games!
I have looked at that 1985 Royals roster many times. Which position player from that team would you even want on today’s Royals? Brett and Frank, and maybe Willie. But the other were mediocre, average journeymen. Brett carried the team all by himself. Not MVP???? Now I worked across the street from the stadium in 85 and had several personal interactions with George and didn’t much care for him. But when he didn’t win MVP I was staggered. I lost all interest in post season awards right hen. There are tangibles and intangibles, but there is winning, and go look at the at roster and see if that team wins 75 games with Paul Schaal at third.
Jim C, I don’t think there’s much, if any, evidence to back up your assertion that “the writers all favor the coastal players in all things.”
“Put Maddux in a Yankee uniform and he’s past Whitey Ford.”
That’s just silly. Maddux is acclaimed as one of the all-time greats. He won 4 Cy Young awards in a row, to Whitey Ford’s one. When he’s eligible for the Hall, Maddux will cruise in on the first ballot.
“Frank in NY or LA? First ballot HOF.”
I assume you mean Frank Thomas. Considering that he hasn’t even retired yet, it may be a little too soon to start getting offended over his HoF vote. Of course, the writers did disrespect him to the tune of back-to-back MVP awards.
“If Pujols were on the Mets he’d be the new Gehrig.”
Well, Pujols was rookie of the year. He’s won two MVPs, the same number as Gehrig won in his entire career. He’s finished second three times. Indeed, in his eight-year career, Pujols has finished in the top 4 of the MVP voting 7 times and 9th once. He’s already got just one less top 10 MVP finish than Gehrig and he’s routinely compared to DiMaggio. I’m not sure how much more the writers are supposed to honor him.
Don Mattingly didn’t win the MVP in 1985 because of coastal bias. He won it because of RBI bias.
Re: comparing Howard and Pujols directly with VORP. You are falling into a giant trap if you think you can common sense away the facts, and you’re missing the whole point of the article. If you would rather have 3 Ryan Howards than 1 Albert Pujols, you are either A) an idiot, or B) forgeting that you’re only allowed 9 players in the batting order and you have to pay them all.
Talking about roster construction without talking about salaries doesn’t even make any sense. Even if it did, I am guessing that if you ran a simulation, the 1 Pujols team would come out almost exactly the same as the 2.7 Howard team, and the only difference would be because fo the geometric nature of baseball (can’t drive runs in if the people in front didn’t get on base). In fact, I bet the Howard team would do demonstrably worse because he only got on base 33% of the time! He was somewhere around 25th in the majors among 1st basemen (I’m guessing at who has enough at-bats to matter). If anyone has a simulation available and would like to run this it would be interesting.
If you take into account the fact that you would need to pay these players, the choice becomes amazingly clear. And this doesn’t even include defense.
Sorry–many non KC guys here. I meant Frank White, superlative fielding, solid hitting, world-class citizen who was the centerpiece of many excellent teams, including two that went to the WS.
Otherwise, I just don’t know. “Pujols is routinely compared to DiMaggio” well Joltin’ Joe was certainly a great player, but don’t you think there was a little bias toward him as well? JoPo has written about Musial, and what an astonishing career he had. And Williams (a man of modest ego and great perspicacity….) felt short-changed there as well. I lived in NY and know how those guys were crammed down our throats.
And if Maddux had been a Yankee he would have started 10 All Star games…The media circus has a ring for NY and environs, a ring for California, and a ring for the rest of baseball. Even though Mattingly had more RBIs than Brett, I cannot imagine how anyone who watched that season (and probably lots of writers didn’t see George) could be blinded by one statistic.
@GOGIGGS –
Thanks for that. Bill James looked at the alleged “NY bias” a while ago and concluded that there is indeed a “NY bias” when it comes to awards — except that it is a bias AGAINST NY players. Among other things, he observed (paraphrasing) that writers spent the years between 1952 and 1964 debating who they should give the award to that wasn’t named Mickey Mantle.
Which, BTW, seems to be pretty much what’s happening with Pujols.
See, you say these things, but you apparently are indifferent to the actual facts of the matter.
“And if Maddux had been a Yankee he would have started 10 All Star games…”
Maddux has started 3 All-Star games and appeared in 8. Over that same period of time a Yankee has started the All-Star game 2 times, Roger Clemens in 2001 and David Wells in 1998. Before Wells, the last Yankee to start an All-Star game was Mel Stottlemyre in 1969. Hardly and indication of a pro-Yankee bias.
As far as Frank White goes, he was a heck of a player, but I don’t see any evidence to suggest he would have gotten into the Hall if he was a NY player and certainly no evidence he would have been a first ballot guy. Willie Randolph never came close to the Hall. Phil Rizzuto had to wait 38 years.
In the past 20 years four guys have made it into the Hall on the first ballot that you could call NY guys: Wade Boggs, Dave Winfield, Reggie Jackson and Tom Seaver. Do you think Frank White is in their class? Do you think any of those guys just got in because they were from NY?
As far as the Pujols/DiMaggio thing goes, you said if Pujols played in NY he’d be treated like Gehrig, a great NY player. I pointed out that a) he pretty much was treated like Gehrig, in terms of awards voting, at least, and was routinely compared to another Yankee great, DiMaggio (for the high average/power combo with low strikeouts). Claiming that DiMaggio was overrated doesn’t in any way refute my point that Pujols is treated like the Yankees greats already, even playing in St. Louis.
Also, it bears pointing out that the All-Star game starter is selected by the All-Star team manager so the number of All-Star games started by Greg Maddux has absolutely nothing to do with any coastal bias on the part of writers.
“We want to believe that the MVP — and the MVP alone — could have lifted them higher than they’ve ever been lifted before.”
OK, how about this? We give the real MVP the MVP award, and we give the year’s Ryan Howard the Rita Coolidge Award?
Another round of replies…
1. TB. You’ve persuaded me: lefty/righty splits do matter. I’m not convinced they settle the award, or even that they should be at the heart of the case for Pujols (obviously, Pujols has a lot going for him even aside from his splits dominance), but you’re right that they shouldn’t be ignored completely.
2. GOGIGGS: You huff-and-puff, but aren’t you really granting my whole argument? Let me re-state the argument like this.
(i) If VORP really does measure players’ value, then a GM should prefer trades that bring him net gains in VORP.
(ii) By this standard, a GM should want to trade 2.73 Ryan Howards in order to acquire 1 Pujols + 2 Schlubs. This would bring a net increase in VORP.
(iii) But that’s crazy, 2.73 Howards are worth more than 1 Pujols. Some people on this board deny this step, but this is the point you are granting.
(iv) But then, it follows that VORP isn’t a true measure of players’ value. In other words, sometimes a GM should actively seek to decrease their team VORP, because this would actually make their team better — it would increase the real value of their team. For instance, imagine you are the owner of 1 Albert Pujols and can trade him + 2 Schlubs to acquire 2.73 Ryan Howards. This would decrease your net VORP, but as *you grant*, nevertheless it’s a trade you should make.
Isn’t this a problem for VORP as a stat? That by your own admission, sometimes GMs should try to decrease their net VORPs, in order to make their teams better — that is to say, more valuable?
Seems to me that it plainly is. That doesn’t mean VORP is worthless as a stat, just that it has limitations. Given these limitations, it would be unfotunate to vote for Pujols over Howard for MVP solely on the basis of VORP. Admittedly, there are other bases on which to vote for Pujols, just as there are other bases on which to vote for Howard.
What is Boz thinking? I don’t even think Francisco Rodriguez had a single RBI this year.
Wow, can’t believe I read all of those. I honestly can’t believe there isn’t more of an outrage for the fact that Howard finished 2nd and Utley 15th. Utley is completely underappreciated.
On the Howard vs. Pujols argument, Pujols has an on base advantage of more than 100 pts and a slugging advantage of more than 100 points. He is also a better defender. I would say that VORP has it right and in a pretty obvious fashion. I would take pujols and two replacement players anyday, the 3 Howard’s would never get on base and wouldn’t field anything.
Murray Chass, in the article referred to above, says, “[About the MVP], My own definition over the years has been to designate the player without whom his team could not have done what it did.”
It would seem that a simple “common sense” test would then be to ask, “If Ryan Howard had been replaced by Albert Pujols, would Philly have won more games?” You can’t answer “Certainly not!” with a straight face.
If Chase Utley had been replaced by Dan Uggla, would Philly have won more games?”
If Jimmy Rollins had been replaced by Hanley Ramirez, would . . .?”
If Cole Hamels had been replaced by Tim Lincecum, would. . .?”
That would at least get you to a better sense as to who was most important to Philadelphia. If you asked enough such questions, it would get you an understanding as to who was best at each position in the league.
To get the MVP, you have to do further analysis, but at least you wouldn’t make the dumbest of choices.
You can’t add up VORP to score a trade or compare groups of players. Think about this.
Remember, a replacement level player HAS value, value that does not show up in VORP. Using VORP, 1 schlub = 1 billion schlubs. Or more relevantly here, 2.73 Howards = 1 Pujols + 1 billion schlubs. But 1 Pujols also = 2.73 Howards + 1 billion schlubs.
The total value of Pujols (if VORP measures anything) is (96.8 + schlub) and Howard’s value is (35.3 + schlub). In order to know how many Howards = 1 Pujols, you need the value of a schlub. Then the relative value is something under 2.73, which I think we’d all agree is a better assessment.
Of course, if you add in the value of a schlub to Pujols’ VORP, you just get his runs created. So why bother with VORP at all in this situation?
When you ignore most of the data, you could conceivably to go war stating there are WMD when there are none. I too am a great Bowell fan. He was prescient when he proved time begins on opening day. Yet, this article concerns me. Perhaps his situation is analogous to Paul McCartney’s. McCartney wrote great songs as a Beatle and a good bit of nonsense thereafter.
I thought the Mattingly in 1985 comparison was beautiful, in that, like Howard, Mattingly wasn’t even the best player on his team — Rickey Henderson was. Even if I accept the widom of traditional stats, Mattingly’s accomplishment was less impressive than Rickey’s. Mattingly drove in 145 runs, which was a lot, the most since Foster in ‘77, most in the AL since Al Rosein in 1953. However, McCrae had 133 RBI in 1982, and Rice and Baylor had 139 in ‘78 and ‘79 respectively, so it wasn;t miles ahead of recent performances. Rickey scored 146 runs, the most in a season since….Ted Williams in 1950. And, in fact, since Willimas in 1950, only 2 people had scored within 10 of Rickey’s total.
Likewise, Howard wasn’t the best Phillie (Philly?) this year, with Utley, probably Hamels and Lidge all better than Howard this year. If sportswirters argues that Utley deserved MVP, I think the outrage would have been 0, but how can Howard be MVP when he isn;t close to being MVPhillie?
Well, now I have stopped laughing. This must be one of the most sublimely humorous things I have read this year.
Boz, in the article linked above writes: “In the case of the goofy gap between Pujols’ VORP of 96.8 and Howard’s 35.3, my reaction is ‘Time to revisit VORP. If it can be this wrong, it’s not as good as I tought it was.’”
Ok Sylvester, you did see “a puddy cat”.
Mr. Redlegs wrote: “A writer widely known among his peers and co-workers as a shameless plagiarist who, if he’d been anyone but Tom Boswell, would have been gloriously fired and career ruined and to whom La Russa once called “Abner Doubleday†in mock of Boswell’s self-importance and arrogance?
That’s some hero you got. Fortunately, many of us know better”
I have never heard Boswell accused of plagiarism. And in the age of Google, a “shameless plagiarist” cannot stay in the closet very long.
Where is the evidence behind this accusation — which amounts to a libel against Boswell in the absence of evidence.
Even as a kid, I knew RBI was overrated. I used to read Tom when I was young too.
I loved total average as a teenager (before the explosion of more complicated and accurate stats) and it is still more viable than the current common lazy man’s stat OPS, which takes 2 numbers with much different spreads between being good and bad, as well as different denominators, because it is easy.
In recent years, I too have noticed that Tom was mailing it in, not making any sense and calling it common sense. I wonder how old he is?
Jose Guillen’s 97 RBI while being about the 8th best player on the team- but getting the most plate appearances and hitting 4th says everything about the uselessness of RBI as a stat to analyze.
It does not take any analysis to know that Pujols is clearly superior to Howard. You simply have to watch them play.
Pujols is the best RH hitter I have ever seen.
[...] by Dave Studeman One of my favorite sports writer/bloggers, Joe Posnanski, has written a biting, yet appropriate, critique of Thomas Boswell’s position that giving the MVP to Albert Pujols is “nuts.” This [...]