Jon Heyman More Valuable than Tom Verducci, but Verducci Better

There’s nothing that draws out crazy failures in logic like MVP and CY Young voting. I just stumbled onto CNNSI and checked out Tom Verducci and Jon Heyman’s picks, and there’s a whole lotta wrong to be discussed. To be honest, I didn’t follow baseball as much this year as I have in prior years. I had a really busy summer at work and personally. It’s also pretty late and I’m tired. So instead of doing a bunch of research and using numbers to dissect their picks, which strike me as odd, I’ll just try to approach it more high level, with some basic logic.

First, Verducci, who is generally decent. Unlike Heyman, who must have incriminating pictures of someone important at SI.

NL MVP

1. Albert Pujols
2. Lance Berkman
3. Ryan Howard
4. Ryan Braun
5. Manny Ramirez
6. Brad Lidge
7. CC Sabathia
8. David Wright
9. Johan Santana
10. Hanley Ramirez

The guy is just posting his opinion, so just because I think Chase Utley should be on the ballot and he doesn’t have him, I’m not going to throw a fit. But Manny Ramirez played in 53 games. Brad Lidge had a great year. He threw 70 innings with a 1.95 ERA. But I have a fundamental problem with closers being MVP’s unless they are historically awesome.

But here’s my bigger problem. Based on the above list, how is Verducci’s CY ballot not:
Lidge
Sabathia
Santana

?

Here it is:

NL Cy Young

1. Tim Lincecum
2. Johan Santana
3. Brandon Webb

Verducci tells us the CY is meant to honor the best pitcher in the league, and correctly says that the pitcher with the most wins isn’t necessarily that pitcher. But how the fuck isn’t the best pitcher more valuable than the second best pitcher? How is the most valuable pitcher not one of the 3 best pitchers? And how is the best starter not more valuable than 2 other starters? In my mind, any attempt to reconcile this position is a failure to understand the singular nature of baseball performances. It’s not Lincecum’s fault the Giants suck. He can’t control what the other 4 pitchers do, or what the hitters do.

Similarly, Verducci had Francisco Rodriguez ninth as the most valuable pitcher in the AL, but not among the top 3 pitchers. Aren’t the pitchers who pitch better more valuable?

Now to Jon Heyman.

NL MVP

1. Manny Ramirez, Dodgers. The savant saved the storied franchise, slugging .743 and lifting the Dodger dogs to the NL West title.

Okay, but 53 games? Even if you include all his games in Boston, Pujols still had 147 Runs Created vs. Ramirez’s 134. Ramirez RC number in the NL was 60.9. The Dodgers won the NL West because the NL West sucked. If they were in the NL East, and the Mets were in the NL West, Heyman’s first 4 players are Mets. Why is this so hard?

2. CC Sabathia, Brewers. Carried them with three straight outings on three days' rest, and oh yes, had a league-leading seven complete games.

It’s just a philosophical difference here on Ramirez and Sabathia that’s not worth debating further. Sabathia is more defensible (to be on the Cy ballot), to me. For the rest of them, I’ll just show the list without the explanations because I have the same point that I had with Verducci.

3. Ryan Howard, Phillies.
4. Brad Lidge, Phillies.
5. Albert Pujols, Cardinals.

Pujols just finished his best season. He posted the best OPS+ in baseball (190) since Barry Bonds in 2004. The best by someone not named Bonds in the NL since Sammy Sosa in 2001 (64 homers, .437 OBP). Manny Ramirez’s (highest full season OPS+ was 186 in 2000) was higher in his 53 games in LA. I’m going with the guy who played 148 games in the NL.

6. Ryan Braun, Brewers.
7. Johan Santana, Mets.
8. Carlos Delgado, Mets.
9. Chase Utley, Phillies.
10. Lance Berkman, Astros.

So his CY ballot must be Sabathia, Lidge, Santana?

NL Cy Young

1. Santana. Gets edge over CC for ERA title and for being in the NL all year.

But, in the MVP race…….you had….Sabathia SECOND, and said you could easily have flipped him with Ramirez! Why….here…does being the NL all year mean more??

2. Sabathia. Sheer second-half dominance.

What about the first half? Does that count?

3. Lidge. Though tough to leave out Webb and especially Lincecum (18-5, with a league-leading 265 strikeouts) in this year with at least five deserving candidates.

NL Cy Old: Tom Gorzelanny. Ugliest numbers ever, including a demonic 6.66 ERA.

Ugliest ever? Cy Old is lame and doesn't make sense. Wouldn't the Cy Old be....like.....the best old pitcher?

AL MVP

1. Francisco Rodriguez, Angels. An alltime great season with a record 62 saves.

Ladies and gentleman, your AL MVP…..the 4th best closer in the league!

2. Carlos Quentin, White Sox.
3. Dustin Pedroia, Red Sox.
4. Justin Morneau, Twins.
5. Kevin Youkilis, Red Sox.
6. Joe Nathan, Twins.
7. Joe Mauer, Twins.
8. Jermaine Dye, White Sox.
9. Josh Hamilton, Rangers.
10. Evan Longoria, Rays.

Apparently Grady Sizemore and Alex Rodriguez were not as valuable as any of these 10 players because the other players on their teams did not play as well as the other players on the above teams.

Okay, so his Cy Young ballot must start with Rodriguez and Nathan?

OF COURSE NOT.

AL Cy Young

1. Cliff Lee, Indians.
2. Roy Halladay, Blue Jays.
3. Francisco Rodriguez.

I know that Heyman thinks this makes total sense and that I'm just a geek and he would say that I don’t understand baseball and pennant races and cracker jack and locker rooms and sweat, but this is a giant failure to exercise defensible logic.

I suppose Verducci and Heyman feel that good closers are very valuable, but they aren't necessarily worthy of being deemed the best pitchers, but how can Heyman defend having two starters 1 order in the MVP balloting (Sabathia / Santana) with good separation between them, but then have the order reversed in the CY balloting?

Jon Heyman, I Don't Believe You

In the 2/11 "Daily Scoop", Jon Heyman of CNNSI included this brief paragraph about Don Mattingly.

• Don Mattingly did the right thing as usual by choosing his family over the Dodgers' hitting coach job, and many believe that he also cut his playing career a few years short for similar family reasons. That decision may have cost him being a part of the Yankees' late-90s dynasty as well as possible entrance into the Hall of Fame, but Mattingly has never said a thing about it publicly.

Don Mattingly's last season was in 1995, when he hit 7 homeruns with a .288 average a .341 OBP. I have not heard of anyone, until the paragraph above, ever speculate that he retired because of family issues and not his back and lack of productivity at the plate. Of course, Heyman’s “many” could be his contacts that I of course have no access to, but I personally think he’s just pulling this paragraph out of his ass. From my point of view, Mattingly was done as a star caliber player when he retired, and probably a season away from being a part-timer if he chose to stay on. He was not going to be a serious (star caliber) contributor a championship team (again, maybe a part-time player, but that flies in the face of the HOF talk). Mattingly could always hit for a decent average, but when he lost his power in the late 80’s he was really no longer a star. His great glove and pretty good BA at first base was diminished by his terrible power and the fact that he didn't walk much or have any speed.

Mattingly played 770 games over 6 seasons in the 1990’s. In those games he hit 58 home runs, or 12 per 162 games. I certainly don’t think that Mattingly hitting another 58 homeruns and a bunch of singles over his next 770 games was going to get him in the Hall of Fame or a continuous spot on the Yankees' roster.

I liked Mattingly (he was one my favorite players), and it’s a shame his back gave him so much problems. I also give him credit for walking away when he did and not creating the awkward “um, Bernie Williams, you suck now, go away” moment that a certain NY center fielder created.

Jon Heyman vs. Keith Law Re: Glaus/Rolen

A few days ago, I caught Jon Heyman’s take on the Scott Rolen for Troy Glaus trade and was going to comment on it, but Keith Law has done my job for me. Not my real job, I’m still selling vacuums door to door. Keith can’t take that away from me.

Anyway, let’s see Heyman’s take:

• The Scott Rolen for Troy Glaus trade makes sense -- for the Blue Jays, anyway. They get the better defensive player and a player not involved in the steroid mess. (According to SI, in 2003 and '04 Glaus received multiple shipments of steroids through an allegedly illegal Internet distribution network.) Execs were accused of looking the other way during the Steroid Era; now some of them are disregarding what we already know. You'd think if any team would be sensitive to the issue it might be the Cardinals. Apparently not.

I was pretty sure that was backwards. I was going to comment on it, but someone asked Keith Law during his ESPN chat on Thursday.

Jonathan Rosenberg (Toronto, Ont): Thoughts on the Glaus for Rolen deal.

Keith Law: I have yet to come up with an argument that justifies this deal for the Blue Jays. They got the older, more hurt (back troubles dating back a decade), worse-hitting player who's under contract for an extra year.

They are both injury proned and in a decline phase production wise. But the most important point when talking about a deal between two past-their-prime, injury prone players? How long you have to pay for them.

Glaus is due $12.75 million in 2008, then can exercise a player option for $11.25 million in 2009.

Rolen is due $11 million in 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Glaus still managed to produce pretty well when he was in the lineup last year. He had an OPS+ of 120 last year with 20 homers (115 games) and a line of .262/.366/.473.

Rolen had a robust 89+ OPS + with 8 homers in 112 games and a line of .365/.331/.398. He was decent in 2006, but his 2005 was another injury year.

Hall of Fame: Arguments of Convenience

We’re all sick of Hall of Fame talk, so I’m hesitantly putting up the post I drafted about a week ago but never got around to it. Jayson Stark just posted his Hall of Fame picks today (which included Jack Morris, who is discussed below) so I’m not the only one late to the party.

The main gripes that I have with most Hall of Fame arguments are as follows:

- They cherry pick stats
- They ignore key statistics.
- They rely on arbitrary thresholds.
- The voter decides based on “gut” or if they felt that a player was a Hall of Famer.
- They use statistics that are not necessarily indicative of Hall of Fame performance.

The purpose of this post is to show you how easy it is to support someone’s HOF inclusion based on convenient arguments and cherry picked stats while ignoring what should be fairly obvious disqualifiers.

First, here’s Buster Olney’s brief (I’m sure summarized) support for Jack Morris:

Jack Morris, like Gossage, is in his ninth year on the ballot, after winning 254 games, including three 20-win seasons. There were four instances in which he finished in the top five in the Cy Young Award voting, and he was named an All-Star five times, twice as the starting pitcher. He led all pitchers in the '80s with 162 victories, 133 complete games, 332 starts and 2,443 innings. He held the AL record for consecutive starting assignments before that mark was broken by Roger Clemens in 2001. I put an "X" through the box next to Morris' name.

Based on this excerpt, Morris could be a Hall of Famer, but he really shouldn’t be. He has a lifetime 3.90 ERA and, including his superb game 7 in Game 7 of the ’91 World Series, he was actually about as good in the postseason as he was in the regular season. A 3.90 ERA would be the highest in the Hall of Fame. In fact, his lifetime ERA+ is only 105, which means that adjusted for ballpark he was only 5% better than league average over the course of his career. As a point of reference, Rick Reuschel, in about as many innings, was at 114. 105 is the province of Denny Neagle, Jamie Moyer, and Zane Smith. Morris was a workhorse who ate innings, had great run support, and pitched one of the finest games in MLB history, given the stage.

There have been many dissertations on why Morris is not a Hall of Famer so I’ll stop there, but instead I’ll propose the Hall of Fame inclusion for a different pitcher using the same general methodology (but different measures) as many voters. Here goes:

------------------------------------

Player X had a career ERA+ of 122, meaning his park-adjusted ERA was 22% better than his contemporaries. Despite his late career injuries, he still threw almost 3,000 innings with a career ERA+ better than Tom Glavine, Warren Spahn, and Steve Carlton (the fact that these 3 are lefties is purely coincidental). During his prime years, he had a run of consecutive ERA+ of 138, 142, 145 and 172 while tossing more than 260 innings in each year. He posted two additional years of ERA+’s in excess of 130. 172 is better than Roger Clemens posted in 1986 (Cy Young and MVP that year), and better than the very best years in the careers of Glavine, Juan Marichal, and Jim Palmer. He was named to seven All-Star teams and he started two in a row. Despite playing on some bad teams, he finished with a career winning % of .562, better than Don Drysdale and Fergie Jenkins. He was in the top seven in the Cy Young voting four times, and he collected MVP votes on 3 occasions. He led the league in ERA once and was top five on five occasions. He led the league in innings twice and was top five in shutouts four times.

During his career he was one of the toughest pitchers in his league to hit. He led the league in lowest hits per nine innings twice and was in the top seven on eight occasions. He threw a no-hitter, and I believe he threw five one-hitters (can’t find one-hitter stats). He had a no-hitter broken up with two outs and two strikes in the ninth inning in two consecutive starts (which is unreal). He also had a perfect game broken up with two outs in the ninth, which was ultimately a two-hitter. I remember watching that game on TV against the Yankees, and I’ve never seen pitches have so much movement. His career hits allowed per nine innings is better than Carlton, Drysdale, Marichal, Spahn, Greg Maddux, and Curt Schilling. He had the lowest ERA of any pitcher in the 1980’s (who threw at least 1,600 innings), he was second in wins and he led all 80’s pitchers with 27 shutouts. He had a better career strikeout to walk ratio than Jim Palmer.

------------------------------------

This player was on the Hall of Fame ballot once, in 2004, and he received 1.4% of the vote. Not enough to ever be seen on the ballot again. He received 7 votes that year versus Jack Morris’ 133.

Dave Stieb shouldn’t be a Hall of Famer, and to anyone with a solid head on their shoulders, I was clearly cherry picking my stats and making arguments that are convenient to my cause while ignoring disqualifiers. I even threw in a little personal nostalgia. I could have mentioned that I know a couple people named Dave, which might be enough to warrant a vote if I were Woody Paige.

I guess my point is that I could do this for dozens of players who should not be Hall of Famers. It’s the same thing a ton of voters do for Morris. They decide, with their gut, and then find convenient arguments that support the case while ignoring things that don’t. That’s what Olney has done above, and he supported a guy that was better than Dave Stieb in my mind only because he threw 800 more innings. That’s a lot; 32% more innings, and I give Morris a lot of credit for that (it’s still just 49th all-time). In the innings they both did throw, Stieb was his better by most measures. Jack Morris’ best ERA+ year was tied for Dave Stieb’s sixth best. His second best was a mere 5% better than Stieb’s career average. Five percent isn’t much, and remember that it’s the career ERA+ margin between Jack Morris and Mr. Joe Average Pitcher.

Now after reading about Stieb, please go back and read Olney’s excerpt above and you’ll see where the frustration comes from. Read Jon Heyman’s here and you’ll slam your head into your desk.

Some Lame Jon Heyman Proofreading

From today's summary of the big Marlins/Tigers trade:

Willis was the 2004 NL Rookie of the Year after going 14-6 with a 3.30 ERA and is 68-54 in his five years in Florida. He has pitched over 200 innings in each of the last three years.

2003, not 2004.

The intent of this site isn’t to point out shit like this, or Mike Celizic not understanding how to apply the glass half full analogy. It’s to voice disagreements with columnists who come to crazily supported or unsupported conclusions. I haven’t seen that much lately in the vein of the early content on this site, which began just after the NBA finals. I am trying to avoid purely original content for two reasons: 1.) I’m not a writer. 2.) There are many good blogs/columnists out there that do this. ESPN baseball insiders like Keith Law and Rob Neyer really don’t come to many conclusions that I would disagree with and the ESPN basketball folks are okay. There’s no insight on a baseball trade that I can offer beyond what those guys will. We’ll see what the winter brings.

Anyway, from Heyman’s daily scoop today:

• The Cubs are considered the favorite for top Japanese League outfielder Hiroki Fukudome. But the Red Sox could be an interesting possibility, as well.

If you define “interesting” as “signing a player you don’t need to a lucrative deal to play OF when you already have all three positions set (including 2 CF’s)”, then I agree…..that’s pretty interesting.

What Does Jon Heyman Have Against Kenny Rogers?

Last week it was this comment, and yesterday it was the following:

• Congrats to penny-hoarding Kenny Rogers, who accepted the same Tigers deal already negotiated by his former agent Scott Boras -- $8 million plus a lot of incentives -- but saved the commission by OKing it after letting Boras go. Real nice gesture for a player who's made more than $80 million in his career. Perhaps the small savings can go to the poor cameraman who got clocked.

Did Kenny Rogers take money from the Salvation Army or something? Does Heyman depend on Boras for inside info – why does this deserve even a mention, never mind a sarcastic asshole-ish shot at Rogers? I thought I read in SI that Boras usually takes 5% (which was lower than what I expected) of the deals he signs. So $8 million x 5% = $400,000. I don’t care how much money you make – that’s still $400K. I don’t think Rogers expected to best Boras’ deal by millions. He probably just realized that he could get the same deal he already had and not have to work through an agent. By my count he came out almost a half million ahead (with incentives). Knucklehead!

Jon Heyman, Folks. Don’t Forget to Tip Your Server.

Jon Heyman of SI, on the subject of Kenny Rogers’ contract negotiations, in today’s Daily Scoop:

Rogers is a talented pitcher. But he should stop taking business advice from Gary Sheffield, who's no Warren Buffett or Boras. Maybe Rogers and Sheffield could start their own agency for cheap players and call it "Knuckleheads Incorporated."

Maybe Heyman should start his own magazine called "Stupidheads Illustrated"!

Also, is it too soon to point out that Heyman predicted the Yankees chance of signing A-Rod this offseason at 25-1, or 4%? Those odds were lower than the Cubs, who have an All-Star third baseman under contract and are trying to be sold.

Jon Heyman: 7% Chance That A-Rod Retires or Dies This Off-Season

You may remember John Heyman as the SI writer who was befuddled at the Rockies Vegas odds of 28% to beat the Red Sox in the World Series when he himself gave them an implied 27% chance of beating the Red Sox before the playoffs even started. He changed his pick before the WS to the Rockies winning in 7, and then they were swept. I guess what I’m saying is that this guy is a trainwreck when it comes to numbers. He’s also the guy who made fun of sabermetric stats and then wrote an article about stupid made-up attributes like Fun Factor. This time he’s writing about potential suitors for Alex Rodriguez in the free agent market. The analysis is boring and pretty much common knowledge, but the fun is in the odds that Jon provides that Rodriguez will land with certain teams. Let’s take a look at those odds (I’ve added the percentages):

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim: 4-1 – 20%
Boston Red Sox: 6-1 – 14%
San Francisco Giants: 7-1 – 13%
Los Angeles Dodgers: 8-1 – 11%
New York Mets: 10-1 – 9%
Chicago Cubs: 20-1 – 5%
New York Yankees: 25-1 – 4%
Philadelphia Phillies: 30-1 – 3%
The Rest of the Field: 6-1 – 14%

Total: 93%

I see. Since there are 30 teams in MLB, Heyman basically thinks the Yankees odds are about equal to those of the average MLB team and there is really no point in separating out the Phillies at all. Also, the Angels are 5 times more likely to sign A-Rod than the Yankees. I guess what I’m saying is, bad blood and all, I would have had the Yankees a little higher since they are one of a handful of teams that can afford him and have shown a willingness to shell out for expensive players.

I suppose that last 7% is Heyman's sneaky way of saying that maybe no one will pony up for A-Rod. But I think he would have told us that.

Two Minus Three Equals Negative FUN!

More fun with numbers, this time courtesy of Jon Heyman at CNNSI. You no doubt remember this post where I linked to Jon Heyman’s playoff preview. Well as part of his playoff preview, Heyman provided his odds that each team would win the World Series. Now, hang in there, but I’ve dropped those odds into Excel, and computed the % likelihood that is implicit with the applicable odds.

Yankees - 5 to 2 - 28.6%
Red Sox - 3 to 1 - 25.0%
Diamondbacks - 5 to 1 - 16.7%
Rockies - 10 to 1 - 9.1%
Phillies - 11 to 1 - 8.3%
Angels - 12 to 1 - 7.7%
Indians - 15 to 1 - 6.3%
Cubs - 25 to 1 - 3.8%

You’ll notice the following:

- The combined odds exceed 100% (105.5%), which I realized when I posted earlier but didn't think it was worth noting (though it is retarded).
- The Red Sox odds imply that Heyman thought they were 2.75 times more likely than the Rockies to win.

Why is this relevant you ask? Well in today’s daily scoop, Heyman noted the following:

Baseball is filled with number crunchers, sabermetricians and stat geeks. So can someone please explain to me why the bookmakers have installed the Red Sox as 2½-to-1 favorites over the red-hot Rockies in the 103rd World Series? I just don't get it. The numbers don't compute.

They've played .950 baseball over the last month. Yet the oddsmakers are saying that they have only a 28 percent chance to win the Series.

If you now focus only on the odds that Heyman gave for the Red Sox and Rockies earlier, the total percentage is 34.1% that either of them will win. The Rockies’ percentage of that? 27% (The Red Sox = 73%)

So there you go Jon, I'm not a sabermetrician and I really don't consider myself a stat geek, but I've explained it to you using your own numbers.

Now, I get that Heyman may have given different odds if you asked him who would win a head to head series. But if he did it right, I'm not sure he should have to.

Update: I just noticed that at the end of the preview Heyman had changed his tune and said the following: Conclusion: I see Rocktober spilling into Rockvember, and Colorado winning in 7. So apparently the Rockies chances (in comparison to the Red Sox only) have about doubled in Heyman's mind, while the Red Sox have gone down about a third.

Breaking News on Joe Torre

Courtesy of Jon Heyman at CNNSI.

• At least Joe Torre isn't waiting by the phone. Someone must be following him because he's been reported to be at a race track and various restaurants lately. Anyway, glad to see he's getting out.

Hmmmm this needs to be parsed – too much going on.

At least Joe Torre isn't waiting by the phone.

I see. Because people actually wait by phones in 2007, right? Instead of, I don’t know, carrying them everywhere.

Someone must be following him because he's been reported to be at a race track and various restaurants lately.

Jon, your first little test of who this mysterious “someone” who “must be” following him is would be to determine where you go this juicy little piece of gossip.

Anyway, glad to see he's getting out.

Right. Right, me too. I’m worried about all multi-millionaire baseball managers who are no longer alive in the playoffs that have expired contracts. Has anyone checked on Tony LaRussa lately? I haven’t heard about him going out to eat. Are we sure John McLaren’s not waiting by the phone with a loaded .38?

Is Jon Heyman Kidding?

Jon Heyman has written a playoff preview (here), that actually included this line:

Boston has lorded over the Angels in the postseason (remember Dave Henderson?).

Yeah, I do. I was nine. I also remember how I had an Ellis Burks Starting Lineup figure that was actually Dave Henderson’s face. What’s your point?

Don’t you think the 2004 playoffs are more relevant to this little analysis?

Trick question, they both mean jack shit. It still would have made more sense though.