Jon Heyman, crotchety old man

by Adam J. Morris on Aug 27, 2007 4:11 PM CDT in News

About half of Jon Heyman's mailbag column today involves criticism of his MVP and Cy Young choices by statheads, and Heyman responds in crotchy old man manner:

It looks like you went through all the playoff-contending teams, and chose a "good" player from each. Let me ask you: If Cabrera were on a playoff-contender this season, would there be any doubt who the MVP was?
-- Carolyn, Boca Raton, Fla.

Actually, you're right. That's exactly what I did, and how I came up with Prince Fielder as my NL MVP leader. His "good'' year is actually more than good, and the Brewers are right in the thick of the playoff race. While I understand your sentiments, I am more interested in "wins created'' than runs created. And the day I consider VORP is the day I get out of the business. The idea of the MVP is to honor the player who has had the biggest positive impact on the pennant races. I have been a big champion for Ramirez, but I would not consider him a true candidate to win the MVP award.

* * *

Also, VORP (one of those spooky, newfangled computer stats) has Kelvim Escobar first, followed by Santana, Bedard and Haren. Beckett is a distant seventh.
--Rob, Southington, Conn.

There goes that VORP again. When the standings are determined by VORP, I think I will take it more seriously. But as you know, they still go by wins and losses.

Sigh.

Here's the irony.

Prince Fielder's team isn't even doing particularly well right now. Prince Fielder's team, in many years, wouldn't really be a playoff contender. But because the rest of the N.L. Central has been terrible, the .500 Brewers are hanging around and are still in the race.

By Heyman's logic, if the Cubs were 10 games up on the Brewers, Fielder, his top choice, wouldn't be a viable MVP candidate. But since no one has been able to pull away, and the Brewers are 1.5 games back, Fielder deserves the MVP.

I guess the problem with David Wright --a guy who, at .319/.413/.535, 28 of 32 on steals, and quality defense at third base, has been clearly better than Prince Fielder this year -- is that the Mets are far enough ahead in the N.L. East, his performance isn't having enough of an impact on a pennant race.

By Heyman's logic, the best player in baseball on a team that wins 110 games and is 20 games up on the 2nd place team is less deserving of an MVP vote than a decent player on a team that makes it into the playoffs by 1 game.

I'd also like Heyman to explain why, if he won't take VORP seriously because "they still go by wins and losses" in the standings, and not VORP, why he considers anything other than a pitcher's won/loss record in voting for the Cy Young Award. I mean, it isn't as if you should look at ERA, or strikeouts, or anything like that, since they go by wins and losses, not ERA, in the standings.

This is a perfect example of why the BBWAA awards have became such a traveshamockery.

Tweet Comment 60 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I like it

Any time that the phrase "traveshamockery" can be invoked, is a good time. Don't give him any ideas on the Cy Young... he'll put Wakefield among the contenders.

by Brandon Wilson on Aug 27, 2007 4:11 PM CDT reply actions

Maybe

CNN/SI would accept that VORP is insider MLB shorthand for "Vote Only Regular Players". It might remove the burr under some saddles.

Time does funny things. The worst of which is, it keeps moving when you don't.

by Ed Coffin on Aug 28, 2007 1:19 AM CDT up reply actions

Heyman's answer

would be that the Cy Young award doesn't have the word "valuable" in the title, I presume.

Also, I have a sense that Heyman would agree with your assertion that "the best player in baseball on a team that wins 110 games and is 20 games up on the 2nd place team is less deserving of an MVP vote than a decent player on a team that makes it into the playoffs by 1 game."

Greatest Inventions Ever? 1. TiVO, 2. Boobs, 3. Baseball

by willamos2 on Aug 27, 2007 4:16 PM CDT reply actions

Pretty bad

On the one hand, he wants people to consider "wins created" instead of runs created. They kinda of work hand-in-hand. On the other side, at least he's consistent, because he refuses to consider run support in thinking about the Cy Young award.

There's also someone that like minded over at the WWL. Can anyone guess who it is?

Eric (NYC): Ok [name redacted], "bold predictions" time. Who are your AL and NL MVP's? I've got A-Rod beating Ordonez, and Holliday edging out Prince.

[ESPN analyst]: I have A-Rod and Ordonez neck and neck. If the Yankees win the East and the Tigers win the Central then I give it to A-Rod. But I need to see what team finishes the highest.

Well Mr. Burns had done it. The power plant had won it. With Roger Clemens clucking all the while.

by WyoRanger on Aug 27, 2007 4:32 PM CDT reply actions

MVP, Cy Young, and VORP

I have no problem that a writer not wanting to base his vote only on VORP or any other statistical measure of value. If a stat like VORP or win shares or whatever was the sole measure used to determine these awards, then all we have to do is just look at the stat and be done with it - the title "MVP" would carry no added value. If "stat people" only care about one stat or another, they can just look at that stat's rankings and ignore the MVP tally.

MVP should include raw numbers, processed stats, and other things not captured by stats. Just because you can't quantify some things doesn't mean they don't matter. And it is that mindset which causes non-stat people to get angry at anything more sophisticated than batting average.

by JBImaknee on Aug 27, 2007 4:37 PM CDT reply actions

I don't think...

...any stathead wants to base decisions just on one stat.

However, I think what is frustrating is when you have people dismissing stats like VORP or EQA as being the product of nerds with calculators who need to go watch the game, and then use something like RBIs or win totals as a huge factor in voting for an award.

by Adam J. Morris on Aug 27, 2007 4:42 PM CDT up reply actions

I agree of course

I've always felt these awards often just go to the guy who obviously helped their team the most, and in the absence of any obvious winner, go with the guy whose quantifiable value is greatest. The "nerd stats" (which we should start referring to as "elegant stats," because that is what they are) are better to refer to in those situations. Or put another way, these stats are a great way to filter down to a preliminary list of 5 or so guys who you'd consider.

But saying that this guy is more valuable because he finished ahead of another guy in any stat is a weak claim - the noise associated with almost any statistic in baseball is so great that unless you've got about a several percent lead over the guy below you, it is hard to really be significant. And I think that the sportswriters out there are rebelling against that more than anything else (they are just doing a poor job because they shrowd this argument in "I'm too dumb to understand it".) It was a lot harder to rest an argument on just one number when there were 3 used to evaluate any given player.

by JBImaknee on Aug 27, 2007 4:57 PM CDT up reply actions

Why dont we just make up

a stat that incorporates EVERY stat? Statheads would love that. Obviously, you cant JUST look at stats and you can just look an a player's esoteric value. It has to be a little of both.

by Pitcher15 on Aug 27, 2007 5:08 PM CDT up reply actions

esoteric value?

what?

Forget Johnny Bench, we got Gerry "the Jet" Laird

by ab03 on Aug 27, 2007 5:13 PM CDT up reply actions

Esoteric -

recondite, basically what you cannot see on the outside (stats).

by Pitcher15 on Aug 27, 2007 6:05 PM CDT up reply actions

nope

think you are using both of those words incorrectly, although esoteric does mean recondite

Forget Johnny Bench, we got Gerry "the Jet" Laird

by ab03 on Aug 27, 2007 9:33 PM CDT up reply actions

Nope,

you obviously dont understand the word. Read John Locke, for the love of God, read a book.

by Pitcher15 on Aug 27, 2007 9:42 PM CDT up reply actions

no you're wrong

esoteric usually refers to something that is obscure. I think you are talking about intangibles, which isn't the same thing at all. Intangibles aren't obscure, they just can't be quantified.

Forget Johnny Bench, we got Gerry "the Jet" Laird

by ab03 on Aug 27, 2007 9:51 PM CDT up reply actions

Nope

im right, thanks

by Pitcher15 on Aug 27, 2007 9:55 PM CDT up reply actions

lol

reminds me of first grade.....atleast prove the guy wrong, instead of just saying.....

nope.....im right, thanks.....

and not sure what you were trying to say, but just because you've read a word in a book, doesn't mean you know the definition of the word.....not saying you're right or wrong, because i dont know.....just saying

by slash on Aug 27, 2007 10:10 PM CDT up reply actions

First of all,

it is NEVER EVER mentioned in any of Locke's pamphlets. He NEVER wrote a book. He was the leading writer during the French Enligtenment. You know the movement that STARTED democracy?

Here is a layman's defintion:

Esoteric does NOT mean obscure. It means something that only few can understand. It is, in fact, very apparent BUT only to the educated. The reason I brought up John Locke is because his writing is a great example of someone writing esoterically. Only the educated understood, not obscure just not playing to ignorance.

A player's esoteric value can best defined and quantified (as ab03 says) by looking at how his teammates view him. It is not obscure at all. We can grasp a little of enough but we are not educated enough to really know. His teammates are. I played with guys in college that performed decently but I KNEW how valuable they were. That is why I think you really have to pay attention to what certain player's teammates say and managers say. Proof enough?

by Pitcher15 on Aug 27, 2007 10:21 PM CDT up reply actions

you told him to read a book

that's the only reason why i said that, im not debating either of your sides, so you don't have to convince me....

by slash on Aug 27, 2007 10:34 PM CDT up reply actions

Edit:

modern democracy.

by Pitcher15 on Aug 27, 2007 10:22 PM CDT up reply actions

And...

I think it is quite ironic you dont understand the word hahahahahaha.

by Pitcher15 on Aug 27, 2007 9:44 PM CDT up reply actions

To quote...

Indigo Montoya, "I do not think that word means what you think it means."

confined to and understandable by only an enlightened inner circle; "a compilation of esoteric philosophical theories"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

by benmor78 on Aug 27, 2007 10:25 PM CDT up reply actions

Please

read my above reply. Thanks!!

by Pitcher15 on Aug 27, 2007 10:35 PM CDT up reply actions

Your reply doesn't make any sense...

In your original statement, you said that you have to look at both a player's stats and "esoteric value." If a player's esoteric value is understandable to only a few, then it's not quantifiable, and is thus a worthless measure by which to objectively measure a plyer.

by benmor78 on Aug 27, 2007 10:38 PM CDT up reply actions

haha

good point

by slash on Aug 27, 2007 10:40 PM CDT up reply actions

Hey

i didnt once mention that I can understand what a player's esoteric value is. Im not a teammate of any of these players. And yes it can be quantified by his teammates. Back to the original argument after giving yall a history lesson.

There has to be a balance between stats and other things (Sorry it is late and I could not think of a better word and if I did, im sure yall would TRY to say im using it improperly). And believe it or not I AGREE with Adam that Prince Fielder is a rather poor choice for NL MVP. I personally think Jose Reyes is the NL MVP. However, that is simply my opinion.

by Pitcher15 on Aug 27, 2007 10:49 PM CDT up reply actions

Still wrong...

"i didnt once mention that I can understand what a player's esoteric value is. Im not a teammate of any of these players. And yes it can be quantified by his teammates. Back to the original argument after giving yall a history lesson."

That's idiocy. You said that, in evaluating a player, we have to look at stats and his "esoteric value." Then, you say that you don't know what a player's esoteric value is. Which, interestingly enough, leaves us with stats.

Since you can't even define what constitutes a player's esoteric value, how are we supposed to use it to evaluate them? Apparently, there's some sort of baseball phlogiston that makes a player better and is only apparent to an enlightened inner circle, which, simply, is stupid. First of all, what inner circle is it self-evident to? Is CJ Wilson an effective pitcher because he's a Taoist and focuses his chi? Or is he an effective pitcher because he throws hard and has a good arsenal, and has nice peripherals?

by benmor78 on Aug 27, 2007 10:56 PM CDT up reply actions

Both.

To your answer with good ol CJ Wilson. I told you I cant I can just take what his teammates say, period. I dont vote on the MVP. Writers do. Writers talk to the player's teammates.

by Pitcher15 on Aug 27, 2007 11:08 PM CDT up reply actions

Well...

that isn't really a response to my post, although I suppose I should be glad that you didn't try to work in some of your lecture notes from last week's "Intro to Philosophy" course.

I suppose we should read your position as "those holding press credentials are the only ones who can actually evaluate a player."

by benmor78 on Aug 27, 2007 11:12 PM CDT up reply actions

Haha,

Yeah "Intro to Philosophy", that is exactly the same as graduate level courses I took in political philosophy (electives in college, dont have my degree in it).

by Pitcher15 on Aug 27, 2007 11:18 PM CDT up reply actions

And now...

you tell me how big your penis is, right? The intellectual posturing is a sign of a tiny mind.

by benmor78 on Aug 27, 2007 11:22 PM CDT up reply actions

Nah,

it's average haha. Funny, I always thought ignorance was the sign of a tiny mind. You simply challenged my foundation in this subject, I answered. Just like if I asked you about certain rules and regs pertaining to trading stock on the market and challenged your knowledge. I GUARANTEE you would take me to school.

by Pitcher15 on Aug 27, 2007 11:28 PM CDT up reply actions

Well...

think about what you're doing. Let's pretend you walk into a bar, join in the discussion, and insult the bartender and a bunch of the regulars. If you want to keep coming back to that bar, is that the appropriate thing to do?

by benmor78 on Aug 28, 2007 12:05 AM CDT up reply actions

and the winner is...

...ben with the last word, and only coherent analogy in the tangent... huzzah

he's no longer spider pig. now he's harry plopper...

by ivysafety39 on Aug 28, 2007 7:36 AM CDT up reply actions

I really like that analogy as well

Forget Johnny Bench, we got Gerry "the Jet" Laird

by ab03 on Aug 28, 2007 8:57 AM CDT up reply actions

I'm drunk.

You know, at the bar.

by a bebop a rebop on Aug 28, 2007 10:59 AM CDT up reply actions

Arrogance

I am a very patient person, who gives people the benefit of the doubt rather easily. Yet I have no patience for extreme, unfounded arrogance like what Pitcher15 has displayed in this discussion.

Unfortunately, I continued to read the responses hoping that someone so confident of their intellect might use it to formulate a strong retort. Apparently the confidence had no root in reality as Pitcher15's arguments consisted of nothing more than "Nope...I'm right thanks."

There are doctors, lawyers, Ph.D.'s and numerous master degrees held by the posters at LSB. So please, when you post on LSB, expect that there are people who know more than you about the subject you are posting on, and don't respond so arrogantly and negatively to those who question your claims. After all, we've all been wrong at times...most of us are wrong about things rather regularly.

by rangeressary on Aug 28, 2007 9:45 AM CDT up reply actions

yeah, he mastered the art of talking down

to every poster he came across

by slash on Aug 28, 2007 5:56 PM CDT up reply actions

What is understandable to absolutely no one

is why you've chosen to be such a prick. You can make your argument without trying to insult the intelligence of everyone who hasn't recently read John Locke. It's great that you're so proud of yourself, I'm very happy for you.

And no matter what esoteric means (I don't know, I'm not one of the few enlightened ones like you), as ab03 says, intangible would have been a much better word choice for your argument.

Signature

by t ball on Aug 27, 2007 11:06 PM CDT up reply actions

I think we've met this guy's brother:

http://www.lonestarball.com/comments/2006/9/27/9736/27823/62#62

http://www.lonestarball.com/comments/2006/9/25/152816/108/72#72

This whole diary was oddly funny, although his bro was co-starring w/ orton1227:

http://www.lonestarball.com/story/2006/9/25/152816/108

Booya!

I will not get my comeuppance!

by Brian Thomas on Aug 28, 2007 8:32 AM CDT up reply actions

I'd forgotten

about Captain Caveman, thank you very little for reminding me, heh.

Signature

by t ball on Aug 28, 2007 10:36 AM CDT up reply actions

Jose Reyes??

Lol. You're living in Crack Town.

He has a teammate who's a MASSIVELY better choice in David Wright.

He has a SS in the same division who's a MASSIVELY better choice in Hanley Ramirez.

But I guess Ramirez doesn't have any "esoteric value" sine his teammates suck worse than Reyes' teammates.

by Brian Hayes on Aug 28, 2007 6:43 PM CDT up reply actions

Heheh wow!

"Is hell endothermic or exothermic" revisited.

Time does funny things. The worst of which is, it keeps moving when you don't.

by Ed Coffin on Aug 27, 2007 11:04 PM CDT up reply actions

Heymann

Fails in the same way many sportswriters do, especially after they become "established".

they fail to learn. There is more about the game to learn than who's going onto the 40 this winter, how JoeRayBobEd pitched vs. the RedSawkz, and who gets attention on a team exceeding expectations. Call if ignorance of the truly quantified stuff.

Heh ... and I'm no stathead.

Time does funny things. The worst of which is, it keeps moving when you don't.

by Ed Coffin on Aug 27, 2007 5:03 PM CDT up reply actions

There are 2 things to look at when predicting

MVP winners.

Of all the teams finishing near the top, who has the most RBIs. My guess is that has about a 70% chance of predicting the eventual MVP winner.

by DJCahill on Aug 27, 2007 7:08 PM CDT up reply actions

Isn't that one thing?

I will not get my comeuppance!

by Brian Thomas on Aug 27, 2007 7:58 PM CDT up reply actions

i'll try to answer that...

First thing: look at top-finishing teams
Second thing: among 1) look at the top RBI man

by Hubris on Aug 27, 2007 8:16 PM CDT up reply actions

it's simple

al mvp = magglio ordóñez
nl mvp = chipper jones
al cy young = johan santana
nl cy young = jake peavy

or maybe not that simple...

Al Gore 2008 http://www.myspace.com/igotsculture

by gossamer on Aug 27, 2007 4:50 PM CDT reply actions

hehe

you called him crotchy

Forget Johnny Bench, we got Gerry "the Jet" Laird

by ab03 on Aug 27, 2007 5:07 PM CDT reply actions

how can you call

me a useless poster, when you post stuff like this lol.....i fool around in the gameday thread when we're losing, but other than that, i share my baseball knowledge on mostly every subject I post on.......

You've held the stupidest grudge I've ever seen....I forgot the number of yes' and no's to my "Who wanted Carlos Pena" question....and you went Completely Apeshit and took it to heart....it was hilarious....and youve been personally insulting me ever since......in my eyes it wasnt a big deal at all and in your case it ruined your month lmao......

it's ridiculus......just drop it man, i dont feel like dealing with you insulting me over some middle school shit.....so i decided not to insult you back and act like an adult, try it......

by slash on Aug 27, 2007 8:11 PM CDT up reply actions

what you do to the gameday thread

is way beyond whatever carlos pena question you are talking about and i have since forgotten.

and i would still like adam to explain what a crotchy old man is.

Forget Johnny Bench, we got Gerry "the Jet" Laird

by ab03 on Aug 27, 2007 9:33 PM CDT up reply actions

lol idk what a crotchy old man is

and i went way and beyond in the gameday thread......once or twice and mostly everybody in those particular threads did too.....because it went into extra innings and we pitched 7 straight scoreless innings and Willie Eyre came in and blew the game and Bill Millar the umpire screwed us all night, so everybody was having at it.....

i usually dont even curse besides that night....and everybody was just having fun, most of it was a joke......almost every other post ive contributed to this blog has been respectable.....just for you to insult me like that, when you havent read any of my other posts is just wrong man.....make your mind up, when you actually see me talkin about the game and then if you decide to insult me, I'll respect that

by slash on Aug 27, 2007 9:59 PM CDT up reply actions

gameday thread

my "problem" isn't the cursing. Its the posting about every single at bat or every single pitch like "Get EM Mike!" It's fine and fun but every time it gets a bit tedious. But, I also put quotes around it because I really don't care and I'm not in the gameday threads all the time and what you do is perfectly reasonable for a gameday thread. Just not my thing, and I think a few people would agree with me - which is why I responded to your thread about cleaning up the board.

Forget Johnny Bench, we got Gerry "the Jet" Laird

by ab03 on Aug 28, 2007 9:00 AM CDT up reply actions

i understand

but you kinda took it further than that man lol insulting my intelligence and whatnot, but it's cool man.....let's just drop it....

by slash on Aug 28, 2007 5:53 PM CDT up reply actions

Jericho Crotchy

I just drafted him for my fantasy FB team!

by Brian Hayes on Aug 28, 2007 6:35 PM CDT up reply actions

Shake The Cane

You snot-nosed punks and your VORP get off my damn lawn!

by patrickindenton @ Lone Star Ball on Aug 27, 2007 5:50 PM CDT reply actions

Very, Very Well Put

Kudos.

"People hated Jackie Robinson because he was black. People hate Barry Bonds because he's a cheating douchebag." -- Lewis Black

by ghtd36 on Aug 27, 2007 11:33 PM CDT up reply actions

The whole concept of MVP is stupid

Why is MVP the preeminent award? The Cy Young goes to the best pitcher; why does the best positional player have these annoying qualifiers?

I wish we could simply have a MBP (most bestest player). Either have MBP replace MVP, or just add it as an additional award.

The whole "valuable to the team" premise is why there ends up being all these asanine, bogus arguments, and also why fools like Justin Morneau end up w/ the award.

"Valuable" is ridiculously subjective. Fuck the MVP...

I will not get my comeuppance!

by Brian Thomas on Aug 27, 2007 6:31 PM CDT reply actions

i agree

almost every year, there's a controversy......just stupid....

by slash on Aug 27, 2007 9:30 PM CDT up reply actions

Hey

it's still better than the Oscar voting.

At least Justin Morneau was a good player last year. He didn't suck so hard that he made the whole world a worse place to live.

If the MVP voting were like the Oscars, they'd give the award to guys like Chan Ho Park and Jason Kendall on a regular basis.

The 40 trumps all!

by thedirkatron on Aug 27, 2007 9:30 PM CDT up reply actions

The way I see it...

Sure, the Brewers are only a .500 team now and are only in the thick of the race because everyone else in the division is .500 also. But where would the Brewers be without Fielder? Something tells me they would be in a lot worse shape without him than the Mets would be without Wright. That's my definition of an MVP.

by Inkara1 on Aug 27, 2007 9:45 PM CDT reply actions