Ignorance is Bliss

Michael Cox

I am not a stathead.

Now, don't get me wrong -- not only are some of my best friends statheads, but I also tend to believe stat-based platitudes such as "batting average is next to useless as a measure of performance," rather than laypersons' (and sportscasters') concepts like "protection" and "clubhouse poison." It's just that when stats get overused, or when baseball is viewed only through stat-colored goggles, it bores me so utterly that I have to go re-watch Austin Powers to get the bad taste out of my mouth.

For example, there's the mantra, "as long as he puts up big numbers, who cares if he's an idiot?" This has long been used to justify Tony Phillips' transgressions, and normally culminates in the Annual Albert Belle Whinefest which occurs around the time the MVP is announced each year. It goes like this: Someone asks, "who do you think should win the AL MVP?" Several people answer back, "Albert Belle, just like every year. He won't, though, because the baseball writers are nincompoops."

Although I agree with the part about baseball writers, I would disagree on any selection of Belle for MVP for three reasons:

1) He has not been proven to be significantly valuable in the pennant drive of any team he plays for. Hindsight helps here, of course, knowing that the Indians continue to do quite well for themselves without The Big Angry's help. In addition, a case can be made that Belle only really excels at times when there is no pennant-race pressure.

For example, in 1995 (his 50-50 year) he became an absolute slugging monster after the Tribe clinched the pennant with a month to go. He put together a stellar season for the White Sox last year, kicking into gear after it became evident that the ChiSox were going nowhere fast. And this year, he's absolutely thriving amidst the wreckage of the Orioles.

2) There's that troublesome "character" portion of the MVP criteria. Say it should be irrelevant; say it should be removed; the fact is it's still there. As long as it is, it will work against Belle, whose most recent "kinder, gentler" phase didn't even last long enough to get him a Baseball Weekly cover.

3) People just plain don't like him. Any fans he might lure to the ballpark are either attracted by his individual stats or are there to heckle him. Baseball is entertainment, and Belle's tantrums, which are his greatest entertainment value, will be largely unseen by the press this year as the Orioles coddle their investment. MLB could possibly turn his attitude into an asset by playing up his image as a "bad guy," pro-wrestling style, but that would require Belle to not get crazy at reporters who write about his antics.

Enough about Belle, and on to my other point: Sometimes there can be too many numbers. For example, on the Mariners' Usenet newsgroup I railed (as I am wont to do) against the ongoing theory that the team has failed to play the adequate amount of "little baseball," using the fact that the M's were third out of all MLB teams in OPS, and fourth in RBI. The two stats correlated very well -- it appeared that the M's were in fact driving in runs commesurate with their raw slugging and on-base ability, relative to the rest of the league.

Where the M's were down significantly was in Runs Scored. Therefore, my quick conclusion was that the team did not score as many "lucky runs," not taking advantage of the other teams' mistakes.

A stat-oriented poster to the group then replied that since runs and RBI were not the greatest stats in and of themselves, a more in-depth approach was necessary. he soon produced two tables, using league-adjusted Runs Created (technical version) and Linear Weights stats. Unfortunately, I have neither the space nor the energy to write out the exact formulas for these (paging Dr. Dave Paisley); suffice to say that unless you're a mathematical savant, you'll need a good deal of scratch paper.

Anyway, after comparing each of these stats, the fellow concluded that there's not any problem with the M's hitting, it's just that they were unlucky.

In other words, my ability to eyeball a couple of simple stats told me exactly the same thing that these complex mathematical formulas did.

Due to my ability to finish my calculations and go to the refrigerator for beer and snacks long before the person who calculated the long-winded formulas, I declared myself the winner.

about the author

Michael Cox is compiling a new stat called the "hoagie," which takes into account not only hits and walks, but also trips back to the clubhouse to get a head start on the post-game buffet. Nominate Cecil Fielder and Sid Fernandez as the stat's first Hall of Famers at mc@strikethree.com.