DMN's Evan Grant votes for Michael Young as AL MVP

I'm sorry this thread has disintegrated even farther. Throwing out accusations that Susan Slusser and I are "homers," whatever a homer is. I thought one thing we did as journalists was not toss around labels without fully reporting the issues. Outside of Susan and Tracy, I'm not sure any commenter on this thread has ever met me or talked to me. To make those kinds of personal accusations is hurtful and insulting. I've worked in newspapers since I was 16 and I show up every day to do my job as an objective/fair reporter and, as the business has changed, analyst.

As for WAR, there isn't a newspaper editor who could endorse its usage for a broad audience because you have to be very, very versed in advanced stats to explain it. Yes, it's supposed to be a total measure of a players worth. But how do you explain a replacement player? How do you explain how the formula is calculated and weighted. At least OPS is easy to define (on-base-plus-slugging) and I use that parentheses on first reference every time in a story. I commend the statistical analysis community's fervent passion, but they must also understand they don't represent all of baseball fans. More than likely, their percentage is far less than 50 percent.

I have no idea how many of Young's top five votes came from AL West writers, but it wouldn't surprise me if all of them did. And that has nothing to do with homerism. Sure, there may be a bit of unintentional regional bias because we spend more than one third of our season dealing with AL West managers, GMs, players, etc. We see more big pitches, big hits, big plays against our own teams because we spend more time around them. It is that way in every region and every sport around. And again, it's why there is no extra weight given to any particular region when it comes to voting. In the BBWAA, the Boston and New York chapters, which have huge membership totals, have the same voting power as the D-FW and Seattle chapters, which have much smaller memberships.

People talk about "intangibles" and it had to be a huge part of Pedroia's win in 2008, no? As a national "observer," I voted Youkilis first on my ballot because I looked at the stats. Granted, Pedroia should have found his way onto my ballot, but he ranked third on the Red Sox in WAR behind Youkilis and Lester. He ranked 12th in the AL (including pitchers) in WAR. And yet nobody - nobody - complains that there was a miscarriage of justice there. Boston played on National TV. A LOT. That message was conveyed. OFTEN. You think that didn't influence the voting body? Of course, it did. Young didn't play on TV as much. His media market wasn't as saturated as Boston or New York. He met every criteria on the ballot for consideration. My experience in this business and my experience around the Rangers told me that in the undefined category of "value," Young provided the Rangers with something special behind a boatload of very impressive offensive statistics. I think it made me uniquely qualified to understand Young's value to the Rangers.

While my vote went to Young, I thought there were a handful of players qualified to win MVP in 2011 using any number of measurements. I don't think the voters who put Verlander, Ellsbury, Cabrera or Bautista were wrong. And I happily yield to the overall opinion of the BBWAA on the vote.

But what has developed among the media - this "witch hunt" to ridicule and try to humiliate voters whose vote they don't agree with - is distasteful. And that's being charitable.

Apologies to Susan and anybody else who has come on this thread to simply try and explain how the voting process works only to have personal insults hurled at them.

Thanks for the time.
Evan Grant

 

Far, far, far less would be my guess. Perhaps you or another beat writer could weigh in, but would even 50 percent of the players who received MVP votes this year be able to explain how this statistic is figured? My guess is they wouldn't be able to. Would even half the people who currently play baseball professionally?

 

Readers (or players) may not know or care about WAR. But readers do care about receiving meaningful information about the team they're following. WAR and other advanced statistics provide tools helpful in analyzing the performance of players and the decisions of management. A writer that lacks knowledge of these tools--and, more important, what they can tell him--is failing readers if he does not at least consider them when shaping his coverage.

Part of a journalist's job is explanatory. Yes, advanced statistics might be complicated, but that's why you're paid to break it down for readers. You don't have to write stories about these statistics, or even use them in stories. But at the very least you should realize the statistical analysis tells us something useful about baseball and the underlying values that should be emphasized in stories.

 

The media's job is to bring down the cartel.

 

Who says I don't realize statistical analysis doesn't mean something significant? I do. And I consider a lot of stats, both basic and advanced, every day.

 

For those of you who sneer at taking intangibles into account, please see the bolded criterion.

For those of you incensed by homerism, please see the section prohibiting a writer from voting for a player from the team he covers. Oh, wait ...

 

I was merely responding to your point about the "usage" of WAR in the paper.

 

The crux of the argument here is: how much do you need to understand them to be able to use them and explain them? I think that nowadays virtually all baseball beat writers meet this standard with the modern metrics, even if they don't understand all of them to PhD level accuracy.

I think some people (you know you who are) want to suggest that if you fall anywhere below 100 percent understanding and unblinking acceptance of the numbers, you are simply thumbing your nose at the stuff and ignoring it. That's not the case at all.

 

Way to get all bogged down in details, waterytart. Next thing you know, you'll be suggesting people should actually look at the wording of a Heisman ballot before they vote or tell us what the trophy is all about. Jeez.

 

The criticism isn't necessarily linked to sanctity of the MVP award, but rather journalistic integrity. Nothing prohibits a writer from voting for a player he covers. But certainly you agree that a writer can sully his reputation by casting a meritless vote. First, it calls into question their ability to accurately and incisively cover the team during the season. Second, it can raise the perception of a conflict of interest. The athlete could, for instance, have a clause in his contract that rewards him upon a certain number of MVP votes.

 

Mo Vaughn over Albert Belle.

 

If an Orioles writer voted for Hardy, I would agree with you.

What are you insinuating?