AL MVP: Ortiz or A-Rod

[Swaggs]

A-Rod should win this award easily.

Rodriguez and Ortiz have very comprable offensive numbers, with Rodriguez having a slight edge. The average designated hitter is going to be much more productive, offensively, than the average third baseman, so it stands to reason that there would be much more significant dropoff in production for the Yankees without A-Rod than for the Red Sox without Ortiz.

Everyone loves Ortiz and loves to hate Rodriguez, but for a DH to win the MVP over a position player, his numbers would have to be significantly better, and in the case, they are not. I am in the camp that does not believe in "clutch," but check out the stats from the last 7 games of the season, when both teams were fighting for their lives, and you can see that both guys played very well when they needed to for their teams.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Go back and look at the number of RBIs that made the difference in the score of the game. I.E., if those RBIs don't happen, the team loses the game rather than wins it.

Ortiz leads A-Rod by 20%.

That's what I'm looking for...where are these?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

That's what I'm looking for...where are these?

As far as I know, pulled out of Blackadar's backside

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I like how "more important to team" got added to Ortiz supporters. Where is that from? Wouldn't A-Rod supporters say the exact same thing?

If clutch hitting were a repeatable skill (carrying over a career), I would be inclined to give it more support. Instead, it is based on small sample sizes and good timing. With that being said, I'll give a little credit for that "luck" in a given year. Still, I like players who put a team way ahead too.

Leadership is also an area where I tread lightly. It is based on media coverage and none of us really know what is going on. Why doesn't A-Rod get credit for throwing a stink about not being SS? He was a Gold Glove SS and went gracefully to 3B. I'm not sure that counts for much, but I don't think the media story of Papi counts for much either.

So, for me, I see:

A-Rod - edge in batting (RBI's are overvalued, IMO), but only a slight one
edge in fielding that is enormous (even if he were a LF, it would be enormous - being a 3B is even more of a bonus)

Ortiz - slight '+' for being lucky/clutch
slight bonus for getting credited by media with leadership

So, for me, it is pretty clearly A-Rod, but Ortiz gets credit for a great season.

Sorry John, but if Ortiz only gets a "slight bonus for getting credited by media with leadership", then forget it. It's not the media who credits Ortiz - it's his teammates. They sure in hell aren't crediting Damon or Manny or Schilling. Whereas Yankee players tend to credit Jeter, Sheffy and Rivera.

Of course, then if leadership doesn't count, I guess Jeter won't make the HOF, will he?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

As far as I know, pulled out of Blackadar's backside

ESPN has a game-by-game log...check it out sometime.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

ESPN has a game-by-game log...check it out sometime.

oh shi.

Somebody went through every game?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Sorry John, but if Ortiz only gets a "slight bonus for getting credited by media with leadership", then forget it. It's not the media who credits Ortiz - it's his teammates. They sure in hell aren't crediting Damon or Manny or Schilling. Whereas Yankee players tend to credit Jeter, Sheffy and Rivera.

Of course, then if leadership doesn't count, I guess Jeter won't make the HOF, will he?

Jeter will make the HOF regardless, but I don't think he should get in because of leadership. Intangibles based on media created reputations should never be the basis of awards or honors like the HOF.

Other players may say the right things, but it doesn't really mean much. They are lobbying for Ortiz. And the only player I've heard say Sheff is the leader is Sheff. I'm not sure I've ever heard someone say Rivera is a leader (he is in the bullpen all game). Jeter's image is largely media created. I could be wrong, but I don't trust intangibles without reliable information AND proof that it has actually made the team better.

A-Rod has been more valuable because he has been the better player at a harder to play position. It's that simple.

[Blackadar]

Of course, I'm one who believes in Intangibles.

Like Mo Vaughn getting the award over Albert Belle a few years ago. Or Vlad winning it last year. I thought (and still think) Irchio getting it was a joke over Giambi.

[cuervo72]

You'll see this once in a blue moon:

I agree with John Galt's argument 100%.

[Draft Dodger]

I think it really just boils down to how you interepret the award.

If you think the MVP award is for the player who is most valuable to his team, Ortiz probably should get your vote. No, he doesn't play defense, but without him, this team would have been scheduling Phoenix tee-times months ago. What was the stat they keep showing? 20 of his homers either tied the game or gave the Sox the leauge? I don't put a lot of faith in clutch hitting, but I do believe there is importance in timely hitting. I think there is a huge difference in the offensive contributions of Ortiz and, say, Manny Ramirez, even though their stats are very similar. And, even though both the Sox and Yankees are both pretty good hitting teams, it's worth noting that the Yankees have 3 100+ RBI guys, plus Jeremy Giambi at 87. Without ARod, that's still a pretty good lineup. The Sox have Manny and Ortiz and then their 3rd and 4th biggest run producers are their leadoff hitter (Damon) and their #2 hitter (Edgar freaking Renteria). The Yankees had 8 guys hit more home runs than the Sox's fourth best homerun hitter (Nixon with a whopping 13). No question in my mind that Ortiz is more valuable to his team than ARod.

But I don't think that's what the award should be. It should be for the best all-around hitter. And you have to take Rodriguez's production over Ortiz even before you factor in defense. I don't think defense should be a big factor in this award...unless the offensive contribution is too close to call. In this case, ARod is just slightly better than Ortiz (don't forget those 21 stolen bases), and then, if it's still too close for you, if you have to factor in defense, this shouldn't be close.

ARod is a douche, Ortiz is a saint...but ARod had a better season with the lumber. simple as that.

[Warhammer]

So if MVP is all about numbers, why don't we just give it to the guy with the best production with say a minimum of 550 at bats?

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

So if MVP is all about numbers, why don't we just give it to the guy with the best production with say a minimum of 550 at bats?

Cuz what if they are a DH?

[jeff061]

Yep, there should be a mathematical formula to determine who the winner is.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Yep, there should be a mathematical formula to determine who the winner is.

well then, in that case, the MVP is Miami.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

it's worth noting that the Yankees have 3 100+ RBI guys, plus Jeremy Giambi at 87. Without ARod, that's still a pretty good lineup. The Sox have Manny and Ortiz and then their 3rd and 4th biggest run producers are their leadoff hitter (Damon) and their #2 hitter (Edgar freaking Renteria). The Yankees had 8 guys hit more home runs than the Sox's fourth best homerun hitter (Nixon with a whopping 13). No question in my mind that Ortiz is more valuable to his team than ARod.

Isn't it also worth noting that Boston outscored NYY by 24 runs? The Boston offense besides Ortiz can't be *that* bad now can it?

[jeff061]

No it really can. It's really 100% Manny and Ortiz driving in Damon. I don't know why they don't pitch around both of them every time they get to the plate. Put them on 1st and 2nd, no ones knocking them in.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Cuz what if they are a DH?

That's exactly my point. If Ortiz wasn't a DH, this wouldn't be an issue. Also, its not like A-Rod hasn't put up these numbers before. He put up numbers like this in Texas, and there he was far more valuable than he is to the Yankees.

This is all a way that the media can get another Yankees vs. Red Sox debate going for ratings.

For what its worth, I think Ortiz deserves to win. The Yankees have far better pitching than the Red Sox do, so the Red Sox need to outscore their opposition to win, unlike the Yankees.

[cuervo72]

Well, I may have a different view of what's productive. DD refers to Renteria as the 4th biggest run producer...at .335 OBP/.721 OPS, I'd say Renteria is one of the WORST hitters on BOS. The BOS offense works because guys get on base - most of the guys with any AB at all have over a .350 OBP. The Yankees too have some great OBP guys, but they also have great big balls of suck in Cano, B. Williams, Womack (good gravy, .276??), and even Tino to some extent.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

The Yankees have far better pitching than the Red Sox do, so the Red Sox need to outscore their opposition to win, unlike the Yankees.

Yankees Runs: 886
Sox Runs: 910

Yankess Runs Allowed: 789
Sox Runs Allowed: 805

16 runs different over the course of a whole year ain't that much.

It's funny - some say Ortiz should win because the lineup would be dead without him (ignoring that the Red Sox scored more runs). Now, someone is saying Ortiz deserves to win because their lineup is the only good thing they have going. It's a miracle the Red Sox won any games.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Well, I may have a different view of what's productive. DD refers to Renteria as the 4th biggest run producer...at .335 OBP/.721 OPS, I'd say Renteria is one of the WORST hitters on BOS. The BOS offense works because guys get on base - most of the guys with any AB at all have over a .350 OBP. The Yankees too have some great OBP guys, but they also have great big balls of suck in Cano, B. Williams, Womack (good gravy, .276??), and even Tino to some extent.

I strictly was referring to RBIs.
Speaking of OBP, though, the Sox have 6 guys with 502 appearances over .350. The Yankees also have 6.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by John Galt

It's a miracle the Red Sox won any games.

Well, duh

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Yankees Runs: 886
Sox Runs: 910

Yankess Runs Allowed: 789
Sox Runs Allowed: 805

16 runs different over the course of a whole year ain't that much.

It's funny - some say Ortiz should win because the lineup would be dead without him (ignoring that the Red Sox scored more runs). Now, someone is saying Ortiz deserves to win because their lineup is the only good thing they have going. It's a miracle the Red Sox won any games.

Due to the Yankees pitching they certainly didn't need A-Rod as much... That is my point, yes, the Red Sox lineup outside of Ortiz and Ramierez is not all that great. You are looking at roughly 1/3 of the team's production coming from two players.

My vote for MVP would go to Vlad, the Angels sucked when he was out of the lineup and were pretty impressive while he was in it.

I would also be interested to see how many 10+ run games the Yankees had vs. the Red Sox. Let's not forget that raw numbers and even average numbers can be skewed by a few big 10+ run games. Again, we can argue statistics all day long, I can massage them my way, you can massage them your way.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by John Galt

It's a miracle the Red Sox won any games.

Only if you call Ortiz a miracle! Without him they are the Devil Rays! The Yankees would win 120 games without A-Rod!

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Due to the Yankees pitching they certainly didn't need A-Rod as much... That is my point, yes, the Red Sox lineup outside of Ortiz and Ramierez is not all that great. You are looking at roughly 1/3 of the team's production coming from two players.

My vote for MVP would go to Vlad, the Angels sucked when he was out of the lineup and were pretty impressive while he was in it.

I would also be interested to see how many 10+ run games the Yankees had vs. the Red Sox. Let's not forget that raw numbers and even average numbers can be skewed by a few big 10+ run games. Again, we can argue statistics all day long, I can massage them my way, you can massage them your way.

Even taking your argument, it is only 16 runs. If you adjust for park factors (Fenway 1.120, Yankee .922), you will see that difference evaporates. You pull out numbers like 1/3 production coming from 2 players based on what? RBI's? Why does Manny get counted as a reason why Ortiz is valuable? Does the fact that the 2nd best offensive player on the team is really good count for Ortiz? Huh?

Vlad?!?!!?

Statistics are meaningless?!?!?! They can be massaged to say anything?!?!?!

Your baseball analysis is even worse than your breakdown of the Constitution. And I didn't think that was possible.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Statistics are meaningless?!?!?! They can be massaged to say anything?!?!?!

Pretty much. I'm surprised this point is even up for debate.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Pretty much. I'm surprised this point is even up for debate.

I'm confused. Are you agreeing that statistics are meaningless and can be massaged to say anything? Being sarcastic? or actually agreeing with me?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I'm confused. Are you agreeing that statistics are meaningless and can be massaged to say anything? Being sarcastic? or actually agreeing with me?

Sorry, you're right. I'm saying that "Yes, statisticis can be massaged, twisted, and turned to say anything the person using them wants to say."

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I'm saying that "Yes, statisticis can be massaged, twisted, and turned to say anything the person using them wants to say."

Wow. Just wow.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Wow. Just wow.

yeah. this is the ignore facts in favor of intagibles crowd - at some point, they fail to recognize that the potential for misuse in statistics can be checked, unlike pointless cliches about "leadership" and "proven veteran" and "knowing how to win."

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

yeah. this is the ignore facts in favor of intagibles crowd - at some point, they fail to recognize that the potential for misuse in statistics can be checked, unlike pointless cliches about "leadership" and "proven veteran" and "knowing how to win."

Faith-based baseball

[gstelmack]

"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain

I mean seriously, come on. As I said above, I'm surprised this point is up for debate. Even in baseball. Look at this very conversation, the whole debate centers around "which statistics are more important for the MVP race?" Which RBIs are most important, how good a measure of a hitter is BA vs OBP vs OPS vs RBI vs HR vs GWRBI, is Range at all important in measuring a fielder's contribution even if that guy is winning a Gold Glove (i.e. does he make all routine plays that come his way, but doesn't even try or come close to the difficult outs), etc?

I mean, all any of the hardcore baseball guys DO is debate statistics, ad nauseum. It's not like all of this is set in stone.

To me, the MVP comes down to one question: who do I want at the plate when I desperately NEED a hit? Right now, that's Ortiz. Of course, I also want Brady QB'ing my team over Manning, and I suspect that most of you that want A-Rod would pick Manning. And you know what? We're both right. Because they are both very, very good at their jobs, and we're sitting here splitting hairs over fractions of a point.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Sorry, you're right. I'm saying that "Yes, statisticis can be massaged, twisted, and turned to say anything the person using them wants to say."

Use statistics to convince me that Tony Womack is a better power hitter than Alex Rodriguez.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain

I mean seriously, come on. As I said above, I'm surprised this point is up for debate. Even in baseball. Look at this very conversation, the whole debate centers around "which statistics are more important for the MVP race?" Which RBIs are most important, how good a measure of a hitter is BA vs OBP vs OPS vs RBI vs HR vs GWRBI, is Range at all important in measuring a fielder's contribution even if that guy is winning a Gold Glove (i.e. does he make all routine plays that come his way, but doesn't even try or come close to the difficult outs), etc?

I mean, all any of the hardcore baseball guys DO is debate statistics, ad nauseum. It's not like all of this is set in stone.

To me, the MVP comes down to one question: who do I want at the plate when I desperately NEED a hit? Right now, that's Ortiz. Of course, I also want Brady QB'ing my team over Manning, and I suspect that most of you that want A-Rod would pick Manning. And you know what? We're both right. Because they are both very, very good at their jobs, and we're sitting here splitting hairs over fractions of a point.

The fact that there are different statistics does NOT mean statistics are meaningless. The point is that some statistics are better than others and they are all just proxies for measuring performance. To dismiss statistical analysis in baseball (or any other endeavor) is just crazy talk. Your right that that this shouldn't even be up for debate - statistical analysis is wonderful tool and blanket condemnation of stats is just mathmatical ignorance.

You said you want Ortiz to be the one at bat for you right now - what do you base that on? Statistics or your gut feeling?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by John Galt

The fact that there are different statistics does NOT mean statistics are meaningless. The point is that some statistics are better than others and they are all just proxies for measuring performance. To dismiss statistical analysis in baseball (or any other endeavor) is just crazy talk. Your right that that this shouldn't even be up for debate - statistical analysis is wonderful tool and blanket condemnation of stats is just mathmatical ignorance.

You said you want Ortiz to be the one at bat for you right now - what do you base that on? Statistics or your gut feeling?

To expand on this a little, what Twain was talking about was how you can unfairly manipulate statistics, for instance by using small sample sizes (On August 3, ARod went 0-4 while Ortiz went 1-4, therefore Ortiz is a better hitter) or using the causation/correlation fallacy (churches are positively correlated with crime, therefore churches cause crime). When used correctly stats are extremely useful. It's science.

[MrBigglesworth]

For an example of how you can sort of manipulate statistics, Blackader said that Ortiz had 20% more RBI's that, without them, the team wouldn't of won. As it turns out, that 20% also corresponds to the difference of total RBI's between them. So their same % of RBI's came in the situation that Blackader described.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by oykib

I love these "well-reasoned" arguments for why Ortiz should be MVP over A-Rod.

For the clutch guys:

How much is that 'clutch' ability worth. 'Cause, you know, Ortiz doesn't play defense. His overall offensive numbers aren't as good as A-Rod's either.

You can introduce situational value to Ortiz's and A-Rod's performance to figure out an approximate "win value" of their batting that puts their overall numbers in context, rather than just assuming that they have been situationally neutral (which is definitely not the case).

To make the Ortiz-was-so-clutch argument you have to say that his amount of 'clutchness' over A-Rod makes up for 150 extra games of excellent defense at third base as well as the 3-7% (or whatevr) better A-Rod's overall offensive numbers were.

You can use an advanced defensive metric to estimate how much better (or worse) A-Rod's defense has been at third base compared to the hypothetical replacement-level player. That's what UZR used to do, before it stopped being published. There was an attempt by somebody to put together a replacement metric, but I don't recall what the verdict was on A-Rod, whether his defense was actually as good as you're claiming it to be or not.

To come to the conclusion that this clutch ability makes up for all that is asinine.

You don't know that.

[Mr. Wednesday]

An interesting thought experiment, inspired by some commentary over the weekend where ESPN color guys opined that A-Rod wasn't even the most feared batter on his own team (that being Sheffield):

All other things being equal, would you walk A-Rod to get to Ortiz? Would you walk Ortiz to get to A-Rod?

[Easy Mac]

Does anyone know who finished with more Game winning RBI's. Going into the final week, I think A-Rod was up by 1.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Vlad?!?!!?

Statistics are meaningless?!?!?! They can be massaged to say anything?!?!?!

Your baseball analysis is even worse than your breakdown of the Constitution. And I didn't think that was possible.

OK, let me get on my knees and kiss your feet the all-knowing, all-powerful, supreme John Galt!

Look, sure, Vlad may not have the numbers this year, but the Angels need Vlad in their lineup far more than A-Rod or Ortiz is needed in either one of the Yankees or Red Sox lineup. If that isn't the definition of more valuable, I don't know what is.

Stats can be manipulated to back up a lot of things based upon how you break them down. You know that and I know that.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

OK, let me get on my knees and kiss your feet the all-knowing, all-powerful, supreme John Galt!

Look, sure, Vlad may not have the numbers this year, but the Angels need Vlad in their lineup far more than A-Rod or Ortiz is needed in either one of the Yankees or Red Sox lineup. If that isn't the definition of more valuable, I don't know what is.

Stats can be manipulated to back up a lot of things based upon how you break them down. You know that and I know that.

No I don't "know that." You seem to mistake argument with conclusions. You say Vlad is more important, but you give no warrant to support your claim. Stats give us an objective means of evaluating performance as opposed to your unsupported conclusions.

Your entire argument is "Vlad is the most valuable because he is the most valuable." That is a tautology and is wholly unsupported.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Your entire argument is "Vlad is the most valuable because he is the most valuable." That is a tautology and is wholly unsupported.

I actually I did not want to get this into a discussion of his worth because that is not the topic for the thread. I gave that tidbit of info because I don't have a dog in this fight as I am neither a Yankee or Red Sox fan. That was the point of my statement.

What I do have to back it up, was the Angels offensive production during the time he was out was significantly lower than when he was in the lineup. During that time, the Angels were in a mini-slump that they recovered only once he was back in the lineup and got back on track.

So, no, I did not say "Vlad is the most valuable because he is the most valuable." I said the Angels need him more than the Yankees or Red Sox need their guy. MVP is not about numbers, if it was all about numbers A-Rod would have multiple MVPs. It's not, it is seems to me it is a contest about what people FEEL, and try to make it a fact by presenting stats during the conversation.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by John Galt

The fact that there are different statistics does NOT mean statistics are meaningless. The point is that some statistics are better than others and they are all just proxies for measuring performance. To dismiss statistical analysis in baseball (or any other endeavor) is just crazy talk. Your right that that this shouldn't even be up for debate - statistical analysis is wonderful tool and blanket condemnation of stats is just mathmatical ignorance.

You said you want Ortiz to be the one at bat for you right now - what do you base that on? Statistics or your gut feeling?

congratulations. you missed his point entirely.

twice.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

congratulations. you missed his point entirely.

twice.

Thanks. That's helpful.

He said: "Yes, statisticis can be massaged, twisted, and turned to say anything the person using them wants to say."

He then gave a more detailed, more nuanced reply that didn't actually endorse abandoning statistics.

I replied to his original post AND to Warhammer's. I'm fine debating which statistics are better, but saying they can say anything is just nonsense.

Tell me how I missed the point again. Twice.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

congratulations. you missed his point entirely.

twice.

Actually DD, he made an inane point - and got called on it. Taking a negative stance without providing any basis for it other a simplistic understanding of statistics - the flaw is on him. Statistical evidence suggests that A-rod was better, by a lot. The burden is on the "Ortiz z proven vet A-rod suks cuz he dont win" crowd - arguing that RBI is equivalent to OPS is wrong.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Thanks. That's helpful.

He said: "Yes, statisticis can be massaged, twisted, and turned to say anything the person using them wants to say."

He then gave a more detailed, more nuanced reply that didn't actually endorse abandoning statistics.

I replied to his original post AND to Warhammer's. I'm fine debating which statistics are better, but saying they can say anything is just nonsense.

Tell me how I missed the point again. Twice.

I'll give it a shot.

The fundamental problem with statistics is that they tend to have a limited scope. Unfortunately, that limited scope usually means they have limited application. They are perfectly good for the application for which they are intended, but that is typically a very narrow usage that is only of interest to a limited number of people.

So, someone comes along and tries to make it more general. But because they are applying the stat outside of its intended bounds, it loses some of its meaning. It also means that the person broadening its scope can nudge the scope in the direction of whatever theory they are trying to prove, without technically being wrong.

The classic example that applies here: what stats tell you who is the better hitter? Answer: it depends on your definition of "what makes for a good hitter". All batting average tells you is "over the course of an entire season, how many times did this player come to the plate and reach base safely without an error or a fielder's choice being committed or a sacrifice being hit vs the number of times he was at the plate total without walking or hitting a sacrifice". You need a certain number of at-bats before this is meaningful, but even then the batters have faced different pitchers and different defenses over the season, plus the definitions of "error" and "fielder's choice" are subject to human interpretation (and often debate afterward, although moreso for error than fielder's choice). Since BA is a component of other stats, OBP and OPS have some of the same flaws. Sure, a BA of .300 tends to indicate a better hitter than a BA of .200, but what's the margin of error here? .010? .020? And how important is reaching base versus driving in runs? If you're third up in an inning early in a game with 2 outs, does it really matter if you don't reach base, since the odds of you being driven in are small? Is BA with runners in scoring position more important than BA without?

Each of these baseball stats only tells a small part of the story, and in most cases the actual stats are subject to human interpretation. Heck, strikeouts and walks are all subject to the whim of the umpire making the calls. Watching the Sox/Yanks game this weekend, they talked about how Randy Johnson was upset he wasn't getting calls he felt he "deserved", and how veteran pitchers tend to get close called strike 3s while rookies don't (much like veteran NBA players get the foul calls that young guys don't).

So with only a small part of the story and the vagaries of human interpretation, I again ask you: how the heck do statistics tell you that A-Rod is a better hitter than Ortiz, or vice-versa? I'll grant that stats can tell you that A-Rod is a better hitter than Curt Schilling (although I could also argue that Schilling's sample size is too small to be meaningful), but how can you really tell that ANY of the top 10 hitters are better than any of the others? There is too much slop in these stats to be anything more than rough approximations.

And I'll also say again: baseball afficianados (I don't put myself in this category, I'm more of a casual fan) argue the meaning of these stats all the freakin' time. They're not even clear to those who allegedly understand them fully. There's a whole thread here on this forum trying to reach a consensus on which stats to use to tell who is a better batter.

A statistic is a tool, nothing more. You use a hammer to build a house, but it's not even a big part of making that house, and if you had to you could use the butt of a screwdriver to knock in a nail. Statistics have their place, and are better than nothing (you've got to start somewhere), but to think they are gospel and not subject to human whims just because there is solid math behind them is just burying your head in the sand to the realities of this world.

P.S. Since I mention it occasionally through here, I guess I'll have my quick say in general on stats. I know that, given a properly distributed population sample, you can mathematically prove that your distribution is representative of the total population within a certain number of decimal places. That's great, but getting a properly distributed population is so much harder than it sounds. I don't trust many statistics that are thrown at me simply because I'm asked to "trust" that they used a proper sample. Frankly, in most cases, I don't. And as talked about above, this is where many baseball stats fall apart when used to compare two players that are at comparable levels.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by John Galt

You said you want Ortiz to be the one at bat for you right now - what do you base that on? Statistics or your gut feeling?

Here's a stat for this (since everyone wants stats): his batting average with runners in scoring position. Tells me how often he not only knocks in runs, but gets on base safely to continue the inning, thus helping generate more runs by the guys after him in the lineup. This is in line with my "gut feel" call. I'm taking this from "The Hardball Times" at http://www.hardballtimes.com/thtstat...&Submit=Submit
I chose this source simply because it was the first one I found that had the data.

Interestingly, Texas seems to have the best 1-2 punch here, as Michael Young is #1 at.368, followed closely by Mark Teixeira in #2 with .366. If Texas was heading to the playoffs, would either of these guys be getting consideration for MVP? Gary Sheffield comes in third at .364, backing up all those who say he is the more feared hitter on the Yankees compared to A-Rod. Manny is #4 at .358, followed by Ortiz at #5 with .354, lending more stat credence to them being a feared 1-2 punch in the AL.

A-Rod is the FOURTH Yankee on this list (Sheffield, Matsui, and Giambi are all ahead of him) and 34th overall at .290. Not bad, but he's no Ortiz or Manny.

[st.cronin]

This is only an argument because so many people have an irrational hatred of Alex Rodriguez. He should have about 5 MVPs by now. He's far and away the best player in the AL.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

An interesting thought experiment, inspired by some commentary over the weekend where ESPN color guys opined that A-Rod wasn't even the most feared batter on his own team (that being Sheffield):

All other things being equal, would you walk A-Rod to get to Ortiz? Would you walk Ortiz to get to A-Rod?

At the beginning of the season, Ortiz wasn't the most feared in his lineup either. Both Manny and Sheffield (or Giambi) are a big part of the success of Ortiz and ARod. You almost have to pitch to them because of who is in the on deck circle.

[cuervo72]

Well if we're going to have the question of which you would rather have for one at bat, how about which you would rather have nine of? Would you take a lineup (and defense) full of Papis, or a lineup full of ARods?

[oykib]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

You can introduce situational value to Ortiz's and A-Rod's performance to figure out an approximate "win value" of their batting that puts their overall numbers in context, rather than just assuming that they have been situationally neutral (which is definitely not the case).

You can use an advanced defensive metric to estimate how much better (or worse) A-Rod's defense has been at third base compared to the hypothetical replacement-level player. That's what UZR used to do, before it stopped being published. There was an attempt by somebody to put together a replacement metric, but I don't recall what the verdict was on A-Rod, whether his defense was actually as good as you're claiming it to be or not.

You don't know that.

The point is that whatever the amount of value that A-Rod's defense has over replacement is irrelavent. When comparing him to Ortiz that's not the metric that you use.

With A-Rod vs. Ortiz, you are comparing 159 games of good-to-very-good defense at third and one game and two relief appearances of good defense at short to ten games of mediocre-to-bad defense at first. That's the problem with Ortiz being a DH.

Ortiz gives you nothing in the field. There's no way you can massage the statistics to say that Ortiz was enough of a better hitter than A-Rod to make up for 160 well-played games towards the difficult end of the defensive spectrum compared to ten games plaed poorly at the easy end of it.

Ortiz does not even give you replacement value defensively.

Looking at the 2005 Win Shares (which include the value of situational hitting) in the AL:

Rank	League	First	Last Name	Team	Position	Batting	Pitching	Fielding	ExpWS	WSP	WSAB	Total WS	CWS	
1	AL	A	Rodriguez	NYA	3B	33.3	0.0	3.3	19	0.989	24	37	318	
2	AL	M	Ramirez	BOS	OF	30.9	0.0	2.9	17	1.018	22	34	310	
3	AL	G	Sheffield	NYA	OF	30.5	0.0	2.2	17	0.978	21	33	401	
4	AL	M	Teixeira	TEX	1B	29.1	0.0	3.3	18	0.884	20	32	69	
5	AL	D	Ortiz	BOS	1B	31.4	0.0	0.2	14	1.149	22	31	108	
6	AL	B	Roberts	BAL	2B	23.5	0.0	5.0	16	0.873	17	28	63	
7	AL	T	Hafner	CLE	1B	26.8	0.0	0.0	11	1.190	19	27	56	
8	AL	V	Guerrero	LAA	OF	24.5	0.0	2.3	15	0.893	16	27	222	
9	AL	M	Young	TEX	SS	23.0	0.0	4.5	18	0.753	15	27	90	
10	AL	R	Sexson	SEA	1B	25.4	0.0	1.6	17	0.789	15	27	129	
11	AL	M	Tejada	BAL	SS	20.0	0.0	6.1	18	0.717	13	26	188	
12	AL	D	Jeter	NYA	SS	19.6	0.0	6.0	19	0.672	12	26	245	
13	AL	J	Giambi	NYA	1B	24.5	0.0	0.6	12	1.016	16	25	261	
14	AL	J	Peralta	CLE	SS	17.0	0.0	8.1	15	0.813	14	25	29	
15	AL	H	Matsui	NYA	OF	22.6	0.0	2.6	18	0.711	13	25	73	
16	AL	J	Damon	BOS	OF	19.9	0.0	5.7	17	0.739	13	25	195	
17	AL	G	Sizemore	CLE	OF	18.2	0.0	6.4	19	0.663	12	25	30	
18	AL	J	Lugo	TB	SS	18.6	0.0	5.8	17	0.699	12	24	85	
19	AL	P	Konerko	CHA	1B	21.5	0.0	2.9	17	0.712	12	24	113	
20	AL	I	Suzuki	SEA	OF	19.6	0.0	4.3	19	0.631	11	24	135	
21	AL	M	Buehrle	CHA	SP	-0.1	23.2	0.0	13	0.922	16	23	94	
22	AL	J	Santana	MIN	SP	-0.5	23.1	0.0	12	0.917	15	23	80	
23	AL	J	Mauer	MIN	C	13.7	0.0	9.2	14	0.802	13	23	29	
24	AL	C	Crawford	TB	OF	21.0	0.0	2.2	17	0.672	11	23	63	
25	AL	V	Martinez	CLE	C	16.6	0.0	5.8	16	0.679	11	22	47	
26	AL	C	Figgins	LAA	3B	16.2	0.0	5.5	19	0.586	9	22	50	
27	AL	J	Garland	CHA	SP	0.3	21.1	0.0	12	0.914	14	21	60	
28	AL	M	Ellis	OAK	2B	14.2	0.0	6.8	13	0.809	12	21	53	
29	AL	C	Crisp	CLE	OF	16.3	0.0	4.4	17	0.600	9	21	45	
30	AL	E	Chavez	OAK	3B	16.0	0.0	5.2	18	0.584	9	21	143

As you can see, Win Shares has A-Rod significantly ahead of Ortiz. As a matter of fact, Ramirez is much closer to A-Rod. Why? Because what he contributes in LF (even though no one says he's Roberto Clemente) is valued against the 0 Ortiz gives you on defense.

I just can't understand how some of you can't see that gigantic hole in your argument. Yes, clutch ability and even 'leadership' may have some value. But we know that defense has significant value.

BTW, I also highlighted Hafner and Figgins because they indicate where the next best production was at Ortiz and A-Rod's respective positions.

But if I wanted to make the contrast even more stark, I'd point out that There are three guys in the top 30 that play third and seven that would be capable of it-- assuming that all the shortstops could-- seven of the top thirty. There are thirty of the top thirty that could play DH.