AL MVP: Ortiz or A-Rod

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by John Galt

3) The grand total sample size for Ortiz over those 3 years is 221 AB. That is not a sufficient sample size. His OBP and OPS are higher in close and late situations, BUT not so much so that a slump in those situations over the next 200 AB won't even it out. 221 AB from ONE player is not sufficient to derive a general statistical rule. It proves NOTHING.

220 AB is roughly a third of a season's worth. Better move the All-Star game to the end of the season, then, so we have enough statistical evidence to decide which players are actually worthy of attending...

[Mr. Wednesday]

Are you seriously using the all-star game to make an argument? <boggle>

[John Galt]

Warhammer, I give up. You have proven there are clutch players. Your evidence is that you say there are clutch players. I can't argue with that.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

Bullshit. A-Rod's defense doesn't occur in a vacuum -- if he wasn't playing, there would be a replacement-level player there (actually, probably better than that considering it's the Yankees, but I'll pass over that). It's theoretically possible to quantify how many runs A-Rod has saved (or extra runs he has allowed) over a replacement-level third baseman, and this is all a positive (or a negative) in the ledger for him compared to Ortiz who essentially hasn't played in the field at all.

I don't se what's so hard to understand here. With normal position players you compare their defensive value to what they'd give you over a replacement player. But when comparing a position player to a DH, you can compare their defensive value to zero because that is what the DH gives you on defense.

Actually, you don't need to use replacement value at all if you believe in Win Shares. A-Rod gets 3.3 WS for fielding, Ortiz gets 0.0.

I don't know whether that's true or not. I'm not suggesting "massaging" statistics, either... I'm suggesting that taking context into account may give Ortiz a significant boost in terms of offense vs. A-Rod (compared to context-neutral metrics which assume, incorrectly in this case, that production averages out to be context-neutral), and I'm saying that I don't know if that is sufficient to overcome the defensive difference.

I think he's played few enough games in the field that this is negligible.

I'll defer argument on this basis until I've seen whether there are any rebuttals from people who are knowledgeable enough to rebut. I know enough to set up the parameters of the argument, but I don't know enough or have enough information to carry it through myself. In particular, I'd feel more comfortable working from something like UZR as far as fielding contribution is concerned. Provisionally, I do think that this is a very strong argument in favor of A-Rod.

I'd submit that this is the kind of flawed argument that has Juan Gonzalez with two MVPs on his mantle.

If there's a metric out there that has undergone significant peer review and held up, one cannot ignore it by saying that it cannot be understood. Either learn enough about it to understand it as hundreds of thousands of people do and if you see a flaw point it out, or just accept it as a reasonable part of the argument.

None of the old school analysts can quantify 'clutch performance'. It does but they it make worth whatever they feel like to justify their arguments for or against a player they support.

James has quantified it. Ortiz's clutch performance doesn't make up for the overall difference in their offensive numbers and the significant benefit that Ortiz gets from playing half his games in Fenway. When you add in the defensive difference, it's not even close.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

Bullshit. A-Rod's defense doesn't occur in a vacuum -- if he wasn't playing, there would be a replacement-level player there (actually, probably better than that considering it's the Yankees, but I'll pass over that). It's theoretically possible to quantify how many runs A-Rod has saved (or extra runs he has allowed) over a replacement-level third baseman, and this is all a positive (or a negative) in the ledger for him compared to Ortiz who essentially hasn't played in the field at all.

If you are doing that for fielding, then you have to do that for hitting. You have to compare how much better ARod is than the average hitting 3B to how much better Ortiz is than the average hitting DH. And in that case, ARod destroys Ortiz.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by oykib

I don't se what's so hard to understand here. With normal position players you compare their defensive value to what they'd give you over a replacement player. But when comparing a position player to a DH, you can compare their defensive value to zero because that is what the DH gives you on defense.

My argument is that defensive value is meaningless in a vacuum. How do you judge A-Rod's defensive value without comparing him to a replacement-level player? It's nonsensical to try to argue that he's got some kind of defensive value without a baseline.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

If you are doing that for fielding, then you have to do that for hitting. You have to compare how much better ARod is than the average hitting 3B to how much better Ortiz is than the average hitting DH. And in that case, ARod destroys Ortiz.

I don't think the idea is completely without merit, but I don't think it's remotely as simple as a direct comparison of replacement value on the offensive side of things. You have a flexibility in putting a batting lineup together that doesn't exist in the same way in the field. I'm not saying there's no merit to trying to generate some sort of lineup context, but my instinct is that it's more complicated than direct comparison.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by oykib

If there's a metric out there that has undergone significant peer review and held up, one cannot ignore it by saying that it cannot be understood. Either learn enough about it to understand it as hundreds of thousands of people do and if you see a flaw point it out, or just accept it as a reasonable part of the argument.

You sure did do a nice job of eviscerating that straw man.

None of the old school analysts can quantify 'clutch performance'. It does but they it make worth whatever they feel like to justify their arguments for or against a player they support.

James has quantified it. Ortiz's clutch performance doesn't make up for the overall difference in their offensive numbers and the significant benefit that Ortiz gets from playing half his games in Fenway. When you add in the defensive difference, it's not even close.

Other people who are also smart and who have also taken an interest in baseball statistics have independently quantified the clutch performance, I think their opinions have value, and I'm not prepared currently to either concede to James or to advance an argument against. As I said above.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

You sure did do a nice job of eviscerating that straw man.

Other people who are also smart and who have also taken an interest in baseball statistics have independently quantified the clutch performance, I think their opinions have value, and I'm not prepared currently to either concede to James or to advance an argument against. As I said above.

What straw man? It's been pointed out by numerous people in this thread that it's okay to disregard various metrics because they are too complicated. That's nonsense.

And as far as clutch performance being reliably quantified, show me where the clutch rating is on the stat page at Baseball-Reference, ESPN, CBS-sportsline, or in any of the various basball annuals.

I certainly can't remember reading it on the backs of any baseball cards either. What is this quantified clutch stat even called?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by oykib

I certainly can't remember reading it on the backs of any baseball cards either. What is this quantified clutch stat even called?

Check out the close and late situational stats. I would also argue that you could look at their stats with runners in scoring position as well. Compare the production in those situations with their normal production. NOTE: Production the term, not production the stat.

If you go to ESPN click on the splits tab for a player, and then at the bottom of the page click more splits. That will give you all of their situational stats.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by oykib

What straw man? It's been pointed out by numerous people in this thread that it's okay to disregard various metrics because they are too complicated. That's nonsense.

And as far as clutch performance being reliably quantified, show me where the clutch rating is on the stat page at Baseball-Reference, ESPN, CBS-sportsline, or in any of the various basball annuals.

I certainly can't remember reading it on the backs of any baseball cards either. What is this quantified clutch stat even called?

Isn't this exactly what you're doing? Touting one set of statistics while entirely discounting another?

[oykib]

That doesn't clearly tell you how valuable a player's 'clutch' performance is.

Let's take it back a second.

I'm not saying that Ortiz hasn't performed better in what are traditionally called 'clutch' situations. I'm saying that the people who say that trumps A-Rod's overall better numbers haven't justified their arguments.

Win Shares takes 'clutch' into account and still rates Ortiz's offensive performance below A-Rod's. The various sportswriters and fans who say that Ortiz should win the MVP haven't quantified it in a clear way. They make statements like, "The Red Sox would be a .500 team without him" or other such absurdities.

How much are the thirty or so points of batting average and seven extra homers worth? Do they make up for the advantage that Ortiz's numbers get for playing in Fenway? How about the fact that all of A-Rod's rate stats (AVG/SLG/OBP) are better overall?

This is even before we take defense into account.

What I mean by quantify is this. How much more important were those 'clutch' plate appearances as compared to every other plate appearances? Because you have to make them orders of magnitude more important before they make up the difference in their overall offensive numbers-- and still more to make up the difference between a good 3B who plays 160 games in the field and a mediocre 1B that plays only 10.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by oykib

What straw man? It's been pointed out by numerous people in this thread that it's okay to disregard various metrics because they are too complicated. That's nonsense.

It clearly wasn't my argument, though... if you were addressing them, you shouldn't have been quoting me.

And as far as clutch performance being reliably quantified, show me where the clutch rating is on the stat page at Baseball-Reference, ESPN, CBS-sportsline, or in any of the various basball annuals.

I certainly can't remember reading it on the backs of any baseball cards either. What is this quantified clutch stat even called?

You're confusing me. You waxed poetic about James quantifying "clutch" contributions, but now you're trying to tell me that it can't be reliably quantified?

[oykib]

Wednesday, I'm talking about being quantified in a way that justifies some reading that the basic numbers don't show. Close and Late and Runners In Scoring Position are not the same thing as clutch. They can be, but they are not by definition. Even if they were, how much more are they worth than normal situations. That hasn't been quantified.

This whole thread has been an argument about whether Ortiz can match A-Rod even though all the numbers have basically said that they haven't. As far as 'clutch' goes, it still has yet to be qualified. Isn't a homerun in a close game in the ninth more valuable than in the seventh-- C&L doesn't differentiate between the two. C&L and RISP are still a long way from 'clutch.'

Here's an example: your team goes down by five by the third inning. A player hits two two-run homers through the sixth to make it a one-run game. I'd say that production is pretty valuable. Those'd neither be C&L or, neccesarily, RISP situations. But it's pretty important to me.

No one can, or at least not yet, go back and quantify in some reliable way every at-bat or defensive performance according to its context. We can say that general RISP and C&L situations are a fair amount more significant than a normal at-bat. That's what Win Shares and a few other composite measures do.

But no reasonable reading of the stats can get you to Ortiz > A-Rod for the 2005 season.

If I've misattributed some of the wilder quotes in this thread to you, I apologize. Looking back at a previous page, it does seem that I've quoted you. I believe I actually meant to click on Warhammer's post back on the fourth page.

But I still stand by the statements I've made in general.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Let's avoid going off track on a discussion about the definition of "clutch" and focus on what's important: the extent to which the contextual distribution of Ortiz's production has fallen outside of a neutral distribution, how much contribution that's made to the Sox' results, and how significant it is.

Some smart folks at Sons of Sam Horn have argued that Ortiz has been worth about three extra wins in "win expectancy", I assume in excess of A-Rod, in offensive production... I have no idea how the defense compares, or what the proper accounting is for "lineup context", to point to the most significant issues that have been raised previously.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by oykib

No one can, or at least not yet, go back and quantify in some reliable way every at-bat or defensive performance according to its context.

That depends on your definition of "reliable". People can quantify and have quantified what the win expectancy is for a given set of situations in the game, and ascribe the change from one at-bat to the next to the responsible batter. I think that's a reliable way of quantifying the contribution of every at-bat, and in a way that avoids an arbitrary "late and close" division, but there are some reasonable grounds for disagreement.

[JeffW]

A-Rod should win by a landslide. His value compared to an average 3B is much greater than Ortiz's value compared to an average DH.

[JeffW]

Clutch hitting multiple choice:

Who was more important to a 2-1 win:

a. A player who hit a home run in the 1st.
b. A player who hit a home run in the 9th.
c. Both players are equally responsible for the win.

Anyone here familiar with coalition voting in game theory? It's the same concept. All runs/votes have equal value as part of the win.

[VPI97]

I've always thought that players who performed better in the clutch were really just slacking off the rest of the time. Physical capability is something that's not going to change just because it's the ninth inning...if you're telling me that they get 'more focused' in late inning situations, then I would wonder what's keeping them from concentrating during the first six innings.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by VPI97

I've always thought that players who performed better in the clutch were really just slacking off the rest of the time. Physical capability is something that's not going to change just because it's the ninth inning...if you're telling me that they get 'more focused' in late inning situations, then I would wonder what's keeping them from concentrating during the first six innings.

I guess if you play the game in a vacuum or on the computer that makes sense.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

I guess if you play the game in a vacuum or on the computer that makes sense.

Why is that?

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by VPI97

Why is that?

You talk like these are robots with ratings. If you can't accept that an at bat in the 9th tied 1-1 carries a different set of pressure than an at bat in the first at 0-0 then that's how you see these guys...as computer players.

The human element counts for something. Just in general, I'm not arguing Ortiz/A-Rod.

Heck, home/road, day/night, why should it matter right? It's still 60 feet to the plate.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

You talk like these are robots with ratings. If you can't accept that an at bat in the 9th tied 1-1 carries a different set of pressure than an at bat in the first at 0-0 then that's how you see these guys...as computer players.

So players don't try as hard at the beginning of a game as they do at the end? You can say that psychologically there's greater "pressure" when the game is on the line, but truthfully, I think it's safe to say that in all sports, the pressure to succeed is there at the beginning of every play. I think someone mentioned earlier that Joe Montana and Michael Jordan were examples of guys who were "clutch" players. No, they're not. They're examples of players who got the job done regardless of how much time was left in the game. John Elway racked up so many 4th quarter comebacks not because he magically got superpowers in the fourth quarter, but because he led his teams on scoring drives all the time...it's just that the fourth quarter ones are the ones that made SportsCenter.

When it comes down to it, all I'm saying is that when it comes to players who have some statistical evidence that indicates heightened performance when the spotlight on, I don't think it's a stretch to wonder why they can't do the same thing during the more "mundane" parts of the game.

Heck, home/road, day/night, why should it matter right? It's still 60 feet to the plate.

The differences in those situations are irrelevant. In a "clutch" situation, you're talking about an environment that is the same as previous at bats, snaps, whatever. The only difference would be that it occurs at the end of the game, rather than at the start or the middle. Games don't stop at the end of the third quarter so that the teams can go play at a different field.

[rkmsuf]

Again that's a very unhuman analysis geared towards people as static beings devoid of emotion.

I mean NFL for example, teams clearly "get up" for games and "let down" for others. It happens.

Why is playoff baseball so different than regular season baseball? How come the team with the most wins doesn't always win? I mean statistically it should bear out that the best team statistically always wins right?

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

I mean NFL for example, teams clearly "get up" for games and "let down" for others. It happens.

Why is playoff baseball so different than regular season baseball? How come the team with the most wins doesn't always win? I mean statistically it should bear out that the best team statistically always wins right?

In both of those cases, you're talking about a wider time span than I am. My argument deals with the guy who consistantly goes 0 for 3 in the first 7 innings, but hits a walk off in the ninth.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by VPI97

In both of those cases, you're talking about a wider time span than I am. My argument deals with the guy who consistantly goes 0 for 3 in the first 7 innings, but hits a walk off in the ninth.

show me this guy; don't say ortiz cuz it ain't him. he didn't hit all his homeruns after the 7th inning.

what you are talking about is rare or nonexistent.

[VPI97]

dola -

If you have a guy who has an OPS of .800 in normal situations and turns it up to 1.000 in "clutch" situations it is because of:

1 - The clutch situation is one where he performs at a 125% level
2 - Statistical anomaly that will even itself out in the long run.
3 - The mundane situation is one where he performs at a 80% level

Don't crucify me for thinking that option 3 is as likely as option 1

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by VPI97

In both of those cases, you're talking about a wider time span than I am. My argument deals with the guy who consistantly goes 0 for 3 in the first 7 innings, but hits a walk off in the ninth.

Dola, the reverse is far more likely. Guy goes 2-3 and then fails to come through in the ninth.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by VPI97

dola -

If you have a guy who has an OPS of .800 in normal situations and turns it up to 1.000 in "clutch" situations it is because of:

1 - The clutch situation is one where he performs at a 125% level
2 - Statistical anomaly that will even itself out in the long run.
3 - The mundane situation is one where he performs at a 80% level

Don't crucify me for thinking that option 3 is as likely as option 1

We will never find common ground because I'm arguing in terms of the human condition. You are arguing in terms of raw statistics. Never will they meet since you can't "quantify" situation, pressure or context.

That's fine, I just look at it differently.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

We will never find common ground because I'm arguing in terms of the human condition. You are arguing in terms of raw statistics. Never will they meet since you can't "quantify" situation, pressure or context.

No I'm not. Slacking off when the spotlight is off is very much a human condition. I'd say that it occurs far more regularly in life than than the supposition that someone can perform beyond their means when the spotlight is on.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by VPI97

No I'm not. Slacking off when the spotlight is off is very much a human condition. I'd say that it occurs far more regularly in life than than the supposition that someone can perform beyond their means when the spotlight is on.

I don't. Not for good players. I mean in the Ortiz case are you saying he should have hit 70 homeruns and that perhaps that if A-Rod hadn't slacked off in the later innings he could have had 70 homeruns?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Dola, the reverse is far more likely. Guy goes 2-3 and then fails to come through in the ninth.

That must be why closers have lower ERA's than the rest of the bullpen, normally.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

I don't. Not for good players.

So "good" players should have no significant variance in their performance?

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

the reverse is far more likely. Guy goes 2-3 and then fails to come through in the ninth.

I'm really trying to understand what you're saying. It's more likely for a guy to "power up" in the ninth as it is that he underperforms when the spotlight is off?

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

That must be why closers have lower ERA's than the rest of the bullpen, normally.

And that's why any pitcher can be a closer. Just pick one. It doesn't matter as long as they have stuff.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by JeffW

Clutch hitting multiple choice:

Who was more important to a 2-1 win:

a. A player who hit a home run in the 1st.
b. A player who hit a home run in the 9th.
c. Both players are equally responsible for the win.

The answer is b -- the home run in the 9th has a much more direct effect on the win expectancy for his team than the home run in the first.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

The answer is b -- the home run in the 9th has a much more direct effect on the win expectancy for his team than the home run in the first.

EXACTLY, also because there are fewer opportunities, considering outs, to score runs later in the game rather than earlier. So, 9th inning runs are more important to producing a win than runs earlier, even more so in the bottom of the 9th, since the opposing team has no opportunity to counter those runs.

[John Galt]

This is from Baseball Prospectus. It is not a study in itself, but it cites the two major studies on the issue and explains the confusion over what is clutch. It is available at:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=2656

The concept of "clutch" is one of the clearest dividing lines between traditional coverage of baseball and what you'll find here at Baseball Prospectus. In the mainstream, performance in important situations is often attributed to some wealth or deficit of character that causes a particular outcome. Here, we're more likely to recognize that when the best baseball players in the world go head-to-head, someone has to win and someone has to lose, and it doesn't mean that one side has better people than the other.

Clutch performances exist, to be sure; you can't watch a day of baseball without seeing a well-timed hit, a big defensive play or a key strikeout that pushes a team towards victory. The biggest moments in baseball history are almost all examples of players doing extraordinary things in extraordinary circumstances. Those moments make the game great and the players responsible for them deserve credit, and even adulation, for their heroics.

In trying to get across the notion that no players possess a special ability to perform in particular situations, the usual line we use is that clutch performances exist, not clutch players. That's wrong. The correct idea is that clutch performances exist, and clutch players exist: every last one of them.

All major-league players have a demonstrated ability to perform under pressure. They've proven that by rising to the top of an enormous pyramid of players, tens of thousands of them, all trying to be one of the top 0.1% that gets to call themselves "major leaguers." Within this group of elite, who have proven themselves to be the best in the world at their jobs, there is no discernable change in their abilities when runners are on base, or when the game is tied in extra innings, or when candy and costumes and pumpkins decorate the local GigaMart. The guys who are good enough to be in the majors are all capable of succeeding and failing in these situations, and they're as likely to do one or the other in the clutch as they are at any other time. Over the course of a game, a month, a season or a career, there is virtually no evidence that any player or group of players possesses an ability to outperform his established level of ability in clutch situations, however defined.

The statistical studies of clutch have supported this point. David Grabiner did the seminal work more than a decade ago, defining clutch as performance in the late innings of close games. From the article:

The correlation between past and current clutch performance is .01, with a standard deviation of .07. In other words, there isn't a significant ability in clutch hitting; if there were, the same players would be good clutch hitters every year.

A study by Ron Johnson, which is not currently online but is quoted here, covered a 15-year period and concluded that just two players, Paul Molitor and Tony Fernandez met the statistical criteria to be considered clutch hitters. (Johnson didn't argue that the two had this trait, just that of the players in the study, they were the only two whose performance with runners in scoring position showed a statistically significant improvement.)

You can see this yourself if you like, and you don't need to understand correlations to do it. Pick any five players at random, and check out their splits for the last few seasons (you can do this fairly easily at any of the major sports portals). You'll find that their statistics from year to year in the various clutch situations (RISP, late-inning pressure, September) can vary widely, with no rhyme or reason to the splits. But over a large enough sample, players will hit in given situations pretty much as they do overall.

Of course, these statistical arguments assume both numeracy and a quest for the truth. Too often, neither of these things is in play. The notion of clutch persists because it allows for a storyline with a hero and a goat, and that's both an easy tale to write and an easy one to read. While it's a facile concept, players buy into it because it's flattering. No one wants to believe that they're successful just because they hit the genetic lottery and that, on a particular day, they performed better than the other, equally-gifted guys. It's much more enjoyable to extrapolate a certain moral superiority from on-field success, to attribute that game-winning double to your heart and desire, rather than to your fast-twitch muscles and hitting the fastball at just the right angle to push it past the diving center fielder. It's this need to turn physics and physicality into a statement about the character of people--to stick labels on them based on their day at work and the bounce of a ball--that is the most damning thing about the myth of clutch.

The idea that players' abilities do not change in the clutch is one of those things that gets the anti-stathead crowd riled up, gets them talking about pocket protectors and people who take the fun out of the game. I don't buy it; the fun is the game, in the performances and the competition and the talent that we get to watch.

When you have that, who needs a myth?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Why is playoff baseball so different than regular season baseball? How come the team with the most wins doesn't always win? I mean statistically it should bear out that the best team statistically always wins right?

I don't agree with VPI, but this sure is some bad math you are using.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I don't agree with VPI, but this sure is some bad math you are using.

After reading it again I have to agree. I have no idea what I wrote means.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

After reading it again I have to agree. I have no idea what I wrote means.

Fair enough.

[gstelmack]

This thread needs more humor, so I'll post the Bill Simmons take from his most recent Cowbell:

Originally Posted by Bill Simmons, talking about Saturday's loss to the Yankees

An MVP performance from A-Rod, who waited until the Yanks were up 6-2 before he ripped a long home run, then followed that up with two more big hits. The weird thing about A-Rod is that there's nobody more terrifying in a big game ... when you're down by 4 runs. There really isn't. It's like he goes to another level.

[cuervo72]

I like Simmons, but I root against the Red Sox and Pats every chance I get now, because he (and presumably all BOS fans) has gotten WAY too smug and annoying with the teams' successes.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I'm going to be a complete ass here:

I haven't read any of this thread, but my vote goes to Ichiro.

Oh, wait, I thought this was the MVP thread from last year.

[Blackadar]

I also wonder if Giambi's selection as the Comeback Player will play into the A-Rod/Ortiz MVP race. Rivera seems to be the odds-on favorite for the Cy. I think you'd see a lot of people gag if Yankee players won the Cy, the MVP and the Comeback awards for a team that won 6 fewer games than it did a year ago. Seems a bit odd that the team would perform worse if those guys all had career seasons.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I also wonder if Giambi's selection as the Comeback Player will play into the A-Rod/Ortiz MVP race. Rivera seems to be the odds-on favorite for the Cy. I think you'd see a lot of people gag if Yankee players won the Cy, the MVP and the Comeback awards for a team that won 6 fewer games than it did a year ago. Seems a bit odd that the team would perform worse if those guys all had career seasons.

They did go 84-48 after their horrible start, and clutch wins at the end of the season are more important than wins in the first third of the season, so that more than makes up their lower record.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

They did go 84-48 after their horrible start, and clutch wins at the end of the season are more important than wins in the first third of the season, so that more than makes up their lower record.

LOL

[oykib]

bump

So, A-Rod won. Even the idiot members of the BBWAA get the award right sometimes.