My Email to Murray Chass

The old guard of baseball writing has found the Internet. Unfortunately, the old guard still wants nothing to do with any real analysis.

While almost a month late in reading, this post on Murray Chass' blog set my "Pujols for MVP" blood back boiling. This article had everything, from blatant disregard to the first five months of the season, to this mystical notion that one player can "carry" a team (how did the Rangers do while A-Rod was tearing the cover off the ball for three years? Oh. Right.).

While Chass has been a favorite target of all those in bloggerland, most notably Fire Joe Morgan (RIP), this article, combined with the easily accessible email address provided at the bottom of the article, compelled me to write Mr. Chass an email regarding his work.

Dear Mr. Chass,

While scrolling through your Web site early this morning, I came across your article on why Ryan Howard should have been N.L. MVP. While I am aware that Ryan Howard had a big September, I am also aware of your death-hold on traditionalism and general refusal to look at measurable info in baseball, preferring to use your gut instinct on situations. For you, I share these concerns with your information:

- Albert Pujols had a grand total of 10.1 percent of his team's Plate Appearances, Ryan Howard had 11.2 percent. Baseball is not a sport where one player can "carry" a team, they need help. Howard received his help in the form of Jimmy Rollins, Chase Utley, Pat Burrell, Shane Victorino, etc. The Cardinals were a mediocre hitting team outside of Pujols and Ryan Ludwick.

- The Phillies could not have done what they did without Howard? Really? If you replace Howard's production with Pujols', Mark Teixeira's, Kevin Youkilis', Lance Berkman's, Adrian Gonzales', Prince Fielder's, etc, for the whole season, you don't have a championship quality team?

A win in June counts the same as a win in September, and had Howard been producing near the .900 OPS level all season (which isn't as good of a statistic as you love to point out because it overstates slugging), the Phillies probably lead the division heading into September, and we have no need for Howard's "heroics".

He missed out on the All-Star game for a reason: Other players were better and more deserving, as they were for MVP.

- Back to the point of "carrying." While I've already stated that no player wins or loses games on his own, that the No. 9 hitter will contribute just one plate appearance less than the No. 1 hitter a game, and that this basketball "take over the game" mentality is bogus, than where is the praise for other members of the Phillies?

Pat Burrell was a monster throughout the first half of the season, Jayson Werth OPS'd 1.071 in August (Howard OPS'd .791 in August). While Howard's Home Run production is a very good thing and very valuable, he was also a dud for three out of the six months in the season, a subpar defender even in a position filled with subpar defenders, and struggled with on base.

Essentially, the very basis of your argument is that the Phillies do not win the N.L. East without Howard's production in September. That is a true statement. However, this also encompasses the notion that baseball is a team game in the same sense that basketball and football are, which is untrue.

In basketball, for example, outside factors significantly affect your own production. Take Ray Allen, for example. 2006-'07 in Seattle, he averaged 26.4 Points per game, and in 2007-'08 with Boston, just 17.4. But despite playing worse "on paper", he went from a bad Seattle team to a main contributor to a Celtics title.

Why? Because his own individual workload changed when going from a team where he was the offense to a team with three stars and a nice group of role players who could also take on a good chunk of the offensive load.

In baseball, a star player, no matter where he plays, will get his 600-700 plate appearances in a season.

In other words, statistics in other sports are just as reflective of your team's performance as your own in a sport like basketball, but in baseball, statistics mainly measure your own performance, independent to your team's performance (notable exceptions are RBI, runs, W-L record, saves).

There is no denying that Pujols was a more feared hitter by National League pitchers than Ryan Howard, and had Howard produced earlier in the season the way he had in September, there may have been no N.L. East comeback needed.

So Mr. Chass, before using your writing as a base of attack towards those in the SABRmetric community, or even those who value stats like OBP more than AVG, please just do your homework. Not all stat nerds like myself believe baseball is nothing but numbers and probabilities, we see the human element of sports just as much as you.

However, we took our love of the game that we grew up with, and looked to expand our own understanding and intellectual curiosity on the matter, and found research that improved our understanding. Howard is a good player, and no one denies that, however, to say he's MVP for carrying his team out of a hole his lack of output earlier helped to cause is just a poor train of thought.

You don't have to use numbers like VORP, EqA, FRAR, or even Runs Created if you do not want, but it's not a good train of thought to immediately dismiss new ideas without giving them so much as a chance. The chance the Red Sox took in 2003 of giving Bill James a senior advisory job seemed to work out just fine for them.

Sincerely,
Joe Regan

It is easy to understand why older men like Murray Chass cling onto these mentalities that somehow a team's performance makes one .270/.340/.500 better than another .270/.340/.500; they grew up in a time where men played whole careers for one team, where the business side of baseball was nowhere near as present as it is now, and when real dynasties existed.

Now, however, we have the means, and the need, to inspect a player's overall contribution to the success, or failure, of his team, and for whatever reason, men like Mr.Chass dismiss this notion.

Whether it be the notion that stats are being used in lieu of watching baseball (which is completely false), the loss of the human element (once again, untrue, stats have even been formed to adjust for those "clutch" situations), or that users of these numbers are simply nerds, they all have their excuse.

The irony of these arguments are that if Mr. Chass watched a game between Apr. 1 and Aug. 31, he may have seen the contributions that men like Chase Utley, Jimmy Rollins, and Pat Burrell provided the Phillies while Howard plodded along. If Howard was on the Padres, his name would have been laughed at in by MVP voters; instead he finished second in a tight race.

Unfortunately, pandering, emotional articles are still the norm among most noteworthy sports writers, and it will probably be years before my generation of fans come along and bring SABR's research more mainstream attention.