1981

            As part of my thought process, and re-examining some awards that may have gone to the wrong players, I went back to the 1981 season.

            It was a tumultuous season to say the least. Those who are old enough to remember it as the 'strike season', which was halted in mid year, and started up again. The season was played in two halves, with the standings frozen at the time of the work stoppage, and the first place teams were dubbed the First Half pennant winners. The resumption of play then led to the awarding of Second Half pennant winners.

            The Cincinnati Reds, that year, had the misfortune of winding up with the best overall record in baseball, but didn't win either of the pennants, and were shut out of post-season play.

            The Dodgers, who eventually beat the Yankees in the World Series, were the team everyone was watching. Led by a left-handed Mexican rookie pitcher named Fernando Valenzuela. He was the hottest ticket in baseball, and drew record crowds whenever and wherever he pitched. The nation was consumed by Fernando-mania.

            He was awarded the Rookie of the Year AND the Cy Young Award for the National League that season.

            I have no qualms about the Rookie of the Year. The Cy Young Award, however, is a different story.

            In looking at the pitcher who received votes for the Cy Young (only 5!) we have the following:

Name	W	L	Sv	ERA
F. Valenzuela	13	7	0	2.48
T. Seaver	14	2	0	2.54
S. Carlton	13	4	0	2.42
N. Ryan	11	5	0	1.69
B. Sutter	3	5	25	2.62

            (note: 4 Hall of Famers + Fernando)

            Just for kicks, I added the leaders in ERA (Earned Run Average) and

WAR (Wins Against Replacement, the hot stat amongst Sabermetricians)

Name	W	L	Sv	ERA
J. Reuss	10	4	0	2.30
B. Knepper	9	5	0	2.18
D. Alexander	11	7	0	2.89
B. Hooton	11	6	0	2.28
V. Blue	8	6	0	2.45
R. Camp	9	3	17	1.78
E. Solomon	8	6	1	3.12
B. Gullickson	7	9	0	2.80

            Good to see Rick Camp on the list. He was a pretty good closer (or stopper as they began calling them in his day) . To me, however, he will always be the guy that homered at 3AM against the Mets in Atlanta in July of 1985.

            Anyway, as I was thinking...being a Mets fan, I always maintained that Tom Seaver really should have won his fourth Cy Young Award in 1981, but he didn't...nor did he deserve it.

            As happens with statistics and research, sometimes one is able to use numbers as a way to end an argument, or solve a problem. And sometimes, like layers of an onion, you delve in deeper and deeper and discover something else entirely. Or have to switch gears.

            Using my formula,  I applied that aforementioned players' statistics and calculated the number. Then, lo and behold, I was wrong. Here are the results:

name	x
Nolan Ryan	2.03571
Tom Seaver	1.97817
Steve Carlton	1.85987
Fernando Valenzuela	1.82966
Burt Hooton	1.80910
Rick Camp	1.77259
Jerry Reuss	1.77258
Bob Knepper	1.74199
Don Sutton	1.73851

Then, when you compare that x number to the rest of their teams, we get this:

name	Vs. TEAM
Steve Carlton	1.8399
Tom Seaver	1.6687
Rick Camp	1.6523
Nolan Ryan	1.3918
Vida Blue	1.3813
Eddie Solomon	1.3252
Fernando Valenzuela	1.3312
Burt Hooton	1.3163
Jerry Reuss	1.2897
Doyle Alexander	1.2808
Bob Knepper	1.1910
Don Sutton	1.1889
Bruce Sutter	1.1602

            Carlton had the advantage of being a very good pitcher on a very bad pitching team. Note that the Phillies did win the 1st half championship, losing to the Expos in the first ever National League Eastern Division Championship Series. And that Mike Schmidt was voted the Most Valuable Player in the NL that year.

           

Now, let's compare to the rest of the league...

name	Vs NL
Nolan Ryan	1.8834
Tom Seaver	1.7819
Steve Carlton	1.6753
Fernando Valenzuela	1.6481
Burt Hooton	1.6296
Rick Camp	1.59671
Jerry Reuss	1.59670
Bob Knepper	1.5692
Don Sutton	1.5660
Vida Blue	1.5147
Doyle Alexander	1.4026

            Ryan was on a very strong pitching team, as proven by 3 pitchers on this top ten list, but that being said, he was still the strongest performer on the staff.

            So, in conclusion, it appears that Fernando was not totally deserving of the Cy Young Award in 1981. In reality, it should have been The Ryan Express's first Cy Young.

Pete Rose

           The problem with Pete Rose not being in the Hall of fame is a multi-layered one.. For the record, Pete is mentioned and has displays in Cooperstown, but has not been inducted as a 'Hall of Famer'.

            You cannot deny his impact on the game, his accomplishments, his style of play, his gamesmanship. One also cannot deny that he broke the cardinal rule. Broke it, period.

            Okay. We've all taken issue with the various things that he was alleged to do. Namely, betting on baseball. For many years, Pete denied each and every allegation leveled at him on this front. And who was asking about these allegations? Generally, it was sports writers. Pete would get belligerent in some of his responses to the same questions.

            So, after getting nowhere with his reinstatement attempts, he decided to write a tell-all expose on himself, called "My Prison Without Bars" in which he spends at least two chapters picking apart the now infamous Dowd Report. The same report which gathered evidence of Pete's betting on baseball, and the basis for Commissioner Giamatti's lifetime ban. Two chapters.

            In the next chapter, after railing against the report that said he bet on baseball, Pete admitted that he bet on baseball.

            He claims that he only bet on his team, and only bet on his team to win. Noble is his wagering.

            But, there's where I have a couple of issues...

           

            Let's try this scenario. You're a bookie. Every day you get a call from Pete, or his associate, betting $10,000 on the Reds to win. Every day, except for one. On that day, a certain pitcher is pitching for the Reds. Pete lays off that day, and picks up the next day with the $10,000 bets to win. Until the next time that pitcher's spot comes up in the rotation...

            True, Pete is betting on his team to win. But those non-bets are also sending a message to those who notice such things and patterns. While not directly doing so, he is essentially consorting with the gamblers. Is a non-bet the same as a bet against your team?

            And, following that same vein, let's say that you're Pete, and star outfielder Eric Davis is a little dinged up, could play today and give you 90% or give him a day of rest and have him 100% the next game. Or...knowing that the pitcher going tomorrow is the guy that you don't bet on, use him today instead...Or change your bullpen strategy because of the bet/non-bet on today's game.

            So it's not a simple did Pete bet, it's OK if he bet on his team to win, not to lose, etc. But did it effect his playing days?

            In the book "Pete Rose: An American Dilemma" by Kostya Kennedy, it is revealed that Pete lost a 'ton of money' on the 1984 World Series.

            OK, let's go back to Pete's playing days with the Big Red Machine. The manager, George "Sparky" Anderson was 'like a father' to Pete. What does Pete do in return? Well, in the '84 World Series, Sparky was managing the Tigers. If Pete lost a ton of money on the Series, he bet heavily on the team that lost, the Padres. Essentially, he bet a ton of money on his 'father figure' to lose.

            According to Pete's revelation (finally coming after many years of denial) Pete only began betting on baseball after his playing days were over. I don't believe him. I find it convenient that he was able to control his gambling impulses as long as he did. Pete's a gambler. Gambler's look for advantages. Who better to spot and gain advantages than someone involved in the game.

            It may be as simple as noticing an opposing player with a slight limp during batting practice. Or knowing that the opposing starting pitcher had a few too many at the bar the night before. Or it could be that he knew Johnny Bench hit that particular starting pitcher pretty well. Things like that. An avid gambler would find it hard to pass on that action.

           

            So let's say that he was eligible for the Hall of Fame balloting. Who would have voted for his induction? The baseball writers. The same ones that he was issuing denials to for a dozen years or so. They wouldn't have voted him out after the revelations of what many knew all along, that has never been done.

            Are there undeserving players in the Hall of Fame right now?

            Yes, I think. One or two that are undeserving, but were voted in by the players via politics.

            Are there people in the Hall of Fame that did things worse that Pete did?

Maybe. There are drunks, abusers and racists in the Hall. Some were horrible people that's true. But none that violated the sanctity of the game.      

            The racists may have hurled racial taunts, insults and epithets as quickly and as easily as breathing air. that doesn't make it right. And we all know that it took until 1947 to have a segregated game. But I'm pretty sure that the owners more than the players were to blame for that egregious happening.

            Right now, in his life, the worst thing that can happen to him is reinstatement into baseball. He makes more money by being the anti-Hall of Famer. he said in an interview that I saw that not being in the hall of Fame has cost him around thirty million dollars. Yet every induction weekend he sets up an autograph session on Main Street across the street from the Hall of Fame n the lovely hamlet of Cooperstown.

             

            But, at this point, we really cannot believe anything that Pete tells us. He thinks he's telling us what we want to hear. And some want to believe him that they may lose the objectivity. Admittedly, I have not been a fan of his, but that goes back to the 1973 playoffs and his fight with Bud Harrelson. But that shouldn't matter. The answer to the question that everyone has been asking him is right here in this text.

            Yes he bet on baseball. Yes he did it while an active player. Pete was active through the 1986 season as a player. He 'lost a ton of money' betting on the 1984 World Series. He was a 22 year major league veteran. He should have known better.

1941

One of the reasons I finally started this project was to figure out some of the historic performances and how they compare to modern day figures. To find a reliable statistical norm that is a continual formula that can measure true worth and value, and compare those to the norm for each season. That is why I am still struggling to find a good pitching statistic as a comparison.
One of the joys of baseball, or most other sports, is the argument over best players, greats at this, greatest at that, etc. My formula just adds fuel to the fire, and may agree with your argument or contradict it. But hopefully will regenerate some interest. Ultimately I plan to reveal the best single season offensive performance here. (it may not be who you think it is)your argument.

Now, post season awards are voted on by the sportswriters. No knock on them, but they do get things wrong. Sometimes horribly wrong. Sometimes, justifiably wrong. They are human, and as such, can be vindictive. I bring this up because of the 1941 American League season.

Most people know that he was the last player to hit .400 in 1941. And that he was at .3999 going into the last day of the season. And that he could have sat out and had his average rounded to .400. And that he played both games of a doubleheader (yes youngsters, a star playing in both games of a doubleheader, one game right after the other, not one of these newfangled day/night deals. AND since the Yankees had clinched the league title a week before, both games of the twin-bill were essentially meaningless). And that he went 6 for 8 to finish the season at .406. And that he wasn't voted the Most Valuable Player that season. Joe DiMaggio was.

Here are the numbers:
DiMaggio                    30HR  125RBI .357AVG .440OBP .643SLG    

Williams                      37HR  120RBI .406AVG .553OBP .735SLG 

Williams finished second to DiMaggio. There were 24 voters then, DiMaggio got 15 first place votes, and Williams got 8.

Travesty? Maybe. The Yankees did win the pennant that year by 17 games, so maybe the reasoning for DiMaggio winning the popularity contest.

Or was it the publicity all season. Remember that summer, DiMaggio captivated the nation with his 56 game hitting streak. So that may have carried him to the MVP, being the one thing that everyone talked about.

Looking further at the Yankees and Red Sox from 1941, both stars had a pretty good supporting cast, advantage Ted Williams on that front. Williams (2.8120) also had a lineup that featured future Hall of Famers Jimmie Foxx (2.2009), Joe Cronin (2.1651) and Bobby Doerr (1.9174), with support from Jim Tabor (1.9723). While DiMaggio's (2.6443) lineup had Charlie Keller (2.3610)  and Hall of Famer Joe Gordon (1.8965).

The argument could then be made as the Most VALUABLE Player, DiMaggio did more for the Yankees. Since his number is much higher than the rest of the team (except for Charlie Keller) he truly was the most important bat in that lineup.  The Red Sox had 5 players over 1.9 while the Yankees had just 2. 

Also, Joe was responsible for 15.2% of the Red Sox' runs that year, compared to Teddy Ballgame's 14.6%.

 So, looking at just one number (as awesome as the MIKE number may be) still doesn't give a complete picture as one would hope for, especially when looking at the weight of what one may be voting for.

But there is another player whom you probably are not familiar with, who had an extremely good season for a team that didn't finish in the money. Jeff Heath. He finished 8th in the MVP voting that year, but offensively had a very, very productive season. Quite possibly, his numbers may have won him an award in any other season of that decade, but as it was, he had the 5th best MIKE number that season, comparing his number to the league average.

The top 10 against the league average:

player	Mike#	vs LEAGUE
Ted Williams	2.8120	1.8175
Joe DiMaggio	2.6443	1.7091
Charlie Keller	2.3610	1.5260
Cecil Travis	2.2474	1.4526
Jeff Heath	2.2324	1.4429
Jimmie Foxx	2.2009	1.4225
Sam Chapman	2.1674	1.4009
Joe Cronin	2.1651	1.3993
Bob Johnson	2.0943	1.3536

But if we measure his performance against his team's average (the Indians in case you were wondering)

player	Mike#	vs LEAGUE	vs TEAM
Jeff Heath	2.2324	1.4429	1.5910
Joe DiMaggio	2.6443	1.7091	1.5732
Ted Williams	2.8120	1.8175	1.5638
Taffy Wright	2.0301	1.3121	1.5042
Cecil Travis	2.2474	1.4526	1.4424
Sam Chapman	2.1674	1.4009	1.4303
Charlie Keller	2.3610	1.5260	1.4047
Bob Johnson	2.0943	1.3536	1.3820
Rudy York	1.9491	1.2597	1.3386
Luke Appling	1.7589	1.1368	1.3033

So the argument can be made either way. Offensively speaking, Joe DiMaggio was NOT the most valuable player in the American league in 1941. An argument can be made for either Ted Williams or Jeff Heath for that distinction.

And for the record:
Jeff Heath                           24HR 123RBI  .340 AVG  .396 OBP  .586 SLG


Today Only! Get $5 Off Your Purchase of $50 or More with Code BNLUCK15 at checkout. Offer valid 3/17/15 only!