I posted this blog...to the wrong site...the day after the World Series. Probably not worth resurrecting, but, well, you're getting your money's worth regardless.
Ultimately, the vote for MVP of the World Series has all the clout of an Afghan election. Seven games -- or two pitching starts -- is not exactly a barometer of anything.
Bestowing the honor on a player who batted in three games and fielded in none takes us from the ridiculous to the...um...really ridiculous. Hideki Matsui basically earned the trophy for getting three hits in the culminating event. Woo!
More to the point, it adds another data point against the wisdom that there are "big game" players, or that one guy is great in the post-season and another guy is not. It's just absurd to assume that a player's batting average or ERA in two playoff series is indicative of anything beyond those games themselves.
Which is why great players sometimes fare poorly in the playoffs and vice versa. It's not a character flaw; it's a small sample. Or maybe it's pitching match-ups, which is what put Ryan Howard on ice this World Series. The Yankees threw four lefties at him, and while Howard is Samson against righties, he swings a stickball bat against southpaws.
I'm sure there is a three game stretch in Horace Clarke's career when he went eight-for-13. And I'd be shocked if Babe Ruth never went one for 22 with nine strikeouts at various junctions in his career. Nonetheless, in case you hadn't heard, Ruth finished several spots ahead of Clarke in Hall of Fame voting.
This case was long ago made and proven, but you'd never know it from baseball writers and sportscasters, who continue to congratulate Alex Rodriguez for "stepping up," loosening up" or "coming up big." It's another example of ignorance being the dominant force in the profession.
Bestowing the honor on a player who batted in three games and fielded in none takes us from the ridiculous to the...um...really ridiculous. Hideki Matsui basically earned the trophy for getting three hits in the culminating event. Woo!
More to the point, it adds another data point against the wisdom that there are "big game" players, or that one guy is great in the post-season and another guy is not. It's just absurd to assume that a player's batting average or ERA in two playoff series is indicative of anything beyond those games themselves.
Which is why great players sometimes fare poorly in the playoffs and vice versa. It's not a character flaw; it's a small sample. Or maybe it's pitching match-ups, which is what put Ryan Howard on ice this World Series. The Yankees threw four lefties at him, and while Howard is Samson against righties, he swings a stickball bat against southpaws.
I'm sure there is a three game stretch in Horace Clarke's career when he went eight-for-13. And I'd be shocked if Babe Ruth never went one for 22 with nine strikeouts at various junctions in his career. Nonetheless, in case you hadn't heard, Ruth finished several spots ahead of Clarke in Hall of Fame voting.
This case was long ago made and proven, but you'd never know it from baseball writers and sportscasters, who continue to congratulate Alex Rodriguez for "stepping up," loosening up" or "coming up big." It's another example of ignorance being the dominant force in the profession.
No comments:
Post a Comment