In mid-August, FanGraphs‘ Dave Cameron posted something that bothered me quite a bit. In a column titled “Why Do We Care?”, Cameron wrote about the pointlessness of fans getting riled up when the right baseball player doesn’t win the award he deserves. The most important quotes:

I get why baseball players might care, since they have financial incentives tied to who actually gets the award and such. I get why their families might care, as shiny trophies are always fun to hand down through the family. I get why the writers care, as it gives them a chance to have their opinion heard. I just don’t know why we’re supposed to care.

. . .

If they want to think that Teixeira was the most important player to his team in the league this year, that’s fine. Most of us probably disagree, and we’re under no obligation to report that as any kind of factual statement. I’ll be telling people that Mauer was the most valuable player in the American League for 2009, and I’ve got a mountain of information to back it up. How other people view the definition of the word value has no real world impact on me.

Twitter isn’t dying because people over 50 aren’t using it, and Tapas bars are doing just fine without an early bird special. Mauer’s legacy, and the history of the game, will be just fine without Tyler Keper’s vote, too. We’ve got better ways of capturing what happened on the field than through an award based on an esoteric argument about the definition of a vague word.

Let them vote for whoever they want. I don’t care.

I disagreed rather strongly with Cameron, going so far as to post my reaction to his piece. Well, now it turns out that maybe Dave Cameron himself disagrees with Dave Cameron. Today, in a column titled “Seriously, Someone Voted For Miguel Cabrera?”, Cameron posted about the ridiculousness of one voter giving Miguel Cabrera his first-place vote for the AL MVP. Important quotes:

Seriously, there is no argument for a first place vote for Miguel Cabrera. Mauer’s team made the playoffs, beating out Cabrera’s team for the last spot. Mauer hit better. Mauer fielded better. Mauer played a more important position.

None of those facts are disputable. A vote for Cabrera being more valuable in 2009 is like a vote for the sum of two and two being five. It’s not an opinion – it’s a lack of understanding.

So, writers who criticized Law for his vote and pointed to it as evidence that he’s screwing up the process, you are hereby required to do the same thing to the Cabrera voter. At least Keith had a reasonable explanation for his vote. There is no reasonable explanation for a Miguel Cabrera first place MVP vote. It’s just stupidity on display.

I happen to totally agree with Cameron’s thoughts on the AL MVP result. But that whole “let them vote for whoever they want, I don’t care” thing didn’t quite make it until 2010, did it?

I make new and exciting soups. All by myself (Editor’s note: not true).

I apologize for the recent lack of posts. Two things have caused this. The first is obvious, which is the end of baseball season. This has created a huge void in my life. When I’m not working, I can be found shaking in the corner of a subway car (usually the 2 or 3 train), rambling on about OBP, VORP, and WXRL while other passengers pretend not to see or hear me. I’m kidding, of course, but it is harder to find material at this time of year. If I don’t consider myself well-informed about a subject, I struggle to work up the courage to write about it. I don’t always consider myself well-informed about football or basketball, which results in droughts like this.

The second cause is my job. I teach sixth graders in Brooklyn that are in dire, dire need of literacy help. They are wonderful and hilarious kids (I really should start a competitor to Overheard In New York called “Overheard In Kevin’s Classroom”), engaging and inspiring on their good days but infuriating on their bad ones. Unfortunately, this week has seen more of the latter in my classroom. I inevitably take such days to heart, assuming that they happen because I am some combination of a bad teacher, an unsympathetic person, and an abysmal lesson-planner. These days throw me into a frenzy that lasts until the next morning, when I circle the wagons and try to do better. If the next day goes poorly, well, it’s hard for me to do anything but worry and work until another period of prolonged success occurs. I had four straight of those bad days this week, and most other aspects of my life were left unattended.

Here are a few thoughts I’d like to share:

• As a noted crank and emerging ageist, I was deeply skeptical of the BBWAA’s ability to correct pick the AL and NL Cy Young Award winners. It turns out that my skepticism was unfounded, as they chose the Kansas City Royals’ Zack Greinke and the San Francisco Giants’ Tim Lincecum as the award’s recipients. The voters resisted the urge to focus on their good-but-not-great wins totals, instead focusing on the more meaningful metrics (which are literally any other pitching statistic). Seemingly forever ago, I advocated for Greinke and Lincecum’s selection, assuming that I would eventually be disappointed. I wasn’t. Well done, voters.

• There has been a good-sized brouhaha about two voters omitting the St. Louis Cardinals’ Chris Carpenter from their Cy Young ballots altogether. The voters – ESPN’s Keith Law and Baseball Prospectus’ Will Carroll – happen to use advanced (or just intelligent?) statistical analysis in evaluating players and teams, which is still fairly uncommon amongst the BBWAA. They are, in short, the nerds, stat geeks, and VORPies that are often derided by the mainstream media. This tidbit has only fanned the flames, creating a minor uproar about their qualifications, objectivity, and whether or not they actually watch baseball games. It’s been sort of fascinating to watch, particularly because I don’t remember this sort of mainstream curiosity about the process when the BBWAA has produced a genuinely outrageous result in the past. Law, in particular, seems to be facing the heaviest criticism, also because he gave the Atlanta Braves’ Javier Vazquez his second-place vote. Since I happen to agree with him, he has my full support. Also, because he linked to me one time and he’s a fantastic analyst.

• ESPN’s Mark Jackson just praised the Denver Nuggets’ Carmelo Anthony for “his veteran move against young Al Thornton” on the Los Angeles Clippers. Thornton is actually six months older than Anthony, turning 26 in December. Jackson’s point is valid – Anthony has four years of NBA experience on Thornton, which almost certainly affords him greater wisdom and understanding of the game. But come on. Thornton’s age when he declared for the 2007 Draft was a big reason he wasn’t drafted in the top ten. Jackson must know these things.

I didn’t start off with the greatest opinion of ESPN’s Colin Cowherd. I had heard, albeit belatedly, about his stunt in shutting down The Big Lead because of some perceived slight. This seemed like a petty, malicious, and extreme thing to do in a business that requires awfully thick skin. In recent months, however, I’ve softened my stance on Cowherd. His occasional interviews with Keith Law have drawn me to his show, and from these interviews I’ve decided that Cowherd isn’t the total schmuck I thought he was. He can be a little overbearing at times and he’s clearly impressed with himself, but I think he’s a sharp guy with some interesting opinions.

As I do with increasing frequency, I had Cowherd’s radio show on in the background as I did some work this morning. The topic of discussion, unsurprisingly, was Bill Belichick’s controversial decision in last night’s Patriots-Colts game. With a 34-28 lead and 2:08 remaining, the Patriots went for it on 4th and 2 from their own 28-yard line. They were stopped just short of the marker, allowing Peyton Manning and the Colts to take over possession deep in Patriots territory. The Colts ultimately won the game on the ensuing drive, creating nothing short of total uproar about Belichick’s decision. Like many of his peers, Cowherd hated the gamble, but isn’t buying the idea that Belichick’s skills are slipping or that the Patriots’ defense will remember this perceived slight for the rest of the season.

Cowherd then got an e-mail from a listener, who presented statistics that supported Belichick’s seemingly insane decision to go for it. I’ve forgotten the actual numbers, but it was something like teams should go for it in that situation more than 70% of the time. I was thrilled that these numbers were brought to Cowherd’s (and his huge audience’s) attention, because they touch on what is fast-becoming my newest sports crusade. In general, I think offenses are way too conservative on fourth down. Coaches are too quick to call for a punt or field goal attempt, when chances are they could get the yard or two necessary for a new set of downs. There’s a passing similarity here to closer usage in baseball. In baseball, many managers are convinced that the last three outs in a game are harder to get than the previous 24, thereby necessitating the development and use of a special reliever equipped with the special ability to get these special outs: the closer. While football’s analogue isn’t quite as extreme, it does seem like coaches are convinced that those two or three yards on fourth down are harder to get than most other yards in a game. So, they punt it or kick a field goal. Both tactics – closer deployment and kicking or punting – stem from a misguided belief, as well as fear of public criticism if their solid thought process yields an unfavorable result.

With that being said, I was interested in what Cowherd would say when confronted with these statistics. He’s one of the more open-minded talking heads out there, so I thought maybe he’d change his tune a little. Instead, Cowherd paid lip service to the probabilities and the general usefulness of statistics, but called these particular numbers “disingenuous.” He said that statistics must be taken in their proper context (which is true), and that the context in the Patriots-Colts game essentially rendered the probabilities useless. Cowherd said that the numbers don’t tell us game situations, and that in last night’s case, the mitigating factor was where the Patriots chose to go for it, not that they chose to go for it. It wasn’t the call itself that Cowherd disliked. It was where the call was made (on the Patriots own 28-yard line) that was problematic.

I’m still not sure if I agree with Cowherd or not, but I think it’s pretty disingenuous to call the listener’s statistics “disingenuous.” Upon receiving these numbers, Cowherd basically made an argument for considering context when evaluating statistics or probabilities. Well, it seems to me that Cowherd himself is ignoring a significant bit of context that might the probabilities more admissible in his eyes. If the Patriots punted the ball (as convention dictates), that gives Peyton Manning two minutes to drive sixty to seventy yards at home. This is the same Peyton Manning who has thrown for 48,500 yards and 353 touchdowns in his career, completing passes at a 65% clip. He’s having one of the finest seasons of his career this year, based largely on his 69.7% (!) completion percentage. I’m positive that this was a huge factor in Belichick’s thought process. The Patriots had a chance to win the game right there, and they went for it because of the quality of their offense and the quality of their opponent’s offense. If Cowherd is going to advocate decision-making based on the careful balance of probabilities and context, then that’s wonderful. But it’s just as disingenuous to ignore the quality of the opponent’s offense as it is to ignore the chances of converting on 4th and 2.

I think I just talked myself into liking Belichick’s call. Keep on fighting the good fight, arrogant coach of a team I loathe.

EDIT: Here are the numbers that the listener was most likely looking at, as linked to by ESPN’s Rob Neyer (of all people). Right now, NFL analyst and former quarterback Trent Dilfer is lambasting Belichick’s decision because it wasn’t as “calculated” as those made by Dilfer’s former coach, Tony Dungy. How ironic is it that Belichick probably made his choice based on these probabilities, and he’s being blasted for not being “calculated” enough?

Over the past few months, I’ve become intermittently aware of the unrest surrounding Florida State’s football team. Apparently, prominent alumni and program boosters are upset at the state of the program, going so far as to call for 80-year-old head coach Bobby Bowden’s resignation. College football isn’t really my thing (unless I’m watching Vanderbilt lose by 20 every week), so I’ve remained mostly agnostic about this controversy. I like I think that I see both sides of the issue. Bowden is an iconic figure in college football, and even more so in the annals of Florida State athletics. But he’s old – let’s call it what it is – and it’s not ridiculous to suggest that his age may adversely affect the football program. I could see either side of the argument, but that was before Bowden went and did this.

If this is true (and no reason to doubt its veracity), then it’s a pretty big blow to Bowden’s credibility. Whether it’s fair or not, the head coach of any team, much less a storied one like Florida State, must be able to remember basic information about the flow of the game. We all have bouts of forgetfulness, and that this bout occurred to Bowden at the age of 80 when questions about his professional legitimacy are being asked is more than a little sad. But two things remain unquestionable: this is an embarrassing development, and it lends at least a small amount of credibility to the idea that Bowden needs to retire.

My opinion on this matter is not clear-cut, primarily because it would be based on the collision of two tightly-held personal tenets. Above all else, I believe in randomness and sample size. It’s possible that Bowden’s brainlock was an example of the sort of forgetfulness that occurs to us in our daily lives. It’s quite likely that a 30-year-old head coach could make the same mistake. We forget things sometimes. Maybe Bowden just had the 1996 Brady Anderson season of post-game comments. I believe that stuff happens, and that you can’t draw a sound conclusion until you have enough of that stuff to sort through. But I also believe that our faculties decline as we get older. Actually, it’s not so much a belief as it is a fact. We decline as we get older. Our eyesight gets worse, our knees and back hurt, our hearing goes, we repeat ourselves, and we forget bits of information with greater frequency. It’s just what happens.

As understanding as I am of this process, it doesn’t exempt the aging from a certain amount of scrutiny or criticism. This is especially true if the individual is holding a prominent, influential, or lucrative position – much like the one Bobby Bowden currently holds. There should be no special treatment of the elderly in the workforce. If they can perform the duties of the job to their fullest extent, then fine, the position is filled based on merit. But if age or factors stemming from aging make this task difficult, then criticism is warranted. Of course, the tough part is figuring out which professional deficiencies are effects of age and which would be there no matter what.

I have no idea whether Bobby Bowden is actually fit to run a football team or not. But I do know that most of the 80-year-olds out there aren’t working; they’re retired. And their overwhelming retirement isn’t some sprawling coincidence. They’re retired because they’ve worked a long time, they’re too tired and/or underqualified to keep doing so, and they deserve to relax. With that being the case, it’s nothing like prepostrous to suggest that Bowden is no longer the optimal choice for his job. Especially if he keeps on forgetting what just happened.

The 2009 AL Gold Glove winners have been announced. Do you notice a pattern? If you don’t, perhaps my inclusion of each player’s 2009 OPS+ will give it away:

• C – Joe Mauer (170)
• 1B – Mark Teixeira (149)
• 2B – Placido Polanco (88)
• 3B – Evan Longoria (130)
• SS – Derek Jeter (132)
• OF – Ichiro Suzuki (127)
• OF – Torii Hunter (126)
• OF – Adam Jones (106)

As you can see, six of the eight winners are exceptional hitters. One is above average, and another is mediocre. Nevertheless, the voters would have you believe that not only are these players incredible offensive forces, they are elite defenders as well. Is this possible? Sure. Some guys have all the luck. Is this probable? Not at all, especially because we can quantify defensive ability better than ever before.

If Gold Gloves were awarded based solely on defensive merit (as is the stated purpose of the award), the recipients should have been:

• C – Gerald Laird (64)
• 1B – Kendry Morales (137)
• 2B – Dustin Pedroia (110)
• 3B – Evan Longoria (130)
• SS – Elvis Andrus (82)
• OF – Ichiro Suzuki (127)
• OF - Franklin Gutierrez (103)
• OF – Carl Crawford (113)

The more I think about Gold Glove voting, the more irritated I get. I can’t profess genuine surprise that the recipients are superior hitters; this has almost always been the case. What really gets me is that the voters sometimes appear to ignore defensive measurements altogether when choosing the best defenders. For example, Gerald Laird had as many errors as Joe Mauer in 2009 and threw out base-stealers at a much higher rate. Ah, but look at Mauer’s offensive numbers! He gets the award. Cy Young and MVP voting may be flawed, but at least the voters look at pitching and hitting statistics when making their selections – however useless those statistics might be. If Cy Young voting worked the same way Gold Glove voting does, selections would be based on how well the pitcher hits.

Gold Glove awards should go to the best defenders, period. Until that happens, I think I might have just convinced myself that this award is the biggest sham in sports.

I have mere minutes before friends arrive and we spend all day watching college football, but I must share with you this amazing clip. It’s the Houston Texans’ David Anderson doing a fantastic impression of ESPN’s resident football nerd (that’s a compliment), Ron Jaworski. Jaworski’s breakdown of film on “NFL Live” is unique not only because of the great insight he provides, but also because of the bizarre cadences and speech patterns he uses when doing so. Anderson mimics this perfectly, and it’s hilarious to watch. Enjoy.

The New York Yankees are your 2009 World Series Champions.

I’ll be back with much more much later (a close friend from college will be in town through Sunday). But for now, I can’t tell you how happy I am for Alex Rodriguez and Hideki Matsui. Rodriguez… well, we all know what he’s been through, and if you’ve read this space regularly, you know how much I think it was undeserved. He’s an all-time great, he works hard, and he clearly cares (too much, it sometimes appears). Of course, he made a mistake, but the criticism he received (like most steroid-entangled players) was not proportionate to the transgression. Why no one likes the guy, I’ll never understand. I’m thrilled he dispensed with the idea that he’s a team-killer, a choker, and a loser. Good for him.

It seems less and less likely that Hideki Matsui will be on the 2010 Yankees. Even for a cold-hearted crank who sees players as little more than a series of statistics and probabilities (this is 45% true), Matsui’s probable departure tugs at the heartstrings. He was never the best player on the Yankees, never quite lived up to the ridiculous “Godzilla!” hype, but the guy did nothing but hit for seven seasons. He continued that trend in the World Series, hitting .615/.643/1.385 and winning the series MVP. What a way to go out.

Until next time, when you’ll learn more about my hair than you ever wanted to know.

As much as I’d love to pin the blame on bad management or shoddy umpiring, there’s nothing else I can really say about this one – Bad A.J. showed up. Burnett had his worst start of the season, “lasting” two innings and allowing six runs. His performance was bolstered (and not in a good way) by the efforts of reliever Phil Coke, who allowed two home runs to two of the three lefties he was brought in to face. It’s hard to score six runs and lose the game, but that’s what happened to the Yankees.

I can’t leave, however, without complaining about at least one thing. The A.J. Burnett-Jose Molina tandem has worked to the tune of a 5.27 ERA this postseason. It’s sort of irrelevant at this point, because Burnett will not be making another start, but it’s worth mentioning. It’s worth mentioning because of the ridiculous idea that Molina’s presence improves Burnett’s performance enough to overcome the crippling effect of Molina’s bat in the lineup. It doesn’t. Next year, put Posada back there (warts and all), and hope for the best.

And much of it can be attributed to Chokey McChokeartist himself, Alex Rodriguez. Here’s to Good A.J. tonight.

On October 26th, Phillies shortstop Jimmy Rollins predicted that his team would beat the Yankees to win the World Series in five games. Ever munificent, Rollins allowed for the possibility that the series could go six games, but the result would remain the same: a second World Series victory in as many years for the Phillies.

Well, it would appear that Rollins and his teammates were feeling charitable last night, as the Yankees’ 8-5 win ensured that if the Phillies win the World Series, it would be in six or seven games. Generally, I’m not opposed to predictions and other forms of competitive banter. Cincinnati Bengals’ receiver Chad Ochocinco’s checklist is a personal favorite because of its originality and the man’s very real ability to back it up. Rollins’ prediction, however, slightly irked me because of his performance. Rollins hit a miserable .250/.296/.423 in the regular season, making him roughly the 11th-most valuable member of the 2009 Phillies, behind the immortal Carlos Ruiz and barely ahead of Pedro Feliz. Yes, Rollins has a ring and a handful of good seasons to his name, but it must be mentioned that Rollins has been a below-average hitter (97 OPS+) and average-ish fielder (4.9 UZR/150) in his career. Talk is all well and good, but the crank in me believes it should be in proportion to the individual accomplishments of its instigator.

A few remaining thoughts from the game:

• Alex Rodriguez hit a controversial home run and was hit by a couple pitches, bringing his World Series OPS up to .708. Phillies’ slugger Ryan Howard, on the other hand, went 0-for-4 with three strikeouts an a pop-up, making him 2/13 this World Series with nine strikeouts. Trust me when I say that using World Series OPS to make a point makes me want to throw myself off a bridge, but I have to ask: Will we see a national columnist write about Howard’s inability to handle the pressure? Will people question his fortitude and focus? In short, will he (or Mark Teixeira, he of the .607 postseason OPS) get the Alex Rodriguez treatment? No, they will not, because people like Howard and Teixeira, and Rodriguez (for whatever reason) rubs people the wrong way. I know I should get over this double standard, but I simply refuse to.

• For much of the evening, Andy Pettitte drove me nuts. I watched him hold the top of the Phillies’ order to 1/15 with one walk and five strikeouts (Chase Utley twice and Ryan Howard three times). Then I watched him allow the bottom of their order to go 3/11, including a double to Pedro Feliz (.308 OBP), two walks to Carlos Ruiz, and a bunt single to pitcher Cole Hamels. Having slept on it, I’m not longer flustered by Pettitte’s performance. While the two homers to Jayson Werth here tough to swallow, Pettitte did fantastic work against most of the Phillies’ toughest hitters. Holding Utley, Howard, and Raul Ibanez hitless with seven strikeouts is awfully difficult to do, but he did it. This is me tipping my cap. Now stop walking bad hitters.

• Try as I might, I simply can’t resist mentioning another bit of stupid (yes, that word is what I mean) bullpen management. Up 8-4 entering the bottom of the ninth inning, Joe Girardi sent out Phil Hughes to finish up the game. I liked the move; Hughes typically sees action in high-leverage situations, but his postseason struggles warranted his use at the start of an inning, with a significant lead, and a clean slate. Hughes retired the first batter he faced on a ground ball. Then, to his absolute discredit, he allowed a home run to Carlos Ruiz. Unfortunately for Hughes and people with brains everywhere, Ruiz’s homer made the game a save situation. And we all know what that means with Mariano Rivera in the bullpen and Girardi in charge. Rivera entered the game, retired the next two batters, and secured the victory. This was just another example of thoughtless, push-button management. If the Yankees don’t have another reliever that can get two outs before surrendering three runs (they have several), their team is hugely flawed. If Girardi doesn’t believe that he has another reliever that can do that, he’s an idiot. With Rivera coming off two innings pitched in Game Two and C.C. Sabathia going on short rest tonight, Girardi should have used literally any reliever but Rivera in that situation (how about, you know, leaving Hughes in there and not messing with his head like that?). The Yankees could very well need Rivera for an extended appearance tonight, and his usage last night might have sunk that possibility.