Getty Images

“Playing for a Winner” explains the media’s effect on players’ Hall of Fame chances

32 Comments

A book came out recently — I just got my copy this week — that does something no other baseball book that I am aware of has ever done: it seeks to quantify the way in which media coverage impacts a player’s fame and, in turn, his Hall of Fame chances.

The book is called “Playing for a Winner” and it was written by Brandon Isleib. Brandon is a baseball scholar and writer I’ve known for several years — we both used to contribute to The Hardball Times — and he first told me about the idea for it in 2015. I was so taken with the idea that, after Brandon showed me early drafts of his work, I agreed to write the Foreword to it. I don’t get a dime for this, though. I’m recommending it because it’s a fascinating new way to look at players’ legacies that is in 100% keeping with the sorts of things we talk about here. Indeed, Brandon says in the book that part of the inspiration for it came from this dang article.

Hmm. Why am I not getting a dime for this again? Anyway:

playing-for-a-winnerWhat Brandon does here is to quantify the “spotlight” in which a given player played. Meaning, figuring out how long and how strongly a player’s team contended for the pennant in any given year, with the understanding that the stronger the team and more competitive the team is in a race, the more spotlight will be shone on the team. In turn, the players who play the best for that team will get more ink too and their accomplishments will be more well known and appreciated.

This explains a lot of weirdness in the Hall of Fame results for a lot of players. But it doesn’t just explain why guys who played for winners are more appreciated than guys who played for losers. For example, Dwight Evans and Jim Rice played for the same Red Sox teams and, in the aggregate, Evans was the better player. So why is Rice in the Hall of Fame and Evans not? Mostly because Rice’s best seasons came in seasons when the Red Sox won or challenged for pennants and Evans’ came in less successful Sox years. More attention was paid to a peak Jim Rice and less to a peak Dewey. Rice was simply in the spotlight more.

Isleib does not leave it to such summary explanations, however. He has quantified the “spotlight” factor and applies it exactingly. Rather than merely look at team records at the end of the season, he looks at each season as it unfolded. A team that was in a dogfight, day after day, in August and September, was going to be in the spotlight more and its best players highlighted more. A team which wrapped up its business for all practical purposes by the All-Star break was going to fade from the headlines.

Isleib’s book looks at something completely new and, even if you are skeptical of its premise, its season-by-season journey through history is massively rewarding for baseball history buffs. While a lot of people can tell you about, say, the 1969 pennant races, even the most hardcore baseball fans likely couldn’t tell you what was going on, specifically, each week and month of the second half. This book gives us that sort of thing and in doing so talks about players you either forgot about or never heard about at all.

“Playing for a Winner” is more academic and scholarly than a lot of baseball books on the market, but don’t let that scare you. It’s a fresh and rewarding look at baseball history which sheds light onto some of the historical conundrums we still argue about today. And its framework and approach, looking forward, will make you smarter when the inevitable arguments about a player’s Hall of Fame case comes up in the future.

Oh good, it’s “Yasiel Puig is a showboat” season

Getty Images
5 Comments

With the Los Angeles Dodgers punching their ticket to the World Series, Yasiel Puig is now going to be the subject of commentary by people who tend not to care about Yasiel Puig until it’s useful for them to write outraged columns or go on talk radio rants about baseball deportment.

We got a brief teaser of this last night when, after scoring the Dodgers’ ninth run on a Logan Forsythe double, TBS analyst Ron Darling criticized Puig for his “shenanigans” and “rubbing it in.” Never mind that his third base coach was waving him home and that, if he didn’t run hard, he was just as likely to be criticized for dogging it. In other news, baseball teams don’t stop trying in the fourth inning of baseball games, nor should they.

That was just an appetizer, though. The first real course of the “Puig is a problem” feast we’re likely to be served over the next week and a half comes from Phil Mushnick of the New York Post, who wrote it even before the Dodgers won Game 5 last night:

If you were raised to love baseball and to recognize the smart, winning kind from everything less, the Dodgers’ Yasiel Puig is insufferable. As the sport is diminished by professionals who disregard the basic act of running to first base as a matter of style, Puig, an incurable home-plate poser, often makes turning doubles and triples into singles appear effortless . . . In the postseason, Puig continues to behave as if he’s in the Home Run Derby. He even seems to relish his high-risk flamboyant foolishness despite frequent backfires.

This may as well be a fill in the blanks column from 2013 or 2014, when “Puig is a flashy showboater who costs his team more than he gives it” columns were all the rage. It ignores the fact that Puig, commonly dinged for being lazy, worked his butt off in 2017, particularly on defense, to the point where he has a strong case for a Gold Glove this year. It also ignores his .455/.538/.727 line in the NLDS sweep of the Diamondbacks and his .389/.500/.611 line against the Cubs in the NLCS. In the regular season he set career highs for games, homers, RBI, stolen bases and almost set a career high for walks despite having seventy fewer plate appearances than he did back in 2013 when he walked 67 times. He’s not the MVP candidate some thought he might be, but he’s a fantastic player who has been a key part of the Dodgers winning their first pennant in 29 years.

But the dings on Puig from the likes of Mushnick have rarely been about production. They’ve simply been about style and the manner in which he’s carried himself. To the extent those issues were legitimate points of criticism — particularly his tardiness, his relationships with his teammates and his at times questionable dedication — they have primarily been in-house concerns for the Dodgers, not the casual fan like Mushnick. On that score the Dodgers have dealt with Puig and, by all accounts, Puig has responded pretty well. An occasional lapse to be sure, but nothing which makes him a greater burden than a benefit. I mean, if he was, would be be batting cleanup in a pennant-clinching game?

So if the beef with Puig is not really about baseball, what could Phil Mushnick’s issue with him possible be?

I, for one, have no idea whatsoever.