Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Baseball MVP  (Read 5750 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3603
  • Respect: +6121
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Baseball MVP
« on: November 16, 2012, 10:13:01 am »
0

So Cabrera won after all, and it was a total landslide.  Somewhat sad if you think about it -- Joe Posnanski talks about some of the reasons why people voted for Cabrera, and why they're utter bunk.
Logged

Galzria

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 956
  • Since 2012
  • Respect: +442
    • View Profile
Re: Baseball MVP
« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2012, 10:23:46 am »
+1

I actually agree with the decision, and I think it was summed up best like this:

"If you ask me today who the best player in the AL was during 2012, I'll tell you Mike Trout. No question. But that's NOT the question being asked. It's what player was the  most valuable. If you remove Trout from the Angel's, could they have still taken third in their division? Yes. If you take Cabrera away from Detroit, could they still win the Central? Absolutely not. Triple Crown aside, Cabrera meant more to the success of the organization of Detroit this year than Trout did to Anaheim. He was, quite simply, more valuable."

Now, I understand all the arguments for Trout. And I understand the differences within the divisions they played. I understand that it was EASIER for Cabrera to collect his numbers, and he was certainly nothing compared to Trout defensively. Mike Trout absolutely was the best player in baseball. No question. But I do think that they got the vote right on this one for "Most Valuable Player."

I think the bigger crime here is that not only did McCutchen not take second, he didn't even receive any first place votes, while Molina collected 2. Without McCutchen, the Pirates are probably worse than Huston this year, and they certainly aren't even close to in the running going into the final month of the season.
Logged
Quote from: Voltgloss
Derphammering is when quickhammers go derp.

Faust has also been incredibly stubborn this game. In other news, it's hot in the summer, and water falls from the sky when it rains.


Mafia Record:
TOWN Wins: M3, M5, M6, M11, M17, M28, M32, M105, M108, M114, M118, M120, M122, DM1, DoM1, OZ2, RM45, RM47, RM48, RM49, RM55
TOWN Losses: M4, M7, M8, M9, M13, M14, M18, M31, M110, M111, M113, M117, M125, RM3, RM4, RM54
SCUM Wins: M2, M19, M23, M100, DM3, RM1, RM2, RM48, RM50
SCUM Losses: M15 (SK), M102 (Tr), OZ1, RM55

Total Wins: 30
Total Losses: 20

shraeye

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 690
  • Shuffle iT Username: shraeye
  • More Graph Theory please
  • Respect: +299
    • View Profile
Re: Baseball MVP
« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2012, 10:43:24 am »
0

I actually agree with the decision, and I think it was summed up best like this:

"If you ask me today who the best player in the AL was during 2012, I'll tell you Mike Trout. No question. But that's NOT the question being asked. It's what player was the  most valuable. If you remove Trout from the Angel's, could they have still taken third in their division? Yes. If you take Cabrera away from Detroit, could they still win the Central? Absolutely not. Triple Crown aside, Cabrera meant more to the success of the organization of Detroit this year than Trout did to Anaheim. He was, quite simply, more valuable."

Now, I understand all the arguments for Trout. And I understand the differences within the divisions they played. I understand that it was EASIER for Cabrera to collect his numbers, and he was certainly nothing compared to Trout defensively. Mike Trout absolutely was the best player in baseball. No question. But I do think that they got the vote right on this one for "Most Valuable Player."

I think the bigger crime here is that not only did McCutchen not take second, he didn't even receive any first place votes, while Molina collected 2. Without McCutchen, the Pirates are probably worse than Huston this year, and they certainly aren't even close to in the running going into the final month of the season.
To me McCutchen IS the Pirates. He's a champ.
Logged

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3603
  • Respect: +6121
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Re: Baseball MVP
« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2012, 10:59:31 am »
+1

I actually agree with the decision, and I think it was summed up best like this:

"If you ask me today who the best player in the AL was during 2012, I'll tell you Mike Trout. No question. But that's NOT the question being asked. It's what player was the  most valuable. If you remove Trout from the Angel's, could they have still taken third in their division? Yes. If you take Cabrera away from Detroit, could they still win the Central? Absolutely not. Triple Crown aside, Cabrera meant more to the success of the organization of Detroit this year than Trout did to Anaheim. He was, quite simply, more valuable."

I'm a little dumbfounded.  Did the writer mix up the words Cabrera and Trout?  I don't see how it's possible for Cabrera to be considered more valuable to his team than Trout. 

Also, realistically, the MVP goes to the best season.  I don't think it ever goes to the 'most valuable player to the team', because if that was the case, there'd be a lot more winners from crappy teams.
Logged

Galzria

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 956
  • Since 2012
  • Respect: +442
    • View Profile
Re: Baseball MVP
« Reply #4 on: November 16, 2012, 11:19:30 am »
0

I think his point was made quite succinctly actually. Yes, team performance matters, which is why players from "crappier" teams don't often win. But the pertinent question is if the player in question led the team to the playoffs, or if the team carried the player. In this case the Tigers simply -do not- make the playoffs without Cabrera. They aren't in the conversation late, and they don't surge over the last two weeks.

It's probably arguable if Trout or Cabrera delivered their team more wins throughout the season, but when it came to carrying the team to the playoffs, Cabrera absolutely did.

Too bad he suuuucked against my Giants. :P
Logged
Quote from: Voltgloss
Derphammering is when quickhammers go derp.

Faust has also been incredibly stubborn this game. In other news, it's hot in the summer, and water falls from the sky when it rains.


Mafia Record:
TOWN Wins: M3, M5, M6, M11, M17, M28, M32, M105, M108, M114, M118, M120, M122, DM1, DoM1, OZ2, RM45, RM47, RM48, RM49, RM55
TOWN Losses: M4, M7, M8, M9, M13, M14, M18, M31, M110, M111, M113, M117, M125, RM3, RM4, RM54
SCUM Wins: M2, M19, M23, M100, DM3, RM1, RM2, RM48, RM50
SCUM Losses: M15 (SK), M102 (Tr), OZ1, RM55

Total Wins: 30
Total Losses: 20

greatexpectations

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1097
  • Respect: +1067
    • View Profile
Re: Baseball MVP
« Reply #5 on: November 16, 2012, 11:36:27 am »
0

Also, realistically, the MVP goes to the best season.  I don't think it ever goes to the 'most valuable player to the team', because if that was the case, there'd be a lot more winners from crappy teams.

ra dickey could have had a cy young / mvp double if this were the case.
Logged
momomoto: ...I looked at the tableau and went "Mountebank? That's for jerks."
rrenaud: Jerks win.

greatexpectations

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1097
  • Respect: +1067
    • View Profile
Re: Baseball MVP
« Reply #6 on: November 16, 2012, 11:43:30 am »
0

In this case the Tigers simply -do not- make the playoffs without Cabrera.

or verlander. or fielder. or fister. or jackson. or if you really want to give the award to performances that pushed the tigers into the playoffs then you should split the award between the god awful twins, royals, and indians.
Logged
momomoto: ...I looked at the tableau and went "Mountebank? That's for jerks."
rrenaud: Jerks win.

jonts26

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: Baseball MVP
« Reply #7 on: November 16, 2012, 01:09:40 pm »
0

Cabrera, Jackson, Fielder, Verlander, Scherzer, Fister.

All of these guys accumulated more than 3 WAR by fangraphs, which is the margin between the Tigers and second place. Obvioulsy there is enough margin of error that this should be taken lightly, but it illustrates the point. There is a good argument that the Tigers have 6! guys they would not have made the playoffs with.

Now the angels Trout accumulated 10 WAR. Second place on the angels? Torii Hunter at 5.3. Compare Cabreras 7.1 to Verlanders 6.8 and Jacksons 5.5. There is no question that Trout is more valuable to the angels than Miggy is to the Tigers. None.

And the Angels are a better team than the Tigers. They had a better record against better opponents.

So the argument for Cabrera is this: He may have been a worse player on a worse team and less valuable to that team than Trout, but because his team gets to play in a crappy division, he is the clear MVP winner.
Logged

Toolshed113

  • Scout
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 40
  • Respect: +7
    • View Profile
Re: Baseball MVP
« Reply #8 on: November 16, 2012, 01:39:03 pm »
0

I knew Cabrera would win, but I really wanted to see Trout walk away with MVP. There's just a lot of old-fashioned thinking among the baseball writers who vote for the award. To me, if you want to pick MVP based off of who was most "valuable" to their team, with extra points for getting your team to the postseason, then you could reasonably argue that only players from playoff-bound teams should appear on the ballot at all.

More importantly, Trout's achievements are historic. Very few people EVER have had a season like him. Cabrera was simply fortunate because nobody else happened to beat him in any of the three triple crown categories (which are dumb anyway). Many other players in history have put up the numbers that Cabrera did, including Cabrera himself in previous years. Cabrera won the MVP because of the storyline of the triple crown, postseason run, and the feeling overall that he is a "clutch" player.
Logged

HiveMindEmulator

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2222
  • Respect: +2118
    • View Profile
Re: Baseball MVP
« Reply #9 on: November 16, 2012, 02:49:01 pm »
0

There are several things going on here:

1. Some people disagree with what the MVP award should be for. What is "value"? Some people don't want to give credit to going to the playoffs. But that's too bad. That's the way it is. Trout's team didn't make the playoffs. Regardless of if he's better than Cabrera or not, Cabrera gets the edge here.

2. Some people think WAR is like the greatest thing ever and that since Trout's was one of the 10-15 all-time bests, he should win the award. That's not really a whole lot different than saying Cabrera should win it because of the Triple crown. It's just another statistic that not everyone is sold on. I am a fan of Sabermetrics, but WAR is a little out there. No one knows how to compute it or how things are really weighted in there. If you look at the stats you understand like OBP and slugging, Cabrera is close or better.

3. People talk about being better "all-around" as if somehow speed or number of webgems were of comparable value to what you do at the plate. At the end of the day, baseball is about pitcher-vs-hitter, and what you do at the plate way overshadows everything else. An "all-around" rating needs weight more important things more heavily. Highlights and fantasy stats don't do this, so while Trout might be a god in fantasy baseball, the MVP voters don't care.

4. Something people neglect is totals (vs averages). Despite a (slighly) lower OBP, Cabrera got on base more total times. he played more games and had more at-bats. There's value in that. Even if you're the best player, if you never get to bat, you don't provide that much value. Now is some of this out of Trout's control, since he was on a worse offensive team? Sure. But again, going back to (1), it's not the MOP (like they have in the NCAA tournament), it's the MVP. Your opportunities do depend on your team and on your opponents, but that's just part of playing a team sport.
Logged

jonts26

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: Baseball MVP
« Reply #10 on: November 16, 2012, 03:31:05 pm »
0

There are several things going on here:

1. Some people disagree with what the MVP award should be for. What is "value"? Some people don't want to give credit to going to the playoffs. But that's too bad. That's the way it is. Trout's team didn't make the playoffs. Regardless of if he's better than Cabrera or not, Cabrera gets the edge here.

2. Some people think WAR is like the greatest thing ever and that since Trout's was one of the 10-15 all-time bests, he should win the award. That's not really a whole lot different than saying Cabrera should win it because of the Triple crown. It's just another statistic that not everyone is sold on. I am a fan of Sabermetrics, but WAR is a little out there. No one knows how to compute it or how things are really weighted in there. If you look at the stats you understand like OBP and slugging, Cabrera is close or better.

3. People talk about being better "all-around" as if somehow speed or number of webgems were of comparable value to what you do at the plate. At the end of the day, baseball is about pitcher-vs-hitter, and what you do at the plate way overshadows everything else. An "all-around" rating needs weight more important things more heavily. Highlights and fantasy stats don't do this, so while Trout might be a god in fantasy baseball, the MVP voters don't care.

4. Something people neglect is totals (vs averages). Despite a (slighly) lower OBP, Cabrera got on base more total times. he played more games and had more at-bats. There's value in that. Even if you're the best player, if you never get to bat, you don't provide that much value. Now is some of this out of Trout's control, since he was on a worse offensive team? Sure. But again, going back to (1), it's not the MOP (like they have in the NCAA tournament), it's the MVP. Your opportunities do depend on your team and on your opponents, but that's just part of playing a team sport.

Ummm. Where to begin.

1) Yeah, if you want to say playoff consideration is very important, fine. I disagree but you can make the case. Just be consistent about it year to year and dont only invoke it when it supports the guy youve already picked. But playoff consideration is a perfectly acceptable criterion.

2) This is...so extremely wrong on like every level. People don't think WAR is the end all of stats. It's a very good stat which attempts to include all aspects of a player. It certainly is not perfect or all encompassing, no stat can be. And i've never heard one person ever say we should just give MVP to highest WAR player. That is silly.  But to compare it to the triple crown...no that's not even close. Two triple crown categories are very bad at judging player ability. WAR, while not perfect, is very good at judging player ability. And to suggest it somehow loses value because its harder to compute than rbi? Nonsense. First off, yeah I couldnt tell you all the exact values for the linear weights used, but I completely understand the methodology, as do a ton of people. So yeah, if I look at the stats I understand, like WAR, Trout is miles better.

3) "At the end of the day, baseball is about pitcher-vs-hitter" is wrong. At the end of the day, it's which team has scored more runs. Hitting is more important than defense in general. This factors into WAR. It's easier to rack up hitting WAR than fielding WAR. You could argue that WAR overrates defense, but please do so from a position of understanding, not some level of ignorance or gut feel. Also no one is saying highlights and webgems should be taken seriously in understanding a player. Why do you think sabermatricians mock Derek Jeters defense so heavily when he's somehow won Gold Gloves. Because traditional sportswriters like his few webgems and think that is somehow indicative of his overall defensive abilities. Also, I'm pretty sure Miggy was worth a lot more to fantasy baseball teams than trout. Fantasy usually uses avg, hr, and rbi as stats, something Miggy was sort of good in if you recall. EDIT: Just checked. ESPN has Trout slightly ahead of Miggy in fantasy rating, but it's close. Anyway the argument still stands. No one uses fantasy stats to judge MVP candidacy.

4) Absolutely the case. Trout should get docked for not playing a full season. I think counting stats are more important than rate stats for MVP considerations. Also, WAR is a counting stat in case you didn't know. Trout was so otherworldly that his production more than makes up for the time he was in the minors and not contributing to the team.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2012, 03:37:34 pm by jonts26 »
Logged

HiveMindEmulator

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2222
  • Respect: +2118
    • View Profile
Re: Baseball MVP
« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2012, 04:29:25 pm »
0

I guess I was unclear in differentiating my points. Only point (2) was about WAR. From what I've heard, the arguments for Trout are of 3 types, which I'm addressing in my first 3 points.

1. Who would you rather have on your team? Trout. He's better.

It's not about who you'd want to have on your team, but who was more valuable to their team. Many people don't want the award to be about this but it is. So this argument is not a good one. Any argument about Trout's WAR being higher goes here.

2. Trout had an historically great WAR.

That's great. He had a historically great season in some statistic, which may be a good evaluation tool for mid-range players (which WAR probably is). Is that what the MVP is about? No. Baseball is a game of statistics, so people are always going to choose this kind of award based on statistics, but to think this one outweighs everything is just as ignorant as thinking the triple crown outweighs everything. No matter who won the award, some "historically great" season was going to go unrewarded.

3. Trout in some vague sense made a better "all-around" contribution.

This is something for fantasy baseball players who are just counting stat categories, or people who don't know anything about baseball and think it's like other games where defense is more important than offense. Defense is the baseball equivalent on special teams -- really important, but not that hard to at least do competently, and not something you assign a great deal of value to (see Ray Guy not in NFL Hall of Fame). Pitching in baseball plays the role of defense in other sports. And fantasy players live in some sort of fantasy world where Shawn Marion and Doug Christi were NBA superstars. This kind of argument that I've heard is of this kind of variety. "They both had great seasons, but Trout was more 'all-around'." I'm not talking about WAR arguments here.

So none of these arguments are that convincing. At the end of the day, both players had great seasons. But Cabrera's was a little better in terms of hitting stats and team success. I refuse to assign any value whatsoever to fielding stats. Scouted "eye-test" fielding ability in a really close race, sure, but I don't think this race is close enough that that kind of stuff matters.
Logged

jonts26

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: Baseball MVP
« Reply #12 on: November 16, 2012, 04:53:20 pm »
0

1. I guess we don't disagree here. I really don't care that much what metric people use. Well, obviously some metrics are going to be terrible at judging baseball ability, but even if it is close to reasonably thats fine. The big issue is that a lot of people 'feel' who the MVP should be and then do a post hoc rationalization for why they deserve it. What you should do is figure out your metric first, then apply it honestly to the pool of players. If a player has to be from a playoff team to win, ok whatever, just stick with that in the future.

2. Here we have some issues still. See, as I said before, no one is saying the MVP is about who has the highest WAR. People who like WAR use it as a good starting point for discussion, but it's much better to look at more individual statistics than the conglomerate that is WAR. WAR is just an estimate of player contribution anyway. No one argues otherwise. But it's a complete fallacy to say 'well, you're just saying look at this statistic, not that statistic, you can't say which is better.' That's very very wrong. Some statistics ARE better than others. on base percentage is better at judging what a player did than batting average. wOBA is better at judging performance than RBI.

3. OK, here's where you go off the rails. First, fantasy baseball doesn't care about defense at all. So the entire fantasy baseball/fantasy world argument is nonsense. Miggy and Trout were both fantasy superstars for their counting stats. So lets look purely at offense. Miggy was very VERY slightly better than Trout on overall hitting ability. But they are close enough that you can almost call it a tie. This is completely discounting fielding and baserunning. So I guess if you want to argue that fielding and baserunning are meaningless, ok, you have an argument for Cabrera.

But, how on earth can you say that defense is easy and all players are about the same? Thats...I don't even know what to say to that. I hate to pull out this logical fallacy but have you ever watched a game of baseball? No, it's probably not as big a deal as hitting or pitching, but it's still a huge component of run prevention. To discount it is...just crazy.

And finally, even if you discount fielding metrics, the scouting 'eye test' gives Trout a ridiculous advantage over miggy. At the most generous, scouts call Cabrera average defensively.
Logged

HiveMindEmulator

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2222
  • Respect: +2118
    • View Profile
Re: Baseball MVP
« Reply #13 on: November 16, 2012, 05:14:39 pm »
0

2. Here we have some issues still. See, as I said before, no one is saying the MVP is about who has the highest WAR. People who like WAR use it as a good starting point for discussion, but it's much better to look at more individual statistics than the conglomerate that is WAR. WAR is just an estimate of player contribution anyway. No one argues otherwise. But it's a complete fallacy to say 'well, you're just saying look at this statistic, not that statistic, you can't say which is better.' That's very very wrong. Some statistics ARE better than others. on base percentage is better at judging what a player did than batting average. wOBA is better at judging performance than RBI.
I'm not arguing about which statistic is better. I'm saying that you can't say a historically great season in *any* statistic, no matter how great it is at whatever it's judging, necessarily means you win the MVP.

Quote
3. OK, here's where you go off the rails. First, fantasy baseball doesn't care about defense at all. So the entire fantasy baseball/fantasy world argument is nonsense. Miggy and Trout were both fantasy superstars for their counting stats. So lets look purely at offense. Miggy was very VERY slightly better than Trout on overall hitting ability. But they are close enough that you can almost call it a tie. This is completely discounting fielding and baserunning. So I guess if you want to argue that fielding and baserunning are meaningless, ok, you have an argument for Cabrera.
Okay. Here the problem is I was addressing 2 things at once. There are two fallacious notions of being "all-around" that are relatively common:
1. People who think defense is remotely as important as pitching and hitting.
2. People who play fantasy baseball and think rare categories like steals and triples are more valuable that other categories where everyone has non-zero stats.
The stuff about defense is addressed at the first set of people.

Quote
But, how on earth can you say that defense is easy and all players are about the same? Thats...I don't even know what to say to that. I hate to pull out this logical fallacy but have you ever watched a game of baseball? No, it's probably not as big a deal as hitting or pitching, but it's still a huge component of run prevention. To discount it is...just crazy.

And finally, even if you discount fielding metrics, the scouting 'eye test' gives Trout a ridiculous advantage over miggy. At the most generous, scouts call Cabrera average defensively.
I never said "all players are about the same". I said it's like NFL special teams. Clearly some teams are much better on special teams, and this makes a big difference in terms of field position in a football game. But no one talks about kick coverage in the MVP discussion, and there are no punters in the NFL hall of fame. Defense in baseball can make the difference in games, no question. But it is by far secondary to what happens between pitcher and hitter. Not even close.

And I don't doubt Trout wins the 'eye test' handily, but my point is that it's not important. If it were a closer contest, then you could talk about Trout's defense. But as is it, I don't think it's even worth putting the in MVP discussion.

The discussion probably goes more something like this:
Make a short list of players with good WAR/OPS/RC27/whatever.
Ok, which of these players are "way better" than the others in some obvious intuitive sense.
Okay, whose team did best?
If it's still close, talk about things like defense and intangibles.

This current debate should end at the "whose team did better" stage.

Trout will eventually win multiple MVPs in the not-too-distant future, but Cabrera deserved it this year.
Logged

jonts26

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: Baseball MVP
« Reply #14 on: November 16, 2012, 05:38:13 pm »
0

Okay. Here the problem is I was addressing 2 things at once. There are two fallacious notions of being "all-around" that are relatively common:
1. People who think defense is remotely as important as pitching and hitting.
2. People who play fantasy baseball and think rare categories like steals and triples are more valuable that other categories where everyone has non-zero stats.
The stuff about defense is addressed at the first set of people.
Well here's some statistics for you. According to fangraphs:
Highest runs created by component (the thing that ultimately goes into the WAR calculation):
Batting: 55.9
Fielding: 22.4
Baserunning: 12.0

So yeah, batting takes the cake, but contributions from the fielding and baserunning are still very much a factor. Especially considering that they can go negative as well (as is the case with Miggy). Sure, you may not like WAR or UZR for fielding metrics, but even traditional stat hating crowds still recognize the importance of defense. How many people go around saying defense isnt remotely as important?

And steals ARE valuable. And triples are hardly ever a fantasy stat so now you're just saying things to say them.



Quote
I never said "all players are about the same". I said it's like NFL special teams. Clearly some teams are much better on special teams, and this makes a big difference in terms of field position in a football game. But no one talks about kick coverage in the MVP discussion, and there are no punters in the NFL hall of fame. Defense in baseball can make the difference in games, no question. But it is by far secondary to what happens between pitcher and hitter. Not even close.

And I don't doubt Trout wins the 'eye test' handily, but my point is that it's not important. If it were a closer contest, then you could talk about Trout's defense. But as is it, I don't think it's even worth putting the in MVP discussion.

The thing is, we're not talking about football. Football is very different in terms of what brings value to the team. You can't throw out the comparison of baseball defense to Football special teams because it is in fact apples and oranges. I mean, how do you even justify that comparison?

Quote
And I don't doubt Trout wins the 'eye test' handily, but my point is that it's not important. If it were a closer contest, then you could talk about Trout's defense. But as is it, I don't think it's even worth putting the in MVP discussion.

And why do you not think it's a close contest? I've already stated that I think miggy and trout are both very close in terms of just batting performance. Why do you think they are not even close there?

This current debate should end at the "whose team did better" stage.



So then you agree that Trout should be MVP.
Logged

greatexpectations

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1097
  • Respect: +1067
    • View Profile
Re: Baseball MVP
« Reply #15 on: November 16, 2012, 05:45:56 pm »
0

and there are no punters in the NFL hall of fame. Defense in baseball can make the difference in games, no question.

mlb isn't the nfl though. there are a bunch of glove only (or at least glove mostly) players in the hall of fame.  ozzie smith and brooks robinson say hi. gold gloves and defensive reputation are both highly considered factors for hall of fame voters. if hall of fame voters cared only for offense and not positioning differences and defensive play they would give bagwell and thomas and a bunch of those guys better chances.

Quote
But it is by far secondary to what happens between pitcher and hitter. Not even close.

and right about here is where me taking you seriously gets a bit harder. defensive contributions are very difficult to measure and the current implementations all have flaws. but discounting defense entirely is laughable.

Quote
And I don't doubt Trout wins the 'eye test' handily, but my point is that it's not important. If it were a closer contest, then you could talk about Trout's defense. But as is it, I don't think it's even worth putting the in MVP discussion.

they are actually pretty close in all of the pure offensive rate stats. what trout loses in hr he makes up for in doubles and triples. the difference is largely in playing time and quality of opponents. you can feel free to knock playing time, but to say that one was clearly a better hitter is a bit flawed.

Quote
Ok, which of these players are "way better" than the others in some obvious intuitive sense.

uh yeah i dont know what that is but it seems like its just an "i like player A better" factor.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2012, 05:49:16 pm by greatexpectations »
Logged
momomoto: ...I looked at the tableau and went "Mountebank? That's for jerks."
rrenaud: Jerks win.

greatexpectations

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1097
  • Respect: +1067
    • View Profile
Re: Baseball MVP
« Reply #16 on: November 16, 2012, 05:47:52 pm »
0

So then you agree that Trout should be MVP.

+1. also let the records show that the tigers faced literally the worst pitching staffs in all of baseball throughout this year.
Logged
momomoto: ...I looked at the tableau and went "Mountebank? That's for jerks."
rrenaud: Jerks win.

cherdano

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 166
  • Respect: +54
    • View Profile
Re: Baseball MVP
« Reply #17 on: November 16, 2012, 06:00:01 pm »
0

Breaking news: baseball writers confirm in a landslide vote that they don't understand statistics.
Logged

cayvie

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 317
  • old
  • Respect: +235
    • View Profile
Re: Baseball MVP
« Reply #18 on: November 16, 2012, 09:46:41 pm »
0

go twins

sigh
Logged
18:28 MEASURE YOUR LIFE IN LOVE: you shouldve done the decent thing and resign rather than go on being that lucky all the time

she/her

HiveMindEmulator

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2222
  • Respect: +2118
    • View Profile
Re: Baseball MVP
« Reply #19 on: November 19, 2012, 12:12:26 pm »
0

and there are no punters in the NFL hall of fame. Defense in baseball can make the difference in games, no question.

mlb isn't the nfl though. there are a bunch of glove only (or at least glove mostly) players in the hall of fame.  ozzie smith and brooks robinson say hi. gold gloves and defensive reputation are both highly considered factors for hall of fame voters. if hall of fame voters cared only for offense and not positioning differences and defensive play they would give bagwell and thomas and a bunch of those guys better chances.

I'm not saying defense is completely irrelevant in baseball, but it's by far less important than hitting and pitching. Yeah there are good defenders in the hall, but since there are no "pure" defenders in baseball, there's no perfect analogy to the punter. Everyone also hits. Ozzie never won an MVP. The only time he was close was the year he hit over .300 and won a Silver Slugger.

This current debate should end at the "whose team did better" stage.

So then you agree that Trout should be MVP.

Team doing better != team having better record.
Logged

greatexpectations

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1097
  • Respect: +1067
    • View Profile
Re: Baseball MVP
« Reply #20 on: November 19, 2012, 12:38:17 pm »
0

I'm not saying defense is completely irrelevant in baseball, but it's by far less important than hitting and pitching. Yeah there are good defenders in the hall, but since there are no "pure" defenders in baseball, there's no perfect analogy to the punter. Everyone also hits. Ozzie never won an MVP. The only time he was close was the year he hit over .300 and won a Silver Slugger.

i don't think many out there equate fielding exactly with pitching or hitting, though of course that doesn't mean its irrelevant. it certainly has some value, it just seems that you place less value on it than the sabermetric community would. and hey i guess you are entitled to do so. but there is a good reason why mlb organizations are now developing and evaluating proprietary defensive metrics.

really the whole miggy/trout debate isn't just about fielding value its about postional value. similar offensive output will always be worth more from a SS/CF than it is from a 3B/1B/DH.

Quote
Team doing better != team having better record.

i'm afraid you will need to explain your personal definition of "team doing better" then.

- the angels had a better record than the tigers
- the angels had a better pythag/xWins record than the tigers
- the angels had more fWAR than the tigers
- the angels played in a more difficult division than the tigers, and the tigers had arguably the easiest schedule in all of baseball.
- the angels faced better pitching than the tigers, as the tigers faced the worst staffs in baseball

i'm guessing your definition of "doing better" is actually "played in a significantly easier division and therefore made the playoffs". for pete's sake the tigers had the 7th best record in the american league! that's middle of the pack, not something to be proud of! and all of that they did while playing in what was clearly the joke division in the AL. i guess it really was MVP miggy's contributions that pushed them over the edge, that edge of course being the line between the top half and bottom half of teams in the american league.
Logged
momomoto: ...I looked at the tableau and went "Mountebank? That's for jerks."
rrenaud: Jerks win.

jonts26

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: Baseball MVP
« Reply #21 on: November 19, 2012, 01:05:26 pm »
0

@GE actually, CF and 3B have very similar positional adjustments, and in fact they are identical in fangraphs WAR. Plus, you could make the argument that positional value shouldn't really count towards MVP discussions. I wouldn't but I can understand why someone might. Other than that, I agree with you.
Logged

greatexpectations

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1097
  • Respect: +1067
    • View Profile
Re: Baseball MVP
« Reply #22 on: November 19, 2012, 02:00:06 pm »
0

@GE actually, CF and 3B have very similar positional adjustments, and in fact they are identical in fangraphs WAR.

aww poops. well what i say holds for some of those, just not the CF/3B case. fair enough.
Logged
momomoto: ...I looked at the tableau and went "Mountebank? That's for jerks."
rrenaud: Jerks win.
Pages: [1]
 

Page created in 0.056 seconds with 20 queries.