quote:Originally posted by J H:
Not looking to revamp an argument by any means, just looking to continue discussion.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.n...t-cabrera-for-m-v-p/
Thanks for posting that, Josh, I was a little "electioned" out and hadn't paid much attention to Nate Silver's blog for a while. Once again, he nailed it.
I weighed in on this debate heavily about a month ago, and for a variety of reasons did not get involved in the re-engagement of that debate over the past week or so. For one, I said most if not all of what I could say and don't want to repeat myself. After the vote is announced later today, I'll probably say something.
Until then, let me just say that I do not expect Mike Trout to win the MVP either. I was arguing for who *should* win, not predicting who *will* win. And it is important (to me, at least) to emphasize again that by arguing for Trout I do not wish to diminish the GREAT and HISTORIC season that Miguel Cabrera had. When he wins, he will be a deserving winner, and even the most ardent Trout-for-MVP supporter has to admit the BBWAA has made *far* worse choices for MVP - many times, in fact.
What is important about this debate, to me, is how modern statistics are perceived, and the extent to which traditional stats that by any measure do a poorer job of explaining value (or production, or performance, or some combination of all of the above - whatever you want to call it) are so entrenched in most people's thinking that they refuse to consider new ways of thinking about these things and even get defensive about the challenge to "the way things have always been." I think this is one of the things that I think frustrates Josh ( who loves baseball as much as anybody ever has and has a true thirst for understanding better all parts of the game) - why would anybody close their eyes to anything that might offer a window to better understanding of the game?
That's what newer, "sabermetric" stats do. They are not a replacement for "traditional" statistics, or for scouting opinion, or even individual opinion about the "intangibles" (the few things in this game we haven't figured out a way to accurately and reliably measure and quantify) - they are just additional tools in the toolbox, and fuller ones at that.
To me, that's what gets me about MVP debates, and one big reason why I am attracted to learning as much as I can about new and improved ways of measuring things in baseball. When measuring "value," I want those handing out the awards to be consistent, comprehensive, and sytematic in a way where tail doesn't way the dog such that the desired result determines the analysis. Histically, MVP voters don't measure up.
And, by definition, a person arguing that a player deserves the MVP just because he won the Triple Crown, and/or because he played on a playoff team, doesn't measure up to that standard either. Context matters: What did other players do? How does that player measure up as judged by the vast array of other (and better/more comprehensive) stats besides BA, RBI, and HR? And, and things that have nothing to do with a player's performance really don't matter. If Miguel Cabrera's performance is judged to be an MVP performance, that shouldn't change because Josh Hamilton couldn't hit more than 1 home run over his last 13 games and 54 PA. The opposite is true, too: if you wouldn't vote for Cabrera for MVP in the absence of his winning the Triple Crown, then you shouldn't vote for him just because he DID, because that really didn't have as much to do with his performance as it did with how others in a close race performed. The performance is the same, regardless of whether it resulted in a Triple Crown, and should be judged apart from that, IMO.
Likewise, whether a contending player's General Manager put together a team good enough to make the playoffs, or some other player in his team's line-up underperformed, or his team played in a tougher division and couldn't get into the playoffs (even when it won more teams than other teams that did) has nothing to do with judging individual players' value. I understand and respect that others feel these things are important, but I just can't see how they make a difference in what THAT INDIVIDUAL PLAYER did that season, or how it affects how valuable that performance was. Each player can only be judged by what he did to help his team, and how valuable that was; team performance is a different thing.
So, until after the vote is announced, signing off with one retort (pretort?):
quote:TPM wrote:
"OK, I will bite, Cabrera leads Trout in all stats except for WAR. That alone should give him the award."
No, no, no. Here is a breakdown of the 2012 AL Top 10 in a whole series of categories.
Trout leads in FAR more than just WAR, and I would argue the split of who won what favors Trout, who lead the league in WAR, oWAR OPS+ (a better metric than OPS because it is park-adjusted), Runs, Stolen Bases, Power-Speed, and Win Probability Added. While not leading the league, he also led Cabrera in RE24 and OBP, and essentially tied him in Runs Created (a counting stat that Cabrera "won" 139-138, though Trout easily outdistanced him on a per-game basis and only trails because he wasn't called up until a month into the season). Oh, and obviously, dWAR (Trout was Top 10 with 2.1 dWAR, while Cabrera was a negative defensive performer as judged by just about any defensive metric).
Bottom line: there is a good case to be made that Mike Trout had a better year than Miguel Cabrera based on offensive performance alone. At the very least, it is even or Cabrera has no more than a very slight edge offensively. When you look at defense and baserunning - in other words, THE WHOLE PICTURE, it is easily Trout.