quote:bball123;
First, just because I am continuing the discussion, and rebutting what I believe to be flawed arguments (that, admittedly, won the day) doesn't mean I am denigrating the winner. I've said before, and I will say it again: but for Trout's year, Cabrera would have been the most deserving MVP candidate. He had a GREAT and HISTORIC year, and he's far from the worst MVP choice the writers have ever made (though his advantage in the voting might be right up there).
Second, all the other things you mentioned? If you were paying attention, or did your research, you would know that all of these things have been endlessly studied and verified just as you call for. They are accurate and reliable stats! You just don't like them because either (a) you don't understand them, (b) you haven't taken the time to try to understand them, (c) you don't like the results they give you, or (d) some combination of all of the above.
And I say that with all due respect, and no intention of calling anybody names. I'm not trying to call you out (or anybody else - you aren't the only one who feels the way you do; you all appear to be the majority).
As I said before it is not meant to be critical. I read a lot on different sides of the story or argument and ultimately, different people will come up with different ways of looking at things. What I am suggesting, however, is to devote the time to improve the model up to a point where we can predict, to a certain degree of accuracy, the outcome of a game and it would be much more interesting.