I think all of your posts here have been thoughtful and balanced, and I am working on a response to the one where you suggested that performance down the stretch perhaps rightfully tipped the balance to Cabrera (preview: not really). But in the meantime, I did want to address this observation, and it's implied criticism of sabermetrics (which is really a criticism of using WAR exclusively to judge MVP candidates, and not of sabermetrics generally):
quote:Originally posted by PGStaff:
"Now I respect all the metrics involving baseball statistics. I can see the value and interest they bring to the game. However, based on these metrics Ben Zobrist would have been the MVP in 2011. Very good player, but who thinks he was the MVP?"
First, as I alluded to above, you might level this criticism if the ONLY way newer and advanced stats could be used to try to measure "value" in an MVP debate, but it really isn't.
For instance, for me, WAR is just the first cut. I like the fact that it makes a concerted effort to be comprehensive, and doesn't overlook defense or baserunning (as the writers usually, though not always, do). As I mentioned somewhere here before, if your favored candidate is more than a point or two behind somebody in WAR (as Cabrera was, behind Trout), you've got a tough argument to make that he was more valuable while simultaneously defending against the argument that you are overlooking something (in the Trout-Cabrera face-off, those would be defense, baserunning, and Cabrera's greater propensity for making outs).
But the inquiry doesn't and shouldn't stop there. I like to look at RE24 and WPA (which have been discussed here before, and I'll get into more in the response I am still working on). Why? Because they more directly address contribution to WINNING. It's hard for me to understand a definition of "most valuable" or even "best player" that doesn't include some consideration of who contributed more to winning baseball for his team. In addition to leading Cabrera significantly in WAR, Trout lead Cabrera in both RE24 and WPA as well. That is very significant, both in what I considered "real value" terms AND in terms of mirroring historically what MVP voters have done.
[Another reason I like RE24 and WPA is both pitchers and batters are judged by the same stat - in just a mirror-image way. In years where pitchers win, this is a good way to directly compare pitchers and hitters.]
Beyond that, I'll look at OPS+ (not OPS, because park factors are often a significant factor in differences in raw OPS, as they were this year) because its components are things that have been traditionally valued, but with at least some modern reinterpretation (OBP instead of BA, still incorporate SLG but not just HR, using park factors). Trout lead Cabrera in OPS+, too, BTW.
Anyway, those would be the main ones I'd look at, and if one player leads in all categories, it should be a no-brainer. Maybe not, if all categories are close, because most of these (especially WAR) are estimates, and minute differences are pretty meaningless. I do not completely dismiss non-statistical contributions (despite what some here think and have said), especially things like being the best player on a playoff team, or a historical achievement like a Triple Crown, but I think of these more as "tie-breakers" in close cases than any big part of the evaluation. This year just isn't that close, so those things just don't tip the balance to Cabrera for me.
Anyway, that's a long-winded preface to answering your question about Ben Zobrist directly.
Zobrist is an interesting player, and in many ways he is emblematic of the kind of things that get overlooked by traditional, mainstream statistics and analysts (as explained very well in this article), because most of his value comes from unconventional and under-appreciated sources - plate discipline, baserunning, and defense.
With that said, I don't think anybody - mainstream or sabermetrician - would have argued that he was the MVP in 2011 (or 2009, when he was actually better and more valuable). Why do I say that? Offense is still king to some degree, and contribution to winning (RE24 and WPA again) is very important. Zobrist was only 10th in the league in RE24 that year (his total almost doubled by the leader, Miguel Cabrera, who ummm, would have been a better choice than his pitcher teammate that year, IMO), and wasn't even in the top ten in WPA or OPS+. Yes, he had a great year, but no, sabermetrics would not necessarily automatically annoint him the MVP just because he lead the league in WAR. Should he have gotten more consideration? Sure. The award? I don't think so.
quote:"I'm all for sabermetrics and increasing statistical information. MLB clubs utilize the information greatly. Just not sure it will prove which player is most valuable. And what does most valuable really mean? Is it the player who had the best statistical year? Is it the player who had the most impact on his team winning? Is it the best player?..."
I agree with your assessment of sabermetrics and their use and value to MLB clubs, and I'd be foolish not to agree that the concept of "value" is ultimately nebulous and subjective. However, as I said, it is hard for me to conceive of a definition of "most valuable" that doesn't strongly consider impact on winning, which is reliably measurable by looking at the statistics I've talked about.
I agree with Bill James, who recently posted this in his online "Hey Bill" Q&A:
quote:"...do you have any strong convictions about the relationship between viable MVP candidates and team performance? We've been arguing about this on my message board, and as is almost always the case, I lean towards the conventional, probably soon-to-be-antiquated notion that team performance should be factored in, while everyone else is on the side of MVP = best player, plain and simple."
[BJ:]"I think it is MVP = Best Player, for this reason. The definition of the best player is the player who does the most to help his team. What other definition is there? If the definition of the best player is the player who does the most to help his team, then how can the team be a separate and distinct consideration?"
Well said, and like I said before, we can already measure those things pretty well. If somebody can point out to me something traditionally viewed as an major indicator of "value" that isn't already measured by some modern statistic (you can argue about how well, but that's different), then I will back off my reliance MOSTLY on statistics to inform my opinion on who should be the MVP....
quote:"...Is it the player who is worth the most money if they were a free agent? After all, wouldn't the player worth the most money in the open market be considered the real MVP."
This is a tricky question, because there isn't a free market in MLB (Trout is under club control, and artificially-depressed salary, through his arbitration-eligible years), and obviously age is a major factor here, too. In a free market, you might pay Mike Trout more for a seven-year contract than you would pay Miguel Cabrera for the same contract, even if they had performed identically to the point of signing the contract, because Mike Trout is barely 21 years old and (theoretically) will still be at his peak at the end of that contract, while Miguel Cabrera will be 30 at the beginning of next season and would finish that contract in his age 36 year, far beyond his (theoretical) peak.
With that said, one cool application of WAR has been to use it to put a monetary value on a player's performance, using actual contracts signed in free agency to determine how much $$ per "win" MLB clubs have paid, on average. This would be mostly meaningless, fun speculation except for the fact that they've been pretty good at predicting the dollar values free agents will get. According to Fangraphs, Trout's 2012 performance was worth $45.0M, and Miguel Cabrera's was worth $32.0M.
quote:"Who would be worth the most money, Cabrera or Trout? I suppose Cabrera based on length of track record. Who would you take if the money was equal?"
If the contract was lengthy, Trout hands down. If it was for one year, next year? Tougher, because you are right, Cabrera at (or near) his peak is a safer bet to have less variability of performance, but Trout is also at that point of his career where, having already displayed dominant excellence, players are still improving on a steep curve. It's close.
Ultimately, to me, it would come down to the "eye test" that TRHit has been promoting. To me, there are so many ways Mike Trout can beat you that Miguel Cabrera cannot, and the areas of the game where Cabrera has an edge the differences are less significant, that my answer - all day, every day - would be I would take Mike Trout.
quote:"The word is the Angels plan on moving Trout to LF next year. That kind of bothers me because Trout has the potential to be a modern day Willie Mays.'
That bothers me, too, but I will believe it when I see it. I guess it comes down to whether they can find a corner OF whose offense is enough better than Peter Bourjos' to offset the difference between the advantage of having Bourjos and Trout BOTH in the outfield defensively. I don't think that would be that hard, but for the question of money and what it might cost to acquire that player. I'll just say this: if Bourjos hits like he did in 2012, he won't be playing. Mike Trout will be in CF, and somebody who can hit will be playing LF. In the long run, I think Trout is a CF....