2011 MLB Awards

Any surprises here? Any changes you'd make?

Is it surprising that both ROYs are pitchers? Seeing as no one wants to give a pitcher both the Cy Young AND the MVP.

Also, and I'm not really questioning Erick Aybar's Gold Glove but Asdrubal Cabrera was absolutely sick (to use my kids' favorite adjective) in the games I got to see him play.

List is now complete.

Personally I would have liked to see Kemp instead of Braun, I was actually very surprised when that came out. I understand the Verlander argument as well, but can't say I disagree with his worth to the team. Could have been Ellsbury in that spot as well, although I am still partial to Verlander there. Otherwise, no other surprises to me.

Truthfully, on the silver slugger awards, I would have to go with Miguel Cabrera over Adrian Gonzalez. at first base. How did they pick Gonzalez as having the better hitting season when Cabrera outhit him for average, HRs, Runs scored, Slugging percentage, crushed him in on base percentage and of course overall OPS 1.033 to .957.

quote:

Originally posted by J H:
Personally I would have liked to see Kemp instead of Braun, I was actually very surprised when that came out. I understand the Verlander argument as well, but can't say I disagree with his worth to the team. Could have been Ellsbury in that spot as well, although I am still partial to Verlander there. Otherwise, no other surprises to me.

I like Ryan Braun, but I honestly thought Matt Kemp was robbed. I didn't want to say anything, as it's obvious that I'm a Dodgers Homer...but IMHO the writers got it wrong! Yes, Braun played on a team that won fourteen more games and he helped his team to the playoffs. But Braun was surrounded by a much better supporting cast of players on offense, and arguably was the second best hitter on his own team. Kemp had absolutely no protection, yet put up incredible numbers. He was one HR away from joining the 40/40 Club, he led the league in 2 of 3 Triple Crown categories (3rd in .BA), and he won the Gold Glove in CF. ESPN analyst Tim K. stated that Kemp's numbers were the best a MLB centerfielder have put together since Mickey Mantle...yet he admittedly voted for Braun. Here are their numbers side by side...we'll see if Braun can duplicate these numbers without Prince protecting him?

BRAUN: 109-R, 187-H, 38-2B, 6-3B, 33-HR, 111-RBI, 33-SB, .332-.AVG, .397-OBP, .597-SLG, .994-OPS
KEMP: 115-R, 195-H, 33-2B, 4-3B, 39-HR, 126-RBI, 40-SB, .324-.AVG, .399-OBP, .586-SLG, .986-OPS GOLD GLOVE Centerfielder

bsbl- I disagree with Kurkjian...Ken Griffey Jr. in '97 probably would as well.

Nonetheless, Braun had a 7.8 fWAR and a 7.7 bWAR, Kemp was an 8.7 fWAR and a 10 bWAR. Kemp also had a dWAR (defense-minded) of 1.0 and Braun had a 0.6.

Those numbers, to me, are considerably different and thus I don't really see a comparison. Verlander/Ellsbury/Bautista were very similar and thus the decision was obviously much closer. I just didn't see Braun having a better year than Kemp.

MVP should not have anything to do with your team's record in the standings. Ryan Braun and Matt Kemp cannot control what the rest of their team does, so penalizing them as such is useless (same with Ellsbury, it's a shame if some writers didn't vote for him because of their September collapse). The only conceivable argument I can see that would rebut my statement is that their offensive presence is helpful to the lineup. But 1) they are equally as dangerous and 2) that is factored into WAR. Not to mention, Kemp hits 4th the majority of the time in front of James Loney. Braun hits 3rd in front of Prince Fielder (as noted by bsbl247). Conceptually speaking from a managerial standpoint, who do you think sees more fastballs?

Braun had a phenomenal season and should be commended for it. But in my opinion, he wasn't a more valuable player than Kemp.

Good points Josh. I couldn't argue with you anyway, not knowing what bWAR, fWAR, and dWAR numbers are??? Junior had an amazing four year run for the Mariners from 1996-1999. I believe that Kurkjian's comparison between Kemp and Mantle had to do with Power/Speed? Who knows? I think Griffey and Mantle were similar in the SB category?

I agree with you 100%, Braun did have a phenomenal season, but he definitely wasn't more valuable than Kemp.

Ironically, Mantle never had more than 21 SB in a season, and had 153 SB for his whole career. Granted we all know about his injuries and whatnot, but just an interesting comparison. Kemp has had 144 in his career, and had 40 this year. Not trying to dispute anything anyone said, I was actually surprised to see Mick didn't have more. Just something to think about I suppose.

WAR is a mathematical formula (I don't actually know what the formula is) that stands for "Wins Above Replacement". It calculates the total number of wins that any player adds to his team over the course of a season by comparing the player's performance with that of a fictitious replacement. A "replacement player" is assumed to be an average Triple-A callup who might appear in the majors only as replacement for an injured player, and whose hitting/fielding or pitching skills are far below league average. According to Baseball Prospectus, a team consisting entirely of replacement-level players would likely be historically bad, winning only 20-25 games over a full 162-game season. Thus, sabermetricians generally view this in higher regard than the traditional triple crown stats because it is more of an overview of individual performance and less reliable on teammates.

bWAR and fWAR are pretty much the same concept, just calculated using different replacement levels. bWAR can be found on www.baseball-reference.com and fWAR can be found on www.fangraphs.com (the b and f in front stand for the website, WAR is the actual statistic). dWAR stands for the defensive value a player had for that particular season in the same respect.

Just for reference, Mantle had a 12.9 bWAR in his triple crown 1956 season, which is 4th all-time according to the site. Babe Ruth had the highest single-season bWAR by a position player, with a 14.7 in 1923. For pitchers, Old Hoss Radbourn's 59 win season in 1884 ranks the highest, with a 20.4. In "modern times", Walter Johnson ranks highest with a 13.8 in 1913.

I have been studying sabermetrics quite thoroughly lately and find it an interesting parallel to the otherwise traditional aspects of baseball analysis. If you want to talk about it more feel free to shoot me a PM, I'm still an amateur on the subject but I'm always up for learning through conversation.

quote:

Originally posted by J H:
Ironically, Mantle never had more than 21 SB in a season, and had 153 SB for his whole career. Granted we all know about his injuries and whatnot, but just an interesting comparison. Kemp has had 144 in his career, and had 40 this year. Not trying to dispute anything anyone said, I was actually surprised to see Mick didn't have more. Just something to think about I suppose.

WAR is a mathematical formula (I don't actually know what the formula is) that stands for "Wins Above Replacement". It calculates the total number of wins that any player adds to his team over the course of a season by comparing the player's performance with that of a fictitious replacement. A "replacement player" is assumed to be an average Triple-A callup who might appear in the majors only as replacement for an injured player, and whose hitting/fielding or pitching skills are far below league average. According to Baseball Prospectus, a team consisting entirely of replacement-level players would likely be historically bad, winning only 20-25 games over a full 162-game season. Thus, sabermetricians generally view this in higher regard than the traditional triple crown stats because it is more of an overview of individual performance and less reliable on teammates.

bWAR and fWAR are pretty much the same concept, just calculated using different replacement levels. bWAR can be found on www.baseball-reference.com and fWAR can be found on www.fangraphs.com (the b and f in front stand for the website, WAR is the actual statistic). dWAR stands for the defensive value a player had for that particular season in the same respect.

Just for reference, Mantle had a 12.9 bWAR in his triple crown 1956 season, which is 4th all-time according to the site. Babe Ruth had the highest single-season bWAR by a position player, with a 14.7 in 1923. For pitchers, Old Hoss Radbourn's 59 win season in 1884 ranks the highest, with a 20.4. In "modern times", Walter Johnson ranks highest with a 13.8 in 1913.

I have been studying sabermetrics quite thoroughly lately and find it an interesting parallel to the otherwise traditional aspects of baseball analysis. If you want to talk about it more feel free to shoot me a PM, I'm still an amateur on the subject but I'm always up for learning through conversation.

Very interesting. Thanks for the explanation, it's much appreciated. I've heard of sabermetrics and I understand that Billy Beane has used that philosophy the last few years, but I've never taken the time to research it and learn the concepts. I'm a numbers guy (to a point), but I don't think I have the patience to break things down that drastically?

Billy Beane was the first person to put sabermetrics into the limelight, but the philosophies existed long before him and have been becoming more and more inherited over the years. There are many discrepancies with how Beane utilizes the information (in my opinion, at least), and that is part of the reason why traditionalists remain somewhat skeptical. In my mind, there should still be an emphasis on scouting and defensive specialists, which were two aspects that Beane somewhat failed to focus on during the time that Moneyball came out.

To me the ideal case of successful sabermetrics was the Red Sox of the past decade, as painful as that is for me to admit as a Yankee fan.

I could go on for a while about all this so I'll spare you . It is definitely interesting to look at if you are somewhat statistically inclined though.

Braun had a great year, but I thought Kemp was an easy pick for MVP. I think Kershaw winning the Cy Young had an effect on voters. The thought being the Dodgers didn't win enough to have both Cy Young and MVP even if the numbers justified it.

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
Braun had a great year, but I thought Kemp was an easy pick for MVP. I think Kershaw winning the Cy Young had an effect on voters. The thought being the Dodgers didn't win enough to have both Cy Young and MVP even if the numbers justified it.

I was thinking along those same lines. It's difficult for the writers to deny Kershaw after leading the league in a number of categories, including the Triple Crown of pitching...evidently Kemp needed to lead the league in BA to complete his Triple Crown offensively, and win the MVP?

The fact that Kershaw and Kemp put up huge numbers, and the Dodgers were still barely over .500, goes to show us that baseball is very much a "Team" game.

I feel that Kemp probably should have edged out Braun greatly due to the aforementioned fact that he did not have anyone resembling Prince Fielder batting after him for protection, yet put up numbers that were as good as Braun's. Kemp was a gold glover in a premier position while Braun while admittedly improved(although he was downright terrible his first few years defensively) played one of the two positions on an ML diamond where the bat is more important than the fielding.

In the case of Mantle stealing only 21 bases as a career high, you have to take the period in which he played. Throughout the 1950's as well as the 1940's for that matter, the stolen base had lost favor with ML managers and it was rare for someone to steal as many as 40 bags. Very few men stole as many as 30 during the 1950's. Casey Stengel, Mantle's manager stated several time that he was not going to risk Mantle's already fragile legs stealing bases when he could win games in so many other ways. Nonetheless, a couple of amazing SB stats by Mantle were achieved. His career mark was 153 stolen bases against only 38 caught stealing and during one period(1955-1962) he went an astounding 108 SB's to 15 caught stealing. By the 1960's his knees were bone on bone and it made no sense for him to steal bases and risk further injury. There is no doubt in my mind, in a different era with better injury rehab and training methods, Mantle would have been a multiple 30-30 guy and perhaps 40-40.

Three Bagger- I agree 100% about Mantle.

quote:

Posted November 23, 2011 02:28 AM Hide Post
Billy Beane was the first person to put sabermetrics into the limelight, but the philosophies existed long before him and have been becoming more and more inherited over the years. There are many discrepancies with how Beane utilizes the information (in my opinion, at least), and that is part of the reason why traditionalists remain somewhat skeptical. In my mind, there should still be an emphasis on scouting and defensive specialists, which were two aspects that Beane somewhat failed to focus on during the time that Moneyball came out.

To me the ideal case of successful sabermetrics was the Red Sox of the past decade, as painful as that is for me to admit as a Yankee fan.

JH


I have stated this on here before but I will go ahead and repeat what I believe the true message of Money Ball as implemented by Billy Beane. The message was about small payroll teams finding market or statistical inequities that they could exploit to even the playing field. At the time, On Base Percentage was an underutilized statistical measure despite its great importance in scoring runs. Its importance had been known and documented at least since the 1940's when Allan Roth was the first statistical guru hired by ML managership(by the brilliant Branch Rickey, who else). To mine statistical nuggets such as the value of OBP, the negative value of the sacrifice bunt, stealing only if successful 80% or more of the time, etc. sabermatics came to the forefront. Billy Beane was one of the first general managers to recognize that he needed people who were educated in digging out the types of stats and numbers needed for this approach. Thus grew sabermatics and the new terminology such as WAR, OPS, etc.

Only in the last couple of years has there started to be more dependable fielding sabermatic stats and this is still in transition. There was nothing to go by in the early days of Moneyball as such arcane stats as fielding percentage mean almost NOTHING. The area of fielding is probably (especially as offense is toned down) the next place where inequities can be exploited. First though, more meaningful stats such as range factor and others need to be tweaked.

Three Bagger- I didn't mean to sound as if I was speaking negatively about Beane and what he did. To say he was instrumental and a forefather of the analysis we see today is an understatement. In 2002 his methods were ingenious ways to calculate things and thus the success he had was a result. Since then, the discrepancies I mentioned have been somewhat exploited by others in the industry. But without Beane, that method of forward-thinking would be non-existent.

For those of you who are unfamiliar and interested in sabermetrics, Moneyball is a great place to start (the book, not the movie)

JH,

Oh, I agree with what you had stated and know you wern't being negative. I was addressing others about the fact that Billy Beane certainly wasn't the first to recognize the approach (which you also touched on), and also that it wasn't only about OBP as many people think. It was more of an "idea" than a concrete approach in which he and his underlings tried to exploit these market inefficiencies as PART of their offensive setup. After all, they still had a star hitter in Tejada who they didn't care how much he walked as long as he hit HRs and drove in runs. Actually this team could not have won had it been full of Hatteburg's and Jeremy Giambi's.

Actually one of Billy Beane's idea's as propounded in MoneyBall was the idea of finding guys who were great OBP guys through walks, in the minors or college (Youkalis), despite being just average or a little above average hitters. This idea has since mutated into teams full of guys (Red Sox & Yankees) that while not necessarily walking an extraodinary amount of times, goes deep into counts therefore driving the opposing starters out of games by the fourth and fifth innings in these pitch count conscious times. I feel that the front office that is best able to combine the useful parts of old scouting methods and mesh them with the new sabermatics will be able to create a monster ballclub.

Think about it--outside of the top twenty or maybe even top ten guys drafted every year the draft is a total crapshoot. Even the top guys fail way too often--talk about inefficiencies to be exploited! If someone could figure out how to do this in the right way, think of the millions that could be saved for other things. That's just one example. I think sabermatics though at least gives baseball people a chance to analyze the old data in new and exciting ways. I wonder what would happen if someone could assemble a team of GREAT fielders by range factor and advanced metrics, not fielding percentage) who were OK or good hitters and OBP guys but not necessarily great in power or even base stealing. Of course the mound staff would have to be solid but not expensive, maybe like this year's Texas Rangers. Turn a massive number of double plays, roam all over the outfield, a fielder like Beltre at third and a catcher like Molina of the Cardinals. This would be a different concept that I would like to see. Fielders are reasonably cheap since most fielders are truthfully paid for their bats. Oh well!

Three Bagger- I think it'd be interesting to see a team based around what you stated. I wonder, if given a salary cap (let's say $100 million), what sabermetricians would say the best 25 players would be.

I am currently speaking with a man who is a fairly prominent figure in the sabermetric world about coming onto the HSBBWeb Radio Show in the near future. When he and I line up the date that works for both of us, hopefully some here will have questions they'd like to pose to him. His formulas and ideologies are things I don't think many people are aware of or used to, but they are very intriguing.

I would definitely listen to that show. I think there's plenty of room for "old statistics" such as RBI and pitcher wins for enjoyment and the new sabermatic tools which tell the real story of how good a player is or how much he contributes to wins.