Poll - Trout, Cabrera or other for AL MVP

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:

"I would think Mike Trout would be the winner in any popularity contest.

"These awards are not based on statistics alone. If they were we would have known the MVP right after the last game."

Maybe not, but these awards ARE based almost entirely on the various performances that these statistics measure, and year by year we are able to measure more and more, and all more accurately, than before. The things that AREN'T measured really play very little role in these awards.

Playing Gold Glove level defense at a premium, up-the-middle defensive position matters.

Going first-to-third (let alone scoring from first, as Trout has done and is capable of doing) on a single matters. Speed on the basepaths (which is comprised of much more tha just leading the league in stolen bases with an almost unheard of 91% success rate, as impressive as that is) matters.

On-base percentage matters - far more than batting average. Scoring runs matters - even more than RBIs. After all, any player only has ONE chance to score for every PA, but depending on runners on base has multiple chances per plate appearance to drive a run in, and a batter doesn't even need to get on base to drive in a run (he can do it while making an out).

And the reason OBP matters so much is that avoding making outs also matters. They are the only finite thing in this game - you only get 27 outs to win, so every out is precious, and every time you get on base your team lives another out longer and is that much closer to winning. Cabrera supporters like to point out that Cabrera played a full season, while Trout only played 5/6ths of one, but that is extremely misleading because even though Cabrera had 58 more plate appearances than Trout did, he made 56 more outs with those 58 additional opportunities to help his team. Tell me again how that added more value?

All of these important parts of baseball were areas where Mike Trout FAR exceeded Miguel Cabrera. Yes, there were areas where Cabrera exceeded Trout offensively, but they were either (a) less important (such as batting average instead of OBP, or RBI instead of runs), or (b) areas where the differences in their performances were relatively slight, or (c) both.

quote:

Originally posted by jaggerz:

quote:

And while I'm at it, this whole "Miguel Cabrera is a LEADER" stuff that's also being trotted out as an intangible (those always get trotted out when the stats don't support your guy)? Am I the only one who remembers Cabrera being arrested for slapping his wife around after coming home at 6 AM and being dragged down to the police station where he his blood alcohol was tested at over three times the legal limit HOURS AFTER *THAT*? All at a time when the Tigers were trying to close out a division crown, with a one-game lead over Minnesota with two games left to play? THAT'S your leader? I think I'd take the rookie over him
in my clubhouse any day.

Cheap shot against a guy that has made huge strides in turning his life around.His popularity with his teammates speaks volumes and they are around him quite a bit more than you.

Is it? I'll acknowledge that that it may be a harsh judgment because alcoholism is also a disease, but choosing to indulge TO THAT LEVEL in the middle of a tight pennant race signifies more to me than an everyday failure to manage a disease.

Remember, the Tigers had lost to the 3rd place team (the White Sox) the day before that happened, while the 2nd place team (the Twins) won to close within a game. Cabrera was so drunk the middle of the *next morning* that there was grave doubt he would even be able to play that day - the second to last day of the season in a race where one game separated Cabrera's team from their pursuer - and if memory serves me they hospitalized him and put him on an IV in an effort to get him ready to play. He did, but not surprisingly he went 0-4 with a strikeout and a GIDP. They lost that day, too, and the Twins won to tie.

Do you remember how that season turned out? Do you really think - diseasse or no disease - that this is how a team leader conducts himself? And it isn't as if he immediately realized the destructive path he was on - for himself and his team. He got another DUI in Spring Tranining in 2011.

As harsh as it may sound - and I don't mean this as any kind of personal indictment or judgment based on a "character flaw" - that had very real baseball consequences for the Tigers that year. Neither you nor I really know what his teammates think of Cabrera, but I guarantee they weren't happy with him then and I seriously doubt they ever looked to him for true leadership in the clubhouse again. Maybe in the batter's box - but not in the clubhouse.

I stand by what I said.

And a good, much more level-headed and well-written article from the same publication: http://www.freep.com/article/2...cabrera-trout-debate

who determines what is wsell written and level headed

quote:

who determines what is wsell written and level headed

The readers

quote:

Originally posted by HVbaseballDAD:

"I heard this quote from a listener this morning on the radio, which sums up my thoughts on the matter, 'If you take Mike Trout off of the Angels, they go from being third in the AL West to being third in the AL West. If you take Miguel Cabrera off of the Tigers, they do not make the playoffs.' He then went on to say 'put that in your pocket protector and smoke it', bit I do not endorse that comment."

I'm glad you do not endorse the last comment, but I hope you'd reconsider your endorsement of the first one, too, because it is an absolutely ridiculous claim.

The irony, too, is that making that statement is an implicit endorsement of WAR, or some form of WAR. The argument is that, since the Tigers won by 3 games, and Cabrera's performance was worth 7 wins, they couldn't have won the division without him. And by extension, that even though Mike Trout's performance was worth almost 11 wins, since the Angels finished in 3rd place, 5 games back but 14 games ahead of 4th place, Trout's performance somehow did nothing to change his team's fortunes and was less valuable than Cabrera's,

Of course, that is some pretty twisted logic, and WAR doesn't work that way. Not to mention, by this logic, any player with a plus-3 win season on any playoff team was more valuable than Mike Trout's 11-win season, which is crazy. It also ignores the fact that if you took away any one of Prince Fielder, or Justin Verlander, or Austin Jackson, or Doug Fister, or Max Scherzer (all of whom had at least +3 WAR), they ALSO don't make the playoffs, even with Cabrera. So how valuable is he now? It's ridiculous how shallow this thinking is.

Bottom line: It's a team game, and it's high time we stop conflating team performance with INDIVIDUAL value. Obviously, individual value is hard to measure and there are lots of subjective opinions about intangibles that can be legitimately considered, but team performance as an indicator of individual value is not one of them - we can already measure individual contributions to team performance pretty accurately!

One last thing about WAR.... It is not the be-all, end-all stat, but it is a great starting point and an even better baseline. If there is a significant difference in WAR between your candidate and another with a higher WAR, you've got an uphill battle to show your guy was better without ignoring or rationalizing away a significant part of the other guy's performance. There are a lot of other things you can (and should) look at, and I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it would be a rare case where the argument could be justified.

And that's fine. Some people don't like, and will never use, WAR. But this is what gets me about that:

In taking a position in an MVP debate, anybody offering an opinion is taking a bunch of different pieces of information, and using them to come to a single decision. That's what WAR does! The difference is, WAR goes about it scientifically, in an open and transparent process that applies a consistent method of weighing those pieces of information while trying to eliminate biases, and stands by the result of the process regardless of the outcome, whereas the average person offering an MVP opinion looks at the same information (though maybe through less accurate statstical measures), indiscriminately omits some bits and overemphasize others, weighs them DIFFERENTLY (and without reasoned esplanation or research, just subjective opinion) in order to justify a pre-determined outcome. Oh, and then next year they'll do it again, but DIFFERENTLY.

And yet, WAR is bad and this other method of coming to the same kind of "best," single-number decision is GOOD?

I've said this before, but all I want is consistency, completeness, and comphrehensiveness. If you think performance in high leverage situations should count more (or something else - whatever), design that in to your system of evaluation - just do it without eliminating the negative performances while overemphasizing the positive (for instance, looking at Cabrera's late-inning HRs and RBI's in close games, while ignoring his rally-killing DPs and strikeouts, and his inability to effectively go first-to-third, etc.). Same with looking at games down the stretch as more important - really look at the player's contribution to those wins and losses, consistent with that position (i.e., higher-leverage ABs matter more), and make sure you count the negative as well as positive contributions.

Whatever you think is important, that's fine. Put it in your own little WAR-like system of evaluation, use whatever stats you want, but three things: (1) be consistent, (2) be ready to defend your decision to include some things and not others (for instance, for offense if you aren't including some measurement of defense, baserunning, and all aspects of hitting, don't be surprised if people attack and don't trust your results or opinion), and (3) don't work backwards from the result you want; start with the things you think are important and work TOWARDS the result they lead you to and stand by the results. Don't tweak the system because it spits out a name you don't like.

If you can't do that, IMO you have no justification for criticizing WAR. You're doing the same thing, just in a far less consistent and complete way.

Ok, first of all, the mvp voting is over. We should congratulate the winners and not criticizing and calling each other names. I am 100% sure that if you interview Trout or Cabrera about all these arguments, they will tell their supporters to find a charity and devote more time in helping others instead of spending any more time over this.

The other area that needed time spent is to build a better model, keep improving it. No use of arguing, for example, 10 base steals are better than 4 home runs, or 13 additional HR is equal to 22 runs. Use the model to predict the past, then the future. See how the expected runs or effective runs come into play in real life, or negative runs on the defensive (ie. causing your team a run in the defence) affect the outcome. Or arguing RBI is useless but runs scored are the king. Pluck them into your model, predict and predict and predict, verify and prove, then tell people what is the confidence level of the outcome of the model, limitation, assumptions made.

quote:

Whatever you think is important, that's fine. Put it in your own little WAR-like system of evaluation, use whatever stats you want, but three things: (1) be consistent, (2) be ready to defend your decision to include some things and not others, and (3) don't work backwards from the result you want; start with the things you think are important and work TOWARDS the result they lead you to and stand by the results. Don't tweak the system because it spits out a name you don't like.

This is not meant to be critical:
Agreed with point 1. Point 2 is not necessary, you don't need to defend if you can predict who is going to win a game with some degree of accuracy, to the past and to the future. People will COME to you, instead, for advice. For example if you were Tom House, people COME to you for advice, he does not need to argue which throwing mechanics is the best. Point 3, no sure what you mean, but in order to fit the model, you need past data to fit the model but you need have a solid criteria how you fit your data. A past win or a past lost is the most definite criteria. Whether you like Babe Ruth better than Shoeless Joe, that is not a good criteria. If you can predict the past, let say 65% accuracy with 99% confidence level, then you could predict the future. Time is just another variable in the equation, just remember to be consistent as you advised when applying the rules for the past and for the future.

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).

how about what your eye tells you? that doesnt count anymore?

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:

"how about what your eye tells you? that doesnt count anymore?"

Of course it does. I've never said otherwise. BUT, do you trust your memory enough to not miss some things? Do you see enough of every player on every team to make the kinds of judgments required in an MVP debate? Do you not think a statistical history is useful in making these kinds of judgments?

And the most important question: are you saying that your eyes tell you that Miguel Cabrera is a better, more complete, and more valuable all-around player than Mike Trout is? Because my eyes tell me something different.

First bball123, this is a baseball site and part of being a baseball fan is debating different outlooks. There are 13 pages in this thread so it must be of interest to many. Just because this years voting is over doesn't mean the debate is going away. If you don't like it, just drop out.

When you actually can state an idea that makes some kind of rational sense even in your phrasing then maybe you should jump back in. You inferred in a post somewhere that you went to MIT but your usage of mathematical terminology and lack of understanding makes me somehow doubt it. An MIT graduate would probably be an advocate on new sematics.

I would advocate a "new sematics" if we can have a reasonable outcome predicted. Using the "new sematics", that could not predict, to attack on another player is not what I would advocate. Not especially when it degenerate into name callings and accusation.

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.

quote:

Originally posted by bball123:

"... 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."

And what I am telling you is that that has been done, and continues to be done, to a far greater degree than you apparently know or want to believe.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by bball123:

"... 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."



And what I am telling you is that that has been done, and continues to be done, to a far greater degree than you apparently know or want to believe.

I know people have been trying and trying. I'll be following it via the press and grape vine when there is any major break through. It is a fascinating subject. Have you heard of "Game Theory"?

And a more lighthearted view of the MVP results, here: http://www.fangraphs.com/not/i...-had-won/#more-39114

I just wanted to add this: An example of what I said to TRHit about the value of using your eyes, as what I said about using whatever stats you like to come to a single-number decision about value might be incorporating crowd-sourced evaluations of defense instead of UZR for the defensive component of WAR.

I am aware of a couple of these crowd-sourced defensive evaluations (based purely on "using your eyes") and they usually do a pretty good job - but maybe to your disappoinment, by that I mean that they more or less replicate the advanced defensive metrics.

It is completely defensible in my book to not completely trust defensive metrics, and want to substitute something like the crowd-sourced evaluations. I'm sure you'd get questions and objections from some people based on evaluator's tendency to overevaluate the defense of players who are great offensively, or remember great plays more than mundane miscues. Others might object because we are now able to track precisely the path, trajectory and landing spot of every ball put in play, and compare how players field similar balls, so why not utilize that data, and you'd have to be able to answer those questions in order to defend your position, but THAT would be perfectly fine use of the WAR framework IMO.

[That's all WAR is, too: a framework for looking at all components of baseball performance, and coming up with a single number to evaluate and compare players. What statistical methods you use to measure those components is up to you. That's why there are different forms of WAR. And before you attack the framework because having different forms, remember that when you advocate for anybody as the "best" or "most valuable" player over any period of time, you are doing the same thing, just in a more haphazard and less rigorous and complete way.]

TRHit, Certainly we must still listen to what our eyes tell us.

My eyes told me in multiple playoff games that Cabrera can't play third base at even a good college level.

Something that all Trout fans should remember. He did this for one season. He may have more like it or fall short. The pitchers will figure him out and he will have to adjust.
On the other hand, Cabrera has been doing this for TEN years. Here are his 10 year totals:
.318 BA,1802 Hits,1123 RBI, 321 HR. He is well on his way to the Hall of fame but needs to keep up the pace. Time will tell but I'll bet Mike Trout would love to post those stats.

quote:

Originally posted by jaggerz:

Something that all Trout fans should remember. He did this for one season. He may have more like it or fall short. The pitchers will figure him out and he will have to adjust.
On the other hand, Cabrera has been doing this for TEN years. Here are his 10 year totals:
.318 BA,1802 Hits,1123 RBI, 321 HR. He is well on his way to the Hall of fame but needs to keep up the pace. Time will tell but I'll bet Mike Trout would love to post those stats.

What does this have to do with the MVP award?

quote:

Originally posted by jaggerz:

"Something that all Trout fans should remember. He did this for one season. He may have more like it or fall short. The pitchers will figure him out and he will have to adjust."

Right, but the MVP is for performance in 2012, not over the last ten years.

I agree with you (and actually said somewhere in this thread) that Cabrera has been consistently great for a long time, and that I think that plays as big a part of why voters would vote for him (along with the fact that he has been overlooked more than once in deserving years previously, including 2011 - which was a better year for him than 2012 and in which the voters decided a pitcher from his own team was more deserving; don't get me started on pitchers getting the MVP....).

But I don't think that makes it right. The award is specifically and explicitly for the current season and current season only. Career and peak achievements are rewarded later, when he's done and comes up for the Hall.

jaggers - that is a good point to consider too and I have read article talking about the short session he has. Eventually, things will revert back to its mean, whatever his average is going to be. Both are great players, I would not step on one just to justify the other.

quote:

Sabermetrics, I believe, look at each AB and each game as being equal. In other words a game in April is exactly the same value as a game in a pennant race during the last week of the season.

I disagree with that some what, but understand the logic. However, that is like saying what Reggie Jackson did in October was no more important or valuable than what he did in April.

I would love to see Mike Trout named the MVP and I think it is deserving. However, stats can be torn apart and twisted around no matter how exact they might appear.

To me the MVP should simply be the guy who is most valuable. That does not mean the guy with the best stats was automatically the most valuable. The triple crown was a great accomplishment, but doesn't mean Cabrera was Most Valuable. The stats compiled by Mike Trout were great, but it doesn't mean he was most valuable. Best stats = Best stats but not necessarily Most Valuable Player.

Getting back to whether one thinks games near the end are more important than games played earlier. For those that feel the last 2 months are more important than the first two... They have a legitimate case for Cabrera being the MVP. Also, here is a stat that really boggled my mind. In the Tigers 86 wins, Cabrera hit .368 with 34 HRs and 95 RBI.

And how about this stat. Cabrera hit .420 with 2 outs and runners in scoring position with a 1.211 OPS. Trout hit .286 with 2 outs and runners in scoring position with a .782 OPS. No matter how one looks at stats, that shows some real "clutch" hitting by Cabrera.

Granted Mike is the better all around player. But the truth is, when the Angels needed him the most he tailed off a lot at the end and Cabrera turned it up a notch for the Tigers. That has to be considered "valuable".

Anyway, no matter how you look at it, there's always another way to look at it. Both deserve the MVP. Mike was the better player this year, Cabrera was the better hitter this year. I can see reasons why people would vote either way. I'm a Mike Trout fan!

Let me re-quote PGStaff post for reference. Trout has a shorter session, so we don't know what his true average is going to be. He tailed off at the end of the session when needed most by the team. Again, I am not bashing Trout, he is a great player. Both are great, it's just happen that the vote went mostly to Cabrera. I'm just as surprise as most people here but again my opinion is counted as 2 cents only.

*** Disclaimer: this is for casual reading, not to start World War 3 ******

Here is an analysis on 0.5 inning using Game Theory:
http://faculty.haas.berkeley.e...l%20-%20Baseball.pdf

Could the Giants change the outcome of the game by applying Game Theory?

quote:

The award is specifically and explicitly for the current season and current season only. Career and peak achievements are rewarded later, when he's done and comes up for the Hall.

The actual criteria, posted at BBWAA.com
Dear Voter:

There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.

The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:

1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.

2. Number of games played.

3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.

4. Former winners are eligible.

5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.

You are also urged to give serious consideration to all your selections, from 1 to 10. A 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all 10 places on your ballot. Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration.

Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, including pitchers and designated hitters.

Again, people (including PGStaff) are just truly not aware of what sabermetrics are. There is not just one "sabermetric" stat called WAR. There are many, many advanced stats.

Take WPA for example. From Fangraphs:

quote:

WPA (win probability added): WPA is the difference in win expectancy (WE) between the start of the play and the end of the play. That difference is then credited/debited to the batter and the pitcher. Over the course of the season, each players’ WPA for individual plays is added up to get his season total WPA.

Calculation Example: In game 4 of the 2007 World Series, the WE for the Rockies started out at 50%. When Jacoby Ellsbury doubled off Aaron Cook in the very first at-bat in the game, the Rockies WE declined to 44.2%. The difference or WPA was .058 wins (5.8%). Ellsbury was credited +.058 wins and Aaron Cook credited with -.058 wins.

Why you should care: WPA takes into account the importance of each situation in the game. A walk off home run is going to be weighted more then a home run in a game that has already gotten out of hand. This makes it a great tool for determining how valuable a player was to his team’s win total.

Saying "sabermetrics assume every situation is equal" is just flat out wrong.

Just some thoughts...

I will admit that my knowledge regarding situational sabermetrics is limited. I listened to a sabermetrics expert explain why an AB whether a lead off hit or walk off HR on opening day was equal to the same on the last day of the season. This was logical to me in some cases where the last game wasn't all that important.

For example... Bobby Thompson's walk off HR giving the Giants the pennant to me was more valuable than a walk off HR on opening day. If for no other reason than it is still talked about today. Statistically it is the same value as an opening game walk off HR, but which HR would people consider the most important or valuable?

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?

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? 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.

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?

That leads to this... If we throw the salaries into who truly was the better VALUE, Mike Trout wins easily. If we are betting on who is more likely to have a similar season next year, I think you have to go with Cabrera as the safer pick.

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.

quote:

Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:

quote:

The award is specifically and explicitly for the current season and current season only. Career and peak achievements are rewarded later, when he's done and comes up for the Hall.

The actual criteria, posted at BBWAA.com
[i]Dear Voter:

There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.

This is great thanks 3FG.

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:

quote:

Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:

quote:

The award is specifically and explicitly for the current season and current season only. Career and peak achievements are rewarded later, when he's done and comes up for the Hall.

The actual criteria, posted at BBWAA.com
[i]Dear Voter:

There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.

This is great thanks 3FG.

Yes, thank you. Question, though: are you saying that because the rules don't explicitly say you are to consider only the current season that it is permissible to consider out-of-season accomplishments, such as career value or value over the last X number of years? Because, to me, why award something yearly, after the season, and call it the "2012 AL MVP" if it isn't limited to accomplishments in 2012, at least implicitly....

quote:

Again, people (including PGStaff) are just truly not aware of what sabermetrics are. There is not just one "sabermetric" stat called WAR. There are many, many advanced stats.

Take WPA for example. From Fangraphs:

quote:
WPA (win probability added): WPA is the difference in win expectancy (WE) between the start of the play and the end of the play. That difference is then credited/debited to the batter and the pitcher. Over the course of the season, each players’ WPA for individual plays is added up to get his season total WPA.

Calculation Example: In game 4 of the 2007 World Series, the WE for the Rockies started out at 50%. When Jacoby Ellsbury doubled off Aaron Cook in the very first at-bat in the game, the Rockies WE declined to 44.2%. The difference or WPA was .058 wins (5.8%). Ellsbury was credited +.058 wins and Aaron Cook credited with -.058 wins.

Why you should care: WPA takes into account the importance of each situation in the game. A walk off home run is going to be weighted more then a home run in a game that has already gotten out of hand. This makes it a great tool for determining how valuable a player was to his team’s win total.


Saying "sabermetrics assume every situation is equal" is just flat out wrong.

Good observation on your part that there are many many stats, and WAR is just one of them. In the web link I posted about some UC Berkeley grad students applying Game THeory to try to analyze and predict the outcome of 0.5 inning of a game, it utilized WPA, WE, OBP, WHIP and etc.. It is very good attempt of their part and we need more of this. I would encourage anyone who is interested in weighted/advanced stats to take a class called "Game Theory", it may be an advanced undergraduate class or a graduate class, depending on the college. Ultimately, we want to be able to predict the outcome of an inning, a game, or a match-up between a hitter and the pitcher/fielders. If and when we can do it to some degree of success, we then got the model right with all the relevant factors and weights. I would hazard to suggest that all the managers already have these factors in their mind. Bochy from the Giants is probably the master of them all with the fact that Giants were out-matched by the Tigers but yet he out-managed the Tigers with his line-up and match-up.

------
I will admit that my knowledge regarding situational sabermetrics is limited. I listened to a sabermetrics expert explain why an AB whether a lead off hit or walk off HR on opening day was equal to the same on the last day of the season. This was logical to me in some cases where the last game wasn't all that important.

For example... Bobby Thompson's walk off HR giving the Giants the pennant to me was more valuable than a walk off HR on opening day. If for no other reason than it is still talked about today. Statistically it is the same value as an opening game walk off HR, but which HR would people consider the most important or valuable?

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?

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? 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.
------
Good observation by PGStaff - 'just not sure it will prove which player is most valuable'. First what is the criteria and assumptions. Second, what is the resolution of the model in question and limitation. When I did my weighted stat for my modeling, I would tell the audience that this is a list of top ten widgets from a group of thousands of widgets. However, I would tell them among this 10 widgets, I can't tell you one is better than the other, even though each widget has a number associated with it; that is don't try to look more into what is already there.

bball123- I think you're straying WAYYY off base here. If I'm reading what you're saying correctly, then I understand that you don't trust any advanced stats whatsoever because they can't perfectly predict the future. Is that correct? Because if so, that's pretty absurd. Advanced stats provide a MORE accurate retrospective analysis of the game and its results so that those that use such analysis can be much more efficient in the future. I'm pretty sure not a single person anywhere has ever argued that sabermetrics are perfect. But I know for a fact that many (and rightly so) argue that they are far more accurate than the traditionally accepted statistics.

I'd also agree with you that there is a lot of work to do in the field of advanced statistical analysis, and that is one of the reasons why some of the smartest minds in the country are found in baseball front offices...because executives recognize the need to do just that. But, as I said to, to not take into account the validity of what has already been discovered because it is imperfect is rather small-minded.

I really do think you and I have a similar mindset towards things, we just convey our messages differently. The above is how I've interpreted your message, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

By the way, Bruce Bochy is FAR from the poster child of game theory utilization. It has been argued by many sabermetricians and analysts that theorize on these topics that he is one of the worst statistical managers in the game today. I'm not saying he's a bad manager...because obviously he isn't...but he doesn't utilize sabermetric models in the same stratosphere as some others do. There are other aspects to managing a baseball team that he is great at, and those talents combined with the talent on the field (and, yes, the sabermetric analysis done in the front office in SF) contributes to winning seasons.

Joe Maddon is the poster child for sabermetric usage. Davey Johnson, Buck Showalter, Bob Melvin all had success in 2012 utilizing sabermetrics. Every single MLB team uses advanced metrics in the front office to an extreme.

there are many players whose talent is outside the sabermetric box


Jackie ROBINSON was one so is D erek JETER

quote:

Question, though: are you saying that because the rules don't explicitly say you are to consider only the current season that it is permissible to consider out-of-season accomplishments, such as career value or value over the last X number of years? Because, to me, why award something yearly, after the season, and call it the "2012 AL MVP" if it isn't limited to accomplishments in 2012, at least implicitly....

The BWAA makes the rules; neither of us do. Obviously it is permissible to consider other years, and I think writers do in practice. I also think that writers tend to not vote for pitchers who are likely to win the Cy Young or players who are likely to win Rookie of the Year.

In my opinion, awards like the MVP are only interesting if the criteria are non-objective.

quote:

bball123- I think you're straying WAYYY off base here. If I'm reading what you're saying correctly, then I understand that you don't trust any advanced stats whatsoever because they can't perfectly predict the future. Is that correct? Because if so, that's pretty absurd. Advanced stats provide a MORE accurate retrospective analysis of the game and its results so that those that use such analysis can be much more efficient in the future. I'm pretty sure not a single person anywhere has ever argued that sabermetrics are perfect. But I know for a fact that many (and rightly so) argue that they are far more accurate than the traditionally accepted statistics.

No, nothing can predict future perfectly, that is why I always say "to some degree of accuracy" or something similar to it. What I like to see is stat being put into more concrete use, i.e.. be able to predict to some degree of stated accuracy. I have not issue if with the people at UC Berkeley doing their best with Game Theory to predict the outcome of an inning, a very objective criteria. What I don't like to see is the use of advanced stat to push someone like Cabrera down to the ground like that, in my opinion is a misuse of stat. I agree that we probably come to the same conclusion if we have a chance to sit down and have a cup of coffee to discuss out it. Since you 're in college, I would highly encourage you to take the Game Theory class. What I am saying is Bochy may use the same concept in Game Theory, matching up the pitchers to the batters based on his experience, history, pitcher, the nature of the hitters, their tendency, their weaknesses, and etc, he may not quantify them but it's all in the gut feeling. Same concepts but not being put down in numbers.

The way I think of it (and I've said this before) is that you can either:

1) Make your own judgments, use the "eye test", etc. This is EXTREMELY limited. How many games did I honestly watch of these two players this year? I'm a Yankees fan. I watch almost every single Yankees game. With that being said, I don't watch Miguel Cabrera or Mike Trout on a regular basis. So how can my "eye test" be accurate? Even if I did watch every single game, since when is "eye test" accurate? Even MLB scouts don't get everything right.

or

2) Base your judgments off of statistics that have been endlessly researched from REAL game situations. Are these perfect? No. Are they more accurate than someone judging based on things like the Triple Crown? Yes. That is laughable.

Why do I get the feeling that Trout is probably less upset than many that post here. Losing to the Triple Crown winner is certainly no slight.

Quite the contrary, sabermetrics allows us to see what great players there were such as Jackie Robinson who is a "saber" dream. Most people know very little about what kind of player he was except that he was a terror on the basepaths. He is precisely the type guy whose value is shown best with advanced metrics with his over .400 career OBP and relatively high steal totals in the lowest basestealing era of all time. He had mid power but did drive in respectable RBI totals. He played multiple positions extremely well. Yet if you look at his career totals they are not that eyecatching because of his relatively short career due to discrimination.

By advanced metrics Robinson is shown to be a GREATER player than most people thought he was. He got in the Hall of Fame not only for breaking the color line, but for being a truly great player for ten years.

Sabermetrics isn't a box, it is infinite in its applications. The box is judging someone on how many RBI's they had or what there batting average was, ignoring whether they truly get on base a lot.

Prior to 1931, players could not repeat as MVP's thus Ruth was limited to one and at one time two players on one team could not be considered for the award in the same season.

quote:

there are many players whose talent is outside the sabermetric box


Jackie ROBINSON was one so is D erek JETER

This type of statement is the perfect example of what frustrates me so much. This is in part because I honestly don't even know what it means. How does ones talent fall outside of sabermetrics?

Jackie Robinson and Derek Jeter are two of the greatest players to ever play the game, which is even more amplified when analyzing their unbelievably consistent top-of-the-league sabermetric outputs.

Sabermetrics is not a box. They take into account many different facets of the game and applies them individually to each player's performance as an overall evaluation.

Just for comparison here, when analyzing sabermetrics, Jackie Robinson provided more value annually than the likes of Joe DiMaggio, Alex Rodriguez, Mike Schmidt, Stan Musial.

Jeter ranks right up there also, somewhere in between Robinson and Tony Gwynn.