Once again my knowledge of advanced metrics are limited. So I have a question that hopefully someone can answer. Actually more than one question.
With a runner at 2B and no outs and the hitter hits a ground ball to the secondbaseman is it considered. Does it depend on the situation?
If a player makes a mental error is that accounted for?
If a player takes it easy running to 1B or dogs it on a fly ball is that accounted for?
Is being a dumb lazy player accounted for?
I understand that most these things are noticed by coaches and management, but sometimes great statistics and talent give a player more leeway.
Anyway, I believe in the more information the better. Baseball is a game of percentages. The more and better statistics, the better playing the percentages gets. Advanced scouting along with sabermetrics are here to stay. It's a must if teams want to compete. It goes far beyond statistics, the more a opposing player is studied, the more you know his tendencies and weaknesses. That is why we sometimes see early success before enough information is gathered on a hitter or pitcher. Then a weakness is exploited until an adjustment is made. Bottom line... Every bit of information is important. That includes eyes, statistical data, mechanical data, experience, instincts, etc.
Statistics can improve predictability, it can tell us what the best odds are. Even with that, Predicting a half inning with any accuracy seems impossible. Then again I could predict a 3 up, 3 down half inning and I would be right much of the time.
When we've coached we've all had that player who didn't have the most HRs or RBI's or the highest batting average on the team but we would swear he was our most valuable player because he did a lot of "things" to win. Sabermetrics is great for finding and rewarding these kinds of values. That is why a guy like Zobrist can show up among the leaders. He has values that aren't shown by the main counting stats of RBI and HRs.
bball123- I took some time to read the Berkeley Game Theory PDF you provided. Its very well-written and very in depth. However, to be quite frank, it told me nothing I didn't already know occurred.
WPA and RAA analysis happens every single pitch of every single at-bat of every single game by the front office. The information is then deciphered and consolidated and passed along to the coaching staff, who then relays it to the players.
Instead of using the term "Game Theory", mainstream media says that players and coaches study trends and patterns. In truth, game theory is exactly what happens each day in a baseball front office.
I'm impressed with the Berkeley students, but what they did is nothing revolutionary for baseball. Retrospectively analyzing a situation such as the one they analyzed is exactly how scouting reports and the likes are put together. I can guarantee with almost 100% certainty that the Giants' front office had this information on file.
The truth is that sabermetrics is not perfect. It will never be perfect. Baseball is an imperfect game with too many unforeseeable variables in order to create a perfected model. But there is not much that currently exists in the game of baseball that sabermetrics does not account for...and your example of game theory (which, I agree, is extremely interesting) is a perfect example of such. This is part of the reason why I am so adamantly opposed to those that believe Miguel Cabrera was more deserving of MVP than Mike Trout. Because when analyzing each and every aspect of their output and performance, it is blatantly obvious that is not true. Sabermetrics is much more than the OBP we learned about from Brad Pitt or the WAR we read about on FanGraphs. It is very much a specifically calculated mathematical technique that takes all parts of the game into account.
PGStaff- very good questions. In truth, the examples you provided are things that cannot be quantified at the surface. Nonetheless, those occurrences do factor into the results of the game, which can be quantified.
I couldn't agree more with this paragraph, and I am so happy that someone recognizes the importance of all aspects of the game (it comes as no surprise that you do recognize it). I would never and will never discredit the importance of scouting. Baseball experience and knowledge are unquantifiable and invaluable to the game...and that is an infinitely crucial aspect to the success of baseball. But statistical analysis is so crucial...in some situations moreso, and in some situations not as much. The importance of all aspects of analysis cannot be discredited, and I grow frustrated at times when either side is discredited. It is simply ignorant to state that neither is important.
I firmly stand by my opinion...Mike Trout was MUCH more valuable than Miguel Cabrera in 2012. It wasn't even close. I believe the vote should have been unanimous and I believe MLB needs to reevaluate the voting process for such awards due to the inconsistencies of beliefs. But I do appreciate a good discussion and I do respect other people's opinions, if they are well thought out and warranted. This, in my opinion, has been a great discussion as a whole.
WPA and RAA analysis happens every single pitch of every single at-bat of every single game by the front office. The information is then deciphered and consolidated and passed along to the coaching staff, who then relays it to the players.
Instead of using the term "Game Theory", mainstream media says that players and coaches study trends and patterns. In truth, game theory is exactly what happens each day in a baseball front office.
I'm impressed with the Berkeley students, but what they did is nothing revolutionary for baseball. Retrospectively analyzing a situation such as the one they analyzed is exactly how scouting reports and the likes are put together. I can guarantee with almost 100% certainty that the Giants' front office had this information on file.
The truth is that sabermetrics is not perfect. It will never be perfect. Baseball is an imperfect game with too many unforeseeable variables in order to create a perfected model. But there is not much that currently exists in the game of baseball that sabermetrics does not account for...and your example of game theory (which, I agree, is extremely interesting) is a perfect example of such. This is part of the reason why I am so adamantly opposed to those that believe Miguel Cabrera was more deserving of MVP than Mike Trout. Because when analyzing each and every aspect of their output and performance, it is blatantly obvious that is not true. Sabermetrics is much more than the OBP we learned about from Brad Pitt or the WAR we read about on FanGraphs. It is very much a specifically calculated mathematical technique that takes all parts of the game into account.
PGStaff- very good questions. In truth, the examples you provided are things that cannot be quantified at the surface. Nonetheless, those occurrences do factor into the results of the game, which can be quantified.
quote:Anyway, I believe in the more information the better. Baseball is a game of percentages. The more and better statistics, the better playing the percentages gets. Advanced scouting along with sabermetrics are here to stay. It's a must if teams want to compete. It goes far beyond statistics, the more a opposing player is studied, the more you know his tendencies and weaknesses. That is why we sometimes see early success before enough information is gathered on a hitter or pitcher. Then a weakness is exploited until an adjustment is made. Bottom line... Every bit of information is important. That includes eyes, statistical data, mechanical data, experience, instincts, etc.
I couldn't agree more with this paragraph, and I am so happy that someone recognizes the importance of all aspects of the game (it comes as no surprise that you do recognize it). I would never and will never discredit the importance of scouting. Baseball experience and knowledge are unquantifiable and invaluable to the game...and that is an infinitely crucial aspect to the success of baseball. But statistical analysis is so crucial...in some situations moreso, and in some situations not as much. The importance of all aspects of analysis cannot be discredited, and I grow frustrated at times when either side is discredited. It is simply ignorant to state that neither is important.
I firmly stand by my opinion...Mike Trout was MUCH more valuable than Miguel Cabrera in 2012. It wasn't even close. I believe the vote should have been unanimous and I believe MLB needs to reevaluate the voting process for such awards due to the inconsistencies of beliefs. But I do appreciate a good discussion and I do respect other people's opinions, if they are well thought out and warranted. This, in my opinion, has been a great discussion as a whole.
I also really enjoyed the discussion with this topic. It kind of ****es me off when people are right and I am wrong. Just kidding... I actually like that. It's always good to learn and I have learned a few things in this thread.
PGStaff- Learning is my single favorite thing to do in the world. That may sound like a cliche but its the God's honest truth. There is no replacement for knowledge.
I also especially like the type of analysis we are discussing here because its all theoretical...I don't believe that someone can actually be right or wrong if they put their due diligence into the work. People that have real reasons for believing Miguel Cabrera is the MVP aren't wrong. I just don't agree. There's a very big difference between those two things.
I think the best part of retrospective analysis is the ability to recognize the faults and improve on the positives. No one is perfect, and very rarely is someone completely right. There have been a lot of articles written about Greg Morhardt, the scout who signed Mike Trout. In Trout's draft, there were four outfielders drafted before him (Donovan Tate, AJ Pollock, Jared Mitchell and Randal Grichuk). Was Morhardt more right than the scouts who signed those players? No. At the time, the scouts projected those players the way they projected them. They weren't wrong. Things just happen that are unforeseeable in the future.
Scouting and sabermetrics are intertwined in that sense, in my opinion. Unforeseeable future events eliminate any potential for perfection.
PG, you've admitted to being wrong before...and you guys are the best in the business. As I recall, an overweight HS 1B from Florida with a funny first name and a good lineage wasn't ranked as highly by you guys as he turned out to perform at the next level. He's been doing alright for himself hitting behind Miggy these days...
Sabermetrics isn't perfect. Scouting isn't perfect. No one is right, no one is wrong. But there is no denying the importance of improved efficiency in all aspects of the game. And ignoring any input that could assist in doing so would certainly not be behooving of an organization.
I also especially like the type of analysis we are discussing here because its all theoretical...I don't believe that someone can actually be right or wrong if they put their due diligence into the work. People that have real reasons for believing Miguel Cabrera is the MVP aren't wrong. I just don't agree. There's a very big difference between those two things.
I think the best part of retrospective analysis is the ability to recognize the faults and improve on the positives. No one is perfect, and very rarely is someone completely right. There have been a lot of articles written about Greg Morhardt, the scout who signed Mike Trout. In Trout's draft, there were four outfielders drafted before him (Donovan Tate, AJ Pollock, Jared Mitchell and Randal Grichuk). Was Morhardt more right than the scouts who signed those players? No. At the time, the scouts projected those players the way they projected them. They weren't wrong. Things just happen that are unforeseeable in the future.
Scouting and sabermetrics are intertwined in that sense, in my opinion. Unforeseeable future events eliminate any potential for perfection.
PG, you've admitted to being wrong before...and you guys are the best in the business. As I recall, an overweight HS 1B from Florida with a funny first name and a good lineage wasn't ranked as highly by you guys as he turned out to perform at the next level. He's been doing alright for himself hitting behind Miggy these days...
Sabermetrics isn't perfect. Scouting isn't perfect. No one is right, no one is wrong. But there is no denying the importance of improved efficiency in all aspects of the game. And ignoring any input that could assist in doing so would certainly not be behooving of an organization.
PGStaff,
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):
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.
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:
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....
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.
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.
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....
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....
I'll take this one on before I finish the other, too. First, let me say that I agree with everything JH said in his post, particularly about agreeing with the last paragraph in PGStaff's post below (though I don't quote it).
I think there might be something left out of the first question. At least, I am not sure what is being asked.... However, from the context of the other questions I am guessing you are wondering about how modern statistics measure things like when and if (and how successfully) a player attempts a more difficult play than the safer one, and how he is credited (or given demerits) depending on his success or failure. And then how mental errors, lack of hustle, laziness, etc., are handled.
The short answer is that it isn't part of the equation (at least now) as far as I know. I could be wrong. Generally, though, it isn't the job of statistics to measure these things. They are a historical record of what has happened, but do not judge whether a player could or should have done something different that might have been more valuable. I think that is what the realm of scouting and coaching is for. And frankly, traditional statistics don't measure these things, either.
I would concede that these are the kinds of intangibles that are currently beyond statistics to measure. On the negative side, I would say that if a player regularly makes stupid, lazy, non-hustling choices, he won't be playing enough for it to matter in any MVP discussion, On the positive side, I think a guy like Derek Jeter fairly regularly makes choices that help his team in intangible ways that are either not measured currently or are not fully valued. HOWEVER, the difference in real value these things add are small in relation to the many more things that ARE measured, and as human beings we tend to remember and value the positive things guys like Jeter do, and minimize the negative (and overlook the mundane - such as relative lack of range). So you have to be careful in using this kind of thing in these kinds of debates, but I don't really have a problem if people do, as long as they recognize it is a pretty small part of the picture and can't really be used to overcome a large statistical deficit.
I think this is because coaches and management properly value the things that can be measured, versus the things that aren't.
quote:Originally posted by PGStaff:
"With a runner at 2B and no outs and the hitter hits a ground ball to the secondbaseman is it considered. Does it depend on the situation?
If a player makes a mental error is that accounted for?
If a player takes it easy running to 1B or dogs it on a fly ball is that accounted for?
Is being a dumb lazy player accounted for?"
I think there might be something left out of the first question. At least, I am not sure what is being asked.... However, from the context of the other questions I am guessing you are wondering about how modern statistics measure things like when and if (and how successfully) a player attempts a more difficult play than the safer one, and how he is credited (or given demerits) depending on his success or failure. And then how mental errors, lack of hustle, laziness, etc., are handled.
The short answer is that it isn't part of the equation (at least now) as far as I know. I could be wrong. Generally, though, it isn't the job of statistics to measure these things. They are a historical record of what has happened, but do not judge whether a player could or should have done something different that might have been more valuable. I think that is what the realm of scouting and coaching is for. And frankly, traditional statistics don't measure these things, either.
I would concede that these are the kinds of intangibles that are currently beyond statistics to measure. On the negative side, I would say that if a player regularly makes stupid, lazy, non-hustling choices, he won't be playing enough for it to matter in any MVP discussion, On the positive side, I think a guy like Derek Jeter fairly regularly makes choices that help his team in intangible ways that are either not measured currently or are not fully valued. HOWEVER, the difference in real value these things add are small in relation to the many more things that ARE measured, and as human beings we tend to remember and value the positive things guys like Jeter do, and minimize the negative (and overlook the mundane - such as relative lack of range). So you have to be careful in using this kind of thing in these kinds of debates, but I don't really have a problem if people do, as long as they recognize it is a pretty small part of the picture and can't really be used to overcome a large statistical deficit.
quote:"I understand that most these things are noticed by coaches and management, but sometimes great statistics and talent give a player more leeway."
I think this is because coaches and management properly value the things that can be measured, versus the things that aren't.
Edgarfan you have a PM
I've been meaning to get this addressed for some time, because I think it is a really good point that PGStaff makes, and while I don't agree with the conclusion that a strong case can be made for Cabrera over Trout because of a better performance down the stretch in more meaningful games (a testable conclusion I'll get to analyzing - researching that is most of what took so long for me to respond to PG), I agree with the basic premise of his post. So here goes...
For the most part, I think the first part of this is true. I don't like the analogy (it is more like saying what he does in April is the same as what he did at any point late in the regular season, but not the playoffs, which is what I associate with "October"), but I understand the point and agree with it to some degree.
There are good "sabermetric" stats that measure contributions to winning, though. I've already talked in this thread about how much I like the stats RE24 (which stands for the Run Expectancy for each of the 24 base-outs states) and WPA (which is Win Probability Added). I already talked about RE24 in this thread here, and 2013LHP did a nice description of WPA here. Both of those posts have good examples of how they work, but the main difference between RE24 and WPA is that RE24 measures the positive or negative contributions to run expectancy while WPA measures the positive or negative contribution to win expectancy, and RE24 looks at each base-out situation as the same regardless of what inning it occurs in or what the score is when that situation arises, while WPA additionally (and very intentionally) considers the "leverage" or impact of that situation. For the kind of thing PGStaff is talking about, WPA is the better and more relevant stat to emphasize as an example of how sabermetrics "gets it."
Anyway, suffice it to say that anybody who values and pushes a stat like WPA as much as as I do is at least sympathetic to the argument PGStaff makes. Some wins are "higher leverage" in terms of getting a team to the promised land - I get it - just as the results of some plate appearances have more to do with producing an individual win than others. I do think you have to work harder than to quote BA or RBI in wins, or with two outs and RISP (which is only one isolated kind of high leverage situation, of many) to make PG's point about "high leverage" wins, but you can get there - and I will. You just may be suprised at what it shows, though.
To PG's first point, I do think it is true that most (but certainly not all) "sabermetric" stats like look at things equally. This is mostly because they are designed not just to look back but to estimate future performance. If you are looking back, and trying to determine value added, then you want to know the difference between a home run in the 4th inning of a blowout and a walk-off home run. However, if you are trying to predict future performance, that difference doesn't matter as much because it has been repeatedly proven that "clutch" hitting is not so much a repeatable "skill" than it is essentially a reflection of a player's overall skill. If you look at "clutch" stat leaderboards year-to-year, players have wild variation, and over multiple years, those stats tend to look more and more like their overall stats - the best hitters are usually the best "clutch" hitters. So, when looking for predictive quality, stats that are leverage-neutral tend to be better predictors.
However, when your goal is to look backwards and look at value added, such as in an MVP or Hall of Fame discussion, those kind of "neutralized" stats (or even averages) are less helpful. You want to know who got more "clutch" base hits or extra-base hits, runs, RBI, stolen bases, etc., and when they got them - even if you know that the fact they got them last year won't tell you very well whether the same guys are likely to get them next year. That's exactly what WPA does, and why I think it is a particularly good stat to look at when considering who should be MVP.
WPA measures different actions within a game differently depending on how "high leverage" they are in terms of making it more likely that a player's team will win - whether they occurred early or late, or blow-out vs close game, giving more "credit" for things people might consider "clutch" and which contribute more to a team's probability of winning, and therefore does a good job of measuring an individual player's contribution to those wins, retrospectively. I know that only gets us part of the way to what PGStaff is talking about, and that it doesn't give added value for "high leverage wins," but I am not aware of any stats (traditional or sabermetric) that give "extra credit" for performance in wins only, or in wins only down the stretch, or in wins only down the stretch but only if your team got to the playoffs, or that weight games that are higher "leverage" in terms of a pennant race, etc. I suspect that can be done, and maybe has been done by somebody but just isn't yet widely available. If it were, I'd have NO trouble embracing that kind of stat, because I know (and respect) that most people - including me, to an extent - think that is very important.
That said, I think it is also important to add that in this year's MVP discussion, I doubt that some kind of "Playoff Probability Added" sort of stat - something that would consider "high leverage" wins in addition to how a player performed in "high leverage" situations within individual games - would add that much to the debate, because both Mike Trout and Miguel Cabrera were playing very competitive games and competing for a playoff spot right until the very end (or very close to it).
If you were to measure something like "Playoff Probability Added, you have to be *really* careful to separate individual from team contributions. Right now, we have WPA to do that on an individual win basis, and since ultimately, what gets a team to the playoffs is wins (all of 'em), that's where you need to start. Until something like "Playoff Probability Added" is invented, you have to look at individual game WPA during whatever you consider to be the "more important" stretches of the season, in order to measure what PGStaff is talking about when he talks about those "higher leverage" or "more important" wins.
So that's what I did. I arbitrarily decided to look at August 15 on as a proxy for "the stretch" because I had to choose something and that actually proved to be a pretty good starting point. Both the Angels and the Tigers had played 117 games to that point, with 45 games left for each. Their records were almost identical at that point (the Angels were 61-56, and the Tigers were 62-55). Neither team had their divisional lead (the Tigers were 2 games back of the White Sox, and the Angels were 7 games back of Texas), but both the Tigers and Angels were right in the thick of the Wild Card race (1.5 and 2.5 games out of a playoff spot, respectively). So starting with the August 15th games, I look at Cabrera's and Trout's WPA overall for the rest of the season, as well as in each player's team's wins, and in each player's team's losses. I figured that, especially if viewed together with each player's overall seasonal WPA, that kind of analysis would do a complete job of measuring each player's offensive "value" down the stretch.
I'll get to the results in a sec...first, a detour to address PGStaff's next point.
Actually, as I said before, whenever you slice and dice stats from a single season, you inevitably create a sample size that is small enough that it doesn't mean as much. Obviously it happened, and reflects value actually produced in the smaller samples you're looking at, but it doesn't mean that value produced is a reflection of real differences in talent because the smaller the sample, the greater the chance that any differences observed can be the result of simple chance and random variation rather than talent. And it doesn't really break out "high leverage" wins or ABs from lower leverage ones, anyway. Also, quoting BA and OPS (especially OPS without correcting for park factors and competition, because this was a HUGE difference in any comparison of stats between Cabrera and Trout this year) in 2 outs / RISP only (a relatively small subset of high-leverage situations we might describe as "clutch") is particularly vulnerable to this criticism. It is interesting, but not really all that meaningful.
Beyond that, with two great players having MVP-quality years, I would fully expect that you'd see terrifically better numbers in their team's wins, because they are likely to have been a big part of that. But if you ONLY focus on wins, you'll not only get a smaller sample (and less meaningful results), you will also ignore positive contributions that these kinds of players make - plays that made their team's chances of winning more likely, sometimes by a lot - in games their team eventually lost (as well as ignoring their negative contributions to their team's losses as well as wins). That's crazy, IMO - that kind of slicing and dicing isn't helpful to understanding the complete picture.
So, I think the methodology I came up with is much better, and more meaningful. Here's what it showed:
First of all, Mike Trout had a higher WPA for the entire season than Miguel Cabrera did. Trout led the AL (and MLB) with 5.32 WPA, while Cabrera was third in the AL with 4.82 WPA (behind Trout, and his teammate Prince Fielder's 4.93 WPA) and fifth in MLB (behind Andrew McCutcheon's 4.85 WPA as well). [Trout also led Cabrera in the more leverage-neutral measure of individual players' contribution to run scoring, RE24.]
This is significant, because WPA is a cumulative, "counting" stat, not a rate stat - you can't look better by producing at a higher rate for less than a full season. Basically, WPA looks at the probability a team has of winning in every conceivable score, inning, and base-out state. You accumulate positive and negative WPA with each plate appearance depending on whether the result of each plate appearance either advanced or diminished your team's chance of winning, and higher leverage situations count more (again, the example of the difference in value of a 3-run home run in a 4th inning blow-out versus a walk-off 3-run blast). I mention this because it rebuts the idea that just because Cabrera played all six months of the season, and Trout only played five months, Cabrera was automatically "more valuable." He wasn't, and this proves it. [I got at the same point in another post by saying that, although Cabrera had 58 more plate appearances than Trout did, he also made 56 more outs - almost completely negating the opportunity advantage he had over Trout to provide extra value to his team.]
But what about "the stretch," August 15th to the end of the season? Well, the Angels went 28-17 the rest of the way, and Mike Trout accumulated 1.386 of his season's WPA total in that period. Meanwhile, the Tigers went 26-19, and Miguel Cabrera accumulated 1.088 of his season's WPA total in that stretch. On a purely cumulative basis, Trout contributed more, to more wins, than Cabrera did in the same "stretch" period.
Does that change if you break it down by negative and positive contributions to individual wins and losses? No. First, Trout had negative contributions in fewer of those 45 games (18 of 45) than Cabrera did (20 of 45). That was true not only overall, but when you break it down by contributions to wins versus losses:
* Trout was a negative contributor in 8 of 28 Angels wins in those 45 games (with a cumulative negative contribution of -0.298 WPA in those 8 games). Conversely, Trout was a positive contributor in 5 of 17 Angels losses (with a cumulative positive contribution of +0.493 WPA in those 5 games).
* On the other hand, Cabrera was a negative contributor in 9 of 26 Tigers wins (with a cumulative negative contribution of -0.591 WPA in those 9 games). Significantly, too, 5 of the 9 Tigers' wins down the stretch where Cabrera was a negative contributor came in in the Tigers' last 8 wins (all within the last 10 games) - hardly "closer" material. Cabrera was a positive contributor in 8 of 17 Tigers losses (with a cumulative positive contribution of +1.246 WPA).
* Overall, in the 45 "stretch run" games from August 15th to the end of the season, Trout contributed +1.700 WPA to 28 Angels wins, and contributed -0.314 WPA to 17 Angels losses, while Cabrera contributed +0.729 WPA to 26 Tigers wins, and +0.359 to 19 Tigers losses.
What this means in a nutshell is that, during the part of the season and in that part of each game "when it really counts," Mike Trout contributed more to more wins than Miguel Cabrera did, and Miguel Cabrera derived far more of his WPA "value" in games the Tigers ultimately lost and contributed less to wins down the stretch than Mike Trout did for the Angels down the stretch Whatever the sliced and diced, neutralized splits, cherry-picked numbers, and averages tell you about the stretch run, this completely refutes the idea that Cabrera contributed more to winning down the stretch that Trout did. That idea is demonstrably untrue.
Even though his team didn't make the playoffs (and Cabrera's did), Mike Trout contributed more, to more wins in a tougher division and in a tougher hitting environment, than Miguel Cabrera did. And remember, WPA either doesn't measure or doesn't fully measure those things than make Mike Trout special, like going first-to-third (or more) on a single, or Gold Glove quality defense at a premium position. Even ignoring THAT, Mike Trout was simply better. And saying that does nothing to diminish Cabrera's great season.
Again, I mostly agree with you here, though I responded more directly to your "best stats doesn't necessarily equal "best player" or MVP" comment in this response to another one of your posts. I guess where we disagree boils down my feeling that there are some stats that do a better and more comprehensive job of measuring complete value than others, and generally speaking, the player with the best numbers in THOSE stats is almost always going to be the more valuable player.
The exceptions might be when there is a large field of relatively mediocre offensive candidates but one who stands out as a fielder (think Zollo Versalles in 1965) or as a baserunner (think Maury Wills in 1962). Or sometimes because there is a great player who has been overlooked when he had better years, especially when a great leader on a playoff team (think Willie Stargell in 1979).*
[*The point about being previously overlooked is a big intangible that worked in Miguel Cabrera's favor this year, and IMO it may have carried as much or more weight than the Triple Crown.]
Obviously there is a bit of a continuum here, but generally speaking, the player who stands out in RE24, WPA, WAR, oWAR, and OPS+ (or wRC+, which is slightly better than OPS+ but harder to understand) is almost always going to be the most valuable player, and not coincidentally, almost always DOES win the MVP. When they don't and you look back at it, it looks very strange and usually like an obvious mistake in overlooking somebody who becomes a Hall of Famer (and often several Hall of Famers). That is the kind of historic season Mike Trout had, and I predict right now that is what it will look like looking back - at least (knock on wood) if Mike Trout stays healthy and has a career of 6000-8000 PA or more. NOT THAT MIGUEL CABRERA IS UNDESERVING - he had a great and historic season - but the kind of season Mike Trout had is greater still, just as historic or more so (though in a less traditionally-recognized way), and very rarely has failed to be recognized with the MVP.
It is valuable, but I hope I've convinced you that this statement ("when the Angels needed [Trout] the most he tailed off a lot at the end and Cabrera turned it up a notch for the Tigers") isn't so, or at least that there is another (and I'd argue better) way to look at this and conclude that it isn't so.
You're right - there's almost as many ways to look at these things are there are opinions. Look, I'm a fan of BOTH guys, and last year, I beat the drum for Cabrera. This year, it's different, and I don't really believe in the "career reward" or "make-up" MVP.
I just think that when you finally come down to two players who played such critical roles on teams that played meaningful games right up until the end, "the better player" should win (and I don't concede that Cabrera was "the better hitter" though I would concede that it was close, and an argument can be made that he may have been).
I know that many of these stats are new to many people, but they are not really that complex (especially RE24 and WPA), and the idea behind them is very much rooted in REAL BASEBALL and real things that almost everybody says is "valuable." When you come right down to it, the main reason Cabrera won even though Trout had demonstrably more value comes down to undervaluing how important it is not to make outs, and overvaluing (even romaniticizing) the importance of Triple Crown stats as a measure of all-around value over not just better traditional stats (OBP, SLG, and their combination, OPS) but newer stats and ideas (like park factors, OPS+, WAR, RE24 & WPA) as well. It is too bad that the debate got turned into a referendum on whether "geeks" are really baseball fans, and rather than opening their minds too many traditionalists just dug in their heels and refused to consider that there might be a better way of looking at things. Because there's always a better way of looking at things; what was once new and considered "state of the art" will someday be supplanted or even discredited by a better way of looking at the same thing.
quote:Originally posted by PGStaff:
"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."
For the most part, I think the first part of this is true. I don't like the analogy (it is more like saying what he does in April is the same as what he did at any point late in the regular season, but not the playoffs, which is what I associate with "October"), but I understand the point and agree with it to some degree.
There are good "sabermetric" stats that measure contributions to winning, though. I've already talked in this thread about how much I like the stats RE24 (which stands for the Run Expectancy for each of the 24 base-outs states) and WPA (which is Win Probability Added). I already talked about RE24 in this thread here, and 2013LHP did a nice description of WPA here. Both of those posts have good examples of how they work, but the main difference between RE24 and WPA is that RE24 measures the positive or negative contributions to run expectancy while WPA measures the positive or negative contribution to win expectancy, and RE24 looks at each base-out situation as the same regardless of what inning it occurs in or what the score is when that situation arises, while WPA additionally (and very intentionally) considers the "leverage" or impact of that situation. For the kind of thing PGStaff is talking about, WPA is the better and more relevant stat to emphasize as an example of how sabermetrics "gets it."
Anyway, suffice it to say that anybody who values and pushes a stat like WPA as much as as I do is at least sympathetic to the argument PGStaff makes. Some wins are "higher leverage" in terms of getting a team to the promised land - I get it - just as the results of some plate appearances have more to do with producing an individual win than others. I do think you have to work harder than to quote BA or RBI in wins, or with two outs and RISP (which is only one isolated kind of high leverage situation, of many) to make PG's point about "high leverage" wins, but you can get there - and I will. You just may be suprised at what it shows, though.
To PG's first point, I do think it is true that most (but certainly not all) "sabermetric" stats like look at things equally. This is mostly because they are designed not just to look back but to estimate future performance. If you are looking back, and trying to determine value added, then you want to know the difference between a home run in the 4th inning of a blowout and a walk-off home run. However, if you are trying to predict future performance, that difference doesn't matter as much because it has been repeatedly proven that "clutch" hitting is not so much a repeatable "skill" than it is essentially a reflection of a player's overall skill. If you look at "clutch" stat leaderboards year-to-year, players have wild variation, and over multiple years, those stats tend to look more and more like their overall stats - the best hitters are usually the best "clutch" hitters. So, when looking for predictive quality, stats that are leverage-neutral tend to be better predictors.
However, when your goal is to look backwards and look at value added, such as in an MVP or Hall of Fame discussion, those kind of "neutralized" stats (or even averages) are less helpful. You want to know who got more "clutch" base hits or extra-base hits, runs, RBI, stolen bases, etc., and when they got them - even if you know that the fact they got them last year won't tell you very well whether the same guys are likely to get them next year. That's exactly what WPA does, and why I think it is a particularly good stat to look at when considering who should be MVP.
WPA measures different actions within a game differently depending on how "high leverage" they are in terms of making it more likely that a player's team will win - whether they occurred early or late, or blow-out vs close game, giving more "credit" for things people might consider "clutch" and which contribute more to a team's probability of winning, and therefore does a good job of measuring an individual player's contribution to those wins, retrospectively. I know that only gets us part of the way to what PGStaff is talking about, and that it doesn't give added value for "high leverage wins," but I am not aware of any stats (traditional or sabermetric) that give "extra credit" for performance in wins only, or in wins only down the stretch, or in wins only down the stretch but only if your team got to the playoffs, or that weight games that are higher "leverage" in terms of a pennant race, etc. I suspect that can be done, and maybe has been done by somebody but just isn't yet widely available. If it were, I'd have NO trouble embracing that kind of stat, because I know (and respect) that most people - including me, to an extent - think that is very important.
That said, I think it is also important to add that in this year's MVP discussion, I doubt that some kind of "Playoff Probability Added" sort of stat - something that would consider "high leverage" wins in addition to how a player performed in "high leverage" situations within individual games - would add that much to the debate, because both Mike Trout and Miguel Cabrera were playing very competitive games and competing for a playoff spot right until the very end (or very close to it).
If you were to measure something like "Playoff Probability Added, you have to be *really* careful to separate individual from team contributions. Right now, we have WPA to do that on an individual win basis, and since ultimately, what gets a team to the playoffs is wins (all of 'em), that's where you need to start. Until something like "Playoff Probability Added" is invented, you have to look at individual game WPA during whatever you consider to be the "more important" stretches of the season, in order to measure what PGStaff is talking about when he talks about those "higher leverage" or "more important" wins.
So that's what I did. I arbitrarily decided to look at August 15 on as a proxy for "the stretch" because I had to choose something and that actually proved to be a pretty good starting point. Both the Angels and the Tigers had played 117 games to that point, with 45 games left for each. Their records were almost identical at that point (the Angels were 61-56, and the Tigers were 62-55). Neither team had their divisional lead (the Tigers were 2 games back of the White Sox, and the Angels were 7 games back of Texas), but both the Tigers and Angels were right in the thick of the Wild Card race (1.5 and 2.5 games out of a playoff spot, respectively). So starting with the August 15th games, I look at Cabrera's and Trout's WPA overall for the rest of the season, as well as in each player's team's wins, and in each player's team's losses. I figured that, especially if viewed together with each player's overall seasonal WPA, that kind of analysis would do a complete job of measuring each player's offensive "value" down the stretch.
I'll get to the results in a sec...first, a detour to address PGStaff's next point.
quote:"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."
Actually, as I said before, whenever you slice and dice stats from a single season, you inevitably create a sample size that is small enough that it doesn't mean as much. Obviously it happened, and reflects value actually produced in the smaller samples you're looking at, but it doesn't mean that value produced is a reflection of real differences in talent because the smaller the sample, the greater the chance that any differences observed can be the result of simple chance and random variation rather than talent. And it doesn't really break out "high leverage" wins or ABs from lower leverage ones, anyway. Also, quoting BA and OPS (especially OPS without correcting for park factors and competition, because this was a HUGE difference in any comparison of stats between Cabrera and Trout this year) in 2 outs / RISP only (a relatively small subset of high-leverage situations we might describe as "clutch") is particularly vulnerable to this criticism. It is interesting, but not really all that meaningful.
Beyond that, with two great players having MVP-quality years, I would fully expect that you'd see terrifically better numbers in their team's wins, because they are likely to have been a big part of that. But if you ONLY focus on wins, you'll not only get a smaller sample (and less meaningful results), you will also ignore positive contributions that these kinds of players make - plays that made their team's chances of winning more likely, sometimes by a lot - in games their team eventually lost (as well as ignoring their negative contributions to their team's losses as well as wins). That's crazy, IMO - that kind of slicing and dicing isn't helpful to understanding the complete picture.
So, I think the methodology I came up with is much better, and more meaningful. Here's what it showed:
First of all, Mike Trout had a higher WPA for the entire season than Miguel Cabrera did. Trout led the AL (and MLB) with 5.32 WPA, while Cabrera was third in the AL with 4.82 WPA (behind Trout, and his teammate Prince Fielder's 4.93 WPA) and fifth in MLB (behind Andrew McCutcheon's 4.85 WPA as well). [Trout also led Cabrera in the more leverage-neutral measure of individual players' contribution to run scoring, RE24.]
This is significant, because WPA is a cumulative, "counting" stat, not a rate stat - you can't look better by producing at a higher rate for less than a full season. Basically, WPA looks at the probability a team has of winning in every conceivable score, inning, and base-out state. You accumulate positive and negative WPA with each plate appearance depending on whether the result of each plate appearance either advanced or diminished your team's chance of winning, and higher leverage situations count more (again, the example of the difference in value of a 3-run home run in a 4th inning blow-out versus a walk-off 3-run blast). I mention this because it rebuts the idea that just because Cabrera played all six months of the season, and Trout only played five months, Cabrera was automatically "more valuable." He wasn't, and this proves it. [I got at the same point in another post by saying that, although Cabrera had 58 more plate appearances than Trout did, he also made 56 more outs - almost completely negating the opportunity advantage he had over Trout to provide extra value to his team.]
But what about "the stretch," August 15th to the end of the season? Well, the Angels went 28-17 the rest of the way, and Mike Trout accumulated 1.386 of his season's WPA total in that period. Meanwhile, the Tigers went 26-19, and Miguel Cabrera accumulated 1.088 of his season's WPA total in that stretch. On a purely cumulative basis, Trout contributed more, to more wins, than Cabrera did in the same "stretch" period.
Does that change if you break it down by negative and positive contributions to individual wins and losses? No. First, Trout had negative contributions in fewer of those 45 games (18 of 45) than Cabrera did (20 of 45). That was true not only overall, but when you break it down by contributions to wins versus losses:
* Trout was a negative contributor in 8 of 28 Angels wins in those 45 games (with a cumulative negative contribution of -0.298 WPA in those 8 games). Conversely, Trout was a positive contributor in 5 of 17 Angels losses (with a cumulative positive contribution of +0.493 WPA in those 5 games).
* On the other hand, Cabrera was a negative contributor in 9 of 26 Tigers wins (with a cumulative negative contribution of -0.591 WPA in those 9 games). Significantly, too, 5 of the 9 Tigers' wins down the stretch where Cabrera was a negative contributor came in in the Tigers' last 8 wins (all within the last 10 games) - hardly "closer" material. Cabrera was a positive contributor in 8 of 17 Tigers losses (with a cumulative positive contribution of +1.246 WPA).
* Overall, in the 45 "stretch run" games from August 15th to the end of the season, Trout contributed +1.700 WPA to 28 Angels wins, and contributed -0.314 WPA to 17 Angels losses, while Cabrera contributed +0.729 WPA to 26 Tigers wins, and +0.359 to 19 Tigers losses.
What this means in a nutshell is that, during the part of the season and in that part of each game "when it really counts," Mike Trout contributed more to more wins than Miguel Cabrera did, and Miguel Cabrera derived far more of his WPA "value" in games the Tigers ultimately lost and contributed less to wins down the stretch than Mike Trout did for the Angels down the stretch Whatever the sliced and diced, neutralized splits, cherry-picked numbers, and averages tell you about the stretch run, this completely refutes the idea that Cabrera contributed more to winning down the stretch that Trout did. That idea is demonstrably untrue.
Even though his team didn't make the playoffs (and Cabrera's did), Mike Trout contributed more, to more wins in a tougher division and in a tougher hitting environment, than Miguel Cabrera did. And remember, WPA either doesn't measure or doesn't fully measure those things than make Mike Trout special, like going first-to-third (or more) on a single, or Gold Glove quality defense at a premium position. Even ignoring THAT, Mike Trout was simply better. And saying that does nothing to diminish Cabrera's great season.
quote:"...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."
Again, I mostly agree with you here, though I responded more directly to your "best stats doesn't necessarily equal "best player" or MVP" comment in this response to another one of your posts. I guess where we disagree boils down my feeling that there are some stats that do a better and more comprehensive job of measuring complete value than others, and generally speaking, the player with the best numbers in THOSE stats is almost always going to be the more valuable player.
The exceptions might be when there is a large field of relatively mediocre offensive candidates but one who stands out as a fielder (think Zollo Versalles in 1965) or as a baserunner (think Maury Wills in 1962). Or sometimes because there is a great player who has been overlooked when he had better years, especially when a great leader on a playoff team (think Willie Stargell in 1979).*
[*The point about being previously overlooked is a big intangible that worked in Miguel Cabrera's favor this year, and IMO it may have carried as much or more weight than the Triple Crown.]
Obviously there is a bit of a continuum here, but generally speaking, the player who stands out in RE24, WPA, WAR, oWAR, and OPS+ (or wRC+, which is slightly better than OPS+ but harder to understand) is almost always going to be the most valuable player, and not coincidentally, almost always DOES win the MVP. When they don't and you look back at it, it looks very strange and usually like an obvious mistake in overlooking somebody who becomes a Hall of Famer (and often several Hall of Famers). That is the kind of historic season Mike Trout had, and I predict right now that is what it will look like looking back - at least (knock on wood) if Mike Trout stays healthy and has a career of 6000-8000 PA or more. NOT THAT MIGUEL CABRERA IS UNDESERVING - he had a great and historic season - but the kind of season Mike Trout had is greater still, just as historic or more so (though in a less traditionally-recognized way), and very rarely has failed to be recognized with the MVP.
quote:"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'."
It is valuable, but I hope I've convinced you that this statement ("when the Angels needed [Trout] the most he tailed off a lot at the end and Cabrera turned it up a notch for the Tigers") isn't so, or at least that there is another (and I'd argue better) way to look at this and conclude that it isn't so.
quote:"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!"
You're right - there's almost as many ways to look at these things are there are opinions. Look, I'm a fan of BOTH guys, and last year, I beat the drum for Cabrera. This year, it's different, and I don't really believe in the "career reward" or "make-up" MVP.
I just think that when you finally come down to two players who played such critical roles on teams that played meaningful games right up until the end, "the better player" should win (and I don't concede that Cabrera was "the better hitter" though I would concede that it was close, and an argument can be made that he may have been).
I know that many of these stats are new to many people, but they are not really that complex (especially RE24 and WPA), and the idea behind them is very much rooted in REAL BASEBALL and real things that almost everybody says is "valuable." When you come right down to it, the main reason Cabrera won even though Trout had demonstrably more value comes down to undervaluing how important it is not to make outs, and overvaluing (even romaniticizing) the importance of Triple Crown stats as a measure of all-around value over not just better traditional stats (OBP, SLG, and their combination, OPS) but newer stats and ideas (like park factors, OPS+, WAR, RE24 & WPA) as well. It is too bad that the debate got turned into a referendum on whether "geeks" are really baseball fans, and rather than opening their minds too many traditionalists just dug in their heels and refused to consider that there might be a better way of looking at things. Because there's always a better way of looking at things; what was once new and considered "state of the art" will someday be supplanted or even discredited by a better way of looking at the same thing.
That was a lot of work and I appreciate the time and effort.
I do not disagree with your conclusions.
One can't help but add in all the other factors (as per 3FG's post) to decide the outcome. Cabrera's years of experience, triple crown most likely trumped Trout's performance.
I don't see Trout as a fluke, he is the real deal, but IMO, he just needs more than one year to gain the respect that have taken others many years.
I do not disagree with your conclusions.
One can't help but add in all the other factors (as per 3FG's post) to decide the outcome. Cabrera's years of experience, triple crown most likely trumped Trout's performance.
I don't see Trout as a fluke, he is the real deal, but IMO, he just needs more than one year to gain the respect that have taken others many years.
Thank you, TPM.
I'm not really as interested in figuring out why the voters did what they did, or figuring out ahead of time who WILL be the selection, as I am in discussing some kind of consistent methodology for who SHOULD be the selection.
With that said, though, I agree that there were other things at play (though I'd point out that both Fred Lynn and Ichiro both won MVPs as rookies - Ichiro's being the more controversial - so I don't think it is really a matter of Trout not having gained enough respect through experience). I acknowledged about that Cabrera has been overlooked and that it was probably a big factor in his winning. And if the award was called "AL MVP 2010-2012" there is no doubt Cabrera would be a fine choice (he led all of MLB in fWAR through those years, led his league - 2nd only to Joey Votto in MLB - in both RE24 and WPA in that time).
I just disagree with using these kinds of things as a factor as a voter, or of looking beyond the 2012 season to award an MVP for the 2012 season. If you look back at the history of MVP voting, it becomes obvious when that happens. The voters overlook somebody to vote for a pitcher, and reward him later, or they decide to pass over a great player because he just won the year before and they want to move on, etc., etc. Almost always, that creates this circular issue where there is yet another "mistake" to make up for down the line. It would be much better if they just stuck to what happened in the year they are making the award and be done with it.
But, insofar as you are talking about why the voters did what they did, I'm sure you are right.
I'm not really as interested in figuring out why the voters did what they did, or figuring out ahead of time who WILL be the selection, as I am in discussing some kind of consistent methodology for who SHOULD be the selection.
With that said, though, I agree that there were other things at play (though I'd point out that both Fred Lynn and Ichiro both won MVPs as rookies - Ichiro's being the more controversial - so I don't think it is really a matter of Trout not having gained enough respect through experience). I acknowledged about that Cabrera has been overlooked and that it was probably a big factor in his winning. And if the award was called "AL MVP 2010-2012" there is no doubt Cabrera would be a fine choice (he led all of MLB in fWAR through those years, led his league - 2nd only to Joey Votto in MLB - in both RE24 and WPA in that time).
I just disagree with using these kinds of things as a factor as a voter, or of looking beyond the 2012 season to award an MVP for the 2012 season. If you look back at the history of MVP voting, it becomes obvious when that happens. The voters overlook somebody to vote for a pitcher, and reward him later, or they decide to pass over a great player because he just won the year before and they want to move on, etc., etc. Almost always, that creates this circular issue where there is yet another "mistake" to make up for down the line. It would be much better if they just stuck to what happened in the year they are making the award and be done with it.
But, insofar as you are talking about why the voters did what they did, I'm sure you are right.
Just reread this for the first time in a while. What a thread!
Well JH, the people who said Trout didn't deserve to be MVP the last two years because the Angels didn't reach the playoffs and the Tigers did might not have that one to fall back on. Of course the Tigers are in first although in a crummier division with a worse record than the Angels so I'm sure someone will still argue that point. 
Also some people said Cabrera deserved the MVP because he was willing to take one for the team and play a unfamiliar position (3B), never mind that he then was one of the very worst defensive players in the Majors ( probably also in the Minors, college and some high schools) Remember defense, baserunning and runs scored does not count when it comes to the almighty RBI and Cabrera has more RBI's again this year although he bats in a position in the lineup that should have more RBI's IF the guys in front of him are getting on.
The whole point of this is that if the Tigers offered Cabrera to the Angels for Trout, the Angel management would laugh them off the phone.
This thread is Next Level Bonkers with a side of bananas. Pass the ice cream!
Originally Posted by J H:
Just reread this for the first time in a while. What a thread!
Agreed. I look back at stuff I wrote then and think about two things, mainly: (1) I feel pretty vindicated by all that has happened since; and (2) I really had too much time on my hands then and cared FAR too much about which of two GREAT players / seasons got rewarded with an MVP Award. They both deserved it. I just still think Trout deserved it a little bit more.
EdgarFan- Nice post. Although I would like to correct you - Trout deserved it A LOT* more. The pro-Cabrera winning arguments are still funny to me.
I don't really feel vindicated by anything that has happened since...the MVP Award is not a projection, just a snapshot of results from that year. Both Cabrera and Trout have had extraordinary careers thus far. It has been pretty amazing to watch Trout, though. This year should be his 3rd consecutive unanimous MVP, if he keeps it up. Maybe one day the writers who voted this way and are considered "experts" will actually learn a thing or two.
I don't really feel vindicated by anything that has happened since...the MVP Award is not a projection, just a snapshot of results from that year. Both Cabrera and Trout have had extraordinary careers thus far. It has been pretty amazing to watch Trout, though. This year should be his 3rd consecutive unanimous MVP, if he keeps it up. Maybe one day the writers who voted this way and are considered "experts" will actually learn a thing or two.
I stand corrected. I agree with both of your comments (especially about the MVP not being about a projection of future ability or a reward for past greatness - something I specifically said not too many posts up, almost two years ago).
In my defense, what I meant really was, I feel vindicated by Trout's performance since because so many said he hadn't done enough to deserve it yet (really a refutation of our argument that the award is and should be ONLY about a singular stand-alone season), and that if he was really as good as we argued he was, he would continue to play well enough to earn lots of MVPs. Well he has played that well, and he still hasn't gotten the MVP recognition he deserves. Funny how most of the same people who said Trout hadn't done enough in 2012 to overcome Cabrera, and that he'd win plenty when he repeated that kind of season, STILL argued against Trout and for Cabrera in 2013 (when Trout was ALSO better than Cabrera). It's hard to see any argument for anybody to beat out Trout this year, but it won't surprise me if the same crowd who argued for Cabrera over Trout over the last two years comes up with one.
Originally Posted by EdgarFan:
I stand corrected. I agree with both of your comments (especially about the MVP not being about a projection of future ability or a reward for past greatness - something I specifically said not too many posts up, almost two years ago).
In my defense, what I meant really was, I feel vindicated by Trout's performance since because so many said he hadn't done enough to deserve it yet (really a refutation of our argument that the award is and should be ONLY about a singular stand-alone season), and that if he was really as good as we argued he was, he would continue to play well enough to earn lots of MVPs. Well he has played that well, and he still hasn't gotten the MVP recognition he deserves. Funny how most of the same people who said Trout hadn't done enough in 2012 to overcome Cabrera, and that he'd win plenty when he repeated that kind of season, STILL argued against Trout and for Cabrera in 2013 (when Trout was ALSO better than Cabrera). It's hard to see any argument for anybody to beat out Trout this year, but it won't surprise me if the same crowd who argued for Cabrera over Trout over the last two years comes up with one.
If it appears like the Tigers are in a dogfight for the division, could be Cabrera again. These dopes sure do like their RBI on a division winning team.
Originally Posted by EdgarFan:
I stand corrected. I agree with both of your comments (especially about the MVP not being about a projection of future ability or a reward for past greatness - something I specifically said not too many posts up, almost two years ago).
In my defense, what I meant really was, I feel vindicated by Trout's performance since because so many said he hadn't done enough to deserve it yet (really a refutation of our argument that the award is and should be ONLY about a singular stand-alone season), and that if he was really as good as we argued he was, he would continue to play well enough to earn lots of MVPs. Well he has played that well, and he still hasn't gotten the MVP recognition he deserves. Funny how most of the same people who said Trout hadn't done enough in 2012 to overcome Cabrera, and that he'd win plenty when he repeated that kind of season, STILL argued against Trout and for Cabrera in 2013 (when Trout was ALSO better than Cabrera). It's hard to see any argument for anybody to beat out Trout this year, but it won't surprise me if the same crowd who argued for Cabrera over Trout over the last two years comes up with one.
Good stuff, EdgarFan.
As I said in the thread two years ago, I really couldn't care less what anyone else said or may continue to say. Trout was way more valuable in 2012 than Cabrera. He was more valuable in 2013, too. And, he's been more valuable so far this year. In reading through this thread I actually wish I spoke with more conviction when the topic came up and then continued, instead of apologizing for calling people out. Trout was more valuable and whoever disagreed was wrong.
Anyway, it sure was interesting looking back here nonetheless. Hope all is well with you in the northwest, EdgarFan!
I am not even joking on this. About 2 weeks after the MVP in both 2012 and 2013 I thought Mike Trout won the MVP and then a few months later when someone told me didn't win, I couldn't even figure out who won because there was no one close him in value.