Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
It is actually creating a divide between those who like to watch the game of baseball and those who want to reduce it to binary code.
Which, by the way, speaks to a larger issue about baseball. It is simply being saturated with situational statistics.
I love how people who are obsessed with the triple crown are not "stats geeks".
This MVP result was significant....
I wonder if Mitch Albom knows that game was played.
It wasn't just the Triple Crown.
Today, every stat matters. There is no end to the appetite for categories—from OBP to OPS to WAR. I mean, OMG! The number of triples hit while wearing a certain-colored underwear is probably being measured as we speak.
I do not feel that intelligent thought is well represented by Mr. Albom.
This straw man makes me want to stab myself in the eye. This is the exact thing they parade out in game broadcasts and the like, and the exact thing "stats nerds" are railing against.
Where would you even start to educate someone like Albom?
Most Valuable Player. I can't decide what it means but it would definitely seem to imply that they are not, necessarily, the best player. This is sort of the "We could have finished last without you", syndrome.
That is diseased, irrational thinking, and should be called out as such.
Thinking about it I’m getting a bit miffed now that they benefit off our work and then do nothing to validate our work to the general public.
"Diseased"? I can see irrational (pretty clearly), but "diseased"? Really? "Diseased"?
now that they benefit off our work
How are the similarities to the 1990'AL MVP vote not one of the dominant topics of this discussion? The issues are so similar yet in 1990 the vote went the other way.
I heard Buster Olney on M&M this morning saying that "all" the GMs and FO people were telling writers that they were out of their minds if they didn't vote for Trout.
Imagine someone actually asked front office personnel what they think of stats like WAR and what do they do to estimate player value? And we find out they actually use WAR-type numbers and defensive numbers like UZR and DRS to make decisions.
Yes, diseased. If I asked you which home on your street had the highest value, would you add up all the furniture, possessions, money, and cars inside each house and base your answer heavily on that?
Trout actually getting SOME first-place votes is progress! In 1980 or 1990, Cabrera would have been unanimous or at most 2 votes shy. Old schoolies, we will hunt you down one by one until the last Jedi is dead.
So in areas such as “how many Cabrera home runs would have gone out in Angel Stadium of Anaheim” or “batting average when leading off an inning” or “Win Probability Added,” Trout had the edge. At least this is what we were told
There seems to be agreeent here that Cabrera would NOT have won the trophy if Granderson had hit 2 more HR, and the TC had eluded Cabrera.
This IMHO is a mistaken notion.
Voitng patterns over many, many years show that Cabrera won the MVP because he led the league in RBI for a playoff team. The TC; yes, that probably helped the narrative some. But it did not swing 12 ballots or anything like that.
I am sure in 2 or 3 years when they change the WAR formula perhaps Trout wasn't that much better than Miggy this season.
That this ended being some knock-down fight about WAR is just crazy. Trout was really really really obviously better this year. It doesn't have anything to do with WAR. It has to do with him hitting almost as well as Cabrera, running the bases as well as anyone in baseball, and playing stupendous defense.
Screw you Theo Epstein!
I feel like this is Bizaaro world where the candidate favored by "stat geeks" is getting that boost because of things like defense and baserunning that the "non stat geek" people allegedly appreciate more than the geeks.
Since 2000, there have been 10 RBI leaders who played for playoff teams. Two won MVP: Arod (the legitimate best player in the league that year) in 2007 and Cabrera in 2012 (the TC winner). Whatever historical correlation there is between that single category and the MVP is not present in 21st century voting patterns.
The TC had likely little effect
'since 2000' conveniently cuts off before 98, when Sosa stole an MVP from McGwire, simply because of this effect.
Some examples since then:
So if I could word it more carefully, leading the league in RBI for a division winner is a very large factor in MVP voting. It seems to be less important now than it was from the 60s thru the early 90s, maybe because of the new playoff format.
Go ahead, create a MVP voting system based on stats, and you will find, even if only using the last 15 years, that tying RBI-lead to division winners makes the correlation BETTER than leaving it out.
I believe it is true that no RBI leader on a division winner has ever lost an MVP award to a player whose team did NOT win (I have not checked pre-1946).
This MVP result was significant because it was the first time that people who should have known better -- such as most of the people who post here -- threw their tacit support to a player they knew to be undeserving because of the silliness of something like the triple crown.
Tacit support = "I would vote for Trout, but if/when Cabrera wins, I'm not going to mail a box of rattlesnakes to the BBWAA offices."
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (2 members)
Page rendered in 0.8138 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed