"Nothing they do can convince me that the Orioles are a good team."

Shut up, Keith Law.

Law is every bit as arrogant and obnoxious as the Chasses of the world. He's smart and insightful but I can't listen to him or read his stuff because he's so insulting and condescending.

*

He's smart and insightful but I can't listen to him or read his stuff because he's so insulting and condescending.

I guess he's "smart" but he's not smart enough to understand that sabermetrics carries within its core principle that which should cause one to be humble. I can tell Keith Law how many runs a team will score in a year and how many runs its opponents will score and Keith Law can't tell me how many games that team will win. Not only can't he tell me how many games that team will win, he can't tell me how many games plus or minus 15 that team will win.

His reaction instead is to double down on the condescension, huffiness, and pissiness. His stomping of feet, and taking his game and going home, when the Orioles' actual wins didn't match their modeled wins tells you pretty much all you need to know.

Except, uh Keith ... it's not your game.

I would have voted for Trout, but as a cause de injusteece, it's like contributing to OJ's defense fund. Cabrera played passible d at a so-called skills position, but the real rare skill is hitting. And Cabrera is an elite hitter having a peak season.

as a cause de injusteece, it's like contributing to OJ's defense fund

Like many here, I'm also having trouble summoning up outrage. Fulminating should be reserved for the next guy who wins an MVP with a large empty RBI total. But there just haven't been many of those cases recently.

Cabrera isn't even the least deserving Detroit Tiger to win the MVP in the last two years.

I can tell Keith Law how many runs a team will score in a year and how many runs its opponents will score and Keith Law can't tell me how many games that team will win. Not only can't he tell me how many games that team will win, he can't tell me how many games plus or minus 15 that team will win.

Um, how many teams have been more than +/-15 games from thier Pythag record?

he doesn't sound so bad. but like a lot of other observers, i don't think this is OMFG teh sukc!!11!! territory.

The arc of baseball history is long, but it bends towards sabermetrics.

Law needs to keep perspective. Miguel Cabrera won the Triple Crown - something that hadn't been done since 1967 - and six voters did not select him first. 15 years ago, do we think this would have happened? Cabrera would have been the unanimous pick as recently as 10 years go. The fact that over 20% of the voters saw Trout's year as better than a Triple Crown winners is real progress. In 15 years, under similar circumstances, Trout will win that award.

This is progress...not as fast as I'd like. But a lot faster than I ever thought it would be.

Law needs to keep perspective. Miguel Cabrera won the Triple Crown - something that hadn't been done since 1967 - and six voters did not select him first. 15 years ago, do we think this would have happened? Cabrera would have been the unanimous pick as recently as 10 years go. The fact that over 20% of the voters saw Trout's year as better than a Triple Crown winners is real progress. In 15 years, under similar circumstances, Trout will win that award.

This is progress...not as fast as I'd like. But a lot faster than I ever thought it would be.

Well said.

Well said, Steve Balboni. You didn't even mention the fact that Cabrera performed that feat on a team that won the division. The 6 writers voting for Trout were able to also ignore the Angels failure to make the playoffs. Good on them.

Go back to 1984. Cal Ripken Jr. is probably the best player in baseball. He won the MVP in 1983 and he has a season just as good, if not better, in 1984. Ripken gets all of 1 MVP vote that year. Not 1 first place vote, 1 vote total. Why? Because the Orioles went 1st place in 1983 to 5th place in 1984.

Does Law sound like a arrogant twit sometimes? Yeah. But hey, at any one time at least 40% of people here do too. Such is life, the message is still there buried in the noise. He's playing a role. At least, that's the hope.

Law needs to keep perspective. Miguel Cabrera won the Triple Crown - something that hadn't been done since 1967 - and six voters did not select him first. 15 years ago, do we think this would have happened?

In 1942 and 1947, the Triple Crown winner didn't even win the MVP. In both of those years, the winning candidate won on the basis of being the better all-around player---which of course is an argument for Trout that fell flat this year.

I heard Law yesterday on the show that precedes Chris Russo's (whoever that host is), and I thought he did very well, presenting a good case withough being overy arrogant. To his credit, the host was respectful in disagreement and gave Law plenty of room to talk (surprisingly on Mad Dog Radio).

1942 and 1947 definitely had a "best player on the best team" vibe.

In both of those years, the winning candidate won on the basis of being the better all-around player---which of course is an argument for Trout that fell flat this year.

The idea that Trout would have been ignored as a candidate X number of years of go is ridiculous. People have always done their little WAR calculation in their head.

I would say that the Saber waaaah-fest this awards season has done more harm than good.

You didn't even mention the fact that Cabrera performed that feat on a team that won the division. The 6 writers voting for Trout were able to also ignore the Angels failure to make the playoffs

... even though the Angels still won more than Detroit while playing a far more difficult divisional schedule. Of all the arguments for Cabrera over Trout, the this is by far the weakest, and the one that deserves real scorn.

I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?

I'd have taken Trout over Cabrera - but once I factor in how happy it makes me to see idiots like Keith Law go so ballistic over this, I have to say that I prefer this result after all.

Miggy! Miggy!

He's also been devoting a lot of time in his chats to p.c. crap (e.g. how he won't say the name Indians or Braves.)

Similarly, Joe Sheehan went on local New England ESPN Radio.

Although certainly both Sheehan and Law can come off obnoxious, I don't think either one did here.

(And although I think it's preferable to come off as a nice guy, I don't buy the theory that people who currently reject sabermetrics would accept them if there were zero non-obnoxious sabermetricians.)

(Of course, it's impossible that there could ever be zero non-obnoxious sabermetricians, just like any other field.)

I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?

Law is just a straight shooter with upper management written all over him.

Should we have adjusted Trout's stats downwards, as he had an advantage over Miggy by being under the legal drinking age for a portion of the 2012 season?

Should we have adjusted Trout's stats downwards, as he had an advantage over Miggy by being under the legal drinking age for a portion of the 2012 season?

Is there an age minimum for DUI?

And Cabrera is an elite hitter having a peak season.

Is he though? Cabrera had a higher AVG, OBP and OPS+ just last year. Cabrera had highs in HR and RBI, but that doesn't necessarily mean he had a peak season. This was a pretty ho-hum for him.

By oWAR it wasn't ho-hum--but he was better last year.

At night, the Baltimore Orioles and Miguel Cabrera haunt Keith Law's dreams.

In both of those years, the winning candidate won on the basis of being the better all-around player---which of course is an argument for Trout that fell flat this year.

The idea that Trout would have been ignored as a candidate X number of years of go is ridiculous. People have always done their little WAR calculation in their head.

Of course they did. Long before WAR came along, there was the idea that in a close race, the "all-around player" was more valuable than the offensive standout with no fielding or baserunning skills. That's how Williams was beaten out by Gordon and Dimaggio in 1942 and 1947.

I think it's safe to say that Cabrera got extra credit this year for the sheer rarity (in recent years) of his feat, and the fact that it probably hasn't quite sunk in yet just how great a year Trout really had. When Williams lost those two MVP awards, Triple Crowns had been achieved many times over the previous decade, and he was beaten out by two high visibility players on championship teams, one of whom was universally acknowledged as baseball's best overall player. If Trout had been a few years older and had built up a prior resume, or if someone else had won Triple Crown a few years ago instead of 45 years ago, I suspect the result might have been different.

By oWAR it wasn't ho-hum--but he was better last year.

That's with ~10 extra runs from being switched to 3B. If we just looked Rbat, Rbase, and Rdp it's his 4th best season (out of 9 full seasons).

Say what you will about Law's strong points, but I think it's hard to deny that he's bad for the image of sabermetrics.

I can tell Keith Law how many runs a team will score in a year and how many runs its opponents will score and Keith Law can't tell me how many games that team will win.

I can tell SugarBearBlanks how many bullets I will fire into a crowd and SugarBearBlanks can't tell me how many people I will hit and who they will be.

You can only get so close, SugarBear. You can't predict the future with the level of specificity you are asking for, and nobody - including Law - has ever said otherwise.

Not only can't he tell me how many games that team will win, he can't tell me how many games plus or minus 15 that team will win.

The vast, vast majority of the time, yes, he can.

Looked at in another light, some comments here are making a strong HOF case for Cabrera: a guy who can win an MVP while having his ordinary season. If that's not a Keltner question it should be …

Law needs to keep perspective. Miguel Cabrera won the Triple Crown - something that hadn't been done since 1967 - and six voters did not select him first. 15 years ago, do we think this would have happened? Cabrera would have been the unanimous pick as recently as 10 years go. The fact that over 20% of the voters saw Trout's year as better than a Triple Crown winners is real progress. In 15 years, under similar circumstances, Trout will win that award.

This is progress...not as fast as I'd like. But a lot faster than I ever thought it would be.

As I keep pointing out, the focus on the voters utterly misses the point. This was about non-voters. Because it was the statheads posting here and in other places who abandoned logic to say they were "ok" with an undeserving player winning the MVP because he happened to finish first in a non-ideal grouping of three categories.

I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?

Or, to recall a scene from Frasier:

Frasier: Roz? Our leader in this fight with management is Noel Shempsky?! The man has all the backbone of a paramecium! A lot of peoples' jobs are riding on this!

Roz: Well, do you think that it's my idea? Noel and I were the only two who volunteered. Of course, they voted me down. I'm smarter than he is, more confident, more articulate... But those stupid little WUSSES think I'm a HOT-HEAD!!

The average fan thinks the Triple Crown winner is obviously the best player. At one time, the beat writers delighted in being "expert" or "in-the-know" enough to be able to pick out a better all-around player "beyond the stats."

Now it is the analysts who delight in being "informed" enough to be able to pick out the better all-around player (and they have some numbers with which to make their arguments). Having now been usurped as "in-the-know" by the analysts, the beat writer types have gone the other way, defending the perspective of the average fan (and players/managers, the source of their "insider" knowledge), whose man is Cabrera.

On top of that, you have the story, which is what writers write all the time. In 1942 and 1947, there was a Triple Crown winner within the last 5 years each time, so the story wasn't that remarkable. You have to be over 50 to really remember the last Triple Crown now and well over 60 to have covered it professionally. This is the first Triple Crown of almost everyone's career. It's really hard to vote against that story, if you are a story-teller.

If I had a vote, I would WANT to vote for Cabrera's Triple Crown, because it is cool that he won it. It's something I've never seen. But I recognize Trout was almost certainly more valuable, so I would probably vote for Trout.

There is nothing "wrong with these people."

@ 32: Cabrera has a strong HOF argument. He doesn't really need much of one made for him. Not that he's a lock right now, but he's been healthy and durable. Given a normal decline through his 30's he'll have a shot at 3,000 hits, over 500 2B and HR, 1,500 RBI, good ratios, hardware, post season play, everything old school voters like and he should end up with plenty of sabre cred, too.

Given a normal decline through his 30's he'll have a shot at 3,000 hits, over 500 2B and HR, 1,500 RBI, good ratios, hardware, post season play, everything old school voters like

Except when your name is Rafael Palmeiro.

I guess he's "smart" but he's not smart enough to understand that sabermetrics carries within its core principle that which should cause one to be humble.

Part of a columnist's job is to rile people up. To paraphrase Bierce, what's the point of writing if you can't make someone mad?

Fact is, sabermetrics has never been advanced by those talking softly and politely. Not by James, not by Lewis, not by the BP crowd, and so on and so forth. The meek don't inherit jack-####.

Cabrera has a strong HOF argument. He doesn't really need much of one made for him. Not that he's a lock right now, but he's been healthy and durable. Given a normal decline through his 30's he'll have a shot at 3,000 hits, over 500 2B and HR, 1,500 RBI, good ratios, hardware, post season play, everything old school voters like and he should end up with plenty of sabre cred, too.

From a practical point of view, this year helped Cabrera's Hall of Fame chances significantly (ignoring the "everybody is blamed for steroids" contigent.) Cabrera literally doubled his Black Ink score this year. (Yes, this is a fancy way of saying the obvious that Triple Crown + MVP = much improved Hall of Fame case to the sportswriter contingent, but it's true.)

In fact, I could see some of the old school sportswriters voting Cabrera for the Hall of Fame, thinking it would annoy the sabermetric crowd. That would be hilarious.

I'd have taken Trout over Cabrera - but once I factor in how happy it makes me to see idiots like Keith Law go so ballistic over this, I have to say that I prefer this result after all.

If you enjoy idiots going ballistic, you probably couldn't lose. If Trout had won, it would have just been different idiots.

The triple crown argument is ok I guess. But I abhor the playoff arguments people are making.

"If Trout had won, it would have just been different idiots."

true, but I find dullards less insufferable (except Albom, who is on on his own Hall of Fame path of sorts).

ballfan Posted: November 17, 2012 at 09:53 AM (#4304862)


*

aw c'mon , tell us how you feel. :)

Fact is, sabermetrics has never been advanced by those talking softly and politely.

Definitely. But that also drives people away from sabermetrics, because people see it as very know-it-all (at least, that's how it seems to me). All I know is that I stopped reading MGL a while back, even though he's a very smart individual who taught me a lot, because he's also insufferable and arrogant, but I make sure to read writers who I enjoy, and, for me, enjoyment correlates a lot with personality. That might just be me, but I think hoping that prominent sabermetricians (no, Tango, not "saberists") be politer/humbler is a reasonable request.

This is one of those things where it diverges very much into the world of personal taste. I'm one of those people who finds controversy purely for the sake of controversy a waste of time (and potentially very offensive, though I've given up getting upset about this kind of thing and it's been pretty good for my personality), but you might disagree on that, in which case we're probably just looking at this from two totally different, incompatible vantage points.

@ 37: I don't think it has anything to do with his name.

Fact is, sabermetrics has never been advanced by those talking softly and politely. Not by James, not by Lewis, not by the BP crowd, and so on and so forth. The meek don't inherit jack-####.

Funny, I seem to remember more than a few nice guys doing Sabermetrics.

Wasn't Law a sabermetric apostate at one point?

Funny, I seem to remember more than a few nice guys doing Sabermetrics.

A few examples: Studes, Chris Jaffe (if his stuff is sabermetrics. Is historical research sabermetrics?) Josh Kalk. Dan Turkenkopf. Jim Furtado.

Funny, I seem to remember more than a few nice guys doing Sabermetrics.

I wasn't talking about "nice" versus "not nice." Plenty of nice guys aggressively put forth opinions. My point is that if you look at all the steps forward in public acceptance and/or media saturation of sabermetrics, they all come from very opinionated people writing very opinionated things.

A few examples: Studes, Chris Jaffe (if his stuff is sabermetrics. Is historical research sabermetrics?) Josh Kalk. Dan Turkenkopf. Jim Furtado.

Add Pizza Cutter, Mike Fast, Sky Andrecheck, Dave Allen, Jeremy Greenhouse, Sky Kalkman, David Gassko, Phil Burnbaum. There are way many friendly sabermetricians than their are ########. The only guys I can think of are MGL, Dave Cameron and maybe Keith Law if you stretch you definition of sabermetrician.

I'll posit that a much higher percentage of sabermetricians are nice guys compared to mainstream media where you have guys like Joe Strauss, Jon Heyman, Murray Chass, Mitch Albom, etc.

Speaking of MSM, Dan Shaughnessy has been surprisingly courteous and responsive the handful of times I emailed him. Speaking of Albom, does he post here as SBB?