Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, November 16, 2012

Morosi: AL MVP debate got unnecessarily rude

Rudies. A message to you from Morosi. (Stop your messing around. Time you straightened right out. Creating problems in MLB towns. etc)

Here is what we learned from the 2012 award season, writ large:

• Sabermetricians are not yet kingmakers in the Baseball Writers’ Association of America award balloting. Trout (MVP) and Justin Verlander (Cy Young) were the clear favorites of the statistical community in contentious AL votes. Neither won.

...Fortunately, the BBWAA does not engage in groupthink. If we did, we would write identical stories and fill out matching ballots. The reporters who make up the electorate should talk with managers, coaches and players about the award candidates, and they should consult statistics new and old. The process is familiar to us: gather all of the available information, analyze it, and reach a conclusion. That is how we work every day. And that is how we approach these awards.

We are, at our best, the ultimate swing voters. On the question of whether my future selections will be swayed by numbers or narratives, my riposte is a bald-faced equivocation: It depends. In some years, I will probably agree with the sabermetric orthodoxy. In other cases, I won’t.

My best hope is that I will have the chance to cast a ballot like the AL MVP voters did this year, with two deserving candidates and no wrong answers.

... But I’ll admit to a little fatigue, too. It’s time for a social media ceasefire, so we can better direct our efforts to divining where Josh Hamilton will play in 2013 (not to mention our reporting on Loria’s efforts to secure public funding for that Quidditch stadium).

Au revoir, Old School stalwarts. So long, New School provocateurs. Until we meet again — next year.

Repoz Posted: November 16, 2012 at 06:10 AM | 70 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: awards, sabermetrics

Reader Comments and Retorts

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.

   1. John Northey Posted: November 16, 2012 at 07:13 AM (#4304055)
There is an optimist... the stats vs old school could go nuclear with the HOF vote if old schoolers vote in Morris while steroid era poster boys Clemens, Bonds, etc. are left at the alter with a stat favorite Tim Raines.

I suspect the MVP/Cy Young battles will calm down the next few years (triple crown vs super-rookie is unlikely to repeat) while the HOF vote battles go sky high.
   2. Bug Selig Posted: November 16, 2012 at 07:15 AM (#4304056)
Sabermetricians are not yet kingmakers in the Baseball Writers’ Association of America award balloting.


This is, of course, the whole point.


Someday, they will understand that it isn't really the analyst who makes the case for Trout or Verlander - it is the data.
   3. I Fought Vance Law and Vance Law Won Posted: November 16, 2012 at 07:44 AM (#4304061)
Rudies can fail?
   4. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 16, 2012 at 08:15 AM (#4304067)
it is the data.


I would have voted for Trout. That said, I do think there are other factors than can and should be considered other than data. Clubhouse presence, clutch performance (whether or not its repeatable the next season is irelevant), leadership, and other attributes that will never be quantified all contribute to a team's performance. I don't think those kinds of intangibles can make up a gap as large as the one between Trout and Cabrera, but they certainly can tip the scales in a closer "statistical" race, and should never be discounted just because we're not smart enough to assign a number to their value.
   5. Xander Posted: November 16, 2012 at 08:29 AM (#4304068)
On the question of whether my future selections will be swayed by numbers or narratives, my riposte is a bald-faced equivocation: It depends. In some years, I will probably agree with the sabermetric orthodoxy. In other cases, I won’t.
This line reads like an obnoxious way of saying: I pledge to vote for the deserving winner, unless he plays for the team I used to cover.
   6. Bug Selig Posted: November 16, 2012 at 09:14 AM (#4304075)
That said, I do think there are other factors than can and should be considered other than data.


I totally agree. In this case, I think it matters that Cabrera played somewhat out of position. The data doesn't care about that because it simply measures what happened, but it is part of his value (by my definition of value - that's a whole other story). Most teams with a star first baseman wouldn't have the option of picking up another one without relegating one to DH-hood - Cabrera's versatility gave the Tigers better options (not his fault that they pissed that advantage away by pretending Delmon Young is a real major league player).

The data says Mike Trout played baseball better than Miguel Cabrera this year. After that, reasonable people can make any kind of adjustment they want. I'm surprised nobody made the argument that Trout produced all that goodness while consuming less than one half percent of the team's payroll.

   7. The District Attorney Posted: November 16, 2012 at 09:14 AM (#4304076)
I don't want to go MGL here; I do think civility is important. Still, if all you've got to defend yourself in a logical argument is that your opponent is being rude, you've really got nothing. (Especially if, as is always the case, there are other people making the same argument who aren't being rude.)

it matters that Cabrera played somewhat out of position... Most teams with a star first baseman wouldn't have the option of picking up another one without relegating one to DH-hood
Who is not giving Cabrera credit for being a 3B? If anything, many of the pro-Cabrera people seem to want to give him credit not only for the actual value of playing 3B, but for the intangible of being a "team player" and agreeing to do it.
   8. Mike Emeigh Posted: November 16, 2012 at 09:44 AM (#4304087)
If anything, many of the pro-Cabrera people seem to want to give him credit not only for the actual value of playing 3B, but for the intangible of being a "team player" and agreeing to do it.


And there is nothing wrong with doing that - it does add value to the team. How much weight you give it is another matter; as Rants suggests in #4 it probably doesn't outweigh the on-field difference in this case.

That said, if the Angels had made the postseason or the White Sox had held on I think Trout would have won the award. Postseason narratives matter a lot more than they should (IMO) in the award voting, and the narrative story of the last month-plus of the season was that the Tigers rode Cabrera to the postseason while the Angels folded down the stretch, with Trout not doing as well as he did earlier. (Note that neither story, especially the Angels' piece of it, is exactly true.)

-- MWE
   9. Jorge Luis Bourjos (Walewander) Posted: November 16, 2012 at 09:47 AM (#4304090)

This line reads like an obnoxious way of saying: I pledge to vote for the deserving winner, unless he plays for the team I used to cover.


FWIW, he voted for Price over Tiger and best pitcher Justin Verlander for the Cy.
   10. Crosseyed and Painless Posted: November 16, 2012 at 10:00 AM (#4304093)
   11. bunyon Posted: November 16, 2012 at 10:04 AM (#4304096)
King Felix 2010.

Cabrera over Trout is the Battle of New Orleans.
   12. RMc is a fine piece of cheese Posted: November 16, 2012 at 10:08 AM (#4304099)
Bite me.
   13. JJ1986 Posted: November 16, 2012 at 10:09 AM (#4304101)
People in this country (and maybe around the world) have this notion that if there are two sides to an issue and that if each side has enough proponents, that both positions then have the same objective validity. So basically you get things like "I'm a Cabrera person, you're a Trout person" as though that's all that needs to be said. It seems not to be understood that one position (Trout) can be inherently correct.
   14. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: November 16, 2012 at 10:15 AM (#4304104)

Someday, they will understand that it isn't really the analyst who makes the case for Trout or Verlander - it is the data.


In a small way though, I feel like we are losing something if we turn the MVP vote into "WAR king" and nothing else.
   15. AROM Posted: November 16, 2012 at 10:16 AM (#4304105)
the narrative story of the last month-plus of the season was that the Tigers rode Cabrera to the postseason while the Angels folded down the stretch, with Trout not doing as well as he did earlier. (Note that neither story, especially the Angels' piece of it, is exactly true.)


That's an understatement. It's actually the opposite of truth. The Tigers surged to an 18-13 record in September/October, while the Angels stumbled to a 19-11 finish. Angels not only finished with a better record than the Tigers, they did so in a much tougher division. Had the two teams switched places (Tigers playing 20 more games vs the Rangers/A's while Angels gain 20 games vs the Twins/Indians) their records would not have been remotely close.

Cabrera receives credit in WAR for playing 3B and not costing the team any more runs than he typically did at first base. That's worth about 1.2 WAR right there. Above and beyond that, he deserves credit for cheerfully accepting the position switch, and not making a Soriano of it.

But if you're going to intangibles, Trout gets extra points for his hustle, and the infectious pure joy with which he played. It turned the season around for a team that played like a corpse before his arrival, and took some of the pressure off of Pujols as he made his uncomfortable transition to his new home.

Which player gets the net benefit of intangibles is debatable.
   16. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: November 16, 2012 at 10:23 AM (#4304110)
Fortunately, the BBWAA does not engage in groupthink.

Just ask any sportswriter; they'll all tell you.
   17. AROM Posted: November 16, 2012 at 10:25 AM (#4304111)
There is an opportunity for someone to create an MVP stat. WAR is being used that way by some, but it really is not the right tool for that.

Say Roy Hobbs is a leading candidate for the NY Knights, fighting a close division race with Clu Haywood of the Yankees.

Hobbs goes 3-4 with 2 homers in a win over the Yankees. Haywood goes 0-4. The next day Hayood is 3-4 with 2 homers against the last place Florida Mud Hens, while Hobbs takes the collar against the the also-ran Oakland B's. For those two games, they have the same total batting line and equal WAR. But it should be clear that Hobbs has been more valuable to his team's chances of winning the division.

So we need some kind of point system, with an adjustment for opponent faced, with games against division rivals being worth more points.
   18. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: November 16, 2012 at 10:26 AM (#4304113)
Don't want to paint with too broad a brush, but there's certainly an element of saberhood that is very rude.

It's not just the Triple Crown; Cabrera led the league in SLG and OPS. No one's buying the ca. 12% park adjustment between Anaheim and bigger, colder CoPa and they shouldn't -- particularly when Trout hit far better at home. So Trout and Cabrera aren't as close offensively as WAR would have you believe.

It then comes down to whether defense and baserunning overcome this difference. WAR says "yes, clearly." "No" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

This is the centrist, reasonable way to evaluate this thing, and it bends over backward for Trout because it says nothing about the fact that Cabrera moved positions and his team won the AL pennant. There's simply nothing wrong -- much less the kind of surpassing "wrong" being blared about -- for the MVP to be the league leader in SLG and OPS whose team won the pennant. Nothing.
   19. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: November 16, 2012 at 10:29 AM (#4304115)
The reporters who make up the electorate should talk with managers, coaches and players about the award candidates,

This is the line that gets me. I don't see what this has to do with anything. Are you going to hear anything other than cliches?
   20. JJ1986 Posted: November 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM (#4304119)
No one's buying the ca. 12% park adjustment between Anaheim and bigger, colder CoPa


The park factor might be wrong and it might be right, but you cannot determine that by size and temperature.
   21. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: November 16, 2012 at 10:40 AM (#4304130)
The park factor might be wrong and it might be right, but you cannot determine that by size and temperature.

No, but it doesn't make much sense on its face and the writers aren't going to dig much further, nor are they under any obligation to do so.
   22. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: November 16, 2012 at 10:41 AM (#4304131)
Still, if all you've got to defend yourself in a logical argument is that your opponent is being rude, you've really got nothing. (Especially if, as is always the case, there are other people making the same argument who aren't being rude.)


And if, as is always the case, there are people supporting your argument who are being rude.
   23. AROM Posted: November 16, 2012 at 10:42 AM (#4304133)
It then comes down to whether defense and baserunning overcome this difference. WAR says "yes, clearly." "No" is a perfectly acceptable answer.


Take away park adjustment and Cabrera is what, 5-10 runs better than Trout on offense?

"No" is not a perfectly acceptable answer. It is not plausible to anyone who has watched these players run the bases or play the field. To start with, Trout should be treated as worth 34 homers, not 30, because of the homeruns he took away from opponents.
   24. JJ1986 Posted: November 16, 2012 at 10:45 AM (#4304137)
No, but it doesn't make much sense on its face and the writers aren't going to dig much further, nor are they under any obligation to do so.


I don't see how it doesn't make much sense. There are dozens of other elements that affect park factors.

Dodgers Stadium is both smaller and warmer than Comerica too, but everyone accepts that it's a pitcher's park.
   25. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: November 16, 2012 at 10:49 AM (#4304138)
The reporters who make up the electorate should talk with managers, coaches and players about the award candidates,

This is the line that gets me. I don't see what this has to do with anything. Are you going to hear anything other than cliches?


Olney was saying that all the players, coaches, and managers were telling writers that they were out of their minds if they didn't vote for Cabrera, while all the GMs and other FO types were telling writers that they were out of there minds if they didn't vote for Trout. Maybe that would be a more interesting topic for an article or two than continued beating of the "old school vs mom's basement" horse.
   26. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: November 16, 2012 at 10:50 AM (#4304140)
I don't see how it doesn't make much sense.

It doesn't make sense that the difference in offensive output between Miguel Cabrera and Mike Trout was explained by differences in their home parks, given the dimensions of those parks and the climate of those parks and the characteristics of the two hitters. For those who want to spend a bunch of time browbeating (and, frankly, boring) people into believing that Cabrera had a huge advantage in wind currents, molecule shapes, and the like, it's a free country -- have at it.
   27. villageidiom Posted: November 16, 2012 at 10:52 AM (#4304142)
Above and beyond that, he deserves credit for cheerfully accepting the position switch, and not making a Soriano of it.
No he doesn't. Moving from 1B to 3B is a promotion. Does Trout get credit for cheerfully accepting his promotion?

Cabrera getting credit for moving to a position that showed greater respect for his skills is a completely Cabrera-centric argument. It's like he'd been batting 7th, and they moved him up to 3rd. Should he complain about that? More to the point, should we be impressed when he doesn't? No.
   28. villageidiom Posted: November 16, 2012 at 10:55 AM (#4304145)
Hobbs goes 3-4 with 2 homers in a win over the Yankees. Haywood goes 0-4. The next day Hayood is 3-4 with 2 homers against the last place Florida Mud Hens, while Hobbs takes the collar against the the also-ran Oakland B's. For those two games, they have the same total batting line and equal WAR. But it should be clear that Hobbs has been more valuable to his team's chances of winning the division.

So we need some kind of point system, with an adjustment for opponent faced, with games against division rivals being worth more points.
This sounds a lot closer to the BCS than I'd like.
   29. AROM Posted: November 16, 2012 at 11:00 AM (#4304146)
Trout doesn't need the park adjustment. With no park adjustment we have:

Trout had 4 more BB+HBP: advantage 1.3 runs
Cabrera +13 doubles: 10 runs
Trout +8 triples: 8 runs
Cabrera +4 singles: 2 runs
Cabrera made 40 more outs (AB-H only, excluding GIDP): -10 runs
Cabrera hit 14 more homers: +20 runs.

The net works out to +12 runs for Cabrera. Trout makes up half of that with his homer-saving catches alone.

Then there's the rest of their defense in preventing hits. Trout's basestealing. Going 1st-3rd, 2nd-home. These baserunning events are just as quantifiable as the triples and homers they hit, to anyone who want to bother looking them up on BB-ref. Or if you don't want to calculate it yourself you can take the BB-ref calculation that says +10 Trout.
   30. JJ1986 Posted: November 16, 2012 at 11:00 AM (#4304148)
nvm
   31. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: November 16, 2012 at 11:20 AM (#4304161)

...Fortunately, the BBWAA does not engage in groupthink. If we did, we would write identical stories and fill out matching ballots


Cabrera won 22 of the 28 ballots.
   32. John Northey Posted: November 16, 2012 at 11:36 AM (#4304177)
Hate to imagine what BBTF would've done in 1996 for Gonzalez over A-Rod - one of the worst possible MVP votes I'd think. A DH/OF over a SS when the SS outhit the DH/OF. Or 1987 when two horrid votes happened.
   33. peewee Posted: November 16, 2012 at 11:39 AM (#4304184)
gather all of the available information, analyze it, and reach a conclusion. That is how we work every day. And that is how we approach these awards.


This is the opposite of how most sports writers work (intentionally or not). First they decide the answer, then they find evidence to justify it. Which is why in 2010 Morosi was arguing Cabrera over Hamilton for MVP because of the Rangers record without him, park effects, and lineup protection.
   34. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 16, 2012 at 11:45 AM (#4304193)
So we need some kind of point system, with an adjustment for opponent faced, with games against division rivals being worth more points.


No, we don't. All the games are worth the same in the standings.
   35. PreservedFish Posted: November 16, 2012 at 11:50 AM (#4304199)
No they aren't. Beating your rival does count more.
   36. The District Attorney Posted: November 16, 2012 at 12:03 PM (#4304212)
This is the opposite of how most sports writers humans work (intentionally or not). First they decide the answer, then they find evidence to justify it.
fixed
   37. Nasty Nate Posted: November 16, 2012 at 12:16 PM (#4304225)
It doesn't make sense that the difference in offensive output between Miguel Cabrera and Mike Trout was explained by differences in their home parks, given the dimensions of those parks and the climate of those parks


dimensions and temperature are only a small part of what makes a park a good hitter's park or a good pitcher's park.
   38. charityslave is thinking about baseball Posted: November 16, 2012 at 12:18 PM (#4304227)
the ultimate swing voters


When I brought up the idea, my wife would even allow a vote!
   39. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:21 PM (#4304288)
Hate to imagine what BBTF would've done in 1996 for Gonzalez over A-Rod - one of the worst possible MVP votes I'd think.


A-Rod himself gave the writers all the cover they needed for not voting for him, repeatedly answering MVP questions with "How can I be the MVP of the league when I'm not even the MVP of my own team." And you know what? By Bref-WAR, he was right (if barely).
   40. The Buddy Biancalana Hit Counter Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:25 PM (#4304295)
Hate to imagine what BBTF would've done in 1996 for Gonzalez over A-Rod - one of the worst possible MVP votes I'd think.

Even more fun (and not just because following the Royals would have relevance in an awards discussion) would be votes like 1985 AL MVP or 1982 AL Cy Young when there were at least two better runners-up than the winner.
   41. dr. scott Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:56 PM (#4304324)
The reporters who make up the electorate should talk with managers, coaches and players about the award candidates,

This is the line that gets me. I don't see what this has to do with anything. Are you going to hear anything other than cliches?


Not sure if it was posted here, but Susan Slusser whote an article where she explains her Cabrera vote, and she claimed McCarthy was the only player that said it was obvious Trout should win...

This guy is awesome!

   42. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 16, 2012 at 02:58 PM (#4304403)
No they aren't. Beating your rival does count more.


Only if it comes down to a tiebreaker.

The rival could just as easily lose on a day when you aren't playing them.
   43. vivaelpujols Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:15 PM (#4304426)
I totally agree. In this case, I think it matters that Cabrera played somewhat out of position. The data doesn't care about that because it simply measures what happened, but it is part of his value (by my definition of value - that's a whole other story). Most teams with a star first baseman wouldn't have the option of picking up another one without relegating one to DH-hood - Cabrera's versatility gave the Tigers better options (not his fault that they pissed that advantage away by pretending Delmon Young is a real major league player).


Doesn't this logic apply to salary? Trout made like 20 million dollars less than Cabrera this year. You can buy a lot of wins with 20 million.
   44. Jay Z Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:17 PM (#4304428)
Hobbs goes 3-4 with 2 homers in a win over the Yankees. Haywood goes 0-4. The next day Hayood is 3-4 with 2 homers against the last place Florida Mud Hens, while Hobbs takes the collar against the the also-ran Oakland B's. For those two games, they have the same total batting line and equal WAR. But it should be clear that Hobbs has been more valuable to his team's chances of winning the division.


How? They are at the same place in the standings. Yes, on paper it helps more to win the head to head. Because you are assuming that the opponent can't make up the ground by being better against the chumps. But if they can, the question is moot. Yes, your odds were better than even when you're both playing the tailenders. But they won, you lost, and it's back to even. Unless the head to head plays a tiebreaker, it's all the same.
   45. vivaelpujols Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:24 PM (#4304437)
WAR says "yes, clearly." "No" is a perfectly acceptable answer.


No this is idiotic. Trout has a 4 WAR lead per B-R. You're arguing that park factors are off by 4 wins? Or the Cabrera was actually somehow *way* better than a -4 defender at third? Trout's probably wasn't worth +21 runs, but he was worth at least 10. Doesn't come close to narrowing the gap.

Frankly, there is no statistical argument for Cabrera as the MVP. If you're voting for him it's because you think the triple crown is cool, or because you think that the MVP has to come from a playoff team.
   46. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:32 PM (#4304449)
No this is idiotic. Trout has a 4 WAR lead per B-R. You're arguing that park factors are off by 4 wins? Or the Cabrera was actually somehow *way* better than a -4 defender at third? Trout's probably wasn't worth +21 runs, but he was worth at least 10. Doesn't come close to narrowing the gap.

WAR isn't the beginning point, and you've got the "gap" wrong.

Cabrera dodsn't have to make up a WAR "gap"; Trout has to make up a gap in offense.
   47. vivaelpujols Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:38 PM (#4304460)
What the #### are you talking about? WAR is the beginning point because it takes into account all factors. There's no reason to prioritize offense over defense. WAR takes both into account (as well as other fundamental things). Also, Mike Trout WAR: 10.7. Cabrera WAR: 6.9. 10.7 - 6.9 = 3.8. Sorry my bad, jerk.
   48. vivaelpujols Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:42 PM (#4304471)
So basically you're argument is that WAR is off by 3.8 wins on park factors and defense/baserunning/double plays. I would love to see you justify this.
   49. JJ1986 Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:46 PM (#4304481)
Even if Cabrera is 10-20 runs better on offense, and you give no park adjustment, Trout should easily make that up on baserunning (which is about 15 runs IIRC) and defense (which is probably 15 runs at the most conservative estimate.)
   50. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:49 PM (#4304487)
Cabrera dodsn't have to make up a WAR "gap"; Trout has to make up a gap in offense.


I think he does make up that difference even if you assume that the park effects for the two wash each other out. Trout was nearly as good offensively then better on the bases. Then add in that be was dramatically better on defense while playing about half the season at a much more important defensive position.

Cabrera was great in 2012, Trout was greater.
   51. Famous Original Joe C Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:53 PM (#4304494)
Cabrera dodsn't have to make up a WAR "gap"; Trout has to make up a gap in offense.


You're still on this, huh? Really?
   52. DL from MN Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:15 PM (#4304520)
I think it's been lost in all this discussion that Cano has as good of a case for MVP as Cabrera does. He finished a distant 4th.
   53. cmd600 Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:24 PM (#4304530)
No one's buying the ca. 12% park adjustment


This is pretty cocky. I'll certainly buy it. Park factors should measure actual results (the horror!) and not be as lazy as "hey, it can get kind of cold here in April and September"
   54. I Am Not a Number Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:35 PM (#4304539)
Rudies. A message to you from Morosi.

MVP: Joe Rudi. Nevahhhhh.
   55. jack the seal clubber (on the sidelines of life) Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:39 PM (#4304542)
Somebody (on tv; I forget who) was trying to make this into a generational thing; the young hip saber types for Trout, old school grampas for Cabrera. I am an old school grampa, I guess, but I gave the nod to Trout; but it's not like it's a huge miscarriage of justice or anything. It's close, and I can see why people went to Cabrera.
   56. AROM Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:41 PM (#4304545)
If you use the park factors that BB-ref is using, then Trout is a better HITTER than Cabrera. At that point the game is over. Sorry Karl, but Cabrera's chances of making up the offensive gap with his defense/baserunning is comparable to Romney's chance of making up a slim Obama lead in Ohio with only the districts in the city of Cleveland.

If you use no park factors, then Cabrera has a +12 run lead. My math is in #29 based on these weights: BB/HBP .33, 1B .47, 2B .8, 3B 1.00, HR 1.40, Out -.25. If you disagree then show your math.

Trout makes that gap up with baserunning and avoiding GIDP (yes, adjusted for opportunities).

He pulls ahead on defense, either by a little or a lot depending on the source.
   57. rlc Posted: November 16, 2012 at 05:35 PM (#4304588)
On the question of whether my future selections will be swayed by numbers or narratives, my riposte is a bald-faced equivocation: It depends. In some years, I will probably agree with the sabermetric orthodoxy. In other cases, I won’t.


Better think of the future...
   58. bachslunch Posted: November 16, 2012 at 06:01 PM (#4304612)
I don't want to go MGL here; I do think civility is important. Still, if all you've got to defend yourself in a logical argument is that your opponent is being rude, you've really got nothing. (Especially if, as is always the case, there are other people making the same argument who aren't being rude.)

Coke to the DA here. Most all the discussion I've seen on the issue has been thoughtful, maybe at worst a little impassioned. There will always be those few who are trolling or otherwise are being clueless -- but if you pay attention to folks like this and subsequently blame everyone else who disagrees with you because of their antics, you've only got yourself to blame.

People in this country (and maybe around the world) have this notion that if there are two sides to an issue and that if each side has enough proponents, that both positions then have the same objective validity.

This, definitely, and coke to JJ1986. A more extreme version is the notion that Creationism is somehow a reasonable alternative to Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Sorry, but saying it over and over, publishing several articles full of bad science, having a number of people believe in the idea, and getting a couple yahoos in high places to pass laws forcing schools to teach both concepts doesn't make Creationism valid.
   59. Ron J2 Posted: November 16, 2012 at 06:04 PM (#4304615)
Hate to imagine what BBTF would've done in 1996 for Gonzalez over A-Rod


No need to guess. The response on RSB would tell you pretty much the way it would have been greeted by the regulars here.
   60. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: November 16, 2012 at 06:07 PM (#4304619)
A more extreme version is the notion that Creationism is somehow a reasonable alternative to Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

Trout vs Cabrera bears exactly zero resemblance to Creationism vs. Evolution. None, zero, zip, nada. Stop flattering yourself -- and this "issue" -- with melodramatic nonsense.
   61. Walt Davis Posted: November 16, 2012 at 06:08 PM (#4304622)
How much weight you give it is another matter; as Rants suggests in #4 it probably doesn't outweigh the on-field difference in this case.

Cabrera + Fielder = 11.3 WAR
Trout = 10.7 WAR

So in terms of what weight to assign to Cabrera's move to 3B, you have to give it the entire weight of Prince ... which is rather a lot. :-)

People, plesae, don't engage SBB or if you are going to engage SBB at least call him on his utter total bullshit:

MT home: 976 OPS
MT road: 951 OPS

MC home: 1094 OPS
MC road: 913 OPS

Which of these guys "hit far better at home" than he did on the road? Which of these guys hit better on the road when compared to the other? Which of these guys benefits most if we ignore park effects?

   62. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: November 16, 2012 at 06:09 PM (#4304623)
Which of these guys "hit far better at home" than he did on the road? Which of these guys hit better on the road when compared to the other? Which of these guys benefits most if we ignore park effects?

Not responsive. Cabrera isn't the guy asking for a 12% welfare check.
   63. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: November 16, 2012 at 06:48 PM (#4304644)
Not responsive. Cabrera isn't the guy asking for a 12% welfare check.

Feel free to re-read this thread, which includes the last 3 years of home/road splits for Angel hitters and pitchers, and 2012 home/road splits for all the regular hitters on both the Angels and Tigers, among other things.

Then feel free to keep saying, "Comerica Park is bigger," and calling the rest of us the non-responsive ones.
   64. TDF, situational idiot Posted: November 16, 2012 at 08:32 PM (#4304710)
MT home: 976 OPS
MT road: 951 OPS

MC home: 1094 OPS
MC road: 913 OPS

Which of these guys "hit far better at home" than he did on the road? Which of these guys hit better on the road when compared to the other? Which of these guys benefits most if we ignore park effects?

Not responsive. Cabrera isn't the guy asking for a 12% welfare check.

Quite responsive, actually. Trout is a slightly better hitter at home (all hitters are), while Cabrera is a much better hitter at home. It seems pretty clear that Cabrera is, in fact, playing in a more friendly hitting environment.

EDIT: A simple comparison (Home OPS/Road OPS, controlled for road) shows Trout's home OPS "should" be about 1.002, while Cabrera's "should" be about .962.
   65. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: November 16, 2012 at 08:43 PM (#4304711)
Trout is a slightly better hitter at home (all hitters are)

Nonsense. Clearly, the 38-points-of-OPS home-field advantage proves that the American League is a hitter's park.
   66. vivaelpujols Posted: November 16, 2012 at 08:50 PM (#4304715)
Their road stats are not relevant to park factors. What park factors do is adjust the replacement level part of WAR. You'd expect a replacement level player in a hitters park to hit better than a replacement level player in a pitchers park. That's why they use the average park factor instead of adjusting it on a hitter by hitter basis.

It's a value stat, not a predictive one.
   67. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: November 16, 2012 at 08:58 PM (#4304716)
>
The rival could just as easily lose on a day when you aren't playing them.


But they will never lose on a day you lose to them, which is the point. And they will never win on a day you beat them. You are controlling both sides of the equation on those days, so they are more important to do well in. That seems very obvious, yet apparently not.
   68. PreservedFish Posted: November 16, 2012 at 09:36 PM (#4304732)
It's September and your team is in a division race with the hated Cardinals. You have one series left against them, and one against the last place team. You can choose one series to sweep.
   69. AROM Posted: November 16, 2012 at 09:51 PM (#4304741)
"Trout vs Cabrera bears exactly zero resemblance to Creationism vs. Evolution. None, zero, zip, nada. Stop flattering yourself -- and this "issue" -- with melodramatic nonsense."

True. I suppose there is some minuscule chance that Crom played a joke on us and planted all the fake evidence to make it look like evolution happened. Crom, he is funny like that. But there is no chance that Cabrera was better than Trout.
   70. Voros McCracken of Pinkus Posted: November 16, 2012 at 10:28 PM (#4304746)
You geeky nerds who should leave your mom's basement and watch a game for a change have made this debate unnecessarily rude.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
JPWF13
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4251 - 9:58am, Nov 24)
Last: The Id of SugarBear Blanks

NewsblogRed Sox trying for mega-free agent double play: Panda and Hanley - CBSSports.com
(87 - 9:58am, Nov 24)
Last: Dan

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(61 - 9:57am, Nov 24)
Last: Conor

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(1010 - 9:57am, Nov 24)
Last: Shooty Is Disappointed With His Midstream Urine

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-24-2014
(1 - 9:45am, Nov 24)
Last: Dan Lee is some pumkins

NewsblogBoston Red Sox in talks to acquire free agent Hanley Ramirez - ESPN Boston
(3 - 9:34am, Nov 24)
Last: tfbg9

NewsblogSunday Notes: Arroyo’s Rehab, Clark & the MLBPA, Doc Gooden, AFL Arms, ChiSox, more
(17 - 9:30am, Nov 24)
Last: depletion

NewsblogMatthews: Cashman sleeps on the street, says all is quiet on the free-agent front
(25 - 9:18am, Nov 24)
Last: bunyon

NewsblogOT:  Soccer (the Round, True Football), November 2014
(452 - 9:06am, Nov 24)
Last: Shooty Is Disappointed With His Midstream Urine

NewsblogHanley Ramirez and the Logjam in Boston | FanGraphs Baseball
(1 - 8:05am, Nov 24)
Last: Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer

NewsblogKemp drawing interest, raising chance he's the Dodgers OF dealt - CBSSports.com
(30 - 1:16am, Nov 24)
Last: akrasian

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8650 - 11:54pm, Nov 23)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogAstros interested in Robertson: source | New York Post
(18 - 11:31pm, Nov 23)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

NewsblogBraves shopping Justin Upton at a steep price | New York Post
(36 - 11:16pm, Nov 23)
Last: spike

NewsblogPirates DFA Ike Davis, clear path for Pedro Alvarez - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
(21 - 10:13pm, Nov 23)
Last: zonk

Page rendered in 0.6567 seconds
52 querie(s) executed