O Yallof little faith…if you sit in the MLB Network studio long enough, something bad is bound to rub off!
There is more than one way to look at this. I can argue for Mauer. I can argue for others. Taking a contrary position does not make me just another unenlightened member of the MSM (translation: mainstream media). But it will subject me to a certain level of scorn for rejecting SGT (translation: sabermetric groupthink).
Don’t get me wrong. Sabermetricians have significantly broadened our understanding of baseball — and by “our,” I mean fans, media and club personnel, virtually everyone in the game. Advanced statistics reveal not only tendencies, but also greater truths. Smart teams effectively combine sabermetric principles with scouting orthodoxy. Very few, if any, disregard the numbers entirely.
Here’s the problem: Sabermetricians were ignored for so long, they had to shout to be heard. Now they are getting heard — properly heard in the highest levels of baseball media and front offices. But some continue to shout, dismissing those who disagree as ignorant dolts.
Last I checked, it’s a free country. Last I checked, the MVP is a subjective choice. Yes, voters from the Baseball Writers’ Association of America occasionally screw up. But the beauty of the award, as outlined by the instructions given to voters, is “there is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means.” Which, of course, drives sabermetricians nuts.
The award is not for highest VORP. It is not for most win shares, most runs created, most wins above replacement player. It is for something that no one can quite define, and — goodness gracious! — voters sometimes apply different interpretations from year to year.
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. TomH Posted: September 17, 2009 at 11:27 AM (#3324460)When the MSM picks Tex as MVP (which they WILL, if Tex leads in RBI and the Twins miss the playoffs, lock it up), expect some howling, Mr. Rosenthal. Justified howling, that the MSM turned a deaf ear to the big handwriting on the wall. Mene mene tekel RBI*
*RBI leaders on winners have been weighed and been found wanting
First is that it is no way to introduce such a viewpoint by ratcheting up the anger from the start, which is what he does when he refers to SGT. Not only is there no such thing, but anyone with even an elementary understanding of sabermetrics knows that the exact opposite is true. Not only is there not such a thing as sabermetric dogma, another phrase Rosenthal uses, but the concept of dogma is alien to the very premise of sabermetrics which is that all views are open to skeptical questioning. Any site devoted to sabermetric thinking demonstrate the vitality of discussion and disagreement not just over answers but over what constitutes appropriate evidence and reasoning behind those answers.
Second, Rosenthal may be partly right that some of the vitriol in sabermetric posts is a legacy from the time advanced analysis was ignored or routinely mocked, but again he ratchets up the heat by focusing on what is increasingly an aberration, not the norm. We should be past the time when commentators refer to the extremes on either side of what is less and less a divide. Sure some sabermetric-oriented posters remain snarky and nasty, but mainstream sabermetric writing is quite the contrary. At the end Rosenthal seems to try to balance the attack by referring to "overworked hacks in newsrooms" as well as basement geeks, but the stereotypes remain in place for him even while they are irrelevant to the discussion and only increase the incivility. Just as sabermetricians need no longer harp on the anti-statistical nonsense of Bissinger, Conlin, Plaschke et al even though they remain loud voices, we need to realize they are increasingly marginalized as are the true believers who pollute discussion from the other side.
So you don't believe it's a free country, then, SGT-nation?
Just as the MLB Network clowns are treating the Cy Young award.
And the other beauty of the award is that it produces lots of heated arguments, none of which would be possible if you essentially allowed a computer to pick the MVP. To use an old cliche, it's the journey and not the arrival that matters. I'd vote for Mauer in a blink, but if by some remote chance he doesn't get it, SO WHAT? I'm not his mother.
Any editor that lets this phrase make it into publication should be shot in the throat with a knife. Or severely reprimanded. With a knife.
Especially when the next words are "it's a free country."
Edit: Whoops, #13 ditto. (also, use of "ditto" is a subtle tribute to Patrick Swayze)
I will continue to repeat this each time this such a guarantee is made: Mauer will win, probably comfortably.
This is a phrase I need to work into more conversations.
Big Papi for MVP!
Never been to Fangraphs?
Sez you.
Sez you.
Though I could have been his father....BUT THAT DOG BEAT ME OVER THE FENCE!!! (/Hall of Cliched 60's comebacks)
Brant Colamarino is going to syphon off a few votes.
Brant Colamarino is going to syphon off a few votes.
Finally, the moment Jeremy Brown has been waiting for!
Bengie Molina weeps into his cleavage.
As he wrote, "there is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means.” so that is as good a choice as any.
Congrats Morgana.
Absolutely true. There are zealots and narrow minded converts in every movement, people who oversimplify the arguments and who think they have received the final word they must now promulgate to the world while harassing heretics who disagree. And with the internet their voices are more insistent and loud. But that is not the point of sabermetrics, and for commentators to use the deviants as the norm is using a straw man argument.
#22
Yes, I visit it regularly. It is a terrific site which demonstrates my point. I am sure the hidebound traditionalists find it uncongenial and the thin-skinned will consider it rather aggressive, but it is a site dedicated to quantitative analysis. If it ignores or seems to overlook the role of non-quantitative factors in its analyses, that is because it is focused elsewhere, not because it denies their existence in baseball. Sometimes the commentary borders on snide; it is a style that many do not like. But I have not found it to be nasty unless in response to nastiness, and the comments section is almost always lively and interesting as posters discuss issues using information and reason.
For example, take the following beliefs:
1. A player who clearly has the best statistics in a league should win the MVP, regardless of whether his team is competitive. The competitiveness of a team should be considered only when the statistics are close (if at all). Joe Mauer deserves the MVP this year for this reason.
2. The Cy Young should go to the best pitcher, in terms of the amount of runs he saves his team (compared with average/Replacement/etc.) Wins and losses should not be a big factor. Relievers generally should not win this award (or the MVP).
3. Defensive statistics have come a long way, and should be used in determining the overall value of a player. (There are differences of opinion regarding which statistic and how accurate, but it is clear that defensive statistics as a whole have tremendous value). Derek Jeter is overrated in large part because his defensive statistics show he's not a good defensive shortstop.
4. RBI's for hitters and wins and losses for pitchers should generally not be used in determining the value of a player, in large part because they are context specific, depending largely on the performance of their teammates. Justin Morneau is overrated for this reason, and definitely should not have won the MVPs. Jack Morris was overrated for this reason.
5. Jim Rice should not be in the Hall of Fame, regardless of what observers at the time thought of his performance, when you factor in the context, and his overall performance. Bert Blyleven should be in due to the number of runs he saved over his career.
I'd guess 99% of sabermatricians take these beliefs as gospel - not that I blame them. I generally share these beliefs. However, while you might quibble on one or two of these points, it seems obvious that there are a set of beliefs that underly most of our discussions, and in which there is almost no disagreement.
How quickly we forget that a certain Yankee was gifted the nickname of #####-tits by his teammates.
What did your study say about last year's NL race? Did it show the guy who led the league in homers and RBIs for a playoff team losing comfortably to the guy with the vastly better year?
Pujols had to utterly obliterate Howard and Braun to finish ahead of them. The playoff team thing may not guarantee victory, but it certainly boosts vote totals.
BAsically
Pujols: .357/.462/.653
Howard:.251/.339/.543
Braun: .285/.335/.553
And Pujols was better, by far, defensively.
And yet Howard received 12 1st place votes, and finished 2nd 369-308
Jeter is a hell of a lot closer to Mauer than Howard was to Pujols
Plus he has that lifetime achievement buzz going, and the sense among some writers that gee maybe we should have given it to him a few years ago or in 1999...
And then vote for LaMarr Hoyt.
I wouldn't argue with that. I don't even have a major problem with it.
But virtually everything being said about why Mauer won't win it this year was being said a year ago about why Howard would finish ahead of Pujols. Those predictions were well of the mark, and will be again this year in the AL. I don't find how an entirely different generation of AL MVP voters selected the winners in 1979 to be as compelling as what I see as the general consensus (if belated) that Joe Mauer is easily the best player in the American League this year. That will be the deciding factor.
And I said the same thing a year ago regarding Albert.
But Tom is saying that Tex wins, not Jeter. The Captain would be a pretty unconventional MVP pick. (Tex is also closer to Mauer than Howard was to Pujols, of course.)
I can perfectly understand the playing time argument, and think people that get upset about the argument because their sensibilities say that Mauer has overcome the playing time are going overboard. I wouldn't use it in this case, but I understand and accept that argument.
Really something Rosenthal should understand, if every writer who had a vote went to the trouble that he did to outline their reasoning, and it involved actual tangible proof and logic, we might collectively disagree, but at least understand their point of view. As it stands the writers seem to ignore the written rules of the ballot, make simplistic analysis, then give it to the guy with the most rbis on a playoff bound team, no reasoning, arguing team value instead of league value etc.
I remember that most of those pooh poohing Howard's chances were predicting something along the lines of a blow out- which didn't happen.
Not sure why painting the MSM with a broad brush is OK but making generalizations about statheads is so wrong.
As illustrated above, the voters did the exact opposite less than 12 months ago, yet we continue to focus on what we think they will do instead of, you know, what they just did. If the stathead side of things doesn't want to be steretyped by MSM members, perhaps it could refrain from lumping all MSM participants into one big stew of blissful ignorance.
So we weren't right enough? I'd say those of us saying Pujols would win did considerably better in the forecasting department than those who were certain Howard would.
And as far as I'm concerned, 369-308 isn't terribly close.
Predicting an MVP vote deals with the behavior of a group, so it makes sense to look at the entire group as a single mass.
As illustrated above, the voters did the exact opposite less than 12 months ago, yet we continue to focus on what we think they will do instead of, you know, what they just did.
Different group of voters. Stop generalizing! :)
I don't think that is really accurate, it's been mostly about arguing that a player doesn't have to be on a playoff bound team that has really had most people up in arms, the collective eliminating of 2/3rds of the viable options before even looking at players is what has many up in arms. The rules of the ballot is being ignored when writers start eliminating candidates this way.
2. The Cy Young should go to the best pitcher, in terms of the amount of runs he saves his team (compared with average/Replacement/etc.) Wins and losses should not be a big factor. Relievers generally should not win this award (or the MVP).
agreed with the fist part, of course people argue the definition of best pitcher(I think era/ra is more than enough to start and finish 3/4th of the conversation) and any person who argues that relivers should not win this award are again violating the ballot rules, it might be hard for relievers to win, but they shouldn't be thrown out of the debate based upon only them being relievers(I understand innings pitched usually eliminate relievers anyway, but that is different)
and again the ballot for the mvp says pitchers are eligible, so ignoring either relievers or pitchers on the mvp ballot is a violation of the rules. (me personally I actually think relievers have a stronger case for the mvp than cy young but it's a weird thing with me)
3. Defensive statistics have come a long way, and should be used in determining the overall value of a player. (There are differences of opinion regarding which statistic and how accurate, but it is clear that defensive statistics as a whole have tremendous value). Derek Jeter is overrated in large part because his defensive statistics show he's not a good defensive shortstop.
yes and no, there is still a tendency to read too much into in seasonal defensive statistic that needs to be tempered a little bit, and Jeter is overrated regardless of his defensive statistics because you have to be a blind man to see he isn't that good of a fielder. The numbers have nothing to do with it, I still remember seeing him for the first time and thinking "he's not a good shortstop is he"(of course my standard is Ozzie Smith though--I said the same thing about Rey Ordonez after his third year---only Jack Wilson and Vizquel ever impressed me enough year to year for me to think they were good)
4. RBI's for hitters and wins and losses for pitchers should generally not be used in determining the value of a player, in large part because they are context specific, depending largely on the performance of their teammates. Justin Morneau is overrated for this reason, and definitely should not have won the MVPs. Jack Morris was overrated for this reason.
agreed and disagree, the problem with rbis is that they don't have a rate component to compare them too(at least not a popular one) so you don't really know what you are getting out of the guy, although on these boards I've seen good arguments for Morneau winning an mvp. Morris is overrated not because of his wins, but because of the title "most wins in a decade" and people acting as if it has hof validity.
5. Jim Rice should not be in the Hall of Fame, regardless of what observers at the time thought of his performance, when you factor in the context, and his overall performance. Bert Blyleven should be in due to the number of runs he saved over his career.
the problem is that most observers at the time didn't think he was hof worthy, it's why it took 15 elections for him to make it. The narrative changed on him to get him into the hof. He wasn't considered a future hof when he played, and yet here he is in the hof. He was considered a great feared slugger for about 5 seasons, outside of that he was just a good player.
While triggered by CFB's comment, it was really more directed at the idea that we routinely do the same to the MSM that we decry happening to us.
Well played.
And it's a fair criticism - just one that doesn't necessarily apply to MVP predictions.
To nitpick I don't think this is true. I think if you look back to 1978-1986 you would find that he was considered a future HoF. I think in those cases a reasonable decline phase rather than going from 3rd in the MVP balloting to done as a useful contributor in 12 months was being assumed.
This simply isn't true (or at least, it's nothing meaningful). Jim Rice's pattern, as Dag would demonstrate, was not unusual for a Hall of Famer. He started with 30 percent of the vote, a similar number occupied by fellow undeservings Sutter (29) and Goose (33). Building from that low number into eventual induction was not unique to Rice, and will indeed be the kind of path that Raines, Blyleven and McGwire (though his case is different, obviously) need to take to get there.
Rice's starting point and path was not uncommon for a borderline Hall of Fame selection.
He was definitely seen by many as a future Hall of Famer during his prime, then he declined and that luster faded by the time he retired. Hell, some years near the end he was seen by many who watched him regularly as a below average player...
Dale Murphy was seen as a future HOFer before his cliff dive.
Fernando Valenzuela was seen as a likely future HOFer up until about 87/88
So was Don Mattingly
So was Dwight Gooden, sure those assessments were pre-mature
But there is agood # of players seen as Future HOFers at age 30, but 5-10 years later are forgotten about (as HOF candidates)
In 1979 if you asked the typical Mediot, who under 30 was going to the HOF, Rice would have been the first names mentioned.
Ask in 1989 if Rice was a HOFer, a lot who would have said yes 10 years earlier would say no, or borderline
While triggered by CFB's comment, it was really more directed at the idea that we routinely do the same to the MSM that we decry happening to us.
my comment was about how the voters tend to do stuff, and yes it's a genearlity(and yes I agree with you that Mauer is going to win the MVP---just like I agreed last year that Pujols was going to win) meant to be a smart ass comment on the way they vote. If every voter would write an article like Rosenthal did here, and put their arguments into terms that don't violate the written rules on the ballot, the stat community may be upset with the result, but they will still accept that it is a subjective award. (any writer who's article features the words team record, playoff bound, lou gehrig, yankee leader or some variation, should have their voting privileges revoked)
1. A player who clearly has the best statistics in a league should win the MVP, regardless of whether his team is competitive. The competitiveness of a team should be considered only when the statistics are close (if at all). Joe Mauer deserves the MVP this year for this reason.
The thing is, there's some uncertainty with baseball stats; even the advance hitting ones. Colin Wyers touched on this recently at THT.
2. The Cy Young should go to the best pitcher, in terms of the amount of runs he saves his team (compared with average/Replacement/etc.) Wins and losses should not be a big factor. Relievers generally should not win this award (or the MVP).
Mainly agree, but it's still tough to separate pitching and defense. And a bad outing can mess with a pitchers ERA. Imagine it can do the same for component or fielding independent stats. That's why I like to glance at BPros SNWL stats as well.
I have little truck with the rest, although I feel conflicted by Jim Rice. But, it's part of being a fan. Unless your Spock-like, you're not always gonna be rational.
There is no doubt that some views have acquired the status of "givens". For example, the notion that RBIs are a poor way to evaluate a player's contributions or that ERA independent of other factors is an inadequate tool for evaluating pitchers. And there are plenty of similar ones. But even they are open to argument if the analyst uses data and reason.
If there is a dogma, it is that in any discussion, data and reason trump bald assertion and traditional faith. Even that premise is not absolute as sabermetricians are increasingly respectful of traditional views that appear valid and often seek to find data that provides further support for them.
As for the broad areas of agreement you mention, they are just that, broad areas. As examples of basic agreement, besides the fact that they are not quite as universal as you suggest and certainly not immune from counter-views, they really do not suggest any sort of group think. Consider such questions as the existence of a skill called clutch hitting. While it has usually been pooh-poohed, there are continuous efforts to find it, and Bill James has suggested it might exist. I think there will also be some reevaluation about the effects of base-stealing as new factors are considered.
To me, the fundamental difference between sabermetric and traditional thinking is that latter relies on received knowledge for its views while the former tests everything and arrives at tentative conclusions that are themselves subject to inquiry. If something becomes generally accepted to sabermetricians, it is because the available data and logic to that point make it credible, but always with the understanding that new data or thinking may modify or even overthrow the notion. Traditional thinking resists new ideas; progressive analysis encourages and welcomes them. The fact that individuals do not always act so open minded does not alter that essential feature of sabermetrics.
Shouldn't that be RBI, RBI, tekel upharsin?
You make a good point, Srul. Let's see:
רבי רבי טקל ופרסן׃
Yeah, I could imagine one or two members of the MSM feeling some chest pain when reading these words. For various reasons.
Everybody's an authority, in a free land.
You , my friend, now just violated the first rule. Prepare for Room 101
Sure. But they're at the level that you need to point to the specific issue that applies to the player (or players) in question. It's not good enough to say the offensive metrics aren't perfect.
There is the secondary issue of the standard error of the metrics. Any players within 5 runs (or equivalent) should be seen as indistinguishable in value.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main