They absolutely tell us who the more productive player is. A run created in Colorado is not equal to a run created in Seattle.Originally Posted by 757690
They absolutely tell us who the more productive player is. A run created in Colorado is not equal to a run created in Seattle.
No, it isn't.
Hypothetically speaking here: If you play in "lower scoring parks" because of how they play, an individual player can be worth less unadjusted "runs" and still be worth more because the threshold for a "win" is less.
As for luck, I agree here in a sense. If a guy posts a .425 BABIP for the full season, I am not going to count that against him for an MVP award. He did it, it happened. That production did happen. He was insanely lucky and isn't going to do it again, but it did happen and you can't take it away from him.
If you had another explanation for your luck argument, then you are going to have to explain it more so we can talk about that specifically.
Outstanding!
That tells me RBI's are one stat that needs to be considered with all others, not a stat that shouldn't be trusted.
Hoping to change my username to 75769024
That's an excellent point about lower run environments.
But I also think that good hitters adjust to their surroundings. My main point with park adjusted stats is that we really don't know what stats Trout would put up if he were in Cabrera's shoes and what stats Cabrera would put up if he were in Trout's.
Hoping to change my username to 75769024
_Sir_Charles_ (05-17-2013)
I didn't really want to get sucked into this, but I disagree with this. A run scored is a run scored...regardless of where it happened. Both teams are playing by the same rules in the same ballpark. A run is a run. One may happen with less frequency in one park compared to another...but it doesn't make it more or less valuable because the opposition is also playing in that same ballpark under the same circumstances.
Except we know that's not true, and we apply that in every day logic that we use all over this board. We rarely accept anyone's numbers without factoring in parks.
"Expect Volquez's ERA to go down in Petco"
"Expect Alonso's OPS to go down in Petco"
"Ludwick could really get a boost from GABP"
"Fowler hasn't produced much outside of Coors Field"
It's because it's way easier to score runs in certain parks. That's just a cold hard fact. Someone who produces 100 runs in Coors Field is not equivalent to someone producing 100 runs in Seattle as it's way, way easier to do that in Colorado.
Yes, in a one game sample, the opposition is playing by the same rules in the same park. But how is it fair to compare the production of a Seattle player who plays 81 games at Safeco vs. a Reds player who plays 81 games at GABP?
You can only adjust so much. A guy can't choose to hit the ball 5 extra feet to turn a double into a home run. But those 5 feet make a difference from ballpark to ballpark. Think about the game in Miami the other night. The triple that tied the game would have ended the game in most parks. But not in that one.
Miguel Cabrera, for as great of a hitter as he is, and I think he is the best pure hitter of the baseball in the game, isn't so good that he could just add some distance to his batted balls if he went out west and played in their bigger parks (Seattle/Oakland/Anaheim).
We don't disagree Homer. I was only disagreeing with that final sentence that a run in one park is not equal to a run in another. When you're looking at things from an individual perspective, you're right. When looking at it from a team perspective, it's not right. I tend to focus on the team.
A run is a run. But every run isn't valued the same.
If you are playing in a park where the average run total in a game in 8. One run represents 12.5% of that. What if you are playing in a park that averages 11 runs per game? Now one run represents just 9.1% of that. The difference there is 3.4%. 3.4% of 12.5 is 27%. That is a real big deal.
It's a big deal when you're talking about comparing individual players' stats. Not from the team perspective and from the won games perspective.
No, never suggested that.
I said you can't quantify those categories into what they actually led to in production. They aren't really measurable in any tangible way. You can look at it and say "I trust my eyes" when it comes to that stuff (kind of like Larkin's MVP season) but you can't just throw them out there and say a guy with lesser overall numbers is better than the other guy because he runs and fields well.
Rounding third and heading for home...
Sure it is because even on the team level, you need to score fewer runs to win the same number of games than if you were playing in a more friendly environment.
Right now, in the current overall run scoring environment, we view +10 runs in your run differential as a "win" you should have. But that number doesn't work universally because runs are at a premium in places like Petco or Seattle and not nearly as much in places like Texas, Cincinnati or Colorado.
In Petco or Seattle, getting to 4 runs is more likely to give you a win than getting to 4 runs in Texas.
I'm just going to gracefully back out of this thread. I'm not explaining myself well and it's just a matter of semantics anyway. These kinds of debates only tend to get frustrating anyway from my perspective.
New York Red (05-17-2013)
I've wanted to back out about a dozen times now.
the best player is the most valuable player.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote