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.
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.
"Man, the pitch looks fast, even in slow motion." Thom Brennaman on Chapman's fastball.
"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?
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.
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.
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...
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 talked to an advance scout that told me if Joey Votto and Albert Pujols were on the same team he'd advise his team to do the unthinkable...pitch around Votto to get to Pujols." - Buster Olney, ESPN