I don't understand why people can't dispel the obsession over "flawed metric".
Last edited by junkhead; 09-25-2013 at 03:43 AM.
Last edited by junkhead; 09-25-2013 at 06:26 AM.
"But I do know Joey's sister indirectly (or foster sister) and I have heard stories of Joey being into shopping, designer wear, fancy coffees, and pedicures."
"Man, the pitch looks fast, even in slow motion." Thom Brennaman on Chapman's fastball.
The point was that he's the best player in the game. And it isn't really even that close.
2) A team's mission is to win as many games as possible, hopefully resulting in making the playoffs. There's nothing an individual player can do in terms of his team making the playoffs other than helping his team to win as many games as possible. If you want to add a player's off the field actions as having made additional contributions to a team winning games, that's up to you. Though I would again urge you to find a way to do is consistently so you're not just inadvertently paying attention to one guy's contributions and ignoring another's. But even if you think a player can do things to make his teammates play significantly better, they can't change their division/schedule (last year, the Angels won more games than the Tigers, but fell short of the playoffs because they were in a much tougher division)
3) I don't understand your "unseating" comment The 2013 MVP award has nothing to do with prior awards. And the award should be given based on the entirety of the season's performance. 2013 performance-to-date aside, Miguel Cabrera should have no more claim to the 2013 award at this point than Mike Trout. He should have no more claim to it than Brian Dozier, Lorenzo Cain or any of the other 100s of AL players.
Lastly, Mike Trout has been drastically better than Miguel Cabrera, as measured by total contribution to his team wining baseball games. He's not quite the hitter Cabrera is, but he's immensely more valuable on the bases and in the field. As a hitter, Cabrera is #1 and Trout is #2 -- and because of things like double plays and reaching on errors (errors often caused by speed), that gap is probably closer than you think. As a fielder and baserunner, Trout is still among the game's elite. Cabrera is solidly below average at best. These things matter. These things affect games.
Of course, I realize that many people who share your view, despite claiming to not be beholden to stats, simply cannot get past the gap between the two players on the stats on the back of baseball cards, most notably AVG/HR/RBI. It's just too hard to accept that we can simultaneous recognize Cabrera's dominance in those areas and still come to the conclusion that Trout has been more productive. It's just too big of a leap than is too counter-intuitive. So rather than continue to ramble on this argument I've made at least a dozen times over the last two years, I'll leave it at that.
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.
Homer Bailey (09-25-2013)
There's nothing wrong with a good, ongoing discussion. If you want to change people's minds, you should keep trying to find a way to do so. That's a big part of why these forums exist.
At any rate:
1) My "body of work" comment was addressing another specific post that asked about certain stats. It was intended to say I don't look at any one stat and say this is the "be all end all" in the discussion.
2) Winning matters in this award. Always has. It's a fair debate to ask whether that should be the case, but it is. The Angels are where they are two years in a row with or without him. All these new metrics supposedly tout value and this concept of a replacement. The Angels would be in the same exact spot with his replacement.
3) Don't let the semantics bother you on that one. It wasn't intended to say he should get extra credit for being the 2012 member. Just acknowledging that it's the same debate, new year.
You and I won't likely come to common ground if you say "Lastly, Mike Trout has been drastically better than Miguel Cabrera..." And we're not just talking about the old standbys AVG-HR-RBI. He's far ahead in those, he's roughly equivalent in runs scored, and he leads in OBP and SLG, and of course, OPS. The only thing you can point to that suggests a "drastic" edge for Trout is SB and defense, which remain difficult to quantify in terms of value or wins. And that's the component that those of us who don't worship at the altar of WAR have a big problem with.
Rounding third and heading for home...
Almost the same person offensively (park adjusted) over the last two seasons. Cabrera is a marginally better hitter.
Add in the defense and baserunning aspect, and it's easy to see who the more productive player is.
Not a big subscriber to OPS+. You keep peeling the onion back with layer after layer, where do you stop? You could break this stuff down almost infinitely. You could factor in the pitchers for each individual AB for guys. You could factor weather conditions. What about facing teams on hot streaks vs. slumps? Playing in games that "matter?" You could even look at good/bad strike zone. Where does it end?
It's ultimately a game with a lot of moving parts and context to go along with the raw numbers.
Last edited by BluegrassRedleg; 09-25-2013 at 06:49 PM.
Rounding third and heading for home...