Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo in 2013!!
Screw Trout, that fat alcoholic should win MVP. The last time someone did what he did the Jets had just drafted Joe Willie Namath. There will be another 30/45 season light years before another triple crown. Plus the Tigers are in the playoffs (and save the "but they were a game worse than the Angels" stuff because the Angels blew their chance to sneak in at the end of the season).
Post by Alberto Balsalm on Oct 4, 2012 16:33:37 GMT -5
Let's go through the arguments that people are making for Cabrera to be the MVP. And I'll do it on hard-mode by not even mentioning WAR one time.
"He won the Triple Crown! That hasn't happened in so long! He must be better than Trout!"
Well, that's nice. I understand it's rarity and difficulty, but the Triple Crown is just an arbitrary, seemingly random, collection of 3 stats. One of which tells you nothing about individual effectiveness and is completely opportunity-based (RBI) and one of which is very misleading and again tells you very little about individual effectiveness (.AVG). If you want to pull the Triple Crown card, though, Trout had a collection of 3 random stats that were even rarer than Cabrera's (30 HR, 45 SB, 125 R, which has never been done in the history of the MLB). Winning the Triple Crown does not automatically equate someone to be being the best offensive player that year.
"Well he leads the league in OPS! That includes all the aspects of hitting. His OPS is over 1!"
While an OPS of 1+ is very impressive, OPS is kind of a flawed stat in the sense that it treats OBP and SLG as the same importance, when in reality each point of OBP is worth more in terms of creating runs than each point of SLG.
A better stat to look at is wOBA (weighted on-base average), which is similar to OPS but weighs every individual offensive outcome (1B, 2B, 3B, HR, SB, CS, BB, HBP) based on their true run value. SLG assumes that a double is worth twice as much as a single, which is actually false as a single is worth about .44 runs to a double's .77. 2 singles are better than 1 double. This year Trout posted a league-high .421 wOBA to Cabrera's .417.
"But he had so many RBI! He had 50 more than Trout! He's such a better run producer!"
While the RBI totals would tell you Cabrera is better at driving in runners, it's a lot closer than the numbers suggest. See, RBI is the most flawed and useless stat that constantly gets thrown around when comparing player performance. What resulted in his misleading RBI total was a league-high 444 runners on-base during his plate appearances. In terms of actual effectiveness of knocking runners in, they were close to equal. Cabrera this year drove in 31% of his runners on base to Trout's 28%, a lot closer than the 50 RBI margin would have you think. In addition, Miguel batting 3rd meant most of the time his baserunners were Austin Jackson and Quintin Berry, the two fastest players in Detroit's lineup, making them easier to drive in. Since Trout hits leadoff, his baserunners were slower bottom of the order hitters like Chris Ianetta and Vernon Wells.
But if you want to play the RBI (opportunity) game, you must also consider the other side to having the most opportunities with men on base, with the fact that Cabrera grounded into more double plays (28) than any other player in baseball this year.
So you can either ignore the gross difference in opportunities and give Cabrera credit for driving in many more runs while also penalizing him for creating many more outs, or adjust for opportunity and realize that Cabrera hasn’t actually been that much better than Trout at bringing his teammates home once they get on base.
"OK, well maybe his offensive numbers aren't any better, but Miggy is so clutch! He gets the big hits when it really matters and carried his team down the stretch!"
Although "clutchness" is hard to quantify, WPA (win-probability added) does a pretty good job of it. It uses win probability, which takes into account baserunners, outs, and what inning it is -- all the things people used to describe "clutch" -- and measures the win probability before and after each player's at-bat, crediting them with the difference in win probability that resulted from their at-bat. It essentially measure's how much each individual player contributed to their team's win (or loss). For example, the highest single-game postseason WPA of all-time was David Freese in Game 6 of last year's World Series. I don't think anyone would deny that he was as clutch as they came in that game.
So let's look at Trout and Cabrera's season WPA this year:
Trout - 5.67 (1st in AL) Cabrera - 4.55 (4th in AL, behind teammate Prince Fielder and Edwin Encarnacion)
So Trout actually contributed (offensively) to more wins, even taking into account context-based (clutch) situations for his team than Miggy this year.
WPA by month Trout -0.08 - April 0.89 - May 1.63 - June 1.42 - July 1.45 - August 0.36 - Sept/Oct
Cabrera 0.86 - April 0.83 - May -0.28 - June 0.99 - July 1.05 - August 1.11 - Sept/Oct
So yes, while Cabrera was more clutch and effective over the last month, does it really make up for the previous 4 months[/u] that Trout consistently beat Cabrera? After all, a win in June is worth just as much as a win in September at the end of the year.
So now we've come to the conclusion that they were virtually equal in runs created for their team, with the slight edge to Trout, they were virtually equal in driving in baserunners, with the slight edge to Cabrera, and Trout was consistently more clutch throughout the course of the season, with the edge going to Cabrera in the final month. I think it's safe to say they were virtually equal offensive contributors for their teams, you really can't give an edge to either one.
But wait, there's more! (to the game of baseball than just offense). You have to play defense too. And while we couldn't really decide upon who has the advantage offensively, I don't think anyone would really debate that Trout has a MASSIVE advantage over Cabrera defensively, while playing the hardest position in the game. (Although I'm not a huge fan of defensive stats in baseball - and you don't really need them in this situation for it to be clear who the advantage goes to - the defensive numbers are there to support Trout pretty soundly as well).
One more thing to consider is Trout's obvious, and again MASSIVE, speed advantage over Cabrera. Yes, we already included this earlier as SB and CS are included in wOBA, but let's even take steals out of the picture. Trout added so much more value to his team by all the times he used his speed to go from 1st to 3rd, scoring from 2nd on singles and taking extra bases by just being faster and better base runner. This is something that Cabrera simply cannot offer to his team, and frankly, he hurts his team (takes away value) by his deficiency in this facet of the game.
So how can Trout not be the Most Valuable Player this season?
"Well Cabrera's team is in the playoffs! And Trout's isn't! Ha! See? Cabrera is MVP!"
Well, the Angels winning percentage when Trout was in the lineup (.582) was the better than the Tigers with Miggy in the lineup (.543), plus they had a better record overall than the Tigers. So Cabrera should win the MVP because he plays in a weaker division than Trout and his teammates are better? What else did Trout have to do to make up for his team's shortcomings and his stronger division? Should he have played the other 7 positions and pitched like Justin Verlander?
He added more value to his team than Cabrera, plain and simple. Player value to me does not change based on what team you are on. That implies that your team has something to do with an individual award, and that's not the case. It's not the "Most Valuable Player plus other valuable players around you" award, it's just "Most Valuable Player". And Trout was the Most Valuable Player to his team in the entire MLB this year
Cabrera had an incredible season, no doubt, and I'm glad he won the Triple Crown (for both my fantasy team and my wallet, not to mention the sport of baseball), but he was not the Most Valuable Player to his team this year.
Serious question though, to what extent does WPA factor the teams overall record in? If Miguel was dropped into the three spot of the Reds lineup, everything else the same would his WPA rise?
Serious question though, to what extent does WPA factor the teams overall record in? If Miguel was dropped into the three spot of the Reds lineup, everything else the same would his WPA rise?
None, I don't believe. At the beginning of each game, each team has a 50% win probability based on the fact that no events have occurred yet to give either team an advantage in win probability in that game. It is strictly context/situational-based from that point forward after each play in the game.
The last time someone did what Trout did (30 HR, 45 SB, 125 R) was...... never.
And which will happen again first? I vote 30/45/125. Easily.
Mike Trout is a SoCal wussbag.
lol, ok. That's a nice, opinionated, baseless projection that goes against the history of the game. But do you have reasonable arguments backed by facts and numbers to why Miguel Cabrera was more valuable than Mike Trout that I didn't already provide (and disprove) above? I'd love to hear them.
My comment was obviously a joke, Mike Trout would detach my head from my body if I pissed him off enough.
And look, I get the thinking behind Trout being MVP. He's a better fielder and base runner, which is indisputable. Miggy switched a position, so even though he wasn't that good he should get some bonus points for playing a new position and not killing his team.
But my vote goes to Miggy for two reasons (mostly).
1- Miggy played some of his best baseball when it mattered most while Trout played some of his worst and I think that should count for something. MVP isn't solely a statistical award and when the Tigers were in a race for the division title Miggy's bat started booming. And the Tigers kept winning. Trout is capable of making an impact in the field, which helps when his production dips, but Miggy doesn't dip. He's 24/7 mashed potatoes.
2- The triple crown. I know you dismiss the fact I think that a 30/45/125 season will happen before another triple crown, but that season is a product of players becoming bigger, stronger and faster. There will be more and more players that are huge and fast like Trout, and some of them will have some pop in their bats. I realize that Trout is a special talent, but the likelihood that a big, strong, fast athlete with generationally exception hand-eye coordination that can go 30/45/125 is more likely to me than someone hitting for the triple crown. The talent pool gets better together, so it's (obviously) incredibly hard to be the best in all three categories in a single year. People thought a 40/40 season was something that would never happen, then something that would never happen again. But athletes got bigger and faster and there have been a few guys that have done it. Eventually we'll see someone have a 50/50 season. It could even be Trout, who knows, but that will raise the bar again.
And then there's this. A-rod went 42/46/123 in 1998. Eric Davis had a 37/50/120 season in '87. Bobby Bonds missed it by 5 runs in '69, 4 HR's in '70, and 2 SB's in '73. Carlos Beltran went 38/42/121 in 2004. Soriano went 39/41/128 in 2002. And there are more, I personally think Jacoby Ellsbury if he's healthy for 162 games has a great chance at a 30/45/125 season.
Since the 60's and the decision by many hitters to specialize as either power or average hitters it's become much less common for guys to hit for both power and average on a level to win the triple crown. This is obviously an opinion, but at least you know I'm not just blowing smoke now.
Just for lulz: Jose Conseco in a juice-filled '88 went 42/40/120 with 124 RBI's and won MVP. Tee hee.
But my vote goes to Miggy for two reasons (mostly).
1- Miggy played some of his best baseball when it mattered most while Trout played some of his worst and I think that should count for something. MVP isn't solely a statistical award and when the Tigers were in a race for the division title Miggy's bat started booming. And the Tigers kept winning.
I do agree with this to a point, but like I said: "does it really make up for the previous 4 months that Trout consistently beat Cabrera? After all, a win in June is worth just as much as a win in September at the end of the year."
2- The triple crown. I know you dismiss the fact I think that a 30/45/125 season will happen before another triple crown, but that season is a product of players becoming bigger, stronger and faster. There will be more and more players that are huge and fast like Trout, and some of them will have some pop in their bats. I realize that Trout is a special talent, but the likelihood that a big, strong, fast athlete with generationally exception hand-eye coordination that can go 30/45/125 is more likely to me than someone hitting for the triple crown. The talent pool gets better together, so it's (obviously) incredibly hard to be the best in all three categories in a single year. People thought a 40/40 season was something that would never happen, then something that would never happen again. But athletes got bigger and faster and there have been a few guys that have done it. Eventually we'll see someone have a 50/50 season. It could even be Trout, who knows, but that will raise the bar again.
And then there's this. A-rod went 42/46/123 in 1998. Eric Davis had a 37/50/120 season in '87. Bobby Bonds missed it by 5 runs in '69, 4 HR's in '70, and 2 SB's in '73. Carlos Beltran went 38/42/121 in 2004. Soriano went 39/41/128 in 2002. And there are more, I personally think Jacoby Ellsbury if he's healthy for 162 games has a great chance at a 30/45/125 season.
Since the 60's and the decision by many hitters to specialize as either power or average hitters it's become much less common for guys to hit for both power and average on a level to win the triple crown. This is obviously an opinion, but at least you know I'm not just blowing smoke now.
Just for lulz: Jose Conseco in a juice-filled '88 went 42/40/120 with 124 RBI's and won MVP. Tee hee.
This is great and all, and I now see your point that 30/45/125 is probably more likely to happen again before a Triple Crown. But the Triple Crown (or whatever incredibly rare combination of 3 stats you produce) does not even equate "best offensive player" let alone "Most Valuable Player." Hell, since the MVP became a thing in 1931 only 5/9 of the players who hit for the Triple Crown actually won the MVP. Value comes from all the things you offer to your team on the baseball field throughout the course of the year (Which I showed above, Trout has the clearly overall edge in), not the rarity of 3 arbitrary stats you accumulated and the likelihood of them occurring again.
Agree 100% with you, Alberto, but part of the reason not every Triple Crown winner has won MVP is because the media HATED Ted Williams so many of its members would refuse to vote for him. Even though he was clearly the best hitter like...ever?
I do agree with this to a point, but like I said: "does it really make up for the previous 4 months that Trout consistently beat Cabrera? After all, a win in June is worth just as much as a win in September at the end of the year
Cabrera was consistently good, though He didn't taper off he just consistently hit baseballs. In a way that can be more impressive than a couple months of HOLY SH*T baseball, at least to me.
This is great and all, and I now see your point that 30/45/125 is probably more likely to happen again before a Triple Crown. But the Triple Crown (or whatever incredibly rare combination of 3 stats you produce) does not even equate "best offensive player" let alone "Most Valuable Player." Hell, only 5/9 of the players who hit for the Triple Crown won the MVP since the MVP became a thing in 1931. Value comes from all the things you offer to your team on the baseball field throughout the course of the year (Which I showed above, Trout has the overall edge in), not the rarity of 3 arbitrary stats you accumulated and the likelihood of them occurring again.
Well, Ted Williams' teams didn't make the playoffs either year he won ithit for the triple crown. Chuck Klein lost to a pitcher who started, threw under a 2.00 ERA and closed games that he wasn't pitching in (seriously), but this was also in 1933, so the guys voting probably didn't even see Klein play very often (not sure what this means, just seems like it probably hurt him when the guy he lost to played in NY and Klein was in Philly). I have no idea why Lou Gherig was fifth in a season where his own teammate (pitcher Lefty Gomez) and three Detroit players all finished ahead of him.
I don't think the triple crown seals it for Miggy, but I think his consistency and how he played better for the playoff push gives him the edge.
I don't think the triple crown seals it for Miggy, but I think his consistency and how he played better for the playoff push gives him the edge.
I'm not quite sure I follow your logic that Miggy should be rewarded for his consistency of being less valuable than Trout, but I can't discredit his performance during the playoff push. That's really the one thing that I see him having the advantage over Trout in, but I just refuse to believe that him playing better during a window of time that's deemed "more important" (when in reality every win is worth the same) outweighs all the other factors that favor Trout. I just have a hard time seeing how, with all the information and stats we have readily available to us in this day and age of baseball, anyone who really looks into this can think that Miguel Cabrera was more valuable than Mike Trout this year. Cabrera had a hell of a year that will go down in the record books, but sometimes somebody is just better.
My real issue with Trout's #s is that I think SB's are overvalued. I certainly recognize their value on the field, but you still need the green light from manager, and it's just a team by team thing how many opportunities you get. But regardless, I think power hitting is the single most valuable skill set for a player and Miggy absolutely has Trout beat there.
My real issue with Trout's #s is that I think SB's are overvalued. I certainly recognize their value on the field, but you still need the green light from manager, and it's just a team by team thing how many opportunities you get. But regardless, I think power hitting is the single most valuable skill set for a player and Miggy absolutely has Trout beat there.
The thing is, at least in the arguments that I used with wOBA and WPA and such, nothing is undervalued or overvalued. Mathematicians have figured out the exact run value of a steal, compared to a single, double, triple, home run, etc. based on all the occurrences of these events throughout the history of baseball. It can't be debated, it is fact.
Yes, a home run is the most valuable event that can be performed on offense. It is worth on average 1.39 true runs to a stolen base's .16. But the major difference in steals (45), along with all the other things Trout contributed, make up for their lesser difference in home runs (14).
These are not just random weights assigned intuitively to different events, these are proven mathematical values throughout the course of baseball history.
Ya I get that, value maybe wasn't the right word. I get their value to the game. But all players don't have the same likelihood over being able to attempt to steal for any number of totally subjective reasons, more so than hitting away or hit and run calls or whatever. So while the value of the outcome may be weighed appropriate, there is no factor for likelihood of being allowed to attempt a steal.
Ya I get that, value maybe wasn't the right word. I get their value to the game. But all players don't have the same likelihood over being able to attempt to steal for any number of totally subjective reasons, more so than hitting away or hit and run calls or whatever. So while the value of the outcome may be weighed appropriate, there is no factor for likelihood of being allowed to attempt a steal.
But you can't discredit Trout for playing to one of his greatest strengths. He was successful in 91% of his steal attempts this year, an absurd number and (I believe) the league-high. When you're that much better than everyone else at something, of course you're going to do it a lot. The reason why Trout has so many more steal attempts is because he is that much better than Cabrera at stealing. It's not like RBI where the cumulative value can be misleading due to # of opportunities because the # of opportunities depend on other players. The # of SB attempts depends solely on the one player in question and his ability to steal bases or not
But the reason he has so many more steals is because he bats lead off, and he bats leadoff cause he's still more of an average hitter than a power hitter.
I'm not trying to discredit steals, but like RBIs they can be really situational and sorta arbitrary.
But the reason he has so many more steals is because he bats lead off, and he bats leadoff cause he's still more of an average hitter than a power hitter.
I'm not trying to discredit steals, but like RBIs they can be really situational and sorta arbitrary.
That's not really the same at all though. I'm not sure you caught the end of my post because I slipped it in on an edit but-
" It's not like RBI where the cumulative value can be misleading due to # of opportunities because the # of opportunities depend on other players. The # of SB attempts depends solely on the one player in question and his ability to steal bases or not"
another way of putting that is:
Every time a player reaches base, they have an opportunity to steal the next base. Therefore, two players with an identical OBP have the same number of opportunities to steal over the course of a season. The amount of steals accumulated afterwards and the success % is then totally and completely dependent on the players ability to execute it.
However, each time a player comes up he may or may not have an opportunity at additional RBI. Therefore two players with identical AVG/OBP/SLG/OPS/wOBA could still have DRASTICALLY different RBI opportunities/totals. In fact, the player with the worse slash line could still have the higher RBI total. For example, take a look at Ruben Sierra's season in 1993 where he posted a HORRENDOUS .233/.288/.390/.678 slash line and still managed to rack up 101 RBI, to a year like Bonds had in 2003 where he posted an absurd .341/.529/.749/1.278 line for only 90 RBI. The amount of RBI accumulated in this case clearly had absolutely nothing to do with the players ability to execute, unlike the steals scenario above.
Post by Alberto Balsalm on Oct 4, 2012 20:08:30 GMT -5
You can always still steal the base though, even if the bases are loaded. You cannot create a baserunner to drive in if there is not one on the basepaths.
Post by Alberto Balsalm on Oct 4, 2012 20:24:04 GMT -5
However, despite all of this, Cabrera is still going to win the MVP because voters are old and stubborn and refuse to admit that there is more information out there that is much more accurate in comparing player performance than their archaic methods suggest.
Agree 100% with you, Alberto, but part of the reason not every Triple Crown winner has won MVP is because the media HATED Ted Williams so many of its members would refuse to vote for him. Even though he was clearly the best hitter like...ever?
I think the biggest reason that many TC winners didn't get MVP is because it used to be more common. Ted Williams was not likable and arrogant but that only accounts for two times the TC winner didn't win the MVP. Nowadays it has become more of a deal in the same way that perfect games lately have become devalued because there have been a rash of them.
