Assuming Cabrera DOES NOT win the Triple Crown, who is the MVP?

[FromKoufaxtoEdwin]

+1, he's either in love with Trout or hates Cabrera, but that was the most ridiculous article from a serious sports writer I've ever seen. That put him on the same level as Skip Bayless for the extent of the MVP race/argument...worthless.

What exactly is ridiculous about it? What is not logical and correct about his break down of the two players? Do you not believe that baserunning and defense actually provide value to a team?

 

[All The Hype]

What exactly is ridiculous about it? What is not logical and correct about his break down of the two players? Do you not believe that baserunning and defense actually provide value to a team?

I'm not talking about his recent article, I'm talking about this article: http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/blog...lander-other-2012-mvp-cy-young-candidates-mlb

This is from one month ago, when most people agreed the MVP race was already down to Trout and Cabrera, and he not only left Cabrera (and Josh Hamilton) off the list entirely, but he put two other Tigers on the list, basically saying Cabrera is the 3rd most valuable player on the Tigers when some would have argued that he was the MVP of the league.

THAT is what I am calling ridiculous.

 

[FromKoufaxtoEdwin]

I'm not talking about his recent article, I'm talking about this article: http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/blog...lander-other-2012-mvp-cy-young-candidates-mlb

This is from one month ago, when most people agreed the MVP race was already down to Trout and Cabrera, and he not only left Cabrera (and Josh Hamilton) off the list entirely, but he put two other Tigers on the list, basically saying Cabrera is the 3rd most valuable player on the Tigers when some would have argued that he was the MVP of the league.

THAT is what I am calling ridiculous.

Got it.

 

[That's Crucial]

Red Herring here All The Hype. Law's previous article has no relevance to the article Koufax is citing. You are just taking the attention away from statistical facts, non-batting offensive and defensive metrics that Law reports in his most recent article which make it quite clear that if we show no bias Trout is a clear-cut MVP above Cabrera. You probably do this because you are a Tigers fan and thus want Miggy to have as much support as possible. Which is cool with me. Just want you to know there is a right and a wrong here. And Miggy for MVP is wrong.

I'm not talking about his recent article, I'm talking about this article: http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/blog...lander-other-2012-mvp-cy-young-candidates-mlb

This is from one month ago, when most people agreed the MVP race was already down to Trout and Cabrera, and he not only left Cabrera (and Josh Hamilton) off the list entirely, but he put two other Tigers on the list, basically saying Cabrera is the 3rd most valuable player on the Tigers when some would have argued that he was the MVP of the league.

THAT is what I am calling ridiculous.

 

[All The Hype]

Red Herring here All The Hype. Law's previous article has no relevance to the article Koufax is citing. You are just taking the attention away from statistical facts, non-batting offensive and defensive metrics that Law reports in his most recent article which make it quite clear that if we show no bias Trout is a clear-cut MVP above Cabrera. You probably do this because you are a Tigers fan and thus want Miggy to have as much support as possible. Which is cool with me. Just want you to know there is a right and a wrong here. And Miggy for MVP is wrong.

You're missing the point, I'm not making an argument for or against either candidate based on these Keith Law articles. I'm just saying I don't put much faith into anything he says based on the number of laughable articles he's put out before, including the one quoted.

I'm obviously in the Cabrera camp, but I enjoy a good debate and am open minded to hear different arguments for and against each player. It's part of the fun.

 

[hail2thevictors]

Just want you to know there is a right and a wrong here. And Miggy for MVP is wrong.

Let me preface this post by saying I am a HUGE Miggy fan, and Tigers fan.

OK-to say Miggy for MVP is wrong is just silly. A guy who is 1st in avg, 1st in RBI, and 2nd in HR in his league--how can that be wrong? Even being a huge Miggy fan, I think Trout has the edge for the MVP based on all around value to his team. However, to say voting Cabrera is wrong is absolutely hilarious.

The bottom line is these 2 guys have been so good there isn't a wrong choice. Some people are very "old school", and they look at avg/hr/rbi etc. Some are into all the sabermetrics like Keith Law, and they love Trout. To each their own. But to say voting a potential triple crown winner is wrong, well that is laughable.

Again, I think Trout is the guy.

 

[That's Crucial]

When I say "wrong" I mean just that "wrong". That is assuming there is a "right" which in this case there is. Miggy for MVP is "wrong" because we can determine "value" as in MVP (The most Valuable) through indisputable calculation. Even allowing for a modicum of uncertainty in these calculations we still can emphatically say without question Trout is the Most Valuable Player in the AL. If Miggy is picked it is done so by erroneous and subjective evaluation of Valuable and is therefore completely and utterly arbitrary and "wrong".

P.S. I own a TT Miggy auto and think he is a future inner circle HOFer. This year he is less valuable than Trout though.

Let me preface this post by saying I am a HUGE Miggy fan, and Tigers fan.

OK-to say Miggy for MVP is wrong is just silly. A guy who is 1st in avg, 1st in RBI, and 2nd in HR in his league--how can that be wrong? Even being a huge Miggy fan, I think Trout has the edge for the MVP based on all around value to his team. However, to say voting Cabrera is wrong is absolutely hilarious.

The bottom line is these 2 guys have been so good there isn't a wrong choice. Some people are very "old school", and they look at avg/hr/rbi etc. Some are into all the sabermetrics like Keith Law, and they love Trout. To each their own. But to say voting a potential triple crown winner is wrong, well that is laughable.

Again, I think Trout is the guy.

 

[mlbsalltimegreats]

When I say "wrong" I mean just that "wrong". That is assuming there is a "right" which in this case there is. Miggy for MVP is "wrong" because we can determine "value" as in MVP (The most Valuable) through indisputable calculation. Even allowing for a modicum of uncertainty in these calculations we still can emphatically say without question Trout is the Most Valuable Player in the AL. If Miggy is picked it is done so by erroneous and subjective evaluation of Valuable and is therefore completely and utterly arbitrary and "wrong".

P.S. I own a TT Miggy auto and think he is a future inner circle HOFer. This year he is less valuable than Trout though.

I disagree and as far as im concerned Fxxk war! (Not towards you crucial) Im not gonna discount the fact that Cabrera who has a Higher Ops, Sluging, same Opb, Higher Avg, Rbi, Hr, Less strikeouts, More Doubles and believe that Trout is more valuble than Cabrera all because of Stolen bases. I got to admit that I need to educated myself on War alot more. I guess what im wondering is does War know if Trout has scored as a result of those stolen bases? Does War account for game winning hits, Homeruns? And as for Defense, Has Miguel Cabrera Lost the Tigers any games as a result of his glove or Dwar? Has Trout Won the Angels any games as a result of his glove or Dwar? I honestly dont know? Does war account for those things? War may have its place but i dont believe its the end all of everything. Braun Won the MVP being 4th in war! War states that Jimmy Rollins is just as Good or valuble as Derek Jeter :lol: Im not a huge fan of Jeter but I would take him anyday over Rollins. I guess it just comes down to personal Preference, those who want to wrap thier heads in sabermetrics and War to determine who is better or more valuble can and I guess I will just continue to watch baseball. Then again im just a collector of cards and will collect based on my preferences so i doubt my collection will suffer as a result of not collecting the absolute best war guys.

 

[Austin]

The majority of MVP voters do not use WAR when deciding the winner.

If WAR mattered, Ben Zobrist would have won MVP in 2011, as he led the AL in WAR.

Nick Markakis led in WAR in 2008 and he got ZERO votes for MVP.
ZERO VOTES. 23 other AL players got MVP votes including Markakis' teammate, Aubrey Huff.

Other WAR leaders have been Dickie Thon, Lonnie Smith, Teddy Higuera, Kevin Appier...

 

[actionor]

Andrew McCutchen! He the man! He should be on the Yankees, Dodgers, or SF Giants if he ever wants a ring but then again the Cash talks on that Franchise player.

 

[All The Hype]

What's interesting to me is that Cabrera can lead Trout in about 90% of all offensive categories, yet still trail him in offensive WAR.

Makes one wonder how WAR is actually calculated, since it's obviously a complicated process. I thought I'd look into it more, and maybe this will help shed some light for others too:

If I understand correctly, all the major baseball statistic websites calculate it differently, but with focus on the same things. I found this to be useful: http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/war_explained_position.shtml

It mostly seems like they look at the number of times certain things happen in every possible situation, rather than statistics at a whole. When you break it down, statistics are usually a black and white count of the extremes...for example, when you calculate batting average, a hit is a hit, an out is an out. When you calculate homeruns, it either goes over the fence or it doesn't. Baseball's traditional statistics are tallies of these events, none of these statistics account for the value that players can add in specific situations that DON'T show in their stat lines, and that's where WAR comes in. Hitting a player over to the next base, taking an extra base, the assumed loss of run opportunities cause by hitting into a double play. Instead of only looking at stats (the black and white outcomes), WAR considers all situations and the value the player adds to his team, ultimately turning their output into a number of wins they helped the team achieve that would not have happened if they had been replaced by a AAAA caliber player.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

This is good info to know, thanks.

 

[thefatguy]

And what is a AAAA player?
How are those stats determined?

That's my problem with WAR.

Why don't they just use league averages over 50 years and call it wins above average player?

 

[FromKoufaxtoEdwin]

And what is a AAAA player?
How are those stats determined?

That's my problem with WAR.

Why don't they just use league averages over 50 years and call it wins above average player?

Because WAR stands for Wins Above Replacement. A replacement player is a AAAA player that just about any team has in the minors and they can plug in to their lineup. A team full of these players would still win around 50 or so games in a major league season. This is a pretty darn good explanation- http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/misc/war/replacement-level/.

Guys, there is so much information out there are to how these numbers are calculated, how they correlate to actual team wins, and why they are used. Advanced numbers are used in every front office, and are huge parts of decision making in the most successful front offices. Instead of dismissing something because you dont understand or because certain evaluations dont match up with your opinion, try to read up on it and digest the information.
The numbers that "traditionalists" use were put into place and deemed as important over 100 years ago. Thinking has changed since then, and so has the understanding of the game. Why do we still use batting average when it doesnt account for extra base hits, walks, HBP, etc? Why do we use RBI when it is entirely context dependent and prone to sample size fluctuations?

If you understand the numbers, you can see why Trout and Cabrera are having similar offensive seasons from a value perspective. You can see that based on positional values, park effects, the competition the player has played, defensive value, etc that Trout has been far and away the best player in the game.

 

[markakis8]

The majority of MVP voters do not use WAR when deciding the winner.

If WAR mattered, Ben Zobrist would have won MVP in 2011, as he led the AL in WAR.

Nick Markakis led in WAR in 2008 and he got ZERO votes for MVP.
ZERO VOTES. 23 other AL players got MVP votes including Markakis' teammate, Aubrey Huff.

Other WAR leaders have been Dickie Thon, Lonnie Smith, Teddy Higuera, Kevin Appier...

Well obviously WAR isn't the ONLY thing they look at - clearly your teams record counts (which is why Markakis did not receive any votes, O's were one of the worst teams in baseball) and offensive #'s DO count which is why Zobirst hardly got any votes - most of his WAR comes from his defensive versatility.

So your argument is skewed. Trout is doing EVERYTHING an MVP player should be doing - power, high average, creating runs, stealing bases, playing spectacular defense and saving runs. There really isn't a flaw in Trout's season. Maybe the high K's, that's about it. On top of that, the Angels are still in playoff contention and would not be if it wasn't for Trout. That's easy to see. AND he's blowing everyone away in WAR.

I'm telling you, it's going to be REALLY close. I know the odds are not good, but it would not surprise me if Miggy and Trout split 1st place and 2nd place votes and they were CO-MVP a la Hernandez/Stargell

 

[Austin]

Well obviously WAR isn't the ONLY thing they look at - clearly your teams record counts (which is why Markakis did not receive any votes, O's were one of the worst teams in baseball)

Markakis' teammate Aubrey Huff got MVP votes, even though Markakis led the league in WAR.

Trout is doing EVERYTHING an MVP player should be doing - power, high average, creating runs, stealing bases, playing spectacular defense and saving runs....

Oh, I agree (even though I'd still choose Cabrera). My argument is that the majority of voting writers do not care about WAR, and don't use it to choose an MVP.

But the writers, like Keith Law, who think Trout should win, are using WAR as the reason. That's great, but the vast majority of voters, as evidenced nearly every year of MVP balloting, don't care.

If they pick Trout, it's because of his amazing all-around play, not because of some stat that not everyone agrees how to even calculate.

 

[jbmm161]

Tigers look like they may push the White Sox out of the playoff picture if this happens then Cabrera will more than likely win.
Trout's numbers are awesome but I just don't think a player who's team fails to make the post season deserves to win a MVP, Cy Young award.

 

[nborton]

Markakis' teammate Aubrey Huff got MVP votes, even though Markakis led the league in WAR.


Oh, I agree (even though I'd still choose Cabrera). My argument is that the majority of voting writers do not care about WAR, and don't use it to choose an MVP.

But the writers, like Keith Law, who think Trout should win, are using WAR as the reason. That's great, but the vast majority of voters, as evidenced nearly every year of MVP balloting, don't care.

If they pick Trout, it's because of his amazing all-around play, not because of some stat that not everyone agrees how to even calculate.

That's my only issue with WAR. It's a nifty stat, but there is no consensus on how it's calculated. Not only that, but it uses arbitrary numbers to factor in how difficult a position is supposed to be, changes in ballparks, etc.

It's a lot like the advanced pitching metrics. They do a decent job predicting pitchers who's ERAs should be either higher or lower because of defensive mistakes, but fail in the sense that they are basing the stats off of assumptions. Sometimes pitchers play on great defensive teams, and get the advantage all year. Other times its fluky, and yet other times the D stinks all the time. Yet they assume you pitch with a league average D behind you.

 

[FromKoufaxtoEdwin]

That's my only issue with WAR. It's a nifty stat, but there is no consensus on how it's calculated. Not only that, but it uses arbitrary numbers to factor in how difficult a position is supposed to be, changes in ballparks, etc.

It's a lot like the advanced pitching metrics. They do a decent job predicting pitchers who's ERAs should be either higher or lower because of defensive mistakes, but fail in the sense that they are basing the stats off of assumptions. Sometimes pitchers play on great defensive teams, and get the advantage all year. Other times its fluky, and yet other times the D stinks all the time. Yet they assume you pitch with a league average D behind you.

Advanced pitching metrics are not predictive. They show how the pitcher is done in certain categories that have been determined over the years to be in the pitcher's control (K's, walks, home runs) to come up with a number that is what that pitcher's ERA should have been based on their performance. Depending on the metric you use, the numbers that are regressed include HR% or batted ball numbers. Things like FIP, xFIP, siera, etc. are more predictive than ERA because they actually reflect how well the pitcher has pitched and what their "true" ERA should have been, which is more in line with that pitcher's true talent level, which lends a better prediction to what the pitcher will do going forward.

As for WAR, the big issue is with how the defensive component is calculated, because that does vary. I think by using all of the available defensive metrics out there, you can get a pretty good idea of how good a player is defensively. The offensive component of WAR is pretty similar for both fangraphs and baseball reference, with some difference in their baserunning calculations, I believe. Personally, I am a bigger fan of wOBA and wRC+, so I choose to look at fangraphs for those numbers and then use all of the defensive metrics available for those numbers.

 

[nborton]

Advanced pitching metrics are not predictive. They show how the pitcher is done in certain categories that have been determined over the years to be in the pitcher's control (K's, walks, home runs) to come up with a number that is what that pitcher's ERA should have been based on their performance. Depending on the metric you use, the numbers that are regressed include HR% or batted ball numbers. Things like FIP, xFIP, siera, etc. are more predictive than ERA because they actually reflect how well the pitcher has pitched and what their "true" ERA should have been, which is more in line with that pitcher's true talent level, which lends a better prediction to what the pitcher will do going forward.

As for WAR, the big issue is with how the defensive component is calculated, because that does vary. I think by using all of the available defensive metrics out there, you can get a pretty good idea of how good a player is defensively. The offensive component of WAR is pretty similar for both fangraphs and baseball reference, with some difference in their baserunning calculations, I believe. Personally, I am a bigger fan of wOBA and wRC+, so I choose to look at fangraphs for those numbers and then use all of the defensive metrics available for those numbers.

I was thinking about the bold part when talking about the predictive aspects.

I'm with you on the defensive metrics. Baseball being how it is, it's almost impossible to know statistically that someone "should" have made a play, or even could have. There's a lot that factors in besides the location of where a ball was hit. What if the other team had a hit and run going, and shifted the infield because of it. What if a guy shattered his bat, and the barrel is flying at the player the same time the ball is. There's just too many factors that can't realistically be accounted for.

It's the same scouting arguments all over again. Do you go just by numbers, and advanced stats alone? Or do you go by what your eye sees? You have to mix the two to really get a real sense of what's happening.