Welcome to our community
Be apart of something great, join today!
Will the baseball nerds ruin the sport with cybermetrics and WAR stuff?
- Thread starter ThoseBackPages
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
George_Calfas
Well-known member
Cyborg's utilizing poor mathematical formulas.
notjomommasclint
Active member
The art of freezing rulers
Topnotchsy
Featured Contributor, The best players in history?
- Aug 7, 2008
- 9,452
- 186
I'm a fan of advanced metrics but I think that many forget what they are calculating. For example, many like to use an incidence of unusually high BABiP to predict a decrease in future BA due to regression to the mean. As a predictive tool such an approach makes sense, but when valuing past performance it seems silly to me to discount a hit due to it being "lucky.". In the end a hit is a hit.
It was good to see the baseball writers value winning baseball games and division titles again this year. Plus, the dirty little secret about Trout is that he slowed down a bit during winning time in September while Cabrera was on fire.
uniquebaseballcards
New member
- Nov 12, 2008
- 6,783
- 0
uniquebaseballcards
New member
- Nov 12, 2008
- 6,783
- 0
alwayson22
Member
The Angels won more games than the Tigers and did so while playing in a better division.
George_Calfas
Well-known member
So? The award is MVP, Most VALUABLE Player. Value is coming through when your team needs you.
Look at hitting down the final playoff stretch; Trout hit .284 (Aug) and .289 (Sept), Cabrera hit .357 (Aug) and .333 (Sept).
alwayson22
Member
You changed the argument, George. I was merely pointing out that if the voters valued "winning", the Angels won more games and had the best record in baseball after Trout was called up. I have no problem with anyone who wants to weigh September batting statistics more heavily than batting statistics accrued earlier in the season. In fact, I have no problem with Cabrera winning the award. He's the best hitter in baseball, IMO, just as Trout is the best player in baseball (for 2012), IMO.
TBTwinsFan
New member
What is WAR?
More MATH I assume. I just like watching baseball...
More MATH I assume. I just like watching baseball...
George_Calfas
Well-known member
I dont see how Trout could be the best player in baseball (2012) with a sub .300 BA during the last 2 months of the season.
By stating the team had the best winning percentage of any team after his call up negates the contribution of those around him, ie Pujols finally stopped sucking, roster moves made by the front office etc.
alwayson22
Member
With regards to team wins, we're in total agreement. The Tigers, just like the Angels, had major acquisitions (Fielder, Sanchez) and Verlander/Jackson were beasts.
With regards to the "best player" argument, I understand it is completely subjective. I value stats (offense/baserunning/defense) accumulated in May the same as stats accumulated in September. So, with my subjective view that the "best player" for a particular season should include not only stats accrued throughout the season, but baserunning and defense (to get a complete view of a player's value), my argument for Trout is:
Cabrera = .330 avg (#1 AL) / .396 obp (#4 AL) / .606 slg (#1 AL) = .999 OPS (#1 AL)
Trout = .326 avg (#2 AL) / .399 obp (#3 AL) / .564 slg (#3 AL) = .963 OPS (#2 AL)
That is purely in the batters box, where Cabrera has a slight edge over Trout. Once I add baserunning and defense to the equation (again, subjective measurements), I put Trout over Cabrera. I think it's a logical argument (of course, I would hope my arguments seem logical to myself
), but if somebody else has different reasons for putting Cabrera over Trout (best hitter in basebll, Triple Crown, late season numbers, division title, etc.), I absolutely respect and understand those reasons.
joey12508
Well-known member
I think the best player in baseball last year was mike trout. the most valuable was miggy without a doubt.
FromKoufaxtoEdwin
New member
- Aug 15, 2008
- 212
- 0
Because batting average is a terrible tool in trying to evaluate the worth or "value" of a player. There are so many things, even offensively, that batting average alone doesnt calculate, which is why it has the one of lowest correlations to runs scored of any "stat" that is used.
As for the team and playoffs argument, people need to realize that baseball is not basketball. LeBron James might be worth 25 to wins wins for his team over 82 games; at best, a guy like Mike Trout, who had one of the best all-around seasons in recent memory, is worth around 10 wins of 162 games. It is the same awful argument that was used against Matt Kemp last year. Why should he be punished because his teammates were not as good as Ryan Braun's? Both the Angels and Tigers had great players surrounding their "star," and the Angels did win more games than the Tigers in a tougher division. For me, I just dont understand rewarding guys for something that is completely out of their control.
George_Calfas
Well-known member
How about RBI, when the Tigers needed Miggy the most (the last month of the season while trailing Chi WS) he had 30 RBI in 31 games.
FromKoufaxtoEdwin
New member
- Aug 15, 2008
- 212
- 0
Another statistic that shows very little about value. RBI is often something that a player cannot control (unless he hits a home run) and is dependent on the players in front of you getting on base. For example, Cabrera had right around 70 more plate appearances than Trout with RISP. And even with that, both samples are exceedingly small to tell all that much about either player other than they are both totally fantastic hitters. There is no debate as to whether Cabrera is an inner-circle HOF type hitter. Heck, I've been advocating him as the second best hitter, behind Pujuls, over the last 7-8 years. He had a fantastic year and got a ton of attention because of the Triple Crown, which is great. But he wasnt the best overall baseball player in the league, and looking at it purely from an objective standpoint (and not even using WAR, which apparently everyone hates and few understand), it wasn't all that close.
George_Calfas
Well-known member
I don't buy that Trout was better, his batting stats inning 7-9 are worse than Miggy and had he played as games his BA would have continued to fade.
WAR and these other flawed numerical evaluation tools are skewed and devalue certain positions and reward others. Look inside the numbers and speed is the one thing that Trout has over Miggy.
FromKoufaxtoEdwin
New member
- Aug 15, 2008
- 212
- 0
Why is wOBA flawed? What about wRC+? You can't just say they are flawed without giving an explanation of what they calculate and how the evidence that those stats correlate with runs scored and wins is much higher than something like batting average, RBI, etc.
I personally am not a fan of using one season WAR because of the fluctuation of defensive numbers across the rating systems. Even with that, Trout graded out highly positive across all systems and passes the eye test with flying colors. Cabrera, at the very best, is average. Does defense not count for anything?
And Trout wasnt better because his numbers in the last 3 innings were worse than Cabrera's? That's your argument? Do innings 1-6 not count the same? Is a run in the 8th inning counted twice? Is a run in the 3rd inning really 1/3 of a run and not an entire run? How about saving runs with defense? Is that not included in your sublime analysis?
As for your last point, speed is a very important part of baseball. Defense and baserunning are things that actually do exist, and speed is a huge part of both. Do we discount Cabrera's 28 double plays because he is slow? Do we not give credit to Trout for being a fantastic defender, saving a high amount of runs, just because he is fast? So yes, speed is one thing Trout has over Cabrera. And it shows itself in Trout having an astronomically higher effect and adding value through his baserunning and defense.
Similar threads
