White Sox Interactive Forums
Talking Baseball

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Talking Baseball
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 10-07-2013, 09:19 PM
SephClone89 SephClone89 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oswego, IL
Posts: 6,028
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
Bill James fudged with the advanced metrics to fit the argument because you really couldn't argue that in 1959 that Fox was the AL MVP, although Aparicio (a .257 hitter) got the first-place votes Fox didn't. Mantle was a much bigger run producer, using James' advanced-but-not-advanced-enough-to-show-Fox-should-have-been-MVP metrics. And I haven't seen anyone argue those more advanced metrics in arguing for Trout to be this season's MVP.

The bottom line is that with Trout, the Angels had a losing record, finishing behind Texas and Oakland ahead of Houston and Seattle, despite being expected by pretty much everyone to contend. Without Trout, the Angels would have had a lousing season, behind Texas and Oakland and ahead of Houston and Seattle. That is only an MVP season if you don't care about winning.

Meanwhile, the arguments that are being made for Trout are the same ones that could have been made in arguing that Fox wasn't the most valuable player in 1959. Except the margins aren't as wide as they were in 1959. And not even Bill James have ever seemed to believe that wasn't true.
In 1959, Fox had the second-highest bWar among position players in the AL--second only to Mantle, and by a margin barely more than half a win. Most would consider that negligible.
__________________
Attendance Records

2014: 4-8 plus Fenway and HOF weekend
2013: 4-6 plus St. Louis and Milwaukee
2012: 7-4
2011: 6-4 plus NYC parks and Minnesota
2010: 5-6
2009: 2-4 plus Pittsburgh

"Genius is not replicable. Inspiration, though, is contagious, and multiform and even just to see, close up, power and aggression made vulnerable to beauty is to feel inspired and (in a fleeting, mortal way) reconciled."
--David Foster Wallace, () "Roger Federer as Religious Experience"
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 10-07-2013, 09:42 PM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is offline
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 54,333
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SephClone89 View Post
In 1959, Fox had the second-highest bWar among position players in the AL--second only to Mantle, and by a margin barely more than half a win. Most would consider that negligible.
Yeah, exactly, Mantle was the much better offensive player but Fox was a much better all around player. Luckily in 1959, the writers understood "Most Valuable Player" doesn't mean "Best Middle of the Order Offensive Player."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 10-08-2013, 02:14 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 16,373
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SephClone89 View Post
In 1959, Fox had the second-highest bWar among position players in the AL--second only to Mantle, and by a margin barely more than half a win. Most would consider that negligible.
Nonetheless, the arguments being used to promote Trout for MVP could be used to promote Mantle for MVP in 1959.

Of course, in 1959, the baseball writers who voted for MVP, for whatever reason, based their votes on the baseball they covered during the season. Fox and Aparicio got the first-place votes. Not having the stats to look at, to tell them who to vote for, some of the stats not even existing at the time, the voters placed Mantle 17th.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 10-08-2013, 02:22 PM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is offline
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 54,333
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
Nonetheless, the arguments being used to promote Trout for MVP could be used to promote Mantle for MVP in 1959.
OK, but they didn't, do you not see how preposterous this argument is, THEORETICALLY, they COULD HAVE voted Mantle MVP, but they didn't, which proves... what, exactly? As has been noted, Fox's MVP win is backed up pretty well by advanced metrics, anyways, so... I don't know what point you're trying to get at.

Oh, here's this, even though Miggy spend the summer playing for a team that won 20+ more games than Mike Trout, they still basically finished the season with the exact same RE24 which essentially means that if you took them out of their respective lineups, they added the exact same number of runs to their team despite the fact that Cabrera, by benefit of being on a better team, was offered more chances.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/le...-batting.shtml
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 10-08-2013, 03:05 PM
SephClone89 SephClone89 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oswego, IL
Posts: 6,028
Default

It is absolutely ridiculous that Mantle finished 17th that year. Jesus.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 10-08-2013, 03:14 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 16,373
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
OK, but they didn't, do you not see how preposterous this argument is, THEORETICALLY, they COULD HAVE voted Mantle MVP, but they didn't, which proves... what, exactly? As has been noted, Fox's MVP win is backed up pretty well by advanced metrics, anyways, so... I don't know what point you're trying to get at.

Oh, here's this, even though Miggy spend the summer playing for a team that won 20+ more games than Mike Trout, they still basically finished the season with the exact same RE24 which essentially means that if you took them out of their respective lineups, they added the exact same number of runs to their team despite the fact that Cabrera, by benefit of being on a better team, was offered more chances.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/le...-batting.shtml
That isn't my argument. My argument is that the MVP award wasn't meant to be about statistics. Statistics don't make MVPs. Their impact, what they do to win games makes them MVPs and statistics grow out of that. It's about making an impact. You can have great stats without making an impact in the league. You can be the league's best centerfielder and lead the league in creating runs and not have an impact on a race while playing for a team that just about everyone expected to go to the World Series.

It isn't as if Trout dominated the league offensively while playing for a hapless Cubs team of the late 1950s. He was a player who didn't have anywhere near the impact of Cabrera, while playing on a team that was supposed to still be playing this October. Trout is only an MVP candidate if you favor some of his offensive numbers over others. It isn't about penalizing a player for playing on a team that didn't win. It's not ever about who was better or who you would rather have in your lineup. It's about seeing who the impact players were in the American League and not having statistical formulas tell you who was really better.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 10-08-2013, 05:09 PM
DSpivack DSpivack is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Evanston
Posts: 29,095
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
That isn't my argument. My argument is that the MVP award wasn't meant to be about statistics. Statistics don't make MVPs. Their impact, what they do to win games makes them MVPs and statistics grow out of that. It's about making an impact. You can have great stats without making an impact in the league. You can be the league's best centerfielder and lead the league in creating runs and not have an impact on a race while playing for a team that just about everyone expected to go to the World Series.

It isn't as if Trout dominated the league offensively while playing for a hapless Cubs team of the late 1950s. He was a player who didn't have anywhere near the impact of Cabrera, while playing on a team that was supposed to still be playing this October. Trout is only an MVP candidate if you favor some of his offensive numbers over others. It isn't about penalizing a player for playing on a team that didn't win. It's not ever about who was better or who you would rather have in your lineup. It's about seeing who the impact players were in the American League and not having statistical formulas tell you who was really better.
How did he not have an impact similar to Cabrera? I guess I just don't understand why Mike Trout is less of a player because the Tigers have a better pitching staff than the Angels.
__________________
Attendance records:
09 : 3-2.
10 : 2-3.
11: 0-1.
12: 2-1.
14: 2-3.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 10-08-2013, 06:02 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 16,373
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSpivack View Post
How did he not have an impact similar to Cabrera? I guess I just don't understand why Mike Trout is less of a player because the Tigers have a better pitching staff than the Angels.
You could say the same thing about Mantle and Fox, and I don't know that anyone, including Bill James who danced around the point, believes Fox didn't deserve the MVP.

Trout didn't even have an impact the Angels in the standings. I am certainly no Miguel Cabrera fan, but I resent destroying the intent and longtime spirit of the MVP award simply because a mathematical equation developed by Baseball Prospectus tells me Trout was the best AL player this season.

It might, on the other hand, be entirely appropriate to name Trout the MVP of your fantasy league.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 10-08-2013, 06:20 PM
Boondock Saint Boondock Saint is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Joliet
Posts: 19,273
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
You could say the same thing about Mantle and Fox, and I don't know that anyone, including Bill James who danced around the point, believes Fox didn't deserve the MVP.

Trout didn't even have an impact the Angels in the standings. I am certainly no Miguel Cabrera fan, but I resent destroying the intent and longtime spirit of the MVP award simply because a mathematical equation developed by Baseball Prospectus tells me Trout was the best AL player this season.

It might, on the other hand, be entirely appropriate to name Trout the MVP of your fantasy league.
So really, the only conceivable way for Trout to have earned the award is by having 155 RBI instead of the 97 he got, because that's what would be required of him to have lifted the Angels from the -4 run differential they ended the season with, to the +54 run differential of the Rays, the playoff team with the worst run differential. The only way for him to have won MVP was to be Superman.

I think it's hilarious that, with one breath, you're saying that you shouldn't cite stats for MVP voting, then with another breath, you're pointing out wins and losses to discredit Trout's case for MVP. Wins and losses are stats.
__________________
Rock over London. Rock on, Chicago.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 10-08-2013, 08:54 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 16,373
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boondock Saint View Post
So really, the only conceivable way for Trout to have earned the award is by having 155 RBI instead of the 97 he got, because that's what would be required of him to have lifted the Angels from the -4 run differential they ended the season with, to the +54 run differential of the Rays, the playoff team with the worst run differential. The only way for him to have won MVP was to be Superman.

I think it's hilarious that, with one breath, you're saying that you shouldn't cite stats for MVP voting, then with another breath, you're pointing out wins and losses to discredit Trout's case for MVP. Wins and losses are stats.
If you want to find humor in reading what you want to read in my argument, you are welcome to be amused. I have tried to present a consistent argument, which includes addressing people who claim Trout has some sort of right to an MVP despite having no impact on his team in the standings. I think it's conceivable for a player to be the offensive player of the year or a silver slugger if he doesn't have an impact on the league standings. Short of dominating the league (which Trout didn't do), I don't believe it's possible to win an MVP without having an impact.

I don't think you need to look at the stats to see that Cabrera is a more worthy MVP than Trout. The only argument for Trout is a statistical one, and I addressed stats believing the argument is weak. I even found a previous MVP whose selection is in universal favor even among the sabermetrics crowd who falls short of a national-treasure centerfielder in the stat that makes the argument that a player who had no impact on the American League races, who wasn't playing under the pressure of contention, should be considered the most valuable player in the American League.

I won't say I'm amused that there would be such determination among people presenting a statistical argument that someone would argue that the leader in batting average, on-base percentage, slugging percentage, obviously OPS, while being second in home runs and runs batted in (to someone out of the discussion) while competing for a division title should be considered a bad choice for MVP. But I have to ask, is your religious hold on a single statistic contrived by Baseball Prospectus so strong that if a White Sox player had Cabrera's numbers, would you still be all psyched about Trout being the league's most valuable player?

I wouldn't be amused, though, by MVP voter who placed Trout ahead of Cabrera on their ballot. However, I would have serious questions concerning their ability to cover baseball.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 10-08-2013, 11:04 PM
SI1020 SI1020 is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Deep in the heart of Dixie
Posts: 4,437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
If you want to find humor in reading what you want to read in my argument, you are welcome to be amused. I have tried to present a consistent argument, which includes addressing people who claim Trout has some sort of right to an MVP despite having no impact on his team in the standings. I think it's conceivable for a player to be the offensive player of the year or a silver slugger if he doesn't have an impact on the league standings. Short of dominating the league (which Trout didn't do), I don't believe it's possible to win an MVP without having an impact.

I don't think you need to look at the stats to see that Cabrera is a more worthy MVP than Trout. The only argument for Trout is a statistical one, and I addressed stats believing the argument is weak. I even found a previous MVP whose selection is in universal favor even among the sabermetrics crowd who falls short of a national-treasure centerfielder in the stat that makes the argument that a player who had no impact on the American League races, who wasn't playing under the pressure of contention, should be considered the most valuable player in the American League.

I won't say I'm amused that there would be such determination among people presenting a statistical argument that someone would argue that the leader in batting average, on-base percentage, slugging percentage, obviously OPS, while being second in home runs and runs batted in (to someone out of the discussion) while competing for a division title should be considered a bad choice for MVP. But I have to ask, is your religious hold on a single statistic contrived by Baseball Prospectus so strong that if a White Sox player had Cabrera's numbers, would you still be all psyched about Trout being the league's most valuable player?

I wouldn't be amused, though, by MVP voter who placed Trout ahead of Cabrera on their ballot. However, I would have serious questions concerning their ability to cover baseball.
Really man seriously? You make a nice cogent argument. Until the last paragraph. This is the bane of message boards. I'm right and if you don't agree then you don't know **** about (fill in the blank) in this case baseball. You can be a walking encyclopedia of baseball and still cast your MVP vote for Trout.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SephClone89 View Post
It's precisely by watching Trout, not just by glancing at the "back-of-the-baseball-card" numbers, that shows you that he's the best player in baseball.
I realize that Trout leads the league in the holiest and most hallowed of all the newer baseball stats. Nonetheless this is a good point. Many fans have come to value Trout so highly by watching his play game after game. I think that Cabrera very well might get a second straight MVP. He's an offensive juggernaut but my limited baseball IQ says that as of now Mike Trout is the best player in the game today. A total package and oh how I wish he was patrolling CF or LF for us, our outfield play in the field and at the plate was so woeful this year, Avisail Garcia notwithstanding.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 10-08-2013, 11:14 PM
mzh mzh is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,008
Default

If you have to use wins and losses as an argument, I think that if they traded places, the Tigers would be much better with Trout than they are with Miggy.

Just my $.02
__________________
Obligatory Attendance Record:
3-3
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 10-09-2013, 12:30 AM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 16,373
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SI1020 View Post
Really man seriously? You make a nice cogent argument. Until the last paragraph. This is the bane of message boards. I'm right and if you don't agree then you don't know **** about (fill in the blank) in this case baseball. You can be a walking encyclopedia of baseball and still cast your MVP vote for Trout. ...
Really. I was speaking as someone who has supervised reporters. Unlike the Hall of Fame, the MVP vote is supposed to go to knowlegable working media who are supposed to be objective. If I supervised a reporter who voted for Trout ahead of Cabrera, unless I'm in SoCal where there may be a sense of civic pride as justification, I would be concerned that reporter wasn't taking his job seriously.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 10-09-2013, 08:47 AM
SI1020 SI1020 is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Deep in the heart of Dixie
Posts: 4,437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
Really. I was speaking as someone who has supervised reporters. Unlike the Hall of Fame, the MVP vote is supposed to go to knowlegable working media who are supposed to be objective. If I supervised a reporter who voted for Trout ahead of Cabrera, unless I'm in SoCal where there may be a sense of civic pride as justification, I would be concerned that reporter wasn't taking his job seriously.
You do realize that the reporter who votes for Trout might not give a damn about WAR?
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 10-09-2013, 09:35 AM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is offline
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 54,333
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mzh View Post
If you have to use wins and losses as an argument, I think that if they traded places, the Tigers would be much better with Trout than they are with Miggy.

Just my $.02
Absolutely no question about it, if the Tigers and Angels had swapped Cabrera for Trout straight up before the season started, the Tigers would have won more games this year and the Angels would have won less.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:32 PM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.