Mike Trout for MVP - From a Tigers fan

[Questdog]

WAR! What is it good for? Absolutely nuthin'!...

Say it again!

Besides the fact that WAR has some serious flaws in it, using any conglomeration metric to determine who the MVP was is ludicrous. Catch-all metrics attempt to measure ABILITY, not VALUE. Baseball is a situational game and trying to determine who had the most VALUE by ignoring situational context is beyond stupid. If you're trying to determine ABILITY, then it's probably okay.

Two opposing players in a game, both go 1 for 4 with a homer and 3 Ks. Player one K's 3 times and then pops a Grand Slam with two outs in the top of the 9th to put his team up a run. Player Two hits a solo shot in the first inning then K's 3 times, including with two outs in the bottom of the 9th with the bases loaded.

ABILITY possibly equal
VALUE not...

Triple Crown shouldn't guarantee an MVP, but if anyone other than Cabrera wins it this year it will mean the idiots have finally taken control of the monkey house.....

And anyone that thinks Cabrera is a butcher at third base never saw Butcher Hobbs play.....

Am I the only person in the world that sees the hypocrisy of ignoring RBIs but putting GIDPs in the formulas? I mean, if I don't get any extra credit for the fact that my hit came with a guy on second, why should I get extra abuse for hitting a sharp grounder just because some idiot was standing on first base?

Idiots, Idiots, Idiots, the world's full of idiots. If you disagree with me your an idiot. If you agree with me, you're probably an idiot, too. Heck, I'M an idiot; what do I know?

Thank you, no offense taken....

[Jason Moyer]

A player hitting a solo homerun does *NOT* receive the same credit in WAR as a player hitting a grand slam. Also, a player getting any kind of hit with a runner on second or third receives more credit in WAR.

Feel free to continue talking about things you don't understand, though.

Anyway, you don't need to use WAR to show that Trout was more valuable. Basic logic gets the job done just as well. If a guy is more valuable on offense, more valuable on defense, and his team wins more games, what is the the argument against him?

[Pacoheadley]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

A player hitting a solo homerun does *NOT* receive the same credit in WAR as a player hitting a grand slam. Also, a player getting any kind of hit with a runner on second or third receives more credit in WAR.

Feel free to continue talking about things you don't understand, though.

Anyway, you don't need to use WAR to show that Trout was more valuable. Basic logic gets the job done just as well. If a guy is more valuable on offense, more valuable on defense, and his team wins more games, what is the the argument against him?

Um, yes, they DO get the same credit in WAR. What is WAR? | FanGraphs Sabermetrics Library
The offense is taken from wRC, which is context neutral.

[Pacoheadley]

Originally Posted by Questdog

WAR! What is it good for? Absolutely nuthin'!...

Say it again!

Besides the fact that WAR has some serious flaws in it, using any conglomeration metric to determine who the MVP was is ludicrous. Catch-all metrics attempt to measure ABILITY, not VALUE. Baseball is a situational game and trying to determine who had the most VALUE by ignoring situational context is beyond stupid. If you're trying to determine ABILITY, then it's probably okay.

Two opposing players in a game, both go 1 for 4 with a homer and 3 Ks. Player one K's 3 times and then pops a Grand Slam with two outs in the top of the 9th to put his team up a run. Player Two hits a solo shot in the first inning then K's 3 times, including with two outs in the bottom of the 9th with the bases loaded.

ABILITY possibly equal
VALUE not...

Triple Crown shouldn't guarantee an MVP, but if anyone other than Cabrera wins it this year it will mean the idiots have finally taken control of the monkey house.....

And anyone that thinks Cabrera is a butcher at third base never saw Butcher Hobbs play.....

Am I the only person in the world that sees the hypocrisy of ignoring RBIs but putting GIDPs in the formulas? I mean, if I don't get any extra credit for the fact that my hit came with a guy on second, why should I get extra abuse for hitting a sharp grounder just because some idiot was standing on first base?

Idiots, Idiots, Idiots, the world's full of idiots. If you disagree with me your an idiot. If you agree with me, you're probably an idiot, too. Heck, I'M an idiot; what do I know?

Thank you, no offense taken....

Grounding into double plays is not in the formula. Also, your argument would make sense if certain players had the skill of hitting better in clutch situations, but that skill does not exist, and multiple studies have shown this. There is a reason there is no clutch stat in OOTP, and that is because there is no evidence of it being a thing. WAR isn't going to reward a player for being lucky enough to get more of his hits in opportune times, when it is not a skill at all.

[Hoiles]

Originally Posted by Pacoheadley

Grounding into double plays is not in the formula. Also, your argument would make sense if certain players had the skill of hitting better in clutch situations, but that skill does not exist, and multiple studies have shown this. There is a reason there is no clutch stat in OOTP, and that is because there is no evidence of it being a thing. WAR isn't going to reward a player for being lucky enough to get more of his hits in opportune times, when it is not a skill at all.

Yes, but the game of baseball itself rewards those being "lucky" enough to get hits in opportune times with wins, and championships, so why not individual awards? Value can be interpreted in many ways, some may interpret it as pure skill, but others might want to incorporate situational context (or "luck").

If I have a Mickey Mantle rookie card, and on Friday the 13th, a black cat chews it up, is it still as "valuable" as before just because it got damaged due to bad luck?

[Splitter24]

Originally Posted by Questdog

Triple Crown shouldn't guarantee an MVP, but if anyone other than Cabrera wins it this year it will mean the idiots have finally taken control of the monkey house.....

Since MVP awards were established, there have been 11 Triple Crown winners before this year. Only 5 of those players won the MVP. So not only shouldn't it guarantee the award, it usually doesn't. Though the last 3 have (Mantle, Frank Robinson, Yaz), I think the reason for that is that those guys were slam dunks; there wasn't anyone even close to them those years.

With Cabrera vs. Trout, you have two guys with similar stats, save RBI (and the difference for that is obvious). One of whom is an excellent high percentage base stealer and gold glove-calibre CF. I don't need any advanced metrics to tell me which one is more valuable.

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by Pacoheadley

Grounding into double plays is not in the formula. Also, your argument would make sense if certain players had the skill of hitting better in clutch situations, but that skill does not exist, and multiple studies have shown this. There is a reason there is no clutch stat in OOTP, and that is because there is no evidence of it being a thing. WAR isn't going to reward a player for being lucky enough to get more of his hits in opportune times, when it is not a skill at all.

Your logic is akin to awarding the Russian Hockey Team the gold medal in 1980 since they were obviously the better team. Performance in the clutch may or may not be a repeatable offense, but the fact that it happened has a whole lot to do with who won and who lost, so why ignore it? Again, you are messing up the distinction between ABILITY and VALUE. Stephen Strassburg probably has the most ABILITY on the Washington Nationals staff, but he had absolutely no VALUE to them in the play offs. If you took an objective measurement of Kirk Gibson's ABILITY on October 15, 1988, he probably wouldn't have scored very high, seeing as he could barely walk, but he managed to show some VALUE.

WAR (and any of the catch-all measurements) are an ESTIMATE of a player's value in a context neutral environment (and anyone who thinks the defensive weights are anything less than a VERY rough estimate is certifiable). That's the whole point of them. In doing this, they propose to show ABILITY. But no player ever played a game in a context neutral environment and suggesting the MVP based on this criteria is (as I have mentioned) ludicrous. For suggestions on who is worth a higher salary for next year, the tools have some merit. For deciding which player to draft for your Strat-O-Matic team, they are essential. But for looking at how yesterday's game was won or lost, they are near useless. The much vilified RBI has a lot more to say about that than WAR. The RBI, being a context-sensitive stat, has much less to say about what a player is capable of doing, but has a LOT to say about what he has done.

[Pacoheadley]

Originally Posted by Questdog

Your logic is akin to awarding the Russian Hockey Team the gold medal in 1980 since they were obviously the better team. Performance in the clutch may or may not be a repeatable offense, but the fact that it happened has a whole lot to do with who won and who lost, so why ignore it? Again, you are messing up the distinction between ABILITY and VALUE. Stephen Strassburg probably has the most ABILITY on the Washington Nationals staff, but he had absolutely no VALUE to them in the play offs. If you took an objective measurement of Kirk Gibson's ABILITY on October 15, 1988, he probably wouldn't have scored very high, seeing as he could barely walk, but he managed to show some VALUE.

WAR (and any of the catch-all measurements) are an ESTIMATE of a player's value in a context neutral environment (and anyone who thinks the defensive weights are anything less than a VERY rough estimate is certifiable). That's the whole point of them. In doing this, they propose to show ABILITY. But no player ever played a game in a context neutral environment and suggesting the MVP based on this criteria is (as I have mentioned) ludicrous. For suggestions on who is worth a higher salary for next year, the tools have some merit. For deciding which player to draft for your Strat-O-Matic team, they are essential. But for looking at how yesterday's game was won or lost, they are near useless. The much vilified RBI has a lot more to say about that than WAR. The RBI, being a context-sensitive stat, has much less to say about what a player is capable of doing, but has a LOT to say about what he has done.

Fine, if you want to include stats that show context, Trout leads in WPA and RE24, so the point is moot anyway.
As you can see from my first argument, I am not using WAR at all. I am merely fixing the flawed perceptions people seem to have of it right now.

[Pacoheadley]

Originally Posted by Hoiles

Yes, but the game of baseball itself rewards those being "lucky" enough to get hits in opportune times with wins, and championships, so why not individual awards? Value can be interpreted in many ways, some may interpret it as pure skill, but others might want to incorporate situational context (or "luck").

If I have a Mickey Mantle rookie card, and on Friday the 13th, a black cat chews it up, is it still as "valuable" as before just because it got damaged due to bad luck?

I'm sorry, I just don't see the point of including something that is basically pure luck, and has no reflection on how good the player is at all. I would much rather give the MVP to the guy who had the best season, not the one who was fortunate enough to get the most game winning RBIs in a year.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Splitter24

Since MVP awards were established, there have been 11 Triple Crown winners before this year. Only 5 of those players won the MVP. So not only shouldn't it guarantee the award, it usually doesn't. Though the last 3 have (Mantle, Frank Robinson, Yaz), I think the reason for that is that those guys were slam dunks; there wasn't anyone even close to them those years.

With Cabrera vs. Trout, you have two guys with similar stats, save RBI (and the difference for that is obvious). One of whom is an excellent high percentage base stealer and gold glove-calibre CF. I don't need any advanced metrics to tell me which one is more valuable.

I made that point in post 40. Leading in WAR + triple crown was mostly a slam dunk unless your name was Ted Williams. The snub was personal and wrong. Other than that it seems like the old time voters had a pretty good handle on it.

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by Pacoheadley

I'm sorry, I just don't see the point of including something that is basically pure luck, and has no reflection on how good the player is at all. I would much rather give the MVP to the guy who had the best season, not the one who was fortunate enough to get the most game winning RBIs in a year.

Your statements clearly show that you believe the MVP should go to the player with the most ability, not to the player with the most value. I believe the opposite, that the MVP should go to the player who did stuff, regardless of whether he is any good or not.

P.S. FYI, not to begin an argument, but just to show my inclinations, my biggest problems with WAR (for its intended purpose) is that 1) The defensive measurements are so imprecise that they make the overall WAR nearly useless and 2) The offensive portion seriously over values base running in my opinion. If you want to argue this, I will, but we should start a different thread (not that I desire to argue this, BTW. I don't really care if anyone evaluates ballplayers the same as me.)

P.S.P.S. The measurement of changing win probabilities is a neat idea, but suffers from the fact that changing your team's probability from .100 to .200 is the same as changing it from .400 to .500. RE24 is also intriging, but it is still context neutral; i.e. an event in the bottom of the ninth in a 10-0 game is the same as an event in a 1-0 game. Besides the fact that you are accepting someone else's calculations for the value of the events; I have not studied either in great detail, so I can't say whether I agree with that portion of their methodology or not. But I have used a similar style of player evaluation for over 20 years and like it a lot.

[jaxmagicman]

Originally Posted by Questdog

P.S.P.S. The measurement of changing win probabilities is a neat idea, but suffers from the fact that changing your team's probability from .100 to .200 is the same as changing it from .400 to .500. RE24 is also intriging, but it is still context neutral; i.e. an event in the bottom of the ninth in a 10-0 game is the same as an event in a 1-0 game. Besides the fact that you are accepting someone else's calculations for the value of the events; I have not studied either in great detail, so I can't say whether I agree with that portion of their methodology or not. But I have used a similar style of player evaluation for over 20 years and like it a lot.

In a baseball game you have a set number of outs (a baseball season is different I will get to that). So a hit later in the game is much more useful than a hit early. But it also depends on the score and here is why.

Let's say that you are down 10-0 in the first. You now have 27 outs to get those 10 runs back. You have a better chance (base on % players tend to get on base) to score 10 runs in that instance. In the 9th, you only have 3 outs. So getting on base is more valuable, because getting an out brings you closer to being out of outs.

As for the season, a win in April counts the same as a win in October. If you go out and win your first 102 games, then you can lose the next 60 and make the playoffs.

[DougWyatt]

Originally Posted by Splitter24

Since MVP awards were established, there have been 11 Triple Crown winners before this year. Only 5 of those players won the MVP. So not only shouldn't it guarantee the award, it usually doesn't. Though the last 3 have (Mantle, Frank Robinson, Yaz), I think the reason for that is that those guys were slam dunks; there wasn't anyone even close to them those years.

Actually, of those 11 ... 6 triple crown winners won the MVP. 1 of those seasons ('22 - an MVP wasn't awarded in the NL). So - 6/10 won it.

Of the 4 that didn't win it .. All 4 of them were on teams that didn't make the playoffs. And 3/4 of those MVP awards were given to players on the playoff team that had inferior statistical seasons to the trip-crown winner. The 4th was given to a pitcher (again on a playoff team - but I won't compare pitcher to triple crown winner stats.).

So, if anything we learn - making the playoffs seems to be the big push for deciding MVPs in triple crown seasons.

22 Hornsby : No NL MVP Trophy given

25 Hornsby : Won MVP

33 Foxx : Won MVP

33 Klein : No, (given to a pitcher who won 23 games with a 1.66 ERA on a team that won the pennant - Kleins team finished 7th in the NL)

34 Gherig : No. (Cochrane won it, with a statistically inferior season to Gherig - but the Tigers won the division, and the Yanks, with 94 wins, didn't make the playoffs)

37 Medwick : Won MVP

42 & 47 Ted Williams : Didn't win. (Both times had superior seasons to winner. Both times the winner was a member of the team that won the AL - while Teddys team finished 2nd and 3rd with 93 & 83 wins)

56 Mantle : Won MVP

66 Robinson : Won MVP

67 Yastzemski : Won MVP

[Pacoheadley]

Originally Posted by Questdog

Your statements clearly show that you believe the MVP should go to the player with the most ability, not to the player with the most value. I believe the opposite, that the MVP should go to the player who did stuff, regardless of whether he is any good or not.

P.S. FYI, not to begin an argument, but just to show my inclinations, my biggest problems with WAR (for its intended purpose) is that 1) The defensive measurements are so imprecise that they make the overall WAR nearly useless and 2) The offensive portion seriously over values base running in my opinion. If you want to argue this, I will, but we should start a different thread (not that I desire to argue this, BTW. I don't really care if anyone evaluates ballplayers the same as me.)

P.S.P.S. The measurement of changing win probabilities is a neat idea, but suffers from the fact that changing your team's probability from .100 to .200 is the same as changing it from .400 to .500. RE24 is also intriging, but it is still context neutral; i.e. an event in the bottom of the ninth in a 10-0 game is the same as an event in a 1-0 game. Besides the fact that you are accepting someone else's calculations for the value of the events; I have not studied either in great detail, so I can't say whether I agree with that portion of their methodology or not. But I have used a similar style of player evaluation for over 20 years and like it a lot.

The defensive measurements aren't perfect, but they are better than most people give them credit for, their fluctuation isn't much bigger than batting average. I don't see how you think they overvalue baserunning, years of research is what got them to the values to put into the equation.

Again, I am not trying to use WAR in my argument. Again, Trout has been so much better than Cabrera that he should be MVP. Even if WPA and RE24 are not perfect, he still leads them with a healthy margin over Cabrera, and he has just plainly been the better player.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by DougWyatt

Actually, of those 11 ... 6 triple crown winners won the MVP. 1 of those seasons ('22 - an MVP wasn't awarded in the NL). So - 6/10 won it.

Of the 4 that didn't win it .. All 4 of them were on teams that didn't make the playoffs. And 3/4 of those MVP awards were given to players on the playoff team that had inferior statistical seasons to the trip-crown winner. The 4th was given to a pitcher (again on a playoff team - but I won't compare pitcher to triple crown winner stats.).

So, if anything we learn - making the playoffs seems to be the big push for deciding MVPs in triple crown seasons.

Slight correction; making the WS not playoffs. I can see that carrying more weight back then and deservedly so since all teams had an equal schedule. Trout had a better year in less time in a tougher division and led his team to a better record. Detroit was gifted the playoffs by the White Sox while playing inferior competition compared to LA. Still a great accomplishment but not as valuable as Trout in several categories.

[Hoiles]

Originally Posted by Pacoheadley

I'm sorry, I just don't see the point of including something that is basically pure luck, and has no reflection on how good the player is at all. I would much rather give the MVP to the guy who had the best season, not the one who was fortunate enough to get the most game winning RBIs in a year.

I didn't realize the Triple Crown was awarded to someone leading in a stat that isn't recorded anymore.

Cabrera had a better season because his team made the playoffs, (I think you missed the "individual" part between better and season). I think if you were to poll a ballplayer and ask him to choose between (a) being the "best" player and not making the playoffs, and (b) being the "3rd best" player and making the playoffs, only the douchiest of douchey ballplayers would choose option (a).

I guess the postseason is pointless because it also rewards pure luck and doesn't reflect how good the team is at all, right?

[Pacoheadley]

Originally Posted by Hoiles

I didn't realize the Triple Crown was awarded to someone leading in a stat that isn't recorded anymore.

Cabrera had a better season because his team made the playoffs, (I think you missed the "individual" part between better and season). I think if you were to poll a ballplayer and ask him to choose between (a) being the "best" player and not making the playoffs, and (b) being the "3rd best" player and making the playoffs, only the douchiest of douchey ballplayers would choose option (a).

I guess the postseason is pointless because it also rewards pure luck and doesn't reflect how good the team is at all, right?

No, all that means is that his "team" had a better season (When in fact, they didn't, they were lucky enough to play in a crappy division). This is an individual award, not a team award.

[DougWyatt]

Originally Posted by Pacoheadley

No, all that means is that his "team" had a better season (Which in fact, they did ..... Going to the World Series is a much "better season" than watching the entire post season from home)

Is this what you meant ?

[DamPenguin]

In the end what's the big deal? How many times in the past have we disagreed with who was awarded the MVP? As a diehard Tigers fan I think Cabrera deserves the award... now if Trout wins I'd have no problem with that. And if Cabrera wins I seriously doubt Trout would have a problem losing the MVP to a guy who achieved the freakin' triple crown.

[Pacoheadley]

Originally Posted by DougWyatt

Is this what you meant ?

Regular season award isn't it?