MLB 2012

[Ingmar]

Even if you stick to traditional stats, Trout had a better season than Cabrera on a team that won more games in a tougher division.

I don't see how that's possible, considering Cabrera won the triple crown. 

No sabermetrics involved:

- Trout played a tougher, more important defensive position at a Gold Glove level. Cabrera surprised everyone by being adequate at 3B. No contest here at all.
- Trout stole 49 bases with only 5 times caught which is an astounding success rate. Think of it as turning 49 of his singles into doubles and 5 of his singles into outs and you'll get a good idea of how valuable that is.
- Trout grounded into 7 double plays. Cabrera grounded into *28*.
- Trout - 129 runs to Cabrera's 109, in fewer games played.
- Cabrera had 60 more plate appearances than Trout due to Trout not being called up immediately. At first you might think that this favors Cabrera... until you also notice that Cabrera made 54 more outs than Trout on the season.

And he did all that playing half his games in a pitcher's park, against tougher opposition.

The case for Cabrera essentially boils down to two things: 14 extra home runs (partly offset by the fact that Trout hit 6 more triples than Cabrera), and the fact that Trout wasn't called up to start the season. Thing is I think that 2nd part is actually a good demonstration of how much more valuable Trout was, considering how the Angels turned things around after a really miserable start, in large part due to Trout's contributions.

It isn't even close, IMO. This becomes especially apparent once you do even a modicum of actual analysis on their seasons - accounting for the actual park effects, for example - but apparently we're baseball fundamentalists here. 

[ghost]

You mentioned "traditional stats", which in my non-baseball nerd mind means things like batting average, HR, RBIs, stolen bases, maybe runs.......

I think you're off base and that Cabrera winning the triple crown should seal the deal for him.

[HaemishM]

Cabrera winning the Triple Crown on a team that won its division over a rookie that wasn't called up til late April on a team that missed the playoffs? Right or wrong, there's no contest, not with the deciders being baseball writers and their votes. Trout doesn't have a chance in hell. Things like the Triple Crown and playoffs are sacrosanct.

[Ingmar]

You mentioned "traditional stats", which in my non-baseball nerd mind means things like batting average, HR, RBIs, stolen bases, maybe runs.......

I think you're off base and that Cabrera winning the triple crown should seal the deal for him.

*Maybe* runs?

[ghost]

I like my MVPs, Cy Youngs, ROY, etc. to come from good teams.  I could care less about some schlep that manages a .500 record on a shitty team even if he does have a 2.0 ERA. 

[Ingmar]

The Angels had a better record than the Tigers.

[Paelos]

Don't discount runs. The Sabermetric people will have a stroke. After all, once you get on base, you can score yourself in theory and raise your GWSBTSH stat. Guy-who-stole-base-to-score-himself.

[ghost]

Well, they didn't make the playoffs, did they?

[Ingmar]

Don't discount runs. The Sabermetric people will have a stroke. After all, once you get on base, you can score yourself in theory and raise your GWSBTSH stat. Guy-who-stole-base-to-score-himself.

Actually I was mostly blown away by the fact that he cares about RBIs and not runs. Both of them are dependent on other people in the lineup, and neither are loved by sabermetricians.

And ghost, no, they didn't make the playoffs. Neither would Detroit in that division. Why do you want to give Cabrera extra credit for stuff outside of his control?

[Rasix]

Well, they didn't make the playoffs, did they?

You are the world's revenge against logic and reason.

[ghost]

Fuck Trout.  If he played for a good team I'd be all in, but his team is at home and that's all that matters.   


Seriously though, I don't see how you can dispute a guy winning a triple crown and taking his team to the playoffs in a tight ass race.  That's going to be tough to beat when it comes to the voting, IMO. 

[ghost]

On to less nerdy topics, what do you think the odds are that the Texans hold on to Josh Hamilton?  I'm thinking pretty low. 

[Ingmar]

The backchannel rumor is they don't want to resign him at all.

[HaemishM]

Depends on if he prices himself out of the market or not. The Yankees won't take him, and the Red Sox are likely to be somewhat reluctant to spend big bills after the Carl Crawford debacle. The Cubs won't pay big money for him. The Dodgers might depending on how many of their desperation trade with the Sox that they keep. The White Sox or the Tigers might be in for him. The Giants should be but likely won't and neither will St. Louis or Atlanta. Philly? Miami? He may end up having 2 or 3 teams at most trying to get him if he prices himself too high.

[Ingmar]

The Giants may look at him but they're pretty risk-averse in terms of big contracts to hitters right now, and Hamilton has a LOT of risk to go with the admittedly high upside. He'd also be a wretchedly bad fit culturally for the Bay Area. I have a hunch that the Giants will go for a 3ish year deal to a midrange guy like Nick Swisher for their left field hole.

[ghost]

The other thing about Hamilton is that he is pretty old, relatively speaking.  Thirty one isn't ancient in baseball years, but factor in the drug/alcohol issues that you may have to deal with and I don't see many people wanting to sign him for what his agent will think he is worth. 

[Ingmar]

31 is OK if it isn't a long deal (3-4 years is probably OK, Swisher is also 31 and I wouldn't think a 3 year deal a bad thing). What scares me about Hamilton is not the age so much, nor the relapse possibility, or the annoying Jesus talk, but just the simple fact that he's only managed to play 140 games twice in his entire career. Dude just gets hurt way too much. He's also become a bad centerfielder instead of a pretty good one, which means moving to a corner outfield spot, which makes him less valuable.

[ghost]

I don't know if his first year in Cincinnati should count in that assessment.  I don't believe he was a starter for the entire year and may not even have been called up for the whole year.  Other than 2009 he's not been awful (between 120 and 156 games).  

[caladein]

Seriously though, I don't see how you can dispute a guy winning a triple crown and taking his team to the playoffs in a tight ass race.  That's going to be tough to beat when it comes to the voting, IMO. 

To start, the Triple Crown includes two stats that aren't the best at measuring batting value. Batting Average is subject to a lot of year-to-year variance that has nothing to do with the quality of the player and more importantly it does stupid shit like "ignore walks" and "treat a home run the same as a single." The hatred among the analytical community for Runs Batted In is well documented in this thread but could use some extra explanation (and slight defense).

There should be little argument that RBI is a stat that depends a lot on the context, specifically the quality of the players hitting in front of the batter. A hitter with good OBP guys in front of him will gain more RBI than one with poor ones. A lot like how a good wide receiver needs a quarterback to get them the ball or everyone else on offense needs the line to do its thing. A context dependant stat isn't the devil by itself, but there are better ways to determine the value a player produces. Many of these stats either ignore context-sensitive information or try to correct for it as best they can. The other tact to determining value would be to simply include all the context-sensitive information (RBI as well as GIDP and batting order adjustments for example) but baseball is a simple enough game that it's just as accurate to not bother with that stuff.

And that's what it comes down to. Baseball is basically a solved problem in the public domain with the exception of defense (specifically catchers) and some pitching stuff. Players still have to play the games and crazy magical shit can happen on the field, but understanding what "things" win baseball games at the season-length level is pretty well understood (seriously), even more so by the actual teams with their much better defensive metrics.

The broader issue with the Triple Crown, much like the 20 Win season, is that some fans treat it like this categorical shift in evaluating a player. (When historically it hasn't, if you haven't been reminded of all the TC winners that didn't win MVP.) If some other player beat Cabrera in HRs by one, his season is... exactly the same and still excellent, just like his last two seasons have been. On the flip side, Justin Verlander is just as good as he was last season, but he didn't win 20 games so everyone is treating him like he's not even on the roster.

[Paelos]

The problem I have with the whole movement is that contradictions are usually are usually dismissed by sample size. OMG YOU CAN'T SAY THAT ABOUT A SMALL SAMPLE SIZE!

Yeah in the real world as a fan, I don't give a shit about tracking a player's lifetime, or 5000 ABs, or whatever longass metric we want to use. I care about a series. I care about winning that series, with all the highs and lows that involves. I care about a season at most. I do think that measuring a player against his peers every year is important, not just against the greats of history.

[ghost]

Honestly, there are probably 5-10 people every year that have legitimate claims to an award like the MVP or Cy Young.

[Ingmar]

Most years. Some years someone puts up one of the 20 best seasons of all time, like Trout this year. 

[caladein]

The problem I have with the whole movement is that contradictions are usually are usually dismissed by sample size. OMG YOU CAN'T SAY THAT ABOUT A SMALL SAMPLE SIZE!

Yeah in the real world as a fan, I don't give a shit about tracking a player's lifetime, or 5000 ABs, or whatever longass metric we want to use. I care about a series. I care about winning that series, with all the highs and lows that involves. I care about a season at most. I do think that measuring a player against his peers every year is important, not just against the greats of history.

Because that's all a lot of what the stats you see on telecasts are, small sample BS. The individual batter vs. pitcher matchup (or worse, inning/situation) data, without compelling scouting information to go along with it, is at best a curiosity. It has no predictive value compared to a player's overall numbers or platoon splits. Hot and cold streaks or months or stats since this date just don't stand up to minor logical scrutiny.

A playoff series is such a small set of games that the responsible analysis is frequently to just shrug. Knowing what we don't know is just as important as knowing what we do, and for a lot of people, myself included, it doesn't diminish our enjoyment of the game in the least. Except when announcers say something idiotic, then it doesn't help matters.

[ghost]

Most years. Some years someone puts up one of the 20 best seasons of all time, like Trout this year. 

But he didn't win the triple crown. 

[cmlancas]

I had an extended hiatus from f13 because I've been busy at work, but figured I'd toss a few things out there:

1)  Those Tampa Bay sports teams.  Breakin' your heart every step of the way.  Kudos to the A's, but TB couldn't overcome the ridiculous amount of injuries we sustained in the middle 80 games of the season.

2)  David Price should get a nod for MVP, even though chicks dig the longball and speed kills.  Can he finish third in the voting so all's right in the world?

3)  Speaking of voting, can we have Price edge out Fernando Rodney or visa versa for AL Cy Young?  Rodney was more fearsome than Mo this year, if only because you couldn't get any kind of read if it was coming at 97 or 82. 

4)  My first love, those Braves.  What a horseshit call.  There were no runners that needed protecting even though it was a rather routine play.  That being said, Braves fans, we still have bases loaded chasing 3 with one out.  It's not like that lost the game for us (although it sure was nice fodder for the media).

5)  If you don't want the O's or A's to win the series and your team is out already, you have no soul.  Two feel-good stories there.   

[Ingmar]

Price has a shot but the award is Verlander's most likely.

No closer should ever win a Cy Young (they don't pitch nearly enough innings), so I don't think Rodney rates a vote.

[Teleku]

5)  If you don't want the O's or A's to win the series and your team is out already, you have no soul.  Two feel-good stories there.   

Well, the Giants, by the Grace of God, are still alive, so I'm not at that point yet.     But why do you think the Nats or the Tigers shouldn't also deserve some mention here?  I'm equally sympathetic to all of them (if the A's lose that is.  We'll see SF destroyed by a second great earthquake yet!).  The Nats are a new team in an old city, and so its fun to watch the excitement behind them doing well.  Detroit, because they're a very old team that hasn't won in a good long while.

Note, I'll admit I'm biased against the O's, because the bastards stole our colors!

[Sjofn]

Aside from the Yankees, I don't think there's any team left I care about in the "hope they lose" sense (Sorry, Braves! I hate you!). And I don't care about the Yankees losing THAT much.

[Paelos]

Sorry, Braves! I hate you!

You have a good reason.

[Sjofn]

It's probably why the best I can do with the Yankees right now is blistering indifference. I haven't watched baseball seriously long enough to give a shit about them!

The Phillies, though. That hate came quick. <3

[ghost]

I have a really hard time mustering up sports hate against any baseball team, even the Yankees.  Once I get close someone brings up some funky ass statistic to pacify me.   

[JWIV]

To quote GRR Martin, life is meaningless and full of pain.   Fucking Voldermort.

[ghost]

I'll pull for the Orioles though, if that will work.   

[caladein]

I enjoy seeing the Red Sox do poorly, and I'm always of two minds when it comes to the Giants. Also vague dislike for the Rangers, but that's just because of a "they're the good team in the division" thing.

[Ingmar]