USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
MLB 2012, Part 1 - It's here
- Thread starter Hammer
- Start date
JF_Gophers
2147483647
Re: MLB 2012, Part 1 - It's here
Also, I didn't create the original post, and you don't know the person who did or who they root for. I think you are feeling a little butthurt about it.
I'm not sure I get that reference. Mauer was never close to winning a triple crown or anything like it. He really wasn't that close to the batting title.butthurt "Mauer" fans
Also, I didn't create the original post, and you don't know the person who did or who they root for. I think you are feeling a little butthurt about it.
Re: MLB 2012, Part 1 - It's here
no, I was just kidding, I know it wasn't you. I was making a (bad) joke about the Twinkies being eliminated early and how I've been hearing from a lot from my in laws etc. about how much they hate the Tigers. In a nice way.
I mean, I know a couple hundred Twins fans and they all hope Trout is the MVP, and the A's move on. That's all I meant. It's understandable.
no, I was just kidding, I know it wasn't you. I was making a (bad) joke about the Twinkies being eliminated early and how I've been hearing from a lot from my in laws etc. about how much they hate the Tigers. In a nice way.
I mean, I know a couple hundred Twins fans and they all hope Trout is the MVP, and the A's move on. That's all I meant. It's understandable.
Re: MLB 2012, Part 1 - It's here
Exactly. If their situations were reversed, all the little computer nerds would be pulling out their graphs and charts showing what Trout's numbers would have regressed to if he had played a full season, declining in production like he has. But Trout is the guy they like they better so we only look at the objective unbiased stats that benefit him.
Exactly. If their situations were reversed, all the little computer nerds would be pulling out their graphs and charts showing what Trout's numbers would have regressed to if he had played a full season, declining in production like he has. But Trout is the guy they like they better so we only look at the objective unbiased stats that benefit him.
bigblue_dl
Armed
Re: MLB 2012, Part 1 - It's here
The Twins were eliminated before the season started, they never had a chance. And don't kid yourself, we all hate the White Sox much, much more than the Tigers.
JF_Gophers
2147483647
Re: MLB 2012, Part 1 - It's here
I actually hadn't considered Trout the MVP. I figured if you win the triple crown and your team makes the playoffs you are pretty much a shoe in. MVP vote isn't about defense, it's about offense. So that part shouldn't even come up in conversation.
I guess my joke detector is broken.
I actually hadn't considered Trout the MVP. I figured if you win the triple crown and your team makes the playoffs you are pretty much a shoe in. MVP vote isn't about defense, it's about offense. So that part shouldn't even come up in conversation.
bigblue_dl
Armed
Re: MLB 2012, Part 1 - It's here
I really don't understand where the problem is...Cabrera won the triple crown, fair and square, and he should be MVP. I think he's a piece of **** person, but does that have any impact on his on-the-field accomplishments? Absolutely not.
I really don't understand where the problem is...Cabrera won the triple crown, fair and square, and he should be MVP. I think he's a piece of **** person, but does that have any impact on his on-the-field accomplishments? Absolutely not.
Re: MLB 2012, Part 1 - It's here
he's a teddy bear. Getting drunk and getting beat up by his wife were just youthful indiscretions.
he's a teddy bear. Getting drunk and getting beat up by his wife were just youthful indiscretions.
jmh
win or lose, we booze
Re: MLB 2012, Part 1 - It's here
But, more importantly, so what? A) Batting average is a horrible stat to use if you're going to cherry-pick one thing to encapsulate a player's hitting, and B) even if there is a question that he won't do so well in the future now that he's been around the league a few times, the MVP isn't about how they'll play in 2013 and 2014, it's about how they played in 2012. Trout did what he did. Plus, though his hitting dropped off, none of the other stuff (a big part of his case) did.
I think maybe you're talking about batting average? If so I'd initially point out that Trout's was .284 in August, as you said, but .289 in September/October; I think what you're referencing is that his average was .257 in September.
But, more importantly, so what? A) Batting average is a horrible stat to use if you're going to cherry-pick one thing to encapsulate a player's hitting, and B) even if there is a question that he won't do so well in the future now that he's been around the league a few times, the MVP isn't about how they'll play in 2013 and 2014, it's about how they played in 2012. Trout did what he did. Plus, though his hitting dropped off, none of the other stuff (a big part of his case) did.
Re: MLB 2012, Part 1 - It's here
lol. If I point this out:
"Cabrera had 44 home runs and 137 RBIs. Trout has 30 and 83" from the earlier column, will you say that home runs and RBIs are horrible stats? There's a huge disparity in offensive production. You can't say they're close to equal offensively. Come on: 137 to 83?
I'm betting steals and "WAR" are the only reasonable stats to use?
lol. If I point this out:
"Cabrera had 44 home runs and 137 RBIs. Trout has 30 and 83" from the earlier column, will you say that home runs and RBIs are horrible stats? There's a huge disparity in offensive production. You can't say they're close to equal offensively. Come on: 137 to 83?
I'm betting steals and "WAR" are the only reasonable stats to use?
Last edited:
Shirtless Guy
Old Dirty Basterd
Re: MLB 2012, Part 1 - It's here
As for WAR...I think its irrelevant for MVP because it shouldn't matter how much better Cabrera is than other 3rd basemen, it should only matter if he's better than Trout. WAR is about how much better you are than a replacement at your position...just because a 3B is typically a power guy, doesn't take away from Cabrera's amazing season.
Not to mention 377 total bases to 315. I don't really see how Cabrera doesn't win the MVP. He had better offensive numbers than Trout and played on a team that made the playoffs. His defense was definitely worse than Trout but no one in Detroit needs him to be Brett Lawrie or David Wright on defense...
As for WAR...I think its irrelevant for MVP because it shouldn't matter how much better Cabrera is than other 3rd basemen, it should only matter if he's better than Trout. WAR is about how much better you are than a replacement at your position...just because a 3B is typically a power guy, doesn't take away from Cabrera's amazing season.
Last edited:
bronconick
Yep, still here
Re: MLB 2012, Part 1 - It's here
WAR has named Ben Zobrist the best non-pitcher in the American league twice in the last four years. Yet I'm supposed to take it as the be-all and end-all of statistics.
WAR has named Ben Zobrist the best non-pitcher in the American league twice in the last four years. Yet I'm supposed to take it as the be-all and end-all of statistics.
Shirtless Guy
Old Dirty Basterd
Re: MLB 2012, Part 1 - It's here
As I alluded to below...WAR undervalues performance at a power position (1B, 3B, LF, RF) and over values performance at the other positions (2B, SS, CF, C). Runs Created is a great number to use to compare apples to apples.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: MLB 2012, Part 1 - It's here
lulz. I think you tiger fans are pretty hilarious.
lulz. I think you tiger fans are pretty hilarious.
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: MLB 2012, Part 1 - It's here
Simple question to those who like adjusted stats... Is there a stat which lowers batting/obp if you are erased on a stolen base? Similiar adjustment for slugging except that you can gain bases or lose them by the same manner?
I don't know if it'd make much of a diff in the end, but if you want to adjust for SBs then I think that'd make sense
Simple question to those who like adjusted stats... Is there a stat which lowers batting/obp if you are erased on a stolen base? Similiar adjustment for slugging except that you can gain bases or lose them by the same manner?
I don't know if it'd make much of a diff in the end, but if you want to adjust for SBs then I think that'd make sense
Shirtless Guy
Old Dirty Basterd
Re: MLB 2012, Part 1 - It's here
Runs Created takes in to account (positive) singles, doubles, triples, homeruns, walks, HBP, sac. hits, sac. flies, stolen bases AND (negatives) Ks, CS, IBB, GIDP.
jmh
win or lose, we booze
Re: MLB 2012, Part 1 - It's here
RBI, on the other hand, is a horrible stat. RBI is hugely based on the quality of a player's teammates and the situations where the player hits, so of course Cabrera has a lot more; Trout hits leadoff and Cabrera hits third, and, as a result, Cabrera came up 173 times with runners in scoring position, Trout only 106. And when they came up with runners in scoring position, their numbers are remarkably similar if you consider that Cabrera is paid to be a run producer and Trout is a table setter: Cabrera's OPS with runners in scoring position was 1.005, Trout's was .951. It's just as stupid to say "Cabrera is better because he had more RBI" as it is to say "Trout is better because he scored more runs" because both arguments entirely neglect the difference in the players' roles.
So, no, saying "steals and WAR are Trout's main arguments" is a gross oversimplification. How about that Trout's OPS (.963) was just a few ticks less than Cabrera's (.999)? How about that OPS+ (which adjusts for park effects) actually puts Trout ahead of Cabrera because Comerica is slightly on the hitter-friendly side of neutral and Angel Stadium is very favorable to pitchers?
You're right that RC compares "apples to apples" in a certain sense (not so much in another sense, because you're removing all context rather than trying to compare a player to his same-position-playing peers). It's worth noting, if you like RC as a metric, that while Cabrera led the AL with 139 RC this year, Trout was only ever-so-slightly worse with 138 RC, and because RC is a counting stat rather than a rate stat, and Trout wasn't called up until, what, 20-ish games into the season?, Trout is ahead of Cabrera in per-game RC. And while that does take into account Trout's baserunning edge (which is presumably a big part of why they're so close), it doesn't factor in defense, where Trout is acknowledge to be drastically better.
And, look, none of this is to discount the fantastic season Cabrera has had. He did exactly what he's paid to do and ripped the cover off the ball month after month. I don't disagree that he was the best hitter in the AL, but as the RC numbers shed some light on, it was much closer than it's being made out to be, and I don't agree that that's enough to make him the MVP, because while there are a lot of ways to define "valuable", I don't think any of the credible definitions are as simple as "best hitter". There's a separate award for that, and I don't doubt that Cabrera will deservedly win it. But "most valuable" has to encompass all facets of a player's game, and if you do take into account all facets, I don't see how Trout isn't the better player over this past season.
No, home runs are not a horrible stat, but it's worth noting that Trout only slugged about 40 points lower than Cabrera, partially due to his 8 triples. 30 home runs from a guy whose skill set is generally suited to being a leadoff hitter is a pretty remarkable achievement, I'd note, whereas 44 from a middle-of-the-order power hitter is pretty good but not earth-shattering.
RBI, on the other hand, is a horrible stat. RBI is hugely based on the quality of a player's teammates and the situations where the player hits, so of course Cabrera has a lot more; Trout hits leadoff and Cabrera hits third, and, as a result, Cabrera came up 173 times with runners in scoring position, Trout only 106. And when they came up with runners in scoring position, their numbers are remarkably similar if you consider that Cabrera is paid to be a run producer and Trout is a table setter: Cabrera's OPS with runners in scoring position was 1.005, Trout's was .951. It's just as stupid to say "Cabrera is better because he had more RBI" as it is to say "Trout is better because he scored more runs" because both arguments entirely neglect the difference in the players' roles.
So, no, saying "steals and WAR are Trout's main arguments" is a gross oversimplification. How about that Trout's OPS (.963) was just a few ticks less than Cabrera's (.999)? How about that OPS+ (which adjusts for park effects) actually puts Trout ahead of Cabrera because Comerica is slightly on the hitter-friendly side of neutral and Angel Stadium is very favorable to pitchers?
With all due respect, this argument is terrible. The Angels had a better record than the Tigers, but the Tigers made the playoffs because their division is terrible. Give the Angels 38 games against the Indians and Twins instead of 38 games against the A's and Rangers and vice versa for the Tigers and then see who makes the playoffs. That doesn't make Cabrera good or valuable, it makes him lucky to be in the AL Central.
WAR does that intentionally, it should be noted, because it compares a player's contributions to replacement-level. Because it's a lot easier to find a corner infielder who can make solid offensive contributions than a center fielder who can do the same, the center fielder is more valuable because (for example) if you had a center fielder and a third baseman who are exactly the same at the plate, and then they both got hurt, it'd be more of a dropoff from the center fielder you lost to the one you called up from AAA to replace him than it would be for the 3B. That's what WAR is intended to do. Which isn't to say it doesn't have its flaws, because it does, but what you're referring to is something that's intentionally part of it.
You're right that RC compares "apples to apples" in a certain sense (not so much in another sense, because you're removing all context rather than trying to compare a player to his same-position-playing peers). It's worth noting, if you like RC as a metric, that while Cabrera led the AL with 139 RC this year, Trout was only ever-so-slightly worse with 138 RC, and because RC is a counting stat rather than a rate stat, and Trout wasn't called up until, what, 20-ish games into the season?, Trout is ahead of Cabrera in per-game RC. And while that does take into account Trout's baserunning edge (which is presumably a big part of why they're so close), it doesn't factor in defense, where Trout is acknowledge to be drastically better.
And, look, none of this is to discount the fantastic season Cabrera has had. He did exactly what he's paid to do and ripped the cover off the ball month after month. I don't disagree that he was the best hitter in the AL, but as the RC numbers shed some light on, it was much closer than it's being made out to be, and I don't agree that that's enough to make him the MVP, because while there are a lot of ways to define "valuable", I don't think any of the credible definitions are as simple as "best hitter". There's a separate award for that, and I don't doubt that Cabrera will deservedly win it. But "most valuable" has to encompass all facets of a player's game, and if you do take into account all facets, I don't see how Trout isn't the better player over this past season.
bronconick
Yep, still here
Re: MLB 2012, Part 1 - It's here
Chipper just ended his career. Runners on 2nd and 3rd with two outs down 3 runs and he grounds out.
Chipper just ended his career. Runners on 2nd and 3rd with two outs down 3 runs and he grounds out.
Hammer
We'll be back.
Re: MLB 2012, Part 1 - It's here
But then made a nice pick to start a double play.
Probably done at the plate, but it's not set in stone quite yet.
But then made a nice pick to start a double play.
Probably done at the plate, but it's not set in stone quite yet.