Joe Posnanski wrote an article about it.

http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2013/08/explaining-cabrera-trout-and-war.html

Explaining Cabrera, Trout and WAR
Several Brilliant Readers have written in to ask -- I think in a curious and serious way -- how it is possible for Mike Trout to lead Miguel Cabrera in WAR. They readily concede that Trout is a faster baserunner and a better fielder. Still, they wonder (and I’m lumping seven or eight people together here, so I’m generalizing) how 30 more points in on-base percentage, 100 more points in slugging and 20 more home runs could not POSSIBLY make up that ground.

One BR sums up the question neatly: “Last year, I understood the difference,” he writes. “Trout had a better on-base percentage, was only 42 points behind in slugging, hit only 14 fewer homers -- I could see how his defense and base-stealing might make him the better overall player. But this year, it makes absolutely no sense to me at all.”

I think it’s a fair question and so I went to the incomparable Tom Tango for some assistance in explaining the math here (and by this I mean explaining it to ME). And let me say up front that, I readily admit it’s possible you will come away certain that WAR is just wrong and Cabrera absolutely is having the better season. I know a few BRs have come to think I don’t like Cabrera -- and I don’t mean to protest too much, but it’s really not true. I don’t like Bowie Kuhn very much. I don’t like the NCAA very much. I don’t like white chocolate at all. But Cabrera: Love the guy. I think he’s the best hitter on earth. I love watching him play. I also love Trout, love watching him play, and I’m fascinated by the question of which one is better.

We’re going to break down Baseball Reference WAR by runs -- that is, runs gained and runs saved. So let’s start with the obvious stuff first, the stuff Trout excels in.

Base running

Trout is a better baserunner than Cabrera. I think reasonable people acknowledge this. Baseball Reference figures baserunning runs based on stolen bases/caught stealing and various other events like going first-to-third on a single, second-to-home on a single, first-to-home on a double, tagging up to advance a base, and so on.

Baseball Reference determines that Cabrera, though not fast, is an above-average baserunner. He has stolen three bases without getting caught and has shown effectiveness on the bases. B-Ref has Cabrera’s base running worth one run above average.

B-Ref determines that Trout’s baserunning is worth six runs. He has stolen 28 of 32 bases, scores from second pretty much every time and is effective going first-to-third.

So far, I think it makes sense -- no?

Trout leads Cabrera by five runs.

Fielding

Last year, fielding was the most controversial part of WAR, I think (although, as you will see, there might be something a bit more controversial this year). Last year, WAR estimated that Trout was worth an extra 21 runs for his defense while Cabrera cost his team four runs with his defense. That 25-run difference is GIGANTIC.

This year, the difference is much smaller. Basically, the defensive measure that WAR uses shows both Cabrera and Trout to be below average fielders. Again, Cabrera is viewed as the lesser fielder but it’s not that dramatic a difference.

The system has Cabrera being worth 15 runs below average as a third baseman and Trout being eight runs below average.

Again, you can argue with particulars but it’s pretty easy to follow so far.

Trout Leads Cabrera by 12 runs.

Double Play Groundouts

Here’s a small adjustment based on hitting into double plays. Cabrera has hit into 16 double plays this year -- about 12% of the time he’s been in a double play situation. Trout has hit into seven double plays -- about 7% of the time.

Basically, Trout gets one extra run because he’s hard to double up, and Cabrera has two runs taken away because he hits into more than his share of double plays.

Trout leads Cabrera by 15 runs.

Positional Adjustment

Another minor adjustment, this one takes into account the position of the player. This is so that a shortstop will get more credit than a left fielder. This adjustment goes Cabrera’s way because he has played third base exclusively, a core position, while Trout has played 88 games in center, 42 games in left and three games as a DH. Cabrera gets two runs and Trout gets zero.

Trout leads Cabrera by 13 runs.

Offense

Now we get to offense -- and I know what you’re thinking: There is simply no way that Cabrera’s advantages in on-base percentage and power do not make up 13 runs. In a way you are right. Let’s go to our resident expert, Tom Tango, for some explanations.

Start where Trout has an advantage.

“Mike Trout has 9 more doubles and 7 more triples than Cabrera. That is worth roughly 14 runs to a typical team, if those events occurred in typical fashion. Trout also has 16 more walks plus hit batters (excluding intentional walks), which is worth roughly five runs. In these categories, Trout has a roughly 19-run advantage.”

That would give Trout a 32-run lead. But now, finally, we get to what makes Miggy Miggy.

“Cabrera has twenty more HR, which is already a 28-run advantage. He also has five more singles, which is worth just over two runs. Cabrera has made 24 fewer batting outs, which is worth nearly 7 runs. Put it all together, and in these categories, Cabrera is 37 runs ahead.”

And there you have it.

Defense, baserunning and other adjustments: Trout +13

Doubles, triples and walks: Trout +19

Homers, singles, fewer outs: Cabrera +37

Total it all up and Miguel Cabrera leads by five runs.

Now, you could argue that Cabrera should lead by MORE than five runs. You might want to include clutch performance. You might want to include high-leverage situations* . You might disagree with the defensive rankings.

*The interesting but flawed statistic “Win Probability Added” -- which adds up the value of every single play in a game -- has Cabrera WAY ahead of Trout. Cabrera’s WPA is 6.6, Trout’s is 4.1. But before anyone gets too excited about the stat, Chris Davis actually has a 7.4 WPA and leads the American League.

Anyway, no matter how we got here, Miguel Cabrera should lead Trout in WAR.

Except, there’s another step …

Cabrera leads Trout by 5 runs.

Context

Of the many, many ways that Bill James has contributed to the game, the most fascinating and controversial might be how he explains baseball as a contextual game. That was pretty subversive when he first started doing it. In many ways, Bill burst on the national scene because of what not seems only a mildly interesting prediction. He predicted that when Fred Lynn left Boston and Fenway Park his numbers would fall DRAMATICALLY. On May 25, 1981 -- less than two years after Lynn hit .333/.423/.627 with 39 homers and 122 RBIs - James told Daniel Okrent at Sports Illustrated that Lynn would hit .285 and between 18 and 24 homers while with the Angels.

From 1982 to 1984, Fred Lynn hit .281 for the California Angels. His home runs: 21, 22, 23.

It was a brilliant prediction, but one that Bill didn’t think was a particularly strenuous. It was context. In 1979, Lynn hit .386/.470/.798 with 28 homers in 77 games at Fenway Park, which was then an extreme hitters ballpark. Away from home he hit .276/.371/.461 with 11 homers. Double those road numbers, add a little something for home field advantage (players do tend to hit better at home) and, voila, you have yourself a prediction for what Lynn likely would do in Anaheim. It seems semi-simple now.

But then? It was revolutionary. It was jaw-dropping. People generally expected Lynn to go to California and play exactly as he had played in Boston. It wasn’t that people were unaware that players played in vastly different environments, it’s just that few people too it to the next step, as a way to EVALUATE players. Everybody knew, for instance, that Fenway Park was a good hitters park and Baltimore had this amazing defense. But you didn’t hear people talk about the major role that played in, say, Fred Lynn’s MVP season in 1975 (he hit .368/.451/.609 at home, and .294/.347/.523 on the road) or Jim Rice’s MVP season in 1978 (He hit .361/.416/.690 at home with 28 homers; he hit .269/.325/.512 with 18 homers on road) or the fact that Orioles pitchers won SIX Cy Young Awards between 1969 and 1980. The context was known, but it did not interfere with the individual narratives.

Now, because of Bill and others, people think quite a lot more about context. Give you an example: In baseball history, only seven players have hit better than .360 with at least 42 home runs in a season -- something Miggy is trying to do this year. Those seven are: Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx, Rogers Hornsby, Barry Bonds, Todd Helton, Larry Walker.

Now do those seven seem alike to you in any way? No, you see the names and you are IMMEDIATELY struck the context. Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx and Hornsby all had their seasons many years ago, before the game was integrated, before air travel, before the prominence of the slider, before specialized pitching. Bonds, well, everybody immediately grasps the Barry Bonds context. And the Larry Walker and Todd Helton seasons are immediately viewed through the prism of Coors Field when that place was a circus act. I should say that both those guys were amazing hitters who hit brilliantly on the road -- I actually think both have strong Hall of Fame cases -- but my point is the context is something we just naturally understand now.

But, I would argue that this is only true to a point. It’s only true in extreme cases. In smaller doses, when it comes to minor adjustments, many people are not nearly as interested.

Which brings us back to Trout and Cabrera. Trout plays in a tough hitters park. And because he’s in the American League West, he plays 10 games in Texas (a good hitters park), Houston (a pretty good hitters park), Seattle (a pretty extreme pitchers park) and Oakland (a pretty extreme pitchers park). The three toughest hitters parks in the American League are probably Anaheim, Oakland and Seattle. Trout plays 101 games in those three parks.

Cabrera meanwhile plays his home games at Comerica Park, which long had the reputation as a pitcher’s park but the numbers no longer show that to be true. For three years now, Comerica has been a hitters park. Meanwhile, Cabrera plays his division games in Cleveland (more of a pitchers park), Kansas City (a good hitters park except for home runs), Minnesota (a neutral park leaning slightly toward hitters), and Chicago (a hitters park and very much a home run park).

There are three parks in the American League that have a ballpark factor of 105 and higher -- 100 is neutral with every number above leaning toward the hitter. Cabrera will play 94 games in those three parks.

Now, you can take this for what it’s worth. You might not care at all. But WAR takes this into account. Tango explains:

“Baseball-Reference suggests that based in the parks they play in, you'd score ten percent more runs in all of Cabrera’s games than in all of Trout’s games. That ten percent is enormous. Baseball Reference has Cabrera as having created 145 runs, and Trout as 130 runs. A ten percent change will close that gap to almost nothing.”

And that’s why Mike Trout leads in WAR. While Cabrera leads in the raw numbers Trout plays in a tougher run-scoring environment. After all the adjustments are made, Baseball Reference has Trout being 54 runs above average, and Cabrera being worth 50 runs above average. When you add in the replacement level runs (same for both) and convert it to Wins Above Replacement, this is what you end up with, at least for today:

Mike Trout: 7.7 WAR

Miguel Cabrera: 7.0 WAR

A Final Thought

I was trying to explain this whole thing to a friend of mine -- trying to explain it to him while working it out in my own head -- and he said something interesting. He said, “I know that to be perfectly fair, you have to judge context. But I don’t think baseball is perfectly fair. And it’s too much math for me.” I took his point to mean that all these contextual adjustments leave him cold. I find them fascinating because we are trying to level the playing field, trying to figure out who is REALLY the better player, not who is the player who looks the best because of ballpark or the weather or whatever. He yawned.

“The guy’s having a better year,” he said. “I’ll grant you that it’s fairly close because Trout can do so many things. But when you start taking away Cabrera’s lead because he has a better hitting ballpark, you’ve lost me.”

My friend thought, all in all, that Trout had a better year than Cabrera last year. He followed that logic. But this year, he thinks its Cabrera, and it’s not that close, and he is unimpressed by the math that shows Trout ahead. I have to say, I think most people probably agree with him.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

My friend thought, all in all, that Trout had a better year than Cabrera last year. He followed that logic. But this year, he thinks its Cabrera, and it’s not that close, and he is unimpressed by the math that shows Trout ahead. I have to say, I think most people probably agree with him.



I think the CY Young is a much more compelling race.

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

And since he doesn't seem to, I've just assumed it's Scherzer's. He'd be my choice anyhow, particularly with Felix trending the wrong direction. I'd push for Sale as a "nobody is paying attention" candidate if he were on my team (Joe Mauer for 2006 and 2008 MVP!) but he plays for the White Sox so fuck him.

Darvish is crazy fun and having a great year in a rough, rough park for pitchers, but I agree with WAR that he's gotten a bit lucky with that strand rate.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

He won last year on the strength of being the best hitter in baseball, traditional numbers, and narrative. Based on those factors, he's still the guy. Trout's narrative is much worse with the Angels sucking. Davis' second half numbers of .262/.358/.530 and 12 HR in 50 games are closer to prime Carlos Pena than prime Lou Gehrig. Other candidates like Cano, Donaldson, Beltre, don't have the sexy numbers like the other guys. Cabrera seemed like a mortal lock, even playing through injury in August to still hit a ton.

But Cabrera has hit .136/.296/.136 in September thus far. Unlikely as it has been, if he were to continue on the same pace for the final two weeks of the season, his campaign would lose a lot of steam. Instead of leading the world in every hitting category, he'd be something like Top 3 in every category. Still probably the best hitter out there, but it would be close rather than something that jumps out and smacks you in the face. And if Trout, Davis, Cano, Beltre and some others finish strong down the stretch, Cabrera's narrative loses luster. Maybe some voter fatigue might set in as well. I think under that scenario, he still wins it, but surprisingly, he gets less votes than last year.

Dinging 100 walks with his power/speed compares favorably to Rickey Henderson.

I have a difficult time imagining that he's costing them a full win with his glove, but I haven't seen much of the Angels this year.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

"Yeah, so...You could have won this award in 1996, 1998, 2000, 2001, and 2002...but there are no good story lines this year, so here's your MVP. Congratulations."

There's a subset of guys out there that just won't vote for a great player on a shitty team. So some years, when there's no obvious narrative candidate, votes get spread, and the best player gets a big push. Cal in 1991, A-Rod 1996, Pedro in 1999. Trout might have to wait for one of those years unless things click in Anaheim.

Mark Simon had a great piece a few weeks ago about Trout's defense

It sounds like it's mostly come down to a couple more ugly bad plays and less "Wow" plays. I'm hoping that sometime after the season somebody breaks down how DRS has him slightly below 0 and UZR slightly above 0. Is it a matter of how they weight the same data or are there different distinctions being made?
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Why Mike Trout's defense is down in 2013

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/39702/why-mike-trouts-defense-is-down-in-2013

You might recall on Aug. 16 when Mike Trout made a couple of "Web Gem"- worthy plays against the Astros, including this home run robbery. Maybe you saw the highlights on "SportsCenter." They were the sort of plays you'll see repeated many times.

You probably don't remember too much about the July 28 Angels-Athletics game in Oakland. There were a lot of highlights for the Athletics that day: 10 runs and 10 hits in a 10-6 win on a sunny Sunday afternoon.

It's the latter game that helps us understand why Trout's overall advanced defensive metrics aren't as good as last season.
Defensive Runs Saved
Key Components

* Ability to turn batted balls into outs
* Ability to deter runner advancement
* Ability to rob home runs
* Ability to avoid mistakes

We promised an updated look at Trout's stats when we took a peek at his surprising struggles a couple of months ago, and now seems a good time for that.

Trout stands at minus-8 Defensive Runs Saved, with all eight of those negative runs coming in center field (in his 343 innings in left, he rates as average, with zero runs saved, one run better than 2012).

But Trout is trending in a positive direction. Days like Aug. 16 have been big gainers. Trout was at minus-14 Defensive Runs Saved after that July 28 game, so he gained six runs.

But the overall body of work is still eight runs negative, after posting a plus-21 last year. How can that be?

Well, there have been more days like July 28 than last year. Trout had a rough defensive afternoon that day, though you'd never know it from a basic box score, because he wasn't charged with any errors. It started with a liner to left center by Yoenis Cespedes in the third inning, one that Trout got close to, but played on one hop rather than risk a high-reward dive. As it turned out, Trout juggled the ball upon handling it, allowing Cespedes to reach second, although it was ruled a double.

In the fifth, Trout fought the sun and lost on a high-hanging popup to center by Cespedes, the ball landing a couple of feet to his right for a single. An inning later, Stephen Vogt hit a fly ball to shallow center. Trout saw this one, chased it and missed it with a half-stumble, half-reach. He then collided with his left fielder, allowing Vogt to take second base easily.

These three plays were costly, not just to the Angels, but to Trout's defensive rating. The next day, his Defensive Runs Saved total was three runs lower.

Baseball Info Solutions helped us quantify that even further. Their group watches every play of every game and charts the location and speed for every batted ball. They turn the field into a grid and can tell you for any square in their grid how often a ball hit to that area is turned into an out.

The three balls to which we're referring were hit to spots at speeds that generated outs from center fielders 57 percent, 97 percent and 92 percent of the time, respectively, in all parks, with similar numbers when isolating it specifically to Oakland's home ballpark. When a center fielder misses two balls with out rates of 90 percent or higher, that's basically the defensive equivalent of a hitter going 0-for-7. Trout and Brian Bogusevic are the only two to have a game like that this season.

Trout doesn't have as many eye-popping catches in center as he did last season. In 885 2/3 innings in center last season, BIS charted him with 26 good fielding plays (think: "Web Gem" nominees) to 17 defensive misplays and errors. This season, the split is 12-to-16 in about 100 fewer innings.

On Plays w/ Expected Out Rate
Between 5 percent and 50 percent

2012 2013
Chances as LF 20 16
Balls Caught 6 3
Success Rate 30% 19%

Chances as CF 83 60
Balls Caught 31 12
Success Rate 37% 20%

>> Expected out rate: How often balls hit to that area are turned into outs (data through Aug. 28)

The chart on the right looks at that in a similar way, putting BIS' grid to use again. Trout's success rate against balls hit with an expected out rate between 5 and 50 percent is way down this season. He's only caught 12 of 60 in center field. Had he caught them at last year's success rate, he'd have 22 catches.

What do we make of all of this?

This has been a season in which almost anything that could go wrong for the Angels has gone wrong. The team's outfield defense is one of those things that has taken a significant hit. Replacing Torii Hunter with Josh Hamilton and injuries to Peter Bourjos have had consequences.

Opposing hitters reached about 38 percent of the time on balls hit in the air with an estimated distance of at least 200 feet that stayed in the ballpark last season. That's jumped to 40 percent this season, but also of importance is what is happening when those balls fall in. They resulted in 224 doubles and triples last season. This season they're already at 224, with 30 games to go.

The Angels are on pace to catch about 40 more of those balls than they did last season, but that's not enough to make up for the increase in doubles and triples allowed.

Put it this way: The Angels' outfield was credited with 46 Defensive Runs Saved in 2012, second-most in the majors (the Braves had 55). This season, they're at minus-18. Only five teams rate worse. Trout has some statistical responsibility for that.

This doesn't necessarily make him a bad defensive outfielder, just as last year's numbers didn't necessarily make him a great one. One of the things that happens when we evaluate defense is that we form an early impression and presume the player is always as good as that impression. But defense, like offense, can fluctuate.

Good players can have good seasons. They can have bad ones, too. And right now, Trout's defensive season just isn't that good.

>The three balls to which we're referring were hit to spots at
>speeds that generated outs from center fielders 57 percent, 97
>percent and 92 percent of the time, respectively, in all
>parks, with similar numbers when isolating it specifically to
>Oakland's home ballpark. When a center fielder misses two
>balls with out rates of 90 percent or higher, that's basically
>the defensive equivalent of a hitter going 0-for-7. Trout and
>Brian Bogusevic are the only two to have a game like that this
>season.

Articles like this *should* go a long way to helping people not get freaked out by DRS and UZR. On the other hand, it also shows how irritatingly volatile those marks are.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

He's not a candidate. Coulda saved a lot of keystrokes.

---------------------------------------------------------

and theyve had no chance both years.


/

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

They didn't have a chance because Anaheim is located in California. But they were better than at least one playoff team.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

I could be at work in ten minutes, but instead they had to put my house and my job like forty minutes apart. Dicks.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

He's the best player in the American League. Marking him off because Josh Hamilton was shitty and expensive doesn't make any sense.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

http://bbwaa.com/voting-faq/

Dear Voter:

There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.

The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:

1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.

2. Number of games played.

3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.

4. Former winners are eligible.

5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.

You are also urged to give serious consideration to all your selections, from 1 to 10. A 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all 10 places on your ballot. Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration.

Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, including pitchers and designated hitters.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

Neither apply here.

---------------------------------------------------------

>He's not a candidate. Coulda saved a lot of keystrokes.

________________________________________
"Take the surprise out your voice Shaq."-The REAL CP3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2H5K-BUMS0

.

________________________________________
"Take the surprise out your voice Shaq."-The REAL CP3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2H5K-BUMS0

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

And the late 50's weren't a soft time for NL MVP candidates.

It would be irritating if the writers of the 50's were better at this than writers now.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

did that at the shortstop position. I don't think that being on a losing team should automatically eliminate you from MVP contention, but to win it you gotta be heads and shoulders above everyone else. Banks met that criteria.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

Both of those votes were sorta close, with Fielder and Ozzie Smith placing second respectively. Don't know the story on the '91 vote. The Cards were a lot better than the Cubs in '87, but I guess back then you didn't argue with 49 HRs.

Robin Yount did it on a .500 team and the Rockies were barely over 0.500 when Larry Walker won it.

So yeah, doesn't happen very often.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

Was it the (sorta) low batting average? This was the pre-sabremetrics days, so they wouldn't have cared about that (I'm pretty sure Cal's OPS was better than Fielder's that year anyway).

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

The list of players better than Cecil Fielder in 1991 is pretty long. Frank Thomas was substantially better if we're talking bat-only corner guys.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

of anybody else in any other sport that's ever been considered for MVP on a losing team.

________________________________________
"Take the surprise out your voice Shaq."-The REAL CP3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2H5K-BUMS0

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

________________________________________
"Take the surprise out your voice Shaq."-The REAL CP3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2H5K-BUMS0

___________________

Mar-A-Lago delenda est

Todd Helton at the height of silly ball in Denver came close. But Albert Belle did it in 144 game season. In a pitcher's park.

>But Albert Belle did it in 144 game season. In a pitcher's
>park.

on a team that won 100 games in a shortened season & won their division by 30 games... and didn't win MVP. come to think of it, that might be a worst MVP vote than '87.

___________________

Mar-A-Lago delenda est

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/0909/si.cover.history.september27/images/mo.jpg

From the cover story:

"Albert Belle was formidable at the plate for the Cleveland Indians, but Albert Brooks could have been hitting cleanup for the Tribe and it still would have waltzed to its first postseason berth in 41 years."

I love when the narrative switches from "You must lead your team to the postseason" to "Anybody could have led that team to the postseason".

It would seem that in order to win the MVP award, it's simply not enough to be great. You must also make the people around you great. But not just the players on your team, but also the other teams in your division.

It's the place where one player can have the biggest impact on the team's performance, and there's the notion after of "empty stats." Like, you wouldn't think of considering a player who averages 28 ppg a game on a 35 win team the MVP.

I'm sort of surprised it doesn't happen more often in the NFL, where so much of an individual's performance really does on other players, the coach, the offense, etc.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

Under .500: Ernie Banks (twice), Andre Dawson, Cal Ripken, Alex Rodriguez

.500: Hank Sauer, Robin Yount

Non-Playoff Team:

Wild Card Era: Albert Pujols, Ryan Howard, Larry Walker

Divisional Era: George Bell, Mike Schmidt, Don Mattingly, Dale Murphy, Dave Parker, Rod Carew, Jeff Burroughs, Dick Allen, Joe Torre, Willie McCovey

League Era: Roberto Clemente, Willie Mays, Jackie Jensen, Roy Campanella, Yogi Berra, Al Rosen, Bobby Shantz, Ted Williams, Stan Musial Bob Elliot

1952 NL -- Hank Sauer, Chicago Cubs, 77-77, 5th place (of 8).
1958 NL -- Ernie Banks, Cubs, 74-80, 5th place (of 8).
1959 NL -- Ernie Banks, Cubs, 72-82, 6th place (of 8).

Nobody was close statistically. At all.

1987 NL -- Andre Dawson, Cubs, 76-85, 6th place (of 6).

Closest comp was Ozzie Catrwheel who probably had 12 RBI.



1991 AL -- Cal Ripken, Jr., Baltimore Orioles, 67-95, 6th place (of 7).

Robbed Cecil, but still had a great year.

2003 AL -- Alex Rodriguez, Texas Rangers, 71-91, 4th place (of 4).

Delgado probably shoulda won.

---------------------------------------------------------

>1952 NL -- Hank Sauer, Chicago Cubs, 77-77, 5th place (of 8).
>1958 NL -- Ernie Banks, Cubs, 74-80, 5th place (of 8).
>1959 NL -- Ernie Banks, Cubs, 72-82, 6th place (of 8).
>
>Nobody was close statistically. At all.

Nobody (on a playoff team) was statistically close (to their RBI totals). At all.

>1987 NL -- Andre Dawson, Cubs, 76-85, 6th place (of 6).
>
>Closest comp was Ozzie Catrwheel who probably had 12 RBI.

Andre Dawson...who led the league in RBIs.

Worst MVP vote of all-time? Possibly.

>1991 AL -- Cal Ripken, Jr., Baltimore Orioles, 67-95, 6th
>place (of 7).
>
>Robbed Cecil, but still had a great year.

Cecil Fielder...who led the league in RBIs.

>2003 AL -- Alex Rodriguez, Texas Rangers, 71-91, 4th place (of
>4).
>
>Delgado probably shoulda won.

Carlos Delgado...who led the league in RBIs.

*RsBI

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

>>1952 NL -- Hank Sauer, Chicago Cubs, 77-77, 5th place (of
>8).
>>1958 NL -- Ernie Banks, Cubs, 74-80, 5th place (of 8).
>>1959 NL -- Ernie Banks, Cubs, 72-82, 6th place (of 8).
>>
>>Nobody was close statistically. At all.
>
>Nobody (on a playoff team) was statistically close (to their
>RBI totals). At all.


Banks went .313/47/129 in '58. Mays went .347/29/96.

Pre sabremetrics, there wasnt much else to look at.

>
>>1987 NL -- Andre Dawson, Cubs, 76-85, 6th place (of 6).
>>
>>Closest comp was Ozzie Catrwheel who probably had 12 RBI.
>
>Andre Dawson...who led the league in RBIs.
>
>Worst MVP vote of all-time? Possibly.

He hit .287 with 49 homers. Again, pre sabremetrics.

Ozzie and Jack Clark probably split the Cards votes.

Definitely questionable.

>
>>1991 AL -- Cal Ripken, Jr., Baltimore Orioles, 67-95, 6th
>>place (of 7).
>>
>>Robbed Cecil, but still had a great year.
>
>Cecil Fielder...who led the league in RBIs.

And played on a much better team. O's were like, 30 games under.
>
>>2003 AL -- Alex Rodriguez, Texas Rangers, 71-91, 4th place
>(of
>>4).
>>
>>Delgado probably shoulda won.
>
>Carlos Delgado...who led the league in RBIs.

Had better slash numbers than A-Rod and played for the better team.

---------------------------------------------------------

>Banks went .313/47/129 in '58. Mays went .347/29/96.
>
>Pre sabremetrics, there wasnt much else to look at.

Mays won a Gold Glove that year and was generally regarded as the best defensive OF of his generation by then. He also led the league in SB for the 3rd straight year and 3B. If the Giants had made the playoffs, he'd have won. He could have won any year from 1954 through 1966 though. They couldn't give it to him every year.

Banks was hands down the best player in 1959.

But 1952 was all about infatuation with RBIs. There were other good candidates to be found. Three guys could have won the award with one change in a vote.

-They were tired of giving the award to Stan Musial at that point, but he was better.
-Robin Roberts was the best pitcher in the league and would have been a better choice (he almost won anyway).
-Jackie Robinson was a monster but Pee Wee Reese was getting on base much ahead of him so his RBI totals were down from the year that he had won it.
-Joe Black damn near won it as a relief pitcher that year

>>>1987 NL -- Andre Dawson, Cubs, 76-85, 6th place (of 6).
>>>
>>>Closest comp was Ozzie Catrwheel who probably had 12 RBI.
>>
>>Andre Dawson...who led the league in RBIs.
>>
>>Worst MVP vote of all-time? Possibly.
>
>He hit .287 with 49 homers. Again, pre sabremetrics.
>
>Ozzie and Jack Clark probably split the Cards votes.
>
>Definitely questionable.

-Tony Gwynn hit .370
-Eric Davis hit 37 HR and stole 50 bases with a higher batting average
-Dale Murphy's 1987 year is probably better by traditional numbers than the years that he won the MVP earlier in the decade
-Tim Raines missed a month due to collusion and had might have had an even greater "Fuck You" season than Dawson that year.

All of them would have been better picks, including Ozzie and Jack.

>>>1991 AL -- Cal Ripken, Jr., Baltimore Orioles, 67-95, 6th
>>>place (of 7).
>>>
>>>Robbed Cecil, but still had a great year.
>>
>>Cecil Fielder...who led the league in RBIs.
>
>And played on a much better team. O's were like, 30 games
>under.

What's the argument over Jose Canseco though?

Fielder in 1991: .261 AVG/44 HR/133 RBI
Canseco in 1991: .266 AVG/44 HR/122 RBI

They both had exactly 78 BBs too.

I think that the 11 RBI difference is made up for by the fact that Canseco had more 2B/3B (32-1 v. 25-0) and SB (26 v. 0).

Their teams finished with the exact same records.

Of course park effects, positional adjustment, and some other things definitely give Canseco the edge, but looking at it through a traditional lens, I don't see how you elevate Fielder over Canseco in 1991. Plenty of people did of course, as Cecil finished 2nd and Jose finished 4th.

>>>2003 AL -- Alex Rodriguez, Texas Rangers, 71-91, 4th place
>>(of
>>>4).
>>>
>>>Delgado probably shoulda won.
>>
>>Carlos Delgado...who led the league in RBIs.
>
>Had better slash numbers than A-Rod and played for the better
>team.

A-Rod: .298/47/118
Delgado: .302/42/145

The only category Delgado has over him there is RBI. Throw in the fact that A-Rod was a Gold Glove SS who also had 17 SB and he almost certainly should have won it. They tried to stir a Posada narrative for a dominant Yankee team but there was no traction. Delgado's 86-76 Blue Jays were not particularly impressive. They were 10 games out of the playoffs.

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

Even with 600 ABs, they're only two at-bats from flip-flopping. The main point that I was trying to make was .298/47 HRs v. .302/42 HRs isn't much of a difference. If you're going to claim one as better, RBIs are where probably where you're going to look, though OBP and park adjusted numbers also good answers.

Ultimately though, A-Rod was the better player, and only a discounting of his team can really get you out of the conversation. The problem is that nobody on a team that made the playoffs had anywhere near the year A-Rod or Delgado had. I think that it's strange to start splitting hairs and say that the guy with a very good season 10 games out of the playoffs deserved it more than than the guy with the better season whose team was 20 games out of the playoffs.

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

>Andre Dawson...who led the league in RBIs.
>
>Worst MVP vote of all-time? Possibly.

Trammell got robbed.

___________________

Mar-A-Lago delenda est

I go with Dawson being worse because there were like 5+ better candidates that could have won the award.

Trammell was probably more deserving of the MVP than anybody in the NL though. Hit .343 with 28 HR and 21 SB while driving in 100 and scoring 100. All while playing a good defensive SS for a 1st place team. Cal Ripken had won the award in 1983 with almost identical raw stats for a first place Orioles team. It's one of the more confusing MVP votes because he seems like such an obvious candidate. He had almost everything (except for RBI totals) working for him.

Looking at the narrative, the Blue Jays and Tigers were close the whole year (finished 2 games apart). On September 24th, the Tigers came to Toronto down 1.5 games in the standings. 7 of the last 10 games that year were against each other. So it's some awesome showdown baseball. The Blue Jays went 3-7, the Tigers went 6-5 and the Tigers won the East.

George Bell in those last 10 games was .250/.333/.275. 2 RBIs, 0 HRs.

Alan Trammell in those last 10 games was .381/.480/.571. 5 RBIs, 3 HRs.

Extend it to the month of September, because that's what really drives narratives:

Bell - .308/.379/.530 6 HR 17 R 21 RBI 0 SB

Trammell - .417/.490/.677 7 HR 25 R 20 RBI 6 SB

You'd think everything should be coming up on Trammell's side.

Implicit racial bias? Major market for a historically great franchise? Reputation as a tough and gritty player? Cameo on Magnum PI? Good defensive shortstop? Won a World Series MVP three years earlier? Played better down the stretch? Playing for a team that finished first and took it straight out of the Blue Jays' hands?

v.

Plays in Canada? Faltered down the stretch as his team gave away the AL East crown? Unimpressive left fielder? Former Rule 5 pick? Jheri curl?

Runs Batted In trumped all in 1987.

just ask O_E (he's been sick of hearing about it for years)


>I go with Dawson being worse because there were like 5+
>better candidates that could have won the award.

I don't disagree. but there was no one clear-cut superior MVP candidate in the NL like Trammell was in the AL so I go with that being worse, or at least stands out more for the most deserving candidate getting robbed.


>Trammell was probably more deserving of the MVP than anybody
>in the NL though. Hit .343 with 28 HR and 21 SB while driving
>in 100 and scoring 100. All while playing a good defensive SS
>for a 1st place team. Cal Ripken had won the award in 1983
>with almost identical raw stats for a first place Orioles
>team. It's one of the more confusing MVP votes because he
>seems like such an obvious candidate. He had almost everything
>(except for RBI totals) working for him.

Yeah I knew as a kid that Trammell had an awesome season but I didn't quite realize just how great is was until looking back years later. But 1987 was the year of the home run (just heard Rusillo I think the other week say matter-of-factly that the ball was juiced and I laughed cuz I thought everyone had forgotten about that) so the MVP awards were gonna go to sluggers with big power numbers regardless.


>Looking at the narrative, the Blue Jays and Tigers were close
>the whole year (finished 2 games apart). On September 24th,
>the Tigers came to Toronto down 1.5 games in the standings. 7
>of the last 10 games that year were against each other. So
>it's some awesome showdown baseball. The Blue Jays went 3-7,
>the Tigers went 6-5 and the Tigers won the East.

yeah that AL East stretch run showdown was awesome. Sparky said they weren't going to let Bell beat them and Detroit pitched around him that last series and swept Toronto to win the division.


>Implicit racial bias? Major market for a historically great
>franchise? Reputation as a tough and gritty player? Cameo on
>Magnum PI? Good defensive shortstop? Won a World Series MVP
>three years earlier? Played better down the stretch? Playing
>for a team that finished first and took it straight out of the
>Blue Jays' hands?

whoa, Magnum PI? didn't know that.

>Plays in Canada? Faltered down the stretch as his team gave
>away the AL East crown? Unimpressive left fielder? Former Rule
>5 pick? Jheri curl?

Dominican who speaks broken English? surly reputation? throws water coolers on the field when he's pissed off? rushes the mound and fly-kicks pitchers? lazy eye that makes him look just that much more crazy?

yeah looking back at the narrative it's kinda surprising how that MVP vote went.

___________________

Mar-A-Lago delenda est

November 8th, 2005 The greatest night in the history of GD!

despite his homeruns, runs scored and stolen bases down from last year's totals. Still, he's approaching some good company with 200+ hits, 100+ walks, 100+ runs scored and >=.330 average.

Even more amazing is the high probability of finishing 3rd in MVP voting behind Chris Davis.

Posters in High Griffinition.

Don't think-FEEEEEEEEEEEEEL! © Bruce Lee

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

"advanced metric" geekiness the triple crown doesn't mean shit.

________________________________________
"Take the surprise out your voice Shaq."-The REAL CP3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2H5K-BUMS0

___________________

Mar-A-Lago delenda est

If those guys had used WAR, we wouldn't have to look at Joe DiMaggio's unsightly 1947 MVP.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

day. I assumed everybody that won the triple-crown automatically won MVP but I guess that isn't always the case.

Who the hell is Joe Gordon and how did he beat out Ted Williams in 42? I've always know DiMaggio was overrated so I can almost see how he beat out Williams in 47...I see Mickey Cochrane beat out Gehrig in 34 too...

________________________________________
"Take the surprise out your voice Shaq."-The REAL CP3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2H5K-BUMS0

He missed two years in his prime for WWII also. That 1942 season was no fucking joke. A .322/.409/.491 line from a guy with a great defensive reputation at shortstop is a legitimate MVP season... in a year where Ted Williams doesn't destroy the universe.

The 1947 one was egregious, though I think you're totally right about the reason. There are two other completely undeserving Yankees in the top ten that year too, Joe Page and George McQuinn. So that one gets a big lineface.

By bWAR, Williams was literally twice as good as DiMaggio.

I'd never looked at those 1934 results before. Gehrig was fifth, which seems incredible to me. I guess the one thing that I do like about all of these oddities is that the award went to an up-the-middle guy. If you're going to make an MVP mistake, I'd rather it occur because you looked first for good candidates at C, SS, 2B, and CF. But it's still better to not be wrong.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

>I guess the one thing
>that I do like about all of these oddities is that the award
>went to an up-the-middle guy. If you're going to make an MVP
>mistake, I'd rather it occur because you looked first for good
>candidates at C, SS, 2B, and CF. But it's still better to not
>be wrong.

As for Williams, I guess a lot of it had to do with him being an arrogant asshole that nobody really liked, particularly the baseball writers of the day, while DiMaggio was conversely portrayed as a perfect and graceful gentleman.

________________________________________
"Take the surprise out your voice Shaq."-The REAL CP3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2H5K-BUMS0

this was probably the best, most accessible explanation for Trout over Cabrera that I read last year (this year Cabrera leads MLB in RE24 at 76.73 and Trout is second at 72.01)

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/trout-versus-cabrera-offense-only-context-included/

Trout Versus Cabrera: Offense Only, Context Included

by Dave Cameron - November 15, 2012

This piece originally ran on Ocotber 4th. Given the attention that Trout and Cabrera are going to receive today, I figured it was probably worth running again.

The AL MVP debate continues to rage on, and at this point, most of the arguments have already been made on both sides. If you think the Triple Crown should always be rewarded with an MVP, you’re voting for Miguel Cabrera. If you think the winner of the award has to come from a playoff team, you’re voting for Miguel Cabrera. If you think that WAR is a decent measure of player value, you’re voting for Trout. At this point, both sides are basically just yelling at each other, and no one is changing their minds.

However, for those who are uncomfortable with any of those positions and might still be on the fence, I wanted to offer one more perspective on the issue. The reality is that the case for Cabrera requires the assumption that baserunning and defense are of marginal value, and that position players should really by evaluated by their hitting statistics. The case for Cabrera also wants you to take context into account, since Cabrera drove in so many more runs than Trout did, and wants Cabrera to receive credit for his accomplishments with men on base. Interestingly enough, we have a metric here on FanGraphs that measures only offense and credits hitters for their performances with men on base. At the risk of adding to the alphabet soup, I think it’s worth looking at this little-used metric that measures exactly what the Cabrera contingent wants us to measure.

This metric is called RE24. It’s been on the site for years, and is available as part of our Win Probability section. We don’t use it a lot, because in general we prefer to talk about players from a context-neutral perspective, but for the purpose of this discussion, it might just be the perfect metric.

RE24 is essentially the difference between the run expectancy when a hitter comes to the plate and when his at-bat ends. For example, September 16th, Cabrera came to the plate against Joe Smith with runners at first and second and two outs, a situation where the Tigers would be expected to score 0.33 runs on average. Cabrera hit a three run home run, so they actually scored three runs, and RE24 gives Cabrera credit for +2.67 runs, the gap between what they were expected to score and what they actually scored.

Unlike with context-neutral statistics like wRC+, RE24 takes the number of outs and number of baserunners into account. It does not assume that all home runs are equal, nor does it treat a strikeout with a man on third base and one out as just another out. The rewards for performing with men on base are higher, and the blame for failing in those same situations is steeper as well. This is a metric that essentially quantifies the total offensive value of a player based on the situations that he actually faced. This is not a theoretical metric. If you hit a three run home run, you get more credit than if you hit a solo home run. If you are consistently getting hits with two outs to drive in runs, you get more credit than if those hits come with no outs and the bases empty. And, of course, it’s only an offensive metric, so there’s no defensive component, no position adjustments, and no replacement level. This is just straight up offense, adjusted for the context of the situations that they faced.

Here’s the AL leaderboard for this season. If you don’t want to click the link, I’ll just reproduce the top five here.

1. Edwin Encarnacion: +55.84 runs
2. Mike Trout: +54.27
3. Prince Fielder: +50.59
4. Miguel Cabrera: +47.43
5. Josh Hamilton: 44.44

Offense only. Context Included. Trout is just barely behind Edwin Encarnacion for the league lead, and slightly ahead of Miguel Cabrera, who is actually second on on his own team.

I know these new-fangled “advanced” stats can be scary, but this isn’t some kind of black box where you just have to take our word for it. We have RE24 on each player’s Play Log, so you can see the exact amount of value that each player was credited with on every single offensive play they were involved in all year long. Here’s the top five plays from Cabrera’s play log, for instance:

9/16 vs Joe Smith, 2 on, 2 out, 3 run HR: +2.67 runs
9/18 vs Jesse Chavez, 3 on, 0 out, Grand Slam: +2.16 runs
9/29 vs Casey Fien, 2 on, 0 out, 3 run HR: +2.00 runs
4/8 vs Alfredo Aceves, 2 on, 0 out, 3 run HR: +1.99 runs
7/24 vs Joe Smith, 1 on, 2 outs, 2 run HR: +1.88 runs

There’s evidence of Cabrera’s monstrous clutch September in RE24, as his three most valuable outcomes all came in the last couple of weeks. In fact, Mike Trout only had one plate appearance all year where his RE24 was over +2 runs — a three run homer off Felix Hernandez in August — so Cabrera’s certainly had more big moments where his ability to drill the ball over the wall created runs for the Tigers offense.

So, why is Trout ahead of Cabrera? And, for that matter, why is Cabrera behind even his own teammate, Prince Fielder, as well as Encarnacion, who is not even in the MVP discussion?

It comes back to double plays. I noted a few weeks ago that Cabrera had hit into an AL leading 28 double plays. Turns out, a bunch of those were big-time rally killers. 12 of the 28 double plays Cabrera hit into lowered the run expectancy by at least one run; Trout only had two plate appearances all season where the run expectancy went down that much in a single play. Because RE24 is available for every play, and easily accessible from the play logs, it’s easy to put each player’s individual performances into groups, so we can see the distribution of their offensive events.

Player +1 and up 0 to +1 0 to -1 -1 and down
Trout 54 269 388 2
Cabrera 77 219 406 12

Cabrera had 23 more highly visible significant offensive plays that generated +1 runs or more than expected based on the situation he was placed in. Those plays are extremely valuable, and Cabrera was credited with 97 runs in those 77 plays. Meanwhile, Trout only created 66 runs in his 54 big plays, so we’re looking at a 31 run advantage for Cabrera in high visibility plays. This is what’s driving Cabrera’s narrative – everyone remembers these plays, and saw Cabrera come through in big situations more often than they saw Trout do the same.

However, Trout makes up the gap — and then some — in the other 600+ plays that matter as well. While he had 23 fewer big positive plays, he had 50 additional smaller positive plays, all of which contributed to the Angels offensive performance. He also had 28 fewer negative value plays, including 10 fewer that were extremely negative, thanks primarily to his ability to stay out of the double play.

You can go through each player’s play logs and see exactly where they earned and lost credit. There’s no replacement level here. We’re not dealing with defensive metrics that require some subjective inputs and can’t be easily replicated. This is just pure offense, and the total value of all the plays that both Trout and Cabrera were involved in.

And Trout still comes out on top. Ignore defense. Ignore things like going first to third on a single, or taking the extra base on a fly ball. Ignore WAR. Trout still wins. This is how amazing his season actually was. Even if you strip away the things that make Mike Trout special, he was still the best offensive performer in the American League this year, even while starting the season in the minors. This isn’t just the best performance of 2012 – it’s one of the best individual performances in the history of baseball.

___________________

Mar-A-Lago delenda est

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/09/16/jon-morosi-finding-new-ways-to-support-miguel-cabrera-for-mvp-depending-on-the-circumstances/
-----------------------
Jon Morosi: finding new ways to support Miguel Cabrera for MVP depending on the circumstances

by Craig Calcaterra

You don’t have to have some set of hard and fast rules about how you feel about awards if you don’t want to. Feel free to go with your gut each year. Feel free to just vote for your favorite player all you want. Or not. I don’t care. And if you think Miguel Cabrera is the MVP this year I won’t quibble at all. Wonderful choice and I won’t squawk a bit if he wins the award.

But if you claim to have rules for such things, don’t change them every couple of years and claim you’re consistent.

Here’s Jon Paul Morosi a few minutes ago:

@jonmorosi: I believe players are most valuable to their teams when they help those teams win division titles and make the playoffs.

Jon Paul Morosi in 2010:

@jonmorosi: It's becoming clear that Miguel Cabrera should win the AL MVP over Josh Hamilton. #Tigers #Rangers #MLB #Dallas #Detroit

In 2010, of course, the Tigers finished 81-81 and were out of the playoff picture while Hamilton’s Rangers won the AL West with a huge assist from Josh Hamilton. I guess that whole thing about “helping their teams win division titles and make the playoffs” criteria for the MVP award only matters when it helps Miguel Cabrera and doesn’t matter when it hurts him.

For what it’s worth, here was Morosi’s full rationale for Cabrera over Hamilton in 2010 (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/al-mvp-race-between-josh-hamilton-and-miguel-cabrera-092210). It can be boiled down to “the Tigers would be AWFUL if it wasn’t for their one awesome player. The Rangers, on the other hand, have lots of awesome players, so Hamilton is not necessarily as important.”

In other words: the exact opposite of what his argument for Cabrera would be this year, should he go with Cabrera. Which, given his “playoffs are essential” criteria seems about right.

are in the conversation.