2012 awards thread

Jared Weaver's got the best record, the best ERA, and the best Thor haircut in the American League. But do those things make him the best pitcher?

http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/8/7/3226421/jered-weaver-justin-verlander-al-cy-young

AL

mvp - trout
cy - weaver
ROY - trout

NL

mvp - mccutchen
cy - dickey, i guess? lots of guys in the mix, even AJ!
roy - miley? rizzo emerging as a potential candidate w/the cubs too.

i think dickey has lost the narrative.

i'd probably say gio & cueto have a better shot than him

maybe even stras if he doesn't get scaled back

also matt cain, if the giants make a push into the playoffs

i feel like cueto has the best chance to challenge dickey but i still think people like RA for the award, right now. if the trends continue i would go with cueto.

although he's more like johnny cute-o~

http://www.straitpinkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/cueto2.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0amCfgnwY8

(An inexplicable force compels me to post this once a season. Sorry.)

if the narrative matters, I guess Obama will win the Cy unless the economy tanks.

God, what nonstop sports/news channels have done to the young....

cutch me

AL MVP: Trout
AL Cy: Weaver
Comeback: Alex Rios

NL MVP: McCutchen
NL Cy: Dickey
Comeback: Wright

AL MVP: Trout
AL CY: Weaver

NL MVP: Cutch
NL CY: no idea, Cueto?

Cabrera is a solid MVP candidate in the AL, if the Tigers make the playoffs and the Angels don't then I wouldn't be surprised if he won.

NL CY is totally wide open, there are probably ten guys who have a shot if they can go 7-1, 1.50 ERA down the stretch and their teams make the playoffs.

Al mvp: Miguel Cabrera
roy: Mike Trout
cy: Weaver

Nl mvp: Andrew McCutchen
roy: Wade Miley
cy: RA Dickey

I started listing runners-up and had Cabrera. He's just so good. He must be rapidly moving up the list of greatest position players who never won an MVP--and, like Pujols, he still hasn't had a season where he didn't draw votes.

dickey ain't winning the cy young

That's easy to say bcz he's slumped in the last month, but there is no clear alternative winner he can't be ruled out. ie, thread is too soon.

(also Dickey doesn't do well in the the advanced metrics, which I will discount as much as possible this year because he is a Met)

Miggy is in a virtual tie for 3rd in WAR (B-R version) for AL position players -- with Josh Reddick! Cano is 2nd.

i think for dickey to win he'd have to finish with noticeably better stats than the rest of the NL... like a verlander-level no-brainer last year

he'll end up finishing as one of the best pitchers in the NL, but he'll be competing with guys on winning teams. i see him finishing third or something.

Unless you treat WAR as gospel, though--where Cueto's ahead--I think Dickey has a better overall case. Cueto has the better ERA by 0.24, and a better adjusted ERA. Dickey has better numbers in WHIP (#1, with Cueto outside the Top 10), H/9, K/BB, and W-L record. Slight edge to Cueto in quality starts, 17/23 vs. 16/23. Like Weaver, Dickey's numbers improve quite a bit if you throw out one disastrous start back in April against Atlanta (4.1 innings, 8 runs). It's very close...either one could go on to win.

i'm not making a should argument

Going way back to the '70s, I think Niekro and Wilbur Wood tended to get shortchanged in Cy Young voting. Throwing a freak pitch didn't seem to go over well with voters.

AL MVP and ROY have to be Trout right now. I just looked at his stats and had my mind blown, again. Cy is probably Verlander but King Felix is right on his tail, Weaver's got the best ERA but his peripherals aren't as good.

As far as the NL goes - MVP is probably going to be Cutch, as the voters aren't going to go for Braun now and Votto's been hurt for too long. Cueto, Dickey, and Kershaw could all win the Cy Young, if Strasburg wasn't going to be limited I would think he could win it too. Also you can give Chapman an outside chance, because holy cow his K/9 is at 16.77 and he's put up 2.9 WAR over about 50 innings, it's not out of the realm of possibility to think that he could put up 9 WAR or more over a season as a starter. ROY is probably Miley but Fiers has got to be catching up to him, he's only .4 WAR behind despite pitching 50 less innings; the voters have to at least consider him at this point.

Zimmermann has better advanced numbers than Strasburg; he's #2 in B-R WAR behind Cueto in the league.

kershaw has been great obviously, tho i don't think he's been great enough for the voters to give him his second straight

i'd put the top 4 nl cy young contenders (in no order) as: cueto, gio, dickey & cain

i think trout wins ROY & MVP as well, don't see anyone else challenging him

if trout slumps badly in the last month or something, i'd give cano a better shot of winning than miggy

Zimmermann has better advanced numbers than Strasburg; he's #2 in B-R WAR behind Cueto in the league.

Strasburg's K rate is nearly twice what Zimmermann's is; I'm curious what B-R is rating so highly

If this were the late '80s or early '90s, when they were handing out Cys to relievers left and right, I think Chapman might have even been the favourite. What he's doing is miles ahead of Mark Davis and Steve Bedrosian, and better even than Eckersley's 1990 (when he didn't win) or 1992 (when he did).

Strasburg's K rate is nearly twice what Zimmermann's is; I'm curious what B-R is rating so highly

― frogbs, Wednesday, August 8, 2012 10:54 AM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark

the main difference is that bWAR takes ERA instead of FIP, right? theirs looks a bit wacky... matt harrison and kuroda in the top 10

I didn't realize Chapman had thrown 113+ innings. Has anyone done 162 relief IP since Mike Marshall?

? He's thrown 53.2 so far--not many, but if he keeps going at the same rate, he'll be around 80 for the season. Which would bring him into the range of Davis (92.2), Bedrosian (89), Eckersley (80), and Gagne (82.1) the years they won. I'm not advocating for Chapman, by the way; just saying that there was a time when he'd be getting more serious consideration.

ok I was looking at career totals, pay me no mind

dickey ain't winning the cy young

― tauheed & cambria (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, August 8, 2012 9:52 AM

hey baby boy, think the Fish just put him back in the driver's seat!

• 1st in NL in W (15)
• 1st in NL in IP (162.1)
• 1st in NL in SO (166)
• 4th in NL in ERA (2.72)
• 1st in NL in WHIP (1.00)
• 2nd in NL in W% (.833)
• 1st in NL in CG (3)

Big comeback for wins and winning pct.! (To be fair, you admitted as much yesterday.)

a knuckleballer leading the league in STRIKEOUTS, WHIP and wins? That's quite a leg up, wdn't you say??

I posted yesterday that Dickey was my choice; today's start strengthens his case. But it's so close between a few guys, one or two bad starts can knock somebody out of the running.

Basically what I said about Chapman above--that there was a time when he would have been very much in the running--but instead of Chapman, Kimbrel:

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/27851/could-craig-kimbrel-win-nl-cy-young

Followed by what awards are for: many reader comments where people argue and tell each other they don't know what they're talking about.

just noticed on BR that someone gave him an mvp vote last year!

Man, it's hard to not go with Mike Trout. I want to change from Cabrera.

The AL Cy is even closer after the weekend. Price and Sale had very good starts and won; Verlander, very good no-decision; Weaver had a decent start and lost.

How can Felix keep up with that?

Never mind.

http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8277193/mlb-case-miguel-cabrera-al-mvp

Using Leverage Index, we can quantify the relative impact any given plate appearance has on the outcome of a game, based on the score, inning, number of base runners, and how many outs there are at the time. At FanGraphs, we break every player's plate appearances into three tiers, ranging from low leverage (game already decided) to high leverage (high chance of determining who wins and loses) and can evaluate how players have done in the "clutch" opportunities they've been given.

Miguel Cabrera: Mr. Clutch?
Situation BA OBP OPS w/OBA
Low Leverage .332 .389 .613 .424
Medium Leverage .305 .365 .508 .369
High Leverage .417 .500 .833 .524

As it turns out, Cabrera has been a shining star in such situations this year. In the chart to the right, check out Cabrera's performance, by leverage:

In 44 high-leverage plate appearances, Cabrera has 15 hits, 11 of which have gone for extra bases. He's also drawn seven walks, creating an even higher pressure situation for the pitcher, who now has to face Prince Fielder without first base being open. Cabrera's .526 wOBA in high leverage situations easily paces the American League.

The fact that Alejandro de Aza and Alex Rios -- neither exactly known as fearsome clutch hitters -- are also in the top five should tell you something about the year-to-year variability of clutch performance, but we're not trying to predict whether Cabrera can keep hitting like this in high pressure situations, we're just noting that he has so far this year.

Mike Trout: No pressure
Situation BA OBP OPS w/OBA
Low Leverage .376 .459 .700 .499
Medium Leverage .317 .369 .511 .394
High Leverage .276 .289 .517 .345

On the other end of the spectrum, the best hitter in low-leverage situations in the AL? None other than Trout. In fact, Trout's leverage splits are basically a mirror opposite of Cabrera's. Check out the chart to the right to see Trout's performance, by leverage:

Trout has been a monster when the game is already determined one way or another but just a little better than league average when the game is on the line. Now, you should not take these numbers to mean that Trout folds under pressure or that he lacks some personality trait that allows him to answer the call when necessary, as we're just dealing with 38 plate appearances, and these splits will even out over a larger sample of data. I am not arguing that Cabrera has a clutch gene that Trout does not.

this is unbelievably stupid. this guy is using a 44-plate appearance sample to make an MVP case. it's the same vapid argument people have used forever but dressed up in pseudo-sabermetric legitimacy

On a similar note, isn't it time we kicked Ted Williams out of the baseball Hall of Fame? He never won the big one.

GARBAGE TIME TROUT

Meanwhile, Young Weaver is not having a good night.

9 ER = .52 ERA spike

Disaster for Weaver--he may be out of the running. Poor start for Sale, loss; adequate start for Verlander, no decision. Price fantastic yesterday, the other guy coming up fast on the outside.

this is unbelievably stupid. this guy is using a 44-plate appearance sample to make an MVP case. it's the same vapid argument people have used forever but dressed up in pseudo-sabermetric legitimacy

I hate when someone writes a long article and crunches a million numbers but says "well, it's only 38 PA's, so we can't really conclude anything." Then why write the article in the first place?

His leverage numbers also don't take in account that Trout leads off the game, so around 20% of his game at bats occur each and every time with no men on and no men out.

Kyle Lohse is 3rd among NL pitchers in bWAR!

I hate when someone writes a long article and crunches a million numbers but says "well, it's only 38 PA's, so we can't really conclude anything." Then why write the article in the first place?

Ultimately this is why I only really trust Fangraphs to deliver articles that are both interesting from a statistical point of view and not completely stupid

Weaver has fallen back in the Cy Young race, which would seem to make Verlander the front runner again. But after King Felix's last two starts, their numbers are almost identical!

Price ain't doing too shabby either!

Price is close to the triple crown for pitchers. He is most definitely in the race for cy young.

Predicting only: I think Price would be the favourite right now, even though Verlander is stronger sabermetrically. The year Felix won, he was demonstrably better than the #2 and #3 guys once you looked past W-L record, which was further accentuated by the fact that he pitched for a team that scored 100 fewer runs than the second-worst team. Price's other stats are quite good this year, though, so my guess is it will be much harder for Verlander to break through Price's strength in the triple crown categories.

If he keeps it up; this is still a four-way race, at least. (I do think Weaver's perilously close to out of it.)

Ultimately this is why I only really trust Fangraphs to deliver articles that are both interesting from a statistical point of view and not completely stupid

― frogbs, Monday, August 20, 2012 6:33 PM (2 days ago)

the guy who wrote that writes for fangraphs!

ruh roh

I have a feeling that Verlander's lack of defensive and offensive support is going to cost him.

Informal fan poll on the AL Cy Young:

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/28373/david-price-turns-into-new-al-cy-young-favorite

Voting seems very much a what-have-you-done-for-me-lately? thing--I'd still put Verlander ahead of Felix--but I agree that Price is the current favourite.

Price gets hit hard, CG shutout for Felix. Yeah, I agree--maybe I should just shut up about this.

espn jinx!

Verlander is getting shelled by the Royals.

Granted, several of these hits have been bloops.

‏Through two innings:

@Royals_Report
#Royals already have more runs (6) and more hits (10) than in their 21 previous games against Detroit ace Justin Verlander. Previous: 5, 8.

Verlander REALLY getting shelled tonight.

Weaver unsure of when he will start again.

Breaking my silence: the AL Cy Young is again nuts, although I don't know if Felix is still in it or not. Looks like they each have four starts left.

he'll be sitting out his next start - so three for Felix.
still like Price most for the Cy right now.

verlander is going to win it

you think he should - or you just think that's how the voting is going to break?

i would vote for him, also i think he's going to win

Verlander's got half-a-game on Sale in WAR, and a game on Price, so I assume he has the best sabermetric case (or, if you'd prefer, the best case period). But if the vote were held today, I think Price would win; I think the voting is still in transition, and a gaudy W-L record along with the ERA lead along with good everything else will be tough to beat. (Not quite the case when Felix won in 2010--the guys he beat weren't as strong as Price this year.) Anyway, it's close enough that these last starts will matter.

Along with everything else that makes this so close, four of the teams involved (putting aside Felix for a moment) are essentially tied: 78-68 (White Sox), 79-67 (Angels), 78-67 (Rays), 77-67 (Tigers). From top to bottom, there's one game and .007 separating them.

(AL Cy Young, that is.)

Least Valuable Player frontrunners:

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/14/and-the-award-for-the-worst-player-in-baseball-goes-to/

If Cabrera wins the Triple Crown, will he win the MVP no matter what the Tigers, Angels, or Mike Trout do for the rest of the season? (will win != should win)

Right now he leads in RBI, BA, and is two HR behind Hamilton.

I know that you could say that the Triple Crown is arbitrary collection of statistical categories, but I always thought it was an amazing and very cool achievement. And somebody winning it for the first time in 45 years would definitely be historic ...

Trout *should* win but the Triple Crown ... damn.

yeah i think if miggy wins the trip crown hes a lock for mvp

He reached the 40-home run barrier for the first time and suddenly, he might just have a chance to win the Triple Crown, too.

"It's amazing," Cabrera said. "Wee. Yeah. Yeah."

http://www.freep.com/article/20120919/COL38/309190148/Jeff-Seidel-detroit-tigers-miguel-cabrera

After Tuesday’s game, I asked Cabrera what he knew about Yastrzemski.

“Who?” he replied.

Carl Yastrzemski, I repeated.

“Oh!” he said, grinning. “A lot.”

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/miguel-cabrera-detroit-tigers-can-he-win-mvp-and-triple-crown-carl-yastrzemski-091812

I'm torn. I've been waiting forever for someone to win a Triple Crown, so I'm really rooting for that. And Cabrera is underpublicized relative to what he's done in his first ten years. On the other hand, I know he has no defensive value, and that Trout's having the better season by a wide margin in WAR. In a way, the only real argument for Cabrera might be something James wrote about 30 years ago, when Ripken and Murray were vying for MVP in '83: that it's harder to have the kind of season Cabrera's had when you're expected to do that year in and year out, as opposed to a much younger player who wasn't expected to perform at the level that he has. Yes, I know--irrelevant narrative.

Anyway, even if Cabrera were to win the TC (which I still doubt), I don't think it's automatic he'd win MVP too. Baseball writers have been (understandably) swooning over Trout all year, and I think it's common knowledge by now how historic his season really is.

Trout would have my vote.

Weaver won last night. Verlander (who has thrown 40 more innings) pitches against Brett Anderson (who has been very good since returning) tonight.

Scherzer left early last night due to shoulder fatigue. Looks like the K title is Verlander's to lose.

fuck the Triple Crown, at least in this context.

Neyer did an awards roundup on Saturday so clemenza can confine his disturbing manias to the Least Important Presidential Election in the History of a Country He Doesn't Live In.

http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/9/15/3333708/mlb-2012-awards-mvp-cy-young-rookie-of-the-year-manager

"his disturbing manias"--I try not characterize you, Morbius, but if I were to, I wouldn't know where to begin.

"his disturbing manias" wouldn't be a terrible start tbh

if it helps, mostly disturbing in their triviality.

anyway, Posey wins MVP unless PIT or MIL get a WC? Sound?

Braun's having an even better year than 2011, for the record

Haven't looked closely at Braun/Posey/McCutchen...My inclination would always be to go for the catcher, all else being equal, which is why a couple of votes where Piazza finished second puzzled me at the time.

Klaw (2:12 PM)

I truly don't see a rational case for Cabrera. It's all based on outdated and incomplete stats. Trout and Cabrera have equivalent OBPs. Cabrera has a 54-point lead in SLG, but plays in a better offensive park. Trout is a plus defender, Cabrera is a poor one. Trout has stolen 46 bases of 50; Cabrera has stolen 4 of 5. Replacement level at 3b and cf are pretty close to equal. So Miggy's slight lead in power is obliterated by Trout's huge advantages in defense and basestealing. Is that really hard to understand? Do we even need WAR or a similar construct to tell us that?

is there a sabermetrics triple crown?!

because there's should be.

or perhaps a 4.5 crown?

Playing devil's advocate:

-- their oWAR numbers are fairly close (7.0 for Cabrera, 7.8 for Trout)
-- defensive WAR numbers are far from reliable ... obviously Trout is better, but three full wins better?
-- park factors fluctuate year to year, Angels Stadium favoured hitters just a few years ago
-- 53 points of SLG is huge ... about a 20 XBH difference. I'm not sure if park factors can account for all of that.

to that question (xp) --

Justin (Boston)

I asked you this on Twitter, and I'll ask again here - what stats would comprise the Keith Law-approved Triple Crown?

Klaw (1:41 PM)

I wouldn't. I don't like that shorthand replacing an attempt to encapsulate total value in a single number, with visible components.

Thermo (Internet):

Zuh?

Klaw (6:16 PM) [Harvard memory punctuated with sarcastic zing]

I don't like that shorthand replacing an attempt to encapsulate total value in a single number, with visible components

Nothing to do with Trout/Cabrera, but does he not see the weird contradiction here? He's calling three numbers shorthand, and therefore an insufficient stand-in for...one number. And if WAR has visible components, I don't see them: it's one number. (The only real knock I've ever had on it is that I can't compute it myself, or at least not quickly and easily. I loved James's RC/27 outs because I could calculate that myself.)

Anyway, one more thought on disturbing manias. Taking a lively interest in Triple Crowns, no-hitters, year-end awards, the Hall of Fame, these are not disturbing manias--for most people, that would be called being a baseball fan. I sometimes think, Morbius, that you start with this assumption that because I want to see Cabrera win a Triple Crown, it follows that I think he's the best player in baseball--that I can't hold two competing thoughts at once. TC or no TC, obviously Cabrera is not the best player in baseball, not when you take into account defense, positional value, and speed. He's probably not one of the six best non-pitchers in the game. But I started watching baseball in 1970, when the last two TCs were within very recent memory, and as season after season has passed without one, the reasons as to why have taken on a certain fascination for me. And a TC from Cabrera wouldn't be a cheap one. He wouldn't win the batting or HR title because he's hitting in Colorado; his numbers at home are definitely stronger, but Comerica's park factor (1.051) sits 12th out of 30 parks, nothing especially noteworthy. And he wouldn't lead in RBI because he's Joe Carter batting behind Rickey Henderson and Roberto Alomar; his situational stats are very much in line with (and sometimes better) than his overall line. As I said with Pujols two years ago, and Kemp last year, if he does do it, it would be a very sound measure of his overall excellence. And a rare one--rarity is interesting.

53 points of SLG is huge ... about a 20 XBH difference.

Trout does have 46 steals (with only 4 CS). Needless to say, he has out-stolen Cabrera by a considerable margin.

The Triple Crown is cool, period. It's not some random collection of statistics like "Player X is the 49th player since 1960 to have 200 H, 20 2B, and 20 HR in a season". It's a rare achievement that only inner circle HOFers have ever accomplished. It's somewhat era independent, IOW, it's a hitting achievement but wasn't devalued during hitters eras like in 1994-2005. People get hung up on the RBI component, but really you have to be the best average and the best power hitter, which is just a way of saying you dominate in OBP and SLG i.e. OPS and last I checked that stuff was still important. You could then say that AVG/OBP/SLG should be the real TC (I think Mauer lead the league in all three in '09?) but that's a different argument. Nobody's ever claimed that the TC is a complete expression of a player's value, KLaw needs to get his head out of his ass.

huh - now i'm curious about how about how often the NoTime triple crown has been achieved.

and really – the arguments I see around about the arbratary-ness or whatever of things like the Cy Young or triple crown… we're fucking talking about dudes running around and hitting a ball with a stick… banded together to represent cities in countries most the dudes aren't even from. hitting for the cycle is meaningless? well so is baseball. so is sports. none of those things solves world hunger or cures cancer – so if people want to debate who the "most valuable player" is in the "national league" in the "sport" of "baseball", let 'em have at it. unless you're a sports writer, you don't have to talk or think about it.

Yeah, the quality of names on the list speaks well of the accomplishment--Klein's the worst of the 20th-century players to have done it, and Medwick's next. Meanwhile, a number of TC seasons--Hornsby's two, Gehrig's '34, Mantle's '56, Yaz in '67--are among the most dominant ever. The pitching TC is about twice as common, which I suppose is why it's never had the same mystique. I'd never even heard it mentioned until Clemens' two seasons in Toronto.

Here are the slash-stat TC winners (add Mauer to the top of the list:

                                  MVP  RBI  Team   RBI    Team
Player            Team      YEAR  Rank Rank Finish Rank  Finish  MVP
Barry Bonds       Giants    2004    1   17   2nd    --    --      --
Barry Bonds       Giants    2002    1    6   2nd    --    --      --
Todd Helton       Rockies   2000    5    1   4th     4    1st    Jeff Kent
Larry Walker      Rockies   1999   10   10   5th    17    1st    Chipper Jones
George Brett      Royals    1980    1    2   1st    --    --      --
Fred Lynn         Red Sox   1979    4    4   3rd     1    1st    Don Baylor
Carl Yastrzemski* Red Sox   1967    1    1   1st    --    --      --
Frank Robinson*   Orioles   1966    1    1   1st    --    --      --
Ted Williams      Red Sox   1957    2   10   3rd     5    1st    Mickey Mantle
Ted Williams      Red Sox   1948    3    3   2nd     8    1st    Lou Boudreau
Stan Musial       Cardinals 1948    1    1   2nd    --    --      --
Ted Williams*     Red Sox   1947    2    1   3rd     3    1st    Joe DiMaggio
Stan Musial       Cardinals 1943    1    5   1st    --    --      --
Ted Williams*     Red Sox   1942    2    1   2nd     4    1st    Joe Gordon
Ted Williams      Red Sox   1941    2    4   2nd     1    1st    Joe DiMaggio

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9449

Larry Walker gettin no love!

Jeff Kent of Survivor fame

*sigh* I should've just linked to Law's chat. You might've cut him a little more slack if you read all his comments in context.

hitting for the cycle is meaningless? well so is baseball.

Deeerives meeee crazeeee! The cycle, perfect games, TCs are 'meaningless' IN A BASEBALL CONTEXT from the POV of earmarking excellent players. That's all. As KLaw said in the chat, TCs are heavily dependent on hitting in the middle of the lineup, are easier for players in hitters' parks, etc. You can't have it both ways: by your giving it respect as a 'cool thing,' the likelier ppl are going to connect the attention it gets with objective value whether you try to put an asterisk on it or not.

I read KLaw's chat, he's wrong about this. For one thing, it's stupid to say that TC's are like no-hitters from the POV of picking out excellent players when only excellent players -- without exception -- have won the TC. RBI's might be batting order dependent, but HR's and AVG aren't.

Quickly looking over the year by year leaderboards, virtually every TC winner led their league in OPS+ (which accounts for ballparks) and WAR so how can anyone say that the TC doesn't correlate with some of the best players and best individual seasons ever? This isn't like hitting .300 or getting 200 hits, you can do those things and still suck.

It's just Cabrera's continuing run of bad MVP luck that he's putting together his season for the ages in the same year as someone else's. Trout's been unbelievable and will deserve the MVP, but arguing against Cabrera by saying that the TC is meaningless is just plain dumb.

btw you will note Ted Williams won the Triple Crown in 1942 and 1947 and the MVP in neither year. (Of course that's partly bcz he hated writers like no great player ever, possibly, til Barry Bonds.)

Wanted to make the same point as NoTime--obviously, you've got to separate TCs from the likes of cycles (more or less a complete fluke) and no-hitters (a mix of great, good, and fluky pitchers--probably the perfect-game list is somewhat stronger). And while it's true that a TC is dependent upon hitting in the middle of the order in terms of RBI, that's close to tautological; those players are batting third or fourth for a reason.

whereas Rickey Henderson batted leadoff cuz he sucked? Why isn't his runs scored total as 'meaningful' as a seasonal RBI total?

I was cheated out of many RBI situations due to the cowardice of the opposing managers who took the bat out of my hands. I may have broken every single season RBI record in the books and easily won the triple crown, yet instead I own a meaningless record that will never be broken: intentional walks in a season. The game is not as reductive as you'd like it to be, Mr. Clemenza.

I OK'd Barry's registration. * beams proudly *

I don't think anyone would argue that Rickey wasn't as dominant as almost any player ever. Which discredits a Triple Crown...how, I'm not sure. Everybody can't do everything.

We had the Bonds argument on some other thread. The two points I made: a) the intentional walks were surreal, and silly, and yes, they probably deprived him of a Triple Crown, except that b) I personally don't believe he ever would have hit .370, or even close, without all the walks. So I would argue that they simultaneously cheated him out of a Triple Crown in one category, but facilitated him in another. We'll never know. (Right, Steve Shasta?)

Bonds and Henderson were two of the five, ten, fifteen greatest offensive forces ever. No one's arguing that that is changed whatsoever because neither one won a Triple Crown.

Why isn't his runs scored total as 'meaningful' as a seasonal RBI total?

I read something from Neyer or somebody the other day that suggested runs scored are now starting to be viewed as skeptically by sabermetic-oriented analysts as RBI.

It isn't the same though -- you have to get on base a lot to score runs. You don't have to be all that good to compile RBI's, you only need really good teammates who can get on base.

I was never aware of runs scored ever being viewed non-skeptically by sabermetic-oriented analysts, but as long as we're talking exclusively about dinosaur stats...

James used to work really hard in the early Abstracts to make the case that runs scored were more meaningful than RBI (which they are). To make that case, he didn't, I don't think, stop to acknowledge that runs too are somewhat context-driven, albeit much less so than RBI. There was no need to--different times. So I just meant that from whatever it was I read the other day, I got the feeling that there had been a step in that direction.

Are home runs now a dinosaur stat? I really need to keep up.

phaps w/ out considering park factors etc

Mets have adjusted rotation so Dickey's last starts are tom'w vs Miami and Thursday vs Pirates, but it'll be hard for him to win both and reach 20 when his team needs a miracle to score more than once a game.

Joe Sheehan ‏@joe_sheehan
Justin Verlander is having almost the exact same season he had in 2011, with 95% of the difference being the Tigers' defense.

yeah, tho Sale's a solid #2, I can't quite understand arguing that anyone's been better than Verlander.

Cabrera currently leading AL in HR, RBI, AVG.

Fantastic. I was curious as to the latest date when Brett was still at .400, and it was Sept. 19 (exactly .400). So Cabrera has pushed past that, barring a 3-HR game from Encarnacion. (I feel like the TC, .400, and a 30-game winner are the three white whales of my baseball fandom.)

bet the same trio for Jon Heyman

The Triple Crown is cool, period.
― NoTimeBeforeTime, Thursday, September 20, 2012 4:10 AM

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-triple-crown-is-not-evil/

Still, that doesn’t take away from the fact that winning the triple crown is incredibly rare. Yes, RBI is one of the categories — and yes, it doesn’t account for all of the nuances that more modern statistics do — but the triple crown is not evil. In fact, it’s actually pretty cool.

well, that proves it

balderdash

Trout failing to get proper credit for a great season is COOL too, I suppose (cuz that's what's gonna happen)

If Miggy wins the MVP over Trout, it'll be completely because of the TC, and it'll be a complete fucking joke

He pretty much makes exactly the same points we were making a few days ago, which to me comes down to a) a Triple Crown would be a significant achievement, not an empty relic, which b) in no way means Mike Trout isn't the MVP--the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function and all that. And it isn't Jon Heyman; it's Fangraphs.

There's a reader comment in there that I think gets at a source of unease--he wants Cabrera to do it, but he finds himself rooting against him because he's afraid it will ensure an MVP that Trout deserves. I don't agree with that--the rooting for it not to happen, I mean--but I can understand it. I wish that either Trout had chosen some other year to have possibly the greatest rookie season ever, or Cabrera had chosen some other year to make the latest run at a Triple Crown since '67. One of them has to finish second, and that's too bad. But life will go on.

Trout failing to get proper credit for a great season is COOL too, I suppose

For a guy who seems to dismiss the importance of awards, you sure place a great deal of importance on them. Why would losing an MVP vote, if it happens--which, I believe, Trout will still narrowly win even if Cabrera does it--discredit his season in any way? His numbers are what they are. The MVP is just a vote by a bunch of people.

...which carries enormous authority, silly as that is

10 WAR in rookie season is even rarer than the triple crown!

Never been done--no one close, really:

http://waswatching.com/2011/11/14/best-rookie-season-by-war/

I love that Fidrych is #2. (The guy only included literal rookie seasons, eliminating anybody who'd been up for any amount of time the year before, so Fred Lynn's 7.1 isn't on there. I don't know if anyone else got left off the list for that reason.)

Things need time to develop some mystique--WAR's been around for what, 10 years? Twenty-five years from now, when some rookie is threatening to break Mike Trout's WAR mark, there'll be the 2040 version of me getting all excited, and--with new metrics that make WAR seem like a relic--the 2040 version of Morbius saying "Who cares?"

that will still be Morbs.

dramtically low odds of that

clemenza will be cooing over Chelsea Clinton convention speech

Looks like Price and Verlander are going to take it down to their last starts.

xpost

acc to fangraphs a few players have had better rookie seasons. benny kauff with 11.1 in 1914 (if you trust their take on WAR in 1914) and shoeless joe with 9.9 in 147 games (virtual tie let's say). then again who knows what they'd put for trout's UZR if he were playing in the 1910s.

there are six pitchers at 9.5 or higher but they all pitched in the 19th century. i doubt silver king's 17.3(!!) WAR in 1888 would look the same in 2012, where he would probably not be allowed to throw 585 innings.

Verlander will likely end up with 25+ more IP than Price. He's pitched basically as well as he did last year. The biggest statistical difference is H/9 (6.2 in '11; 7.3 in '12). Miguel Cabrera did not play third base last year.

I hope Verlander gets at least one 2nd-place MVP vote (behind Trout) on a sabermetric writer's MVP ballot so we can get some volcanic old-school eruptions.

When I was advocating for Verlander as MVP last year, weren't you dismissive of the idea?

I certainly don't remember. Looks like he was a reasonable candidate to me, 2nd in league in bWAR and ahead of Cabrera, just like this year.

to me, since Cy & MVP have de facto equal visibility, a pitcher has to have an All-World season to earn both if a position player has a legit claim to MVP.

― incredibly middlebrow (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, October 5, 2011

I didn't object to putting him 2nd.

Okay--if you go back a few weeks earlier, when I first suggested the idea, I think you were less receptive. The other possibility is that you were fine with Verlander winning the MVP, but dismissive of the idea that it was me who brought it up (because I'm "old school").

The other sticking point, as I remember it, was whether there was a position player with a solid case; I didn't think Bautista's argument was as strong as most everyone else thought (because his season was so tilted towards April and May...but no need to rehash all that).

There wasn't one candidate with a historic case in '11 the way their factions can claim Trout (right) or Cabrera (wrong) this year.

He's pitched basically as well as he did last year. The biggest statistical difference is H/9 (6.2 in '11; 7.3 in '12). Miguel Cabrera did not play third base last year.

― Andy K, Wednesday, September 26, 2012 9:46 AM

Don't disagree, but is any of that germane to the vote this year? He's in competition with Price, Felix, Sale, and Weaver, not the 2011 Verlander.

NO.

Haha -- unintentional ALL CAPS.

Though I would eliminate Weaver and Sale automatically for having pitched 35-50 fewer innings than Verlander, Price, and Hernandez.

One thing I'm adjusting to is the new emphasis on IP for starters when it comes to awards and value. I guess it was always there implicitly, but in the '70s, I don't remember special attention being paid to workhorses like Lolich and Niekro for the innings they logged. Weaver's had four fewer starts; Verlander still leads in IP/per start, but the difference narrows a bit--I'd be more inclined to use that. Or at the very least, I wonder if writers are consistent in how they treat the IP difference between Verlander and someone else vs. the games-played difference between Trout and Cabrera (which, I realize, is not Trout's fault).

Kimbrel for NL Cy. I know I'm a homer, but still.

i wouldn't vote for him but your man medlen has a 4.1 WAR acc to BBR in half a season.

Dickey might have wrapped up the Cy today -- another 13 K's and 20 W on the season.

One thing I'm adjusting to is the new emphasis on IP for starters when it comes to awards and value.

This isn't anything new ... if we're comparing Sale, Price, and Verlander, then they're similar in ERA, WHIP, K/9 but Verlander has thrown a *lot* more innings so he's fairly clearly a cut above. That's not the same as Lolich throwing an assload of CG's but being clearly inferior to other pitchers on an inning by inning basis. This isn't an issue anymore because nobody throws enough innings for it to matter.

well, at least the pirates didn't fuck up bobby dickey's cy candidacy (though they did raise his era a little)

they'll probably get no-hit by cueto on sunday, tho

McCutchen w/ 15 total bases I think

(xxpost) Maybe Morbius can chime in on this, but my long-ago memory of Cy Young voting in the '70s doesn't remember innings pitched ever being an issue, whether two pitchers were close in other categories or not. Not taking a stand on whether that was right or not, just trying to pinpoint what was considered important at the time. Wins, of course, and winning pct.; ERA and strikeouts; team success (paradoxically, I remember post-season being a plus, but pitching for a bad team being a different kind of plus, like Randy Jones winning 20 for second-division Padres teams); and not much else.

The three Cys given to closers excepted, of course--one of which, Mike Marshall's, where innings pitched (games, technically) was the number-one consideration.

Aces pitched a pretty similar number of innings, I think, in the '70s, save for freaks like Ryan or at the other end of the style spectrum Wilbur Wood, who'd go well over 300 (that otherwise ended after the premature sunsets of Koufax, Drysdale and Sam McDowell, I think).

More innings aren't as significant if the fewer innings are a lot better.

dice-k finished #4 in the cy balloting in that one season where he went 18-3 w/a 2.90 era and averaged something like 5 1/3 per start w/zero CG.

More innings aren't as significant if the fewer innings are a lot better.

Which is what NoTime is saying--true today, I'm sure, not so sure if it was a factor either way in the '70s. I'll see if I can find an instance where the top two finishers were pretty close in key categories except innings pitched. And once I unearth that valuable information, I'll share it with the world.

Yeah, I don't think it mattered in the 70's because pitchers threw so many more innings. Lolich finished second in the Cy in '71 even though he threw 60 IP more than Vida Blue, but Blue was over 300 IP too so you can't really penalize him for not having more IP.

These days it's different -- we're comparing pitchers who throw 230+ IP and never miss a start with guys who go on the DL and throw significantly fewer innings. I can't find any instance in the past twenty-plus years where someone had an "incomplete season" and won the Cy. Things were interesting with Pedro in 2002-3. In '03 he was in a virtual tie with Halladay in WAR but threw 80 (!!) fewer innings and was third in the voting. He only won 14 games that year (which is of course why he didn't win the award) but OTOH, I don't think anybody doubted that Pedro was still the best pitcher in baseball when healthy, and that's why he finished as high as he did.

In 2002 he had a better shot because he still won 20 games. He wasn't fully healthy and threw 30 IP less than Zito, although for the life of me I can't figure out how he could trail Zito in WAR that year considering he destroyed him in WHIP and OPS+. I don't see how thirty innings can make up for that. But Zito was great that year, won more games, Moneyball went mega, etc.

Point being if Pedro in his prime couldn't win the Cy with less than 200 IP, then nobody will as long as there are good candidates who throw a lot of innings.

i'm curious to see if medlen will receive a single CY vote. he has twice the IP as some of the relievers that'll receive votes and half the ERA of some of the starters.

I could see him getting a few 4ths/5ths in recognition, maybe? He was really good in middle relief before going to the rotation, so not every bit of that big WAR is from August and September. One thing I really like about him is that behind an "I'm a big goofy kid with ADHD" persona, he seems to have a really good understanding of the game, esp the different mindsets for starting and relieving.

http://seattlesportsinsider.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/Medlen.jpg

He'll definitely get some votes. The most recent comp is Sabathia, who was fifth in '08 for his half season in Milwaukee.

Sutcliffe won the '84 NL Cy for 20 starts, and Doyle Alexander, rather amazingly, finished fourth in '87 for 11 starts with the Tigers.

bWAR for NL Pitchers

1. Cueto (CIN) 5.7
2. Kershaw (LAD) 5.4
3. Dickey (NYM) 5.3
4. Gonzalez (WSN) 4.6
5. Zimmermann (WSN) 4.4
6. Medlen (ATL) 4.2
7. Hamels (PHI) 4.1
8. Lohse (STL) 4.0
8. Lee (PHI) 4.0
10. Latos (CIN) 3.9

@keithlaw
Verlander. RT @BlueSeatLife: @keithlaw AL Cy?

that's the easy one

"I don't like the look on people's faces," Cabrera told USA Today Sports. "If I don't get a hit, it's like, 'Ohhhh.' Everyone gets so disappointed. Even in my own dugout.

"People are paying so much attention now. I don't like that. These last two weeks, the way people are acting, it's crazy."

http://www.freep.com/article/20120928/SPORTS02/120928031/miguel-cabrera-triple-crown-detroit-tigers

I figure the past few games have been a combination of that, pressing, and some inevitable cooling off after a hot streak.

as long as he falls out of TC contention, I don't have to root for the White Sox to win the Central.

they'll probably get no-hit by cueto on sunday, tho

― mookieproof, Thursday, September 27, 2012 6:31 PM (Yesterday)

maybe homer bailey will beat him to it

prescient

Three-run homer for Cabrera today. He's got RBI. It'll be tough, though far from impossible, for Trout or Mauer to catch him for the batting title--if Cabrera can hit .250 over his last 20 AB, they'd have to finish .400+. So it'll likely come down to HR. If he can hit two, I think that'll get him a tie. If he hits one or goes homerless, I suspect someone will pass him.

bWAR has Yadier Molina higher than Posey, btw -- he's at 6.9, tied for 2nd in the NL with Wright and Braun behind McCutchen at 7.1.

and Miggy is now 5th in the AL -- Beltre has passed him.

@HallerDave
Eckersley in '90: 0.61 ERA, 73.1 IP, 41 H, 9 R, 5 ER, 73 SO, 48 saves.
Rodney in '12: 0.61 ERA, 73.1 IP, 41 H, 9 R, 5 ER, 74 SO, 46 saves.

Incredible. Similarity score of 999.

is the offensive environment reduced this year compared to '90? The Slugger Era was already underway, yes?

I think the exact calculation would be Cecil's weight/Prince's weight.

xp Rodney out WARs Eck according to B-R WAR so I am guessing no.

Heyman, hysterical:

"Miguel Cabrera is being overlooked again. He's getting short shrift again."

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/story/20424315/cabreras-triple-crown-chase-deserves-bigger-spotlight-than-its-getting

i'm actually surprised how little mention it's getting in the msm up here (this is Canada mind you). a lot of the casual baseball fans i know have no clue.

so, even with Heyman

Everyone's all wrong about something. *shrug*

I don't know Heyman's writing that well--I take it he's a Baseball Digest-circa-1976 strawman--but I didn't find the piece especially hysterical. He doesn't say that Cabrera should win MVP: "For the record, I think Trout is an excellent MVP candidate as well, and am not suggesting a Triple Crown winner should be the automatic MVP--nor do I believe that." He's wrong about Cabrera not getting a lot of attention right now, but he might be right that most of the attention is less about the Triple Crown itself than the looming symbolic MVP vote. I think it's fair to say that Cabrera has, over the course of his career, gotten less attention than his hitting has warranted, much of it done in the shadow of Pujols. And he makes the same point as Posnanski, and that a couple of us have made here: the caliber of Triple Crown names is extremely high, and that you don't fluke into one (while there have been a number of second- and third-tier MVP winners).

"But it's clear that for whatever reason he isn't the publicity-generator other superstars are."

This is a moronic statement.

I think that's a fair statement. He's certainly well paid, but according to Forbes, he made $150,000 in endorsements last year.

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mli45igdi/59-miguel-cabrera/

I realize that that's only one measure of how famous you are--there are Google searches, etc.--and also that baseball players in general don't have the endorsement deals that golfers and basketball players do. For purposes of comparison, A-Rod's at $2 million, Mauer's at $4 million, Jeter $9 million, Ichiro $7 million, Sabathia $800,000, Santana $500,000, Teixera $250,000, Vernon Wells $100,000, Howard $1.5 million, Halladay $500,000, Fielder $300,000, Zito $150,000, Carlos Lee $100,000, Soriano $250,000, Torii Hunter $250,000, Holliday $200,000, Verlander $500,000, Zambrano $100,000, Pujols $3 million, Crawford $150,000, Peavy $100,000.

That'll change, but for now, among the highest paid players in the game, Cabrera ranks just ahead of Vernon Wells, Carlos Lee, Carlos Zambrano, and Jake Peavy in endorsement money.

First of all he's a chunky third baseman who had a recent DUI. That does exactly scream endorsement money. Second wtf do endorsements have to do with underrating him for MVP votes? Do voters care about how much dudes cane Tinactin?

Cabrera's gotten plenty of MVP love. He hasn't won the MVP because... wait for it... other people had better years during his best years. Just like this year.

Hamilton doesn't have many endorsement deals for a similar reason.

I was interpreting "publicity-generator" differently--I thought he meant in terms of fame, but you're right, he's talking about MVP support. Still, I think it's fair to say that Cabrera is, in general, an underpublicized player in terms of his career rank in a number of basic hitting categories. He's not alone--ditto Joey Votto, ditto some other guys. I mean, it's a difficult thing to quantify. If you don't agree, you don't agree.

(You're right about the DUI and endorsement deals.)

clemenza, give it a rest

that article is utter nonsense because people have been endlessly debating the legitimacy of miguel cabrera's MVP candidacy for the last 2 weeks

I think in general, throughout baseball history, players with almost metronomic consistency are more liable to be taken for granted than more mercurial players.

have been endlessly debating the legitimacy of miguel cabrera's MVP candidacy for the last 2 weeks

As he says--overshadowing the TC itself.

As he says--overshadowing the TC itself.
--clemenza

A cool event for sure but not to get all Morbs a fairly meaningless one.

Well, that's the argument that threatens civil war right now...It won't change your mind a bit, but I'd at least take a minute to read the Posnanski piece I linked to the other day. He's a staunch supporter of Trout, by the way. I just think he's able to bring perspective to the idea that a TC is meaningless. (This will all be academic when Mauer goes 5-5 against the Jays tonight...)

Obviously I see/hear more TC coverage than most/all here, but it's been inescapable outside local outlets. Hell, MLB Network's recap of Tiger games have shown every Cabrera at-bat, along with his TC numbers. I've watched several non-Detroit telecasts that have discussed Cabrera/Trout and the damn triple crown. Above, I linked to a USA Today article that has THIS quote from Cabrera: "People are paying so much attention now. I don't like that. These last two weeks, the way people are acting, it's crazy."

It occurred to me that one guy I hadn't heard anything from was Yastrzemski. Found one short piece:

http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/sports/red_sox/index.php/2012/09/26/carl-yastrzemski-reflects-on-his-triple-crown-and-miguel-cabreras-bid-for-one/

I said fairly. It's very cool but not much more than that. It certainly shouldn't = automatic MVP.

Heyman: "(I) am not suggesting a Triple Crown winner should be the automatic MVP--nor do I believe that." And indeed, players have won Triple Crowns without winning MVP.

Posnanski's piece shows that every Triple Crown winner has also led his league in WAR. All 13. All 13 are in the Hall of Fame, and all but Medwick and Chuck Klein are as inner circle as it gets.

So what? What does that have to do with this MVP vote?

But Heyman's article isn't arguing that Cabrera should win the MVP! And neither am I. There seems to be this assumption that wanting Cabrera to get the Triple Crown automatically means you support him for MVP. I realize that that's the case with a lot of people commenting on baseball blogs and such, but I haven't said anything like that myself, and, unless I missed it, I don't think Heyman does either. (You can certainly disagree with him that Cabrera isn't getting enough attention.)

That was what I was disagreeing with him about if you look above. This is the awards thread btw. Forgive me if I assumed you were arguing in favor of Cabrera getting some sort of award on it.

Well I guess technically I was disagreeing with idea that the general awards giving population didn't appreciate Cabrera but whatever it amounts to the same thing in the end.

Fair enough. I probably should have started a Cabrera Triple Crown thread a couple of weeks ago, where I could just converse and argue with myself. I've been posting about him here, because, with the overlap into the MVP controversy, it seemed to be the most relevant thread.

who is miguel cabrera?

Who is Joey Votto?

http://cynicritics.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/goodfellas-turns-20.jpg

Second from the left.

http://cynicritics.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/goodfellas-turns-20.jpg

you have to know Heyman's history to laugh when he writes something like "the new stat guys." He's choking on bile. Just a couple years ago he said something like "I don't know what VORP is and I hope I never do."

Please don't yell at me: #44.

Cabrera goes 4-5 and I think, that's that, two out of three locked up, one more home run will do it. So Trout starts off 3-3.

does cabrera speak english well? how much money did manny ramirez make off endorsements in his peak years?

Yeah, that'd be a factor too. Don't mind me--I went off on a bit of a tangent there. (Ichiro makes a ton, but maybe a good part of that is in Japan, I don't know.)

If I were a CEO, I would definitely want Manny as the face of my company.

slightly outdated stats, but

Justin Verlander, 2011: 251 IP, 174 H, 24 HR, 57 BB, 250 SO, 2.40 ERA
Justin Verlander, 2012: 238.1 IP, 192 H, 19 HR, 60 BB, 239 SO, 2.64 ERA

Miguel Cabrera, 2011: 161 G, .344/.448/.586, 30 HR, 149 runs created, 405 outs
Miguel Cabrera, 2012: 158 G, .325/.390/.601, 43 HR, 135 runs created, 448 outs

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/29442/another-post-about-the-al-mvp-race

I saw that yesterday--Schoenfield's good. I think his point was that Verlander won for the gaudy W-L record, Cabrera would win for the Triple Crown/RBI count. No argument, more or less--I don't think it's quite that cut and dried. I put Cabrera second last year:

2011 AL MVP

I suspect you could turn up numerous matched pairs down through the years, where a guy won or lost despite having basically the same numbers.

With the Tigers having clinched, if they were to go into the final game with Cabrera up by a homer over Hamilton and two or three points ahead of Trout, I really hope they don't sit him. That would put a damper on this for me. I don't think that would happen, but it's possible.

I had planned on watching One False Move last night, instead spent the night hunched over the computer checking every AB of Cabrera, Trout, and Hamilton.

no one is saying Cabrera isn't a fab batsman, but he's created (just a bit) fewer runs and made more outs than last year.

My own feeling at this point is that, truthfully, I'm getting tired of the MVP debate. I found it interesting at first, the symbolism of it, but that's passed. I'll be thrilled if Cabrera does it, Trout's already secured an unprecedented rookie season, and that's enough. There are two MVPs every year; sometimes they get it right, sometimes they don't, sometimes when they don't I can at least understand why they did what they did. The second- or third- or fifth-best player in the league winning an MVP is no more traumatic than the second- or third- or fifth-best team winning the World Series. Happens all the time.

But the conversations have been so strikingly similar that I can say, for sure, that all but a very small handful of uniformed personnel (writers) -- by small handful, I mean two -- have told me they would pick Cabrera. And all but a very small handful of front-office types -- as in, one -- have told me they would pick Trout.

Astros? wanted to do the absurdly reductionist normalizing for age and contract, magic world without elite CFs and 3Bs, knowing their seasons will be duplicated in 2013, which teams would draft Miggy ahead of Trout? maybe 2?

Heyman, hysterical:

"Miguel Cabrera is being overlooked again. He's getting short shrift again."

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/story/20424315/cabreras-triple-crown-chase-deserves-bigger-spotlight-than-its-getting

― Andy K, Monday, October 1, 2012 4:01 PM (Yesterday)

what an amazing article. he's the chris palmer of baseball

MLBN keeps talking like cabrera is the frontrunner, v annoying

sean casey is an idiot

you're gonna basically exclude pitchers from the award, and then you're gonna basically exclude defense position and baserunning from your criteria, what's the point, just call it the silver slugger

trout's at 10.3 WAR now! wow. 0.8 over the past week

The thing that I find puzzling is that Mike Trout is like the archetypal player that anti-stat guys usually support. Great glove, super fast, great base-stealer, galvanizing young clubhouse guy with no negatives, white guy, big market, intangibles... and he's up against a non-white all-hit no-glove dude.

Something related I was thinking about: nine out of ten times, Trout would have the "narrative" factor on his side. If he were having the same season, and someone like Pujols or A-Rod were having a comparable season in terms of WAR (for the sake of argument, pretend both are still in their prime), everyone would be lining up behind Trout because the other guy had done this a number of times, and given a choice, the writers prefer rewarding someone new.

really? i tend to think that with some exceptions (2001, trout if there's any justice) writers don't want to award MVP and ROY to the same guy. he isn't battle-tested enough, maybe the league just takes a whole year to figure him out, he might lose a leg next year, etc.

oh i thought pujols also got MVP in 01 but he was 4th. ichiro and fred lynn are the only two combos.

Were there any other serious rookie candidates post-divisional play besides Lynn and Ichiro? I don't know...I'm probably forgetting a couple of obvious ones.

Obviously Pujols wasn't going to win in '01; Sosa and Gonzalez and their chemists had their greatest years, too, so fourth seems about right.

I really like Joe Simpson, but he just went off on an anti-stats, anti-Moneyball, anti-Trout (though he claimed otherwise) rant on behalf of Cabrera for MVP that was downright embarrassing. Holy shit, what a load of verborrhea.

I picked out a few prominent ROY years, and they seemed to do pretty well in the MVP voting: Oliva was 4th in '64, Dick Allen 7th the same year, Fisk 4th in '72, Fidrych 11th in '76, Fernando 5th in '81, McGwire 6th in '87, Piazza 9th in '93, Nomar 8th in '97. You'd have to go through year by year, but while they rarely win, there doesn't seem to be a particular bias. (xpost)

I don't think those votes by themselves indicate anything.

I mean none of those dudes should have won the MVP probably so their not winning the MVP but still getting bunch of not first place votes doesn't say much to me.

I don't think there is a notable bias against giving rookies the MVP though. It's just pretty rare that rookies have the best MVP case. Baseball is a tough game.

Exactly what I'm saying. There's no bias that I can see, and if Trout were up against a guy like Pujols a) having a comparable year, and b) who'd won two or three MVPs already, I think Trout would be winning the "narrative" argument.

nah, pujols working for #4 would be just as much of a story. the whole age/experience thing would be the whole story, but i don't think either would have a huge leg up.

I'm thinking of votes like Kent over Bonds, Rollins over Pujols, Vaughn over Thomas--cases where the guy who'd won at least two already and had the higher WAR lost out to someone who'd never won. (Some, like Thomas, were buried in the voting.) Anyway, it's all speculative.

well cabrera's never won, that seems to be one of the reasons he's getting so much consideration (ie he's getting the oscar for his whole career)

i can see how there can be a bias against previous winners w/writers wanting to credit someone new or they just take the older guys for granted, but i don't really think that means younger guys have any more of a bias in their favor (esp rookies) than vets w/o previous MVPs. i think plenty of the writers just don't wanna vote for a guy who only has a year or two under his belt. haven't looked at the list tho

cabrera 2-2 as of right now, avg at .331, maybe sealing the deal. though trout could go off the next two games and cabrera could go hitless the rest of his ABs. idk, i figure trout will win a couple of those MVPs before it's all over, i can't get too pissed about miggy winning, though the triple crown isn't an "accomplisment" as much as it is a curious statistical anomaly related entirely to luck and who else had a few liners find gloves.

also yr examples -- vaughn's career was only a year younger than thomas', rollins started a year before pujols, kent was 32 when he won. xp

it's all about whatever bullshit narrative writers sometimes assign to a particular player. remember when shannon stewart went over to the twins and folks were discussing him in serious terms as an MVP candidate? or podsednik receiving MVP votes in '06 iirc??

'05 for podsednik, rather. he finished 12th for his epic 0 HR, 80 run, 25 RBI, .290 BA, .349 slg campaign.

I've been following--I want him to hit a homer, obviously, but the singles are fine the way Trout's going.

I'm getting worn out defending the TC, but I honestly don't see how you could look at the list of guys who've done it, and the kinds of seasons they had, and say it's related entirely to luck. It's not filled with one-year phenomenons--you're more apt to find one of those on the MVP or Cy Young list. I agree that it's a perfect storm of sorts, just like many records are broken under optimal conditions, but luck's a loaded word--it makes it sound like the list is filled with Dante Bichette-type players.

I'm getting worn out defending the TC

o rly

well there's certainly an element of luck in the vagaries of your BA being not just excellent but the best in the same year as your HR total being tops and your RBI total being tops, with at least one of those categories being even more luck-based than BA, it being teammate-dependent to a large extent. I don't think the TC is won by anyone but excellent hitters (lol if bichette had won however) but even those HOF types can be vv lucky.

Joe Poz has been tracking this TC stuff pretty vigorously. His two arguments to consider: 1) historically, TC winners have almost ALWAYS led the league in WAR, and 2) Joe DiMaggio twice lost the MVP despite winning the TC, so it's not like voters have to give it to Miggy should he win it

Anyone know why Cabrera just got taken out of the game?

so it's not like voters have to give it to Miggy should he win it

different context now, twelve centuries after someone last won it

clemenza, u do know there is still division-deciding baseball going on too? It's somehow fitting that you'll be ignoring it tomorrow in favor of Miggy and Obamney.

clem, no one says it's "related entirely to luck", that's a strawman. it's an accomplishment, but in some ways it's just an arbitrary distinction, since we have more validated ways to measure performance

different context yes but voters shouldn't be thinking "well I guess I have no choice"

doesn't mean it won't affect their decision

and xp, is there any sense in the TC including RBIs but not runs scored? that's why it's slightly arbitrary. it's an accomplishment of course, but, hey, isn't it incredible that trout has like 300 runs scored in 12 games? no one seems to mention that, but suddenly MCab's RBI total is a way impt stat to thousands of sportswriters

Good point, Kevin. No one's saying it, except the person who used those exact same words six posts ago (since tempered by Omar).

My rooting interest at the team level basically died when the Jays became a perennial mediocrity. I'll pick a favourite in the postseason. Cabrera is more interesting to me now than a divisional title.

Says he was taken out for a defensive replacement. Which indicates either he's as bad a fielder as reputed, they're being cagey with the BA lead (I really hope not), or both.

def more interested in LAD possibly stealing a WC spot, or the Yankees being relegated to sudden death in Oakland, than Cabrera's odometer lining up nice.

ok yeah don't think omar was being serious when he said that

Yay, Yankees! Thanks, Morbius, I just caught the fever.

Lol not entirely. However he is lucky josh ham had trouble with dip and caffeine this year.

Don't forget the ocular keratitis.

And being cursed with sometimes having to work outside with his blue eyes.

trout's season twice as interesting than cabrera's imo

And base coaches.

xpost

My favourite British folk-psych group, Ocular Keratitis.

Hambone and the Ocular Keratitis

http://phildellio.tripod.com/ocular.jpg

I really should get away from this computer for a while.

it is pretty funny that a strapping wite future Mickey Mantle w/ lol WAR, interesting backstory + aol beef still can't out-narrative a Susan Lucci slugger with eye popping back of baseball card italicized offensive stats.

trout's season twice as interesting than cabrera's imo
--zachylon (zachlyon)

Yeah Trout's season is amazing.

Looking at their stats - would anyone be so kind as to explain how Trout ends up with a higher WAR? Is it his fielding? Obviously, Cabrera has the higher slugging percentage, more RBIs, far fewer strikeouts, etc.

Defense, speed and not grounding into a league-leading amount of double plays.

Offensively they're pretty close--8.6 for Trout, 7.4 for Cabrera--the difference a mix of Trout's fantastic SB rate, Cabrera's GIDP, and a park advantage for Cabrera. Offensively, you can at least make a case for Cabrera, if you give weight to something like how they hit the last couple of months of the season. I give weight to something like that; many don't.

Once you bring defense into the equation--2.3 for Trout, -0.2 for Cabrera--the case for Cabrera pretty much disappears. Trout plays the slightly more important defensive position (just to the right of 3B on the defensive spectrum), and plays it far, far better.

There are other things those who vote for Cabrera will bring up, but they all belong to the dreaded realm of intangibles.

It's basically Bell vs. Trammell all over again. As I said earlier, putting my own bias aside--then it was a matter of being a Jays fan--I knew Trammell was the MVP.

is there any sense in the TC including RBIs but not runs scored?

RBIs might be a bit more important because some runs are unearned and because very few RBIs come from walks (singles, I think, being superior to walks).

clem, no one says it's "related entirely to luck", that's a strawman. it's an accomplishment, but in some ways it's just an arbitrary distinction, since we have more validated ways to measure performance

― la goonies (k3vin k.),

Speaking of strawmen, nobody ever said that the TC is a way to "measure performance". It's a hitting accomplishment, and a special one IMO, but one that obviously doesn't take into account a lot of other things that a player can do.

It's kind of sad that people are downplaying the TC as a meaningless fluke (even though only inner circle HOFers have ever done it). It's a big deal, but no, it doesn't guarantee the MVP (i.e. Ted Williams). But you can't overlook the fact that TC winners are usually, by far, the best hitters in their league that year.

not sure why that's relevant in a year where the TC winner clearly isn't

what is this argument anymore

RA Dickey tore ab -- last April:

http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_/id/8455401/new-york-mets-ra-dickey-pitched-most-season-torn-muscle-side

xpost it's relevant if you think that winning the TC is a fluke accomplishment that doesn't correlate with great players having historically great seasons. It just so happens that two players are having historically interesting seasons in the AL, and the non-TC guy is having a better year. That doesn't mean that the TC isn't a big deal too.

"I've not made the decision, but I will. I'm going to think about it tonight. I'm not exactly sure what I'm going to do," Leyland said. "If he wants to play, then he'll play."

Do the right thing, Miguel.

Old-ballplayers-never-die stories always crack me up--I've been reading that anecdote about the Athletics catcher in the previous link forever. Who knows whether it's true or not. It doesn't have quite the same resonance if you update it for today:

The Royals didn’t make it easy on Cabrera. The catcher shared the scouting report that the august manager, Ned Yost, had devised: “Mr. Yost told us that if we let up on you, he’ll run us out of baseball,” Salvador Perez told Cabrera as he came to the plate for the first time. “I wish you luck, but we’re pitching to you.”

I don't remember much discussion of Verlander's acumen at defense last year.

xp that sal perez quote sounds like it went thru google translate

Offensively they're pretty close--8.6 for Trout, 7.4 for Cabrera

not that close, tbh

I just mean it's close enough that you can at least make a case for Cabrera on the offensive side of things, if you start factoring in late-season performance, etc. I doubt that a 1.2 offensive WAR gap is all that unusual throughout history. But it's not exceptionally close, no.

how and why would you factor in late-season performance?

I just mean it's close enough that you can at least make a case for Cabrera on the offensive side of things, if you start factoring in late-season performance, etc. I doubt that a 1.2 offensive WAR gap is all that unusual throughout history. But it's not exceptionally close, no.

― clemenza, Wednesday, October 3, 2012 1:13 PM (20 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

but then you factor in early season performance, and middle season performance, and you're back where you started

funny thing: all the games count the same

Is there not a parallel between late-season performance and Win Probability Added? Isn't one just a seasonal version of the other?

how and why would you factor in late-season performance?

I'm the first person ever to suggest that that's worth factoring into MVP voting? Give me a choice between my best hitter having a torrid April but disappearing during September or the opposite, and for me the choice is obvious. (Hang on--let me check the manager's poll and see what I have to defend over there.)

I'm the first person ever to suggest

alas no

"Give me a choice between my best hitter having a torrid April but disappearing during September or the opposite, and for me the choice is obvious."

... this makes no sense... do wins count for more if you get them in September?

I mean Josh Hamilton didn't even play in the September her won the MVP, it didn't seem to hurt the Rangers because they had already clinched the division!

tbh a hot september is somewhat less impressive due to the added chance of competing against minor leaguers

A hot May is really where it is at.

Tautology--if you've already clinched the division, September performance isn't so important.

We went through this on another thread last year. 1) All wins count the same in the standings. This is true. 2) Pennant races are actually won in September. If you've built up a huge lead, great--they're not always won in September, and if the circumstances warranted, I'd adjust for that. Sometimes big leads when September are not enough. 3) No one answered my question about WPA. If Win Probability Added is a thing that analysts feel is worth documenting, wouldn't late-season performance at the seasonal level also be worth documenting? A run in the first inning counts for the same as a run scored in the ninth inning of a tie game. But WPA values them differently, doesn't it? (I might be completely wrong on this--I don't know how WPA is calculated. That's my sense of what it means.)

"when September begins"

WPA is sort of a silly little toy that i don't think anyone really takes seriously

Even if WPA values runs differently within a game that has nothing do with runs throughout the season.

?? It's an analogy...a:b is similar to c:d.

I hope Hamilton hits two solo shots tonight and the A's win.

i hope miggy wins the triple crown, trout wins the mvp and the a's win today

I hope P.J. Soles makes another movie real soon.

"?? It's an analogy...a:b is similar to c:d."

But they aren't similar. All wins are actually equal. WPA works off the assumption that some runs are more high leverage than others.

We're going in circles again. That's precisely what I'm arguing: some wins are more high leverage than others. Winning a division-clinching game in late September is surely high-leverage--your chance of winning the division just maxed out at 100%.

winning a division-clinching game is worth the same as every win that came before it, they all led to the same outcome

do not feed the Corleone hitman

(he cooks his own sauce)

if we're going to start arguing about movies i'm just gonna throw my computer away

winning a division-clinching game is worth the same as every win that came before it, they all led to the same outcome

The run that wins the game in the 12th inning is worth the same as every run that came before it, they all led to the same outcome. I honestly don't see the difference.

Good lord you aren't going to get me to argue for WPA. WPA is stupid.

Where were you guys last World Series, when I was questioning the idea that Pujols' three-HR game was worth so relatively little in WPA?

Home time.

I think people confuse "things that reflect a players skill" with "things that actually win or lose baseball games".

The run that wins the game in the 12th inning is worth the same as every run that came before it, they all led to the same outcome. I honestly don't see the difference.

there wouldn't be a 12th inning to play if runs hadn't been scored (or prevented) earlier

We're going in circles again. That's precisely what I'm arguing: some wins are more high leverage than others. Winning a division-clinching game in late September is surely high-leverage--your chance of winning the division just maxed out at 100%.

― clemenza, Wednesday, October 3, 2012 4:31 PM (1 hour ago)

clem the point is that in both of these cases, something (timeliness of hits/production) is being valued arbitrarily. there's an implication that this "clutchness" actually reflects something about the player, when afaik these stats are fluky. WPA is a stat that tells you what you already know (the player did this at this point in the game); it's not necessarily an indicator of future success.

also the analogy only works if the game represents the entire season, and runs scored/created are wins for the team. if the game/season is close at the end, then yes, the run scored in the first inning was just as important as the one scored in the bottom of the 9th. as you know, old-school types think the latter is more important and that certain players are more apt to produce in these big moments, which are things that just haven't been validated

having played plenty of sports before, I've seen people that just choke. habitually. game on the line? they will drop the ball/disc/whatever every time. and i've seen the opposite (chokers are a lot easier to identify tho). i don't have stats to back this up, but i know it's true.
and with that said... i'm not really sure what we're arguing about here!

have to think that habit wears off a bit by the time you make pro

true.

as you know, old-school types think the latter is more important and that certain players are more apt to produce in these big moments, which are things that just haven't been validated

What hasn't been validated? Certainly it's easy to see that some hitters hit better in the clutch than others and that some hitters have better or worse stats in the clutch than they do in non-clutch situations.

yeah i can't imagine many people with psychological barriers to performance can perform well enough in the aggregate to make it to the majors

What hasn't been validated? Certainly it's easy to see that some hitters hit better in the clutch than others and that some hitters have better or worse stats in the clutch than they do in non-clutch situations.

― timellison, Wednesday, October 3, 2012 7:05 PM (6 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the problem is that people run the numbers on this from year to year and the list of 'clutchest' players is quite different each year, thus suggesting that it's not a repeatable skill

as you know, old-school types think the latter is more important and that certain players are more apt to produce in these big moments, which are things that just haven't been validated

What hasn't been validated? Certainly it's easy to see that some hitters hit better in the clutch than others and that some hitters have better or worse stats in the clutch than they do in non-clutch situations.

― timellison, Wednesday, October 3, 2012 7:05 PM (22 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

some do, some don't, and mostly they fluctuate from season to season. it's a completely useless stat

I don't agree with that at all. Every stat fluctuates from season to season. If clutch hitting fluctuates more than other stats, so be it - I don't think there's any reason to think that makes it insignificant.

clemenza has two accounts?

"Every stat fluctuates from season to season"

Not really true.

"I don't think there's any reason to think that makes it insignificant"

It makes it non-predictive which means its poor for evaluating future performance and even separating past performance from random chance.

more than what other stats? overall batting average? you're really willing to bet that the sample size those data are from don't make them more volatile?

what alex said

separating past performance from random chance.

I understand the premise, but I don't know why I would want to look at a particular MVP candidate who hit well in the clutch all season and just ignore that factor on the assumption that it was random.

I mean, it may have been random. But I'm not sure that I can assert that.

yes....there's a chance it wasn't luck. there's also a hood chance it was. luckily, we have better indicators of performance and value to look at

good*

Given the perception with regard to clutch hitting, are RBIs not considered one of the better indicators?

they are not

at all

I think if there is a good way to calculate single season clutchiness I'd say all for it, but my feeling is that the best way to compare seasons is to use some sorta handy metric like WAR which normalize all those otherwise annoyingly hard to quantify things like ballpark, quality of opponents, position, defense (albeit perhaps wackily for the last). Once you have that baseline if things are still close then go crazy arguing about triple crowns, RISP, clutch hits, heartrending narratives or whatever.

^^ This sounds good.

(And I understand the RBI argument.)

RBIs, 99% of the time tell me more about the quality of hitter ahead of the guy i'm looking at than anything else.

JP Arencebia making up that other 1%!

there wouldn't be a 12th inning to play if runs hadn't been scored (or prevented) earlier
― zachylon (zachlyon), Wednesday, 3 October 2012 17:24

Inexact analogy--fair enough. Change 12th inning to 9th inning, or change game in late September to tie-breaking playoff (game #163), and it's more precise.

Kevin: the analogy makes perfect sense to me, but later, after the debate, I'll look closely at your post and see if I can understand what you mean.

James makes the case for Trout (towards the bottom for today--tomorrow it'll be behind the paywall):

http://www.billjamesonline.com/hey_bill/.

(He doesn't really make a case, just casually points out the Win Shares difference.) The letter at the top is from me--nothing to do with baseball, it's something to do with Neil Young and Bob Dylan. If you're convinced I never question James, in this case, I can say with some confidence that he's factually wrong.

RBIs, 99% of the time tell me more about the quality of hitter ahead of the guy i'm looking at than anything else.

This has to be determined by how random you think clutch hitting is.

imagine that the jays won their first 100 games, then lost their final 62

not very clutch, but still worthy of merit

also they would be 'due' in the playoffs

imagine that the jays won their first 100 games, then lost their final 62

that's pretty much how this season felt.

maybe swap the 100 & 62.

I think this fellow may have become a better clutch hitter as his career went along. From 1971 to 1974, he almost triples his RBI total. And then he stays at around the same level for the next couple of years.

ciderpress and zachylon otm on big-league choking

clutch may exist, we just can't measure it as sustainable

maybe swap the 100 & 62.

pirates too

lol Enzo, what an automatic out (not even the worst of the era)

I think this fellow may have become a better clutch hitter as his career went along. From 1971 to 1974, he almost triples his RBI total. And then he stays at around the same level for the next couple of years.

― timellison, Wednesday, October 3, 2012 8:18 PM (8 minutes ago)

nice

finishing the night w/ Scully. Looks like quality win, ERA title for Kershaw.

Clayton Kershaw finished one Adam Greenberg at-bat shy of R.A. Dickey for the National League strikeout crown.

Let me fulfill my role as the really antiquated, uncool guy: good show, Miguel.

I begrudge him nothing. He's not writing about it.

also:

http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/10/3/3436510/american-league-mvp-miguel-cabrera-mike-trout

Thought the K.C. crowd's ovation and curtain call for Cabrera was nice. And I like Christina Kahrl's piece:

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/29576/miguel-cabrera-dons-well-won-triple-crown

I read your post again, Kevin, and I still see a very clear parallel between late-season performance and WPA. Even though they both count for the same, a win in April increases your probability of winning the division hardly at all, while a win on, say, the third-last day of the season if you're one game up increases the probability substantially. Which is my understanding of how WPA works. For anyone on here who thinks both concepts are silly, WPA and late-season performance, that's fine--at least you're being consistent. I'm not: I place value on late-season performance, but tend to be skeptical of WPA.

I'm hardly saying that what a guy does in September should be determinative in an MVP race. In fact, I'm really not saying anything different that this:

Once you have that baseline if things are still close then go crazy arguing about triple crowns, RISP, clutch hits, heartrending narratives or whatever.
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF)

In a reasonably close vote, late-season performance is one of the things--one of many--I'd want to consider. If you don't think so, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm always a little surprised when such seemingly innocuous statements become such a big deal on here. In the world out there, that's not such an usual idea. When Steinbrenner called Winfield "Mr. May" way back when, fairly or unfairly, everybody immediately understood what he meant. The target of his derision may have been controversial, but the underlying sentiment was understood.

"Even though they both count for the same, a win in April increases your probability of winning the division hardly at all, while a win on, say, the third-last day of the season if you're one game up increases the probability substantially."

Pretty sure this is not correct as they both increase yr likelihood by the same amount. It's true that the latter might get you closer to 100 percent, but I'm not clear why the increase from 99 to 100 should be privileged more than 50 to 51.

Then I don't understand WPA. Let's move on.

does the last runner in a relay race deserve most of the credit for the race? this is basically the same question

most = more

"Then I don't understand WPA. Let's move on."

WPA is not a measurement of how close you get to 100% probability of a win. It's the measurement of difference in the probability of a team winning before and after an event. Obviously a grand slam in the bottom of the ninth inning in a game where your team is down three runs results in a huge shift in the probability of your team winning. A grand slam in the ninth inning of game when you are down or up ten runs is far less of a shift. And that's basically all WPA measures is the size of that shift.

With wins, winning a bunch of games in September may shift yr probability of making the playoffs quite a bit but often times so does winning a bunch of games in May. And in the end all those wins (whether in May or September) are basically equally important since unless you are lucky enough to be 10 games ahead of the next team in your division you are probably going to need almost all of them to make the playoffs (whereas runs scored in games where you are up/down by ten runs basically are ultimately less important probalistically.)

But again--scoring a bunch of runs in the first inning also shifts your probability of winning the game quite a bit. Honestly: can't we just say that I see a parallel, you and everyone else doesn't, and leave it at that?

Anyway I am curious to see how the MVP voting turns out since it seems like this another year where the old guard gets huffy about the stat geeks and vice-versa.

i don't really mind cabrera over trout as much as i do anyone over braun in NL, which is all but certain

actually mccutchen or posey would be ok i guess, i didnt realize how close it was until just now

Yeah I was about to say Posey got a pretty good case.

AT&T has a petco-like park factor this year somehow

somehow Posey surged to overtake everyone to lead the NL in bWAR?

also, Yankees simply do not make the postseason if Cano just had his usual year. He'd be my #2 to Trout in MVP.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120929/OPINION03/209290399/

good article, well-reasoned points

It is that relatively new "Moneyball" style of crackpot Sabermetrics stat described as wins above replacement. Whatever that means.

dude, c'mon

Jerry Green is 127 years old.

Maybe older than that:

Having also covered the 1957 Detroit Lions as a young reporter with the Associated Press, Green lays claim to being "the last surviving Detroit sportswriter who covered the Tigers, Red Wings, Pistons and Lions championships".

If one would've said at the beginning of the year that a player would hit for the triple crown, and lose the MVP to a position player who was second in only one triple crown category, what kind of year would have to be imagined for that player to win the award?

A historic, Mike Trout-type year.

How many RBI wd Trout had if he hit 4th? A lot.

also I though "trad" guys valued defense & baserunning, which MT wipes out Miggy with?

pretty much exactly what's happening, the position player would have to be way more valuable with steals/defense/OBP

Does anyone care about Comeback Player of the Year? (Don't answer that.) I think Jose Rios would be an excellent choice for the A.L., but I've read Dunn, Peavy, etc. We went to a Jays game with the students three or four years ago, and bunch of them made up a huge banner saying, "Hey, Rios, Our Teacher's in Love with You." She's married now. (Not to him.)

Not fair...Mike Trout had two working legs for the full season...Miggy was missing one for a month.

And where was the MVP love for Ben Zobrist last year, who led the AL in WAR (with a .269 BA)?

"Not fair...Mike Trout had two working legs for the full season...Miggy was missing one for a month."

Except that the stupid Angels kept Mike Trout from playing for a month.

you don't get bonus points for health problems

"And where was the MVP love for Ben Zobrist last year, who led the AL in WAR (with a .269 BA)?"

Well for my part I was advocating for Verlander, but I think it's fair to argue that dWAR overvalued Zobrist's defense last year (I actually think it's fair to argue that dWAR is overvaluing Trout's defense too.)

Especially since other defensive metrics didn't love Zobrist anywhere as much.

Congrats to Chase Headley, NL leader in the meaningless-but-fun RBI statistic.

he had a fine year.

I still don't get it. Trout has had a great year, but plays a less challenging position (with regards to errors/chances). Cabrera had a monster offensive year, and did so while changing to a more challenging position at the beginning of the year. Trout made a couple of highlight reels, and his "flash" is enhanced by how easy Cabrera makes hitting look. And there's no comparison in offensive productivity either late in games, or late in the season.

There is a bit of the Ozzie-Smith-backflip to this one.

On James's defensive spectrum, CF sits just to the right (i.e., slightly more difficult and integral to team success) than 3B.

Jonah Keri's case for Trout was pretty convincing, I thought:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8456259/wading-crowded-mlb-awards-field

Last stats I saw (upthread?), Cabrera had a slightly better offensive year LAST year. Made fewer outs, produced a couple more runs. The context just favored the TC numbers this year.

"late" numbers, I don't care. Trout dwarfs Cabrera in non-hitting categories, and had a comparable *monster* hitting year that just looks different.

Also statistically (and based on the anecdotes of observers) Trout is at least average to good CF and Cabrera is at best below average 3B.

And Trout's offensive year was slightly more impressive even if you don't bother looking at positional adjustments/defense (comparing like +OPS here). Once you add in baserunning it's not even close.

Wow

"late" numbers, I don't care

i've never heard of 3B being a more important/difficult position than CF. you expect more offensive production out of the corners.

How many home runs did Trout take away? Something like four or five? I doubt Cabrera would have been able to take one away. On some/all, he wouldn't have made it to the warning track.

From the Grantland piece:

One win counts for one win in April, May, June, July, August, or September. But if you want to try to ascribe higher leverage to September at-bats the way you would ninth-inning at-bats in tie games, sure, go ahead.

That sounds familiar...Look at that: a guy who's able to present both sides of an argument and allow that there may be validity to each side.

x-post

Then add four HRs to his total.

Look at the number of errors league-wide for each position.

fielding and defense is about more than errors you realize yes

I seem to ascribe more importance to performance under pressure than Keri.
But he knows better cuz he's got an article.

That is actually correct!

p sure both guys play well under pressure, not that it's easy to isolate that.

xpost

My fave player of all time was a defensive specialist. Great play in the field is the most exciting part of the game for me. Trout was a very exciting player this year. But so much of this seems to be a diminishing of Cabrera's accomplishments in order to show up the old guard. RBIs....pfff

"That sounds familiar...Look at that: a guy who's able to present both sides of an argument and allow that there may be validity to each side."

I don't see him presenting both sides. He seems to be politely saying "if you want to engage in this kind of behavior it's a free country" to me.

god cabrera's really gonna win it isn't he

I OTOH am working feverishly with the LDS to pass an Internet Proposition which will outlaw all references to "high leverage late season game performance".

god bless you straight to kolob

"But so much of this seems to be a diminishing of Cabrera's accomplishments in order to show up the old guard."

Oh I think there is a little of this on both sides, sir.

That said RBIs really are totally silly.

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

I attempted to explain to someone why Trout's SLG would be higher than Cabrera's if you were to add their NSBs to their 2Bs (while subtracting the NSBs from the 1Bs). The response was, "Bullshit."

Trout's SLG would be .642 instead of .564.

Cabrera's would be .608 instead of .606.

I don't see him presenting both sides. He seems to be politely saying "if you want to engage in this kind of behavior it's a free country" to me.

No. His counter-example is very specifically and exactly what I was proposing--he presents both sides. "Engage in this kind of behaviour"--yes, Alex, by disagreeing with you I'm engaging in some kind of (perhaps clinically treatable) behaviour. Jesus...

ok, what's an NSB?

To be fair, clemenza I don't think it's treatable.

comparing Play Time to The Graduate might be clinically treatable... naaah!

Thought I'd run this by James. As always, eminently sane.

Another big message-board argument--like most of the things we argue about, extremely basic. When weighing an MVP candidacy, do you place any weight on late-season performance (from Sept. 1 onward, say, presumably for a team in contention)? Is it worth a lot, a little, nothing, or does it vary from year to year and player to player?
Asked by: Phil Dellio

Answered: 10/4/2012
I would think you could place SOME weight on late-season play. Obviously we don't want to encourage a repeat of 1979, when Willie Stargell stole an MVP award with three big late-season hits.

We used to have passionate arguments about how to give weight to the innings pitched by relievers. Tango got us out of that rut by developing the Leverage Index, which rationally compares innings pitched by the situation. So the question is, has anyone developed a "Game Leverage Index", which compares the pennant impact of different games, and thus would create a pathway toward a reasoned resolution of this?

Basically what I've been saying.

You know, some of us try to think about this stuff. Ever since I read your post from a few years ago extolling the virtues of Jack Morris for the HOF--Alex #1--I get the feeling you're a guy who's absorbed some stuff from Law and Neyer and some others--Alex #2--and you're able to parrot it at will. Great.

If you wanna place SOME weight on late-season play, I still don't see how Miggy has enough to catch him up to Trout.

but as my unremarked-upon-link sez: Stop caring about MVP. Cabrera wd be a great choice compared to Marty Marion.

Haha yeah I try to never think about stuff though. Oh your a card.

And yes I've done a complete 180 on what I believed 8 (or whatever) years ago. I read quite a bit and the statistical arguments of the people I read (who were not Keith Law cuz his stuff is behind a paywall) made quite a bit of sense than the received wisdom and bias which I'd been operating off of before. It was a good argument and hey I changed my mind. You don't seem to have a good argument (except to say "but it's just WPA!") so I don't think you are likely to change anyone's mind. Bill James does seem to love responding to your emails though, I'll give you that.

wait trout has a much higher WPA than cabrera what's going on anymore

cabrera's clutch score is -1.37 and trout's is -0.53

i have no idea how that's calculated but i have to think it's better than, i dunno, memory of baseball tonight broadcasts

what is going on

NSB: net stolen base. Trout stole 49 bases and was caught five times, so he had 44 NSBs. Cabrera: four SBs, one CS, so three NSBs.

The person I was debating was trying to downplay stolen bases/speed as a factor in determining a player's value.

is clem's argument that these stats are fucked cause they're not including late season performance?

...where trout has a 1.9 WAR compared to cabrera's 1.3?

confused!

xp

should bryce harper get some #1 MVP votes cause he led the majors in WAR during the last 30 days of the season?

or does that not matter cause his team was already basically in

i'm changing my mvp vote to bryce harper

That's a clown vote.

bro

i think for nl mvp you gotta go with miguel cabrera, he won the triple crown and he did it at the end of the season

i don't think it gets more clutch than that

This is what I wrote yesterday: "Offensively, you can at least make a case for Cabrera, if you give weight to something like how they hit the last couple of months of the season. I give weight to something like that; many don't." In other words, even offensively, you have to give weight to these secondary and tertiary issues if you want to argue for Cabrera as producing more offense. Some people aren't willing to make that leap; as someone who hasn't completely abandoned the old-fashioned verities, I'm okay with giving them some--some--weight. And then I went on to say that, once you consider defense and speed, the case for Cabrera starts to evaporate.

If you wanna place SOME weight on late-season play, I still don't see how Miggy has enough to catch him up to Trout.

How you get from a to b, I don't know.

Stop caring about MVP.

I find this really funny. You're obsessed with it.

Too many opinions in this house. That's my opinion.

nope. Bullshit MVPs are at least half of them, I woulda died long ago if I was obsessed. Right now I just want the A's to beat the Tigers.

xp

How many home runs did Trout take away? Something like four or five? I doubt Cabrera would have been able to take one away. On some/all, he wouldn't have made it to the warning track.

Ya, you're right. Now let's imagine Cabrera as a pitcher!

That said RBIs really are totally silly.

Totally

I don't have a problem using late season performance as a tiebreaker. Players wear down at the end of a long season, anyone who's still healthy and/or good enough to bury the competition in September might deserve a bit of extra credit.

Answered: 10/4/2012
I would think you could place SOME weight on late-season play. Obviously we don't want to encourage a repeat of 1979, when Willie Stargell stole an MVP award with three big late-season hits.

Chipper Jones won the MVP in 1999 mostly because of one series against the Mets. He had a great year and might have deserved to win anyway, but it definitely wouldn't have been almost unanimous.

Ya, you're right. Now let's imagine Cabrera as a pitcher!

Trout has had a great year, but plays a less challenging position (with regards to errors/chances).

The HR robberies post was one way of saying that I believe CF is more difficult than 3B -- that Trout's value as an elite CF is far greater than Cabrera's value as a below-average 3B.

okay whose sockpuppet is peepee

I attempted to explain to someone why Trout's SLG would be higher than Cabrera's if you were to add their NSBs to their 2Bs (while subtracting the NSBs from the 1Bs). The response was, "Bullshit."

Trout's SLG would be .642 instead of .564.

Cabrera's would be .608 instead of .606.

― Andy K, Thursday, October 4, 2012 12:05 PM (3 hours ago)

Don't know if I'm being obvious but doubles involve runners often scoring from first base and a ball put into play and thus the possibility of fielding errors. I mean, I think you can just say, "Trout has 49 stolen bases."

I realize it's better to hit a double than a single. I wasn't saying that Trout's "true" SLG is .642; this person was looking at extra-base hits, saw a gulf wide enough to dismiss Trout as the superior hitter, and didn't understand why Trout's SBs were worth considering. (Trout's SBs AND his very high SB% are really remarkable.)

Errors occur while attempting to pick off and throw out runners, too.

Another random stat:

Cabrera hit into 28 double plays. Trout hit into seven. That's a big difference.

Sockpuppet? Just cuz I can't understand why Cabrera ain't getting the love for what I think was a great year....Not just that...he's at best a very distant second to Trout's great year on this thread. We're all being selective as to what we're looking at...RBIs, silly...SBs, noble!

Cabrera....Runs + RBIs - HRs = 204
Trout......Runs + RBIs - HRs = 182

Cabrera needed runners on base to knock in
Trout needed hitters to knock him in

Cabrera...runners in scoring position/2outs = .420/.491
Trout...................................... = .286/.435

Cabrera....much more HiDPs, much fewer SOs, same BBs
Cabrera...scored 7 more runs than Trout after batting with nobody on...3 less than Trout when leading off

Triple Crown vs Better speed and defense

Is it really that one sided towards Trout???

man thats a lot of counting stats

does it count for more when you get a hit with RISP w/ 2 outs as opposed to none?

only in the ninth inning of a game in September

if you value situational hitting, that RE24 stat actually seems like a pretty solid metric. i'd never heard of it before

i love baseball really needed a poster named peepee

we need to test his for Heyman residue

Constructing a case for Cliff Lee:

http://www.highheatstats.com/2012/10/is-cliff-lee-worth-some-cy-young-love/

lol, fangraphs votes:

AL MVP: Mike Trout (25)

He got all 25 votes, including mine. No big surprise here, and we probably don’t need to spend too much time on this one, given all the discussion over the last few weeks.

can we send peepee over there for a PTBNL?

Rancor of Trout-Cabrera MVP...

Both sides. Ugh. They take the fun out of the debate, because it's no longer a debate. It's a game of putdowns, so predictable that USA Today's highly regarded Bob Nightengale couldn't write in support of Cabrera as MVP without urging both sides, "There's no need for name-calling."

Comments on that article are pretty hilarious.

cool false equivalence! peepee seems like a really smart poster

the thing is MOST ppl with one view or the other don't think it's close.

I tried to convince a buddy of mine to take Trout's candidacy seriously but he was not having it.

Miggy, Miggy, Miggy, can't you see?
You're just not this year's MVP
I really love your old-school stats
But WAR's the thing, that's where it's at

(I realize Trout's case is clear enough without WAR. But c'mon' I'm rockin' the mic here, cut me some slack.)

wtf

I thought it was self-explanatory.

http://static.rateyourmusic.com/album_images/6bafa22480043f47c91356280ed84c56/774664.jpg

it was, you're just weird

Guilty as charged...I've got the Sheffield bug for fake lyrics.

i wouls lol if they split the vote and a splinter old man contingent put Fernando Rodney into first.

zachylon -- you mean your vote or your vote within the 25? becaus if the latter i was in your otto neu league last year.

i was just quoting the fgraphs article w/o convenient quotation marks or italics or anything, still don't really understand this newfangled ottoneu thing

oh thought you might have been zach sanders

my nonexistent vote is for Trout too, though i dont really care who gets it. in the few casual coversations ive had about its kind of sad how people just dismiss defense and nsb by fiat, end of argument right now.

seems like the NL MVP was leaning toward Posey anyway, but that grand slam today may have locked it up imo

not that postseason performance should (or shouldn't) play into MVP votes, but i think for a lot of voters it does.

Award ballots have to sent in before the end of the regular season.

It looks like Posey and Cabrera are both going to win their respective MVP's in a walk.

Do they still do the announcements after the post season? Or have they changed it to during?

announcements are in mid-november usually

comeback players of the year

AL - Fernando Rodney
NL - Buster Posey

this award is fucking stupid. Adam Dunn is clearly to guy who 'came back' for the AL. Posey is ok-ish bc he was hurt but its not like he's 35.

When has this award not been stupid?

Not that it matters, but did Alex Rios get any votes? I can't find the actual vote. Injuries seem like a separate category to me.

Dunn had no shot with 222 Ks and a .204 average.

it's mindboggling that this really was kind of a comeback year for Dunn

By WAR, Rios was 50% better than Dunn and Rodney. Rios improved +6.3, Rodney +4.1, Dunn +4.0.

yeah, but if you're going by WAR alone i'm not sure it's right to give "credit" for for the negative value that a player erased. that's kind of confusing, but what i mean is, if a player somehow had -6.5 WAR last year and 0.0 WAR this year, they shouldn't be comeback player of the year just because they improved by 6.5 WAR. here's how Rios, Rodney and Dunn improved from 2011 to 2012 by WAR:

Rios: -2.1 to 4.2
Rodney: -0.4 to 3.7
Dunn: -3.1 to 0.9

So it's still close between Rios and Rodney, I think, but Dunn just crawled back from the abyss to become a marginally better than replacement player

damn, i kinda want to make a spreadsheet that calculates how much $ was paid to each player per 1.0 WAR this year. The White Sox shelled out $14 million for Dunn's 0.9 WAR this year.

ok, here's another caveat-riddled* list that I put together: top 50 MLB batters, Salary divided by WAR. The far right column, "Salary / WAR", in other words, shows you how much a player was paid to produce each 1.0 WAR in 2012.

*Some of the players on Baseball-Reference, where I collected the data, don't have Salary information. For the most part it's rookies, people picked up off of waivers, utilitymen, etc, that don't affect the results. However, little-known baseball player MIKE TROUT does not have salary information on Baseball-Reference. So I looked up his salary information from another source and manually added it in. However, I didn't do that for anyone else. So if your favorite hometown player with no salary information on B-R is not included on this list, that's why!

Rk	Name			Tm	G	PA	WAR	Salary	Salary / WAR
1	Mike Trout		LAA	139	639	10.7	$480,000 	$44,860
2	Andrew McCutchen	PIT	157	673	7	$500,000 	$71,429
3	Buster Posey		SFG	148	610	7.2	$615,000 	$85,417
4	Giancarlo Stanton	MIA	123	501	5.4	$480,000 	$88,889
5	Austin Jackson	        DET	137	617	5.2	$500,000 	$96,154
6	Bryce Harper		WSN	139	597	5	$500,000 	$100,000
7	Jason Heyward	        ATL	158	651	5.5	$565,000 	$102,727
8	Josh Reddick		OAK	156	673	4.5	$485,000 	$107,778
9	Darwin Barney	        CHC	156	588	4.6	$500,000 	$108,696
10	Brett Lawrie		TOR	125	536	4.1	$482,500 	$117,683
11	Jason Kipnis		CLE	152	672	3.7	$482,100 	$130,297
12	Carlos Santana	        CLE	143	609	3.7	$501,900 	$135,649
13	David Freese		STL	144	567	3.6	$508,000 	$141,111
14	Jonathan Lucroy	MIL	96	346	3.5	$500,000 	$142,857
15	John Jaso		        SEA	108	361	3.3	$495,200 	$150,061
16	A.J. Ellis		        LAD	133	505	3.2	$490,000 	$153,125
17	Paul Goldschmidt	ARI	145	587	3.1	$482,000 	$155,484
18	Matt Wieters		BAL	144	593	3.2	$500,000 	$156,250
19	Jon Jay			STL	117	502	3.2	$504,000 	$157,500
20	Ian Desmond		WSN	130	547	3.2	$512,500 	$160,156
21	Starlin Castro		CHC	162	691	3.5	$567,000 	$162,000
22	Desmond Jennings	TBR	132	563	3	$486,900 	$162,300
23	Mike Moustakas	KCR	149	614	2.9	$487,250 	$168,017
24	Michael Brantley	CLE	149	609	2.9	$495,300 	$170,793
25	Craig Gentry		TEX	121	269	2.8	$484,300 	$172,964
26	Brandon Belt		SFG	145	472	2.7	$481,000 	$178,148
27	Cameron Maybin	SDP	147	561	2.7	$500,000 	$185,185
28	Kyle Seager		SEA	155	651	2.6	$484,300 	$186,269
29	Zack Cozart		CIN	138	600	2.4	$480,000 	$200,000
30	Neil Walker		PIT	129	530	2.5	$500,000 	$200,000
31	Ben Revere		MIN	124	553	2.4	$492,500 	$205,208
32	Brandon Crawford	SFG	143	476	2.3	$481,000 	$209,130
33	Danny Espinosa	WSN	160	658	2.4	$506,000 	$210,833
34	Mark Trumbo		LAA	144	586	2.3	$500,000 	$217,391
35	Allen Craig		STL	119	514	2.2	$495,000 	$225,000
36	Alex Avila		        DET	116	434	2.2	$510,000 	$231,818
37	Michael Saunders	SEA	139	553	2.1	$489,100 	$232,905
38	Alejandro De Aza	CHW	131	585	2.1	$495,000 	$235,714
39	Andy Dirks		DET	88	344	2	$485,000 	$242,500
40	Wilin Rosario		COL	117	426	1.9	$480,000 	$252,632
41	Lorenzo Cain		KCR	61	244	1.9	$480,850 	$253,079
42	Tyler Colvin		COL	136	452	1.9	$481,000 	$253,158
43	Freddie Freeman	ATL	147	620	2.1	$535,000 	$254,762
44	Gregor Blanco       	SFG	141	453	2	$516,000 	$258,000
45	Ruben Tejada		NYM	114	501	1.9	$491,209 	$258,531
46	Eric Young		COL	98	196	1.8	$481,000 	$267,222
47	Salvador Perez	        KCR	76	305	2.8	$750,000 	$267,857
48	Pedro Alvarez       	PIT	149	586	2.6	$700,000 	$269,231
49	Matthew Joyce	        TBR	124	462	1.8	$499,500 	$277,500
50	Michael McKenry	PIT	88	275	1.7	$485,000 	$285,294

man, seriously FUCK trying to copy excel spreadsheets to BBcode. I went in there, use the Code tags, lined up everything, it looked fine, and now that. whatever

i'll do it for pitchers in a second, too.

unfortunately calculating the most overpaid players (by WAR) is more complicated. it's easy to do when a player has a positive WAR (same formula > Salary divided by WAR), but when a player has a negative WAR you get some really funny results

Z S, you should come to a SABR convention, kid.

Please do the reverse if you can, heh.

also: SABR has conventions?

2012 MLB Pitchers, Salary / WAR

(same caveats apply)

http://i45.tinypic.com/16adwkx.png

just going with screenshots because i already ripped out half of my hair trying to accommodate microsoft office's many special needs

nothing groundbreaking, but looking at these really reinforces that pitchers are really expensive. the 50th batter in the list is paid $285K per WAR. The 50th pitcher is paid $481K per WAR.

Can't look at it too closely right now, but that's great, Z S. Wonder what people are getting paid per WAR on the Barry Zito bizarro version (actually, he might not have been so bad this year)--12 million a win?

zito is a good example of how the (really simplistic) formula i'm using doesn't work for terrible players. his salary is $19 million, his WAR is -0.3. 19 million divided by -0.3 is about -$63 million per WAR. it's counting the wrong direction, saying that he's worth $63 million for each NEGATIVE WAR, which of course is not what we're looking for here.

i was trying to think about how to address this until i put on the B-52s debut, and now i'm just kinda dancing around

OK, NEW METHODOLOGY - UNIFIED FIELD THEORY OF GOOD AND BAD

1. i start with the assumption that each WAR is worth $4.5 million on the open market, which is the value that Fangraphs used last year.
2. i calculate each player's "Fair Salary" by multiplying each player's 2012 WAR by $4.5 million. so if a player has 2.0 WAR, their "Fair Salary" is $9.0 million (2 x 4.5).
3. i calculate each player's "Net Value" by subtracting their Actual Salary from their Fair Salary. if they were paid exactly what they deserved, the Net Value is 0. if they were a relative bargain, the Net Value is positive. if they were a relative ripoff, the Net value is Negative.

TOP 50 2012 MLB Pitchers - Net Value (Fair Salary - Actual Salary)
http://i46.tinypic.com/2hmkftt.png

BOTTOM 50 2012 MLB Pitchers - Net Value (Fair Salary - Actual Salary)
http://i46.tinypic.com/4iycl.png

4. i also calculated their net value as a ratio (Fair Salary divided by Actual Salary):

TOP 50 2012 MLB Pitchers - Net Value Ratio (Fair Salary / Actual Salary)
http://i49.tinypic.com/20aau1f.png

BOTTOM 50 2012 MLB Pitchers - Net Value Ratio (Fair Salary / Actual Salary)
http://i47.tinypic.com/2vnm4gp.png

FUCK, that last chart is messed up (as usual, because it's dealing with negative numbers and ratios). it's punishing players who are paid less. if you look at the top two players on the list, they both have -1.4 WAR, but Zach Stewart has the worse ratio because he is paid less than Brian Duensing. It should be the other way around - Brian Duensing is WORSE because he's paid more and did just as shitty as Zach Stewart.

i am done thinking about this. i just spent the last hour in the kitchen trying to figure this shit out and still failed in the end

Please ignore the last chart. However, the three before that are ROCK SOLID.

jeezus

zs you effin rule

not sure if you've been following SBN's picking of each team's (Representative, not Best) Player of the Year -- think Neyer writes em all -- but here is Seattle's:

http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/10/19/3521986/2012-player-of-the-year-seattle-mariners

The idea that Verlander is underpaid by 14 mil despite making 20 mil already is insane but I don't disagree.

Give him all the money.

Nice work, down w/ obana.

wow lincecum

darwin barney @ 9th best salary/war is blowing my mind

also how is latos only making 550k

damn hes 24 i thought dude was like 29

hey zs this is some nice work

yea z_s for ilbb mvp

Should be getting paid to work arbitration cases.

here have an upvote/rep point/forum monetary unit

oh, i gave you your fourth rumglord! how pipping

give rizzo a call -- he could probably use a sabermetric sidekick

tell him you've run some stats on ryan zimmerman's effectiveness throwing underhand and that everyone should be doing it

There's a Babe Ruth Award (for postseason performance) that no one knows about:

http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/10/24/3544038/mlb-postseason-award-babe-ruth

http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/10/24/3546916/take-that-poindexter

Let the ugliness begin.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/mlb/story/2012-10-26/mlb-player-of-the-year-2012-miguel-cabrera-mike-trout-al-mvp-triple-crown?eadid=EL/SICOM&sct=mlb_t2_a5

Not really--I'm sure Trout's side is resigned to the inevitable by now. I said upthread that I thought Trout would get MVP even if Cabrera did it, but it became clear to me soon after that that wasn't the case. (Verducci picking Cabrera was key in rethinking that.) Actually, 108-71 doesn't seem that bad a split for Trout in a player's poll, as you know players are going to favor traditional/dinosaur/whatever metrics.

tbh, i can't get too worked up about one winning over the other either way.

Same.

someone voted for jeter

derek jeter is so vain

He probably thinks this award is about him.

lol

Meat Hook has spoken.

‏@DaMeathookYoung
Rookie of the Year Mike Trout and Bryce Harper. Cy Young is Gio Gonzalez and Fernando Rodney. MVP is Buster Posey and Miguel Cabrera.

o_O

no Jeter nomination for a Gold Glove? He had 200+ hits this year! #LiterallyKatrina

Not an award, but Schoenfield's year-end All-Star team--most are pretty easy picks.

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/30663/wrapping-up-2012-the-all-mlb-team

BBWAA doing "finalist" crap... kinda adds nothing.

http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/11/7/3615240/american-league-award-finalists-bbwaa-mvp-cy-young-rookie-year

http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/11/7/3615406/baseball-awards-mvp-cy-young-rookie-of-the-year

wait this finalist stuff was that determined before voting or is it just like the top X vote-getters? that's what i thought it was like with gold gloves, like the voters were only allowed to vote for one of three at each position

top X getters

"finalists" ... ugh. What's the point if they're just the top X vote-getters? To reduce the possible element of surprise like when e.g. Morneau or Pudge won?

haven't looked, but i bet mlb.com has a fan poll.

I didn't really get this until reading about Johnny Cueto on SweetSpot. What a horrible, horrible idea.

man, dave cameron is not v camera friendly

One thing this awful new format will gum up is the MVP- and Cy Young-share stat on Baseball Reference. It's a junk stat, but it does tell you something about how players were perceived in their day.

Is it really going to be acknowledged in that way? I have my doubts. BR should just stick w/ where they finish, 2-3-4-5.

also, fucking ignore it.

I mean gum up in the sense that for all those years, players accumulated award-shares for any kind of finish. I'm sure they'll continue to tabulate the stat, but it's now two different standards for pre- and post-2012.

Ignore it? Well, sure--if I wanted to, I would.

but... it's not a separate or new distinction, just an artificial one. They're just announcing the upper crust early.

Okay--I've misinterpreted. When I read this, I understood it to mean that they narrow the field to a few players ahead of time, and they're the only ones eligible:

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/30678/johnny-cueto-was-jobbed

But if it just means that they announce the top few finishers ahead of time, and there'll still be the usual also-rans drawing votes after the top tier, no big deal (although completely unnecessary). So: never mind.

And actually, in this instance, I think your "ignore it" advice makes 100% sense; I will try to avoid, in future, finding out about these week-before "finalists."

yeah the BBWAA is not having 2 separate votes for these awards

interesting re: manager of the yr discussion on clubhouse confidential - cameron mentioned theres fangraphs metrics that have the o's as the best bullpen in the history of baseball o_O

lol cameron's been on that show? the whole thing is silly. brian kenny is like a teenager just discovering sabermetrics and he's SO EXCITED but he's also just more natural as a host who delegates talking time to the ex-players, so not only is it finally ~his time to shine~ but he's sort of a creepy robot about it

hilarious A+

i love brian kenny

his whole subtext in the show seems to be "they're finally letting me run free!" and it's cute

Cameron owns the last functional Flowbee imo.

my dad used one on himself a couple weeks ago

xp lol otm

Trout wins ROY unanimously; Romney camp reportedly shell-shocked.

Player 	        Team 	        1st 	2nd 	3rd 	Points
Mike Trout 	Angels 	        28 	0 	0 	140
Yoenis Cespedes Athletics 	0 	19 	6 	63
Yu Darvish 	Rangers 	0 	9 	19 	46
Wei-Yin Chen 	Orioles 	0 	0 	2 	2
Jarrod Parker 	Athletics 	0 	0 	1 	1
Bryce Harper 	Nationals 	16 	8 	8 	112
Wade Miley 	D-backs 	12 	13 	6 	105
Todd Frazier 	Reds 	        3 	7 	9 	45
Wilin Rosario 	Rockies 	1 	2 	1 	12
Norichika Aoki 	Brewers 	0 	2 	5 	11
Yonder Alonso 	Padres 	        0 	0 	1 	1
Matt Carpenter 	Cardinals 	0 	0 	1 	1
Jordan Pacheco 	Rockies 	0 	0 	1 	1

NL vote must be one of the closest ever. (Wasn't there a tie or two?)

Brisbee, SBN:

"All 32 ballots listed Harper, while Bill Center of the San Diego Union-Tribune left Miley off his ballot entirely. GET HIM, INTERNET!"

trout was the youngest ROY ever for a couple hours there

Gooden is still the youngest by a month.

MOYs: Davey Johnson, Bob Melvin

yeah i'm bummed too

SOME TIGERS FAN THIS GUY IS

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/the-statistical-case-against-cabrera-for-m-v-p

hallelujah

nice!

Haven't read it--I'm sure it's good--but does anyone need Nate Silver to point this out? I don't want to wade back into something we've discussed a zillion times, but I think anybody with an ability to look at a player's statistics in their totality realizes that Trout had the superior season. The people who vote for Cabrera will be split into two groups: a) writers who don't see that, who ignore defense and speed, and who don't judge offensive performance in context, and b) those who'd concede that Trout was statistically superior, but who do not automatically base their MVP vote wholly on statistics. You can call all that other stuff fiction, or narrative, or the last gasp of luddites, or whatever you want; the definition of "MVP" is open to interpretation enough that all that other stuff will continue to play a part in the vote. That's just the way it is--things are slowly changing, but you'll probably have to put up with it for a few more years. I would vote for Trout. I think it's funny that anyone would get worked up over a vote for Cabrera (and I'm guessing that Nate Silver is not one of those people).

I don't want to wade back into something we've discussed a zillion times,

Who are you and what have you done with clemenza?

p sure that article was nate's post-election gift to himself

or he's just trying to parlay the post-election ass-kissing for his real passion and finally write about baseball with some sort of upper hand

★ SAVE ★ NATE ★ SILVER ★

just because we've discussed something to death doesn't mean Nate Silver is done talking about it!

Just read it. It's very good, and persuasive, as I knew it would be. Most of his points are common to all the other Trout advocacy I read when the season ended, but I don't remember reading the WPA/clutch stuff elsewhere.

Who are you and what have you done with clemenza?

I know, I know--"I hesitate to wade back into..." would have been more accurate.

he brings up a good point i haven't seen much, that cabrera won the TC in one of the easiest years to win it in decades

i'd already read it!

(xpost) Interesting, but wouldn't that be a context thing? League leaders are league leaders within the context of each season; you can win a batting title hitting .301 if it's 1968, or finish second hitting .366 if it's 1997. So I'm not sure if that really mitigates a Triple Crown. Having said that, Cabrera definitely caught a break with Bautista's injury and Hamilton's problems.

maybe there's some wonderful BP study on this, but i think the TC standards are affected more by randomness than league hitting. between the three stats every year is usually gonna have at least one league leader (if not all three) that looks freaky.

like 1968 the AL homer leader still had 44, higher than most years in the 70s, then in the 70s you had rod carew putting up nuts BAs

Internet Baseball Awards -- only surprise is Showalter.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=18852

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=18879

Karl Rove is calling Adrian Beltre in a landslide

Haven't read it--I'm sure it's good--but does anyone need Nate Silver to point this out?

I know of three such people -- Silver fans who can't believe Trout would be considered.

I sent them the link and haven't received any replies.

Karl Rove is calling Adrian Beltre in a landslide

Great! Look forward to seeing him on ESPN tonight: "How do we know these results are real? Sorry, I need to see actual ballots." (Walks off set in a rage.)

-but does anyone need Nate Silver to point this out?

politically minded 538/NYT readers might need Nate Silver to point it out

Yeah, I completely wasn't thinking about who reads 538 when I wrote that--it's the perfect venue for such a piece. He'll probably be introducing basic sabermetrics to a large number of readers.

david price al cy

boo

Sounds exceptionally close: 14 first-places for Price, 13 for Verlander.

Blame southern California - 2 writers put it price/weaver/verlander

Oh well.

ps would be happy to see kershaw repeat but dickey should take it bc baseball is awesome

dickey!

dickey got 2x kershaw's points

Price collected 14 first-place votes to Verlander’s 13; Rays reliever Fernando Rodney got the other first-place vote.

AL vote closest since '69, when you could only vote for one pitcher; closest ever after that.

Player               1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	Points
David Price           14	13	 1			 153
Justin Verlander      13        13	 2			 149
Jered Weaver                     2	14	 9	 2	  70
Felix Hernandez                          5	10	 6	  41
Fernando Rodney        1		 5	 4	 8	  38
Chris Sale                               1	 4	 6	  17
Jim Johnson                                      1	 3	   5
Matt Harrison                                            2	   2
Yu Darvish                                               1	   1

NL is a blowout. The vote and ballots are here:

http://bbwaa.com/12-nl-cy/

lol @ vasgersian calling cabrera vs trout the fight for the "ML MV-- er, AL MVP"

kurkjian voted kimbrel #1

Drew Davison Fort Worth Star Telegram TEX Rodney Verlander

asshole

yeah, it only takes one

yay RA, good luck w/ whoever u pitch for next year.

actually if he switched his votes verlander would still be behind by 1 lolololol

ok, it only takes TWO

man, so happy for r.a.

I've got parent interviews tonight. If Cabrera wins (not quite prepared to say "when"), someone please take my place as the stodgy old calm-down-everybody guy.

I think all us crazy youngsters have resigned ourselves to the stupidity at this point.

Neyer ponders legitimacy of closers for Cy.

http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/11/15/3648498/cy-young-award-voting-closers-fernando-rodney-craig-kimbrel

everyone who did not vote Dickey #1 voted for him #2.

i like how nervous posey still is talking 2 media

esp if trout wins its the rise of humble boy wonders claiming hallowed awards at their parents houses

cabrera's gonna win so handily tho

i watched around the horn today (let's let that go for a minute) and one of the topics was poblano's MVP post! jakie macmullan said it "almost made [her] change [her] mind" and was truly astounded at the "level of specificity" silver was going into with his post. "did you guys know that silver says trout contributed 10 runs to his team with his defense, while cabrera actually cost his team runs??"

lol i forgot that was still a show

miggy it is

cabrera's gonna win so handily tho

― I have done bad. I love my pj's. (zachlyon), Thursday, November 15, 2012 6:40 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

what'd i say

22/28 first place

yeah i think if miggy wins the trip crown hes a lock for mvp

― johnny crunch, Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:47 AM (1 month ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i like how nervous posey still is talking 2 media

His cliched responses are the most heartfelt and philosophical.

i did enjoy some of the mlb network debate that was all

brian kenny "the triple crown is just something sportswriters made up! from horseracing!"

billy ripken "whats WAR thats made up! everythings made up!"

it's sad when the debate goes on for so long and the final tally's just sitting in the figurative envelope the whole time

kind of shocked that curt shilling's republican ass would have voted for trout (though trout is a white guy)

someone gave raul ibanez a point, guess it was a late ballot

I like Cabrera and he's never won one, so I'm cool with it. Trout should've won but whatev.

@jcrasnick
Our ESPN panel picked Trout over Cabrera 21-7. We weren't even on the same planet with the BBWAA electorate.

like i said upthread, i can't get upset about one or the other. they both had great seasons.
unlike the stupid retarded cy young winners

Pretty lame vote but whatever.

biggest ??? might be stanton ending up with 7 points

"I was a little concerned. I thought the new thing about computer stuff, I thought Trout's going to win because they put his numbers over me," Cabrera said. "I was like relax. ... if he wins, it's going to be fair because he had a great season."

His victory is a win for the traditional statistics.

"At the end of the game, it's going to be the same baseball played back in the day," Cabrera said.

Among Trout's superlative numbers was a WAR of 10.7, highest by a position player since Barry Bonds' 11.6 in 2002. Cabrera's WAR was 6.9, fourth in the AL behind Trout, Cano and Verlander.

*FACEPALM*

whatever i dont care.. 27 or 28 teams know the real valuations behind the beauty pageant. id rather the writers be behind than ownership. who cares.

I thought the AL vote would be closer--must be a very different set of voters from the Felix vote in 2010. I don't think this changes the move towards sabermetrics at all, which the Triple Crown threw a monkey wrench into. If this had been even 10 years ago, a TC winner probably would have been an automatic unanimous winner. 10 years from now, I think Trout would win.

Jeter 7th. He'll keep getting down-ballot votes after he retires.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/481697_10151233838241702_824928274_n.png

pity that probably doesn't come exclusively in kids' sizes

I agree completely with Cliff Corcoran here:

The Trout vs. Cabrera argument may be a bore at this point, but it won't go away, nor would it have had Trout won. The fact of the matter is that this sort of debate is one of the things that makes baseball so much fun to follow. If every award had a clear and correct winner, how many fans would spend their time pouring over every extra base Mike Trout took, researching Miguel Cabrera's double-play rate, the strength of the lineups David Price and Justin Verlander faced, or the relative value of Buster Posey's defense and Ryan Braun's hitting?

Being a baseball fan is a year-round occupation in large part because of this sort of debate and the resulting research and analysis. It keeps the game alive in the cold winter months. Every fan debating Trout vs. Cabrera or Posey vs. Braun, Andrew McCutchen and Yadier Molina is reliving those players' seasons over and over again. I wouldn't have it any other way.

I love award and HOF debates. I don't want them ever to go away.

you can keep them in exchange for the Democratic & Republican parties going away.

oh my god

http://www.freep.com/article/20121116/COL01/311160108/1050/sports02?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed:+FreepDetroitTigers+(freep.com+%7C+Detroit+Tigers)

http://i47.tinypic.com/10nf3i9.jpg

"There is no end to the appetite for categories -- from OBP to OPS to WAR. I mean, OMG! "

- "Mitch" "Albom" "," "November 16, 2012"

http://i48.tinypic.com/2i9oupt.jpg

"The number of triples hit while wearing a certain-colored underwear is probably being measured as we speak."

- "Mitch" "Albom" "," "November 16, 2012"