Josh Donaldson passed Miggy in WAR

[kcjaysfan]

That's fair, but there's a crucial difference that bothers me. In your example the value is certain, they are no other variables, just an equals sign. In baseball there are countless variables, and because of this I don't think we can adjust stats based on a single constant to determine the MVP. For predicting future numbers, sure. For past performance, ok you can use some thinking about where the player plays and their opponents, their team, ect. but I don't think you should put it into a number adjustment.

 

What you're effectively saying is that it's ok to quantify value with the best possible tools when one is analyzing future value (i.e., performance), but when analyzing past value, one must abstain from using those same tools because there are a large number of variables. That's incredibly fallacious reasoning. You're saying that we should handicap ourselves. We have the tools to do a fairly decent analysis, but because we aren't able to perform a perfect analysis, we should revert to doing the most basic, dumbest one?

[theblujay]

What you're effectively saying is that it's ok to quantify value with the best possible tools when one is analyzing future value (i.e., performance), but when analyzing past value, one must abstain from using those same tools because there are a large number of variables. That's incredibly fallacious reasoning. You're saying that we should handicap ourselves. We have the tools to do a fairly decent analysis, but because we aren't able to perform a perfect analysis, we should revert to doing the most basic, dumbest one?

 

I was specifically saying this about the MVP award. I was thinking of it like this: player A has better stats than player B, but player B is given the award because, according to the hypothetical stat adjustments he would have been better. The thing is, who knows what would have happened if player A and B switched teams. We can get a pretty good idea, and that's why it's useful when looking at the future.

 

Btw thanks for actually responding with something helpful

[theblujay]

Ideally we would want batter's and pitcher's stats to be adjusted based on individual opponents, but that is a lot of work and complexity for something that ends up being a very small difference maker. If I worked for an organization I would definitely account for these things, but generally the complexity is not worth the difference. Park factors however is not very complex and the difference I makes is larger. Technically we should adjust for each away park they play in but that makes it more complicated and less of a difference due to the smaller occurrence. Home park makes up 50% which is a much larger factor and more simple.

 

I agree with that park factors are important when evaluating a pitcher for the future. I'm not exactly sure what's wrong with JJ, but there's a big difference between pitching in Miami and at the Rogers Centre. It could be expected that he wouldn't do as well pitching for us, but I'm not going to discredit the seasons he put up in Florida at all.

[theblujay]

But why MVP award treated differently? There's no logic in that.

 

Like I said in that quick example: I'd have a tough time giving the MVP to someone based on adjustments that come from a use sample. I would give the award to the player who put up the best numbers, whatever stats you want to use.

[theblujay]

Acknowledging that a 0.375 wOBA in Colorado is less valuable than a 0.375 wOBA in Oakland isn't "hypothetical" or whatever you're calling it - it's a fact. I really don't understand why you're suggesting that people ignore what they know about park factors when deciding which of two players had the better season.

 

If the numbers are exactly equal then I could understand giving it to the person in the pitchers park, but if the player in CO was a good bit better then I have more of a problem

[theblujay]

BTW, just a question about park factors: wouldn't it make sense that its easier to get a single, double or triple in a bigger park because the outfielders have more ground to cover? The only disadvantage is HRs. It would seem that the real

Park factor would come from environmental effects like altitude.

[theblujay]

What are these "numbers"??

 

Anything. In this case BTS said wOBA

[GD]

Acknowledging that a 0.375 wOBA in Colorado is less valuable than a 0.375 wOBA in Oakland isn't "hypothetical" or whatever you're calling it - it's a fact.

 

Isn't there a park adjusted wOBA from some site that would be really useful right about now? I feel like I've read about a wOBA+ and park adjusted wOBA and such before.

[saskjayfan]

WAR is about create and prevent runs, No win games.

 

MVP is a quasi-collective award lol

 

stats + playoff = MVP

 

war is voodoo science....

[Angrioter]

I think wOBA was always meant to presented in raw form.

 

wRC+ is adjusted and scaled wOBA.

 

wOBA = (Offensive event * constants offensive value) / (PA – IBB)

 

The wOBA is a variant of OBP (you reach the base or not) so the park factor is not present in Eq....The wOBA tells us how productive were your offensive events in terms of runs.

 

 

Billy Butler .380 OBP (26 2B, 14 HR) = .350 wOBA

Chris Davis .374 OBP (41 2B, 51 HR) = .426 wOBA

[G-Snarls]

I totally misunderstood what wOBA is (I thought it was OBP adjusted for league factors). Not even close.

 

Glad I read this:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/offense/woba/

[Angrioter]

I totally misunderstood what wOBA is (I thought it was OBP adjusted for league factors). Not even close.

 

Glad I read this:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/offense/woba/

 

Not park or defensive position, just "you reach the base or not"

[Boxcar]

BTW, just a question about park factors: wouldn't it make sense that its easier to get a single, double or triple in a bigger park because the outfielders have more ground to cover? The only disadvantage is HRs. It would seem that the real

Park factor would come from environmental effects like altitude.

 

I remember when Adrian Gonzalez was being traded to the Sox, and people were going nuts because, according to his spray chart at Petco, he'd have hit like 5 or 6 more home runs at home in Fenway. That's not insignificant. Not surprisingly, his first season in Boston was the best of his career.

 

Why should a player in a better hitter's park have an advantage based on geography? Wouldn't you want to neutralize that advantage to put all players on the same level?

 

(Hint: this is now possible)

[SpeedyGose]

So, after reading through this amazing thread. I have come to the conclusion that "theblujay" is the new connorp (the original version, not the legit poster version). Definitely earning a bookmark

[EdelweissBouquet]

No, you f***ing goober. Trout.

 

Trout wasn't valuable enough to his team to lead them

past the regular season..how is this valuable to the team ??

Who's to say pitchers pitched him down the middle on many

occasions while being up by 7-8 runs in the hope that he'd

be a one pitch out to get the game over with faster,and why

not, his team is 15 games behind .

And what IF, throughout the season, NOT ONE ball was hit

towards him so he never had to make a play? Would that

diminish his value ? Would detroit have made the playoffs without

cabrera ?

MVP is the most valuable player to his team, the best PLAYER

could easily be trout. If trout were traded to KC, and

then KC made the playoffs, with trout having less numbers,

and the other candidates had the same, I'd say trout wins MVP

hands down.

 

LETS GO BLUEJAYS CLAPPITY CLAP CLAP !!!

[EdelweissBouquet]

My post was mainly hypothetical,I have no idea how many games each team won against the other or by how much, and i really don't care.

A MVP should be instrumental in helping the team succeed at it's goal,which should be,to reach the post season and then finally the championship. Shouldn't he be the most

valuable to his team. There are enough individual awards..silver slugger, golden glove,hank aaron, cy young..and some newer ones that cropped up, one being the comeback

player or something similar.

Trout is destined for greatness barring career ending injury,he's the best center fielder,even the best OF in the league,and wouldn't argue on him being the best all around player,but not the mvp, that has to go to the player who made the biggest difference in his team making the playoffs. And for me, cabrera stands out, as i believe detroit would have struggled getting there without him.

Trout will get more than one mvp during his career ,that's a given, wouldn't surprise me if he wins this year.

[Abomination]

A MVP should be instrumental in helping the team succeed at it's goal,which should be,to reach the post season and then finally the championship. Shouldn't he be the most valuable to his team.

 

The problem is that MVP really isn't properly defined (which is probably intentional). You may believe the most valuable player should be in relation to their team, while others may believe it's the person who makes the biggest impact with the fans (such as Miggy's triple crown chase) or the person who has the best statistical season (Trout with WAR last year). The thing is, everyone is right.

[G-Snarls]

The thing is, everyone is right.

 

Yeah!

 

(can we kill this thread now???)

[Laika]

Trout wasn't valuable enough to his team to lead them

past the regular season..how is this valuable to the team ??

Who's to say pitchers pitched him down the middle on many

occasions while being up by 7-8 runs in the hope that he'd

be a one pitch out to get the game over with faster,and why

not, his team is 15 games behind .

And what IF, throughout the season, NOT ONE ball was hit

towards him so he never had to make a play? Would that

diminish his value ? Would detroit have made the playoffs without

cabrera ?

MVP is the most valuable player to his team, the best PLAYER

could easily be trout. If trout were traded to KC, and

then KC made the playoffs, with trout having less numbers,

and the other candidates had the same, I'd say trout wins MVP

hands down.

 

LETS GO BLUEJAYS CLAPPITY CLAP CLAP !!!

 

You could have farted in your own hand and then smelled it, and you would've come off as smarter than you did by typing that.

[G-Snarls]

The problem is that MVP really isn't properly defined (which is probably intentional). You may believe the most valuable player should be in relation to their team, while others may believe it's the person who makes the biggest impact with the fans (such as Miggy's triple crown chase) or the person who has the best statistical season (Trout with WAR last year). The thing is, everyone is right.

 

I see it as "the player who is most valuable to his team." Not the player with the most statistical WAR, though that stat obviously does a very good job of showing you who the best players are. This concept is easiest to consider as the player that would have most negative impact if removed from his team. That is probably Miguel Cabrera to me, even though Trout is amazing too. Take Miggy out of that lineup and the Tigers are suddenly a much, MUCH worse team.

[Laika]

This concept is easiest to consider as the player that would have most negative impact if removed from his team.

 

So then the player with the highest WAR... lmao.

[G-Snarls]

So then the player with the highest WAR... lmao.

 

Because WAR is perfect at telling us how many more games a team would lose if a player left. Riiiggghhtt...

[G-Snarls]

I believe it is around 0.9 correlation. So very good yes.

 

I'm sure it is very good. But not perfect, how could it be? And I think there are impacts a player can have that don't show up on a stat sheet anyway. Not just intangibles, but how other players in the lineup are affected, how opposing players pitch to them, how many risks the manager takes, etc. He cements that lineup. Removing Cabrera from that Tigers lineup would leave such a massive void, I just think the loss of wins would be more than WAR would suggest. (caveat: pure opinion, but I think a fairly common one)

[Laika]

Because WAR is perfect at telling us how many more games a team would lose if a player left. Riiiggghhtt...

 

It doesn't have to be perfect for it to be better than you. You're probably not smarter than the WAR machine, sorry George.

[G-Snarls]

It doesn't have to be perfect for it to be better than you. You're probably not smarter than the WAR machine, sorry George.

 

Hahaha, probably not. I just think that when one player on a team is so much better than everyone else on it, WAR might underestimate their contribution. This could obviously apply to Trout too, but his team has so many flaws that losing him might have less of an impact. Am I right or wrong? Don't know, it's impossible to say. Obviously I'm of the opinion that the team around you matters to who you deem "most valuable", and many people don't feel that way. Best player vs most valuable player are subtly different. All that said? I'd take either player in a heartbeat, and probably Trout first, if I was building team from scratch. I just think that on their teams, removing Cabrera from the Tigers is more devastating than removing Trout from the Angels.

[G-Snarls]

The only real argument that could be made is based on the team's replacement for that player. If the Angels had a 5 WAR CF who didn't get to play because of Trout and the Tigers only had replacement level 3B talent, then maybe you could say Cabrera is more valuable to his team. But that's not even what it's about, it's the player who has the most value to the league. Not the team. If Cabrera and Trout were both 27, who would you rather trade for to give you a better chance of winning? It's Trout and it's not even close.

 

Yes. If I could have either player right now for free to start a team I'd take Trout.

[G-Snarls]

But that's not even what it's about, it's the player who has the most value to the league. Not the team.

 

That's where we differ the most in opinion. I think the award should represent the opposite. Whoever is most valuable to his team.

[G-Snarls]

Nowhere does it say most valuable to their specific team, it is the player that has the most value. Trout has the most value. He is the most valuable commodity and gave his team the most value.

 

And again, this is where "MVP" is vague. There are so many ways of looking at it. We're splitting hairs and I have a headache from it. Peace.

[Laika]

Hahaha, probably not. I just think that when one player on a team is so much better than everyone else on it, WAR might underestimate their contribution. This could obviously apply to Trout too, but his team has so many flaws that losing him might have less of an impact. Am I right or wrong? Don't know, it's impossible to say. Obviously I'm of the opinion that the team around you matters to who you deem "most valuable", and many people don't feel that way. Best player vs most valuable player are subtly different. All that said? I'd take either player in a heartbeat, and probably Trout first, if I was building team from scratch. I just think that on their teams, removing Cabrera from the Tigers is more devastating than removing Trout from the Angels.

 

You're basically just taking a super convoluted path to the common opinion that in order for a player to win the MVP, his team needs to at least be competitive.

 

It's a stupid, archaic opinion. But the BBWAA agrees with you, so you have that on your side.

[G-Snarls]

People can have different definitions, but with each one Trout still wins it. I'm disregarding the team making the playoffs as a requirement, as that's just ridiculous. Most valuable to league, Trout. Most valuable to team, Trout. Gave team best shot to make postseason (single handedly), Trout. Best all around player, Trout. Best offensive player, Trout. Since intangibles such as motivation are not known or measured, there is no argument that it should be anyone other than Trout. Team's dependence on player, Trout. etc. etc.

 

Agree re your team "needing" to make the playoffs. That's silly. And I recognize that there is some inherent unfairness in making the award refer to "the most valuable player to his team". It's not a players fault what team he's on (usually). And the term MVP doesn't necessarily have to mean that. But that's what most voting baseball writers think it means and so do I.

Edited September 24, 2013 by G-Snarls