So Mike Trout wins the AL MVP.....

[Whoofe]

I agree with the WAR being overrated/overvalued. a CF and a RF with exact same statistics makes the CF look way better based on WAR

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by Whoofe

I agree with the WAR being overrated/overvalued. a CF and a RF with exact same statistics makes the CF look way better based on WAR

That's because of positional scarcity. It's much harder to find a CF than it is to find a RF because it's a more difficult position to play. Are the adjustments perfect? No. You won't find any stat that is perfect.

WAR is the beginnings of the search for a stat which reflects the overall contributions (offense, defense, baserunning, avoiding grounding into double plays, adjustment for positional scarcity, adjustment for home ballpark, adjustment for defense behind a pitcher, and on and on and on). It's a very complicated stat, and therefore there are more steps which can result in an accumulation of errors.

At this point it's more of an estimate than a precise number. That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep honing and refining it because a stat that looks it all of a player's contributions is far more valuable than a stat that isolates little chunks of his contributions.

[Jeffy25]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I appreciate you acknowledging I have a right to my opinion. I also respect your right to disagree with me. Never have I sought out to convince people to think like me. All I have asked is to have my opinion respected & not belittled. To recognize it isn't just a troll attempt, but a thought out position. That's why I brought this back up when I heard James' quote. Because I felt my take wasn't treated as such.



So thank you.



But I also ask if people disagree with me, disagree for the correct reasons. I never disparaged a player simply because his team didn't win enough. If you look back, I said Trout is probably the most talented in MLB. My position is if we are going to use statistics to measure value, and that is the only tangible thing we have to do so, then the most valuable statistic must be a part of the equation. And it must be given the most weight. That most important valuable stat is actual wins.



The sub point was that too much credence is given to WAR. It is treated too often as the end of any discussion. I agree w/James. Searching for that one stat that will define who is best is a fruitless exercise and an impossibility.



I'm not trying to sway anyone. Just trying to state my point and give my reasoning behind it. I don't think it is anymore "right" than anyone who disagrees with me. But I would at least like it acknowledged that it isn't as much of a far-fetched idea as it was treated.

Out of all due respect.

You have been over stating the impact an individual can have on his teams success.

Ted Williams and Barry Bonds put up seasons that baseball has never seen and missed the playoffs. Neither ever won a ring and are two of the three best players to ever play this game.

It takes 25 guys. Starters sit 80% or their starts and even then only get to play, maybe 10% of his teams innings. And even then, he needs his defense and offense to help him win.

A position player at most can account for about 9% of his teams offensive opportunities, which still relies on other guys in the lineup to drive him in or get on base to allow the player success in scoring runs. And then on defense, maybe can touch extreme plays a handful of times per year, while being one of 9 guys on the field, where most of the plays are routine or out of reach.

It takes a mountain to win a baseball game, and an individual may get some opportunities to help his team win some individual games, it’s simply not enough.


We see WAR as an individual metric, and yes, it’s an objective finite stat. You can come to the value of the stat in different ways depending how you want to value defense and pitching, but the results are not subjective.

If you take a team, total their WAR and add it to 48, you should get, or be incredibly close, to their teams pyth record. For example, see the Astros of this year.


It’s not the be-all, end-all stat. But it helps us see the value of a player compared to the value of other players, specifically at his position.


You don’t need WAR to see that Mike Trout is clearly the best player in baseball.

Just total the runs he creates, add in his base running value, and add in his position and defensive runs saved.

Nobody in the game touches him, though, he missed 40 games this year, suppressing his total value in 2017.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jeffy25]

Originally Posted by Whoofe

I agree with the WAR being overrated/overvalued. a CF and a RF with exact same statistics makes the CF look way better based on WAR

Not if they have the same defensive numbers.

That CF is going to be more valuable.

Way harder to find a good hitting CFer putting up defensive numbers than a RFer.

There are positional adjustments for a reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[actionjackson]

Hey Jeff. Good to see you around here. Hope all is well down Cape Girardeau way (if you're still there) and that you had an excellent holiday with family and friends.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

Out of all due respect.

You have been over stating the impact an individual can have on his teams success.

Ted Williams and Barry Bonds put up seasons that baseball has never seen and missed the playoffs. Neither ever won a ring and are two of the three best players to ever play this game.

It takes 25 guys. Starters sit 80% or their starts and even then only get to play, maybe 10% of his teams innings. And even then, he needs his defense and offense to help him win.

A position player at most can account for about 9% of his teams offensive opportunities, which still relies on other guys in the lineup to drive him in or get on base to allow the player success in scoring runs. And then on defense, maybe can touch extreme plays a handful of times per year, while being one of 9 guys on the field, where most of the plays are routine or out of reach.

It takes a mountain to win a baseball game, and an individual may get some opportunities to help his team win some individual games, it’s simply not enough.


We see WAR as an individual metric, and yes, it’s an objective finite stat. You can come to the value of the stat in different ways depending how you want to value defense and pitching, but the results are not subjective.

If you take a team, total their WAR and add it to 48, you should get, or be incredibly close, to their teams pyth record. For example, see the Astros of this year.


It’s not the be-all, end-all stat. But it helps us see the value of a player compared to the value of other players, specifically at his position.


You don’t need WAR to see that Mike Trout is clearly the best player in baseball.

Just total the runs he creates, add in his base running value, and add in his position and defensive runs saved.

Nobody in the game touches him, though, he missed 40 games this year, suppressing his total value in 2017.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How do you calculate his base running value? How do you calculate his position & defensive runs saved? What is the consensus on the above stats?

[Jeffy25]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

Hey Jeff. Good to see you around here. Hope all is well down Cape Girardeau way (if you're still there) and that you had an excellent holiday with family and friends.

Thank you! You too!

Actually a couple of hours north now.

Hope you had a great holiday my friend!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

Thank you! You too!

Actually a couple of hours north now.

Hope you had a great holiday my friend!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm Canadian, so we had ours back in October. Thanks for the Ken Burns Baseball on the MLB Network for the whole weekend though. That was cool.

[Jeffy25]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

How do you calculate his base running value? How do you calculate his position & defensive runs saved? What is the consensus on the above stats?

Fangraphs has a metric they use called bsr. It’s based on things like taking the extra base on a base hit, stealing bases, making outs on the bases etc, as those compare to the league average.

Baseball reference also tallies these events and you can see them individually. I love to argue with fellow Cardinals fans that say Matt Carpenter is a bad base runner. While he has made mistakes, he takes more extra bases than anyone else on the team, and does it with a lot of success. This is an example where the eye test is wrong (and the Cards broadcasters are overly dramatic when he has made a mistake) vs what we can clearly see in the data.


Positioning is based on positional scarcity. If there was a flaw in WAR for me, it would be how they handle positional adjustments. I’m on my phone, but Fangraphs did a break down on this awhile back that you can google. But i think it could be tweeked a bit, but that’s just my opinion.

It comes down to this. A good hitting shortstop is going to be way more valuable than an equal hitting first basemen.

Defensive runs saved is calculated by baseball info solutions who scores and tracks every game by cameras.

Offensive values are pretty finite and accurate. But there is some volatility in defensive metrics that could be cleaned up, though, overall, it’s pretty good.

We have things like outs above average, drs, uzr, total zone etc. they are all telling us the same things, but to what degree differs. We know that Kevin Kiermaier is a stud defensively. But depending which metric you use may differ how amazing he is. And some of that simply comes down to preference.

I take WAR as a range of value, rather than specific to the decimal point fight.

If (just an example) Aaron Judge had a 7.3 WAR, and Jose Altuve has a 6.8. Then both players were worth about 7 wins above replacement and you need to go further into their numbers to see who was more valuable, they are fairly close overall.

But when Mike Trout has a 10 WAR season, and Miggy has a 6 WAR season. You don’t need to dive further into the numbers, it’s all going to say the same thing...that Trout had a much better year. And he did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

Fangraphs has a metric they use called bsr. .........

Baseball reference also tallies these events and you can see them individually.......


Positioning is based on positional scarcity. If there was a flaw in WAR for me, it would be how they handle positional adjustments..... it could be tweeked a bit, but that’s just my opinion.

........... But there is some volatility in defensive metrics that could be cleaned up, though, overall, it’s pretty good.

........... But depending which metric you use may differ how amazing he is. And some of that simply comes down to preference.

.........I take WAR as a range of value, rather than specific to the decimal point fight.

I left what I'm getting at.

What you just said in a nutshell is that all of that is subjective. It's all according to the preference of the one doing the calculations. There is no standard. Therefore, using those stats as your argument as to who is the best is no different than someone using the eye test. It is all opinion. Someone may use a more complicated way of arriving at it. But it still is an opinion. Therefore, WAR, runs saved, bsr etc is the individual's measuring stick. Not everybody's measuring stick.

If you want to use them alone, fine.

But I don't. It gives me a clue. They are tools. But it doesn't override everything for me. I count winning when I ponder the MVP. Not POY. But MVP.

[Matt Arnold]

Winning matters, but are you arguing that Cameron Maybin was a more valuable player last year than Trout was? He was on a winning team, at least for the end of the season, after all.

Again, if the player's on-field values are similar, I'd take the guy who played a part on a winning team any day. But when a guy's number are head and shoulders above everyone else, then the top guy is still the MVP for me.

The interesting case is this year in the NL. I'm still not sure if Stanton (or Votto) were truly far enough ahead of a half dozen other guys like Goldschmidt, Blackmon, Rendon, etc... to deserve it as they were not on winning teams. Were I voting I wouldn't know how to cast my ballot.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

Winning matters, but are you arguing that Cameron Maybin was a more valuable player last year than Trout was? He was on a winning team, at least for the end of the season, after all.

No, I'm not. What's my opinion is that completely ignoring the W-L record is ignoring the most important valuable stat.

Again, if the player's on-field values are similar, I'd take the guy who played a part on a winning team any day. But when a guy's number are head and shoulders above everyone else, then the top guy is still the MVP for me.

What numbers are head & shoulders above? If you prefer the sabermetrics, that's your opinion. If I value other stats, not subject to opinion and individual taste, that's my opinion.

[Jeffy25]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

No, I'm not. What's my opinion is that completely ignoring the W-L record is ignoring the most important valuable stat.

What numbers are head & shoulders above? If you prefer the sabermetrics, that's your opinion. If I value other stats, not subject to opinion and individual taste, that's my opinion.

Except certain stats tell you a hell of a lot more than other stats.

you can care about batting average all you want, it tells you way less about a player than OBP does (for a simplistic example).


Winning matters, but you have to remember how little the individual can impact that.

Kris Bryant was one of the worst players in clutch situations in 2016, but was the run away MVP on a division winning team. But if you actually isolate his numbers, he didn't do it when it mattered. He just had a great year on a great team. Meanwhile, Rizzo had a lesser season, but consistently came through when the Cubs needed him to.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

Except certain stats tell you a hell of a lot more than other stats.

you can care about batting average all you want, it tells you way less about a player than OBP does (for a simplistic example).


Winning matters, but you have to remember how little the individual can impact that.

Kris Bryant was one of the worst players in clutch situations in 2016, but was the run away MVP on a division winning team. But if you actually isolate his numbers, he didn't do it when it mattered. He just had a great year on a great team. Meanwhile, Rizzo had a lesser season, but consistently came through when the Cubs needed him to.

All that's nice. But we have to be humble enough to know where facts end & our opinion begins. Some of the stats are facts. The values assigned to them are opinions. A lot of the next gen numbers are opinions disguised as facts.

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

All that's nice. But we have to be humble enough to know where facts end & our opinion begins. Some of the stats are facts. The values assigned to them are opinions. A lot of the next gen numbers are opinions disguised as facts.

Well, if thinking this way, anything that's not a pure, raw, counting stat is an "opinion". Batting average is an "opinion", because in the opinion of whoever created it, they didn't want to count walks, HBP, or sacrifices.

Specifically in terms of the MVP, there is no single metric that counts everything. It's up to each voter to decide on the proper mix that counts to them, as the official criteria is essentially "actual value of a player to his team" with a few other minor clarifiers. But a few more interesting things to think about (limiting it to the AL, since everyone like to argue against Trout)

-If you're talking about which player helped win the most games, then Trout should be the MVP, since he had the highest WPA and highest RE24 of anyone in the AL, despite missing so many games. It's not even close for WPA.
-RE24 (which is basically which player, when they were at-bat, moved runners along the best) had Trout #1, but had Judge well ahead of Altuve, despite Judge having a much lower "clutch" score
-By WAR, it was Judge and Altuve very close
-If you value who did the most to get their team a World Series, then the AL winner should be... wait for it... Mike Trout! (https://thebaseballgauge.com/year.ph...=1&sort=cWPA_a) So yeah, LAA sucked, but it was in no way Trout's fault. Basically, no player in the AL did more to get his team a World Series than Trout. And it's not like it was just because he got a bit hit to win the one game in September that mattered most.
-Of course, if you take the above and make it more context-neutral, then Judge comes out a little bit ahead. Basically, Trout came up with more chances to make a big play to get his team a World Series, but Judge did very well with the chances that he had.


Now, I'm not necessarily going to argue that Trout should have won the MVP this year, but there were at least a handful of metrics that would give him a legit shot. The real question is what someone's opinion of "actual value to his team" is. Is that about simply winning more games, or is it about pushing a team to the playoffs?

[Jeffy25]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

Well, if thinking this way, anything that's not a pure, raw, counting stat is an "opinion". Batting average is an "opinion", because in the opinion of whoever created it, they didn't want to count walks, HBP, or sacrifices.

Specifically in terms of the MVP, there is no single metric that counts everything. It's up to each voter to decide on the proper mix that counts to them, as the official criteria is essentially "actual value of a player to his team" with a few other minor clarifiers. But a few more interesting things to think about (limiting it to the AL, since everyone like to argue against Trout)

-If you're talking about which player helped win the most games, then Trout should be the MVP, since he had the highest WPA and highest RE24 of anyone in the AL, despite missing so many games. It's not even close for WPA.
-RE24 (which is basically which player, when they were at-bat, moved runners along the best) had Trout #1, but had Judge well ahead of Altuve, despite Judge having a much lower "clutch" score
-By WAR, it was Judge and Altuve very close
-If you value who did the most to get their team a World Series, then the AL winner should be... wait for it... Mike Trout! (https://thebaseballgauge.com/year.ph...=1&sort=cWPA_a) So yeah, LAA sucked, but it was in no way Trout's fault. Basically, no player in the AL did more to get his team a World Series than Trout. And it's not like it was just because he got a bit hit to win the one game in September that mattered most.
-Of course, if you take the above and make it more context-neutral, then Judge comes out a little bit ahead. Basically, Trout came up with more chances to make a big play to get his team a World Series, but Judge did very well with the chances that he had.


Now, I'm not necessarily going to argue that Trout should have won the MVP this year, but there were at least a handful of metrics that would give him a legit shot. The real question is what someone's opinion of "actual value to his team" is. Is that about simply winning more games, or is it about pushing a team to the playoffs?

Well said. Worth noting, the voting for this is before the playoffs, so when someone votes, they don't know who is going to be in the World Series.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

Well, if thinking this way, anything that's not a pure, raw, counting stat is an "opinion". Batting average is an "opinion", because in the opinion of whoever created it, they didn't want to count walks, HBP, or sacrifices.

OK. Doesn't discredit what I said. It is all opinion what number you want to assign the most value to.

Specifically in terms of the MVP, there is no single metric that counts everything.

Is that not what James & I are saying?

The real question is what someone's opinion of "actual value to his team" is. Is that about simply winning more games, or is it about pushing a team to the playoffs?

Again, echoing my point.

[Jeffy25]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

OK. Doesn't discredit what I said. It is all opinion what number you want to assign the most value to.

Is that not what James & I are saying?

Again, echoing my point.

It may be opinion, but it is with an educated opinion that comes with a thorough understanding of how the game works and what creates value and what doesn't.

It's not like people are pulling numbers out of the air and saying, hey, that creates value and that doesn't. These are informed, educated pieces in which to build the data from.

[TheMaus2]

Mike Trout has a saxophone rating of 23, which is why he's better than Mookie Betts.

[Splitter24]

But Mookie's bowling rating is much, much higher than Trout's.

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