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

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by ihatenames

You made the assertion thst Trout should be disqualified because his team finished 77-84. I pointed out in the rules that it clearly states award winner does not have to come from winning team or playoff qualifier. I also stated your are free to advocate for however you feel deserves the award. The award is subjective. However, as I stated the rules that say a player does not have to be on playoff team are not subjective.

Since you're not understanding let me summarize. I have no problem with you disagreeing with the pick. The criteria is very subjective. I have no problem with you using wins if you feel that matters to defend you who would pick because as you stated there is no rules saying you cannot use wins. (Who would you pick for award btw?) However, I do have a problem with you insisting that an MVP has to be on a winning team because the rules state they do not.

Fair enough. Maybe I didn't make that part clear......

I roll my eyes at the notion someone could think a player is an MVP of the league when he can't even lead his team to a winning record. That was the premise of my whole thread. It takes the most important thing in sport, winning, and turns it into the least impactful. A winning record should be, IMO, the minimum requirement to merit consideration.

[ihatenames]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Fair enough. Maybe I didn't make that part clear......

I roll my eyes at the notion someone could think a player is an MVP of the league when he can't even lead his team to a winning record. That was the premise of my whole thread. It takes the most important thing in sport, winning, and turns it into the least impactful. A winning record should be, IMO, the minimum requirement to merit consideration.

It depends on what you consider valuable. Is ones value only determined by their teams success? Should Trout be held accountable for the failures of his teammates and management? I think if all things are equal between two players, the player with winning team should get the nod, but it shouldn't be the primary identifier. In Trout's case there was no one even close to performing at the same level. He gave more value to his team than anyone in baseball. I can't punish him because his team squandered that value. He had no control over that.

Like I said I respect if you weigh the value of wins higher than I do in terms of award. Who would you pick to be MVP if not Trout?

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by RchW

I don't know how many posters here know how WAR is calculated. I mean seriously stop being a dick.

I'm not being a dick, I'm making a point. The person that resorts to name calling is the one that behaves like a prick.

I don't know how to calculate it either. I looked it up years ago. People are putting their baseball faith into a stat they know nothing about. They have no idea how it is arrived at, they don't know what it measures, they don't know what are the criteria it uses & they still quote it with a blind faith. They have no idea just how subjective the defensive & baserunning data is. A good portion of it is based on assumptions of what should or could have been, just like the defensive error. In an attempt to eliminate the bias of the local score keeper, the baseball fan has now become victim of the prejudices of the mathematician. The same as college rankings in basketball & football have gotten rid of the "opinion" polls by now counting the "opinion" of computer nerds.

And I'm going to say here something that the average baseball stat geek doesn't realize. WAR DOES NOT MEASURE WINS. When Trout has a WAR of 10+, it doesn't mean the Angels would have won 67 w/o him.

WAR is not a measuring stick. It is a tool. It shines a light on a player's ability as a whole. It doesn't necessarily show a person's value. And it is tainted by whatever the mathematician thinks is valuable.

So when you guys tell me so&so had such&such WAR rating, all you are telling me is another individual's opinion. Which is no better than mine.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by ihatenames

It depends on what you consider valuable. Is ones value only determined by their teams success? Should Trout be held accountable for the failures of his teammates and management? I think if all things are equal between two players, the player with winning team should get the nod, but it shouldn't be the primary identifier. In Trout's case there was no one even close to performing at the same level. He gave more value to his team than anyone in baseball. I can't punish him because his team squandered that value. He had no control over that.

Like I said I respect if you weigh the value of wins higher than I do in terms of award. Who would you pick to be MVP if not Trout?

If I had a gun pointed to my head, I would have given it to Mookie Betts. I really felt he Altuve, Donaldson, Cano, & Machado were all worthy. So I wouldn't have had a problem if either of them won it. Even Papi. But Trout would not have made it on my ballot. The fact that he is this statistical wunderkind and can never even get in a pennant race makes me believe he isn't doing what it takes to lead a team. He's the Dominique Wilkins of baseball.

Edit: I forgot Beltre as well.

[TheMaus2]

Originally Posted by RchW

I don't know how many posters here know how WAR is calculated. I mean seriously stop being a dick.

The basis for a WAR value is the estimated number of runs contributed by a player through offensive actions such as batting and baserunning, and runs denied to opposition teams by the player through defensive actions like fielding and pitching. Statistics such as weighted on-base average (wOBA), ultimate zone rating (UZR), ultimate base running (UBR), and fielding-independent pitching (FIP) measure the effectiveness of a player at creating and saving runs for their team, on a per-plate appearance or per-inning basis. These statistics can be multiplied by the playing time of a player to give an estimate of the number of offensive and defensive runs contributed to their team.

Additional runs contributed to a team lead to additional wins, with 10 runs estimated to be equal to roughly one win.[3] Therefore, a 1.0 WAR value for a player signifies a contribution of roughly 10 more runs than a replacement-level player, over a specified period of time. A replacement level player is defined by Fangraphs as contributing 17.5 runs fewer than a player of league-average performance, over 600 plate appearances.[4] Therefore, a 1.0 WAR player has contributed an estimated -7.5 runs relative to average over the same number of plate appearances, a 2.0 WAR player has contributed +2.5 runs, and a 5.0 WAR player has contributed +32.5 runs.

For an individual player, WAR values may be calculated for single seasons or parts of seasons, for several seasons, or across the whole career of the player. Collective WAR values for multiple players may also be estimated, for example to determine the contribution a team receives from its outfielders, its relief pitchers or from specific positions such as catcher.[5][6] It is also possible to extrapolate a future WAR value from a player's past performance data.[7]

There is no clearly established formula for WAR. Sources that provide the statistic calculate it differently. These include Baseball Prospectus, Baseball Reference, and Fangraphs. All of these sources publish the method they use to calculate WAR, and all use similar basic principles to do so. The version published by Baseball Prospectus is named WARP,[8] that by Baseball Reference is named rWAR ("r" derives from "Rally" or "RallyMonkey", a nickname for Sean Smith, who implemented that site's version of the statistic) or bWAR,[9] and that for Fangraphs is named fWAR.[10] Compared to rWAR, the calculation of fWAR places greater emphasis on peripheral statistics.[2]

I'm sorry Cobra, but we already stopped talking about war. He was top the league in every other single metric as well.

[TheMaus2]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

If I had a gun pointed to my head, I would have given it to Mookie Betts. I really felt he Altuve, Donaldson, Cano, & Machado were all worthy. So I wouldn't have had a problem if either of them won it. Even Papi. But Trout would not have made it on my ballot. The fact that he is this statistical [wunderkind and can never even get in a pennant race makes me believe he isn't doing what it takes to lead a team. He's the Dominique Wilkins of baseball.

Edit: I forgot Beltre as well.

Oh, so he's supposed to carry the team while also being manager and doing the GM's job as well?

The man isn't supposed to give a pep talk and everything will be alright. Statistical as in being a monster base stealer and fielder while being a standout offensive player?

[Cobra Mgr]

Whatever he is doing, Maus, it is not translating to wins, the most important metric there is. And that dq's him, IMO.


Trot every stat you want. 77-84 trumps them all.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Trot every stat you want. 77-84 trumps them all.

No, it doesn't.

[Matt Arnold]

I do at least respect someone who takes that position. Fangraphs had an article basically daring voters to do that - leave him off the ballot.

But I still don't get that point of view. I mean, Altuve didn't lead his team to the playoffs - should that disqualify him as well?

And then there's the simple argument that how is it that Trout suddenly becomes a more valuable player if they added, say, Donaldson to their roster, and managed to get up to 84 or 85 wins? Is Betts more valuable to Boston now, or is he more valuable to them without Ortiz? Would Altuve's value to Houston increase if they added Rizzo to their roster?

Once you factor in team performance too much, it just leads to more questions than it answers.

[RchW]

You should have posted the link. It's an opportunity for people to learn.

Mike Trout and the Credibility of the MVP Award | FanGraphs Baseball

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

I do at least respect someone who takes that position. Fangraphs had an article basically daring voters to do that - leave him off the ballot.

But I still don't get that point of view. I mean, Altuve didn't lead his team to the playoffs - should that disqualify him as well?

And then there's the simple argument that how is it that Trout suddenly becomes a more valuable player if they added, say, Donaldson to their roster, and managed to get up to 84 or 85 wins? Is Betts more valuable to Boston now, or is he more valuable to them without Ortiz? Would Altuve's value to Houston increase if they added Rizzo to their roster?

Once you factor in team performance too much, it just leads to more questions than it answers.

Going the other way, was Mike Trout to blame for management's decision to allow the pitching corpses of Jered Weaver and Tim Lincecum to combine for 40 starts, pitch 216.1 IP (a shade over 15% of all of the innings that the Angels pitched this year) to the tune of a 14-18 record with a 5.78 ERA, a 1.622 WHIP, 11.52 H/9, 2.00 HR/9, 3.08 BB/9, 5.62 K/9, 1.82 K/BB, -1.0 fWAR, and -2.3 bWAR? Outside of the walk numbers, that's disgusting and was very damaging to the Angels cause. Weaver had an atrocious 5.62 FIP while Lincecum's was 7.16. Fire Mike Trout! Oh wait, that combined abomination was not his doing. What was he supposed to do? Walk into the clubhouse and tell them to turn back the clock 2 (in Weaver's case) to 5 (in Lincecum's case) years and get the lead out, and get their crap together for cryin' out loud?

Was he supposed to race in from CF and deflect that line drive away from staff ace Matt Shoemaker's head? Was he supposed to apply his healing touch to all the walking wounded? They used 53 players, including 30 pitchers due to all the injuries they sustained. Blame him all you want, but the fact is that outside of Kole Calhoun, Albert Pujols (bat only), C.J. Cron, the aforementioned Shoemaker, and Andrelton Simmons (some bat, mostly glove) the players that surrounded him weren't even of average major league quality. It's a miracle that a quad-A team like that was able to piece together 74 wins even with the spectacular Mike Trout.

I have a feeling all I'll get in response is more of the image posted below, along with a little bit of this...

...And that this thread has deteriorated into something like this.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

The myth of WAR is that it isn't subjective. It's every bit as subjective as the error. If there isn't a consensus on how to calculate it, then how can there be a consensus that it is THE stat to determine a player's worth? I love the attempt, I truly do. But it's importance is overrated. People quote it like it is the beat all that ends all. I don't go to that school. If Trout was so valuable, he would have meaningful at bats in September. WAR isn't telling us that. Somewhere, somehow, actual wins has to be put into the equation, IMO. So yeah, I roll my eyes at baseball de-emphasizing team success for the glory of the individual stat sheet stuffer.

Bill James "War" against WAR

"I am not saying that WAR is a bad statistic or a useless statistic, but it is not a perfect statistic, and in this particular case it is just dead wrong. It is dead wrong because the creators of that statistic have severed the connection between performance statistics and wins, thus undermining their analysis.”

No, I'm not Bill James.

[magnet 2.0]

You really bumped a thread from last year of you being horribly wrong for 3 pages?

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by magnet 2.0

You really bumped a thread from last year of you being horribly wrong for 3 pages?

I bumped a thread from last year of me, and evidently Bill James godfather of baseball analytics, being "wrong".

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I bumped a thread from last year of me, and evidently Bill James godfather of baseball analytics, being "wrong".

And you are both "wrong" (I don't like the use of the word "wrong" because it's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it) because you're equating a player doing everything in his earthly power to put his team in a position to win (which contrary to both of your stated beliefs, is all any one player can do) with actually being on a winning team. If a player is surrounded by what amounts to basically 24 pylons, does the fault lie with management or the player?

No amount of willing your team to victory is going to result in success if there aren't enough solid players around said player to get the job done, and in the case of the Angels it's become pathetically evident that this is sadly the case. Mike Trout keeps putting up historic seasons, and the Angels keep missing the playoffs or getting swept aside in the first round. Rather than denigrating this all-time great, why not mount a "Free Mike Trout" campaign, so he can finally become the MVP that he is by being on a winning team?

[RchW]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

And you are both "wrong" (I don't like the use of the word "wrong" because it's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it) because you're equating a player doing everything in his earthly power to put his team in a position to win (which contrary to both of your stated beliefs, is all any one player can do) with actually being on a winning team. If a player is surrounded by what amounts to basically 24 pylons, does the fault lie with management or the player?

No amount of willing your team to victory is going to result in success if there aren't enough solid players around said player to get the job done, and in the case of the Angels it's become pathetically evident that this is sadly the case. Mike Trout keeps putting up historic seasons, and the Angels keep missing the playoffs or getting swept aside in the first round. Rather than denigrating this all-time great, why not mount a "Free Mike Trout" campaign, so he can finally become the MVP that he is by being on a winning team?

LOL at first I thought I wrote this post because you have an avatar I once used. But for the record I agree 100%.😀

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by RchW

LOL at first I thought I wrote this post because you have an avatar I once used. But for the record I agree 100%.😀

Does this mean you are a fellow Drunk Jays Fan? (title of the blog that spawned the creation of this awesome piece of photoshopping).

[RchW]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

Does this mean you are a fellow Drunk Jays Fan? (title of the blog that spawned the creation of this awesome piece of photoshopping).

Yep 👍

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by RchW

Yep 👍

I think it was either the "return from the appendectomy" game or the "line drive off the noggin, with the only reaction being the question: DID WE GET THE OUT?" game that led to its creation, but man was it ever spot on.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

And you are both "wrong" (I don't like the use of the word "wrong" because it's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it) because you're equating a player doing everything in his earthly power to put his team in a position to win (which contrary to both of your stated beliefs, is all any one player can do) with actually being on a winning team. If a player is surrounded by what amounts to basically 24 pylons, does the fault lie with management or the player?

No amount of willing your team to victory is going to result in success if there aren't enough solid players around said player to get the job done, and in the case of the Angels it's become pathetically evident that this is sadly the case. Mike Trout keeps putting up historic seasons, and the Angels keep missing the playoffs or getting swept aside in the first round. Rather than denigrating this all-time great, why not mount a "Free Mike Trout" campaign, so he can finally become the MVP that he is by being on a winning team?

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.