Comments on: If you’re in the opinion business, be prepared to defend your opinions

By: Jonny 5

Jonny 5 — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 15:09:18 +0000

There is enough of a reasonable argument for both Trout and Miggy (it’s Trout for me) that I couldn’t demean the opposing opinion at all. I put more importance on some aspects of the game, while others put more on other aspects. Oh well, it’s nice to hear your point of view. Some folks have good reasons for why wine is better than beer. I think they’re lacking something in the sensory department that I was lucky enough to be born with, but I don’t tell them they’re an idiot for not seeing it my way. I appreciate the same respect back, although I don’t expect it or let it get my feathers ruffled because it is to be expected in this format.

By: normcash

normcash — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 22:13:19 +0000

I agree with you. I wasn’t saying these measures are worthless–I think they add value. All I was trying to say is that they aren’t perfect. I didn’t want to get into the nitty gritty of it here, but
an example would be the fact that WAR is actually calculation based on other calculations
(such as wOBA, UZR and FIP) all of which make “adjustments” for various factors (the ballparks,
for example) that are quite subjective. So you have assumptions piled on assumptions. I got a kick
out of one of the people on the MLB network making a big deal of how many DPs Cabrera hits into vs. Trout. Well, Trout bats lead off, so in about 25% of his ABs it’s impossible for him to hit into a DP.
To the extent sabermetrics adds insight to the game, great! But it has limitations, as even its advocates will admit—that’s why they constantly tinker with it. It’s probably a fool’s errand to think
one could ever get it perfectly right. My main point is that the folks who advocate its use should be
more honest about it and less emotional. I haven’t counted it up, of course, but the outraged posts
and columns and whatnot from the sabermetricians sure seem to outweigh the folks on the other side. Let me ask you: do you believe that if Inge played third for the Tigers this year and Cabrera
wasn’t on the team they would have won 84 games instead of 88?

By: stevejeltzjehricurl

stevejeltzjehricurl — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 19:53:35 +0000

Sorry, Norm, but I’d say both sides are pretty emotional at times, and my unbiased view (I’m not from Detroit or SoCal) is that the folks defending Cabrera’s selection are more likely to get into the name-calling (see Mitch Albom).

I’m a Phillies fan, and I recall when Ryan Howard won the MVP in 2006 and Rollins in 2007. I celebrated both selections because it was a great thing for a player who played for my favorite team. I could, if I had chosen to do so at that time, have figured out countless reasons why such a selection seemed right to me. And as I noted earlier, I don’t think Cabrera’s suggestion is one of the worst MVP calls ever. But one problem I suspect I would have had in 2006 and 2007, and I think a lot of Cabrera backers have right now, is that it’s difficult to answer or undercut the arguments being made in favor of Trout as MVP over Cabrera.

You seem to have an objection to WAR as a metric, but you don’t really explain why you think it’s flawed, other than to say it’s “riddled with assumptions” which are unstated. I’m not sure what that means, since anyone who wants to take 10 minutes using Google could figure out how WAR is calculated. I agree that the calculations for WAR are more complicated than the ones for traditional metrics, but that doesn’t make them wrong, and it doesn’t make the assumptions that you refer to incorrect.

You’re perfectly free to argue that Cabrera was more valuable (whatever that actually means) and base the argument on traditional metrics, but keep in mind that those traditional metrics have their flaws as well. The reason more complex metrics like WAR have been developed is so that people involved in baseball can try to find more effective ways to quantify and value performance. I don’t think that’s a bad thing.

By: normcash

normcash — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 19:29:03 +0000

My sense of things, from reading various blogs and baseball sites and columns, is that the sabermatricians are much more emotional over the Cabrera vs. Trout issue than the other side.
And more numerous, which is probably a function of their greater affinity for and comfort with
computers. My problem with their arguments is that they purport to base their position on statistical analysis—math. 2 + 2 equals 4—you can’t argue with that! And, if you do, you’re obviously an
idiot! But, of course, these analysis are riddled with assumptions, especially the WAR metric, most
of which and not only unstated but treated as though they don’t exist at all. Thus, we’re supposed to
take it as science that Trout was responsible for 10 more Angels wins while Cabrera was only
responsible for 4 more Tigers wins. Nobody who actually watched the Tigers this year would believe that. Without Cabrera, the Tigers are the White Sox or Blue Jays, not the AL pennant-winners.
What sabermatricians lack is a sense of the limitations of their methodology. A little humility would do them good.

By: albertmn

albertmn — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 19:12:06 +0000

I may not have been clear. I don’t expect it to bother you. I just figured that if you rant, someone will link to this later, even if it doesn’t really apply. With the internet, people seem to be able to dredge up anything and everything ever said and try to use it against someone.

By: Craig Calcaterra

Craig Calcaterra — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:35:22 +0000

We don’t block or pre-screen any comments here. If something does not show up it’s either because the user has been blocked — which rarely happens — or because the spam filter has picked it up. Legit comments picked up by the spam filter (again, rare) that are not spam are approved by us in a very short time. Occasionally the WP comments engine gets overloaded and some comments have trouble getting up, but that too is rare.

At no time, ever, have we blocked critical comments that don’t otherwise violate our very liberal terms of use..

But hey, you know this, because your comments make it to the page all the time.

By: Just a Fan

Just a Fan — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:32:29 +0000

Don’t forget the part where posts don’t make it to the page, because people like you Craig don’t allow criticism your own post to be viewed.

This probably won’t make it on the page either…..at least your consistent.

By: hushbrother

hushbrother — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:24:01 +0000

Since this blog post is directed at media members and other bloggers there’s not much for a commenter to say, other than, I agree, keep it civil. It’s friggin’ baseball, after all.

By: Carl Hancock

Carl Hancock — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:17:19 +0000

Indeed it does. I never said the Cabrera supporters weren’t abusive either. I just noticed that the Trout supporters tending to be more so. They were very condescending and would insinuate anyone who didn’t agree with the analytics behind their argument was a moron.

I like both players and thought they both had amazing seasons. They were both worthy of the award. I wouldn’t have complained no matter which one took him the award. Trying to act as if Trout was robbed is just silly considering the season both players had.

They both took him awards and I’m sure they are both very happy and don’t have any gripes about how it panned out.

By: schlom

schlom — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:12:35 +0000

I don’t know why anyone would take an award seriously when Raul Ibanez got a vote.

By: Detroit Michael

Detroit Michael — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:51:07 +0000

There was at least one prior election when all the AL MVP ballots were made public, not just selected writers publicizing their own ballots..

By: stex52

stex52 — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:26:26 +0000

Oh God, is it true? Where are the Twinkies??????? Gotta Go!!!!!!!!

By: stex52

stex52 — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:24:54 +0000

damned correction “agree” not “free”

By: stex52

stex52 — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:24:10 +0000

I don’t free with everything you say, but you are on to the key point. They feel threatened in their livelihoods. That can make people borderline deadly. And certainly civility goes first.

By: stevejeltzjehricurl

stevejeltzjehricurl — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:18:43 +0000

There have been worse travesties than this one in MVP voting; Trout deserved to win, but Cabrera’s season is far from being unworthy of the award.

The real issue here is what Craig noted — people seem to be offended by others taking apart their arguments, even in a civil tone, for why they voted for Cabrera. They’re trying to play off their alleged expertise — “how dare these amateurs question my judgement, when I have so much more knowledge than them!” It even shows up in the quality of the arguments, when they make them — I think a lot of people making arguments on behalf of Cabrera, because they’ve focused on issues like the Triple Crown and the Tigers winning the AL Central, failed to make stronger arguments that might be more helpful to his case, such as noting how many more games he played than Trout (which is not Trout’s fault, but it is a factor).

Bottom line, even if you have years of experience doing something, that doesn’t mean your authority should be unquestioned or that you shouldn’t be subjected to criticism. Criticism should strengthen and sharpen your arguments, if you actually take the time to address the issues raised by critics. And if you can’t answer their arguments, it may be because you’re wrong.

By: hisgirlgotburrelled

hisgirlgotburrelled — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:03:11 +0000

I saw a lot of comments about stat-heads not understanding the game of baseball and just going by advanced statistics. It went both ways.

By: hisgirlgotburrelled

hisgirlgotburrelled — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:59:54 +0000

I think a lot of why Cabrera won by such a large margin is because a lot of people looked at Trout winning as a win for WAR and a loss for voting and opinions. What would be the point of expressing your opinion and voting for the award if you just gave the award to the player with the highest WAR?

By: a125125125

a125125125 — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:55:14 +0000

I have an idea….let’s all act like this pointless award really matters. Then let’s visit blogs and buy newspapers that discuss this topic.

#We’reGettingPlayedByReporters

By: APBA Guy

APBA Guy — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:54:44 +0000

There’s a lot of “echo chamber” in people’s lives, especially among those who have a vested stake in the positions they take. We’re seeing it in politics, particularly among those whose prognostications were way off base in this last election. And now in the sports world, among those whose opinions (and MVP votes) were based less on reason and more on emotion.

If you surround yourself and only listen to those who agree with you, you cease to be as informed as you could be. That’s why your boss is most likely a dickhead. When was the last time someone said “no” to your boss? And that’s why those people get push back from other people who don’t have to agree with them.

Instead of getting mad or defensive, these old school sportswriters should use this as an opportunity to learn something.

By: bluburt

bluburt — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:50:37 +0000

It’s my opinion and you MUST, MUST, MUST agree…!!!

By: Carl Hancock

Carl Hancock — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:46:26 +0000

I noticed Trout supports were far more abusive with their arguments. They were talking down to anyone who disagreed, acted as if Cabrera didn’t have a great season and anything other than a Trout MVP would be a crime. It was absurd. Both players were worthy. There wasn’t a wrong winner no matter which one of them ended up winning.

By: churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged

churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:38:08 +0000

If having their inidividual ballots released was a surprise (although it’s been done somewhat sporadically in the past), then their ire should be directed to the BBWAA.

The BBWAA kept the ballots secret until this year. However, many writers like Keith Law choose to inform the public about who they voted for, and why. Klaw even mentioned that if there were an announcement about making the ballots public, he must have missed it because it caught him completely by surprise.

By: paperlions

paperlions — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:29:37 +0000

I don’t think any writer that votes has the right to be upset at reactions to their vote. If they can’t win an argument to support their opinion (in this case, their votes) based on the facts at hand, then they should re-evaluate how they form their opinions. Getting pissed that your opinion isn’t as well supported as others is childish and the wrong response to being shown you were wrong.

By: sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo

sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:28:08 +0000

To be read in the voice of the lisping Sicilian from The Princess Bride: “Accountability for my published opinions, for which I am paid? Inconceivable!”

By: Bill Parker

Bill Parker — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:23:45 +0000

That’s a really important distinction, I think. The nameless piece that created this didn’t make any effort to engage the criticism. It acknowledged the counterarguments, proving that the author HAD actually paid attention, but then made no effort to refute them AT ALL, basically just said “nyah nyah we won and you lost!”

By: willclarkgameface

willclarkgameface — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:20:34 +0000

The angry BBWAA reaction generally comes from the fact that all of their jobs are in jeopardy and they refuse to move into the world of new media. They will take it out on all of the fans of the game because they want you to believe they are highly important individuals, all that talking they do about games and stories.

Newspapers suck.

By: heyblueyoustink

heyblueyoustink — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:20:27 +0000

I know, he’s so very serious this morning. I wonder if the demise of Hostess is bothering him. It’s a tremendous blow to the cake faction.

By: indaburg

indaburg — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:14:03 +0000

Even though I was a member of the “Trout crowd”, I thought Cabrera would ultimately win because he was heavy on the stats and narrative that the BBWAA is keen on. So, no, I would not have said “I told you so.” I would have been too surprised. Had Trout won, the headlines would have read something like “Not Your Father’s MVP.” It would have been seen as mainstream acceptance of non-traditional stats.

If my 3 year old could fashion an articulate argument with supporting statistics about why she should have a lollipop before dinner, I wouldn’t call it whining or complaining.

By: historiophiliac

historiophiliac — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:13:50 +0000

Well, then, you were the gift that keeps on giving.

By: historiophiliac

historiophiliac — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:11:58 +0000

Accountability? Do you pay them? Are they expending your tax dollars? Defending the national borders? Are they liable for anything under criminal or civil law depending on their vote? Are you going to call a grand jury?

People take this waaaaaay to seriously.