Comments on: Revisiting Trout vs. Cabrera MVP debate — with a twist

By: 18thstreet

18thstreet — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 19:41:15 +0000

Great post. The fact is, I read this piece (as a stat geek) and think, “I would like to learn more about this!” while stat detractors say, “I don’t want to hear anything that disagrees with my opinion.”

By: anythingbutyanks

anythingbutyanks — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 17:13:34 +0000

I don’t think it does assign more value. Each at bat has a maximum potential value that depends on the context (empty bases vs runners on, and also where the runners are). Each base that can be gained is worth .100 points, so a home run with empty bases= 4 bases, or .400 max value. If there are runners on second and third, then the max value for the batter is to hit a home run which is four bases for himself, 1 for the man on third, and 2 for the man on second, or a total of .700 for that at bat. If he hits a deep fly ball that gets an out but advances both runners one base, then he has gained .200 of the maximum possible value of .700, or about 28.7% of the optimal value of that at bat. The final statistic doesn’t reflect the net added value, but the percentage of the optimal value that a batsman ears. Because the optimal value changes with the context, where the batter is in the lineup or what situations he faces when he bats do not increase or decrease the final value of the batter compared to those who face other contexts on a regular basis. The other thing about this stat that would be cool is that the % of optimal value achieved can be calculated for different situations fairly easily. For example, one can quickly calculate the %OV achieved for batting with runners in scoring position, which would be a way to differentiate who is the best batter to have batting 3rd or 4th. Likewise, you can determine who achieves the highest %OV with the bases empty (when the highest OV is always .400) and that would be your best bet for a leadoff batter. Make sense?

By: dabirdguy

dabirdguy — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 16:11:09 +0000

What I have NOT seen from the stats guys is the third part of this argument no one discusses….

Most valuable to WHOM?
On a team with 4 serious home run guys Cabrera would be a nice piece, but Trout would be a huge asset because of his OBP and base running skills.
A team with a bunch of rabbits would have more need of a Cabrera type hitter to drive them home.

All the current systems I have seen do not factor in team need.

By: jarathen

jarathen — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 10:54:11 +0000

The problem with such an approach is that you’re assigning more value, by default, on a player who has people getting on base ahead of them. That doesn’t have much to do with their skill. It’s like the old “clutch” argument. If a player is so good in close situations, what’s he doing the rest of the time?

By: historiophiliac

historiophiliac — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 06:06:58 +0000

hahahahahahahaha

Seriously, you must be young.

By: hardballtalkusername

hardballtalkusername — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 06:04:29 +0000

Did you even click on the link? It’s a subgenre of alternative rock which drew upon earlier influences of British guitar pop music in the 60s/70s (i.e. the British Invasion). Most people that pay attention to music, would correctly identify this term with the 90s music. Hence why you have 2 positive and 6 negatives when asking “How can Britpop be about 90′s music?”

By: historiophiliac

historiophiliac — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 05:06:52 +0000

Oh, yeah, I totally remembered why I don’t have this conversation with you guys. buh-bye

By: anythingbutyanks

anythingbutyanks — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 03:51:13 +0000

I would really like to see a Total QBR equivalent stat for baseball- something that measures the value of an at bat against the total possible value, with context an important component of the statistic. As an (unsophisticated) example, assign a point (.100) for each base gained for an at bat (.100 for an empty-bases single, .200 for a double, .600 for a triple with runners on second and third). If the bases are loaded, the optimal value of the at bat is 1.000, and a bases clearing double is worth .800, or 80% of the optimal value of that at bat. An additional point can be earned for each base stolen, and outs would be worth .000 points for getting out with bases empty, or .100 for each base than a runner is advanced. Negative points would be assigned for GIDPs, LOBs, CSs and so forth. By the end of the season you could simply add the points earned and the points possible over the course of the season to find out how much of the optimal performance a player had. For example, if a player had 400 at bats with an average optimal value of .475, their max value would be 400*(.475) or 190. If they averaged slightly less than a base per PA (including advancing other players), say .080 points for the season, then they earned 400*(.080) or 32 of the possible 190 points for a contribution equal to 16.8% of their maximum possible value at the plate. Since the final data point is standardized to a player’s own maximum value, it would allow all batters to be compared with a single number that fairly represents their value and allows apples to apples comparisons of players who bat 1st or 4th or 9th, on good offensive teams or poor ones. This would obviously need a lot of refinement, but am I missing some reason why this is completely unworkable?

By: atlrod

atlrod — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 02:46:00 +0000

To be fair, I did try to think of scenarios where “Most Productive” would not equal “Most Valuable.” The only way I could I come up with a viable scenario is if there is a separate category that that’s entirely sentimental which would be a calculation of productivity. In other words, it’s entirely subjective and nebulous. But seeing as how no one is saying, “Yes, but player X has 10 quozarks of emotional productions, so they are then more productive” I still can’t come up with a consistent rationale. It’s always, “Yeah but numbers I like AND the number of lots of other players besides the one we’re trying to reward.” It’s never, “Yeah but number AND imaginary category mean most productivity.”

i can’t handle this. It makes no sense. I wish people would just say (not in this circumstance because, obviously, someone here is using an apparently objective tool) “I just FEEL like this other one is more.” At that point you can’t be argued with. Fine. You’re entitled to feel that way. It doesn’t mean that you’re right or even that your feeling is equally as valid. It’s not. It’s irrational and incomplete and inconsistent. But it IS how you feel. So… vote away.

By: xjokerz

xjokerz — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 01:37:38 +0000

” My sense, based on my reading of the numbers, Trout was better than Cabrera.”

yet he destroyed Trout in the MVP voting.

By: kvanhorn87

kvanhorn87 — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 01:19:32 +0000

Only stat that matters to billy beane when players are close is salary. No way any team would have rather had Cabrera over trout. With trout you could still afford a top ace and some middle relief help.

By: paperlions

paperlions — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 01:14:17 +0000

Yes, people really think that….no, we currently do not have the technology to reach their distant galaxy to infuse logic into their mental processes.

By: paperlions

paperlions — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 01:12:51 +0000

FWIW, I never thought Dave Mathews was pretentious (I find his music rather boring, but whatever)…..I just thought his fans were pretentious….to me, they were like pre-hipsters.

By: atlrod

atlrod — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 00:37:55 +0000

Wait, so games only acquire value when a team makes the playoffs? A player, in your hypothetical, is contributing 20 games of winning to a team, but because his team sucks, all of those games equal zero? Do people actually think like this? That’s entirely irrational. “No, I saw them play the games. I get it. Those games just don’t exist anymore because they didn’t win enough of the games. If they had won more of the games, all of those games would now instantly count. But sorry… they just don’t mean anything now. It’s all a zero.”

“Most Productive Player” is always the “Most Valuable Player” only in universes in which both logic and the English language are functioning properly. Otherwise, you’re right. There do exist scenarios where those two terms are not equivalent.

By: atlrod

atlrod — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 00:33:29 +0000

Are you drunk? Just be honest. I’m not judging you. I just want to know if you’re drunk-posting.

By: Roger Moore

Roger Moore — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 23:59:34 +0000

I’m not even sure you can conclude that Cabrera was a better hitter. Baseball-Reference lists Comerica as a moderate hitter’s park (BPF=104), while Angels Stadium is a strong pitcher’s park (BPF=92). That means Trout might have been a better hitter in spite of his slightly worse raw numbers. If Cabrera has a real advantage, it’s that he got into 22 more games and had almost 10% more plate appearances. 22 extra games of a hitter of Cabrera’s caliber is worth quite a bit.

By: Jonny 5

Jonny 5 — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 23:56:15 +0000

I’d say any team out there using statistics is going to weigh the values according to their needs. A team with a stronger offense using the same formula as the A’s would probably come to a different conclusion than the A’s did here and they’d value Trout more so. War is measuring an average of everyone but few teams have average offense and defense causing them to value different aspects of a players game. Teams with a well below average offense, say the Cubs are going to possibly value Miggy more. I don’t see how this effects the MVP vote because it shouldn’t. It’s hard for me to see how Miggy gets my vote but it is just an award and people do value team success in these things for some reason, so ehhhh… Whatever. Very nice to see this type of article written, I like it. It gives people something to wrap their brain around while blasting team decisions based solely on war. It’s a good measure but things are even more complicated than war values when looked at on a team by team basis using their needs as a contributing factor in their equation for value instead of plain old war.

By: takingbovadasmoney

takingbovadasmoney — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 23:50:56 +0000

Lol, Posnanski the troll is back at it. Last year on NBCSports he picked Trout for MVP based solely on WAR, even though Baseball Prospectus and fan graphs analysis say that it just one tool to be used, but when asked by Eric Kuslieus, Mr. Posnanski didn’t know who the WAR leader in the NL was. So WAR is only relevant in the AL? Like the people who are the major proponents of WAR say it is only A tool, not THE tool, ‘cuz Mr. Posnanski is clearly THE tool.

By: historiophiliac

historiophiliac — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 22:39:03 +0000

You mean that’s when some people decided to label it like that. How old are you?

By: hardballtalkusername

hardballtalkusername — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 22:32:43 +0000

Ummm, because that’s when this subgenre started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britpop

By: clydeserra

clydeserra — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 22:00:53 +0000

the measure also may be “Trout v Bourgouis” rather than “Trout v League” and “Cabrera v Inge”, instead of “Cabrera v. League.”

which is what was brought up earlier in the comments

By: Kevin Gillman

Kevin Gillman — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 21:50:54 +0000

For now, but you better believe that price tag will go up.

By: pappageorgio

pappageorgio — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 21:29:47 +0000

it would make sense, based on what we know of Oakland, that baserunning might be weighted less. Getting on base or getting to second is just that in oak. In WAR I believe that a single and a SB is valued higher than getting a double.

Oakland also might not believe in the idea of a “replacement player” that lives in AAA, under the bridge, or at the end of a rainbow. The A’s seem like a team that places hard values on stats…….not making comparisons to fictional replacments with arbitrary positional values.

By: historiophiliac

historiophiliac — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 21:27:30 +0000

Yea!

num num num num num

By: jwbiii

jwbiii — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 21:26:54 +0000

Reflex, Barry Zito was a first round #9 pick, Mark Mulder a first round #2 pick, and Tim Hudson a sixth round #185 pick. Not many teams passed on Zito. Two which did picked Josh Hamilton and Josh Beckett instead. The Phillies chose Pat Burrell ahead of Mulder. You could argue that Hudson fell due to college pitchers being undervalued, but the A’s had high picks in ’98 and ’99 and chose and developed well.

If the A’s were able to turn sixth round picks into players of Hudson’s quality, they’d win the World Series every year. The A’s have gotten some decent players from the sixth round, but Sal Bando and Jim Sundberg were drafted before Beane was 10 and Alvin Davis was drafted while he was playing A ball in the Mets system. (I missed him by a few years. I spent a few weeks in Lynchburg in the summer of ’79 and took in a Lynchburg Mets game. Ron Gardenhire was good.)

By: hackerjay

hackerjay — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 21:05:12 +0000

I think this probably explains most of the difference. Though, one other thing to keep in mind is that the major league teams have access to Field FX, and therefore they have much more fielding data then any of the Sabermetric sites. It’s possible that their fielding stats found Miggy to be much better then people thought, and Trouts wasn’t as good as people thought. That could very easily close the gap between the two.

By: wlschneider09

wlschneider09 — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 20:58:01 +0000

Or it’s as simple as albert says, they just don’t weight the defense and baserunning as highly.

By: wlschneider09

wlschneider09 — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 20:55:15 +0000

Really Historio? You thought Dave Matthews was pretentious and now you’re defending Oasis?

/throws bread pudding

By: Chris Fiorentino

Chris Fiorentino — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 20:48:31 +0000

depends on your definition of “value”. Some people think if your team doesn’t make the playoffs, then the team had no value that year and thus, the players had no value either. If they lost 90 games with him, they could have lost 110 without him and it wouldn’t have made a bit of difference.

Others think that 20 game difference, even though it didn’t mean squat with regards to the playoffs, is “value”.

Me? I don’t care. MVP is a made-up award voted on by people who use 100 different methods and reasons for voting so why would I waste my time debating that? Same with the CY. Same with the HOF. It’s all a big waste of time as long as the BBWAA controls the awards.

By: Chris Fiorentino

Chris Fiorentino — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 20:45:02 +0000

Oh stop it now!! That is just ludicrous. You mean to tell me the ONLY team to draft college players was the A’s? Give me a break. Yes, I get the concept that they would only draft college players because they were being undervalued. But that was a very small part of the entire Moneyball concept. The fact is that the A’s got lucky getting those three studs all within a couple years of each other and almost all of their success was directly related to those three studs pitching as well as they did.

Much like the Phillies of 2011 actually…studs pitching well, but getting knocked out early. Of course, the difference is that the Phillies paid a fortune for Halladay, Lee and even Oswalt whereas the A’s drafted them.

If you want to say that the only reason they got pitchers of the quality of Hudson, Mulder and Zito was Moneyball, then you are blindly following the sheep. Moneyball is a nice concept, but with regards to the A’s early 2000′s success, it had a very minimal effect at BEST.