|
|
Post by maddog1981 on Oct 4, 2012 21:29:57 GMT -5
It's a team dependant stat. If the guys in front of you aren't getting on base, then you can't bat them in. It's the same logic to why pitcher W-L records are meaningless. There's ultimately a big element out of your control that makes it a bad measure of actual performance. A good hitter on an inept offensive team is not going to have as many RBI as a good hitter on a good offensive team.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phoenix on Oct 4, 2012 21:44:45 GMT -5
Nope, i don't buy it because i've seen guys on good teams not drive in runs. then go to another team and not drive in runs. or drive in less than people around them.
Beside's that, i've seen guys have monster years....on Bad Teams. There are guys i've seen over the years who hit 20-25 homers, had good BA's, and never drove in a 100 runs, and other guys in the same lineups who did.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Oct 4, 2012 23:31:41 GMT -5
I have to go with Trout as well. I'm only about 60% sold on WAR but I don't need it to tell me that baserunning and defense matter and that Trout is far better at both than Cabrera while being basically even with the bat. Runs Created and most straight-up overall batting metrics place them equally--but Trout has other advantages that Miguel doesn't.
WAR may overstate the case because Angel Stadium is now being seen as an oppressive pitcher's park a la Safeco or old Dodger Stadium, while since the fences moved in Comerica is actually playing as slightly favorable to hitters (remember that big parks may suppress homers but they also increase singles, doubles, and triples). That's going to be a big plus for Trout but one-year park factors can be kind of wonky.
Don't care about strikeouts--they're just another type of out to me. I do care about double plays and Cabrera led the league in that category with 28, while Trout had 7. Trout led baseball in Runs Added by Baserunning, with an estimate of 12, while Cabrera was pegged at -4 (both numbers as of 9/24). 16 runs is not an insignificant amount. The glove? No comparison--Trout is an elite CF though admittedly not the far-and-away best with Austin Jackson and Michael Bourn around. Cabrera hasn't been as bad as some may have anticipated but he is not a good 3B glove, period.
I'm not really moved by the fact that Detroit made the playoffs and LA didn't. The Angels won more games than Detroit while playing in a much, much tougher division. Texas and Oakland are better than anyone in the Central and the Indians and Twins are far worse than the Mariners, and the Royals probably worse as well. Detroit's playoff appearance and LA's lack thereof amounts basically to a fluke of geography--not really something to build an MVP case around. The Angels cost themselves a playoff spot because Pujols hit like shit the first month and the bullpen was a complete sieve. I'm not really a fan of deciding MVP based on what a player's teammates do.
|
|
|
|
Post by chewey on Oct 4, 2012 23:33:22 GMT -5
But i'd give it to Cabrera, anyone 'sabermatrician ' or whatever that discounts BA and RBI's is a moron. Cabrera was awesome. With apologies - since we do share a lot of common interests in topics we like to talk about - I can't agree with the first part of the statement. Especially coming from someone who I remember in only 2008 was still bemoaning the fact that baseball had realigned the number of divisions from four to six.  Batting average is not a useless stat. But I think the sabermetricians were on to something when they pointed out that a slugger who hits 40 home runs a year but only has a .265 batting average can be much more valuable than a free swinger with a .333 batting average if the first guy has an OBP of .450 and the guy with the higher average only has an OBP of .350. I think anyone, traditionalist or sabermetrician, would take the slugger. Just happens that the sabermetrician can explain better why he would do so. I will agree Cabrera was still awesome. He'll win the MVP because he leads in categories that most people can understand. WAR is supposed to measure how many more "wins" you actually get for your team, but I don't understand all of the math, how the exact equation works, and nor do I care to break it down. |
|
|
|
Post by chewey on Oct 4, 2012 23:37:29 GMT -5
And I only put "Other" here so Chewey can vote for Cody Ross. ;D Hey the Sox made their first move toward a bounce back season today by firing Bobby Valentine. Everyone always says good baseball managers are overrated and they don't do that much. I think Valentine just proved that a bad manager can make even an awesome team on paper suck horribly. But at least my childhood team, the Reds, actually look legit for the first time since I was 13 years old and in the 9th grade! |
|
|
|
Post by Phoenix on Oct 5, 2012 0:22:17 GMT -5
oh i have no problem with OBP being important people have always known walks were important, they just have made a bigger deal out it. But still, you can't walk around the bases, someone has to get a hit.
as for the Division alignment. I still hold the same opinion. Baseball never should have expanded. too many teams no one cares about .. And i've heard it a hundred times' the purists were wrong LOL, look at the attendance".....and who's talking about baseball? turn on ESPN in july and they're talking football and basketball. And how many people watch the world Series?
Nope, im sorry, when i hear someone say 'they won the pennant!" my reaction is, no they won one of 4 divisions with maybe one other decent team.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Oct 5, 2012 0:32:18 GMT -5
I'm no fan at all of Selig's but baseball attendance is at an all-time high (point of perspective: Yankee Stadium was half-empty when Maris broke the HR record in '61) and they just signed a new television agreement that pretty much doubled their previous one. There hasn't been a work stoppage in 18 years and MLB is at a level of labor peace unseen in any of the other 3 major sports. Baseball, health-wise, is doing just fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Oct 5, 2012 7:28:39 GMT -5
I would be really surprised if Cabrera does not win the AL MVP.
|
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Oct 5, 2012 8:01:37 GMT -5
I'm not really moved by the fact that Detroit made the playoffs and LA didn't. The Angels won more games than Detroit while playing in a much, much tougher division. Texas and Oakland are better than anyone in the Central and the Indians and Twins are far worse than the Mariners, and the Royals probably worse as well. Detroit's playoff appearance and LA's lack thereof amounts basically to a fluke of geography--not really something to build an MVP case around. The Angels cost themselves a playoff spot because Pujols hit like shit the first month and the bullpen was a complete sieve. I'm not really a fan of deciding MVP based on what a player's teammates do. Slippery slope based in part on opinion. Oakland is better than anyone in the Central? What if the Tigers beat the A's in round 1, then what? Are they better then? Imagine if we applied this logic to other sports -- RG3 won the Heisman playing at Baylor in the Big 12. The Big 12 hasn't done much of anything in years. Baylor doesn't have much of a schedule. Should RG3 have been excluded based on those criteria? Should Tom Brady and Bill Belichick not be named to the HOF because they've dominated one of the crappiest divisions in our lifetimes with the Jets, Fish and Bills the past decade? Only college football takes into account strength of schedule, and there are fewer cluster fucks to be found than the BCS. Baseball is by far the most over-analyzed, may I as say by several snobs (mostly in the media), of the all the major sports. imo, WAR is just another equation to give these people something more to over-analyze. It's not that hard to figure out. Dude led in BA, drove in the most runs and had the most pops, more than ANYONE else in baseball? Duh. If Trout is such a great fielder then give the kid a fielding award. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Oct 5, 2012 9:00:06 GMT -5
Slippery slope based in part on opinion. Oakland is better than anyone in the Central? What if the Tigers beat the A's in round 1, then what? Are they better then? /quote] No. 162 games are more meaningful than 5. The postseason is fun but it's there to determine a champion, which isn't synonymous with "best team." Were the Giants really "better" than New England in 2007? They beat them when it counted, but...really? Were the 83-win Cardinals really the best team in baseball when they won the Series in '06? Playoffs are usually about who's hot at the right time, not who the best team is. Well, I don't think those criteria apply to RG3. The Big 12 that year was better than every other conference except the SEC and it may actually have been deeper than the SEC even without an Alabama or LSU at the top. And Baylor did have TCU on the schedule that year in addition to playing everyone else in the conference. As a more extreme example, strength of schedule did cost Steve McNair a Heisman that he probably deserved based purely on ability. There are more intradivision games in baseball than in football (percentage-wise) and the Patriots beat plenty of other teams put in front of them. |
|
