SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
The Big Bad Mookie Betts Thread
|
Post by telson13 on Oct 2, 2016 14:27:48 GMT -5
Nick Cafardo had an interesting comment on the Trout vs Betts M.V.P. Debate. Opined that if there were a Player of the Year" award, Trout would have his vote. But considering Betts' contribution actually had an impact on his team and its position in the pennant race, Mookie had his vote. Crap. That's the kiss of death for my position. No argument can stand up to being agreed upon by Nick Cafardo...
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 3, 2016 8:21:29 GMT -5
The Mookie Betts love affair is astonishing to me. 5'9" 156lbs, 5th rd pick in low A. Having a nice 2 week stretch, let's all simmer down. I wonder if people would feel the same things if he were white and his name was Jim Smith. I'm glad he's doing well and has talent but let not get all over his ranking as revisionists over a couple week stretch. I any of you complaining ha him in your preseason top 30 then fire away. If not simmer. The differences between 30 and 50 is very very fluid. Most guys are long shots and the preference is given to the guys who are closer. He going to be an MVP candidate in just a couple of years! Mark my words! Just catching up... good find but nothing I said there was off base even a little bit. The over reaction on him was out of hand. Sure this one turned out but just because it did doesn't make those reactions intelligent ones. If u put all your roulette money on 00 every time, eventually you will have a story about how you made all this money but you lost all the other times. We all love ourselves some Mookie, but just because u may have jumped on him looking at a couple weeks of box scores from A ball doesn't make you some super fan or Nostradamus.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 3, 2016 8:25:50 GMT -5
He going to be an MVP candidate in just a couple of years! Mark my words! Just catching up... good find but nothing I said there was off base even a little bit. The over reaction on him was out of hand. Sure this one turned out but just because it did doesn't make those reactions intelligent ones. If u put all your roulette money on 00 every time, eventually you will have a story about how you made all this money but you lost all the other times. We all love ourselves some Mookie, but just because u may have jumped on him looking at a couple weeks of box scores from A ball doesn't make you some super fan or Nostradamus. Guess they hit 00 more than once in the last few years with Xander, Mookie and JBJ.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 3, 2016 8:30:04 GMT -5
Yes hey have! And hopefully Benintendi etc as well.
But you know full well what I'm referring to. People jump on hot streaks from prospects all the time and over react. Just because one asinine proclamation turns out true doesn't make that an intelligent statement at the time.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 3, 2016 8:39:33 GMT -5
By the way, with regards to the MVP discussion, Trout is the better player having the better season. No doubt.
As far as the award goes, there is no definition on what value is intended for. This whole desert island stuff while illustrating a point I feel is missing the mark. If you want to make the argument that an MVP has to be on a good team then you really need to carry that thru and disqualify anyone at any time from being MVP on a team that doesn't make the playoffs. After all, in the world of professional sports you either win or you don't. Being on the Tigers or Angels should have no difference today as both missed the playoffs.
Basically, if you vote Mookie you are saying his season was more valuable than Trout because he had better teammates. Also, if you vote that way then you better have never supported a player for MVP on a non playoff team.
If I could vote, I'd vote for Trout. He's the most valuable player in baseball. If the Red Sox had him instead of Mookie they probably have home field throughout the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 3, 2016 8:42:19 GMT -5
Side note: nothing to do with how one should vote but if Trout doesn't win the MVP, then he will have been easily the best player in baseball (not just the AL) for each of the last 6 years and hold exactly 1 MVP award. It makes the award a joke.
Or maybe it does have to do with how one should vote. I'm not usually a fan of the "life time achievement" thing. Rewarding someone in one year they don't deserve it because of the other years of their work. It's not fair to the others you are leaving out. It is kind of like giving LOTR: Return of the King best picture.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 3, 2016 16:25:50 GMT -5
Mike Trout is the most VALUABLE player in baseball by the literal definition of the word, don't @ me.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Oct 3, 2016 21:35:45 GMT -5
Nick Cafardo had an interesting comment on the Trout vs Betts M.V.P. Debate. Opined that if there were a Player of the Year" award, Trout would have his vote. But considering Betts' contribution actually had an impact on his team and its position in the pennant race, Mookie had his vote. Not to pick on you, but in what way is that interesting? We literally hear this argument every year.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 4, 2016 0:27:33 GMT -5
There's a pretty distinct break in the bWAR leader board after Xander (ranked 27th with 3.7), so I did the clutch-adjusted figure for the top 27 guys. The clutch figure, in the second column, has already been included in the Tot. You can add 0.9 to Papi for DH adjustment error.
I also calculated the difference between wOBA in Sept/October and as of August 31; that's in the last column. That proved to be very interesting. Can you see why?
The top 20 guys here include 6 2B (plus one converted to RF), 5 SS, and 4 3B (including one who doubles at SS). That's sick.
Name Tot Cl 9Diff Trout 10.5 -0.1 -.011 Betts 9.5 -0.1 -.052 Beltre 8.1 1.7 . 074 Cano 7.6 0.3 -.004 Donaldson 7.4 0.0 -.068 Pedroia 7.3 1.7 -.045 Lindor 6.7 1.0 -.033 Correa 6.5 0.6 -.064 Machado 6.5 -0.2 -.083 Ramirez J. 6.5 2.6 .008 Seager 6.3 -0.6 -.051 Kipnis 6.2 2.1 -.021 Altuve 5.9 -1.8 -.109 Kiermaier 5.8 0.3 .077 Andrus 5.7 2.0 .115 Kinsler 5.7 -0.4 .075 Eaton 5.4 -0.8 .045 Ortiz 5.4 0.3 .000 Bogaerts 4.7 1.0 -.025 Dozier 4.7 -1.8 -.007 Springer 4.4 -0.6 -.003 Cabrera Mi. 4.3 -0.6 .071 Bradley 3.7 -1.6 -.052 Longoria 3.4 -0.4 -.082 Simmons 3.0 -1.2 .056 Cruz 3.0 -1.7 .053 Encarnacion 2.8 -0.9 -.030 For the 21 guys who played for contenders, there was a nice trend (r = .26, p = .25) for guys who were clutch all year to be relatively better in September than the guys who were unclutch. For the six guys who played for also-rans, it was p = .1, r = .85.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 4, 2016 0:56:36 GMT -5
... But you know full well what I'm referring to. People jump on hot streaks from prospects all the time and over react. Just because one asinine proclamation turns out true doesn't make that an intelligent statement at the time. ...and it doesn't mean it wasn't, either, unless we're throwing logic out the window. It could just as easily have been an educated guess as "asinine". As for Jim Smith, he's certainly welcome to give 9+ wins a try and make it 3-way race.
|
|
|
Post by doctorduck21 on Oct 4, 2016 2:54:35 GMT -5
About the MVP, I think Mookie wins it but if I had a vote, I would give it to Trout. I've always seen it as a best player award with team performance as a tiebreaker between 2 even players. However Mookie in most years would be a near runaway. He just happens to play in the same time as someone who can be a top 10 all time player. Both are fine picks to me and I wouldn't feel robbed if either won. The playoff argument was ruined for me when people used that for Cabrera's team making it by winning their division even thou the Angels had won more games
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Oct 4, 2016 4:42:48 GMT -5
When it comes down to it, the "from a playoff team" people are essentially arguing that the rules say they can vote for whomever they want for whatever reasons they want. I hope one year someone takes this to it's logical extreme and votes for a dining room table and Lebron James just to see the uproar among these same BBWAA morons.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 4, 2016 8:59:56 GMT -5
... But you know full well what I'm referring to. People jump on hot streaks from prospects all the time and over react. Just because one asinine proclamation turns out true doesn't make that an intelligent statement at the time. ...and it doesn't mean it wasn't, either, unless we're throwing logic out the window. It could just as easily have been an educated guess as "asinine". As for Jim Smith, he's certainly welcome to give 9+ wins a try and make it 3-way race. Norm you know full well predicting an MVP for a guy from low A with limited track record is not an educated guess. It's a cute find tho.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Oct 4, 2016 9:07:21 GMT -5
About the MVP, I think Mookie wins it but if I had a vote, I would give it to Trout. I've always seen it as a best player award with team performance as a tiebreaker between 2 even players. However Mookie in most years would be a near runaway. He just happens to play in the same time as someone who can be a top 10 all time player. Both are fine picks to me and I wouldn't feel robbed if either won. The playoff argument was ruined for me when people used that for Cabrera's team making it by winning their division even thou the Angels had won more games Well the BWAA has had a long history of not giving the MVP to the best player. Mickey Mantle was deserving of more than his three MVPs.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 4, 2016 9:11:16 GMT -5
The only real question that should be answered to find the MVP is:
with what they did this season which player would you most want to have been on your team? Answer that while ignoring who you had at particular positions and you should find your MVP.
It's not about who you could trade for who. Because salaries and age should not have anything to do with the MVP. It's a performance based award for what happened that season.
That bring said there isn't much of an argument for Mookie over Trout. But if you wanted to argue something baseball wise, it would be Mookies defense. Sure it's tied up on WAR but it's also questionable how accurately it's measured. Baseball is largely a sport where you can't make your teammates better unless you are a catcher with the pitching staff OR your outstanding defense improves the pitching. Mookie was arguably one of the best defensive players in baseball this year and Trouts defense is nothing spectacular.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Oct 4, 2016 9:54:22 GMT -5
Nick Cafardo had an interesting comment on the Trout vs Betts M.V.P. Debate. Opined that if there were a Player of the Year" award, Trout would have his vote. But considering Betts' contribution actually had an impact on his team and its position in the pennant race, Mookie had his vote. Not to pick on you, but in what way is that interesting? We literally hear this argument every year. If Trout were to win the MVP, it would be the first time in at least five years that the winner was from other than a Division winning team.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 4, 2016 10:38:41 GMT -5
When it comes down to it, the "from a playoff team" people are essentially arguing that the rules say they can vote for whomever they want for whatever reasons they want. I hope one year someone takes this to it's logical extreme and votes for a dining room table and Lebron James just to see the uproar among these same BBWAA morons. As I explained in some detail, this is preposterous. The BBWA is using the most common meaning of the word "valuable," value in context. They have very consistently voted for the player they believe had the most impact on the pennant race. Period. And that is perfectly defensible. This discussion is a microcosm of the political situation in this country. It's 100% verifiable perfectly true that the system is broken and needs to be fixed, and that because the system is broken, both sides of the argument are correct (even more so here than in politics). But nevertheless there are people going on and on saying "No, my side's right! My side's right!" while completely ignoring the compelling argument that the other side is just as right and that the problem is not the beliefs of those on other side, but the system.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Oct 4, 2016 17:05:48 GMT -5
They have very consistently voted based on their stupid, arbitrary definition of the word, yes. Bully for them.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Oct 4, 2016 17:15:37 GMT -5
When it comes down to it, the "from a playoff team" people are essentially arguing that the rules say they can vote for whomever they want for whatever reasons they want. I hope one year someone takes this to it's logical extreme and votes for a dining room table and Lebron James just to see the uproar among these same BBWAA morons. As I explained in some detail, this is preposterous. The BBWA is using the most common meaning of the word "valuable," value in context. They have very consistently voted for the player they believe had the most impact on the pennant race. Period. And that is perfectly defensible. This discussion is a microcosm of the political situation in this country. It's 100% verifiable perfectly true that the system is broken and needs to be fixed, and that because the system is broken, both sides of the argument are correct (even more so here than in politics). But nevertheless there are people going on and on saying "No, my side's right! My side's right!" while completely ignoring the compelling argument that the other side is just as right and that the problem is not the beliefs of those on other side, but the system. This was a good post. While I personally lean toward giving the award to Trout. I have a real problem with the arrogant manner in which people with whom I philosophically agree with have written about this issue over the last few days/weeks.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Oct 4, 2016 19:02:52 GMT -5
Not to pick on you, but in what way is that interesting? We literally hear this argument every year. If Trout were to win the MVP, it would be the first time in at least five years that the winner was from other than a Division winning team. Right, but what does that have to do with Cafardo's comment being interesting?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 5, 2016 8:06:40 GMT -5
When it comes down to it, the "from a playoff team" people are essentially arguing that the rules say they can vote for whomever they want for whatever reasons they want. I hope one year someone takes this to it's logical extreme and votes for a dining room table and Lebron James just to see the uproar among these same BBWAA morons. As I explained in some detail, this is preposterous. The BBWA is using the most common meaning of the word "valuable," value in context. They have very consistently voted for the player they believe had the most impact on the pennant race. Period. And that is perfectly defensible. The most common meaning of the word "valuable" is "worth the most money", which Trout is. Again, I invite you to site an actual dictionary. You aren't the arbiter of what what words mean.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 5, 2016 8:54:01 GMT -5
As I explained in some detail, this is preposterous. The BBWA is using the most common meaning of the word "valuable," value in context. They have very consistently voted for the player they believe had the most impact on the pennant race. Period. And that is perfectly defensible. The most common meaning of the word "valuable" is "worth the most money", which Trout is. Again, I invite you to site an actual dictionary. You aren't the arbiter of what what words mean. However, the BBWA actually is the arbiter of what "most valuable" means. The award description doesn't define it. From Merriam Webster: Simple Definition of valuable : worth a lot of money : very useful or helpful: important and limited in amount So if you go with option 2 which is what I would pick, we're talking about the most useful or helpful player, which you could place context on, such as whether the team the player as on is in the playoffs. Because how helpful can a player possibly be to a bad team? He's not helping the team win anything important other than a worse draft pick. I pretty much agree with you, but can see both sides.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedKyle on Oct 5, 2016 11:46:20 GMT -5
As I explained in some detail, this is preposterous. The BBWA is using the most common meaning of the word "valuable," value in context. They have very consistently voted for the player they believe had the most impact on the pennant race. Period. And that is perfectly defensible. This discussion is a microcosm of the political situation in this country. It's 100% verifiable perfectly true that the system is broken and needs to be fixed, and that because the system is broken, both sides of the argument are correct (even more so here than in politics). But nevertheless there are people going on and on saying "No, my side's right! My side's right!" while completely ignoring the compelling argument that the other side is just as right and that the problem is not the beliefs of those on other side, but the system. This was a good post. While I personally lean toward giving the award to Trout. I have a real problem with the arrogant manner in which people whom I philosophically agree with have written about Themis issue over the last few days/weeks. this this one thousand times this
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 5, 2016 12:22:20 GMT -5
As I explained in some detail, this is preposterous. The BBWA is using the most common meaning of the word "valuable," value in context. They have very consistently voted for the player they believe had the most impact on the pennant race. Period. And that is perfectly defensible. The most common meaning of the word "valuable" is "worth the most money", which Trout is. Again, I invite you to site an actual dictionary. You aren't the arbiter of what what words mean. No, that's not the most common meaning. Meanings in a dictionary are in historical order, which is also usually the most literal to the most figurative. This allows someone reading the definition to make sense of all of the meanings of the word. The most common meaning is often the last.Sophisticated. 1. not in a natural, pure, or original state: ADULTERATED. 2. deprived of native or original simplicity. 3. devoid of grossness: SUBTLE. (That's from the legendary Webster's 3rd, still the greatest dictionary of manageable size, and one I often use instead of going online.) It started as a pejorative, then it was applied to people as an insult, but people started admiring the qualities it was dissing. I'll cut you some slack for thinking that a well-known stat geek might not be equally strong on the language side of things, but that's where I actually have better credentials. Baseball and numbers is the hobby.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Oct 5, 2016 15:28:02 GMT -5
The most common meaning of the word "valuable" is "worth the most money", which Trout is. Again, I invite you to site an actual dictionary. You aren't the arbiter of what what words mean. However, the BBWA actually is the arbiter of what "most valuable" means. The award description doesn't define it. It says right on the ballot that value is "the strength of a player's offense and defense". It also says the winner "need not come from a playoff team".
|
|
|