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.
2012 MLB Non Sox
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 16, 2012 19:37:44 GMT -5
Remember the narrative last year? Verlander was the clear MVP since "the Tigers wouldn't have made the playoffs without him". Miguel Cabrera's 177 wRC+ and .437 wOBA were completely ignored, who wants to mention the guy with a DUI when the feel good narrative is 50% of the award? The next year, Miggy follows it up with a 166 wRC+ and .417wOBA and those shiny RBI's and he HAS to win.
To win the MVP, you usually need to be on a team who is good enough to make the playoffs, but not good enough to easily make it. You can with with no traditional stats, just as long as no one gets a lot of RBI's. I don't know why these garbage awards bother me so much, but they do, this is relatively criminal. I've learned to not get upset by the Grammy's, I don't know why I care about these awards still...or why I subject myself to the occasional talk radio. People don't want to learn new things.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 17, 2012 0:55:07 GMT -5
... a desperate attempt by the old-line sportswriters to assert that they're still know best, they still have access to special information that no one else does; in short that they're still the authority on these matters. ... Just look at the hatred that rained down on Nate Silver from old-school political pundits leading up to the election. For instance, Peggy Noonan, who said that Nate Silver didn't know what he was talking about because she took a drive and she saw way more Romney lawn signs than Obama lawn signs ( I s--- you not, she really made this argument). What this exposes is a mindset that simply having an important position at a major newspaper is what makes you an authority. It doesn't matter that her options are literally based on nothing more than gut feelings and silly concepts like "momentum", her opinions are valuable because she's a Very Important Person at a Very Important paper. 70 years ago when there were no other outlets, that was actually kind of true. Not that their status made them any more right about these matters, but readers simply didn't have a choice. Then some uppity blogger like Nate Silver comes along and says no, your credibility isn't based on who you are or where you work or who you hobknob with at DC cocktail partys, it's based on your methodology and the actual measurable accuracy of your predictions. And it makes these people very mad to see their authority challenged-- especially when the person challenging it is so clearly right. And so you get a backlash, where people are actually willing to be totally wrong about fairly easy question just to assert that, no, really, they know something you don't know. My experience matters, my guy feelings matter, etc etc. ... It was instructive watching the criticisms of Silver unfold. The parallels to the revolution in baseball analytics are striking, as you point out. Nate Silver was, of course, the numbers guru for BP, the guy who developed the Pecota projections to kickstart his career. He's since moved those skills very comfortably into political prognostication. The technique he used in this election is simple and ingenious, though it does take computing power. His meta-analysis used each of the dozens of individual political polls as a sample point. That sample is weighted according to its previous track record. Such a track record - the difference between what they predicted and what actually happened - can stretch back many years for some of them He probably determined the weights by figuring out which combination of poll predictions consistently gave the best results. Some of them are on the high side, and some of them low. Taking combinations from both ends of that spectrum can give you a very potent predictor. This makes good sense since different polls are known to have different biases, depending on such things as whether they use land lines or cell phones, what their demographics are and so on. Combine them all and you've got a better estimator than any individual poll could provide. Of such things are careers made. The reaction to his matter-of-fact statement of what was going to happen was poisonous, as you also point out. Might as well have been back in the Moneyball days and the initial volley against statheads. We can also use the trajectory of baseball analytics to predict what comes next, unfortunately.. All you have to do is read my old signature line, the quote from escaped slave and scholar Frederick Douglass to get the idea. Here it is in its entirety: Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
Now this is just baseball - and politics - not war, but the same fears of lost privilege are playing out. Many political analysts are entrenched, just as many baseball analysts are. The sort of threat posed by the likes of Silver is existential. They will not give up without a fight, and they'll use whatever means they can in an attempt to discredit those who would steal their thunder. It's been that way in baseball, it will surely be that way in politics. The denial of reality is a powerful elixir.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Nov 18, 2012 11:10:57 GMT -5
That's FJM stuff right there.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Nov 18, 2012 11:44:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bentossaurus on Nov 18, 2012 12:25:42 GMT -5
I'd rather have him going back to Japan, all the benefits above and no draft pick going to the Yankees.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Nov 18, 2012 15:21:17 GMT -5
I'd rather have him going back to Japan, all the benefits above and no draft pick going to the Yankees. That is even better!
|
|
|
Post by patrmac04 on Nov 18, 2012 20:00:27 GMT -5
I'd rather have him going back to Japan, all the benefits above and no draft pick going to the Yankees. I would love that if we don't sign him Sent from my SGH-T999 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by templeusox on Nov 19, 2012 11:28:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Nov 19, 2012 16:26:45 GMT -5
Sorry, can't let the "look how smart we are" gloating take hold. In fact, Silver's models are based on verifiable data -- the rate of voting in the last election. It was the Gallups of the world that were taking verifiable survey data, and then adjusting it based upon older turnout data, on an assumption that the new turnout would be equivalent to pre-2008 data. In doing so, they took good data of preferences and made it garbage by mixing it with an unproven assumption. Turning now to the present, WAR takes good data of hitting, adds in more abstract data on base running, and then mixes in a dose of garbage/unproven data of Defense (UZR, etc.). This is the equivalent of saying that republicans will vote at a higher level than the last election, because history was like that. Silver didn't do that. This isn't Billy Beane vs. the world circa 2000, it is Theo vs. traditional Sabremetrics circa 2007, thinking he had figured out an objective "wholistic" value. Taking Cabrera's traditional measuring stats (including the saber offensive stats) then making it co-equal with the admittedly speculative -- or at a minimum, small sample size -- defensive stats to come to a "WAR" figure you can throw out there as some proof that Trout was more valuable than another represents a hubris. And for people to cite to "WAR" as if it were the objective answer to complex questions actually shows a lack of comprehension that there are many ways to evaluate something. So, if we have a narrative, it is that trying to quantify and value defense objectively is the equivalent to being able to quantify and value risk. The theory is sound, but in practice, you get the killer of "the smartest guy in the room." plus.maths.org/content/how-maths-killed-lehman-brothers
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 19, 2012 16:44:09 GMT -5
This isn't Billy Beane vs. the world circa 2000, it is Theo vs. traditional Sabremetrics circa 2007, thinking he had figured out an objective "wholistic" value. Taking Cabrera's traditional measuring stats (including the saber offensive stats) then making it co-equal with the admittedly speculative -- or at a minimum, small sample size -- defensive stats to come to a "WAR" figure you can throw out there as some proof that Trout was more valuable than another represents a hubris. That's ridiculous. Trout's case is in no way shape or form dependent on defensive metrics like UZR, DRS, or whatever. Metics that I personally an extremely skeptical of, by the way. Doesn't matter. Trout went 49-5 on stolen base attempts. Cabrera is a bad baserunner. Trout was an excellent defensive player (you don't need advanced metrics or a scout's eye to tell you this). Cabrera basically needs three singles to score from first. I know this "Theo sucks because he trusts the UZRs" thing is a hobby horse of yours, but I'm sorry, it has nothing to do with this conversation. NOTHING.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Nov 19, 2012 17:11:08 GMT -5
Since you throw out the Trout running stat (by which I guess you mean he theoretically created runs). Let's look at actual runs created:
Cabrera's RBI %: 21.40 Trout's RBI %:17.32
Scoring position 2 outs: Cabrera 1.211 OPS Trout .782 OPS
So, actual events showed Cabrera far superior to Trout in creating runs. Not saying which one deserves the MVP award, but I can't stand the congratulatory continued follow up by the Saber crowd that anyone who votes for Cabrera is an old school flat-earth society compared to the enlightened "Nate Silver" crowd.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 19, 2012 17:14:06 GMT -5
Cherry picking much? Trout lead all of baseball in WPA, which measures all aspects of (offensive) clutch performance.
Seriously, you're going to complain about Silver or Theo or whoever using questionable statistics, and then throw RBI at me? For real? That's your argument? Ok. Good luck with that one.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Nov 19, 2012 17:23:31 GMT -5
A lack of reading comprehension. I have not thrown RBIs at you. Anyway, I've said my peace, and no need to bog this discussion down.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Nov 19, 2012 17:34:53 GMT -5
Does anyone really care? Awards and HOF candicacy are becoming little more than editorial debates about the awards themselves and "my brother can beat up your brother" like dialogue.
I'm over it.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 19, 2012 18:16:07 GMT -5
Since you throw out the Trout running stat (by which I guess you mean he theoretically created runs). Let's look at actual runs created: Cabrera's RBI %: 21.40 Trout's RBI %:17.32 Scoring position 2 outs: Cabrera 1.211 OPS Trout .782 OPS So, actual events showed Cabrera far superior to Trout in creating runs. Not saying which one deserves the MVP award, but I can't stand the congratulatory continued follow up by the Saber crowd that anyone who votes for Cabrera is an old school flat-earth society compared to the enlightened "Nate Silver" crowd. Actual events also showed that Trout scored runs at a much higher rate, and with less HR's hit. Now of course runs scored is a context stat that is influenced by your teammates, but so are RBI's. We don't need stats to tell us that Cabrera is a poor baserunner and a poor defender, and we don't need stats to tell us Trout is an elite defender and baserunner. The "saber" crowd is accused of ignoring "the eye test", yet the flat earth society you reference are the ones who are ignoring the obvious here...or if not ignoring, denying that other factors besides hitting the baseball impact baseball games in any significant way.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 19, 2012 19:22:06 GMT -5
Looking solely at context-dependent offensive value, Trout rates higher than Cabrera, as illustrated here: RE24 is essentially the difference between the run expectancy when a hitter comes to the plate and when his at-bat ends. For example, September 16th, Cabrera came to the plate against Joe Smith with runners at first and second and two outs, a situation where the Tigers would be expected to score 0.33 runs on average. Cabrera hit a three run home run, so they actually scored three runs, and RE24 gives Cabrera credit for +2.67 runs, the gap between what they were expected to score and what they actually scored.Unlike with context-neutral statistics like wRC+, RE24 takes the number of outs and number of baserunners into account. It does not assume that all home runs are equal, nor does it treat a strikeout with a man on third base and one out as just another out. The rewards for performing with men on base are higher, and the blame for failing in those same situations is steeper as well. This is a metric that essentially quantifies the total offensive value of a player based on the situations that he actually faced. This is not a theoretical metric. If you hit a three run home run, you get more credit than if you hit a solo home run. If you are consistently getting hits with two outs to drive in runs, you get more credit than if those hits come with no outs and the bases empty. And, of course, it’s only an offensive metric, so there’s no defensive component, no position adjustments, and no replacement level. This is just straight up offense, adjusted for the context of the situations that they faced.
Here’s the AL leaderboard for this season. If you don’t want to click the link, I’ll just reproduce the top five here.
1. Edwin Encarnacion: +55.84 runs 2. Mike Trout: +54.27 3. Prince Fielder: +50.59 4. Miguel Cabrera: +47.43 5. Josh Hamilton: 44.44
Offense only. Context Included. Trout is just barely behind Edwin Encarnacion for the league lead, and slightly ahead of Miguel Cabrera, who is actually second on on his own team.
This is, of course, a more holistic account of contextual offense than your cherry-picking of RBI% and RISP and two outs. One particular difference is that Trout hits into far fewer inning-killing double plays than Cabrera does-- read the full article for more details and why that matters. Moreover, here is another statistical look at Trout v. Cabrera from a purely offensive perspective: We know that [Cabrera's] RBI difference is mostly a function of the additional baserunners he’s been given through his line-up spot, while Trout’s runs scored difference is mostly about his speed on the bases. It’s disingenuous to measure one without the other, just like it’s disingenuous to ignore all the extra outs Cabrera has made because of his proclivity for hitting into double plays. That’s why, despite Cabrera’s chance at the triple crown, any decent measure of total offensive production will say that Cabrera hasn’t produced any more runs for the Tigers than Trout has for the Angels despite the three week head start. If you just look at Trout and Cabrera’s Batting plus Baserunning in the value section, you’ll note that Trout’s offensive performance has been +57.6 runs better than an average offensive performer this year, while Cabrera checks in at +50.3 runs.
And, look, this isn’t voodoo magic that deals with theoretical replacement levels – this is simply the result of adding up all the positive and negative offensive events that both Trout and Cabrera have produced this year. Even with the 21 fewer games played, Trout has produced more runs this season. The only way to come to a different conclusion is to selectively choose the kinds of runs you want to measure. By objective metrics that include all aspects of offensive value, Mike Trout has been a better offensive performer than Cabrera this year. Again, read the whole piece for details. It is virtually impossible to justify voting for Cabrera over Trout statistically even if you completely disregard defensive statistics. It's fine if you want to cling to the symbolic importance of having his team make the playoffs or winning the traditional Triple Crown and use that to decide a close race-- we can agree to disagree. But you are just straight-up incorrect if you think you can craft a reasonable statistical argument for Cabrera over Trout.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 19, 2012 19:38:48 GMT -5
This isn't Billy Beane vs. the world circa 2000, it is Theo vs. traditional Sabremetrics circa 2007, thinking he had figured out an objective "wholistic" value. Taking Cabrera's traditional measuring stats (including the saber offensive stats) then making it co-equal with the admittedly speculative -- or at a minimum, small sample size -- defensive stats to come to a "WAR" figure you can throw out there as some proof that Trout was more valuable than another represents a hubris. And for people to cite to "WAR" as if it were the objective answer to complex questions actually shows a lack of comprehension that there are many ways to evaluate something. Seriously, and I cannot stress this enough, NO ONE IS DOING THAT. Mike Trout leads baseball in VORP, which has no defensive component other than adjusting replacement value for postion. All Trout needs to be the MVP is credit for playing his position, not for what he did at it. And, whatever your issue with defensive stats is, you can't reasonably argue that Trout was anything but a plus defender, nor that Cabrera was anything but a bad one. I know you can't stand WAR. I can't stand it either. The defensive component is not reliable. We agree. But Mike Trout's MVP case is in no way based off advanced defensive metric voodoo. It's based on him being the flat-out best player in the game last year by any reasonable standard.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Nov 19, 2012 20:00:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Nov 19, 2012 20:04:33 GMT -5
A lot of people don't understand what Gallup does, or what Silver does, or both -- and anyone throwing stones at either is fairly ignorant in my book -- but I'm surprised some people don't understand what Trout does and what Cabrera does.
add - if you can't understand my post, reread the thread until it clicks.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 19, 2012 20:23:41 GMT -5
Stop. That's not an opinion piece and it was written by to "ESPN Stats & Information". It's in no way saying that Trout should have won the MVP because he lead the league in WAR. It's just say pointing out that he's the first 10-WAR player not to win the award since 2000. It's not making an argument about Trout, it's not making an argument about WAR, in fact it's not making an argument of any kind. Are you really so kneejerk about WAR that you can't see that?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 19, 2012 20:31:07 GMT -5
A lot of people don't understand what Gallup does, or what Silver does, or both -- and anyone throwing stones at either is fairly ignorant in my book -- but I'm surprised some people don't understand what Trout does and what Cabrera does. The contrast between Silver's methodology and Gallup's methodology has absolutely nothing to do with this. I brought Silver up to contrast him with no-nothing pundits, not with Gallup. Then Steve Dillard decided to start moving goalposts all over the damn place because he hates WAR (which again is not particularly relevant to the discussion of Trout) and now this is where we're at.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 19, 2012 21:14:51 GMT -5
The stat you quote just describes what percentage of baserunners a hitter successfully drives in. It does not describe what base those baserunners were on at the beginning of the AB (presumably Austin Jackson is more likely to be in scoring position than Chris Iannetta), it does not describe how you drove them in (whether by sacrifice fly, single, double, triple, or home run), it does not describe how you perform without baserunners on, and it does not describe how often you hit into double plays. The first article I quoted cites a stat (RE24) that does take those factors into account and concludes that Trout's in-context offensive performance has been better than Cabrera's. Even if you just want to quibble with one line in Cameron's point, he qualifies his statement with the word "mostly," which I think is accurate since most of the RBI-quoters out there are looking at stock stats instead of rate stats. And even though Cabrera has driven in a higher percentage of baserunners, that is clearly not the end-all-be-all in the run production argument. Any holistic offensive stat (whether context-dependent or not), especially any that takes into account baserunning, even if only via stolen base totals/success rate (which are much, much more reliable than UZR) gives the edge to Trout.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Nov 20, 2012 9:58:13 GMT -5
John Gibbons is back - guess he still has a lot of fight in 'im.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Nov 20, 2012 9:58:17 GMT -5
This is fun! From year to year we get to argue over the relative value of a player to their team; and the narrative changes each year, too! 1 year we're ecstatic that the "old-timers" vote for King Felix for the Cy Young and the next it's hand wringing because people cant see the value of RE24. I personally don't care that Cabrera won or that Trout lost. Probably, if you were able to candidly speak with the voters, most would admit that Trout was the superior player. However, the nostalgic baseball fan in all of them will most likely say that winning the Triple Crown is just flat out cool and sings to something in their souls. Let's assume for a moment that Cabrera fell 1 RBI short of the Triple Crown, he likely would have lost out on the award. RBI's are a stupid, rate stat that depends on who is around you, we can all agree; and it's a bit ridiculous that something like that determines another meaningless award, but it does; this time because the little kid in all of those voters stood up and remembered that something like that hasn't happened in 45 years. Get over it. Your life isn't changed at all.
How about we start arguing the AL Cy Young award? Verlander was clearly better than Price, but Price had more wins!!!! WTF! Wins! Bollocks!
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 20, 2012 10:30:30 GMT -5
Price also led the league in ERA (and RAA, for those who prefer that). I'd have chosen Verlander - he had the better K rate and better walk rate over more innings pitched - but I can't really get too upset over Price here. It was the fifth consecutive year that the ERA leader won the AL Cy - follwing Lee, Greinke, Hernandez and Verlander. While voting for award simply based on ERA is a bit simplistic, it's at least a fair starting point. This wasn't Colon over Santana in '05.
|
|
|