Baseball is Here!! MLB 2012!!!!

[snoopy369]

How in the world is 3B now being considered a MIDDLE infielder?!

Though to be fair, it's not unreasonable to isolate 3b/2b/ss from 1b, given all three positions are 'fielding' positions while 1b is where you put people who hit but can't field.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The point of sabermetrics is to determine who IS a better player, NOT who had a better season or any other 'past' detail.

Uh what? If sabermetrics didn't care about who had the better season or past details why do things like great OPS+ which normalizes OPS based on park and era factors? The whole point of that stat is to determine which player had a better single season and to compare different players over time.

RBIs are absolutely relevant - again, in large part they are what everything is about. You don't win without RBIs.

Can't get RBIs if the people in front of you didn't get on base - maybe we should give the award to Detroit's #1 and #2 hitters

But the 2012 MVP is entirely about who had the better season in 2012 and was more valuable to his team in 2012, not about who is individually the better player.

Disagree. Most Valuable (to me) = Best player.

[snoopy369]

Normalizing things is, again, with the intent of comparing people in an imaginary situation that didn't occur (ie, Babe Ruth versus Albert Pujols). It takes it from "what did happen" to "what might have happened".

You can have whatever opinion you want about MVP, as the BBWAA makes clear in its rules, but the Most Valuable Player award is generally understood to include things beyond simply 'best player'. Otherwise it would be the "Best Player" award.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Normalizing things is, again, with the intent of comparing people in an imaginary situation that didn't occur (ie, Babe Ruth versus Albert Pujols). It takes it from "what did happen" to "what might have happened".

That's absolutely ridiculous. It's making better sense of "what did happen". How impressive is what did happen.

You can have whatever opinion you want about MVP, as the BBWAA makes clear in its rules, but the Most Valuable Player award is generally understood to include things beyond simply 'best player'. Otherwise it would be the "Best Player" award.

Generally people put the best player up for Most Valuable - after all, who else would have the most value?

[Ben Kenobi]

it's not unreasonable to isolate 3b/2b/ss from 1b, given all three positions are 'fielding' positions while 1b is where you put people who hit but can't field.

Exactly so. He had a great year. I'd rather see it go to Cabrera. If the rookie's as good as he's said to be - he'll get another shot.

I thought SABR folks would be all over a 3B, and the first triple crown by a third baseman. The whole point of SABR is to provide a better assessment of value contrary to the mainstream such that players who didn't get enough recognition (Santo, cough), would finally receive their due. 3B is underrepresented in the HOF.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Your understanding of statistical analysis as applies to baseball would barely fill a thimble.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh, in utterly non-shocking baseball news, the Red Sox are going to be firing Bobby Valentine as their manager.

[Ben Kenobi]

Your understanding of statistical analysis as applies to baseball would barely fill a thimble.

Man, I wish I were sava.

He'd probably post a picture of his massive ascii wang in response.

"Nowai, see, mine is WAAYYY bigger!11!

[Imran Siddiqui]

That would more useful than the vast majority of your posts, FWIW.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Fun article on Fangraphs comparing Runs Expected prior to the at bat vs. Runs Expected after the at bat, including runs that scored during that AB (I guess this is the closest thing to the updated RBI stat asked for upthread):

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/trout-versus-cabrera-offense-only-context-included/

The AL MVP debate continues to rage on, and at this point, most of the arguments have already been made on both sides. If you think the Triple Crown should always be rewarded with an MVP, you’re voting for Miguel Cabrera. If you think the winner of the award has to come from a playoff team, you’re voting for Miguel Cabrera. If you think that WAR is a decent measure of player value, you’re voting for Trout. At this point, both sides are basically just yelling at each other, and no one is changing their minds.

However, for those who are uncomfortable with any of those positions and might still be on the fence, I wanted to offer one more perspective on the issue. The reality is that the case for Cabrera requires the assumption that baserunning and defense are of marginal value, and that position players should really by evaluated by their hitting statistics. The case for Cabrera also wants you to take context into account, since Cabrera drove in so many more runs than Trout did, and wants Cabrera to receive credit for his accomplishments with men on base. Interestingly enough, we have a metric here on FanGraphs that measures only offense and credits hitters for their performances with men on base. At the risk of adding to the alphabet soup, I think it’s worth looking at this little-used metric that measures exactly what the Cabrera contingent wants us to measure.

This metric is called RE24. It’s been on the site for years, and is available as part of our Win Probability section. We don’t use it a lot, because in general we prefer to talk about players from a context-neutral perspective, but for the purpose of this discussion, it might just be the perfect metric.

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. Mike Trout: +56.52 runs
2. Edwin Encarnacion: +54.44 runs
3. Prince Fielder: +48.12 runs
4. Joe Mauer: +46.51 runs
5. Miguel Cabrera: +45.18 runs

Offense only. Context Included. Trout is #1.

I know these new-fangled “advanced” stats can be scary, but this isn’t some kind of black box where you just have to take our word for it. We have RE24 on each player’s Play Log, so you can see the exact amount of value that each player was credited with on every single offensive play they were involved in all year long. Here’s the top five plays from Cabrera’s play log, for instance:

9/16 vs Joe Smith, 2 on, 2 out, 3 run HR: +2.67 runs
9/18 vs Jesse Chavez, 3 on, 0 out, Grand Slam: +2.15 runs
9/29 vs Casey Fien, 2 on, 0 out, 3 run HR: +2.04 runs
4/8 vs Alfredo Aceves, 2 on, 0 out, 3 run HR: +1.99 runs
7/24 vs Joe Smith, 1 on, 2 outs, 2 run HR: +1.88 runs

There’s evidence of Cabrera’s monstrous clutch September in RE24, as his three most valuable outcomes all came in the last couple of weeks. In fact, Mike Trout only had one plate appearance all year where his RE24 was over +2 runs — a three run homer off Felix Hernandez in August — so Cabrera’s certainly had more big moments where his ability to drill the ball over the wall created runs for the Tigers offense.

So, why is Trout ahead of Cabrera? And, for that matter, why is Cabrera behind even his own teammate, Prince Fielder, as well as two others who are not in the MVP discussion?

It comes back to double plays. I noted a few weeks ago that Cabrera had hit into an AL leading 28 double plays. Turns out, a bunch of those were big-time rally killers. 12 of the 28 double plays Cabrera hit into lowered the run expectancy by at least one run; Trout only had two plate appearances all season where the run expectancy went down that much in a single play. Because RE24 is available for every play, and easily accessible from the play logs, it’s easy to put each player’s individual performances into groups, so we can see the distribution of their offensive events.

Player +1 and up 0 to +1 0 to -1 -1 and down
Trout 54 269 388 2
Cabrera 77 219 406 12

Cabrera had 23 more highly visible significant offensive plays that generated +1 runs or more than expected based on the situation he was placed in. Those plays are extremely valuable, and Cabrera was credited with 97 runs in those 77 plays. Meanwhile, Trout only created 66 runs in his 54 big plays, so we’re looking at a 31 run advantage for Cabrera in high visibility plays. This is what’s driving Cabrera’s narrative – everyone remembers these plays, and saw Cabrera come through in big situations more often than they saw Trout do the same.

However, Trout makes up the gap — and then some — in the other 600+ plays that matter as well. While he had 23 fewer big positive plays, he had 50 additional smaller positive plays, all of which contributed to the Angels offensive performance. He also had 28 fewer negative value plays, including 10 fewer that were extremely negative, thanks primarily to his ability to stay out of the double play.

You can go through each player’s play logs and see exactly where they earned and lost credit. There’s no replacement level here. We’re not dealing with defensive metrics that require some subjective inputs and can’t be easily replicated. This is just pure offense, and the total value of all the plays that both Trout and Cabrera were involved in.

And Trout still comes out on top. Ignore defense. Ignore things like going first to third on a single, or taking the extra base on a fly ball. Ignore WAR. Trout still wins. This is how amazing his season actually was. Even if you strip away the things that make Mike Trout special, he was still the best offensive performer in the American League this year, even while starting the season in the minors. This isn’t just the best performance of 2012 – it’s one of the best individual performances in the history of baseball.

[Ben Kenobi]

it’s one of the best individual performances in the history of baseball.

So is Cabrera's accomplishment, FWIW. Trout's a CF - we'd expect the average CF to perform better than the average 3B, all else being equal. Edit - Mauer, a Catcher is up there? Mauer is MVP then after all the adjustments.

[SlowwHand]

Oh, in utterly non-shocking baseball news, the Red Sox are going to be firing Bobby Valentine as their manager.

That will solve their problems.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, at the very least, Valentine didn't help. Looks like clean house offseason part II in Beantown.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I also like Joe Posnanski's blog on this:

http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2012/09/trout-miggy-and-mvp.html

Trout, Miggy and the MVP
I have to say that, personally, I have come to enjoy the “Trouble With The Curve” grumpiness about advanced statistics that is re-emerging because of the MVP tug-of-WAR between Detroit’s Miguel Cabrera and the Angels’ Mike Trout. I came across several stories making the case that Cabrera should be the MVP, because (a) you would have to be insane to NOT give the Triple Crown winner the MVP, (b) the Tigers look to be going to the postseason when the Angels do not and, (c) the arguments for Trout are so often built around an evil statistic, WAR, that you can’t even calculate without a physics degree and help from the guy in “A Beautiful Mind.”

I’ve already written that I think it does a great disservice to Mike Trout’s MVP case to pin it on advanced statistics. His case as the league’s most valuable player is as old-school as Jim Leyland’s mustache. His case is that he’s having a great offensive season in different ways from Cabrera (he leads the league in runs and stolen bases, and his on-base percentage and OPS+ is actually HIGHER than Cabrera’s), and he’s a much better defender and base runner. His case is that when you take into account the whole ballplayer, he’s more valuable than Cabrera, Triple Crown or not.


In a league filled with people who have been badgering us with “you win games with pitching and defense” and “you can’t tell what kind of ballplayer you have based on his batting average” for 100 years, it seems odd to me that so many old-schoolers cannot see that Mike Trout is the very essence of what they’ve been talking about.

Now, this is not to say that Trout should win the MVP. That’s an opinion, and it’s well worth arguing about. But the arguments should be ARGUMENTS, not absurdities. To say Trout’s obvious MVP case is all about manipulating numbers or trying to trick the masses with some fancy-shmancy new statistics is crazy. Cabrera’s a great player. Trout’s a great player. Cabrera happens to be leading in categories that have historically been packaged into a neat container we call the Triple Crown. That’s amazing. It really is. But if the Triple Crown was stolen bases, runs scored and OPS+, then Trout would be leading. And we still would not have started talking defense.

Let’s break down the three things some are saying about why Cabrera should absolutely be MVP.

1. Cabrera should be MVP because he’s leading in numbers that are tangible -- home runs! RBIs! Average! We know these numbers, they are our friends -- not this confused WAR nonsense.

WAR is confused. Absolutely. You can’t figure it out at home using basic stats. And there are various versions of WAR out there, which definitely hurts the opportunity for WAR as a statistic to go mainstream. If there were two different versions of RBIs, it would never have taken off.

That said, there is something about WAR that people don’t seem to be noticing. It is consistent. And, more often than not, it tells people exactly what they might expect.

Here’s what I mean. Here’s a chart of all the Triple Crown winners since 1900. See if you notice something:

1967: Yaz won Triple Crown. Yaz led with 12.3 WAR (Frank Robinson was second at 7.3).
1966: Frank Robinson won Triple Crown -- Robinson led with 7.3 WAR (Tony Oliva, 6.0)
1956: Mickey Mantle won Triple Crown -- Mantle led with 11.0 WAR (Al Kaline 6.4)
1947: Ted Wiliams won Triple Crown -- Williams led with 9.6 WAR (Lou Boudreau 7.2)
1942: Ted Williams won Triple Crown -- Williams led with 10.2 WAR (Joe Gordon 7.8)
1937: Joe Medwick won Triple Crown -- Ducky led with 8.1 WAR (Dick Bartell 6.4)
1934: Lou Gehrig won Triple Crown -- Iron Horse led with 10.1 WAR (Jimmie Foxx 8.6)
1933: Jimmie Foxx won Triple Crown -- Foxx led with 9.0 WAR (Joe Cronin 7.1)
1933: Chuck Klein won Triple Crown -- Klein led with 7.3 WAR (Arky Vaughan 6.7)
1925: Rogers Hornsby won Triple Crown -- Hornsby led with 10.1 WAR (Kiki Cuyler 6.6)
1922: Rogers Hornsby won Triple Crown -- Hornsby led with 10.0 WAR (Dave Bancroft 6.0)
1909: Ty Cobb won Triple Crown -- Cobb led with 9.5 WAR (Eddie Collins 9.4)
1901: Nap Lajoie won Triple Crown -- Lajoie led with 8.3 WAR (Jimmy Collins 6.6)

OK, do you see what I see? As confusing and baffling and new-agey a statistic as WAR might be, the truth is that EVERY SINGLE TRIPLE CROWN WINNER led the league’s everyday players in WAR. Every single one. Most of them led by a lot. This is the same statistic being used now.

In other words, WAR is not out to suppress the value of those comfortable statistics, it is an attempt to take in the whole ballplayer. If you win the Triple Crown, WAR will tell you -- you’ve had one incredible season.

This year, though -- because Cabrera is limited in ways other than those three Triple Crown numbers, and because Mike Trout is so good in so many ways -- WAR is saying that Mike Trout is quite a bit better. It could be an anomaly. It could be that the statistic is malfunctioning. It could be that that the statistic is horrible and was always useless and just so happened to get every other Triple Crown year “right” by pure luck.

But make no mistake, WAR as a statistic has never before undervalued Triple Crown winners.

2. Cabrera should be MVP because he is carrying the Tigers to the postseason while Mike Trout is not doing the same for the Angels.

This one has me more confused than any of the other arguments. We are aware that the Angels have a better record than the Tigers, right? I mean, people haven’t just missed that, have they? The Tigers happen to play in a crummy division and because of that look like they will go to the playoffs, but certainly we’re not going to hold it against Mike Trout that his team has a BETTER RECORD than the Tigers?

And to take it one step further: The Angels were 6-14 before they called up Trout. That means they are 81-56 since his call-up, which happens to be the best record in the American League over that stretch. To give Cabrera the nod because the Tigers make the playoffs and the Angels do not would be a level of loopy logic perhaps unmatched in recent memory.

3. Because he could win the Triple Crown, and that’s one of the rarest feats in baseball history.

I am on record saying that I think Cabrera is a virtual lock to win the MVP if he wins the Triple Crown. And I think he’s probably going to win the MVP even if he doesn’t win the Triple Crown. But the question here is not “will he” but “should he.”

I think it’s an open-ended question with good arguments both ways. But I don’t think the “he won the Triple Crown so he should win the MVP” award argument flies. Here’s why:

Let’s say that Miguel Cabrera hits three home runs in the Tigers' last four games and wins the Triple Crown. I think it goes without saying that the vast majority of voters and baseball fans would think he deserves the MVP.

OK, now let’s say that Miguel Cabrera hits three home runs in the Tigers' last four games, but Josh Hamilton hits four and Miggy LOSES the Triple Crown. Nothing really changed there except someone else took the Triple Crown away from him. But now, suddenly, without the Triple Crown, you might wonder: Hey, didn’t Trout have the better season?

Turn it the other way. Let’s say Cabrera goes 0-for-15 down the stretch, barely holds on to his batting title victory and ties for the home run lead -- so he still wins the Triple Crown. Is he MVP? He won the Triple Crown, so you would have to say yes.

Now let’s say Cabrera goes 0-for-15 down the stretch, loses the batting title (to Mike Trout, let’s say) and gets passed by Josh Hamilton AND Edwin Encarnacion in home runs. Suddenly, he doesn’t look very good as an MVP candidate.

And none of this has anything to do with how valuable he is as a player. He will put up the numbers he puts up. Whether or not they are good enough to win the Triple Crown will have to do with other people’s performances. But it’s kind of ridiculous to say that a .327, 43-homer, 133-RBI season IS MVP-worthy if it wins the Triple Crown, but not MVP-worthy if it doesn’t.

I’d love to see Cabrera win the Triple Crown. I was one of those kids who would score the daily leaders in the morning paper and try to figure out what Jim Rice or Fred Lynn or George Foster had to do to get to the Triple Crown. In some ways, I still am. But let’s not turn this MVP race into yet another argument about traditional stats and modern ones, between fossils making outdated arguments and pointy-headed, basement-dwelling bloggers with slide rulers. It’s none of that. Miggy Cabrera might win the Triple Crown! Mike Trout is having a season for the ages! One of them won’t win the MVP, which is a shame. But one of them will.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So awesome, the forum wanted me to say it twice.