AL MVP- Trout or Cabrera

[zonacats8]

Originally Posted by uberfatty

Please please please just give a coherent rebuttal to this, which counters your narrative of Cabrera adding more wins to his team when taking context into account:

You know what does take into account context of each at bat? Win percentage Added (WPA). WPA takes each at bat for a player's season and determine's their team's winning percentage before the at bat and after the at bat, and credits the player for increasing the winning percentage or discredits them for decreasing their team's winning percentage (GIDP would be a big negative, for example). So in essence, a player with a WPA of 6.00 made their team more likely to win a total of six games during the year, just counting what happened during each at bat. No SB, no defense, no position adjustment, no baserunning is accounted for in WPA to my knowledge.

And you know who leads the AL in WPA? Mike Trout (5.61). Cabrera is at 4.40 for the year.

Which basically means when looking at the context of each player's at bats, Trout made his team more likely to win games this season than Cabrera did(perhaps Cabrera hit his HR's when his team was already way ahead or behind?).

You're biggest problem here is that it's not looking at the context of each players at bats

It's looking at the context of each players at bats when compared to how the rest of the league did in those at bats, two WAY completely different things, too many outside factors that play into that where looking at just the raw numbers don't tell a real story.

For all you know Trout was in way more specific situations that allowed him to have the higher numbers because players did worse in those situations compared to Cabrera where he might not have been in as many situations where the rest of the league did poorly.

There's too many outside influences in these types of stats, WPA and WAR, for me too put too much of a backing into them. The biggest being that they used other formulas to try and normalize the stats to where it takes out these outside influences, which is just impossible to do in reality

[alwayson22]

Originally Posted by zonacats8

his argument never said anything about Jordan being the most valuable player, just that the last shot is what mattered the most in the end

I must have misunderstood his post. Probably because he posted in a Most "Valuable" Player thread.

[uberfatty]

Originally Posted by zonacats8

because the stat to me is just as useless as the WAR

It's calculated based on how every other team has done when in the situation that they are in when they make a certain player
Who gives two craps about what other teams have done in those situations


I don't know why everyone is so intent on using stats that compare one player to another in the actual calculation of the stat. In a sport like basketball or hockey, where the dimensions/conditions of every game are generally the exact same, then maybe, but not in baseball.

There are too many factors in baseball that make the general stats themselves hard to compare 1 to 1 to each other. So when you're then using those stats, to combine into other stats, and then have a computer come up with more calculations to offset and standardize the original factors and stats it becomes too diluted to be worth the weight people put behind them.

And if that statement was a bit too confusing to read, it was done on purpose.......

Winning percentage added is calculated over tens of thousands of games using historical odds and current run scoring environment to determine the chance a team wins a game at any given moment of the game. This is not controversial and to treat it like the numbers don't make sense because it comes from other teams' data is not rational.

[Tugarpj]

You can sure tell who holds the Trout cards here! They're as much homers as the Detroit hometown fans lol.

[zonacats8]

Originally Posted by uberfatty

Winning percentage added is calculated over tens of thousands of games using historical odds and current run scoring environment to determine the chance a team wins a game at any given moment of the game. This is not controversial and to treat it like the numbers don't make sense because it comes from other teams' data is not rational.

It's not the historical data I have a problem with, it's the mathematical equations that are used to normalize the non-data portion of it, factoring weather conditions, ballparks, etc

Because in the end, those things shouldn't matter, the best players should rise above it all and perform.

[uberfatty]

Originally Posted by zonacats8

You're biggest problem here is that it's not looking at the context of each players at bats

It's looking at the context of each players at bats when compared to how the rest of the league did in those at bats, two WAY completely different things, too many outside factors that play into that where looking at just the raw numbers don't tell a real story.

For all you know Trout was in way more specific situations that allowed him to have the higher numbers because players did worse in those situations compared to Cabrera where he might not have been in as many situations where the rest of the league did poorly.

There's too many outside influences in these types of stats, WPA and WAR, for me too put too much of a backing into them. The biggest being that they used other formulas to try and normalize the stats to where it takes out these outside influences, which is just impossible to do in reality

WPA has nothing to do with how much better/worse than average a typical player did in a situation. It is 100% dependent on the team's change in winning percentage given the before/after situation in that specific game. Nothing related to what a replacement level player or other players' historical performance in that specific situation matters.

WPA also doesn't normalize any traditional stats -- it simply puts a player's entire season of at bats and using the specific context of each at bat determines how much the player added to his team's Winning Percentage (hence WPA - Winning Percentage Added). WPA is one of the advanced stats that actually takes into account "outside influences" by including contextual information into the calculation.

[zonacats8]

Originally Posted by alwayson22

I must have misunderstood his post. Probably because he posted in a Most "Valuable" Player thread.

Okay, fine, you win that one

But then again, he didn't miss all the other shots, so it's not a valid argument anyways

It was the exact argument we're having here

Jordan had a great full game

Cabrera had a great full season

Trout had a great full season

Jordan had a great end of game

Cabrera had a great end of season

Trout had a .........

Oh wait.......

That's right, he didn't have a great end of the season

[uberfatty]

Originally Posted by zonacats8

It's not the historical data I have a problem with, it's the mathematical equations that are used to normalize the non-data portion of it, factoring weather conditions, ballparks, etc

Because in the end, those things shouldn't matter, the best players should rise above it all and perform.

To my knowledge WPA doens't factor in ballparks or weather. But arguing against ballpark affects is, shall we say, unique. Quick question, assuming that the park effects of the two cities are similar to real life in this hypothetical:

Player A plays in Colorado and has a line of .300 AVG, 45 HR, 145 RBI
Player B plays in Seattle and has a line of .285 AVG, 39 HR, 134 RBI

Both player's team finish with identical records and make the playoffs.

Player B is the MVP in this scenario, since it's like 50% harder to hit HR's in Seattle than in Colorado. Would you argue differently?

[zonacats8]

Originally Posted by uberfatty

WPA has nothing to do with how much better/worse than average a typical player did in a situation. It is 100% dependent on the team's change in winning percentage given the before/after situation in that specific game. Nothing related to what a replacement level player or other players' historical performance in that specific situation matters.

WPA also doesn't normalize any traditional stats -- it simply puts a player's entire season of at bats and using the specific context of each at bat determines how much the player added to his team's Winning Percentage (hence WPA - Winning Percentage Added). WPA is one of the advanced stats that actually takes into account "outside influences" by including contextual information into the calculation.

this is the definition of WPA

Some form of win probability has been around for about 40 years; however, until computer use became widespread, win probability added was often difficult to derive, or imprecise. With the aid of Retrosheet, however, win probability added has become substantially easier to calculate. The win probability for a specific situation in baseball (including the inning, number of outs, men on base, and score) is obtained by first finding all the teams that have encountered this situation. Then the winning percentage of these teams in these situations is found. This probability figure is then adjusted for home-field advantage. Thus win probability added is the difference between the win probability when the player came to bat and the win probability when the play ended.

Which only supports my point

Trout may (or may not have, we don't really know) been put in a lot more situations than Cabrera where history has shown the teams lose more than they win, thus allowing him to boost this WPA number.

Where as Cabrera may have done the same things Trout did and would have had that higher number had he been put in those same situations.

My point is using a stat that compares the exact situations to previous situations by other teams isn't valid to me

Everyone is using these "advanced" metrics, which to me are anything but advanced because it's assuming everything is equal, which it's not, players don't get put in the same situations the same amount of times, and the mathematics to try and solve that problem only complicate the problem of using these stats, their too math based.

They need to go back to a more general view of all this, who performed in the situations where their team needed them to

Not who performed in the situations where their team needed them to compared to all the other players who performed in similar situations compounded by a mathematical equation to TRY and eliminate the non-standardized factors.

Which essentially boils it all down to one thing....

USE COMMON SENSE NOT MATHEMATICS

[calculusdork]

I'd like to take a crack at putting the "Cabrera got his team into the playoffs" argument to bed, if I may.

I'm not seeking to cherry-pick or take away from Cabrera's stats in September. As a whole, he's had a remarkable month and there is no arguing against that. But for those of you who seem to think that Cabrera just picked up Walter Payton and carried him into the end zone, 'bear' with me for a moment (see what I did there ...).

On Monday, September 24, the Tigers woke up 1 game back of Chicago. They then surged to 6 wins in 7 games, while the White Sox went 2-5 ... Detroit takes the division. Cabrera's line during those 7 games? .192/.250/.308, with 1 HR, 3 RBI, and 3 runs scored.

So clearly, his other games in September must have been crazy good, right? Of course ... his ridiculous line during the first 21 games in September: .346/.427/.769 with 9 HR, 27 RBI, and 19 runs. But what was Detroit's record during that span? 10-11, putting them at 16-12 for the month. White Sox? Also 10-11, giving them at an atrocious 12-16 September record.

Now of course, the Tigers' 10-11 record during those 21 games probably would have been a bit worse had Cabrera not put up those monster numbers. But my point is, Tiger fans ... if you're looking for a September MVP, you probably ought to rank Cabrera at #1, and the entire Chicago White Sox team at #1a.

[Matt54650]

Originally Posted by calculusdork

I'd like to take a crack at putting the "Cabrera got his team into the playoffs" argument to bed, if I may.

I'm not seeking to cherry-pick or take away from Cabrera's stats in September. As a whole, he's had a remarkable month and there is no arguing against that. But for those of you who seem to think that Cabrera just picked up Walter Payton and carried him into the end zone, 'bear' with me for a moment (see what I did there ...).

On Monday, September 24, the Tigers woke up 1 game back of Chicago. They then surged to 6 wins in 7 games, while the White Sox went 2-5 ... Detroit takes the division. Cabrera's line during those 7 games? .192/.250/.308, with 1 HR, 3 RBI, and 3 runs scored.

So clearly, his other games in September must have been crazy good, right? Of course ... his ridiculous line during the first 21 games in September: .346/.427/.769 with 9 HR, 27 RBI, and 19 runs. But what was Detroit's record during that span? 10-11, putting them at 16-12 for the month. White Sox? Also 10-11, giving them at an atrocious 12-16 September record.

Now of course, the Tigers' 10-11 record during those 21 games probably would have been a bit worse had Cabrera not put up those monster numbers. But my point is, Tiger fans ... if you're looking for a September MVP, you probably ought to rank Cabrera at #1, and the entire Chicago White Sox team at #1a.

And to add to that agreement, the angles will end up winning more games than the tigers so should we punish trout because they play in a far superior division? I think some voters will, but I don't agree with that what so ever.

[alwayson22]

Originally Posted by zonacats8

Okay, fine, you win that one

But then again, he didn't miss all the other shots, so it's not a valid argument anyways

It was the exact argument we're having here

Jordan had a great full game

Cabrera had a great full season

Trout had a great full season

Jordan had a great end of game

Cabrera had a great end of season

Trout had a .........

Oh wait.......

That's right, he didn't have a great end of the season

I would consider Trout's .280 /.402 /.500 with 5hr-6sb-23r since September 1 (full season pace of 30hr-36sb-138r+gold glove) to be "great", but we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

[zonacats8]

Originally Posted by calculusdork

I'd like to take a crack at putting the "Cabrera got his team into the playoffs" argument to bed, if I may.

I'm not seeking to cherry-pick or take away from Cabrera's stats in September. As a whole, he's had a remarkable month and there is no arguing against that. But for those of you who seem to think that Cabrera just picked up Walter Payton and carried him into the end zone, 'bear' with me for a moment (see what I did there ...).

On Monday, September 24, the Tigers woke up 1 game back of Chicago. They then surged to 6 wins in 7 games, while the White Sox went 2-5 ... Detroit takes the division. Cabrera's line during those 7 games? .192/.250/.308, with 1 HR, 3 RBI, and 3 runs scored.

So clearly, his other games in September must have been crazy good, right? Of course ... his ridiculous line during the first 21 games in September: .346/.427/.769 with 9 HR, 27 RBI, and 19 runs. But what was Detroit's record during that span? 10-11, putting them at 16-12 for the month. White Sox? Also 10-11, giving them at an atrocious 12-16 September record.

Now of course, the Tigers' 10-11 record during those 21 games probably would have been a bit worse had Cabrera not put up those monster numbers. But my point is, Tiger fans ... if you're looking for a September MVP, you probably ought to rank Cabrera at #1, and the entire Chicago White Sox team at #1a.

I obviously a big Tigers and Cabrera fan, but you're wrong here

It's White Sox #1 and Cabrera #1a as we don't have any shot at the playoffs if they didn't choke

But at the same time, not running away with the division isn't Cabrera's, or Verlander's, or Fielder's fault, it's the front office for putting together such a crappy rest of the team around them, specifically at SS, 2B, the corner OF spots, and our Closer, not to mention Leylands highly questionable decisions all season long.

You put Cabrera at first instead of Pujols this year and the Angels probably set a record for most wins in a season

[groundsupport]

Originally Posted by calculusdork

I'd like to take a crack at putting the "Cabrera got his team into the playoffs" argument to bed, if I may.

I'm not seeking to cherry-pick or take away from Cabrera's stats in September. As a whole, he's had a remarkable month and there is no arguing against that. But for those of you who seem to think that Cabrera just picked up Walter Payton and carried him into the end zone, 'bear' with me for a moment (see what I did there ...).

On Monday, September 24, the Tigers woke up 1 game back of Chicago. They then surged to 6 wins in 7 games, while the White Sox went 2-5 ... Detroit takes the division. Cabrera's line during those 7 games? .192/.250/.308, with 1 HR, 3 RBI, and 3 runs scored.

So clearly, his other games in September must have been crazy good, right? Of course ... his ridiculous line during the first 21 games in September: .346/.427/.769 with 9 HR, 27 RBI, and 19 runs. But what was Detroit's record during that span? 10-11, putting them at 16-12 for the month. White Sox? Also 10-11, giving them at an atrocious 12-16 September record.

Now of course, the Tigers' 10-11 record during those 21 games probably would have been a bit worse had Cabrera not put up those monster numbers. But my point is, Tiger fans ... if you're looking for a September MVP, you probably ought to rank Cabrera at #1, and the entire Chicago White Sox team at #1a.

Using that theory, you might as well go give Billie Beane the MVP award for making a last place team and 55 million dollar payroll, beat out a 152 million dollar pay roll team, and some phenom kid who doesn't make that 1 million of that 152 million...

Isn't there rotation 5 rookies?

Billy Beane made the LA Angels organization look stupid. Just saying.

[zonacats8]

Originally Posted by alwayson22

I would consider Trout's .280 /.402 /.500 with 5hr-6sb-23r since September 1 (full season pace of 30hr-36sb-138r+gold glove) to be "great", but we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

Then what would you call Cabrera's September?

Other-Worldly?

[calculusdork]

Originally Posted by groundsupport

Using that theory, you might as well go give Billie Beane the MVP award for making a last place team and 55 million dollar payroll, beat out a 152 million dollar pay roll team, and some phenom kid who doesn't make that 1 million of that 152 million...

Isn't there rotation 5 rookies?

Billy Beane made the LA Angels organization look stupid. Just saying.

Amazing how many A's fans (well, all 12 of them) were dissing Beane and the organization after the Cespedes signing. Haven't heard much of that lately.

[uberfatty]

Originally Posted by zonacats8

this is the definition of WPA



Which only supports my point

Trout may (or may not have, we don't really know) been put in a lot more situations than Cabrera where history has shown the teams lose more than they win, thus allowing him to boost this WPA number.

Where as Cabrera may have done the same things Trout did and would have had that higher number had he been put in those same situations.

My point is using a stat that compares the exact situations to previous situations by other teams isn't valid to me

Everyone is using these "advanced" metrics, which to me are anything but advanced because it's assuming everything is equal, which it's not, players don't get put in the same situations the same amount of times, and the mathematics to try and solve that problem only complicate the problem of using these stats, their too math based.

They need to go back to a more general view of all this, who performed in the situations where their team needed them to

Not who performed in the situations where their team needed them to compared to all the other players who performed in similar situations compounded by a mathematical equation to TRY and eliminate the non-standardized factors.

Which essentially boils it all down to one thing....

USE COMMON SENSE NOT MATHEMATICS

You are confusing what WPA compares. WPA only uses historical comparisons to determine the winning percentage at a given game state. It then uses those winning percentages to determine if a player's at bat increased or decreased their team's chances of winning. It doesn't look at how other player's performed in those specific game states and assign extra credit for beating that level of performance.

Does this point make sense? It's the crux of your misunderstanding of WPA.

[thescout]

Originally Posted by DtigersFan

He had a great season and one of the best ever by a rookie, but he did not have the best season. I think even Trout himself would tell you that Cabrera had the better season and led his team into the playoffs.

I completely understand the triple crown argument and cabrera might be the mvp either way, but trout is a very good centerfielder that takes runs away on a daily bases on top of what he does at the plate. Cabrera is (I assume without seeing stats, just his fat ass) the worst defensive PLAYER, much less 3rd baseman, in all of MLB, that HAS to matter to an "MVP". I'm not huge on WAR, but Trout's WAR is hilarious and if it was close I'd make an argument against the stat itself, but the disparity is ridiculous.

TROUT IS THE BEST ALL-ROUND PLAYER IN BASEBALL IN 2012

[groundsupport]

Originally Posted by thescout

I completely understand the triple crown argument and cabrera might be the mvp either way, but trout is a very good centerfielder that takes runs away on a daily bases on top of what he does at the plate. Cabrera is (I assume without seeing stats, just his fat ass) the worst defensive PLAYER, much less 3rd baseman, in all of MLB, that HAS to matter to an "MVP". I'm not huge on WAR, but Trout's WAR is hilarious and if it was close I'd make an argument against the stat itself, but the disparity is ridiculous.

TROUT IS THE BEST ALL-ROUND PLAYER IN BASEBALL IN 2012

Yah you know what your talking about.

[zonacats8]

Originally Posted by uberfatty

You are confusing what WPA compares. WPA only uses historical comparisons to determine the winning percentage at a given game state. It then uses those winning percentages to determine if a player's at bat increased or decreased their team's chances of winning. It doesn't look at how other player's performed in those specific game states and assign extra credit for beating that level of performance.

Does this point make sense? It's the crux of your misunderstanding of WPA.

uh..........

no

Do you really not see how you just proved my exact point with your statement?

It looks at the chance of the team winning the game going into the at bat, like you said

Then it looks at their chances of the team winning the game after the at bat, like you said

It then creates a stat based on comparing those two numbers pre and post at bat, like you said

But what you seemingly overlooked is what makes those two numbers different.

THE AT BAT ITSELF

And what was the at bat itself? It was what the player did in that at bat.

So what is the stat really looking at when you boil it down?

What that player did in that at bat when compared to other players who have done that in similar at bats. Thus giving you a statistic of how well a player performed in a situation compared to how other players performed in a similar situation.

Which again brings me around to the situations at hand, for all we know Trout had more situations where whatever he did gave him a bigger boost in the WPA stat than Cabrera would have encountered, thus not making it a viable stat to compare players IMO.

At the same time though, for all we know Cabrera was in more situations where he could have made a bigger jump in his WPA stat that Trout was, the whole point is that we don't know, that's why I don't view it as all that reliable of a stat, too many unknown factors that you need advanced mathematics to determine.

Go re-read that definition I posted it has it right there in black and white, it states, "The win probability for a specific situation in baseball (including the inning, number of outs, men on base, and score) is obtained by first finding all the teams that have encountered this situation."

[alwayson22]

Originally Posted by zonacats8

Then what would you call Cabrera's September?

Other-Worldly?

Absolutely. Cabrera hit .308/.378/.654 in September. Those are ridiculous numbers and I am in no way arguing that Cabrera hasn't outperformed Trout at the plate over the past month.

I think we're just arguing semantics at this point. I believe that if Player X put up a .280/.400/.500 with 30hr-35sb-135r and gold glove defense, Player X had a "great" season. That was Mike Trout's pace over the last 30 days.

[zonacats8]

Originally Posted by thescout

I completely understand the triple crown argument and cabrera might be the mvp either way, but trout is a very good centerfielder that takes runs away on a daily bases on top of what he does at the plate. Cabrera is (I assume without seeing stats, just his fat ass) the worst defensive PLAYER, much less 3rd baseman, in all of MLB, that HAS to matter to an "MVP". I'm not huge on WAR, but Trout's WAR is hilarious and if it was close I'd make an argument against the stat itself, but the disparity is ridiculous.

TROUT IS THE BEST ALL-ROUND PLAYER IN BASEBALL IN 2012

Yea, dude, what the guy below you said, you clearly know what you're talking about

Cabrera isn't even the worst defensive player in his own infield, in fact, he just might be the best defensive player in his own infield.

If you want to take something like this into account, how about the fact that a player of Cabrera's stature could easily have forced his hand and told the Tigers he was staying at first base and Fielder would need to be the DH, but instead he immediately was all on board with going to third and cut his weight down, re-learned the position, and had an average if not above average season at third after all that.

He had 13 errors this season, I don't know the actual number, but I'm guessing half of those were in the first month of the season as he was adjusting to the position again.

[zonacats8]

Originally Posted by alwayson22

Absolutely. Cabrera hit .308/.378/.654 in September. Those are ridiculous numbers and I am in no way arguing that Cabrera hasn't outperformed Trout at the plate over the past month.

I think we're just arguing semantics at this point. I believe that if Player X put up a .280/.400/.500 with 30hr-35sb-135r and gold glove defense, Player X had a "great" season. That was Mike Trout's pace over the last 30 days.

Yep, you're right, he had a great season, but we're not talking about what player had a great season, we're talking about which player had the better great season.

And when everything is so close, I think it just has to come down to who did more down the stretch.

Everyone seems to think that a win in April is the same as a win in September, which in the standings it is, but when you're in similar positions for the playoff race going into September, then all those early season games, to use an economic term, are a sunk cost, at that specific point, they don't mean anything from that point on.

And that's when Cabrera's cream rose to the top and Trout's settled just below

[CubsFanInTX]

Originally Posted by groundsupport

Using that theory, you might as well go give Billie Beane the MVP award for making a last place team and 55 million dollar payroll, beat out a 152 million dollar pay roll team, and some phenom kid who doesn't make that 1 million of that 152 million...

Isn't there rotation 5 rookies?

Billy Beane made the LA Angels organization look stupid. Just saying.

+111111 Billy Beane is freaking ridiculous.

[8lakers24]

Originally Posted by thescout

I completely understand the triple crown argument and cabrera might be the mvp either way, but trout is a very good centerfielder that takes runs away on a daily bases on top of what he does at the plate. Cabrera is (I assume without seeing stats, just his fat ass) the worst defensive PLAYER, much less 3rd baseman, in all of MLB, that HAS to matter to an "MVP". I'm not huge on WAR, but Trout's WAR is hilarious and if it was close I'd make an argument against the stat itself, but the disparity is ridiculous.

TROUT IS THE BEST ALL-ROUND PLAYER IN BASEBALL IN 2012

you obviously have never watched the tigers play than, hes the second best infielder in his own infield behind infante....and hes fine at third base he fields anything near him and occasionaly makes a diving play/catch...hes not going to have the range as the elite fielding 3b's but hes solid there and as i said before his defense has yet to cost the tigers a game and thats a fact