Football Display Case
rundown of Michigan's riser
needs moar usage
so much for that
This list is completely arbitrary and not a genuine analysis of the relative merits of state fossils.
will be michigan's highest pick in a while
money has to go somewhere
I am only motivated by people who have no opinion about me.
the just released schedules were a flat-out statement that the B10 doesn't believe SOS will matter in playoff selection
but I thought that draft was supposed to be incredibly loaded?
If you're gonna go please be in the first round.
another delightful side effect of a 14 team conference
thoughtful piece from Jacobi on middle finger lady
You don't need WAR to advocate Trout. You just need to realize the game of baseball consists more of hitting home runs and driving in players who got on base before you even stepped to the plate.
Recruit Files: Robert Foster
This is why leadoff hitters and quality defenseman make a ton more money than the guys who are jacking HRs and RBIs).
If you take the pitchers out of the equation, not one of these guys are quality defenseman or even 5 tool players. Value comes from Driving runs in. Always has, always will!
It's not a meaningless stat, however, stat-heads who want to turn the MVP award into the "Who has the highest WAR award" are just as ridiculously and laughably wrong as the old fogy baseball writers who use things like "the eye test" to determine MVP.
Just like "ye olde guarde" needed to learn that a lot of the traditional stats were extremely flawed in comparison to most of the newfangled saber stats, the "knights of the new" need to learn that there is far more to baseball than stats.
HOKEAMANIA RUNNIN' WILD
Although I don't have a problem with the WAR stat per se, I find it ridiculus that someone would declare an "MVP" or "best player" simply based on a number.
On an ESPN podcast that I listened to yesterday, the commentator said something like only "irrational" reasons could be used to justify Cabrera winning the MVP because WAR defines value. And in a weird way, he's is right but irrationality is very much part of baseball (and all sports for that matter). There are storylines and perhaps even a bit of magic involved in award things like the MVP.
To me, the whole Trout vs. Cabrera debate is reminiscent of the Woodson vs. Manning Heisman debate. Yes, some guys have superior numbers but others have manage to not only have great numbers but they manage to capture the spirit of the moment. Woodson did it. I'd argue Desmond Howard also had a similar campaign. And likewise, Cabrera barreling down the stretch, charging towards the Triple Crown and leading his team to a Division title capture the imagination in a way that simply renders Trout's campaign feeling a bit cold in comparison.
they don't judge based on just 1 number, that's a ridiculous mus-characterization of those that are not trolling you. but the large lead that trout has in it reflects the opinion that he's close enough to miggy with the bat that his stolen bases, base running, and gold glove defense make him more valuable.
Tell that to Keith Law, who claims that he's leaving Miguel off his ballot because his WAR isn't high enough.
Blank.....Blank......You're not looking at the big picture here.
At least he's consistent, unlike a lot of other stat-heads. Cabrera is 4th in the AL in WAR, behind Verlander, Cano, and Trout.
If we're going strictly by WAR, the MVP debate ought to be Trout, Verlander and Cano.
This is where a lot of the stat-heads (I affectionately call them) fall prey to a lot of the same pitfalls as the crusty old "eye test" baseball writers than they push against.
I've not seen one argument for Cano or Verlander as being a more viable MVP candidate than Cabrera. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough, or maybe as seeing the debate has been framed as Trout vs. Cabrera, that's the argument stat-heads are honed in on.
I have seen a lot of people state that Verlander is having arguably as good of a season this year as he did last, in an effort to discredit Cabby, by pointing out according to WAR, he's not even the most valuable player on his own team. It's funny though, granted, these are two different seasons and Trout's candidacy is stronger than anyone's last year (save Verlander), but last year the stat-heads were screaming from the rooftops that if Verlander didn't win MVP it would be a travesty. This year, apparently he's having the same year, minus the all hated "Wins," yet there isn't even a peep coming from those same guys about the possibility of Verlander winning MVP. They hate wins, but I have no doubt that if Verlander was sitting at 25 wins, you'd be hearing the chants of MVP coming from a lot of those same guys.
The thing about WAR is, if you use it as a crude snapshot of a player's overall value, then it is a fairly useful tool. However, if you're attempting to use it as THE definitive, "catch all" stat to ultimately determine a player's value, then it falls laughably short.
While I like WAR, in my opinion it's kind of an unnecessary stat. I also think it's kind of lazy (even though a ridiculous amount of work went into creating it) .
Attempting to create a single, definitive, stat which defines a player's overall value is a fruitless exercise, and seeing as we already have so much information on every single aspect of a player's game, there really is no need to create one single definitive stat by which to judge them.
WAR is basically stat-heads saying, "All of these sabermetric stats sure are hard for the average fan to figure out, so rather than saying 'deal with it,' let's create an extremely subjective, flawed, and completely unnecessary catch all stat that will make sabermetrics easier to understand for the casual fan." So now you have WAR, and a bunch of people who don't understand WAR are using it as "the MVP number," rather than a gross estimation of a player's added value to a team.
At least he's consistent...at being dumb with his vote. Anyone who doesn't have Cabrera in the top 3 should have their vote taken away.
Zobrist was not even close to leading the league in WAR last year.
According to Fangraphs, Zobrist's WAR last year was 6.6. Ellsbury led the AL with 9.4. Verlander was at 7.0, which was actually behind Sabathia at 7.1.
He was listed at the top at 8.6 at Baseball Reference.com. I don't know which site is more credible, but it has Trout at the top for this year at 10.6, so I'm assuming it's correct...or not.
When the ADept sells special jerseys and gear, you'll see my picture next to the targeted customer crowd. A sheep.....but a Blue one.....
One thing to look at is how each has down down the stretch. Trout's numbers have tappered off significantly since Aug. 1st, while Miggy has been even better. He helped get his team into the playoffs. Trout was a big reason the Angels were even relavent, but once the book was out on him he couldn't keep pace.
It shouldn't be close in my opinion. Trout had a great year, but he wasn't as effective after pitchers had tape of him and learned how to pitch to him. His September numbers left a lot to be desired for a potential MVP winner. Cabrera on the other hand played out of his mind towards the end of the year. Pitchers knew what they had to do and still couldn't stop him.
Baseball mojo is a wierd thing. You don't talk to a pitcher who's throwing a no hitter, so maybe we shouldn't talk about this until tomorrow.
the team. the team. the team.
Uhh, you're about a month too late with that.
How so many people are going crazy over such a pointless metric is beyond me. It's based off comparing stats with a fictional minor league player, fergodsakes! I honestly just see this as ESPN freaking out that their midseason "lock" for the MVP (Trout) no longer looks like the most deserving candidate. Also, I can imagine, as much as we and so many others love Miggy, many marketing departments aren't too thrilled with having to turn Cabrera into a bankable marketing star, which they would clearly have to try to do if he has an MVP trophy to go along with a triple crown. Just my little conspiracy theories as to why WAR has picked up a lot of steam as of late...
(Putting Team First)
But somehow I'm not too concerned about the MVP. There's one (or two) of those every year. How often is there a triple crown?
Well, considering Trout's team will finish with a better record than Cabrera's, that kind of works against your argument.
Guess I should have posted above in the change-of-fielding-position discussion.
Better record is meaningless if you fail to achieve the first goal (which is to win the division).
Additionally, since the Tigers clinched, they had nothing to play for in the last two games anyhow and might have been able to tie the Angels in won-loss if it really mattered.
and the reason that the comparison to a 'fictional minor leaguer' makes sense comes not from when the team is already assembled, but during team construction.
If a team gets great offense out of defensive positions like 2b,ss,cf and catcher, then it is much easier and cheaper to acquire a given level of production at the offensive positions.
For example, if I already have a guy who has a 1000 OPS at SS, it might not cost a ton in either prospects or cash to get a 800 OPS 1st baseman. But if I have a 1000 OPS 1st baseman, its gonna cost significantly more in prospects/cash to get that 800 OPS SS.
So you have an average 900 OPS between the two positions in either scenario, but in the latter scenario, you've expanded more resources to get there. Thus starting off with the great SS is more valuable than having the great 1B.
What WAR does to a reasonably accurate (not perfect) degree is give front offices a way to accurately value players monetarily, thus knowing how to allocate resources efficiently and better knowing who is replacable and who it would be very costly to replace in an efficient market.
That said, WAR is a tool and should not be the complete basis of any argument, including teh MVP argument. And most any arguemnt made with WAR can be made with the individual components instead (weighted runs above average, ultimate baserunning, ultimate zone rating) to show which factors contributed most heavily to a players WAR #. Breaking WAR down into these components, it is much easier for a dissenter to argue which component exactly it is that they disagree with, rather than just eyeballing the #, and saying, 'oh thats off'.
For example, I think that Cabrera UZR is too low (for example Prince is much higher and Prince sucks at defense), and I know wRAA doesn't value RBI % ( Miguel's rbi's/ his rbi opportunities) and I know that Miguel has been really good at getting guys in at an above league average rate. So, its hard to put an exact value as to how undervalued Cabrera is, but I do think that the true WAR gap is less than 3.5, maybe closer to 1 or 2.
I would vote for Trout for MVP, not only because of WAR, but because he scores well in every single component measurable in baseball, and because Cabrera's performance this year has some additional drawbacks that go unnoticed (leads league in GIDP, lowest walk rate in 3 years etc).
Keith Law?What the dafuq is a Keith Law?
"Are you an official here?Because you've officially given me a boner."
Trout isn't exactly chopped liver compared to Cabrera:
45 more SBs
.003 higher OBP
probable gold glove winner (sorry Austin!)
20 more runs scored
.007 lower BA
14 less HRS
56 less rbis (wow!)
30 less slugging pct
It's a simple question of Trout's extra speed and defense vs. Cabrera's extra power + RBI. To dismiss this as a debate that should be one-sided is likely no more than a failure to see all sides of the argument.
"How is this not already handed to Cabrera and why is there even a debate... it's baffling." -- ESPN wants to create drama. Drama == PROFIT.
WAR is a nice framework stat but my biggest issue with it is the fact that the formula for calculating is not defined. How do Fangraphs and Keith Law calculate WAR when in and of itself has a subjective formula? If there is no specific formula wouldn't that lead to inconclusive results?
I certainly think the MVP is up for debate, it's the douches like Keith Law that thinks its an absolute runaway for Trout that make me go insane.
there's absolutely a specific formula, at least for hitting. There's 2 different versions of WAR out there (for pitchers and hitters), with the difference for hitters being how defense is measured. This has to do with batted ball and everything, which does bring into account human judgement, and is still deeply flawed, but is vastly superior to simple stats like fielding percentage and assists. but the biggest problem with it IMO is treating the defensive metrics as having no uncertainty when in fact they have a large uncertainty.
There is no specific formula. That's why several stat sites like Baseball Prospectus, Fangraphs, etc. all calculate it differently. This is something lifted straight from Wikipedia.
No excuses. Play like a champion.
fangraphs WAR has a specific formula, and baseball reference WAR has a specific formula. there's no fudging or non-specificity in the formula. when people are distinguishing between the 2 they typically say fWAR or brWAR or something.
I think you guys agree with each other but don't realize it.
Yes, each service has a specific formula.
No, each service does not use the same formula.
But when calculating overall WAR you're also taking into account flawed defensive metrics. There is no debate that Trout is the far superior defender, but WAR is still a far from perfect measure of value.
Many have astutely pointed out that the defensive components of WAR are unreliable, especially in short sample sizes... I prefer 3 year running averages of DRS or UZR before making a judgement.
But Cabrera supporters are saying these metrics are unreliable and can't be trusted, thus they go on to completely ignore defense in their argument, and then use their subjective eye test of Cabrera's defense at 3rd to claim hes 'not as bad as you'd think' and do dumb stuff like quote fielding percentage and claim brownie points for moving from 1st to 3rd ( a reversal of a previous move he had to make because he used to be terrible at 3rd).
I think the advanced D metrics do slightly undervalue Cabrera's D, but that doesn't mean they should be discounted entirely.
Guillen being god awful at 1B had as much, if not more, to do with Cabrera originally switching positions.
A team had back to back MVPs at different positions?
pudge and arod?
pudge and gonzalez. the internet is a great place:
that was a trivia question a few weeks back, my memory is bad.
Actually, I'm wrong and thats only AL. Rollins Howard recently NL.
I think the issue with him sitting out today is based on the mystique surrounding these records created by Ted Williams. In '41, he was at .3995, which would have been rounded up to .400. Instead of sitting, he played a doubleheader and went 6 for 8 to finish at .406.
I think the media will chastise Leyland/Miggy if he sits regardless of whether he deserves to or not. I personally think there should be no issue if he sits (he has only missed one game), but hope he plays to really seal the deal.
Valid points, and as a counter I would add that in 1941 they played like 150 games, and by the end of the season the Sox were like 17 games behind the Yankees. So that was it for Williams, whereas Cabrera has another session of games to prepare for
If you're doing nothing, how do you know when you're finished?
StraightDave owes me a steak dinner
...Cabrera plays and injures himself such that he misses the playoffs, then we'd never hear the end of it. That alone is enough reason to justify sitting Cabrera regardless of the Triple Crown situation.
I'm okay with Trout winning the MVP - the guy has had an amazing year and one that hasn't been seen before. And the only reason his team isn't in the playoffs is because of the division they play in - all three teams have a better record thant the Tigers. And to be fair, this is actually Cabrera's worst overall season of the past three (minor differences admittedly), so it is a little weird that this is the mortal lock year when two years ago he had better slash numbers and nearly the same classic HR/RBI/Avg. breakdowns.
Personally, I'd love to see the Tigers go back-to-back MVPs, but I'm okay with a transcendent year like Trout's being recognized.
Well, Miggy has 14 more homers this year than last - a career high. So, not quite the same as the previous few years.
CoE Class of 2007
I wanna preface this by saying that I'm a casual baseball fan and dont understand all the intricacies of the sport.
A great argument made for Cabrera being more "valuable" to the Tigers than Trout is to the Angels that hasn't been brought up here yet and I thought I would share.
Cabrera is responsible for plating 204 runs. (His runs scored + his RBI - his HR so they aren't counted twice).
So thats 109+139-44= 204
The Tigers have scored 725 runs so far this season meaning Cabrera has had a hand in 28.1% of all the runs scored.
Trout meanwhile is responsible for 182 runs (129+83-30). The Angels have scored 693 runs since Trout was called up.
So Trout has had a hand in 26.26% of his teams run production.
That means even with all his extra speed on the bases, Trout still isn't "as valuable" offensively to his team as Cabrera has been to the Tigers.
So with that said, I think the debate then comes down to how much emphasis you put on defense. I'll leave that to those of you who know better.
I like this and it leads to an interesting question. How many runs did Trout score simply because he put himself in scoring position via the steal? How many times did he steal 3rd and score on a sac fly?
There is actually a stat called Runs Created, which attempts to measure exactly what the name implies. IIRC, Cabby is up 139 to 136 over Trout, but if you're going to make the MVP about runs created, you also have to look at runs taken away, and Trout crushes Cabrera in +/-.
But you haven't teased out how many of those runs have to do with the guys hitting around those two. Put Trout in the middle of the lineup, but still ahead of a big bopper, and his % here will go up.
I'm a Tigers fan and love Miggy, but if I had a vote I would vote for Trout. I just think he has contributed to the Angels in more ways and is a complete 5-tool player, a once in a generation talent.
Cabrera's Triple Crown is an awesome accomplishment, but in reality HR's are the only stat that is truly representative of a great season. AVG. is not nearly as important as OBP. And RBI doesn't really mean all that much except that the batters ahead of him were able to somehow get on base. Winning the Triple Crown would be nice, but has very little meaning in determining who is the better player. Trout's 49 steals are indicative of his excellent speed and base-running prowess,and Trout is most definitely a better defensive player than Miggy. While I agree Cabrera probably has played better than Trout recently, and he may well end up winning the MVP, I would not be voting for him.
I do not mean to pry, but you don't by any chance happen to have six fingers on your right hand?