Re: MVP/CY/ROY Talk
True enough. Perhaps I should have said "definitionally" or "purposely" subjective. In other words, the award for "most valuable" doesn't even give any pretense that it means to be objective (like a "Defensive player of the year" type of award, for example, which at least implies more objective criteria). My point was simply that it's hard for me to get worked up about the measures used when what is being measured isn't even clearly defined.
True enough. Perhaps I should have said "definitionally" or "purposely" subjective. In other words, the award for "most valuable" doesn't even give any pretense that it means to be objective (like a "Defensive player of the year" type of award, for example, which at least implies more objective criteria). My point was simply that it's hard for me to get worked up about the measures used when what is being measured isn't even clearly defined.
Yes, the MVP award (or any award for that matter) is highly subjective. That also means, that no matter how much us as fans go back and forth, petition, what have you, it's not up to us. That's why I reiterated my points as in my opinion, not believing that anyone else or the BWAA should hold my views. And I wouldn't have deemed the award meaningless, had Trout won based off of sabermetrics.
Yeah. No worries. Again, I'm not disagreeing on this point.
Actually baseball hasn't changed that much, and for the most part traditions have held strong. And as far as how far back as when for traditional awards, I mean as far back as the MVP (early-1910s) award goes, which started out as the Chalmers award and was ironically given to the player with the highest batting average, alone. Although that award was nothing more than an advertising ploy, it still lives on in tradition, as we still give automobiles to MVPs. So does the sabermetrics approach now mean that we need to go back and do a comparison amongst past MVP winners/runner-ups? Maybe they introduce a new WAR award? I don't know lol. FYI, for the record, I dislike the DH rule.
MLB has often taken the long and sometimes painful road to change, but I can't agree that it's changed very little. Some traditions hold, some become outdated or adapted. That's true of anything that passes through generations.
My point being that, despite some people trying to make it that, it's not really an issue of "sabermetrics vs tradition" IMO. Over the years, the BBWAA has considered more and more statistical info. That hasn't hindered the voting tradition. It's simply new, more detailed information. Just like saves, RBIs, OPS, and other stats that have been added over the years.
And no, I don't think there needs to be an audit on past winners. A new award is a fun idea, but would essentially be meaningless since it wouldn't impact things like HOF induction, etc. Again, I'm not really that invested, I guess I just don't see how having a more complete picture threatens tradition is all. You call yourself a traditionalist, I call you a curmudgeon (j/k
).
And to the point of leadership, etc. What is done outside of the clubhouse has no bearing on what a player can teach and display to their teammates in the clubhouse, and on the field. I wouldn't vote him role model of the year either. Despite the off-field issues, he didn't let it become a distraction to the team, and he still managed to be well-respected when it came to baseball. On a similar note, I think its a travesty that Pete Rose isn't in the HoF, because baseball-wise IMO he is a Hall of Famer. Ty Cobb, likewise, was not the nicest person but he was a helluva baseball player.
Yeah, I wasn't making a moral case or suggesting it has anything to do with award selection. I was simply having a bit of fun with leadership being brought up. To my knowledge, there is nothing that has suggested Cabrera is a leader on that team beyond simple performance. Not letting self-inflicted personal issues affect his play, to me, is more a product of his talent than any intangible quality and should generally be expected.
I have no disagreement about Rose or Cobb. I will say that off-the-field matters FAR more now than it did when Cobb played (though talent will still trump all). That's part of the evolution in society that baseball is dragged into each generation, kicking and screaming...lol.
Anyway, with (almost) everyone agreeing that it's all subjective, there is really no need for pleading for one case or the other. The vote is in, 28 different people voted what they deemed correct. That is, unless we are getting a jumpstart on the 2013 awards, or plan to submit a petition of change in selection processes.
To be clear, I'm not pleading a case (though I would definitely not oppose the BBWAA process disappearing for this and especially the HOF). Just discussing.
Yeah. No worries. Again, I'm not disagreeing on this point.
Actually baseball hasn't changed that much, and for the most part traditions have held strong. And as far as how far back as when for traditional awards, I mean as far back as the MVP (early-1910s) award goes, which started out as the Chalmers award and was ironically given to the player with the highest batting average, alone. Although that award was nothing more than an advertising ploy, it still lives on in tradition, as we still give automobiles to MVPs. So does the sabermetrics approach now mean that we need to go back and do a comparison amongst past MVP winners/runner-ups? Maybe they introduce a new WAR award? I don't know lol. FYI, for the record, I dislike the DH rule.
MLB has often taken the long and sometimes painful road to change, but I can't agree that it's changed very little. Some traditions hold, some become outdated or adapted. That's true of anything that passes through generations.
My point being that, despite some people trying to make it that, it's not really an issue of "sabermetrics vs tradition" IMO. Over the years, the BBWAA has considered more and more statistical info. That hasn't hindered the voting tradition. It's simply new, more detailed information. Just like saves, RBIs, OPS, and other stats that have been added over the years.
And no, I don't think there needs to be an audit on past winners. A new award is a fun idea, but would essentially be meaningless since it wouldn't impact things like HOF induction, etc. Again, I'm not really that invested, I guess I just don't see how having a more complete picture threatens tradition is all. You call yourself a traditionalist, I call you a curmudgeon (j/k
).And to the point of leadership, etc. What is done outside of the clubhouse has no bearing on what a player can teach and display to their teammates in the clubhouse, and on the field. I wouldn't vote him role model of the year either. Despite the off-field issues, he didn't let it become a distraction to the team, and he still managed to be well-respected when it came to baseball. On a similar note, I think its a travesty that Pete Rose isn't in the HoF, because baseball-wise IMO he is a Hall of Famer. Ty Cobb, likewise, was not the nicest person but he was a helluva baseball player.
Yeah, I wasn't making a moral case or suggesting it has anything to do with award selection. I was simply having a bit of fun with leadership being brought up. To my knowledge, there is nothing that has suggested Cabrera is a leader on that team beyond simple performance. Not letting self-inflicted personal issues affect his play, to me, is more a product of his talent than any intangible quality and should generally be expected.
I have no disagreement about Rose or Cobb. I will say that off-the-field matters FAR more now than it did when Cobb played (though talent will still trump all). That's part of the evolution in society that baseball is dragged into each generation, kicking and screaming...lol.
Anyway, with (almost) everyone agreeing that it's all subjective, there is really no need for pleading for one case or the other. The vote is in, 28 different people voted what they deemed correct. That is, unless we are getting a jumpstart on the 2013 awards, or plan to submit a petition of change in selection processes.
To be clear, I'm not pleading a case (though I would definitely not oppose the BBWAA process disappearing for this and especially the HOF). Just discussing.
Comment