MLB Off-Topic

[BleacherBum2310]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

And way to leave out all the old stats like HR, AVG, RBI, 2Bs, total bases, etc. which was my point. Where Betts beat Trout in every one of those categories with the exception of triples. It all comes to down to which side of the debate you fall on. I mean if we go by all the new statistics we're not gunna be naming a new AL MVP for the next 15 years.

Betts is always going to have more RBI's when you consider the offense and the park upgrade which is why OPS+ and wRC+ is needed to consider park affects.

Yes he did. That's why it's so preposterous that people are saying Trout should've won the MVP that year.

I know Triple Crown is fancy and all but yeah this is the reason why it was absurd and still is http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.asp...ter=&players=0

[AC]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

And way to leave out all the old stats like HR, AVG, RBI, 2Bs, total bases, etc. which was my point. Where Betts beat Trout in every one of those categories with the exception of triples. It all comes to down to which side of the debate you fall on. I mean if we go by all the new statistics we're not gunna be naming a new AL MVP for the next 15 years.

Okay but wRC+ is founded on all of those things. You're searching for evidence to fit your conclusion. If Trout is the most valuable player in the league for the next 15 years, then he should be the MVP winner for the next 15 years, or there's no point in having an award.

[redsox4evur]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Okay but wRC+ is founded on all of those things. You're searching for evidence to fit your conclusion. If Trout is the most valuable player in the league for the next 15 years, then he should be the MVP winner for the next 15 years, or there's no point in having an award.

Ok so because now we have this one stat that takes all those things into accounts, makes them worthless. Gotcha.

[ubernoob]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

It all comes to down to which side of the debate you fall on. I mean if we go by all the new statistics we're not gunna be naming a new AL MVP for the next 15 years.

This should probably happen, considering Trout is probably going to finish his career as the best player to ever play baseball - barring injuries or some crazy drop off.

He already is through probably every age he's finished a season at. I'm sure there were people that ignored (or at the very least understated) how good players like Cobb, Ruth, Williams, etc. were in their prime though.

It's hard for people to understand once in a lifetime talent when they are living through it.

[Suntan Superman]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I mean it's 2016, haven't we already figured out that most counting stats are fairly worthless?

[TheMatrix31]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I'm a traditionalist stat guy, as if that wasn't obvious.

Mike Trout deserves this MVP and the three others he didn't win. And he should and hopefully will get many more barring anything drastic.

I can only hope that the Angels field a great team so that he can show it in the playoffs and everyone can learn what they have.

[areobee401]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

To have had Mookie a part of the MVP discussion is good enough for me. I'm sure he would have like to win it, but Trout was as deserving as they come. End of the day we all get to watch Trout, Mookie and the number of dynamic young stars in MLB do their thing for many years to come. So we all win no matter who is crowned MVP.

[Speedy]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I have a question.

Why are there all these different calculations for WAR? Using Mike Trout as an example:

Fangraphs: 9.4
Baseball Reference: 10.9
ESPN: 10.6

It seems to me that the logic and methodology should be the same across the board, being the "master data" and his primary stat line is the same.

[Blzer]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I have a question.

Why are there all these different calculations for WAR? Using Mike Trout as an example:

Fangraphs: 9.4
Baseball Reference: 10.9
ESPN: 10.6

It seems to me that the logic and methodology should be the same across the board, being the "master data" and his primary stat line is the same.

Different companies statisticians have different ideas on its theoretical value, I guess. Remember that the statistic is only as good as its formula.

[redsox4evur]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I have a question.

Why are there all these different calculations for WAR? Using Mike Trout as an example:

Fangraphs: 9.4
Baseball Reference: 10.9
ESPN: 10.6

It seems to me that the logic and methodology should be the same across the board, being the "master data" and his primary stat line is the same.

It's because all the different companies have a different way that they calculate WAR. It's when you talk about WAR there are two different ones bWAR and fWAR.

[Speedy]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I think that's crazy...if WAR is one of the biggest statistics and metrics that team utilize, it stands to reason it ought to be standardized across the game in some way.

[Blzer]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I think that's crazy...if WAR is one of the biggest statistics and metrics that team utilize, it stands to reason it ought to be standardized across the game in some way.

Well, maybe. Though that's like saying NBA 2K and NBA Live should have the same player ratings.

I think that's the reason some people don't like it. It's theoretical. It guarantees nothing of the past, as anything can happen/change to any player in any given situation. A replacement player may not provide any less losses than that of Trout, all depending on when the outs were made and where he was placed in the lineup.

That being said, because this is on the topic of MVP voting, it's the best cumulative analysis value out there, no matter which of the three companies' numbers your looking at. At least they're taking every value, aspect, and parameter into consideration (on both sides of the ball, no less) against the same "replacement player," instead of just looking at a guy's Triple Crown totals. That number tells us much more than Harold Reynolds could about anybody, so long as the formula has been tested and proven to provide us with quite enough legitimacy.

[TheMatrix31]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I think that's crazy...if WAR is one of the biggest statistics and metrics that team utilize, it stands to reason it ought to be standardized across the game in some way.

I agree. It's pretty absurd. We don't know what a WAR is, but we certainly know what other things are.

[jvalverde88]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I think that's crazy...if WAR is one of the biggest statistics and metrics that team utilize, it stands to reason it ought to be standardized across the game in some way.

I agree. It's pretty absurd. We don't know what a WAR is, but we certainly know what other things are.

But what is it good for?






















I'm so sorry guys, I just had to.

[kehlis]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

And way to leave out all the old stats like HR, AVG, RBI, 2Bs, total bases, etc. which was my point. Where Betts beat Trout in every one of those categories with the exception of triples. It all comes to down to which side of the debate you fall on. I mean if we go by all the new statistics we're not gunna be naming a new AL MVP for the next 15 years.

Actually your point was that they were equal at offense but Betts was superior at defense unless I'm reading this wrong:

So let's ask this. Miguel Cabrera beat Trout (in 2012) in all but 3 stats, WAR, SB and OBP (which was .003 margain) is Trout's defense really enough to put him past Cabrera? Trout had a dWAR of 2.1 whereas Cabrera had a dWAR of -0.2. Is that 2.3 difference in dWAR really say that Trout was more valuable than Cabrera? Because I made the same case last week about Betts being just as Trout on offense but a far superior defender and was laughed at.