AL MVP Discussion

[southsider2k5]

Hamilton won two years back even though he played something like 130 games.

In this case, the fact that Trout missed a month is actually a strength in the argument for Trout.

 

Trout was so good that if he did play for a full season, you could easily assume that he hits 35-40 home runs and maybe steals 60-65 bases. Plus, the Trout actually out-WAR'd Cabrera or any other AL player by at least 3 wins...despite playing in 20 less games. That speaks volumes to how good he really was.

 

In the strictest sense of the standards, no it isn't. It is a negative for Trout. There is nothing in there about projecting what he would have been able to do if he played the whole time. There is something in there about games played being a consideration.

[southsider2k5]

A bit of fuel for the fire... A Yankee friend's facebook post.

 

The highest WAR Joe DiMaggio ever had was in 1941 when he had an 8.6

 

So a year in which he had a 56 game hitting streak, batted .357, on base average of .440 and a slugging average of 657.....a year in which he drove in 125 runs and scored 122 in 139 games....a year in which he had 76 walks, 13 strikeouts and 30 home runs....a year in which he was named MVP was not as good as Mike Trout this year because he only had 4 stolen bases. And it was not even close.

[Iwritecode]

In the strictest sense of the standards, no it isn't. It is a negative for Trout. There is nothing in there about projecting what he would have been able to do if he played the whole time. There is something in there about games played being a consideration.

 

I think that's put in there more as a consideration of their durability. It's not like he missed a month because he got benched or he was hurt. He was in the minors. Not much he can do to control that.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

A bit of fuel for the fire... A Yankee friend's facebook post.

 

That's dumb because you shouldn't be comparing WAR that far apart in years. WAR is relative to what is considered a replacement level player in that current season. What was considered replacement level then is not what is considered replacement level now. I'm not 100% certain on this, but I don't think WAR transcends different eras like that.

[southsider2k5]

That's dumb because you shouldn't be comparing WAR that far apart in years. WAR is relative to what is considered a replacement level player in that current season. What was considered replacement level then is not what is considered replacement level now. I'm not 100% certain on this, but I don't think WAR transcends different eras like that.

 

Considering what offense looked like in that era to what it looks like now, DiMaggio WAR should be much higher then, not lower.

[Iwritecode]

Going by fielding % alone (since I don't think they have SABR fielding stats that far back) Trout is better on defense.

[witesoxfan]

That's dumb because you shouldn't be comparing WAR that far apart in years. WAR is relative to what is considered a replacement level player in that current season. What was considered replacement level then is not what is considered replacement level now. I'm not 100% certain on this, but I don't think WAR transcends different eras like that.

 

That is the entire point of WAR is so you can compare different eras and have some semblance of relativity. The problems will lie in the lack of defensive numbers (B-R uses hard statistics that tend to mislead while FanGraphs are determined by placement of batted balls which they have no data for from DiMaggio's era).

 

I also don't know where that friend got the 8.6 number. From what I see, he's at 7.8 bWAR and 10.6 fWAR

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

That is the entire point of WAR is so you can compare different eras and have some semblance of relativity. The problems will lie in the lack of defensive numbers (B-R uses hard statistics that tend to mislead while FanGraphs are determined by placement of batted balls which they have no data for from DiMaggio's era).

 

I also don't know where that friend got the 8.6 number. From what I see, he's at 7.8 bWAR and 10.6 fWAR

 

I hadn't considered that, but it makes sense. Maybe that's why WAR should not transcend eras that far apart. I knew there was a reason you couldn't compare then to now, but I didn't remember specifically why.

 

And to be clear, fWAR is all I recognize.

[witesoxfan]

I don't know their exact methodology, but they do have what appear to be roughly calculated statistics for fielding runs from that era. I'm not sure if they just use the same amount of runs or if they use rough scouting reports from the time, but that's where they get those numbers from.

 

Still, I would use those numbers with confidence. Everything is compared to replacement level, so it's safe to assume that DiMaggio was worth more in 1941 than Mike Trout was from May through September, even if just by a small amount. It's hard to put into context how good Mike Trout was, but that's a pretty good start.

[Jake]

I'm still not giving s*** to Trout.

 

Last year, in a close game, you KNEW Cabrera was going to beat you. You just had to hope and pray that when he got up, your lead isn't so small that he can chew it up with one swing.

 

Trout had a great year, but it just wasn't what Cabrera did. Cabrera didn't win MVP because he won the Triple Crown, he won the Triple Crown because he had an all-time great season at the dish. Trout beats out Cabrera easily on defense, but it doesn't add enough value to overcome how much better of an offensive player Cabrera was. Trout just wasn't scary. He was pesky. A great hitter who was fast too -- awesome for him. Cabrera was f***ing scary. Like I've said before, Trout was arguably not the scariest hitter in his own lineup.

 

Missing a month of the season counts a lot too. It makes it more impressive that he racked up those numbers, sure, but he wasn't helping his team all that time. It doesn't matter that it isn't his fault. Cabrera didn't miss anything, he was playing without a left foot for quite a while there. The Angels were only a few games away from the playoffs and Trout wasn't there early to win them those games.

[witesoxfan]

I have no problem with people's thoughts on the MVP race - as I said earlier, there's no wrong answer - but as a general rule, the word "pesky" is not often used to describe a player with a .963 OPS.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

I'm still not giving s*** to Trout.

 

Last year, in a close game, you KNEW Cabrera was going to beat you. You just had to hope and pray that when he got up, your lead isn't so small that he can chew it up with one swing.

 

Trout had a great year, but it just wasn't what Cabrera did. Cabrera didn't win MVP because he won the Triple Crown, he won the Triple Crown because he had an all-time great season at the dish. Trout beats out Cabrera easily on defense, but it doesn't add enough value to overcome how much better of an offensive player Cabrera was. Trout just wasn't scary. He was pesky. A great hitter who was fast too -- awesome for him. Cabrera was f***ing scary. Like I've said before, Trout was arguably not the scariest hitter in his own lineup.

 

Missing a month of the season counts a lot too. It makes it more impressive that he racked up those numbers, sure, but he wasn't helping his team all that time. It doesn't matter that it isn't his fault. Cabrera didn't miss anything, he was playing without a left foot for quite a while there. The Angels were only a few games away from the playoffs and Trout wasn't there early to win them those games.

 

Check this article out. EXCLUDING DEFENSE, Trout was STILL the better player.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/t...ntext-included/

 

Then when you add in defensive value, there is really no question who the better player was in 2012. I don't care "who was the more feared hitter", because you know what, Adam Dunn was a pretty feared hitter too, but on defense or on the basepaths, he was useless. Just because they both posed a long-ball threat on any pitch doesn't make them better than someone who can doesn't do 1 thing tremendously, but all things great. Trout was a threat on defense, on the bases, and at the plate.

Edited November 19, 2012 by JoeCoolMan24

[CrimsonWeltall]

Cabrera didn't win MVP because he won the Triple Crown, he won the Triple Crown because he had an all-time great season at the dish.

 

By what metric did he have an all-time great season?

 

By OPS, it was 398th best season of all time.

By OPS+, it was the 449th best.

By offensive WAR, it's 213th best.

By total bases, it's 79th best.

By Win Probability Added, it's 424th best.

[chw42]

Considering what offense looked like in that era to what it looks like now, DiMaggio WAR should be much higher then, not lower.

 

I have a hard time believing this and I think a lot of people will...but the offense back in 1941 was better on average than the offense of today, a lot better.

 

1941 AL average wOBA: .334

2012 AL average wOBA: .315

 

So no, there was a reason that DiMaggio appeared to be less valuable. And also, FanGraphs had DiMaggio's 1941 season at 10.6 WAR. But then again, you should take any fielding stats in WAR with a huge grain of salt before the year 2002.

 

Note: you can dig those stats up on FanGraphs: http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playe...=1B/3B#advanced

 

Click on averages and see the trend that is developing...offense is dying at a linear pace.

Edited November 19, 2012 by chw42

[chw42]

I have no problem with people's thoughts on the MVP race - as I said earlier, there's no wrong answer - but as a general rule, the word "pesky" is not often used to describe a player with a .963 OPS.

 

There was also that post that said Trout had a bad September...a September where he hit .289/.400/.500.

 

So none of you would like your leadoff hitter with a .900 OPS? Ok.

[Dick Allen]

Cabrera hit 17 homers 7th inning or later. He also had a .720 slugging pct. with 2 outs and RISP. As Hawk says, don't tell me what you hit, tell me when you hit it. This guy came up big in key situations. Trout had a great year and most of the time would win an MVP for the season he had, and was deserving this year. I can't stand the guy, but Cabrera's win is more than justified.

[Jake]

When people pitch around you to get to Prince Fielder, you're having a pretty special year.

[witesoxfan]

When people pitch around you to get to Prince Fielder, you're having a pretty special year.

 

Or you just assume that if you throw meatballs to Prince Fielder, he'll let them pass and wait for the tofu

[Dick Allen]

I'm pretty sure if the MVP were voted based entirely on sabermetrics, Frank Thomas would have won zero MVPs.

[chw42]

I'm pretty sure if the MVP were voted based entirely on sabermetrics, Frank Thomas would have won zero MVPs.

 

He would have definitely won in 1994. 93...not so much.

 

He would have won in 97 had Griffey not hit 56 home runs...

[witesoxfan]

I'm pretty sure if the MVP were voted based entirely on sabermetrics, Frank Thomas would have won zero MVPs.

 

Led the AL in WAR in 1994 (7.3), 75.4 batting runs created.

[Dick Allen]

Led the AL in WAR in 1994 (7.3), 75.4 batting runs created.

Depends whose WAR you are looking at. The Baseball Reference has his WAR 3rd behind Lofton and Griffey, and Frank's offensive season if you pro rate it out, is better than Cabrera's 2012 and it's really not close.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Dick Allen

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

Depends whose WAR you are looking at. The Baseball Reference has his WAR 3rd behind Lofton and Griffey, and Frank's offensive season if you pro rate it out, is better than Cabrera's 2012 and it's really not close.

 

Nobody uses bWAR.

[CrimsonWeltall]

I'm pretty sure if the MVP were voted based entirely on sabermetrics, Frank Thomas would have won zero MVPs.

 

I think he'd still get it in 94, but the 93 MVP would go to Griffey.

[chw42]

Depends whose WAR you are looking at. The Baseball Reference has his WAR 3rd behind Lofton and Griffey.

 

Those differences are based purely on defensive metrics, which back in 1994...were bad. They didn't use UZR back then, they used a form of Total Zone instead.