Who would you vote for AL MVP?

[BaconOnAStick]

I meant 15% baserunning.

Isn't it different for different players?

 

Like Jason Heyward, his game his like 30% batting 50% fielding and 20% baserunning. Whereas Abreu is like 95% batting and 4% fielding 1% baserunning (perhaps hyperbolic, perhaps not). When by far the biggest compenent of Abreu's game is so far beyond what anyone else is doing at the plate it needs to count more. Abreu is here to hit the s*** out of baseballs, and he's doing just that, why penalize him for his position and they way he fields it?

 

I guess this is the problem I have with WAR once it gets to the upper reaches of MLB talent. It's a fine, insightful, stat for almost every player in baseball, but once you get to the absolute cream of the crop it loses its damn mind. Really, look at Trout's offensive numbers this year and tell me he's the best position player in the game. s***, look at how he's performed defensively too. He's still great, still the best CF in the game... but he's not the best overall player.

 

What in the hell are Kyle Seager and Anthony Rendon doing all the way up there? Jhonny Peralta is better than Adam Jones and Michael Brantley? What? It just seems arbitrary; like the top 20 players in baseball are shuffled up and spat out in random order. I can't figure out where WAR gets the idea to put these guys.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

Isn't it different for different players?

 

Like Jason Heyward, his game his like 30% batting 50% fielding and 20% baserunning. Whereas Abreu is like 95% batting and 4% fielding 1% baserunning (perhaps hyperbolic, perhaps not). When by far the biggest compenent of Abreu's game is so far beyond what anyone else is doing at the plate it needs to count more. Abreu is here to hit the s*** out of baseballs, and he's doing just that, why penalize him for his position and they way he fields it?

 

I guess this is the problem I have with WAR once it gets to the upper reaches of MLB talent. It's a fine, insightful, stat for almost every player in baseball, but once you get to the absolute cream of the crop it loses its damn mind. Really, look at Trout's offensive numbers this year and tell me he's the best position player in the game. s***, look at how he's performed defensively too. He's still great, still the best CF in the game... but he's not the best overall player.

 

What in the hell are Kyle Seager and Anthony Rendon doing all the way up there? Jhonny Peralta is better than Adam Jones and Michael Brantley? What? It just seems arbitrary; like the top 20 players in baseball are shuffled up and spat out in random order. I can't figure out where WAR gets the idea to put these guys.

 

Dave Cameron likes to say that the top 10-15 guys in WAR are generally your MVP candidates. He argues that let's say you are comparing a guy with a 5.9 WAR to a guy with a 5.1 WAR, you can't just say the 5.9 guy is clearly better. He concedes that we don't know the exact margin of error for WAR, or at least fWAR, but generally anyone within about 1 WAR of eachother can be considered equals, or at least you can't definitively say one is better than the other simply based off that one metric. He says when you start getting 2-3 WAR apart, you really struggle to make a case for the other player.

 

In the case of Trout versus Abreu, there is a 1.4 WAR difference. Then you can also do the math on the other 80 PA that Trout has over Abreu due to injury, and you are getting close to the 1 WAR margin of error that Cameron GUESSES is fair.

[BaconOnAStick]

Then it's very problematic as a statistic. The baseline right now for a premier player is 5 WAR. Anything within 20% of that in either direction and you cannot say for certain the statistic is proving anything between the two players?

 

If a dude is slugging 20% more than the other guy, or getting on base 20% more I can definitively say "hey, this dudes better at getting on base than the other dude" and there's no argument.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

Then it's very problematic as a statistic. The baseline right now for a premier player is 5 WAR. Anything within 20% of that in either direction and you cannot say for certain the statistic is proving anything between the two players?

 

If a dude is slugging 20% more than the other guy, or getting on base 20% more I can definitively say "hey, this dudes better at getting on base than the other dude" and there's no argument.

 

That's because on-base percentage is exactly that, getting on base.

 

Just you can definitely say "This pitcher won more games than this other pitcher" doesn't suddenly make Wins a good statistic for pitchers. Anytime you have a formula predicated on assigned values, there is going to be some margin of error.

[Jerksticks]

I feel like all WAR does is group all the good players, and then you have to go back to stats to make sense of it. But of course most baseball fans already know who the good players are because they are good players, and consequently have good stats.

 

I'm glad it's not used for MVP considerations. And I'm also glad that it's not used by front offices for evaluation.

 

^that last part is just for riling up

[Balta1701]

I feel like all WAR does is group all the good players, and then you have to go back to stats to make sense of it. But of course most baseball fans already know who the good players are because they are good players, and consequently have good stats.

 

I'm glad it's not used for MVP considerations. And I'm also glad that it's not used by front offices for evaluation.

 

^that last part is just for riling up

I think a lot of them will have their own versions of it.

[chitownsportsfan]

I think a lot of them will have their own versions of it.

 

Everyone has their version of WAR and in general baseball teams are pretty damn good about valuing players. Sure a guy like Gillaspie or Abreu slips through the cracks once and awhile but for guys like Dunn and De Aza for example WAR has them around .5 to 1.5 win players, and the market reflects that. WAR is a pretty decent shorthand way to value guys. Now, when you analyze any player you go way beyond WAR but as a MVP starting point it's pretty damn good for a single number.

[caulfield12]

AMERICAN LEAGUE

Top 10 vote-getters, with first-place vote tally in parentheses

1. Mike Trout (35)

2. Robinson Cano (1)

3. Felix Hernandez (2)

4. Jose Abreu (1)

5. Josh Donaldson

6. Alex Gordon

7. Victor Martinez (1)

8. Jose Altuve

9. Nelson Cruz

10. Adrian Beltre

 

Trout, clearly, has graduated from hero of the calculator-carrying crowd to a more mainstream MVP acceptance, and if our panel is any indication, he will get the honor so many believe he was due in 2012-13, when Miguel Cabrera beat him out both times with more traditional MVP stats. With a career-best 31 homers and 98 RBIs entering Thursday -- and so many plate appearances still in front of him -- Trout fits that traditional formula. It certainly doesn't hurt his cause that his Angels are in line for their first October entry of his career or that Cabrera's physical issues have caused a statistical setback.

 

What's particularly interesting about Trout's candidacy is that his stolen-base tally has taken a drastic dip, and the defensive metrics aren't quite as kind to him now as they were in '12 and '13. But the power numbers and the legitimate postseason hunt have undoubtedly augmented Trout's case, while guys like Donaldson of the A's and Gordon of the Royals seem to have taken his place as the candidates whose value is a bit more nuanced -- they ranked first and third, respectively, in the Baseball Reference WAR calculation, sandwiched around Trout and getting a big boost from their sensational defense.

 

Neither Donaldson nor Gordon received a first-place vote in our poll, but two Mariners -- Cano and Hernandez -- did. It will be interesting to see how the voters handles those dual candidacies, because you can make a strong argument for both guys as the primary catalyst for the Seattle's rise to contention. They'll have trouble overtaking Trout, though, in large measure because they're likely to steal votes from each other.

 

Abreu will also have difficulty, albeit for a different reason. Since the 1995 postseason expansion, the AL MVP has come from a non-playoff team just once (Alex Rodriguez, Rangers, in 2003). So while Abreu's .322 average, .985 OPS, 33 homers and 99 RBIs all compare favorably to Trout, his team's spot in the standings -- the White Sox are in fourth place, 13 games under .500 -- is likely to render his cause moot (and Trout, of course, plays a more demanding defensive position).

 

There is time for voters to get swept into the late-season story lines. Gordon, who is already getting "MVP! MVP!" chants from the Kansas City faithful, can present a compelling case if he leads the Royals to their first October berth in 29 years.

Right now, though, the AL MVP Award is Trout's to lose.

 

from mlb.com

 

 

FWIW, I didn't include Beltre since the Rangers are the worst team in baseball, and Altuve for the same reason, although both are having pretty brilliant seasons. Donaldson and the A's are REALLY struggling, 6 weeks ago he would have been considered a Top 3-4 candidate surely. Cano has risen with the Mariners in the standings, and Seager's deserving of some credit there as well as King Felix.

 

Interestingly, nobody voted for Cano in the poll, although I probably did him a disservice pairing him with Seager.

Edited September 4, 2014 by caulfield12

[Eminor3rd]

Baserunning, sure. I'll give you that.

 

But this PREMIUM DEFENSIVE POSITION REPLACEMENT LEVEL crap has to stop. Any player who can hit like Abreu holds tremendous value, I'd go so far as to say unequaled value. Abreu is the only player, regardless of position slugging above .600. Not only that, he's the only one even close. He's the only player in baseball that has even a remote chance of an OPS over 1.000. He leads MLB in wOBA and WRC+ too, lack of baserunning and all.

 

It doesn't matter what position Abreu plays, he is cramming much more offense than anyone else in baseball into one spot in the lineup. There are plenty of teams that are not getting Abreu like production out of their 4 and 5 hitters combined (totally unverified claim). Don't give me the "well you see Trout plays center and the average center fielder can't hit near as well as the average first...", Abreu so far out classes what anyone in baseball does with the bat arguments over positional semantics are worthless.

 

Positional scarcity IS important, but it's more than that. It also comes down to why positional scarcity is even an issue -- dudes in CF make a TON of outs that dudes at 1B don't. By playing CF, Trout is contributing more defensive value.

 

This is not a knock on Abreu, who is extremely valuable. It's just acknowledgement of how awesome Trout is. He's killing you on both sides of the ball. Abreu is killing you on one side and adequately filling a hole on the other.

[caulfield12]

Starting pitching, dominant/lockdown bullpens and defense win you championships.

 

Trout's part of all 3 elements working together.

 

 

That said, the Angels are going to really be in trouble without Richards in the playoffs IMO.

[Eminor3rd]

Then it's very problematic as a statistic. The baseline right now for a premier player is 5 WAR. Anything within 20% of that in either direction and you cannot say for certain the statistic is proving anything between the two players?

 

If a dude is slugging 20% more than the other guy, or getting on base 20% more I can definitively say "hey, this dudes better at getting on base than the other dude" and there's no argument.

 

Why do you think those components aren't a factor?

 

Look, it's this simple: WAR represents a summation of the idea of using context neutral statistics for the purposes of accurately comparing players across context. This is a very important concept for roster construction and it simply CANNOT be done using traditional statistics that depend on situation. However, the nature of stripping context is the the numbers rely on averages, and the nature of counting stats is that the context of accumulation can never be taken away.

 

Thus, we always have to be aware of the error bars. There is NOTHING wrong with this concept if you just accept it for what it is. I've said this a million times and the false argument still persists: NO one anywhere is making an argument that WAR should be used as a definitive, to-the-decimal-point way to rank player value, because the error bars overlap substantially. However, it IS currently the best way to accurately combine offensive and defensive contribution and create tiers of similarly valuable players.

 

Example: RBI will NOT tell you who the best hitters are. RBI will, though, tell you which hitters factored most heavily in the run production of their teams this year. OBP/SLG will get you closer to who the best hitters are, but how do you assess the balance of power and frequency on base? Linear weights do this (wOBA, wRC+). Errors don't tell you who the best defenders are, but they will tell you who made the fewest mistakes. Your eyeballs can tell you a lot about a single guy, but you can't compare him to another guy you haven't seen enough with any level of accuracy. Regressed UZR is the best thing we currently have at comparing different guys across context. But now how do we tell how the value of one guy's defense compares to another guy's offense? Now you need WAR.

 

Each of these numbers answers a different question. Accept the benefits and limitations of every stat and revel in being enlightened with what each can tell you. THIS I COMMAND (with love and tenderness)!

Edited September 4, 2014 by Eminor3rd