Cabrera runs away with MVP

[durango46]

22 of 28 first place votes

362 - 281 over Trout

AJ finished 6th and Jim Johnson 7th....Two Orioles in the top ten....FANTASTIC JOB MEN !


If I had a vote, mine would have been for Cabrera also.
Triple Crown nuff said.....


http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/86...can-league-mvp

[Far from home]

He deserved it.
This is the first year that I can remember that there were two deserving MVPs and Managers of the year.

I'm disappointed that Hamilton finished ahead of AJ.
It seems to be, especially later in the year, that Hamilton was almost a detriment to his team with the drama surrounding him and his dive in batting statistics.

[Slidemaster]

I'm kind of tired of all the "new school" baseball analysts trying to make numbers that try to prove something that is completely unprovable with any kind of hard data. Can someone show me conclusively that WAR is actually accurate? I'm not saying that it's a useless stat, but that's all some people are looking at for the MVP race. At some point in the WAR calculation, you're making an arbitrary assumption, but people don't seem to get that.

[hector]

I'm kind of tired of all the "new school" baseball analysts trying to make numbers that try to prove something that is completely unprovable with any kind of hard data. Can someone show me conclusively that WAR is actually accurate? I'm not saying that it's a useless stat, but that's all some people are looking at for the MVP race. At some point in the WAR calculation, you're making an arbitrary assumption, but people don't seem to get that.

WAR, like many others, is a useless stat. The word WAR is an honorable term in the English language and I object to it being used as a meaningless baseball metric.

[LarryN]

I'm kind of tired of all the "new school" baseball analysts trying to make numbers that try to prove something that is completely unprovable with any kind of hard data. Can someone show me conclusively that WAR is actually accurate? I'm not saying that it's a useless stat, but that's all some people are looking at for the MVP race. At some point in the WAR calculation, you're making an arbitrary assumption, but people don't seem to get that.

The one thing I don't understand about WAR is, who, exactly, are they using as a the 'replacement"? Is it the next guy up for that particular team? the average guy that plays that position in the entire league? Who is the R?

[The Eternal White Belt]

The one thing I don't understand about WAR is, who, exactly, are they using as a the 'replacement"? Is it the next guy up for that particular team? the average guy that plays that position in the entire league? Who is the R?

It depends on who calculates it.

[dandrews]

WAR, like many others, is a useless stat. The word WAR is an honorable term in the English language and I object to it being used as a meaningless baseball metric.

Do you even know how it works, or do you talk bad about it because you don't understand it?

[dandrews]

The one thing I don't understand about WAR is, who, exactly, are they using as a the 'replacement"? Is it the next guy up for that particular team? the average guy that plays that position in the entire league? Who is the R?

It's a theoretical replacement player that would come up from the minors if the player got hurt. Fangraphs defines it at -20 runs per 600 plate appearances

[dandrews]

I'm kind of tired of all the "new school" baseball analysts trying to make numbers that try to prove something that is completely unprovable with any kind of hard data. Can someone show me conclusively that WAR is actually accurate? I'm not saying that it's a useless stat, but that's all some people are looking at for the MVP race. At some point in the WAR calculation, you're making an arbitrary assumption, but people don't seem to get that.

Here's a study that shows a .83 correlation between # of wins and WAR. Last years number was .88. Anything higher than .8 is considered a strong correlation.
http://orioles-nation.com/2012/10/24...racy-war-2012/

You can choose to use WAR or not, but there's no denying it's accurate

[LarryN]

It's a theoretical replacement player that would come up from the minors if the player got hurt. Fangraphs defines it at -20 runs per 600 plate appearances

Where do they get the theoretical stats for this theoretical player? Is the Orioles theoretical replacement centerfielder the same as the Angels theoretical centerfielder? Or are they just some numbers that get pulled out of someone's ***?

[dandrews]

Where do they get the theoretical stats for this theoretical player? Is the Orioles theoretical replacement centerfielder the same as the Angels theoretical centerfielder? Or are they just some numbers that get pulled out of someone's ***?

It's all the same. League wide. I don't know the exact methodology Fangraphs used to come up with that number.

[dandrews]

If you want to know more about it here's a good place to start.

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/ind...ition-players/

[LarryN]

If you want to know more about it here's a good place to start.

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/ind...ition-players/

Nevermind. I watch to see how many hits a player gets, how many runs he scores, how many runners he drives in, how many bases he steals.

I don't watch baseball to do math.

[dandrews]

Nevermind. I watch to see how many hits a player gets, how many runs he scores, how many runners he drives in, how many bases he steals.

I don't watch baseball to do math.

So basically you ask a WAR related question, I answer it, and then you decided math sucks and you don't want to know anymore. I'm glad I wasted my time explaining it.

[LarryN]

It's all the same. League wide. I don't know the exact methodology Fangraphs used to come up with that number.

What if the Orioles "replacement" centerfielder really isn't as good as the Angels "replacement" centerfielder? Or even as good as the average. Why wouldn't that increase Adam Jones' value?

[mythoughts]

A no-brainer if you ask me !

[Slidemaster]

Here's a study that shows a .83 correlation between # of wins and WAR. Last years number was .88. Anything higher than .8 is considered a strong correlation.
http://orioles-nation.com/2012/10/24...racy-war-2012/

You can choose to use WAR or not, but there's no denying it's accurate

The problem is that calculating WAR still relies on assumptions. As any good scientist will tell you, correlation does not in any way equal conclusive proof, (as the Orioles plainly showed this past season). I feel very uncomfortable using a statistic that is based on somewhat arbitrary formulas as the end-all be-all of player evaluation.

Lets face it - you can postulate all you want about how many wins a certain player is worth and come up with formulas to show it. However, there's no way to actually show that those calculations are correct. Hell, not even statheads can agree which version of WAR is the best to use. If you (and not you specifically, but the pushers of the statistic) can't even agree on how it should be calculated, why should anyone view it as such a rock-solid method of player evaluation?

Furthermore, defensive metrics are so arbitrary that I have no faith in their ability to adequately judge the abilities of players in the field, or predict the outcomes even if they're good at judging how many additional baserunners a player allowed through fielding blunders or inability. Pitchers pitch differently when players are on base. Veterans are have more experience pitching under pressure. The quality of the pitching staff in general should greatly affect how damaging fielding errors are. How can WAR account for a mindset change in the same player based on the situation, or any other human element that doesn't show up on a stat sheet?

In 2009, Ben Zobrist's WAR was 8.6. Albert Pujols' WAR was 8.4. Are we to believe that Zobrist was a better player that year than Pujols? Chase Headley had a higher WAR this year than Cabrera. Should the Tigers be calling up the Brewers to deal?

I'm sorry, WAR doesn't pass the eye test for me. I'm not saying it doesn't have value, but people who want to make it the only stat that matters (and they're out there in droves) are misguided.

[kudzu]

You can choose to use WAR or not, but there's no denying it's accurate

I like WAR. And sabermetrics in general.

It's an interesting tool to use but there's plenty of denying it's accurate.

[kudzu]

The problem is that calculating WAR still relies on assumptions. As any good scientist will tell you, correlation does not in any way equal conclusive proof, (as the Orioles plainly showed this past season). I feel very uncomfortable using a statistic that is based on somewhat arbitrary formulas as the end-all be-all of player evaluation.

Lets face it - you can postulate all you want about how many wins a certain player is worth and come up with formulas to show it. However, there's no way to actually show that those calculations are correct. Hell, not even statheads can agree which version of WAR is the best to use. If you (and not you specifically, but the pushers of the statistic) can't even agree on how it should be calculated, why should anyone view it as such a rock-solid method of player evaluation?

Furthermore, defensive metrics are so arbitrary that I have no faith in their ability to adequately judge the abilities of players in the field, or predict the outcomes even if they're good at judging how many additional baserunners a player allowed through fielding blunders or inability. Pitchers pitch differently when players are on base. Veterans are have more experience pitching under pressure. The quality of the pitching staff in general should greatly affect how damaging fielding errors are. How can WAR account for a mindset change in the same player based on the situation, or any other human element that doesn't show up on a stat sheet?

In 2009, Ben Zobrist's WAR was 8.6. Albert Pujols' WAR was 8.4. Are we to believe that Zobrist was a better player that year than Pujols? Chase Headley had a higher WAR this year than Cabrera. Should the Tigers be calling up the Brewers to deal?

I'm sorry, WAR doesn't pass the eye test for me. I'm not saying it doesn't have value, but people who want to make it the only stat that matters (and they're out there in droves) are misguided.

Well said.

[dandrews]

The problem is that calculating WAR still relies on assumptions. As any good scientist will tell you, correlation does not in any way equal conclusive proof, (as the Orioles plainly showed this past season). I feel very uncomfortable using a statistic that is based on somewhat arbitrary formulas as the end-all be-all of player evaluation.

Lets face it - you can postulate all you want about how many wins a certain player is worth and come up with formulas to show it. However, there's no way to actually show that those calculations are correct. Hell, not even statheads can agree which version of WAR is the best to use. If you (and not you specifically, but the pushers of the statistic) can't even agree on how it should be calculated, why should anyone view it as such a rock-solid method of player evaluation?

Furthermore, defensive metrics are so arbitrary that I have no faith in their ability to adequately judge the abilities of players in the field, or predict the outcomes even if they're good at judging how many additional baserunners a player allowed through fielding blunders or inability. Pitchers pitch differently when players are on base. Veterans are have more experience pitching under pressure. The quality of the pitching staff in general should greatly affect how damaging fielding errors are. How can WAR account for a mindset change in the same player based on the situation, or any other human element that doesn't show up on a stat sheet?

In 2009, Ben Zobrist's WAR was 8.6. Albert Pujols' WAR was 8.4. Are we to believe that Zobrist was a better player that year than Pujols? Chase Headley had a higher WAR this year than Cabrera. Should the Tigers be calling up the Brewers to deal?

I'm sorry, WAR doesn't pass the eye test for me. I'm not saying it doesn't have value, but people who want to make it the only stat that matters (and they're out there in droves) are misguided.

It's not the end all be all of stats. Like any other statistic, it has it's flaws (UZR, for instance, is "scored" by people who watch the games at Baseball Info Solutions, thus is subject to human error). It can't encompass the human element, nor does it try to. No stat does. All it does is encapsulate offense, defense, and baserunning into one number. Using that number alongside judgement from watching the games is the best way to use WAR.

As far as Zobrist vs Pujols, obviously Pujols is better. WAR isn't a good tool when comparing two players with similar value. What it does tell me is that Zobrist is extremely underrated as a player. Same with Headley vs Cabrera (although Cabrera was really hurt by his defense and Headley was really helped by his defense). When WAR tells me that Mike Trout is 3+ wins better than Cabrera, that's a pretty good indication to me he is the better player. No amount of difference in the "human element" can make up 30 runs.

All in all it's just another stat. Just like OPS and Slugging %, albeit much more thorough. That's why I get irritated when people use stats like that but refuse to even acknowledge WAR as a tool. It's all calculated with the same math. Usually the people who immediately dismiss it are the ones that don't understand what inputs are used for the calculation. It includes everyday stats like singles, home runs, and walks, not some kind of voodoo magic.