Do you want to see Miguel Cabrera win MLBs Triple Crown?

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

All of the Trout fans should consider this: since August 1st, Cabrera has hit .343 with 19 home runs, 52 RBI, and he's scored 42 runs. Trout has hit .284 with 12 home runs, 28 RBI, and has scored 49 runs.

Cabrera's batting average down the stretch in the pennant race was 59 points higher, he hit 7 more home runs, and his combined total for runs scored and runs batted in was 94 versus 71 for Trout.

If Trout had produced as well as Cabrera when it mattered the most, the Angels would be in the playoffs. Instead, they finished in 3rd place, which is exactly where they would have finished if Trout had never played an inning this year.

It's not even close. The vote for MVP should be unanimous.

And the Angels are a whole half-game worse than the Tigers over that stretch. They went 32-25 since August 1. The Tigers are 33-25. The Tigers were just fortunate to play a lot of games against the shitty AL Central. That's the only reason they're in the playoffs and the Angels are missing it. Saying "Trout slumped and that's why the Angels missed the playoffs" misses the mark, IMO. For one thing, he still produced an .860 OPS during the time period you defined. For another, it doesn't account for any contributions Trout made with the glove or his legs (contributions Cabrera can't make). Trout stole 18 bases during that period (18/19) and played Gold Glove defense in CF.

BTW, Most statisticians only count HR once when calculating runs created (Since counting them for RBI and R creates an artificial number and is not statistically sound). Looking at the numbers that way, Cabrera accounts for 74 runs (42+52-19), Trout for 65 (28+49-12). That's not a very big separation in the key stats for Cabrera's case.

And RBI and R are not definitive numbers in a small sample size, IMO, since they're entirely dependent on the team around the players.

Truth is neither player is a "clear case" over the other. They're both deserving, and I won't complain regardless of who wins. I would vote for Trout, personally, because he can help you win games in any way a baseball player can possibly help a team win games. Cabrera can win them with his bat - which is tremendous - but that's about it.

[Carlota69]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

And the Angels are a whole half-game worse than the Tigers over that stretch. They went 32-25 since August 1. The Tigers are 33-25. The Tigers were just fortunate to play a lot of games against the shitty AL Central. That's the only reason they're in the playoffs and the Angels are missing it. Saying "Trout slumped and that's why the Angels missed the playoffs" misses the mark, IMO. For one thing, he still produced an .860 OPS during the time period you defined. For another, it doesn't account for any contributions Trout made with the glove or his legs (contributions Cabrera can't make). Trout stole 18 bases during that period (18/19) and played Gold Glove defense in CF.

BTW, Most statisticians only count HR once when calculating runs created (Since counting them for RBI and R creates an artificial number and is not statistically sound). Looking at the numbers that way, Cabrera accounts for 74 runs (42+52-19), Trout for 65 (28+49-16). That's not a very big separation in the key stats for Cabrera's case.

And RBI and R are not definitive numbers in a small sample size, IMO, since they're entirely dependent on the team around the players.

Truth is neither player is a "clear case" over the other. They're both deserving, and I won't complain regardless of who wins. I would vote for Trout, personally, because he can help you win games in any way a baseball player can possibly help a team win games. Cabrera can win them with his bat - which is tremendous - but that's about it.

BINGO. And lets not forget the fact that Trout has done all of these great, historic things as a 20-21 yr old player, who hits leadoff, not clean up. And dont say well then just give him ROY. If thats the arguement, we shouldnt give pitchers MVP becasue they can win the CY young award.

[Lex Luthor]

Originally Posted by Carlota69

BINGO. And lets not forget the fact that Trout has done all of these great, historic things as a 20-21 yr old player, who hits leadoff, not clean up. And dont say well then just give him ROY. If thats the arguement, we shouldnt give pitchers MVP becasue they can win the CY young award.

What the hell does the age of the player have to do with who should be MVP?

That's just stupid.

[Lex Luthor]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

BTW, Most statisticians only count HR once when calculating runs created (Since counting them for RBI and R creates an artificial number and is not statistically sound). Looking at the numbers that way, Cabrera accounts for 74 runs (42+52-19), Trout for 65 (28+49-12). That's not a very big separation in the key stats for Cabrera's case.

The "runs produced" stat has always been the most bogus stat in baseball. It penalizes a player for hitting a home run because he scores a run and drives in a run in the same at-bat. Yet virtually every time a run is scored, SOMEBODY gets credit for scoring it, and SOMEBODY gets credit for driving in the run. That's a total credit for 2 runs produced for every run that is actually scored, EXCEPT when the run scores as a result of a home run.

Adding up RBI and runs scored is a fine indicator of runs produced. Subtracting home runs doesn't give you a better idea of a player's production. All it does is add an element of complexity to a formula that is more accurate when it's kept simple.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

The "runs produced" stat has always been the most bogus stat in baseball. It penalizes a player for hitting a home run because he scores a run and drives in a run in the same at-bat. Yet virtually every time a run is scored, SOMEBODY gets credit for scoring it, and SOMEBODY gets credit for driving in the run. That's a total credit for 2 runs produced for every run that is actually scored, EXCEPT when the run scores as a result of a home run.

Adding up RBI and runs scored is a fine indicator of runs produced. Subtracting home runs doesn't give you a better idea of a player's production. All it does is add an element of complexity to a formula that is more accurate when it's kept simple.

It doesn't penalize the player. It just prevents counting the same run twice.

When you start combining counting statistics, you have to account for duplication like that.

You want to talk about runs knocked in, sure, you count the HR as an RBI.

You want to talk about runs scored, same thing.

When you want to talk about the runs that Player A contributed to his team in a given period compared to the runs that Player B contributed, though... Player A's home runs still only accounted for one run. Giving him credit for them in R and RBI (without subtracting the HR count from the total) makes it look like Player A contributed (number equal to home runs) more runs than he actually did.

[Lex Luthor]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

It doesn't penalize the player. It just prevents counting the same run twice.

When you start combining counting statistics, you have to account for duplication like that.

You want to talk about runs knocked in, sure, you count the HR as an RBI.

You want to talk about runs scored, same thing.

When you want to talk about the runs that Player A contributed to his team in a given period compared to the runs that Player B contributed, though... Player A's home runs still only accounted for one run. Giving him credit for them in R and RBI (without subtracting the HR count from the total) makes it look like Player A contributed (number equal to home runs) more runs than he actually did.

Sure it does. If Mike Trout gets a double and Albert Pujols hits a singe and Trout scores, they each get credit for a run produced. How is that worth twice as much as a run produced by a home run?

This just proves my point that when you try to make statistics too complex, they lose their validity. And regarding WAR, I'm glad you mentioned that Fangraphs and Baseball America can't even manage to agree how WAR should be calculated. That's another thing about WAR that has always made me question its usefulness.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

Sure it does. If Mike Trout gets a double and Albert Pujols hits a singe and Trout scores, they each get credit for a run produced. How is that worth twice as much as a run produced by a home run?

This just proves my point that when you try to make statistics too complex, they lose their validity. And regarding WAR, I'm glad you mentioned that Fangraphs and Baseball America can't even manage to agree how WAR should be calculated. That's another thing about WAR that has always made me question its usefulness.

I didn't get beyond stat 101 and am not a hardcore SABRE guy. So my explanation is not as complex as a true statistician would make it...

But there is a statistical flaw in counting the same occurrence in two lists, then adding the two lists together without accounting for the double-dip.

Think about the way accounting works. It would be like adding a sale to an individual counter for the salesman, adding it to the total company sales, and then adding the salesman's figures to the total company figures again.