If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS Detroit)   If Derek Jeter won the Triple Crown this year with Miguel Cabrera's stat line, Mike Trout wouldn't even be in the MVP discussion   (detroit.cbslocal.com) divider line 321
    More: Obvious, triple crown, Miguel Cabrera, Derek Jeter, MVP, al mvp, Jayson Stark, Ken Rosenthal, Detroit Tigers  
•       •       •

1061 clicks; posted to Sports » on 03 Oct 2012 at 2:03 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



321 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-03 07:30:58 PM

JohnnyCanuck: Dafatone: Mike Trout got his 5th caught stealing today.

That swings it. MVP Cabrera!

Hold on now...if Mig hits a screaming one hopper to 2nd and makes a DP then it will be as tight as ever!

So Einsteinbrenner grabbed Trout on his fantasy team. That answers a few questions actually.

Don't worry fellas...i'm not here to poke holes in your "logic"...AGAIN! Just killing time before I head out to live my life. A "life" is a....never mind, you wouldn't understand that either.

I give you this one to chew on for a bit...

Trout's D gets overlooked because baseball is played to be enjoyed. There are literally thousands of people that can do what he does in CF. There is no one right now who can do what Mig does at the plate. People like hits and homers because they are things that happen..they are witnessed in "reality" (I won't go into detail on reality assuming you can google it if you get lost). SM's is nothing more than a representation of that reality. One might ask if one would rather have sex or watch porn and pretend to have sex...however, with this group...?!?

SM makes more leaps in logic than the avg fans cares for. Wins Above Replacement represents a fictitious situation...etc.

That should keep you loners busy for a while.

Ummm....YOU'RE WELCOME!!!


I swear to god dude, you're not helping.
 
2012-10-03 07:31:13 PM

JohnnyCanuck: There is no one right now who can do what Mig does at the plate.


except miggy last year and the year before did it better, but no one was screaming for him to win the mvp then...
 
2012-10-03 07:32:36 PM

A Fark Handle: JohnnyCanuck: There is no one right now who can do what Mig does at the plate.

except miggy last year and the year before did it better, but no one was screaming for him to win the mvp then...


Personally, I blame the time traveling racists.
 
2012-10-03 07:45:54 PM

DeWayne Mann: Rex_Banner: Does anyone else read Johnny's posts in the voice of that kid from "You Only Move Twice"? It makes them more comical

/"I moved here from Canada and they think I'm slow, eh"

I basically just picture Trailer Park Boys.

The whole show.

DeWayne Mann: He's robbed like 5 HRs.

Turns out he only had 4 HR robs. God he's so bad at defense.


My grandpa told me that he saw Joe Pepitone rob 10 HR one year. So this isn't impressive
 
2012-10-03 07:46:45 PM

A Fark Handle: JohnnyCanuck: There is no one right now who can do what Mig does at the plate.

except miggy last year and the year before did it better, but no one was screaming for him to win the mvp then...


That's just not true. He finished 4th in 2009, 2nd in 2010, and 5th in 2011. He has a MVP case each year. The only reason the screams weren't louder last year is that Verlander was up for it too.
 
2012-10-03 07:47:07 PM
No, but, seriously. That guy's got some pretty logical arguments about the crab people.

Did you all know the crab people haven't invaded the surface in over 50 years? They've gotta be due. 

And when was the last time you saw Obama eat a crab on live TV? That's because he's a secret crab person. His real birth certificate says so.
 
2012-10-03 07:49:46 PM

Rex_Banner: My grandpa told me that he saw Joe Pepitone rob 10 HR one year. So this isn't impressive


My grandmother actually released a guy one year because he only robbed 7.

ignatius_crumbcake: He finished 4th in 2009, 2nd in 2010, and 5th in 2011.


So just so we're clear:

in 2012, he'shiat worse than in 2010 and 2011. His entire MVP case is based on offense.

LOGICALLY, he should get more MVP votes.

Got it.
 
2012-10-03 07:53:15 PM

DeWayne Mann: Rex_Banner: Does anyone else read Johnny's posts in the voice of that kid from "You Only Move Twice"? It makes them more comical

/"I moved here from Canada and they think I'm slow, eh"

I basically just picture Trailer Park Boys.

The whole show.

DeWayne Mann: He's robbed like 5 HRs.

Turns out he only had 4 HR robs. God he's so bad at defense.


My grandpa told me that he once saw Joe Pepitone rob 10 HR in one season. That means that Cabby is automatically the MVP and Trout is president.
 
2012-10-03 07:54:54 PM
fark what the hell happened? I hit refresh like 10 times and nothing showed up so I added the comment again and now I look like a dumbass
 
2012-10-03 07:55:06 PM

Rex_Banner: My grandpa told me that he once saw Joe Pepitone rob 10 HR in one season. That means that Cabby is automatically the MVP and Trout is president.


I ALREADY HEARD THAT STORY
 
2012-10-03 07:55:42 PM

Rex_Banner: now I look like a dumbass


HEY! That's my job.
 
2012-10-03 07:56:37 PM

DeWayne Mann: Rex_Banner: My grandpa told me that he saw Joe Pepitone rob 10 HR one year. So this isn't impressive

My grandmother actually released a guy one year because he only robbed 7.

ignatius_crumbcake: He finished 4th in 2009, 2nd in 2010, and 5th in 2011.

So just so we're clear:

in 2012, he'shiat worse than in 2010 and 2011. His entire MVP case is based on offense.

LOGICALLY, he should get more MVP votes.

Got it.


I love how you respond to not what I said, but what you think I said. Oh, and your crab people line is a great example of Aristotelian logic. You would be a true scholar in the Middle Ages. Unfortunately your logic hasn't been used in a few hundred years.
 
2012-10-03 07:57:55 PM
I swear to god dude, you're not helping.

I swear to god...i'm not tryin' to. :-)

There is no helping these people. Basically I want a Fark headline tomorrow to read "Mentally challenged IT loner goes on rampage yelling something about his grandmother and fish!"

These douchebags are just here trolling. I'm just giving them what they want.

So i'll add this...

Trout catches 4 deep fly balls?!? WOW....someone give that guy a trophy! Not to mention his historic 129 run, 30 HR, 49 SB season! We've been looking for that accomplishment!
 
2012-10-03 07:58:09 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: Unfortunately your logic hasn't been used in a few hundred years.


Your logic, on the other hand, has been used

well, by you. That's about it.
 
2012-10-03 07:58:27 PM

DeWayne Mann: Rex_Banner: My grandpa told me that he saw Joe Pepitone rob 10 HR one year. So this isn't impressive

My grandmother actually released a guy one year because he only robbed 7.

ignatius_crumbcake: He finished 4th in 2009, 2nd in 2010, and 5th in 2011.

So just so we're clear:

in 2012, he'shiat worse than in 2010 and 2011. His entire MVP case is based on offense.

LOGICALLY, he should get more MVP votes.

Got it.


What is the overall scene for all of baseball. I would bet that overwhelmingly more players are not hitting as well as they did in the past.

In fact let me show you

2008 average runs scored per team: 753
2009 average runs scored per team: 747
2010 average runs scored per team: 710
2011 average runs scored per team: 694
2012 average runs scored per team: 697

An ever so slight edge this year. You go down 56 runs per team will make the overall production of runs go down for everyone.

I will wait for you to tell me that I am wrong.
 
2012-10-03 08:01:48 PM

great_tigers: DeWayne Mann: Rex_Banner: My grandpa told me that he saw Joe Pepitone rob 10 HR one year. So this isn't impressive

My grandmother actually released a guy one year because he only robbed 7.

ignatius_crumbcake: He finished 4th in 2009, 2nd in 2010, and 5th in 2011.

So just so we're clear:

in 2012, he'shiat worse than in 2010 and 2011. His entire MVP case is based on offense.

LOGICALLY, he should get more MVP votes.

Got it.

What is the overall scene for all of baseball. I would bet that overwhelmingly more players are not hitting as well as they did in the past.

In fact let me show you

2008 average runs scored per team: 753
2009 average runs scored per team: 747
2010 average runs scored per team: 710
2011 average runs scored per team: 694
2012 average runs scored per team: 697

An ever so slight edge this year. You go down 56 runs per team will make the overall production of runs go down for everyone.

I will wait for you to tell me that I am wrong.


His OPS+ is down. OPS+ adjusts for offensive environment. So he is slightly worse than the last two years
 
2012-10-03 08:02:08 PM

DeWayne Mann: ignatius_crumbcake: Unfortunately your logic hasn't been used in a few hundred years.

Your logic, on the other hand, has been used

well, by you. That's about it.


Me and the majority of baseball writers who will write a 1 next to Miguel Cabrera's name on their MVP ballots.
 
2012-10-03 08:03:13 PM

great_tigers: . I would bet that overwhelmingly more players are not hitting as well as they did in the past.


great_tigers: I will wait for you to tell me that I am wrong.


Well, you are and you aren't.

It's true that offense has been slightly down (though as you just showed, over the last three years, not much).

This is why folks like me tend to use stats that are adjusted not just for park, but for era. OPS+ and wRC+ are both examples of this.

Cabrera's OPS+, by year

2010: 178 (led the league)
2011: 179 (Bautista led the league at 182)
2012: 167 (trout leads the league at 169)
 
2012-10-03 08:04:10 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: Me and the majority of baseball writers who will write a 1 next to Miguel Cabrera's name on their MVP ballots.


See, here's the thing:

I don't think they think they're being logical. I don't think they give a crap about logic.

You, on the other hand, think that logical conclusions are opinions.
 
2012-10-03 08:05:00 PM

Rex_Banner: great_tigers: DeWayne Mann: Rex_Banner: My grandpa told me that he saw Joe Pepitone rob 10 HR one year. So this isn't impressive

My grandmother actually released a guy one year because he only robbed 7.

ignatius_crumbcake: He finished 4th in 2009, 2nd in 2010, and 5th in 2011.

So just so we're clear:

in 2012, he'shiat worse than in 2010 and 2011. His entire MVP case is based on offense.

LOGICALLY, he should get more MVP votes.

Got it.

What is the overall scene for all of baseball. I would bet that overwhelmingly more players are not hitting as well as they did in the past.

In fact let me show you

2008 average runs scored per team: 753
2009 average runs scored per team: 747
2010 average runs scored per team: 710
2011 average runs scored per team: 694
2012 average runs scored per team: 697

An ever so slight edge this year. You go down 56 runs per team will make the overall production of runs go down for everyone.

I will wait for you to tell me that I am wrong.

His OPS+ is down. OPS+ adjusts for offensive environment. So he is slightly worse than the last two years


Isn't everyone's overall production down the last three years?
 
2012-10-03 08:06:50 PM

great_tigers: Isn't everyone's overall production down the last three years?


By OPS+, no.

The OPS+ of the majors is 100 this year. Last year, it was 100. In 1968, it was 100. In 1927, it was 100.

There's a pattern cleverly hidden there.
 
2012-10-03 08:10:19 PM

DeWayne Mann: great_tigers: Isn't everyone's overall production down the last three years?

By OPS+, no.

The OPS+ of the majors is 100 this year. Last year, it was 100. In 1968, it was 100. In 1927, it was 100.

There's a pattern cleverly hidden there.


I know you have expla

ined what OPS+ is. I apologize, I really didn't break it down. I didn't know it equated entire league as 100.

Is OPS+ the be all end all for production and value of a player?
 
2012-10-03 08:12:54 PM

great_tigers: Is OPS+ the be all end all for production and value of a player?


No. OPS, by itself, is sort of a quick estimate, and so, therefore, OPS+ is too.

wOBA, on the other hand, is essentially the best "general" offense stat we have, though. wRC+ takes wOBA and treats it like OPS+, resulting in a similar stat.

His wRC+ is down too; I just grabbed OPS+ instead because fangraphs is loading slower than b-r today.
 
2012-10-03 08:13:10 PM

JohnnyCanuck: Trout's D gets overlooked because baseball is played to be enjoyed. There are literally thousands of people that can do what he does in CF


And how many of those thousands that could do hs job in the field can put up offensive numbers comparable to Miguel Cabrera? At the moment, it appears only Mike Trout can do that.
 
2012-10-03 08:14:14 PM

DeWayne Mann: ignatius_crumbcake: Me and the majority of baseball writers who will write a 1 next to Miguel Cabrera's name on their MVP ballots.

See, here's the thing:

I don't think they think they're being logical. I don't think they give a crap about logic.

You, on the other hand, think that logical conclusions are opinions.


No, you don't think they give a crap about stats. Logic does not necessarily depend on stats, even in baseball. Since nowhere in the rules does it say that the MVP award is to be based on stats, and historically is has not been based on stats, then there must be some other criteria for awarding it. I showed you a perfectly logical rational for awarding the MVP to Cabrera. You are free to disagree, but you can't say there is no reason to give him the award.

But now the Tigers game is starting, so I'm gonna go watch Cabby lock down the MVP.
 
2012-10-03 08:14:16 PM

DeWayne Mann: great_tigers: Is OPS+ the be all end all for production and value of a player?

No. OPS, by itself, is sort of a quick estimate, and so, therefore, OPS+ is too.

wOBA, on the other hand, is essentially the best "general" offense stat we have, though. wRC+ takes wOBA and treats it like OPS+, resulting in a similar stat.

His wRC+ is down too; I just grabbed OPS+ instead because fangraphs is loading slower than b-r today.


Oops, forgot to mention something.

wRC+ includes steals & caught stealings. So if you JUST care about what someone does at the plate, you're probably better off with OPS+, even though it's slightly less good.
 
2012-10-03 08:15:18 PM

DeWayne Mann: great_tigers: Is OPS+ the be all end all for production and value of a player?

No. OPS, by itself, is sort of a quick estimate, and so, therefore, OPS+ is too.

wOBA, on the other hand, is essentially the best "general" offense stat we have, though. wRC+ takes wOBA and treats it like OPS+, resulting in a similar stat.

His wRC+ is down too; I just grabbed OPS+ instead because fangraphs is loading slower than b-r today.


So with Miggy's 1.001 OPS being higher than .961 Trouts a bad thing? Less valuable may be?
 
2012-10-03 08:16:42 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: No, you don't think they give a crap about stats.


I think both. But thanks for telling me what I think now!

ignatius_crumbcake: I showed you a perfectly logical rational


No. You didn't. This would be the issue.

You showed us a rationale dependent on subjective criteria, opinions (that you ADMIT are opinions) and ignoring other facts that don't help your cause. You just called it logic, because

I don't know why you called it logic. Either you actually think that logic includes opinions, or you just wanted to look cool, or...again, I don't know, and I'm not the guy who says what other people think.
 
2012-10-03 08:18:56 PM

great_tigers: So with Miggy's 1.001 OPS being higher than .961 Trouts a bad thing? Less valuable may be?


Comerica park is more hitter friendly than Angel Stadium. For a somewhat simplistic breakdown, if a team would score 101 runs at Marlins Stadium (which is the closest park to neutral), that same team would score 106 runs at Comerica and 81 runs at Angel Stadium.

So OPS+ & wRC+ adjust for that too. Otherwise, Todd Helton would win in OPS+ like every year, and the Padres would be screwed.
 
2012-10-03 08:19:33 PM

DeWayne Mann: DeWayne Mann: great_tigers: Is OPS+ the be all end all for production and value of a player?

No. OPS, by itself, is sort of a quick estimate, and so, therefore, OPS+ is too.

wOBA, on the other hand, is essentially the best "general" offense stat we have, though. wRC+ takes wOBA and treats it like OPS+, resulting in a similar stat.

His wRC+ is down too; I just grabbed OPS+ instead because fangraphs is loading slower than b-r today.

Oops, forgot to mention something.

wRC+ includes steals & caught stealings. So if you JUST care about what someone does at the plate, you're probably better off with OPS+, even though it's slightly less good.


OPS = On base percentage + slugging
OPS+ is OPS compared to league average (so, 110 would be 10% better than league average) with an adjustment for ballpark effect.

The big flaw in OPS is that a point of on base percentage is a bigger deal than a point of slugging. It's still a pretty solid basic stat.
 
2012-10-03 08:21:22 PM

Dafatone: OPS = On base percentage + slugging
OPS+ is OPS compared to league average (so, 110 would be 10% better than league average) with an adjustment for ballpark effect.

The big flaw in OPS is that a point of on base percentage is a bigger deal than a point of slugging. It's still a pretty solid basic stat.


It turns out that OPS+ tends to be really, really close to wRC+ when you remove the SB component.

Not bad for something that was basically slapped together with paste & duct tape.
 
2012-10-03 08:21:22 PM

DeWayne Mann: great_tigers: So with Miggy's 1.001 OPS being higher than .961 Trouts a bad thing? Less valuable may be?

Comerica park is more hitter friendly than Angel Stadium. For a somewhat simplistic breakdown, if a team would score 101 runs at Marlins Stadium (which is the closest park to neutral), that same team would score 106 runs at Comerica and 81 runs at Angel Stadium.

So OPS+ & wRC+ adjust for that too. Otherwise, Todd Helton would win in OPS+ like every year, and the Padres would be screwed.


My mind is absolutely blown that Comerica is a more hitter friendly park than ANY other stadium.

What are the park rankings? Website would be suffice.
 
2012-10-03 08:24:16 PM

great_tigers: My mind is absolutely blown that Comerica is a more hitter friendly park than ANY other stadium.


Well, in comparison, that same team from before would score 157 runs at Coors. So Comerica is really, really close to neutral.

great_tigers: What are the park rankings? Website would be suffice.


You can find them by looking up a team at baseball reference, though, right now, I'm looking at this page:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor

Mostly because I had that page open so I could make fun of Jerry Remy on twitter.
 
2012-10-03 08:26:45 PM
Also, these park values, are they based upon dimensions and external factors such wind, altitude and overall climate? Or are they based upon overall numbers of runs scored in the park?

Wouldn't a better hitting team hit good in most parks rather than having the park as a factor?

I guess I am saying, Yankees would hit good at Yankee Stadium and Wrigley. Does the park get a rating based upon the value of the team on the field?

DeWayne, I gave you plenty of snark two nights ago. I am honestly trying to pick your brain.
 
2012-10-03 08:26:51 PM

great_tigers: DeWayne Mann: great_tigers: So with Miggy's 1.001 OPS being higher than .961 Trouts a bad thing? Less valuable may be?

Comerica park is more hitter friendly than Angel Stadium. For a somewhat simplistic breakdown, if a team would score 101 runs at Marlins Stadium (which is the closest park to neutral), that same team would score 106 runs at Comerica and 81 runs at Angel Stadium.

So OPS+ & wRC+ adjust for that too. Otherwise, Todd Helton would win in OPS+ like every year, and the Padres would be screwed.

My mind is absolutely blown that Comerica is a more hitter friendly park than ANY other stadium.

What are the park rankings? Website would be suffice.


Link

Comerica's dimensions are pretty large, so it's a little surprising why it's such a hitter's park. Looking at it, I'll say the fences are pretty low, and right field is pretty short, not necessarily down the line but from right to right center.

Very deep in center (like old Tiger Stadium, but not as much) and pretty deep to left center, though straight left isn't too bad.
 
2012-10-03 08:28:01 PM

DeWayne Mann: You can find them by looking up a team at baseball reference, though, right now, I'm looking at this page:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor

Mostly because I had that page open so I could make fun of Jerry Remy on twitter.


Oh, and it's worth noting that baseball reference's park factors have the two teams much closer together, and that that's what they use to calculate OPS+ (not the ESPN ones)
 
2012-10-03 08:31:23 PM

great_tigers: DeWayne, I gave you plenty of snark two nights ago. I am honestly trying to pick your brain.


Giving me snark is fully and completely acceptable. If I couldn't take it, I wouldn't dish it out.

great_tigers: Also, these park values, are they based upon dimensions and external factors such wind, altitude and overall climate? Or are they based upon overall numbers of runs scored in the park?

Wouldn't a better hitting team hit good in most parks rather than having the park as a factor?

I guess I am saying, Yankees would hit good at Yankee Stadium and Wrigley. Does the park get a rating based upon the value of the team on the field?


There are a couple of different methodologies, which is why, for instance, bref & espn differ. Both sites explain what they do, so that's honestly a better place to check first than having me try to interpret it.

But if you want to see park factors at work, check out guys who are traded midseason. Alex Gonzalez going from the Blue Jays to the Braves a few years back was a good one.

Dafatone: Comerica's dimensions are pretty large,


I was saving this for a thread about SAFECO moving the fences in, but short version: it's really hard to tell a field's factors from dimensions, even if you know fence height.
 
2012-10-03 08:32:50 PM
Wait... espn's park factor page has park factors for WALKS? And some stadiums have a significant weighting for or against walks?

The two worst parks are Wrigley and US Cellular. Guess "windy city" is right.
 
2012-10-03 08:34:56 PM

Dafatone: Wait... espn's park factor page has park factors for WALKS? And some stadiums have a significant weighting for or against walks?

The two worst parks are Wrigley and US Cellular. Guess "windy city" is right.


Mostly related to the batter's eye.

There was an article that I want to say was on fangraphs, but maybe it was on sbnation...I dunno, my brain is fried. Anyway, it was a few weeks ago, and all about Jared Weaver & the Anaheim batter's eye. That should be enough that you can google it.

Worth a read.
 
2012-10-03 08:35:12 PM

DeWayne Mann: Dafatone: Comerica's dimensions are pretty large,

I was saving this for a thread about SAFECO moving the fences in, but short version: it's really hard to tell a field's factors from dimensions, even if you know fence height.


Very true. Everyone yelled about the Marlins' old park being cavernous, and the new park being more cavernous with hilariously large walls. Now, new park does have a very low HR factor, but it turns out the ball travels better through humid air than dry air (humidity "feels" heavy, but it's lighter) and better through hot air than cold.

The old park was a launching pad, and this one's decent to hit in.
 
2012-10-03 08:37:00 PM

DeWayne Mann: There was an article that I want to say was on fangraphs, but maybe it was on sbnation


As with most things, the correct answer is both.

http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/3/21/2889028/jered-weaver-angels-stats but then fangraphs talks about it a bit here: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/jered-weavers-favorite-rockp i le/
 
2012-10-03 08:37:58 PM

DeWayne Mann: great_tigers: DeWayne,\

great_tigers: Also, these park values, are they based upon dimensions and external factors such wind, altitude and overall climate? Or are they based upon overall numbers of runs scored in the park?

Wouldn't a better hitting team hit good in most parks rather than having the park as a factor?

I guess I am saying, Yankees would hit good at Yankee Stadium and Wrigley. Does the park get a rating based upon the value of the team on the field?

There are a couple of different methodologies, which is why, for instance, bref & espn differ. Both sites explain what they do, so that's honestly a better place to check first than having me try to interpret it.

But if you want to see park factors at work, check out guys who are traded midseason. Alex Gonzalez going from the Blue Jays to the Braves a few years back was a good one.
.


So from what I gather is that overall the park is based upon overall hitting statistics, not so much the difficulty of which to hit in the park. It does not seem to take into account the number of other factors, such as quality of pitchers. If you had the Rockies pitching staff in Safeco and vice versa I would bet that Colorado would be a lower park factor and Seattle would be higher.

I guess I have a problem with putting a value of a hitter, based partially on perception and partially on the overall production of pitchers on his own team.
 
2012-10-03 08:39:08 PM

Dafatone: Wait... espn's park factor page has park factors for WALKS? And some stadiums have a significant weighting for or against walks?

The two worst parks are Wrigley and US Cellular. Guess "windy city" is right.


Would the ability to hit foul balls weigh it some? More foul balls, more pitchs, fewer fly balls?
 
2012-10-03 08:39:15 PM

Dafatone: Very true. Everyone yelled about the Marlins' old park being cavernous, and the new park being more cavernous with hilariously large walls. Now, new park does have a very low HR factor, but it turns out the ball travels better through humid air than dry air (humidity "feels" heavy, but it's lighter) and better through hot air than cold.

The old park was a launching pad, and this one's decent to hit in.


And it's not even just that. Pretend we had a field where the dimensions were the Polo Grounds center field wall, but all around.

How many doubles & triples are going to be let up there?

Now pretend we had something like the green monster surrounding the park. A ground ball through the infield is going to be an out if it's to right.
 
2012-10-03 08:41:48 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: roc6783: Brett Wallace is the MVP next year since he is solely responsible for the Astros no longer being the laughing stock of the NL Central. Thank Killer Car's cat, we got that cleared up.

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Let me explain. No, let me sum up:

The triple crown is a rare and historically significant achievement. You may disagree. You may say that the underlying stats are outdated and inaccurate and just modified cricket stats. That's fine. It doesn't change the fact that the triple crown is both rare and historically significant.

Nobody has accomplished this feat in 45 years.

Cabrera will win the triple crown. It's all but certain now.

Based on his achievement of that rare and historically significant milestone, he should win the MVP. The asinine examples like the one I quoted above are not relevant because they are not historically significant.

Based on the past voting history of the MVP, rare and historical feats like this tend to be large factors in MVP voting.

Thus, he should win. History and tradition still mean something.


Mark McGwire reached a rare and historically significant milestone with 70 homers, but didn't win the MVP. Drew Brees reached a rare and historically significant milestone by setting the all-time passing record, but didn't win the MVP. Why didn't they win the MVP? Because there were others who didn't quite reach the same level, but had other aspects of their games that were deemed superior. It happens.
 
2012-10-03 08:42:25 PM

great_tigers: So from what I gather is that overall the park is based upon overall hitting statistics, not so much the difficulty of which to hit in the park. It does not seem to take into account the number of other factors, such as quality of pitchers. If you had the Rockies pitching staff in Safeco and vice versa I would bet that Colorado would be a lower park factor and Seattle would be higher.


No, the team based here doesn't affect it like that. They compare the team at home vs away.

The assumption is that if, as a team, you hit like Ted Williams at home and Ken Williams away...probably the field is involved. Especially if other teams do the exact same thing at your field.
 
2012-10-03 08:43:28 PM

Super Chronic: It happens.


Logically, no it doesn't.
 
2012-10-03 08:43:30 PM

DeWayne Mann: great_tigers: So from what I gather is that overall the park is based upon overall hitting statistics, not so much the difficulty of which to hit in the park. It does not seem to take into account the number of other factors, such as quality of pitchers. If you had the Rockies pitching staff in Safeco and vice versa I would bet that Colorado would be a lower park factor and Seattle would be higher.

No, the team based here doesn't affect it like that. They compare the team at home vs away.

The assumption is that if, as a team, you hit like Ted Williams at home and Ken Williams away...probably the field is involved. Especially if other teams do the exact same thing at your field.


Do the park factors change year to year?
 
2012-10-03 08:45:54 PM

great_tigers: Do the park factors change year to year?


Absolutely! Generally not drastically, but yes, they usually do.

Baseball reference provides "multi-year" factors which average 3 years together. OPS+ averages the current year & the previous year together, I believe.
 
2012-10-03 09:01:50 PM
And I feel I should note:

No, these adjustments are in no way perfect, nor do I see an obvious way to make them perfect (though, if they ever get released, Hit F/X & Field F/X might shed some light on the problem). This is why, for instance, even though Trout has a slightly better OPS+, I've got absolutely no problem if Miguel Cabrera wins the Hank Aaron Award for best offense.

But these adjustments are certainly better than not doing anything at all.
 
Displayed 50 of 321 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report