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.

(ESPN)   If you look at ESPN's MLB player hitting statistics from 2012, the column furthest to the right is the Sabermetrics stat WAR (wins above replacement). But for the 2013 season, WHAR WAR?   (espn.go.com) divider line 141
    More: Strange, ESPN, wars, sabermetrics, Major League Baseball, Adrian Beltre, Ben Zobrist, Edwin Encarnacion, statistics  
•       •       •

1199 clicks; posted to Sports » on 08 Apr 2013 at 10:54 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-08 02:23:02 PM

chimp_ninja: "% of 110% Given" to confuse them.


I'd like to see this stat.
 
2013-04-08 02:23:41 PM

chimp_ninja: Dafatone: JohnnyCanuck: There is a lot to be said about the statistical star who shiats the bed when the pressure is on, for example.

What exactly is a "statistical star?"  Is hitting 326 with 30 hr in 139 games, as a 20 year old, not just a star?  Do we have to go around modifying that because sabermetric folks like him a lot?  IS 49 steals and 5 times caught suddenly bad because fancy numbers like it?

We should invent stats like HOG-P (Hustle Over Gritty Player), "Calm Eyes Index", and "% of 110% Given" to confuse them.


No no no no no.

We have to get rid of ALL STATS ENTIRELY. I'll prove it to you:

JohnnyCanuck: It's because athletes, or people in general, cannot be completely reduced to a number.


JohnnyCanuck: but you're not willing to learn from anyone who opinions are not in line with yours


No, again, I'm not willing to "learn" from anyone incapable of backing up what they're saying.

Colin Wyers of Baseball Prospectus has opinions that are not in line with my own. He does a lot of research to back up what he says. I learn a lot from him.

JohnnyCanuck of Fark.com has opinions that are not in line with my own. He mostly just says nonsense about things like "statistical stars" and fails to make any sort of coherent point. I learn nothing from him.

See the difference?
 
2013-04-08 02:26:01 PM
...isn't miggy also a statistical star?
 
2013-04-08 02:26:34 PM

thecpt: ...isn't miggy also a statistical star?


NO
 
2013-04-08 02:31:41 PM

Dafatone: JohnnyCanuck: There is a lot to be said about the statistical star who shiats the bed when the pressure is on, for example.

What exactly is a "statistical star?"  Is hitting 326 with 30 hr in 139 games, as a 20 year old, not just a star?  Do we have to go around modifying that because sabermetric folks like him a lot?  IS 49 steals and 5 times caught suddenly bad because fancy numbers like it?


I wasn't really talking to you...but if you insist...

How about the guy with great numbers who fades down the stretch run because, A- Games DO start to become more meaningful and his opponents were able to raise their game, B- Opponents had more data to work with and learned how to approach him.

Numbers do not tell the entire tale.
 
2013-04-08 02:36:16 PM

JohnnyCanuck: Dafatone: JohnnyCanuck: There is a lot to be said about the statistical star who shiats the bed when the pressure is on, for example.

What exactly is a "statistical star?"  Is hitting 326 with 30 hr in 139 games, as a 20 year old, not just a star?  Do we have to go around modifying that because sabermetric folks like him a lot?  IS 49 steals and 5 times caught suddenly bad because fancy numbers like it?

I wasn't really talking to you...but if you insist...

How about the guy with great numbers who fades down the stretch run because, A- Games DO start to become more meaningful and his opponents were able to raise their game, B- Opponents had more data to work with and learned how to approach him.

Numbers do not tell the entire tale.


A) What does "raise your game" mean? Everyone has a 162 game schedule in the regular season. If you can't play the full 162, maybe it's time to talk with your manager about sitting every 5th day.

B) It's called adjusting. If you can't adjust to people adjusting to you, you're not going to make it in MLB.
 
2013-04-08 02:38:14 PM
"If you look at ESPN's MLB player hitting statistics from 2012..."

I think it's cute subby assumes I use espn for my research.
 
2013-04-08 02:39:28 PM

chimp_ninja: We should invent stats like HOG-P (Hustle Over Gritty Player), "Calm Eyes Index", and "% of 110% Given" to confuse them.


GPR. Percentage of Game Played the Right Way.
 
2013-04-08 02:39:37 PM

TigersorHawksorBoth: homarjr: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Trout have one of the best WARs in MLB history last year?

I heard top 10. I could easily look this up, but I'd rather someone from Detroit get all pissy about it.

/Trout should've won and you all know it


[philcokesbrain.files.wordpress.com image 600x585]


WAR isn't actually one stat.  It is a composite of multiple stats - a derivation of OBA, UZR, and the position.
 
2013-04-08 02:41:22 PM

JohnnyCanuck: Dafatone: JohnnyCanuck: There is a lot to be said about the statistical star who shiats the bed when the pressure is on, for example.

What exactly is a "statistical star?" Is hitting 326 with 30 hr in 139 games, as a 20 year old, not just a star? Do we have to go around modifying that because sabermetric folks like him a lot? IS 49 steals and 5 times caught suddenly bad because fancy numbers like it?

I wasn't really talking to you...but if you insist...

How about the guy with great numbers who fades down the stretch run because, A- Games DO start to become more meaningful and his opponents were able to raise their game, B- Opponents had more data to work with and learned how to approach him.

Numbers do not tell the entire tale.


Trout had a .900 OPS in September. He didn't vanish down the stretch.
 
2013-04-08 02:41:48 PM

JohnnyCanuck: How about the guy with great numbers who fades down the stretch run because


See, I love this. Mike Trout "faded."

Except he still hit .289/.400/.500 in Sept/Oct.

If he had hit that well ALL SEASON, he would've had the 7th best OPS in the AL. And he still would've been an amazing fielder & baserunner.

So basically, you think he played TOO well. Great.
 
2013-04-08 02:42:30 PM

Rex_Banner: JohnnyCanuck: Dafatone: JohnnyCanuck: There is a lot to be said about the statistical star who shiats the bed when the pressure is on, for example.

What exactly is a "statistical star?" Is hitting 326 with 30 hr in 139 games, as a 20 year old, not just a star? Do we have to go around modifying that because sabermetric folks like him a lot? IS 49 steals and 5 times caught suddenly bad because fancy numbers like it?

I wasn't really talking to you...but if you insist...

How about the guy with great numbers who fades down the stretch run because, A- Games DO start to become more meaningful and his opponents were able to raise their game, B- Opponents had more data to work with and learned how to approach him.

Numbers do not tell the entire tale.

Trout had a .900 OPS in September. He didn't vanish down the stretch.


Oooooh, so close to an awesome simulpost.
 
2013-04-08 02:43:04 PM

DeWayne Mann: No, again, I'm not willing to "learn" from anyone incapable of backing up what they're saying.

Colin Wyers of Baseball Prospectus has opinions that are not in line with my own. He does a lot of research to back up what he says. I learn a lot from him.

JohnnyCanuck of Fark.com has opinions that are not in line with my own. He mostly just says nonsense about things like "statistical stars" and fails to make any sort of coherent point. I learn nothing from him.


You are absolutely clueless.

\to back that up....you have no clues. Show me your clues!

Do you notice how every time you interact with someone it ends up with you trying to belittle them? Classic defense mech. Go back and cower in your corner where you belong. The only person here who knows just how much a clueless flunky you are other than me, is YOU!
 
2013-04-08 02:43:44 PM

DeWayne Mann: So basically, you think he played TOO well. Great.


To be fair, I think that as well. But I'm a Rangers fan, so I could be a bit biased.
 
2013-04-08 02:44:30 PM

JohnnyCanuck: You are absolutely clueless.

\to back that up....you have no clues. Show me your clues!

Do you notice how every time you interact with someone it ends up with you trying to belittle them? Classic defense mech. Go back and cower in your corner where you belong. The only person here who knows just how much a clueless flunky you are other than me, is YOU!


I'm gonna frame this post on my mom's basement fridge.
 
2013-04-08 02:45:55 PM
I didn't say anything about Trout fading. I was being hypothetical.

You guys have to stop reading into things what you want to get out of it. That's the whole problem.
 
2013-04-08 02:47:10 PM

JohnnyCanuck: I didn't say anything about Trout fading. I was being hypothetical.

You guys have to stop reading into things what you want to get out of it. That's the whole problem.


Right. In a discussion largely about Trout, you just happened to use a common and fallacious argument often used against Trout.

But you weren't talking about Trout.

Got it.
 
2013-04-08 02:47:24 PM

DeWayne Mann: JohnnyCanuck: You are absolutely clueless.

\to back that up....you have no clues. Show me your clues!

Do you notice how every time you interact with someone it ends up with you trying to belittle them? Classic defense mech. Go back and cower in your corner where you belong. The only person here who knows just how much a clueless flunky you are other than me, is YOU!

I'm gonna frame this post on my mom's basement fridge.


Please do! I'll autograph it for you if you promise to read it every day.
 
2013-04-08 02:48:50 PM
Calculation
There is no clearly established formula for WAR.



Sounds legit.
 
2013-04-08 02:50:00 PM
Geeze man...is EVERYTHING about Trout with you people. I did not mention that name till just recently.
The guy is a great player...probably top 5 in the game.

\Top 5...that should get your panties in a bunch
 
2013-04-08 02:52:42 PM

DeWayne Mann: Except he still hit .289/.400/.500 in Sept/Oct


What did Cabrera hit during that stretch?
 
2013-04-08 02:53:32 PM

tricycleracer: Calculation
There is no clearly established formula for WAR.


Sounds legit.


That's a really, really bad way of putting it.

There are 3 competing formulas, and the general pieces of each one are known. Some of the nitty gritty calculations aren't available to the public, but for the most part there's nothing really hidden.
 
2013-04-08 02:54:43 PM

MugzyBrown: DeWayne Mann: Except he still hit .289/.400/.500 in Sept/Oct

What did Cabrera hit during that stretch?


Higher. ~1000OPS, though I'm too lazy to go back and check for sure.

But I don't think anyone ever claimed Cabrera "faded", so....
 
2013-04-08 03:02:09 PM

JohnnyCanuck: Geeze man...is EVERYTHING about Trout with you people. I did not mention that name till just recently.
The guy is a great player...probably top 5 in the game.

\Top 5...that should get your panties in a bunch


Ok - sorry I jumped to conclusions there. But answer me this: If, in this thread, I started talking about a triple crown winner who played terrible defense, you (and others) wouldn't assume that I was referring to Cabrera?
 
2013-04-08 03:04:53 PM

Rex_Banner: Ok - sorry I jumped to conclusions there. But answer me this: If, in this thread, I started talking about a triple crown winner who played terrible defense, you (and others) wouldn't assume that I was referring to Cabrera?


Cabrera didn't play terrible defense. As we learned back in the original threads, he was an above average defender at the hardest position on the field to play.
Racist.
 
2013-04-08 03:08:48 PM

DeWayne Mann: Rex_Banner: Ok - sorry I jumped to conclusions there. But answer me this: If, in this thread, I started talking about a triple crown winner who played terrible defense, you (and others) wouldn't assume that I was referring to Cabrera?

Cabrera didn't play terrible defense. As we learned back in the original threads, he was an above average defender at the hardest position on the field to play.
Racist.


Which is why it was clear he wasn't talking about Cabrera. He was talking about Seattle Slew.

/speciesist
 
2013-04-08 03:10:14 PM

IAmRight: chimp_ninja: "% of 110% Given" to confuse them.

I'd like to see this stat.


It's on a triangular scale from 0 (Mike Trout) to 100 (Derek Jeter) to 110 (David Eckstein).  Science will tell you that you can't give 110% effort, let alone 110% of 110%, but there's no science that studies the human heart.

Gosling: chimp_ninja: We should invent stats like HOG-P (Hustle Over Gritty Player), "Calm Eyes Index", and "% of 110% Given" to confuse them.

GPR. Percentage of Game Played the Right Way.


Exactly.  I hate when Mike Trout runs directly to third after hitting the ball.  He should learn from Miguel Cabrera.  That guy plays the game the right way.

JohnnyCanuck: It's because athletes, or people in general, cannot be completely reduced to a number.


Except that we know who leaves it ALL on the field.  The difference is obvious between that guy and Bryce Harper, who I have it on good authority sometimes leaves 3% on the field, and I've heard is a mean guy.  Put that in your computer and smoke it, calculator-faced book learners.

It's better when two people just yell "My opinion is better!" until one gets tired.  Then you really know who the true competitor is.
 
2013-04-08 03:11:28 PM

Rex_Banner: JohnnyCanuck: Geeze man...is EVERYTHING about Trout with you people. I did not mention that name till just recently.
The guy is a great player...probably top 5 in the game.

\Top 5...that should get your panties in a bunch

Ok - sorry I jumped to conclusions there. But answer me this: If, in this thread, I started talking about a triple crown winner who played terrible defense, you (and others) wouldn't assume that I was referring to Cabrera?


Yaz?

He actually got marginally better as his career progressed, but he had a bit of an iron glove when he first came up.
 
2013-04-08 03:12:50 PM

chimp_ninja: It's on a triangular scale from 0 (Mike Trout) to 100 (Derek Jeter) to 110 (David Eckstein). Science will tell you that you can't give 110% effort, let alone 110% of 110%, but there's no science that studies the human heart.


Actually, I think I learned in the Upton thread that it's possible to be negative.

chimp_ninja: It's better when two people just yell "My opinion is better!" until one gets tired.


Or bored.

Especially bored.
 
2013-04-08 03:14:29 PM

chimp_ninja: It's on a triangular scale from 0 (Mike Trout) to 100 (Derek Jeter) to 110 (David Eckstein).  Science will tell you that you can't give 110% effort, let alone 110% of 110%, but there's no science that studies the human heart.


I'm excited for the next Eckstein, except grittier and with more heart. Let's see a 120% on the 110% scale!

Perhaps we should rename this stat after Eckstein for now, however,

GRit Above David Eckstein - GRADE

Seems really good for discussions.
 
2013-04-08 03:19:36 PM

Rex_Banner: JohnnyCanuck: Geeze man...is EVERYTHING about Trout with you people. I did not mention that name till just recently.
The guy is a great player...probably top 5 in the game.

\Top 5...that should get your panties in a bunch

Ok - sorry I jumped to conclusions there. But answer me this: If, in this thread, I started talking about a triple crown winner who played terrible defense, you (and others) wouldn't assume that I was referring to Cabrera?


Not by stating terrible defense, no. I would not know who you were talking about.

 

chimp_ninja: who I have it on good authority sometimes leaves 3% on the field


The problem there, chump, is that you feel the need to quantify everything. The heart of sport is what you can not quantify.

I feel bad you guys will never understand that. I'm trying to help...REALLY!

\not really

\the heart of sport...you morons should be able to take that one and run with it
\what about "tag"? did any of you guys even get to play that at any time in your life?
 
2013-04-08 03:20:41 PM

IAmRight: chimp_ninja: It's on a triangular scale from 0 (Mike Trout) to 100 (Derek Jeter) to 110 (David Eckstein).  Science will tell you that you can't give 110% effort, let alone 110% of 110%, but there's no science that studies the human heart.

I'm excited for the next Eckstein, except grittier and with more heart. Let's see a 120% on the 110% scale!

Perhaps we should rename this stat after Eckstein for now, however,

GRit Above David Eckstein - GRADE

Seems really good for discussions.


How would you rate Joe McEwing on GRADE?

We should have a relief pitcher rating for folks like Jesse Orosco called LOL - Lefty on Lefty
 
2013-04-08 03:25:27 PM
By the way, to get things slightly back on topic:

There was a post on Tango's blog a few weeks ago comparing WAR to Gross Domestic Product. The two are actually really similar.

GDP is often used as a way to represent a country's economy using a single value.

There are 3 ways to calculate GDP, and they don't always turn out equal.

The general GDP formulas are known, but the actual nitty gritty calcuations are rather vague and inaccessible to the public.

So basically what I'm saying is....who wants to help me go troll the business & politics tabs?
 
2013-04-08 03:27:53 PM
DeWayne Mann:So basically what I'm saying is....who wants to help me go troll the business & politics tabs?

I already troll the politics tab. It's far worse than the Sports tab ever will be.
 
2013-04-08 03:28:42 PM

JohnnyCanuck: The problem there, chump, is that you feel the need to quantify everything. The heart of sport is what you can not quantify.


Duh.  You're trying to force into language what can only be felt in the soul.  Your reductionist "words" made up of "letters" is what ruined sports decades ago when they were pure.  (Words lead to letters lead to ASCII leads to numbers leads to four-corner days leads to educated evil leads to hide from debate.)  Until you can formulate all knowledge as interpretive dance, you're too simple-minded to even be in the conversation.

By the way, my chakra said that Miguel Cabrera couldn't even Tiptoeing Gazelle his way out of a copper energy bracelet, so Mike Trout is automatically MVP and third basemen have to go be fat in another sport starting in 2014.
 
2013-04-08 03:30:52 PM

zarberg: DeWayne Mann:So basically what I'm saying is....who wants to help me go troll the business & politics tabs?

I already troll the politics tab. It's far worse than the Sports tab ever will be.


Sometimes, accidentally, I click on the Politics tab. And then I think I'm on the main tab for some reason, so I'll click on something that looks interesting.

It never ends well.

Other times I accidentally click on the Business tab. Then I wonder why there haven't been any new articles posted for 3 weeks.

chimp_ninja: JohnnyCanuck: The problem there, chump, is that you feel the need to quantify everything. The heart of sport is what you can not quantify.

Duh.  You're trying to force into language what can only be felt in the soul.  Your reductionist "words" made up of "letters" is what ruined sports decades ago when they were pure.  (Words lead to letters lead to ASCII leads to numbers leads to four-corner days leads to educated evil leads to hide from debate.)  Until you can formulate all knowledge as interpretive dance, you're too simple-minded to even be in the conversation.

By the way, my chakra said that Miguel Cabrera couldn't even Tiptoeing Gazelle his way out of a copper energy bracelet, so Mike Trout is automatically MVP and third basemen have to go be fat in another sport starting in 2014.


I learned so much from this post and its opinions which are clearly equal to my own.
 
2013-04-08 03:32:28 PM
I would say that baseball can't be reduced down to raw stats, but the arguments thus far have been underwhelming.  Being good "down the stretch" or a "clutch hitter" or "fading late in the season" are all things that would be very easily reduced to statisitics, in fact, in order to come to any of those conclusions I don't know how you would do it *without* stats.  On-field production in baseball is so intertwined with statistics it is hard (if not impossible) to seperate the two.

Things like team leadership, clubhouse presence, experience (and willingness/ability to share wisdom from it), and reliability all matter and have an effect on the game as a whole, but due to the difficulty in connecting all the miniscule impacts of complex cause/effect relationships, these things are almost impossible to quntify statistically.  You might be able to prove one guy had a beneficial impact, and use various stats to back it up, but it wouldn't be translateable 1:1 to another persons scenario, so the exact same variety of stats wouldn't have the same utility.

To use an (over)simplified comparison, it is sort of a forest/trees situation.  If you get too bogged down in saying only things like leaf size and trunk width define the health of a forest you won't be able to account for some of the larger-scale effects of geography and weather, while vice-versa if you think that a healthy forest can only be defined by being in a tropical environment with a certain annual rainfall, you will miss out on the specific varieties of tree that can flourish and create a very healthy biome in on an arid mountain.

How this impacts the MVP choice?  Probably not a lot.  It is a big debate.  Many people will never be swayed either way.  Ultimately isn't it decided by a vote of informed baseball experts?  As long as it is a choice made by a pool of people based on their opinions, I don't see how the subjectivity will ever be removed, nor do I ultimately believe it should.  Stats provide obvious winners and clear distinctions and are tremendously valuable tools (as long as the input data is good) but for things like Most Valuable Player, there will always be debate about what "Valuable" even means, so getting panties in a bind over it seems silly to me.
 
2013-04-08 03:32:42 PM

DeWayne Mann: I learned so much from this post and its opinions which are clearly equal to my own.


Once you accept that everything is equal and no one is better than anyone else, you will understand how to elect a proper Most Valuable Player, the way God and JohnnyCanuck intended it.
 
2013-04-08 03:37:03 PM
For the record...anyone who wears "energy" bracelets or anything similar is probably almost as clueless of most of the regs in here.

So seriously...who in here wants to participate in something athletic? Tag?....Lawn Darts?...anything at all?

\jumping jacks?
 
2013-04-08 03:38:01 PM

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: On-field production in baseball is so intertwined with statistics it is hard (if not impossible) to seperate the two.


Typically, the argument runs something like this (and I'm oversimplifying a little here):

"I know what batting average is, because I can easily see it on the field: how often the player gets a hit. But I can't easily see something like wOBA on the field.

Therefore, batting average is an acceptable stat, but wOBA is not."

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food:
Ultimately isn't it decided by a vote of informed baseball experts?

In theory, I suppose.

In practice, no. Several HOF voters, for instance, haven't actually covered baseball since the 1980s. There's no requirement for the voters to attempt to educate themselves about the game itself, which is why we end up with things like Michael Young getting an MVP vote because the voter is friends with him and thinks he's a good "leader."
 
2013-04-08 03:39:00 PM

JohnnyCanuck: For the record...anyone who wears "energy" bracelets or anything similar is probably almost as clueless of most of the regs in here.


So, baseball players then.
 
2013-04-08 03:41:53 PM

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: I would say that baseball can't be reduced down to raw stats, but the arguments thus far have been underwhelming.  Being good "down the stretch" or a "clutch hitter" or "fading late in the season" are all things that would be very easily reduced to statisitics, in fact, in order to come to any of those conclusions I don't know how you would do it *without* stats.  On-field production in baseball is so intertwined with statistics it is hard (if not impossible) to seperate the two.

Things like team leadership, clubhouse presence, experience (and willingness/ability to share wisdom from it), and reliability all matter and have an effect on the game as a whole, but due to the difficulty in connecting all the miniscule impacts of complex cause/effect relationships, these things are almost impossible to quntify statistically.  You might be able to prove one guy had a beneficial impact, and use various stats to back it up, but it wouldn't be translateable 1:1 to another persons scenario, so the exact same variety of stats wouldn't have the same utility.

To use an (over)simplified comparison, it is sort of a forest/trees situation.  If you get too bogged down in saying only things like leaf size and trunk width define the health of a forest you won't be able to account for some of the larger-scale effects of geography and weather, while vice-versa if you think that a healthy forest can only be defined by being in a tropical environment with a certain annual rainfall, you will miss out on the specific varieties of tree that can flourish and create a very healthy biome in on an arid mountain.

How this impacts the MVP choice?  Probably not a lot.  It is a big debate.  Many people will never be swayed either way.  Ultimately isn't it decided by a vote of informed baseball experts?  As long as it is a choice made by a pool of people based on their opinions, I don't see how the subjectivity will ever be removed, nor do I ultimately believe it should.  Stats provide obvious win ...


This is a good post.

chimp_ninja: DeWayne Mann: I learned so much from this post and its opinions which are clearly equal to my own.

Once you accept that everything is equal and no one is better than anyone else, you will understand how to elect a proper Most Valuable Player, the way God and JohnnyCanuck intended it.


That is the exact opposite of how I feel. But I would expect nothing less from someone who hasn't had anything intelligent to say thus far.
 
2013-04-08 03:42:12 PM

IAmRight: JohnnyCanuck: For the record...anyone who wears "energy" bracelets or anything similar is probably almost as clueless of most of the regs in here.

So, baseball players then.


If that were true, I'd think those bracelets would be officially licensed by MLB.

Wait, they are?
 
2013-04-08 03:42:20 PM
It's the same reason why RPI numbers aren't given the first week of the basketball season, or that the BCS rankings aren't done until October in college football.  There needs to be more data for WAR to work.
 
2013-04-08 03:43:21 PM

IAmRight: JohnnyCanuck: For the record...anyone who wears "energy" bracelets or anything similar is probably almost as clueless of most of the regs in here.

So, baseball players then.


The majority probably, yes. I would even go as far as to say athletes.
 
2013-04-08 03:47:03 PM
Only a select few (of us) can be of such high intelligence AND be an excellent athlete.
 
2013-04-08 03:50:25 PM

DeWayne Mann: Several HOF voters, for instance, haven't actually covered baseball since the 1980s. There's no requirement for the voters to attempt to educate themselves about the game itself, which is why we end up with things like Michael Young getting an MVP vote because the voter is friends with him and thinks he's a good "leader."


Yup.  And my understanding is that once you have a HOF vote, you have it until you die, even if you stop turning in ballots, unless you voluntarily quit the BBWAA.

The ridiculousness of MVP voting has been toned down at least a little recently, however.  In both leagues, the top 4 by WAR were the top 4 by voting, albeit in the wrong order sometimes.  Marvel at how bad the 1947 ballot was.  Come for Ted Williams getting screwed, stay for the really bizarre stuff lower, like Eddie Yoost getting 2 first-place votes, or Mark Christman getting 4 points while playing well below replacement level... the third time he received an MVP vote despite having a career WAR of ...  negative 2.0.

Some level of down-ballot stupidity still exists, however.  2012 featured Raul Ibanez getting a vote for crappy defense and a .761 OPS in a platoon role.
 
2013-04-08 03:50:39 PM

JohnnyCanuck: Only a select few (of us) can be of such high intelligence AND be an excellent athlete.


Just for fun, let's assume this is true.

I wonder what percentage of coaches & managers are former players. 99? 99.9?

Seems to suggest that coaches & managers are kind of dumb.
 
2013-04-08 03:52:36 PM

chimp_ninja: Yup. And my understanding is that once you have a HOF vote, you have it until you die, even if you stop turning in ballots, unless you voluntarily quit the BBWAA.


Yep. Cover baseball for a newspaper for 10 years, submit an application to the BBWAA, and if they select you (which they almost certainly will), you're eligible for a HOF vote for the rest of your life.
 
2013-04-08 03:53:59 PM

JohnnyCanuck: For the record...anyone who wears "energy" bracelets or anything similar is probably almost as clueless of most of the regs in here.


This is a controversial opinion and the mark of a great mind.  Everyone is laughing with you.  You are making complete sense in this thread.
 
Displayed 50 of 141 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report