Surly AL MVP

[Beau Vine 55,026]

When did Tyler White get pregnant?

Edited October 1, 2019 by Beau Vine

[WBT 20,776]

He wouldn't have that gut without Bregman's leadership and encouragement.

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

37 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

Yeah but you're supposed to add Springer's WAR to Bregman's because he always gives him an attaboy and a slap on the ass between innings, which gives him a 14.6 and a clear lead over everyone else. 

Funny thing about WAR.   Trout went down on September 7.  After that, the Angels played a single game against the White Sox, and then finished the season against a murderer's row of the Astros, Rays, Yankees, As, and Indians, all of whom were fighting for playoff spots/positioning at the time.  The Angels went 5-13 against those 5 teams in September for a 21.78 winning percentage.  Prior to Trout's injury, the Angels went 11-31 against those same 5 teams for a 26.19% winning percentage.  The Angels only performed slightly worse without Trout than they did with him, and some of that is due to playing opponents who were gearing up for the playoffs rather than Trout's absence.  Now maybe if he is playing in one of the Yankee blowout losses, the Angels lose 8-2 instead of 8-0 in one of them.  I just don't see a potential extra W in there, but maybe there is one.

Also, the Angels were 4 games under .500 with Trout in 2017 and 2018.  Without Trout, they were .500.  Neither are good, but how accurate of a stat can WAR be if Trout's actual replacement fared just about the same if not slightly better when it comes to being part of wins?

I guess the real problems with WAR is that you don't have to actually win, and how your team performs when it actually replaces you isn't considered.  Aside from that, how "valuable" is a player whose team performs the same with or without him?

[Goo Punch 4,275]

1 hour ago, Mudcat35 said:

Gotta go with Bregman.  Can't pick Trout.  He's missed too much time and his team wasn't good with or without him.  How valuable was he really?

ah, the old "definition of value" argument, being used annually by fans of AL teams not named the Angels since 2012. You guys give me a freaking break with all of these whack ass excuses about "well if his team didn't win as many games as mine then he isn't valuable" bullshit. Same goes for the "he missed too much time" argument. He wasn't even helping them win games anyway, remember? 

This is one of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to award season. All of the fans who do mental gymnastics to convince themselves that they believe what they're saying simply because it favors their guy. The MVP award is for the guy who had the best season. Period. Mike Trout has been the best player in baseball for years and he just had his best season ever. His numbers were better than Bregman's essentially across the board *despite* missing so much time. Imagine the disparity if he hadn't been injured. This is a no-brainer.

I don't give a shit if you want to give your little internet vote to Bregs because he's your guy- I did the same thing with Javy last year. Just don't get on here and act like it's anything other than obvious, blatant homerism. Trout is the better player and he had better numbers than Bregman despite getting hurt and missing time. Pretty freaking clear cut winner here. 

[Hank Chinaski 6,324]

33 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I guess the real problems with WAR is that you don't have to actually win, and how your team performs when it actually replaces you isn't considered.  Aside from that, how "valuable" is a player whose team performs the same with or without him?

This isn't the problem - it is the entire point. The purpose of the metric is to isolate a player's production - i.e., disregard what other players on his team are doing. This is the only way to truly assess an individual player's performance. When you start pulling team performance data into individual performance analysis, you pervert the whole thing by adding additional variables that have nothing to do with the individual. A player can only control what he can control - not what his teammates do or fail to do. Literally every MLB team uses some form of this to assess every player in baseball. 

37 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Also, the Angels were 4 games under .500 with Trout in 2017 and 2018.  Without Trout, they were .500.  Neither are good, but how accurate of a stat can WAR be if Trout's actual replacement fared just about the same if not slightly better when it comes to being part of wins?

His replacements didn't fare as well as he did - the team won at a slightly higher rate. This is attributable to some combination of his teammates faring slightly better in these games, the other team faring slightly worse, luck, and/or several other factors that ultimately decide who wins a game. His replacement in any given game only accounts for some very small portion of whether the team wins. 

WAR is based on runs. You can estimate the run equivalent of any plate appearance outcome based on probabilities. Throughout the history of baseball, 10 runs is the rough equivalent of a team win. By adding up all the outcomes of all a player's plate appearances, you get a total run equivalent, which can then be converted to team wins. WAR also accounts for base running and defense. None of this is exact, but it is better than any other metric at assessing an individual player's production. 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

7 minutes ago, Goo Punch said:

ah, the old "definition of value" argument, being used annually by fans of AL teams not named the Angels since 2012. You guys give me a freaking break with all of these whack ass excuses about "well if his team didn't win as many games as mine then he isn't valuable" bullshit. Same goes for the "he missed too much time" argument. He wasn't even helping them win games anyway, remember? 

This is one of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to award season. All of the fans who do mental gymnastics to convince themselves that they believe what they're saying simply because it favors their guy. The MVP award is for the guy who had the best season. Period. Mike Trout has been the best player in baseball for years and he just had his best season ever. His numbers were better than Bregman's essentially across the board *despite* missing so much time. Imagine the disparity if he hadn't been injured. This is a no-brainer.

I don't give a shit if you want to give your little internet vote to Bregs because he's your guy- I did the same thing with Javy last year. Just don't get on here and act like it's anything other than obvious, blatant homerism. Trout is the better player and he had better numbers than Bregman despite getting hurt and missing time. Pretty freaking clear cut winner here. 

Their numbers aren't all that different this year actually.  Getting hurt is part of the game too.  "For years" doesn't matter either.  It isn't a lifetime achievement award.  FWIW, there is a very small sampling set, but Trout sucked balls in his one playoff series.  Does he have what it takes to be a star on an actual good team?   To be the guy at the plate down 1 in a game that actually means something?  I mean he is also a guy who signed what is probably a career long contract with a team who has showed no intention of building a contender around him.  Why not wait and try to sign with a contender for nearly the same amount of money?

[Hank Chinaski 6,324]

26 minutes ago, Goo Punch said:

Just don't get on here and act like it's anything other than obvious, blatant homerism. Trout is the better player and he had better numbers than Bregman despite getting hurt and missing time. Pretty freaking clear cut winner here. 

I'm mostly with you, but disagree that it is clear cut. Trout and Bregman were about equally productive. Again, Trout produced more value/game but Bregman produced value in more games. I think once can make a reasonable case for either guy. 

For the record, I'd vote for Bregman despite defending Trout on here because (a) I am an Astros homer, and (b) he played in almost every game, many of which at the most challenging defensive position, where he played well. 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

21 minutes ago, Hank Chinaski said:

This isn't the problem - it is the entire point. The purpose of the metric is to isolate a player's production - i.e., disregard what other players on his team are doing. This is the only way to truly assess an individual player's performance. When you start pulling team performance data into individual performance analysis, you pervert the whole thing by adding additional variables that have nothing to do with the individual. A player can only control what he can control - not what his teammates do or fail to do. Literally every MLB team uses some form of this to assess every player in baseball. 

His replacements didn't fare as well as he did - the team won at a slightly higher rate. This is attributable to some combination of his teammates faring slightly better in these games, the other team faring slightly worse, luck, and/or several other factors that ultimately decide who wins a game. His replacement in any given game only accounts for some very small portion of whether the team wins. 

WAR is based on runs. You can estimate the run equivalent of any plate appearance outcome based on probabilities. Throughout the history of baseball, 10 runs is the rough equivalent of a team win. By adding up all the outcomes of all a player's plate appearances, you get a total run equivalent, which can then be converted to team wins. WAR also accounts for base running and defense. None of this is exact, but it is better than any other metric at assessing an individual player's production. 

Right, so technically, if you put together a team based on a bunch of players' individual WAR, you'd supposedly have a winner.  But you don't necessarily.  Perhaps no stat is truly the best indicator. 

You can actually see WARs shortcomings when you look at combined team WAR.  A perfect WAR stat would perfectly align with records.  This year, it holds for the top 2, Houston and LAD, but then breaks down.  Oakland has higher team WAR than the NYY.  The Nationals have the second highest in the NL, beating ATL 14.3 to 6.5 while losing the division by 4 games to ATL.  Hell, the Mets handily beat the Brewers in WAR, but they still managed to Mets-up this season.

I'd like to see a stat for OPS in the final 3 innings where the score was within 2 runs when the AB took place.  Perhaps factor in fielding in the same timeframe.  That would tell you who the actual MVP is, and it may well be none of the guys we are talking about right now.

Edited October 1, 2019 by FondrenRoad

[Beau Vine 55,026]

I can't decide if FondrenRoad is trolling or not.

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

6 minutes ago, Hank Chinaski said:

I'm mostly with you, but disagree that it is clear cut. Trout and Bregman were about equally productive. Again, Trout produced more value/game but Bregman produced value in more games. I think once can make a reasonable case for either guy. 

For the record, I'd vote for Bregman despite defending Trout on here because (a) I am an Astros homer, and (b) he played in almost every game, many of which at the most challenging defensive position, where he played well. 

To be fair, Bregman is actually a shortstop, and played short in both college and the minors.  It isn't like he just jumped into the role cold.  He has been playing 3rd since he came up because of Correa. I don't even really factor that in to my belief that Bregman should win this year.

I actually think Correa should play 3rd if he ever comes back.  A little less wear and tear on his fragile frame.

[TonyTexas 10,587]

This is surprising to me

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

22 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

I can't decide if FondrenRoad is trolling or not.

A little bit of both.  I mean you do have Derka on your side who thinks the NBA MVP should just be equivalent to the scoring title.  And all of y'all think the MVP should just be equivalent to the WAR title.  Trout is an awesome player, but that hasn't equaled wins.  He also seems uninterested in being on a team that wins.  I don't find that particularly valuable.  The award is supposed to be for value added to a team in a team sport.  If the team itself has no value, then what value has the player actually provided?

I also think all the Trout fans are looking at his career stats and handing him the award based on that.  His regular season career has certainly been better than Bregman's.  So what?  This year, its a dead heat, Trout didn't play the whole season and its an award for performance over a whole season.  Even if its a raw WAR award now like y'all want it to be, its a dead heat.  Although it shouldn't be only about WAR because WAR is nearly as imperfect as every other stat.  Bregman carried a good team over what could have been a pretty bad stretch.

 

Edited October 1, 2019 by FondrenRoad

[Goo Punch 4,275]

5 minutes ago, TonyTexas said:

This is surprising to me

yeah, both of those surprise me, not only in who they favor, but the odds themselves are surprising.

Edited October 1, 2019 by Goo Punch

[Helobious 9,516]

24 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

I can't decide if FondrenRoad is trolling or not.

Just because someone points out the major shortcomings of sabermetrics doesn’t make them a troll.

[Hank Chinaski 6,324]

7 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Trout is an awesome player, but that hasn't equaled wins.  

So, are you or aren't you penalizing Trout for having crappy teammates? In other words, is Trout himself a less valuable player because his teammates aren't good?

8 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

He also seems uninterested in being on a team that wins.  I don't find that particularly valuable. 

Because he signed an extension for $400 million??? Come on man. There are no guarantees what he could have gotten if he waited to be a FA. Injuries, etc. Every player in baseball would have signed that contract. 

11 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

The award is supposed to be for value added to a team in a team sport.  If the team itself has no value, then what value has the player actually provided?

I could just as easily flip this and say that Trout accounted for a higher % of value to his team than any player in baseball, by a lot. Is that not the "most valuable player?"

 

 

[Hank Chinaski 6,324]

55 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

You can actually see WARs shortcomings when you look at combined team WAR.  A perfect WAR stat would perfectly align with records.  This year, it holds for the top 2, Houston and LAD, but then breaks down.  Oakland has higher team WAR than the NYY.  The Nationals have the second highest in the NL, beating ATL 14.3 to 6.5 while losing the division by 4 games to ATL.  Hell, the Mets handily beat the Brewers in WAR, but they still managed to Mets-up this season.

I took FG team WAR totals for hitters and pitchers and added them together to get a total WAR by team number. I then added a column to include each team's 2019 Win total. I was curious what the correlation would be between Team Total WAR and actual wins in 2019. 

The correlation value came out to .94. A value of 1.0 is a perfect correlation. 

Looking at combined team WAR does not uncover "shortcomings;" it actually does the opposite and lends credibility to the metric. 

[Iceman 2,820]

On 9/30/2019 at 5:09 PM, Hank Chinaski said:

This one is close. Trout and Bregman produced approximately equal value (based on bWAR and fWAR). 

Trout produced more value/game - in games in which he participated. However, he also produced no value whatsoever in nearly 30 games (17% of the schedule). 

I'll vote for Bregman based on equivalent total value and the fact that he impacted more games - particularly by moving to SS capably and buoying an offense that was down 3 all-stars for large chunks of the season. 

 

If it’s equal in the stats, relatively; then who impacted the team and the league more?

 

Trout is a badass, but so is Wheelbarrow Man.  His team is better. He carried them to a record season, despite the multitude of injuries. 

 

I feel like a vote for Trout is lazy, and no slam on Mikey. 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

11 minutes ago, Hank Chinaski said:

So, are you or aren't you penalizing Trout for having crappy teammates? In other words, is Trout himself a less valuable player because his teammates aren't good?

I'm not penalizing him although value should translate to at least some wins when it comes to MVP.  He is even rewarded by WAR for playing on a crappy team.  He is pitched around the few times if matters, has fewer pressure at bats, and faces worse pitching late in games. Is a 2 run home run in the 9th while trailing 8-0 off a team's garbage time reliever worth more than a base hit in the 9th in a 1 run game off a team's best closer?  WAR says it is, but in actuality one is a pressure hit off a great pitcher and the other is batting practice. Bregman actually led the league in walks while almost never being pitched around which is actually pretty crazy. 

11 minutes ago, Hank Chinaski said:

 

Because he signed an extension for $400 million??? Come on man. There are no guarantees what he could have gotten if he waited to be a FA. Injuries, etc. Every player in baseball would have signed that contract. 

And that's fair if it's only about money right now. Plenty of other players with the desire to win have waited for free agency, however.  Maybe he gets disgruntled and forces a trade later though. 

11 minutes ago, Hank Chinaski said:

 

I could just as easily flip this and say that Trout accounted for a higher % of value to his team than any player in baseball, by a lot. Is that not the "most valuable player?"

 

 

But he didn't. His team performed roughly the same both with and without him. Of the teams in the playoffs, how many managers do you think would secretly rather have Trout than their best player going into October?  The Astros probably wouldn't swap Trout for any of their top 3 players for this playoff run even. 

It isn't like he has been hitting game winning HRs while falling just short of the playoffs. That would be an MVP run on a mediocre to shitty team.  Instead, he is a great player playing under zero pressure to win. 

[Beau Vine 55,026]

31 minutes ago, Iceman said:

If it’s equal in the stats, relatively; then who impacted the team and the league more?

 

Trout is a badass, but so is Wheelbarrow Man.  His team is better. He carried them to a record season, despite the multitude of injuries. 

 

I feel like a vote for Trout is lazy, and no slam on Mikey. 

Oh for fuck's sake... The Astros have the two leading contenders for the Cy Young and the overwhelming favorite for Rookie of the Year, but Bregman "carried them."  What.  In.  The.  Fuck???!?!?

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

45 minutes ago, Hank Chinaski said:

I took FG team WAR totals for hitters and pitchers and added them together to get a total WAR by team number. I then added a column to include each team's 2019 Win total. I was curious what the correlation would be between Team Total WAR and actual wins in 2019. 

The correlation value came out to .94. A value of 1.0 is a perfect correlation. 

Looking at combined team WAR does not uncover "shortcomings;" it actually does the opposite and lends credibility to the metric. 

Baseball reference is okay for the AL to a point. The NL is out of whack though.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/team_compare.cgi

Also FG isn't much different when I am looking at it. Although every single team is rated with positive WAR which is statistically impossible. 

[Beau Vine 55,026]

3 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Baseball reference is okay for the AL to a point. The NL is out of whack though.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/team_compare.cgi

Also FG isn't much different when I am looking at it. Although every single team is rated with positive WAR which is statistically impossible. 

Uh, no.  

[henrygandorf 29,201]

20 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Oh for fuck's sake... The Astros have the two leading contenders for the Cy Young and the overwhelming favorite for Rookie of the Year, but Bregman "carried them."  What.  In.  The.  Fuck???!?!?

jesus man, your anti-astros bias is showing.

i agree nobody single-handedly "carried" the astros.  not sure that's worth all the extra punctuation, but sure.  however, you could definitely argue he 'led' them.  and it isn't even arguable to say he 'led' the offense (and probably the defense).  we had a multitude of injuries, and he was the constant - playing two different positions and batting in 3 spots in the order. 

it's a credit to the astros that the lineup is so stacked and pitching is so deep that people feel the need to argue against him winning an mvp.  i think it's a credit that on a team that features 2 mvps, a world series mvp, 2 roys, etc, that bregman can elevate himself into that type of "face of the franchise" leader.

trout is the best player on the planet.  he was having arguably his best statistical season, but then he got hurt.  bregman's numbers are comparable, and his team is way better, which counts, whether it should or not.  it almost always has.  i think that's why the betting odds are where they are.

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

Just now, Beau Vine said:

Uh, no.  

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2019&month=0&season1=2019&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&startdate=&enddate=

Tell that to fangraphs then. WAR all the way to to the right. 

[Hank Chinaski 6,324]

25 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2019&month=0&season1=2019&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&startdate=&enddate=

Tell that to fangraphs then. WAR all the way to to the right. 

That doesn't include pitching. 

32 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Although every single team is rated with positive WAR which is statistically impossible. 

Why?

Again, FG team WAR (hitting + pitching) correlates with actual wins with a r of .94. That is an extremely strong correlation. 

[Guadaloopy 11,077]

56 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Oh for fuck's sake... The Astros have the two leading contenders for the Cy Young and the overwhelming favorite for Rookie of the Year, but Bregman "carried them."  What.  In.  The.  Fuck???!?!?

The one constant through all the games, Beau, has been Bregman.

Injuries rolled by like an army of steamrollers. The lineup’s been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt, and erased again. But Bregman has marked the time.

This third baseman, this hitter -- he's a part of our past, Beau. He reminds us of all that once was good, and could be again.

Ohhhhhhhh, people will vote, Beau. People will most definitely vote.

[Helobious 9,516]

Lol at the Astros thinking they got decimated by injuries. Tell that to DJM & the Yankees. 
 

Interesting thought: I saw that the Brewers are 13-5 since Yelich went down with his injury. The Yankees won 103 games with every single one of their superstars spending significant time on the DL. All of this begs the question (and no idgaf if I’m using that correctly): how much is any one baseball player really needed to win games? 

[Guadaloopy 11,077]

4 minutes ago, Helobious said:

Lol at the Astros thinking they got decimated by injuries. Tell that to DJM & the Yankees. 
 

Interesting thought: I saw that the Brewers are 13-5 since Yelich went down with his injury. The Yankees won 103 games with every single one of their superstars spending significant time on the DL. All of this begs the question (and no idgaf if I’m using that correctly): how much is any one baseball player really needed to win games? 

No one is saying they had it worse than the Yankees, but the Astros had a pretty rough injury year everywhere but the starting rotation.  

[Helobious 9,516]

1 minute ago, Guadaloopy said:

No one is saying they had it worse than the Yankees, but the Astros had a pretty rough injury year everywhere but the starting rotation.  

Well that’s another example. Team sees a bunch of it’s starting lineup go down and still doesn’t even come close to skipping a beat. Front offices all over the league are gonna recognize all this come CBA time.

[kevwun 15,963]

Altuve, Correa and Springer were all out at the same time for about a month.  Correa missed half the season and Altuve was gimpy for the first half of the season.

Edited October 2, 2019 by kevwun

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

28 minutes ago, Hank Chinaski said:

That doesn't include pitching. 

Why?

Again, FG team WAR (hitting + pitching) correlates with actual wins with a r of .94. That is an extremely strong correlation. 

Click the pitching tab. Also positive for every team. It's the same numbers you used, no? Probably off the same exact page even. You know exactly where the pitching tab is. 

Why is it impossible for every team to have positive WAR?  Because the replacement player is the average player available at minimum cost. Many teams  play a lot of players that are worse than replacement. Several teams were intentionally tanking even. 

Also, post your graph. Let's see your numbers. 

Edited October 2, 2019 by FondrenRoad

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

20 minutes ago, Helobious said:

Lol at the Astros thinking they got decimated by injuries. Tell that to DJM & the Yankees. 
 

Interesting thought: I saw that the Brewers are 13-5 since Yelich went down with his injury. The Yankees won 103 games with every single one of their superstars spending significant time on the DL. All of this begs the question (and no idgaf if I’m using that correctly): how much is any one baseball player really needed to win games? 

If you could trade Judge for Trout right now and have Trout suit up in ALDS game 1, do you do it?  Would you have done it in the preseason this year?

[Iceman 2,820]

1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

Oh for fuck's sake... The Astros have the two leading contenders for the Cy Young and the overwhelming favorite for Rookie of the Year, but Bregman "carried them."  What.  In.  The.  Fuck???!?!?

How many hits did JV or Cole have?

JV and Cole pitch 40% of the time, at very best.  Bregman played the whole season.

You can fuck off if you feel like someone owes you the sales job on those points.

 

I wouldn''t have traded Bregman for Trout at all this season.

 

and fuck the Yankees.  They're not even in the fucking discussion.

Edited October 2, 2019 by Iceman

[Helobious 9,516]

16 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

If you could trade Judge for Trout right now and have Trout suit up in ALDS game 1, do you do it?  Would you have done it in the preseason this year?

No and no. Trout can keep tearing it up in meaningless games in no pressure at bats all he wants. I’ll take my chances with a clutch hitter like Judge. SLAM THE GAVEL bitch. 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

You know we complain about a QB with a 164 rating getting beat out for the Heisman by a situational running back. The real guy that got screwed was Rudy Carpenter. He had a 175 rating. Not his fault he played on a mediocre Arizona State squad. 

[Hank Chinaski 6,324]

19 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Click the pitching tab. Also positive for every team. It's the same numbers you used, no? Probably off the same exact page even. You know exactly where the pitching tab is. 

Also, post your graph. Let's see your numbers. 

Huh...never noticed the tabs, I just went to the pitching page from the menu bar at the top. But yes, it is the same list.

Here you go:

And here is the same data plotted - the x-axis is WAR, y-axis is wins:

[Hank Chinaski 6,324]

30 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Why is it impossible for every team to have positive WAR?  Because the replacement player is the average player available at minimum cost. Many teams  play a lot of players that are worse than replacement. Several teams were intentionally tanking even. 

No. Replacement player is not a league average player. It is the approximate value of a guy a team could call up from AAA. 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

1 minute ago, Hank Chinaski said:

No. Replacement player is not a league average player. It is the approximate value of a guy a team could call up from AAA. 

You bolded more than "average player".  The word league isn't in the part you bolded at all.  Read it again. 

Edited October 2, 2019 by FondrenRoad

[Hank Chinaski 6,324]

4 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

You bolded more than "average player".  The word league isn't in the part you bolded at all.  Read it again. 

OK then your rationale as to why it is impossible for all teams to have a positive team WAR still doesn't make sense. It would only make sense if a replacement player were a league average player. And even then it still wouldn't be impossible, it would simply be impossible for every player to be positive.  

Edited October 2, 2019 by Hank Chinaski

[Tommy Nobis 905]

 

 

[WBT 20,776]

You have to be really shitty to have negative WAR.  A team with zero WAR is set to about a 48 win season.  

https://library.fangraphs.com/misc/war/

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/unifying-replacement-level/

[WBT 20,776]

4 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

The Angels went 5-13 against those 5 teams in September for a 21.78 winning percentage.  Prior to Trout's injury, the Angels went 11-31 against those same 5 teams for a 26.19% winning percentage.  The Angels only performed slightly worse without Trout than they did with him, and some of that is due to playing opponents who were gearing up for the playoffs rather than Trout's absence.

That's a 7 win difference over the course of a whole season.  Not that either sample size is big enough to draw any conclusions from.

Edited October 2, 2019 by WBT

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

1 hour ago, Helobious said:

Well that’s another example. Team sees a bunch of it’s starting lineup go down and still doesn’t even come close to skipping a beat. Front offices all over the league are gonna recognize all this come CBA time.

It’s so hard to be the Yankees.  Playing in the AL East.  With such a limited payroll.  

[youdunnf'dup 2,147]

To me, it’s bregman and it really isn’t close. Honestly, how is there a good argument for anyone else? I know trout is trout, but you can only win MVP so many times when you play for a team that finishes below .500. If trout wins, just change the name of the award to Highest WAR. Hell, I’d give it to Verlander or Cole before trout. You could make a strong case that the top 3 AL candidates are on the Astros.

Edited October 2, 2019 by youdunnf'dup

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

5 minutes ago, Hank Chinaski said:

OK then your rationale as to why it is impossible for all teams to have a positive team WAR still doesn't make sense. It would only make sense if a replacement player were a league average player. 

Take a look at the baseball reference link. They are more consistent with replacement level and have both teams and players with below 0 WAR.

And it make sense when you realize teams at the bottom are tanking on purpose and better prospects are left in the minors to push back salary negotiation years. 

Fangraphs undervalues a lot of consistently bad players even while grading Miguel Cabrera worse than baseball reference did. Was just comparing the Tigers, fangraphs only -WAR batting team and found Cabrera's stats funny. 

[Hank Chinaski 6,324]

5 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Take a look at the baseball reference link. They are more consistent with replacement level and have both teams and players with below 0 WAR.

And it make sense when you realize teams at the bottom are tanking on purpose and better prospects are left in the minors to push back salary negotiation years. 

Fangraphs undervalues a lot of consistently bad players even while grading Miguel Cabrera worse than baseball reference did. Was just comparing the Tigers, fangraphs only -WAR batting team and found Cabrera's stats funny. 

I generally look at FG more than B-R, but yeah they use slightly different metrics. 

It makes sense that teams can have negative WAR if they're really bad, tanking, etc...but it doesn't make sense that some teams have to have negative WAR.

Anyway, I get it if you think an MVP should come from a winning team. I disagree, but I get the argument.

But the argument that Trout is overrated because he lacks some undefined intangibles, or because he happens to play for a team with terrible pitching holds no water in my opinion. We get way too deep into subjective / narrative / unsubstantiated anecdotal crap with "intangibles" and "clutch" and all that. I think players should be evaluated on what they actually and objectively produce, and WAR does a pretty damn good job of quantifying player value. I agree that it is not exact, and I don't think that there is really any difference between Trout and Bregman in WAR this year. But being inexact doesn't make it worthless. 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

1 hour ago, Hank Chinaski said:

Huh...never noticed the tabs, I just went to the pitching page from the menu bar at the top. But yes, it is the same list.

Here you go:

And here is the same data plotted - the x-axis is WAR, y-axis is wins:

Thanks, this is good. I can take a better look from a PC. It still lines up almost exactly like baseball reference. Dodgers - Nats - Mets - Cubs - Braves - Cards - DBacks - Brewers.  Although baseball reference more accurately places the Mets. 

But it also gives a good way to judge Trout's individual WAR vs team expectations. 

Division WAR - Astros, As, Angels, Rangers, Mariners

Trout's team finished 1 position worse than they should have with their WAR.

In the AL, WAR predicts an 8th place finish. They finished 10th. 

So we can give it to a guy whose team is better on paper than the Rangers, but led his team to a worse record than the Rangers. Or we can give it to a guy who played nearly equally well in WAR while doing much of it in games that actually mattered. 

But hey, we could also take away Bregmans entire WAR from the Astros, and they are still first in the AL in WAR.

Gallo for MVP. His team overperformed. 

 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

13 minutes ago, Hank Chinaski said:

I generally look at FG more than B-R, but yeah they use slightly different metrics. 

It makes sense that teams can have negative WAR if they're really bad, tanking, etc...but it doesn't make sense that some teams have to have negative WAR.

Anyway, I get it if you think an MVP should come from a winning team. I disagree, but I get the argument.

But the argument that Trout is overrated because he lacks some undefined intangibles, or because he happens to play for a team with terrible pitching holds no water in my opinion. We get way too deep into subjective / narrative / unsubstantiated anecdotal crap with "intangibles" and "clutch" and all that. I think players should be evaluated on what they actually and objectively produce, and WAR does a pretty damn good job of quantifying player value. I agree that it is not exact, and I don't think that there is really any difference between Trout and Bregman in WAR this year. But being inexact doesn't make it worthless. 

I like BR better because it is better on a mobile and doesn't have a constant pop-up begging for money. In the end, they don't come up with too terribly different numbers from each other. 

Also, clutch doesn't have to be intangible. Make a new stat for performance in games closer than 2 runs in the last 2 or 3 innings.  Another stat for final inning alone. Surprised it doesn't exist already to be honest. We have saves and blown saves for pitching, but that could be refined a little more. There is nothing all that similar for batting. 

Edited October 2, 2019 by FondrenRoad

[UpperWestside 6,225]

On 9/30/2019 at 7:21 PM, Helobious said:

Trout is so valuable that he’s never played on a team that’s accomplished anything. 9 seasons in the bigs and nothing to show for it but fancy sabermetric numbers. Not even so much as 1 playoff victory. 
 

In my unbiased opinion DJ Lamahieu should win it. Strong case for Bergman too. 

I take Lamahieu. Not because he is a Yankee, but because without him they do not win the division. He can play any position in the infield and give you Gold Glove caliber defense. I told a friend when the Yanks signed him that it was the best signing they had made this winter and their best in a long, long time. 

They did not initially have him leading off, but once he attained that spot in the order everything fell into place. Nothing against the other players, but Lamahieu was more valuable to the Yanks than any player in the game this year was to their team due to the litany of injuries they had throughout the season.

He's the glue guy and was the difference in just another wild-card appearance versus winning the division. I guess we'll see how he holds up to the pressure of October baseball in the Bronx. I think he has that rare mentality that can withstand the ridiculous amount of pressure of playing for the Yankees in October. 

[Hank Chinaski 6,324]

23 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Also, clutch doesn't have to be intangible. Make a new stat for performance in games closer than 2 runs in the last 2 or 3 innings.  Another stat for final inning alone. Surprised it doesn't exist already to be honest. We have saves and blown saves for pitching, but that could be refined a little more. There is nothing all that similar for batting. 

True - FG does have a clutch stat...not sure exactly how it is calculated but if you go to the "Win Probability" section of the player page you'll see it listed. It is defined as "how much better or worse a player does in high leverage situations than in a context-neutral situation." So it is relative to each player, not to the league. If I'm reading that correctly, if Trout has a negative "clutch" value (which he does for 2019), it doesn't mean that he's worse in high leverage situations than the normal player, but that he was worse in those situations than he was in all situations. 

B-R may have one too, not sure. 

 

Edited October 2, 2019 by Hank Chinaski

[Mudcat35 196]

5 hours ago, Goo Punch said:

ah, the old "definition of value" argument, being used annually by fans of AL teams not named the Angels since 2012. You guys give me a freaking break with all of these whack ass excuses about "well if his team didn't win as many games as mine then he isn't valuable" bullshit. Same goes for the "he missed too much time" argument. He wasn't even helping them win games anyway, remember? 

This is one of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to award season. All of the fans who do mental gymnastics to convince themselves that they believe what they're saying simply because it favors their guy. The MVP award is for the guy who had the best season. Period. Mike Trout has been the best player in baseball for years and he just had his best season ever. His numbers were better than Bregman's essentially across the board *despite* missing so much time. Imagine the disparity if he hadn't been injured. This is a no-brainer.

I don't give a shit if you want to give your little internet vote to Bregs because he's your guy- I did the same thing with Javy last year. Just don't get on here and act like it's anything other than obvious, blatant homerism. Trout is the better player and he had better numbers than Bregman despite getting hurt and missing time. Pretty freaking clear cut winner here. 

Trout's the best player in baseball.  No doubt.  He's the Mickey Mantle of this generation, before Mickey got hurt and old.  But...this particular award is about value.  I stated my opinion, yours is different.  I have no quarrel with somebody who thinks Trout is a great player.