Nate Silver says it should be Trout

[nate]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/the-statistical-case-against-cabrera-for-m-v-p/

Mr. 50-for-50 is on my side.


- another nate

[Ray Garraty]

Good article. I was saying Cabrera but I think I've changed my mind. Really they are not even comparable.

[Wayback1918]

On Nov 15, 12:39 pm, Ray Garraty <idahosha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:56:02 AM UTC-7, nate wrote:

> >http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/the-statistical-c...

>
> > Mr. 50-for-50 is on my side.
>
> > - another nate
>
> Good article. I was saying Cabrera but I think I've changed my mind.  Really they are not even comparable.

Miguel Cabrera 1.079 OPS from Aug. 24 through end of season; Mike
Trout was at .824.

Most Valuable Player....not necessarily the best player

[PETER SHORTS]

ops is a small part of the picture.

[Wayback1918]

> ops is a small part of the picture.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Sez who?

On Aug 24 Detroit was 2.5 games behind the White Sox....LA was 2.5 out
in the wild card. Cabrera carried his team....Trout faded....still
leaning heavy on the 'Valuable' word.

[Wayback1918]

> leaning heavy on the 'Valuable' word.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

"Trout faded" is unfair for a guy who had an .824 OPS but Cabrera did
much better in the playoff chase.

[PETER SHORTS]

sez who? people who favor rpsb, and consider the entire season.

[PETER SHORTS]

the playoff chase begins in april.

[Wayback1918]

> sez who? people who favor rpsb, and consider the entire season.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I googled 'rpsb' and came up with 'Rapides Parish School Board'. I'll
assume that wasn't it.

Even if you are going strictly stats, OPS is not a small part of any
evaluation.

This is an old award and has always historically emphasized the term
"Valuable'.

Trout had a great year and there awards like the SN Player of the year
that are more stat oriented.

[Ray Garraty]

I changed my mind based on the WAR figures, defensively and baserunning they are not even on the same planet. This is like camparing David Ortiz to Michael Bourn. I think it's a shame that a triple crown winner would not get an MVP but I don't think it should be based on Aug-24 on, it should start from April. Anyway I won't be mad if Cabrera wins, he is very deserving, but I am agreeing with the argument for Trout.

[Wayback1918]

> I changed my mind based on the WAR figures,  defensively and baserunning they are not even on the same planet.  This is like camparing David Ortiz to Michael Bourn.  I think it's a shame that a triple crown winner would not get an MVP but I don't think it should be based on Aug-24 on, it should start from April.  Anyway I won't be mad if Cabrera wins, he is very deserving, but I am agreeing with the argument for Trout.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Any value for April is all Cabrera's. Trout didn't come up until
almost May

I think it would be a shame if we just turned this award over to WAR.

[PETER SHORTS]

first of all, i wouldn't be upset with either pick, and enjoy years where there is some controversy instead of a clear-cut winner. just saying this so that this doesn't come across as a heated argument instead of a discussion that i'm actually enjoying.

ok, so it seems as though you believe i'm ignoring the word 'valuable,' but i'm not really. i see the award as rewarding the individual value that a player contributes. obviously, people assess value differently, but i still think i'm trying to evaluate value here. ops is part of that, of course, but ignores other aspects of a player's value, e.g., defense, baserunning, park factors, etc. so while ops is part of the evaluation for me, it doesn't stop there, and i don't have a single number that i can look at that gives me the answer.

also, i understand the team viewpoint, but to me this is an individual award, and don't take team performance into account. not saying my view is more correct than yours, but that's how i arrive at my conclusion. i think that more people take your view, though, and that cabrera will ending up winning it.

[PETER SHORTS]

or to ops. why the hell was trout batting leadoff anyway? he should have been batting third.

[Wayback1918]

> also, i understand the team viewpoint, but to me this is an individual award, and don't take team performance into account.  not saying my view is more correct than yours, but that's how i arrive at my conclusion. i think that more people take your view, though, and that cabrera will ending up winning it.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

No heat here. Clearly either player is a good choice.

I was disappointed 2 years ago when the Cy Young went to Felix
Hernandez because the voters devalued 'Wins' completely.

I think it's obvious I don't have any anti-stat bias. To me, even
something like Cabrera volunteering to move to 3B so his team could
sign Fielder add to his value to the team...and a Yaz like .600 BA in
the last series of the regular season to clinch the pennant should be
considered.

[Ray Garraty]

Oh, I agree. Personally I think what team would be most affected by the loss of either is important factor. I see no difference dramatically here, the playoff thing doesn't hold much water for me as the Angels had a better record.

[PW]

Probably not for us this year :-( But who knows! Selig may void the
Blue Jays trade (he's going over it now).

[McDuck]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 08:56:01 -0800 (PST), nate
<grey...@net1plus.com> wrote:

>http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/the-statistical-case-against-cabrera-for-m-v-p/
>
>Mr. 50-for-50 is on my side.
>
>

Okay, the Man makes a terrific case for Trout? Do I change my vote?
Yes, I guess.

But I'm not happy about it, as I hardly ever saw Trout play and I
still think that the Triple Crown, although it did not advance a
runner or win a game, is still a remarkable feat. I did not quite
realize how lucky Cabrera was to have a year with diminished
competitio for each of the 3 categories.

[McDuck]

I switched to Trout and am not switching back, but your numbers
perhaps should have been included in Nate Silver's analysis, as they
seem v. relevant to me.

[nate]

On Nov 16, 12:03 am, McDuck <wallymcduckdelet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:26:08 -0800 (PST), Wayback1918
>

> <wayback1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >On Nov 15, 1:22 pm, Wayback1918 <wayback1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> On Nov 15, 1:16 pm, PETER SHORTS <petersh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Aug 24 Detroit was 2.5 games behind the White Sox....LA was 2.5 out
> >> in the wild card. Cabrera carried his team....Trout faded....still
> >> leaning heavy on the 'Valuable' word.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >"Trout faded" is unfair for a guy who had an .824 OPS but Cabrera did
> >much better in the playoff chase.
>
> I switched to Trout and am not switching back, but your numbers
> perhaps should have been included in Nate Silver's analysis, as they
> seem v. relevant to me.

Well, the old Tiger fan in me (1951-1973) is happy Cabrera won!

Trout may have faded in August and early September, but his last week
was awesome.

Let's see next about the famous "Sophomore Jinx".


- nate

[Wayback1918]

The vote.....

VOTED FOR TROUT
Tim Britton, Providence Journal-Bulletin
Jim Caple, ESPN
Joe Haakenson, At Large
Sean McAdam, CSN New England
Roger Mooney, Tampa Tribune
Jeff Passan, Yahoo!

VOTED FOR CABRERA
Bob Dutton, KC Star
Bob Elliot, Toronto Sun
Mark Feinsand, NY Daily News
Tom Gage, Detroit News
Mark Gonzalez, Chicago Tribune
Evan Grant, Dallas Morning News
Paul Hoynes, Cleveland Plain Dealer
George King, NY Post
Tim Kurkjian, ESPN
Larry LaRue, Tacoma News Tribune
John Lowe, Detroit Free Press
La Velle Neal III, Minneapolis Star Tribune
Sheldon Ocker, Akron Beach Journal (3rd place vote)
John Shipley, St. Paul Pioneer Press
Susan Slusser, San Francisco Chronicle
Joe Stiglich, Bay Are News Group
Marc Topkin, Tampa Bay Times
Mark Whicker, Orange County Register
Paul White, USA Today
Jeff Wilson, Ft. Worth Star Telegram
Daryl Van Schouwen, Chicago Sun Times
Mark Zwolinski, Toronto Star

[PETER SHORTS]

oh, absolutely considered, but different people will give it different weight.

[McDuck]

WHAT! They haven't taken away George King's vote yet?

[Wayback1918]

On Nov 16, 6:36 pm, McDuck <wallymcduckdelet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 06:55:41 -0800 (PST), Wayback1918
>
>

> WHAT! They haven't taken away George King's vote yet?- Hide quoted text -
>

Must be how Raul Ibanez got a vote.

I wonder how long its been since no Red Sox players got a single vote?

Rank Name Tm Vote Pts
1 Miguel Cabrera DET 362
2 Mike Trout LAA 281
3 Adrian Beltre TEX 210
4 Robinson Cano NYY 149
5 Josh Hamilton TEX 127
6 Adam Jones BAL 120
7 Derek Jeter NYY 77
8 Justin Verlander DET 58
9 Prince Fielder DET 56
10 Yoenis Cespedes OAK 41
11 Edwin Encarnacion TOR 33
12 David Price TBR 26
13 Fernando Rodney TBR 24
14 Jim Johnson BAL 22
15 Alex Rios CHW 17
16 Josh Reddick OAK 14
17 Albert Pujols LAA 8
18 Ben Zobrist TBR 7
19 Joe Mauer MIN 6
20 Rafael Soriano NYY 5
21 Matt Wieters BAL 4
22 Felix Hernandez SEA 2
22 Jered Weaver LAA 2
24 Raul Ibanez NYY 1