We don’t always agree on everything here, but there’s at least one thing we can all agree on, right? It was a travesty when Ted Williams failed to win the MVP in his 1942 and 1947 Triple Crown seasons. And, when Lou Gehrig failed to win it 1934, and Chuck Klein in 1933, and Rogers Hornsby in 1922–despite all three both guys leading their respective leagues in HR, RBI and batting average–that was pretty ridiculous too.
But, I don’t really care about them anymore. The thing I think we all can agree on is, if Miguel Cabrera wins the Triple Crown this year, he clearly deserves to be the American League MVP.
Here’s why:
- He’ll have played something like 13 more games than Josh Hamilton.
- Austin Jackson has a .382 OBP hitting in front of him, versus .330 for Ian Kinsler in the same role for Hamilton’s Rangers.
- He’s gotten a hit in 0.3-0.5% more of his official at bats than Joe Mauer and Mike Trout.
Seriously, folks. Is there anything else that needs to be said? Why is this even a controversy?
Because there is more to baseball than hitting?
I think Dan is trying to pull our legs but sadly I’m not entirely sure.
A number of folks on Twitter have said that if Cabrera wins the triple crown, he’s automatically got to win the MVP, which is not true either historically or looking at the numbers this year.
I ALMOST took the bait.
Nice post.
It’s a reader-sarcasm-recognition contest between Dan and Bryan methinks.
I wouldn’t stand a chance, Jim.
Let the record show that I told Dan I thought the sarcasm was easily apparent before he posted. Perhaps HHS should institute a rule stating that an author has to post 5 or 10 articles before using any sarcasm, so the reader can get a feel for where we all stand on the RBI-WAR spectrum.
Hornsby not getting it over a nobody who did nothing was the biggest travesty.
Actually, I made a mistake. There was no NL MVP in 1922. Maybe that’s what you meant by “…over a nobody who did nothing…” If so, nice one. 🙂
It was Evan. 100% sure that’s what he meant.
Sarcasm aside, it is interesting that Cabrera would be the first Triple Crown winner who is not his league’s leader in (non-pitcher) WAR, unless you go all the way back to Paul Hines in 1878 when four home runs led the still-in-its-infancy NL. At the moment, Miggy trails not just Trout but Cano as well in WAR
That is interesting birtelcom. I didn’t realize that. Is that by fWAR, because rWAR has Robinson 2nd in 1966?
Never mind. Just realized that was 2nd to a pitcher.
Dan – Robinson was indeed first in non-pitcher WAR in 1966. The only person ahead of him was a pitcher (Earl Wilson).
I use the blended WAR (B-R+FG/2). Miggy’s still up small.
Cherry picking stats? OK, how about this?
Mike Trout has 43 more SB than Miguel Cabrera.
Mike Trout has 18 more runs than Miguel Cabrera.
Mike Trout has .001 higher OBP than Miguel Cabrera.
Mike Trout has a higher offensive win percentage than Miguel Cabrera by .033.
Mike Trout has almost 5x the Power-Speed number of Miguel Cabrera.
Mike Trout has a 0.5 better WPA than Miguel Cabrera.
Even playing 22 fewer games, Mike Trout has a 10.5 WAR to Miguel Cabrera’s 6.6.
Hey, that was fun. Did I win? 😉
That last stat is huge. I was on talk radio last night and debating my co-host about the AL MVP debate and cited that fact (he’s a big time traditionalist). The Millville Meteor is straight killin’ it this year.
Did anyone else hear about how the “Millville Meteor” moniker was born? Someone reading a baseball blog somewhere referred to Trout with that name and Wikipedia picked it up almost immediately. Knowing he didn’t have much time, this blogger got his friends to help him create a bunch of links to verify the name, even though none of the articles linked actually referred to Trout as the Millville Meteor. Within a few hours, B-Ref picked up on the name, and the rest is history.
Word is that’s exactly how the Commerce Comet was born too.
I do have to challenge bullet #2 however, because you need to compare both the #1 and #2 BOPs between the two teams if you’re going to make that kind of comparison (and indeed, the # 2 position is arguably the more important of the two, because there will be more total innings in which the #2 hitter bats before the #3 hitter). Although Jackson is well ahead of Kinsler, Andrus is well ahead of the Tigers’ collective #2 (Boesch/Berry/Dirks/Infante).
Here are the numbers, plus those of Hamilton and Cabrera:
Team/BOP PA AB H 2B HR RBI BB SO GDP BA OBP SLG
Tigers1 709 624 181 32 15 70 74 157 11 .29 .368 .455
Tigers2 694 631 166 27 15 72 46 141 14 .263 .319 .403
Cabrera3 667 593 195 40 42 133 65 94 35 .329 .394 .609
Rangers1 727 655 174 42 18 76 56 92 15 .266 .331 .431
Rangers2 709 633 181 31 4 63 52 99 21 .286 .343 .379
Hamilton3 587 515 148 26 42 123 58 146 12 .287 .359 .590
I agree Jim. I wasn’t necessarily trying to be concise with my argument. In fact, even if it was strictly a matter of comparing Jackson and Kinsler, it probably doesn’t account for the total RBI difference between the two.
Dirks has batted #2 the most for Detroit and he has a better OBP than Andrus, so I figured I was OK leaving that out, but I didn’t realize the rest of the guys have so underperformed.
D’oh! I took the bait! Fished in! Acck!!!
Sorry Chuck. I wish I could say I was cleverly trying to draw commenters in to actually make the case for Trout. Because, if I was, you did a pretty good job of that in comment #9. But, alas, I was really just going for a cheap laugh. 🙂
Well, in my defense, you did say, “Seriously, folks.” Normally people don’t say “I’m being serious” when they’re kidding–otherwise you can never know they’re being serous even when they ultimately say they were kidding all along.
I suppose the ridiculousness of the stats you were citing should have been the true tip-off. That’s definitely on me. :laugh:
That’s a good point, Chuck. I was definitely straddling a fine line with this one, and I probably should have provided a punch line that made it clearer I was joking.
HHS needs more situational hitting statistics that don’t suck.
Base-Out Runs Added (RE24)
1.Encarnacion (TOR) 55.94
2.Trout (LAA) 49.94
3.Mauer (MIN) 47.77
4.Hamilton (TEX)46.87
5.Fielder (DET) 46.21
6.Cabrera (DET) 44.79
So Trout, from the friggin leadoff spot, has more RE24 than Cabrera as well.
I don’t have a problem with Trout winning MVP. I have a problem with the fact that the Angels drafted him with the pick they got from the Yanks for Teixeira (and the Yankees claim that Trout was #2 on their draft list, for whatever that’s worth after the fact).
I also have no problem with Cabrera winning if the Tigers make the postseason and the Angels do not. While there is no mention of team success in the BBWAA’s guidelines for the voters their voting has indicated that helping one’s team make the postseason has been an important factor. Also important has been driving in a lot of baserunners.
So Cabrera is MVP if Detroit makes it and the Angels don’t because he will have led his team to the postseason and have driven in more runs than anyone. So the case is closed.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with the “playing for a contender” requirement, particularly if it’s a close call. But, I think that’s a wash between Trout and Cabrera because both teams are contenders. If you lead your team to within a couple games of the playoffs, I don’t think that should hurt you compared to someone whose team just squeaked in.
Re: Playing for a contender…I haven’t seen it mentioned before but isn’t it a bit odd that the two leading AL MVP candidates both play for teams that are considered disappointments? It’s obviously not their fault that their teams have underperformed expectations, but it still seems odd. I can’t remember anyone winning the MVP for a team that was considered a disappointment. MVP’s often seem to get awarded to players who are viewed as leading their team to doing better than what was expected.
Sure, there have been players that have won while playing for a losing team (e.g., Dawson) but I don’t think those teams were expected to contend.
Anyway, just wanted to throw this out there and see what reactions there were.
Looking back at the list of MVP winners, the last winner for a really DISAPPOINTING team is, in my mind, Cal Ripken in 1991.
I don’t remember what was expected of the ’91 O’s (as I was not yet born) but a quick comparison to the ’89 O’s (which were contenders) shows that much of the core of their ’89 team was intact, plus the additions of Dwight Evans, a returning Mike Flanagan, and a young Mike Mussina.
I posted above the RE24 numbers, which to me are always a better indication of “run production”. Trout is an historically good run producer given where he hits in the linup and the number of games not played. That’s not even counting stolen bases.
RE24 does include stolen bases, actually. Look at his play log, and you’ll see that RE24 (along with WPA) is in fact tallied for his stolen base attempts:
http://www.fangraphs.com/statsp.aspx?playerid=10155&position=OF&season=2012
Anyway, I agree that RE24 gives a much more complete picture of a player’s contribution to team run scoring than R and RBI do, and that it clearly shows that Trout has been every bit as productive offensively as Cabrera has.
Though what’s not included in RE24 is stuff like going first to third on a single, first to home on a double, etc. And Trout of course gains even more on Cabrera when you account for that stuff as well.
According to Tango, the really good measure of how good a situational hitter has been is (RE24-wRAA), because they both measure the same thing but RE24 breaks down the performance among the 24 base-out states while wRAA assumes the performance is evenly spread out across them:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/re24-insidethebook-com/
I can’t readily find wRAA on B-Ref, so here are Fangraphs’ #s:
M Trout (RE24-wRAA)=(52.46-50.10)= +2.36
Cabrera (RE24-wRAA)=(42.59-55.20)= -12.61
So, yeah, Cabrera has not been a good situational hitter in 2012.
It is interesting how much importance is still placed on winning the Triple Crown. I think once you think about it for a second or two, you can see just how absurd the Triple Crown is. I’ll bet most of the pro-Triple Crown crowd has no idea when the Triple Crown was “invented”, who invented it, or why they chose those particular categories. And if you don’t know those simple facts, then why are you placing so much importance on it? If runs scored had been chosen (for example) instead of RBIs then we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. Which should tell you all you need to know.
I’m guilty. I’m usually a very rational guy, but a 2012 player winning the Triple Crown just makes me irrationally excited. For all the wrong reasons, too: history, narrative, the fact that my dad always told me to look for the high RBI guys.
It isn’t science, it’s culture.
I think the Triple Crown has its place, in that it’s quite the accomplishment, and there’s still something special about things that take on a certain historical importance. But, it’s certainly not the be-all and end-all of MVP discussions.
I agree, Dan; the Triple Crown requires 2 of the 5 tools as playing consistently without injury. However, the individual stats making them up are outdated.
I believe Joe Posnanski introduced his own version of the Triple Crown a few years back, with BA, OBP, and SLG as the 3 crowns. It’s not perfect, but it’s an improvement. The last to do this was Joe Mauer in 2009. Miguel Cabrera will likely not be the next to do it (or at least not this year).
Back in the 80’s and 90’s when I watched a lot of baseball on TV, everytime a batter came to the plate, 3 stats were shown for him. BA/HR/RBI. Nowadays they usually put OBP as well and make it 4 stats. So maybe it’s time to have it be the quadruple crown.
Seriously though, I give Cabrera unquantified credit for moving to third, and do not entertain critics whom say that Fielder or Cabrera could have chosen to become the DH because, well, that’s stupid. Cabrera doesn’t want to DH, there was a black hole of value at third base, and Fielder doesn’t want to DH, and there were other teams out there that would have given him money (also, is Fielder gonna get $200 million to be a DH? Don’t think so.) No one wants to DH at ~28 or however old these guys are thereabout.
I also will give Cabrera credit if the Tigers make the dance and the Angels are at home, Forever Alone. Perhaps the Angels will have a better record than the Tigers. Oh well. The Yankees had the fourth-best record in the AL in 2008 but their streak of postseason appearances was snapped nonetheless. Making the dance matters. Except…
I’m waiting for the vote to come in so I can more solidify what I think the MVP means by seeing what sort of trend we have going. If the future of the award is to just give is to the MOP (Most Oustanding Player), whom is Trout, that’s fine. The closest MLB has to a MOP is the Hank Aaron Award, but no one cares about it, because it’s the guys in each team’s broadcast booth (70%), and fans (30%) that decide it. If the MVP is still tied to traditional stats, that’s a lot less compelling for me, but if it’s merely still tied to team success to a degree, I’m fine with that. I think.
What I’d really like is a series of new *prestigious* awards:
MOF: Most Outstanding Fielder. Awarded to the single most excellent fielder in the league. Only a slight bias for going up the defensive spectrum. Bulk of credit is for being so much better than the average fielder at your position in terms of things like runs saved. Thus you probably give this to a guy like Trout this year, and a guy like Gardner last year, rather than just rounding up the usual middle infield candidates and crowning one.
MOSP: Most Outstanding Starting Pitcher. We have that already. Cy Young suffices.
MORP: Most Outstanding Relief Pitcher. Notice it’s not limited to closers. Being a dominant reliever, regardless of usage, is all that matters.
MOBR: Most Outstanding Batter-Runner. Most Outstanding Hitter sounds better, right? But I like to emphasize that it’s all of one’s ability to contribute offensively. Also all of these have unwieldy names. Why not just name them after players?
MOF: Ozzie Smith Award. What, you prefer Brooks Robinson? Do not say Mark Belanger. Don’t.
MOSP: Already named.
MORP: It’s gotta be Hoyt or Mo. No one else can possibly deserve the honor. Well… K-Rod did get that saves record a few years back. So there’s that. Tough one.
MOBR: I like Mays, even though Mays was obviously well-rounded. Maybe take Hank’s name off that fluff award and put it on this fictional one.
Then I’d re-christen the MVP the MOP. And name it after Ruth.
Why do we need to recognize the most outstanding player while penalizing him for his teammates not being good enough that year? We already have LCS and WS MVP awards.
Oh wait. I just talked myself into the idea that the MVP should just be the MOP.
Fine. But I’m still at the point where I don’t think I’ll be disappointed in the vote either way it goes. I’ll only be disappointed when Harold Reynolds is yelling on Hot Stove “Of course he’s the MVP! The man won the triple crown! The interesting thing is, the writers rejected all this newfangled sabermetric WAR oh let’s use a calculator to figure out who’s deserving and no! Nooo! The man won the MVP because he was outstanding, the Tigers could depend on him, and I don’t even know why we’re talking about this. Mike Trout is a great player, a great player… but I’m sorry Miguel Cabrera’s the MVP. And I still don’t think Felix Hernandez should’ve won the Cy Young in 2010. The man won 13 games! Unbelievable. Glad they got it right this time,” while Brian Kenny finally has the stroke we’ve all been expecting him to have from having to have analytical discussions about MLB night after night with guys who still do things like express incredulity that the A’s drafted a college player with their first pick (as the A’s did in 2011).
The Hank Aron award exists. If people don’t care about it, that’s their problem. MVP has always meant contribution more than performance. The difference basically means playing in relevant games towards determining the eventual WS winner.
I mentioned what the MVP has meant in terms of voting, however:
From BBWAA.com:
“There seems to always be a debate about the definition of the MVP. What does the ballot say?
Dear Voter:
There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.
The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:
1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.
2. Number of games played.
3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.
4. Former winners are eligible.
5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.
You are also urged to give serious consideration to all your selections, from 1 to 10. A 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all 10 places on your ballot. Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration.
Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, including pitchers and designated hitters.”
If you don’t care what language is used by the BBWAA for guiding voters, then that’s your problem.
Not really germane to the overall discussion, but when you listed the Triple Crown winners that did not win the MVP it got me interested to check out those specific MVP races.
A lot is made about Joe D beating out Ted Williams in 1941 and how egregious that result was. But that doesn’t even remotely compare to the inexplicable results of the 1942. Like you mentioned, Williams won the Triple Crown with 36 HR, 137 RBI, .356 BA (actually he led both leagues in each category). He also had a slash line of .356/.499/.648, again leading both leagues in all categories.
But for some reason the voters voted for Joe Gordon (18/103/.322 & .322/.409/.422). It seems ridiculous to even type Gordon’s stats out because they couldn’t possibly have had anything to do with the outcome.
The only possible rationale is the Yankees won the 1942 pennant and Gordon played a middle infield position. It seems much more likely that the writers just flat out did not like a young Ted Williams. Maybe they liked him a little more after his famous WWII service, as Ted won the award in 1946, but the Sox also won the pennant that year so it is hard to say what the actual reason was…But it doesn’t look good for Ted’s popularity as the next year, 1947, he again won the triple crown without winning the MVP. Even though he didn’t lead the majors in any of the 3 TC categories, Ted did have MUCH better numbers (plus more than twice as much WAR) than MVP Joe D (from the pennant winning Yanks) again. I guess winning the pennant was the main criteria for winning the MVP back then.
Between 1939 and 1948 inclusive, the AL MVP came from the pennant winner each season except for 1944 (poor STL Browns), when Newhouser won. It is a high percentage given any 10-year period, especially when you take into account that the span includes the 3 second-place finishes for Williams discussed above.
DiMaggio played a mean center field. That maybe mattered more then than now.
Hopefully playing a mean center field (or shortstop, or catcher, etc.) is making a resurgence in importance.
So… Yadier Molina for NL MVP?
I would definitely vote for him. Posey is a better power hitter but Yadier’s defensive value is simply not well expressed in baseball statistics. He should have the highest DWAR in the league by a wide margin, at any position. Bench-like defense simply cannot be overrated (maybe thanks to Yadier and his brothers we should start referring to it as Molina-like). Amazingly, he’s also got 12 SB at a very nice 80% rate to go with a fair pile of doubles. That means a noticeable advantage on the basepaths over the incredibly slow Posey as well. Seriously, a 35 year old posey is going to be Jose Molina slow.
Also, Posey has played close to 20% of his time at First or DH. Yadier has 9 innings at first on the season.
And the caught stealing percentages ain’t that close. Yadier also leads in assists as catcher, an unusually clear defensive metric for the value of a catcher.
Tmckelv you point out the most likely culprit in your fourth paragraph when you mention that Williams won in 1946 when the Sox won the pennant. The era in which Williams played seems to have been strongly guided by the idea that the MVP was the guy on the pennant winner.
But it is clear that Williams was better than Dimaggio in 1941, and Gordon in 1942. Hell, Williams was better than Dimaggio during Dimaggio’s famous 56-game hitting streak. Dimaggio only hit two points better during his streak than Williams hit for the season.
It’s crazy how many MVPs Ted Williams should have won. Six, maybe?
I pointed this out recently on a different thread, but in 1947 Williams came in tied for 3rd in first place votes, a bad third with only three, behind Joe D with eight and Joe Page with seven. He did finish 2nd in total points, only 1 behind Dimag. So it wasn’t just a couple of writers out to get Williams, or a duel between the two big names. A huge majority of the voters didn’t see him as MVP in spite of his numbers, whereas the previous year when he didn’t lead in any of the triple crown categories he won.
It’s a rather terrible hubris that makes us think we know better about a season none of us except maybe Richard Chester remembers. Only 3 voters out of 24 thought Ted’s performance was the most valuable that year—3. So to finish 2nd he must have gotten a large majority of the 2nd place votes. Maybe he deserved the MVP, but the writers who were there and saw the season played out decided that those numbers were a little hollow and ranked him second. They weren’t looking exclusively at a list of statistics the way we have to do—they saw the games as they occurred, played by men who were flesh and blood; they were hard boiled, cynical newsmen, too, most of them, not sentimental boobies or team cheerleaders.
Or maybe, just maybe, Ted Williams gave the perception that he wasn’t as good as his stats now indicate. His stats against winning teams are only so-so; for instance: .289 BA. Dimaggio: .343.
Great point(s), nsb. I mean, sportswriters of that postwar era were only guys like Roger Kahn, Charles Einstein, Ring Lardner, Jr., etc., who knew oh so very little about baseball and how to observe things in general.
Your point about hubris is spot on. We get a few powerful insights due to a new way of looking at the numbers, and now we’re experts on everything, even things we weren’t there for.
@no statistician but;
I think you are revising history yourself with some assumptions that have no logical basis. To suggest that certain reporters of the time were not cheerleaders is wrong based on a lot I’ve read in historical accounts. Newspaper reporters were often shills for the club. The quid pro quo was sometimes just keeping the gig other times special access and inside info for scoops. As an example consider the media campaign against DiMaggio in 1938 when he held out for $40,000 and was thoroughly humiliated and even booed at Yankee Stadium.
As for the writers, there were 3 from each city, who followed the team from that city. With the exception of the Boston writers, the other writers only saw Williams when he played against the team they covered. Something like 22 games. Maybe 10-15 more if they got into Boston early or covered the pennant race late in the season. I don’t think they saw anything close to the majority of games played by either Williams or DiMaggio.
A huge majority of the voters in 1947 gave Yankee players first place votes for MVP. That’s 18 of the 24 writers! I think if you look at the MVP votes every year in that era you would see a certain bias for the famous Yankees of the time. Similar things can be seen in HoF results.
Just my 2cents.
Rich, I agree regarding the relationship between MLB teams and reporters from years past. It’s probably not that easy for fans to grasp today the importance and extreme power and influence newspapers had in everyday life. Today we still have newspapers, but their role is greatly, greatly reduced, and as such how and what they report has changed.
Certainly going back 80-100+ years, the connection between newspapers and sports teams was very symbiotic. It was viewed as good business on both sides. Today we have mind-numbing, 24-hour coverage of our favorite teams and players. Miss a game? DVR it! Couple that with the number of fans who play fantasy sports, and the computer revolution that enabled the whole Bill James/SABR movement, and fans today know who is the back-up, back-up SS down AA ball. Nowadays, the very idea that a player is hidden, or doesn’t receive MVP votes because he plays in a so-called small market is kind of funny.
In major and no-so major cities, newspapers would come out twice a day, and it was the main way, the only way fans kept up. Sports sold newspapers, which helped fund the papers other news operations, so it was the job of the beat reporter to help create the myth and the legend of the player, while hiding any ugly warts, to help sell newspapers and keep the business going. The reporters traveled with the players on trains, played cards with them, drank with them. A very different environment, and we can not inflict our view of what a sports reporter is today on what job the sports reporter served long ago.
I can probably expand that to MVP voting. What we view as valuable today might not have been many years ago.
On the other issue, there have been a few studies on HoF voting patterns to see if New York players have been treated more favorably over the years. The answer seems to be no. Oh, yes, there are questionable and borderline players, but when taking into account the number of players from New York teams as a percentage of the group, and the talent level on those teams, especially the Yankees, the percentage elected is not out of line. The questionable and borderline players are there for NY and non-NY teams alike.
As for Williams and 1947. I don’t know. I do believe the local beat writers would be more likely to vote for their home players, so I certainly wouldn’t expect the NY writers to not vote for DiMaggio based on what seemed to be the practice back then. The real question is why did some Boston writers withhold votes for Williams, and why did writers in other cities withhold their votes for Williams, if indeed they did. Perhaps it wasn’t just the Boston writes who didn’t like Ted Williams for some reason. I really have no idea, but it does appear strange looking back today.
Just my 2 cents, too. Well, maybe 2 1/2!
Rich W:
Thanks for the challenging response. I’ve just looked through the voting info for most years between 1933 and 1961 in the AL, and my conclusion—feel free to draw your own—is that there were some wrongheaded individual votes cast in a lot of those years, but I don’t see evidence, at least in the MVP voting, that there was a particular New York bias on the parts of the non-NY writers, or that whatever shilling some writers were forced (or were happy) to do on the parts of the teams they covered clouded their judgment in the secret ballot. Example: Yogi didn’t win in 1954 because the writers were dolts. The Cleveland ballot was much stronger but split three ways, letting Yogi slip in by default. Actually examining the votes give a far different picture from that presented by a list of winners only. To my mind the only really inexplicable winner in that run is Jackie Jensen in 1958, but at the time I didn’t think he was a bad pick in a year without a dominating performance in the league. Yes, I’m that old.
The most obvious factor swaying the vote is a bias in favor of picking someone from the league champion, but 9 times out of 29 that wasn’t the case (only 7 in the NL, suggesting more of this manifestation in the senior circuit), but if the logic is that winning is the goal, then a superior performance on a winning team can be viewed as one more VALUABLE than a great one on a team going nowhere, such as the 1947 Red Sox, who were not in contention after late June. This logic isn’t inviolable, but it is the norm, I think, and it takes unusual circumstances to override it.
Your comment about writers seeing only 22 games of each opposing team’s play actually substantiates my argument on this particular vote, because in fact Williams, as I suggested above, did not shine against any of the four teams besides his own with winning records, but he murdered the hapless Browns, Senators, and White Sox. Maybe the writers in St. Louis, Washington, and Chicago thought he was great, but those in New York, Detroit, Cleveland, and Philadelphia saw a far less impressive performer.
n s b:
I appreciate your response. I’ll grant you that my accusation of bias may not be well founded but the voting was still strange. I read a piece last night that states firmly that the 3 Boston writers did vote for Williams and said so publicly. If one assumes that DiMaggio got the 3 NY writers votes then 15 other first place votes were given to Joe Page and George McQuinn; both Yankees who were not even close to the top by any era of statistical measurement one wishes to use.
Even if DiMaggio didn’t get all 3 NY votes it would seem likely that they went to one of the three Yankee players in question. the remaining 15 first place votes certainly look a lot like a duck called “anybody but Williams”. Or put another way what baseball case could they make for Williams not being better than either McQuinn or Page? If those votes had gone to Boudreau instead then a legitimate baseball case could be made.
I don’t think there can be any question of bias in baseball history. It may not be so obvious in the MVP voting, but recall that Jackie Robinson was only named on 77% of HOF ballots and Willie Mays on only 94%.
And bias was not limited to race or ethnicity. I moved around the country enough as a child to encounter regional bias and even prejudices that appeared to be directed at my lower middle class white Jersey accent.
For Rich W:
About George McQuinn and Joe Page: Again the operative term is Valuable. McQuinn came to the Yankees to play first base after a disastrous falling off by Nick Etten in 1946 and put up outstanding numbers. Joe Page was mainly a reliever, but he had 14 wins and 17 saves, many in critical game situations, and 31 relief wins/saves at that time was extremely rare, highly impressive, considering how the game was played then. Williams was better, no doubt, but was he more valuable? That’s the conundrum.
One point:
If you looked at 1933 to 1961, when the Yankees won 19 of 29 pennants, and your conclusion is that winning a pennant may influence the MVP voting but being a Yankee doesn’t, how do you separate the two?
I think many current baseball fans underestimate how much Ted Williams was disliked all around baseball in the 1940s. It wasn’t that some writers and fans merely disliked him; many writers and fans around the AL absolutely _dispised_ him.
It was similar to Albert Belle in the mid/late 90s, when there was simply no way he was going to be voted MVP.
TW didn’t start to become a somewhat “beloved” baseball figure until late in his career, and it wasn’t until well after his retirement that he was generally perceived that way.
Joe Gordon’s case for the 1942 MVP isn’t quite as ridiculous as you make it seem to be. Even by WAR, he trails only 10.2 to 7.8. This is within a reasonable margin of error, especially if you think that Gordon should get more credit for his much more valuable defensive position and his better defense (which he does get a lot of credit for already).
Dan, I’m so sorry people don’t get your sarcasm. It’s amazing, and keep it up.
Thanks Doom.
That was an epic troll Dan. +4
I think that’s the first time I’ve been referred to as trolling. Definitely wasn’t my intention, but you meant it as a compliment, so I’ll take it. 🙂
Definitely a compliment. I loved how you did that. I was reading it thinking “When did people like this start writing for this site???” and then “He can’t be serious” …and then I finally realized that you were making a great point in an awesome way. Love it.
Here’s a thought….do you think that Trout’s huge lead in WAR actually HURTS his MVP chances? If he was leading by a small margin (say 8.0 vs. 6.6), people might be willing to accept that. But because the margin is so large (10.5 vs. 6.6), people just dismiss it. “Oh that can’t be right”. “Obviously WAR doesn’t make any sense”. Etc.
I’m reminded of something Bill James wrote in one of his abstracts about a minor leaguer who hit something like 66 home runs in a single season. James said people couldn’t wrap their heads around it so they just dismissed it as something that couldn’t really be true. I wonder if Trout is facing something similar.
Ed: I don’t know that it “hurts” Trout’s MVP chances, but I really feel this is an interesting point. I know I’ve wondered about the large margin. WAR suggests that not only is Trout a better player, but that he is a vastly better player (or at least, having a vastly better season). Taking only offensive numbers into account, this just doesn’t seem to be true. Trout has a big lead in SB’s (at a tremendous success rate), but Cabrera has the edge in power (more 2Bs, HRs, TBs, SLG). This appears to suggest that the majority of Trout’s WAR lead is because of his defense. Trout is certainly a great fielder, and Cabrera has historically not been very good in this regard (though I would say he’s played a much better 3B than most people expected), but 4 Wins seems like a huge margin.
As a rule, I think the people who watch baseball like stats that reinforce the way they already think of players. So, for your “average” fan to accept WAR as a stat, they want it to show that a player they know is good (like Cabrera) is good (which it does, 6.6 WAR is 3rd in the AL among position players). Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I don’t feel like the “average” fan feels that Trout is a superior player to Cabrera, and I think this could cause the same fan to discount WAR as a stat because of this implication.
The thing I do think could hurt Trout’s MVP case are his “down the stretch” numbers. Since August 1st, Trout’s slash lines are 274/370/458/828. Cabrera’s are 337/409/674/1083. Voters like to see how guys “finish” and this seems like a huge edge for Cabrera.
James was talking about Dick “Dr Strangeglove” Stuart’s 1956 season for single-A Lincoln, when he hit 66 HR in 141 G.
He made a somewhat similar point about Vern Stephens 159 RBIs in 1949. The number was so mind boggling, that the voters decided that it wasn’t really that important and eventually the consensus became that Rizzuto, despite inferior numbers, was the better shortstop (for instance that year, Stephens, a shortstop with a 137 OPS+, finished 7th in the MVP voting, behind 3 other Red Sox and 3 Yankees (including Rizzuto who finished 2nd))
I haven’t read the posted comments so far, so maybe this has been mentioned, but the one thing I wish everyone would do is wait until the season is finished. Trout’s case has been solid for a while, but there has been some narrowing in the past few weeks. It’s not likely, but if Trout were to go into a tailspin the last 10-12 games, and Cabrera were to pull a ’67 Yaz down the stretch (i.e., off-the-chart hot more than the Triple Crown), then that should be taken into consideration. You never know.
No argument with the thrust, Dan, but the particular points don’t work for me.
What’s the point of even a pretend comparison to Hamilton? Because he’s Cabrera’s competitor for HRs & RBI? But if you were seriously talking about those things, you’d need to talk about park factors and team context; Texas scores almost half a run per game more than Detroit. And yes, Miggy’s had more RBI chances, but he’s also hit better with RISP than Josh
And if Cabrera has more RBI due to his 13 more games played, so much the better for his MVP case. Playing counts.
This one left me flat.
Speaking of park factors, that deserves some discussion here. Cabrera has a 39 point lead in OPS (.991 vs .952), but a 4 point deficit in OPS+ (168 to 164)!?
That looks pretty odd to me, I never thought of Anaheim having a notorious pitcher’s park, and if anything thought Detroit was a bit of a pitchers park, at least based on the outfield dimensions.
Comerica left to right:
[346 402 422 379 330]
Angel Stadium left to right:
[333 379 404 379 333]
The thing that jumps out here is the main problem with park factors, Comerica really needs 2 park factors, 1 for righties and 1 for lefties. Clearly, a 402 power alley is very tough on a RH power hitter. Looking at the park factors this year they are:
DET: 103 (this year and multi-year)
ANA: Not listed for this year right now??? multi-year = 92!!! (the same as San Diego)
When did this happen, Anaheim is now the same pitchers paradise as San Diego? Well the answer is recently, which is pretty questionable. To my knowledge they have not moved outfield walls.
Now look at 2009
DET: 101 multi-year for batters
ANA: 99 multi-year for batters
SD: 90 multi-year for batters
hmmmmmm. Adjusting for this very roughly,
Cabrera = 164(103/101) = 167
Trout = 168(92/99) = 156
So if this MVP race was happening in 2009 the WAR gap would be closed considerably.
Looking back at the Angels park number, their team splits:
2012 Home/Road OPS = .753/.777
2009 Home/Road OPS = .804/.780
Trout Home/Road OPS = .976/.930
So basically because Trout’s teammates have performed worse at home than on road he is benefiting by now playing in a “pitchers park” which was formerly a hitters park a mere 4 seasons ago. And, Trout himself is not even feeling this effect, he’s putting up better home numbers. Trout seems to be getting pretty lucky this season.
And, of course, this does not mention his large single season defensive numbers which always should be questioned.
The point of the park factors applied in OPS+ abnd ERA+ is NOT to measure the effect of the park on idividual players or individual types of players, such a righties or lefties. Rather it is to adjust the value of a “run” in each differnt park, just the way the value of a “dollar” needs to be adjusted when we talk about the “dollar” in year 1912 as opposed to a “dollar” in the year 2012. Just as a dollar in 2012 buys you fewer eggs than it did in 1912, a run at Coors Field buys you fewer wins than a run at Petco.
For all parks where it requires more runs than average to win a game, all the raw run-creating numbers in that park have slightly lower value in terms of creating wins than they would in an average park, simply because it takes more runs to win games in these parks than it does in the average park. That’s all that park facto is trying to do — put everybody on a relatively level playing field in terms of a uniform basic currency of win creation.
As for the problem of a righty playing in a home park that favors lefties and disadvantages righties, I’m not sure whether it is approporiate to adjust for that in terms of measuring a player’s “value”. Each player is a bundle of physical and mental characteristics that go into how much he helps his team win. If a player has the misfortune of playing in a park that hurts him based on one of his characteristics, that actually makes him a less valuable player. That’s unfortunate for him, but the reduction in value is real, not a mere illusion created by the difference in the value of a “run” from park to park. I’s interesting to specualte about how much better Player X might have done if he had played his home games in Park Y rather than Park Z, but it doesn’t seem appropriate to bring that into play in adjusting OPS or ERA or in measuring “value” for MVP purposes.
Right but now it requires less runs to win in Anaheim because the Angels score less runs there, but why do they score less runs there than on the road compared to just 4 years ago? Is there something about the park that makes it tough on hitters or is their performance just a random fluctuation? Should Trout be given extra credit for producing runs at home when his teammates are relatively struggling to do so, or is he just lucky that he is hitting well at home this year when the rest of his team isnt, thus making his stats look better.
And your last paragraph sounds like an argument to just vote for the guy with the most RBIs for MVP
The Angels’ park factors rely not just on how the Angels hit at home vs. away but also on how the Angels’ opponents hit in Anaheim as opposed to when they play the Angels in thier own parks. And the adjustments are based on multiple years, not just one year, to reduce that chance of random fluctuation.
In 2012, the Angels have averaged 3.8 runs a game at home but 5.25 on the road. In 2012, Angels opponents have averaged 4.3 runs in Anaheim but 4.7 runs when playing the Angels in their own home parks. That adds up to 8.1 runs a game scored in Angels game in Anaheim but 10 runs a game in Angels games on the road. That’s about a 23% increase in runs scored in Angels games when they take place on the road as compared to in Anaheim.
In 2011, the Angels averaged 3.8 runs a game at home but 4.5 on the road. In 2011, Angels opponents averaged 3.5 runs in Anaheim but 4.3 runs when playing the Angels in their own home parks. That adds up to 7.3 runs a game scored in Angels game in Anaheim but 8.7 runs a game in Angels games on the road. That was about a 20% increase in runs scored in Angels games when they take place on the road as compared to in Anaheim.
In 2010, the Angels averaged 3.9 runs a game at home but 4.5 on the road. In 2010, Angels opponents averaged 4.0 runs in Anaheim but 4.7 runs when playing the Angels in their own home parks. That adds up to 7.9 runs a game scored in Angels game in Anaheim but 9.2 runs a game in Angels games on the road. That was about a 16% increase in runs scored in Angels games when they take place on the road as compared to in Anaheim.
So in each of the past three seasons, both the Angels and their opponents have eached scored significantly more runs in Angels games on the road than in Angels games at home. That doesn’t look like a random fluctuation to me.
As for your comment on my last paragraph, topper, I guess there must be something wrong with my wording if you somehow read that as arguing that “the guy with the most RBIs” should be the MVP. I believe that the MVP should be the guy who contributed the most overall toward his team’s success, and for non-pitchers that can include getting on base, hitting for power, baserunning, defense, the timeliness of success at one or more of these things, and could include things like leadership if one could verify such things with some reliability. My last paragraph above was merely observing that it doesn’t seem to me appropriate, in figuring out that broad-based MVP value, to give a player extra credit becasue he was, for example, a lefty hitter playing in a park that favored righties and disadvantaged lefties. That sort of adjustment would give credit to a player for value he didn’t actually create but instead for value he might have created in an alternative universe.
Right but you skipped 2009, where the multi-year park factor is 99.
So, forget the numbers, why does it makes sense that Angel Stadium was a neutral park 4 years ago but is now a pitcher’s park? Why should I accept that as true?
What are the constants and what are the variables involved in coming to this outcome? It appears to me that the stadium is a constant, it is literally the exact same in both seasons. It seems to me the variable is the Angel’s home/road splits, and if that change is not a function of the stadium then it must be a function of the lineup or randomness? Park factors are supposed to be lineup neutral, so either its not or there is randomness in there.
This is saying if Trout had the same year all else being equal in 2009, his OBP and SLG would have been higher, even though the park is the same.
@John: I guess you really missed the point, which was to use each bullet to make a subtly ridiculous argument about each of the Triple Crown categories, which is the only argument bring used to support Cabrera’s candidacy.
If he edges out Hamilton in the HR category, it will be in part because of Hamilton’s own issues. If he leads in RBI, it will be partly due to the year Austin Jackson is having. The batting average lead is just plain insignificant.
All ridiculous arguments, backing up why basing the MVP on the Triple Crown, as impressive as that is, is just plain silly.
Honestly Dan, I didn’t get it either. I was with John on this. I realized you were being sarcastic but in that you didn’t really believe the Cabrera should win the MVP. But the subtly of the 3 points went right by me until I read your post #56.
Dan, I get that, but I think it’s a bit of a straw man. I don’t think Cabrera’s status as MVP candidate rests solely on the possibility of a Triple Crown.
Again, to be clear, I support Trout 100%. But it would be rare indeed if a third baseman with 40+ HRs, 130+ RBI and BA over .320 on a division leader(?!?) did not draw substantial MVP support, even if he didn’t quite lead the league in any of those.
In fact, there have been exactly 3 such years by a 3B in MLB history, and each resulted in an MVP Award: Alex Rodriguez 2005, Ken Caminiti 1996, and Al Rosen 1953. Caminiti didn’t lead in any category; A-Rod led in HRs only; and Rosen in HRs & RBI.
John – As you may recall I made a similar comment re: Cabrera about a week ago. Showing that the season he was having was fairly unprecedented, particularly for a non-OF/1B. And that it would hardly be a horrible thing if he won the MVP. That being said, I see Dan’s post as a response to those who say that the Triple Crown should automatically equal winning the MVP.
@Ed & John: Yeah, I meant to say that I realize the point was easy to miss. Constructive criticism duly noted. Thanks.
Certainly, a player who can’t refrain from overdosing on energy drinks is not the most valuable.
Trout can’t win because he’s clearly not human. Plus, he’s too young. I believe you must be a human player over 21 to win.
More seriously, based on past history, Trout’s team’s likely non-post season qualifying place finish is likely to hurt him, no?
I haven’t said much on the “Triple Crown = MVP” topic — mainly because I think it’s self-evident that Trout is the best and most valuable player, but also because I’d been deliberately ignoring the tortured “arguments” that TC should equal MVP.
Now that I’ve accidentally read one — honestly, I never dreamed that Tyler Kepner could take this path, and had I known I probably would have skipped it — I better understand how Dan and others have been driven to facetious retorts. I can’t stop rolling my eyes at the twisted logic, and the failure to follow the argued path to its necessary additional conclusions.
Consider this tautological springboard to a begging of the question:
“[I]f he does lead in all three, this is what it would mean: Cabrera hit the most balls over the fence, brought the most runs in to score and had the highest percentage of hits to at-bats — while becoming the first player in 45 years to lead in all three. That has to count for something.” (emphasis added)
Somehow, being reminded of the literal meaning of the Triple Crown has failed to cement in my mind its necessary link to the MVP Award. As to the conclusion, it does count for something: the Triple Crown is itself a very prestigious achievement the likes of which is far better remembered than anything that gets handed out every year.
Worse is the failure to follow his line of reasoning all the way. If leading all others in those three categories automatically entitles one to the MVP — with no regard to the margins of victory or the historical measure of the particular stats, nor (obviously) to the position played or the performance thereat — doesn’t it follow that no player should ever win the MVP if another player outstripped him in all three areas?
– Jimmy Rollins (2007) obviously should have lost to Matt Holliday, who not only bested him in all 3 categories but actually led the league in 2.
– Miguel Tejada (2002) should not have beat out Magglio Ordonez.
– Jeff Kent (2000) should have ran behind Todd Helton *and* Vlad Guerrero.
– Ivan Rodriguez (1999) paled next to Manny Ramirez.
– Barry Larkin (’95), meet Mike Piazza, Dante Bichette and Mark Grace.
And on, and on, and on.
Now, some of these actual MVP Awards are questionable. But no one would ever argue for Ordonez over Tejada based on a rigid hierarchy of their Triple Crown rankings, because we understand intuitively that such absolutism is irrational. Beating anyone, or everyone, in these three particular areas, as important as they are, cannot automatically trump every other measure of performance.
I sincerely hope that someday, a Rockies hitter will narrowly win a Triple Crown while finishing far back in other areas. Then, perhaps, those who want to link the Triple Crown to the MVP will think about the folly of their reasoning.
If you are going to read one article on Trout vs. Cabrera, here’s a good choice, by the country’s greatest active sportswriter. http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2012/09/trout-miggy-and-mvp.html
When I read Kepner’s article in the paper, that tautological spiel about what the Triple Crown “means” struck me as sort of a wink to the more stat-savvy readers to say, yeah, I get that the TC just means leadership in three narrow and somewhat arbitrary stat categories among many. But given that the rest of the disucssion of Trout vs. Miggy throws stats under the bus in favor of a maudlin view of the Triple Crown and the MVP, Kepner loses some of his stat cred with me despite that half-hearted wink.
Last year, I remember getting into discussions about Verlanders Fip and xFip, and how they essentially reflected that he got extremely lucky, and that he basically got better results than he deserved. Well, this year Trout had a .383 Babip while Cabrera had a .331 Babip. Of course, some of Trout’s advantage there is due to his speed. My question, though, is this: Do bWar or fWar take Babip into consideration in any way?