All Forums > SimLeague Baseball > MLB > Ripping off ESPN -> Trout vs Cabrera MVP
11/16/2012 4:06 PM
Posted by colonels19 on 11/16/2012 3:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/16/2012 1:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by colonels19 on 11/16/2012 1:03:00 PM (view original):
A lot of the new baseball metrics are overcomplicated garbage
Conceived by statnerds so they can say "Look how smart I am!!"

Most probably don't even understand baseball.   Plenty of HBD players are clueless to actual baseball but they can work numbers.
I'm a stat guy and I've created a reasonably simple, but all inclusive stat that bases itself around what players do/produce and can control, so H, TB, SB, CS, BB, HBP, and K...yes it's a solely offensive analysis but I would argue more/as solid as anything out there currently...everything isn't a regressive this that or the other.
But you don't use any rate stats, and H and TB have a significant overlap. What role do K's play in in your formula? Are K's somehow worse than other outs?
11/16/2012 4:08 PM
Posted by colonels19 on 11/16/2012 3:18:00 PM (view original):
Agreed MikeT...the arbitrary designations for the different positions are rather ridiculous
In this specific case, it doesn't matter. CF and 3B get the same positional adjustment when WAR is calculated.

Anyone with eyes can tell you that Trout was significantly more valuable in the field than Cabrera. 
11/16/2012 4:10 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2012 4:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by colonels19 on 11/16/2012 3:18:00 PM (view original):
Agreed MikeT...the arbitrary designations for the different positions are rather ridiculous
In this specific case, it doesn't matter. CF and 3B get the same positional adjustment when WAR is calculated.

Anyone with eyes can tell you that Trout was significantly more valuable in the field than Cabrera. 
Uh, yeah, it does matter.  If you have a problem with the formula, you have a problem with the formula.  
11/16/2012 4:11 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 11/16/2012 4:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/16/2012 3:42:00 PM (view original):
When the AM evolve into something where they can explain the use of "3.4", I'll pay more attention to them.

I don't need WAR to know that both Trout and Cabrera had fantastic seasons.    WAR is a nice little stat that one can use to compare players but it's simply not the be all to end all.   A CF putting up 30 homers and 49 SB while hitting .326 is pretty damn good.  Striking out once every 4.5 PA is not.    Of course, that could lead to the ol' "An out is an out.  Strikeouts are no worse than fly outs" argument.   But, for me, nothing positive happens when you walk back to the dugout with your bat in your hand.
Cabrera grounded into 28 DP's where Trout only grounded into 7.

Double plays (a.k.a "rally killers") are far more damaging to offensive innings than are strikeouts.
DP can be assigned the same value as RBI.    Neither happen when no one is on base(excluding homers).

Of course, with Trout striking out so much, he sure has less chances to hit into a DP.
11/16/2012 4:15 PM
To say that Trout was "significantly" more valuable in the field than Cabby is just plain wrong. Cabby wasn't Brooks Robinson but he was top 5 in fielding pct. and played significantly more innings than anyone else at 3rd. And, contrary to what MikeT will chime in with next, Cabby was very good at 3rd this year. You can argue all you want but as far as "most valuable"...the Tigers are NOWHERE without Cabby and the Angels still wouldn't have made the playoffs without him. Trout had a great season, but Cabby was just better, plain and simple.
11/16/2012 4:17 PM
Posted by colonels19 on 11/16/2012 3:18:00 PM (view original):
Agreed MikeT...the arbitrary designations for the different positions are rather ridiculous
And they aren't arbitrary.

From baseball reference:

Rpos, Positional Adjustment Runs

If you take a quick look at the batting performance by defensive position, you'll quickly see that teams are willing to sacrifice offense at "defensive" positions (stats are prorated to 650 plate appearances).

Split G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS TB GDP HBP SH SF IBB ROE BAbip tOPS+ sOPS+
as C 165 650 582 64 142 28 1 17 70 3 2 54 126 .245 .313 .389 .703 226 14 5 4 4 5 5 .282 95 100
as 1B 152 650 575 75 155 32 1 22 85 3 1 63 121 .271 .345 .452 .797 259 15 5 0 5 7 5 .305 121 100
as 2B 151 649 586 75 152 29 4 12 62 13 4 47 103 .260 .320 .389 .709 228 11 6 5 4 2 6 .294 97 100
as 3B 155 649 583 69 147 31 2 14 71 7 3 52 111 .252 .317 .390 .707 227 14 5 3 5 4 7 .287 96 100
as SS 152 650 590 73 155 28 3 10 60 15 6 44 98 .263 .317 .380 .697 224 11 4 6 4 2 7 .298 94 100
as LF 152 649 585 75 149 29 3 17 70 14 5 52 124 .255 .320 .408 .728 238 10 5 2 4 3 6 .295 102 100
as CF 148 650 583 84 152 29 6 14 62 25 8 52 124 .261 .326 .410 .735 238 9 5 5 3 2 7 .307 104 100
as RF 152 650 578 78 155 31 3 20 75 11 4 59 123 .269 .341 .441 .782 254 11 6 1 4 5 5 .308 117 100
as DH 151 650 578 74 151 31 1 20 84 6 2 62 120 .263 .337 .427 .764 247 15 4 0 4 5 6 .298 112 100
as P 283 649 556 29 78 12 0 3 31 3 1 21 213 .141 .175 .182 .357 101 6 1 69 0 0 5 .221 0 100

When one quantifies these differences and also looks at the changes in fielding performance when players move to different positions we can estimate the average differences between positions.

Current values (per 1350 (150*9) innings played) are:

  1. C: +10 runs
  2. SS: +7.5 runs
  3. 2B: +3 runs
  4. CF: +2.5 runs
  5. 3b: +2 runs
  6. RF: -7.5 runs
  7. LF: -7.5 runs
  8. 1B: -10 runs
  9. DH: -15 runs
  10. P: see Pitcher Positional Adjustment

Since fielding performances change over time, these values will vary as you travel back in time. For example, first basemen in the early 1900's through the 1940's were required to be better fielders than they are today. They were still the worst fielders on the infield, but the position had more of a defensive focus then than the corner outfield positions did.

To compute a player's Positional adjustment Runs, we add together for each non-pitching position: Position multiplier (from above) × innings played at position / 1,350 Innings. For players who are only pitchers this is Pitcher Positional Adjustment (from below) × (PA/4) / 150.

Games played are used for seasons where we lack innings played data.

Here are the adjustments made year-by-year.

 

year_ID runs_p runs_c runs_1b runs_2b runs_3b runs_ss runs_lf runs_cf runs_rf runs_dh
1871 20.7 10 0 3 5 10 -10 -8 -10 -15
1872 -7.8 10 0 3 5 10 -10 -8 -10 -15
1873 28.7 10 0 3 5 10 -10 -8 -10 -15
1874 16.2 10 0 3 5 10 -10 -8 -10 -15
1875 10.8 10 0 2.5 5 10 -10 -8 -10 -15
1876 -1.2 10 0 2.5 5 10 -10 -8 -10 -15
1877 7.3 10 0 2.5 5 10 -10 -8 -9.5 -15
1878 23.5 10 0 2.5 5 10 -10 -8 -9.5 -15
1879 38.6 10 0 2.5 5 10 -9.5 -8 -9.5 -15
1880 13.8 10 0 3 5 10 -9.5 -8 -9.5 -15
1881 17.9 10 0 3 5 10 -9.5 -8 -9.5 -15
1882 41.2 10 0 3 5 10 -9.5 -8 -9.5 -15
1883 31 10 0 3 5 10 -9.5 -8 -9 -15
1884 33.6 10 0 3 5 10 -9.5 -8 -9 -15
1885 25.1 10 0 3 5 10 -9.5 -8 -9 -15
1886 33.8 10 0 3 5 10 -9.5 -8 -9 -15
1887 56.3 10 0 3 5 10 -9.5 -8 -9 -15
1888 36.7 10 0 3 5 10 -9.5 -8 -9 -15
1889 55.4 10 0 3 5 10 -9.5 -8 -9 -15
1890 47.9 10 0 3 5 10 -9.5 -8 -9 -15
1891 42.9 10 0 3 5 10 -9.5 -8 -9 -15
1892 35.9 10 0 3 5 10 -9.5 -8 -9 -15
1893 31.4 10 0 3 5 10 -10 -8 -9 -15
1894 45 10 0 3 5 10 -9.5 -8 -9 -15
1895 29 10 0 3 5 10 -9.5 -8 -9 -15
1896 32.9 10 0 3 5 10 -10 -8 -9 -15
1897 35.1 10 -0.5 2.5 5 10 -9.5 -7.5 -9 -15
1898 30.9 10 -1.5 2 5 10 -9 -7 -9 -15
1899 38 10 -2 1.5 5 10 -9 -6.5 -9 -15
1900 37.8 10 -2.5 1.5 5 10 -8.5 -6 -8.5 -15
1901 35.7 10 -3.5 1 5 10 -8 -5 -8.5 -15
1902 33.2 10 -4 0.5 5 10 -8 -4.5 -8 -15
1903 38.3 10 -5 0 5 10 -8 -4 -8 -15
1904 25.3 10 -5 0 5 10 -8 -4 -8 -15
1905 31.5 10 -5 0 5 10 -8 -4 -8 -15
1906 25.2 10 -5 0 5 10 -8 -4 -8 -15
1907 26.8 10 -5 0 5 10 -8 -4 -8 -15
1908 24 10 -5 0 5 10 -8 -4 -8 -15
1909 31.6 10 -5 0 5 10 -8 -4 -8 -15
1910 26.9 10 -5 0 5 10 -8 -4 -8 -15
1911 39.5 10 -5 0 5 10 -8 -4 -8 -15
1912 33.8 10 -5 0 5 10 -8 -4 -8 -15
1913 35.8 10 -5 0 5 10 -8 -4 -8 -15
1914 40.1 10 -5 0 5 10 -8 -4 -8 -15
1915 31.5 10 -5 0 5 10 -8 -4 -8 -15
1916 29.1 10 -5 0 5 10 -8 -4 -8 -15
1917 26.3 9 -5.5 0.5 5 10 -8 -4 -8 -15
1918 24.3 8.5 -5.5 1.5 5 10 -7.5 -4 -7.5 -15
1919 29.3 7.5 -6 2 5 10 -7.5 -4 -7.5 -15
1920 28.2 7 -6 3 5 10 -7.5 -4 -7.5 -15
1921 38.1 6.5 -6.5 3.5 5 10 -7 -4 -7.5 -15
1922 43.9 5.5 -6.5 4.5 5 10 -7 -4 -7 -15
1923 39.3 5 -7 5 5 10 -7 -4 -7 -15
1924 35.6 5 -7 5 5 10 -7 -4 -7 -15
1925 47.2 5 -7 5 5 10 -7 -4 -7 -15
1926 41.7 5 -7 5 5 10 -7 -4 -7 -15
1927 42.5 5 -7 5 4.5 10 -7 -3.5 -7 -15
1928 45.9 5 -7 5 4.5 10 -7 -3.5 -7 -15
1929 50.9 5 -7 5 4 10 -7 -3 -7 -15
1930 45.3 5 -7 5 4 10 -7 -3 -7 -15
1931 44.9 5 -7 5 3.5 10 -7 -2.5 -7 -15
1932 46.1 5 -7 5 3 10 -7 -2.5 -7 -15
1933 41.7 5 -7 5 3 10 -7 -2 -7 -15
1934 49.3 5 -7 5 3 10 -7 -2 -7 -15
1935 43.9 5 -7 5 3 10 -7 -2 -7 -15
1936 51.4 5 -7 5 3 10 -7 -2 -7 -15
1937 50.5 5 -7 5.5 2.5 10 -7 -2 -7 -15
1938 50.6 5 -7 5.5 2 10 -7 -1.5 -7 -15
1939 48.6 5 -7 6 1.5 10 -7 -1.5 -7 -15
1940 48.9 5 -7 6 1.5 10 -7 -1.5 -7 -15
1941 48.1 5 -7 6.5 1 10 -7 -1.5 -7 -15
1942 44.4 5 -7 6.5 0.5 10 -7 -1 -7 -15
1943 35.9 5 -7 7 0 10 -7 -1 -7 -15
1944 40.4 5 -7 7 0 10 -7 -1 -7 -15
1945 37.8 5 -7 7 0 10 -7 -1 -7 -15
1946 41.6 5 -7 7 0 10 -7 -1 -7 -15
1947 48.6 5 -7 7 0 10 -7 -1 -7 -15
1948 46.1 5 -7 7 0 10 -7 -1 -7 -15
1949 47.4 5 -7 7 0 10 -7 -1 -7 -15
1950 52.4 5 -7 7 0 10 -7 -1 -7 -15
1951 40.9 5 -7 6.5 0 9.5 -7 -1 -7 -15
1952 48.2 5 -7 6.5 0 9.5 -7 -1 -7 -15
1953 47.4 5.5 -7 6.5 0.5 9.5 -7 -1 -7 -15
1954 51 6 -7.5 6 0.5 9 -7 -1 -7 -15
1955 40.3 6.5 -7.5 5.5 0.5 9 -7 -1 -7 -15
1956 46.3 7 -8 5.5 1 9 -7 -1 -7 -15
1957 46.4 7.5 -8.5 5 1.5 9 -7 -1 -7 -15
1958 47.6 8 -8.5 5 2 9 -7.5 -1 -7 -15
1959 49.2 8.5 -9 4.5 2.5 9 -7.5 -1 -7 -15
1960 47 8.5 -9 4.5 3 9 -8 -1 -7 -15
1961 50.5 8.5 -9 4 3 9 -8 -1 -7 -15
1962 53 8.5 -9 4 3 9 -8 -1 -7 -15
1963 46.7 8.5 -9 4 3 9 -8 -1 -7 -15
1964 50 8.5 -9 4 3 9 -8 -1 -7 -15
1965 50.2 8.5 -9 4 3 9 -8 -1 -7 -15
1966 44.9 8.5 -9 4 3 9 -8 -1 -7 -15
1967 46.2 8.5 -9 4 3 9 -8 -1 -7 -15
1968 40.8 8.5 -9 4 3 9 -8 -1 -7 -15
1969 50.4 9 -9 4 3 9 -8 -1 -7 -15
1970 52.8 9 -9 4 3 9 -8 -1 -7 -15
1971 44 9 -9 4 3 9 -8 -1 -7 -15
1972 40.5 9 -9 4 3 9 -7.5 -1 -7 -15
1973 48.6 9 -9 4 3 9 -7.5 -1 -7 -15
1974 40.4 9 -9 4 3 9 -7.5 -1 -7 -15
1975 47.1 9 -9 4 3 9 -7.5 -1 -7 -15
1976 44.3 9 -9 4 3 9 -7.5 -1 -7 -15
1977 52.7 9 -9.5 4 3 9 -7.5 -1 -7 -15
1978 51.6 9 -9.5 4 3 9 -7.5 -1 -7 -15
1979 57.3 9 -9.5 4 2.5 9 -7.5 -1 -7 -15
1980 50.7 9 -9.5 4 2 9 -7 -1 -7 -15
1981 45.8 9 -9.5 4 2 8.5 -7 -0.5 -7 -15
1982 52.1 9 -9.5 4 1.5 8.5 -7 -0.5 -7 -15
1983 54.3 8.5 -9.5 4 1 8.5 -7 0 -7 -15
1984 53.5 8.5 -9.5 4 1 8.5 -7 0 -7 -15
1985 51.6 8.5 -9.5 4 1 8.5 -7 0 -7 -15
1986 59.1 8.5 -9.5 4 1 8.5 -7 0 -7 -15
1987 66.2 8.5 -9.5 4 1 8.5 -7 0.5 -7 -15
1988 55.2 8.5 -9.5 4 1 8.5 -7 0.5 -7 -15
1989 50.4 8.5 -9.5 3.5 1 8.5 -7 1 -7 -15
1990 60.2 8.5 -9.5 3 1 8.5 -7 1.5 -7 -15
1991 56.1 8.5 -9.5 3 1 8.5 -7 1.5 -7 -15
1992 57.2 8.5 -9.5 3 1 8.5 -7 2 -7 -15
1993 63.7 8.5 -9.5 3 1 8.5 -7 2.5 -7 -15
1994 70.5 8.5 -9.5 3 1 8.5 -7 2.5 -7 -15
1995 64.4 8.5 -9.5 3 1.5 8.5 -7 2.5 -7 -15
1996 68.4 8.5 -9.5 3 1.5 8.5 -7 2.5 -7 -15
1997 71.1 8.5 -9.5 3 1.5 8.5 -7 2.5 -7 -15
1998 67.4 8.5 -9.5 3 1.5 8 -7 2.5 -7 -15
1999 71.2 8.5 -9.5 3 1.5 8 -7 2.5 -7 -15
2000 73.7 8.5 -9.5 3 2 8 -7 2.5 -7 -15
2001 68.4 8.5 -9.5 3 2 7.5 -7 2.5 -7 -15
2002 64.5 8.5 -9.5 3 2 7.5 -7 2.5 -7 -15
2003 66.9 9 -9.5 3 2 7 -7 2.5 -7 -15
2004 70.7 9 -9.5 3 2 7 -7 2.5 -7 -15
2005 65.1 9 -9.5 3 2 7 -7 2.5 -7 -15
2006 76 9 -9.5 3 2 7 -7 2.5 -7 -15
2007 70.1 9 -9.5 3 2 7 -7 2.5 -7 -15
2008 67.2 9 -9.5 3 2 7 -7 2.5 -7 -15
2009 69.2 9 -9.5 3 2 7 -7 2.5 -7 -15
2010 63 9 -9.5 3 2 7 -7 2.5 -7 -15
2011 59.4 9 -9.5 3 2 7 -7 2.5 -7 -15
2012 NULL 9 -9.5 3 2 7 -7 2.5 -7 -15


 

11/16/2012 4:19 PM
It is an average, not just a raw number, I don't know it off the top of my head, perhaps when I get home....I think I have Ks valued at half
11/16/2012 4:22 PM
"we can estimate the average differences"


Yawn.....not interested in your estimations. 
11/16/2012 4:22 PM
"we can estimate the average differences"


Yawn.....not interested in your estimations. 
11/16/2012 4:23 PM
Posted by colonels19 on 11/16/2012 4:19:00 PM (view original):
It is an average, not just a raw number, I don't know it off the top of my head, perhaps when I get home....I think I have Ks valued at half
Half a run or...?

I'm not trying to hammer you on this, I'm more interested in the reasoning behind the formula.
11/16/2012 4:23 PM
Hey, bald facerocker, I've been arguing for Cabrera.   Don't put words in my mouth.
11/16/2012 4:28 PM
Although, to be fair, only one 3B got hit in the FACE with a ball this season.  Probably should give the MVP to Trout on that alone.
11/16/2012 4:31 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2012 4:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by colonels19 on 11/16/2012 4:19:00 PM (view original):
It is an average, not just a raw number, I don't know it off the top of my head, perhaps when I get home....I think I have Ks valued at half
Half a run or...?

I'm not trying to hammer you on this, I'm more interested in the reasoning behind the formula.
It's a lot simpler than this run business...an extra half an out, kind of a penalty for not putting the ball in play...do you think these statgeeks got paid for creating their stats...just curious
11/16/2012 4:32 PM
Posted by rsp777 on 11/16/2012 4:15:00 PM (view original):
To say that Trout was "significantly" more valuable in the field than Cabby is just plain wrong. Cabby wasn't Brooks Robinson but he was top 5 in fielding pct. and played significantly more innings than anyone else at 3rd. And, contrary to what MikeT will chime in with next, Cabby was very good at 3rd this year. You can argue all you want but as far as "most valuable"...the Tigers are NOWHERE without Cabby and the Angels still wouldn't have made the playoffs without him. Trout had a great season, but Cabby was just better, plain and simple.
Defense is a lot more than fielding percentage. Kevin Kouzmanoff lead 3B in fielding percentage one year and he was horrible at defense.


11/16/2012 4:35 PM
Posted by colonels19 on 11/16/2012 4:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2012 4:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by colonels19 on 11/16/2012 4:19:00 PM (view original):
It is an average, not just a raw number, I don't know it off the top of my head, perhaps when I get home....I think I have Ks valued at half
Half a run or...?

I'm not trying to hammer you on this, I'm more interested in the reasoning behind the formula.
It's a lot simpler than this run business...an extra half an out, kind of a penalty for not putting the ball in play...do you think these statgeeks got paid for creating their stats...just curious
What? That's nuts. An extra half an out for a strikeout?

of 42
All Forums > SimLeague Baseball > MLB > Ripping off ESPN -> Trout vs Cabrera MVP

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.