jimmy rollins NL MVP

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/inde...lins/#comments

[/ QUOTE ]
Tango almost always knows what he's talking about, but he throws those fan-voting defense numbers around like they're gospel. I would trust personal opinion of anyone for defense statistics.

[Nez477]

"The statistics only told part of the story. The voters went with the player who backed up a bold prediction. On a team with Howard and Chase Utley, who himself had an MVP campaign despite missing five weeks with a broken hand, Rollins simply was the team's most valuable.

Now, he has the hardware."

Heartwarming

IMO

[Mondogarage]

[ QUOTE ]
Aside from the pitcher's parks, he had to go against the best pitchers in the league. Rollins got rack up stats against teams like florida and washington.

[/ QUOTE ]

Holliday faced Jake Peavy three times, Brandon Webb six times, Brad Penny five times - that's 14 games against the top three Cy Young votegetters. Colorado also faced Beckett.

The Phillies faced that group of pitchers a total of two times (Peavy once, Penny once).

[Benholio]

[ QUOTE ]
Dante Bichette had over a 1000 OPS at home in his 7 years with the rockies. even with that included, his career OPS is .835.

His career high SLG in his first 5 years was .435, then went to the rockies and slugged .526 .548 .620 his first 3 years there

this was just the 1st name that popped into my head

[/ QUOTE ]

Holliday had a 1.0+ OPS this year in total, not just at home. His home OPS was 1.157. How many hitters have had that high of a home-OPS at Coors?

I'm not sure where to find park adjusted stats, but just by looking at the 2007 park factors for Coors and at Hollidays' home/road split, you can subtract the following from his home line:

4.5 homers, 13 hits, 6 doubles, 1.5 triples, 12 rbi's, 8 runs. Oh and ADD 4 walks since Coors park factor decreases the number of walks.

So his adjusted home line looks something like this:
.336/.396/.612 for a 1.008 OPS. Adjusting his combined line still leaves him with about a 0.937 OPS, which is quite a bit higher than rollins 0.875.

Now I know there are other NL hitters with better numbers, but what I am saying is you can't just multiply his road numbers by 2 and come up with a fair adjustment of his stats.

Road OPS: 0.860

Adjusted total OPS: 0.937

[JordanIB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Aside from the pitcher's parks, he had to go against the best pitchers in the league. Rollins got rack up stats against teams like florida and washington.

[/ QUOTE ]

Holliday faced Jake Peavy three times, Brandon Webb six times, Brad Penny five times - that's 14 games against the top three Cy Young votegetters. Colorado also faced Beckett.

The Phillies faced that group of pitchers a total of two times (Peavy once, Penny once).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but you know how many times they had to face Guillermo Mota?!?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I love the annual bashing of the MVP winner by stat-heads who would prefer they just hand the trophy to the guy with the highest WARP or VORP or whatever statistical baseline they prefer

[/ QUOTE ]

Not whatever statistical baseline they prefer. Thats what the actual voters are doing. What the statheads would like is for them to hand the award to whichever guy maxes out the statistical baseline(s) that are objectively best as per correlation to winning.

Its a pretty significant difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm pretty sure 4/5 of this board sees the world in Neo vision from "The Matrix" ... just a series of green letters and numbers

<font color="green">P E C O T A j i m m y r o l l i n s 2 0 / 2 0 / 2 0 / 2 0 / 2 0 / b a s e b a l l s h o u l d n e v e r e v e r b e e n j o y e d u n d e r a n y c i r c u m s t a n c e s V O R P / W A R P / z o m g s o m e o n e k n o w s a b o u t S A B E R M E T R I C S i j u s t c a m e i n m y p a n t s </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

4/5 of the world does. They just use bad numbers. This is the biggest fallacy of the whole conversation. Guys who make decisions on "just watching the games" or who shun "all that stathead stuff" are doing the exact same thing as all the statheads are doing it. They are just basing it on bad numbers. Instead of recording EVERY play someone makes, they record only the plays they remember. Instead of consistently applying rules, they apply them however they see fit. But they are still crunching numbers. They are doing the exact same thing as all the statheads are doing, they are just doing it in a really [censored] way.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I love the annual bashing of the MVP winner by stat-heads who would prefer they just hand the trophy to the guy with the highest WARP or VORP or whatever statistical baseline they prefer

[/ QUOTE ]

Not whatever statistical baseline they prefer. Thats what the actual voters are doing. What the statheads would like is for them to hand the award to whichever guy maxes out the statistical baseline(s) that are objectively best as per correlation to winning.

Its a pretty significant difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

meh.. I kind of think statheads take it a bit far when you come to above-replacement-level stat usage. I don't think the fans really give a damn about scarcity of position. Think of an extreme example where 14 teams have Eckstein-like players at SS and the minors are littered with crappy SSs, and one team has someone Jeter-like. On the flip side, 14 teams have strong 3rd basemen, and the minors are filled with great 3Bs, and one team has A-Rod. Fans would be pissed if ARod's season got snubbed because his WARP/VORP.

Of course, my knowledge of SABR stuff is pretty low, so I could be missing something big here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, except they DO care, they just dont know enough about it. The statheads and the non-statheads are both trying to figure out the exact same things: what attributes and stats and skills lead to either winning or to more enjoyment (and mostly this is still winning). They both want the same things. They both use EXACTLY the same basic principles to determine those same things: they record what happens and try to draw conclusions from that.

The difference is that the statheads record EVERYTHING that happens and they test their conclusions, trying to see if BA correlates better than RBI or OBP or whatever.

Its kind of sad that people think this takes AWAY from the fun of the game. I enjoy baseball every bit as much as I ever did before I read Moneyball...far more so, in fact. I dont know if this is just a campaign to try to smear the unknown or if people really think that statheads are just miserable and dont enjoy what they've turned baseball into.

[mbillie1]

I don't shun statistical analysis, or correct stat analysis. I just think you guys tend to forget that at bottom, it's supposed to be enjoyable and fun, not a math contest. I also think that things like "MVP" (vaguely determined categories) are made to account for the things that statistics don't, like "guts" or "leadership" or any of the other things that make for good entertainment, so I find it sad when every argument degenerates into a comparison of the absolute minutia of statistical performance.

FWIW though I don't think most people care as much about being correct... they care about having fun with it. What does it matter, ultimately, if the MVP chosen were say, Jim Edmonds? Big deal. Sports doesn't matter in the way that politics and such matters, so occasionally statistical accuracy and correctness aren't of the highest value. Truth is not always equal to worth.

But continue...

[SL__72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/inde...lins/#comments

[/ QUOTE ]
Tango almost always knows what he's talking about, but he throws those fan-voting defense numbers around like they're gospel. I would trust personal opinion of anyone for defense statistics.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he is just pointing out that it is really close and comes down to fielding, which at this point is still somewhat subjective no matter how you measure it.

[Triumph36]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I love the annual bashing of the MVP winner by stat-heads who would prefer they just hand the trophy to the guy with the highest WARP or VORP or whatever statistical baseline they prefer

[/ QUOTE ]

Not whatever statistical baseline they prefer. Thats what the actual voters are doing. What the statheads would like is for them to hand the award to whichever guy maxes out the statistical baseline(s) that are objectively best as per correlation to winning.

Its a pretty significant difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

meh.. I kind of think statheads take it a bit far when you come to above-replacement-level stat usage. I don't think the fans really give a damn about scarcity of position. Think of an extreme example where 14 teams have Eckstein-like players at SS and the minors are littered with crappy SSs, and one team has someone Jeter-like. On the flip side, 14 teams have strong 3rd basemen, and the minors are filled with great 3Bs, and one team has A-Rod. Fans would be pissed if ARod's season got snubbed because his WARP/VORP.

Of course, my knowledge of SABR stuff is pretty low, so I could be missing something big here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, except they DO care, they just dont know enough about it. The statheads and the non-statheads are both trying to figure out the exact same things: what attributes and stats and skills lead to either winning or to more enjoyment (and mostly this is still winning). They both want the same things. They both use EXACTLY the same basic principles to determine those same things: they record what happens and try to draw conclusions from that.

The difference is that the statheads record EVERYTHING that happens and they test their conclusions, trying to see if BA correlates better than RBI or OBP or whatever.

Its kind of sad that people think this takes AWAY from the fun of the game. I enjoy baseball every bit as much as I ever did before I read Moneyball...far more so, in fact. I dont know if this is just a campaign to try to smear the unknown or if people really think that statheads are just miserable and dont enjoy what they've turned baseball into.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think it's much easier to become miserable once a lot of the 'classic' debates are 'solved'. listening to your friends talk about how gritty luis castillo is or why they think pat burrell is terrible, etc. etc. you can't correct them, you can only hope to disagree mildly.