jimmy rollins NL MVP

[mbillie1]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah we know YOU guys enjoy it, but the general public might not want to see the MVP every year be the most statistically perfect player. You have to know you're in the enormous minority. And at least try to see a point of view other than "I'm more correct about it than you, so it ought to be such and such..." accuracy and imperative are different things.

[SL__72]

So being correct or as close to correct as possible makes the discussion less fun?

/edit I was going to insert a poker analogy, but just mentioning it should get the point across.

[dkgojackets]

Take it to SMP mbillie

[mbillie1]

[ QUOTE ]
So being correct or as close to correct as possible makes the discussion less fun?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but being correct doesn't always make it more fun. EG the role of sports is up for grabs... it's entertainment. If 95% of people would be happier with a bad but popular player as MVP, how are you going to say it's decidedly wrong? You assume correct = good = true = beautiful = etc but correctness/truth and value are not always identical. The goal of poker is to make money. The goal of football, baseball (as a fan) is to enjoy it.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I was talking in general though, not just about his point on Rollins. I've seen him actively push for the use of those polls in the face of UZR and PMR. Sorry, I'll take the data plz.

[Mondogarage]

[ 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 ]

Being a stathead doesn't (or shouldn't) take away from enjoyment of the game. But that's different than end of season awards voting.

Really, it wouldn't be *that* difficult to simply come up with some sort of composite computer ranking and give someone the Sagarin Award For Most Statistically Valuable Player. But in an award that is voted on by the media, you can't simply dictate to them that you have to vote for whoever has the highest composite VORPECOTAOPS, or whatever. Because then, it's not a vote -- just go to the fkn computer and have it print a name and hand out the award.

But then, you'd have to re-award all those awards from previous years, as well.

The awards are voted on by the BBWAA, not by the computers at BP. So just because it's different doesn't make it wrong.

I still think Holliday got jobbed, but its not as if Rollins winning is ludicrous, and has more to do with writers' lack of exposure to Holliday all season long (compared to Rollins and Wright), and less to do with their perceptions of road OPS or VORP.

[Mojo56]

Rollins did lead the league in outs with a career high of 527. He has increased his out total 3 straight years which is very impressive given that he bas been one of the 'best' in the league since his rookie year.

[J.R.]

[ 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 ]

I'm not a huge fan of this type of argument.

The combined line against of all the pitchers Holliday faced was 0.250/0.333/0.393, for Rollins it was .252/.337/.400, or basically why I don't like this argument- there isn't any meaningful difference.

Link for batter quality of pitchers faced stats

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So being correct or as close to correct as possible makes the discussion less fun?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but being correct doesn't always make it more fun. EG the role of sports is up for grabs... it's entertainment. If 95% of people would be happier with a bad but popular player as MVP, how are you going to say it's decidedly wrong? You assume correct = good = true = beautiful = etc but correctness/truth and value are not always identical. The goal of poker is to make money. The goal of football, baseball (as a fan) is to enjoy it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mbillie,

Stop waxing philosophical in this [censored]. More sick burns of statheads IMO.

[metsandfinsfan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

I'm not a huge fan of this type of argument.

The combined line against of all the pitchers Holliday faced was 0.250/0.333/0.393, for Rollins it was .252/.337/.400, or basically why I don't like this argument- there isn't any meaningful difference.

Link for batter quality of pitchers faced stats

[/ QUOTE ]

sweet