Keith Law: "Cabrera shouldn't appear in the top three spots on any ballot."

**ballmich** · 10-03-2012, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by Biff Mayhem

Maybe it's just me but I don't see you having any avatar.

Great, my Miggy homerism has been dispelled. And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't been for you meddling kids.

**tiger337** · 10-03-2012, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by ballmich

Great, my Miggy homerism has been dispelled. And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't been for you meddling kids.

You're still a Dumbrowski apologist though supporting his every move.

**ballmich** · 10-03-2012, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by Nastradamus

He had 93 minor league PAs before coming up, so I don't see the wearing down argument having any validity. He OPS'd 100 plus in those PAs fwiw.

But it's not worth anything, fwiw. It's not really the same level of play.

**TStar** · 10-03-2012, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by Gehringer_2

If I had the time I would regress team steals vs wining percentage and HRs vs winning percentage.

Originally Posted by Mr. Bigglesworth

Please do, and check out Trout. My guess is, given his good steal percentage, is that he has stolen bases against most teams successfully.

I can probably do this if you just tell what data I need to compile.

**Gehringer_2** · 10-03-2012, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by TStar

I can probably do this if you just tell what data I need to compile.

actually the premise has to do with the playoff/WS, so I guess I would look at WS winners steal rate vs their league average that yr, and then the same for HRs, or something like that. Haven't really thought it out in enough detail yet.

**TStar** · 10-03-2012, 06:35 PM

Miggy taking BP live

The Official Site of The Detroit Tigers | tigers.com: Homepage

**tiger337** · 10-03-2012, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by Gehringer_2

actually the premise has to do with the playoff/WS, so I guess I would look at WS winners steal rate vs their league average that yr, and then the same for HRs, or something like that. Haven't really thought it out in enough detail yet.

I doubt that the correlation between steal rate and runs or wins is anywhere close to that between homers and runs/wins. It would amaze if it was. However, I do think an elite base stealer can help a given team score a significant number of runs. It's the kind of thing where outliers will probably be more interesting than a global correlation.

**Gehringer_2** · 10-03-2012, 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by tiger337

I doubt that the correlation between steal rate and runs or wins is anywhere close to that between homers and runs/wins. It would amaze if it was. However, I do think an elite base stealer can help a given team score a significant number of runs. It's the kind of thing where outliers will probably be more interesting than a global correlation.

How about we look at the top ten or twenty stolen base guys - Henderson, Brock, Coleman etc, then look at their steal rate in the playoffs vs regular season? Then we'd also have to break it down both in terms of steal per game and steals per times on base - or some such.......just thinking through the keyboard here.....

So the questions posed would be: do playoff teams inhibit running more effectively than regular season teams for high steal rate guys who do reach, and then the more general question would be: do playoff teams keep base stealers off the bases enough that running teams have their offense more depressed in playoff games than non-running teams (on the assumption that playoff games average lower scoring in general). Or another way to put the latter would be: do running teams have bigger loss of scoring effect when their OBP is depressed by good pitching than non-running teams do? Does that sound right?

**tiger337** · 10-03-2012, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by Gehringer_2

How about we look at the top ten or twenty stolen base guys - Henderson, Brock, Coleman etc, then look at their steal rate in the playoffs vs regular season? Then we'd also have to break it down both in terms of steal per game and steals per times on base - or some such.......just thinking through the keyboard here.....

So the questions posed would be: do playoff teams inhibit running more effectively than regular season teams for high steal rate guys who do reach, and then the more general question would be: do playoff teams keep base stealers off the bases enough that running teams have their offense more depressed in playoff games than non-running teams (on the assumption that playoff games average lower scoring in general). Or another way to put the latter would be: do running teams have bigger loss of scoring effect when their OBP is depressed by good pitching than non-running teams do? Does that sound right?

yes, something like that makes sense and I do like these kinds of questions.

**Nastradamus** · 10-03-2012, 10:07 PM

Originally Posted by ballmich

But it's not worth anything, fwiw. It's not really the same level of play.

No, but it goes against the idea that he would have "worn down" had he played in April.

**Gehringer_2** · 10-03-2012, 10:23 PM

Originally Posted by tiger337

yes, something like that makes sense and I do like these kinds of questions.

OK- now I have an off-season baseball project.

**lordstanley** · 10-04-2012, 12:43 AM

There might be a debate about who is likely to win the MVP. There might be a debate about who should win the MVP. But there's probably little debate that Keith Law is an a-hole or at least comes off as an a-hole and is a terrible poster child for sabers. It's perfectly fine to say, like many balanced sabers on here are saying, that while the Triple Crown is neat for its historical significance you think Mike Trout has been more valuable, fine. But I've had enough of the sneering, condescending, know-it all attitude of guys like Keith Law and Tom Verducci who make out people who care about the Triple Crown to be backwards-looking, Luddite, neanderthal hicks. Take Law's September 25 quote, which may already have been posted here:

I argued in late June that Mike Trout had the early look, statistically speaking, of an MVP candidate, because he was such a complete player, contributing in all facets of the game. That MVP race has turned out to be a rout, with Trout nearly lapping the field in value, though that hasn't stopped a portion of the media and the fan base, largely situated in a certain state that borders four Great Lakes, from arguing in favor of another candidate, Miguel Cabrera.

The Luddite argument -- and don't kid yourself, that's what this is, a backlash against progress -- says that wins above replacement isn't reliable, or credible, or accurate enough to use in an MVP discussion. So while Trout destroys all of his competition in WAR, whether you use FanGraphs' version (a lead of 2.6 wins) or Baseball Reference's (a lead of 3.7), it might be more convincing to consider just why Trout's lead is so commanding.

What an obnoxious quote. It reeks of a nerd with abysmal social skills. Which is not what all sabers are. It is contemptuous towards people like Ernie Harwell, my grandpa, friends with whom I've sat in the bleachers, casual fans I meet at co-ed softball leagues. None of whom I've ever heard talk of WAR yet would be classified by Law as not real baseball fans or not having real baseball minds.

Part of baseball's magic is its history and its numbers. Those two are linked. 300 wins, 20 wins, 4191 hits, 714 home runs, 200 hits, 56-game hitting streak, .400. Put forward the view that there are now more revealing and indicative stats, fine. Even if at the present time they don't mean much more to the average fan than does football's QB rating or hockey's plus/minus rating. Let the evidence for the validity of these stats, and the popularity of these stats, grow over time. Give out your own damn awards if you want, just like the all-Madden Team. "WARrior of the Year". But if you denigrate milestones that are considered special by many, many baseball fans then you alienate them and chip away at the special hold baseball has on them.

What's next? Set your sights on hockey and trash the Stanley Cup as a meaningless achievement because it's earned over only 2 months and 16 wins and sneer that any real hockey fan with a brain would obviously prefer the President's Trophy because it's for #1 in the league over 82 games?

**NeedMoreLike84** · 10-04-2012, 01:14 AM

I am a devout supporter of sabermetrics. But some things are fun baseball traditions and my fellow sabrs need to just knock it off.

**lordstanley** · 10-04-2012, 02:01 AM

Originally Posted by NeedMoreLike84

I am a devout supporter of sabermetrics. But some things are fun baseball traditions and my fellow sabrs need to just knock it off.

My leanings when it comes to baseball stats are closer to those of sabermetrics than they are to the traditional stats. But the hardcore obnoxio sabers are ticking even me off - so I can only imagine how jerkish they seem to many fans.

**Vonlenska** · 10-04-2012, 02:08 AM

Law's a....jerk.

**tiger337** · 10-04-2012, 02:13 AM

yeah, I'm not a big fan of how Law has been behaving. He's a troll and is not helping to advance the field.

**catswithbats** · 10-04-2012, 03:02 AM

I'd still vote for Trout if I had a vote, but Law really makes me wish I could shoot the messenger.

**Antrat** · 10-04-2012, 06:48 AM

Law retweets stuff from Trout fans that make it seem Cabrera is some big, fat slow loser that is possibly the worst player since Mendoza.
He has no credibility left at all.

**Mr. Bigglesworth** · 10-04-2012, 06:57 AM

Fortunately nobody who argues in the media in favor of traditional stats is a jerk.

**Antrat** · 10-04-2012, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by Mr. Bigglesworth

Fortunately nobody who argues in the media in favor of traditional stats is a jerk.

I haven't seen any national writers making fun of Trout and demeaning his skills.
I mean, if you think Trout should be MVP, great. But don't try to diminish Miguel Cabrera.
I find it funny that this guy is all stats when discussing Trout and then retweets from somebody "Cabrera must be eating PED donuts".
It's insulting and degrading to a great player and his fans.

**4hzglory** · 10-04-2012, 08:31 AM

Can someone tell me the difference between WPA and WPA+ compared to offensive WAR and how they are calculated on Baseball-Reference?

According to their offensive WAR, Trout leads Cabrera 10.7-7.3 (Which at 46.58% higher is extreme IMO as the only significant advantage Trout has in any category is base-running while Cabrera has significant leads in most other categories).

However, in WPA Cabrera leads Trout 6.9-5.3 or 30.189% and in WPA+ Cabrera leads 16.4-13.7 or 19.71%.

I personally don't see how even an offensive calculation that heavily weighs base running could show Trout with greater than a offensive 5-10% advantage of Cabrera or another give Cabrera over a 20% advantage over Trout.

This type of thing is why a hack like Law saying Trout is a no doubt MVP because of WAR doesn't make sense, unless of course Law or one of his close friends created WAR. The argument for Trout as more all around valuable is a valid one to have, but anything that says he is a runaway winner by 40+% in value is crazy. Cabrera being able to move to 3rd and playing adequately so the Tigers could have Fielder in the lineup instead of Kelly or Inge added a significant value. If he doesn't move, the Tigers don't sign Fielder and thus, don't make the playoffs. There are so many aspects to the race that anyone who says it is a runaway, or argues simply the Triple Crown or WAR loses all credibility.

**Mr. Bigglesworth** · 10-04-2012, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by Antrat

I haven't seen any national writers making fun of Trout and demeaning his skills.

I wasn't aware that was the only way to be a jerk. My bad.

**T&P_Fan** · 10-04-2012, 08:50 AM

Law has probably got the attention he wanted. However I am curious if he cares at all just how big a of douche he looks like. He is out of touch with why people love baseball and can't get enough. Lordstanley did a great job summarizing that. What Cabrera did is important to the game, baseball is a game of deep rooted history and nostalgia. The way he diminishes Cabrera and talks down to fans is simply unprofessional. When some people show their true colors it makes them hard to look at.

**Biff Mayhem** · 10-04-2012, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by T&P_Fan

Law has probably got the attention he wanted. However I am curious if he cares at all just how big a of douche he looks like. He is out of touch with why people love baseball and can't get enough. Lordstanley did a great job summarizing that. What Cabrera did is important to the game, baseball is a game of deep rooted history and nostalgia. The way he diminishes Cabrera and talks down to fans is simply unprofessional. When some people show their true colors it makes them hard to look at.

People are talking about him and his article. He wins. Its the same thing Rob Parker and Lynn Henning do.

**Yoda** · 10-04-2012, 09:01 AM

Does anyone remember how OMF pretty much hated Cabrera when we first got him because he dethroned the great Brandon Inge? Same for DGTigers (or something like that) if I'm not mistaken. Kept calling him fat and lazy. Pretty hilarious stuff.

**Biff Mayhem** · 10-04-2012, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by Yoda

Does anyone remember how OMF pretty much hated Cabrera when we first got him because he dethroned the great Brandon Inge? Same for DGTigers (or something like that) if I'm not mistaken. Kept calling him fat and lazy. Pretty hilarious stuff.

I don't remember who it was but the term "fat kid" was thrown out there and became quite the MTS Meme for awhile.

**Casimir** · 10-04-2012, 09:09 AM

I can see arguements in favor of Trout or Cabrera. I am intrigued by the upcoming vote. But I'm not going to think one or the other got ripped off for finishing second unless one wins over the other in a landslide.

**Shinzaki** · 10-04-2012, 09:19 AM

"The Fat Kid" was one of Harmon Killebrew's nicknames. In my mind...being called that is a tremendous compliment.

People like Law annoy me to no end...rather than just admit that he was wrong about Cabrera's MVP worthiness, he becomes abusive and doubles down on his argument. If he were to simply say "Cabrera is a tremendous talent, but I value the totality of Trout's contributions more", I wouldn't have a problem with that...

**John_Brian_K** · 10-04-2012, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by lordstanley

There might be a debate about who is likely to win the MVP. There might be a debate about who should win the MVP. But there's probably little debate that Keith Law is an a-hole or at least comes off as an a-hole and is a terrible poster child for sabers. It's perfectly fine to say, like many balanced sabers on here are saying, that while the Triple Crown is neat for its historical significance you think Mike Trout has been more valuable, fine. But I've had enough of the sneering, condescending, know-it all attitude of guys like Keith Law and Tom Verducci who make out people who care about the Triple Crown to be backwards-looking, Luddite, neanderthal hicks. Take Law's September 25 quote, which may already have been posted here:

What an obnoxious quote. It reeks of a nerd with abysmal social skills. Which is not what all sabers are. It is contemptuous towards people like Ernie Harwell, my grandpa, friends with whom I've sat in the bleachers, casual fans I meet at co-ed softball leagues. None of whom I've ever heard talk of WAR yet would be classified by Law as not real baseball fans or not having real baseball minds.

Part of baseball's magic is its history and its numbers. Those two are linked. 300 wins, 20 wins, 4191 hits, 714 home runs, 200 hits, 56-game hitting streak, .400. Put forward the view that there are now more revealing and indicative stats, fine. Even if at the present time they don't mean much more to the average fan than does football's QB rating or hockey's plus/minus rating. Let the evidence for the validity of these stats, and the popularity of these stats, grow over time. Give out your own damn awards if you want, just like the all-Madden Team. "WARrior of the Year". But if you denigrate milestones that are considered special by many, many baseball fans then you alienate them and chip away at the special hold baseball has on them.

What's next? Set your sights on hockey and trash the Stanley Cup as a meaningless achievement because it's earned over only 2 months and 16 wins and sneer that any real hockey fan with a brain would obviously prefer the President's Trophy because it's for #1 in the league over 82 games?

HERE HERE!

**Oblong** · 10-04-2012, 09:24 AM

I don't see why you can't just talk up your guy without knocking the other guy. I get on Tiger fans fro doing that with Ozzie Smith. Yes, Tram should be in the HOF. That doesn't mean Ozzie Smith was nothing but a backflipping slap hitter who got in for charisma. He was a worthy HOFer.

**FloridaTigers** · 10-04-2012, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by lordstanley

There might be a debate about who is likely to win the MVP. There might be a debate about who should win the MVP. But there's probably little debate that Keith Law is an a-hole or at least comes off as an a-hole and is a terrible poster child for sabers. It's perfectly fine to say, like many balanced sabers on here are saying, that while the Triple Crown is neat for its historical significance you think Mike Trout has been more valuable, fine. But I've had enough of the sneering, condescending, know-it all attitude of guys like Keith Law and Tom Verducci who make out people who care about the Triple Crown to be backwards-looking, Luddite, neanderthal hicks. Take Law's September 25 quote, which may already have been posted here:

What an obnoxious quote. It reeks of a nerd with abysmal social skills. Which is not what all sabers are. It is contemptuous towards people like Ernie Harwell, my grandpa, friends with whom I've sat in the bleachers, casual fans I meet at co-ed softball leagues. None of whom I've ever heard talk of WAR yet would be classified by Law as not real baseball fans or not having real baseball minds.

Part of baseball's magic is its history and its numbers. Those two are linked. 300 wins, 20 wins, 4191 hits, 714 home runs, 200 hits, 56-game hitting streak, .400. Put forward the view that there are now more revealing and indicative stats, fine. Even if at the present time they don't mean much more to the average fan than does football's QB rating or hockey's plus/minus rating. Let the evidence for the validity of these stats, and the popularity of these stats, grow over time. Give out your own damn awards if you want, just like the all-Madden Team. "WARrior of the Year". But if you denigrate milestones that are considered special by many, many baseball fans then you alienate them and chip away at the special hold baseball has on them.

What's next? Set your sights on hockey and trash the Stanley Cup as a meaningless achievement because it's earned over only 2 months and 16 wins and sneer that any real hockey fan with a brain would obviously prefer the President's Trophy because it's for #1 in the league over 82 games?

+1

Contender for post of the year. I don't see why traditional statistics are simply scoffed at now and almost ridiculed. If anything, all statistics paint the big picture. You can't rely on one single statistic to tell the whole story, each one builds up to a whole. This isn't Evolution vs. Creationism, but it smells of the same snark. All these stats, regardless of sabermetrics or traditional, should compliment each other.

**DET Mr Malefic** · 10-04-2012, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by tiger337

The difference between 2011-2012 is interesting, but he didn't get a lot of non-intentional walks in 2010 either. He got a lot of intentional walks which helped his OBP. His wOBA which excludes intentional walks was better in 2010 than 2012. I wouldn't say he was definitely better in 2010-2011 but I don't see this year as being above the others either. It's just that nobody had a great year in any of the three triple crown stats this year.

I would say he was definitely better in 2011 than 2012. I almost hate making comparisons because you run the risk of sounding like he was bad this year when that's clearly not the case, but he had a fifty-five point drop in OBP this year. I realize offense is down league-wide, but that doesn't explain a 55 point drop. I don't feel his additional total bases really even come close to making up for that. I think 2011 will probably end up being his best season (and if it's not, I'm eager for what else he has to offer going forward). I think 2012 was a noticeable step back, while still being an elite offensive performance. Just lesser on the elite scale than last year.

**Mr. Bigglesworth** · 10-04-2012, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by Oblong

I don't see why you can't just talk up your guy without knocking the other guy. I get on Tiger fans fro doing that with Ozzie Smith. Yes, Tram should be in the HOF. That doesn't mean Ozzie Smith was nothing but a backflipping slap hitter who got in for charisma. He was a worthy HOFer.

Some people have a hard time giving the other guy his due (cue Micheal Irvin), and some feel bringing down the other guy is a good way to frame an argument.

I think 'journalists' do it because it makes good copy and generates buzz.

**John_Brian_K** · 10-04-2012, 09:31 AM

After staying up till mid night watching the same clips and talk over and over and over again...I am starting to think Cabby has a real chance. 99% of the hosts/baseball guys on baseball tonight just kept saying he has to be MVP.

I am sick of the sabrs downgrading the triple crown to bolster their poster boy...who in all honesty I hope falls flat on his face next year (not because of him, but to shut up these 'writers')...I also hope he comes back his sophmore year and has a fine season, but I am sick and tired of the Keith Laws on Vassans of the world making it sound like RBI and HR do not matter.

You know why Stolen bases and fielding % are not part of the triple crown? Because they are not as important as RBI and HR. And never will be. That is why.

I am sick of the 'Trout is about to do something noone has done' argument because he stole 48 bases and hit 30 HR and then scored 129 (or whatever it was runs) and from the very people touting this accomplishment and in the same breathe demeaning the RBI, but praising the runs scored is assbackwards IMO.

If the triple crown was no big deal people would be doing it every 3-4 years not every 47.

He out hits...hit machines like Ichiro
Out slugs sluggers like Dunn who hit 50 bombs, but have a .230 BA
And he drives in more runs than anyone in the league and I am sick of hearing it downplayed.

**John_Brian_K** · 10-04-2012, 09:34 AM

And I know sabremetrics is a lifelong ambition/hobby/obsession for some fans and I do not mean this in any disrespect, but you will NEVER, EVER come up with a rational/no biased/ stat that encompasses a player on the field. Never.

**redshark63** · 10-04-2012, 09:42 AM

A good read:

Why Can WAR Change From One Year to Next? » Sports Reference » Blog Archive

**Antrat** · 10-04-2012, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by Mr. Bigglesworth

I wasn't aware that was the only way to be a jerk. My bad.

I forgive you.
Just don't let it happen again.

**smr-nj** · 10-04-2012, 10:20 AM

Miggy is the AL MVP this year.
Period.

I don't really care what tape measure they're using, common sense tells me he should capture this honor.

**DTroppens** · 10-04-2012, 10:22 AM

To support the SABR side and prove the "other" side can be semi-jerks as well, I give you Rod and Mario. A couple of nights ago they went on a rant talking about "How they come up with these stats" whining about WAR and things like that suggesting they are bunk and that the triple crown is the triple crown. Consequently, that means Miggy is the obvious choice and any other selection would be idiocy. Maybe they didn't say this exact statement, but that's how it came across.

Now, of course, they are the Tiger announcers so they are going to support Miggy. That makes sense. But they did their share during that little rant to tear down a side of baseball just for the sake of supporting Miggy. They came across as downright ignorant actually. Made me kind of ashamed they were our announcers and someone nationally was probably listening to this whine-fest.

I hope Cabrera wins the MVP. If he doesn't, that's fine. Heck, I don't even know if I would vote for him. But, let's admit that this isn't a close case by any stretch. If he doesn't win, this isn't some great injustice in the baseball world.

One thing I'll say is this based on the Triple Crown. It put baseball on the map in the national media a couple of more times when baseball probably wouldn't have beaten out Tuesday NFL injury reports. That's the history of baseball making that stand out. So while some might not think it shouldn't be the end-all argument for the MVP (heck, I don't think it should be), everyone should realize his race for it (and accomplishing it) was good for baseball and it's health from a publicity standpoint.

**qsilvr2531** · 10-04-2012, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by smr-nj

Miggy is the AL MVP this year.
Period.

I don't really care what tape measure they're using, common sense tells me he should capture this honor.

Anyone who disagrees lacks common sense? I don't necessarily think this was meant is a mean or demeaning fashion, but I'm pretty sure that if Keith Law had tweeted this and used Trout's name instead of Cabrera's quite a few posters in this thread would be saying how big a jerk he is.