they're nowhere near the team they were last year. I don't see it happening this time.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Official MLB 2012 Season Thread
- Thread starter tennisace
- Start date
The basis for general disagrement seems to revolve around the word solid, so there's no room to budge here.
Just don't say FIP is meaningless! It takes into account the three things a pitcher can directly control (Fielding independant pitching), home runs, strikeouts and walks. It's a better indicator of pitcher contribution than ERA, generally. There are special cases, specifically knuckleballers, where FIP doesn't credit the pitcher enough (Dickey), but that's largely in part to the pitcher effect on hit ball speed (which the public doesn't have the data for anyways).
The specific reason I mentioned FIP is to neutralize the defensive context. Disagree with it however as you may, but the reason that ERA is sometimes taken with a grain of salt is because of defense. There comes a point where it becomes impossible to say exactly how much the pitcher contributed, so comparing the pitchers on what we know instead of what we can't accurately quantify becomes the next logical step.
Let's put this into an example. We know Detroit has a pretty bad infield defense. The pitcher that this would affect most on their staff would be Rick Porcello, considering he's a low strikeout/groundball pitcher. And the numbers bare this out. Porcello has an INSANE batting average on balls in play, at .344 (a third of the balls in play go for hits). This lead to an ERA of 4.54, compared to a FIP of 3.91. The goal of FIP is to remove the penalty his "traditional" counting stats seem to give him solely because of a poor defense. Likewise, should we fully credit the Tampa Bay pitching staff? Their defense has always been a strong point, and the ERA/FIP diference bares this out: their ERA as a staff was 3.19 compared to a FIP of 3.51.
Just to clarify - this isn't a means to argue, but the logical thought process that goes behind some of what I say. I apologize for jumping out a bit tangentially with the statistics, but its better to know things and make judgement from there then for me to just have said things that weren't necessarily clear in previous contexts.
and in case my poorly formed words leave any wanting for clarification - http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/pitching/fip/
Just don't say FIP is meaningless! It takes into account the three things a pitcher can directly control (Fielding independant pitching), home runs, strikeouts and walks. It's a better indicator of pitcher contribution than ERA, generally. There are special cases, specifically knuckleballers, where FIP doesn't credit the pitcher enough (Dickey), but that's largely in part to the pitcher effect on hit ball speed (which the public doesn't have the data for anyways).
The specific reason I mentioned FIP is to neutralize the defensive context. Disagree with it however as you may, but the reason that ERA is sometimes taken with a grain of salt is because of defense. There comes a point where it becomes impossible to say exactly how much the pitcher contributed, so comparing the pitchers on what we know instead of what we can't accurately quantify becomes the next logical step.
Let's put this into an example. We know Detroit has a pretty bad infield defense. The pitcher that this would affect most on their staff would be Rick Porcello, considering he's a low strikeout/groundball pitcher. And the numbers bare this out. Porcello has an INSANE batting average on balls in play, at .344 (a third of the balls in play go for hits). This lead to an ERA of 4.54, compared to a FIP of 3.91. The goal of FIP is to remove the penalty his "traditional" counting stats seem to give him solely because of a poor defense. Likewise, should we fully credit the Tampa Bay pitching staff? Their defense has always been a strong point, and the ERA/FIP diference bares this out: their ERA as a staff was 3.19 compared to a FIP of 3.51.
Just to clarify - this isn't a means to argue, but the logical thought process that goes behind some of what I say. I apologize for jumping out a bit tangentially with the statistics, but its better to know things and make judgement from there then for me to just have said things that weren't necessarily clear in previous contexts.
and in case my poorly formed words leave any wanting for clarification - http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/pitching/fip/
Last I checked, runs were the highest correlation to winning ballgames.... And as the article so conveniently points out, no amount of Trout's base running overshadowed the offensive contributions of one Triple Crown winning Tigers 3B. Yes, you can argue that I'm not being faithful to the award by not including defensive skills... But you know what? You can save all the runs you can (by the way, some of those defensive metrics, like UZR IIRC, are aren't as solid as offensive metrics and can be misused. Also, people seem to forget Cabrera posted his highest Defensive WAR of his career...), but in the end you aren't gonna win the ballgame if you don't score more runs than you're opponent. Not to mention, Miguel Cabrera is the first ever winner of the Triple Crown in 40 years or so... I understand how Sabermetricians get upset at the use of raw numbers like that, but that's a darn near impossible accomplishment and a historic one that only the best of the best accomplish. You aren't gonna like it and some of my friends disagree, but that's gonna be a factor in this whole thing.
In any case, Trout's only argument right now is his superior defense. Cabrera has him beat on most things not named OBP and wRC+ (And Trout doesn't have much of a lead in those categories to convince me over Cabrera's accomplishments). Even Trout's baserunning, as stated previously, did not create a higher percentage of offense than Cabrera has for his team, which I consider more valuable. You can complain how Trout missed a full month... In the end I don't care. One of the few criteria for the MVP is time played. Boo Hoo. Trout didn't play a month. Oh well. Put up those numbers next year with an extra month... Who knows? Maybe Trout's end of season regression (Something you haven't acknowledged yet. That .388 BABIP isn't gonna last a whole lot.) is extended? Nobody knows. You can't live in a world of its and buts.
And that's the cool thing. We can argue all we want. The MVP is awarded on a subjective basis with such a vague criteria. Makes for some fun discussion.
Was that the one by Dave Cameron? I've read that multiple times. Look. Either player deserves the award. I won't be shocked if Trout wins it. I think Cabrera deserves it. In the end, you aren't gonna win with out runs. Runs win games. Runs are valuable to wins. Cabrera added his value to the team in offense, which was greater than Trout, and which carried the Tigers to the playoffs while the Angels are sitting at home watching on TV.
One of my favorite part of the blog that is so relevant to this comment:
Edit: BTW, whoever said Price should win the Cy Young: Shut up. Verlander's peripherals are better.Rogo said:
I actually appreciate the concerted effort to be honest and thoughtful, it makes for some more interesting discussion.
This is just off the top of my head in reading the post, so I may be addressing things backwards.
While pitcher BABIP has shown no year to year correlation, generally, player BABIP has. Players who either a) make solid contact consistently (as evidenced by a high %LD) and/or b) have great speed have shown. I like to use Austin Jackson as an example for this, who on his down year had a .340 BABIP. Obviously, there are some elements that the hitter cannot control, but the degree is not identical to pitchers. While regression will likely occur, it won't be to the degree that many expect.
On the lines of that, much like the argument that clutch is/isn't a skill has little statistical basis, but can occur, the outcome of BABIP fluctuations are a matter of fact. The outcomes both occurred, so there's little use in arguing against them.
Again, I'm not going to argue the possibility that Trout could've/would've with more time played, as that argument is illogical.
I think my favorite thing about the Cameron article is because it gives what people are clamouring for: counting stats that take into account the context of hitting. People always clamour that Cabrera added more positive outcome to the expected situation than Trout. But in a counting stat, not a rate stat situation, Trout beat Cabrera.
There are two other noted things I wanted to take into account. Similarly to how you stated that Trout is barely ahead of Cabrera in the categories he leads, Cabrera is in that exact situation with Trout.
Before I do that, I'm just going to address wRC+, which takes into account baserunning. So this year, Trout was 9% better at creating runs in terms of baserunning and hitting. So in terms of a quality of contribution to run creation, Trout was better quality wise. (not quantity, which again is a major issue).
The difference in slugging percentage is obviously a more exaggerated difference, as 10 points slugging means much less than 10 points OBP. Averages were incredibly close. The obvious difference is in counting stats, but even those are a bit exaggerated.
I am a bit lazy, but a 22 game difference if they're played at a 9% level difference leaves it pretty close, probably to Trout's favour.
Obviously, our fundamental differences in Triple Crown are known, so there's no point addressing them. As a quick thing, though, a Trout supporter could say the stats Trout has reached have been achieved by even fewer than the Triple Crown, and even the offensive season in reference to his own wasn't overly impressive, it doesn't have the distinction of being his absolute best, so what matter does it mean if by chance other hitters didn't play as well?
Anyways, in the end, we see in run creation, Trout was better in quality (which shouldn't matter), and the quantity was incredibly close without context (which does matter) and with context of situation, Trout came ahead (which does matter), so I feel as if your line of thought for runs creation doesn't bode that much, if any, favour to Cabrera.
In the end, defense, in my opinion, and most, shouldn't be ignored, but you acknowledge your point of view, so I can't change that. What I will say is that while UZR over a single season may have some irregularities, as any stat does, in conjunction with DRS, we can come to a pretty clear conclusion. Trout was a plus defender, and Cabrera was below average (with actually surprisingly decent hands to most but unfortunately no range). In the end, for me, and I know for others, the minute difference in offensive value (which when put into context doesn't exist) is greatly surpassed. Quantifying defense isn't quite perfect, but ignoring multiple statistics as well as an eyetest doesn't make much sense, in my opinion.
This is just off the top of my head in reading the post, so I may be addressing things backwards.
While pitcher BABIP has shown no year to year correlation, generally, player BABIP has. Players who either a) make solid contact consistently (as evidenced by a high %LD) and/or b) have great speed have shown. I like to use Austin Jackson as an example for this, who on his down year had a .340 BABIP. Obviously, there are some elements that the hitter cannot control, but the degree is not identical to pitchers. While regression will likely occur, it won't be to the degree that many expect.
On the lines of that, much like the argument that clutch is/isn't a skill has little statistical basis, but can occur, the outcome of BABIP fluctuations are a matter of fact. The outcomes both occurred, so there's little use in arguing against them.
Again, I'm not going to argue the possibility that Trout could've/would've with more time played, as that argument is illogical.
I think my favorite thing about the Cameron article is because it gives what people are clamouring for: counting stats that take into account the context of hitting. People always clamour that Cabrera added more positive outcome to the expected situation than Trout. But in a counting stat, not a rate stat situation, Trout beat Cabrera.
There are two other noted things I wanted to take into account. Similarly to how you stated that Trout is barely ahead of Cabrera in the categories he leads, Cabrera is in that exact situation with Trout.
Before I do that, I'm just going to address wRC+, which takes into account baserunning. So this year, Trout was 9% better at creating runs in terms of baserunning and hitting. So in terms of a quality of contribution to run creation, Trout was better quality wise. (not quantity, which again is a major issue).
The difference in slugging percentage is obviously a more exaggerated difference, as 10 points slugging means much less than 10 points OBP. Averages were incredibly close. The obvious difference is in counting stats, but even those are a bit exaggerated.
I am a bit lazy, but a 22 game difference if they're played at a 9% level difference leaves it pretty close, probably to Trout's favour.
Obviously, our fundamental differences in Triple Crown are known, so there's no point addressing them. As a quick thing, though, a Trout supporter could say the stats Trout has reached have been achieved by even fewer than the Triple Crown, and even the offensive season in reference to his own wasn't overly impressive, it doesn't have the distinction of being his absolute best, so what matter does it mean if by chance other hitters didn't play as well?
Anyways, in the end, we see in run creation, Trout was better in quality (which shouldn't matter), and the quantity was incredibly close without context (which does matter) and with context of situation, Trout came ahead (which does matter), so I feel as if your line of thought for runs creation doesn't bode that much, if any, favour to Cabrera.
Just remember, runs aren't just pure bat.
In the end, defense, in my opinion, and most, shouldn't be ignored, but you acknowledge your point of view, so I can't change that. What I will say is that while UZR over a single season may have some irregularities, as any stat does, in conjunction with DRS, we can come to a pretty clear conclusion. Trout was a plus defender, and Cabrera was below average (with actually surprisingly decent hands to most but unfortunately no range). In the end, for me, and I know for others, the minute difference in offensive value (which when put into context doesn't exist) is greatly surpassed. Quantifying defense isn't quite perfect, but ignoring multiple statistics as well as an eyetest doesn't make much sense, in my opinion.
Lol, Byrne would have the orgasm to end all orgasms
We shall never know.
I'm not even sure why Rolen is playing at this point. It's justifiable if he was performing on defense, but he's not, so why not put out the Rookie of the Year candidate that's shown he can be clutch and shown he can be one of the best hitters on the team rather than this worthless sack of air?
arghhh lucky bastards. One of my biggest dreams in life is to attend a home playoff game from my favorite team in any sport (Reds/Ravens/whatever team LeBron James is on). This has yet to happen for me :(
Eww you follow a single player around? Disappointed, unless you're related to him but you're not black sooo.....
I agree with the rest of this post. I haven't even seen an NFL/MLB/NBA game in person yet, but to see my favourite team at home in the playoffs, would be the best thing ever!!
It would be even better to see my favorite team at home...in the playoffs...winning their respective championship! Of course, seeing the Ravens at home for the Super Bowl is incredibly unlikely and I'm not sure if there's ever going to be a Super Bowl in M&T anyway, but that would sure be awesome!
And yes, I follow one player around lol. I'm not related to him, but he is what got me into basketball in the first place. I grew up about 20 minutes from Akron, Ohio, which is where he went to high school. I attended some of his high school games when I was like 10! I'll be a fan of LeBron until he retires, regardless of what team he's on. After that I'll just be a fan of the NBA rather than any specific teams.
It's Dusty Baker's fault. He bats Zack Cozart, .288 OBP and all, leadoff. He overused Aroldis Chapman, leading to fatigue at the end of the year. I could go on and on. He once said that you don't score runs by getting on base. Think about that for a second. However long it takes to sink in. The Reds have ha success because they are an extremely talented team. They won 97 games despite the best efforts of their manager. I'm not saying that he has to use every advanced statistic available, but he should at least recognize how badly he is mismanaging this team.
Know what would make you guys a lot better? Know what would probably make this series over already rather than in favor of the Cardinals?
If your idiot franchise hadn't taken one of the best pitchers in baseball and forced him to sit on the bench.
I love justice.
You're right on, here. I don't think I know a single Reds fan that likes Dusty Baker. It's really upsetting that he's still managing this organization, and frankly I'm quite disgusted. I don't have a problem with having Cozart in the lineup, but I do have a problem with him batting lead-off. I personally enjoy having Phillips at lead-off!
Chapman may have been worked a little too hard for a stretch, but I think he's okay now and is back to his dominating self. I'm not really that worried about him. He was a starter back before he came to the majors, after all. I think he can handle it...hopefully.
I forgot Strasburg could pitch three games in a row while also scoring tons of runs.
We won game one which the Cards swung like shit in anyway. We'd be in the exact same situation with Stras pitching game one.
I blame Davey/Rizzo for setting our rotation up to play in the post season off 10+ days rest. We've played like crap so it doesn't matter but I want to add another, "FUCK YOU" to TBS, MLB, and the New York Yankees for forcing.g our slumping team to play every game with stupid fucking shadows. That's exactly what we need when we can't hit. Not to mention that I think the only way you can split the stats to find a situation where we have a losing record this season is fucking day games. So fuck the Yankees and may anyone who has ever worn a Yankee hat watch everyone they've ever loved die.
We won game one which the Cards swung like shit in anyway. We'd be in the exact same situation with Stras pitching game one.
I blame Davey/Rizzo for setting our rotation up to play in the post season off 10+ days rest. We've played like crap so it doesn't matter but I want to add another, "FUCK YOU" to TBS, MLB, and the New York Yankees for forcing.g our slumping team to play every game with stupid fucking shadows. That's exactly what we need when we can't hit. Not to mention that I think the only way you can split the stats to find a situation where we have a losing record this season is fucking day games. So fuck the Yankees and may anyone who has ever worn a Yankee hat watch everyone they've ever loved die.
Uh, nooo, because Strasburg would pitch game one which you would win. Then you could have Gio pitch game 2, which you would also win. Well lookie there! With Strasburg, you would have two wins and you would NOT be in the deep hole you're in right now! Then when you lose games 3 and 4, you'd have Strasburg for game 5, which you would win again. Viola, series one, you move on. Instead, you guys are done in 4. I'm calling it. Detwiler sucks.
Okay. Or Stras could pitch like shit because he was shut down or he could pitch like shit because his arm is dead. And then Gio could pitch worse than he did game one because he had another day of rest and this time the Cards could make him pay for his mistakes instead of letting him walk tons of people but only giving up two runs. It's not like Stras hasn't had stinker games like every other pitcher on our roster. Maybe you don't remember the Hot Stuff game but I do.
