<< Previous Article
 On the Beat: Planning ... (10/04)
|
|
|
Next Article >>
The BP Wayback Machine... (10/05)
|
October 4, 2012
Ask the Industry
Mike Trout vs. Miguel Cabrera
by Jason Parks
Mike Trout or Miguel Cabrera? It’s the bacon-or-cheese argument of the 2012 major league season, a decision that is weighted in preference rather than a universally recognized consensus. Both players have historic cases to make, just as the fatty pig meat and the pressed curds of milk are each historic in their deliciousness. On one hand, you have a rookie sensation whose electricity could power Paris, a player with an unprecedented debut campaign that draws comparisons to a young Mickey Mantle, only better, which isn’t exactly normal. This generational performance just happens to share a space with another generational performance, a statistical feat of such lore and reverence that the mere hunt and proximity to such an accomplishment is worthy of high praise and metallic hardware. Miguel Cabrera is the most feared hitter in the game, and when the dust settled on the 2012 season, his out-of-fashion slash line made him the winner of the Triple Crown, the first of its kind in the American League since 1967, which isn’t exactly normal either.
My head swims when I read about the absolutes of the game, my thoughts beaten down by the weight of the value argument, the binary answer to a question without a clear path to certainty. We all approach the game with different eyes, forming conclusions based on explosive mixtures of subjectivity and concrete data. Without a perfect recipe for value, we each make our own cocktails that are heavily rooted in our own experiences, be they on the field or on the computer screen. I’m not here to present one side of the argument over the other, or to paint one side of the fence a color that will instigate condemnation from a disapproving majority; the baseball industry doesn’t wear one suit, and when I polled ten contacts to get their take on the Trout/Cabrera debate, the answers were as diverse as the job titles next to their name. From the top of the industry food chain to the bottom, I asked a simple question of value, which yielded a surprisingly close vote.
Before I get to the results and share just a few of the thoughts from insiders, I want
<< Previous Article
On the Beat: Planning ... (10/04)
|
|
|
Next Article >>
The BP Wayback Machine... (10/05)
|
79 comments have been left for this article. 
Fantasy Freestyle: Travis Wood and the Winds...
Surprise Me!
How did Cabrera go about having a higher range than Adrian Beltre? Also "RBI aren't about luck. It's bat control and sacrificing personal stats like AVG to do whatever is need to get the run in." WTF
Personally, I like RBIs. I recognize its a limited stat that usually requires a favorable game situation, but it also requires a form of offensive execution from the hitter. Obviously, not every RBI is created equal.
I also like batting average. It's a good measure of hit tool utility. You don't need to hit for a high average to have offensive value, but in order to allow a derivative tool to play, you have to start with the basic bat-to-ball relationship. It's not a perfect metric, but from a scouting perspective, it's a good way of looking at how well a hit tool is performing in game action. It shouldn't be ignored just because it has limitations.
why does nobody downplay the impact of baserunning to reflect the simple fact that almost no player will get an opportunity to run bases more than 40% of the time?
As I noted the last time you asked this: Baserunning is weighted at being as valuable as we think baserunning actually is -- in other words, one run in terms of baserunning is equal to one run obtained any other way. It's on us to be correct (or at least, reasonably so) in how we convert baserunning events into runs, of course. But once you do so, a run is a run is a run. Now, there are fewer baserunning runs than batting runs, in an absolute sense -- it's harder to be a +10 baserunner than it is to be a +10 hitter. But there's no reason to explicitly dock the contributions of baserunners any further than that.
yeah and i suppose WAR is really looking at value vs a replacement player. so while i still question the general perception that baserunning is equivalent to hitting and defense in "tool value", my question to you about it in the WAR capacity probably isn't a very good one. (and that's why i left WAR out of it this time)
BUT, since WAR is looking at replacement level value, wouldn't that overvalue skills or traits not normally associated with the position? for example a catcher that steals 20-30 bases. stealing 20 bases is by no means exceptional in the context of most baseball players, but compared to other catchers, it's astronomical.
a pitcher that hits 5-10 home runs a year would create more runs than a pitcher that doesn't, but the value in those 5-10 ab's should be miniscule when compared with the 800 or so hypothetical ab's where he is pitching.
WAR isn't looking at replacement value on each outcome or each skill. It's looking at the total number of runs the player produces or saves, and then comparing that number to what a replacement player produces or saves.
how do you measure how many runs are generated from a guy advancing from 1st to 2nd? historical trends?
I see your point about the batting average from a scouting perspective. However, this debate involves determining which of the two contributed more value to his team this season, irregardless of the extent of utilization of tools. Trout should be the MVP.
I agree with Jason that RBI and AVG aren't arbitrary, useless stats. But awarding Cabrera MVP points because Josh Hamilton failed to hit a couple more HRs ~is~ arbitary. (Not that that's what Jason was suggesting.) It can't be the case that Cabrera is more valuable just because his AVG, HR and RBI happened to lead the league. They are what they are. In a year with two historic performances that produced almost equal value at the plate, I give the slight edge to Trout for baserunning and defense.
You're right that RBI and AVG aren't useless stats. What is discouraging is the quote from the front office/scouting department person who said, "But acting like some WAR or WARP or whatever leader board is how the MVP ballot should line up is ludicrous.”
Ludicrous is a really strong term, and I haven't seen anyone saying that WARP should be the only metric taken into consideration. But as metrics go, it's considerably better RBI or AVG.
AS for those who wish Trout played a full season in the majors, well, he did league the majors in runs and, for what it's worth, stolen bases. Hey, speaking of which, since the two leagues play so many interleague games, why aren't the leaders combined too? If they were, no Trips for Miggy.
Wow, major typing problems today. That should be, "he did lead the majors in runs ..."
THUMBS UP!
On Baseball Reference, Cabrera is listed with a better range factor than Beltre for this season...you could have spend the 1 minute to look it up.
I think it's funny that you spent time critiquing someone who made a comment about RBIs and said nothing about the person who voted for Trout because he "changed the culture and attitude of an entire ML team". At least the RBI scout made an argument that you can have a discourse about.
I think the quotes are great and show that you can have a lot of valid and varied opinions about this topic.
I don't think it's a very useful analytical stat from the outside (or as an analytical stat from the inside).
But a player -- or coach -- thinks differently for a reason, I suppose. Reading the ex-players' quote, it reminds me of how Joe Morgan used to talk. The way a player should think to get optimal results on the field isn't necessarily how a GM should think.
The arguments about culture changing and carrying teams are both unquantifiable and incredibly important. We can't quantify everything (I don't think we should), and that's where scouting comes in to fill the gap. The insight about RBI's being about bat control is quite interesting and something I hadn't thought of before. There's no little skill involved in hitting, especially when cutting down one's swing to make contact, though Cabrera had all of 6 SF's. RBI by definition come down to chance, but it would also be interesting to see who executes in RBI chances (measuring contact rates, K rates) and if it lines up.
I'd flip a coin here, though I lean Trout. A Triple Crown's a remarkable accomplishment, too.
To an extent, it seems to me that talking about RsBI being about "bat control", or about somehow "performing better with runners on" is really the "clutch" argument under a different name, and "clutch" is something that can be measured in ways better than RsBI. I won't go so far as to say that RsBI are completely useless, but I'm still pretty convinced that the only thing that isn't measured better by another metric is "number of runners that scored on a hit or sacrifice by this particular player".
"The way a player should think to get optimal results on the field isn't necessarily how a GM should think."
As I coach and fan I really hate RBIs, but you make an outstanding point. I would never tell a player that. It makes sense that people value Cabrera higher because their experience comes from playing. That being said Trout brings more value.