It's that time of the year again. The MLB postseason is about to start, and all anyone in the media can seem to talk about is the awards, specifically the one at the end of this post. Yes, the awards themselves don't matter as much as you would believe from the buildup. However, the debates reveal a lot the state of adoption of modern metrics, and give us a lot of opportunities to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of various techniques, which I think is an important process as we move towards a better understanding of what makes teams win.
Since this is my blog, I'll list as many candidates as I like for each award, and not the number that appear on the actual award ballots. If you want more information on any of the stats listed, the Fangraphs library is a great place to start, or of course you can ask me.
First, a brief note on the A's
Before I get to all of that, I feel like I should touch briefly on my A's. They're in the playoffs for the first time since 2006, which I'm obviously quite excited about. One of the greatest parts of it is that they'll be on the national stage for the first time in a while. Thinking of this, I'm reminded of the famous last day of the regular season last year, when the Rays and Cardinals stormed back to clinch playoff spots as the Braves and Red Sox let them slip away. After I was done watching all of that excitement, I turned off my TV where the folks on Baseball Tonight were hyperventalating, and went to my desk. I flipped open my computer and watched the last inning of the A's final game against the Mariners. It was well after midnight and no other games were on and I was staring at my computer watching the A's play out the string (They won 2-0). The funny thing was how far removed it felt from the drama I had just witnessed.
The A's have definitely felt like a second-rate team for the past few years, partly because they've been a second-rate team. The only time the stadium is usually full is when a "real" team comes to town. That's why watching yesterday's game was so rewarding. Not only was it the center of the baseball universe, but the place was actually sold out, and was full of absolutely crazy people (in a good way). I'm excited to see the Coli with the tarp off next week. That should be wild, especially if they take 1 or 2 in Detroit.
Now onto the awards.
NL MVP
1. Andrew McCutchen
2. Buster Posey
3. Yadier Molina
4. Ryan Braun
5. Chase Headley
6. David Wright
Let's start with the toughest race first. You can make a really strong case for any of the top 4. Ryan Braun basically matched Miguel Cabrera's triple slash (.320/.392/.598), but with better defense. Buster Posey put up just as good of an offensive season as Braun, but from the most important position on the field. Yadier Molina wasn't quite as hot with the bat as Posey, but his defense might just be the best ever at the position. He also played nearly 200 more innings at catcher than Mr. Posey. In the end though, I went with McCutchen. His .320/.400/.554 is pretty much the same line as Trout's, and I tend to think that Pittsburgh's odd outfield makes his advanced defensive stats look worse than he actually is (-6.3 UZR, -5 DRS). Whoever wins, I can't really complain.
NL Cy Young
1. R.A. Dickey
2. Cliff Lee
3. Clayton Kershaw
4. Craig Kimbrel
This was a tough decision between the top 2. RA Dickey churned out the most innings while keeping his walk rate shockingly low for a knuckleballer (2.03 BB/9). Cliff Lee led the league in xFIP and SIERA (Medlen and Strasburg were better, but they fell short of qualifying), while posting a ridiculous league-leading 1.23 BB rate. Terrible run support and bad luck (he only had 6 wins) will probably doom him in the actual voting, but it won't here. Kershaw was just a touch behind those two, but followed up on his Cy Young season quite well. In the end, Dickey's edge in innings and ERA give him the nod. His low ERA may have been a little BABIP-fueled, but knuckleballers can actually sustain lower than average BABIPs, so we can probably trust his raw ERA figure more than we can for most pitchers.
NL Rookie
1. Bryce Harper
2. Wade Miley
This is a close race (both are hovering around 5 fWAR), so it comes down to age for me. Performing so well as such a young age is rare, and thus Bryce Harper has put up one of the best seasons ever for a teenager. His .270/.340/.477 batting line is well above average (wRC+ of 122), and his baserunning and defense at a plus position create the picture of a complete, immensely valuable player. As much media hype as there was surrounding his season, he did his best to live up to it. Don't be shocked when he has an MVP-caliber season next year.
AL Cy Young
1. Justin Verlander
2. David Price
3. Felix Hernandez
4. Fernando Rodney
Here are Verlander's last two seasons, side by side:
2011: 251 IP, 8.96 K/9, 2.04 BB/9, 0.86 HR/9, 2.40 ERA, 2.99 FIP, 3.12 xFIP, 2.99 SIERA, 7.0 fWAR
2012: 238.1 IP, 9.03 K/9, 2.27 BB/9, 0.72 HR/9, 2.64 ERA, 2.95 FIP, 3.32 xFIP, 3.26 SIERA, 6.8 fWAR
Last season, as you may remember, Verlander dominated the Cy Young and the MVP voting. This year, there is no talk of MVP and the Cy Young seems to be a relative toss-up. Looking at those stat lines, I'm not exaclty sure what's different. The 2011 line is slightly more impressive, with a few more innings, fewer walks, and a lower ERA. However, none of those differences are particularly huge - for all intents, Verlander has been the same pitcher this year.
Of course, I left off one famous stat which I think explains the whole difference. Last year, Verlander went 24-5, while this year he is 17-8. As far as we've progressed with Felix winning the Cy a couple of years ago with a 13-12 record, we still seem to be bogged down by the whole win-loss record. Oh well, baby steps.
Note: I typed this part the night before Jonah Keri published this column that lays out the same exact rationale for Mr. Verlander. So maybe I'm secretly Jonah Keri's ghostwriter.
AL Rookie
1. Mike Trout
Yeah, there were some other great rookie seasons, but let's not complicate this. Mike Trout dominated not only his fellow rookies, but all of baseball. Which brings me to....
AL MVP
1. Mike Trout
2. Miguel Cabrera
3. Adrian Beltre
4. Robinson Cano
I've really been flabbergasted by the widespread support for Cabrera this year. Mike Trout is full of all the grit, heart, intangibles and whatnot that sportswriters always seem to lionize, and is instead getting passed over by a one dimensional slugger (don't get me wrong though, it's a hell of a dimension). You don't even need advanced stats to make a case that Trout is running away with the award. Let's start by comparing their batting lines and going from there:
Trout: .324/.397/.561
Cabrera: .331/.394/.608
The perception is that Cabrera is far and away the better hitter, but those are basically the same line (except for a bit of an advantage in slugging for Cabrera, which is cancelled out by the fact that Comerica is a little more friendly to hitters than Angels Stadium). In fact, you can even make the argument that Trout was better with the bat if you consider context. So, the perceived advantage in Cabrera's offense doesn't really exist. Since those aspects of their value appear to "cancel out," all you're left with is Trout's massive advantage in defensive and baserunning value. I don't really see how you can make an honest argument that Cabrera is more valuable than Trout. Thus, I will break down the most ridiculous arguments I have seen:
1. Cabrera led his team to the playoffs and Trout didn't.
First, I think Verlander and Jackson and Scherzer and Prince might have had something to do with the Tigers making the playoffs as well. Ascribing all of the Tigers' success to Cabrera is just silly. Second, the Angels actually won one more game than the Tigers. You can't argue team success, and then reward the player on the less successful team. Some teams just have easier roads to the playoffs. Of course, I would argue that team success should be a minimal consideration towards MVP voting, but that doesn't even matter in this particular example.
2. Cabrera's hot September led the Tigers to surge into the playoffs, while Trout cooled off.
First, yes, Cabrera was better in September. But Trout was better in all those other months, and those games counted exactly the same as the games in September. Second, the biggest reason that the Tigers surged into the playoffs was that the White Sox collapsed. Consider the following September/October records:
Tigers: 18-13
White Sox: 13-18
Athletics: 20-11
Rangers: 15-16
Angels: 19-11
So, the Angels also had a better September record than the Tigers, but they couldn't quite catch up to the A's and Rangers. If only those teams would have done what the White Sox did, then the Angels would be in the playoffs as a wildcard.
3. Cabrera moved to 3B to make room for Prince Fielder, so he should get credit for that, too.
This one is easy. The Angels also added a high-priced 1B this year, but luckily, Trout already played a different position. If you reward Cabrera for his switch, then you're punishing Trout for already playing a different position in the first place. WAR and such give Cabrera the positional adjustment he deserves for playing a more difficult position. Let's not double that because his owner had deep pockets.
Furthermore, if you like guys who switch positions, where has the support been for Ben Zobrist? He played at least 40 games each at SS, 2B, and RF this year. I do think current implementations of WAR may understate the value of players who are flexible enough to move around as the team needs them to (same goes for platooning). But that wouldn't apply to Cabrera this year, as he played just two games at 1B.
4. Cabrera had the triple crown, which is so rare that it should be rewarded.
Two can play at this game. Mike Trout had a 30 HR, 40 SB, 125 run season. That "triple crown" of sorts is so rare that no one has done it before. I don't think this is a legitimate argument for Trout or anything, but it shows the silliness of awarding the MVP based on the triple crown. If you just pick three stats (all of which are positively correlated), then you're missing out on a lot.
5. Cabrera had a career year, and has had a great career...he's earned it.
First of all, his offensive line this year is basically the same as the previous two years. Yes, he won the triple crown this year, but fundamentally he was the same player this year as he has been in the past. He was just a little luckier this year such that the triple crown was able to work out (for example, Jose Bautista hit more homers than Cabrera the last two years, but missed most of this year with injury). Secondly, who cares that Mike Trout was a rookie? It's most valuable player. Trout was the most valuable player. Sometimes it's just that easy.
No comments:
Post a Comment