But you also must realize that this analysis blows your Granderson vs Bautista argument right out of the water. [/quote]
How so?
Are you talking about your case for Granderson based on RBI/RS? If so I don’t see how.
[/quote]
Objective statistical analysis vs Subjective opinions of value.
Its exactly like the scene in Moneyball where the old timer scouts are babbling about which prospects look good and have tools and all that. And then Beane asks for numbers. Wants the proof, not the ‘what ifs’.
You cant agree with those charts and, at the same time, say that grandersons RBI + Runs total is not more valuable than Bautistas.
Im actually surprised you posted that because ‘value’ is a subjective term. It leaves room for your argument for Bautista.
How about the guy that won the AL batting title hitting .344 while hitting 30 hr and driving in over 100. No way Verlander was more valuable than Miguel Cabrera.
Tigers lost in the ALCS to the Rangers playing in Texas game 6. While they were battling for home feild advantage with Texas Verlander contributed to ZERO wins over their last ten games while Cabrera was out there every day.
But you also must realize that this analysis blows your Granderson vs Bautista argument right out of the water. [/quote]
How so?
Are you talking about your case for Granderson based on RBI/RS? If so I don’t see how.
[/quote]
Objective statistical analysis vs Subjective opinions of value.
Its exactly like the scene in Moneyball where the old timer scouts are babbling about which prospects look good and have tools and all that. And then Beane asks for numbers. Wants the proof, not the ‘what ifs’.
You cant agree with those charts and, at the same time, say that grandersons RBI + Runs total is not more valuable than Bautistas.
Im actually surprised you posted that because ‘value’ is a subjective term. It leaves room for your argument for Bautista. [/quote]
I don’t think we are seeing eye to eye on what the charts are representing.
The first 3 charts tell me the BBWAA irrationally assesses the value of a player based on external factors such as his surrounding teammates and whether the team makes the playoffs.
In contrast, Sabermetricians isolate a players value regardless of what those do around him as indicated by the bottom chart.’
Edit: The only rationale way to assess value is through statistical analysis.
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
How about the guy that won the AL batting title hitting .344 while hitting 30 hr and driving in over 100. No way Verlander was more valuable than Miguel Cabrera.
Tigers lost in the ALCS to the Rangers playing in Texas game 6. While they were battling for home feild advantage with Texas Verlander contributed to ZERO wins over their last ten games while Cabrera was out there every day. [/quote]
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
How about the guy that won the AL batting title hitting .344 while hitting 30 hr and driving in over 100. No way Verlander was more valuable than Miguel Cabrera.
Tigers lost in the ALCS to the Rangers playing in Texas game 6. While they were battling for home feild advantage with Texas Verlander contributed to ZERO wins over their last ten games while Cabrera was out there every day. [/quote]
MVP voting takes place before the playoffs start.
But I agree on Cabrera.[/quote]
Ofcoarse, I’m just saying the last ten games of the regular season Verlander didnt do shit and they missed home field advantage by one game. I am just suprised how little press Cabrera got from any baseball news media. For some reason Ellsbury got more MVP press than Cabrera I don’t know why.
EDIT: just looked at the ballot and saw that ellsbury came in second and Cabrera came in fifth! unbeleivable for the guy that won the batting title and led his team to the playoffs.
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
How about the guy that won the AL batting title hitting .344 while hitting 30 hr and driving in over 100. No way Verlander was more valuable than Miguel Cabrera.
Tigers lost in the ALCS to the Rangers playing in Texas game 6. While they were battling for home feild advantage with Texas Verlander contributed to ZERO wins over their last ten games while Cabrera was out there every day. [/quote]
MVP voting takes place before the playoffs start.
But I agree on Cabrera.[/quote]
Ofcoarse, I’m just saying the last ten games of the regular season Verlander didnt do shit and they missed home field advantage by one game. I am just suprised how little press Cabrera got from any baseball news media. For some reason Ellsbury got more MVP press than Cabrera I don’t know why.
EDIT: just looked at the ballot and saw that ellsbury came in second and Cabrera came in fifth! unbeleivable for the guy that won the batting title and led his team to the playoffs. [/quote]
Cabrera is so consistent that it hurts his case.
He does the same thing every year. Has MVP numbers year in year out. THe problem is that theres always someone who has a monster year that slightly overshadows him. I agree he should have been ahead of verlander.
The first 3 charts tell me the BBWAA irrationally assesses the value of a player based on external factors such as his surrounding teammates and whether the team makes the playoffs.
[/quote]
Exactly. These two things are precisely what you held against Granderson. And I’m saying ‘you’ to represent the handful of guys who feels that a strong supporting cast of players DIMINISHES a player’s value.
If you want to argue that batting average is more important than RBI/RUNS go for it. Youd be wrong, but it’s a coherent argument. Arguing significance of a supporting cast is silly though, as you now seem to concede. And the reason why it’s silly is because theyre two sides of the same coin, almost.
A strong supporting cast of teammates devalues a player to some people. A playoff berth improves value to some people. BUT a strong supporting cast gives any individual player a better chance to make the playoffs. It’s a bullshit way for a person to use the same ‘fact’ to support their stance in either direction. It’s a ‘tail that wags the dog type of thing’.
The first 3 charts tell me the BBWAA irrationally assesses the value of a player based on external factors such as his surrounding teammates and whether the team makes the playoffs.
[/quote]
Exactly. These two things are precisely what you held against Granderson. And I’m saying ‘you’ to represent the handful of guys who feels that a strong supporting cast of players DIMINISHES a player’s value.
If you want to argue that batting average is more important than RBI/RUNS go for it. Youd be wrong, but it’s a coherent argument. Arguing significance of a supporting cast is silly though, as you now seem to concede. And the reason why it’s silly is because theyre two sides of the same coin, almost.
A strong supporting cast of teammates devalues a player to some people. A playoff berth improves value to some people. BUT a strong supporting cast gives any individual player a better chance to make the playoffs. It’s a bullshit way for a person to use the same ‘fact’ to support their stance in either direction. It’s a ‘tail that wags the dog type of thing’. [/quote]
I wasn’t saying good teammates should diminish a player’s value, but one should avoid crediting a player with his teammates success. Very different.
Granderson shouldn’t receive credit for someone getting on base in front of him.
Granderson shouldn’t receive credit for someone hitting a home run while he’s on base.
That’s why I brought up the rates at which RBI are earned w/RISP. When I did that all 3 players we compared came out even.
Edit: Focus on stats that do not require your teammates to produce. Otherwise you’re analyzing what the player and the teammates around him did, instead of him alone
I’m curious what someone who has knowledge of hGH blood testing thinks about that new provision. I’ve heard it can be hard to test for and I can believe that given the nature of GH spikes and valleys… but I don’t want to offer an opinion before someone who knows more about it weighs in. Specifically I have no idea what exogenous GH or ghrp does to IGF.
He says they will test “by proxy” which I assumed means IGF, since that is how growth hormone is typically checked. However, I only know about routine bloodwork, I don’t know if there are other methods used when trying to “catch” someone using it (or ghrp) exogenously for performance-enhancing purposes. Hell, I don’t even know if ghrp is strong enough to use in that way… this is not in a realm of topics I am knowledgeable about.
Cliffs Notes: I’m curious if this is a waste of time - is there any real way to reliably test for this, without just hoping you get lucky with the test timing? The CBA says there is one test at season’s start and randoms throughout the year when they have “reasonable cause”, whatever the hell that means.
The cardinals deserved to lose Pujols. Their best offer to the best player of our generation and an iconic figure in their franchise was to make him the 4th highest played player at his position. That’s just unacceptable. Same with the Rangers losing C.J. Marlins were supposedly ofeerring him double what the Rangers were. I’m not upset C.J. is gone though.
Teixera, Howard, and Gonzalez would make more per year than the contract the Cardinals offered Pujols I belive. Either way The Angels gave him 60 mil more than the Cardinals making him the highest paid at his position deservedly and the second highest paid in the game next to a-rod. The Cards just did not come close to the Angels offer. I don’t blame Pujols for leaving.
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Teixera, Howard, and Gonzalez would make more per year than the contract the Cardinals offered Pujols I belive. Either way The Angels gave him 60 mil more than the Cardinals making him the highest paid at his position deservedly and the second highest paid in the game next to a-rod. The Cards just did not come close to the Angels offer. I don’t blame Pujols for leaving.[/quote]
I don’t blame him either, but I don’t consider the Cards offer unacceptable. Cards were better off passing rather than matching the Angels obscene offer.
There is little chance he will live up to 9years/200m let alone what the Angels gave him - 10 years/254m.
He’ll be 32 in January and we’ve already seen regression in his game over the last 2 years.