2012 MLB Regular Season Running Thread

OK, nm, I can buy that. My counter is of course that Cabrera was substantially better when it mattered most, but as demonstrated, there is division on the very idea that some parts of the season matter more.

 

Defense was not valued. At least not by the person and organization that brought advanced metrics to the masses.

 

Trout also spent part of the year in the minors.

Cabrera has played in 159 of 160 of the Tigers' games to this point. That should also be taken into consideration.

 

Yes, each game is 1 out of 162. However, the level of pressure is higher in the games down the stretch, meaning production when the pressure is higher is more impressive, or at least it is to me. Not trying to argue for one guy or against another. Just throwing my two cents out there.

 

Yeah, that's just not true. That's not even looking at Moneyball as a proxy for the entirety of sabermetrics. That's pretending that a parody of Moneyball is a proxy for the entirety of sabermetrics.

The point of Moneyball wasn't that certain things had value and other things didn't. It's that the market wasn't efficiently valuing one specific thing and it (along with some pre-existing pitchers) allowed a team to win on the cheap.

By the time that book came out, the teams most involved in statistical analysis were devoting most of their resources on trying to crack the code on defense, which was seen as fertile ground to find the next market inefficiency after everyone caught up on OBP. And we're several generations past that now.

 

I thought that was awesome too.

 

The Angels haven't been battling for a playoff spot?

Fine, you want to use team success than Trouts wins there since his team has a better record than the Tigers. It's not Trouts fault that Cabrera plays in a dog division.

 

Trout should win and he'd have my (non-existent) vote.

It's not the end of the fucking world if Cabrera wins.

 

Well, I watched several years of Terrence Long in center field and Miguel Tejada at shortstop, and many defensive (and base running and other) breakdowns that cost the A's close playoff games.

They did not care about defense.

 

You are intentionally avoiding the point.

In imaginary valueland, let's say they decide defense is worth $5 and offense is worth $5, but on the market defense costs $5 and offense costs $3. Being a small-market team, they need bang for their buck and load up on offense.

Did they not value defense, or did they simply decide they couldn't afford it on the current market?

 

"Pressure" is mostly an invention of fans, IMO, especially in the context of this discussion.

Teams want to win in April and May. Teams want to win in August and September.

A team that starts the season on a 100-game winning streak, and ends with a 62-game skid is just as much in the playoffs as a team that takes the usual path to 100 victories.

 

To be fair, I actually agree with you that performance down the stretch should mean more. A month ago I thought Trout was the runaway winner. I think I'm just not putting as much value on it as you are.