DMN's Evan Grant votes for Michael Young as AL MVP

[waterytart]

deck, I'm in the "Pitchers have the Cy Young" camp. The guidelines specifically include pitchers, so I don't see where my opinion trumps the ballot.

I just don't have any way to measure "intangibles." And what's more, even if I included them in my theoretical evaluation, I don't think that they significantly contribute to a player's value enough to do anything other than break a tie. And I don't think there are ties.

If you had a vote, I think you'd be completely within your rights to ignore intangibles. It's the extrapolation--"Since I don't believe in intangibles, no one who does is allowed to consider them"--that I object to.

 

[Dick Whitman]

deck, I'm in the "Pitchers have the Cy Young" camp. The guidelines specifically include pitchers, so I don't see where my opinion trumps the ballot.

I just don't have any way to measure "intangibles." And what's more, even if I included them in my theoretical evaluation, I don't think that they significantly contribute to a player's value enough to do anything other than break a tie. And I don't think there are ties.

If you had a vote, I think you'd be completely within your rights to ignore intangibles. It's the extrapolation--"Since I don't believe in intangibles, no one who does is allowed to consider them"--that I object to.

They are within their rights to consider them. I just strongly dispute that there is any principled way of including them in their value measurements.

 

[waterytart]

There's quite a qualitative difference between saying someone is mistaken and saying they're unprincipled.

 

[Dick Whitman]

There's quite a qualitative difference between saying someone is mistaken and saying they're unprincipled.

I'm not saying that the person is "unprincipled" in the way you are taking it.

 

[lcjjdnh]

Who says I don't realize statistical analysis doesn't mean something significant? I do. And I consider a lot of stats, both basic and advanced, every day.

I was merely responding to your point about the "usage" of WAR in the paper.

I'm still waiting for you to give a reasonable explanation of what makes WAR the end-all, be-all stat that should determine the winners of these awards. This isn't some computer game. Real people play the games – flaws and all -- and real people vote on the awards, something that involves them making their best informed judgments. Sometimes these judgments may not agree with those made by others. That's the way it goes. People like Grant and Slusser watch these games for a living and do their best to bring solid coverage to their readers, most of whom don't give a flying flip about WAR.

But the computer jockeys sit on their couches at home and wage snarky Internet campaigns about how clueless the writers are. It's a joke, especially when someone gets on here and questions their journalistic integrity. I give credit to Evan and Susan for coming here and explaining how they come to their conclusions, whether I agree with all of them or not. Evan has done a good job of walking everyone through his vote as well as explaining what his most important job is – informing his readers about the Rangers.

No one says it's the be all end all. But your point about the flaws of humans is exactly why this sort of analysis matter. Writers, like players, are subject to human flaws. We all have cognitive biases that lead us to draw inaccurate conclusions because of the way our brains process and remember information. Statistical analysis--and, more important, the scientific method--can help minimize these fallibilities.

Statisticians want to analyze data to find out what information is material. Proponents of quality statistical analysis don't necessarily hate that people use their eyes to make judgments. They hate that people use their eyes to look at the wrong things. If a writer concludes a player it's important that a player is hitting well on Tuesday games played at night even though there is no statistical significance, statsheads wouldn't respect it more just because the writer had used numbers to draw that conclusion rather than his "eyes".

That said, statistics help us reliable analyze the frequency of past events, too. Statistics can also help ensure that our memory matches reality. Humans are inclined to remember certain events more vividly and create narratives where none exist. Statistical analysis can tell us if what we think we saw is actually true.

 

[lcjjdnh]

Evan,

I don't know why you bother. You have nothing to justify to anyone. Especially someone who believes your "meritless" vote calls your ethics into question.

Evidently, no one should vote for any player they regularly cover.

My post was not meant as attack on Evan. I meant to speak more abstractly about why a meritless vote could be troublesome.

That said, I find your argument that Evan "[has] nothing to justify to anyone" startling. Journalists routinely challenge the people they cover on the decisions they made. It's entirely appropriate for readers to demand answers from journalists to evaluate whether those people can/are providing accurate and insightful coverage.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

I think it's a shame that this went from the very pointed question about voting based exclusively on what you see with your own eyes, which yields an automatic regional bias, to the broader question of advanced metrics which has been beaten to death all over the internet, this site very much included.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Evan,

I don't know why you bother. You have nothing to justify to anyone. Especially someone who believes your "meritless" vote calls your ethics into question.

Evidently, no one should vote for any player they regularly cover.

My post was not meant as attack on Evan. I meant to speak more abstractly about why a meritless vote could be troublesome.

That said, I find your argument that Evan "[has] nothing to justify to anyone" startling. Journalists routinely challenge the people they cover on the decisions they made. It's entirely appropriate for readers to demand answers from journalists to evaluate whether those people can/are providing accurate and insightful coverage.

Evan answered. Repeatedly. And every answer by him or another reporter leads to another attack on that person's professionalism.

It's pretty clear by now that the only proof you'll accept that someone has looked at the numbers is if the ballot follows the WAR rankings to the spot.

 

[lcjjdnh]

Evan,

I don't know why you bother. You have nothing to justify to anyone. Especially someone who believes your "meritless" vote calls your ethics into question.

Evidently, no one should vote for any player they regularly cover.

My post was not meant as attack on Evan. I meant to speak more abstractly about why a meritless vote could be troublesome.

That said, I find your argument that Evan "[has] nothing to justify to anyone" startling. Journalists routinely challenge the people they cover on the decisions they made. It's entirely appropriate for readers to demand answers from journalists to evaluate whether those people can/are providing accurate and insightful coverage.

Evan answered. Repeatedly. And every answer by him or another reporter leads to another attack on that person's professionalism.

It's pretty clear by now that the only proof you'll accept that someone has looked at the numbers is if the ballot follows the WAR rankings to the spot.

I took Elliotte's comment to be about Evan's obligation to defend himself at all, not his obligation to defend himself further.

 

[Andy Friedlander]

Having read this thread I thank God again that I am not a baseball writer. As I have mentioned previously, they couldn't pay me enough to do that job.

Also, I have known Evan for years. I've worked with him, edited his copy and marveled/groaned at his ever-more-elaborate Rangers midseason analysis double-truck spreads. And I am more than happy to vouch for Evan's intensive research, baseball knowledge and, especially, integrity as a journalist and an MVP voter.

For whatever that's worth.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Was his integrity actually questioned? You can be biased about what you see on a day-to-day basis without that being an integrity question so much as a human nature one. He saw Michael Young contributing big hits. He didn't see, say, Miguel Cabrera doing the same.

Look at how the Heisman vote breaks down regionally every year.

 

[Azrael]

This (annual) thread makes another powerful (annual) argument against journalists voting for these awards and prizes.