here's what's in store for ichiro...

[CarltonBanks]

I have no idea how I can disagree sooooo much with someone about politics and completely agree with that same person when it comes to sports arguments. Mark McGwire, if you stick to sports you will be my favorite poster. The politics is where you slip up

 

[dooley_womack1]

A corollary to Bill James' Ruth-Lemke argument: Any system that posits that Ichiro as a Hall of Famer is not a sure proposition has some 'splaining to do. I know that's not your argument, Mac, but it sure seems to be that of "JonnyD".

And I'm not sure it's a corollary or not if a 130-120 pitcher makes the Hall of Fame. And building a team, I would take Pujols over Votto in a second, regardless of who won the MVP. I'm not questioning your arguments, Mac (and I do wish they would call it Player of the Year and not Most Valuable Player). I do think part of the vote was many people saying it was someone else's turn to win. I doubt most voters used the stat you mentioned as their determiner.

The voters are changing Dooley and I would bet you they did use those stats.

Not as the be-all and end-all. There's much more to a player than that.

 

[rmanfredi]

But who would have won if Votto and Pujols had a staredown?!?</crossthread>

 

[JC]

A corollary to Bill James' Ruth-Lemke argument: Any system that posits that Ichiro as a Hall of Famer is not a sure proposition has some 'splaining to do. I know that's not your argument, Mac, but it sure seems to be that of "JonnyD".

And I'm not sure it's a corollary or not if a 130-120 pitcher makes the Hall of Fame. And building a team, I would take Pujols over Votto in a second, regardless of who won the MVP. I'm not questioning your arguments, Mac (and I do wish they would call it Player of the Year and not Most Valuable Player). I do think part of the vote was many people saying it was someone else's turn to win. I doubt most voters used the stat you mentioned as their determiner.

The voters are changing Dooley and I would bet you they did use those stats.

Not as the be-all and end-all. There's much more to a player than that.

It's not the be all end all but it is quite significant. What would be your criteria in voting?

 

[Mark McGwire]

A corollary to Bill James' Ruth-Lemke argument: Any system that posits that Ichiro as a Hall of Famer is not a sure proposition has some 'splaining to do. I know that's not your argument, Mac, but it sure seems to be that of "JonnyD".

And I'm not sure it's a corollary or not if a 130-120 pitcher makes the Hall of Fame. And building a team, I would take Pujols over Votto in a second, regardless of who won the MVP. I'm not questioning your arguments, Mac (and I do wish they would call it Player of the Year and not Most Valuable Player). I do think part of the vote was many people saying it was someone else's turn to win. I doubt most voters used the stat you mentioned as their determiner.

Ichiro's a no-doubt HOFer; I'd take Pujols, too, based on his having done it more often; 10 seasons exactly like Felix had last year should make a pitcher a lock for the HOF.

 

[LongTimeListener]

So let me get this straight.

You're down on VORP, and advanced metrics in general, but you're gonna use OPS+? You think Pujols might have been more valuable, and you're going to use the Reds scoring more runs as proof of that?

And so I am clear, any expression that there is, in fact, a correct answer to a question is absolutism?

Then, yes, I am guilty of absolutism. So is any other functioning human with an intact cerebral cortex, but I am guilty.

If that's how you define absolutism, and absolutism is what offends you about people looking to measure things, might I suggest that the problem lies with you and your definition of absolutism. There can be no answering any questions if we are to abide by the rules you propose by inference. The MVP award is a zero-sum proposition. Someone wins. There can be multiple arguments for multiple players. But people are not bound to treat those arguments with equal weight. I could argue that Pablo Sandoval was the most valuable, because he had a cool nickname. What I cannot do is demand you weigh that equally with an argument for Votto, or even an argument for Pujols.

I humbly submit the following:

Votto won the slash stat triple crown. Albert Pujols was a close second, but he WAS second, in BA/OBP/SLG. Controlling for both of them playing the same position, above average, and neither having any particular speed, etc, I think it's the only reasonable conclusion that Votto was the National league's most valuable player last season.
He got 31 of 32 votes. And won the award.
Since you will not argue that this was not the correct answer, I think I was right in asserting that it was the correct answer. And consider the matter closed.
Now, if you would like to make a case that I am wrong, the voters were wrong, or that the stat folks are wrong, I'd be interested in reading it.

In other words, stop letting your fee-fee get hurt by the WAY people make their case, and make a different case, if you genuinely think there's a case to be made. People argue their opinions because they believe them to be correct, and there are few things so tiresome as someone who never ventures an opinion but whines that other people are too "absolutist".

Now I've gotten too far into this to quit, I suppose, but here goes. First off, yes, I think Pujols "might" have been more valuable. That is to me the biggest thing that has been lost in the sabermetric revolution, the word "might," the shade of gray in all of this. But:

--Pujols hit five more home runs than Votto, with a somewhat better ratio (one per 16.7 PAs to one per 17.5).
--Their doubles per AB were dead even and their totals were close (Pujols 39, Votto 36).
--Votto plays his home games in a much more hitter-friendly park. As close as their numbers were, I can make a reasonable inference that Pujols might have won ever so slightly if their roles were reversed.
--Intentional walks: Pujols 38, Votto 8. You tell me who is considered the better and more valuable player by the league.

Honestly, I thought it was a coin flip last year, but the more I look at it the more I think Pujols should have won it. That's where my vote would have gone, anyway. However, it is within the range of opinion and that is where we differ, that I don't consider you wrong or not a "functioning human with an intact cerebral cortex" because you would vote for Votto.

You are taking the vote as confirmation of the correct answer. That is the real silliness here. Was Karl Malone a better or more valuable player than Michael Jordan in 1997? Or did the voters just decide to freshen it up a bit?For further historical reference, I will bold the winner of the 2000 National League MVP Award.

Barry Bonds .306/.440/.688 49 106
Jeff Kent .334/.424/.596 33 125

To wind this back to what started the whole thing, I don't think these numbers in and of themselves establish whether Votto or Pujols was "better" or "more valuable," just as I don't think the numbers establish whether Ichiro has had a better career than Jeter.

 

[Mark McGwire]

My questions:

1. If Pujols had five more homers and three more doubles, why was his slugging percentage lower? What are you leaving out?
2. Is the park factor difference between new Busch and Citizen's Bank great enough to flip the difference? (OPS_ might suggest that it is, in fact. But that's a contrived stat.)
3. Intentional walks are a non-starter. They're more about who is hitting behind the player in question than anything else. Barry Bonds is the only player I have ever seen get walked out of sheer fear.
4. You do realize that the point I made was that everyone with a brain thinks, analyzes, forms opinions and believes those opinions to be correct, do you not? I wasn't calling you or anyone else brainless.
5. A lot has changed since 2000, wouldn't you agree? It was more recently than that that Johan Santana lost the Cy Young to Bartolo Colon on the basis of win total. That wouldn't happen if the vote happened tomorrow, as evidenced by... Felix Hernandez easily winning the AL Cy Young last season. Which brings me to...
6. I think you're wrong. I think some people probably did want to give it to someone else, and some voted on the playoff garbage. But I think every year those awards get decided more by an objective look at the numbers. And I think that's a very good thing.

I'll even stipulate that the one vote for Pujols might have been based on the park-factor argument you're making. I, personally, am not sold on the ability to quantify and even up for home parks, but I am glad to see you out ahead of the curve.

 

[LongTimeListener]

My questions:

1. If Pujols had five more homers and three more doubles, why was his slugging percentage lower? What are you leaving out?
2. Is the park factor difference between new Busch and Citizen's Bank great enough to flip the difference? (OPS_ might suggest that it is, in fact. But that's a contrived stat.)
3. Intentional walks are a non-starter. They're more about who is hitting behind the player in question than anything else. Barry Bonds is the only player I have ever seen get walked out of sheer fear.
4. You do realize that the point I made was that everyone with a brain thinks, analyzes, forms opinions and believes those opinions to be correct, do you not? I wasn't calling you or anyone else brainless.
5. A lot has changed since 2000, wouldn't you agree? It was more recently than that that Johan Santana lost the Cy Young to Bartolo Colon on the basis of win total. That wouldn't happen if the vote happened tomorrow, as evidenced by... Felix Hernandez easily winning the AL Cy Young last season. Which brings me to...
6. I think you're wrong. I think some people probably did want to give it to someone else, and some voted on the playoff garbage. But I think every year those awards get decided more by an objective look at the numbers. And I think that's a very good thing.

I'll even stipulate that the one vote for Pujols might have been based on the park-factor argument you're making. I, personally, am not sold on the ability to quantify and even up for home parks, but I am glad to see you out ahead of the curve.

1. Votto had a higher rate of singles; also Pujols had 52 more PAs/42 more ABs, which is why I looked at the rate. But, want to know how close this was? Votto had two triples and Pujols had one. If those numbers are reversed, Pujols beats him in SLG. I guess that's the advantage of being 26 instead of however old Pujols is.

2. I don't know the stat either, but since OPS+ factors in ballpark, I agree there must be a decent-sized difference.

3. IBBs are a measure of who's hitting behind you, but all hitting is that. Don't you think Pujols would have benefited from Rolen and Bruce protecting him instead of the Cardinals' rotating cast of characters?

4. You were saying I didn't have a functioning brain because I didn't believe there is a definitive answer to "who was better in 2010, Joey Votto or Albert Pujols?" Or, for that matter, "who has had the better career, Ichiro or Derek Jeter?" I don't happen to believe these numbers have nearly the power you grant them.

5. Sure, a lot has changed since 2000. On the other hand, Jimmy Rollins won the MVP award in 2007 despite an OPS that was 150 points lower than Matt Holliday's. These numbers are being used, but not to the level you suggest.

6. Agree to disagree.

 

[MrHavercamp]

My questions:

1. If Pujols had five more homers and three more doubles, why was his slugging percentage lower? What are you leaving out?
2. Is the park factor difference between new Busch and Citizen's Bank great enough to flip the difference? (OPS_ might suggest that it is, in fact. But that's a contrived stat.)
3. Intentional walks are a non-starter. They're more about who is hitting behind the player in question than anything else. Barry Bonds is the only player I have ever seen get walked out of sheer fear.
4. You do realize that the point I made was that everyone with a brain thinks, analyzes, forms opinions and believes those opinions to be correct, do you not? I wasn't calling you or anyone else brainless.
5. A lot has changed since 2000, wouldn't you agree? It was more recently than that that Johan Santana lost the Cy Young to Bartolo Colon on the basis of win total. That wouldn't happen if the vote happened tomorrow, as evidenced by... Felix Hernandez easily winning the AL Cy Young last season. Which brings me to...
6. I think you're wrong. I think some people probably did want to give it to someone else, and some voted on the playoff garbage. But I think every year those awards get decided more by an objective look at the numbers. And I think that's a very good thing.

I'll even stipulate that the one vote for Pujols might have been based on the park-factor argument you're making. I, personally, am not sold on the ability to quantify and even up for home parks, but I am glad to see you out ahead of the curve.

You dismiss what you call "the playoff garbage," but if the Cardinals win the division and the Reds stay home, I don't believe that 31 of 32 for Votto holds. I'd guess that Pujols edges him out. Not saying that's right or wrong, but don't believe it can be easily dismissed. I'm not convinced the slash Triple Crown was some sort of deciding factor. Both players are clearly two of the best hitters in the game, and the word "valuable" in the award often means the writers look to team results as the decider.

 

[Mark McGwire]

Pujols scored more runs despite getting on base at a slighter lower clip, so no, not really, on the lineup thing.

I think we mainly have a disagreement in terms. And/or approach. But, to be clear, I ddn't say you were brainless -- nor do I think that.

As to the last two, we'll just agree to disagree, I think. We both know it's moving that way, and we can't quantify how much.

And, hey, maybe in the near future some sabr-dork somewhere will crack how to precisely quantify the difference betwen a hitter's park and a really good hitter's park, and we can come back to it.

 

[Freelance Hack]

So let me get this straight.

You're down on VORP, and advanced metrics in general, but you're gonna use OPS+? You think Pujols might have been more valuable, and you're going to use the Reds scoring more runs as proof of that?

And so I am clear, any expression that there is, in fact, a correct answer to a question is absolutism?

Then, yes, I am guilty of absolutism. So is any other functioning human with an intact cerebral cortex, but I am guilty.

If that's how you define absolutism, and absolutism is what offends you about people looking to measure things, might I suggest that the problem lies with you and your definition of absolutism. There can be no answering any questions if we are to abide by the rules you propose by inference. The MVP award is a zero-sum proposition. Someone wins. There can be multiple arguments for multiple players. But people are not bound to treat those arguments with equal weight. I could argue that Pablo Sandoval was the most valuable, because he had a cool nickname. What I cannot do is demand you weigh that equally with an argument for Votto, or even an argument for Pujols.

I humbly submit the following:

Votto won the slash stat triple crown. Albert Pujols was a close second, but he WAS second, in BA/OBP/SLG. Controlling for both of them playing the same position, above average, and neither having any particular speed, etc, I think it's the only reasonable conclusion that Votto was the National league's most valuable player last season.
He got 31 of 32 votes. And won the award.
Since you will not argue that this was not the correct answer, I think I was right in asserting that it was the correct answer. And consider the matter closed.
Now, if you would like to make a case that I am wrong, the voters were wrong, or that the stat folks are wrong, I'd be interested in reading it.

In other words, stop letting your fee-fee get hurt by the WAY people make their case, and make a different case, if you genuinely think there's a case to be made. People argue their opinions because they believe them to be correct, and there are few things so tiresome as someone who never ventures an opinion but whines that other people are too "absolutist".

Now I've gotten too far into this to quit, I suppose, but here goes. First off, yes, I think Pujols "might" have been more valuable. That is to me the biggest thing that has been lost in the sabermetric revolution, the word "might," the shade of gray in all of this. But:

--Pujols hit five more home runs than Votto, with a somewhat better ratio (one per 16.7 PAs to one per 17.5).
--Their doubles per AB were dead even and their totals were close (Pujols 39, Votto 36).
--Votto plays his home games in a much more hitter-friendly park. As close as their numbers were, I can make a reasonable inference that Pujols might have won ever so slightly if their roles were reversed.

I stopped reading after that last line.

Votto's 2010 home/road splits

Home: 74 G (73 GS) 18 HR, 56 RBI, .297 AVG, .394 OBP, .556 SLG
Away: 76 G (73 GS) 19, 57, .349, .452, .613

Great American Ball Park hitter factor for 2010 -- 98 (100 or more is hitter friendly)

Silly me, I thought the reason why Votto won the MVP was that the Reds won the NL Central.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Interesting Votto stats ... ESPN.com ballpark factor says in 2010, Cincinnati was 1.007 and St. Louis was .937.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor/_/year/2010

Pujols hit 25 of his 42 HRs on the road.