It seems obvious that Pujols is the better performer, but it does not seem so obvious to some why they have a lesser record than the Phillies.
One poster a long way up probably said it best in the amount of blown saves the Cardinals have had, compared to near perfection from Lidge on the Phillies. That performance intself is why the records between the two teams are not reversed. It has nothing to do with Howard doing better than Pujols(which he hasn't done better).
Sorry to TOmGShotput for intruding on a well written post. Please read the post above mine if you don't normally read the previous posts.
<< <i>Why Dallas? because it is a team sport and each player must share in the blame. Thus MY OPINION of 1/25th of the blame >>
Just so we're clear, you are saying that Babe Ruth, even if he hits 500 home runs in a season and wins 30 games on the mound, deserves 1/25th of the blame for his team's losing record. That's not a question, just summarizing what you are saying.
<< <i>For the umpteenth time, Howard is leading the Majors in HR's and RBI's is the reason he/i think he will win it. (ought to win it) my opinion only. >>
So, again not a question just a summary, you are saying that players who play in smaller ballparks OUGHT to have an advantage in the MVP voting.
Since these opinions make sense to you and not to me, I can see why we're not getting anywhere.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
"Also, the runs produced percentages seems completely contrived. I am guessing you used the formula RBI+R-HR/team runs. In which case the Phillies "produced" 160% of their total runs?????" --------------------------------------------------------------
160% ??? Howard = 93 +133 - 44, gives 182, then divide by the Phils total runs of 733, resultant = 24.8 %
It is really interesting, how some praise posters for responses that agree with one's views, or berate, usually with a personal tone, those who dare to disagree. We all have different values, different frames of reference, and diffrent opinions, it is often more interesting to see alternate views on things which have no exact formula, like the MVP award, or the "Best" movie of the year, or HOF membership.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Everyone has different values and frames of references...you are correct. But isn't information from somebody with a stronger frame of reference a little more valuable?
With all the stuff I post, it is already solid backed 100 times over. The information is all there. Some don't know how to use it or understand it, and some just don't care and are lazy, and simply prefer to use methods that have been shown to be EXTREMELY faulty, over, and over and over.
Laziness from a fan is understandable. Laziness from a fan who then engages in a debate with somebody who has not been lazy is folly. Laziness from a sporstwriter choosing an MVP or HOF nominee is downright unacceptable!! This is where Dallas and I are coming from most!
You guys are darn right that writers may very well pick a Howard or Juan Gonzalez, but with all the solid information there, they should be embarrassed when defending their position. They don't have a strong position, and that is the bottom line.
The continued use of Howard's 130 RBI without even the bother of looking one step deeper on them is pure laziness. The continued use of Howard's 130 RBI AFTER I DID THE HOMEWORK and looked one steep deeper for them, is just dumb. That use isn't debatable.
Grote's MVP theory is debatable, and I can't refute that like I can the RBI total. In that case I completely disagree with him, and shown why(Dallas has shown better), but in the end, that is still open for interpretation.
I was wrong, 733 + 702 - 196 / 733 = 169%, so yes, the Phillies "produced" 169% of their runs, using the same exact formula you used
It is true that Howard was involved in his teams runs via an RBI or run scored more often than Pujols. But you still refuse to account for the fact that it is very possible to help your team score a run without actually being credited with an RBI or a run scored, Pujols easily exceeds Howard. Only when you account for that can you really know how much of an impact Howard had compared to Pujols
Every time Pat Burrell (or whomever the number five hitter is) gets a hit, it is much likely to lead to a run and lead to more runs, if Howard had reached base; it is much more likely to lead to zero or fewer runs every time Howard makes an out. And Howard makes an aweful lot of outs
I agree completely looking at things differently is ofen much more interesting. For that to be true the different view needs to look at the entire story, not draw conclusions from such a small piece of the picture
ust so we're clear, you are saying that Babe Ruth, even if he hits 500 home runs in a season and wins 30 games on the mound, deserves 1/25th of the blame for his team's losing record. That's not a question, just summarizing what you are saying.
So, again not a question just a summary, you are saying that players who play in smaller ballparks OUGHT to have an advantage in the MVP voting.
I do not ever recall mentioning Babe Ruth. I at the time was simply saying that a player COULD be assigned 1/25th of the blame if his team did not make the playoffs.
No I never said that either. (smaller Ballparks) In fact I never made any such mention.
I simply said this and only this. The reason I think Howard will win the MVP is because he is leading the league in HR's and RBI's.
Are we now clear as to what I said? And how I meant what I said? I hope so.
<< <i>I do not ever recall mentioning Babe Ruth. I at the time was simply saying that a player COULD be assigned 1/25th of the blame if his team did not make the playoffs. >>
No, but I did, and in a context applicable to Howard. You said "Thus MY OPINION of 1/25th of the blame" - nothing about "could". You said that in your opinion every player on a losing team deserves 1/25 of the blame - every player includes Ruth and his 500 HR.
<< <i>No I never said that either. (smaller Ballparks) In fact I never made any such mention.
I simply said this and only this. The reason I think Howard will win the MVP is because he is leading the league in HR's and RBI's. >>
>>
But the HR and RBI leaders usually come from teams that play in smaller than average parks. Saying that the HR and RBI leader OUGHT to have an advantage in the MVP voting IS saying that players in smaller parks ought to have an advantage. And you didn't just say that Howard "will" win the MVP for those reasons, you said he "ought" to win for those reasons.
And I realize that we are both beating dead horses at this point. At the end of the day, what I am finding most frustrating is that when skinpinch and I try to advance reasons why Howard is not the most deserving candidate for the MVP and provide statistics to back it up, we are told that there is no definition for the MVP and the stats don't mean anything. But then when anyone makes a case for Howard, they point to his being on a winning team or that he is leading in HR and RBI - which are just different definitions and by the logic used against us shouldn't mean anything either. I think every single person posting to this thread agrees that it is likely that Howard will win the MVP - there is no debate on that point. The debate is whether he ought to win it, and the inconsistency of the pro-Howard arguments is frustrating. In my opinion.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Jaxxr, LoL, "All" is a strong word for me to use...occasionally I go further than what is already shown to dig a little deeper, ala in the Bill Mazeroski defense. I have been on record saying many times that defensive measures are not as accurate, and I don't think there is an analyst that would say otherwise. Defensive position value is also not concrete. I say that all the time. That Mazeroski thread is a good one...bump it to the top and you get all the info you need.
The good offensive measurements for baseball hitters are about 98-99% on the point, that is the jist of my "All" comment. The play by play and situation data and run value of all the hitting events are spot on, and leave no room, or need for just a basic RBI total. The mystery is erased on hitting value.
Cal Ripken MVP...you read my mind. I was going to update that study last week! I will say it again, common OPS or Batter Runs, without looking at men on situations, does not tell the whole story! I used to argue for this against some of the leading Sabermatricians, and finally they are starting to use it. When you look at the Men on Hitting, and the High Leverage Hitting, Murray was the more valuable(better) player between the two, even considering Ripken's status as a SS.
I already posted above that MVP's are left to interpretation, but the criteria used most commonly(like Grote's) has major flaws.
Are you saying the the only players that win HR crowns and RBI crowns play in small parks?
Are you sure about that? You mean to tell me that over the past 108 years not once did a player that played in a medium or larger size park win the HR or RBI Title?
Hoop, seems you are accepting, or at least acknowledging the "real" world does exit, a bit.
The MVP award is certainly not an exact measurement of particular stats, no more than the Academy Awards or HOF inductions are.
There is plenty of subjective reasoning, and despite some perhaps less sophisticated "frames of reference", the voters will use them as they see fit. They may have even seen a non-stat measurable, instance or two, which they might include. Some may feel it is "stupid" to consider popularity, the player's team position, the player's triple crown stats, the player's most recent performances, and such, more greatly than one's percieved, solid, 100+ backed, statistical findings. But it is real life, not a perfect world, and who is so rightfully in such a position to judge, what is really the correct approach ?
Delagado, and Manny are getting some recent support, C.C. Sabathia as well, the next 10-12 games may very well decide the NL MVP choice. Now we all agree that Lincecum is a lock for the NL CY award, right ???
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
<< <i>I do not ever recall mentioning Babe Ruth. I at the time was simply saying that a player COULD be assigned 1/25th of the blame if his team did not make the playoffs. >>
No, but I did, and in a context applicable to Howard. You said "Thus MY OPINION of 1/25th of the blame" - nothing about "could". You said that in your opinion every player on a losing team deserves 1/25 of the blame - every player includes Ruth and his 500 HR.
<< <i>No I never said that either. (smaller Ballparks) In fact I never made any such mention.
I simply said this and only this. The reason I think Howard will win the MVP is because he is leading the league in HR's and RBI's. >>
>>
But the HR and RBI leaders usually come from teams that play in smaller than average parks. Saying that the HR and RBI leader OUGHT to have an advantage in the MVP voting IS saying that players in smaller parks ought to have an advantage. And you didn't just say that Howard "will" win the MVP for those reasons, you said he "ought" to win for those reasons.
And I realize that we are both beating dead horses at this point. At the end of the day, what I am finding most frustrating is that when skinpinch and I try to advance reasons why Howard is not the most deserving candidate for the MVP and provide statistics to back it up, we are told that there is no definition for the MVP and the stats don't mean anything. But then when anyone makes a case for Howard, they point to his being on a winning team or that he is leading in HR and RBI - which are just different definitions and by the logic used against us shouldn't mean anything either. I think every single person posting to this thread agrees that it is likely that Howard will win the MVP - there is no debate on that point. The debate is whether he ought to win it, and the inconsistency of the pro-Howard arguments is frustrating. In my opinion. >>
The reason you find this frustrating is because your audience a) has little, if any, experience in readjusting their paradigms, and b) is completely unreceptive to the idea of changing their viewpoint. It's like if I stepped into the Mormon tabernacle and provided irrefutable evidence that Joe Smith was flat out lying when he said he could decipher the writing on those Egyptian papyruses. Since my audience isn't prepared, or willing, to rethink things, I'm not going to get anywhere.
On the surface this is such a stupid argument that it shouldn't bear repeating. If you want to figure out who is the 'better RBI man', then obviously you control for all other variables that could contribute to RBI production. This list includes the hitting ability of one's teammates, number of opportunities, the ball park you play the majority of your games in, the strength of the pitchers you face, and so on. If you aren't going to control for these variable then you don't have an analysis that anyone would care to read.
This is-- or should be-- so completely self-evident that if you bring this point up, and find resistance to it from the opposing side, you will be doing yourself an enormous favor by just letting the matter drop. Because if they can't understand, or otherwise accept, this one elementary point then they sure as hell won't understand anything that proceeds it.
<< <i>Saying that the HR and RBI leader OUGHT to have an advantage in the MVP voting IS saying that players in smaller parks ought to have an advantage.
I never said anything like that. I never said anything about park size.
You are now adding commentary to my every word in your attempt to prove yourself right. >>
Now I think you're pulling my leg. I didn't say you used those words, I said the two things are logically equivalent - and they are - and that saying one of them is the same thig as saying the other. Players in small parks don't ALWAYS hit more HR and get more RBI, but they have an advantage over players in smaller parks - that is self-evident. Saying that players who lead in HR and RBI ought to have an advantage in the MVP voting means that players who have a built-in HR and RBI advantage by playing in smaller parks ought to have an advantage.
<< <i>What I did say (word for word):
For the umpteenth time, Howard is leading the Majors in HR's and RBI's is the reason he/i think he will win it. (ought to win it) my opinion only. >>
No mention of park size, no mention that the HR and RBI leader OUGHT to have an advantage. As a matter of fact NO WHERE did I use the word "advantage" >>
I added the bold just to assure myself I wasn't in the Twilight Zone - you just said "no mention" of "ought" less than 10 words after your previous quote that the HR and RBI leader "ought to win it". You DID say Howard ought to win it BECAUSE he is the HR and RBI leader - if you didn't mean to say it, that's something else, but I can only respond to what you did say.
<< <i>You simply want to argue now just for arguments sake and I'll play along if you want. >>
I'm not sure why you put in the word "now".
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
And I realize that we are both beating dead horses at this point. At the end of the day, what I am finding most frustrating is that when skinpinch and I try to advance reasons why Howard is not the most deserving candidate for the MVP and provide statistics to back it up, we are told that there is no definition for the MVP and the stats don't mean anything. But then when anyone makes a case for Howard, they point to his being on a winning team or that he is leading in HR and RBI - which are just different definitions and by the logic used against us shouldn't mean anything either
Steve this is where you have gone off and I believe are wrong. Your reasons have been accepted and your stats that have backed it up have been as well. That was said 7 pages ago. What you do not want to comprehend is that just because you say something (even if it is backed up with stats) it does not mean that other people can't have a different opinion. I have tried to be as clear as I can and you added words to my posts. At one point I simply said that Howard can win it (should win) ought to win it, simply because he has the most HR's and RBI's. You then when on and on on the meaning of ought.
Your reply was something about smaller parks!!
I said something about if a player does not win he could/should get 1/25th of the blame.
Your reply was something about Babe Ruth.
Surely you do not have a comprehension problem so what exactly is the deal? Is only your opinion valid? If that is the case then why argue with anyone?
Now you say that you did not add anything to my posts, then why start you replies with: So you are saying, or so It is clear you are saying.....
Thanks for playing though it did pass an otherwise boring day.
You never did answer my question regarding smaller parks (since you brought it up_
<< <i>I never said he ought to have an advantage, I said he ought to win it. >>
By saying that players who lead in HR and RBI ought to win it, you are saying not only that they ought to have an advantage, but that that advantage is 100% over all other players. It's a definitional thing. Had you made the less extreme statement that voters should consider the fact that a player led in RBI and HR in their voting, then we could debate what the other factors to consider might be; but that opening - the mere possibility that there are other things to consider - entirely destroys any argument for Howard. The position of a Howard supporter necessarily has to be that the extra value of the HR and RBI lead - the "advantage" so to speak - is so great that all other considerations are moot.
No, I'm not convincing you, but it's still worth the effort. I got to use the word "moot".
And boopotts, I know you're right, but don't think that just because I'm frustrated that I'm not enjoying myself.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
By saying that players who lead in HR and RBI ought to win it, you are saying not only that they ought to have an advantage, but that that advantage is 100% over all other players.
NO I am NOT saying any such thing.
And I have now said that i was not saying that at least 3 times.
What does ought mean? In: Definitions and Word Differences
[Edit] [Edit] Ought is equivalent to supposed or should, as in "You ought to do this".
So you see the word 'ought' means 'should' Does not mean 'has an advantage'.
I'm having fun too. And to be honest with you when i used the word 'ought' I was thinking it meant 'could'
OR:
Main Entry: 1ought Listen to the pronunciation of 1ought Pronunciation: ˈȯt Function: verbal auxiliary Etymology: Middle English oughte (1st & 3d singular present indicative), from oughte, 1st & 3d singular past indicative & subjunctive of owen to own, owe — more at owe Date: 12th century
—used to express obligation <ought to pay our debts>, advisability <ought to take care of yourself>, natural expectation <ought to be here by now>, or logical consequence <the result ought to be infinity>
Boopotts, very well written and accurate post as usual. Did you know that one of the reasons why I joined this board was because the archaic and poorly supported positions that were typically used...and I knew full well that people were entrenched in their beliefs, but I wanted the challenge and have a little fun.
Some progress has been made, and there may be a 16 year old kid who's first foray into sports banter is the reading of a well supported post, so even if it goes on deaf ears for an entrenched believer, it may benefit someone.
It has been a battle for eliminating the criteria of WINS for a SP as a good evaluative method, or 'pitching to the score'. I am hoping that with the constant barrage against those things(and improper RBI use) that they are falling by the wayside a bit...baseball fandome will be better off. I am hoping that even an entrenched believer can appreciate something other than what they have been 'trained' to hear.
Some GM's have learned the hard way, and many are starting to use better information. Sports writers are still baseball retarded. They can write, which is why they have that job, but actually I think you (Boo) and Dallas are both better writters than most sportswriters.
<< <i>In 1971 and 1972, Bill Melton and Richie Allen led the league in HRs,
They played half their games at Comiskey Park, not a hitters park, nor a small one.
>>
From the time they moved the CF wall in in 1969 until they moved it out again in 1976 it was a hitter's park; not Fenway by any means, but definitely a hitter's park. The fact that Bill Melton led the league in HR should have been the only clue necessary. Dick Allen, on the other hand, was one of the best player's of my lifetime, and THE best player for the 1964-1974 period. Player's in small parks have an advantage, players with great teammates have an advantage, great hitters have an advantage. Telling which is which is easy, but it does require looking at something besides HR and RBI.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
1971 Chicago Whitesox Ballpark: Comiskey Park (ballparks.com) Attendance: 833,891 (9th of 12) Park Factors (one-year): Batting - 97, Pitching - 97 Over 100 favors batters, under 100 favors pitchers.
The above is from BB ref.com, 1971 Comiskey was not a hitters park, County Stadium Milwk. is not as well, despite Gorman Thomas and George Scott . LA Dodgers park is a pitchers park, Koufax has been sometimes downgraded because of this aspect. In 1962 Tommy Davis led the league with 153 RBI.
A much more rational way of putting things would be to say, the HR and RBI leaders often play on a team who has half of their games at home in a hitter friendly ballpark.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Manny is again hitting over 400 and he too 'ought' to get some MVP votes.
The voting I think is done just as the season ends and before the post season begins, thus the last month of a season (at times) carries some weight in the voters minds.
From the time they moved the CF wall in in 1969 until they moved it out again in 1976 it was a hitter's park; not Fenway by any means, but definitely a hitter's park.
The stats Jaxx has provided contradicts the above statement.
ManRam couldn't carry Howard's jock! He better be hitting .400 for the amount of jack they are paying him. Howard has done way more for the entire season, versus ManRam who was phoning it in with the Red Sox.
From 1969 through 1975, Comiskey was a hitter's park; the random fluctuation in 1971 notwithstanding.
Which is why park adjusted factors, like the ones used on baseball-reference such as OPS+, do not look at only one year - it introduces too much randomness into the measurements. The park factors that are used by baseball-reference for 1971 are 104, 104, which much more accurately describes Comiskey during that era than 97,97.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>Stalin what he did or did not do with Sox has no bearing on him getting NL MVP votes.
Steve >>
Why would you reward some jerk who only came in and had to play a month and a half of good baseball when Howard has carried the Phillies for months? Man Ram isn't even in the discussion if he plays anywhere else besides LA, NY or Boston!
<< <i>Howard is batting a mediocre .249 with an amazing 190 strikeouts. Overall, Pujols' numbers are stronger with a batting average over 100 points better. >>
Yes, but Dr. J. says Howard has "intangibles" and that settled it since he knows how to spell the word "stochastic".
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Hoopster - Not certain if you are still on this thread but do you have the splits for Howard versus lefties and righties in high and low leverage situations? Howard faces lefties 40% of the time which must be the highest amount in baseball. The fact he is terrible against lefties must be the major factor in his hitting late in the game when opposing managers probably have a lefty ready to face him.
First of all Stalin it will be 2 months not a month and a half.
Secondly I never said he deserved anything.
Lastly if he did for any team (that was under 500) and brought them a division title I don't care where that was he would get some MVP VOTES.
Are you saying that if he was traded to Tampa, and they were floundering and in the 2 months time that he was there they made it into the PO he still wouldn't get any MVP votes?
It has nothing to do where he is playing, it has EVERYTHING to do with what he has accomplished.
The actual FACT is that in 1971, Comiskey Park was a pitcher's park.
Averages over a longer time are interesting, but each season is different, somewhat similar as a notion that Iciro should be the batting champ in 2005, not M Young, because he averaged a higher BA over a particular time span.
I guessed wrong about 1972, but am sure Dodger Stadium 1962 was a pitcher's park also. It would be refreshing to see one admit HR and RBI leaders do NOT "always" come from home fields which are batter's parks.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
I am sure there are a few more instances where the HR and / or the RBI leader played his home games in a pitcher's park or a neutral park, a few more than some care to admit.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Good Lord, I think this horse is dead, fellas. I never said that any leader in anything "always" comes from hitter's parks, and you know that. What I said is that players in hitter's parks have an advantage - and they do, obviously. That advantage isn't enough to make a bad player look better than Babe Ruth, but it is enough to make some people think Ryan Howard is better than Albert Pujols and even more people to think Jim Rice was better than Roy White - so it is pretty dramatic. It can not be said often enough - if you are not considering the park where the player played, and you are still trying to evaluate the player, you are flat out wasting your time.
And jaxxr, you are of course and always entitled to your opinion. But nobody who analyzes statistics for a living, or even does it seriously, uses single-year park factors. The factor is supposed to measure the park, not the differences in the teams, batting orders, etc. that play there in any given year. If the park doesn't change, but the runs scored there does, that isn't the park, it's something else. Multi-year factors reduce the impact of "something else" and give a better representation of the park itself. It's a pretty simple concept and it is universally accepted among people who care about such things.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Winpitcher, for the love of god, if Dallas misquoted himself(by your reckoning), while in the midst of debating one of the biggest nitwits this board has seen, leave it be...especially since he has already clarified what he was saying...no need to nag!
Aro13, no I don't have those totals you request. It would take some calculations to achieve them...time I prefer not to spend seeing the audience(not you by any stretch).
But I am glad you brought it up. Yes, Howard has been abysmal in Late/Close situations. Worse than abysmal! Forget all the MVP criteria herin mentioned, but how anybody would want a player as an MVP who can so easily be neutralized in a late/close situation is a head scratcher! Like I said earlier, he is a left handed relief pitcher away from being Mario Mendoza with Shawon Dunston's power.
Winpitcher, for the love of god, if Dallas misquoted himself(by your reckoning), while in the midst of debating one of the biggest nitwits this board has seen,
I should hope that this comment is not intended towards me.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Comments
One poster a long way up probably said it best in the amount of blown saves the Cardinals have had, compared to near perfection from Lidge on the Phillies. That performance intself is why the records between the two teams are not reversed. It has nothing to do with Howard doing better than Pujols(which he hasn't done better).
Sorry to TOmGShotput for intruding on a well written post. Please read the post above mine if you don't normally read the previous posts.
<< <i>Why Dallas? because it is a team sport and each player must share in the blame. Thus MY OPINION of 1/25th of the blame >>
Just so we're clear, you are saying that Babe Ruth, even if he hits 500 home runs in a season and wins 30 games on the mound, deserves 1/25th of the blame for his team's losing record. That's not a question, just summarizing what you are saying.
<< <i>For the umpteenth time, Howard is leading the Majors in HR's and RBI's is the reason he/i think he will win it. (ought to win it) my opinion only. >>
So, again not a question just a summary, you are saying that players who play in smaller ballparks OUGHT to have an advantage in the MVP voting.
Since these opinions make sense to you and not to me, I can see why we're not getting anywhere.
--------------------------------------------------------------
160% ???
Howard = 93 +133 - 44, gives 182, then divide by the Phils total runs of 733, resultant = 24.8 %
It is really interesting, how some praise posters for responses that agree with one's views, or berate, usually with a personal tone, those who dare to disagree.
We all have different values, different frames of reference, and diffrent opinions, it is often more interesting to see alternate views on things which have no exact formula, like the MVP award, or the "Best" movie of the year, or HOF membership.
Everyone has different values and frames of references...you are correct. But isn't information from somebody with a stronger frame of reference a little more valuable?
With all the stuff I post, it is already solid backed 100 times over. The information is all there. Some don't know how to use it or understand it, and some just don't care and are lazy, and simply prefer to use methods that have been shown to be EXTREMELY faulty, over, and over and over.
Laziness from a fan is understandable.
Laziness from a fan who then engages in a debate with somebody who has not been lazy is folly.
Laziness from a sporstwriter choosing an MVP or HOF nominee is downright unacceptable!! This is where Dallas and I are coming from most!
You guys are darn right that writers may very well pick a Howard or Juan Gonzalez, but with all the solid information there, they should be embarrassed when defending their position. They don't have a strong position, and that is the bottom line.
The continued use of Howard's 130 RBI without even the bother of looking one step deeper on them is pure laziness. The continued use of Howard's 130 RBI AFTER I DID THE HOMEWORK and looked one steep deeper for them, is just dumb. That use isn't debatable.
Grote's MVP theory is debatable, and I can't refute that like I can the RBI total. In that case I completely disagree with him, and shown why(Dallas has shown better), but in the end, that is still open for interpretation.
since ALL the stuff you post is solid backed 100 times over, and the information is all there, and your frames of refrence are better than mine,
I will not be so bold as to assume anyone intelligent, could possibly have a differing view, but might you be willing to;
1. provide the clear, solid, without a doubt, qualifications for the selection of MVP ?
2. Explain again ( ALL stuff, per your post) why Cal Ripken should not have been MVP in 1983.
and on a non MVP topic,
3. Show why Bill Mazerowski is not as good a defender as most view him to be.
It is true that Howard was involved in his teams runs via an RBI or run scored more often than Pujols. But you still refuse to account for the fact that it is very possible to help your team score a run without actually being credited with an RBI or a run scored, Pujols easily exceeds Howard. Only when you account for that can you really know how much of an impact Howard had compared to Pujols
Every time Pat Burrell (or whomever the number five hitter is) gets a hit, it is much likely to lead to a run and lead to more runs, if Howard had reached base; it is much more likely to lead to zero or fewer runs every time Howard makes an out. And Howard makes an aweful lot of outs
I agree completely looking at things differently is ofen much more interesting. For that to be true the different view needs to look at the entire story, not draw conclusions from such a small piece of the picture
So, again not a question just a summary, you are saying that players who play in smaller ballparks OUGHT to have an advantage in the MVP voting.
I do not ever recall mentioning Babe Ruth. I at the time was simply saying that a player COULD be assigned 1/25th of the blame if his team did not make the playoffs.
No I never said that either. (smaller Ballparks) In fact I never made any such mention.
I simply said this and only this. The reason I think Howard will win the MVP is because he is leading the league in HR's and RBI's.
Are we now clear as to what I said? And how I meant what I said? I hope so.
Steve
<< <i>I do not ever recall mentioning Babe Ruth. I at the time was simply saying that a player COULD be assigned 1/25th of the blame if his team did not make the playoffs. >>
No, but I did, and in a context applicable to Howard. You said "Thus MY OPINION of 1/25th of the blame" - nothing about "could". You said that in your opinion every player on a losing team deserves 1/25 of the blame - every player includes Ruth and his 500 HR.
<< <i>No I never said that either. (smaller Ballparks) In fact I never made any such mention.
I simply said this and only this. The reason I think Howard will win the MVP is because he is leading the league in HR's and RBI's. >>
>>
But the HR and RBI leaders usually come from teams that play in smaller than average parks. Saying that the HR and RBI leader OUGHT to have an advantage in the MVP voting IS saying that players in smaller parks ought to have an advantage. And you didn't just say that Howard "will" win the MVP for those reasons, you said he "ought" to win for those reasons.
And I realize that we are both beating dead horses at this point. At the end of the day, what I am finding most frustrating is that when skinpinch and I try to advance reasons why Howard is not the most deserving candidate for the MVP and provide statistics to back it up, we are told that there is no definition for the MVP and the stats don't mean anything. But then when anyone makes a case for Howard, they point to his being on a winning team or that he is leading in HR and RBI - which are just different definitions and by the logic used against us shouldn't mean anything either. I think every single person posting to this thread agrees that it is likely that Howard will win the MVP - there is no debate on that point. The debate is whether he ought to win it, and the inconsistency of the pro-Howard arguments is frustrating. In my opinion.
The good offensive measurements for baseball hitters are about 98-99% on the point, that is the jist of my "All" comment. The play by play and situation data and run value of all the hitting events are spot on, and leave no room, or need for just a basic RBI total. The mystery is erased on hitting value.
Cal Ripken MVP...you read my mind. I was going to update that study last week! I will say it again, common OPS or Batter Runs, without looking at men on situations, does not tell the whole story! I used to argue for this against some of the leading Sabermatricians, and finally they are starting to use it. When you look at the Men on Hitting, and the High Leverage Hitting, Murray was the more valuable(better) player between the two, even considering Ripken's status as a SS.
I already posted above that MVP's are left to interpretation, but the criteria used most commonly(like Grote's) has major flaws.
Saying that the HR and RBI leader OUGHT to have an advantage in the MVP voting IS saying that players in smaller parks ought to have an advantage.
I never said anything like that. I never said anything about park size.
You are now adding commentary to my every word in your attempt to prove yourself right.
What I did say (word for word):
For the umpteenth time, Howard is leading the Majors in HR's and RBI's is the reason he/i think he will win it. (ought to win it) my opinion only. >>
No mention of park size, no mention that the HR and RBI leader OUGHT to have an advantage. As a matter of fact NO WHERE did I use the word "advantage"
You simply want to argue now just for arguments sake and I'll play along if you want.
Steve
Are you saying the the only players that win HR crowns and RBI crowns play in small parks?
Are you sure about that? You mean to tell me that over the past 108 years not once did a player that played in a medium
or larger size park win the HR or RBI Title?
So is that what you are saying?
Steve
seems you are accepting, or at least acknowledging the "real" world does exit, a bit.
The MVP award is certainly not an exact measurement of particular stats, no more than the Academy Awards or HOF inductions are.
There is plenty of subjective reasoning, and despite some perhaps less sophisticated "frames of reference", the voters will use them as they see fit. They may have even seen a non-stat measurable, instance or two, which they might include.
Some may feel it is "stupid" to consider popularity, the player's team position, the player's triple crown stats, the player's most recent performances, and such, more greatly than one's percieved, solid, 100+ backed, statistical findings.
But it is real life, not a perfect world, and who is so rightfully in such a position to judge, what is really the correct approach ?
Delagado, and Manny are getting some recent support, C.C. Sabathia as well, the next 10-12 games may very well decide the NL MVP choice. Now we all agree that Lincecum is a lock for the NL CY award, right ???
<< <i>
<< <i>I do not ever recall mentioning Babe Ruth. I at the time was simply saying that a player COULD be assigned 1/25th of the blame if his team did not make the playoffs. >>
No, but I did, and in a context applicable to Howard. You said "Thus MY OPINION of 1/25th of the blame" - nothing about "could". You said that in your opinion every player on a losing team deserves 1/25 of the blame - every player includes Ruth and his 500 HR.
<< <i>No I never said that either. (smaller Ballparks) In fact I never made any such mention.
I simply said this and only this. The reason I think Howard will win the MVP is because he is leading the league in HR's and RBI's. >>
>>
But the HR and RBI leaders usually come from teams that play in smaller than average parks. Saying that the HR and RBI leader OUGHT to have an advantage in the MVP voting IS saying that players in smaller parks ought to have an advantage. And you didn't just say that Howard "will" win the MVP for those reasons, you said he "ought" to win for those reasons.
And I realize that we are both beating dead horses at this point. At the end of the day, what I am finding most frustrating is that when skinpinch and I try to advance reasons why Howard is not the most deserving candidate for the MVP and provide statistics to back it up, we are told that there is no definition for the MVP and the stats don't mean anything. But then when anyone makes a case for Howard, they point to his being on a winning team or that he is leading in HR and RBI - which are just different definitions and by the logic used against us shouldn't mean anything either. I think every single person posting to this thread agrees that it is likely that Howard will win the MVP - there is no debate on that point. The debate is whether he ought to win it, and the inconsistency of the pro-Howard arguments is frustrating. In my opinion. >>
The reason you find this frustrating is because your audience a) has little, if any, experience in readjusting their paradigms, and b) is completely unreceptive to the idea of changing their viewpoint. It's like if I stepped into the Mormon tabernacle and provided irrefutable evidence that Joe Smith was flat out lying when he said he could decipher the writing on those Egyptian papyruses. Since my audience isn't prepared, or willing, to rethink things, I'm not going to get anywhere.
On the surface this is such a stupid argument that it shouldn't bear repeating. If you want to figure out who is the 'better RBI man', then obviously you control for all other variables that could contribute to RBI production. This list includes the hitting ability of one's teammates, number of opportunities, the ball park you play the majority of your games in, the strength of the pitchers you face, and so on. If you aren't going to control for these variable then you don't have an analysis that anyone would care to read.
This is-- or should be-- so completely self-evident that if you bring this point up, and find resistance to it from the opposing side, you will be doing yourself an enormous favor by just letting the matter drop. Because if they can't understand, or otherwise accept, this one elementary point then they sure as hell won't understand anything that proceeds it.
<< <i>Saying that the HR and RBI leader OUGHT to have an advantage in the MVP voting IS saying that players in smaller parks ought to have an advantage.
I never said anything like that. I never said anything about park size.
You are now adding commentary to my every word in your attempt to prove yourself right. >>
Now I think you're pulling my leg. I didn't say you used those words, I said the two things are logically equivalent - and they are - and that saying one of them is the same thig as saying the other. Players in small parks don't ALWAYS hit more HR and get more RBI, but they have an advantage over players in smaller parks - that is self-evident. Saying that players who lead in HR and RBI ought to have an advantage in the MVP voting means that players who have a built-in HR and RBI advantage by playing in smaller parks ought to have an advantage.
<< <i>What I did say (word for word):
For the umpteenth time, Howard is leading the Majors in HR's and RBI's is the reason he/i think he will win it. (ought to win it) my opinion only. >>
No mention of park size, no mention that the HR and RBI leader OUGHT to have an advantage. As a matter of fact NO WHERE did I use the word "advantage" >>
I added the bold just to assure myself I wasn't in the Twilight Zone - you just said "no mention" of "ought" less than 10 words after your previous quote that the HR and RBI leader "ought to win it". You DID say Howard ought to win it BECAUSE he is the HR and RBI leader - if you didn't mean to say it, that's something else, but I can only respond to what you did say.
<< <i>You simply want to argue now just for arguments sake and I'll play along if you want. >>
I'm not sure why you put in the word "now".
Yeah you didn't say the above quote. I was just pulling your leg. <eyeroll>
Steve
Anything else you want to debate? Like maybe what the word 'it' means?
Steve
Steve this is where you have gone off and I believe are wrong. Your reasons have been accepted and your stats that have backed it up have been as well. That was said 7 pages ago. What you do not want to comprehend is that just because you say something (even if it is backed up with stats) it does not mean that other people can't have a different opinion. I have tried to be as clear as I can and you added words to my posts. At one point I simply said that Howard can win it (should win) ought to win it, simply because he has the most HR's and RBI's. You then when on and on on the meaning of ought.
Your reply was something about smaller parks!!
I said something about if a player does not win he could/should get 1/25th of the blame.
Your reply was something about Babe Ruth.
Surely you do not have a comprehension problem so what exactly is the deal? Is only your opinion valid? If that is the case then why argue with anyone?
Now you say that you did not add anything to my posts, then why start you replies with: So you are saying, or so It is clear you are saying.....
Thanks for playing though it did pass an otherwise boring day.
You never did answer my question regarding smaller parks (since you brought it up_
Or maybe you did.......
Steve
They played half their games at Comiskey Park, not a hitters park, nor a small one.
<< <i>I never said he ought to have an advantage, I said he ought to win it. >>
By saying that players who lead in HR and RBI ought to win it, you are saying not only that they ought to have an advantage, but that that advantage is 100% over all other players. It's a definitional thing. Had you made the less extreme statement that voters should consider the fact that a player led in RBI and HR in their voting, then we could debate what the other factors to consider might be; but that opening - the mere possibility that there are other things to consider - entirely destroys any argument for Howard. The position of a Howard supporter necessarily has to be that the extra value of the HR and RBI lead - the "advantage" so to speak - is so great that all other considerations are moot.
No, I'm not convincing you, but it's still worth the effort. I got to use the word "moot".
And boopotts, I know you're right, but don't think that just because I'm frustrated that I'm not enjoying myself.
Cordially,
Teddy Ballgame
By saying that players who lead in HR and RBI ought to win it, you are saying not only that they ought to have an advantage, but that that advantage is 100% over all other players.
NO I am NOT saying any such thing.
And I have now said that i was not saying that at least 3 times.
Steve
What does ought mean?
In: Definitions and Word Differences
[Edit]
[Edit]
Ought is equivalent to supposed or should, as in "You ought to do this".
So you see the word 'ought' means 'should' Does not mean 'has an advantage'.
I'm having fun too.
And to be honest with you when i used the word 'ought' I was thinking it meant 'could'
OR:
Main Entry:
1ought Listen to the pronunciation of 1ought
Pronunciation:
ˈȯt
Function:
verbal auxiliary
Etymology:
Middle English oughte (1st & 3d singular present indicative), from oughte, 1st & 3d singular past indicative & subjunctive of owen to own, owe — more at owe
Date:
12th century
—used to express obligation <ought to pay our debts>, advisability <ought to take care of yourself>, natural expectation <ought to be here by now>, or logical consequence <the result ought to be infinity>
;-)
Steve
Steve
Steve
Some progress has been made, and there may be a 16 year old kid who's first foray into sports banter is the reading of a well supported post, so even if it goes on deaf ears for an entrenched believer, it may benefit someone.
It has been a battle for eliminating the criteria of WINS for a SP as a good evaluative method, or 'pitching to the score'. I am hoping that with the constant barrage against those things(and improper RBI use) that they are falling by the wayside a bit...baseball fandome will be better off. I am hoping that even an entrenched believer can appreciate something other than what they have been 'trained' to hear.
Some GM's have learned the hard way, and many are starting to use better information. Sports writers are still baseball retarded. They can write, which is why they have that job, but actually I think you (Boo) and Dallas are both better writters than most sportswriters.
<< <i>In 1971 and 1972, Bill Melton and Richie Allen led the league in HRs,
They played half their games at Comiskey Park, not a hitters park, nor a small one.
From the time they moved the CF wall in in 1969 until they moved it out again in 1976 it was a hitter's park; not Fenway by any means, but definitely a hitter's park. The fact that Bill Melton led the league in HR should have been the only clue necessary. Dick Allen, on the other hand, was one of the best player's of my lifetime, and THE best player for the 1964-1974 period. Player's in small parks have an advantage, players with great teammates have an advantage, great hitters have an advantage. Telling which is which is easy, but it does require looking at something besides HR and RBI.
<< <i>And to be honest with you when i used the word 'ought' I was thinking it meant 'could' >>
Oh.
That's very different.
Never mind.
Go Ahead HR (8th Inning Super High Leverage)
An RBI Triple (7th Inning High Leverage)
2 Single
3 RBI
2 Run
I guess all those RBI and HR do mean something. LOL....
Season Totals:
45 HR
136 RBI (!!!!)
95 R
Bring on the trophy!
wrap this up.
Sincerely,
0-4
Ballpark: Comiskey Park (ballparks.com)
Attendance: 833,891 (9th of 12)
Park Factors
(one-year): Batting - 97, Pitching - 97
Over 100 favors batters, under 100 favors pitchers.
The above is from BB ref.com, 1971 Comiskey was not a hitters park,
County Stadium Milwk. is not as well, despite Gorman Thomas and George Scott . LA Dodgers park is a pitchers park, Koufax has been sometimes downgraded because of this aspect. In 1962 Tommy Davis led the league with 153 RBI.
A much more rational way of putting things would be to say, the HR and RBI leaders often play on a team who has half of their games at home in a hitter friendly ballpark.
The voting I think is done just as the season ends and before the post season begins, thus the last month
of a season (at times) carries some weight in the voters minds.
Steve
The stats Jaxx has provided contradicts the above statement.
Steve
for the entire season, versus ManRam who was phoning it in with the Red Sox.
Steve
1969: 109 batting, 110 pitching
1970: 105, 108
1971: 97, 97
1972: 108, 108
1973: 102, 103
1974: 104, 104
1975: 103, 104
From 1969 through 1975, Comiskey was a hitter's park; the random fluctuation in 1971 notwithstanding.
Which is why park adjusted factors, like the ones used on baseball-reference such as OPS+, do not look at only one year - it introduces too much randomness into the measurements. The park factors that are used by baseball-reference for 1971 are 104, 104, which much more accurately describes Comiskey during that era than 97,97.
<< <i>Stalin what he did or did not do with Sox has no bearing on him getting NL MVP votes.
Steve >>
Why would you reward some jerk who only came in and had to play a month and a half of good baseball when Howard has carried the
Phillies for months? Man Ram isn't even in the discussion if he plays anywhere else besides LA, NY or Boston!
<< <i>Howard is batting a mediocre .249 with an amazing 190 strikeouts. Overall, Pujols' numbers are stronger with a batting average over 100 points better. >>
Yes, but Dr. J. says Howard has "intangibles" and that settled it since he knows how to spell the word "stochastic".
Secondly I never said he deserved anything.
Lastly if he did for any team (that was under 500) and brought them a division title I don't care where
that was he would get some MVP VOTES.
Are you saying that if he was traded to Tampa, and they were floundering and in the 2 months time that he was there they made it into the PO
he still wouldn't get any MVP votes?
It has nothing to do where he is playing, it has EVERYTHING to do with what he has accomplished.
Steve
Averages over a longer time are interesting, but each season is different, somewhat similar as a notion that Iciro should be the batting champ in 2005, not M Young, because he averaged a higher BA over a particular time span.
I guessed wrong about 1972, but am sure Dodger Stadium 1962 was a pitcher's park also.
It would be refreshing to see one admit HR and RBI leaders do NOT "always" come from home fields which are batter's parks.
Isn't that considered a pitchers park?
Steve
I am sure there are a few more instances where the HR and / or the RBI leader played his home games in a pitcher's park or a neutral park, a few more than some care to admit.
And jaxxr, you are of course and always entitled to your opinion. But nobody who analyzes statistics for a living, or even does it seriously, uses single-year park factors. The factor is supposed to measure the park, not the differences in the teams, batting orders, etc. that play there in any given year. If the park doesn't change, but the runs scored there does, that isn't the park, it's something else. Multi-year factors reduce the impact of "something else" and give a better representation of the park itself. It's a pretty simple concept and it is universally accepted among people who care about such things.
No you didn't say 'always' you said 'usually'
Steve
On page one you stated:
"Although if Berkman can continue to carry the Astros as he has been doing all the way to a playoff spot, then he should win it easily"
Then later in this discussion when Grote mentioned something similar you stated:
?grote - you're going to have to explain why making it to the playoffs matters"
I have quoted you word for word and in context.
Steve
Aro13, no I don't have those totals you request. It would take some calculations to achieve them...time I prefer not to spend seeing the audience(not you by any stretch).
But I am glad you brought it up. Yes, Howard has been abysmal in Late/Close situations. Worse than abysmal! Forget all the MVP criteria herin mentioned, but how anybody would want a player as an MVP who can so easily be neutralized in a late/close situation is a head scratcher! Like I said earlier, he is a left handed relief pitcher away from being Mario Mendoza with Shawon Dunston's power.
I should hope that this comment is not intended towards me.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.