Major League Baseball 2010

[naiwf]

I hope Omar Infante doesn't sneak in after game like 157 and snatch the BA crown away from Votto, Pujols or Gonzalez and fuck the whole thing up. At this point he has the highest average but lacks the plate appearances needed to qualify. Ever since Chipper got hurt he's been starting and I think that would be such a shitty way for this whole season to end.

[zero]

I'm obviously biased towards Votto, so he should definitely be MVP, but here in Cincinnati, we're just excited about the possibility of the playoffs. First time in 15 years!

[Ananas]

I hope Omar Infante doesn't sneak in after game like 157 and snatch the BA crown away from Votto, Pujols or Gonzalez and fuck the whole thing up. At this point he has the highest average but lacks the plate appearances needed to qualify. Ever since Chipper got hurt he's been starting and I think that would be such a shitty way for this whole season to end.

Well if you go by the Sabermetric Triple Crown (Runs Created, Total Bases and OBP) the leaderboard is a good deal more deserving than, say, Infante:

Runs Created

1. Votto (CIN) 121

2. Pujols (STL) 115

3. Gonzalez (COL) 103

4. Weeks (MIL) 101

Fielder (MIL) 101

Total Bases

1. Pujols (STL) 292

2. Gonzalez (COL) 284

3. Votto (CIN) 276

4. Dunn (WSN) 261

5. Weeks (MIL) 258

On Base Percentage

1. Votto (CIN) .424

2. Pujols (STL) .410

3. Fielder (MIL) .403

4. Werth (PHI) .392

5. Willingham (WSN) .389

[naiwf]

I just don't want Infante to qualify for the BA title with a week to go and have a 10 point lead over guys who played a much larger role on their respective teams throughout the season. Basically, if Votto, Pujols or Gonzalez is going to win or lose the Triple Crown, I don't want them to lose because Chipper got hurt and Infante is going to just get close enough to the 501 PA threshold where he either qualifies automatically, or takes 6-10 hitless appearances and snatches the title by 1 point because the Braves want him to have that privilege. It'd be nice to see someone do the regular version in my lifetime and I'd be pissed if Votto for instance gets there with 6 games to go, and an injury replacement/part time starter backdoors him out of it because he batted lead off the last few weeks to up his PA total.

[gunnar hendershow]

Infante could very well break the threshold the last week of the season. I don't know if my math is right, but he's on pace for around 495 PAs if current trends keep up. That said, the Braves are in a playoff race so I don't know if he'll be given cheap PA by Bobby Cox to give him the honor of the batting title. He'll cut it close, and it would be a shame if he prevented Votto, Pujols, or Gonzalez (who frankly is an outside shot right now) from the Triple Crown.

[SeanDMan]

It would be unfortunate, but it would be a dude winning a statistical award based on his statistics. You can't really argue with that. He wouldn't get a sniff at an MVP award, which isn't statistical. And of the five guys in contention, you have to admit, if there were an award for Best Name, he'd be a shoo in for runner up (hard to beat Poo Holes for that title).

[naiwf]

Infante could very well break the threshold the last week of the season. I don't know if my math is right, but he's on pace for around 495 PAs if current trends keep up. That said, the Braves are in a playoff race so I don't know if he'll be given cheap PA by Bobby Cox to give him the honor of the batting title. He'll cut it close, and it would be a shame if he prevented Votto, Pujols, or Gonzalez (who frankly is an outside shot right now) from the Triple Crown.

All I'm saying is that the Braves have played 131 games so far, and Infante has appeared in 105 and started in only 77. He'll have earned it if he gets there, but it would really suck if he backdoored the Triple Crown away from someone solely because Chipper got hurt.

[Ananas]

Maybe it's just my hatred for the RBI stat, but I can't seem to care about the triple crown.

[MalaCloudy Black]

So after that brawl in Florida, Volstad is suspended for 6 games and Nyjer Morgan for 8.

[HailtotheYo]

Maybe it's just my hatred for the RBI stat, but I can't seem to care about the triple crown.

curious ... elaborate ?

[Ananas]

My hatred for RBIs? Mainly because people try to use it to evaluate player performance when it's almost entirely dependent on the people hitting in front of you. Statistically players have tended to hit close to their norms batting average wise when you add runners in scoring position (study after study has found anything to the contrary to be a statistical anomaly), so logically a player driving in a ton of runs is a function of his being a great hitter who comes up in a lot of RBI opportunities. My point isn't to say that Miguel Cabrera and Joey Votto aren't having phenomenal seasons, but that the RBI stat is an indicator of next to no use. They happen to play for two of baseball's 5 best hitting teams from an on base standpoint. If Votto and Cabrera were hitting this way for the Mariners they likely wouldn't have nearly as many RBIs, but they'd still be having sensational years. But they'd fall out of consideration for an award like MVP just because they don't get enough opportunities to factor in one of the three triple crown statistics? It's absurd. I'm not big on batting average or HR as divining rods either (one doesn't really gauge the full scope of batting since it ignores walks, the other is just one of three hits that constitute hitting for power), but at least I can understand they're representative of something in an individual player's performance. RBI's are just a bit more than happenstance, which are better represented by so many statistics.

[livid]

AKA it's not obscure enough for you?

[Ananas]

If by obscure you mean useful, then absolutely.

[HailtotheYo]

RBI's are just a bit more than happenstance, which are better represented by so many statistics.

I'm not as far gone into it as you are, and certainly don't hate the stat. But, I think this statement is the best one in terms of the stats actual representation. I think the RBI is more of an "award" stat for those that are good enough hitters to be the guy set in the line up to take advantage of them. Certainly you've got to have guys on your team that can get on base in order to get RBIs (ask Luke Scott about that this year), but I do feel that the "ability" to drive in runs is greatly understated by the new age stats guys.

[Ananas]

I think it's because sabermetrics is based on empirical statistical analysis of performance, and that there really isn't information to substantiate that there are players who go from BJ Upton to Justin Upton based on the number of players they see on the base pads in front of them. Yes there are players who are great in RBI situations. They, over their careers, have always been great hitters. I think it's because many of us new aged stat guys don't believe that the ability to drive in runs really exists, just the ability to hit. Which, and you're right to say this, does warrant some consideration to batting average and the ability to actually hit, not just manufacture walks.

[HailtotheYo]

I think it's because sabermetrics is based on empirical statistical analysis of performance, and that there really isn't information to substantiate that there are players who go from BJ Upton to Justin Upton based on the number of players they see on the base pads in front of them. Yes there are players who are great in RBI situations. They, over their careers, have always been great hitters. I think it's because many of us new aged stat guys don't believe that the ability to drive in runs really exists, just the ability to hit. Which, and you're right to say this, does warrant some consideration to batting average and the ability to actually hit, not just manufacture walks.

I think the truth is somewhere between you new age statters and the old guys.

9 out of every 10 "Great RBI Men" are just flat out good hitters, period. That's also why they were in the position in the line up they were in. As for the "ability to drive in runs" part, I think it is just too literal of a take on it by both sides. The best explination for my take on it is too just give an example:

I'd rather have Mark McGwire at the plate with a chance to drive in runs than Wade Boggs. Sure, Boggs is a ridiculously better hitter. Despite the drastic difference in batting average though, McGwire is more likely to get the run across the plate with his at bat. It isn't that he has the "skill" of driving in runs, but rather that the type of hitter that he is makes it more likely for him to produce the run ... 2B/HR produce more runs than singles every day of the week.

[Ananas]

But I think that goes to the different types of hitters. I wouldn't necessarily say that Wade Boggs was a ridiculously better hitter than Mark McGwire. Was he better at what he did? Certainly. But they bring different types of values to the table. In 10,740 plate appearances, Wade Boggs reached base 4,445 times (H+BB+HBP), while Mark McGwire reached 3,018 times in 7,660. So while Wade Boggs managed to almost double McGwire in hits (3,010 to 1,626), the latter's ability to reach base via the walk puts him within roughly 20 points of Boggs in terms of On Base Percentage (.415 to .394). In total bases, McGwire managed 3,639 in 6,187 at bats as opposed to Boggs' 4,064 in 9,180. In little over two thirds as many at bats McGwire managed more than 90% of the total bases. Extrapolate McGwire's slugging percentage (.588) over Boggs' (.443) amount of at bats and you get a pace for 5,398 total bases. So in terms of reaching base, Boggs was noticeably but not drastically better, while in terms of the advancement factor Mark McGwire was substantially better. I was a bit too simplistic in the sentence you highlighted. I didn't mean to say that there weren't guys who were better suited to producing RBI's than others given an equal amount of opportunities; what I meant to say is that skill isn't specific to RBI situations but rather their existing abilities. The distinction I would want to make is between result stats and performance stats. If Joey Votto puts up a triple slash line of .324/.423/.599 with the same situational splits in high/med/low leverage situations as now but has 78 RBIs instead of 98 to this point, is he any less worthy of the MVP?

[HailtotheYo]

But I think that goes to the different types of hitters. I wouldn't necessarily say that Wade Boggs was a ridiculously better hitter than Mark McGwire. Was he better at what he did? Certainly. But they bring different types of values to the table. In 10,740 plate appearances, Wade Boggs reached base 4,445 times (H+BB+HBP), while Mark McGwire reached 3,018 times in 7,660. So while Wade Boggs managed to almost double McGwire in hits (3,010 to 1,626), the latter's ability to reach base via the walk puts him within roughly 20 points of Boggs in terms of On Base Percentage (.415 to .394).

You notice something there ? To illustrate your point about hitting you used OBP. Hitting is merely the ability to hit the ball safely. Boggs was ridiculously better at that than McGwire as illustrated by hits and batting average over the course of their careers. The ability to hit the ball and the ability to work the count and draw walks aren't the same. Hell, 150 of McGwire's walks were IBB. Take those out and his OPB drops to .374 ... which is a rather large drop off from Boggs' .415 ... but still that isn't hitting but much more than that.

In total bases, McGwire managed 3,639 in 6,187 at bats as opposed to Boggs' 4,064 in 9,180. In little over two thirds as many at bats McGwire managed more than 90% of the total bases. Extrapolate McGwire's slugging percentage (.588) over Boggs' (.443) amount of at bats and you get a pace for 5,398 total bases. So in terms of reaching base, Boggs was noticeably but not drastically better, while in terms of the advancement factor Mark McGwire was substantially better.

That is exactly my point. Boggs is a better hitter, but McGwire's abilities lend him to be better suited to actually getting runs across the plate despite not hitting as well as Boggs. So ....

I was a bit too simplistic in the sentence you highlighted. I didn't mean to say that there weren't guys who were better suited to producing RBI's than others given an equal amount of opportunities; what I meant to say is that skill isn't specific to RBI situations but rather their existing abilities. The distinction I would want to make is between result stats and performance stats. If Joey Votto puts up a triple slash line of .324/.423/.599 with the same situational splits in high/med/low leverage situations as now but has 78 RBIs instead of 98 to this point, is he any less worthy of the MVP?

... then wouldn't the "ability to drive in runs" exist to a certain degree ?

[Guest JukeboxHero]

How come nobody had thought of this before?

[JStarr]

How come nobody had thought of this before?

I want to hear of some player asking for a teammate to walk to the plate with "I Touch Myself" playing. That would be an instant Flawless Victory.