Thursday, October 4, 2012

Politics, Philosophy and the American League MVP

An Indictment against the Current Thought Process of Americans - by Cody Kay




It is almost ironic that I write this longwinded article on the night of a Presidential debate given the situation that inspired it. I graduated undergrad as a Political Science major but have refrained from investing much personal time in politics for the last four to five years because of the unnerving irrationality surrounding most people’s positions. I find people’s irrationality stems from multiple factors including reliance on circular logic, an inability to understand statistics, or a complete misunderstanding of the issues. 



Most casual political conversations I used to have would leave me at a loss for words because it is so hard to penetrate the mind of a person caught up in irrational thoughts (besides politics, religion and money often serve as excellent examples of such a principle). A large cause of the irrationality that continues through most political conversations is the media’s willingness to perpetuate such modes of thought. From the time this country was formed until well past the turn of the 20th century, the media was openly politically-biased. Many newspapers were owned and operated by political parties and politicians with the public having full knowledge of such. This began to take a shift across the 20th century, noticeably with the rise of television. The public came to expect well-informed, honest, and unbiased accounts of both domestic and international affairs from famous newscasters such as Walter Cronkite.

The rise of cable news channels, along with cable in general, has helped to create an ugly amalgamation between the two previous periods. While many people still believe that what is reported on the news is inherently true, that is far from what is put forward. A common human trait is that people are attracted to things they can identify with.[1] Given this fact, cable news channels created niche viewership strategies of reporting news in a manner that has a pre-conceived ideological spin that an identifiable segment of the population would want to hear. Fox News has become the go-to example of this by presenting the news through a conservative and lowest common denominator approach and gaining much popularity through following through on this game plan. Although Fox News takes a large majority of deserved criticism for its presentation of the news, MSNBC should also be criticized for having taken a noticeable shift toward a more overt liberal version of presenting the news.

Clearly, there is a consequence of the news shifting toward a biased presentation. Rather than first focusing on an in-depth analysis of the relevant issues and then moving on to each candidate’s position, a majority of time spent covering political races focuses on “horserace” style coverage. The issues become merely a scope to present each favored horse in the best light. Horserace coverage has always had a place in political coverage. People are simply more interested in a horserace because it creates drama. A focus on important issues requires a deeper level of understanding of some abstract concepts such as economics that many people can’t comprehend. Cable television and the “short attention span” generation are linked forever, further strengthening this style of coverage. It currently seems like the average American wants things presented in a simpler, binary, black & white type presentation.

There are numerous problems with the oversimplification of separating out a large amount of variable as being either “a” or “b”. To get to the point of this article, a big problem with this mode of thought is that people aren’t able to cross-assimilate the pros and cons associated with each general opposing party. A quick example would be a hypothetical low-income, religious voter who has not researched a candidate’s positions on an upcoming election. This person may naturally vote for the Republican candidate under the assumption that the GOP best represents the traditional values of the hypothetical voter. Meanwhile, the Democratic candidate could very easily have the same traditional value beliefs while carrying a more favorable economic policy toward the hypothetical voter’s position. An example easily made by reversing the parties is a high-income member of the LGBT community. This person is likely to vote Democrat without considering that the Republican candidate very well may support the LGBT cause while having a more favorable economic policy for this voter.

So what does this have to do with sports, specifically the AL MVP?  Everything and nothing, of course. I have always been interested in sports because they help create an identifiable common bond among many Americans. Sports create strong emotions within a person but the negative outcomes rarely result in a true negative impact upon a person. People will talk to each other about a team or a player and, in doing so, help paint a picture of the type of person they are by what they value, what they enjoy, and the logic in their thought process. 

Teams win and lose, the arguments of who is better is won but forgotten, and people continue to forge positive bonds and future relationships with many people throughout their life via idle conversations about sports.

After becoming burnt out on politics, these aspects of sports further attracted me to embracing sports fandom and resulted in me seeking out sports as an avenue for bonding with other people through a common interest. While rationality goes out the window just as often (if not moreso) in sports banter as it does in political discourse, no one is hurt by the illogical thoughts argued in sports because there is no vote on outcomes. In politics, when two people have diametrically different views, only one of them will see their candidate take on the current situation and the other person will only be able to “wonder if”/”argue that” their candidate would have performed “better” regardless of the circumstances. This situation drives a wedge through people and creates animosity that often can’t be resolved.

Sports are the perfect alternative choice for a person to avoid such positions. Each argument about a future sports result can be resolved in a finite way such as Team A beating Team B. Even the arguments that can’t be resolved such as whether Babe Ruth is a better player than Barry Bonds are typically laughed at later, regardless of how heated they become at the time.

Baseball has especially caught my attention in the amount of time I have spent following it over the past couple years. Personally, I enjoy watching combat sports such as football and mixed martial arts much more than skill-based sports such as baseball, golf or tennis. However, I spend much more time following baseball than any other sport. Baseball perfectly blends the often-at-odds views of analytical thought and old-school ‘Merica with which I often like to examine many aspects of life.

The analytic world is finite and easy to understand—for those that can understand it. Some people see beauty in a perfectly telegraphed math proof. Beginning with 1+1=2, people who see this beauty understand the value of reasonable expectations for the future. In turn, this can help them best plan a positive direction for their life. However, people who come from the analytic world often tend to fear a random variable that they don’t know how to account for.

Baseball provides boundless statistical ammunition for people in the analytic world. The age-old “standard” stats such as home runs or batting average have long been used to identify the best players in the game. However, there has been a recent uptick in excitement for people in the analytical world because of the rise of sabermetric statistics in baseball. These stats have become especially popular since the release of the book and movie Moneyball. Sabermetrics provide significant increase in certainty when predicting the future value (and “standard” stats) of a player by controlling a number of variables that basic statistics don’t take into consideration. The effect a home ball park has on a player’s hitting statistics or the defensive value of certain positions can be quantified. This allows us to put numbers behind previously understood but unsubstantiated claims (i.e. first baseman are expected to hit better than shortstops because of the intrinsic defensive importance of the shortstop to a team’s defense).

The ‘Merica world represents a mindset of people who appreciate things that can’t be defined. This can range anywhere from the perceived high-class intellectuals seeing the beauty in a Van Gogh or Lautrec painting to the supposed low-class unquantifiable beauty that may be found when drinking a cold beer and looking into a bonfire on a cool autumn night. These people love the randomness of life and enjoy the small, unpredictable things but sometimes they suffer from not being able to understand the effect of a continued lifestyle that focuses on the short term enjoyments without realizing the cost-benefit lost in the long term. The randomness of baseball also perfectly fits into this world. A person can enjoy the unassuming great feeling of their first time in a majestic stadium such as Wrigley Field or Fenway Park or in the outcomes of the sport which often create unbelievable story lines. These are the same people that have fallen in love with watching contests such as American Idol, Dancing with the Stars or even the pre-cursors of Jersey Shore television culture, such as The Real World. Like these shows, people are attracted to seeing someone they can relate with overcome great odds such as Josh Hamilton overcoming drug addiction to win the AL MVP in 2010.

These different viewpoints both have their place in baseball. People who are from the analytic world of thought have excellent websites like Fangraphs and Baseball Reference to feed their needs. People from the ‘Merica thought process world have numerous feel good stories that are presented through all forms of popular media including all platforms of ESPN, local and national newspapers, and national news websites. And then for people like myself who are either riding both modes of thought at the same time or constantly shifting between them, both worlds’ resources can be consumed.

ESPN has increasingly recognized the growing size of the analytical sports fan base and has started to accommodate this interest on their site. ESPN.com has incorporated a lot of sabermetric statistics in baseball on their regular website while their pay-for-content section of the website called “Insider” further expands on advanced analytics for baseball and other sports, most prominently the NBA and NFL (John Hollinger is the gift that keeps giving for people in the analytic world that love basketball). However, as a result of the analytical world’s incorporation into a spot normally occupied by strictly ‘Merica thinking people, a backlash has begun against analytics.

User comments on ESPN have long been the sanctuary for internet trolls everywhere but articles that cross paths between the two worlds of baseball include comments that represent honest vitriol from the ‘Merica people toward analytics. Typical arguments are pulled straight from the grade school playground - numbers don’t mean anything. People from the ‘Merica world often create further hypocrisy by illogically supporting their arguments with archaic statistics such as RBIs that the analytical person has long since found to lack a reasonable foundation in measuring value. This has caused people in the analytic world to become bitter over this mistreatment and overly snarky with their indictment of ‘Merica culture.

This division of thought processes is beginning to have the effect that the horserace mentality has had on politics. People will begin to defend a team or person blindly based on the scope they prefer to be focused on.[2] The previous political examples given about people making illogical, uninformed choices by putting up their political blinders and recklessly choosing a candidate is starting to creep its way into baseball conversation. If a popular narrative comes from the analytic world, those on the other side of baseball thought are quick to find an opposing argument without actually seeing whether their own personal views are also represented by the analytic narrative.

The AL MVP race has become the inspiration for all of these streams of thought. Plain and simple, Mike Trout should be the runaway winner regardless of how a person judges what represents the “most valuable player” in the league. Trout put up historically great advanced statistics that have made him a new age poster boy for the writers who prefer a quantitative approach to baseball.

Many mainstream writers who were raised in the age of baseball being “America’s Game” have been waiting for any excuse to knock Trout off of his much deserved pedestal of 2012’s best baseball player. Miguel Cabrera’s Triple Crown has proved the perfect foil to Trout’s MVP campaign. Cabrera led the league in the standard statistics of batting average, home runs, and runs batted in. It is a great achievement that has been accomplished just 16 times in baseball history, dating back to someone names Paul Hines in 1878 and last seen some 45 years ago from Carl Yastrzemski. Some of the players known to be among the pantheon of all-time greats are represented amongst the few that have accomplished this feat including Ted Williams, Lou Gehrig, Roger Hornsby, Mickey Mantle and Ty Cobb.

The analytic world has no choice but to accept that players accomplishing this feat show a great amount of talent—their own methodology proves many of these players to indeed be some of the very best players of all-time. In fact, by using Fangraphs measurement of WAR (the primary analytical measurement of total player value), Williams, Gehrig, Hornsby, Mantle and Cobb represent #2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in all-time career value.[3] However, analytic people will point to the overvaluing of these statistics as what inspired the so-called “Moneyball” era. Statistical analysis shows that counting stats like RBIs and Runs have little measure in actual value contributed to the team. These stats are team-dependent while stats such as On Base Percentage were more valuable than previously thought by mainstream culture because in most situations a walk is equally valuable as a single.

To make a rough transition from these thoughts, classic storyline arguments like Triple Crown stats or playing on a winning team (the other fuel to Cabrera’s fire is his team made the playoffs) make a lot of sense to use as a tie breaker when the analytic measurements of players are somewhat close. However, in this situation, Trout has had the type of season that is historically valuable while Cabrera is currently having what would only be Albert Pujols’ 8th highest WAR season.

More importantly, if mainstream writers had been open to the Trout story, they would have seen all the elements of a story they typically embrace. Trout’s game harkens back to when fans understood that baseball isn’t just about offense. Trout follows in the footsteps of Hall of Famer Willie Mays, who separated himself from other legends by playing extraordinary defense in centerfield. Or how about the storyline about the twenty year old prodigy that defied expectations by becoming only the third player to win Rookie of the Year and MVP in the same season? The possible narratives for Trout are nearly endless because of all the achievements he has made in his magical season. Hopefully, baseball fans of all kinds can embrace this.

As my final thoughts on the AL MVP, I am just going to quote an excellent string of posts made by Fangraphs writer, Dan Szymborski, regarding WAR, sabermetrics, and the overarching debate about the AL MVP in a chat on October 1st:

“Writing that WAR is contrived out of mid-air while slavishly counting stats that just happened to sound good in 1880 is beyond stupid. Once you start talking about BA/HR/RBI in an MVP debate, you're making a measure of wins right there, just an arbitrary one with poor standards and calculated within your head. If you're going to argue that our methods for treating cancer are imperfect and there are differences of opinion in how the methods should be applied, then yeah, I'll agree with you. But then if you turn around and follow it up with "So, we need to start treating cancer with the triple crown of leeching, mercury, and getting the humors in balance" I'm going to mock you.”

So what to take from all these thoughts? Maybe if you are the type of person that doesn’t believe in planning things out, you should give a long, rational look at your long-term plans. On the other end, if you are a person who has been too caught up in the next step, maybe you should take time to enjoy some of the smaller pleasures in life. The overarching thought is embrace all modes of thought and never be afraid to evaluate the truth behind your pre-conceived notions.

Oh, and go out and tell everyone that Mike Trout deserves the AL MVP. Seriously, 80% of America thinks that Cabrera deserves it…



For anyone that wants a thorough analysis of the Trout v Cabrera MVP debate, here is an organized outline that separates itself into two distinct categories:

1) Denying every argument that people put forth for Cabrera over Trout
2) Why Trout is clearly better—defense matters

Many of these arguments have been forth by many of the great writers on Fangraphs, Jonah Keri of Grantland, and Jayson Stark to name a few…

1)      Denying every Cabrera argument
a)      His Team made the playoffs
i)        His team made the playoffs with a worse record than the Angels
(1)   Teams
(a)    Tigers- 87 wins
(b)   Angels- 89 wins
(2)   Additional Analysis
(a)    It should also be noted that the Angels had to play a harder schedule by playing in a division where 2/3 of the other teams won 93+ games

b)      He carried the Tigers into the playoffs down the stretch
i)        fWAR since August 1-
(1)   Tigers
(a)    Cabrera 3.1
(b)   Fielder 2.7
(c)    Verlander 2.6 ...
(2)   The other guy
(a)    Trout 3.6
(3)   Analysis
(a)    The difference between Trout and Cabrera in WAR is greater than Cabrera and his nearest teammate down the stretch run


c)      Cabrera’s offensive numbers blow away Trout’s numbers- All stats through Trout and Cabrera’s 161st game and taken from Fangraphs and ESPN
i)        Basic Numbers
(1)   Cabrera basic numbers
(a)    Triple Slash (BA/OBP/SLG)
(i)      .331/.394/.608
(b)   HR/R/RBIs
(i)      44/109/139
(2)   Trout basic numbers
(a)    Triple Slash (BA/OBP/SLG)
(i)      .324/.397/.561
(b)   HRs/R/RBIs
(i)      30/129/83
(3)   Analysis
(a)    Triple slash
(i)      BA- Cabrera is 1st in the league, Trout is 2nd
(ii)    OBP- Trout is 3rd in league, Cabrera is 4th
(iii)    SLG- Cabrera is 1st in the league, Trout is 4th
(b)   HR/R/RBIs
(i)      HR- Cabrera 1st, Trout 13th
(ii)    R-  Trout 1st, Cabrera 2nd
(iii)   RBI- Cabrera 1st, Trout 22nd
(4)   Notes
(a)    Cabrera’s counting stats see a more signicant lead over Trout compared to his rate stats due to having played in more 22 games (Trout wasn’t called up from Triple-A until late April) along with his position in the batting order affecting RBI opportunities
ii)       Outs Created
(1)   Cabrera’s outs created
(a)    PA/Hits/Walks; Outs based on PA-Hits-Walks
(i)      695/205/66; 424 outs
(b)   GIDP
(i)      28
(c)    Caught Stealing
(i)      1
(d)   Total Outs (adds totals from 1-3 in this section); Outs per PA
(i)      453;  .651 outs per PA
(2)   Trout’s outs created
(a)    PA/Hits/Walks; Outs based on PA-Hits-Walks
(i)      635/180/67; 388 outs
(b)   GIDP
(i)      7
(c)    Caught Stealing
(i)      4
(d)   Total Outs; Outs per PA
(i)      399; .626
(3)   Analysis
(a)    Cabrera created 54 more outs in only 60 more at bats
(b)   If Trout had an equal number of PA, he would have created 435 outs, or 18 less than Cabrera
iii)     Bases Accounted For
(1)   Cabrera’s Bases Accounted For
(a)    Total bases
(i)      377
(b)   SB’s
(i)      4
(c)    Running Value (a measure of how likely a player took an extra base as a base runner compared to the average player expressed in base value)
(i)      -2.3
(d)   Bases Accounted For (TB + SB + Running Value)
(i)      378.7
(e)    Bases Accounted For per PA
(i)      .545
(2)   Trout’s Bases Accounted For
(a)    Total bases
(i)      312
(b)   SB’s
(i)      49
(c)    Running Value (a measure of how likely person took extra base as a base runner compared to the average player expressed in base value)
(i)      6.9
(d)   Bases Accounted For (TB + SB + Running Value)
(i)      367.9
(e)    Bases Accounted For per PA
(i)      .579
(3)   Analysis
(a)    Cabrera accounted for 11 more total bases than Trout over 60 more PA’s
(b)   If Trout had an equal number of PA’s as Cabrera, he would have accounted for 402.4 bases, 23.7 more bases than Cabrera
iv)     Overall Analysis of Offensive Seasons
(1)   Who is the best player based on rates
(a)    If they each had the same amount of appearances Trout would have accounted for 23.7 bases while getting out 18 less times
(i)      Cabrera’s biggest advantage is the gap in slugging % but Trout was still incredibly in 4th the league even though he is not what a person would picture in a traditional power sense
(ii)    Trout more than makes up for this gap by not only his speed (please see SB’s and Base Running Value above) but also drawing more walks with Trout getting 67 walks per 635 PA good for .. while Cabrera got 68 across 695 PA
(2)   Counting stats analysis
(a)    While closer, Trout still likely equals Cabrera in offensive value, if not slightly betters them, given the numbers put forth
(i)      Plain and simple, Cabrera only accounted for 11 more bases than Trout while creating 54 more outs in only 60 more at bats

d)      Cabrera was more valuable because he played all year
i)        fWAR
(1)   Cabrera
(a)    7.3
(2)   Trout
(a)    10.3
ii)       Analysis
(1)   fWar is a counting statistic and Trout still beat Cabrera by a staggering amount over the course of the season even though he missed nearly the entire first month of the season
(2)   Further, the Angels' 6-14 record before they called him up from Triple-A on April 27 while they have compiled a league best 83-59 record since, good for a .592 winning percentage.
(a)    The best winning percentage in the AL over the course of the year was NY Yankees who had a 95-67 record, good for a .586
(b)   Tigers finished the season 88-74, good for a .543

2)      The “Why Trout is Clearly Better” argument: Defense Matters
a)      Defense Statistics
i)        Comparing Defense
(1)   Trout
(a)    UZR (Ultimate Zone Rating)
(i)      13.3
(b)   DRS (Defensive Runs Scored)
(i)      21
(2)   Cabrera
(a)    UZR (Ultimate Zone Rating)
(i)      -9.2
(b)   DRS (Defensive Runs Scored)
(i)      -4
ii)       Analysis
(1)   The difference between Trout and Cabrera is evident to anyone that bothers to watch the game.  Almost anyone could tell you that Trout is one of the best, if not the best, CF in baseball while on the other end, Cabrera is one of the worst, if not the worst, Third Baseman in all of baseball
(a)    Advanced statistics support this, as UZR and DRS both attempt to measure runs saved or lost compared to the average fielder at the position
(i)      UZR sees a 22.5 run gap in favor of Trout while DRS sees a 25 run gap
b)      Overall Analysis
i)        The first section, especially through “c) Cabrera’s offensive numbers blow away Trout’s numbers” attempted to show why Trout was equally as good offensively as Cabrera, if not better
(1)   Even if you were to, in argument, spot Cabrera a slight offensive edge, the sizeable gap in defense makes viewing them as equals unimaginable


[1] (As this comment implies, the old phrase that opposites attract is a scientific falsity proven through numerous studies.[1] Part of the reason this notion is occasionally perpetuated is that people tend to marry people that they are so similar to that it causes their differences to be accentuated.)
[2] Side note- I will be the first to admit that I am naturally an analytic person and most of this will focus on supporting analytical thought but in no way should that be construed as not valuing the people who see beauty in the sport.

[3] It should be noted that defensive value can’t be factored into players from older eras because the necessary components to valuing the defense of the players isn’t present from those eras. Additionally, the two major sources of analytic research on baseball (Baseball Reference and Fangraphs calculate WAR with slightly different results. However, all five of the aforementioned players are top 20 players of all-time.

No comments:

Post a Comment