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.
No comments:
Post a Comment