108 replies to this topic

[bnickle]

I thought it was mostly funny, but obviously someone who believes in or sympathizes with Albom's view would not likely be a fan. It obviously wasn't a serious article as well so it shouldn't be judged as one.

I think they do a pretty good job of basically be a media watchdog.

I actually think Albom does come off looking pretty bad in his article but this guy is just as bad. He admits he doesn't watch baseball and he is doing the same thing Albom is doing. Albom is mocking and laughing at saber fans mostly because he doesn't get the benefits of sabermetrics or want to take the time to learn more about them. This douchebag writer is doing the same thing in mocking Album. He doesn't know a damn thing about baseball or what Album is really arguing. The irony is laughable and it's bad enough if your only writing to be funny and entertain but Deadspin writers take themself seriously.

You guys should be waiting til someone with actually baseball and saber knowledge writes their retort to Album. I promise you it'll be much better.

[mweb08]

I actually think Albom does come off looking bad in his article but this guy is just as bad. He admits he doesn't watch baseball and he is doing the same thing Albom is doing. Albom is mocking and laughing at saber fans mostly because he doesn't get the benefits of sabermetrics or want to take the time to learn more about them. This douchebag writer is doing the same thing in mocking Album. He doesn't know a damn thing about baseball or what Album is really arguing. The irony is laughable and it's bad enough if your only writing to be funny and entertain but Deadspin writers take themself seriously.

You guys should be waiting til someone with actually baseball and saber knowledge writes their retort to Album. I promise you it'll be much better.

I think you're taking this article as something it is not.

It's not meant to be a serious retort. It's meant to be funny and satirical

And yes, better retorts will likely come, but we don't really need an intelligent and great writer to respond to this article because it's just so bad and anyone who can't see that aren't likely to see it no matter who is trying to persuade them.

[bnickle]

I think you're taking this article as something it is not.

It's not meant to be a serious retort. It's meant to be funny and satirical

And yes, better retorts will likely come, but we don't really need an intelligent and great writer to respond to this article because it's just so bad and anyone who can't see that aren't likely to see it no matter who is trying to persuade them.

BS. Thats an excuse. You and DJ are so worked up that you felt the need to post some article that this guy had no business writing. It's complete garbage. I can't believe you felt the need to post an article by this guy about a subject that obviously is very important to you.

[mweb08]

BS. Thats an excuse. You and DJ are so worked up that you felt the need to post some article that this guy had no business writing. It's complete garbage. I can't believe you felt the need to post an article by this guy about a subject that obviously is very important to you.

Haha, whatever man. I just thought it was funny.

[DJ MC]

BS. Thats an excuse. You and DJ are so worked up that you felt the need to post some article that this guy had no business writing. It's complete garbage. I can't believe you felt the need to post an article by this guy about a subject that obviously is very important to you.

You're the one taking this so seriously. It's a funny article. If you disagree, fine. Let it go.

[DJ MC]

http://www.freep.com... ... out-debate

A better writer for the Detroit Free Press offers an opinion on the debate.

[mweb08]

Far from a perfect article, but I'll quote the conclusion: http://www.slate.com... ... won.2.html

Twenty-four of the MVP voters work for newspapers or newspaper groups; 21 of them (88 percent) voted for Cabrera. The remaining four are employed by websites and cable networks. Just one of them—ESPN’s Tim Kurkjian, who got his start in print in 1978—picked the Tigers’ third baseman. And based on my quick census, every voter 51 and above—that includes Kurkjian, Mark Whicker, Bob Dutton, Tom Gage, Sheldon Ocker, Bob Elliott, Daryl Van Schouwen, and several more—sided with Cabrera, the old-guard candidate. Among Trout’s six supporters were the shallow voting pool’s two relative youngsters: 32-year-old Jeff Passan of Yahoo and the Providence Journal’s Tim Britton, who graduated from Duke in 2009.
Miguel Cabrera’s voters are ink-stained traditionalists who long for a time before nerds ruined baseball by explaining how it worked. Analysts who embrace modern statistical analysis—folks like Nate Silver, Dave Cameron, Jonah Keri and Keith Law—favored Trout over Cabrera in large numbers. In their in-house poll, for instance, the staff of Baseball Prospectus chose Trout as the AL MVP by a vote of 28 to 1.
But who cares what those guys think? As of 2012, none of them get a vote. The BBWAA’s voting system empowers baseball’s most-conservative voices and disenfranchises those with non-prehistoric views. If presidential elections were decided this way, Mitt Romney would’ve won in a landslide, earning the support of the council of elders the nation had entrusted to make such a weighty decision: Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, and George Will.
Trout’s supporters should be heartened by the fact that this is one election where the winner doesn’t get any political capital. Cabrera—who declared on Thursday that he was worried he might lose because of “the new thing about computer stuff”—will not be empowered to ban advanced fielding metrics and make WAR illegal. Eventually, reason will win out over superstition, the conventional wisdom will change, and the nerds will become the establishment. The voters of 2012 will not decide who wins the MVP in 2032, and for that we can all be thankful.

[JeremyStrain]

Hate that the MVP debate has somehow turned into old-school v new school and stats versus not, but I do think that a lot of people treat the MVP award as the MVOP (most valuable offensive player) and not the all around most valuable.

[mweb08]

Hate that the MVP debate has somehow turned into old-school v new school and stats versus not, but I do think that a lot of people treat the MVP award as the MVOP (most valuable offensive player) and not the all around most valuable.

It really shouldn't be so much about old school vs new school. As the tweet I posted earlier said, it's been much more about people who care about defense and baserunning vs those who don't care much. That has nothing to do with old school or new school. In fact, the old school should be all about the defense and baserunning.

Now there is some old school vs new school elements involved in the offensive side of the equation as the new school wants to consider park effects, positional adjustments, stolen bases, and even how one does in the clutch. Well only the first two of those are new school really, and they shouldn't be tremendously controversial imo. Stolen bases is very old school as is clutchness, but arguably the best stat to measure the latter is not old school. So I suppose for the reason of hating any new stats, old school people dislike something (WPA) that they should absolutely love because it tells them something they would normally be very interested in.

[JeremyStrain]

It really shouldn't be so much about old school vs new school. As the tweet I posted earlier said, it's been much more about people who care about defense and baserunning vs those who don't care much. That has nothing to do with old school or new school. In fact, the old school should be all about the defense and baserunning.

Now there is some old school vs new school elements involved in the offensive side of the equation as the new school wants to consider park effects, positional adjustments, stolen bases, and even how one does in the clutch. Well only the first two of those are new school really, and they shouldn't be tremendously controversial imo. Stolen bases is very old school as is clutchness, but arguably the best stat to measure the latter is not old school, so for I suppose the reason of hating any new stats, old school people dislike something (WPA) that they should absolutely love because it tells them something they would normally be very interested in.

Yeah I've kinda sat back and watched everything devolve over the past couple days, it's pretty stupid to me. I've heard people argue for Cabrera using nothing but offensive explanation. I've heard people argue against Trout using his age. I've seen people argue that if your team doesn't make the playoffs you can't win MVP.

They are all pretty stupid arguments and really show the casualness of the awards. If Mark Reynolds won the triple crown playing 3B next year, he'd give up as many runs as he'd knock in and still win MVP. They need to retitle it (or add a new one like in hockey) and have it reflect the offensive award it's really being handed out for.

[DJ MC]

It really shouldn't be so much about old school vs new school. As the tweet I posted earlier said, it's been much more about people who care about defense and baserunning vs those who don't care much. That has nothing to do with old school or new school. In fact, the old school should be all about the defense and baserunning.

One thing I've seen mentioned at times during the debate was the 2001 AL MVP vote where Ichiro Suzuki beat out Jason Giambi (also the last time there was a ROY and MVP winner in the same year). Back then, most of the guys studying the stats supported Giambi's 38-homer, 1.100-plus-OPS season (along with 120 RBIs and finishing second to Suzuki in the batting race at .342), while the "traditional" writers mocked them for ignoring defense and baserunning in their analysis.

Eleven years later, the stats have come around to the point where baserunning and defense can be incorporated at both an "eye" and a stat level. So who is the traditional argument for now? The slow, clumsy guy who can crush the ball.

[JeremyStrain]

One thing I've seen mentioned at times during the debate was the 2001 AL MVP vote where Ichiro Suzuki beat out Jason Giambi (also the last time there was a ROY and MVP winner in the same year). Back then, most of the guys studying the stats supported Giambi's 38-homer, 1.100-plus-OPS season (along with 120 RBIs and finishing second to Suzuki in the batting race at .342), while the "traditional" writers mocked them for ignoring defense and baserunning in their analysis.

Eleven years later, the stats have come around to the point where baserunning and defense can be incorporated at both an "eye" and a stat level. So who is the traditional argument for now? The slow, clumsy guy who can crush the ball.

$20 bucks says if he didn't win the "triple crown" he doesn't win MVP. I'm pretty sure he got a lot of votes for that.

[DJ MC]

Yeah I've kinda sat back and watched everything devolve over the past couple days, it's pretty stupid to me. I've heard people argue for Cabrera using nothing but offensive explanation. I've heard people argue against Trout using his age. I've seen people argue that if your team doesn't make the playoffs you can't win MVP.

They are all pretty stupid arguments and really show the casualness of the awards. If Mark Reynolds won the triple crown playing 3B next year, he'd give up as many runs as he'd knock in and still win MVP. They need to retitle it (or add a new one like in hockey) and have it reflect the offensive award it's really being handed out for.

Right. Despite its name and the few exceptions, the MVP has always been an offensive award. There IS an offense-only award (the Hank Aaron Award), but no one cares.

There really should be, essentially, an "offensive player" and "defensive player" of the year award to go with the MVP, like the NFL hands out. So you would have the Hank Aaron and Cy Young Awards, and the Most Valuable Player Award. Hell, you could do it league-centric, so you end up with the Ted Williams, Walter Johnson and Babe Ruth Awards in the AL, and the Hank Aaron, Cy Young and Willie Mays Awards in the NL.

[DJ MC]

$20 bucks says if he didn't win the "triple crown" he doesn't win MVP. I'm pretty sure he got a lot of votes for that.

One writer (probably Posnanski) pointed out that Trout reached base seven times on errors this season, while Cabrera only did so four times. Get the right scorekeeper at the right time and turn four of those errors into singles, and Trout wins the batting title. Everything else is the same in terms of production and value, but suddenly Cabrera doesn't have the Triple Crown while Trout leads in batting average.

[bnickle]

See I understand why Cerrano really wanted Cabrera to win. It's not that Cabrera was more deserving than Trout. He wasn't. It's this reverse backlash or reverse discrimination we are seeing from the "new age" towards the "old school". It's this "new age" group pointing their fingers and laughing at the old fogeys and their inferior thought process and decision making. It's the arrogance that pisses me off. These new age guys would have you believe Trout should have been the run away MVP, that Cabrera shouldn't even be holding his jockstrap. That's just ridiculous, and it's very disrespectful to assume that most of these BBWAA voters don't understand sabermetrics and didn't weigh them in their decisions.

[DJ MC]

See I understand why Cerrano really wanted Cabrera to win. It's not that Cabrera was more deserving than Trout. He wasn't. It's this reverse backlash or reverse discrimination we are seeing from the "new age" towards the "old school". It's this "new age" group pointing their fingers and laughing at the old fogeys and their inferior thought process and decision making. It's the arrogance that pisses me off. These new age guys would have you believe Trout should have been the run away MVP, that Cabrera shouldn't even be holding his jockstrap. That's just ridiculous, and it's very disrespectful to assume that most of these BBWAA voters don't understand sabermetrics and didn't weigh them in their decisions.

And it's this attitude, with all of the falsehoods it contains, that leads to any "reverse discrimination" in the first place. The "traditionalists" did it first, and still do it most (though it isn't a majority on either side). They don't get to play the victims now that the tide is going the other way. Bullies can't cry when they get bullied.

[BSLChrisStoner]

See I understand why Cerrano really wanted Cabrera to win. It's not that Cabrera was more deserving than Trout. He wasn't. It's this reverse backlash or reverse discrimination we are seeing from the "new age" towards the "old school". It's this "new age" group pointing their fingers and laughing at the old fogeys and their inferior thought process and decision making. It's the arrogance that pisses me off. These new age guys would have you believe Trout should have been the run away MVP, that Cabrera shouldn't even be holding his jockstrap. That's just ridiculous, and it's very disrespectful to assume that most of these BBWAA voters don't understand sabermetrics and didn't weigh them in their decisions.

I understand the point about perceived arrogance pissing you off, but I feel it coming from the other-side than you do. During the last few days, I've listened to just horrible arguments from Mike & Mike, SVP, Billy Ripken, and now Mitch Albom.

It's an interesting debate from all sides. Certainly not going away anytime soon.

[bnickle]

I understand the point about perceived arrogance pissing you off, but I feel it coming from the other-side than you do. During the last few days, I've listened to just horrible arguments from Mike & Mike, SVP, Billy Ripken, and now Mitch Albom.

It's an interesting debate from all sides. Certainly not going away anytime soon.

I understand that there is horrible arguments but that's the subjective nature of the subject. The problem with many of these new age guys is that there was a clear cut, correct answer to this subjective question. How many of the old school guys as flawed, as their thinking and arguments may have been, said that Miguel Cabrera was the clear cut choice or only legit candidate to win the award.

[DJ MC]

I understand that there is horrible arguments but that's the subjective mind for you. The problem with many of these new age guys is that there was a clear cut "right answer" to this subjective question.

Not too long ago the "old age" guys would have made the exact same claim about Cabrera. Hell, I heard quite a few say it this time anyway. There were lots of variations on "Triple Crown! That's what matters!" offered up over the past two months.

[DJ MC]

How many of the old school guys as flawed as their thinking and argument may have been said that Miguel Cabrera was the clear cut or only legit candidate to win the award.

As I mentioned in my post before I saw your addition, I heard that quite a bit.

Not "only legit candidate", of course; no one said that. But no one said it about Trout either.