2007 ROY debate

[brewerguy71]

I used to see the author of the linked piece post over on the MLB site quite often, but has since disappeared.

 

The guy makes the case that based on WAR and various other metrics, that Troy Tulowitzki is better than Ryan Braun, or at the very least very similar as far as value goes.

 

Posting it for informational purposes:

http://www.beyondtheboxsc...tulowitzki-vs-ryan-braun

[Invader3K]

I would say Tulowitzki is a very good player, but Braun is clearly an elite player that almost any team would kill to have. I don't think you can say the same for Tulo. Sorry, but offense is still more valuable than defense.

[Ennder]

I'd say it is very debatable who was more valuable given how terrible Braun was defensively. I'd still give the award to Braun though since defense can be hard to measure over a single season.

[CheezWizHed]

Really is there anything to debate? Both are good and valuable players. Both deserved to win, but only one can win. Kind of like Woodson/Revis for DPOY. Flip a coin and pick one, because you can't be wrong either way.

[brewerguy71]

DPOY?

 

I get the sense that the debate begins in 07, but continues today. At least according to the article.

[1992casey]

We had a lot of debate at the time, but I haven't sensed that the debate has continued. That doesn't mean we can't rekindle it, of course. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[CheezWizHed]

DPOY - defensive player of the year. Debate at LambeauLeapis similar to ROY in 2007.

 

Seems like a strange article anyway. You can't revote for 2007 ROY and that is the only reason these two are linked. And the guy is using 3 years of data to prove that they picked the wrong guy in 2007? Also, keeps reminding the reader that Braun posted his numbers in 15 more games because of Tulowitzk's injuries. That doesn't seem like a good argument in T's favor...

[RockCoCougars]

This guy needs to stick his nose back into an old Bill James almanac and go replay a old season from APBA making out lineups based on his sabermetric genius.....Maybe if the game was played on a computer or something, but it's actually played in real life on a field. It's just like all of these people who now contend that Lofton should have won ROY over Listach in 92 just because Lofton had a much better career and his stats 'look better' 18 years later. They don't remember how Listach had big hit after big hit for a Brewers team that would have probably never been in contention without him.

[skyking162]

"This guy needs to stick his nose back into an old Bill James almanac

and go replay a old season from APBA making out lineups based on his

sabermetric genius.....Maybe if the game was played on a computer or

something, but it's actually played in real life on a field. It's just

like all of these people who now contend that Lofton should have won

ROY over Listach in 92 just because Lofton had a much better career and

his stats 'look better' 18 years later. They don't remember how Listach

had big hit after big hit for a Brewers team that would have probably

never been in contention without him."

 

Is this a parody?

[TheEndless7]

Tulo in 2007 at Home. .326/.392/.960 15 HR, 60 RBIs 77 Games. Tulo on the Road in 2007. .256/.327/.719 9 HR 39 RBI. Considerably better at Coors Field....

Tulo's Splits

Braun's are almost identical home and road. I think that probably swayed the voting a bit. ((in fact, looking at Braun's 2007 home and road splits is kinda scary how similar they are).

 

While Tulo was considerably better defensively..and played in more games, there's a lot to be said about the disparity between his home and away stats, specially with home being Coors field. At least in my opinion. I did not look at career splits to see if that was a 2007 thing, or a common thing.

[RockCoCougars]

"This guy needs to stick his nose back into an old Bill James almanac

and go replay a old season from APBA making out lineups based on his

sabermetric genius.....Maybe if the game was played on a computer or

something, but it's actually played in real life on a field. It's just

like all of these people who now contend that Lofton should have won

ROY over Listach in 92 just because Lofton had a much better career and

his stats 'look better' 18 years later. They don't remember how Listach

had big hit after big hit for a Brewers team that would have probably

never been in contention without him."

 

Is this a parody?

No. Frankly, I'm starting to get really annoyed with how sabermetrics

are being used as the end all be all for player analysis. Especially

when this analysis is done retroactively, sometimes on players that the

'analyzer' was not even old enough to watch. Kind of ironic, because

I've always considered myself to be a stat geek, but like I said, the

game is played on the field- not a computer. Enough is enough.

[topper09er]

Ryan Braun led the league in slugging even when extra outs were added to his stats to come up to the min ABs required, in a league with Pujols, Howard, etc. Not even close.

 

Also, I agree with RockCo, this sabr stuff is getting out of hand. I think some of the biggest problems are people trying to attach any future prediction to it...it has none, and the fact the people sometimes get too hung up on scoring as many runs as possible when the actual goal is to win games. Clearly, there are some times when bunting or stealing bases is the best strategy.

[Menace II Sobriety]

While I think this article is ridiculous as Braun has put up numbers to start his career that are only comparable to Pujols, the writer is actually very knowledgeable. I don't agree with many of his assertions or opinions he always has plenty of data and reasoning to back up his premise. He posts a lot over at brewcrewball and I believe he was an area scout for 5 years or so. He kind of reminds me of how 804Sox is here with some rather crazy ideas like this one that the Brewers generate over $240 million in revenue every year. http://www.brewcrewball.c...205515/show-us-the-money

 

Thinking that most teams make $60 million in profit each year but a team like the Rangers is sold for what $570 doesn;t add up.

 

Anyways Braun was a monster his rookie season and it shouldn't have even been close as to the vote. When he came up the whole team changed, plus he hasn't had a down year yet while Tulo has.

[Invader3K]

What is really scary to think about if Braun hadn't come up two months after the season had already started. Sure, his defense would have been horrible, but his offensive numbers would have made the ROY voting a closed case.

[rluzinski]

"This guy needs to stick his nose back into an old Bill James almanac

and go replay a old season from APBA making out lineups based on his

sabermetric genius.....Maybe if the game was played on a computer or

something, but it's actually played in real life on a field. It's just

like all of these people who now contend that Lofton should have won

ROY over Listach in 92 just because Lofton had a much better career and

his stats 'look better' 18 years later. They don't remember how Listach

had big hit after big hit for a Brewers team that would have probably

never been in contention without him."

 

Is this a parody?

He didn't say anything about a pocket protector or a mother's basement, so I'm not sure.

[TooLiveBrew]

Frankly, I'm starting to get really annoyed with how sabermetrics are being used as the end all be all for player analysis. Especially when this analysis is done retroactively, sometimes on players that the 'analyzer' was not even old enough to watch.

 

I remember Listach. However, I'm also able to look at his performance. I don't see what you're getting at here. Listach's performances, independent of biases, are recorded & freely available to any baseball fan willing to take the time to look at them. But somehow your (obviously flawed) human memory trumps that?

 

Listach had a good season for a young SS in '92, and did so largely via a ridiculous .366 BABIP. It doesn't take an expert to recognize that as unsustainable, and that's basically exactly what happened with the rest of Pat's career -- without any threat of power, he couldn't hit MLB pitching. He excelled in the fan-pleasing SB category, so surely that's skewing your perception of him as well. Lofton's '92 really wasn't much better than Listach's, so given that Pat was a SS, I think his selection as RoY was probably the right one.

They don't remember how Listach had big hit after big hit for a Brewers team that would have probably never been in contention without him.

This is just condescending, like your scattered memories of him coming up with "big hit after big hit" somehow is superior to objective data. That's what really bugs me -- when people write off objectivity in favor of their own imperfect human memory.

[Ennder]

If I wanted an objective opinion on how good a player was I would much rather talk to someone who never saw him play. There is so much bias in fan observation that it gets in the way of the truth more often than improving on it. The human side of baseball is included in the stats. It doesn't matter if Counsell is a gritty battler or a lazy slob because that is included in his stats.

 

As for Listach in 1982, I'm sure he had a lot of big hits that year. His OPS late and close was .831 afterall. Of course his OPS in high leverage situations was .601 so he had a lot of failing in big situations as well. Since his success happened to be late in close games I guess they stand out more.

[brewerguy71]

What is really scary to think about if Braun hadn't come up two months after the season had already started. Sure, his defense would have been horrible, but his offensive numbers would have made the ROY voting a closed case.

 

 

Braun's defense Ive heard was one of the worst defensive seasons ever that year. But if he had played a 162 game season, his WAR would have been 4.7. Very impressive, but still below that of Tulowitzki's.

 

My impression is that the article isnt necessaarily focusing on the one vote, but on a comparison of the two players' pro careers to date.

[RockCoCougars]

Frankly, I'm starting to get really annoyed with how sabermetrics are being used as the end all be all for player analysis. Especially when this analysis is done retroactively, sometimes on players that the 'analyzer' was not even old enough to watch.

 

I remember Listach. However, I'm also able to look at his performance. I don't see what you're getting at here. Listach's performances, independent of biases, are recorded & freely available to any baseball fan willing to take the time to look at them. But somehow your (obviously flawed) human memory trumps that?

 

Listach had a good season for a young SS in '92, and did so largely via a ridiculous .366 BABIP. It doesn't take an expert to recognize that as unsustainable, and that's basically exactly what happened with the rest of Pat's career -- without any threat of power, he couldn't hit MLB pitching. He excelled in the fan-pleasing SB category, so surely that's skewing your perception of him as well. Lofton's '92 really wasn't much better than Listach's, so given that Pat was a SS, I think his selection as RoY was probably the right one.

They don't remember how Listach had big hit after big hit for a Brewers team that would have probably never been in contention without him.

This is just condescending, like your scattered memories of him coming up with "big hit after big hit" somehow is superior to objective data. That's what really bugs me -- when people write off objectivity in favor of their own imperfect human memory.

I disagree. If players were all the same type of robots, or part of a computer virtual reality game, sabermetrics may be as important as you believe. That said, players are human playing in real world conditions. Baseball is largely based on random occurrences such as weather, field conditions and player health. When you are comparing two guys 50 years later, how do sabermetrics take into account the fact that one guy played through a nagging injury all season? Going further, I don't buy into assigning stats for 'Park Factors' and 'Range Factors' and the like on defense. The beauty of baseball is that no two plays are exactly the same. One ground ball to short is not the same as the other... I don't think the "sample size" argument can counter that fact effectively.

 

I will rely on my flawed memory and continue to objectively watch the game to compare players while using stats as well. I think that the obvious flaw with sabermetrics is that some guys (Mike Cameron, anybody?) come out of the computer as much better players than they really are. If sabermetrics are the end all be all, why hasn't Bill James been hired as more than a consultant, and why hasn't Billy Beane been able to achieve at least one winning season in the past several?

[TooLiveBrew]

I disagree. If players were all the same type of robots, or part of a computer virtual reality game, sabermetrics may be as important as you believe.

 

The problem with this is that "sabermetrics", which you seem to be dismissing as a type of belief, is merely objective facts.

 

 

When you are comparing two guys 50 years later, how do sabermetrics take into account the fact that one guy played through a nagging injury all season?

 

No, and that's not what they're there for.

 

 

If sabermetrics are the end all be all, why hasn't Bill James been hired as more than a consultant, and why hasn't Billy Beane been able to achieve at least one winning season in the past several?

 

I honestly don't think you really understand "sabermetrics". It's not a religion, it's a term derived from the acronym for the Society of American Baseball Research. Statistics in baseball have evolved so that we don't need to rely as much on our flawed & biased memory (Mike Cameron, anybody?).

 

Furthermore, teams have hired statistical consultants. I don't think there's a team out there that doesn't employ at least one. The notion that Bill James is the *only* advanced statistician out there is just strange to me. It never ceases to amaze me how bitter some people become about advanced statistics, which every organization uses in concert with good scouting to evaluate players -- the way it should be.

[RockCoCougars]

I disagree. If players were all the same type of robots, or part of a computer virtual reality game, sabermetrics may be as important as you believe.

 

The problem with this is that "sabermetrics", which you seem to be dismissing as a type of belief, is merely objective facts.

 

 

When you are comparing two guys 50 years later, how do sabermetrics take into account the fact that one guy played through a nagging injury all season?

 

No, and that's not what they're there for.

 

 

If sabermetrics are the end all be all, why hasn't Bill James been hired as more than a consultant, and why hasn't Billy Beane been able to achieve at least one winning season in the past several?

 

I honestly don't think you really understand "sabermetrics". It's not a religion, it's a term derived from the acronym for the Society of American Baseball Research. Statistics in baseball have evolved so that we don't need to rely as much on our flawed & biased memory (Mike Cameron, anybody?).

 

Furthermore, teams have hired statistical consultants. I don't think there's a team out there that doesn't employ at least one. The notion that Bill James is the *only* advanced statistician out there is just strange to me. It never ceases to amaze me how bitter some people become about advanced statistics, which every organization uses in concert with good scouting to evaluate players -- the way it should be.

So, correct me if I'm wrong but I'm assuming that you are in the camp that both wins and RBI's are largely meaningless stats. The problem that I have with these advanced statistics do not effectively measure whether a hitter is clutch (for example, Mike Cameron is not a clutch hitter). Yes, RBI's are a functon of your teamate's performance, but you still have to get the job done when they are on base. Correct me if I'm wrong, but basically an at bat the 8th inning of an April game with the Brewers down 9-0 basically has the same weight as an at bat with the Brewers tied 3-3 in the 9th inning of a September game. If so, I have a problem with that. I also have a problem with putting such a high value on OBP. The objective is to win the game by scoring and driving in runs, not to get to first base. Hitting 6th for a good chunk of last year, Cameron should have had a high OBP, because generally the guys hitting 7-8 were trash. I'd pitch around him too. Walks are much more a function of the pitcher, not the hitter. Some guys have poor plate discipline and will end up playing themselves out of the league with a low BA and high strikeouts, but some guys like Vlad have terrible plate discipline, but are (or at least were for Vlad great hitters). Also, do you feel wins are a lucky stat? How do you account for the fact that some days weather conditions and/or just the ball carrying at Miller Park for whatever reason favors the offense? In any case, if a guy gets a win he was in theory at least able to outpitch the opponent that day.

[TooLiveBrew]

These arguments are so tired and pointless. I apologize for getting into another one.

[amt2138]

I think what you arent realizing about "clutch" hitting is that most players perform right around where they would normally hit (with no runners on) when they are in these situations. Sure some guys have years when they hit better in the "clutch" but there is nothing that says they will continue to do this year after year.

 

I understand that you are not a real big fan of Cameron, but even if you don't like to admit it he does have value as an offensive player. I also understand that some people will be more inclined to believe in stats than others, but the whole thing with "robots playing" and all sabremetrics people being "geeks" gets pretty annoying.

[mletto157]

Going further, I don't buy into assigning stats for 'Park Factors' and 'Range Factors' and the like on defense.

 

That's fine if you don't buy into it... but there's a specific reason why people in certain positions would be very interested in such data. For example: if you're trying to decide if you should trade for a certain pitcher... you should be aware that if said picher played for Oakland for the beginning of his career, and he is primarily a fly-ball pitcher, he most likely benefited greatly from a very pitcher friendly field. If you don't take these things into consideration you will wind up getting burned, and be without a job as the huge blockbuster signing you made ended up being more bust than you had hoped for.

[mletto157]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but basically an at bat the 8th inning of an April game with the Brewers down 9-0 basically has the same weight as an at bat with the Brewers tied 3-3 in the 9th inning of a September game.

 

I would say if this is what you believe than you should learn more about statistics. There are statistics that measure everything. Just take a look at Ennder's post earlier in this exact thread, he lists statictics for both "Late & Close" and "High Leverage Situations." If you are ignoring these, than sure... you may not get an accurate measure of a players performance, both in general and in "clutch situations."

 

I also have a problem with putting such a high value on OBP. The objective is to win the game by scoring and driving in runs, not to get to first base.

 

It's pretty hard to score a lot without players on base, don't you think? In all actuality we're talking about evaluating a specific player on offense, not the whole team and nothing to do with defense. That being known, what do you think an offensive player is trying to do when he's at bat? I would venture to guess if you said, "trying not to make an out" you would be correct. Well, the best stat to look at for this is OBP, because it is basically telling you how often a player did not make an out.

 

Hitting 6th for a good chunk of last year, Cameron should have had a high OBP, because generally the guys hitting 7-8 were trash. I'd pitch around him too.

 

Pitchers almost never want to put a guy on base. Because even some of the worst hitters in the game still get a hit 1/5 to 1/4 of the time. If you have no outs, than that's three players with those chances to get a hit. That means more often than not, one of the next 3 gets a hit.

 

Walks are much more a function of the pitcher, not the hitter. Some guys have poor plate discipline and will end up playing themselves out of the league with a low BA and high strikeouts, but some guys like Vlad have terrible plate discipline, but are (or at least were for Vlad great hitters).

 

If this were true... since all the players on the Brewers face the same pitchers on any given day, shouldn't they all have basically the same walk rate? But they don't... Also why did Rickie Weeks have a high walk rate? I'm certain pitchers were not trying to pitch around him to get to Braun and Prince...

 

Also, do you feel wins are a lucky stat? How do you account for the fact that some days weather conditions and/or just the ball carrying at Miller Park for whatever reason favors the offense? In any case, if a guy gets a win he was in theory at least able to outpitch the opponent that day.

 

Wins in general are not a lucky stat. It's when looking at the win/loss record of a specific pitcher that it gets pretty dicey. Wins tell you almost nothing about how good a pitcher pitched. Wins are a team stat, not an individual one. When trying to evaluate a specific player you should not use a team stat. If you looked at is this way, Ben Sheets would have been a bad pitcher because he had a bad win/loss record. Also Braden Looper would have been the best pitcher on the Brewers last year because he had the best win/loss record. There's a reason that both of these are no where near true.