Player's View: Who's the Best in the Game?

[DW711]

Miguel Cabrera: 184 assists in 145 games. (about 1.26 per)

 

Not that this is a fair comparison, but what the hell...

 

Manny Machado: 355 assists in 156 games (2.27 per)

[Mudville]

How many TIgers games did you watch this year to make your claim?

 

These guys have been playing since little league. They have seen every flavor of player that has been on the fields of every ballpark they played on in some very unforgettable stops on the way to the big leagues. They know talent, they have to try and compete with that talent to keep their job.

 

So if one set of players are saying Mike Trout and one says Miguel Cabrerra you have to respect their point of view, they are the experts. Not a bunch of fantasy league guys that won their Yahoo bracket. They are the guys making the money trying to keep these two guys from beating them and each group has their reasons why one player or the other is the toughest to compete against.

 

Stats are just numbers and most are just shells of what happens on the field. It gives the layman power to toss around and say this guy is the best because these sets of numbers combined in this formula says so. But when the umpire calls play ball the players have their own opinion based on getting beat by guys they know are better than them. And no amount of stats are going to sway them, they had to compete against non box score experiences.

 

 

 

It doesn't take a genius to know Cabrera is terrible defensively. The experts who find these defensive stats are the ones finding the data and watching games anyways. These players only play against a guy a max of 19 times a year. How do they know he isn't awful the other games they don't see?

[jshep]

A+ appeal to authority going on right here.

 

It's a lousy argument, but I'll give you credit for trying.

[Brent Maguire]

I don't even know where to begin with addressing what Mudville just said. 

 

Forget stats then because he said they're of no use!

[DW711]

I don't think Cabrera will want to give up his triple crown, Mudville. That's pretty stat oriented.

 

Yes, they're experts..but some will say stuff just to not make their argument/opinion look weak(er).

 

Stuff like this: "he’s pretty good defensively, too.”

 

I don't even know if Jack Cust or Chuck Knoblauch could say that.

[YouthofToday]

They know talent, they have to try and compete with that talent to keep their job.

...

So if one set of players are saying Mike Trout and one says Miguel Cabrerra you have to respect their point of view, they are the experts. Not a bunch of fantasy league guys that won their Yahoo bracket. They are the guys making the money trying to keep these two guys from beating them and each group has their reasons why one player or the other is the toughest to compete against.

Stats are just numbers and most are just shells of what happens on the field. It gives the layman power to toss around and say this guy is the best because these sets of numbers combined in this formula says so. But when the umpire calls play ball the players have their own opinion based on getting beat by guys they know are better than them. And no amount of stats are going to sway them, they had to compete against non box score experiences.

This is so laughably, wildly ridiculously riddled with logic fallacies to be declared a truly tragic post.

[Docwaukee]

most would come to the same conclusion regardless of the presence of advanced metrics.  the fact that we now know what babe ruth's WAR was doesn't change anything. 

 

Trying to argue that one player is better than another because that player has a WAR of 9 whereas the other a WAR of 8 is certainly not the point of WAR.

 

The general point of advanced metrics is to try and find runs or prevent runs in ways that aren't always obvious to the eyes.  Zobrist is a good example. He probably adds more runs than is generally obvious whereas a guy like Trumbo might be less valuable that the hrs and rbis would typically correlate to. 

[Troll Daddy]

The return of a healthy Hanley Ramirez is interesting.

[ten ocho recon scout]

The return of a healthy Hanley Ramirez is interesting.

It is, but it also (along with uribe) seems a bit flukey to me. As in I wouldn't expect a repeat next year. I'm just leary of sudden performance spikes, and hanleys 13 is insane compared to his last 4 years.

[NrM]

How many TIgers games did you watch this year to make your claim?

 

These guys have been playing since little league. They have seen every flavor of player that has been on the fields of every ballpark they played on in some very unforgettable stops on the way to the big leagues. They know talent, they have to try and compete with that talent to keep their job.

 

So if one set of players are saying Mike Trout and one says Miguel Cabrerra you have to respect their point of view, they are the experts. Not a bunch of fantasy league guys that won their Yahoo bracket. They are the guys making the money trying to keep these two guys from beating them and each group has their reasons why one player or the other is the toughest to compete against.

 

Stats are just numbers and most are just shells of what happens on the field. It gives the layman power to toss around and say this guy is the best because these sets of numbers combined in this formula says so. But when the umpire calls play ball the players have their own opinion based on getting beat by guys they know are better than them. And no amount of stats are going to sway them, they had to compete against non box score experiences.

I think this might be the worst post I've seen all year.

[NrM]

It is, but it also (along with uribe) seems a bit flukey to me. As in I wouldn't expect a repeat next year. I'm just leary of sudden performance spikes, and hanleys 13 is insane compared to his last 4 years.

Hanley wont be the best hitter in the NL next year, but he'll still be solid.

One thing that will be interesting is if Matt Kemp can return to form.

[Lifetime]

These guys play against both players and their evaluations come from more playing time than most have sat on their asses watching. So their observations have nothing to do with counting stats, it has to do with competition and basing everything on what they see happen on the field.

You guys spend your time fawning over numbers and in the case of WAR over a formula most can't even put into words to understand how that final number is achieved. But all those sexy number convince you that the players are dumb guys that don't know anything about the game they play.

I wonder sometimes how you guys thought you became experts.

sure, these players base their assessment mostly on what they see when they face these players. That's a pretty small sample size though. If said player has a particularly good, mediocre, or bad series, it will jade their evaluation. Meanwhile, stats look at performance over a much larger sample and is in fact a much more reliable evaluator than one based on a few games facing a player.

[James]

You guys care more about this comparison more than Trout and Cabrera probably do. 

[Angel Oracle]

What DW said, Machado is a witch defensively already.

[Season Over]

Cabrera iz better cuz he hits ball far

[DW711]

Cabrera iz better cuz he hits ball far

 

Not currently (no jinx).

Edited October 8, 2013 by DW711

[Erstad Grit]

Adrian Gonzalez, Los Angeles Dodgers infielder: “Miguel Cabrera. Absolutely. He’s the best hitter, and he’s pretty good defensively, too.”

 

Haha no.

 

Seriously.

 

He is so good defensively that despite being the best hitter in baseball he is getting pulled late in games during the playoffs. 

[Toby Ziegler]

According to Zach, it's definitely Trout.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Toby Ziegler

[Tyler]

You guys care more about this comparison more than Trout and Cabrera probably do. 

 

Isn't that normal?