So here's a crazy notion: why do I have to choose between traditional or saber?

If a player hits 500 line drives right at the SS and bats .050 on the year is he the MVP?

If a player hits 500 dribblers right past the pitcher and bats .950, do the hits still count? Do the runs count if he scores?

Here's my point. RBIs matter-they represent actual run production, not theoretical production. Batting average matters, even if the BABIP is unusually high. Home Runs matter in any system.

If I want to evaluate a player's season (i.e. for awards), I don't care how much luck is involved; that is to say how much his production varied from the predicted numbers based on line drive rate and similar predictive stats. I care about actual real production that happened on the field: Runs he scored, runs he drove in, hits he made, bases he stole, walks he drew, etc.

If I'm a GM, I would largely ignore traditional stats and favor the more predictive stats used in sabermetrics. The player that hits 500 line drive outs is likely to have a more productive season next year when his luck evens out.

Sometimes luck does not even out and we shouldn't assume that it should and adjust a player's numbers to account for it. If a guy drives in more runs because he had more opportunity, then so be it. He still had to do it, and that counts for something. If he scored more runs because he had better hitters driving him in, those runs still counted and that should matter.

This is not a Trout vs Miggy MVP argument; that is more about how you feel the MVP award should based. I don't want this to devolve into that, just want the argument to stand on its own.

Sorry for any typos and general lack of formatting, I'm on a phone and don't want to work on it that hard.

You hit it on the dot...MVP should be based on real production>theoretical production. GM's should base decisions on theoretical production>>>real production. And John Daniels needs to "Lose the Gut" otherwise we get a repeat of this year, perhaps even worse.

Even if the goal is simply to summarize past performance (not factoring out luck) then certain sabermetric stats may be better for that purpose than traditional stats. Batting avg. ignores walks and treats singles as equivalent to HRs. HRs ignores everything besides HRs. Why not rely on stats like wOBA or oWAR instead?

regardless of what system you use. Face palm had no business in the lineup.

I wholeheartedly agree with you RFan. wOBA is an amalgamated effort of stats that tell more of the story than just batting average or OPS.

Everyone ask yourself this question? Which is player is more valuable?

Player A hits .277 with 77% of his hits being singles and walks 5.1% of the time and has an OBP of .299

Player B hits .226 with 56% of hits being singles and walks 13.4% of the time and has an OBP of .343

And John Daniels needs to "Lose the Gut" otherwise we get a repeat of this year, perhaps even worse.
-penthaus

Wait, Jon Daniels for starters. And if I read that right, you blame Jon Daniels for our "collapse" and I'm very interested in why that is?

Although I cannot take credit for it because another poster made the comment, whether you are saber based or observation based you should use want to compliment the other or vice versa and not use one to the exclusion of the other. Some feel that I am against the sabermetrics, I am not. What I am against his people using saber and excluding everything else. The award should go to a combination of both because the player who performs better will have better metrics.

You guys do realize that Sabermetrics are ways to put PADMY's and "doesn't he pop up too much" into analytics... right?

I didn't buy into saber at first, but then I took the time to understand the math behind the numbers.

wRC+, wOBA, oWAR...are beyond the abilities of casual fans. It's asking too much. I'm not sure Ron Washington understands them.

OPS is simple and is a good entry drug to Saber. Then OPS+...and then on from there.

I'd love for the Sabr community to come up with something that would be media and fan friendly. I'd call it REAL-BA.

Real batting average would include value for total bases, walks and sacrifices. Sportscasters could explain it easily and fans would quickly realize that the batting average stat completely sucks. They'd want the real thing.

What I'm saying is just this: they need to rename and rebrand something like wRC+ for common consumption.

Soon enough, Hit/FX...particularly when accompanied by SportsVision's sexy graphics is going to popularize the players with the best line drive and batted ball velocity.

Just as pitchers are known know for how fast they can pitch...hitters will be known for batted ball speed.

I think wOBA is easy enough to package. They even explain it in normal average terms for us.

Anything named wOBA won't sell. And the moment you use the word "weighted" you freak people out.

It needs to feature a simple name and use simple terms.

Call it whatever you like, but the stat itself is a solid one which is easy enough to understand.

Sabermetrics obviously are important. However, I like what Leyland said about RBI. They may mean nothing, but when you lose a close one you sure wish someone had a couple more. The object is to get more runs batted in than your opponent.

Revsader

I don't consider OBP a Sabermetric stat.

I do think OPS is more valuable than BA and we have saber/Bill James to thank for that.

RBIs are generally ignored by the saber community.

CJ

The problem with most stats is they have their limit. On base percentage is simple and straight forward, and will never be an ineffective way to quantify the rate at which a batter reaches base. OPS isn't a bad stat, but it has its limit like every other.

Point is, OPS puts more weight on slugging percentage than on base percentage, even though one single base is more important than the difference between a double and a triple, for instance. This is why wOBA (which I don't find to be a very complex metric, like SIERA, for instance) is such an effective stat, because it's all inclusive.

To take it to the MVP argument, and the thought of real production vs. theoretical production, Mike Trout had a higher wOBA and wRC+ than Cabrera did this season. That's not theoretical; that's real. A big factor as to why Cabrera had more RBI is because he batted 3rd, and Trout led off.

I've only been involved in the sabermetrics for a little under a year now, but like everything else I'm into if I'm going to start it I'm going to keep going with it. I still use my experience and perception first and foremost; the metrics really only confirm or deny if I'm right or wrong.

I think the sabre community is doing a good job of clearing out the noise in stats. Wins has clearly been a big target and the Cy Young Award for Felix shows the gains made in the public perception of useful statistics. RBI is another stat that has too much noise to be considered when comparing performance between 2 players. When arguing about the value added of player X to player Y, I do not like to hear that player X has 100 RBIs and player Y has 80 RBIs so therefore that is added value to player X. The RBI stat is dependent on too many factors outside the players control.

This is where I have a problem:

A big factor as to why Cabrera had more RBI is because he batted 3rd, and Trout led off.

This is where saber loses the edge. Cabrera should not penalized for this. He had more opportunity, yes. He also came through. Would Trout have come through? Theoretically, yes.

But he didn't ACTUALLY knock in more runs. Would pitchers have pitched differently to hi. With more runners on base? Would he have buckled under the pressure of being a run producer instead of a table setter? Does it matter?

I don't know because he didn't have the opportunity. Cabrera did and he came through. There is something to this reality.