Edit: Please see my later post as well, which corrects an omission here.
Miguel Cabrera has a shot at the Triple Crown this year. No one has done it since Carl Yastrzemski. Is it really possible that he could win the Triple Crown and not win the MVP? Well, yes. Every advanced stats guy out there is trumpeting Mike Trout for MVP, with his “wins above replacement” (WAR) above 10 (next best in the majors is 6.8) and his 13 “total zone total fielding runs above average” (basically, this is the number of runs he has saved with his fielding, compared to an average fielder).
The discussion is eerily similar to the AL Cy Young conversation in 2010. Felix Hernandez won because he led the AL in innings pitched, ERA, and, most importantly, WAR, Â even though his win-loss record was a mediocre 13-12.
The 2010 Cy Young was a victory for sabermetricians. Pitchers can’t control how many runs their offense scores. All they can do is put up a low ERA and stick around for as many innings as possible. Strikeouts help too, since they reduce the risk of errors, and walks hurt, since fielders can’t do anything about a walk. There might be some cases where pitchers rise to the occasion in a close game to get a win, but for the most part, getting a “win” has little to do with pitcher skill after accounting for pitchers’ direct performance statistics.
2012 MVP: the Saber-Men After Party?
This time around, sabermetric thinking is stacked heavily against Cabrera (and the media is paying attention):
- RBIs are meaningless. After accounting for total bases and on base percentage in some way, RBIs have little to do with individual skill
- Cabrera LEADS THE AL IN DOUBLE PLAYS with 28, which is not captured by any traditional stat (granted, he has Austin Jackson’s high OBP in front of him, so he has lots of chances)
- Trout steals lots of bases and never gets caught (46 for 50 this year), which also isn’t captured by traditional metrics
- Cabrera is a poor fielder (10 runs worse than average at third base), Trout is a good fielder (mentioned above)
All these factors lead to Trout’s 10.4 to 6.7 WAR advantage over Cabrera. If voters take these numbers seriously, it seems that we’ll be looking at another win for the number crunchers.
But What is WAR Anyway?
Four extra wins is a lot and WAR is widely accepted as meaningful, but before I leap on the Trout-wagon, is WAR actually a good statistic? Here’s a snippet from Baseball Reference’s WAR explanation:
There is no one way to determine WAR. There are hundreds of steps to make this calculation, and dozens of places where reasonable people can disagree on the best way to implement a particular part of the framework.
Uh oh . . . hundreds of steps is never a good sign, Continue reading →
Michigan: Destined for an early exit?
Michigan is my favorite college basketball team, and for the first time in awhile, they are threatening to make a deep tournament run. However, they just lost three of four during a tough stretch against Indiana (L, away), Ohio State (W, home), Wisconsin (W, away), and Michigan State (W, away). I’m not writing them off — they only lost the away games — but some bad signs appeared in these games. Here’s the Game Stack for all four combined:
Michigan looks good on turnovers, but that comes at a cost — they get crushed on free throws and two point percentage. Having watched the games, I can connect the dots for you: the Wolverines don’t drive to the hoop much against good teams. They have some great shooters who can get reasonably open (Trey Burke, Tim Hardaway, Jr.) who are happy to “settle” for jumpers.
This keeps the ball out of danger in the lane (low turnovers), but it means that Michigan never gets to the line and shoots a lower percentage on twos as well. Michigan also rebounds a lower percentage of their own misses than the opponent, which could be related — a lot of “second chances” are just put-backs after a shot close to the hoop.
So, is Michigan sunk? We’ll see. I have some faith that Mitch McGary can improve and find some high percentage twos down low, but right now, Michigan is probably not efficient enough offensively and not good enough on the boards to compete with the best teams in the country. I would worry less about four games if the problem was just poor shooting in a small sample, but the problem seems to be about playing style against good defenses. I don’t think that’s going to change.
If you’re interested, here are the Game Stacks for all four games. The trends I discussed are pretty consistent across the games:
3 Comments
Posted in Basketball, College Sports, Commentary, Sports Stats
Tagged basketball, basketball alternative box score, basketball analysis, Big Ten Conference, box score, college basketball, game stacks, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan basketball, Michigan basketball analysis, Michigan free throws, Michigan Indiana, Michigan Michigan St, Michigan Ohio State, Michigan Wisconsin, Michigan Wolverines, Ohio State University, Sports, sports column chart, sports data graphs, sports data visualization, sports stacked bar chart, Tim Hardaway, Tim Hardaway Jr., Trey Burke, U of M, visual box score, visualization, Wisconsin, Wolverine