12 comments Jerry Green Puns it Up, Goes to War Over WAR

Jerry Green is an old-school sportswriter. I say that not only because he is semi-retired, but also because he doesn't like the use of advanced statistics to judge a baseball player. Jerry appears to enjoy the use of older statistics and plain ol' logic when judging a baseball player. Obviously no one can argue with the use of logic since what is logical or not logical is dependent on someone's point of view. For example, I don't think it is logical to criticize the use of WAR to judge a player when the sportswriter doing the criticizing doesn't understand what the statistic means. That's logical to me. Jerry Green thinks Miguel Cabrera's MVP credentials over Mike Trout are logical, but mostly he just hates the use of advanced statistics.

For the record, with a gun to my head I would probably vote for Mike Trout as MVP, but it isn't the end of my world if Miguel Cabrera gets the AL MVP award. I don't believe the Triple Crown automatically means Miguel Cabrera should be the MVP, but I think a reasonable case can be made for Trout and Cabrera. I simply don't like Jerry Green's method of determining Cabrera is the American League MVP because it seems close-minded.

The talent is true. He plays with rare versatility in a game that dissects the skills of its athletes...

Yet he climbs fences, stretching above walls, to catch balls ordinary outfielders could never reach. He runs with the verve and the speed of a sprinter. And for most of this current season, he led the American League in batting.

Mike Trout is the finest ballplayer to reach the major leagues in the past half-century.

Let's get ready for the proverbial "but" to enter the discussion. It's never good when someone sits down and starts overcomplimenting you to the point it becomes awkward. There's usually a "but" towards the middle of that discussion that takes the conversation into a whole new direction.

In my judgment, Trout is the most talented player to enter the big leagues since Willie Mays joined the New York Giants in May 1951.

But he isn't MVP. Shit, did I just spoil the ending of this column?

Trout arrived in the majors on April 28 this season, from the Salt Lake Bees of the Pacific Coast League. Shipping him to a farm club was an obvious gaffe out of spring training by the often strategically challenged Angels.

Games won by strategically challenged Angels this year: 89 games, which would have been enough to win the AL Central if only Anaheim wasn't located in California.

Games won by Detroit Tigers this year led by Miguel Cabrera: 88 games, which wouldn't have been good enough to win any other division in the majors this year.

Indeed, measuring the old-fashioned numbers that we the purists still regard as sacred — batting average, runs batted in, home runs — Trout's rookie stats are superior to those compiled by Willie Mays 61 years ago.

Advanced statistics show this to be true as well. But those advanced statistics are evil we will soon learn.

No matter what — he must be the unanimous choice for the rookie of the year award. But MVP? Not this season.

Here's the "but" sentence. Mike Trout is the greatest rookie since Willie Mays, but there is an award for that and it is called the "Rookie of the Year" award. This is as opposed to Miguel Cabrera who wins the fictional "Triple Crown" award and the American League MVP.

The "no-matter what" boils down to Miguel Cabrera's season — and the ancient baseball rarity revered as the Triple Crown.

I understand, know and appreciate baseball history. So I am not blind to the accomplishment that Miguel Cabrera has achieved this year. There is a reason I wouldn't hate it if Cabrera won the MVP award. The fact Cabrera won the Triple Crown is just fantastic and is a sign he had a great year. I don't know if the fact Cabrera won the Triple Crown makes him the MVP. A perfect game is also a baseball rarity and Matt Cain threw one this year. Should he win the National League Cy Young award for this?

I get the Triple Crown is a season-long accomplishment, as opposed to a perfect game being only over one game, and Cabrera did have a great season. The Most Valuable Player is about which player had the best season and which player was the most valuable. Fortunately, because he was called up in late April we get an idea of how valuable Mike Trout was for the Angels. They were 6-14 before Trout got called up and 80-56 after he got called up. Granted, this wasn't all because of Mike Trout. Albert Pujols hitting like he is used to hitting had something to do with it. In my opinion, Mike Trout was the most valuable player in the American League this year for reasons that go beyond this. Yes, his WAR is incredibly high, but he also excelled in five phases of the game and in my opinion was more valuable to the Angels than Cabrera was to the Tigers. Even if it is a small sample size you can see how the Angels played before and after he was called up to the majors.

Cabrera is destined to lead the American League batting for the second successive year. He surpassed Trout a few weeks ago. Cabrera likewise is due to top the league in runs batted in. He is challenging Josh Hamilton for the AL's home run championship, the third segment of the Triple Crown. He tied him with his 43rd Saturday.

You can break it down into segments of the Triple Crown to basically restate the case, but the fact remains the same that Jerry Green is using Miguel Cabrera's Triple Crown as why he should win the MVP. He isn't including defense and that "lost art" old-school writers are conveniently forgetting to bitch about being a lost art right now, stolen bases. I find it that funny. For a few years now we have heard old-school, Sabermetric-hating writers talk about the lost art of the stolen base. They say more teams need to stop trying to hit home runs and start "manufacturing runs," using speed, guile and grit. Now "manufacturing runs" is all-but-forgotten when it comes to a player old-school baseball writers don't think should win the MVP award. Suddenly, stolen bases are giving a Sabermetric-candidate (which is what Mike Trout basically is) a better chance of winning the AL MVP and I don't hear much discussion about this lost art of stolen bases anymore.

Plus, Cabrera is powering the Tigers toward the postseason, the pennant playoffs — the qualifying tests leading to the World Series.

Great point! Why isn't Mike Trout leading the Angels to the playoffs? Is it because he just isn't the team leader that Miguel Cabrera is? Or is it because Mike Trout is the only decent player on his team so he has had a chance to shine on a bad team?

Well actually, the Angels won 89 games this year while the Tigers won 88 games. I heard this point of view given by an ESPN analyst recently during a Yankees-Red Sox game. The analyst said Cabrera was the MVP because he is leading his team to the playoffs. He said this despite the fact the Angels have won more games than the Tigers. This is conveniently not mentioned. So the only reason Cabrera is powering the Tigers towards the postseason is because the Tigers play in the AL Central. In every other division, the Tigers wouldn't even qualify for the Wild Card in either the American League and would be tied for the Wild Card in the National League. So if Jerry Green really finds it persuasive to say Cabrera is powering the worst playoff team in the majors to the playoffs, a team that has won 1 fewer game than Mike Trout's team, then I shouldn't really argue with that kind of idiocy. It's a losing deal...and yet I continue.

Cabrera is the American League's MVP. Not the multi-talented Mike Trout. 

The guy who can hit the baseball slightly better than Trout is the MVP, not the guy who can hit the baseball only slightly worse than Cabrera, yet run and field better. I think I got it.

And the Angels, it appears with a few games left this season, are not destined to reach the postseason. If the Angels fail, incidentally, it would be because they shipped Mike Trout to the minors for a few weeks out of spring training.

This is arguable and actually makes a case for Trout as MVP. The Angels still could have gotten off to a 6-14 start without Trout, but the odds are very good they would have won more games with Trout in the lineup. Of course, I find it interesting that Green doesn't think Mike Trout is the AL MVP, but also states if the Angels had called him up for the first 20 games of the season they would be in the playoffs. Seems like he is kind of valuable to the Angels, especially considering the Angels had a better record than the Tigers even without Trout being eligible to play in a little over 12% of the season.

This sort of thinking, of course, has baseball watchers — many with opinions similar to mine — condemned as reactionaries and opponents of progress.

No, I just think Jerry Green is not paying attention to three tools of the five-tool player that Mike Trout has shown himself to be. I do think it is bizarre Jerry Green touts how Miguel Cabrera is leading his team to the playoffs when any smart sportswriter should immediately notice two issues with this statement:

1. The Angels won more games than the Tigers this year. Again, the Tigers have the worst record of any division winner and they probably play in the worst or second worst division in the majors as well.

2. Jerry Green believes the Angels would have won more games if they had put Mike Trout in the starting lineup coming out of Spring Training. So not only does Jerry Green believe Trout is very valuable to the Angels, but the whole argument of "Miguel Cabrera led his team to the playoffs" becomes even more short-sighted and meaningless knowing this.

ESPN claims that Trout merits the MVP award — despite Cabrera's possible Triple Crown — on the basis of WAR.

I base my MVP vote on the idea that Mike Trout was (what I believe) the difference in the Angels season being sort of a disappointment or a big disappointment...and yet the Angels still won 89 games. I also base it on the fact I think Trout was not only the most valuable player, but also he was valuable in five phases of the game, while Cabrera was valuable in two phases of the game.

This is not the kind of war that Ted Williams fought in twice amidst his Triple Crown-style seasons. Or the war that brought Willie Mays into the Army during his career.

Ugh. Not really that funny. Jokes like this make me a little "green" when reading Jerry's columns. Get it? That's humor.

It is that relatively new "Moneyball" style of crackpot Sabermetrics stat described as wins above replacement. Whatever that means.

I hate those crackpot Sabermetric stats. They aren't nearly as reliable as using RBI's or a team's record to show why an individual should be the American League MVP. If you can't use data that is reliant on other players on that team's performance to measure an individual's worth then what is the point of life?

WAR — and there are versions disseminated by both websites Baseball-Reference.com and fangraphs.com — includes more skills than pure hitting and hitting for power. Stolen bases are considered, a number that actually can be counted.

WAR is by no means perfect, but it does encompass a player's all-around contribution to a team, including stolen bases.

Fielding likewise counts.

Just how fielding figures in … well, you look and watch. And then guess, and perhaps the guess works. Or doesn't.

Everyone knows fielding shouldn't count now and has never counted when determining the value of a baseball player. It's not like old-school sportswriters have ever allowed defense to count when determining the MVP or who gets in the Hall of Fame.

I guess Jerry Green doesn't see defense as part of baseball since it takes some effort to quantify the value of a player's defense. Who wants to put effort into voting for a postseason award? I never knew defense wasn't a part of the game of baseball, yet scrappiness and non-quantifiable attributes like leadership and clutchness are a part of the game and should be factored into a player's favor when discussing his value.

I realize I just sort-of created a straw man argument, but it feels so good.

And then the figure person tries to measure how an ordinary replacement player might compare to the established high-skilled player.

If you can't understand how to figure WAR then how is it possible to criticize what you don't understand? Didn't Jerry Green listen to Bob Dylan in the 1960's? Don't criticize what you don't understand. WAR is measuring how many more wins over a replacement player (AAA or AAAA player) a certain Major Leaguer adds to his team's win total. 

Once upon a time, the MVP was not decided on the basis of some imaginary numbers that are jammed into a murky, invented stat such as WAR.

This is nonsensical. All calculations are invented in some fashion. Batting average and ERA aren't "naturally occurring" statistics which require no calculation. WAR requires more calculation than some other statistics, but don't be afraid of it because it requires a little bit more work to understand. WAR isn't invented any more than other statistics are invented and it doesn't use imaginary numbers. WAR uses real numbers in the same way figuring out a player's ERA or batting average figures real numbers.

Were there no Calculus or Advanced Algebra classes when Jerry Green went to high school? I wonder this because I can see old-school sportswriters like Murray Chass and Jerry Green standing up on their desks at the age of 17 rebelling against "these imaginary and invented numbers" their Calculus teacher is forcing them to learn. At some point this opposition to difficult numbers to calculate speaks to a lack of education in terms of math and science. Calculating WAR isn't any different than the other "imaginary" calculations which created "invented" formulas used in high school math and science.

Unlike WAR there is no stat in Sabermetrics known as LOGIC.

There is no statistic in any sport called "LOGIC." In the land of invented statistics using imaginary numbers the use of "LOGIC" would be the king of invented statistics and imaginary numbers because there is no way to quantify what "LOGIC" really means since it is subjective to each individual person. For example, logically even if I disagree with something I take the time to understand it so I know exactly what I am disagreeing with.

And oops, WAR does not figure in baseball's most important statistic — finishing in first place during the regular season.

Hey Jerry, does your LOGIC statistic figure up how bragging the Tigers are finishing in first place with 88 wins in a weak division is a better showing than the Angels coming in third place in a stronger division with 89 wins? Because my LOGIC statistic says 89 games won is more than 88 games won, so bragging the Tigers won their division isn't the best way to campaign for Miguel Cabrera as the MVP. It's a losing argument, especially if we consider Jerry Green states the Angels would have won more than 89 games if Mike Trout had played in the majors for the entire month of April.

The Tigers are aimed — likely — for a first-place finish in their division now that all the white flags in Detroit have been ripped down.

Maybe Jerry Green doesn't have access to the Interwebs to find out the Angels won more games this year than the Tigers. If the Angels played in the AL Central, they would have won this division. I can't repeat how stupid this "the Tigers won their division" argument is when it comes to Miguel Cabrera's candidacy for AL MVP.

A ballplayer who leads his team to a first-place finish — nothing could be more valuable.

Other than a ballplayer who leads his team to a third-place finish with more wins than the ball-player who led his team to a first-place finish, while playing in 22 less baseball games?

There is no doubt that Mike Trout is first over Miguel Cabrera in both WAR I and WAR II.

But Cabrera is first in the American League.

Consider your point not made and LOGIC states you have failed to persuade me with your argument. Mike Trout was slightly more valuable than Miguel Cabrera was this year. I don't even need statistics to say this because I know it from watching both of them play (ouch, there is the old-school sportswriter "I saw them both play and that tells me all I need to know" argument used against an old-school sportswriter). Mike Trout's team won more games and Mike Trout stole more bases and played better defense, while still hitting at an extremely high level. If you can't beat them, use their own LOGIC against them.