PDA

View Full Version : The MVP and new playoff format???



Ty Fast
04-07-2012, 12:19 PM
Do you think that if they had this years playoff format last year that Verlander would have won MVP or do you think one of the guys on the Red Sox would have won it?

Twins Fanatic
04-07-2012, 12:32 PM
Verlander still would have won it, his numbers were unreal. Boston is still a good team without one of the three (Ellsbury, Gonzalez, Pedroia), playoff worthy. And, let's not fail to mention that Boston should have made the playoffs last year. I don't see the Tigers coming close to making the playoffs without Verlander.

Fly
04-07-2012, 12:39 PM
Verlander still would have won it, his numbers were unreal. Boston is still a good team without one of the three (Ellsbury, Gonzalez, Pedroia), playoff worthy. And, let's not fail to mention that Boston should have made the playoffs last year. I don't see the Tigers coming close to making the playoffs without Verlander.

Why not? Verlander was a 7.0 WAR player last year, the Tigers were a 95 win team. Taking away Verlander would've made them an 88 win team, which still would've made them easily in first in the AL Central.

nirvana235
04-07-2012, 12:50 PM
Verlander still would have won it, his numbers were unreal. Boston is still a good team without one of the three (Ellsbury, Gonzalez, Pedroia), playoff worthy. And, let's not fail to mention that Boston should have made the playoffs last year. I don't see the Tigers coming close to making the playoffs without Verlander.

Yea cuz the Indians were a REAL threat.

Ron!n
04-07-2012, 12:51 PM
Why not? Verlander was a 7.0 WAR player last year, the Tigers were a 95 win team. Taking away Verlander would've made them an 88 win team, which still would've made them easily in first in the AL Central.
Which is why MVP should always go to the best player and not the player who was most instrumental to their team's success.

Twins Fanatic
04-07-2012, 12:52 PM
Why not? Verlander was a 7.0 WAR player last year, the Tigers were a 95 win team. Taking away Verlander would've made them an 88 win team, which still would've made them easily in first in the AL Central.

Let's be realistic, do you see the Detroit Tigers, even with their great hitting, making the playoff with Mark Scherzer as their top pitcher. Granted he did post a 15-9 record with a 4.43 era. But, you do have to remember that Verlander faced is the ace of that club and faced most of the best pitchers in the league. I just don't see any other pitchers on that roster putting up good enough numbers as a 1 in that rotation.

nirvana235
04-07-2012, 12:54 PM
Let's be realistic, do you see the Detroit Tigers, even with their great hitting, making the playoff with Mark Scherzer as their top pitcher. Granted he did post a 15-9 record with a 4.43 era. But, you do have to remember that Verlander faced is the ace of that club and faced most of the best pitchers in the league. I just don't see any other pitchers on that roster putting up good enough numbers as a 1 in that rotation.

Without Verlander last year, they're still better than the Indians.

Twins Fanatic
04-07-2012, 01:12 PM
Without Verlander last year, they're still better than the Indians.

Agreed, I forgot the Central was complete **** last year and Detroit ran away with that division, but it still doesn't change the fact that Boston is a way bigger threat without one of those three out (Ellsbury, Gonzalez, Pedroia), than Detroit without Verlander out. And, ESPN's WAR rating is ****ing ridiculous, it doesn't put into consideration that you move a 2 up to a 1 in the rotation and fill the 5 with a minor league pitcher.

RTL
04-07-2012, 01:25 PM
Why not? Verlander was a 7.0 WAR player last year, the Tigers were a 95 win team. Taking away Verlander would've made them an 88 win team, which still would've made them easily in first in the AL Central.

That's not how WAR works

sexicano31
04-07-2012, 02:09 PM
He probably would have won because he was the popular choice. Doc was still better than him

DodgerBlue8188
04-07-2012, 02:15 PM
Why not? Verlander was a 7.0 WAR player last year, the Tigers were a 95 win team. Taking away Verlander would've made them an 88 win team, which still would've made them easily in first in the AL Central.

See this is what I don't like about WAR. It can't be an exact science. There is no way to know how many wins a player is really responsible with. Just an estimation based off how they produce. Without Verlander who knows how the rest of the pitching staff pitches. When you got a guy like Verlander in your starting rotation it really takes the pressure off other pitchers because they know that it's not all up to them.

Mr Haha
04-07-2012, 03:00 PM
See this is what I don't like about WAR. It can't be an exact science. There is no way to know how many wins a player is really responsible with. Just an estimation based off how they produce. Without Verlander who knows how the rest of the pitching staff pitches. When you got a guy like Verlander in your starting rotation it really takes the pressure off other pitchers because they know that it's not all up to them.

The new metrics deny that human psychology ever plays a part in how humans perform. But still, there is no way to quantify that. Advanced metrics do a great job at getting closer to the truth, but it could never get to the whole truth, which is why, like you, I am uncomfortable with the degree of certainty people have in them.

ManningToTyree
04-07-2012, 03:36 PM
Verlander still would have won

Fly
04-07-2012, 10:23 PM
That's not how WAR works

"Wins Above Replacement, commonly known as WAR, is a non-standardized sabermetric baseball statistic that is used to show how many more wins a player would give a team as opposed to a "replacement level", or minor league/bench player at that position."

:shrug:

RTL
04-07-2012, 10:38 PM
Yes but you can't say "Since Player X had a 5 WAR, without him they would have had five less team wins". That's not how the game is played and not how WAR is supposed to be viewed. Plus WAR is not fact.

Fly
04-07-2012, 10:45 PM
Yes but you can't say "Since Player X had a 5 WAR, without him they would have had five less team wins". That's not how the game is played and not how WAR is supposed to be viewed. Plus WAR is not fact.

It is a fact, though, that Verlander had a 7 WAR last year. And obviously you can never tell exactly how much impact a player has on a team, but WAR gets you pretty damn close.

RTL
04-07-2012, 10:53 PM
It is a fact, though, that Verlander had a 7 WAR last year. And obviously you can never tell exactly how much impact a player has on a team, but WAR gets you pretty damn close.

I'm not disputing that Verlander had a 7 WAR. WAR itself is not a fact but statistical theory but it seems like you now get what I was saying. Verlander having a 7 WAR doesn't mean the Tigers would have had 7 less wins without him.

Welchman
04-08-2012, 11:30 AM
Verlanders 16-3 record after a Tigers loss is more important than his war.

sexicano31
04-08-2012, 11:35 AM
Oh? And how is that?

the_jon
04-08-2012, 11:45 AM
Verlanders 16-3 record after a Tigers loss is more important than his war.
Yup clearly win-loss record is a more telling stat than WAR.

sexicano31
04-08-2012, 11:50 AM
A better thing to look at is the Tigers W-L on this days

Welchman
04-08-2012, 12:01 PM
I'm not saying WAR isn't important, but it doesn't take into account of the emotional part of the game like stopping losing streaks and saving the bullpen. I know y'all don't agree with that, just my opinion

ModernDaySavage
04-08-2012, 12:08 PM
It's like arguing religion, you will literally never get a true answer. No matter what you guys discuss and say, there is no way to go back to last year's season and replace Verlander with a pitcher to see how many wins more or less he would've gotten. Stats are just to help get a general idea about something to go along with the eye test, not an exact concrete number that cannot be argued.

Mr Haha
04-08-2012, 02:15 PM
It is a fact, though, that Verlander had a 7 WAR last year. And obviously you can never tell exactly how much impact a player has on a team, but WAR gets you pretty damn close.

On what planet can WAR be a fact?

The misunderstanding of basic vocabulary in the pro-advanced metrics crowd can be astonishing.

bosox3431
04-08-2012, 03:21 PM
Agreed, I forgot the Central was complete **** last year and Detroit ran away with that division, but it still doesn't change the fact that Boston is a way bigger threat without one of those three out (Ellsbury, Gonzalez, Pedroia), than Detroit without Verlander out. And, ESPN's WAR rating is ****ing ridiculous, it doesn't put into consideration that you move a 2 up to a 1 in the rotation and fill the 5 with a minor league pitcher.

Its not espns. And actually in a way it does take that into account. It stands for wins over replacement, which is showing exactly what your talking about, how much more valuable he is compared to a minor league player.


On what planet can WAR be a fact?

The misunderstanding of basic vocabulary in the pro-advanced metrics crowd can be astonishing.

It is a fact that verlander had a 7 war last year, and that's clearly what he said. Now if you were arguing that its not a fact that it isnt 100% correct, then you would be correct. But you weren't. Because like usual your reading comprehension went out the window.

Mr Haha
04-08-2012, 03:28 PM
Its not espns. And actually in a way it does take that into account. It stands for wins over replacement, which is showing exactly what your talking about, how much more valuable he is compared to a minor league player.



It is a fact that verlander had a 7 war last year, and that's clearly what he said. Now of you were arguing that its not a fact that that is 100% correct, then you would be correct. But you weren't. Because like usual your reading comprehension went out the window.

No amount of reading comprehension could allow me to understand this sentence.

C-Wick925
04-08-2012, 03:33 PM
No amount of reading comprehension could allow me to understand this sentence.

lol x2

bosox3431
04-08-2012, 04:22 PM
No amount of reading comprehension could allow me to understand this sentence.

Classic Mr. Haha. When you know you're wrong, just point out some grammar mistakes.

fadedmario
04-08-2012, 05:17 PM
Verlander

Pinstripe pride
04-09-2012, 09:12 AM
verlander was unreal last year. he would have won regardless