Unlike with context-neutral statistics like wRC+, RE24 takes the number of outs and number of baserunners into account. It does not assume that all home runs are equal, nor does it treat a strikeout with a man on third base and one out as just another out. The rewards for performing with men on base are higher, and the blame for failing in those same situations is steeper as well. This is a metric that essentially quantifies the total offensive value of a player based on the situations that he actually faced. This is not a theoretical metric. If you hit a three run home run, you get more credit than if you hit a solo home run. If you are consistently getting hits with two outs to drive in runs, you get more credit than if those hits come with no outs and the bases empty. And, of course, it’s only an offensive metric, so there’s no defensive component, no position adjustments, and no replacement level. This is just straight up offense, adjusted for the context of the situations that they faced.
Here’s the AL leaderboard for this season. If you don’t want to click the link, I’ll just reproduce the top five here.
1. Mike Trout: +56.52 runs
2. Edwin Encarnacion: +54.44 runs
3. Prince Fielder: +48.12 runs
4. Joe Mauer: +46.51 runs
5. Miguel Cabrera: +45.18 runs
Offense only. Context Included. Trout is #1
WAR is a way better statistic than any of the triple crown stats in determining a player's contribution to his team. But forget WAR.
Look at the above. No WAR. No replacement value. Simply a strict analysis of every single at bat these player had.
Last edited by Holden Caulfield: 10-05-2012 at 07:25 PM.
Reason: not neccessary
Trout had way more runs, not sure where you got your numbers from
also nearly had 50 steals and had 70 less ABs than Cabrera
My numbers were comparing Chase Headley to Cabrera. Not Trout.
WAR suggests Headley had a better year than Cabrera. Ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zajacs Bowl Cut
Ryan Braun should win the NL MVP this year and his team didn't sniff the playoffs
just because your team doesnt make it doesnt make you any less valuable
I agree with this.
That being said, I feel like WAR better rewards players on crap teams which I think is wrong.
I'm done arguing with the stat geek though. He knows way more about statistics than I do, but he lacks common sense. The Triple Crown is a hell of an accomplishment. There's a reason it hasn't happened in 45 years.
Or Prince Fielder or Justin Verlander. Should they be above Trout in the MVP pecking order?
Fielder and Verlander were very valuable to the Tigers, but are irrelevant in this because they are not in the MVP race
Miguel Cabrera and Mike Trout are relevant because both are in the MVP race and both of their teams would likely be in different places had it not been for both players - both were in divisions and on teams that were in close races, the ChiSox finishing a few games back and the same with the Angels for a WC spot
no one is arguing that winning the Triple Crown isn't an awesome accomplishment. however, that doesn't necessarily mean you should automatically win the MVP
no one is arguing that winning the Triple Crown isn't an awesome accomplishment. however, that doesn't necessarily mean you should automatically win the MVP
Exactly. They are difficult statistical categories to excel in all at once, but not the ones that are most correlated with making your team win.
wow that is a really ****** way to lose a playoff spot despite winning 6 more games than the Cards. At least Chipper's last at bat was a hit, albeit a crazy one in which he might have actually been out.
The point of the infield fly is to prevent the runners from being tricked into staying to close to the base on a hit, causing a double play.
When you call the infield fly 1/2 second before it lands, it totally defeats the purpose of the rule.
The guys on the radio said the guy didn't put his hand up til it hit the ground
Either way that's just ****ed
You have a 6 game lead on a team and yet b/c the MLB wants to out do it's own stupidity of the ASG determining WS homefield, you decide that 6 game lead doesn't exist and play a tiebreaker game and then THAT happens.
I'm ashamed. That was an embarrassment to this city. To act that way when there are children there is despicable.
Not to mention my childhood ended on a broken-bat single
Wow, what jackass remarks by Joe Torre, "We've always had controversy" and "I like the format, it puts emphasis on winning the division, it's exciting"
Hey *******, the Braves were 4 back in their division and the Cards were NINE back. How does that put emphasis on winning your division if you can finish 9 back and steal a game and it's just like you won your division because now you're in the DS?
The guys on the radio said the guy didn't put his hand up til it hit the ground
Either way that's just ****ed
You have a 6 game lead on a team and yet b/c the MLB wants to out do it's own stupidity of the ASG determining WS homefield, you decide that 6 game lead doesn't exist and play a tiebreaker game and then THAT happens.
Hopefully this is a quick end to that experiment.
Even if he put his hand up beforehand it still would have been stupid, the ball was fifty feet out in left.
That said, I hate that this is now going to be ammo for the people that don't like the one-game wildcard, especially given the Braves finishing ahead of the Cards by a few games and now losing in this fashion. I think the one-game wildcard is actually one of the better things they've done. You not only put a priority on winning the division but you also give the division winners an actual advantage by making the wild-card team blow its best pitcher, have to travel, etc.
A 94-win team loses out to an 88-win team? Tough, that's the way it bounces (and it's also an abberation given how the WC has shaken out in recent years). I'd rather make it harder for the wild card than for the division winner, especially with how the division races had become a joke in recent years. If anything it was too easy for the Wild Card to be on a par with a division winner, given they were playing playoff baseball going in and the division winner was coasting. At least it ain't like the olden days where a 103-win Giants team missed the playoffs in the last year pre-Wild Card.
One thing that IS stupid is the current 2-3 format for the divisional round though. I hope that's only for this year because of shoehorning the one-game wildcard into the current schedule in Spring Training and they change it back to 2-2-1 next year.
Wow, what jackass remarks by Joe Torre, "We've always had controversy" and "I like the format, it puts emphasis on winning the division, it's exciting"
Hey *******, the Braves were 4 back in their division and the Cards were NINE back. How does that put emphasis on winning your division if you can finish 9 back and steal a game and it's just like you won your division because now you're in the DS?
Because the teams that won their division don't have to deal with a one game playoff. Unfortunately it doesn't matter how far back you are in your division as long as you can nab a wildcard spot. I think this new format is ridiculous as well, but what's really ****ing stupid is how the teams with the best record in the AL/NL have to go on the road for the first 2 games.
Because the teams that won their division don't have to deal with a one game playoff, and those that didn't, do. I think this new format is ridiculous as well, but what's really ****ing stupid is how the teams with the best record in the AL/NL have to go on the road for the first 2 games.
And even the team that wins the one-game playoff gets its rotation screwed up, might have to use its bullpen - while the division winners can set their rotation with two-three extra days off before the playoffs.
The 2-3 schedule is a joke (although it's not unprecedented, the LCS used to have that stupid format), but they literally approved the one-game playoff after the start of Spring Training. There was really no time to schedle it right. They'd better not have the 2-3 next year when they can, or it basically eliminates the purpose of the wild card playoff, to make it easier for the division winner.
Even if he put his hand up beforehand it still would have been stupid, the ball was fifty feet out in left.
That said, I hate that this is now going to be ammo for the people that don't like the one-game wildcard, especially given the Braves finishing ahead of the Cards by a few games and now losing in this fashion. I think the one-game wildcard is actually one of the better things they've done. You not only put a priority on winning the division but you also give the division winners an actual advantage by making the wild-card team blow its best pitcher, have to travel, etc.
A 94-win team loses out to an 88-win team? Tough, that's the way it bounces (and it's also an abberation given how the WC has shaken out in recent years). I'd rather make it harder for the wild card than for the division winner, especially with how the division races had become a joke in recent years. If anything it was too easy for the Wild Card to be on a par with a division winner, given they were playing playoff baseball going in and the division winner was coasting. At least it ain't like the olden days where a 103-win Giants team missed the playoffs in the last year pre-Wild Card.
One thing that IS stupid is the current 2-3 format for the divisional round though. I hope that's only for this year because of shoehorning the one-game wildcard into the current schedule in Spring Training and they change it back to 2-2-1 next year.
Yeah that's where the left fielder is normally standing. I heard it on the radio live, just saw it now for the first time. Hooooly ****
And I get making it harder for the wild card team than the divisional team, not letting teams coast at the end, whatever. But a 162 game season down to a friggin one game toss up? That makes no sense at all. Especially since the Braves finished all of 4 games behind the best team in baseball who were on cruise control since what, July or August, while the Cards were 9 back on their division.
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Henrique
Because the teams that won their division don't have to deal with a one game playoff. Unfortunately it doesn't matter how far back you are in your division as long as you can nab a wildcard spot. I think this new format is ridiculous as well, but what's really ****ing stupid is how the teams with the best record in the AL/NL have to go on the road for the first 2 games.
Yeah that new series format is moronic as well. Not shocking from the league that gives home field to the AS winner
Yeah that's where the left fielder is normally standing. I heard it on the radio live, just saw it now for the first time. Hooooly ****
And I get making it harder for the wild card team than the divisional team, not letting teams coast at the end, whatever. But a 162 game season down to a friggin one game toss up? That makes no sense at all. Especially since the Braves finished all of 4 games behind the best team in baseball who were on cruise control since what, July or August, while the Cards were 9 back on their division.
I don't know why you keep harping on the 9 back of their division, would it have been more just if the Reds had 89 wins instead of 97 (putting the Cards one back)? The Cards would have still had the same number of wins, it doesn't matter how much they finished behind. It's not like the Cards coasted into the playoffs either, they had the Dodgers a game or two behind them only eliminated on the penultimate night in SF. That's the other part of why they do this, to keep more teams alive longer.
The problem with having a three or five-game WC series is you then give all the other playoff teams TOO much time off, baseball's a rhythm sport. You really can't have more than three days off without rust being an issue.
I don't know why you keep harping on the 9 back of their division, would it have been more just if the Reds had 89 wins instead of 97 (putting the Cards one back)? The Cards would have still had the same number of wins, it doesn't matter how much they finished behind. It's not like the Cards coasted into the playoffs either, they had the Dodgers a game or two behind them only eliminated on the penultimate night in SF.
The problem with having a three or five-game WC series is you then give all the other playoff teams TOO much time off, baseball's a rhythm sport. You really can't have more than three days off without rust being an issue.
I'm harping on that because the reasoning for this 1 game playoff is, "It gives you much more reason to win your division!" How is that so? If a team that finishes so far back in theirs can now jump ahead of a team that they were what 5 back of when the season ended to earn a playoff series like the other division winners? Yeah great, the teams who win the division don't have to play in this gimmick game that can go either way any given night. Which is the rationale behind such a long season - any game can go any way either night, so we need to do that 162 times to figure out who's really good. Makes perfect sense.
