Fun With Statistics: MVP Edition

I really didn't want to weigh in on this whole Cabrera vs. Trout thing (my two cents, for the record: Trout should've won, but Cabrera had a fantastic year and I in no way take the MVP away from him. It's also silly this has devolved into new school/old school when you don't need sabermetrics to know that Trout positively impacted the game in far more ways than did Cabrera) - but reading some of the reactions from the pro-Cabrera writers forced my hand. Specifically, one Tom Verducci of Sports Illustrated. This is to take nothing away from Verducci. He's a great baseball writer. Unfortunately, in the service of writing a good story, sometimes important facts/numbers/statistics get kicked to the curb. Case in point: the following passage from that article. Italics are my own contribution, had I been allowed to edit it.

"On Aug. 23, Trout was the presumptive MVP who led Cabrera by 19 points in batting average and 35 points in OPS. Both played on teams on the outside of a playoff spot: the Angels were 2 ½ games out of the wild card and the Tigers were 1 ½ games out of the AL Central lead.

Here's what happened after that:

Trout:.269/.369/.455 (.824 OPS), 6 HRs, 11 RBIs

Cabrera: .343/.394/.686 (1.080 OPS), 13 HRs, 34 RBIs

The Angels missed the playoffs while the Tigers won the AL Central. 

The Angels, however, went 25-13 (.737), while the Tigers went 22-17 (.564). Also, to paint a more complete statistical picture, Trout scored 32 runs and stole 10 bases. Cabrera scored 27 (despite driving himself in seven more times) and stole 0.

That's not close."

Two things.

1) It's a cold hard fact that the Tigers made the playoffs while the Angels didn't. It's also a cold hard fact the Angels played better in the above time span than the Tigers. So ignoring the fact that the playoff argument is even used to begin with - is Verducci also really making the *implicit, because Verducci didn't actually use the records* argument here that because the White Sox did worse than the A's in that arbitrary time period (17-22 versus 27-12 , for the record), Cabrera is automatically awarded the MVP? Yeah, because he was so valuable to his team, causing the White Sox to collapse down the stretch. And yeah, it's all Trout's fault that the A's were playing out of their minds.

To be fair, the Tigers actually took 5 out of 7 from the White Sox in that time span, and the Angels only went 4-3 against the A's. But you know what that also means? The Angels actually gained a game, in aggregate, on the A's while playing them down the stretch. 

But you know what, to be even fairer to Verducci - who is a senior baseball writer for the most prestigious sports magazine in the world, while I am but a grad student with one sports-related internship under my belt - I'll go one level deeper to see if there's some substance in his *implicit* argument. Let's see how Cabrera and Trout did in those games against their division rivals down the stretch. If Verducci's *implicit* argument is to be believed, then Cabrera destroyed the hopes and dreams of the White Sox, while Trout went quietly into the good night against the A's.

Cabrera: .462/.548/.808 (1.356 OPS), 2 HRs, 6 RBIs, 6 runs, 0 SBs

Trout: .333/.438/.370 (.808 OPS), 0 HRs, 1 RBI, 4 runs, 3 SBs

Well. I guess that proves Verducci's point. Cabrera singlehandedly made the White Sox implode, while Trout allowed the A's to just keep on playing like the '27 Yankees (no, scratch that. The '01 Mariners. Much more Sox-fan friendly).

I'm, of course, joking. That just proves that Cabrera hit better against Trout against those particular teams in those particular games, which happened to be fairly important. To be sure, that is notable - but it doesn't account for the other 22 games the White Sox and A's played from August 23rd on. Therefore, I stand by my original point. The *implicit* argument is silly. 

2) It's also undeniable that Cabrera hit better than Trout in that specific span of time, although Verducci helpfully leaving out runs and stolen bases made it seem more one-sided than it actually was. But I love how just picking a date at random, ascribing some importance to it, and then using the stats from that date forward is equated with overall gospel truth. Admittedly, we're all guilty of doing it. It helps illustrate changes in trends and so forth. But come on (Anybody ever heard of a small sample size?). Joe Posnanski brilliantly tore this to shreds (look under Argument 2), and my favorite part is the following:

"It’s fun to parse the baseball season into nice, bite-sized chunks to make a point. You know from Sept. 25 to October 3 -- the last nine games of the season! The crunchiest of crunch times -- Mike Trout thoroughly out-hit Cabrera:

Trout: .361/.465/.694

Cabrera: .313/.353/.500

And do you know what that means? Nothing. It's the MVP. Whole season."

That's the end of the second point.

Look - like I said, I have no problem with Cabrera winning (despite thinking Trout should have won). I think he had an MVP-worthy season, and the Triple Crown is a massive feather in his cap. I have a problem, and I always have, with articles that don't bother to use statistics/data effectively - whether through ignorance or laziness. It took me about 20 whole minutes to get and calculate all the info I needed for Point #1. I wonder if Verducci even bothered to look up the records to make sure his argument had some merit to it beyond the end result of Detroit winning the Central and the Angels missing the playoffs. Honestly, I don't know which would be worse - not bothering to look them up to make sure your argument is tightly constructed, or knowingly ignoring them in service of the point you're trying to make. Either way, that's why the playoff argument is a dumb one.

And don't get me started on Mitch Albom.