I think the Coghlan "people" are being misbranded. I have no objections toward sabermetrics; I happen to think it is quite valuable.

 

To the contrary though, I think that the McCutchen people are the ones not looking deep enough. They are clinging to one metric and refuse to even consider extraneous factors, such as Coghlan being placed at a new position because his team desperately needed his bat in the lineup.

Also, the fact that people on a Marlins board are coming into this thread and saying Coghlan didn't deserve it (after we've already debated this subject multiple times), says who the real snobs and closed-minded people are.

There is room enough for both types of analysis. I do think the sabermetrics view should get more weight, but you can't ignore extenuating circumstances and all of that stuff.

It's just a shame that a person like Coghlan should be enjoying his award and the attention, yet there are those in the press saying that he didn't really deserve it.

 

 

You lost respect for someone who was just stating the truth?

 

Oh come on. Law was asked what made Coghlan a good choice for ROY and he basically went on to say that the other voters only looked at his batting average and voted him based on that. I mean really Keith? Does not get on base that well? A .390 OBP says otherwise. And "terrible defense"? Granted he is not GG material, but that's overstating it a bit, don't you think?

 

 

But he is absolutely right. The voters probably saw that high batting average and automatically thought that he deserved it, and used the "old school" stats just like he said. Maybe he was a little off on the "getting on-base" thing, but for the most part he was spot-on. And yes, he defense was pretty bad. Little range + weak arm = bad defense.

 

The time for speculation on who deserved the award was before the award was presented. Coghlan was not an awful choice, and had a .390 OBP and 2.3 WAR, even considering his fielding, so he certainly wasn't horrible by any stretch. Law's been ripping Chris Coghlan for weeks. Now was a time to congratulate him. It's just not classy for him to act the way he acted [allegedly, I didn't see the clip]. This wasn't the time. It also seemsas if he dislikes Chris Coghlan personally......all the guy is doing is trying his best.

 

 

I never said Coghlan was an awful choice, I just thought that McCutchen was the better one.

 

I don't see why you think that Law has to congratulate him if he doesn't agree with the choice. He voiced his opinion, which was that the voters are still stuck on the "old school" stats. I also don't see how you saw anything personal in there.

 

There are just two different types of people. The anti-sabermetric people will see all of the hits and the high batting average and fall in love with Coghlan, while the sabermetric people will look deeper and see past the "old school" stats.

 

My friend I respectfully say yor are full of it...Coghlan's batting average was not empty, he got doubles he got triples, he hit in key situations. The new statistical analysts were just wrong and the flaws of their fuzzy math left them looking foolish. It almost like the Emperor's new clothes. Law was angry and refused to face the fact that he was just flat out wrong. Everyone else is wrong and he is right. Sometimes are what they are in reference to Cogs having a better rookie season than McCutchen it was more than obvious and you would really have to drink the Kool-Aid to believe otherwise....Emperor's New Clothes, Law even had to make up stuff to strengthen his position that is how much crap he is about and those that fool themselves with stats beyond reason

I never said Coghlan was an awful choice, I just thought that McCutchen was the better one.

 

I don't see why you think that Law has to congratulate him if he doesn't agree with the choice. He voiced his opinion, which was that the voters are still stuck on the "old school" stats. I also don't see how you saw anything personal in there.

 

There are just two different types of people. The anti-sabermetric people will see all of the hits and the high batting average and fall in love with Coghlan, while the sabermetric people will look deeper and see past the "old school" stats.

 

 

Pretty silly to draw a line in the sand that way, and shows that for all of your espoused open mindedness, you're pretty close minded.

 

There is no one right way to judge a baseball player. I'm big on the sabermetrics, but even saying that, to just unquestioningly accept the opinions and outcomes of the sabermetric community goes against the spirit of the community itself, which is supposed to be based on being open minded to the analysis of baseball.

 

McCutchen might have been more valuable, but I'll take the record setter who absolutely set the world on fire over the guy who wasn't as good of a hitter but who probably had more value as a fielder. I like the evolution of fielding stats as much as anyone, but to hold them up as gospel truth makes me nervous.

 

I'm digging Bob's post.

 

FishDyn, I didn't think YOU said Coghlan was horrible. And I understand the basis of Keith Law's argument, although in that interview I believe he said that his OBP wasn't that good for a guy with such a high BA, but a .320 BA and a .390 OBP is a pretty good split in my book. Still would make Chris a .350 OBP guy even with a .280 BA. So I think that was dumb.

 

But Law has been saying and writing for weeks now about why he thinks Coghlan was not the #1 choice. And that's certainly his right. But to rip a kid for the nth time on the biggest sports network in the world after he received had the greatest recognition of his life is, bottom line, CLASSLESS. He used today as a forum to rip the non-sabermetricians. That may be a generally worthy cause, but on this day, he needed to just let it go. Would it really have been hard to say:

 

"Well, Coghlan wasn't my #1 choice for Rookie of the Year. But he batted .372 in the 2nd half, and despite not excelling defensively in left field, he manned a position for a Marlins team that was desperate earlier in the year for a left fielder. Hats off to Chris Coghlan for an excellent season, especially at the plate."?

 

I doubt it.

I think the Coghlan "people" are being misbranded. I have no objections toward sabermetrics; I happen to think it is quite valuable.

 

To the contrary though, I think that the McCutchen people are the ones not looking deep enough. They are clinging to one metric and refuse to even consider extraneous factors, such as Coghlan being placed at a new position because his team desperately needed his bat in the lineup.

 

 

The McCutchen people aren't clinging to one metric. WAR is just a way of putting together several different statistics to get an estimated overall value of a player, and it has proven to be very useful in the past.

 

You can basically look at it two ways. You can look at the situation in which Coghlan was brought into, or you can take a stricter point of view and go by what he actually brought to the team. I agree, it was unfortunate for Coghlan that he didn't get to maximize his value since he had to play left field (and played it poorly) rather than playing second base, but that's just tough luck. You can keep on saying that Coghlan had to deal with certain circumstances that other ROY candidates didn't have to deal with, but in the end, it doesn't make Coghlan's value any higher.

 

Also, the fact that people on a Marlins board are coming into this thread and saying Coghlan didn't deserve it (after we've already debated this subject multiple times), says who the real snobs and closed-minded people are.

 

 

 

So what you're saying is that we can't be realists? If Hanley surprisingly wins the the NL MVP award and I say that it should have gone to Pujols, would you call me a closed-minded snob then too?

 

The fact of the matter is that we can't all be homers and just give praise where praise is (arguably) not due. If you don't like the criticism, then either argue it or just ignore it. This is a message board, where debating is supposed to happen.

I never said Coghlan was an awful choice, I just thought that McCutchen was the better one.

 

I don't see why you think that Law has to congratulate him if he doesn't agree with the choice. He voiced his opinion, which was that the voters are still stuck on the "old school" stats. I also don't see how you saw anything personal in there.

 

There are just two different types of people. The anti-sabermetric people will see all of the hits and the high batting average and fall in love with Coghlan, while the sabermetric people will look deeper and see past the "old school" stats.

 

 

Pretty silly to draw a line in the sand that way, and shows that for all of your espoused open mindedness, you're pretty close minded.

 

There is no one right way to judge a baseball player. I'm big on the sabermetrics, but even saying that, to just unquestioningly accept the opinions and outcomes of the sabermetric community goes against the spirit of the community itself, which is supposed to be based on being open minded to the analysis of baseball.

 

McCutchen might have been more valuable, but I'll take the record setter who absolutely set the world on fire over the guy who wasn't as good of a hitter but who probably had more value as a fielder. I like the evolution of fielding stats as much as anyone, but to hold them up as gospel truth makes me nervous.

 

I'm digging Bob's post.

 

FishDyn, I didn't think YOU said Coghlan was horrible. And I understand the basis of Keith Law's argument, although in that interview I believe he said that his OBP wasn't that good for a guy with such a high BA, but a .320 BA and a .390 OBP is a pretty good split in my book. Still would make Chris a .350 OBP guy even with a .280 BA. So I think that was dumb.

 

But Law has been saying and writing for weeks now about why he thinks Coghlan was not the #1 choice. And that's certainly his right. But to rip a kid for the nth time on the biggest sports network in the world after he received had the greatest recognition of his life is, bottom line, CLASSLESS. He used today as a forum to rip the non-sabermetricians. That may be a generally worthy cause, but on this day, he needed to just let it go. Would it really have been hard to say:

 

"Well, Coghlan wasn't my #1 choice for Rookie of the Year. But he batted .372 in the 2nd half, and despite not excelling defensively in left field, he manned a position for a Marlins team that was desperate earlier in the year for a left fielder. Hats off to Chris Coghlan for an excellent season, especially at the plate."?

 

I doubt it.

 

 

I don't get it. You're telling me that he should say something even though he doesn't mean it. If he doesn't like Chris Coghlan, he doesn't need to give him praise for winning an award. What you seem to be saying is that people shouldn't be allowed to voice their own opinion.

 

I guess you and I just have a different definition of what is classy and what isn't then. I don't categorize a commentator on ESPN coming on and criticizing the voters for giving the award to the wrong person as "classless", I define that as stating an opinion.

I know what WAR is. Whether it's an aggregate of multiple factors or not, it's still one absolute number that you are clinging to while ignoring the real-life playing conditions that contributed to that number.

 

I fully understand what your argument is. I just don't happen to agree that using such an absolute figure when making a case for a ROY is logical. Since when did this become the most "valuable" rookie award and since when is that value determined by sabermetricians? If you are going to claim the award depends solely on value, which you explicitly say you do, you must take into consideration how valuable Coghlan was in the eyes of his team. The Marlins did not force him to play a position he hadn't played since high school for no sound reason.

 

As for the second part of your post, I was saying that it would have been nice if you behaved more maturely and congratulated Coghlan on a Marlins forum instead of rehashing the same tired arguments you've put out in the past.

 

You have the right to post whatever you want, but we have the right to roll our eyes when we feel you are behaving in bad taste. And believe me, many people here are doing just that.

I know what WAR is. Whether it's an aggregate of multiple factors or not, it's still one absolute number that you are clinging to while ignoring the real-life playing conditions that contributed to that number.

 

I fully understand what your argument is. I just don't happen to agree that using such an absolute figure when making a case for a ROY is logical. Since when did this become the most "valuable" rookie award and since when is that value determined by sabermetricians? If you are going to claim the award depends solely on value, which you explicitly say you do, you must take into consideration how valuable Coghlan was in the eyes of his team. The Marlins did not force him to play a position he hadn't played since high school for no sound reason.

 

As for the second part of your post, I was saying that it would have been nice if you behaved more maturely and congratulated Coghlan on a Marlins forum instead of rehashing the same tired arguments you've put out in the past.

 

You have the right to post whatever you want, but we have the right to roll our eyes when we feel you are behaving in bad taste. And believe me, many people here are doing just that.

 

 

 

1. I don't know if you have a seperate criteria that the ROY award should be based off of, but to my understanding it should be based off of specified value, or how much he brought to the team. And the best way to measure value is to use sabermetrics, with the best known stat being WAR. Again though, this is just an unwinnable argument that would keep on going back and forth.

 

2. Of course I'm very happy for Coghlan that he won the award, and I don't recall any point in which I haven't acted "mature". Stating an opinion that opposes the majority of a fan base isn't a crime, and instead of receiving criticism for sharing an opinion, maybe people should start arguing it with factual evidence.

I think to most teams, the argument that Coghlan lost value for them is sound.

 

But when he replaced, essentially, Cameron Maybin's negative value and softened the blow of another disappointing Hermida season, he was much more valuable to the Marlins than he would have been to, like, the Pirates.

I think to most teams, the argument that Coghlan lost value for them is sound.

 

But when he replaced, essentially, Cameron Maybin's negative value and softened the blow of another disappointing Hermida season, he was much more valuable to the Marlins than he would have been to, like, the Pirates.

 

Precisely. And this is an argument I made last time we had this discussion.

 

Remember in March when everyone had high expectations for our outfield (I can cite the exact thread if you don't believe me)? Well, that didn't happen. Maybin wasn't ready and Hermida still wasn't breaking out.

 

With the outfield offense floundering, the Marlins needed Coghlan desperately because Hermida and Maybin were detriments to this team. If Coghlan didn't answer the call, the Marlins would have been forced to stick with someone like Carroll or some other lesser hitter from AAA.

To take FishDynasty's point to it's most ridiculous extreme, was Jackie Robinson's .810 OPS (111 OPS+) as a first baseman more valuable than Admin Jansen's 248 innings of 3.16 ERA (129 ERA+) or Spec Shea's 3.07 ERA over 178 IP? Did his 134 PA advantage make up for the fact that Ferris Fain out OPS'd him by .027, given that neither appeared to have played a very spectacular first base and Fain had a significant OBP advantage and was even in Slugging?

 

It can be argued that Jackie Robinson was less valuable to his team than 2 of the 3 guys who finished 2-4.

 

Robinson WARP3: 4.5

Fain WARP3: 5.3

Jansen WARP3: 5.9

 

I'll concede to FishDynasty if he's willing to say that Jackie Robinson didn't deserve his rookie of the year, since it is based solely on value, right?

 

I realize this is something of a strawman argument, but if FishDynasty is going to stick so doggedly to his guns, let's take it to it's logical extreme. If he's willing to say that Jackie didn't deserve it, then I'll concede that at least he's a man of principle and leave it at that. Of course, if he's willing to take extenuating circumstances into Jackie's case, then his whole thing of it being based solely on value is invalid.

 

This is, of course, the problem with taking a hardline stance like he is. These things are not black and white.