MVPs

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

2 hours ago, Lou said:

this is incorrect 

What part?

[Tank]

1 hour ago, Oz27 said:

I still don't get how there is an argument for anyone other than Trout. The other MVP contenders play for teams with more competent front offices, meaning their teams are still in the race, but how the hell is that Trout's fault? He has been the best at what an individual actually controls - their own performance.

out of curiosity, how are defining "most valuable"? 

[zenmaster]

Hopefully he can pull an Andre Dawson!

[Oz27]

5 minutes ago, Tank said:

out of curiosity, how are defining "most valuable"? 

Any definition which doesn't involve giving the award to the person who made the highest contribution to their team(s) is pretty silly. So something like that, I guess.

[Tank]

4 minutes ago, Oz27 said:

Any definition which doesn't involve giving the award to the person who made the highest contribution to their team(s) is pretty silly. So something like that, I guess.

so best stats, stuff like that?

[Stradling]

Whatever, we all know it's subjective.  We all know if you're on a playoff team you've got a better chance.  This is why they should have a hitters equivalent to the Cy Young award that gets as much publicity and accolades as the Cy Young.  

[Oz27]

3 minutes ago, Tank said:

so best stats, stuff like that?

Effectively, yes. We've got very good at using statistics to measure performance. I don't see what else should be factored in besides someone's performance.

[Stradling]

4 minutes ago, Oz27 said:

Effectively, yes. We've got very good at using statistics to measure performance. I don't see what else should be factored in besides someone's performance.

Well the writers have decided to favor playoff teams into their equation.  Sucks, but it's their award. 

[arch stanton]

2 minutes ago, Oz27 said:

Effectively, yes. We've got very good at using statistics to measure performance. I don't see what else should be factored in besides someone's performance.

If you're just going to use stats to select the award winner then why vote? Combine the stat MVP award with the race for a better draft pick and players could play for particular numbers instead of to actually win games. It would be like Trout was trying to win the NASCAR points championship while his teammates went along for the ride. It just goes along with making other things more important than winning the actual game being played.

[Stradling]

1 hour ago, Oz27 said:

Harper was better than that field than Trout is with this one. Playing on a bad team is clearly an impediment to being named MVP but it's more of a handicap than something which gives someone zero chance of winning.

According to BR, Harper and Greinke had the same WAR last year.  

[Oz27]

19 minutes ago, Stradling said:

According to BR, Harper and Greinke had the same WAR last year.  

That is crazy and way off the mark. Fangraphs had Harper at 9.5 and Greinke at 5.8, which I would suggest is way more accurate.

[Oz27]

20 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

If you're just going to use stats to select the award winner then why vote? Combine the stat MVP award with the race for a better draft pick and players could play for particular numbers instead of to actually win games. It would be like Trout was trying to win the NASCAR points championship while his teammates went along for the ride. It just goes along with making other things more important than winning the actual game being played.

My head hurts. What the hell are you on about?

[arch stanton]

1 minute ago, Oz27 said:

My head hurts. What the hell are you on about?

I don't see the point of voting on awards that could be determined by a known formula of numbers. It seems like a recipe for someone along the way to start playing for individual awards that aren't directly linked to team success. No system will be without flaws but the ones that don't reward wins on the field will be the most flawed.

[Troll Daddy]

Pujols is hitting .333 with runners in scoring position this season ... is this something a voter should consider ?

Just using Pujols as a example 

[Oz27]

The fact he is a DH whose offensive production is only 16 per cent above league average would probably be something a voter should consider more closely than that, for example.

[Oz27]

12 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

I don't see the point of voting on awards that could be determined by a known formula of numbers. It seems like a recipe for someone along the way to start playing for individual awards that aren't directly linked to team success. No system will be without flaws but the ones that don't reward wins on the field will be the most flawed.

Trout has done everything he can to make the team successful, it isn't his fault that his team's management assembled a group of players to surround him which is really bad. He shouldn't be held responsible for his team's failings.

[arch stanton]

4 minutes ago, Oz27 said:

Trout has done everything he can to make the team successful, it isn't his fault that his team's management assembled a group of players to surround him which is really bad. He shouldn't be held responsible for his team's failings.

Look, if I had a vote it would go to Trout. The Jays are a lot more likely to win when Donaldson goes 0-5 with an error than the Angels are if Trout does. But where you look at it as penalizing Trout, the writers might look at it as rewarding a guy who is doing similarly good work and his team is getting actual results. In 50 years we can all look back and see who had the most WAR or whatever number you choose. Just like we look back now and see that Ted Williams won 2 triple crowns and had a .406 season and won none of those MVPs. That's his legacy in numbers. The BBWAA is supposed to be telling the story of the season in words. So when they vote for the award that they created, using the criteria that they choose, there's really no point in saying they're wrong.

[ten ocho recon scout]

You guys don't get it. The angels FO are freaking geniuses. When tryouts contract comes up, they'll be able to sign him for a discount because it's not like he's an mvp.

Kudos, front office.

[Docwaukee]

To me it's pretty clear that he deserves it if he season were to end right now.  But he will only get the award if he wins the batting title.  

[Angel Oracle]

6 hours ago, arch stanton said:

Look, if I had a vote it would go to Trout. The Jays are a lot more likely to win when Donaldson goes 0-5 with an error than the Angels are if Trout does. But where you look at it as penalizing Trout, the writers might look at it as rewarding a guy who is doing similarly good work and his team is getting actual results. In 50 years we can all look back and see who had the most WAR or whatever number you choose. Just like we look back now and see that Ted Williams won 2 triple crowns and had a .406 season and won none of those MVPs. That's his legacy in numbers. The BBWAA is supposed to be telling the story of the season in words. So when they vote for the award that they created, using the criteria that they choose, there's really no point in saying they're wrong.

The media hated Williams because he was evasive and snarky with them.   That's why they would try to find ways to not vote for him.

[Blarg]

9 hours ago, Tank said:

so best stats, stuff like that?

For the narrow minded that is the criteria. 

[Oz27]

"The only argument you can make against Trout is that his teammates are bad" ... That quote pretty well sums up how absurd the anti-Trout arguments are.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-case-for-mike-trout-for-american-league-mvp/

 

[Blarg]

Again  you can only see the award through a math calculator and it is why you should not have a vote. 

[Oz27]

11 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Again  you can only see the award through a math calculator and it is why you should not have a vote. 

Given you're so smart, how should it be done then? Most RBIs?

[Blarg]

Using the criteria that the BBWA have used from day one. You are verbally bankrupt when it comes to describing the value of a player without having to drag up a number from BBRef or Fangraphs. That is not describing the player, just the aggregate totals of numbers recorded. As one member already posted Grienke had the same WAR as Harper and you nullified his numbers because you claim Fangrphs are the real numbers. So you are just using criteria that you believe is true but still have no real idea if one player was more valuable than the other, just that one you could attach a significantly higher number to using the grading system of your choice.

Meanwhile one of those guys got this treatment from a teammate that wasn't believing your numbers made him an MVP.