MVPs

[Tank]

one of my favorite MVP awards was to kirk gibson in '88. Gibson came in and changed the culture of that locker room. while there were others that put up better stats - including hershiser's historic season - that dodger team needed someone to lead them and to do so in a big, bold way. it started in training camp when jesse orosco put the shoe black in gibby's hat as a joke, but gibson would have none of it. gibson put up decent numbers, nothing trout-like, but that '88 team wouldn't have come anywhere near the playoffs without him and his influence leading them. and that's something that sheer numbers could not reflect.

i like that this award is not based purely on stats. that's what the Aaron Award is for.

[Jeff Fletcher]

I just want to add that using one vote out of 600 for David Eckstein to make a judgment about an entire body is not really fair. And I am sure the writer who voted for Eckstein didn't vote for him because he actually thought he belonged in Cooperstown. He did it to make a statement about Eckstein. (I wouldn't do that personally, because I think it backfires and creates more people disparaging Eckstein than actually saying "yeah he had a nice career," but the point is that he didn't do it to get Eckstein into the HOF.)

I also agree it would be nice if there was some clarification on whether team performance should count, but then you're changing the award. So a 2019 MVP is a different thing than a 1983 MVP. Maybe it is anyway. I think we're gradually moving away from team performance mattering. The voting body is changing. 

My personal opinion is the standings should matter only to split a tie in the closest of races, like Donaldson-Trout last year. 

The only year Trout lost that he really should have won, IMO, was 2012. I voted for Cabrera in 2013, for Trout in 2014. Every year I've voted for the MVP I have voted for the guy who won, but I think that streak may end this year. 

[Tank]

6 minutes ago, hangin n wangin said:

I just read that Eckstein actually got two votes. And personally, I don't really care for what their reasoning was for voting for him. It's flat out embarrassing and those people are a disgrace to the voting process.

so in a voting process that's heavily influenced by someone's personal preferences, you don't like that someone's personal preference disagreed with yours. 

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

6 hours ago, Stradling said:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/2015-batting-leaders.shtml

 

9.9 for both according to this.  

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/greinza01.shtml

That's was for NL hitting leaders check out Greinke's 2015 WAR. 9.3

[Dick B Back]

3 minutes ago, hangin n wangin said:

HOF voting should go to players that are most deserving. There are many border line candidates that do not get in. 

Eckstein is not even close to being borderline, and again, him getting any vote is flat out embarrassing.

I definitely do not think voters should be voting for undeserving players to "make a statement", as Jeff stated above.

But like Stradling said, there is nothing that can be done about it. If a couple of idiots want to vote for Eckstein and make a mockery out of the process, good for them.

And those two voters will do what they wish until they die.

There's better things to be pissed about.

[AngelsLakersFan]

54 minutes ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/greinza01.shtml

That's was for NL hitting leaders check out Greinke's 2015 WAR. 9.3

Greinke's war from pitching was 9.3, his war as a batter was 0.6. His total war was 9.9. 

We can also add it Harper's pitching war to make it fair....

[Angel Oracle]

Did Grienke ever come back to earth in 2016, mid 4.00s ERA.   I guess $206 million doesn't buy what it used to.

[Blarg]

4 hours ago, tdawg87 said:

You are an old grumpy man. You should be on the BBWA.

Yeah, grumpy but I'm not the one railing at the unfairness of an award not conforming to a criteria based upon specific stats.  

[Lou]

20 hours ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

What part?

The part in bold letters 

[Oz27]

6 hours ago, Blarg said:

Oz, look, you've posted word for word from Fangraphs about Trout being on a bad team so it seems that you are bankrupt for any conversation that doesn't involve a number or simply paraphrasing someone else's work. Your viewpoint is one dimensional. I get it, so simple just to pass stats along and say, see that proves everything. It doesn't for me because I can't choke down just numbers and say product A is better than product B because of clinical testing. Neither does the BBWA.

You are wrong about last season being the only year Trout was bested for MVP. That's because you do not get the whole point of the award is to reflect the best of the game. That isn't rounding Pi up or down one digit on it's infinite number line. It is to celebrate something that, as a fan, you probably won't see from any other player. Trout fills that bill for the most part but some seasons other players are putting forth more entertainment by being more than just .05 better by math.

It isn't the Statistically Pure Player sponsored by Fangraphs, award.

 

Hahaha jeez you're completely full of it sometimes. What is your argument, then? If the award is to "reflect the best of the game" or to "celebrate something that, as a fan, you probably won't see from another player" then those criteria match up with Trout pretty damn well. Any objective measurement puts Trout as the best player in the game over a long time now.

As for celebrating something we won't see, how about arriving as a 20-year-old rookie and being better than anybody else? Or putting up numbers through his age 24 season that are arguably better than the guys we consider the greatest of all time. Only six hitters have more homers through their age 24 seasons and all of them either are or will be (assuming A-Rod makes it) hall of famers.The only two guys with a better OPS+ through age 24 (1500 PA minimum) are in the HOF and both did that more than 60 years ago. The only guys since the 70s to have more hits by his age are Griffey and A-Rod. Nobody has more walks at his age since Mickey Mantle. This year, by OPS+, he is having the best 24-year-old season in more than two decades. And yeah, I know you have this irrational fear of the WAR monster, but nobody through their age 24 season has accumulated more WAR. He is 6.3 wins better than Mickey Mantle. So cool, let's take your logic and say the award should celebrate something we won't see from any other player. If we do that, Trout should win the award every damn time because nobody has ever matched what he has done so far.

[Oz27]

4 hours ago, hangin n wangin said:

I just find it funny. Oz uses numbers to try and support his claims. Blarg uses a picture of Papelbon and Harper. 

Shame on you Oz. Get your data from pictures and you'll be more respected. If not, you better be at every single baseball game to see what happens.

I've got to be honest, I didn't see Mike Trout last night. That invalidates every opinion I will ever have, right? Oh well, it's been nice knowing you guys.

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

6 minutes ago, Lou said:

The part in bold letters 

it's their opinion

[Blarg]

My argument is simple. Use everything at your disposal to pick the most valuable player,

[Oz27]

What a "verbally bankrupt" response.

[Lou]

9 minutes ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

it's their opinion

No, that was statement based on the numbers they published.

It was incorrect. 

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

1 hour ago, Lou said:

No, that was statement based on the numbers they published.

It was incorrect. 

if you say so

[Lou]

1 minute ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

if you say so

It has nothing to do with what i say.

if you can do simple math, it's easy to understand

 

[Blarg]

7 hours ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

You are so off base with this comment.

You talk as if you know exactly what the purpose of the award is, like you came up with it, but your opinion is as good as anybodies. No one here is saying that MVP should be handed out based on WAR calculations to the third decimal. Oz's position is simple and consistent, and that is to give it to the best player. I don't entirely agree with him, and we can have different opinions on who the best player is as well. We can debate and argue just as we do now.

Your whole argument to describe a legitimate MVP is a description of Mike Trout to the letter. Watching Mike Trout play every day we have become spoiled by his greatness to the point we convince ourselves that other players "put forth more entertainment."

My whole argument is the guidelines that are set forth to pick what the writers feel was the most valuable player from their perspective. Not yours, OZ, Fangraphs or any other argument that strips the writers the right to build their own argument and makes their choices from 1-10.

Mantle (6.3 WAR) lost the MVP to Maris (7.5 WAR) in 1960 and according to popular thinking it was statistically correct. In 1961 Mantle (10.5) was head and shoulders above Maris (6.5) in WAR but lost for the second year in a row and for the right reason. In fact 61 reasons that changed the record books and Yankees history.

Are you guys going to argue the BBWA got that wrong because of stats or did they get it right because baseball is greater than aggregate totals? I'm on the side of getting it right, Maris was the 1961 MVP, everyone that was watching baseball was watching to see if Maris could beat the Bambino's record and not Mickey Mantle having the 2nd best year of his career.

Fast forward to Mike Tout's second year and he loses for the second time to Miguel Cabrera and lead the league in only 2 statistical categories, runs scored which he didn't control and base on balls. Meanwhile Cabrera won the Triple Crown, a feat not seen since 1969 and the writers got the call correct, they gave it to the guy that more eyes were watching to see if he could do something that hasn't happened in baseball for 34 years. About the same time it took Mantle Maris to win the single season home run crown from Ruth.

 

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

7 minutes ago, Blarg said:

About the same time it took Mantle to win the single season home run crown from Ruth.

You mean Maris, right?

[Blarg]

You're right, I keep putting Mantle instead of Maris and changed that twice in that post. Mantle was the better player but what Maris went through in 1961 to hit 61 made him the bigger story.

[AngelsLakersFan]

53 minutes ago, Blarg said:

My whole argument is the guidelines that are set forth to pick what the writers feel was the most valuable player from their perspective. Not yours, OZ, Fangraphs or any other argument that strips the writers the right to build their own argument and makes their choices from 1-10.

Mantle (6.3 WAR) lost the MVP to Maris (7.5 WAR) in 1960 and according to popular thinking it was statistically correct. In 1961 Mantle (10.5) was head and shoulders above Maris (6.5) in WAR but lost for the second year in a row and for the right reason. In fact 61 reasons that changed the record books and Yankees history.

Are you guys going to argue the BBWA got that wrong because of stats or did they get it right because baseball is greater than aggregate totals? I'm on the side of getting it right, Maris was the 1961 MVP, everyone that was watching baseball was watching to see if Maris could beat the Bambino's record and not Mickey Mantle having the 2nd best year of his career.

Fast forward to Mike Tout's second year and he loses for the second time to Miguel Cabrera and lead the league in only 2 statistical categories, runs scored which he didn't control and base on balls. Meanwhile Cabrera won the Triple Crown, a feat not seen since 1969 and the writers got the call correct, they gave it to the guy that more eyes were watching to see if he could do something that hasn't happened in baseball for 34 years. About the same time it took Mantle to win the single season home run crown from Ruth.

 

Fair point. You articulated a much more solid argument here. 

I appreciate the consistency of Oz's position. Your position, while not any more of less valid, makes me uncomfortable. I don't like voting based on the way writers 'feel' - as if the MVP race were a ballet, or figure skating. This way of thinking can bring more nuance to the discussion, but it also brings in a large amount of bias, and opens up the door to a whole slew of external factors that are not addressed in the guidelines. 'Value' is a subjective term, but it is something that should be defined objectively and with consistency. 

There is a human element to sports that isn't defined in the statistics. As players and fans we feel it, and we get much of our satisfaction from this portion of the game. But the human element is not strictly relevant to the results of the games themselves. They make the walk off homerun feel more valuable than the 2 run shot in the second inning, even though it isn't. The more we include the human element the further away we get from what actually happened on the field, in between the lines.

In 1947 three wins above replacement level was good enough for a 5th place finish in the MVP voting. His team won the NL pennant... and the player - Jackie Robinson - broke baseball's color barrier. I have to wonder, was 3 war just not good enough, or was being the first black player in MLB not historically significant enough to garner the award?

[Angel Oracle]

42 minutes ago, Blarg said:

You're right, I keep putting Mantle instead of Maris and changed that twice in that post. Mantle was the better player but what Maris went through in 1961 to hit 61 made him the bigger story.

To the point that Maris' hair started falling out from the pressure.

[Blarg]

@AngelsLakersFan Robinson did win Rookie of the Year in 1947 .

Breaking the color barrier was not his to control,  kind of like a run scored. He needed help to be in that position,  so do you value his presence in the league far greater than the ROY award?

If you go by his stats he wasn't nearly the player Elliot or Mize was that season. I'm sure some prejudice was involved but honestly if you remove what he or the other guys couldn't control the voting remains the same.

I think in context of life in 1947 Robinson got treated as fairly as if it was 2016. He was recognized for what he was as a player if race was ignored. In retrospect he deserved the MVP because of what he had to endure during that season. Sometimes baseball gets it right and wrong at the same time. 

That year Ted Williams had a 9.9 WAR, won the triple crown and lost to Dimaggio with a 4.8. The following year he again won the triple crown and slipped to 3rd in MVP voting, again behind Dimaggio that had a lower WAR total.

Pissing off the press doesn't help. 

[ten ocho recon scout]

9 hours ago, Oz27 said:

Hahaha jeez you're completely full of it sometimes. What is your argument, then? If the award is to "reflect the best of the game" or to "celebrate something that, as a fan, you probably won't see from another player" then those criteria match up with Trout pretty damn well. Any objective measurement puts Trout as the best player in the game over a long time now.

As for celebrating something we won't see, how about arriving as a 20-year-old rookie and being better than anybody else? Or putting up numbers through his age 24 season that are arguably better than the guys we consider the greatest of all time. Only six hitters have more homers through their age 24 seasons and all of them either are or will be (assuming A-Rod makes it) hall of famers.The only two guys with a better OPS+ through age 24 (1500 PA minimum) are in the HOF and both did that more than 60 years ago. The only guys since the 70s to have more hits by his age are Griffey and A-Rod. Nobody has more walks at his age since Mickey Mantle. This year, by OPS+, he is having the best 24-year-old season in more than two decades. And yeah, I know you have this irrational fear of the WAR monster, but nobody through their age 24 season has accumulated more WAR. He is 6.3 wins better than Mickey Mantle. So cool, let's take your logic and say the award should celebrate something we won't see from any other player. If we do that, Trout should win the award every damn time because nobody has ever matched what he has done so far.

If I lost a bunch of weight, went back to the Marine Corps and promoted to a rank where I had a call sign, "war monster" would be it. 

[Oz27]

9 hours ago, Blarg said:

My whole argument is the guidelines that are set forth to pick what the writers feel was the most valuable player from their perspective. Not yours, OZ, Fangraphs or any other argument that strips the writers the right to build their own argument and makes their choices from 1-10.

Mantle (6.3 WAR) lost the MVP to Maris (7.5 WAR) in 1960 and according to popular thinking it was statistically correct. In 1961 Mantle (10.5) was head and shoulders above Maris (6.5) in WAR but lost for the second year in a row and for the right reason. In fact 61 reasons that changed the record books and Yankees history.

Are you guys going to argue the BBWA got that wrong because of stats or did they get it right because baseball is greater than aggregate totals? I'm on the side of getting it right, Maris was the 1961 MVP, everyone that was watching baseball was watching to see if Maris could beat the Bambino's record and not Mickey Mantle having the 2nd best year of his career.

Fast forward to Mike Tout's second year and he loses for the second time to Miguel Cabrera and lead the league in only 2 statistical categories, runs scored which he didn't control and base on balls. Meanwhile Cabrera won the Triple Crown, a feat not seen since 1969 and the writers got the call correct, they gave it to the guy that more eyes were watching to see if he could do something that hasn't happened in baseball for 34 years. About the same time it took Mantle Maris to win the single season home run crown from Ruth.

 

Your description of 2012 is completely unfair on Trout. He had a better OPS+. He had a better on base percentage. He led the league in stolen bases. By any metric, or the eye test, he was obviously a much better defender than Cabrera. He also led the league in WAR and batting runs above average. Not only was Trout a better overall player that year, by a pretty wide margin, he was also a better hitter. As for the value of the triple crown, what makes it so special? It has historical importance, I get that. But the way we evaluate baseball has rightly changed. Most people are smart enough to know there are better metrics than batting average and that judging a hitter by their RBI total is pretty silly. So yeah, nobody had done it in awhile and it is obviously a sign Cabrera had a phenomenal offensive season. But why does that mean we should ignore that Trout was still better at baseball that year? Also, how does the fact "more eyes were watching" have any impact on this? Using that logic, should K-Rod have received more MVP love in 2008?

Also, you really don't seem to appreciate the rarity of Trout's 2012 achievements. Since 1917, there have only been two people to lead the league in OPS+ and stolen bases. One was Rickey Henderson in 1990, the other was 2012 Mike Trout.