Bregman for MVP

[Troll Daddy]

The writers all have different views on MVP ... 

[m0nkey]

27 minutes ago, Baghdad Strad said:

NARRATIVES!

I get you say that with 86% of calzones posts but what do you disagree with?

[Jay]

1 hour ago, Angelsjunky said:

In 2015 he lost it to Josh Donaldson, who was only -0.6 fWAR below Trout. Again, a mild snub at worst; the margin was close enough that other factors like team contention and Donaldson's +33 RBI lead played a part.

Didn't Trout have a really bad August in 2015, he had a 0.5 fWAR for the month, compared with Donaldson with 2.3 fWAR?

Angels were 2 GB on July 31 and 7.5 GB on August 31.

Angels missed the playoffs by 1 game that season. Meanwhile the Blue Jays won their division.

I always figured that's why he lost the MVP.

[Jeff Fletcher]

I actually think WAR does equate to wins. It equates to the wins that one player produces. 

To me, that is the exact definition of value. 

If you are assessing which of two cars is more valuable, you don’t ask “I don’t know, what is parked next to it?”

[kevinb]

7 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I actually think WAR does equate to wins. It equates to the wins that one player produces. 

To me, that is the exact definition of value. 

If you are assessing which of two cars is more valuable, you don’t ask “I don’t know, what is parked next to it?”

But to your point if you are assessing two cars people look at cars differently. Ask 10 different people their favorite car this year you are more than likely going to get ten different answers. 

[Angelsjunky]

WAR is the best we've got to determine overall value, but it doesn't tell the whole story. For one, it balances defense and offense in a somewhat arbitrary way, not to mention how they determine positional value and the difficulty of quantifying defense. I think this is the real reason that Fangraphs says that players within 1 WAR or so of each other are close enough to be essentially equal (or close to equal) players.

But more importantly, there are no official criteria for how the MVP is decided  - it is pretty much up to the voter to decide what "value" is, what "most valuable" means, and whether or not context matters. It makes it messy, but I personally like this as it would be less interesting to just have MVP always be the WAR leader. In the end, there's always going to be a subjective element - which allows us to have these conversations.

(I'm getting deja vu, as I think we had this same conversation a year or two ago)

[Lou]

You guys have this conversation at least once a year. 

[thebloob]

51 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I actually think WAR does equate to wins. It equates to the wins that one player produces. 

To me, that is the exact definition of value. 

If you are assessing which of two cars is more valuable, you don’t ask “I don’t know, what is parked next to it?”

Then why bother having a vote?  Why not just give out the MVWAR trophy every year?  I think the points made are valid.  Particularly the fact that the Astros have had injuries all around the infield and Bregman filled so many holes.  Is that not valuable?  It sure doesn't show up in the statistics.

Difficult to have a non biased argument on Angels fan website.  

Someone go to an Orioles website and pose the question, report back the opinions?

Oh, and want to get real depressed?  Go to any thread about Albert Pujols right now and realize in 8-10 years (hopefully that long) you can put Trouts name in all those threads.

[Second Base]

2 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

5 MVPs? Let's take a look. Obviously he won it in 2014 and 2016, so the question is: does he deserve 3 more MVPs between the other five years (2012-13, 2015, and 2017-18)?

He lost it to Miggy in 2012 and 2013. While Trout was better according to WAR, Miggy did earn the Triple Crown in 2012 and was even better in 2013. Plus Miggy was a better hitter in both years, so I don't think Trout was robbed either year. 

In 2015 he lost it to Josh Donaldson, who was only -0.6 fWAR below Trout. Again, a mild snub at worst; the margin was close enough that other factors like team contention and Donaldson's +33 RBI lead played a part. 

In 2017 Trout only played 114 games  with 6.8 WAR and was significantly behind both Judge (8.3) and Altuve (7.6). He would have won if he hadn't been injured.

Finally, 2018. Sorry, but Betts deserved it. He was not only better than Trout according to fWAR (10.4 to 9.8), but it was the highest non-Bondsian fWAR since Cal Ripkien in 1991.

So all things tolled, I don't see any year that Trout was completely robbed. I suppose he should have won it in 2012 or 2013, and there's an argument for 2015 - but not all three.

He had a higher WAR all three years, and yet you feel he shouldn't have won.  That's interesting.  It's like saying the more valuable player is less valuable.  Bold move, Cotton.  Let's see if it works out (Dodgeball reference). 

[Angelsjunky]

9 minutes ago, thebloob said:

Then why bother having a vote?  Why not just give out the MVWAR trophy every year?  I think the points made are valid.  Particularly the fact that the Astros have had injuries all around the infield and Bregman filled so many holes.  Is that not valuable?  It sure doesn't show up in the statistics.

Difficult to have a non biased argument on Angels fan website.  

Someone go to an Orioles website and pose the question, report back the opinions?

Oh, and want to get real depressed?  Go to any thread about Albert Pujols right now and realize in 8-10 years (hopefully that long) you can put Trouts name in all those threads.

[thebloob]

1 minute ago, Angelsjunky said:

Is that your selfie from visiting Washington?

[Angelsjunky]

2 minutes ago, Second Base said:

He had a higher WAR all three years, and yet you feel he shouldn't have won.  That's interesting.  It's like saying the more valuable player is less valuable.  Bold move, Cotton.  Let's see if it works out (Dodgeball reference). 

Reading comprehension fail. I said he wasn't robbed and there were valid reasons to vote for Miggy x2 and Donaldson and that other factors should be considered other than WAR. I didn't say "he shouldn't have won."

 

[Second Base]

Just now, Angelsjunky said:

Reading comprehension fail. I said he wasn't robbed and there were valid reasons to vote for Miggy x2 and Donaldson and that other factors should be considered other than WAR. I didn't say "he shouldn't have won."

 

Ok.  Well I'm saying he was the most valuable player by the most encompassing metric available.  And thus, when I claimed that Mike Trout should've won the MVP award five times, I meant it. 

[thebloob]

So if everything this year were reversed..... The Angels were in first place by a ton, the Astros were out of it.  Bregman had Trouts stats and Trout had Bregmans stats.  You guys would seriously be sitting here saying that Bregman deserved the MVP just because his stats were better on a crappy team.  Hell no!!  You would all be saying that "winning matters" and "WAR is a useless stat" just to try to justify Trouts case.

[Stradling]

Have we looked at the often overlooked WTW (will to win or wants to win) stat or the oft misunderstood KHTW (knows how to win) stat?  If so I am probably going to give my vote to either Hosmer or Puig.  

[Jay]

9 minutes ago, Second Base said:

I'm saying he was the most valuable player by the most encompassing metric available.

[thebloob]

The Angels are 6-7 when Trout does not play. (.461)

They are 61-73 when he does play. (.455)

[Stradling]

And

[thebloob]

The problem with WAR is that is an individual stat in a team game.  If a player goes 4-4 with 2 HR in a game and their team loses 10-8, it looks great on the stat sheet and for WAR calculation but how valuable was that really?  The team still would have lost if he had gone 0-4.  If a guy goes 1-5 but gets a single in the ninth with runners at 2nd and 3rd for the win it may not seem like that valuable a stat line, but that seems like a more valuable game.  However stuff like that is not reflected in WAR because it just looks at the individual stats.  Otherwise it goes to one of my first points.  Why even have a vote?  Just give it to the guy with the highest WAR. 

It is discussions like this that make the vote interesting.  No one can argue that overall Trout has been the most consistent great player in the game, doesn't necessarily mean he is the MVP every year.  The lack of a definition of valuable makes it more fun.

[Angelsjunky]

4 minutes ago, thebloob said:

The problem with WAR is that is an individual stat in a team game.  If a player goes 4-4 with 2 HR in a game and their team loses 10-8, it looks great on the stat sheet and for WAR calculation but how valuable was that really?  The team still would have lost if he had gone 0-4.  If a guy goes 1-5 but gets a single in the ninth with runners at 2nd and 3rd for the win it may not seem like that valuable a stat line, but that seems like a more valuable game.  However stuff like that is not reflected in WAR because it just looks at the individual stats.  Otherwise it goes to one of my first points.  Why even have a vote?  Just give it to the guy with the highest WAR. 

It is discussions like this that make the vote interesting.  No one can argue that overall Trout has been the most consistent great player in the game, doesn't necessarily mean he is the MVP every year.  The lack of a definition of valuable makes it more fun.

Agreed, with the caveat that you can tease out individual performance in baseball far better than in basketball. This is why team-dependent stats like Runs and RBI aren't as important as "independent" stats like BA, OBP, SLG, etc.

But I fully agree, as I said above, that we shouldn't mechanize the award by equating it with WAR--or any specific stat--but leave some subjectivity in the mix. The debates are fun.

That said, the award has improved due to the popularity of WAR. I highly doubt we'll ever have some of the terrible awards of past decades (e.g. Jimmy Rollins, Juan Gonzalez, Miguel Tejada, etc).

[Lou]

I put all my trust in Jeff Fletcher.

I suggest the rest of you do the same.

[Lou]

59 minutes ago, thebloob said:

So if everything this year were reversed..... The Angels were in first place by a ton, the Astros were out of it.  Bregman had Trouts stats and Trout had Bregmans stats.  You guys would seriously be sitting here saying that Bregman deserved the MVP just because his stats were better on a crappy team.  Hell no!!  You would all be saying that "winning matters" and "WAR is a useless stat" just to try to justify Trouts case.

Not me. 

[m0nkey]

1 hour ago, thebloob said:

Then why bother having a vote?  Why not just give out the MVWAR trophy every year?  I think the points made are valid.  Particularly the fact that the Astros have had injuries all around the infield and Bregman filled so many holes.  Is that not valuable?  It sure doesn't show up in the statistics.

 

I agree, I like that it’s not just the WAR leader award 

[Troll Daddy]

2 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I actually think WAR does equate to wins. It equates to the wins that one player produces. 

To me, that is the exact definition of value. 

If you are assessing which of two cars is more valuable, you don’t ask “I don’t know, what is parked next to it?”

You don’t need WAR to determine a players value.  WAR fails at the intangibles imo. I’d be willing to bet some of the old timers who vote don’t even look at WAR. 

[m0nkey]

In 2017, Judge had an fWAR of 8.3 and Altuve had an fWAR of 7.6 (both had 8.1 at baseball reference), yet Altuve got 27 first place votes and Aaron Judge only got 2.  

What's the justification there for you WAR heads?