Ken Rosenthal: Why Mike Trout should still be a lock for AL MVP

[Pancake Bear]

20 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

How can Trout be the AL MVP when he's not even the team MVP?

In that gif Pujols is pointing at Trout, because he’s the MVP, dummy. 

[Angelsjunky]

27 minutes ago, Sean-Regan said:

In that gif Pujols is pointing at Trout, because he’s the MVP, dummy. 

That's why Albert's the MVP. He's selflessly putting off his retirement, for the sake of offering his prodigious RBI skills to the team's efforts.

[happybat4]

8.2 war now. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

6 hours ago, Chuckster70 said:

@Jeff Fletcher your take on Bob Nightegale's tweet on the AL MVP?

I disagree with it

[Jay]

31 minutes ago, happybat4 said:

8.2 war now. 

Compared with Trout's 8.3 WAR, on Baseball Reference. On Fangraphs the difference is 8.6 to 8.1.

The difference in WAR is small enough now that it's inconclusive.

Only 4 games left, we'll see what happens.

[mulwin444]

1 minute ago, Jay said:

Compared with Trout's 8.3 WAR, on Baseball Reference. On Fangraphs the difference is 8.6 to 8.1.

The difference in WAR is small enough now that it's inconclusive.

Only 4 games left, we'll see what happens.

It will depend on how much the voters pay attention to details as it will take Bregmen over 152 games to accomplish what Mike did in 134.

[Jay]

What we're hearing now is "Trout is the best player but he didn't have the best season this year"

 

[m0nkey]

26 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I disagree with it

Now your take on bob nightengale?

[happybat4]

41 minutes ago, mulwin444 said:

It will depend on how much the voters pay attention to details as it will take Bregmen over 152 games to accomplish what Mike did in 134.

Why does it matter how many games it took? They both provided equal value. The MVP is a season award, not the best rate award. 

[mulwin444]

1 minute ago, happybat4 said:

Why does it matter how many games it took? They both provided equal value. The MVP is a season award, not the best rate award. 

Actually, the MVP is a individual award but it is often conflated as the "best player on a playoff team" award...

Also, a 8.3 WAR in 134 games is more impressive and better than an 8.2 WAR in 152 games...Trout provides more value than Bregmen but Bregmen was lucky enough to be on a team with better pitching and offensive support so he will get votes as a result.  

[Jay]

37 minutes ago, mulwin444 said:

Also, a 8.3 WAR in 134 games is more impressive and better than an 8.2 WAR in 152 games...

Maybe more impressive but equal in value.

The fact that Trout only played in 134 games subtracts from his value.

 

[mulwin444]

2 minutes ago, Jay said:

Maybe more impressive but equal in value.

The fact that Trout only played in 134 games subtracts from his value.

 

Okay...sure

[kevinb]

10 minutes ago, mulwin444 said:

Okay...sure

Playing in more games means you affect more games does it not? Being healthy throughout the season should not be a detriment to ones season. One of a players best assets to a team is being available through out the season. 

[mulwin444]

1 minute ago, Kevinb said:

Playing in more games means you affect more games does it not? Being healthy throughout the season should not be a detriment to ones season. One of a players best assets to a team is being available through out the season. 

You betcha

[Stradling]

So if Mike Trout had an 8.6 war in 160 games he’d be more valuable?

[Jay]

2 minutes ago, Baghdad Strad said:

So if Mike Trout had an 8.6 war in 160 games he’d be more valuable?

yes

because WAR is value and 8.6 > 8.3

 

[Duren, Duren]

Typical low attention span situation. Trout is off the field, not visible now. Bregman plays and can be watched while his team easily coasts into the post season. What Trout did has been reduced to a distant memory. Bregman refreshes memory every day. 

And the images of Bregman celebrating their playoff clinching are fresh. The last images of Trout are of an injured player gritting through meaningless games. 

Obviously, having the guts to play as long as possible while hurt in a dead end season never seems to count as 'valuable.'

If his numbers still surpass everyone else then it means no one else was able to be any better. Regardless of games played. Why not use common sense logic and assume Trout would have even better numbers if he was healthy enough to finish the season? 

As it stands, he still could lead the league in homers. Doing it in fewer games makes it more impressive. 

In 1961 the baseball establishment went ape shit demeaning Roger Maris for breaking Ruth's record in 162 games instead of 154. And tarnished the accomplishment by putting an asterisk next to the mark in the record books. 

As well, Trout had a much harder time than Bregman, who had the luxury of a loaded team to take the pressure and responsibility off him. Bregman put up his numbers able to focus on himself without having to carry his team. 

Many baseball analysts and MVP voters think they are super smart and have esoteric insight into stats and performance. The ESPN talk last night really boiled down to trying to prove how clever they were. But they ended up reducing their argument to an inconsequential subject. Games played. Without thinking of context or crediting Trout for a great season playing  hurt longer than anyone knew.

 

[Angelsjunky]

The vast majority of entrenched positions around MVP seem to be based on an erroneous assumption that there's a clear definition and criteria for MVP. There isn't. It isn't necessarily "best player in the league," nor is it "WAR leader," nor is it "best player on a contender."

It is whatever the voters feel the words "most valuable player" mean. It is subjective.

Whether that is a good thing is, like the MVP definition, up to you. I personally like it because it allows for debate and doesn't rely on an particular metric, even if it is frustrating and will inevitably lead to (what I deem to be) bad choices. 

One thing we can say with some degree of certainty is that it is close enough to be debatable. I don't know whether Trout or Bregman is the "absolutely right" choice, but if you think you know with any degree of certainty, you're probably prone to that error I just mentioned.

[Jeff Fletcher]

1 hour ago, Angelsjunky said:

The vast majority of entrenched positions around MVP seem to be based on an erroneous assumption that there's a clear definition and criteria for MVP. There isn't. It isn't necessarily "best player in the league," nor is it "WAR leader," nor is it "best player on a contender."

It is whatever the voters feel the words "most valuable player" mean. It is subjective.

Whether that is a good thing is, like the MVP definition, up to you. I personally like it because it allows for debate and doesn't rely on an particular metric, even if it is frustrating and will inevitably lead to (what I deem to be) bad choices. 

One thing we can say with some degree of certainty is that it is close enough to be debatable. I don't know whether Trout or Bregman is the "absolutely right" choice, but if you think you know with any degree of certainty, you're probably prone to that error I just mentioned.

I will add here that the voters are 30 people who put a lot of time and a lot of number crunching into their ballots. They aren’t swayed by “narratives” as much as they were even 10 years ago. 

I think those 30 people realize if Trout had missed the first three weeks instead of the last 3, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion, which is reason to believe it’s not that important. 

MLB,com just polled it’s writers and something like 36 of 37 still voted for Trout.

[Griffey's Corner]

1. I think Trout would be the first to say he does not deserve the MVP award for 2019.

 

2. It's not the player who has the highest WAR or even the best player award. It is called the Most Valuable Player.

 

3. How valuable is Trout to the 2019 Angels when the Angels will finish in 2nd to last place and lose 90 games. If there was no Trout they finish in last place instead. How much value do you place on that?

 

4. Missing the last month of the season is relative. No matter what spin you put on it for whatever reasons you may have.

[Pancake Bear]

31 minutes ago, Griffey's Corner said:

1. I think Trout would be the first to say he does not deserve the MVP award for 2019.

 

2. It's not the player who has the highest WAR or even the best player award. It is called the Most Valuable Player.

 

3. How valuable is Trout to the 2019 Angels when the Angels will finish in 2nd to last place and lose 90 games. If there was no Trout they finish in last place instead. How much value do you place on that?

 

4. Missing the last month of the season is relative. No matter what spin you put on it for whatever reasons you may have.

Lot of dumb posts on this site. Amazingly, this one still stands out in its badness.

Whenever I hear someone talk about value as something relative to team performance, I feel myself getting dumber just from having listened to their insipid argument. 

(Also, as a side note, Trout would disagree on #1). 

[tdawg87]

39 minutes ago, Griffey's Corner said:

1. I think Trout would be the first to say he does not deserve the MVP award for 2019.

 

2. It's not the player who has the highest WAR or even the best player award. It is called the Most Valuable Player.

 

3. How valuable is Trout to the 2019 Angels when the Angels will finish in 2nd to last place and lose 90 games. If there was no Trout they finish in last place instead. How much value do you place on that?

 

4. Missing the last month of the season is relative. No matter what spin you put on it for whatever reasons you may have.

[mulwin444]

16 minutes ago, Sean-Regan said:

Lot of dumb posts on this site. Amazingly, this one still stands out in its badness.

Whenever I hear someone talk about value as something relative to team performance, I feel myself getting dumber just from having listened to their insipid argument. 

(Also, as a side note, Trout would disagree on #1). 

Consider the source...so not suprised

[Pancake Bear]

3 minutes ago, mulwin444 said:

Consider the source...so not suprised

The “how valuable can you be when your team sucks” is insufferably stupid thinking, but how many people use that or some variant of it? I see it in other sports as well. In the NHL, far fewer people push back on the absurdity of it in the MVP discussion.

There is an argument to be made for quality of the team a player is on, IMO. I think the mindset of playing on a contender vs a last place team does make a difference in how a player approaches the game. That’s relevant. Slightly. But that isn’t the argument most people make. And those who make that argument put far too much weight on it. They also ignore things like the Angels still being in WC contention for most of the season. At absolute most it’s a tie breaker, IMO. 

[Angel Oracle]

2 hours ago, Duren, Duren said:

Typical low attention span situation. Trout is off the field, not visible now. Bregman plays and can be watched while his team easily coasts into the post season. What Trout did has been reduced to a distant memory. Bregman refreshes memory every day. 

And the images of Bregman celebrating their playoff clinching are fresh. The last images of Trout are of an injured player gritting through meaningless games. 

Obviously, having the guts to play as long as possible while hurt in a dead end season never seems to count as 'valuable.'

If his numbers still surpass everyone else then it means no one else was able to be any better. Regardless of games played. Why not use common sense logic and assume Trout would have even better numbers if he was healthy enough to finish the season? 

As it stands, he still could lead the league in homers. Doing it in fewer games makes it more impressive. 

In 1961 the baseball establishment went ape shit demeaning Roger Maris for breaking Ruth's record in 162 games instead of 154. And tarnished the accomplishment by putting an asterisk next to the mark in the record books. 

As well, Trout had a much harder time than Bregman, who had the luxury of a loaded team to take the pressure and responsibility off him. Bregman put up his numbers able to focus on himself without having to carry his team. 

Many baseball analysts and MVP voters think they are super smart and have esoteric insight into stats and performance. The ESPN talk last night really boiled down to trying to prove how clever they were. But they ended up reducing their argument to an inconsequential subject. Games played. Without thinking of context or crediting Trout for a great season playing  hurt longer than anyone knew.

 

Jorge Solar caught Trout at 45 HRs, shattering the Royals' single season record of 38 by Moose.    And to think the Cubs dealt Solar after 2016 for what turned out to be one year of Wade Davis.   Solar has two years of club control still.