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

[tdawg87]

4 hours ago, thebloob said:

That’s why they have silver slugger awards.  For the best offensive player at each position.  

 

again The problem of “value”.  If we use the war numbers inappropriately and subtract trout, the angels still suck.  If you remove Bregman, suddenly the astros might be in a wild card fight.  Who provided more value to their team?

Justin Verlander

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

4 hours ago, thebloob said:

That’s why they have silver slugger awards.  For the best offensive player at each position.  

 

again The problem of “value”.  If we use the war numbers inappropriately and subtract trout, the angels still suck.  If you remove Bregman, suddenly the astros might be in a wild card fight.  Who provided more value to their team?

Put Trout on the Astros and Bregman on the Angels, which team improved and which team got worse?

Edited September 18, 2019 by Ace-Of-Diamonds

[tdawg87]

17 minutes ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

Put Trout on the Astros and Bregman on the Angels, which team improved and which team got worse?

Yes.

[Jeff Fletcher]

5 hours ago, thebloob said:

That’s why they have silver slugger awards.  For the best offensive player at each position.  

 

again The problem of “value”.  If we use the war numbers inappropriately and subtract trout, the angels still suck.  If you remove Bregman, suddenly the astros might be in a wild card fight.  Who provided more value to their team?

If you subtract Trout and the Angels win 10 less games, and you subtract Bregman and the Astros win 8 less games, who is more valuable?

If you add in any other variables, like the other players on your team or the other teams in the division, it is no longer an individual award. 

[Docwaukee]

5 hours ago, thebloob said:

That’s why they have silver slugger awards.  For the best offensive player at each position.  

 

again The problem of “value”.  If we use the war numbers inappropriately and subtract trout, the angels still suck.  If you remove Bregman, suddenly the astros might be in a wild card fight.  Who provided more value to their team?

the guy having a better individual season.  

team wins matter and there's an award for that.  It's called a division title or a pennant or a WS championship.  

[happybat4]

Well if Bregaman plays the whole season and has a higher WAR, he provided more wins for his team.

[Jay]

1 hour ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

Put Trout on the Astros and Bregman on the Angels, which team improved and which team got worse?

If you made this move today...

 

[Jeff Fletcher]

I have another one for you. 

Two piles of cash

Pile A: a $20 bill, and 24 $1 bills

Pile B: a $10 bill and 24 $5 bills

Pick the most valuable bill. 

(Part 2: Oh crap someone knocked over the table and all 50 bills are now on the floor in one big pile. Now which one is the most valuable?)

Edited September 18, 2019 by Jeff Fletcher

[nate]

Not sure if mistyped or I am just missing sarcasm or something but the $20 bill would be the most valuable bill.

[Jeff Fletcher]

4 minutes ago, nate said:

Not sure if mistyped or I am just missing sarcasm or something but the $20 bill would be the most valuable bill.

That is exactly correct. 

And seems kinda obvious, right?

[happybat4]

1 hour ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

That is exactly correct. 

And seems kinda obvious, right?

But we're picking who was the most valuable for the whole season. Even if trout missed the entire season people would pick him over anyone else.

But Trouts value has been 8.3 for this season. As of now he has provided more value, but Bregaman can certainly pass him up in value for this season.

[Jeff Fletcher]

29 minutes ago, happybat4 said:

But we're picking who was the most valuable for the whole season. Even if trout missed the entire season people would pick him over anyone else.

But Trouts value has been 8.3 for this season. As of now he has provided more value, but Bregaman can certainly pass him up in value for this season.

Yeah. That’s true. You’re talking about a different part of the argument than I was talking about. 

I was really only referring to the argument about “value” being related to whether the team is a contender. 

[m0nkey]

Because of the lack of clarity in the criteria and definition of valuable given to the voters, I think they can factor in team success as much as they want and there’s really nothing that says they’re wrong. 

 

Whether you agree or disagree with them is something else though. 

[tdawg87]

2 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I have another one for you. 

Two piles of cash

Pile A: a $20 bill, and 24 $1 bills

Pile B: a $10 bill and 24 $5 bills

Pick the most valuable bill. 

(Part 2: Oh crap someone knocked over the table and all 50 bills are now on the floor in one big pile. Now which one is the most valuable?)

[thebloob]

3 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I have another one for you. 

Two piles of cash

Pile A: a $20 bill, and 24 $1 bills

Pile B: a $10 bill and 24 $5 bills

Pick the most valuable bill. 

(Part 2: Oh crap someone knocked over the table and all 50 bills are now on the floor in one big pile. Now which one is the most valuable?)

Then my argument becomes (again) why have idiotic sportswriters vote on it.  Just hand it to the guy with the highest WAR.  By everyone’s argument here it seems that is all that matters.  The question then becomes that if you give sportswriters a pair of numbers, will they be able to tell which one is bigger?

[Jeff Fletcher]

1 hour ago, m0nkey said:

Because of the lack of clarity in the criteria and definition of valuable given to the voters, I think they can factor in team success as much as they want and there’s really nothing that says they’re wrong. 

 

Whether you agree or disagree with them is something else though. 

The problem is somewhere along the line someone decided the word “valuable” mean something that it doesn’t mean.

It really shouldn’t be that complicated. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

4 minutes ago, thebloob said:

Then my argument becomes (again) why have idiotic sportswriters vote on it.  Just hand it to the guy with the highest WAR.  By everyone’s argument here it seems that is all that matters.  The question then becomes that if you give sportswriters a pair of numbers, will they be able to tell which one is bigger?

WAR is not a perfect stat. There are a lot of ways to determine how much value a player provided. You can use WAR or OPS or BA or RBI or anything you want .... as long as it’s an individual stat that describes what that player did. Not what his teammates did.

It is still an opinion.

The issue is that some voters are giving an opinion on the wrong question. 

Edited September 19, 2019 by Jeff Fletcher

[Jeff Fletcher]

If I take a watch to be appraised at two different places, they can legitimately consider all kinds of things about the watch to determine its value. 

If the guy say “I’m not sure, let me see your cuff links,” then there’s a problem. 

[thebloob]

4 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

If you subtract Trout and the Angels win 10 less games, and you subtract Bregman and the Astros win 8 less games, who is more valuable?

If you add in any other variables, like the other players on your team or the other teams in the division, it is no longer an individual award. 

Actually which situation would you rather do if you were a gm:

1. Replace GEORGE springer in centerfield with mike trout. 

Or

2. Replace andrelton Simmons with Alex Bregman.  

 

Which team ram got better?

[thebloob]

Just now, Jeff Fletcher said:

If I take a watch to be appraised at two different places, they can legitimately consider all kinds of things about the watch to determine its value. 

If the guy say “I’m not sure, let me see your cuff links,” then there’s a problem. 

That is what I am trying to argue here but it always come back to

”but he has the highest WAR therefore he’s the most valuable”

(I’m not technologically savvy enough to put a gif in but picture a red neck Hoosier saying that (or Aaron judge))

i think a rational fan could say hey Alex Bregman has significant value to a good team, perhaps he should be considered in the conversation for mvp. 

[Stradling]

Just now, thebloob said:

That is what I am trying to argue here but it always come back to

”but he has the highest WAR therefore he’s the most valuable”

(I’m not technologically savvy enough to put a gif in but picture a red neck Hoosier saying that (or Aaron judge))

i think a rational fan could say hey Alex Bregman has significant value to a good team, perhaps he should be considered in the conversation for mvp. 

I believe he is in the conversation.  He will finish second.  

[Jeff Fletcher]

2 minutes ago, thebloob said:

Actually which situation would you rather do if you were a gm:

1. Replace GEORGE springer in centerfield with mike trout. 

Or

2. Replace andrelton Simmons with Alex Bregman.  

 

Which team ram got better?

That’s still a different question, in my opinion. 

A player’s value is absolute, not relative to what is around him. 

Just like the $20 bill in the pile of $1s

[Jeff Fletcher]

2 minutes ago, thebloob said:

That is what I am trying to argue here but it always come back to

”but he has the highest WAR therefore he’s the most valuable”

(I’m not technologically savvy enough to put a gif in but picture a red neck Hoosier saying that (or Aaron judge))

i think a rational fan could say hey Alex Bregman has significant value to a good team, perhaps he should be considered in the conversation for mvp. 

Alex Bregman is in the conversation because he’s had a very good year. If he had the same year with the Tigers, he’d deserve to be just as much in the conversation. 

At the moment, though, Bregman’s year hasn’t been as good as Trout’s. 

Trout is ahead in WAR, OPS, OPS+, HR, wRC+, WPA and a lot of other things. 

I would vote Bregman 2nd, right now. 

Of course, Bregman has another 10 games or so that Trout doesn’t have, so it’s not over. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

29 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

WAR is not a perfect stat. There are a lot of ways to determine how much value a player provided. You can use WAR or OPS or BA or RBI or anything you want .... as long as it’s an individual stat that describes what that player did. Not what his teammates did.

I don't think it says anywhere that the award is specifically an 'individual award.' It only uses the word 'value' and your opinion rests on your definition of value.

While I tend to agree with the 'vote for the best player' argument even here you reference RBI's as a measure of individual performance when they are not that. RBI's are a team stat (see: Pujols, Albert) and baseball is inherently a team game, despite being less so than other sports. Yes a single is a single, but is a single with the bases loaded and 2 outs the same as a single with 2 outs and no one on base? One might argue that these things balance out over the course of a season but they actually don't.

Try as we might we can never really remove the team element from the game, and most of the basic measurements we use come voting time are lacking this level of insight.

[Jay]

https://bbwaa.com/voting-faq/

The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:

1.  Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.

2.  Number of games played.

3.  General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.

4.  Former winners are eligible.

5.  Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.