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

[Blarg]

1 minute ago, Dtwncbad said:

Would a real MVP spend time trying to win the MVP award?

Trout seems to. He just gets beat by a guy having his best season he will ever have. 

[Angelsjunky]

@Dtwncbad, your feet of clay is that you're basing your certainty on something that isn't clearly defined: that is, what "MVP" means. MLB is pretty vague on that account and pretty much leaves it up to the voters to decide what it means to them.

Based on what it means to you, Mike Trout is the clear MVP. But what it means to you is not the official or One True Way That All Must Follow.

I personally think Trout deserves the award, but I also think there's a valid argument for Bregman - probably as good or better than the argument for Donaldson a few years ago, and Donaldson won that award.

[Dtwncbad]

4 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

@Dtwncbad, your feet of clay is that you're basing your certainty on something that isn't clearly defined: that is, what "MVP" means. MLB is pretty vague on that account and pretty much leaves it up to the voters to decide what it means to them.

Based on what it means to you, Mike Trout is the clear MVP. But what it means to you is not the official or One True Way That All Must Follow.

I personally think Trout deserves the award, but I also think there's a valid argument for Bregman - probably as good or better than the argument for Donaldson a few years ago, and Donaldson won that award.

No I get it.  Just saying what makes sense to me.  And my opinion is the folks that rationalize a vote for Bregman OVER Trout are completely out of sync with what makes perfect sense to me because basically any constructed argument doesn’t quite hold up if I actually dissect it logically.

[Jeff Fletcher]

I agree with @Dtwncbad

Wow.

[m0nkey]

1 minute ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I agree with @Dtwncbad

Wow.

Do the fellow writers you talk to have the same line of thinking? Or is it relatively even among the two lines of thought. 

[Lou]

Bregman wasn't even Player of the Month for September.

[Jeff Fletcher]

4 minutes ago, m0nkey said:

Do the fellow writers you talk to have the same line of thinking? Or is it relatively even among the two lines of thought. 

I think more of them do now than 20 or 10 or even 5 years ago. Every year it shifts more away from narrative based voting. 

[Jay]

21 minutes ago, Lou said:

Bregman wasn't even Player of the Month for September.

Bregman had one player of the month award in 2019.

Trout had none.

 

[Lou]

6 minutes ago, Jay said:

Bregman had one player of the month award in 2019.

Trout had none.

 

right, so basing an argument that a player deserves to be named MVP because of a superior September is ridiculous.

[Jay]

So basing an argument on Player of the Month is stupid.

 

[Lou]

1 minute ago, Jay said:

So basing an argument on Player of the Month is stupid.

 

yes 

[Angelsjunky]

52 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

No I get it.  Just saying what makes sense to me.  And my opinion is the folks that rationalize a vote for Bregman OVER Trout are completely out of sync with what makes perfect sense to me because basically any constructed argument doesn’t quite hold up if I actually dissect it logically.

But you're just doubling down on "What makes sense to me is what is factually true." Reasonable and intelligent people can dissect a perfectly logical argument for why Bregman should be MVP. I mean, I think Trout gets the edge but I could make an argument for why Bregman should be MVP.

Meaning, this isn't as clear-cut as you make it out to be. You can argue that it makes absolutely no sense to vote for Bregman, but that only means you don't buy or understand the argument for Bregman, not that the argument for Bregman is illogical or wrong.

[Jeff Fletcher]

I briefly explained on Twitter, but this is how I vote for the MVP. With some slight variations, this is how I’ve done it for the last 6-7 years 

There are three categories of stats:

WAR: which accounts for volume of play, defensive value baserunning and offense. I use both BR and FanGraphs.

Offense: I use the all purpose metrics that measure total offensive production: OPS, OPS+, wRC+, wOBA, etc.

Context: I don’t believe that “clutch ness” is any sort of skill, but this award is about what actually happened. If one guy did a lot better in big situations, I want to account for that. WPA measures that. 

Yes, this double counts offense. That’s intentional. I think mostly this game is about offense. It’s easier to find guys who can play defense and not hit than vice versa. Also the defensive metrics are sketchy, so I don’t want to have them weighted too heavily.

So then I take the candidates and look where they rank in each category and then look at who has the best overall ranks. 

That gets me 90 percent of the way there, then I may tweak it a little, usually at the bottom of the ballot. 

This formula doesn’t always land on Trout. It landed on Cabrera in 13 and Betts last year. This year it’s Trout. 

[Angelsjunky]

I love it, Jeff, although I'm guessing you're well above the curve in terms of statistical analysis for the average award voter. I'm not suggesting that most don't use advanced stats--I'm guessing almost all do at this point--but probably not in as much depth. And I agree with you on offense, which is one of my issues with WAR: I feel that it over-emphasizes defense. I like the fact that Fangraphs finally gave catchers their due, but think they went too far the other way.

One comment on WPA. I was surprised at how much ahead of everyone else Yelich is: 7.86 to Bellinger at 6.01 (Trout's tied for third at 5.62). Bregman's 11th in the majors at 4.99...makes me wonder if WPA penalizes him for playing in that powerhouse lineup.

Cabrera's 2013 was incredible -- his best year, Triple Crown in 2012 notwithstanding. And yeah, Betts deserved the award last year. 

[Dtwncbad]

1 hour ago, Angelsjunky said:

But you're just doubling down on "What makes sense to me is what is factually true." Reasonable and intelligent people can dissect a perfectly logical argument for why Bregman should be MVP. I mean, I think Trout gets the edge but I could make an argument for why Bregman should be MVP.

Meaning, this isn't as clear-cut as you make it out to be. You can argue that it makes absolutely no sense to vote for Bregman, but that only means you don't buy or understand the argument for Bregman, not that the argument for Bregman is illogical or wrong.

You added words (bold above) and meaning that just didn’t exist in my post and then based your whole position on what you added.

It’s fine but I don’t see any point in arguing something I never said or intended.

 

 

[Angelsjunky]

2 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

You added words (bold above) and meaning that just didn’t exist in my post and then based your whole position on what you added.

It’s fine but I don’t see any point in arguing something I never said or intended.

 

 

OK. Thanks for clarifying that - that was what I thought you were saying. I was wrong.

Whip me. Please?