Mookie and the MVP

[bosoxmal]

This thread is long over due. I think Mookie is odds-on right now. Would be something to have them both in the house (MVP and Cy Young)

[Eddy Ballgame]

This thread is long over due. I think Mookie is odds-on right now. Would be something to have them both in the house (MVP and Cy Young)

 

Ortiz will get significant votes as well. They may end up hurting each other and a Mike Trout will end up with it.

[sk7326]

He has made more outs than the other big contenders - but the power, speed and defense are an amazing package - and the voters have an obvious bias towards winning teams (although of course, that is evaluating the player's 24 teammates and not the player).

 

Trout could have deservedly won this thing 5 years in a row - including this season. He is the most valuable player in the league - I don't like any distinction between most valuable and best, because (as I said above) you are then talking about whether his teammates are good. But we know he won't win it because his 24 teammates stink.

 

To me, it's probably a dead heat between Betts and Altuve with Donaldson very close, but the Jays slump will count against him.

[Kimmi]

If you're going with the best player, it has to be Trout.

[sk7326]

If you're going with the best player, it has to be Trout.

 

value in baseball and separable enough that imo "best" is sufficient - without having to measure his teammates or GM

[bosoxmal]

If I were going to start a MLB team tomorrow. Betts would be my !1 pick. and not even close. He's every bit as good, right now, as Trout or any of the other candidates.

[moonslav59]

1. Trout

2. Betts

 

+ .074 in OBP

+ .015 in SLG

 

Mookie's better on D and base running, but not by enough to make up for Trout's batting.

 

[oldtimer]

1. Trout

2. Betts

 

+ .074 in OBP

+ .015 in SLG

 

Mookie's better on D and base running, but not by enough to make up for Trout's batting.

 

 

You have to remember that Mookie lead off for much of the year and did a very good job of that.

[moonslav59]

You have to remember that Mookie lead off for much of the year and did a very good job of that.

 

I haven't forgotten his great season, but Trout has been a beast,

[Kimmi]

value in baseball and separable enough that imo "best" is sufficient - without having to measure his teammates or GM

 

You make a valid point, but I still struggle with the difference between the 'best' and the 'most valuable'. I don't think they're the same. Perhaps in terms of measurable value, ie WAR, they are.

 

But I think a player can be the most valuable player to his team without being the best player on his team.

[moonslav59]

You make a valid point, but I still struggle with the difference between the 'best' and the 'most valuable'. I don't think they're the same. Perhaps in terms of measurable value, ie WAR, they are.

 

But I think a player can be the most valuable player to his team without being the best player on his team.

 

Best player and best season may be different, but best season is what the MVP should go to. Clearly trout his having a better season. One could argue his OBP is inflated due to pitchers being able to "pitch around him" due to weaker players around him, but if you do that, then maybe you should add RBIs to his total for playing on a team wherre nobody gets on base in front of him.

[sk7326]

You make a valid point, but I still struggle with the difference between the 'best' and the 'most valuable'. I don't think they're the same. Perhaps in terms of measurable value, ie WAR, they are.

 

But I think a player can be the most valuable player to his team without being the best player on his team.

 

i do not disagree but then you are measuring whether his backups stink or not - which is not in the players control

[sk7326]

If I were going to start a MLB team tomorrow. Betts would be my !1 pick. and not even close. He's every bit as good, right now, as Trout or any of the other candidates.

 

Trout has held his value for 5 years in a row - and does the significantly higher number of outs Betts makes get made up on the bases or in the outfield? I don't think so.

 

 

.437 vs .363 is a .074 difference .... in other words 51 more outs over a full season (assuming 700 PAs for simplicity). That is a lot - even if you take his 14 IBB out of the equation, Trout has made 38 fewer outs over a full season. That is a lot to make up with the other stuff.

 

I would applaud Betts winning - and it would not be a Mo Vaughn in 1995 level robbery ... but Trout should win it, and it is not particularly close

Edited September 24, 2016 by sk7326

[Maxbialystock]

Sorry, but I am truly indifferent to those awards, at least as regards the Sox. To me the most important thing by far is team performance and winning games. Do I think Mookie would be a good MVP choice? Sure, I do. But, being perfectly frank, I really believe the MVP on this team, beyond question, is David Ortiz, and I would never want to see a DH awarded AL MVP.

[Bellhorn04]

The problem with giving it to the 'best player' is you might have to give it to Trout 5 years in a row. That's boring!

[cp176]

As great a player as Trout is and as much as I would like to have him on my team, I'm not sure how he appears to be having a better season right now than Mookie. I guess I don't see it but I probably am missing something. MVP in my mind has connoted something other than the best player. In my eyes, I see Papi as the MVP of this team. If I were voting, I think that I would go with Betts, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit if things keep going as they have if Mr. Ortiz comes out on top.

[Jasonbay44]

The problem with giving it to the 'best player' is you might have to give it to Trout 5 years in a row. That's boring!

 

And I do feel like this is a thing voters actually consider, in all sports. I believe this is part of the reason why Derrick Rose stole Lebrons MVP in 2011 when Lebron was far and away the best player in the league.

[sk7326]

The problem with giving it to the 'best player' is you might have to give it to Trout 5 years in a row. That's boring!

 

And I do think voters do look at that - narrative is powerful

[Palodios]

Trout is the better player right now. Hell, I'd prefer Betts loses simply so he'll be cheaper to sign long term.

[sk7326]

Trout is the better player right now. Hell, I'd prefer Betts loses simply so he'll be cheaper to sign long term.

 

He will cost a lot to resign regardless - as well he should. And of course shame on the Red Sox if they cheap out on him or Bogaerts.

[Kimmi]

Best player and best season may be different, but best season is what the MVP should go to. Clearly trout his having a better season. One could argue his OBP is inflated due to pitchers being able to "pitch around him" due to weaker players around him, but if you do that, then maybe you should add RBIs to his total for playing on a team wherre nobody gets on base in front of him.

 

I said 'best player', but I actually meant 'best season'. Still, I think that a player who is not having the best season can be the most valuable player. I often think to myself, which player would I hate to lose the most for the season? It's often a very close call, but it's not always the player having the best season.

 

For example, I'm inclined to think that losing Papi or Pedroia this season could have impacted the team more than losing Mookie. Maybe not this year because Mookie has been otherworldly, but I think you get my point.

[Kimmi]

i do not disagree but then you are measuring whether his backups stink or not - which is not in the players control

 

That's a fair enough point, but I think it also goes beyond just who the backup is. But now we're talking intangibles, like leadership, experience, grit, etc. That is in no way suggesting that Mookie fails in the intangible department.

[sk7326]

That's a fair enough point, but I think it also goes beyond just who the backup is. But now we're talking intangibles, like leadership, experience, grit, etc. That is in no way suggesting that Mookie fails in the intangible department.

 

indeed - but as i've noted, intangibles and stuff come out in the measurable results. I certainly do not think Mookie winning would be a travesty (Mo Vaughn in 1995 is the examole of one of those and Pudge in 1999 - not that is happened but why). But Trout has generated more value - value his 24 teammates, coaches and bosses has squandered.

[vjcsmoke]

I wouldn't be surprised to see Mookie win the MVP. But what about David Ortiz? If anything it would be fitting to award him the MVP in a phenomenal sendoff season! He has been extremely valuable to our run and his OPS leads the ENTIRE league. If Mookie doesn't get it, I'm rooting for Big Papi as MVP!!

[greenwell]

The main thing holding Papi back is that he has a lot fewer at bats than the other contenders, a mixture of interleague and being 40 years old.

[devildavid]

I said 'best player', but I actually meant 'best season'. Still, I think that a player who is not having the best season can be the most valuable player. I often think to myself, which player would I hate to lose the most for the season? It's often a very close call, but it's not always the player having the best season.

 

For example, I'm inclined to think that losing Papi or Pedroia this season could have impacted the team more than losing Mookie. Maybe not this year because Mookie has been otherworldly, but I think you get my point.

 

Kimmi, here is an article that backs your view. MVP is not necessarily a "best" season or player award according to the criteria used in voting for them. Your thinking is right on the money!

 

american-league-mvp-selection

[Kimmi]

I wouldn't be surprised to see Mookie win the MVP. But what about David Ortiz? If anything it would be fitting to award him the MVP in a phenomenal sendoff season! He has been extremely valuable to our run and his OPS leads the ENTIRE league. If Mookie doesn't get it, I'm rooting for Big Papi as MVP!!

 

I think a strong case can be made for both Ortiz and Pedroia.

[Kimmi]

Kimmi, here is an article that backs your view. MVP is not necessarily a "best" season or player award according to the criteria used in voting for them. Your thinking is right on the money!

 

american-league-mvp-selection

 

Thank you for the link. I think there is room for more subjectivity in MVP voting than there is in Cy Young, ROY, or Gold Gloves. It's harder to define "Most Valuable" than it is to define "Best".

[sk7326]

There is a lot of subjectivity with the MVP - especially when the field is fairly close. This year is also fairly close - as I noted, Betts winning is not any sort of robbery. (the example I always bring up for an actual robbery is Mo Vaughn in 1995)

 

Ortiz would be good narrative - which is fine - but he has played less than his compatriots, and since his contribution is entirely offensive - he has to be a lot better than other guys on that dimension, and he isn't.

 

The voting for the mvp in 1931 was of course when tools to measure actual value did not exist - you had to look at your classic roto stats and take the plunge.

 

For me, it's Trout vs Betts. Given the tools to measure value, those two have delivered significantly more value than anybody else - so to me they are the most valuable players this season. It really comes down to whether Betts' defense is enough to offset the sheer number of outs he made compared to Trout.

 

In real life, I expect Betts to win it.

[cp176]

Vegas has Ortiz 2 to 1 leading the way