Mookie and the MVP

[oldtimer]

Ortiz comes through again to make a further case for his consideration. As a DH, he lacks the contribution on the field but his clubhouse presence is also valuable. It is a great team that can have 2 players under real consideration for MVP. I side with those who believe it should be Mookie due to his contributions at the plate, running, fielding and with his arm.

 

Pedey is a great and valuable player, but a cut below his two team mates in consideration for MVP.

[SoxHop]

Mookie all the way. Sorry....... Ortiz didn't go out on the field all year and play D. Pedroia has an amazing year......... I love the guy.......... but Betts is the firecracker who lead the team....

 

It's hard to say, Pedey did so much damage this year with the bat........ but I think Betts edged him out............

[Jasonbay44]

Pedroia has had a great year, but Mookie is the all around better player and if a player on this team were to win MVP, it would and should be him.

[moonslav59]

I think that Pedroia had a great year in the field.

 

I said, not as good as he used to be- not bad.

 

He clearly is not close to what he used to be on defense, but he used to be phenomenal, so less than phenomenal can still be damn good. He actually had his thrid best UZR/150 year, so I'm not saying he was not very good or great, but 13.1 is pretty far from his best seasons of 20.4 and 19.6.

 

The bigger "decline" has been his base running. From 2007 to 2012, his base running fangraph's rating was always between 0.0 and 2.3, but starting in 2013, he's gone ...

-1.1

-1.2

-1.1

-4.3 (this year)

 

Mookie's UZR/150 was +16.9 this year- an awesome number for someone relatively new to the position. His base running numbers has increased from 2.5 to 8.3 to 9.8 this year. Add to that, 31 HRs and 113 RBI, 120 runs, 77 XBHs and half the GIDP's than Pedey, and I really don't see a choice.

 

It's not so much because Pedey hasn't been great, it's more about Betts being unworldly.

 

[Kimmi]

I have no problem with anyone who says Betts is the MVP. He's been awesome and certainly deserving.

 

I just think that both Papi and Pedroia are legitimate candidates as well.

[a700hitter]

I have no problem with anyone who says Betts is the MVP. He's been awesome and certainly deserving.

 

I just think that both Papi and Pedroia are legitimate candidates as well.

They could split the vote.

[Jasonbay44]

Pedroia has had a great year, but he hasn't even been the best at his position in the AL this year. I love the guy but Cano and Altuve have had better seasons at the same position.

[Maxbialystock]

I would not pick Mookie because I honestly don't think he is feared at the plate. But he is beyond question a five tool player who has had a very, very good year: OPS over .900, 113 rbi's, 122 runs scored, 31 dingers, 26 SB's, and an insane 14 assists vs. 1 error in the outfield. He has the second highest WAR in the AL behind Trout. So, despite my reluctance, he would be a darn good pick.

[devildavid]

I've mentioned Pedroia's name a couple of times. I agree that he is a legitimate MVP candidate too.

 

I'm not surprised you have mentioned Pedroia. It seems like he is kind of overlooked this season with all the excitement over the young players. I'm glad to at least get people taliking about him. This season has been a great resurgence for him. He, like Ortiz, has had some health issues that caused me to worry about where his career was heading. But like Ortiz, he has proven he still has a lot of great baseball left in him. I have never admired Pedroia more than this season.

[moonslav59]

Having a great season doesn't automatically make you a top "contender" for MVP.

 

At best, Pedey is the 3rd best player on the Sox, and as JBay pointed out, the 3rd best 2Bman in the AL.

[SoxHop]

Having a great season doesn't automatically make you a top "contender" for MVP.

 

At best, Pedey is the 3rd best player on the Sox, and as JBay pointed out, the 3rd best 2Bman in the AL.

 

I'd could argue that Pedey may be the 2nd best player on the team this year behind Betts.

[moonslav59]

I'd could argue that Pedey may be the 2nd best player on the team this year behind Betts.

 

I guess, if you don't count pitchers or DHs.

 

Either way, he's not close enough to Betts to be a real "contender".

[Wade Boggs]

This is a tough call. I would not go with Trout. He's a great player no doubt. His team is not good. I'm sorry , his team is not even close to 500. If Betts or Ortiz weren't having monster years and the Red Sox out of contention, we have a different story. That's not the case. So I have to choose between Ortiz/ Betts. I first want to say PAPI is having a GREAT year. No second guessing that. He might even win it. If he did I would understand. I'm not going into all the stats we already know most of them.

 

I'm picking Betts. Just for the reason some of you people have said. He does it all. HIT, RUN, POWER, DEFENSE, and so on. Mookie has played in most of the games. That has to mean something. He never begged for a day off. He went from batting leadoff for most of the year. Was hitting 3 rd. Not an easy adjustment. Has been flipped- flopped again. Never complained. He is friendly with the media and writers. I'm sorry to say, that's huge. The only problem and I agree with everybody else is...... Ortiz/ Betts can split the vote and hand it over to another player who has the numbers but shouldn't win it. IMO

[devildavid]

Having a great season doesn't automatically make you a top "contender" for MVP.

 

At best, Pedey is the 3rd best player on the Sox, and as JBay pointed out, the 3rd best 2Bman in the AL.

 

Being "best" on the team or in the league doesn't automatically make you a top contender for MVP. MVP has nothing to do with being ranked "best".

 

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

[Bellhorn04]

Being "best" on the team or in the league doesn't automatically make you a top contender for MVP. MVP has nothing to do with being ranked "best".

 

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

 

As it says, there's no clear-cut definition and it's up to the judgment of the voter. If you think it should simply go to the best player that's your prerogative.

[devildavid]

Ortiz for MVP! If any DH can break through it is him. Then on to break into the Hall of Fame. DH should be given as much consideration as any other position or role on the team. He elevated the position to its highest level.

[Kimmi]

Pedroia has had a great year, but he hasn't even been the best at his position in the AL this year. I love the guy but Cano and Altuve have had better seasons at the same position.

 

I still think there is a difference between being the best and being the most valuable.

[Kimmi]

I'm not surprised you have mentioned Pedroia. It seems like he is kind of overlooked this season with all the excitement over the young players. I'm glad to at least get people taliking about him. This season has been a great resurgence for him. He, like Ortiz, has had some health issues that caused me to worry about where his career was heading. But like Ortiz, he has proven he still has a lot of great baseball left in him. I have never admired Pedroia more than this season.

 

Two players that I would never count out are Papi and Pedroia.

[Kimmi]

Ortiz for MVP! If any DH can break through it is him. Then on to break into the Hall of Fame. DH should be given as much consideration as any other position or role on the team. He elevated the position to its highest level.

 

I read a couple of nice articles on Ortiz this morning which emphasized the point that I think you and I are trying to make about being 'valuable'.

 

One was Pedroia's Farewell Message to Papi on WEEI. The other was Ortiz' Legacy: Mentoring Boston's Young Core by Jen McCaffrey. Both of those underscore the influence and impact that Papi has had on the team in ways that are immeasurable through stats. He may not be the best player on the team, but IMO and the opinion of his teammates, he has made the rest of the team better. If that's not valuable, I don't know what is.

[S5Dewey]

I read a couple of nice articles on Ortiz this morning which emphasized the point that I think you and I are trying to make about being 'valuable'.

 

One was Pedroia's Farewell Message to Papi on WEEI. The other was Ortiz' Legacy: Mentoring Boston's Young Core by Jen McCaffrey. Both of those underscore the influence and impact that Papi has had on the team in ways that are immeasurable through stats. He may not be the best player on the team, b:Dut IMO and the opinion of his teammates, he has made the rest of the team better. If that's not valuable, I don't know what is.

 

Kimmy...did you just say that something is immeasurable through stats?

[Kimmi]

Kimmy...did you just say that something is immeasurable through stats?

 

LOL I did, and I have many times before.

 

This is a point that I keep trying to stress to those who are against the stat geeks, or aspiring stat geeks such as myself.

 

They have never disregarded the importance of the human element. Never.

[Jasonbay44]

I still think there is a difference between being the best and being the most valuable.

 

I agree with that, but Its also tough to determine the difference between more value and better player, the Sox are an all around better team than say the Astros and Mariners, but does that mean Pedroia was really more "valuable" than Robinson Cano who has a phenomenal season and was the main reason Mariners hung around and almost made playoffs?

 

If I was voting MVP, my top 5 would be

Trout

Betts

Altuve

Ortiz

Donaldson

 

I would have Cano 6th. However, as some mentioned, I think Trout will get the Lebron James effect, where the voters are tiring of voting for him, and one of those other guys, most likely Betts will win.

[moonslav59]

Trout is "the best", and he is "most valuable" to his team. Just because his team sucks doesn't mean he's not valuable or more valuable. One could argue that because the Sox have Betts, Ortiz, Pedey and other top hitters, they could "afford" to lose one more than the Angels could afford to lose Trout.

 

Betts would be replaced with Young and Beni, and we'd still be a good team, maybe not in 1st place, but still very good. The Angels might have 120 losses without Trout.

[Kimmi]

I agree with that, but Its also tough to determine the difference between more value and better player, the Sox are an all around better team than say the Astros and Mariners, but does that mean Pedroia was really more "valuable" than Robinson Cano who has a phenomenal season and was the main reason Mariners hung around and almost made playoffs?

 

If I was voting MVP, my top 5 would be

Trout

Betts

Altuve

Ortiz

Donaldson

 

I would have Cano 6th. However, as some mentioned, I think Trout will get the Lebron James effect, where the voters are tiring of voting for him, and one of those other guys, most likely Betts will win.

 

Definitely, the term 'most valuable' is very subjective. What's valuable to one person may not be valuable to another. There was a Fangraphs article from Dave Cameron, whom I usually strongly agree with, which gave Trout the edge over Mookie because Trout made 386 outs as a batter as opposed to Mookie's 472 outs. The problem with that opinion, in MY opinion, was that he discounted Mookie's defense in his MVP bid. What???

 

I don't think there's a right or wrong here, because people's interpretations of 'most valuable' can be so different. Some people do think that most valuable means best.

 

If I had a vote, I think I'd go with Ortiz. I couldn't be upset, however, if Trout or Mookie won it.

[greenwell]

Definitely, the term 'most valuable' is very subjective. What's valuable to one person may not be valuable to another. There was a Fangraphs article from Dave Cameron, whom I usually strongly agree with, which gave Trout the edge over Mookie because Trout made 386 outs as a batter as opposed to Mookie's 472 outs. The problem with that opinion, in MY opinion, was that he discounted Mookie's defense in his MVP bid. What???

 

I don't think there's a right or wrong here, because people's interpretations of 'most valuable' can be so different. Some people do think that most valuable means best.

 

If I had a vote, I think I'd go with Ortiz. I couldn't be upset, however, if Trout or Mookie won it.

 

Pablo only made 6 outs this year, so I guess he should beat both of them.

[Kimmi]

Pablo only made 6 outs this year, so I guess he should beat both of them.

 

Ha! Touche'.

[devildavid]

Trout is "the best", and he is "most valuable" to his team. Just because his team sucks doesn't mean he's not valuable or more valuable. One could argue that because the Sox have Betts, Ortiz, Pedey and other top hitters, they could "afford" to lose one more than the Angels could afford to lose Trout.

 

Betts would be replaced with Young and Beni, and we'd still be a good team, maybe not in 1st place, but still very good. The Angels might have 120 losses without Trout.

 

Trout is arguably the best player in the AL. MVP is not simply for the best player. It can be, but it doesn't have to be. That is the argument against Trout winning it. Maybe they need a new award for best player.

 

That said, I don't give a crap about any individual awards in sports, in entertainment, in the arts, etc. We live in a world where "Dances With Wolves" won Best Picture over "Goodfellas". Barack Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize before becoming President. Derek Jeter won 5 Gold Glove awards! You get the picture. Here is a great quote form Annie Hall on awards: "Awards! They always give out awards! I can't believe it. Greatest Fascist Dictator: Adolf Hitler."

 

Awards prove nothing at all. They are not proof of greatness or accomplishment. Performance is not measured by awards, but by results.

Edited October 6, 2016 by devildavid

[moonslav59]

Trout is arguably the best player in the AL. MVP is not simply for the best player. It can be, but it doesn't have to be. That is the argument against Trout winning it. Maybe they need a new award for best player.

 

That said, I don't give a crap about any individual awards in sports, in entertainment, in the arts, etc. We live in a world where "Dances With Wolves" won Best Picture over "Goodfellas". Barack Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize before becoming President. Derek Jeter won 5 Gold Glove awards! You get the picture. Here is a great quote form Annie Hall on awards: "Awards! They always give out awards! I can't believe it. Greatest Fascist Dictator: Adolf Hitler."

 

Awards prove nothing at all. They are not proof of greatness or accomplishment. Performance is not measured by awards, but by results.

 

...and Palmeiro won a GG by playing something like 60 games at 1B one year.

[mvp 78]

...and Palmeiro won a GG by playing something like 60 games at 1B one year.

 

28 games.

[Emp9]

Trout is "the best", and he is "most valuable" to his team. Just because his team sucks doesn't mean he's not valuable or more valuable. One could argue that because the Sox have Betts, Ortiz, Pedey and other top hitters, they could "afford" to lose one more than the Angels could afford to lose Trout.

 

Betts would be replaced with Young and Beni, and we'd still be a good team, maybe not in 1st place, but still very good. The Angels might have 120 losses without Trout.

 

But a good team that probably misses the play-offs (w/out Betts).