Mookie and the MVP

[jacksonianmarch]

Trout is more valuable. He has a full 1.0+WAR lead on Mookie. His OBP is insane. Trout stole more bases than Mookie. And while Mookie was a plus defender, Trout was average at a tougher position. If we were going on sheer merit and not team performance, there is no doubt that Trout should win

[Nick]

Trout is more valuable. He has a full 1.0+WAR lead on Mookie. His OBP is insane. Trout stole more bases than Mookie. And while Mookie was a plus defender, Trout was average at a tougher position. If we were going on sheer merit and not team performance, there is no doubt that Trout should win

 

Why not declare MVP the guy with the highest WAR? If we are going to look at simply the 'made' up parameters, why even bother to rely on bunch of stupid sports writers and other media types?

[sk7326]

Why not declare MVP the guy with the highest WAR? If we are going to look at simply the 'made' up parameters, why even bother to rely on bunch of stupid sports writers and other media types?

 

Trout and Betts are close enough for there to be a debate. Jack is right on this basic point - if you ding Trout because his team stinks, you are actually evaluating the team and not the player.

 

Ultimately it comes down to Betts' superior defense (since Betts was one of the league's best RF this year) vs Trout just making many many fewer outs (which is what the job of a hitter is)

[Jasonbay44]

Trout is the best player in baseball, and I don't think many people will debate that. However, the best player doesn't always win MVP (Lebron should win MVP every year in the NBA). Team record will be considered by voters, it shouldn't really be a factor, because if you swap Mookie and Trout on Angels and Sox, both teams would stay about the same, but it will be, and it will hurt Trout.

[Nick]

Trout is the best player in baseball, and I don't think many people will debate that. However, the best player doesn't always win MVP (Lebron should win MVP every year in the NBA). Team record will be considered by voters, it shouldn't really be a factor, because if you swap Mookie and Trout on Angels and Sox, both teams would stay about the same, but it will be, and it will hurt Trout.

 

You are making my point. Why bother to vote for MVP? WAR stats are out there.

[sk7326]

You are making my point. Why bother to vote for MVP? WAR stats are out there.

 

Because WAR does not capture anything and a difference of 1 win can be explained away - but it captures a lot.

[Bellhorn04]

Because WAR does not capture anything and a difference of 1 win can be explained away - but it captures a lot.

 

???

[sk7326]

???

 

i meant to type everything

 

I don't expect WAR's precision to be so great that say a 1-win difference is definitive proof of a better season - but a 2 or 3 win difference gets you more in that direction. Trout and Betts stand alone in bWAR. (though Trout ran away with fangraphs version - basically the defensive measurement is the differential)

[Bellhorn04]

If it's Trout 1 and Betts 2 I'm fine with it. For a kid like Betts, finishing second in MVP to Trout is a pretty large accomplishment.

[Jack Flap]

Trout over Betts for AL MVP: http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2016/11/17/mookie-betts-comes-up-just-short-for-american-league-mvp-loses-to-mike-trout/

 

The Red Sox fan in me is disappointed for Mookie, but the voters made the right choice. It's crazy to think that at age 25, Trout really should have four or five MVPs by this point, not just two.

[sk7326]

Trout could (should?) have won 5 straight MVPs at this point. Seriously - he's almost like Michael Jordan in the mid-90s. It's not fun to vote him MVP every year - but really he is.

 

Betts was the only other remotely justifiable choice - and that is an achievement in itself.

[mvp 78]

Trout could (should?) have won 5 straight MVPs at this point. Seriously - he's almost like Michael Jordan in the mid-90s. It's not fun to vote him MVP every year - but really he is.

 

Betts was the only other remotely justifiable choice - and that is an achievement in itself.

 

Only difference is that MJ had rings.

[sk7326]

Only difference is that MJ had rings.

 

I agree, MJ had better teammates.

[mvp 78]

I agree, MJ had better teammates.

 

True.

[Jack Flap]

Trout could (should?) have won 5 straight MVPs at this point. Seriously - he's almost like Michael Jordan in the mid-90s. It's not fun to vote him MVP every year - but really he is.

 

Betts was the only other remotely justifiable choice - and that is an achievement in itself.

 

I mean, I guess I can't really fault anyone for voting Cabrera the year he won the Triple Crown (even if Trout was actually better)...but I agree.

 

Hopefully this is a sign we can have an award for the best player (a distinction actually worth caring about) every year moving forward and not just the best player on a winning team.

[sk7326]

I mean, I guess I can't really fault anyone for voting Cabrera the year he won the Triple Crown (even if Trout was actually better)...but I agree.

 

Hopefully this is a sign we can have an award for the best player (a distinction actually worth caring about) every year moving forward and not just the best player on a winning team.

 

I think with baseball there are fewer excuses on that front. Performance is much easier to measure and separate than in a sport like basketball. A good player on a bad team's contribution is much more transparent.

[moonslav59]

David Ortiz finished 6th and had one first place vote. Only 4 players got a 1st place vote.

[moonslav59]

Hopefully this is a sign we can have an award for the best player (a distinction actually worth caring about) every year moving forward and not just the best player on a winning team.

 

That will never happen as long as even just one voter excludes pitchers from MVP voting.

[sk7326]

David Ortiz finished 6th and had one first place vote. Only 4 players got a 1st place vote.

 

makes sense - it was really a 4 man race until the end of september when it shrunk to two.

[Jack Flap]

That will never happen as long as even just one voter excludes pitchers from MVP voting.

 

I probably should have said "best position player"...however, because pitchers have their own award that is essentially equal in stature to the MVP, I don't consider that as great an injustice as, say, Mike Trout losing because an inferior player had better teammates than he did.

[moonslav59]

I probably should have said "best position player"...however, because pitchers have their own award that is essentially equal in stature to the MVP, I don't consider that as great an injustice as, say, Mike Trout losing because an inferior player had better teammates than he did.

 

Hitters have their own awards too.

 

Silver Slugger for Hitters

Gold Glove for fielders

Cy Young for pitchers

 

MVP for most valauble player.

 

Last I checked, pitchers were players.

[oldtimer]

Hitters have their own awards too.

 

Silver Slugger for Hitters

Gold Glove for fielders

Cy Young for pitchers

 

MVP for most valauble player.

 

Last I checked, pitchers were players.

Yes, but pitchers play many fewer games. I'm okay with Pitchers getting awards in a special category.

[moonslav59]

Yes, but pitchers play many fewer games. I'm okay with Pitchers getting awards in a special category.

 

A SP'er who starts 33 games usually faces 100-150 more batters than the MVP has PAs.

 

I'm not buying that argument.

 

Anybody who doesn't think Pedro was the MVP does not value pitching enough.

 

He was clearly the MVP. When you compare his numbers to the league norm back then, it blows you away! He dominated in the steroid era.

[OH FOY]

So the 4 games they don't pitch doesn't matter? Just asking. But I agree, that in certain years Pitchers should win the MVP. 1968 Gibson and McClain deserved it. But, you better dominate, to win it. Edited November 18, 2016 by OH FOY!

[sk7326]

I probably should have said "best position player"...however, because pitchers have their own award that is essentially equal in stature to the MVP, I don't consider that as great an injustice as, say, Mike Trout losing because an inferior player had better teammates than he did.

 

The MVP rules explicitly say that pitchers are considered fair game.

 

Starters pitch fewer games but have much more influence on the games than a position player. It is hard for a pitcher to deliver MVP level performances - but they can. Verlander did when he won. Now the Eck, Willie Hernandez atrocities are a different kettle of fish.

 

And remember, when Pedro lost, two voters did not put him on the ballot due to feeling that pitchers have their own award. They violated the rules of the award by not considering pitchers. If you did not think Pedro was a Top 10 player that season you have left your sense.

Edited November 18, 2016 by sk7326

[moonslav59]

So the 4 games they don't pitch doesn't matter? Just asking. But I agree, that in certain years Pitchers should win the MVP. 1968 Gibson and McClain deserved it. But, you better dominate, to win it.

 

4 games do matter, but an MVP gets up 4-5 times a game for maybe 25 PAs every 5 games. A SP'er can face more batters than that over the same period. Just because they are all bunched up in one game every 5 days, doesn't make them any less important.

 

I'm glad you brought up Gibson and McClain, because although they both had tremendous seasons, the whole league was a "pitcher's league", so they did not dominate their peers as much as Pedro did. I submit that Pedro and maddux deserved the MVP award more than they did.

 

Best ERA+ (ERA adjusted to the league norm and park factors) since 1966 (50 years):

 

291 Pedro (2000)

271 Maddux (1994)

260 Madduz (1995)

258 Gibson (1968)

243 Pedro (1999)

229 Gooden (1985)

226 Clemens (2005)

222 Clemens (1997), Greinke (2015)

219 Pedro (1997)

215 Arieta (2015)

215 K Brown (1996)

211 Pedro (2003). Clemens (1990)

208 Guidry (1978)

205 Greinke (2009)

202 Pedro (2002)

 

Pedro has got 5 of the 17 most dominating seasons in the last 50 years. No MVPs. That's just plain wrong.

 

When you can dominate a league with 291 ERA+, you should be a unanimous MVP. He finished 5th. Jason Giambi won the award in a year 4 guys in the AL had 41-43 HRs, 132-143 RBIs and an OPS between 1.026 and 1.034 (Giambi was 1.123 - not even 2nd best).

 

A 291 OPS+ means Pedro was 191% better than the league norm the same year Giambi didn't dominate his peers at all. Giambi got 3 times the total points in voting that Pedro got.

Giambi's OPS+ was 187, which means he was 87% better than the norm.

 

191% better than norm vs 87% better than norm.

 

No contest.

 

These awards are shams.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 18, 2016 by moonslav59

[Kimmi]

Trout over Betts for AL MVP: http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2016/11/17/mookie-betts-comes-up-just-short-for-american-league-mvp-loses-to-mike-trout/

 

The Red Sox fan in me is disappointed for Mookie, but the voters made the right choice. It's crazy to think that at age 25, Trout really should have four or five MVPs by this point, not just two.

 

Congrats to Trout.

 

I still think there is a difference between the most valuable player and the best player. Trout, without a doubt, was the best player in 2016. I have no problem with him winning the award because 'most valuable' is such a subjective title.

 

That said, I would have voted for Ortiz.

[cp176]

Congrats to Trout.

 

I still think there is a difference between the most valuable player and the best player. Trout, without a doubt, was the best player in 2016. I have no problem with him winning the award because 'most valuable' is such a subjective title.

 

That said, I would have voted for Ortiz.

 

I like this and I agree with it. Maybe that's why I like it. Personally there is no question in my mind that Trout was the the best player this year perhaps in all of baseball. That being said, I also think that David Ortiz was the most valuable player. Take him out of the Boston lineup for any extended period of time, this team does not win the east. Take Mookie out - I don't know. Still, Mookie is one helluva player!

[Kimmi]

I like this and I agree with it. Maybe that's why I like it. Personally there is no question in my mind that Trout was the the best player this year perhaps in all of baseball. That being said, I also think that David Ortiz was the most valuable player. Take him out of the Boston lineup for any extended period of time, this team does not win the east. Take Mookie out - I don't know. Still, Mookie is one helluva player!

 

To me, the most valuable player is the player who was the most important to his team, not the player who was the best. I would argue that both Papi and Pedroia were more valuable to the team than Trout or Mookie.

 

That's not to take anything away from Trout or Mookie, who are both awesome. I can certainly understand why people would vote for them.

[cp176]

To me, the most valuable player is the player who was the most important to his team, not the player who was the best. I would argue that both Papi and Pedroia were more valuable to the team than Trout or Mookie.

 

That's not to take anything away from Trout or Mookie, who are both awesome. I can certainly understand why people would vote for them.

 

I agree with you. Once again though - I wish that the MVP was a team given award and the best player was a league award that was in fact given to the 'best player" each season. Not likely to change any time soon though.