Is the AL MVP race pretty much over?

[S5Dewey]

I don't see the problem. Just give the award to the guy with the highest WAR.

[bosoxmal]

It's almost a Tiger comparison (well. likeness anyway). People turn on the golf tourny to watch Tiger, and they tirn on the ballgame to watch Mookie!

[Bellhorn04]

It's almost a Tiger comparison (well. likeness anyway). People turn on the golf tourny to watch Tiger, and they tirn on the ballgame to watch Mookie!

 

Yes, that's what you call having charisma.

[Carpin]

I'm surprised for the lack of mention of Trout, he's the leader in OBP, OPS and OPS+. What a waste of talent in that crappy team, the guy will have what could be his best season.

[Kimmi]

The word " valuable " adds too much subjectivity to the process. I would prefer having two separate awards. "Player of the year " and " Pitcher of the year " . But no matter how you slice it, Mookie should win it.

 

That's the thing. Most valuable player does not necessarily mean the best player, though it could. It's open to a lot of interpretation.

 

Can a player be valuable to a team that isn't even in playoff contention?

 

Can a DH be more valuable to a team than someone who provides offense and defense?

 

How valuable are those intangibles that don't show up in the numbers?

 

It can be argued that JD has had a very large impact on this team and is more valuable to the team than Mookie. Or maybe JD's impact does not go beyond what he has provided offensively.

[Kimmi]

Yes. This one has been easy. The narrative reasons to choose Betts are there. (the best player in the league on the best team in the league) The more "scientific" reasons to choose Betts are there (lead or near lead in WAR). It won't be unanimous - any of Betts, Trout, Bregman, Ramirez and Lindor are "good" choices - but Betts has checked all the boxes.

 

Are the Sox really the best team in the league though?

[moonslav59]

Are the Sox really the best team in the league though?

 

Yes, and they are the best Sox team in decades.

[notin]

That's the thing. Most valuable player does not necessarily mean the best player, though it could. It's open to a lot of interpretation.

 

Can a player be valuable to a team that isn't even in playoff contention?

 

Can a DH be more valuable to a team than someone who provides offense and defense?

 

How valuable are those intangibles that don't show up in the numbers?

 

It can be argued that JD has had a very large impact on this team and is more valuable to the team than Mookie. Or maybe JD's impact does not go beyond what he has provided offensively.

 

1. Personall,y I think only playrs on last place team should never get the award. The team could have finished there without him. But players have won the MVP on last place teams.

 

2. A DH should absolutely be considered for the award. Just because some all-hit, no-field player goes through the token act of putting on a glove doesn't make him more valuable, especially if his defense gives back a big part of what he just provided.

 

3. The problem with intangible arguments is they are so subjective. It's easily possible to make a case for and against any player once this becomes a factor. And since even the voting members of the BBWAA probably don't have the full story about intangibles for most players on teams they don't cover personally, these type of contributions are probably best left ignored. Or do people want to see Jose Ramirez beat out Betts for the award because some Cleveland beat writer was simply closer to the Guardians than any Boston pundit was, and was able to articulate a really compelling case about Jose's leadership that not one voting member could counter?

[oldtimer]

Altuve got it last year with numbers that were similar to mookies but he had only about 23 HR's. Good example of what wins.

[FredLynn]

Are the Sox really the best team in the league though?

 

Right now I would say its the Astros.

[FredLynn]

Yes, and they are the best Sox team in decades.

 

The Astros have a run differential of +261; the Sox are at 220. The Astros are also #1 in SP. RP, and overall pitching and are #5 in runs scored. I would view them as the best overall team, or at least as the team most likely to win a ring this year. Not by a wide margin, but they should be the favorites.

[moonslav59]

The Astros have a run differential of +261; the Sox are at 220. The Astros are also #1 in SP. RP, and overall pitching and are #5 in runs scored. I would view them as the best overall team, or at least as the team most likely to win a ring this year. Not by a wide margin, but they should be the favorites.

 

They certainly have some great numbers in certain areas.

 

They have all 10 of their top IP pitchers with an ERA under 3.95. One could argue starter depth is not as important in a 5 game series, but I agree, their pitching looks better, on paper.

 

I'm not so sure the Sox staff is far away from the Astros as many might think it is.

 

ERA-

1. HOU 77

2. BOS 83

3. CLE 85

4. NYY 87

5. LAD, TBR, AZ 88

 

You didn't mention defense:

 

UZR/150

1. Cubs 7.5

2. BOS 7.1

3. CLE 6.6

7. OAK 4.0

10. NYY 2.9

19. COL -1.5

 

Offense:

OPS

1. BOS .787

2. NYY .775

4. CLE .764

5. OAK .764

6. HOU .760

(The worst OPS of any AL playoff team.)

 

Runs

1. BOS 833

2. NYY 802

3. CLE 783

4. OAK 782

5. HOU 781

(The least runs scored of any AL playoff team.)

 

Maybe the Astros have the best at some areas, they also seem to be the worst at others.

 

We are more balanced.

 

[iortiz]

The Astros have a run differential of +261; the Sox are at 220. The Astros are also #1 in SP. RP, and overall pitching and are #5 in runs scored. I would view them as the best overall team, or at least as the team most likely to win a ring this year. Not by a wide margin, but they should be the favorites.

 

This has to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

1. If I recall well, 3 weeks ago or so, we were over the Stros in RDiff. The thing is, while Cora has been giving up games plus no Sale & no ERod in recent weeks, Stros have been playing at full capacity.

 

2. Regarding SP, a healthy Sale is better than Verlader —pitch by pitch. Price is arguably the best pitcher of the second half, and pitched better than Morton last time; in fact, Morton was kind of lucky —we hit him well. Also, we own Keuchel, remember last time? he was pounded and could be worse. He was lucky too. IMO he is overrated —LOB% and BABIP don’t lie through his career. You know what I think of Porcello, but I’d rather him over Dallas Keuchel any day of the week.

 

3. Regarding the BP, if you take out of the equation bums like Pomeranz, Kelly, Hembree, Thorn, etc. our BP match them pretty well —not to mention our closer is arguably the best entering into the POs.

 

4. Our offense in the top is better with 2 legit MVPs. Mookie- Benny- Pearce- JD-XB is a better nucleo. The bottom, while is a crap shot —if hot— is better as well Kinsler-Nuñez/Devers-JBJ. Also, we have a couple of great utility players in Holt and SWI who have shown that can hit in clutch situations.

 

5. Regarding Defense, our defense is the best of the majors if you don’t line up Devers. Kinsler at second is vintage Pedroia, and Leon catches very well our top 2 and calls the games like nobody else in the majors. Our CF and RF are gold gloves caliber players.

 

Also, we have the HFA, and on paper we will face a weaker opponent in the divisions and will be more rested in a potential ALCS series against them.

 

Said that, I’ll say it again. We will win the WS. So... bring me the Astros or whoever, we are set to win it all.

Edited September 26, 2018 by iortiz

[redsoxrules]

I bet Khris Davis wins, because of the 46 HR.

 

God no. He doesn't even have an ops of 900. That's god awful for someone who hits 46 dingers in a year. He either hits a dinger or an out. Brings nothing else to the game.

[Jack Flap]

Mookie has the highest WAR and is the best overall player. He is the AL's best player, but the vote is for the most valuable. With Martinez likely to finish top 5 as well, I have to think he pulls a bit from Mookie. Also, I think a case is made that the Guardians don't make the playoffs without Ramirez, although it's a weak argument. Betts should win, but whenever there are two really good options on the same team, they usually split the vote and someone else gets it

 

I think this argument was a lot more plausible a few weeks ago, before JDM had his quietest month of the season ("only" .286/.385/.413 with 2 HR in September) and saw his Triple Crown candidacy dissipate as a result. I agree he probably still ends up top 5, but I have a much harder time seeing him threatening Mookie's chances.

[Jack Flap]

Just thought I'd point out that, as of today, we are witnessing a top 25 season of all time in bWAR by a position player...

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/WAR_bat_season.shtml

 

I know some here look at WAR and some think it's complete bunk, but hopefully we can all agree that this is pretty f***ing incredible any way you slice it.

[redsoxrules]

I honestly can't see anyone other than Mookie or Trout to win MVP. I'm a big JD fan but for a DH to win MVP he'd pretty much have to win the triple crown. Ramirez batting under 200 in Sept killed his chance. Lindor is having a good season but still not comparable to Mookie or Trout. And God no Davis. I can't even believe he's being mentioned in this debate. He's not even the best A's player.

[notin]

I honestly can't see anyone other than Mookie or Trout to win MVP. I'm a big JD fan but for a DH to win MVP he'd pretty much have to win the triple crown. Ramirez batting under 200 in Sept killed his chance. Lindor is having a good season but still not comparable to Mookie or Trout. And God no Davis. I can't even believe he's being mentioned in this debate. He's not even the best A's player.

 

Using fWAR, he is the 7th best Oakland player, behind Chapman, Lowrie, Treinen, Semien, Olson, and Piscotty...

[S5Dewey]

Maybe the problem is with our definition of "valuable".

 

With all the reliance on sabermetrics and the lack of subjectivity in them, if we want to remove subjectivity from awards wouldn't it make the most sense to simply award the player with the highest WAR value the MVP award? Or do "valuable" and "WAR" not correlate?

[notin]

Maybe the problem is with our definition of "valuable".

 

With all the reliance on sabermetrics and the lack of subjectivity in them, if we want to remove subjectivity from awards wouldn't it make the most sense to simply award the player with the highest WAR value the MVP award? Or do "valuable" and "WAR" not correlate?

 

They do.

 

And there are voters who take WAR into account, using whichever version they prefer. Maybe some even use it as their sole criterion.

 

But the BBWAA also has some voting members who don't like advanced metrics, and have other criteria when they vote for the award...

[Carpin]

They certainly have some great numbers in certain areas.

 

They have all 10 of their top IP pitchers with an ERA under 3.95. One could argue starter depth is not as important in a 5 game series, but I agree, their pitching looks better, on paper.

 

I'm not so sure the Sox staff is far away from the Astros as many might think it is.

 

ERA-

1. HOU 77

2. BOS 83

3. CLE 85

4. NYY 87

5. LAD, TBR, AZ 88

 

You didn't mention defense:

 

UZR/150

1. Cubs 7.5

2. BOS 7.1

3. CLE 6.6

7. OAK 4.0

10. NYY 2.9

19. COL -1.5

 

Offense:

OPS

1. BOS .787

2. NYY .775

4. CLE .764

5. OAK .764

6. HOU .760

(The worst OPS of any AL playoff team.)

 

Runs

1. BOS 833

2. NYY 802

3. CLE 783

4. OAK 782

5. HOU 781

(The least runs scored of any AL playoff team.)

 

Maybe the Astros have the best at some areas, they also seem to be the worst at others.

 

We are more balanced.

 

 

I agree with you Moon, but in the postseason pitching is the key. the batting, while is not as powerful as NYY or BOS is far from a liability.

 

The real weakness I see is the BP, even with Osuna in the fold is not in the level of some other teams

[BillyWilliams]

I agree with you Moon, but in the postseason pitching is the key. the batting, while is not as powerful as NYY or BOS is far from a liability.

 

The real weakness I see is the BP, even with Osuna in the fold is not in the level of some other teams

 

http://www.espn.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/pitching/split/128/league/al

[S5Dewey]

They do.

 

And there are voters who take WAR into account, using whichever version they prefer. Maybe some even use it as their sole criterion.

 

But the BBWAA also has some voting members who don't like advanced metrics, and have other criteria when they vote for the award...

 

Then are we in agreement that the player with the highest WAR should be the MVP?

[moonslav59]

Then are we in agreement that the player with the highest WAR should be the MVP?

 

I'm not. I never use any stat or metric as the be-all-end-all, and I don['t think anyone else does, except for maybe harmony.

[dgalehouse]

I always go by the back of the baseball card stats. Some of those cards can be worth plenty. Plus , I like to be different and buck the trends. Throw away that horrible gum though.

[mvp 78]

30/30 club. It's over.

[Carpin]

http://www.espn.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/pitching/split/128/league/al

 

Surprising to see those numbers, so it means they are prohibitive favorites in my book, if SP and RP are the best in the league then they have a better chance to repeat in the WS

[notin]

Then are we in agreement that the player with the highest WAR should be the MVP?

 

No one said that.

 

But if you are going to base everything on one stat, that's a good one to pick. And it might even be better than the voting process. It certainly would not have lead to a few of the more questionable MVP choices, like Justin Morneau in 2006.

 

And yet it would not have prevented what I thought was the most questionable MVP of all, Josh Hamilton in 2010...

[Maxbialystock]

No one said that.

 

But if you are going to base everything on one stat, that's a good one to pick. And it might even be better than the voting process. It certainly would not have lead to a few of the more questionable MVP choices, like Justin Morneau in 2006.

 

And yet it would not have prevented what I thought was the most questionable MVP of all, Josh Hamilton in 2010...

 

I believe someone else posted an article or something that says WAR has become popular with the MVP voters.

[notin]

I believe someone else posted an article or something that says WAR has become popular with the MVP voters.

 

I'm sure it is. But did that article say it was the only criterion among those who use it?

 

There was a time when RBIs were a stat MVP voters considered (and some probably still do). But no one ever advocated just giving the MVP to the RBI leader ever year...