Is the AL MVP race pretty much over?

[moonslav59]

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...

 

I've never been one to use RBI's high on my list, but this is a huge gap:

 

2018 RBIs

124 JD

77 Trout

[sk7326]

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?

 

No.

 

1. As you yourself have noted WAR is more directionally useful than precise. A 2 win difference is not in itself proof of anything. Also, defensive measures are less reliable than offensive ones - so WAR built off of defense is inherently "squishier"

2. I think valuable and "best" is enough. Otherwise, you are basically measuring the ability of a guy's teammates. Mike Trout does not deserve to be blamed for Arte Moreno wanting to pay Albert Pujols a kajillion dollars to be a traffic cone.

3. Where sabermetrics helps is to eliminate stupid mistakes - like Victor Martinez as a 2nd place MVP guy.

 

Personally you can't be MVP without creating a lot of "V". The top of the WAR list gives a solid list of nominees - something you can dig deeper on. For me that list is Trout, Betts, Lindor, Ramirez, Bregman, Chapman, and maybe Martinez. And THEN you can take in contextual factors, maybe some bonus for doing it in a pennant race, whatever. What is useful this year is Betts hits all the sweet spots - analytically, narrative-wise, best player on best team, 30/30.

 

The NL MVP is much much trickier. I'd give it to Javy Baez but that could go in any direction - including Jacob DeGrom though that won't happen.

[kenmeister]

I've never been one to use RBI's high on my list, but this is a huge gap:

 

2018 RBIs

124 JD

77 Trout

 

I think it's because of Trout's huge walk count. He probably rarely gets anything to hit with runners on base.

[notin]

The NL MVP is much much trickier. I'd give it to Javy Baez but that could go in any direction - including Jacob DeGrom though that won't happen.

 

I’ve heard a lot of names thrown around in the NL MVP race. But I haven’t heard anyone mention Christian Yelich, who might end up actually taking the award.

 

And for all the props Jake deGrom gets as shoe-in for Cy Young, serious recognition needs to go to Kyle Freeland. Has any Rockies pitcher ever had a sub-3.00 ERA in 200 IP?

[Kimmi]

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?

 

Well, I think your post points to part of the problem with MVP voting. There are no set criteria for what makes a player valuable. IMO, the entire award is very subjective, not just the intangibles.

[Kimmi]

Right now I would say its the Astros.

 

I agree.

[fxkatt]

I’ve heard a lot of names thrown around in the NL MVP race. But I haven’t heard anyone mention Christian Yelich, who might end up actually taking the award.

 

And for all the props Jake deGrom gets as shoe-in for Cy Young, serious recognition needs to go to Kyle Freeland. Has any Rockies pitcher ever had a sub-3.00 ERA in 200 IP?

 

I knew Yellich would be a steal. As to the pitching side of the awards equation, I just looked at ESPN's stat leaders, and I noticed they've dropped Sale from their top ERA listings. He's been there all year. I assume his innings just missed the final mark. But weird. ???

[sk7326]

I knew Yellich would be a steal. As to the pitching side of the awards equation, I just looked at ESPN's stat leaders, and I noticed they've dropped Sale from their top ERA listings. He's been there all year. I assume his innings just missed the final mark. But weird. ???

 

Right, the minimum innings is 1 IP per team game.

[sk7326]

I’ve heard a lot of names thrown around in the NL MVP race. But I haven’t heard anyone mention Christian Yelich, who might end up actually taking the award.

 

And for all the props Jake deGrom gets as shoe-in for Cy Young, serious recognition needs to go to Kyle Freeland. Has any Rockies pitcher ever had a sub-3.00 ERA in 200 IP?

 

Freeland has been brilliant, but DeGrom and Scherzer have been a bit better. I am rooting for DeGrom to win the Cy with a losing record - it would be a good sign for the species.

[notin]

Freeland has been brilliant, but DeGrom and Scherzer have been a bit better. I am rooting for DeGrom to win the Cy with a losing record - it would be a good sign for the species.

 

deGrom has been better. Ditto Aaron Nola. But I do think Freeland might have accomplished a franchise first...

[sk7326]

absolutely. to handicap the NL Race

 

bWAR leaders: Scherzer (9.7), DeGrom (9.6), Nola (9.4), Freeland (7.9), Cain (7.0), Yelich (6.6), Baez (6.1), Freeman (6.0), Goldschmidt (5.6), Arenado (5.2)

 

This a year that screams for a pitcher to win MVP. Given the premium on "team goodness", perhaps Nola makes sense.

 

But given the extreme bias towards position players, Yelich, Cain, Baez are all pretty good choices. It's going to be a very odd vote. I favor Baez with the style and defensive versatility to go with the production. Yelich is a fine choice. Lorenzo Cain is an easy one to root, one of the really underappreciated good players of recent vintage - an MVP for him would be cool.

[fxkatt]

Freeland has been brilliant, but DeGrom and Scherzer have been a bit better. I am rooting for DeGrom to win the Cy with a losing record - it would be a good sign for the species.

 

Yes, how about DeGrom with his losing record and Sale with his too low innings output winning the Cy Youngs.

 

Is the minimal innings thing required to qualify for the award? Or it is just a common sense guideline?

[sk7326]

Yes, how about DeGrom with his losing record and Sale with his too low innings output winning the Cy Youngs.

 

Is the minimal innings thing required to qualify for the award? Or it is just a common sense guideline?

 

for the award - there are no limits (after all, relievers have won them)

To qualify for the ERA title, you have to pitch a minimum of one inning per game your team has played (so 162 innings ultimately)

[Emp9]

WPA has some luck involved - since there is not much control about when a player comes to bat (which impacts win probability).

 

That's true I guess.

[Emp9]

30/30 club. It's over.

 

I hope you right

[S5Dewey]

Well, I think your post points to part of the problem with MVP voting. There are no set criteria for what makes a player valuable. IMO, the entire award is very subjective, not just the intangibles.

 

And of course that was the point of my somewhat tongue-in-cheek proposal to give the MVP award to the player with the highest WAR. All of these sabermetrics have done nothing more than cloud the issue of value even more. Entrusting the MVP award to the same people who refuse to vote for certain players into the HOF on the first ballot is wrong. These people are not only subjective, they're closed-minded and mean spirited.

That brings up the question of, if the BBWAA isn't going to be voting for the MVP and the HOF, who is? WAR certainly isn't perfect but it may be better than having the writers and their subjectivity do it. At least we'd have criteria for the vote. That criteria may be 'fuzzy math' but at least it's something we could hang our hats on.

 

Hmmm... maybe that idea isn't so tongue-in-cheek after all.

[jacksonianmarch]

WAR Is the best indicator, as flawed as it may be. Most fans look at the triple slash, whereas defense and base running are just as important, if not more. WAR tries to take that into account. There’s no reason Mookie shouldn’t win. There’s also no reason Trout shouldn’t finish second

[Bellhorn04]

WAR Is the best indicator, as flawed as it may be. Most fans look at the triple slash, whereas defense and base running are just as important, if not more. WAR tries to take that into account. There’s no reason Mookie shouldn’t win. There’s also no reason Trout shouldn’t finish second

 

Pretty well said jackso.

[moonslav59]

WAR certainly isn't perfect but it may be better than having the writers and their subjectivity do it. At least we'd have criteria for the vote. That criteria may be 'fuzzy math' but at least it's something we could hang our hats on.

 

Looks like you are beginning to see our point.

 

The subjectivity of voters is well known, and examples of egregious mistakes are plentiful. It's the subjectivity of the common fan, who normally watches just one team almost exclusively, that metrics like WAR and UZR/150 try and address. There may very well be some "fuzzy math" or some sort of subjectivity built into their formulas and methodologies, but the intent is to be objective, and the results are probably better than any regular fan can come up with.

 

(Granted: no fan on this site is "regular.")

[notin]

WAR certainly isn't perfect but it may be better than having the writers and their subjectivity do it. At least we'd have criteria for the vote. That criteria may be 'fuzzy math' but at least it's something we could hang our hats on.

 

Looks like you are beginning to see our point.

 

The subjectivity of voters is well known, and examples of egregious mistakes are plentiful. It's the subjectivity of the common fan, who normally watches just one team almost exclusively, that metrics like WAR and UZR/150 try and address. There may very well be some "fuzzy math" or some sort of subjectivity built into their formulas and methodologies, but the intent is to be objective, and the results are probably better than any regular fan can come up with.

 

(Granted: no fan on this site is "regular.")

 

But even with 1/2 of the fans being above averge with knowledge of the game, there is still a lop-sided bias in our viewing tendencies. Watching Betts play 162 times and watching Trout play 6 times doesn't give the objectivity to determine who was the beter player. Having a reasonable objective stat like WAR does remove a very big chunk of our biases.

 

And certainly voter biases exist too. Ask Pedro Martinez. If WAR was as common in 1999 as it is today, would Pudge Rodriguez (6.8 fWAR) still have won the award over Pedro (11.6 fWAR)?

[sk7326]

And of course that was the point of my somewhat tongue-in-cheek proposal to give the MVP award to the player with the highest WAR. All of these sabermetrics have done nothing more than cloud the issue of value even more. Entrusting the MVP award to the same people who refuse to vote for certain players into the HOF on the first ballot is wrong. These people are not only subjective, they're closed-minded and mean spirited.

That brings up the question of, if the BBWAA isn't going to be voting for the MVP and the HOF, who is? WAR certainly isn't perfect but it may be better than having the writers and their subjectivity do it. At least we'd have criteria for the vote. That criteria may be 'fuzzy math' but at least it's something we could hang our hats on.

 

Hmmm... maybe that idea isn't so tongue-in-cheek after all.

 

the writers have progressively gotten better. old people die eventually.

[mvp 78]

the writers have progressively gotten better. old people die eventually.

 

f***ing quitters...

[Bellhorn04]

the writers have progressively gotten better. old people die eventually.

 

You really went for COLD there.

[BillyWilliams]

30/30 club. It's over.

 

30/30 does not make it a lock.

 

Not that mookie shouldn't win, but there have been plenty of players who reached the 30/30 club and not win the MVP.

[S5Dewey]

the writers have progressively gotten better. old people die eventually.

 

Hey! Don't remind me, OK?

[notin]

the writers have progressively gotten better. old people die eventually.

 

And some of them actually simply retire before they die. You know, for the less squeamish and more sensitive out there...

[mvp 78]

@MaureenaMullen

 

. . .To win AL MVP:

Betts 1/2

Trout 3/1

Martinez 5/1

Ramirez 7/1

[mvp 78]

ovah

[sk7326]

There are six candidates who would not be scandalous. But Trout and Betts clearly stand above the crowd.

[moonslav59]

But even with 1/2 of the fans being above averge with knowledge of the game, there is still a lop-sided bias in our viewing tendencies. Watching Betts play 162 times and watching Trout play 6 times doesn't give the objectivity to determine who was the beter player. Having a reasonable objective stat like WAR does remove a very big chunk of our biases.

 

And certainly voter biases exist too. Ask Pedro Martinez. If WAR was as common in 1999 as it is today, would Pudge Rodriguez (6.8 fWAR) still have won the award over Pedro (11.6 fWAR)?

 

That was a bias against pitchers. Pedro was left off someone's ballot all together, as I recall.