1/4 Mark NL and AL MVPs

[Bumstead]

Backhanded insult? It was only intended as a turn of phrase. I apologize.

I love baseball cards; they are what got me started following statistics. I also love RBI's and AVG and HR; they are what got me thinking about the worth of individual players. I still look at these stats, too. No one was more frustrated when Jay Bruce ended with 99 RBI last year than me. It's just not the nice round number that 100 is -- and for whatever reason, that matters.

I think you are wrong about the players and managers and GM's though. They do understand more advanced stats. Joey Votto and Jay Bruce (among many others) have been on-record about their understanding of more advanced ways to think about hitting. Almost all ML teams now have at least one stat-cruncher who helps to put things in perspective. I could go on.

There are also many ways in which old and new converge. HR are still important no matter what way you look at things. I would say the more we study stuff, the more we thoroughly realize that the long ball is pretty much the ultimate batting skill in terms of individual performance -- or at least one of them.

I think in ten years or so, many of the skirmishes that take place on boards like RedsZone will be moot, because most everyone will have a basic understanding of different metrics. Just in the past decade, for instance, OBP has risen unbelievably in prominence in the mainstream coverage of baseball, so much so that I would say even layperson fans understand its importance.

Anyway, no offense intended. You really are the one who is maintaining this divide in my opinion. All it takes is some curiosity and openness to new ideas. I think you'll find that most "stat heads" (of which, incidentally, I don't consider myself one) are somewhere deep down filled with love of HR/RBI/AVG. They just love them so much, they want more and better stats.

Don't worry about it, I'm not offended. I have thicker skin than that. And I know that most baseball players understand and pay attention to the more in-depth metric stats. I'm not a straight baseball card guy, although baseball cards were one of my passions as a kid as well. It just gets old sometimes when you point out how many RBI's a guy has and then you get the old "that doesn't mean anything" comment. It does mean something and it always will. Players take pride in driving in runs and we should acknowledge players that not only do it well, but are put in that spot in the batting order because they do it well. I think there should just be a greater tolerance for us that are more traditional in the stats we look at. To be fair, I do find myself from time to time looking at the more in-depth metrics but some of them I find are a bit skewed (and I don't want to debate that here) so I will always ignore them.

Anyway, I'm not offended and I understand what you are saying and I don't disagree with it.

Bum

[westofyou]

Done next to nothing in All-Star, games play-off games and other high profile games.

Do you have stats from these games handy ^^? They are woeful and you know it.

All Star games??

Exhibition nonsense have at it.

As for the rest yeah I'm willing to say small sample (33 ab's) and move on to the future. Eight games is not a career

[jredmo2]

Pure semantic trolling on my part, but shouldn't the most valuable player be the guy with the highest proportion of his team's overall WAR?

I mean, taken as the player most valuable player to his team, wouldn't a guy in situation like Stanton always deserve it?

[MrRedLegger]

The best (or at least my favorite) part about awarding the MVP is that the word Valuable is completely (and always will be) subjective. A lot of times there is a clear and obvious answer (i.e. 2012 Miguel Cabrera) but it opens it up to how you define "valuable" and then how well you can argue your case.

Hence the talk that BP should be considered in MVP discussions (at least at this point in the season)

What he is doing is remarkable and undoubtedly valuable to this Reds team, so much that I consider it invaluable. Our cleanup hitter is driving people in, more than any other guy in the NL so far. But what BP does time and time again is move the spotlight from the batter's box to 2nd base. Call me a homer but I'll take "Bandit" at 2nd base over any other player in the game right now.

This ballclub is functioning like a well oiled Machine. It won't work unless ALL of the componentes are functioning to their design/implementation. Which explains to me that it's not surprising that we have 3 players in an MVP discussion. Pending a Bruce Batting Buffet we might need a table for four.

[dougdirt]

The best (or at least my favorite) part about awarding the MVP is that the word Valuable is completely (and always will be) subjective. A lot of times there is a clear and obvious answer (i.e. 2012 Miguel Cabrera) but it opens it up to how you define "valuable" and then how well you can argue your case.

Cabrera was not the player who provided his team with the most value in 2012. That would be Mike Trout and it wouldn't be close.

[MrRedLegger]

Cabrera was not the player who provided his team with the most value in 2012. That would be Mike Trout and it wouldn't be close.

I'm not saying you're wrong. Mike Trout was then and still is an anomaly. But IMO, Trout's value to his team seems clouded. It amounted to nothing of "value" - that is, for the team's sake. ROY is great, but the Angels finished 7th in the AL (albeit in a tougher division)

Some may disagree, but not winning MVP due to a playoff absense is IMO not a snub. It's far from it. Miggy and Co. won their division and turned that into a WS appearance.

Again, this is all based on an evolving definition of "most valuable"

[dougdirt]

I'm not saying you're wrong. Mike Trout was then and still is an anomaly. But IMO, Trout's value to his team seems clouded. It amounted to nothing of "value" - that is, for the team's sake. ROY is great, but the Angels finished 7th in the AL (albeit in a tougher division)

Some may disagree, but not winning MVP due to a playoff absense is IMO not a snub. It's far from it. Miggy and Co. won their division and turned that into a WS appearance.

Again, this is all based on an evolving definition of "most valuable"

See what you said there, you said Miggy and Co. The award isn't for Co. It is for the first guy. Trout was better than Miggy was. Heck, his team even won more games.

To me, there is absolutely no definition of "most valuable" in which the best player isn't the one who provided the most value. How people twist the term "most valuable" beyond "best" is mind numbing when I try to think about it. There is literally no way in which one who is the best is not providing the most value.

[Tornon]

Miguel Cabrera & Jean Segura

[757690]

See what you said there, you said Miggy and Co. The award isn't for Co. It is for the first guy. Trout was better than Miggy was. Heck, his team even won more games.

To me, there is absolutely no definition of "most valuable" in which the best player isn't the one who provided the most value. How people twist the term "most valuable" beyond "best" is mind numbing when I try to think about it. There is literally no way in which one who is the best is not providing the most value.

There are actually plenty of ways, especially since both terms are subjective.

There was time way back when catchers were assumed to be the most valuable players on the team. Catchers won or placed very high in the MVP voting year after year, even when they didn't have the stats that the "best" players had. A strong argument can be made that this theory is accurate.

Here's just one example of where the "best" player isn't the most valuable.

Player A leads the league in OBP, SLG and is solid fielder at an important position. However, he's terrible in the clutch that year. He only drives in 65 runs and his teammates are terrible at driving him in, he only scores 65 runs. He also hits into double plays or strikes out in nearly all high leverage situations, he makes key errors in crucial situations that lead to numerous losses for his team, and in important games against his teams rival he goes into terrible slumps. Most of his home runs and RBI's come in games which are already blowouts.

Sure it's an extreme example, but it's a real one that could actually happen. In fact, I would bet dollars to donuts that something like it already has a few times in MLB history.

The point is, it's actually very easy to imagine how the "best" player isn't the most valuable player.

[dougdirt]

There are actually plenty of ways, especially since both terms are subjective.

There was time way back when catchers were assumed to be the most valuable players on the team. Catchers won or placed very high in the MVP voting year after year, even when they didn't have the stats that the "best" players had. A strong argument can be made that this theory is accurate.

Here's just one example of where the "best" player isn't the most valuable.

Player A leads the league in OBP, SLG and is solid fielder at an important position. However, he's terrible in the clutch that year. He only drives in 65 runs and his teammates are terrible at driving him in, he only scores 65 runs. He also hits into double plays or strikes out in nearly all high leverage situations, he makes key errors in crucial situations that lead to numerous losses for his team, and in important games against his teams rival he goes into terrible slumps. Most of his home runs and RBI's come in games which are already blowouts.

Sure it's an extreme example, but it's a real one that could actually happen. In fact, I would bet dollars to donuts that something like it already has a few times in MLB history.

The point is, it's actually very easy to imagine how the "best" player isn't the most valuable player.

Being the best hitter isn't the same as being the best player. They aren't always the same guy. Miguel Cabrera was the best hitter last year. He wasn't the best player.

I can't really address your example as the player is rather fictitious and I have no idea what position he plays or how well he plays it or who his competition was.

At the end of the day, the player who is the "best" is also the "most valuable". There is no way around it. You can't be the best and have someone else be more valuable. If someone else is more valuable, then you aren't the best.

[MrRedLegger]

See what you said there, you said Miggy and Co. The award isn't for Co. It is for the first guy. Trout was better than Miggy was. Heck, his team even won more games.

To me, there is absolutely no definition of "most valuable" in which the best player isn't the one who provided the most value. How people twist the term "most valuable" beyond "best" is mind numbing when I try to think about it. There is literally no way in which one who is the best is not providing the most value.

But it isn't called the best player award. It's called Most Valuable Player and that wasn't a mistake. It is by design an award whose basis of merit is always changing.

I see Mike Trout as an exceptional baseball player. He has pending MVP awards... But in 2012 he basically did what Miguel Cabrera did but not as well, however stole a lot more bases. I'd agree he's a more well-rounded player, but without Miggy the Tigers don't make the post season. The 2012 Angels without Trout is pretty moot in my eyes. And to me, that holds much less value. I apologize for using that word so much but I have to. What is your reasoning for choosing Trout?

"Most Valuable" - to whom/what? To some it seems to be the stat book, or his team. But by winning the Triple Crown, in Miggy's case, was valuable to all of baseball, not just himself or his team.

[757690]

Being the best hitter isn't the same as being the best player. They aren't always the same guy. Miguel Cabrera was the best hitter last year. He wasn't the best player.

I can't really address your example as the player is rather fictitious and I have no idea what position he plays or how well he plays it or who his competition was.

At the end of the day, the player who is the "best" is also the "most valuable". There is no way around it. You can't be the best and have someone else be more valuable. If someone else is more valuable, then you aren't the best.

He's a shortstop with a +10 UZR/150. He leads the league in WAR. But he's terrible in the clutch that year, both offensively and defensively.

He has the best stats, but doesn't help his team win as many games as othe players do with worse stats.

[Wonderful Monds]

I will say this, I do really appreciate that the MVP award is not the "best player" award. I like that it provides to some context to the player's season. Anyone can look up the statistical leaderboards for each season, that's boring. The award captures a snapshot of the story of the season, and I really like that about the award.

[nate]

Sorry, but I can't put much stock into any formula that concludes a slick fielding 2nd Baseman with 130+ RBI's isn't an MVP candidate.

The "formula" concluded no such thing.

Nor does BP "have" 130+ RBI. Let alone in 1/4th of a season.

[Wonderful Monds]

He's a shortstop with a +10 UZR/150. He leads the league in WAR. But he's terrible in the clutch that year, both offensively and defensively.

He has the best stats, but doesn't help his team win as many games as othe players do with worse stats.

Would his team have even been good enough in the first place for those clutch moments to exist had said player not been around to boost them 90% of the time?