AL mvp....

[jojo]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

A definition is by definition definite. It is defined. No subjectivity involved. The meaning of the word "valuable" has been clearly defined.

But the definition doesn't disciminate concerning how to measure value. That's kind of where the rub lies.

[Patrick Bateman]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

LOL the "to his team" part doesn't change a thing. What other team is he providing value to? He is a player on a team, so of course his value goes to his team. Goes without saying.

I don't think you are fully appreciating the context. If it goes without saying, then why would it be said? Two players could have identical stats, but the "value to their team" could be inherently different (For example, perception might dictate that Joey Votto would provide more value to a very poor offensive club compared to a very good offensive club, in the sense that if Votto was removed from one club vs. the other, they would be affected in different ways. Or if you removed Votto from a borderline playoff team, vs. the Astros for example, he would be perceived to be more valuable to the team that loses their playoff spot, vs the Astros who would stink either way). That is how I, and the voters interpret the definition of "Most Valuable Player" to be, and is consistent with the verbage that they used when they invented the award.

Still nobody has answered my key question: If the award doesn't go to the best player then what value does it have? If the MVP doesn't go to the best player (it usually doesn't) then why should we care who wins it?

Well, I don't think awards are meant to be particularly predictive of player's true skills levels. It's a recognition of one good season. I think most people could sit down and agree who has the highest WAR, because that is a fact based assessment. When it comes to MVP type stuff, it's no more than a collective opinion of a few selected people. I mean, it really has no more value than if you selected 50 random posters from Redszone to do the voting.
I honestly don't care who wins it, unless it's a Red, where it might be nice to get the national recognition of one of our players, but it certainly doesn't mean very much in the grand scheme of things.

[dougdirt]

How bad would the Astros have stunk without a player like Votto though? They would have been X wins worse, just like the Reds would have been X wins worse without him, assuming both teams replaced him with the exact same player. That player, would provide the exact same value no matter the breakdown of his team. He is worth Y amount of runs.

[Patrick Bateman]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

How bad would the Astros have stunk without a player like Votto though? They would have been X wins worse, just like the Reds would have been X wins worse without him, assuming both teams replaced him with the exact same player. That player, would provide the exact same value no matter the breakdown of his team. He is worth Y amount of runs.

As I said "perception".

I'm not arguing whether it's right or wrong, I'm explaining the perception that goes along with it, and the matter of "value to their team" as the award describes. It suggests a significant team element, out of the player's control. True the same amount of runs for either team would be changed the same, and the overall amount of wins would be unchanged to the team, but the overall impact on the team would be completely different to a non contender to a contender. And I think that is where that secondary stuff will continue to come in play.

It's simply not the best player award, and is not perceived that way. I'd like to think that when a guy like Trout blows everyone else out of the water that voters would not be able to ignore that regardless of that secondary stuff, but I doubt it.

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

How bad would the Astros have stunk without a player like Votto though? They would have been X wins worse, just like the Reds would have been X wins worse without him, assuming both teams replaced him with the exact same player. That player, would provide the exact same value no matter the breakdown of his team. He is worth Y amount of runs.

Votto would not provide the exact same amount of runs to a better offensive lineup than he would to a poor defensive lienup. I would suggest he would increase the offense of the better hitting lineup more than a poorer lineup. Saberstats would spew out a number of what his offense is worth on average, but in reality, he would likely deliver more additional runs playing in Cincy than he would playing for the Astros.

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

The whole false debate over the meaning of "valuable" is just an excuse writers use to justify voting for their favorite instead of the best player. It cheapens the award to the point of meaninglessness.

It's not a false debate.

The creators intended something different than "the best player". Otherwsie they would have said "best player".

The addition of the words "to his team" must have been meant to mean something. You've indicated those words are superfluous to the definition of value but that argument cannot be accepted in regards to interpretation, where it is assumed that the author intended ther addition of words to have a purpose.

I'd suggest that pretty much everyone here (and every baseball writer who votes) can clearly see that there is a difference between the the phrases "best player" and the "player judged most valuable to his team". Many do not like the distinction but pretty much everyone recognizes that it exists.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by PuffyPig

It's not a false debate.

The creators intended something different than "the best player". Otherwsie they would have said "best player".

The addition of the words "to his team" must have been meant to mean something. You've indicated those words are superfluous to the definition of value but that argument cannot be accepted in regards to interpretation, where it is assumed that the author intended ther addition of words to have a purpose.

I'd suggest that pretty much everyone here (and every baseball writer who votes) can clearly see that there is a difference between the the phrases "best player" and the "player judged most valuable to his team". Many do not like the distinction but pretty much everyone recognizes that it exists.

I think you are going to great lengths to justify putting extra, unintended meaning into the minds of the original creators of the award nearly a hundred years ago in a much simpler time. They were not lawyers parsing words or political founding fathers creating a constitution. They were early sportswriters creating an award for the best player. It really was as simple as that. I think they would laugh out loud at some of the farcical definitions of Most Valuable Player being peddled these days, most of which amount to excuses for poor decisions.

They named the award for the best player the Most Valuable Player Award because that sounds a lot better than the Best Player Award. It is a fancier way of saying the same exact thing. There is no need to try to cram some unintended "interpretation" into such a simple concept.

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

I think you are going to great lengths to justify putting extra, unintended meaning into the minds of the original creators of the award nearly a hundred years ago in a much simpler time. They were not lawyers parsing words or political founding fathers creating a constitution. They were early sportswriters creating an award for the best player. It really was as simple as that. I think they would laugh out loud at some of the farcical definitions of Most Valuable Player being peddled these days, most of which amount to excuses for poor decisions.

They named the award for the best player the Most Valuable Player Award because that sounds a lot better than the Best Player Award. There is no need to try to cram some unintended "interpretation" into such a simple concept.

Yet from the earliest times when the award was created, the writers have interpreted as I have suggested it was intended to be. I would have thought there would have been a huge outcry from those involved with such a "farcical" interpretation.

And BTW, the definition of MVP was created by the creators of the award, and is the same today as when it was started. The writers today aren't making up new defintions, they are simply relying upon what was done at the time.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by PuffyPig

Yet from the earliest times when the award was created, the writers have interpreted as I have suggested it was intended to be. I would have thought there would have been a huge outcry from those involved with such a "farcical" interpretation.

And BTW, the definition of MVP was created by the creators of the award, and is the same today as when it was started. The writers today aren't making up new defintions, they are simply relying upon what was done at the time.

Where have you been son? There are outcries almost every year about how farcical the MVP votes are. People have been ridiculing the writers for 80 years. The writers ridicule each other. It has been that way since the very first year.

There is no definition of MVP in the ballot. It is such a simple concept that it requires no definition in the ballot. The ballot instructions have not changed. Some of the writers have justified their poor votes by making up some ridiculous definitions of "most valuable player" that are clearly not intended by the instructions in the ballot. It usually involves some excuse for allowing the performance of other players and teams to influence their votes for the MVP.

[Brutus]

I think it's worth noting that WAR is not technically "best player" but rather best player relative to his position.

If you truly wanted "best player" you'd have to remove the positional adjustments from the equation.

Now, perhaps that makes it a good metric to determine "value" but I do think there's a difference between best player and 'most valuable.'

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Where have you been son? There are outcries almost every year about how farcical the MVP votes are. People have been ridiculing the writers for 80 years. The writers ridicule each other. It has been that way since the very first year.

How does the fact that there is outcries every year mean they're wrong? I'm sure if they switched the definition, there would be plenty of outcries on the other side.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by Superdude

How does the fact that there is outcries every year mean they're wrong? I'm sure if they switched the definition, there would be plenty of outcries on the other side.

I was just responding to someone else who said there were no outcries.

There is no definition to switch.

The point I have been making in this thread is that people are debating which player had the better year, but historically it doesn't matter which player had the better year because many of the writers vote based on how teams perform rather than the best players. Given that the award doesn't often go to the best player (everyone agrees that is the case) then why should we really care about the award?

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by Brutus

I think it's worth noting that WAR is not technically "best player" but rather best player relative to his position.

If you truly wanted "best player" you'd have to remove the positional adjustments from the equation.

Now, perhaps that makes it a good metric to determine "value" but I do think there's a difference between best player and 'most valuable.'

Replacement level offensive production is not equal across positions. If you take that positional adjustment out, you'd just have to make a defensive adjustment instead. Because replacement level defense is very easy to come by; replacement level offense is not.

In other words, to look at everybody's production as if they were coming from the same pool of players from which they might be replaced, you have to make the positional adjustment.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

Replacement level production at the positions is not equal.

I'm aware of that, but that's my point. A player's WAR doesn't gauge best players but rather best players relative to their positions. I am aware of how WAR is calculated and why but I'm not referring to WAR... rather I'm referring to WAR being used as the "best player" for the MVP. In terms of total production, it's counter-intuitive to give a player a head start because he plays a weaker position if you truly are only looking for the "best" player.

Hence, if you truly want best player regardless of position, you need to remove replacement level from the equation and only gauge pure run production.

I'm trying to draw a distinction between "value" derived at a position and truly being the "best" player regardless of position. If you want the best player regardless of position, you should not be including positional adjustments in such a calculation. To reiterate, I'm not saying to change WAR, but rather using WAR in the context of "best" player is not very wise. On the other hand, I think if you're looking for "value," then WAR positional adjustments are a good idea.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

Replacement level offensive production is not equal across positions. If you take that positional adjustment out, you'd just have to make a defensive adjustment instead. Because replacement level defense is very easy to come by; replacement level offense is not.

In other words, to look at everybody's production as if they were coming from the same pool of players from which they might be replaced, you have to make the positional adjustment.

WAR estimates "most valuable" precisely because it allows an apples to apples comparison. That's the whole point. There is no "relative to position" in WAR.

Whether Braun's WAR of 7.9 is actually meaningfully different than McCutchen's 7.6 is a different question.