One more MVP thought …
Posted: November 24th, 2008 | Filed under: Baseball | 100 Comments »
I think it is established that different people look at the MVP voting in different ways. And, despite my own rather overbearing view on the subject, I think that’s part of what makes it all interesting. You want something to argue about. And if everyone looked at it the same way, who would even care? You probably know that there is a points system for golfers to qualify for the LPGA Hall of Fame — a system that compiles victories, major victories and year-end awards. I appreciate the honesty of the system, but I don’t like it at all. Half the fun of these things are the arguments they spark. You can’t have a lot of fun arguing with a points system.
So, in the end, if someone really believes that pitchers, by their nature, cannot be the league’s most valuable, or someone believes that you can’t be most valuable playing for a fourth place team, or someone believes that runs batted in are the most significant statistic for figuring a player’s overall value … well, I want to argue with that person. But I respect them as long as they’ve put a lot of thought into it and can argue their side in a compelling way. Heck, I might even be convinced if the argument is good enough.
But it seems to me that’s the point — I would love to see some compelling arguments. The whole thing has sort of gotten stale. I’ve been thinking about this Albert Pujols vs. Ryan Howard thing again, and it occurs to me now that there’s no chance here for an especially interesting argument. The reason is: All we are arguing, really, is whether a guy on a fourth place team can, by definition, be more valuable than a guy on a first place team. That’s all. I don’t think there’s a particularly good argument to be made Ryan Howard had a better year than Pujols. I’m quite certain there’s no good argument to be made that Ryan Howard is a better baseball player than Pujols.
So, we fall back to that age-old, dried-up argument about “value†and what it means. Hey, Howard’s team won, Pujols team lost, what about value, who has more value, value is what does, and all that. That argument, like the bars in “Swingers†is dead anyway. Everybody’s locked in, everybody is clinging to their own definitions, we aren’t getting any movement.
But I do think there IS an interesting argument to be had about this year’s MVP. And it is this: Let’s say that we will only make players from playoff teams eligible. That is, in this scenario, the only people to be considered for the NL MVP this year are from the four teams that made the playoffs — Los Angeles, Chicago, Milwaukee and Philadelphia. You already know where I stand on this one but stay with me …
You could argue for a half-season of MannyBManny, if you want. He’s probably the only viable Dodgers candidate.
You could argue for a half season of C.C. Sabathia, if you want. Ryan Braun hit a bunch of home runs and is a reasonable candidate. Prince Fielder is somewhere in there.
You could argue for Aramis Ramirez or Geovany Soto, though you probably would not.
In the end, though, I don’t think any of those guys really stand up as a true MVP candidate. Not one of them got a first place MVP vote, and I think it’s clear why. So basically, it comes down to the Phillies. It might tell you something about this whole exercise that three of the four playoff teams do not have especially riveting MVP candidates … but forget that for the moment.
There are three players who seem to be viable candidates — and they were voted in this order.
1. Ryan Howard: Led the league in homers (48) and RBIs (146) and had a big September.
2. Brad Lidge: Saved 41 games in 41 chances and had a 1.95 ERA, struck out 92 in 69.3 innings.
3. Chase Utley: Hit .292/.380/.535 with 33 homers, 104 RBIs, 113 runs, played excellent second base defense and had an excellent April. August and pretty good September.*
*I say that if you want, you can throw Cole Hamels in here too. No, he did not get any MVP consideration. He only won 14 games. He was good but not as good as Santana, Lincecum, etc. But if you want to play this — “Players on winning teams matter more,†game, well, he did lead the league in WHIP, was third in shutouts, fourth in ERA+, sixth in strikeouts. And I don’t think it should go unmentioned that also won both the NLCS MVP and the World Series MVP. I realize that the overall MVP voting is made BEFORE the playoffs, but I’m not sure it should be that way. I think that years from now, when looking back on this Phillies championship season, if you had to pick ONE MOST VALUABLE GUY, one guy who, more than anyone else, made the World Championship happen, I think you could do a lot worse than choosing Cole Hamels.
OK, so, who is the best MVP choice of those three (or four)? For me: It’s very clearly Chase Utley. Hamels got plenty of postseason MVP hardware, so he’s fine. Lidge had a very good year as a closer, but he only pitched 70 innings and several other closers were as good.
And that leaves Howard vs. Utley. And … am I wrong here? Isn’t Utley pretty clearly the better player? He got on base a lot more, slugged about the same, played a much tougher defensive position, played it much better, was much better on the bases, scored more runs and drove in 104 despite not having, you know, himself batting in front. Not to bring advanced stats into this kind of thing, but …
Win Shares (from Bill James): Utley 30, Howard 24.
OPS+: Utley 135, Howard 124.
VORP: Utley 63.7, Howard 36.6
Equivalent Average: Utley .308, Howard .291.
Runs created (FanGraphs): Utley 130, Howard 113.
I dunno. I’m thinking that Utley probably had a better offensive year than Howard. And even if you call it a draw on offense, heck even if you are willing to give Howard a slight edge because you love them RBIs and late-season heroics, well, when you look at all the other things Utley does — defense, baserunning — well, again, I think Utley is pretty clearly more valuable.
I think there was a similar case to be made in 1973, when Pete Rose won the MVP even though his teammate Joe Morgan had a better year. Rose hit .338, which is probably what got him the award — Morgan only hit .290. But Morgan had the better on-base percentage, the much better slugging percentage, hit 26 homers (to Pete’s 5), drove in 82 RBIs (to Pete’s 64), scored one more run (116-115), stole 67 bases (to Pete’s 10) and won the Gold Glove at second base while Pete played the significantly less-demanding left field.
Of course that year, the guy who really could have won it was Willie Stargell, who had a 186 OPS+ and led the league in slugging, doubles, home runs, RBIs and offensive win%. Trouble is, his Pirates went 80-82 and finished out of the race. And that’s where we started the crazy ride.
Loading ...
I have no idea how Dustin Pedroia can get the hardware but Chase Utley can’t even be recognized as the best player on his own team.
Kind of like Joe Mauer.
i dunno Joe. Where does it say that the MVP has to be the best player. Valuable is not the same as best. Personality and leadership I’m sure has something to do with it. Someone like Roger Maris got no respect and Mantle got it all. I’m an Angels fan. You talk of MannyBManny but how about Mark Teixeira. I bet his numbers are comparable to Manny’s. But Manny carried the Dodgers. Mark was not the same media personality/story.
Maris was a 2 time MVP, that’s plenty of respect.
Bruce, I think that at least one definition of “most valuable” is making the biggest positive contribution to your team in order to help them win. Being the most valuable does not necessarily mean being the best, but it at least is related to having the best year. My feelings are that I wish that players on a good team would get the really close calls for the MVP race, but if one guy is just way better than everyone else and does the most to help his team win, then he should win the MVP. I don’t care if he’s on the Nationals. They all get paid to play the game.
“Valuable is not the same as best. Personality and leadership I’m sure has [sic] something to do with it.”
I absolutely agree, Bruce. Leadership and personality should, wherever possible, be included when sizing up the most valuable players in the league. Here’s the problem, however: I’m not sure where it’s ever possible. As fans, we can make, at best, wild guesses about a player’s personality and leadership — for the most part we’re utterly in the dark about how a player acts off the field, or how he inspires his teammates. And even if we had firm data in this department, it’s almost impossible to gauge how such an inspirational personality might affect the outcome of a baseball game. Is baseball 90% skill and 10% emotion? Or 90% emotion? Or 0% emotion? Or, as Yogi said, is 90% of the game half-mental?
What about the beat reporters? They’re closer to the action; surely they know more about a player’s personality and leadership. But again — we encounter a problem. There are 785 voting members of the BBWAA. Few of them are beat reporters, and even the best beat reporters can only be intimate with one team. In other words, as a body, the BBWAA voters are about as clueless as us fans.
So while I agree with Bruce in theory — it’d be great to include concepts like personality and leadership — I’m pretty pessimistic about the ability of any group of writers (to say nothing of us fans) to define said personality and leadership, much less apply it. In lieu of that, I think it’s best to stick to what takes place on the field.
I remember a THT post from a year or two back that proposed considering the sizes of contracts when discussing value. Thus, off the top of my head, a good case probably could be made for Soto as NL MVP.
The kid in me who grew up on BA, HR, & RBI prefers stories to cash when judging the most valuable. But if one really wants to be objective. . . .
Bruce, I respectfully disagree…I think you can make the arguement that baseball is the one sport where personality and leadership doesn’t matter. I think that’s an angle played up by sportswriters. It’s a long and not always interesting season, so you get the inevitable “Jamie Moyer has quite the grizzled, crafty, yoda-ish influence on the young guys” articles. To get to the majors, these players (even TPJ!) have been the very best at every level they’ve ever played at. I’m just not sure how much leadership helps when you get to the ML level.
To some extent, I can understand the “vote for a player on a playoff team” mentality, even if I don’t share it. If the only thing about the regular season that matters is making the playoffs, then a player who makes the difference between being in the playoffs and not in the playoffs should be the MVP. The problem is that there are probably a bunch of players you could say this about.
Nate
You know, honestly, I can half understand the 1973 discrepancy, but this kind of thing shouldn’t even be an argument in 2008 when we have baseball-reference.com, and Pinto’s Day by Day database available anyone who can click a mouse button. There’s no excuse. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be controversial winners, but there really shouldn’t be any legitimate question as to how someone like Howard (tho a very valuable player) could get more votes than a teammate who clearly had a better season or at least very comparable. It ticks me off, that some voters appear to be paid off.
I am so sick of the “RBIs don’t matter” argument, because they do. You can’t win games without scoring runs, and it is why people cling to the RBI stat. Basically what you should be saying is “The coach makes inefficient use of his batters to drive in runs by placing guys like Jose Guillen in the premium RBI producer positions. Given the same opportunities DDJ would have driven in 179 more runs than Guillen.” Seriously, new stat/old stat, whatever it is, this should be the new RBI:
RBIs
________________ = %RBI
RBIs + LOB
If we’re going to be playing the semantics game, the Most Valuable Player is the guy with the biggest contract; or the guy that produces the most while getting paid the least.
I think Howard was considered over Utley because people buy into the fallacy that games played in the tail end of the season are somehow more important than the early games. Contributions from a player with an exceptional April who tapers off to a solid finish are often forgotten if someone else with an abysmal beginning of the year has a strong finish. There’s this “clutch” factor, I suppose. Or maybe it’s just that our collective memory stinks.
Joe, I don’t want to make a big issue about mistakes, but I’m pretty sure you left out a Posterisk linking to your forth coming book about the Big Red Machine in your second-to-last paragraph.
What’s sad is that there are paid professional sportswriters who will read this piece, which really couldn’t make it more clear that Howard wasn’t even the most valuable member of his own side of the Phillies’ infield, much less the league, and will still come away thinking, “Boy, poor Joe just doesn’t get how much those RBI were worth.”
I think there are two big reasons that Pedroia won the MVP award and Utley wasn’t really on the radar:
1) Boston
2) Howard hits big home runs
Terrible, terrible, terrible reasons but I’d be hard pressed to believe those two reasons didn’t at least subconsciously persuade some of the BBWAA people.
On another note…
To the Royals:
- Sean Marshall
- Mike Fontenot – .366 career OBP (Small sample size but still)
To the Cubs:
- Mark Teahen
I haven’t really looked in depth into this but it doesn’t seem like it’d be too bad of a trade if it actually happens.
Re: Why Pedroia, but not Utley
Dustin Pedroia – 5′9″ (generously listed)
Chase Utley – 6′1″
Also, by my calculations, Pedroia accumulated 7 grit units this year while Utley only amassed 2 (my math could be wrong here).
If you’re choosing up sides and the MVP is the 19th player chosen, then he’s not the MVP. The only reason some people claim ‘valuable’ is somehow not ‘best’ is so they can make the case for their hometown guy and/or they think it makes them sound smarter that they can see what others cannot.
And so you end up with Dimaggio over a Williams with 200 more OPS; a Garvey with a .300 BA and 100 RBI over the 20 guys who were better and more valuable (including his own teammate); a Howard who makes 100 more outs and can be stopped by just about any LOOGY over a Pujols who is beyond-a-doubt better, but is on a poor team.
Revenge over those guys come when they use those beliefs to stock their strat (DM or APBA) teams against your OBP kings and low WHIP wizards.
Nate in CA –
Other than the fact that it’s the Cubs, why would the Cubs want Teahen?
Two thoughts on this:
I think that many writers constrain themselves by two criteria for MVP voting. The most basic, as Joe points out, is whether or not you played for a playoff team. I think the other factor, that explains why Howard won, is how somebody played in the final month.
To be clear: I am not saying I support this as an important criteria, but it seems to me in almost any defense of Howard (or Rollins last year) his play in Sept is prominently mentioned. The weird thing, of course, is that last year David Wright played great in September last year, but since Rollins met both criteria I think a lot of writers were swayed by him.
So this year, if you’re only going to vote for a playoff team guy, your decision was probably heavily influenced by the fact that Howard played great in Sept, while Utley just played well. That and RBIs
Point 2:
Regarding Pedroia – I would never argue that playing in Boston does not help him and certainly he gets extra credit because of the “gritty/gamer” stuff, but I don’t think either of those things is at the root cause of why he won the MVP while Utley got very little support. The simple truth is the AL didn’t have any great MVP candidates. If Utley had been playing in the AL (say for the Rays or White Sox) I think he probably would have won the MVP, but then again, the NL probably had 5 guys (6 if you count Howard) who had more MVP type seasons than anyone in the AL.
I’m certainly a little biased in this, but I think it’s very hard to argue that Pedrioia was that bad an MVP choice. Sure, can make good arguments for Mauer, etc., but I think the cases for all the top candidates were pretty even.
One other possible reason Utley fared so poorly in the MVP voting (14th) this year: the unusual number of NL players who had standout seasons. You had Pujols, Berkman, Chipper Jones, guys who were dominant in half-seasons like Manny and C.C., etc., etc. In the AL it was sort of a weak year for superstars. Guys who had big years like Quentin and Kinsler missed all of September. Perennials like A-Rod and Ortiz also missed a lot of time.
In other words, had Utley put up the same numbers in the AL this year I think he’d've done much better in the voting. Had Pedroia come out of the NL he’d've done worse. Just a quirk of context.
I do think “valuable” and “best” are not the same thing. The most valuable player often winds up being the best player, and that’s not a coincidence, but they’re not necessarily the same thing.
The only players I would rule out based on team performance and the definition of “valuable” are those on a last place team. Whether you finish 40 games or 30 games out just doesn’t matter so even if a player single-handedly got his teams 10 games closer (i.e., a 30 Win Share season, a great season), there’s not value to those wins. Who cares if your team won 50 games or 60 games if you’re in last place either way? I’m looking at you, 1987 Andre Dawson.
But barring that exclusion of last place players, to me, valuable is the player that did the most to help his team win. Pujols did more to help the Cardinals win than Howard did to help the Phillies win. That’s not even arguable. If it was really close I probably would weight it in favor of the player doing it in a pennant race (in which case I would have given it to Utley) but it was not really close.
I didn’t realize about Stargell’s overlooked 1973 season. It makes me feel a little better about his ridiculous choise as co-MVP with Keith Hernandez in 1979. A bit of a makeup award. Like giving Al Pacino the Oscar for Scent of a Woman. Or Paul Newman for The Color of Money. Or Martin Scorcese for The Departed. Or…well, you get the idea.
Isn’t Pujols unpopular inside baseball? This post doesn’t mention that, and I don’t think it can be overstated as a factor in the voting. People take pride in voting based on ‘what their eyes tell them,’ already, so you can be sure popularity plays a role.
My problem with the “last place players can’t be valuable” is what about players for 1st place teams that win by 10+ games? Since their team would have won without them, don’t they fail the same test?
Joe,
You’ve now given us two posts on why Ryan Howard shouldn’t be MVP, and he isn’t. But no posts on the AL MVP, where there was no clear cut “right” choice, but a number of very interesting candidates. Wouldn’t it be more interesting to argue about THAT vote rather than belabor the “if only we understood stats we’d realize how crazy it is to think Howard should have been MVP.”
There may not be a clear-cut right answer, but does there always have to be?
I agree to a large extent with many of the preceding Brilliant Readers (Bruce, Derek, Brian Gunn, Bill C.)– “most valuable player” is not the same as “best player” (though in some years, the same player may be both)..
What is of “value” is what directly leads to a win — run creation and run prevention (largely agree with Derek and Aaron M.). Neither batting Averages nor VORPs win ballgames — runs win ballgames.
I’d like to suggest what might be considered a radical approach to determining an MVP. (On the other hand, it may be an idea already fully discredited and long-ago mothballed that I simply have not run across.)
Regardless of the metrics used and the analytical approaches taken (and I would recommend a wide spectrum of validated tools), apply them ONLY TO THE GAMES WON by the player’s team.
That is, evaluate the player’s performance (skills, talent, value, contribution to winning, creating/preventing runs, etc) only in those games which were actually of value to his team — ie, the games they won.
For a little context, I envision the determination of a league MVP as essentially a two-step process — a formal and ordered integration or balancing of what Seamheads’ Matt Mitchell sees as the two central issues of the MVP debate: performance against the league and contribution to the team
.
First, determine for each team who the team’s MVP is.
Second, determine among the 14 or 16 team MVPs, who was more valuable to HIS team than the other team MVPs were to theirs.
This approach may be over-simplistic, but I think one of its advantages is that it would allow separate sets of criteria to be used in the first (team MVP) and second (league MVP) steps.
I have addressed most of my thinking so far to the first step — determining a team MVP for a particular season.
In determining an MVP (team OR league), we are not limited to PROJECTING what a team’s chances to win a game might be based on each player’s complete season’s contributions — we KNOW which games the team won. And with a little research, we can easily determine which players contributed more to their team’s wins.
We don’t have to “guess†that (say) Utley’s enormous OPS PROBABLY led to more runs, and therefore (PROBABLY) to more Phillies wins — we can look at the box scores and actually find out. We don’t have to guess or rely on projections or probabilities when we’re looking at games that have already been played.
Yeah, I know it’s harsh to simply not consider a player’s excellent performance in a team’s loss, but the bottom line is that, for whatever reason, that player’s excellent performance was of no value to his team for that game. (A similar thing happens when a game is rained out before the fifth inning — any and all excellent performances in that game also went for naught.)
And remember, we’re NOT evaluating the player’s talent or ability, but rather his value/contributions to the team in a specific game or set of games. If the team did not win, NONE of its players were valuable for that game, though many of them might have performed excellently in the losing effort.
What I’d like to see from the people who have posted comments here touting this or that statistical criteria for MVP selection is what their favorite numbers show for players’ performance only during their teams’ wins.
(I’ll start by figuring AVG/OBP/SLG for Howard and Utley during Phillies’ wins.)
Funny how during September games, announcers and talking heads loved saying things like “Pedroia should be considered for MVP this year,” but then when he actually won, they’re not that excited about it.
Just another example of trying to sound like you know more than the next guy.
Also, I think the world “valuable” is the problem here, that’s why the NCAA has the “Most Outstanding Player” in the tournament. Outstanding seemingly removes the question of team success from the equation (even though I’m sure the number of MOPs that haven’t been on the winning team is extremely low, and rightfully so). I like what the NHL does by giving an MVP awared, along with nearly equally (adverb overload) prestigious awards for the leaders in the major individual stat categories. There’s some separation of meaning and terminology there, which is good. Baseball would obviously be much harder to do that with, due to the not-as-telling stats and the 100+ years of momentum behind everything about the sport.
as somebody who watches nearly all the phillies games, i hope i have a little perspective. most people in Philly(and george bush apparently) would rather have utley. as far as the phillies are concerned, nobody had the monster year for philly (like howards 57 home runs two years ago, or rollins scoring a ton last year while knocking in 94 runs from the leadoff spot on a national league team last year). so what it came down to was just overall numbers and feel. though utleys are still better. utley had a much better first half and for some reason they devalue that. though i suppose he should get more credit playing injured?
something about closers. i cant give them the mvp. i know how valueble they are. heck, i enjoyed watching the mets implode with one. but i always think of teams getting swept from the playoffs (or whatever). who would you want to prevent a sweep? a hitter? a slick fielder? or just cross your fingers and hope it gets to your closer. also, lidge is great.
Catching up.
1) Joe is right. Little is more annoying/infuriating than someone who has the arrogence to correct you without the integrity to ensure that s/he is not wrong him/herself. Arg!
2) Joe, put out a paypal adress for voluntary subscription fees for the blog. Let us help buy you a boat. Or a new TV. I pay for cable. I pay for Neyer. I pay for baseball-reference. I pay for BP. I pay for footballoutsiders. I pay for NPR. I would pay for you.
3) Joe, please post links to your SI columns. Otherwise, I am not going to remember to read them.
It’s so obvious. Pujols getting MVP this year is a make-up call.
The Baseball Gods finally realized they messed up giving the MVP to Howard in ‘06 and used this year to make it up to Albert. Even tho Albert clearly deserved it this year and Howard did nothing in ‘06 to deserve it except hit a lot of home runs in September in front of the East Coast Media.
Agree with Alex.
Put up a paypal thing, Joe. I’ll throw you some coin.
First, I think this was one of the most intelligent sports blog comment sections I’ve ever read. Great job, almost all of you.
I think baseball fans and writers alike should do the responsible thing here, as it pertains to this contentious MVP award, and that is to treat it the way I can only assume it was intended: to recognize the most productive player in the league. This unprovable metric of “value” allows almost everyone to make an argument for or against any of the top five to ten candidates. The MVP award should be renamed, in conscience at least, Player of the Year. The debates can continue about RBI and VORP, win shares, and “clutchiness,” but at least there will be some continuity as to what the award actually means.
I really disagree with the concept that only playoff teams should have MVP candidates. Take that to it’s extreme, and one could argue that the MVP MUST come from the World Series teams. After all, the objective is not just to MAKE the playoffs, but to WIN in the playoffs.
NOW how absurd does the argument sound?
I would be in favor of having two awards, however. Keep the MVP as it is, and add an “MOP” as others have posted here. That way, the debate becomes nearly moot.
MVP selection can’t be quantified by statistics. The MVP often doesn’t have the highest batting average, most home runs or RBI, most wins or saves, or even best VORP. Every season is different and brings different challenges in selecting the winners. Stop trying to make a cookie cutter set of rules for selection. And please understand that Most Valuable Player does not equal best player. They are different, and MVP selection must reflect that.
Random: Your concept of only applying value to players in games their team wins sounds good, but to my way of thinking, it sort of underscores the problem with the whole the-MVP-has-to-be-on-a-playoff-team problem. Even the best player can only affect his team’s outcome so much in a given game, and there are too many other factors that contribute to a win or a loss. If a player hits a go-ahead grand slam in the top of the ninth only to have his closer blow the game, that unfairly penalizes a guy. In that case, a guy on the winning team who goes 1-for-4 with an infield single would be considered more “valuable.”
Plus, you’d probably wind up with wonky results, such as Gary Matthews Jr. being considered more valuable than a guy like Nick Markakis, just because Matthews’ team had enough of an edge in pitching to win 32 more games.
In your model, would you also penalize players for outs made in a win, or would it not really matter if a hitter took an oh-fer in a team win, since the team won their game anyway?
I am going to go at this from another direction.
Let us assume for a moment that “best” and “most valuable” are not necessarily the same thing, though they often are. Under what conditions do those differences emerge.
1) Quality v. quantity. If the best player only plays for half the year, he is not necessarily the most valuable. He might be MUCH better, but missed so many games that didn’t contribute enough. For example, Manny and C.C. were both great, but their value to their *NL* teams was not great enough in half a season.
2) Timing. Clutch hitting is probably not a measurable skill, but that doesn’t mean that clutch hits don’t exist. There were some memorable years where David Ortiz performed particularly well in the clutch. I don’t mean that he is always better in the clutch, but there were a couple years when it worked out that way. This is leverage or “win probabiliy added.” A 3-run HR when down by 2 in the bottom of the 9th is more valuable than a 3-run HR in the top of the 1st.
So, largely as a function of luck, the better player might not have had the most valuable season. It’s timing, which we don’t control. It’s not a slight or an attack, it’s just descriptive.
3) Unmeasured contributions. (These might be unmeasurable, but I don’t know. I DO know, however, that they are more recognizable that measurable. Dangerous stuff to rely on, but that doesn’t mean that they are unimportant.)
a) The clubhouse stuff matters. How much, I don’t know. Yes, winning leads to better chemistry, but bad chemistry to lead to losing — at least a little. This also could be stuff like coaching/mentoring younger players, or more mentally fragile players.
b) Versitility. There is unmeasured valued in roster flexibility and other player’s comfort (perhaps leading to better measureable performance by them) in being a versitile player. Youk should get credit for playing 1B and 3B. Though neither of them are as valablue as 2B, the fact that he did both lessens the gap.
c) Mental stuff. This is especially true with catchers. How much does their pitch calling and general handling of the pitching staff matter? Perhaps quite a bit. So a player might have inferior range, a weaker bat, be worse baserunner (itself one of those former unmeasured that we’ve gotten better at recognizing), but still be contributing something else important.
d) Defensive leverage. We’ve address offensive leverage, but what about defensive leverage? What if a player had all of his great defensive plays in defensive clutch situations. We don’t measure this stuff, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. Like, there’s the great Jeter play, right? (btw, I hate Jeter.) That mattered a hell of a lot more than a typical assist.
e) Teammates. A player’s teammates give him RBI opportunities. That’s obvious. But they also put him into high or low leverage situations. They give him opportunities to score runs. They can give him additional plate appearances. And all of these things matter. Etc..
I could go on and on. We have not figured out how to account for weather at individual games, for example. Or how to account for managerial decisions — which would take some of the responsibility for winning away from players. More and more is out there.
****************************************
So, we have the best player, which is not the same thing as having the best year. For example, Griff was widely thought of as the best player in the AL, though he never had the best year. But the player with the best rate stats, or most Win Shares, or best VORP — however you want to measure best player/best year — might not be the most valuable.
These are all valid contributors to the determination. The trouble is that we don’t know how to weigh them in the formulation, and some of them cannot even be measured.
If it can’t be measured (e.g. catchers’ pitch-calling), does that mean that it is not important? Does that mean that we should disregard it? I hope not. I REALLY hope not.
There are a small number of things we can measure and know are entirely controlled by the player in question. And there are many more than players do not entirely control, even if we can measure them. The fact that a player does not entirely control them does not mean that he does not have some influence over them. Should we ignore the part he does control simply because he doesn’t control all of it?
Obviously, there’s a huge problem of people (e.g. old school baseball writers) who don’t appreciate or take advantage of the advances that have been made in what we can measure. A HUGE problem. ENORMOUS. These people don’t recognize how big a gap might exist in those areas, and therefore mistakenly think that small advantages in these other areas are enough to overcome them.
But I think that it is safe to say that ARod and Pujols are not always the most valuable players, even if they might be the best players.
Personally, I don’t think the MVP award should include intangibles, clubhouse presence, “clutchiness,” (since it’s nearly impossible to quantify), teammates, or “mental stuff.” And I think defense should be a tie-breaker, and not much else.
Come on, folks. The MVP should be the player that had the best offensive season, with position value factored in. This notion of “value” is just an excuse for a sportswriter to vote for some guy he likes, rather than someone who deserves recognition.
Joe, color me impressed.
You mentioned the 1970’s Reds and didn’t even mention your book! I think that’s a sign you really need to work on your marketing. Anymore posts like this and we can start marketing you to the FJM crowd, too.
RANDOM –
That was an extremely long post and I have to admit that I didn’t read the entire thing, so if it was supposed to be satire I apologize. But I couldn’t disagree with you more.
The MVP is an individual award, not a team award. Rewarding/punishing an individual player for circumstances outside of his control is ridiculous. Even if the Cards had gone 0-162 this year, Pujols was still the best and most valuable player in the NL.
Simon makes an important distinction which is often misconstrued among some. When people say the MVP should go to the best player, it means the best player in that specific season. It’s pretty clear that Rafael Furcal’s a better player than, say, Marco Scutaro, but you couldn’t make a very valid argument for him being the more valuable of the two to his team this year.
Jason, you brought up another point I wanted to make about Random’s idea… if you had a team comprised of the best players at every position except short, where you have Tony Pena Jr., and they played 162 games against a team comprised of sub-replacement level players and Hanley Ramirez, according to his system, you’d probably wind up concluding that Tony Pena Jr. was the more valuable shortstop. It’s an extreme example, sure, but as I alluded, a player only has one at-bat every time through the line-up, and there’s only so much he can do.
I definitely do not feel that MVP means the best player on the best team, although I can see how people may want to summarize it that way. You can see this in action by the 1972 NL MVP voting (and most every year).
1 Johnny Bench CIN
2 Billy Williams CHC
3 Willie Stargell PIT
4 Joe Morgan CIN
5 Steve Carlton PHI
CIN was 1st in the division and made it to the world series.
CHC finished 2nd in the division
PIT finished 1st in the division
PHI finished 6th and had only 59 wins total
Steve Carlton had 27 wins that year, 45% of the teams total! Cincy had two players ahead of him in the voting. I would think by definition that those players couldn’t have been more valuable to their team than one Steve Carlton. (What’s slightly interesting is that Carltons’s ERA and BA were similar: 1.97 ERA and .197 BA (weird)).
If you cannot tell whether one player is the MVP for his own team, how can he be the MVP for the league? I think this is the problem with the good teams, they usually rely on many players to perform well. Where would the Cardinals be this year without Pujols compared to the Phillies without Howard? (Maybe the real MVP of the Cards is Dave Duncan. Have you seen their pitching staff?).
Anyway, historically the MVP goes to the best player on the best team. This will usually get you a pretty good candidate. Johnny did have a good year in 1972, as did Joe Morgan, but sometimes you have to recognize a simply awesome year like Carlton’s.
346 IP, 257 H, 27W, 10 L, 30 CG, 310 K, 1.97 ERA, 0.993 WHIP. It takes 3 to 4 years for any pitcher on my Royals’ team to accumulate 27 wins.
I don’t think you can take the team’s success into account for MVP. The MVP in an individual award and winning games is a team effort. No matter how good a player is, he can only field one position. Like many others have said, valuable and best are totally different. I think you have to stick with valuable.
For the first time in several years I think the right people won the MVP and Cy Young in both leagues.
Alex: Nice analysis.
In Pujols v. Howard case, one specific thing that is not mentioned enough is this. The Phillies won 92 games, the Cards 86. 6 games isn’t a huge difference. If the Cards win 72 or even 80, I think the argument is better for Howard.
But more importantly, the Phillies won 92 games with a closer who didn’t blow a save all year. The Cards won 86 games and blew the most saves in the NL.
Put another way, the Cards were 75-6 when ahead at the start of the 9th inning, the Phillies were 79-0 in the same situation. The difference in closers is pretty evident by that one stat and pretty much eats up the win difference between the two teams.
So if you think Howard is the MVP, you essentially are saying that he wins because he had the better closer. Trade Izzy for Lidge and I submit that the teams’ records would be reversed.
Mets fan here. Utley is far and away a better baseball player, in 2008 and overall, than Howard. Why he doesn’t get more MVP consideration is beyond my comprehension.
Because of RBI’s and home runs, thats why.
http://statisticianmagician.mlblogs.com/
I think the MVP should be decided based on several factors:
(In order of importance)
A) Grittiness Index (GI)
B) Leadership Quotient (LQ)
C) Number of Games Willed Team to Victory Coefficient (NGWTVC)
D) Hustle Percentage (HP)
E) Team Order of Finish
E) RBIs
F) HRs
G) Batting Average
Rank the players according to where they finish in this comprehensive metric and you’ll get the MVP. Any other system is outdated and ridiculous.
There’s an argument in favor of Pujols that I’ve been sitting on, and I may as well give it away here –
If the Mets hadn’t pulled another el-foldo, then most of Ryan Howard’s 12 votes would have gone to Carlos Delgado.
As simple as that. Delgado would have gotten at least half of those votes based on his post-Randolph production, had the Mets held off Philly; he didn’t because the Armando Benitez Memorial Bullpen melted down like something out of the China Syndrome.
Gosh, Joe, you seem to know a lot about the Big Red Machine. You should really write a book about it. I know I would buy one. Maybe as many as four.
Why are people arguing about Utley vs. Pedroia, or complaining about Pedrioa’s award generally?
I think most people would agree that Pedroia’s MVP award was the result of a very unusual year in the AL, one in which there were no obvious candidates on winning teams. No Ortiz/Quentin injuries, a couple more wins for the Rangers so they appear to be in contention, or even Longoria starting the season in the majors and staying healthy … any of these happen, and Pedroia’s not the MVP. Just call it what it was: an anomaly. And totally unrelated to appreciation of Chase Utley.
A suggested MVP process:
1 – Statistical analysis (good analysis, not crappy RBI based stuff. Park affects, position adjustments, win prob added type junk, etc.), if one player is clearly superior here then he’s your MVP, no more steps required. If its very close then go to step 2
2 – Team records, if the stats are very close then look at their team results. If the teams are quite different (like 20 games) then end it here and give benefit for the player with the good year. If not,
3 – Intangible stuff. Leadership, nice guy, saving cats from trees type stuff. If this is close just go back to step 2 and pick the guy from the team with most wins, if someone comes out ahead here then give it to them.
Nice and easy. You can look at the winning and intangible stuff but ONLY when it is not clear from the stats. Either way Ryan Howard should not be sniffing the NL MVP and in the AL Pedroia is a defensible choice, along with Mauer (I’m not sure if clean cut all-american hometown hero is better than tiny little scraptastic grinder? I don’t get into the intangible stuff much, maybe because i’m not a writer).
Things that make you gritty – (please add more)
- being white
- being less than 70″ tall
- weighing less than 180 lbs.
- being less than fast
- being a walk-on in college
- playing punter on your college football team
- getting cut from your high school (fill-in the blank) team
- having the dirtiest uniform
- being a really good bunter
- being really good at getting hit by pitches
- not hitting homeruns with men on base but instead hitting into a fielder’s choice.
- not hitting homeruns at all unless an outfielder falls down.
- being good at sliding
Mike
For the intangible stuff, I’d use Stephen’s indices for grit, leadership, etc.
When did we start getting away from scrappy and inserting in gritty instead? Or at least for baseball I’ve been seeing this change, I think most sports still go by scrappy.
“-not hitting homeruns with men on base but instead hitting into a fielder’s choice.”
I always love it when I’m watching a Padre game and Brian Giles comes up with a runner on second a grounds out to the second baseman. The camera shows him coming back to the dugout and all the other Padres giving him high fives while the TV color guy praises his selflessness for playing the game the right way and not trying to do too much.
I wish more Padres would try to do too much. Maybe they wouldn’t have lost 99 games last year.
If we applied grit to other sports we’d get a list that looked something like this:
College basketball: Tyler Hansborough (height/weight req. waived)
College football: Chase Daniels
PGA Tour: Fred Funk
NBA: current grit leader – Luke Walton all-time grit leader: Kurt Rambis
NFL: Zach Thomas
NHL: Every player
MISL: No player
I obviously know nothing about soccer – MISL is supposed to be the league the Wizard’s play in – whatever that is.
Awesome Jason!
Things that make you gritty – (please add more)
- being white
- being less than 70? tall
- weighing less than 180 lbs.
- being less than fast
- being a walk-on in college
- playing punter on your college football team
- getting cut from your high school (fill-in the blank) team
- having the dirtiest uniform
- being a really good bunter
- being really good at getting hit by pitches
- not hitting homeruns with men on base but instead hitting into a fielder’s choice.
- not hitting homeruns at all unless an outfielder falls down.
- being good at sliding
- Not trying to do to much to help the team
BobDD: “If you’re choosing up sides and the MVP is the 19th player chosen, then he’s not the MVP.”
You’re confusing or conflating two entirely different questions. Yours (“choosing up sides”) involves projecting who WILL be most valuable IN THE FUTURE. Picking a league MVP involves determining who WAS most valuable IN THE PAST (season, series, game, whatever).
So of course two entirely different questions would employ entirely different criteria.
History (from Wkipedia):
He announced the Chalmers Award, which was to be given to the player in each league who “should prove himself as **the most important and useful player to his club** and to the league at large in point of deportment and value of services rendered.”
In 1922 the American League Trophy Committee was formed to “honor the baseball player who is of greatest all-round service to his club and credit to the sport during each season; to recognize and reward uncommon skill and ability when exercised by a player **for the best interests of his team**, and to perpetuate his memory.” End Wiki.
Today’s BBWAA MVP awards evolved from or succeeded the two previous awards and, to my knowledge, embody the same criteria.
Grit: You guys are missing an obvious one. Why did Apollo Creed pick Rocky Balboa as his opponent in Rocky I?
An ethnically identifiable last name. Always important for grittiness.
Why is it that sometimes players are praised for “Giving 110%, Leaving everything on the field (etc.)” and other times they are praised for “staying within themselves and not trying to do too much (etc.) .” Can I has some consistency pleaz?
Stephen – I think the cliche’s you mentioned could be used in the same description – for example in Jason’s post about Brian Giles:
Play by Play Guy: “Giles hits a routine grounder to Utley at second – Gonzalez will advance to third on the play… and Giles is out by an eyelash at first.”
Color Guy: “Did you see how hard Giles hustled down the line on that play? That guy is always giving a 110%”
Play by Play Guy: “Yeah, Giles is one of the most unselfish players you’ll ever see – he’s always staying within himself and never trying to do too much.”
Color Guy: “Indeed he is Dick – Giles leaves it all on the field.”
MM
You’re absolutely right. Is it just that broadcasters don’t know what they want in a player, are too stupid to know, or only know how to use cliches?
“BobDD: “If you’re choosing up sides and the MVP is the 19th player chosen, then he’s not the MVP.â€
You’re confusing or conflating two entirely different questions. Yours (â€choosing up sidesâ€) involves projecting who WILL be most valuable IN THE FUTURE. Picking a league MVP involves determining who WAS most valuable IN THE PAST (season, series, game, whatever).
So of course two entirely different questions would employ entirely different criteria.”
Fair enough but how about this. Knowing what you know now, you, as the GM of your favorite team, can go back in time and select any position player in the NL to add to your team for the 2008 season, stats unchanged. Would you not choose Pujols?
Four words Joe:
Chicks.
Dig.
The.
Longball.
But yeah, Utley was way better.
Shoeless Mike,
Not to switch sports here or anything, but your LA bias is showing.
Scott Skiles is the all-time for the NBA. Do google searches for: gritty skiles; gritty rambis; scrappy skiles; scrappy rambis.
Gritty gutty Scottie Skiles. The all time king.
Here’s an interesting scenario to think about in the MVP vote. Let’s assume there is a player who got 500 plate appearances and got out every single time except for 45 plate appearances where he came up in the 9th inning with two outs and two men on base and his team down by 1 run. In those 45 9th-inning plate appearances, this player hits a two-run double and his team wins each of those games. On the basis of those “extra” 45 wins, the team finishes in first place. Should this player who had a .022 OBA, 90 RBIs and did not have the best year be the MVP because his hits accounted for 45 wins?
Cam – no.
His hits contributed to those 45 wins, but he didn’t account for them on his own. He also hurt the team far more by going 0-455 in every other plate appearance.
There’s a scarcity of catchers who have been chosen MVP: Cochrane, Hartnett, Lombardi, Howard, Bench (twice), Munson, I-Rod, and Berra and Campanella three times each.
There’s an even greater scarcity of catchers who have led their leagues in win shares (going back to 1901): Bench 1970, Piazza 1997 (tied with Tony Gwynn), and Joe Mauer 2008.
In most cases, if you have a great athlete, you move him to a position where his speed is useful and he won’t break down as fast, so nearly every catcher lacks the ability to produce an MVP season.
But when you get a player who has the ability, and who produces an MVP season, that’s something to celebrate. Well done, Joe Mauer.
Chicks do indeed dig the long ball.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLECMCargd8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs0ln8m-S7k
I can’t decide which of those is better.
Great questions and comments.
In the meantime as I collate and formulate responses, here are the slash stats for Howard and Utley in Phillies wins, as well as some exceedingly inconclusive comments:
2008 Season slashes for Ryan Howard (AVG/OBP/SLG): .251/.339/.543, based on 610 ABs, 153 Hs, 331 TBs, 81 BBs, etc.
2008 Season slashes for Chase Utley: .292/.380/.535, based on 607 ABs, 177 Hs, 325 TBs, 64 BBs, etc.
Utley was clearly a better player in 2008 than Howard, based on the basic stats (as well as most if not all secondary or derivative stats).
2008 “Victory” slashes for Howard (measuring his performance only in Phillies’ wins and ignoring his performance in their losses): .294/.386/.620, based on 350 ABs, 103 Hs, 217 TBs, 50 BBs, etc. Better (as might be expected?).
2008 “Victory” slashes for Utley: .331/.423/.607, based on 354 ABs, 117 Hs, 215 TBs, 42 BBs, etc. Also better.
So in 2008, Utley was also clearly a better player than Howard in Phillies’ wins.
But who was “betterer” when the Phillies won?
That is, whose performance was MORE elevated during Phillies’ wins than might be expected based on his full season’s performance?
(A major unstated assumption of those who use a full season’s stats to determine value is that a player’s performance is the same in a team’s wins as in its losses. Therefore, the expectation would be that the players’ slash stats would be the same in wins as in losses, and that counting stats would be proportionally allocated between wins and losses. Before you argue, consider how highly praised the trait of “consistency” is.)
Utley’s AVG was 12.97% higher in Phillies’ wins than his “expected” (ie, season) AVG — .331 v .292.
Howard’s “victory” AVG of .294 was 17.13% higher than “expected” (.251).
Utley’s “victory” OBP of .423 was 11.32% higher than “expected” (.380).
Howard’s “victory” OBP of .386 was 13.86% higher than “expected” (.339).
Utley’s “victory” SLG of .607 was 13.25% higher than “expected” (.535).
Howard’s “victory” SLG of .620 was 14.18% higher than “expected” (.543).
How to interpret the above data?
On the one hand, you could argue that since Utley was clearly the better player during Phillies’ wins, he was more responsible for the wins than Howard, and therefore more valuable.
On the other hand, since Howard elevated his performance significantly more than did Utley during the Phillies’ wins, he was more critical to the Phillies winning, and therefore more valuable.
Random,
That’s absolutely ridiculous logic. You’re basically saying that yes, Utley was better than Howard in Phillies wins, but he was ALSO better than Howard in Phillies losses, so Howard’s obviously the most valuable. How does that possibly work?
On another note, you kinda have to look at what happened in the losses. There’s no doubt that Howard hurt his team putting up a .192 BA with a sub-.280 OBP and sub-.440 SLG. Those aren’t close to acceptable numbers for anyone, let alone a no-glove first baseman. If he’d put up even decent numbers, the Phils probably would have won more games.
Love the grit/scrap exchanges in the middle. It’s like a dialogue between multiple poor man’s Ken Tremendouses.
Also, this may just be my Mets fan bias to even bring this up, but we should probably take a look at the fact that 85.4% of Howard’s homers were pop flies to left field that just cleared the wall 193 ft. away at Citizen’s Bank. That’s stats folks, look it up.
I watched maybe 120 Phils games this year and I find it surprising that Utley isn’t more known for his hustle. I have never seen a player run harder to first on a routine groundball. It’s impressive. He dives around a lot in the field too. I guess maybe his swing is too pure to be labeled a gritty player. Also, there’s no way Howard was more valuable than Utley this year. Hammels and Lidge also had more value.
Full disclosure: I believe that the team’s success should be entirely irrelevant to MVP voting. Based on this, I have a simple (and therefore completely out of the question) suggestion that will make this whole argument go away.
Rename the award, removing the word “valuable.”
I don’t know when the MVP came to be, but I’d love to interview the guys who created it. My guess as to how it happened:
AG1: “We need an award for the best player in the league.”
AG2: “Why not ‘Most Valuable Player’?”
AG1: “Perfect. Let’s go to lunch.”
We debate the word ‘valuable’ as though it’s from some kind of mystical oracle. I’d guess that the first guy who tried to argue that it means something besides “best” (in this context) had already downed about four beers.
Renaming the award would still allow a little bit of subjectivity, but we wouldn’t open it up to all of these ridiculous speculations about being the MVP because you did it in the clutch or a pennant race or while standing on one foot or some such nonsense.
And now I just read the thing about the Chalmers award, etc. So apparently it wasn’t quite as simple as I imagined. But let me address these wiki references anyway.
///He announced the Chalmers Award, which was to be given to the player in each league who “should prove himself as **the most important and useful player to his club** and to the league at large in point of deportment and value of services rendered.â€
In 1922 the American League Trophy Committee was formed to “honor the baseball player who is of greatest all-round service to his club and credit to the sport during each season; to recognize and reward uncommon skill and ability when exercised by a player **for the best interests of his team**, and to perpetuate his memory.†End Wiki.///
Your use of asterisks in the first paragraph distracts from the reading of the whole sentence, which includes “and to the league at large.”
Second, I’d still argue that Pujols was more “important and useful” to the Cardinals than any Phillie was to his team.
Third, anyone who exercises skill and ability “for the best interests of his team” is providing service that would be well-used by any team in the league.
Or put it another way: Who exercises uncommon skill and ability for the interests of some *other* team than his own? To pull out the whole reference to the player’s club and focus on it is just to play at semantics.
It all creates a space for some overwrought thoughtfulness and little else, in my opinion.
I love your writing and enjoy reading all the great arguments you through out. I’m usually not smart enough for the comment section, though.
So, I just wanted to throw out there (in a non-smart, off-topic sort of way) that a tremendous Thanksgiving food that deserves a mention but may be too regional (read: Southern) is Sweet Potato Casserole. It’s like sweet potato pie in a casserole dish with more sugar and a nice crumbly top with some pecans. Somehow, this delicious dish never counted as dessert. As a kid, I thought this was a tremendous scam to pull on my parents. How could they not realize?!
Oh who am I kidding… I STILL think that.
Joe, where’s apple pie on the poll? I’m really panicking here. I don’t think it qualifies as weird.
Andrew T-
“Other than the fact that it’s the Cubs, why would the Cubs want Teahen?”
I really have no explanation, I’m as baffled as you are. I have no idea why the Cubs would give up those two guys for Teahen. The benefits of Fontenot and Marshall far outweigh Teahen’s possible contributions.
Unless, of course, they put him at lead-off. But then you’d probably upset Soriano.
Joe, just for the record, it’s MannyBNManny, not MannyBManny.
Pat,
Utley’s too tall to be considered “gritty.” The term’s generally a backhanded compliment for the under-5′-10″ set who somehow – SOMEHOW! – overcame great adversity brought on by their debilitating lack of height to become good at baseball. And they try so hard! Aren’t they just the dickens?
It’s generally a way to overstate the (often but not always average-at-best*) contributions made by these little guys and make them seem like they’re a real part of the team! Just like the grown-ups who hit well and field well!
By ascribing some nebulous ‘grit’ to these players, it also helps explain why teams will employ a shortstop who’s below average at bat and in the field…he adds so many intangibles to the game and makes everyone on the team try harder because he shows them the power of the heart. Ru-dy! Ru-dy! Ru-dy!
*Pedroia’s admittedly a very talented player and had an outstanding year, but a part of me wonders if he would have gotten as much MVP buzz if he put up those same numbers but was 6′2″ instead of three apples high.
Some of our posts comparing Ryan Howard and Chase Utley appear to be relying entirely on analysis — sometimes very detailed analysis — of their 2008 offensive statistics.
Ryan Howard seems to be a fine cheerful man, probably a great teammate. Certainly a big contributor to the stretch run.
But these comparisons can’t get truly serious until they imagine the Phillies playing half their games with Utley at second and Howard at first, and half their games with Utley on first and Howard as the second baseman.
Justin – more to the point, Utley’s too GOOD to be considered “gritty.” You have to be a mediocre-to-average player to qualify. Brian Giles wasn’t gritty with the Pirates for example…
It’s really an off-kilter recognition that even a back-of-the-bench professional athlete is insanely good by mortal standards. Tony Pena Jr. is a terrible major leaguer – but if I was on the mound, Tony’s slash line would read something like 850/950/2200. Why does he hit like he’s toting a wiffle bat against major-league pitching? Why is he there at all? Answer – the Pena Jrs and Ecksteins and Erstads et als must have SOMETHING awesome about them (because they’re major leaguers!). It must be their savvy, their grit… they stick around through their cunning and competitiveness.
It’s rare for a great player to be accorded the same sort of accolade because people assume that they’re just getting by on talent. (And some of the time, the great player who gets that tag is actually not as great *coughJetercough* as everyone makes them out to be.)
I believe Joe is treating us like lab rats to prove why Ty Cobb got only 98% and Ruth and Wagner only 95% of their HofF voting.
And — at the moment at least — it is fated that for all future Thanksgivingfests there will be no possibility of apple cider, muffins, meatballs, smarties, turducken, spaghetti, or corndogs, because all are below the 5% line. At least there is no possibility of these items being on the menu until the Veterans’ Committee or some forceful Italians come to dinner. By such a process were Bobby Grich, Ted Simmons, Lou Whitaker, etc. removed from the table after a few people gave them less than one bite and they missed being passed around.
With only five choices, I admit that gamed the system. Why vote for the stuff everyone else will choose? So I helped to get cranberry, pumpkin pie, yams, and biscuits above the 5% line and onto the sideboard. (Though “pumpkin pie” was a wasted vote, I didn’t want to take a chance there.) However, I will get no cider, now or in the future, and will have to drink beer (which I take to be the “something really weird and not on the list”).
Had I been worldly-wise enough to understand that I could get a threefer with turducken, I surely would have included it. But my mouth watered and I was too impatient to use Google before I voted.
All I can say is how many MVPs awards would Pujols have won if you use that criteria that your team must make the playoffs? How in the world can you say a guy that struck out 199 times is the MVP? I would not argue Lidge over Pujols, since he didn’t blow a save. Just ask yourself, if Pujols played on the Phillies, would they be a better team? If Howard played on the Cardinals, they sure would not have been a better team and they did contend for the playoffs until the middle of Sept. with a bullpen that blew the most saves. If you watched him every day, you would understand how great a player he is.
I had to add my 2 cents worth on the poll – how could a poll of Thanksgiving food not have Macaroni & Cheese (notice I capitalize it out of respect)? Maybe it is a southern thing, but Thanksgiving is not complete for me, with it…
I still say Manny was the NL MVP do you really see the Dodgers winning the West with the team playing the way it was before he got there?
Plus he hit an godly amount for HRs and AVG.
On the flip side, Pedroia didn’t deserve AL MVP. It was Quentin’s until he missed the final month, and look at the White Sox then, they replaced the O with a U with how terrible they limped into the post season until the Rays finished them off. I’d even would’ve agreed if they gave it to K Rod, but Pedroia didn’t deserve it or earn it, especially since they didn’t give Jeter the MVP in 06 for a strikingly similar season that was actually BETTER in every statistical category except for 4 HRs going to Pedroia.
BRUCE & WILLBETHEBOY — And both of Maris’ MVPs should have gone to Mickey Mantle, who had MUCH better seasons:
Maris 1960: .283/.371/.581/161 OPS+
Mantle 1960: .275/.399/.620/167 OPS+
Maris 1961: .269/.372/.620/167 OPS+
Mantle 1961: .317/.448/.687/206 OPS+ (!!)
MAYBE you could make a case for Maris in 1960. But in 1961? Besides hitting 61 HR (not to diminish that accomplishment, but…), I don’t see any way Mantle doesn’t win that MVP. His OPS+ is 35th-best in MLB history, fer cryin’ out loud!
ELI — I believe the more common term for “grit units” is “Ecksteins”.
JOE P. — As always, great post — and where/how do you come up with your poll questions and answers? They are just fantastic!
Nightfly,
I was going to go with the scrappy-as-euphemism-for-lack-of-talent angle, but I didn’t want to risk the ire of the Pedroia fans out there. Wee Dusty’s constantly referred to as a gritty, pesky spark plug, but there’s no denying he’s a very good player who had a very good year.
I think there’s something innate within most people that makes us want to root for the underdog, and little guys are underdoggish when placed next to guys who LOOK more like what we presume athletes to be. When the numbers aren’t there, people have to look for other reasons to prop these guys up, and you wind up with paeans to Eckstein and Erstad in which those guys are credited by some for their team’s success as much as the actual star players who contribute on the scoresheet.
I agree that the people who prop up the gritty players tend to dismiss actual skill too easily. In fairness, though, to the naked eye, the little guys APPEAR to be trying harder; Eckstein’s full-body throws to first come to mind here. When someone like Beltran hits a grounder and then takes long strides to first, it looks like he’s kinda half-assing it, whereas when Eckstein runs, it looks like he’s busting his hump. Never mind that Beltran might get there a step quicker, he just LOOKS like he should be giving more. The gritty guys may not accomplish as much, but they always look like what they do accomplish, they do through sheer force of will.
You also hear about little guys “playing the game the right way,” as though more talented players try to catch fly balls in their shoes and run around the bases backwards or something. There may be something to this – if you’re not very talented, you’re not going to make it to the bigs without being strong fundamentally, whereas guys with oodles of skill could probably coast a bit more and might be forgiven for not always hitting the cut-off man, but it’s ridiculous how much credit some players get for it. One actual example (the specific details elude me):
Runner on second, little guy at bat. Little guy bunts the player to third. Next three batters either walk or get hits.
Announcer: “Well, (little guy) really made all that happen. He was instrumental in this rally.”
I suppose you cooouuuld make an argument that pitch sequences to subsequent batters would have been different, but in this particular case, the bunt was the LEAST helpful plate appearance in that string of batters.
I dunno. Maybe I’m just a jaded, soulless jerk who isn’t as into the everyman, if-you-try-hard-enough-you-can-do-anything storyline as I should be, but one of the things that makes me cringe when people tout a player’s “intangibles” (whether that player is short or otherwise) stems from the whole gritty-scrappy trope. It just shows that some writers/fans will invent nebulous qualities to back the guys they like.
Mike – “I still say Manny was the NL MVP do you really see the Dodgers winning the West with the team playing the way it was before he got there?”
2 points:
1. The team also improved when Ethier got hot, and you don’t see anyone arguing for him. And a preemptive strike on the whole Manny gave Ethier protection argument, it’s been shown (I think it was in Tango’s book – The Book) that the idea of lineup protection is false.
2. The Cards still finished with a better record than the Dodgers.
Well, doing the little things can and do win ball games, just less often than doing the big things.
Of course, the more run scarce the ballgame, the more likely that the little things will matter. Anybody who ever watched a women’s fast pitch softball game between two really good pitchers knows that the first team to put together an infield hit, a stolen base, a sacrifice bunt and a fly ball to the outfield is going to win. I suspect it was like that in the Dead Ball era too. Thus a gritty little guy like Johnny Evers or Rabbit Maranville had more value in that environment.
However, in today’s world of small ballparks, juiced baseballs (and players), and scarce pitching, those small things becomes less and less valuable.
Somehow, many “analysts” missed the memo.
Joe – can we get apple pie added to the Thanksgiving Food survey/list??? Only glaring omission I noticed. Well, perhaps aside from beer and egg nog.
Outside of the sports world – two gritty dudes…
- Pete Conrad, Apollo astronaut, 3rd person to walk on the moon – first one to dance on it. Conrad, the shortest male astronaut to date- at an Ecksteinian 5-6, overcame dyslexia, and most importantly during a Rorschach inkblot test, dismissively told the psychiatrist that one blot card revealed a sexual encounter, complete with lurid detail. And when he was asked to deliver a stool sample to the on-site lab, he placed it in a gift box and tied a red ribbon around it. Overcame this to walk on the moon. Very gritty.
- William Henry Harrison, ninth president of the United States, also served the shortest term of all presidents – a gritty 30 days in office. The hero of Tippencanoe delivered the longest inauguration speech ever, in freezing temperatures without wearing a coat or hat. He caught pneumonia and died.
…and by the way, in response to MIKE: Really? Manny should have been MVP? Pedroia was a horrible choice because of what someone else did in an entirely different season?? Even worse, you think K-Rod deserved it instead??? How many question marks can I use at the ends of my questions????
Four. The answer is four.
I am pretty sure Mike meant A-ROD, not K-ROD. Touting K-Rod as an MVP is like saying some guy who played in only 33% of his team’s games deserves the MVP!
I can’t even tell if Mike’s being facetious.
No, the Dodgers may not have won the division without Manny (they were in the race – it was a terrible division, after all), but they also probably wouldn’t have won without Ethier, Kemp, Lowe, Billingsley, blah blah blah…
The whole “would they have won without this guy” argument falls apart even more when he touts K-Rod. The Angels ran away with the division. It was no contest. If they’d had Arrendondo closing all year, they still would have won.
If they’d replaced K-Rod with Todd Jones, based on their save percentages in 2008, the Angels still would have won 97 games, and Jones would be the single-season record holder with three fewer saves. As a reminder, Todd Jones got pummeled into retirement in 2008. It’s an imperfect comparison because not all save opps are created equal, but K-Rod wasn’t exactly known for tough save assignments this year. He was your standard three-out closer.
K-Rod got 62 saves because his team did well enough in the eight innings before he entered the game to give him a record-shattering number of chances. It’s similar to having a rule amendment that would allow Aubrey Huff – and ONLY Aubrey Huff – to bat twice every time through the O’s lineup and then giving him the MVP because he managed 60 HR, 200 RBI and 350 hits while conveniently forgetting that he accumulated those stats in about 1,200 at-bats.
What you can never forget is that chicks dig the long ball. That is the only reasoning behind the Howard mvp arguement.
We’ve already seen that it takes an insanely great season for a pitcher to win MVP. The argument there has been, at least since they created it, is that pitchers can win the Cy Young Award, and thus don’t deserve a shot at the MVP.
But if that line of reasoning is valid, then the RBI leader doesn’t automatically deserve the MVP either, because he’s the RBI leader. Same for homers and batting title. We have plenty of precedent for non-playoff bound guys to win MVP, so it’s not as though we’re breaking new ground. So MVP is not an award you can just give to a league leader in any of the triple crown stats if he happens to make the playoffs. Hell, since 100% of all RBI come because somebody else scored a run, why aren’t runs considered as important? Come on, you know who I’m talking to.
So what defines value? Some of it does come from context. Howard did a difficult job (driving in runs and hitting homers) very well. But he did it in context of having superb hitters in front of him, giving him lots of opportunities to drive in runs, and with some mighty fine hitters behind him, giving him more chances to hit. Albert Pujols hit better than Howard with men on base, even though he had weaker hitters before him and after him. Pujols leading the league in intentional walks did not come about because the guys protecting him were having career years.
It’s not the Most Valuable Slugger, it’s the Most Valuable Player. I don’t care who you are, if you are defining Valuable without considering batting average, or (better) on base percentage and slugging percentage, and if you’re ignoring defense and baserunning, then you’re not really considering Valuable Player. You’re locked into MVS.
Lets look at Howard a different way. Suppose he is en fuego in April through June, the Phillies run out to a big double digit game lead, and then Howard tanks the last couple of months and the Phillies limp home, barely crossing the finish line in first place. He winds up with identical season stats. Would Howard deserve the MVP? Hell no. But the games in April count just as much. The same thing often happens with Oscars, where surprisingly good movies that came out earlier in the year tend not to get the rewards they deserve because everybody’s enamored of the hot flavor of the month of December, when all the Oscar consideration movies tend to come out.
Pujols was hot every month of the year. Some of those months the Cards were close to a playoff spot. Every month Pujols was valuable by any definition of value. Pujols was valuable when he walked because he’s a good base runner. Pujols was valuable when he fielded. He wins every tie breaker except for playoff making.
A few years back, we were having a big Strat-O-Matic draft including the break up of a really good team. The top three players, in everybody’s opinion, were Eddie Murray, Dave Winfield, and Dave Stieb. I went for Stieb number one. Why? Stieb was (at the time) the best pitcher in the American League, good for at least 250 innings per year. He influenced 750 outs plus another 250 plus non-outs, or 1,000 plate appearances. Murray or Winfleid would influence around 700 PA, plus maybe an extra 50 plays based on speed an defense. They were all great players. But 1,000 plays versus 750 plays meant that the pitcher 1/3 more plays than either hitter.
If I were picking the MVP purely scientifically this year, my pick is Johan Santana. No, I’m not a Mets fan. But Santana kept his team in the running for the playoffs on a team that was extremely close to the playoffs and for a team that was hammered in pitching depth. Santana’s innings meant that guys who belonged in AAA leagues didn’t have to throw as many innings. He made the entire pitching staff better, more so than any other pitcher in the league, and arguably more than any other pitcher in baseball. I would only have picked him third for Cy Young. Lincecum pitched better, but he did so for a team that faced no pressure and had a lot of good pitchers; the Giants’ problem was offense. So even though Lincecum pitched better, he didn’t mean as much to the Giants.
But because of the Ryan Howard mentality, that it’s got to be a playoff slugger, Santana got no consideration at all.
I’m glad Pujols won. I *think* he was more valuable than Santana, although it’s close. Pujols’ season was better on the raw numbers. But it’s really time we started a movement towards allowing pitchers to win MVP again, and to consider that a guy who is worth 30 wins to a team that wins 85 is more valuable than a guy worth only 20 wins to a team that wins 90.
” You can’t have a lot of fun arguing with a points system.”
*cough*BCS&cough;
I didn’t think Pujols should win this year b/c he said two years ago that the MVP should come from a team that has one. But I also thought those comments were funny back then since STL won 83 games, but Howard was on the non-winning team that won two more games (85). So both years, Howard was on a better team.
X:
Pujols was interviewed in Spanish 2 years ago when that statement was allegedly uttered and the translation to English was not a particularly good one. He stated later that he did not actually dispute that Howard should win that year, his comments just got “lost in translation”. None of the Spanish language stories about the interview even mentioned the quote that the English language newspapers made such a big deal about.
I’ve read all the stories and the follow up. The bottom line is that he DID say the following:
“I see it this way: Someone who doesn’t take his team to the playoffs doesn’t deserve to win the MVP“
He never disputed the translation. His regrets were over the way he was portrayed. Hey, guys say things all the time that “come out wrong” or get “misinterpreted.” I love Albert, I just said I didn’t think he should win. An MVP helps his team win games. Howard’s team won more games both years.
Euro…
It is earned through several characteristics and learning from Forex trading. Move on and make the Forex market. This is where this market comes into These traits. When you first start out for this market, you’ re going to be getting the fascinating …