SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
The Big Bad Mookie Betts Thread
|
Post by bluechip on Oct 5, 2016 16:19:57 GMT -5
However, the BBWA actually is the arbiter of what "most valuable" means. The award description doesn't define it. It says right on the ballot that value is "the strength of a player's offense and defense". It also says the winner "need not come from a playoff team". It also says "It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team."
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Oct 6, 2016 5:13:09 GMT -5
Exactly. Like I said, the only counterargument is "I can literally vote for anyone I want for any reason."
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Oct 6, 2016 5:51:27 GMT -5
Exactly. Like I said, the only counterargument is "I can literally vote for anyone I want for any reason." Not really. The counter argument is that teams measure success as making the playoffs. So if a team just barely got into the playoffs, and a player's contributions were the largest reason for that team making the playoffs, that should be considered by the voters.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 8, 2016 7:52:23 GMT -5
Exactly. Like I said, the only counterargument is "I can literally vote for anyone I want for any reason." Not really. The counter argument is that teams measure success as making the playoffs. So if a team just barely got into the playoffs, and a player's contributions were the largest reason for that team making the playoffs, that should be considered by the voters.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 9, 2016 11:10:01 GMT -5
Here are the NL Clutch-adjusted rankings. Would you give the MVP to Bryant, clearly the best player, but one who was so miserable in the clutch that he wasn't in the top 10 in bWAR based on WPA instead of theoretical, situationally neutral offense?
Name Tot Cl Nolan Arenado 8.0 1.5 Addison Russell 6.4 2.1 Pa. Goldschmidt 6.3 1.5 Christi. Yelich 6.2 0.9 Brand. Crawford 6.2 1.7 Anthony Rizzo 6.2 0.5 Corey Seager 6.2 0.1 Justin Turner 6.1 1.2 Freddie Freeman 5.9 -0.6 Buster Posey 5.7 1.0 Kris Bryant 5.5 -2.2 Starling Marte 5.4 0.5 Jean Segura 5.3 -0.4 Anthony Rendon 5.2 1.1 Daniel Murphy 4.8 0.2 Jonathan Villar 4.8 0.9 Wilson Ramos 4.7 1.4 Jake Lamb 4.7 2.1 Martin Prado 4.6 0.8 Yoenis Cespedes 4.6 1.7 Bryce Harper 4.5 2.9 Charl. Blackmon 4.5 0.1
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Oct 9, 2016 18:28:11 GMT -5
theoretical, situationally neutral offense? Also known as "performance" or "production" or "what he's paid for".
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 9, 2016 19:38:05 GMT -5
theoretical, situationally neutral offense? Also known as "performance" or "production" or "what he's paid for". Some numbers from 2005. The Red Sox and Yankees each played 65 close games (extra innings or decided in regulation by 1 or 2 runs) Ortiz: 288 PA, .321 / .417 / .699, 24 HR, 62 RBI, 49 R ARod: 282 PA, .243 / .340 / .465, 15 HR, 38 RBI, 33 R. OPS difference (advantage Ortiz in all cases. Extra inning games are not double-counted, i.e., W-2 is 2 run wins in regulation). W-2 .330 W-1 .284 W-EE .277 L-EE .374 L-1 .211 L-2 .379 How about games won by 6 or more runs? Ortiz: 96 PA, .272 / .344 / .642, 9 HR, 32 RBI, 26 R (plus 1 for 2, 2 BB on the last day of the season) ARod: 98 PA, .549 / .622 / 1.171, 15 HR, 46 RBI, 39 R. When you exclude these blowout wins from their season totals, you get: Ortiz: 613 PA, .303 / .403 / .598, 38 HR, 115 RBI, 92 R ARod: 614 PA, .287 / .391 / .525, 33 HR, 84 RBI, 85 R. So, did A-Rod deserve the MVP? According to bWAR, he had 19 more runs of "performance" or "production" or "what he's paid for" than Ortiz, but because of when that "production" happened, as demonstrated by the above rather startling splits (and measured by WPA), he was actually 24 runs less valuable than Ortiz. The 43 runs is more than enough to close the bWAR gap.
|
|
|
Post by klostrophobic on Oct 9, 2016 21:03:09 GMT -5
I mean, it's under a hundred atbats. Are we determining MVP awards by what amounts to about a month of a season—or the full season? How many of those games won by 6 or more were because A-Rod hit a homer in the first inning that put the Yankees up 3-0?
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,635
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 9, 2016 21:39:20 GMT -5
I mean, it's under a hundred atbats. Are we determining MVP awards by what amounts to about a month of a season—or the full season? How many of those games won by 6 or more were because A-Rod hit a homer in the first inning that put the Yankees up 3-0? Good point. Plus that opens up another can of worms. It was great that the Red Sox won a bunch of blowout games this year. It totally was. It was great because when you win a blowout game that normally allows a team to set up their bullpen the way they want to win a close game the next day because your closer and your top setup men most likely have had their rest. That's why it was frustrating that the Red Sox didn't do so well in those close games, but they certainly had their opportunities. If you keep having to eek out the one run victories sooner or later it stands to reason that your best relievers get worn down and you're not in position to win the next day as often. So if a guy is helping you to get off to that quick 6-0 that saves the bullpen for that day and puts you in better position to win the next day, isn't there value in that? Even if it's really, really hard to measure? Kind of like the value an ace that can throw innings has because not only is he effective but by limiting the bullpen's innings for that day he theoretically makes them better the day before and more likely the day after? It's just a question I have that I don't know that it gets talked about too often. The chain reaction or butterfly effect type of thing.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 10, 2016 3:04:36 GMT -5
I mean, it's under a hundred atbats. Are we determining MVP awards by what amounts to about a month of a season—or the full season? How many of those games won by 6 or more were because A-Rod hit a homer in the first inning that put the Yankees up 3-0? Yeah, the hundred at bats that were in very high leverage, when what you do has a disproportionate effect on whether you win or lose. I already posted the answer to your second question, more or less: there was a 43-run difference in value (at the standard 10 runs per win) created by the differing clutch performances, when analyzed at the play-by-play level. There is no definition of the word "valuable" that gives the MVP award to a player who didn't much help his team win because he failed again and again in high-leverage situations, no matter how gaudy his overall stats were. Was Alex Rodriguez the player of the year in the AL that year? Of course. But there's just as little question that David Ortiz did more to help his team win games. A three-run walk-off homer, down 2 runs with 2 outs in the 9th has more value than a solo homer with your team ahead by 8. There's no definition of "value" where that's not true. A lot of folks will vote for Kris Bryant as MVP, but in his 61 most important PA (LI >= 2.0), he hit .192 / .295 / .231 (and .036 of the OBP was intentional walks). Addison Russell had 68 PA with LI of 2.0+ and hit .373 / .426 / .576. That's real. It happened. And it contributed to Russell being 4.3 wins more valuable than Bryant reative to what you'd expect from their raw stat lines. The award is not for "player who would have been most valuable if he had performed as well when the game was on the line as you would have expected, even if in fact he was terrible or terrific in those crucial PA's." That's the best player, not the most valuable. We need two awards.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Oct 10, 2016 6:00:50 GMT -5
Did you think by saying that your methodology would give a beloved Red Sox hero the MVP over A-Rod that I would suddenly do a 180? No, I still think it's stupid.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 10, 2016 9:35:07 GMT -5
Did you think by saying that your methodology would give a beloved Red Sox hero the MVP over A-Rod that I would suddenly do a 180? No, I still think it's stupid. Honestly just admit you want to see your favorite player win an MVP even if he doesn't totally deserve it. I'd respect that argument more than some of the cartwheels and handstands people are doing to create some sort of reason that Betts actually does deserve it.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Oct 10, 2016 12:03:13 GMT -5
The funny thing is that is 100% my stance. It's just sports and it's just an award. My personal happiness, which is why I follow sports, is tied to the success of my team and it's players. I would prefer to see Mookie win but I can't pretend he deserves it over Trout.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 10, 2016 13:04:23 GMT -5
Did you think by saying that your methodology would give a beloved Red Sox hero the MVP over A-Rod that I would suddenly do a 180? No, I still think it's stupid. Well, it's stupid if you think the MVP Award should be for the best player. Which is perfectly reasonable. But thinking that the MVP should actually be for the player who was the most valuable for winning games, or the most valuable for winning games that were important in the pennant race, is just as reasonable.I'm not trying to convince you and the other Troutists that you're wrong, because you're not wrong. I'm trying to convince you that the Mookie-istas are not wrong either. Why do people find it so hard to wrap their minds around a situation where both sides of an argument are correct? Why do they insist that the other side has to be wrong? You'll note that I'm on the record as not preferring either side, as long as there's only one award when their needs to be two.
|
|
|
Post by Coreno on Oct 10, 2016 14:37:09 GMT -5
They way I see it, its somewhat like politics. You have those that will always vote for the best pure numbers, and those that will always vote for strong numbers in a meaningful environment. Each year the discrepancy between those candidates is decided by the voters in between. Sometimes the candidates are even the same player. Neither side is wrong, it's just a difference of opinion. The only thing that is wrong is thinking that the other side doesn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 10, 2016 15:26:39 GMT -5
They way I see it, its somewhat like politics. You have those that will always vote for the best pure numbers, and those that will always vote for strong numbers in a meaningful environment. Each year the discrepancy between those candidates is decided by the voters in between. Sometimes the candidates are even the same player. Neither side is wrong, it's just a difference of opinion. The only thing that is wrong is thinking that the other side doesn't exist. If it were like politics I think I'd rather just get rid of the MVP award than to give it to either of them.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 10, 2016 21:24:06 GMT -5
Did you think by saying that your methodology would give a beloved Red Sox hero the MVP over A-Rod that I would suddenly do a 180? No, I still think it's stupid. Well, it's stupid if you think the MVP Award should be for the best player. Which is perfectly reasonable. But thinking that the MVP should actually be for the player who was the most valuable for winning games, or the most valuable for winning games that were important in the pennant race, is just as reasonable.It's way less reasonable.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 15, 2016 1:01:14 GMT -5
Well, it's stupid if you think the MVP Award should be for the best player. Which is perfectly reasonable. But thinking that the MVP should actually be for the player who was the most valuable for winning games, or the most valuable for winning games that were important in the pennant race, is just as reasonable.It's way less reasonable. Because? You already tried the dictionary gambit, which only exposed the fact that you have no idea how to read one. I love this: I rail against the idiocy of insisting that either side of this debate is correct when both sides obviously are, since there are two different widespread meanings of the word "valuable." That point is pretty much demonstrably and incontrovertibly true, and your saying it isn't true doesn't make it so. And it of course means that your view is absolutely correct. No one is saying that your argument in favor of your preferred interpretation is wrong. And your immediate response is NO NO NO YOU ARE WRONG!1!!1! What are you, four years old? There's an ice cream cone for you, and one for little Jennifer, but you have to have them both?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 15, 2016 9:56:24 GMT -5
The fact that there are two different definitions does not mean that they are equally valid. One is more valid than the other.
The weakness of the "MVP must come from a playoff team" argument is exposed by the fact that those folks always vote Trout second. I mean, if you're going to vote based on championship probability added, Trout probably doesn't crack the top 5 most years.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 15, 2016 12:54:21 GMT -5
The fact that there are two different definitions does not mean that they are equally valid. One is more valid than the other. The weakness of the "MVP must come from a playoff team" argument is exposed by the fact that those folks always vote Trout second. I mean, if you're going to vote based on championship probability added, Trout probably doesn't crack the top 5 most years. ...and the way the Angels are going - using the playoff theme - he might never crack it! That's for someone who is averaging 9.5 wins per year. Think about that, please. To rigidly say that only those who lead their teams to the playoffs should get the award means you ignore the greatest player to come along in a very long time. Remember, he has little to say about that roster construction, and when he did have input, he gave the team an enormous discount. Or to say that maybe he gets it once in a while because he's Mike Trout makes the award completely arbitrary, which is what it's looked like for many years anyway. This is why these award discussions leave me cold. Follow the arguments to their logical endpoints and you've crapped the rational bed.
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Oct 15, 2016 23:56:41 GMT -5
When every debate/discussion on this from writers and fans starts..."Well the best player is Trout but.." it rubs me the wrong way. If I preface my opinion with an admission that there is clearly an easy choice would if it not be for his teams spending/off season habits I'd expect someone to stop me right there.
If only Trout could pitch. What if he were to pitch as well? Have success and the Angels still tank? How far do we go to find meaning in most valuable? Obviously that's irresponsible sarcasm. But Trout has already been robbed by "triple crown Miggy possibility" argument, also when it was "hmmm Trout is the best player obviously but Miggy put up better offensive numbers so..." in the end Trout will still end up with his share of MVP's. When his career is over are we going to look back and ask ourselves what the hell we were thinking though?
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Oct 19, 2016 10:12:22 GMT -5
The fact that there are two different definitions does not mean that they are equally valid. One is more valid than the other. The weakness of the "MVP must come from a playoff team" argument is exposed by the fact that those folks always vote Trout second. I mean, if you're going to vote based on championship probability added, Trout probably doesn't crack the top 5 most years. Just because a certain group of people vote one way does not mean that all people who think a certain candidate should win are wrong. That's the same as saying because Charles Manson voted for JFK (hypothetical I have no idea who he voted for in 1960), EVERYONE who did not vote for Nixon was stupid.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 19, 2016 11:11:01 GMT -5
Of course, but my sense is that the overwhelming majority of the anti-Trout folks aren't looking at WPA or trying to do the math in their heads in terms of weighing the relative importance of absolute value versus contextual value. Instead, it's the same old "MVP must be from a playoff team" attitude, which is irredeemably flawed. Even if there are two equally valid definitions of the word "valuable," most anti-Trout voters and fans aren't actually using either one of them.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 19, 2016 13:45:37 GMT -5
Of course, but my sense is that the overwhelming majority of the anti-Trout folks aren't looking at WPA or trying to do the math in their heads in terms of weighing the relative importance of absolute value versus contextual value. Instead, it's the same old "MVP must be from a playoff team" attitude, which is irredeemably flawed. Even if there are two equally valid definitions of the word "valuable," most anti-Trout voters and fans aren't actually using either one of them. In fact there are. I assume you have a valid driver's license. I'm guessing it's no more or less valid than mine. Q.v. "unique," "pregnant," and "dead." There are no gradations in any of them. Yeah, I'm being a vocabulary dick, since what you mean by "valid" is something like "defensible" or "logical." But the fact remains that the only reason the contextual interpretation is the less defensible one is that there is no award for best player of the year and there obviously ought to be one.
In a nutshell:
Camp A) The BBWA could have named the award "Player of the Year," but instead they named it "Most Valuable Player." We should assume they were making a distinction between the two, and one does in fact exist. Therefore, the context of the performance was meant to be included in the award. And that is in fact the way the members have voted throughout the award's history. Camp B) Umm, hey Camp A guys, this is the same BBWA who didn't give Arky Vaughan enough votes to stay on the ballot the first time he was HOF eligible, who once applied the contextual definition to give the MVP to George Bell over Alan Trammel, who in general think that walks for a hitter are bad (hey, they reduce the chances of getting a hit!) and so on literally ad nasueum. Why are we perpetuating their original blunder in creating the award? Personally, I think the idea of the MVP as currently regarded -- actual value in the context of the pennant race -- is very worthy. I also think the lack of a prestigious Player of the Year award is a scandal. I think both of these points are inarguable, as is the fact that they are often two different players. Oh, and I think that most voters are now well aware of the problem here, and try to weigh the two definitions against each other. They're not applying a rote rule of thumb. A lot of Betts voters defenders are saying things like "I'd vote for Trout if there wasn't any one guy on a contender who had a season nearly as good, but I think the 1-WAR deficit that Betts had is slightly more than offset by the fact that Betts' games meant something all year long and Trout's never did." In fact, there's no logical flaw in voting Betts 1 and Trout 2 (rather than way down the ballot); it all depends on how much weight you give to team success. A small to moderate weight is just enough to put Trout behind Mookie.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 19, 2016 17:13:15 GMT -5
Oh, and I think that most voters are now well aware of the problem here, and try to weigh the two definitions against each other. They're not applying a rote rule of thumb. A lot of Betts voters defenders are saying things like "I'd vote for Trout if there wasn't any one guy on a contender who had a season nearly as good, but I think the 1-WAR deficit that Betts had is slightly more than offset by the fact that Betts' games meant something all year long and Trout's never did." In fact, there's no logical flaw in voting Betts 1 and Trout 2 (rather than way down the ballot); it all depends on how much weight you give to team success. A small to moderate weight is just enough to put Trout behind Mookie. I think you're stretching here. As an empirical matter, MVP voters have selected the best player on a playoff team, without regard for how big the gap is between that player and the player with the best context-neutral performance. The exceptions in the last 20 years have generally been for historically great offensive performance (and, uh, 2006 Ryan Howard). Plus, they aren't really weighing the definitions against one another. They're picking the definition which attributes significant value to team performance. The haphazard way different voters take into account team performance is not a feature, it's a bug.
|
|
|