-
If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
I know many people are sick of all the MVP talk and what not, and frankly, I am too, but the countless articles that are being penned complaining about how the wrong player won the National League MVP awards are grinding my brain to shreds, and I'm bored, so I need to let off some steam here.
Today's fisking comes courtesy of Murray Chass, who's really old and the stereotypical "Get off my lawn you newfangled nerds" baseball writer. All quoted sections below are from the article. My "responses" will echo some comments from the Baseball Think Factory thread, because those people are pretty smart.
Quote:
If a player should be rewarded in the most valuable player voting for enabling his team to overcome his teammates’ performances, should a player be penalized for not enabling his team to overcome his teammates’ performance?
This sentence like unraveled my brain and twisted it into a spiral. I can't even begin to comprehend what this means. But, at any rate, it's not about overcoming teammate performance. It's about providing value to your team.
Quote:
If not for Howard, the Mets would have won the N.L. East title.
I hate this argument. So much. Replace "Howard" with any of the numerous good players on the Phillies, and it's still perfectly true, and it's still not an argument for the MVP award.
Since the MVP award is technically a contest between players, wouldn't the logical thing be to compare the players in question? So, the players in question here are Ryan Howard and Albert Pujols. Chass is correct in that, without Howard, the Mets would likely have won the N.L. East. Of course, that ignores whose replacing Howard.
How about if instead of Howard, they had the guy he's up against in the MVP discussion, Mr. Albert Pujols? Would the Phillies have lost the division? Anybody with a half-functioning brain would know the answer to that question is "No." Anybody with a half-functioning brain would know that if the Phillies had Albert Pujols instead of Ryan Howard, they would've pounded the Mets silly and had a sizable lead in the division. That exercise pretty much proves that Pujols is more valuable than Howard.
Quote:
As for Pujols, the Cardinals didn’t win the World Series, or even play in it, because they weren’t good enough to make the playoffs
The Cardinals weren't good enough. Not Albert Pujols.
Quote:
and Pujols wasn’t valuable enough to carry them there the way Howard carried the Phillies.
What? No! That makes no sense. Pujols wasn't "valuable enough" because his teammates were worse than Howard's? Ugh.
Quote:
Many non-voters mistake the m.v.p. for player of the year. There’s a difference in the two distinctions.
Ray DiPerna at BTF said:
"What is with this nonsense of asserting that "most valuable" and "best player" are different concepts? Why are we looking at the quality of Howard's teammates (playoff team) rather than the quality of Howard? Put Albert Pujols on the Phillies instead of Howard,..., and the Phillies will beat the Mets by more than 3 games. Put your most "valuable" player Ryan Howard on the Cardinals instead of Pujols,..., and the Cardinals finish even more than 4 games out of a playoff spot.
And kubiwan said:
Does anyone else get tired of this argument? It seems pretty clear that the entire point of the award is to the honor the best player in the league, with the name "Most Valuable Player" just being choosen for being snappy. Is it really an honor to win a "Most [Insert Definition Here] Award"?
I feel the same about the Hall of Fame. The intent was the honor the best players, with the name just being snappier than "Hall of Great Baseballers", but people still pull out the "Well, we are looking for the most "famous" players" argument?
Quote:
If the award were for player of the year, the voters would simply look at the statistics and see which player drove in the most runs and hit for the highest average or had the highest OPS.
No, they wouldn't, and that'd be silly, because way more should go into than that, such as position, baserunning, defense, park adjustments, etc.
Quote:
Oops, there I’ve said it. OPS. It’s a relatively recent term that still has to be explained because most fans over 35 probably don’t know what it means. It happens to be one of the acceptable new statistics because it easily demonstrates a player’s offensive value.
But it’s not really a new statistic. It’s just a new name. Some of us have been adding on-base percentage and slugging percentage for years; we just didn’t call it by a particular name. Now we have one: OPS.
1) It's not "relatively recent". Well, okay, if you're 448 years old like Chass, then yes, it's relatively recent, but really, OPS has been around for well over 25 years now.
2) Most fans over the age of 35 that follow baseball on a regular basis probably do know what it means. It's not a difficult concept to understand.
Quote:
But I digress. Writers voting for m.v.p. consider a player’s OPS, but they don’t automatically give the award to the player with the highest four-digit, one-decimal-point number. That’s because the award goes to the player who was most valuable, not the player with the best statistics.
He's right. They don't automatically give the award to the player with the highest four-digit, one-decimal-point number, nor should they. But if Chass had his way, they'd give it to the player on a playoff team that played good in September with the highest three-digit, zero-decimal-point number. Which, of course, makes less sense, but there's no room for logic here!
Quote:
My own definition over the years has been to designate the player without whom his team could not have done what it did. That doesn’t mean a key player who suffers a disabling injury and misses half the season. It’s a player whose contributions are critical to the team’s success.
Oh. My. God. The contributions of one Jose Alberto Pujols weren't critical to his team's success? Maybe they've changed the definition of "critical", but without that guy, they wouldn't have been contending for the entire year. They would've likely been sub-.500. If there's any player whose contributions were critical to his team's success, it was Albert Pujols. The Cardinals didn't make the playoffs, true, but how can their season be called anything but a "success"? Nobody considered them to be contenders, and yet they battled hard all year long....in large part due to Albert Pujols and his historically great season. Without Albert Pujols, the Cardinals could not have contended all year (ie. what they did). That fits your definition in the first sentence, pal.
Also, smart readers will catch that I'm saying the same thing I deconstructed above with the whole "Without him, they couldn't have done it" thing. But, here's the catch...replace Albert Pujols on the Cardinals with any other first basemen in the game, and the Cardinals would have been worse. That's why the argument works for Pujols.
Quote:
The more contributing players on a team, I have always felt, the less valuable each one is.
This argument shoots the one you're making in the foot. It's 100% utterly obvious that the Phillies had more contributing players than the Cardinals. Hence, by your belief, each Phillie is "less valuable" than each Cardinal. So, how exactly is Ryan Howard more valuable than Albert Pujols?
Quote:
In this instance, Pujols vs. Howard, I suspect many of the voters were attracted by the gaudy OPS numbers Pujols registered - 1.115 to Howard’s .970.
Ryan Howard's OPS was actually .882.
Quote:
In September, when the Phillies won the division title...
This does not mean that the rest of the season didn't happen and was meaningless.
Quote:
With monthly season highs of .352, 11 homers and 32 r.b.i., Howard powered the Phillies to a 17-8 September record that brought them from one game behind the Mets to three games ahead.
Cole Hamels had a 2.84 ERA in September. Jamie Moyer had a 3.26 ERA and was 4-0. Brad Lidge allowed 1 run in 12.2 innings and saved 8 games without blowing any leads. But, of course, Triple Crown stats are all that matters.
Also, once again, there are 5 other months to the season, all of which count. As Ray DiPerna at BTF said, "It's not the Most Valuable Triple Crown Hitter In September For A Team That Jumped Into First Place In September And Made The Playoffs By The Least Amount award."
Also from Ray DiPerna:
"What is with this lunacy of focusing on September stats, while ignoring that Howard had a freaking .287 on base percentage in June, which helped his team to a 12-14 record for that month?"
From El Hijo del Ron Santo (Alan Keiper):
"His September was nice. Thank goodness the Phillies were in a position to make a run and not too far back. Who put them in position to win in the first place? Largely Chase Utley, who had better hitting statistics, better fielding at a premium position, and who ran the bases. One month does not make an MVP, and while it was good it was hardly historic."
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
Quote:
Two years ago, when Howard won the award even though the Phillies didn’t reach the playoffs and Pujols finished second, the runnerup was quoted as saying he thought the winner should come from a playoff team, which the Cardinals were. On the day he won this year’s award, he said his remarks had been misinterpreted, that he meant a contending team.
The Cardinals, Pujols said, were in contention for the wild card this year until the last two weeks of the season. But were they?
Yes. They were.
Quote:
With two weeks left in the season, the Cardinals were four games behind wild-card leaders Milwaukee and Philadelphia. Houston was third in the wild-card standings, only two games behind the co-leaders. In the previous three weeks the Cardinals got no closer to the lead than three and a half games.
That is certainly "in the race."
Quote:
Were they ever really in the race? Mathematically only, as it turned out.
By this definition, the only teams that were ever "really in the race" are the teams that won it. Which is, of course, insane.
Look, September performance, team making the playoffs or not, etc. are all fine things to look at and consider. Two very close players, I'll take the guy on the winning team or the guy that played better in the pennant race. But using that stuff as the PRIMARY consideration and ignoring everything else is just flat-out ridiculous.
Ugh. Sorry. I had to let this all out (again?).
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
Quote:
If a player should be rewarded in the most valuable player voting for enabling his team to overcome his teammates’ performances, should a player be penalized for not enabling his team to overcome his teammates’ performance?
That didn't make much sense to me either. If I read it too many times, I think my brain is just going to completely shut itse
See? My brain just shut itself off right there.
Quote:
The more contributing players on a team, I have always felt, the less valuable each one is.
I'd love to see him explain that one in more detail regarding Ryan Howard and the Phillies.
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
I have re-read that first sentence Bingle quoted a good ten times. I have no idea whatsoever what in the Hell the writer is trying to say.
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
"There’s a difference in the two distinctions." is also a good quote...and by good I mean, completely weird. A difference is the same thing as a distinction. In order for there to be a difference between two distinctions, you have to be comparing two differences. Or something like that. I don't know. It's an incredibly odd sentence that doesn't really mean anything.
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
If a player should be rewarded in the most valuable player voting for enabling his team to overcome his teammates’ performances, should a player be penalized for not enabling his team to overcome his teammates’ performance?
I believe he's trying to say that a player should be rewarded for having a playoff team (good team) and a player should be penalized for not making the playoffs (bad team)
ie Howard/Phillies and Pujols/Cardinals
at least thats what I believe he's trying to say.
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
This writer seems to have a HUGE man-crush on Ryan Howard.
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
Also, Utley was the catalyst and "best" player for the Phillies. Howard had a good September - so what. Utley had better all-around numbers and was their most consistent hitter all season long. Howard started out horrible, for over a month, if I remember right.
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
Pujols played with a worthless elbow all season and managed to put up one of his best statistical seasons AND keep the Cardinals playing well most of the season. I'm glad he won the MVP.
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
Oh. My. God. The contributions of one Jose Alberto Pujols weren't critical to his team's success? Maybe they've changed the definition of "critical", but without that guy, they wouldn't have been contending for the entire year.
He is just saying that Pujols couldn't contribute to his team's success because they weren't successful - at least in his view.
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
I still pujols deserved it
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
Houston, I can't agree with you more.
And for those of you who want to see more bashing of Murray Chass,
http://www.firejoemorgan.com/search/...murray%20chass
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
michaelg123789
I still pujols deserved it
Oh, so do I. But I recognize that other people see the world differently than I do and their reasons aren't always ridiculous. Though some are.
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kenny1234
Oh, so do I. But I recognize that other people see the world differently than I do and their reasons aren't always ridiculous. Though some are.
I understand that.
It's just that in this instance, I do think the reasons are ridiculous. The only way to make an argument for Ryan Howard is to completely distort any rational definition of "value", completely ignore ridiculously large chunks of the season, and completely ignore mountains of data.
Take the AL MVP. I don't think Dustin Pedroia was the AL MVP. I would've voted for Cliff Lee. I had Pedroia 5th on my ballot. I'm not ranting about that selection though because I do understand the reasons for voting Pedroia, and the arguments made for Pedroia aren't crazy. Of the top candidates in the AL, there's only two that I would've really "made a fuss" about - Justin Morneau and Francisco Rodriguez.
Also, even though I think that nobody in the entire majors was close to Albert Pujols, let alone just the NL, I also wouldn't care about articles written in favor of Lance Berkman, Chase Utley, Hanley Ramirez, or a couple other guys. It's just this Ryan Howard nonsense that I find utterly ridiculous. There is a WORLD of difference between Ryan Howard and Albert Pujols. Even if you give Howard extra credit for a great September (which you also have to then give to Pujols) and for his team making the playoffs, it can't close the ginormous gap between the two players.
All the writers going on and on about how giving Pujols the award over Howard was a mistake of epic proportions truly baffle me. These are the same writers that will yell at you if you don't like to use batting average. These are the same writers that will yell at you for not "appreciating the little things." These are the same writers that will yell at you for "deciding the MVP based on a single stat." Yet, in the same breath, they get all up-in-arms in favor of a guy with a terrible batting average that does one "big" thing and that thing is the only thing he does well (and he, in fact, sucks at everything else), and they'll decide the award based on one single stat - RBI (in September...on a playoff team).
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
Just a question. Don't most sports vote for the MVP right after the season ends but before the postseason begins?
My thing about MVPs is this....who has the best stats? That's first. How much would the team have been worse if they had not been there? That is a secondary question.
If a player hits 40 hr 120 rbi has more weight than a pitcher with 17-19 wins. That's an opinion. I don't know the stats of the MVPs. I do know that Cliff Lee of the Indians should have been given more weight considering how bad the indians were this year. Wasn't Lee like 21-2 or 21-3 something like that?
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
flapper
Just a question. Don't most sports vote for the MVP right after the season ends but before the postseason begins?
Yes. Baseball does.
Quote:
My thing about MVPs is this....who has the best stats? That's first. How much would the team have been worse if they had not been there? That is a secondary question.
The questions are really tied together.
Quote:
If a player hits 40 hr 120 rbi has more weight than a pitcher with 17-19 wins. That's an opinion. I don't know the stats of the MVPs. I do know that Cliff Lee of the Indians should have been given more weight considering how bad the indians were this year. Wasn't Lee like 21-2 or 21-3 something like that?
22-3, 2.54 ERA. 170:34 K:BB. 1.11 WHIP. Placed a top the league in most advanced performance metrics (among ALL players, not just pitchers).
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
In today's baseball 22-3 is almost unheard of, esp being on a bad team. I would have voted for Lee as 1st not knowing how every one else did. To me 22-3 is like hitting .320 with 40+ hrs and 120+ rbis.
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
Eh, voting for Cliff Lee solely because of his won-loss record is just as bad as voting for Howard because of his RBIs. While in Lee's case his record matches up with his pitching, wins and losses are an incredibly poor way to evaluate a pitcher.
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
It's just that in this instance, I do think the reasons are ridiculous. The only way to make an argument for Ryan Howard is to completely distort any rational definition of "value", completely ignore ridiculously large chunks of the season, and completely ignore mountains of data.
If the comparison is only Pujols vs. Howard - then I can make a rational claim that Howard was more valuable. Pujols provided no value this year as his team did not make the playoffs, while I believe that with a replacement for Howard, the Phillies would not have made the playoffs. You may think that is wrong - but it doesn't make me irrational. My definition of value is perfectly reasonable - in fact players seem to say fairly regularly about how the only goal of the regular season is to make the playoffs.
The same logic applies to Berkman, Hanley Ramirez and a few other possible candidates. If the choice fell to Howard vs. Utley - I don't think the case is as simple as you are making it.
Look, I don't think Howard should be the MVP. And he isn't. I just think that you are exaggerating the idiocy of people thinking he should be. And I know you are just ranting, and I really should just let that go. But I react the same way to your comments that you react to the writers.
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
In keeping with the discussion about the question of the importance of making the playoffs in deciding the league MVP. As far as I can tell, no World Series MVP has ever come from a team that lost. I have to assume that sometime in the 50+ years the award has been offered, the best player came from the losing team - though I have no intention of checking. Do you think that is a massive injustice? Or is it reasonable that providing value in the World Series includes winning?
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kenny1234
If the comparison is only Pujols vs. Howard - then I can make a rational claim that Howard was more valuable. Pujols provided no value this year as his team did not make the playoffs, while I believe that with a replacement for Howard, the Phillies would not have made the playoffs. You may think that is wrong - but it doesn't make me irrational.
Sorry, but I don't think that argument is rational. It's not rational to believe that the only players that provided value to their team are the players on the 8 playoff teams. The logic just doesn't make any sense. The Padres made the playoffs in 2005 with an 82-80 record. The Phillies were 88-74, but didn't make the playoffs. Arguing that the players on the Phillies provided no value, and thus all the Padres players provided more value, because the Phillies played in a tougher division makes no sense.
Quote:
My definition of value is perfectly reasonable - in fact players seem to say fairly regularly about how the only goal of the regular season is to make the playoffs.
Well, of course, but that doesn't mean all players on non-playoff teams provided zero value to their team.
Quote:
The same logic applies to Berkman, Hanley Ramirez and a few other possible candidates. If the choice fell to Howard vs. Utley - I don't think the case is as simple as you are making it.
Really? The case isn't simple? Utley had better offensive stats, outside of HR and RBI, than Ryan Howard. Utley also wasn't terrible against lefties. Utley also is a good baserunner while Howard is slow and lumbering. Utley plays fantastic defense at second base. Howard plays terrible defense at first base. Chase Utley, by getting on base a lot, provided Howard with many opportunities to drive him in. It's simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kenny1234
In keeping with the discussion about the question of the importance of making the playoffs in deciding the league MVP. As far as I can tell, no World Series MVP has ever come from a team that lost. I have to assume that sometime in the 50+ years the award has been offered, the best player came from the losing team - though I have no intention of checking. Do you think that is a massive injustice? Or is it reasonable that providing value in the World Series includes winning?
In 1960, Bobby Richardson of the Yankees was given the World Series MVP, despite the Yankees losing the series. That's the only case.
I don't think that the World Series MVP is analogous to the regular season league MVP. The World Series MVP is awarded to the player that contributed the most to the winning team. While it doesn't explicitly state that, that's how it's been for 99.9% of the time. The regular MVP doesn't state that it can only go to winning or playoff teams, nor has it been that way for 99.9% of the time.
I think it's quite clear that the intention of the MVP award was to award it to the best player. Writers now just feel the need to parse the definition of "valuable" in every which way. Why? Because they're writers. They're job is to write the stories. So, they want to give the award to the player that gave them the best story...Albert Pujols isn't a good story. He does this year-in and year-out. Coming alive in September during a playoff race? That's a great story! So, the writer twists the definition of valuable to whatever would fit to give it to the best story that year. This is why they make different arguments for what valuable means each year.
Last year, Howard was much better than he was this year. That's indisputable. He even had a fantastic September (better than MVP winner Rollins). Yet, Jimmy Rollins was the better story. Long-time Phillie promises playoffs before the season, and then plays great and the team comes through? Excellent story. Big slugger playing relatively consistent all year....boring. So, they decide that "value" means stealing bases, playing good defense up the middle, and setting the table.
This year...Big slugger struggling all season goes bananas in September, helping his team secure the division? Excellent story. So, they decide that "value" means RBIs and September performance and pay no attention at all to the table-setters, defense, or baserunning.
They change their definition of value every year to fit who they want to give the MVP award to. As writers, they want to give it to the player most valuable to them....the guy that gave them stuff to write about. I think this is plenty obvious.
If somebody has one definition of value and uses it each year, I can respect that, even if I don't agree, but the writers change the definition of valuable each year in order to fit it to who they WANT to give the award to, not who actually was the most valuable.
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
On Utley vs. Howard, I agree with you that Utley was better - I just don't think the difference is ridiculous. Look at stats with runners on base - Howard has the edge there. There is a reason that his RBI stats are high - Utley and others got on ahead of him, and he hit well when they did. Utley is better, and obviously I can cherry-pick stats to argue that Howard is more valuable - I am just saying that there is room for debate.
Utley
Runners On 276 95 83 18 2 15 86 41 12 49 14 2 .301 .404 .543 .947
Howard
Runners On 298 83 92 17 3 26 124 45 2 88 1 1 .309 .396 .648 1.044
As for what people intended when they created the MVP award - I have no idea what they intended and I have no logical basis for differentiating between the season and the World Series in the way that you do.
And for this:
Quote:
If somebody has one definition of value and uses it each year, I can respect that, even if I don't agree, but the writers change the definition of valuable each year in order to fit it to who they WANT to give the award to, not who actually was the most valuable.
I'd love to see an actual example of a writer that contradicts himself from year-to-year. I know the writers vote for the people they want to win - and that is why, over 30 writers they usually get it vaguely right. It just doesn't bother me the way it does you when someone disagrees with my choices - mainly because I can usually rationalize their choice.
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
Only once has a World Series MVP come from the losing side, in a series that was about as close as it gets: 1960 when 2B Bill Mazeroski hit a walk off series winner for the Pirates in Game 7 to take out the Spankees 4 games to 3. His counterpart Bobby Richardson was named Series MVP. Don't ask me why: 'cause I wasn't there.
Generally speaking I would say a player having a hot week to ten days (which is what a World Series MVP is) is more likely to carry his team to the World Series title than the best player in the league is to carry his team to the playoffs over the course of a grueling 162 game season. Which is to say: I think it's far more reasonable to have an MVP from a team that doesn't make the playoffs than it is to have a World Series MVP from the team that doesn't win it all.
Eventually, writers will figure out that HR, RBI and W aren't the be-all and end-all that they seem to be now and that is what we all should be concerned with. It will take writers raised on the advanced metrics for this to happen, but eventually it'll happen and when it does I'll be glad to actually pay attention to this MVP charade.
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
Beaten by Houston GM on the Series MVP question, probably not the first time, probably won't be the last.
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kenny1234
On Utley vs. Howard, I agree with you that Utley was better - I just don't think the difference is ridiculous.
Maybe if you look only at offensive performance and underrate not making outs, it's not. But once you consider the whole package, then yes, the difference is ridiculous. Chase Utley is one of the top 5 players in the major leagues. Ryan Howard has one great skill and is below average or worse in every other aspect of the game.
Quote:
Look at stats with runners on base - Howard has the edge there.
A small edge. And yet, with nobody on base, a category that makes up HALF of both their at bats, Chase Utley was almost as good as he was with runners on base, while Ryan Howard turned into...well...something inexplicably terrible.
Quote:
Utley is better, and obviously I can cherry-pick stats to argue that Howard is more valuable - I am just saying that there is room for debate.
Like I said, there is only room for debate if you ignore a ton of factors that clearly put Utley ahead - baserunning, defensive ability, defensive position, etc.
Quote:
I'd love to see an actual example of a writer that contradicts himself from year-to-year.
I don't know of any specific writers, because the only writers I read on a regular basis are ones that I actually enjoy, who happen to not be part of the BBWAA because they don't "go to the ballpark enough." I'm just going by the overall tone of the articles from year to year. Last year, the articles were largely being written in favor of Jimmy Rollins for playing great defense, setting the table, running the bases, and providing leadership. This year, they're largely being written in favor of Ryan Howard for playing good in September and having a lot of RBI's.
Quote:
It just doesn't bother me the way it does you when someone disagrees with my choices - mainly because I can usually rationalize their choice.
As I said, I'm not bothered simply by people disagreeing with me. I already used the example of the AL MVP award in which I disagree with most people in believing that Cliff Lee should've been the MVP but easily see the arguments for the numerous other contenders.
Ryan Howard being more valuable than Albert Pujols, though, isn't something I can rationalize. The gulf between the two is enormous. Albert Pujols got a HIT at a higher rate than Ryan Howard GOT ON BASE. And that's not to make mention of defense, baserunning, etc., which seem to only matter to the writers when it fits their argument. And this also makes no mention of how I don't see how Ryan Howard is even the most valuable player on the right side of his own infield, and would actually place him 4th on the Phillies behind Utley, Hamels, and Lidge, and could be persuaded to place him even lower than that just among his teammates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by actionjackson
Beaten by Houston GM on the Series MVP question, probably not the first time, probably won't be the last.
I think you answered it better.
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
Here's a simple question: Do you think the Phillies would be better with Pujols over Howard?
How can anybody that answers this with Pujols (which should be anybody with half a brain) honestly say that Howard is more valuable?
(This question is really only good in situations where the two players are easily "swappable"...as in, they both play the same position. It's a lot harder and less meaningful when you're talking two players of different positions, as swapping the players would change the entire makeup of the time...thus, it's really only applicable in situations where the players are directly comparable, such as this one.)
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
In terms of value, there's much more to it then simply making the playoffs or not. Regardless of the playoffs, there is a definite advantage to team Wins to the team's bottom line. That's most of the basis for metrics such as WARP (let alone a main component of successfully playing a game such as Baseball Mogul!).
Anyway, I highly recommend Diamond Dollars. Excellent book on the overall subject of value and team management.
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
Here's a simple question: Do you think the Phillies would be better with Pujols over Howard?
There is no question that Pujols is a better player, and a had a better season than Howard. And the Phillies would be better with Pujols than Howard - but that doesn't have to define value. I understand that you think that best and most valuable are essentially the same thing. Not everyone agrees with you - and that disagreement is not ridiculous.
As for the value of winning games - sure, it affects the bottom line. But then, why don't we come up with a measure of player impact on team profitability. Because there is a measure that Howard might do pretty well on - people do like homeruns. Then we'd be into measuring t-shirt sales and stuff - the statisticians could go nuts.
Anyway, it has been fun but I think I'll stop there. Playing the devil's advocate is only fun for so long.
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kenny1234
There is no question that Pujols is a better player, and a had a better season than Howard. And the Phillies would be better with Pujols than Howard - but that doesn't have to define value. I understand that you think that best and most valuable are essentially the same thing. Not everyone agrees with you - and that disagreement is not ridiculous.
I do find it ridiculous to think that Ryan Howard is more valuable than Albert Pujols while also thinking that Albert Pujols would have improved the Phillies had he been on them in place of Ryan Howard.
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
Quote:
But then, why don't we come up with a measure of player impact on team profitability.
There are... several, actually.
I don't think that HGM is saying that "Best" and "Most Valuable" are interchangeable. That's not what I see him saying, anyway. It seems to me that the argument essentially revolves around what is seen to be valuable, is all. I personally feel that Home Runs and especially RBIs are still seen by many to indicate a disproportionate amount of value, which is essentially where it looks as though HGM is coming from as well. Theirs more to the game then launching bombs, and RBIs... that gets into a whole other debate.
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
The great thing (or the problem with, depending on your perspective) about MVP discussions is that no one can even agree to what most "valuable" means. Some say its just the best player in the league...others say its the player that has the most value to his particular team...others seem inclined to the view that it is the best/most valuable player, but only on a good team...and so on. Its no wonder that there is such a wide discrepancy in the voting. It's like asking a question that people don't really understand, and then getting a great potpourri of responses.
After a couple of decades of pondering the MVP debate, it seems to me that the most valuable player is the one that is the most difficult to replace. What makes a lot of things valuable is the scarcity of it. I know that this is an oversimplification, and I will probably regret typing it, but I dont feel so good and I cant sleep.
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Swampdog
Some say its just the best player in the league...others say its the player that has the most value to his particular team...
Which I think is the same thing.
Quote:
After a couple of decades of pondering the MVP debate, it seems to me that the most valuable player is the one that is the most difficult to replace. What makes a lot of things valuable is the scarcity of it. I know that this is an oversimplification, and I will probably regret typing it, but I dont feel so good and I cant sleep.
Agreed 100%.
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
The best player is not the player who has the most value to his team. I mean, it COULD be the same player, but it certainly does not have to be. Keeping in mind the point about the player having the most value being the most difficult to replace.
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Swampdog
The best player is not the player who has the most value to his team. I mean, it COULD be the same player, but it certainly does not have to be. Keeping in mind the point about the player having the most value being the most difficult to replace.
For me, all 3 terms are interchangeable. The player that provides the most value is the most difficult to replace and is thus the best player.
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
In reality, that just isnt the case though.
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Swampdog
In reality, that just isnt the case though.
How so?
Value, as you said, involves taking scarcity into account. The hardest player to replace is therefore the most valuable, as I think you said. I'm just simply saying that that player is, therefore, the best...as in, the best player to have on your team.
-
Re: If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.
"The best" is the whole crux of the argument, anyway. The best what, exactly? The best home run hitter? Best on base hitter? The Best strikeout pitcher? There are a whole raft of categories to be the best in, and even the best of the best players rarely sweep multiple categories within a single season.
Scarcity is certainly a component of all of this. For example, beign the best home run hitter in the 90's carries less value then being the best home run hitter in the 1920's, simply because more power is available in the 1990's then was available in the 1920's. That's actually the largest weakness of WARP, now that I think about it...
