If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.

[HoustonGM]

Just a question. Don't most sports vote for the MVP right after the season ends but before the postseason begins?

Yes. Baseball does.

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.

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).

[flapper]

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.

[HoustonGM]

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.

[kenny1234]

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.

[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?

[HoustonGM]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[kenny1234]

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:

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.

[actionjackson]

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.

[actionjackson]

Beaten by Houston GM on the Series MVP question, probably not the first time, probably won't be the last.

[HoustonGM]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[HoustonGM]

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.)

[ohms_law]

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.

[kenny1234]

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.

[HoustonGM]

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.

[ohms_law]

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.