actually no it isn'tOriginally Posted by OldYankFan
Hail to the king, baby.
actually no it isn't
Baseball Legend
Who says Mauer's team didn't win (when it comes to the regular season)? If it wasn't mostly for him and everything he contributed to his team this season, there is no way his team would have made the playoffs. Jeter on the other hand, had a good season, along with Texiera, but the key point here, is there is a bunch of players on that team that did pretty well. Most of the time when one player really stands out in stats, as well as standing out on his team, to help contribute to getting to the playoffs, good chance they are more deserving to win the MVP.
Ready for Offseason rumors and trade talk!
Just for fun BBM10 roster:
http://www.sportsmogul.com/vbulletin...d.php?t=198599
Enjoy!
o
So, what's your point? That the voters don't always pick the right guy? Yep. True.
You can find a bunch of examples of times when they picked the "best player on the best team." I can find a bunch of examples of when they didn't. It never was "the best player on the best team." Sometimes it went that way. Other times, it went to the best player, regardless of team. And other times, it went to someone completely different.
Registered User
and to build on what schu said, mauer led a team to winning, without him, they are not in the playoffs....Without Jeter, the yankees are likely still in the playoffs with just a normal replacement level player.
As far as mvp voting is concerned, Jeter and Mauer's team did the exact same....doing well in the playoffs means nothing in mvp voting.
We could just as easily pull up numerous examples where the best player on the best team didn't win the mvp....1987 Andre Dawson, the Cubs were a last place team.....
No where has it been said that your team has to make the playoffs for you to be the mvp.
Not trying to pick on you, but your logic doesn't give Jeter any merit to the MVP over Mauer
GM 1970 & 1959 Yankees
Sometimes I think I must be typing in Greek. The point is that you said it has alway been about the "Most Valuable Player" The examples show that that definition has changed over time. In the beginning and through the 50's for sure, you had to be on a pennant winner to be considered "Most Valuable", there is no other concievable reason for any of the examples I gave you.
So sure you can find examples each way and most of the former examples are in the distant past, hence "old School", the others are more recent.
I happen to be old enough to remember when that definition changed to basicly the best offensive player in the league, offense in general being defined by homeruns and RBIs and to a lesser extent batting average and steals.
This is basic baseball history.
GM 1970 & 1959 Yankees
OK make the arguement.
Hail to the king, baby.
1B, bad defense/base runner, leads the league in triple crown numbers
.340/.360/.550, 40 HR, 140 RBI (Colorado Rockies - Coors Field)
second player
C, average defense & base runner
.277/.407/.450, 25 HR, 99 RBI (San Diego Padres - Petco Park)
If you're gonna tell me that the first basemen should win with terrible defense in a hitter friendly park over a catcher with average defense who plays half his games in Petco, you must be crazy.
Registered User
and has time has gone, we have realized that those stats are not the most valuable. Is Adam Dunn really valuable because he hits 40 homers each year for the last 6 years? Well some think so, but we can prove with sabrmetrics, that he isn't worth that much. He is a defensive liability, who also strike outs a ton. But since he hits a lot of home runs and drives in a lot of runs, is he say, more valuable then teammate Ryan Zimmerman?
Zimmerman is easily more valuable, yet doesn't hit nearly for the same power. The other thing helping Dunn is that he draws a lot of walks, but i am getting off topic.
Just because it is baseball history, doesn't mean it doesn't need to be changed. We have learned that defensive value is much more important than it was in the 50's. We have also learned how to better calculate fielding other than fielding percentage. These are tools that have allowed us to learn true worth. Another big one, is OPS, and OPS +...measuring slugging and on base percentage together into one number. For the example with Dunn. Since he gets on base at such a high percentage, and slugs at a high percentage, he is shown to have a pretty good offensive value. His OPS is a strong number each year, around the .900 range. That is well above average. But because of his defense, and his position, he is brought to a much lower level....as defined by his WAR (how many wins above a replacement player does he earn per year, offensively and defensively combined). So for this example, we have a guy that hits a lot of homers, he drives in a lot of runs, hits for a relatively low average, but still gets on base at a high clip.
The fact is, we have learned that it isn't just about being the homer and rbi champ....If you go 1 for 4 with a solo homer and strike out 3 times each game, and another player goes 2 for 4, doesn't drive in any runs, but hits a double and a triple....the second player's offensive day is more valuable. Especially if he was driven in, plays a harder position, and plays it well.
There is a reason player like Marcus Thames, Wily Mo Pena, Johnny Gomes etc aren't everyday major leaguers....because all they can do is hit homers....and can not do anything else.
We could pull up several examples in history of bad voting, and of voting that argues against you. But most valuable, doesn't necessarily mean the guy that had the best year on the best team in baseball...and it doesn't mean the guy that hit the most homers and drove in the most runs. (cough, Ryan Howard, cough cough)
Registered User
well, with just average defense by the catcher i might still take the coors guy
haha, but that is just ball park averages.....there is also more to the story
Hail to the king, baby.
That's fine if you want to still take the other guy, the point is you could make an argument and the triple crown stats are all pretty useless.well, with just average defense by the catcher i might still take the coors guy
BA < OBP
HR < SLG
RBI..uh..
Just because someone leads in 3 stats, especially those 3, doesn't make them the best player in the game. You could put up a .350/.300/.500, 37 HR, 120 RBI line and lead the league in all 3 triple crown numbers.
o
I never said that being the best player on the pennant winner isn't taken into consideration. It still is to this day. It's the only rationale for Ryan Howard managing to finish a close 2nd to Albert Pujols last year. But it was never solely given to the best player on the best team. Yes, sometimes it is, and maybe moreso in the past than today, but even in the past, it wasn't always the case, and that's all my point is.
There's a lot more to value than batting average, home runs, and RBI's. You can't just say "Make the argument" without reference to a specific case, though.
Let me go to your examples and put my pick for the MVP in those years when I did this exercise last year.
My pick was Carl Hubbell. He was phenomenal that year.1933 when Pitcher Carl Hubble of the Pennant winning Giants beat out Triple Crown winner Chuck Klein.
I think Gehrig and Williams deserved those. You're right. The "pennant" probably swayed the voters. This doesn't mean that that's what the award "was" at the time, though. Al Rosen 1953, Bob Elliot 1947, Ernie Lombardi 1938, Charlie Gehringer 1937, etc.1934 when Mickey Cochrane the Pennant winning Tigers catcher over Triple Crown winner Lou Gerhig.
Yep, I think Lou Gehrig deserved that.
1942 when Pennant winning Yankee 2nd Baseman Joe Gordon beat Triple Crown winner Ted Williams
1947 when Pennant winning Yankee Center fielder Joe Dimaggio beat Triple Crown Winner Ted Williams (again).
Your statement "In the beginning and through the 50's for sure, you had to be on a pennant winner to be considered "Most Valuable", there is no other concievable reason for any of the examples I gave you." is absolutely false, as there are a bunch of examples of players winning the MVP but not being on a pennant winner. There are conceivable reasons for some of your examples - Carl Hubbell, for one. As for the others, you're right, the pennant probably had to do with it, but that doesn't mean that was the rule and that you needed to win a pennant to win the award.
Mike Trout: 2013 AL MVP
And way back when, only one team from each league went to the playoffs. However, now 4 teams do, and Joe Mauer's Twins were one of them and they got there largely because of him. Teixeira and then Rodriguez/Jeter also had Cano, Swisher, Damon, Matsui, and Posada to lean on if they went into a slump. On the Twins there was Joe Mauer and then a long way down, despite decent to very good seasons, Jason Kubel, Justin Morneau, Michael Cuddyer and Denard Span.
Breaking down the teams by Batting Runs (Yes I know OldYankFan your eyes are glazing over with these new fangled [actually they've been around for about 40 years, having been first introduced by Pete Palmer in 1969] stats and all this number crunching, but try to stay with me, OK?), a system which assigns different weights to each offensive outcome, it becomes clear that Teixeira had tons of help, while Mauer had a season that put him head and shoulders above his mates (and in fact the rest of the AL):
Yanks:
Teixeira 45.1
A-Rod 32.8
Jeter 31.7
Cano 25.1
Swisher 24.9
Damon 21.3
Matsui 20.8
Posada 19.1
Twins:
Mauer 57.0
Kubel 27.5
Morneau 22.9
Cuddyer 18.4
Span 14.2
Hrm, so according to this counting stat, the 8th best hitter on the Yankees out-produced the 4th best hitter on the Twins, which would indicate a stacked lineup from top to bottom, except Cabrera/Gardner, and this stat says the Twins have 4 sinkholes in their lineup. It also demonstrates Mauer's value to the Twins, as he's head and shoulders above his mates.
Let's try Runs Created, another counting stat introduced by Bill James about 30 years ago with the same hitters:
Yanks:
Teixeira 135
Jeter 123
Cano 106
Damon 103
A-Rod 99
Swisher 97
Matsui 90
Posada 72
Twins:
Mauer 138
Span 101
Kubel 101
Cuddyer 99
Morneau 97
Hrm, a lot closer between Mauer and Teixeira, but Teixeira is helped out by 101 extra plate appearances, so it's not as close as it looks. The two lineups appear closer when using this stat, but really they're not that close at all. After Morneau, it drops off to Delmon Young at 45 and there are three more sinkholes after that, while Melky Cabrera comes through with a 67. It once again demonstrates a strong supporting cast around Teixeira and a not so strong one (much less stark than with Batting Runs, but still visible) around Mauer.
Now lets try a rate stat, which adjusts for home park: OPS+. It's a nice, neat, tidy way of ranking the hitters in any given season or across eras. 100 is an average hitter, above that is above average, below that is below average in On-Base + Slugging:
Yanks:
Teixeira 149
A-Rod 147
Posada 133
Jeter 132
Matsui 131
Swisher 129
Cano 129
Damon 126
Twins:
Mauer 170 (Filthy, sick, wicked, and nasty)
Kubel 136
Morneau 129
Cuddyer 124
Span 114
Once again with this stat, we see that the Yankees 8th best hitter is better on average than the Twins 4th best hitter, indicating that Teixeira had a lot of help and really doesn't stand out on his team. He is clearly their best hitter and he is also clearly the 2nd best hitter in the AL. Mauer on the other hand really stands out both on his team and against the rest of the league. Let's put it this way: in the pre-game pitcher/catcher/pitching coach strategy/scouting session, the plan of attack against the Twins would be: "Let's not let Mauer beat us". Against the Yankees, it would be: "Let's not let Tex, A-Rod, Jeter...oh f**k this, let's just try and get some outs."
So, let's review: We have the best hitter in the league by a mile on a team that made the playoffs, and on that team his supporting cast was nowhere near his level of proficiency, which is another way of saying "He carried them on his back" versus the 2nd best hitter in the league by a mile on a team that made the playoffs, on a team with an outstanding 1-8 lineup, the only breather being Cabrera, who's still basically an average hitter. Still don't believe me/us about Mauer? He won the "real" Triple Crown (Batting Average, On-Base Average, and Slugging Percentage), as did all four of the Triple Crown winners you cited in the above example. He also led in OPS (naturally), OPS+, meaning he was the best at "OPSing" once home ballpark factors were taken into account as well as a whole bunch of other "squinty" stat categories that I won't bore you with OldYankFan, all of which are more meaningful to a team's offense than HR, RBI, TB and XBH (the categories that Teixeira led in).
Don't get me wrong OYF, Teixeira had a great season while playing 1B. Mauer had a season for the ages (one of the best hitting seasons ever by a catcher), while playing the most physically and mentally demanding position on the diamond. Any other year probably Tex probably deserves to win, depending on the competition, but not this one. Tex may still win because those writers, they love them HR and RBI, but that doesn't mean he will deserve it. Remember the writers vote on the awards they vote on immediately after the regular season (HGM, I trust you to correct me if I'm wrong about this
Re: The four historical MVP examples you cited above, it is interesting to note that all four "undeserving" winners not only played for the pennant winning teams, but they also played up the middle of the diamond (a P, a C, a 2B, and a CF), while the four "deserving" guys who lost out all played corner positions (a RF, a 1B, and a LF twice). You know what they say about strength up the middle and it's importance to winning teams. Even if this is true, whoever voted for the awards back then really effed up in 1934, when they chose C Mickey Cochrane over 2B Charlie Gehringer on the pennant winning Tigers. Ugh! *Double Facepalm*
My Simulation Settings Widget
My 1901-2008 Simulation Settings (March 6, 2009 Update: Now runs through 1951)
"I think 'competing' is the key word in your phrase. The Rays are not competitive in the playoff race this year, nor do they seem to me to be on track to in the coming years." - LQ1Z34 on 08/23/11
"Bwahahahahahah! Don't count your chickens before they've hatched dude." - Me on 09/25/11
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." - Mark Twain
"Science exists, moreover, only as a journey toward truth. Stifle dissent and you end that journey." - John Charles Polanyi
o
You're right about that. Whether or not a team makes the playoffs, though, is taken into account by a good amount of the writers.Remember the writers vote on the awards they vote on immediately after the regular season (HGM, I trust you to correct me if I'm wrong about this ), so the fact the Yankees won the pennant and World Series has no impact on the voting.
As you said, back in the time period he's referring to, making the playoffs and winning the pennant were one and the same.
GM 1970 & 1959 Yankees
Of course there are a few examples of non pennant winners getting an MVP prior to 1950. But they are FEW. The trend diminished over time, but still in the 70's Thurman Munson,(who is my favorite player) Joe Morgan, and Fred Lynn, basiclly got the award because their team won.
In the 80's or 90's a great year by a man on a third place team was enough. During the Steroid era, the Homerun leader often won, we see names like Bonds, Sosa, Juan Gonzalez, and Giambi.
If you do a simple match of MVP's Team vs Pennant winning team you will see a very strong trend that has dwindled to a far less significant factor now.
o
Morgan and Lynn were both deserving on their own merits.
IThe home run leader often won because he was often the most valuable player, or, in the case of say, Juan Gonzalez, a love affair with RBIn the 80's or 90's a great year by a man on a third place team was enough. During the Steroid era, the Homerun leader often won, we see names like Bonds, Sosa, Juan Gonzalez, and Giambi.
Care to show us this? Also, if you're using "pennant winner" as the qualifer, yes, I agree, but that's because the MVP's are now voted on BEFORE the pennant is decided.If you do a simple match of MVP's Team vs Pennant winning team you will see a very strong trend that has dwindled to a far less significant factor now.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote