Today at 1 p.m., I'll have a live baseball chat about whatever it is that people might want to talk about. But I suspect a large part of it will be some MVP talk. I've got to make my American League MVP choices today, and even though I have my list of 10 pretty well done, I'm going to take until the deadline before sending it in. This is the toughest vote I can remember for reasons I'll give you in a minute.
There were two MVP thoughts that I came across this week that have had some impact on my thoughts. One, I have hesitated to mention because it might come across wrong. But I will mention it. My colleague and friend Tom Verducci offered up his MVP picks this week, and perhaps his most controversial decision was to choose Boston's Jacoby Ellsbury as a provisional. That is to say, he picked Ellsbury if, and only if, the Red Sox make the playoffs. I don't see the MVP that way at all, as I've written, but Tom is certainly not the only writer who sees the MVP Award more as a power of narrative award than as an individual award
No, it was something else that Tom wrote that really interested me. Look:
This (Ellsbury) vote is not final. If Boston does not make the postseason, there is no sense in handing the MVP to a someone on the team that just staged the greatest September choke in the history of the sport. It would be like handing out Best Actor or Actress awards to anyone in Gigli.
The last sentence really struck me. Thing is, I took exactly the opposite take of it as Tom. People win Oscars for so-so and even bad movies ALL THE TIME. People involved in the the incredibly crappy "Pearl Harbor" won an Oscar (sound editing), so did people from the absurd "Independence Day" (best visual effects), the ridiculous "The Wolfman" (best makeup), and the utterly unwatchable "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" (makeup) which should have resulted in indictments not awards.
It is true for acting too. Ray wasn't that great a movie -- Jamie Foxx was great in it, but the movie itself I thought dragged a whole lot. So did Capote -- again, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, great, movie, not so much. Erin Brockovich was like a made-for-TV movie, but Julia Roberts was really good in it. Reversal of Fortune, Boys Don't Cry, Walk The Line, Harry and Tonto, Norma Rae, I could go on and on, none of these movies were any better than the Red Sox are this year, but all of them had transcendent performances, and those people won Oscars. Probably the best example I can give is Training Day. I think Training Day was absolutely the Boston Red Sox of movies. It had great promise. It had magnificent moments, especially early in the movie. It ended horribly -- the last 15 or 20 minutes of that movie were, to me, awful. And Denzel Washington won the Oscar.
The point should be obvious -- one person in a movie can only do so much. Gigli isn't a good example because the performances were terrible -- in fact the performances were one of the reasons the movie was legendarily bad. But great performances in bad movies should still get Oscar consideration, I think most people would agree with that, best we can judge it. It's not the ACTOR'S fault if the script stunk. And if we're giving out individual awards like the MVP, it seems to me that we should judge baseball players on their own merit.*
*One other point: Tom said that even if Bautista hits 10 more home runs, Ellsbury still leads in total bases. This is true -- Ellsbury has 363 total bases, Bautista 312. However, it might be worth pointing out that walks, for reasons that make little-to-no sense, don't count toward total bases. And if you count walks (and hits by pitches too), then Ellsbury could hit eight more triples and still not catch Bautista. This is not a knock on the point as much as it is a knock on "total bases" as a statistic.
How do we separate a player's own merit from his team's? Well, that leads to the second point I ran across, and it comes from Friend of Blog Tom Tango, who by the way has started the Fans Scouting Report again and I would certainly ask you to go over there and fill out a few scouting reports. It's a blast and a great exercise that I think offers some great insight into the game.
Anyway, Tom has a little different take on the MVP. His feeling is that if you put everyone from 2011 into a draft, the No. 1 player selected should be the MVP. Now, we're talking about a real draft here -- not a fantasy league draft. I suspect many readers here have played Strat-o-Matic or APBA baseball or something like that. So imagine every season from 2011 was available in card form. But include all you want -- leadership, hustle, whatever qualities you want. You can't game the system -- can't start Justin Verlander more times than he started, can't put just Jose Bautista in center field, can't do any of that stuff. You only have their 2011 season. Who would you take first in the draft? Who would you build your team around.
This doesn't necessarily make the choice any easier, but it does give the choice a lot more context. For instance, Curtis Granderson leads the American League in runs scored and RBIs. He's having a fabulous year. BUT … if you took him first in the draft, could you count on him to lead the league in runs and RBIs for YOUR team with YOUR lineup around him? His on-base percentage is eighty points behind Bautista. His slugging percentage is almost 50 points behind. Would you take Granderson ahead of Bautista? I'm not saying that's the wrong answer. Maybe because of defense you would. Maybe you think Granderson would hold up under pressure better. Maybe you think Bautista's on-base percentage would drop since he has been intentionally walked a league-leading 24 times and that wouldn't happen with your team.
Like I say, this doesn't make the choice any easier, but I think it does remove some of the excess noise and give the choice clarity. I think this is the toughest vote I can remember because of Verlander. He has had a marvelous season, but there are two issues of excess noise:
1. How do you compare a starting pitcher to an every day player with value?
2. How good a season is Verlander really having?
The first question is a very tough one, especially in today's age where starters so rarely finish games. Lots of people have been talking about it. But it's the second question that is really trying on the soul. It's so popular to say that Verlander's season is quantifiably different from starting pitchers the last 25 years (none off them won an MVP award). And I am certainly not trying to downplay the greatness of Verlander's season. I'm a huge fan. But is this year really all that much better than a good Cy Young Award season? I'm not so sure. It seems to me that in many ways we are all falling in exactly the same trap that we supposedly dismantled last year when Felix Hernandez won the Cy Young with only 13 wins. It seems to me that much of the Verlander hype comes from his shiny-looking 24-5 record.
And I'm not diving into deep-sea pitching statistics to make that point. Verlander's other basic stats -- his 2.40 ERA, his 250 strikeouts, even his sparkling .920 WHIP -- are not out of line with what the best pitcher in each league tends to do. The average ERA+ for Cy Young winners in the American League the last five years is 170. Verlander's ERA+ this year: 170.
Johan Santana in 2004 won 20, led the league in strikeouts and ERA and had a .921 WHIP -- and that was in a much higher scoring run context. He didn't get a single first-place MVP vote. Randy Johnson, that same year, had a better ERA+ than Verlander, more strikeouts, a lower WHIP (.900) and he didn't even win the Cy Young, much less the MVP (yep, there was that 16-14 record). Pedro in 2002 had almost the exact same year that Verlander is having, though admittedly with 50 fewer innings, and he didn't win the Cy Young. Pedro in 2000 had a year for the ages, a year that even trumps Verlander's (1.74 ERA, 5.3 hits per nine, .737 WHIP) and he did not get a single MVP vote.
Fangraphs has Verlander well behind Roy Halliday in WAR and tied with C.C. Sabathia for the lead in WAR among American League pitchers. This generally leads people to say that Fangraphs doesn't know what the heck it's talking about. But they build this statistic around the fact that Verlander's Batting Average on Balls In Play is stupefyingly low (.236) and that is at least in part due to luck and Tigers' defense.
Whether you buy into that or not, ask yourself this question: Would Verlander be a leading MVP candidate if his record was 19-5? Would he be a leading MVP candidate if you adjust his record just slightly, so it was 23-7?* I don't know. I really don't know.
*I don't bring up these records loosely. The Tigers' record when Verlander starts is 25-9, which is superb. But it's not unprecedented, not even close. In 2009, Felix Hernandez went 19-5 for the Mariners, but the Mariners actually went 25-9 when he pitched. He got one 10th place MVP vote. In 2002, Curt Schilling went 23-7 for the Diamondbacks. But the Diamondbacks went 27-9 for Curt Schilling. See what I mean? Barry Zito's A's in 2002 went 28-7 when he started. In 2001 the Cubs went 24-10 when Jon Lieber pitched. And so on.
This does not mean that Verlander is not high on my list -- he actually is VERY high on my list, one of several serious candidates I have for my MVP vote. I think this year is just so close, four or five players are having true MVP seasons. But I also think that Tom Tango has a very good way of looking at it. If you had the first pick in the draft, which season would you take? Bautista? Verlander? Cabrera? Ellsbury? Gonzalez? Granderson? Cano? Young?
Come around at 1 p.m. and we can talk a bit more about it.
I've been having so many barstool arguments about MVP voting with friends, and had a really hard time getting across what I thought of as "valuable" (especially when some of my older-school friends would bring up the widespread and mysterious has-to-play-for-a-playoff-team rule). But Tango's scenario of drafting one player's season for your team is brilliant, and it will definitely be the example I bust out from now on. It really cuts through the mental clutter of trying to evaluate an individual player's role. This blog always helps me see baseball more clearly - thanks Joe (and Tom, whose blog is also great).
ReplyDeleteI've always loved Tom Verducci's work--in my opinion, he's one of the best sportswriters out there if you look purely at the quality of his writing--but rarely have I read anything written by him based on such egregiously bad logic and that I disagree so strongly with. If anybody else wrote that, I'd call him an idiot.
ReplyDeleteThe Red Sox have one game left in the regular season. I'm secretly hoping, deep down inside, that Ellsbury goes 4-for-5 with a home run, two doubles, and a stolen base and makes a diving catch at the CF wall or something... in a heartbreaking Red Sox loss, and the Rays win and clinch the AL wild card.
This is, of course, JUST to prove how STUPID it is to evaluate a player's MVP candidacy by their team's performance. If a player plays brilliantly but his pitching staff gives up gopherballs like there's no tomorrow and the rest of the lineup is anemic, why should he be held responsible? If a player isn't quite as productive as somebody else on another team but plays on a stacked team that comfortably makes the playoffs, why should he be given extra credit for his great teammates? And I say this as someone who LIKES the Red Sox (though I don't have a strong vested interest).
The 2007 New York Mets, with their epic 5-12 collapse to finish the season and miss the playoffs, had some kid playing third base named David Wright. He batted .352/.432/.602 with 6 homers and 20 RBI in September. And I suppose we should hold him responsible, too?
1PM Eastern, I presume?
ReplyDeleteI gotta go with Granderson. He is a very productive player at the plate and he separates himself from the pack with his value on defense.
ReplyDelete1. I think the Oscar analogy is helpful in the way that it is disanalagous. A major difference between the cast and crew of a movie and the roster of a baseball team is that the team is engaged in competition with other teams, but movies aren't competing with other movies in the same way. That is, movies compete, but they compete for popularity. Gone with the Wind will never be called upon to defeat Casablanca, and we will never worry that Bacall won't be able to come through in the clutch when facing Vivian Leigh.The point is, that because baseball teams compete against one another, each of the players is rightfully judged not just on their individual performance, but also on whether or not the team wins. It isn't okay to go 3 for 4 if the out came in the bottom of the ninth when you struck out ugly because you were swinging for the fences when your team only needed a ground out for the win.
ReplyDelete2. The draft idea is intriguing, but I think that a possible problem is that it would tend to weigh not just the quality of the player but the rarity of that sort of player compared to others. Maybe this wouldn't matter for the top pick, but certainly most teams would draft a catcher with power, a decent obp and solid defense over just about any right fielder.
3. I think the best argument for Verlander as MVP is that the field is pretty weak this year. There isn't a position player you could point to and say, 'that guy got robbed!'
4. That said, I've had the good fortune to spend this baseball season unemployed in Michigan so I've been able to watch just about every Tiger's game this season. Verlander is great, no question, but national perceptions of his season are skewed by the media coverage he received during May and June. Verlander was truly dominant during that stretch and he keeps piling up victories, but he has had four rough outings in the second half and he was awful early in the season (that early May no-hitter brought his record to 3-3). The fact of the matter is that Doug Fister has been the Tigers best pitcher since he was acquired.
"Gone with the Wind will never be called upon to defeat Casablanca, and we will never worry that Bacall won't be able to come through in the clutch when facing Vivian Leigh."
ReplyDeleteI understand how you could make the mistake but it was Ingrid Bergman, not Bacall. And Bacall's WAR was like 5, while Bergman's is closer to 10. I mean, Bergman was OPS-ing around 1.300! Really no comparison.
Wait, what were we talking about?
By the way, Joe, you left off two of my favorite baseball movies: "The Life and Times of Hank Greenberg," and "61*." Just thought I should mention it.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't reach the height of idiocy that the Heisman Trophy race grows to each college football season, but I get more than a bit turned off by the actual promoting of a certain MLB player over another by pundits - especially many of the talking heads on MLB Network or ESPN. This stuff starts before the All-Star break now! I sometimes wonder if these on-air guys (and gals) aren't told by a producer of the show to pick this guy for your MVP choice and I'll have your partner pick another candidate so you can play off one another on the set: "It makes for good television."
ReplyDeleteMaybe this has been going on for decades in print but it's been more parochial so it hasn't been as objectionable to me. Obviously, the writer in Boston is more likely to see and like a certain Boston player or at least an east coast player that he sees more often.
It doesn't matter one iota to me who is finally chosen for these awards so why do I still care enough to post a comment? Better than real work, I guess...
I've often thought of the MVP sorta like Tom Tango. I really like that analogy. It still is a decision. It still is subjective. But that's part of the fun.
ReplyDeleteThanks for another good read Joe.
dr - I have to disagree with your point #3. I think there are several position players who have had strong MVP-worthy years - Granderson, Ellsbury, Bautista, Cano. It's just that no one of them is head and shoulders ahead of the others to make the choice easy. To me, that does not make Verlander's case any more attractive. He's just another player to consider. The hard part is evaluating his criteria against the others'.
ReplyDeleteSeeing Verducci's top 8 in the AL MVP vote made up of only 4 different teams, with Boston having 3, NY and Det having 2, and Toronto only having 1, pretty much solidifies it as Bautista for me. Bautista IS the Blue Jays offence, while the other teams have more than one weapon at their disposal. If a reasonable case can be made that you're not even the MVP of your own team, I don't see how you should be crowned MVP of the league.
ReplyDeleteUnit '95: 27-3.
ReplyDeleteJoe, it's not fair to denigrate Verlander's chances just because great pitchers were snubbed in the past. Think about it with Bautista: Just because players on losing teams haven't gotten MVP votes in the past doesn't mean Bautista doesn't deserve to be considered as an MVP candidate. Should many pitchers in the past (Perdo, Schilling, Santana, etc.) have gotten consideration? Of course they should have. But to shoot down Verlander's case because they didn't will only continue the line of mistakes that led to Pudge in '99 and Morneau in '06.
ReplyDeleteThe MVP, in my opinion, is Bautista, but let's get in the minds of the voters. None of these guys are on steroids, but voting is going to come down to who is doing the most fake steroids. Therefore, to baseball writers:
ReplyDelete4. Jacoby Ellsbury. There is not a shred of proof that he is on PEDs. But during their championship run, everyone else on the Sox were injecting themselves with any fluid they could find. So that means it's the culture there, and Jacoby should pay for writers not seeing it earlier.
Odds Of Steroid Use: 1,000,000%, 4th place.
3. Jose Bautista: You just gotta ask the question! It was also proven by ESPN.com that a mysterious "man in white" was able to fire steroid darts into Jose's neck during play last year after certain pitches were released from the pitcher's hands. Clearly on steroids, but most writers aren't sure if they are legal in Canada or not, so he may get some slight benefit.
Odds of Steroid Use: 4,000%, 3rd place.
2. Curtis Granderson. They can't punish A-Rod for his steroid use here, but what we saw with Bagwell being denied is that a different guy on the same team is good enough. (Bagwell the one being punished for Ken Caminiti.) Sorry, Curtis.
Odds of Steroid Use: 1,000%, 2nd Place
1. Justin Verlander. Nobody cares about steroid use on a team that lost 170 games in a season like the Tigers did a few years back. Could be punished for Miguel Cabrera's behavior, but 1) Cabrera will be punished in this vote for Cabrera, and 2) Scotch? NOT A STEROID. 25 wins is a big middle finger to last year's AL CY vote and, don't ask the voters how, Moneyball as written by Billy Beane.
Odds of Steroids Use: 0%, 1st Place
@dr:
ReplyDelete"2. The draft idea is intriguing, but I think that a possible problem is that it would tend to weigh not just the quality of the player but the rarity of that sort of player compared to others. Maybe this wouldn't matter for the top pick, but certainly most teams would draft a catcher with power, a decent obp and solid defense over just about any right fielder."
This is, to me, exactly why it makes so much sense to use the draft analogy. The rarity of a player *should* increase their value. A Buster Posey, or a healthy Joe Mauer, if putting up numbers as good as an above average outfielder, should be high on the list of MVP candidates because they are so much more valuable than others at their position.
@dr:
ReplyDelete"2. The draft idea is intriguing, but I think that a possible problem is that it would tend to weigh not just the quality of the player but the rarity of that sort of player compared to others. Maybe this wouldn't matter for the top pick, but certainly most teams would draft a catcher with power, a decent obp and solid defense over just about any right fielder."
This is, to me, exactly why it makes so much sense to use the draft analogy. The rarity of a player *should* increase their value. A Buster Posey, or a healthy Joe Mauer, if putting up numbers as good as an above average outfielder, should be high on the list of MVP candidates because they are so much more valuable than others at their position.
@dr:
ReplyDelete"2. The draft idea is intriguing, but I think that a possible problem is that it would tend to weigh not just the quality of the player but the rarity of that sort of player compared to others. Maybe this wouldn't matter for the top pick, but certainly most teams would draft a catcher with power, a decent obp and solid defense over just about any right fielder."
This is, to me, exactly why it makes so much sense to use the draft analogy. The rarity of a player *should* increase their value. A Buster Posey, or a healthy Joe Mauer, if putting up numbers as good as an above average outfielder, should be high on the list of MVP candidates because they are so much more valuable than others at their position.
dr - Sorry to gang up on you, but I must take issue with your Point # 1. For one thing, movies DO compete for Academy Awards, which in theory are based on quality, not on popularity. More fundamentally, though, your statement that "because baseball teams compete against one another, each of the players is rightfully judged not just on their individual performance, but also on whether or not the team wins" seems to ignore everything that has been discussed here. Why SHOULD a player who does everything in his power to help his team win be punished because his teammates failed? And finally, your example about the guy “striking out ugly” falls flat because (ignoring the fact that MVP votes aren’t, or shouldn’t, be based on one at bat in one game) your argument is that a player must be judged on whether his team wins REGARDLESS of his individual performance – you can’t make that case by positing a player who fails individually.
ReplyDelete@Sam,
ReplyDeleteI don't think Pos was denigrating Verlander's at all. He was simply saying that a) Pitchers rarely win MVP these days, which is entirely true, and that b) The perception of Verlander's season may be skewed due to his won lost record, and upon closer inspection may not be much better than a typical Cy Young season.
Pos then wrote "This does not mean that Verlander is not high on my list -- he actually is VERY high on my list, one of several serious candidates I have for my MVP vote."
Clearly Pos is considering Verlander for his vote and may well vote for him. Are you arguing that when commenting on the MVP process, he should pretend that starting pitchers have problems winning them these days?
As a serious Strat-O-Matic player, I figured I'd answer Joe's question about where these guys would go in a draft. Actually, a draft just like that happens 50+ times a year and you can see the results from last year and prior seasons at www.startournaments.com. As for 2011, I don't think Bautista would go #1 if you were playing a 162-game season and were limited to playing him 25 games at 3B, with the rest of the time at RF. While Bautista will have the best hitting card, there are other great hitting RFs available (like Berkman and Upton), and Bautista's defense and arm won't be stellar, at least in Strat-O-Matic.
ReplyDeleteI think three of the top 5 choices would certainly be Tulowitzki, Pedroia, and Cano -- all three play premium positions where the dropoff between the top couple of choices and everyone else is huge. As for Ellsbury and Kemp, whether they go #1 overall would depend on how Strat-O-Matic defined their defensive rating. If they were given a 1 (highest rating), they'd go #1 or #2 overall. Cabrera won't even be in the running, as a right-handed first baseman with poor defense. Gonzalez will go higher, but there are a lot of good available first basemen, so he probably won't be top-5. Granderson will likely be hurt by the ballpark adjustment, and he is not likely to get a 1 on defense, so he won't go #1 overall, but maybe top-5. As for Verlander, it depends on how Strat-O-Matic rates the defense behind him. If they rate it as poorly as I think it is, he has a shot to be top-3, but most likely he'll go somewhere in the 5 to 10 range. It's hard for a starting pitcher to go #1 overall, since he can only start every 4th game at most.
So what does this mean for your MVP vote? Bautista is not the lock he seems from B-R WAR, Pedroia/Cano may be underrated, and whether Ellsbury is the MVP depends on how you value his defense. If you think he's an elite defender, he's probably the choice. (And no, I'm not a Red Sox fan or care much who wins.) Personally, I think this is a fun exercise but is probably of little value to anyone who isn't planning to play in a Strat-O-Matic league next year.
I forgot to discuss Young, who Joe mentioned. I don't think Young will do well in a Strat-O-Matic redraft unless his defensive rating greatly improved, which I don't see happening. He's very much the odd man out of that group.
ReplyDeleteThe best Ranger in a Strat-O-Matic draft would likely be Napoli, who should have a monster card at catcher next year. Another guy who should have a really great card is Reyes. Tulo will may have a better card (due to defensive rating) but Reyes's card will be excellent.
A(oM)CS - That baseball teams compete for victories is an essential quality; that (some) movies compete for Oscars is an accidental quality. A player is penalized for the failures of his teammates because baseball is a team sport; removing the penalty from MVP voting is the step that requires justification, not the other way around. And finally, your discussion of the example is so completely confused that I just don't know how to address it.
ReplyDelete"It's not the ACTORS fault the script stunk"
ReplyDelete...well, no, but it IS the actors fault they chose to be in a movie with a bad script. Of course, most baseball players don't get to choose their teams. That should settle it: great season on bad team = mvp, unless player chose to sign with bad team as a free agent.
nitpick...
ReplyDeletedo you think you could make the font smaller. I don't know why, the font with this new look is hard on the eyes. The simpler version of this blog was perfect, in my opinion.
dr, baseball is a team sport, but the MVP is an individual award. You are the person giving a bonus to players on winning teams; it's on you to justify that.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand your analogy in your original #1. Are you positing that one game as a microcosm of a season? If so, it sounds like you are saying that good players on bad teams somehow cause their teams to lose through selfish, personal stat-driven play. If you are NOT using that one 3-4 2B, HR game as a microcosm, then you seem to be stating that MVP voters shouldn't vote for this guy based on one game. This also makes no sense to me. A little help?
@adam: I just don't see what the point is in bringing it up then. Why would the quality of Verlander's season be skewed by W-L when he leads the league in any pitching category that's important. He's having an amazing season. I don't really see why past pitchers are relevant to his case.
ReplyDeleteNo one said the quality of his season was skewed by his W-L. It's the PERCEPTION of the quality of his season. If he had pitched exactly the same as he did but the Tigers scored less runs and he went 20-9, do you think he'd have the same chance of winning MVP?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, that's somewhat off topic from what I was trying to say. You wrote "Joe, it's not fair to denigrate Verlander's chances just because great pitchers were snubbed in the past." Well, why wouldn't his chances be lower? It's very difficult for pitchers to win MVP these days. That's a fact. Maddux and Johnson couldn't do it in '95. Gooden in '84. Pedro in '99. It's not a knock on Verlander to state that. It applies to Bautista as well; it's hard for players on losing teams to win MVP. It's not a knock on the quality of his season to say that out loud. It is also not "denigrating" to investigate whether Verlander's season is that much better than a typical Cy Young season. It's relevant because I think most people would agree that an "average" Cy winner probably doesn't deserve MVP as well.
I agree that the records of other pitchers in prior years are not particularly relevant, because I don't think pitcher W-L in a single season means very much. Though I do have fond memories of what Ebessan pointed out: the M's going 27-3 in '95 when the Unit pitched (his own record was 18-2).
ok, so I'm jumping around a bit. Here's what I believe:
1. Verlander is having a terrific season.
2. Verlander should be in the MVP discussion.
3. Verlander's season is better than a typical Cy Young winner's.
4. Verlander's season is not historic.
5. Verlander's chances ARE lower, because many MVP voters won't vote for pitchers, especially starting pitchers.
6. Pos is not denigrating Verlander's season by pointing these things out.
7. Pos is taking Verlander's candidacy very seriously.
8. Pos has stated that he will vote for whomever he believes has been the best player in the league. If he determines that's Verlander he will vote for him, regardless of prior MVP votes.
9. I don't see how Pos is being unfair to Verlander.
@Sam, we may be talking about two different things. I think the argument for Verlander getting the Cy Young does not depend on W-L. As you say, he's having an amazing season; he'll almost certainly win it, and deserves to win it.
ReplyDeleteThe other argument is whether his season is MVP-worthy. Joe takes the position that Verlander's underlying stats are not significantly better than pitchers from the recent past, who did not receive MVP consideration. Thus, the only reason he's really in the discussion for MVP is the W-L record.
Whether this is appropriate is still another argument!
I haven't seen a convincing argument yet that says Justin Verlander is not the MVP. On the other hand, I haven't seen a convincing argument that he IS the MVP.
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line is it doesn't matter if pitchers with similar numbers in previous years didn't win the MVP, because in those previous years there was probably a viable non-pitcher MVP candidate. For example, in 2004 when Randy Johnson didn't win the NL MVP, Barry Bonds (.362/.609/.812) did win it.
I guess we can totally rule out Carl Crawford?! Him not making that catch in shallow left at Camden Yards this evening sort of reminded me of Barry Bonds not making a strong, accurate throw from left 19 years ago in Atlanta in his final play ever as a Pirate. Do Bostonians fans wish this was his final play as a Red Sox? Obviously, not likely with that ridiculously bloated contract.
ReplyDeleteTampa Bay Rays Moneyball beats Boston Red Sox Money
"The bottom line is it doesn't matter if pitchers with similar numbers in previous years didn't win the MVP, because in those previous years there was probably a viable non-pitcher MVP candidate. For example, in 2004 when Randy Johnson didn't win the NL MVP, Barry Bonds (.362/.609/.812) did win it. "
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of viable non-pitcher MVP candidates this year.
I think in order for a pitcher to win the MVP, he clearly has to be having a much better season than the best hitter, and perhaps a historic season. Verlander is not doing that this year. His season performance is very similar to Felix in 2010, and not as good as Zack in 2009. His ERA+ of 171 is lower than Bautista's OPS+ of 184. Why he is getting 1st place MVP consideration is beyond me. He is a clear CY winner this year and is my favorite pitcher, so I have nothing against him, he is just not the MVP. Oh, he deserves a vote on the list, perhaps even a third place vote but not a first. It could be debated that he would finish second on his own team. (to Miguel Cabrera)
ReplyDeleteIn 2000 Pedro had the best year any of us will ever see by a starter. His ERA+ of 291 obliterated Giambi's 198 OPS+. Now that's a year to vote a pitcher first, and he still finished 5th.
It seems to me that Bautista is getting an awful lot of credit for the gaudy numbers he posted in the first three months of the season. I’m not knocking him, he’s a great player. But Toronto played a large portion of its games in the early months against teams outside the division. Once the Blue Jays began playing the Yankees, Red Sox, Rays and even the Orioles, his numbers began a steady slide downward.
ReplyDeleteSince July 1 you could argue that Jeter has performed just as well. In fact, in September, they have the same number of extra base hits (6). Granderson, too, has slumped of late, with just nine extra base hits in September.
Meanwhile, Ellsbury has as many doubles and triples in September alone as Bautista had in the final three months of the season and has eight homers during the month. Comparing the stats for Bautista, Ellsbury and Granderson for the final three months shows that it’s not really very close. Ellsbury has more doubles (24, 15 for Granderson, 11 for Bautista), more triples (5, 3, 1) and more homers (23, 20, 19). Bautista has a slightly higher OBP mostly because teams are willing to put him on base and don’t want to do that with Ellsbury. In addition, Ellsbury is a superior fielder.
While a player should have a complete season, I think there is a lot of merit in looking at how he performs against the top teams and when his team really needs him. For the last few weeks, Ellsbury has been filling that role nicely. I don’t think there’s much need for discussion that Ellsbury should be the MVP.
And you have no idea how much it pains me to have written this as a diehard Yankee fan.
adam,
ReplyDelete"There are plenty of viable non-pitcher MVP candidates this year."
Right. I'm not saying Verlander deserves the award, I'm just saying that if he wins it's because none of the other MVP candidates blew him out of the water, like Bonds did to Randy Johnson.
@Gary,
ReplyDeleteIt's an interesting statistical question to wonder which type of player is more valuable to a team between two plays who put up the same numbers but one is great for half the season and mediocre the other half, while the other one is consistently very good throughout. I wonder if that's been studied. (not considering the quality of competition, you'd have to normalize for that first).
I do remember reading that someone studied something similar for pitchers - not split between halves but rather starts: what's better, a mix of great and average starts, or a whole bunch of very good starts. Supposedly the conclusion was the inconsistent pitcher was slightly better. I never saw the actual study.
I don't understand the argument, "Well, his second half numbers faded, so he's less deserving." The award is for the whole year. If a player's year-end totals beat everyone else's, who cares if he racked them up in April-June, or July-September?
ReplyDeletedr's whole "what if a player goes 3-for-4 and chokes in the last at-bat" analogy goes against my own personal feelings (I won't go so far as to say it's empirically wrong, but I disagree with the logic).
ReplyDeleteWhat if the player's first three hits were the only reason his team's in the game in the first place? What if he goes 3-for-4 with a homer in the ninth but that doesn't matter because his team's down by a few? What if he goes 4-for-4 with four home runs but the rest of his team spits the bit so they lose 12-4? Should he have gone to the plate more often, perhaps in zany disguises so no one knew it was him? Should he have "inspired" his teammates to hit and pitch better because, obviously, a real MVP *reminds* his teammates not to suck and then they magically don't suck even if they're actually kind of sucky players?
For all the people who argue it's the "Most VALUABLE Player Award" and a player can't be VALUABLE if his team doesn't make the playoffs, I'd like to counter that it's the "Most Valuable PLAYER Award" which, to my mind, means a player shouldn't be evaluated based on whether he's surrounded by all-stars or scrubs.
A comment by the announcers before last night's Red Sox/Rays game about Ellsbury confirmed for me Verlander should be the MVP. They pointed out while the Sox have been tanking, Ellsbury has been playing quite well (high avg, OPS, etc). My thought was, "That's great. And where did that MVP's play get the Sox?"
ReplyDeleteIf the Red Sox had Verlander, they'd be in the playoffs. There would not have been this September cratering, b/c Verlander would have had six starts and at a bare minimum, won four of them and likely at least five. No way would the Sox have then won only seven total games in September.
The national media doesn't seem to have picked up on this, but in mid-summer, when the Tigers were in first place by a game or three, there was a palpable feeling of disbelief in them, b/c Leyland's teams had performed so poorly in the 2nd half over the last few years. Every Tigers fan was waiting for the next shoe to drop. But they never went in a tail spin, b/c Verlander would come out every 5th day and just win. It was an incredible relief to know, even if the Tigers lost two or three games in a row, it very likely wasn't going to be three or four b/c Verlander was next on the bump. Think how "valuable" that would have been to the Sox (or the Braves).
If Ellsbury or Batista were having ridiculous (instead of merely great) statistical seasons, I could still see giving them the MVP. But with Verlander also having a great statistical season, his "value" was proven to be much higher than either of those hitters. He should win.
Rob is right.
ReplyDeleteSince we're doing movies (a bad argument all around, since the MVP is not equivalent to just any Oscar, and the Oscars process is nothing to hold up as an example of rationality), remember "For Love of the Game"? That scene where Kevin Costner's catcher tells him, "We don't stink right now. We'll be awesome for you" is pretty much what Verlander did for the Tigers. When he went on his streak, so did they. He got them used to winning games after a so-so start, and it just snowballed.
I've had Tango's MVP hypothetical in mind for a while, but here's another. How do we assign value in America? Money. If we created Instant Free Agency and owners could "buy" a player as he performed in 2011, I'm pretty sure the bidding on Justin Verlander would outpace everyone else.
Rob, Rob, Rob. What the heck is Ellsbury supposed to do? Is it his fault that Youkilis is hurt and Beckett and Lester suddenly forgot how to get outs? While his team was tanking, Ellsbury raised his game to a new level. That sounds like an MVP to me. It's just that the other players on the roster collectively played so badly that his excellent play wasn't QUITE enough.
ReplyDeleteLet's look at your argument in reverse. What if the Tigers had Ellsbury instead of Verlander? They'd take a substantial hit pitching-wise, sure, but Ellsbury would be a huge upgrade in center field. Considering they wound up running away with their division, I doubt the Tigers would've missed the playoffs without their MVP.
People calling Bautista out on the early season schedule should look again, there were multiple series against the yanks, red sox, tigers, rays
ReplyDeleteBautista against .500(+) teams: .287/.440/.601.
ReplyDeleteBautista against sub-.500 teams: .318/.455/.616.
Basically irrelevant.
If Verlander was 23-7, he'd probably still get roughly the same consideration. But 19-5? No. And I think Joe is right. Last year a lot of people puffed their chests and bragged about how they've moved past wins and voted for Felix for Cy Young...and a lot of those same people are touting Verlander mainly based on his 24 wins and 5 losses. His other stats are spectacular. For me, he's easily the Cy Young. But MVP? For me, he's not. For a pitcher to win MVP, I think he really has to have this incredible, historic year, and preferably there wouldn't be any great everyday players. And neither applies this year. I think there are three great everyday candidates, if not four (Bautista, Granderson, Ellsbury, Cabrera), and Verlander's year is great but, take away win/loss record and it's not historic by any stretch.
ReplyDeleteI think a lot of the Verlander arguments are flawed. "They'd never have won without him!". Really? Because the Tigers won their division by FIFTEEN GAMES. They've got the biggest lead of any division winner. Even Philly "only" has a 13 game lead. Now I don't think Verlander should get less of a look because his team ran away with it, but to suggest he's the one and only reason they won, I think that's absolutely incorrect.
I also keep hearing "Well, look at his post All Star Break numbers, when the Tigers really took off!". Okay, let's play a game.
Player A: 12-1, 2.79 ERA, 0.990 WHIP, 3.96 SO/BB
Player B: 12-1, 2.11 ERA, 1.004 WHIP, 4.38 SO/BB
Player A is Justin Verlander post ASB (actually a higher ERA and WHIP with a worse SO/BB rate post ASB, although still spectacular in all numbers). Player B? Ian Kennedy, ace of the surprising Diamondbacks. Why aren't we hearing tons of support for "Ian Kennedy for MVP!"? He probably won't even place 3rd in the Cy Young (nor should he). Obviously you cannot and should not ignore the first half of the season, where Kennedy was good but not great and Verlander was insanely good. But again, I'm pointing out flaws in the pro Verlander arguments.
I dunno, I just don't quite get all the support for it. If there weren't any strong candidates I could understand, but this might be the strongest group of MVP candidates I've seen in awhile. This is the first time in a long time where I can honestly say there are 4-5 different people that, if they won, I wouldn't think it was a bad choice.
If Bautista were on a playoff team, there wouldn't be much of a debate about the AL MVP at all. There'd be a great race for 2nd place though.
ReplyDeleteBest. Post. Ever.
ReplyDeleteSeptember 28, 2011 1:14 PM
Ice Cream Jonsey said...
The MVP, in my opinion, is Bautista, but let's get in the minds of the voters. None of these guys are on steroids, but voting is going to come down to who is doing the most fake steroids. Therefore, to baseball writers:
4. Jacoby Ellsbury. There is not a shred of proof that he is on PEDs. But during their championship run, everyone else on the Sox were injecting themselves with any fluid they could find. So that means it's the culture there, and Jacoby should pay for writers not seeing it earlier.
Odds Of Steroid Use: 1,000,000%, 4th place.
3. Jose Bautista: You just gotta ask the question! It was also proven by ESPN.com that a mysterious "man in white" was able to fire steroid darts into Jose's neck during play last year after certain pitches were released from the pitcher's hands. Clearly on steroids, but most writers aren't sure if they are legal in Canada or not, so he may get some slight benefit.
Odds of Steroid Use: 4,000%, 3rd place.
2. Curtis Granderson. They can't punish A-Rod for his steroid use here, but what we saw with Bagwell being denied is that a different guy on the same team is good enough. (Bagwell the one being punished for Ken Caminiti.) Sorry, Curtis.
Odds of Steroid Use: 1,000%, 2nd Place
1. Justin Verlander. Nobody cares about steroid use on a team that lost 170 games in a season like the Tigers did a few years back. Could be punished for Miguel Cabrera's behavior, but 1) Cabrera will be punished in this vote for Cabrera, and 2) Scotch? NOT A STEROID. 25 wins is a big middle finger to last year's AL CY vote and, don't ask the voters how, Moneyball as written by Billy Beane.
Odds of Steroids Use: 0%, 1st Place"
Joe, as a lifelong APBA player, that is exactly how I try to go about building my team.
ReplyDeleteThis year it is Kemp and Bautista. Bautista is probably a bit better, but obviously I'm a Dodger fan, so I am good with Kemp.
8d8:
ReplyDeleteVerlander was winning games, like clockwork, for the Tigers essentially by himself at critical junctures when the Tigers were constantly being questioned "Are you guys going to collapse again?" Ellsbury couldn't do that. What was Ellsbury supposed to do? Maybe if he makes that catch when he crashed into the wall a couple games ago, or goes 4-5 w/ a HR in game 162 (instead of going 1-5), he should be the MVP. His numbers aren't otherwise so otherworldly that he HAS to be the MVP. Thus, you go from looking from the Most Outstanding Player to who was more valuable. That was Verlander.
Kyle:
Ian Kennedy had a great second half. That's great, but it's a whole season award. Verlander was great from stem to stern, and particularly great when the Tigers needed him most. The fact they blew the doors of the Indians and White Sox (by essentially sweeping a bunch of head to head games in September) doesn't lessen Verlander's season. He's the biggest (though certainly not only) reason why they were in first place to start those series. If you don't think teams play different once they enter a skid (which Verlander prevented; see my previous post) once they feel pressure, go ask Boston and the Braves how they played in September.
Rob P, Kyle's vignette was to rebut arguments that Verlander's second half was otherwordly, not to make a claim that Kennedy should win the MVP, or even the Cy Young.
ReplyDeleteJust before you remind us all that it's a whole season award, you tell us that Ellsbury should have done more in Game 162. That's not how an MVP should be chosen. It's a season long award. It's an individual award.
It should be Jose Bautista's award.
Verlander is probably not the MVP, but the flaw with WAR is illustrated above in this post, which is as always MVP level from Joe. I do have to say that there is an element to the MVP that is missed in statistics. There isn't really a way to quantify the "moment" - when there are runners on 2nd and 3rd and nobody out and somehow he would reach back and throw 99 after only throwing 93 to the first 2 guys, and then 2 strikeouts and a groundout later the Twins didn't score, and the Tigers won.... I watched this happen each time I saw him pitch. He toyed with teams. He pitched on his terms. Which leads me to my point on advanced stats:
ReplyDeleteThe reason that Verlander's WAR is not as high as Doc and tied with CC is because of his low batting average on balls in play, which makes no sense because if you are pitching at Verlander's level when the batter puts the ball in play he is more likely to not hit it sharply and not get a hit. Because he has a good defense and luck he's not as valuable as Doc? How about he has a good defense that is lucky to have a pitcher that throws 100 in the 8th inning and the hitters are so terrified of the fastball that when the get something else they feebily slap it to the SS for an easy out?
How about we just give Longoria the MVP and just agree that without him the Rays wouldn't have made the playoffs, therefore he's most valuable
Commenter Joe (as opposed to JoePoz): I don't think it's fair to characterize major league hitters as 'terrified' of a fastball. Unless it's Rick Vaughn's.
ReplyDeleteClashfan, it's a whole season award and a "when it mattered" award. Verlander was awesome on both counts.
ReplyDeleteYou can't tell me if Ellsbury went 4-5, drove in 3 runs w an OPS over 1.000 in game 162, people would have said, "Well, let's count that just as much as what he did in game 83 or game 122. Each game is the same as the rest." People would have been saying, "THAT'S an MVP!" That was my point about game 162 - it was literally the biggest game of the year, and he was below average.
BTW, I do give Ellsbury credit for stepping up in September, generally speaking. It's just Verlander stepped up more, in my opinion.
Player A-
ReplyDelete8 wins, 1 loss, 70.1 innings, 54 hits, 5 walks, 57 k's, 1.79 era, 0.84 whip, .206 BAA
Player B-
9 wins, 0 loss, 70.0 innings, 53 hits, 21 walks, 72 k's, 2.82 era, 1.05 whip, .208 BAA
Player A has been the best starter for the Tigers in the 2nd half. Player B is Justin Verlander. Thanks Doug Fister- you just answered why Verlander should get ZERO consideration for the MVP vote.
The games in April count just as much as the games in September.
ReplyDeleteIf Ellsbury had performed as you say in Game 162, he *still* wouldn't have had as good a year as Bautista.
I lost a lot of respect for Tom Verducci, previously probably my second favorite sportswriter, for that column. Here's why:
ReplyDeleteHe picked Halladay over Kershaw for NL Cy Young, even though Kershaw won the NL Pitching Triple Crown (Wins, ERA, Ks). Why? Kershaw pitched in a pitcher's park, so he's not really that good.
I could accept that. ERA+ on b-ref favors Halladay by ONE point (164 to 163). WAR by half a win. If you want to throw out a triple crown by a tiny margin because of ballpark adjustments, okay, although I think leading the league in wins is a LOT easier for the team that itself wins 20 more games. But Halladay over Kershaw? Okay.
So how come the same great pitcher's park doesn't favor Kemp over Braun? I mean, Braun was behind Kemp without ballpark adjustments, behind him in runs, HR, RBI, steals, OBP, Total Bases, plays left instead of center, has Prince Fielder instead of James Loney protecting him, didn't even win the batting crown. But when you go to the same park adjusted stats Verducci used to pick Halladay, Kemp CRUSHES Braun. WAR is 10 versus 7.7. OPS+ favors Kemp (171) over Berkman and Braun (tied at 166).
No, Verducci ignored all the ballpark adjustments he used to shaft Kershaw. In fact, he went to great lengths to find ways to justify Braun. "Kemp batted 24 more times with men on base than Braun did" as you might expect for a guy who batted 4th rather than 3rd. What Verducci didn't say is Kemp drove in 15 more of those 24 extra guys, which is one hell of a great percentage. What Verducci didn't say is that batting fourth, not third, and with perhaps the weakest 5-8 offense in baseball behind him, Kemp still led the league in RUNS. Kemp also was second in the league in intentional walks; Braun isn't in the top ten, which is 24 swings with ducks on the pond Kemp didn't get to take. If Braun was so good, and with arguably the best player on his team driving him in from the four slot, why didn't Braun score more runs?
I can accept ballpark adjusting to shaft one Dodger, but then you have to use it to reward the other Dodger. If you want to go "playoff team" go ahead, although two of Kemp's three months with an OPS above 1.0 were April and June, when the Dodgers were still in the race and those games count too, don't they? Why is there more pressure for Phillies, who coasted in, than for teams that barely missed the playoffs, or barely snuck in?
So Tom Verducci, you are no longer my second favorite baseball writer. You have dropped behind both JoPo AND his muppet, not to mention Bill James and Ken Rosenthal.