Comments on: AL MVP: A Travesty of Justice

By: Mark Baker

Mark Baker — Thu, 17 Nov 2005 05:41:05 +0000

I hear you; I agree that those numbers reflected what happened this year. I just prefer to evaluate players with metrics over which they exert control.

For example, I don’t evaluate pitchers by the number of wins they have because teams win, not pitchers, making wins a bad statistic by which to judge individual performance. But there’s no arguing with the fact that Chris Carpenter had 21 of ‘em, and Roger Clemens only 13. Was Chris the better pitcher? Not by a long shot (though I’m a big fan of his, since his Blue Jay days).

By: stephen o'grady

stephen o'grady — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 06:47:22 +0000

Drew: good points, but how about Frank Thomas? there was no power/speed combo there. and i can absolutely not believe that he was anything but a net negative at 1B.

also on the lineup question, true Papi had Manny, but Sheffield’s no slouch.

in the end, it was bias.

Alex: as we discussed, would be interested in seeing the numbers. i’m skeptical of them, but would be interested nonetheless.

Mark, Mark, Mark, need i explain this again? couple of things: first, i don’t have the numbers at the moment either, but one stat i saw had A-Rod 10th out of 14 3B’s in the league. not great.

second, what does the ability to be predictive have to do with the current season’s MVP? i’m not worried about whether or not he’s at a 50 point disadvantage this year, b/c the MVP is about measuring what happened *this* year.

and the numbers - which are not new statistics, mind you, they’re basic BA, OPS, etc - indicate that when it mattered *this* year Big Papi was a much more valuable player.

now you can argue with what “valuable” means, and you can argue that his “clutch” performance may just be an anomaly, but you can’t argue with the numbers. they’re pretty clear.

By: Mark Baker

Mark Baker — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 05:31:51 +0000

Quit y’er whining, the best man won!
I think your stat analysis (and that of Stark’s) falls into the common trap of assuming that just because a new statistic can be derived, that it’s necessarily a valuable statistic. For example, BA/RISP, or OPS in late innings in close games, or BA & SLG in 1-2 run games.

Those statistics are not valuable because they’re not predicitive; somebody with a 50 point BA/RISP advantage in one year is just as likely to have a 50 point *dis*advantage next year. Some folks on rec.sports.baseball did this analysis on several so-called “clutch” statistics about 10 years ago or so, and concluded that a clutch effect, if it existed at all, was indistinguishable from noise.

I also think that MVP voting should count defensive numbers, and if A-Rod was net-positive defensively he should get credit for that. But if he’s net-negative (over replacement level), that should also count against him. I haven’t checked his defensive numbers, so can’t say.

When it comes down to it though, .421/.610 in Yankee Stadium beats .397/.604 in Fenway most days of the week.

By: Alex

Alex — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:57:30 +0000

I think that WPA is the right stat to use for MVP, I wonder if anyone has run that down. Here is an example.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/daily/article/game-in-review/

By: Drew Engstrom

Drew Engstrom — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 18:48:19 +0000

Caveat: I’m not a fan of either team - in fact, I specifically dislike both teams (I’m an A’s fan). Unfortunately for Ortiz, the MVP award (with very rare exceptions such as Kirk Gibson in 1988) is more about who had the best all-around season for a playoff contending team than it is about who was the overall most valuable component of a team. And writers/pundits tend to favor “5 Tool” players. You’ll recall that, as much of a butcher as Canseco was with his glove, writers were fascinated by the 40-40 milestone as it indicated he had a rare power/speed combination. The fact that A-Rod has speed, and is a pretty good 3rd basemen with a good arm means that A-Rod gets to display 3 tools that Papi lacks. Unfortunately, most of the writers/voters don’t have insight into either the “big moments” or the intangibles (clubhouse presence, flair for the dramatic, etc.) that should be a factor in determining who is actually the most valuable player. I think Papi may have also been hurt by the perception that he had a great lineup (especially Manny) around him. Oh well. If it’s any consolation, I think that even Yankee fans realize that it’s guys like Jeter and Williams (cluch hitting gamers who bring a winning attitude to the clubhouse) who feuled the Yanks’ latest run more so than the rent-a-star guys like Giambi and A-Rod.

By: stephen o'grady

stephen o'grady — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:17:31 +0000

interesting comment, Mike. i have tons of respect for James and Win Shares, but i’ve always had difficulty with them as a measurement of value. as such MVP votes do, they tend to depend heavily on how one defines “value,” and obviously i ascribe more importance to situations in which the player makes a real difference. to the best of my recollection, Win Shares do not distinguish the context of the offensive statistics, because James like many sabermaticians has little belief in “clutch” hitting.

plus, while the analysts might take Win Shares into account, i can guarantee you that all those old school BBWA guys have little if any respect for that metric. they voted against him b/c of bias, IMO, plain and simple.

good comment tho.

By: Mike Pastore

Mike Pastore — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:42:54 +0000

Impartial observer here (read: Mets fan). Many baseball analysts point to A-Rod’s lead in Win Shares (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/2004-win-shares-have-arrived), rather than the DH/defense issue. A-Rod ended up with a Win Share of 37, when the top Red Sox player was actually Manny at 34. Big Papi was a 31.

It will be interesting to see if the Win Shares are mentioned in the NL MVP outcome today. Pujols has a 38; Derek Lee a 37.