THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

This will always be a problem with MVP.  Some people say, pitchers have their award, give the MVP to a hitter.  Other’s just believe that a player can’t be as valuable if he doesn’t play every day (which is why some of them actually will vote for a closer, because they play more often, and in a large percentage of your wins.  I know, stupid.), and others agree with you, that MVP means most valuable player, and whatever position the most valuable player should get it.

Its hard not to agree with you, it says nothing in the rules that a batter has to win it, and until it does, the most valuable player should be the most valuable player, not the most valuable hitter. 

As far as this year’s MVP debate, I think Mauer and Greinke are really the only two candidates. I think (and I have absolutely no evidence to back this up) that Mauer’s defense brings the WAR closer and makes it pretty close between the two.  But I’m biased, and Mauer hasn’t been quite as good as usual at throwing out runners this year, so that’s probably not true.

This really is one area where the writers screwed up.  If the MVP really was “most valuable player (and yes, that includes pitchers)”, then pitchers would have won at least a third of the time.  CC would be discussed as a MVP candidate.  In fact there would be a consensus that Greinke should definitely win the Cy Young award but maybe Sabathia should win the MVP!

Or they could have never given the award to pitchers after the Cy Young award was instituted, establishing a convention that only position players are eligible, because pitchers after all have their own award, and that would have been OK too.  But instead they give the award to a pitcher occassionally.  So pitchers really aren’t all that valuable?

As I argued earlier, it would be better to bring in Cy Young equivalents for position players, and just get rid of the MVP, or limit it to playoff teams, the same way the World Series MVP is limited to World Series teams.  The way the writers have treated it, its impossible to figure out what this award is actually for.

But I’m sorry, Greinke for MVP is ridiculous.  I just went and checked the standings.  The Royals are on pace to win 65 games.  They are 19 games behind in their division, and have the worst record in the American League, and the third worst record in major league baseball.  So the MVP means what?  Its a good thing Greinke is on the Royals, then they would have the worst record in the American League?  But they already have that with Greinke!  He’s keeping them from being worse than the Nationals and the Pirates!  A great player is just not that valuable for a last place team, that is why last place teams sometimes trade them.

And if you treat the award as the BPP, the best position player award, then Greinke still doesn’t qualify!  Though there is less of an argument about Mauer (and the Twins are still in contention for a division title anyway).

Incidentally, Teix is more valuable this season to the Yankees this season, simply becuase he represents more of an upgrade over the player he replaced (Giambi) than Sabathia is an upgrade over the player he replaced (Mussina).  CC let the Yankees keep what they had, Teixeira brought them some of the additional games over last year they needed to get back into the playoffs.  But otherwise it would be great if a pitcher on a contending team won the MVP and another pitcher on a last place team won the Cy Young.

You are arguing exactly the way I’m begging people not to argue.

Are you suggesting that if you take the best season of all time (whatever season that is), and surround that player with the 24 worst players in the league, that that would immediately disqualify the player from consideration?

(Easier to imagine in hockey or football.)

Lay out your process. This is the ONLY way to have a reasonable discussion.  Otherwise, all you are doing is putting up conclusions against which there is no basis for discussion.  We will be talking past one another.

And that’s no fun.

The flipside of the “pitcher doesn’t play every day” argument, which James pointed out re: the Mattingly/Clemens 1986 MVP award, is that Mauer has faced a pitcher 526 times this season, whereas Greinke has faced a hitter 837 times. In other words, an everyday player has a 1/9th impact on each game he plays, but a 7-inning starter has a 7/9th impact on each game. Or ... an everyday player has a 5/9th impact every five days, ie is equivalent to a five-inning starter.

You can debate the meaning of the word “valuable” endlessly, but don’t you think the spirit of the award is simply “who had the best year”. I think the “must be part of a winning team” qualifier is a response to the feeling that a player on a last-place team isn’t really part of the storyline of the season. If you hit 50 home runs for a last place team, you do so in relative obscurity. But if you hit 40 home runs for a team in the thick of a pennant race, you’re in the news every night. So when it comes to vote for MVP, the 50 HR hitter had a “great” year, but the 40 HR hitter had a more “famous” year, so to speak.

My process is to look at the four teams in each league that made the playoffs and try to see who made the most difference in getting them there. 

But I fudge.  I will include a player on a team that just missed the playoffs who had a truly outstanding season.  I tend to discount pitchers because of the recent history of the award.  But generally I’m looking at who made the difference between a team having a successful and having an unsuccessful season.

Frankly, I would rather have MVPs named for each team, and people could then decide if being a MVP on one team was “worth more” than being MVP on a team with a worse record.  But that is not what we have.  And I would still exclude the teams that finished in last place in their divisions.

Given the playoff/pitcher qualifications, the only possible choices are Miguel Cabrera and Troy Tulowitzki, right?

Ed

your process is retarded

Apologies for tooting my own horn here.

I’m not sure if I was the first or not, but back on August 31, after Greinke one-hit the Mariners, I noted that Zack Greinke had at that time been worth the entirety of his 4-year extension signed in the offseason.

I also wrote that the Cy Young was setting the bar too low—he needs more MVP play.

http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/2009/8/31/1008762/mvp-or-bust-for-the-royals-and

Just affirming the point.

Ed, the problem with your method, is that picking the leaders becomes arbitrary.  If you have a 5 WAR player on a team that made the playoffs by 3 games, is that better than a 4 WAR player on a team that made the playoffs by 2 games?  Also, once you get past the obvious candidates, how do you pick the next guys?  Do you just fudge the process and go with whoever looks good to you? 

What you are looking for is something like Playoff Probability Added. 

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/5/15/876896/playoff-probability-added

I plan on doing that again at the end of this year, this time including divisional talent.  I certainly don’t endorse this method for the MVP, but this would be the scientific way to do what you want to do.

I don’t mind Ed’s process, as long as he’s consistent.

A guy who goes 27-10 on a last place team can’t even appear on any of the top 10 spots of one’s ballot.  As long as he can live with that, at least he’s consistent.

Of course, what writers usually do is say that THE FIRST SLOT is reserved for a playoff team, while they are more than happy to put a great season of a non-playoff team in the second or third slot!

My litmus test is to have people lay out their method, like Ed or others, and then ask them if they’d like that phrase to appear on the trophy as the explanation of what it stands for.

Regardless of right or wrong, Greinke and Lincecum have no hope this year.  Though it is not mentioned, I think the DH deserves some credit for this phenomenon, as I look at here:

sportsphd.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/pitchers-for-mvp/

Teh DH contributes to the devaluing of pitching by limiting a pitcher’s involvement in the overall game and making them by default less valuable.

It is not true that because a pitcher doesn’t come to bat that he becomes less valuable.

Indeed, RJ and Al Leiter and Ben Sheets and whatever sucky batters there are become MORE valuable by being prevented to coming to bat.  Dontrelle Willis and Zambrano and Owings become less valuable in the AL.

So, don’t equate involvement with value.

While you are certainly right statistically, I’m not sure you are right about the minds of the voters.  While Randy Johnson batting may have cost him a win here and there, I think seeing him at the plate helps remind non-sabermetric savvy MVP voters that he is involved in every aspect of the game.  Of course, it never won him an MVP, but Barry Bonds will do that to you.  My point solely has to do with the minds of the voters, not the underlying facts of the matter.

Tango, this is actually a great point.  I’ll probably steal it down the road.

I wonder, in this specific example, if Yankee fans are as happy with CC as Tex...?