NL MVP

[Derwood]

EDIT: Even if you do a simple (R+RBI-HR) on both guys, Hardy wins 58 to 47

 

The key word there is simple.

 

You are judging the two based on how their teammates have played around them, as opposed to how they have done themselves.

 

Exactly. It's a near 70 point difference in OPS, and was even more with the numbers used in the poll. Hardy's not even on the same plane. Bonds is a step above everybody, but he's on pace to have about 100 less PA's, so that's why I didn't go with him.

 

the question for the poll, however, is who was the MVP of the first quarter. Despite the lower OPS, Hardy OUTPRODUCED Chipper. Now, Chipper's OPS would indicate that he should have better numbers over the long haul, but I don't care how many more doubles or walks he has, he simply hasn't contributed as much to his team's offense as Hardy has

[TruffleShuffle]

VORP through Sunday:

 

HanRam: 24.9

Reyes: 24.3

Hardy: 23.3

Chipper: 23.1

Bonds: 22.8

D-Lee: 21.8

Helton: 21.3

Holliday: 20.9

 

The other guys I considered listing were Beltran and Chase Utley.

 

I went with Ramirez and I'm glad there's some statistical support that I didn't have to find myself. I was a little shocked that I was the only one to have voted for him. The .953 OPS (including over .400 OBP) with 9 HR and 15 SBs (though I hate to rely on SBs) is a pretty lethal combo.

 

He actually only has 6 HR and 9 RBI. That's partly his teammates' fault, though it doesn't help that he's hitting .421 in 114 ABs with nobody on, and .161 in 56 ABs with runners on base.

[Tracer Bullet]

EDIT: Even if you do a simple (R+RBI-HR) on both guys, Hardy wins 58 to 47

 

The key word there is simple.

 

You are judging the two based on how their teammates have played around them, as opposed to how they have done themselves.

 

Exactly. It's a near 70 point difference in OPS, and was even more with the numbers used in the poll. Hardy's not even on the same plane. Bonds is a step above everybody, but he's on pace to have about 100 less PA's, so that's why I didn't go with him.

 

the question for the poll, however, is who was the MVP of the first quarter. Despite the lower OPS, Hardy OUTPRODUCED Chipper. Now, Chipper's OPS would indicate that he should have better numbers over the long haul, but I don't care how many more doubles or walks he has, he simply hasn't contributed as much to his team's offense as Hardy has

 

I think you could pretty easily argue that Hardy's teammates outproduced Chipper's teammates.

 

Chipper's OPS doesn't indicate that he should have better numbers. It indicates he had a higher combination of OBP and SLG - which is significantly more important in comparing two players than R and RBI.

[jersey cubs fan]

the question for the poll, however, is who was the MVP of the first quarter. Despite the lower OPS, Hardy OUTPRODUCED Chipper. Now, Chipper's OPS would indicate that he should have better numbers over the long haul, but I don't care how many more doubles or walks he has, he simply hasn't contributed as much to his team's offense as Hardy has

 

That's only if you use the old school way of judging production, by R and RBI. R and RBI are team and teammate dependant. They don't show as much of what the player did than as much as what the team is doing. The only thing the player can control is his own production, which is measured much more effectively in AVG/OBP/SGL terms than in counting R and RBI.

[Derwood]

the question for the poll, however, is who was the MVP of the first quarter. Despite the lower OPS, Hardy OUTPRODUCED Chipper. Now, Chipper's OPS would indicate that he should have better numbers over the long haul, but I don't care how many more doubles or walks he has, he simply hasn't contributed as much to his team's offense as Hardy has

 

That's only if you use the old school way of judging production, by R and RBI. R and RBI are team and teammate dependant. They don't show as much of what the player did than as much as what the team is doing. The only thing the player can control is his own production, which is measured much more effectively in AVG/OBP/SGL terms than in counting R and RBI.

 

i guess my definition of "production" and yours are different. To me, it doesn't matter if you're OPS'ing 1.200 if you aren't generating runs (by either scoring them or knocking them in). As I said, the higher OPS player is more likely to create runs in the future, but that wasn't the question of the poll.

 

With the question being "who was the MVP of the first quarter", who would you say was more valuable, a guy who has 40 runs, 50 RBI, and an OPS of .850, or a guy with 20 runs, 25 RBI and an OPS of 1.080

[rawaction]

I voted like the actual voters will vote. It basically came down to Reyes or Chipper. But I voted Reyes because of his position and baserunning.

 

1. Reyes

2. Chipper

3. Hanley

4. Hardy (if season ended now, he'd probably win, but Reyes will win when all is said and done)

5. Bonds

[Tracer Bullet]

the question for the poll, however, is who was the MVP of the first quarter. Despite the lower OPS, Hardy OUTPRODUCED Chipper. Now, Chipper's OPS would indicate that he should have better numbers over the long haul, but I don't care how many more doubles or walks he has, he simply hasn't contributed as much to his team's offense as Hardy has

 

That's only if you use the old school way of judging production, by R and RBI. R and RBI are team and teammate dependant. They don't show as much of what the player did than as much as what the team is doing. The only thing the player can control is his own production, which is measured much more effectively in AVG/OBP/SGL terms than in counting R and RBI.

 

i guess my definition of "production" and yours are different. To me, it doesn't matter if you're OPS'ing 1.200 if you aren't generating runs (by either scoring them or knocking them in). As I said, the higher OPS player is more likely to create runs in the future, but that wasn't the question of the poll.

 

With the question being "who was the MVP of the first quarter", who would you say was more valuable, a guy who has 40 runs, 50 RBI, and an OPS of .850, or a guy with 20 runs, 25 RBI and an OPS of 1.080

 

The guy with the 1.080 OPS. The guy with 40 runs and 50 RBI either played in a better lineup, hit in a better spot (say 3rd, rather than 6th), or was very lucky (high AVG with RISP or something). But the guy with the 1.000+ OPS played better that year, which I think is important when you're giving out an award for the guy that played the best.

[TruffleShuffle]

or was very lucky (high AVG with RISP or something).

 

I agree that a high AVG with RISP is luck, but when voting for MVP, I think it has to be taken into consideration. For example, Hanley Ramirez is hitting .420 with the bases empty and .160 with runners on. While it will probably even out over the course of his career, during the first quarter of this season he has been a poor hitter in more important situations, and that's a big reason that he only has 9 RBI. All other things equal, a guy who hit better in the clutch should win the award over a guy who didn't hit as well, even though in the long run, it's just luck that will even out.

[Derwood]

or was very lucky (high AVG with RISP or something).

 

I agree that a high AVG with RISP is luck, but when voting for MVP, I think it has to be taken into consideration. For example, Hanley Ramirez is hitting .420 with the bases empty and .160 with runners on. While it will probably even out over the course of his career, during the first quarter of this season he has been a poor hitter in more important situations, and that's a big reason that he only has 9 RBI. All other things equal, a guy who hit better in the clutch should win the award over a guy who didn't hit as well, even though in the long run, it's just luck that will even out.

 

Hardy is hitting over 100 points better with RISP, thus another point for him.

 

also, for me, MVP doesn't mean "best player", it means "most valuable", meaning you HAVE to take his team and lineup scenario into account. OPS and such doesn't happen in a vaccuum

[Derwood]

the question for the poll, however, is who was the MVP of the first quarter. Despite the lower OPS, Hardy OUTPRODUCED Chipper. Now, Chipper's OPS would indicate that he should have better numbers over the long haul, but I don't care how many more doubles or walks he has, he simply hasn't contributed as much to his team's offense as Hardy has

 

That's only if you use the old school way of judging production, by R and RBI. R and RBI are team and teammate dependant. They don't show as much of what the player did than as much as what the team is doing. The only thing the player can control is his own production, which is measured much more effectively in AVG/OBP/SGL terms than in counting R and RBI.

 

i guess my definition of "production" and yours are different. To me, it doesn't matter if you're OPS'ing 1.200 if you aren't generating runs (by either scoring them or knocking them in). As I said, the higher OPS player is more likely to create runs in the future, but that wasn't the question of the poll.

 

With the question being "who was the MVP of the first quarter", who would you say was more valuable, a guy who has 40 runs, 50 RBI, and an OPS of .850, or a guy with 20 runs, 25 RBI and an OPS of 1.080

 

The guy with the 1.080 OPS. The guy with 40 runs and 50 RBI either played in a better lineup, hit in a better spot (say 3rd, rather than 6th), or was very lucky (high AVG with RISP or something). But the guy with the 1.000+ OPS played better that year, which I think is important when you're giving out an award for the guy that played the best.

 

so you'd take an 1.080 OPS guy who isn't actually adding much to the runs on the board over an .800 one who is? This is asninine

[rocket]

the question for the poll, however, is who was the MVP of the first quarter. Despite the lower OPS, Hardy OUTPRODUCED Chipper. Now, Chipper's OPS would indicate that he should have better numbers over the long haul, but I don't care how many more doubles or walks he has, he simply hasn't contributed as much to his team's offense as Hardy has

 

That's only if you use the old school way of judging production, by R and RBI. R and RBI are team and teammate dependant. They don't show as much of what the player did than as much as what the team is doing. The only thing the player can control is his own production, which is measured much more effectively in AVG/OBP/SGL terms than in counting R and RBI.

 

i guess my definition of "production" and yours are different. To me, it doesn't matter if you're OPS'ing 1.200 if you aren't generating runs (by either scoring them or knocking them in). As I said, the higher OPS player is more likely to create runs in the future, but that wasn't the question of the poll.

 

With the question being "who was the MVP of the first quarter", who would you say was more valuable, a guy who has 40 runs, 50 RBI, and an OPS of .850, or a guy with 20 runs, 25 RBI and an OPS of 1.080

 

The guy with the 1.080 OPS. The guy with 40 runs and 50 RBI either played in a better lineup, hit in a better spot (say 3rd, rather than 6th), or was very lucky (high AVG with RISP or something). But the guy with the 1.000+ OPS played better that year, which I think is important when you're giving out an award for the guy that played the best.

 

so you'd take an 1.080 OPS guy who isn't actually adding much to the runs on the board over an .800 one who is? This is asninine

 

if i'm building my own team, then YES.

[Productive Outs]

or was very lucky (high AVG with RISP or something).

 

I agree that a high AVG with RISP is luck, but when voting for MVP, I think it has to be taken into consideration. For example, Hanley Ramirez is hitting .420 with the bases empty and .160 with runners on. While it will probably even out over the course of his career, during the first quarter of this season he has been a poor hitter in more important situations, and that's a big reason that he only has 9 RBI. All other things equal, a guy who hit better in the clutch should win the award over a guy who didn't hit as well, even though in the long run, it's just luck that will even out.

 

Hardy is hitting over 100 points better with RISP, thus another point for him.

 

also, for me, MVP doesn't mean "best player", it means "most valuable", meaning you HAVE to take his team and lineup scenario into account. OPS and such doesn't happen in a vaccuum

 

exactly -- you take the fact that the 40 R, 50 RBI guy had a better team around him.

 

example: andruw jones scored more runs and drove in more runs in 2006 than derrek lee did in 2005. are you going to tell me that jones' 2006 was more valuable to his team than lee's 2005? derrek lee was #1 in VORP in all of baseball in 2005. andruw jones didn't crack the top 30 in 2006.

[CubColtPacer]

or was very lucky (high AVG with RISP or something).

 

I agree that a high AVG with RISP is luck, but when voting for MVP, I think it has to be taken into consideration. For example, Hanley Ramirez is hitting .420 with the bases empty and .160 with runners on. While it will probably even out over the course of his career, during the first quarter of this season he has been a poor hitter in more important situations, and that's a big reason that he only has 9 RBI. All other things equal, a guy who hit better in the clutch should win the award over a guy who didn't hit as well, even though in the long run, it's just luck that will even out.

 

Hardy is hitting over 100 points better with RISP, thus another point for him.

 

also, for me, MVP doesn't mean "best player", it means "most valuable", meaning you HAVE to take his team and lineup scenario into account. OPS and such doesn't happen in a vaccuum

 

exactly -- you take the fact that the 40 R, 50 RBI guy had a better team around him.

 

example: andruw jones scored more runs and drove in more runs in 2006 than derrek lee did in 2005. are you going to tell me that jones' 2006 was more valuable to his team than lee's 2005? derrek lee was #1 in VORP in all of baseball in 2005. andruw jones didn't crack the top 30 in 2006.

 

In this case though, that doesn't apply. Hardy is putting up greater RBI and run totals in Milwaukee even though his team's offense is slightly worse than Chipper's Braves.

[Jon]

It would clearly be Bonds if he didn't only have 106 ABs. Those numbers are ridiculous.

 

I'm tempted to go with Lee. Hardy's IsoD is not good at all.

[Derwood]

It would clearly be Bonds if he didn't only have 106 ABs. Those numbers are ridiculous.

 

I'm tempted to go with Lee. Hardy's IsoD is not good at all.

 

can you define IsoD please? I'm having no luck finding the definition online right now

[Lockes Eye Scar]

It would clearly be Bonds if he didn't only have 106 ABs. Those numbers are ridiculous.

 

I'm tempted to go with Lee. Hardy's IsoD is not good at all.

 

can you define IsoD please? I'm having no luck finding the definition online right now

 

On-base - AVG

[Derwood]

It would clearly be Bonds if he didn't only have 106 ABs. Those numbers are ridiculous.

 

I'm tempted to go with Lee. Hardy's IsoD is not good at all.

 

can you define IsoD please? I'm having no luck finding the definition online right now

 

On-base - AVG

 

which isolates, what, walks and HBP?

[Lockes Eye Scar]

yeah, pretty much.

 

IsoD (Isolated Discipline) is used to determine if a players OBP (On Base Percentage) is attributed by walks or by a high batting average. The higher the IsoD the more walks a player draws and the less dependant he is on his batting average to get on base. IsoD is yet another good tool when trying to project prospects to a major league level.

[Mephistopheles]

I feel obliged to reply.

 

i'm totally down with sabermetrics, and Jones certainly has Hardy beat in terms of OBP/SLG/OPS, but how can you say 41 RBI/31 R is "blowing away" 26 RBI/33 R?

 

Because looking at runs and runs batted in to decide who is better is stupid. You're not down with sabermetrics if you make an argument based on RBI and R.

 

To me, production is getting runs scored, period. Getting on base is very important, but just because Chipper is on base more frequently hasn't meant he has helped the team score more

 

Just because has scored more runs and has more runs batted in it does not mean he has produced more runs for his team. Production is not scoring runs, period. For instance, the difference in OBP for the guys is 40 points. Over the 200 PAs that we're looking at, the difference is almost a third of a game lost because Hardy gets out. That's half the value of OBP, it makes you and your teammates bat more, not so much the fact you physically get on base.

 

Despite the lower OPS, Hardy OUTPRODUCED Chipper.

 

If that's your argument, the clear answer isn't Hardy, it's Bonds. Bonds OPS and stuff is leagues beyond everyone AND his WPA is leagues quite a bit of ahead of anyone. So unless the defensive difference between SS and LF over a fourth of the season is worth a half a win, it's Bonds -- and it's close. But in the case of the tie you have to take the sure thing (offensive production).

[abuck1220]

for some reason i'm picturing that emo dude sitting on bench writing a crappy song about rbi's.

[Tracer Bullet]

or was very lucky (high AVG with RISP or something).

 

I agree that a high AVG with RISP is luck, but when voting for MVP, I think it has to be taken into consideration. For example, Hanley Ramirez is hitting .420 with the bases empty and .160 with runners on. While it will probably even out over the course of his career, during the first quarter of this season he has been a poor hitter in more important situations, and that's a big reason that he only has 9 RBI. All other things equal, a guy who hit better in the clutch should win the award over a guy who didn't hit as well, even though in the long run, it's just luck that will even out.

 

That's why they don't give out MVP's based on 6-8 weeks. 50 ABs with RISP shouldn't determine anything, if you ask me.

[Tracer Bullet]

the question for the poll, however, is who was the MVP of the first quarter. Despite the lower OPS, Hardy OUTPRODUCED Chipper. Now, Chipper's OPS would indicate that he should have better numbers over the long haul, but I don't care how many more doubles or walks he has, he simply hasn't contributed as much to his team's offense as Hardy has

 

That's only if you use the old school way of judging production, by R and RBI. R and RBI are team and teammate dependant. They don't show as much of what the player did than as much as what the team is doing. The only thing the player can control is his own production, which is measured much more effectively in AVG/OBP/SGL terms than in counting R and RBI.

 

i guess my definition of "production" and yours are different. To me, it doesn't matter if you're OPS'ing 1.200 if you aren't generating runs (by either scoring them or knocking them in). As I said, the higher OPS player is more likely to create runs in the future, but that wasn't the question of the poll.

 

With the question being "who was the MVP of the first quarter", who would you say was more valuable, a guy who has 40 runs, 50 RBI, and an OPS of .850, or a guy with 20 runs, 25 RBI and an OPS of 1.080

 

The guy with the 1.080 OPS. The guy with 40 runs and 50 RBI either played in a better lineup, hit in a better spot (say 3rd, rather than 6th), or was very lucky (high AVG with RISP or something). But the guy with the 1.000+ OPS played better that year, which I think is important when you're giving out an award for the guy that played the best.

 

so you'd take an 1.080 OPS guy who isn't actually adding much to the runs on the board over an .800 one who is? This is asninine

 

Um...asinine? Wow. I'll tell you what's asinine. Rewarding players individually for being surrounded by other good players.

 

Using your logic, in 2005, Andruw Jones was at least as valuable, if not more so, than DLee. Jones had a .347/.575/.922 line, but scored 95 R and drove in 128. Lee had a 1.080 OPS, scored 120, but only drove in 107. He's a #3 hitter, so his job is more to drive them in than score them himself. So because Lee had a combination of CPatt, Neifi, etc hitting in front of him, he's less valuable. As if he wouldn't have led the league in RBI by quite some distance if he were on the Braves that year.

 

Don't use this logic and then call me asinine.

[Tracer Bullet]

It would clearly be Bonds if he didn't only have 106 ABs. Those numbers are ridiculous.

 

I'm tempted to go with Lee. Hardy's IsoD is not good at all.

 

I agree on Bonds - he's clearly #1 if he wasn't sitting so much. Heck, by the end of the year, he may be #1 even though he sat so much. Ridiculous season.

[Derwood]

without looking up who is who, pick your MVP:

 

Player A: .308/.377/.647/1.024, 160 OPS+, .321 BaBIP, .315 RISP

Player B: .299/.470/.752/1.222, 182 OPS+, .285 BaBIP, .278 RISP

[Derwood]

I don't think it's good practice to completely use/ignore sabermetrics. Hitting doesn't happen in a vacuum. Though the game is primarily a one on one matchup between a hitter and a pitcher, the complexion of each at-bat is changed by what other people on the team have done/will do in a game.

 

To completely toss runs and RBI out of the equation because they are "team dependent" stats would be equivalent to saying you can't evaluate whether or not Peyton Manning is the NFL MVP by using yards, completion %, touchdowns or interceptions