NL MVP Discussion

[ConstableRabbit]

Today the almighty Rob Neyer has narrowed down the NL MVP field to:

 

Pujols

Utley

Wright

CC

 

....wtf?

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=22022

 

Some of my favorites:

 

Pete (St. Louis): Clearly, I'm biased here. But honestly how can this choice not be Albert Pujols? He has the highest OPS and SLG in the NL, is trailing in OBP by one point, plus he leads the league in VORP and has the highest EQA at a whopping .366. As I'm sure you know, John Dewan ranked him as the best fielder at any position last year, so surely he's high on that list again. It's El Hombre!

 

SportsNation Rob Neyer: (12:55 PM ET ) All good points, but I'm afraid the voters don't pay a great deal of attention to OPS, VORP, or EqA. Or a first baseman's defense. You know what might push him over the top, though? A batting title. Along with the Cardinals winning the Wild Card.

 

Jason (Boston): Please explain how David Wright is in this conversation and Aramis Ramirez is not? Wright is the best player on a slightly above average team. Ramirez is the clutch hitter who should win a gold glove on the best team in the league--and their offensive numbers are not that different.

 

SportsNation Rob Neyer: (1:03 PM ET ) They're different enough, mostly because Ramirez has played only 116 games this season. That alone is going to keep him from getting serious action in the balloting, unless he just goes off between now and October.

 

Gotta love ESPN's obsession with counting stats.

 

 

EDIT: He redeems himself a little bit here,

 

PhillR, NYC: Why do writers/voters such as yourself over value BA and RBI so much when they are very clearly not amongst the best metrics?

 

SportsNation Rob Neyer: (1:09 PM ET ) We're mostly talking about who *will* (or might) win the award, not who should. Last year *my* favorite candidates were David Wright and Hanley Ramirez, and neither got more than a sniff from the learned men who vote (I don't).

[SouthSideRyan]

Yeah Neyer's definitely just talking about what will happen. He's the first real national presence(for a mainstream publication) to be SABR.

[kjfoster 1553]

SportsNation Rob Neyer: (12:55 PM ET ) All good points, but I'm afraid the voters don't pay a great deal of attention to OPS, VORP, or EqA. Or a first baseman's defense. You know what might push him over the top, though? A batting title. Along with the Cardinals winning the Wild Card.

 

Ok, so this is what I don't understand:

 

I respect all the people who know all the stats there are to know about baseball, but they play no relevance in MVP, Cy Young, ROTY, etc. Everyone (not everyone, but you know what I mean) seems to think wins, hits, BA, and on and on and on are these pointless/meaningless stats that should have no bearing on anything, but they play a VERY VERY key role in end of season awards, etc.

 

Thoughts?

[ConstableRabbit]

Yeah Neyer's definitely just talking about what will happen. He's the first real national presence(for a mainstream publication) to be SABR.

That's why I was surprised. I usually like him. My bad for jumping the gun :oops:

 

In a way that's even worse though... we should be discussion who should win, not who will.

[jersey cubs fan]

SportsNation Rob Neyer: (12:55 PM ET ) All good points, but I'm afraid the voters don't pay a great deal of attention to OPS, VORP, or EqA. Or a first baseman's defense. You know what might push him over the top, though? A batting title. Along with the Cardinals winning the Wild Card.

 

Ok, so this is what I don't understand:

 

I respect all the people who know all the stats there are to know about baseball, but they play no relevance in MVP, Cy Young, ROTY, etc. Everyone (not everyone, but you know what I mean) seems to think wins, hits, BA, and on and on and on are these pointless/meaningless stats that should have no bearing on anything, but they play a VERY VERY key role in end of season awards, etc.

 

Thoughts?

 

The people who vote are unenlightened goons who like doing things the way they have always been done, so they pay attention to stuff they shouldn't pay attention to.

[jersey cubs fan]

Jason (Boston): Please explain how David Wright is in this conversation and Aramis Ramirez is not? Wright is the best player on a slightly above average team. Ramirez is the clutch hitter who should win a gold glove on the best team in the league--and their offensive numbers are not that different.

 

SportsNation Rob Neyer: (1:03 PM ET ) They're different enough, mostly because Ramirez has played only 116 games this season. That alone is going to keep him from getting serious action in the balloting, unless he just goes off between now and October.

 

Gotta love ESPN's obsession with counting stats.

 

When the counting stat is games played I think it matters. If two guys have the same rate stats, and one guy has played more, that guy contributed more and is more deserving of recognition. If the higher rate guy played considerably less than another player, that should count against his value. You should win an MVP by how well you perform over the 162 game season.

[ConstableRabbit]

SportsNation Rob Neyer: (12:55 PM ET ) All good points, but I'm afraid the voters don't pay a great deal of attention to OPS, VORP, or EqA. Or a first baseman's defense. You know what might push him over the top, though? A batting title. Along with the Cardinals winning the Wild Card.

 

Ok, so this is what I don't understand:

 

I respect all the people who know all the stats there are to know about baseball, but they play no relevance in MVP, Cy Young, ROTY, etc. Everyone (not everyone, but you know what I mean) seems to think wins, hits, BA, and on and on and on are these pointless/meaningless stats that should have no bearing on anything, but they play a VERY VERY key role in end of season awards, etc.

 

Thoughts?

 

Wins and Saves are "pointless" in the fact that they do not really enlighten us as to a player's pitching ability, but they are not "pointless" in the sense that they matter for awards.

Is that an example of what you're trying to say in a nutshell?

 

That's the problem. Members of the "old guard" in baseball, who are obsessed with the conventional wisdom that wins, BA, etc. are meaningful are oftentimes unwilling to consider more useful/descriptive statistics. It's extremely frustrating, especially when a knowledgeable writer like Neyer discusses who will win instead of who should. At least discussion who should win would open some eyes in the same way the (Jim Caple?) article on saves did.

[ConstableRabbit]

Jason (Boston): Please explain how David Wright is in this conversation and Aramis Ramirez is not? Wright is the best player on a slightly above average team. Ramirez is the clutch hitter who should win a gold glove on the best team in the league--and their offensive numbers are not that different.

 

SportsNation Rob Neyer: (1:03 PM ET ) They're different enough, mostly because Ramirez has played only 116 games this season. That alone is going to keep him from getting serious action in the balloting, unless he just goes off between now and October.

 

Gotta love ESPN's obsession with counting stats.

 

When the counting stat is games played I think it matters. If two guys have the same rate stats, and one guy has played more, that guy contributed more and is more deserving of recognition. If the higher rate guy played considerably less than another player, that should count against his value. You should win an MVP by how well you perform over the 162 game season.

I agree with you... the counting stats comment wasn't in response to games played, but that Wright is in consideration in part because of his rbi total.

[kjfoster 1553]

SportsNation Rob Neyer: (12:55 PM ET ) All good points, but I'm afraid the voters don't pay a great deal of attention to OPS, VORP, or EqA. Or a first baseman's defense. You know what might push him over the top, though? A batting title. Along with the Cardinals winning the Wild Card.

 

Ok, so this is what I don't understand:

 

I respect all the people who know all the stats there are to know about baseball, but they play no relevance in MVP, Cy Young, ROTY, etc. Everyone (not everyone, but you know what I mean) seems to think wins, hits, BA, and on and on and on are these pointless/meaningless stats that should have no bearing on anything, but they play a VERY VERY key role in end of season awards, etc.

 

Thoughts?

 

Wins and Saves are "pointless" in the fact that they do not really enlighten us as to a player's pitching ability, but they are not "pointless" in the sense that they matter for awards.

Is that an example of what you're trying to say in a nutshell?

 

That's the problem. Members of the "old guard" in baseball, who are obsessed with the conventional wisdom that wins, BA, etc. are meaningful are oftentimes unwilling to consider more useful/descriptive statistics. It's extremely frustrating, especially when a knowledgeable writer like Neyer discusses who will win instead of who should. At least discussion who should win would open some eyes in the same way the (Jim Caple?) article on saves did.

 

Yes, thank you.

[bukie]

If you're limiting MVP voting to the best players on playoff contending teams, you're looking at Pujols, Braun, Utley, Wright, CC, Webb.

 

If you're actually looking at the best player, Berkman or Pujols should win.

[big_shooter17]

This CC for MVP talk annoys me. His team has fallen one game farther behind the Cubs since his acquisition although they are now ahead in the Wild Card. This is a case of a player playing well and the team basically staying put. It is not as if his actions have catapulted them into first in the Central. The argument always is that the MVP should go to someone who makes the playoffs because they helped get them there. CC has done fantastically, don't get me wrong, but if we look at the standings, one could very easily argue that they would be in the same situation as they currently are without him. They have only dropped in the rankings. Then I move to that game that he pitched against the Cubs in which his team lost. This was an opportunity for him to really impact his team's position and he did not do what an MVP should do in that situation. If we say that CC can be the MVP then why not Rich Harden or any other player who changed leagues and saw his team remain in a similar position. Why not say Jason Bay then? In reality, the only player who was traded who has had a significant impact on his team's playoff chances is Manny Ramirez, but I can guarantee that he won't even come close. If CC does win the MVP and the Brewers do not end up improving their playoff positioning then there is no reason that Josh Hamilton should be discredited as he likely will be simply because Texas is out of the playoff picture. The thought process behind the whole MVP voting is absurd. There must be some consistency in the line of thinking out there because otherwise the award becomes meaningless.

[bukie]

This CC for MVP talk annoys me. His team has fallen one game farther behind the Cubs since his acquisition although they are now ahead in the Wild Card. This is a case of a player playing well and the team basically staying put. It is not as if his actions have catapulted them into first in the Central. The argument always is that the MVP should go to someone who makes the playoffs because they helped get them there. CC has done fantastically, don't get me wrong, but if we look at the standings, one could very easily argue that they would be in the same situation as they currently are without him. They have only dropped in the rankings. Then I move to that game that he pitched against the Cubs in which his team lost. This was an opportunity for him to really impact his team's position and he did not do what an MVP should do in that situation. If we say that CC can be the MVP then why not Rich Harden or any other player who changed leagues and saw his team remain in a similar position. Why not say Jason Bay then? In reality, the only player who was traded who has had a significant impact on his team's playoff chances is Manny Ramirez, but I can guarantee that he won't even come close. If CC does win the MVP and the Brewers do not end up improving their playoff positioning then there is no reason that Josh Hamilton should be discredited as he likely will be simply because Texas is out of the playoff picture. The thought process behind the whole MVP voting is absurd. There must be some consistency in the line of thinking out there because otherwise the award becomes meaningless.

 

The Brewers have actually played a lot better since CC joined the team. They're only further back in the division because the Cubs have played even better.

[Andy]

Not that Aramis should or would win, but saying he's only played 116 games is a little ridiculous. If he played the rest of this year's games, he'd have played 154. Even if he misses a few more here and there, it's not like you have to play all 162 to be considered.

[Derwood]

So CC going 8-0 with the Brewers isn't valuable and the Brewers would be in the same position if they hadn't acquired him? This is what I'm hearing?

[big_shooter17]

This CC for MVP talk annoys me. His team has fallen one game farther behind the Cubs since his acquisition although they are now ahead in the Wild Card. This is a case of a player playing well and the team basically staying put. It is not as if his actions have catapulted them into first in the Central. The argument always is that the MVP should go to someone who makes the playoffs because they helped get them there. CC has done fantastically, don't get me wrong, but if we look at the standings, one could very easily argue that they would be in the same situation as they currently are without him. They have only dropped in the rankings. Then I move to that game that he pitched against the Cubs in which his team lost. This was an opportunity for him to really impact his team's position and he did not do what an MVP should do in that situation. If we say that CC can be the MVP then why not Rich Harden or any other player who changed leagues and saw his team remain in a similar position. Why not say Jason Bay then? In reality, the only player who was traded who has had a significant impact on his team's playoff chances is Manny Ramirez, but I can guarantee that he won't even come close. If CC does win the MVP and the Brewers do not end up improving their playoff positioning then there is no reason that Josh Hamilton should be discredited as he likely will be simply because Texas is out of the playoff picture. The thought process behind the whole MVP voting is absurd. There must be some consistency in the line of thinking out there because otherwise the award becomes meaningless.

 

The Brewers have actually played a lot better since CC joined the team. They're only further back in the division because the Cubs have played even better.

 

I don't disagree with this, but it is just that with the criteria used, he hasn't gotten his team to the top spot. He has been outstanding for them, but then one could argue in favour of jon rauch for example who has seen the D-Backs go from a .495 to a .516 while losing a game on the Dodgers. I am just being the devil's advocate here of course because Rauch is not deserving, but the criteria used to decide the winner of the MVP is so different from one guy to the next that I don't know how the winner can be determined. From my feelings on what the writers typically look at to choose the player, someone like Soriano would be equally or more deserving than CC because since his arrival back from the DL, the Cubs have increased their lead in the division.

[javy knows my name]

Who should win and who is likely to win should be the same effing discussion. If it isn't, then there is something wrong with the system and the award is cheapened. The voters need to realize this.

[jersey cubs fan]

Not that Aramis should or would win, but saying he's only played 116 games is a little ridiculous. If he played the rest of this year's games, he'd have played 154. Even if he misses a few more here and there, it's not like you have to play all 162 to be considered.

 

It's not a matter of whether or not he is considered. But if somebody has better numbers and ends up playing in 9-10 more games than him (he's on pace for 151) then it only makes sense that the other person would get the nod.

[big_shooter17]

Not that Aramis should or would win, but saying he's only played 116 games is a little ridiculous. If he played the rest of this year's games, he'd have played 154. Even if he misses a few more here and there, it's not like you have to play all 162 to be considered.

 

And here again, not to beat a dead horse, but Aramis playing 150+ is a lot more games than CC playing half the season or so for the Brewers. Obviously Aramis' numbers have to be there, but how can you discredit a guy for missing 10 or so games and then say that a half year player is deserving. The inconsistency of the MVP voting does as someone else said devalue the whole thing.

[Derwood]

I don't disagree with this, but it is just that with the criteria used, he hasn't gotten his team to the top spot. He has been outstanding for them, but then one could argue in favour of jon rauch for example who has seen the D-Backs go from a .495 to a .516 while losing a game on the Dodgers. I am just being the devil's advocate here of course because Rauch is not deserving, but the criteria used to decide the winner of the MVP is so different from one guy to the next that I don't know how the winner can be determined. From my feelings on what the writers typically look at to choose the player, someone like Soriano would be equally or more deserving than CC because since his arrival back from the DL, the Cubs have increased their lead in the division.

 

one might argue that without Sabathia, the Brewers would be 3rd place (or worse) right now. What pitcher did they have who was going to go 8-0 (while pretty consistently keep opposing teams from getting to whack around that bullpen) over this span?

[David]

I don't disagree with this, but it is just that with the criteria used, he hasn't gotten his team to the top spot. He has been outstanding for them, but then one could argue in favour of jon rauch for example who has seen the D-Backs go from a .495 to a .516 while losing a game on the Dodgers. I am just being the devil's advocate here of course because Rauch is not deserving, but the criteria used to decide the winner of the MVP is so different from one guy to the next that I don't know how the winner can be determined. From my feelings on what the writers typically look at to choose the player, someone like Soriano would be equally or more deserving than CC because since his arrival back from the DL, the Cubs have increased their lead in the division.

 

one might argue that without Sabathia, the Brewers would be 3rd place (or worse) right now. What pitcher did they have who was going to go 8-0 (while pretty consistently keep opposing teams from getting to whack around that bullpen) over this span?

 

what if the replacement pitcher went 4-2 and the bullpen won the other two... they wouldn't be that much worse off...

 

anyway, i'm just saying that it's not like he's worth 8 wins because he's 8-0 (not saying you're saying that, but the way you presented the point is sort of misleading)....

[big_shooter17]

I don't disagree with this, but it is just that with the criteria used, he hasn't gotten his team to the top spot. He has been outstanding for them, but then one could argue in favour of jon rauch for example who has seen the D-Backs go from a .495 to a .516 while losing a game on the Dodgers. I am just being the devil's advocate here of course because Rauch is not deserving, but the criteria used to decide the winner of the MVP is so different from one guy to the next that I don't know how the winner can be determined. From my feelings on what the writers typically look at to choose the player, someone like Soriano would be equally or more deserving than CC because since his arrival back from the DL, the Cubs have increased their lead in the division.

 

one might argue that without Sabathia, the Brewers would be 3rd place (or worse) right now. What pitcher did they have who was going to go 8-0 (while pretty consistently keep opposing teams from getting to whack around that bullpen) over this span?

 

what if the replacement pitcher went 4-2 and the bullpen won the other two... they wouldn't be that much worse off...

 

anyway, i'm just saying that it's not like he's worth 8 wins because he's 8-0 (not saying you're saying that, but the way you presented the point is sort of misleading)....

 

Exactly and even more importantly, he didn't win the most important start that he had since joining the team.

[Derwood]

I don't disagree with this, but it is just that with the criteria used, he hasn't gotten his team to the top spot. He has been outstanding for them, but then one could argue in favour of jon rauch for example who has seen the D-Backs go from a .495 to a .516 while losing a game on the Dodgers. I am just being the devil's advocate here of course because Rauch is not deserving, but the criteria used to decide the winner of the MVP is so different from one guy to the next that I don't know how the winner can be determined. From my feelings on what the writers typically look at to choose the player, someone like Soriano would be equally or more deserving than CC because since his arrival back from the DL, the Cubs have increased their lead in the division.

 

one might argue that without Sabathia, the Brewers would be 3rd place (or worse) right now. What pitcher did they have who was going to go 8-0 (while pretty consistently keep opposing teams from getting to whack around that bullpen) over this span?

 

what if the replacement pitcher went 4-2 and the bullpen won the other two... they wouldn't be that much worse off...

 

anyway, i'm just saying that it's not like he's worth 8 wins because he's 8-0 (not saying you're saying that, but the way you presented the point is sort of misleading)....

 

no, i'm not saying he's worth 8 wins, I'm just (poorly) trying refute the notion that the Brewers aren't any better with him than they were without him. I think that's clearly nonsense

[sneakypower]

edit: nm saw thread in BD with same sentiments

[big_shooter17]

I don't disagree with this, but it is just that with the criteria used, he hasn't gotten his team to the top spot. He has been outstanding for them, but then one could argue in favour of jon rauch for example who has seen the D-Backs go from a .495 to a .516 while losing a game on the Dodgers. I am just being the devil's advocate here of course because Rauch is not deserving, but the criteria used to decide the winner of the MVP is so different from one guy to the next that I don't know how the winner can be determined. From my feelings on what the writers typically look at to choose the player, someone like Soriano would be equally or more deserving than CC because since his arrival back from the DL, the Cubs have increased their lead in the division.

 

one might argue that without Sabathia, the Brewers would be 3rd place (or worse) right now. What pitcher did they have who was going to go 8-0 (while pretty consistently keep opposing teams from getting to whack around that bullpen) over this span?

 

what if the replacement pitcher went 4-2 and the bullpen won the other two... they wouldn't be that much worse off...

 

anyway, i'm just saying that it's not like he's worth 8 wins because he's 8-0 (not saying you're saying that, but the way you presented the point is sort of misleading)....

 

no, i'm not saying he's worth 8 wins, I'm just (poorly) trying refute the notion that the Brewers aren't any better with him than they were without him. I think that's clearly nonsense

 

They certainly are better with him than without, it is just that there are lots of players who have done as much or more to help their teams get to where they are than Sabathia.

[RedFlash]

If you're limiting MVP voting to the best players on playoff contending teams, you're looking at Pujols, Braun, Utley, Wright, CC, Webb.

 

If you're actually looking at the best player, Berkman or Pujols should win.

 

I agreed. But seeing as voters are mindless idiots, that will likely hold against both Berkman and Pujols for not leading their teams to the playoffs and neither is likely to win the award. I find that stupid, especially in Pujols case, but nothing says voters had to be smart, or use logic.