D-Lee MVP Odds

[Derwood]

Back to the topic at hand...

 

I think Lee's odds are getting worse daily. His quest for the TC is all but over (A.Jones is way ahead in RBI). I just don't think the voters will give it to him when he's the only of the big three to not be on a division leading team. Plus, he's cooling off a bit as Jones is heating up.

[sonofsamiam]

Okay then explain why that is so. Are they saying that if we based win shares on pyth he would get more or less.

 

I just don't see it. Win Shares has nothing to do with pythagorean expectations.

 

On the same site they explain how they calculate Win Shares and they make no mention of pyth expectations. I have the Win Shares book and I have never read anything about pythagorean and how it is used to calculate win shares

 

 

 

Basically what I think the author is saying is that if we went by pyth wins and losses (which to statheads they feel is more important) then a player would get more or less win shares depending on the difference. But that is using Win Shares incorrectly. Win Shares is trying to explain how a team won its games not the supposed value of events in baseball. Metrics like VORP and WARP do that

 

I pretty much agree with you -- I had never considered that part of it. I think maybe it's because if a team scores more runs than their expected runs based on runs created, that is reflected by Pythagorean record. And since runs created is a large component of Win Shares, players get their numbers rounded up to meet the team wins x 3.

 

I actually e-mailed Dave Studeman with the Hardball Times, asking how Pujols could have 2 more hitting Win Shares than Lee, despite Lee being better than him in virtually every relevant offensive category.

 

Here's the text:

 

(Me)

 

I've got (yet another, I'm sure) Win Shares question how is it that Pujols has a full 2 more offensive Win Shares than Derrek Lee? I look at their individual stats -- Lee has a better OPS (by 0.40) and GPA, has more Runs Created and RC/G, they have about equivalent SB numbers, and Lee's hit slightly better with RISP. Plus, according to ESPN, Busch has been a much better hitter's park than Wrigley this year.

 

Can this all come down to St. Louis having a much better actual record over its Pythagorean record than Chicago?

 

Also, it's interesting that you mention Pujols as pulling away from Lee, while Joe Sheehan today on Baseball Prospectus argues that Lee deserves the MVP. Now, I have no problem with Pujols winning the MVP -- he and Lee have roughly equivalent numbers, and the relative "tie" can be broken based on the team success. But you seem to intimate that Pujols is starting to run away with it, which I don't think is true.

 

Either way, I agree wholeheartedly that Andruw Jones doesn't deserve the award. Sadly, it's sounding more and more like he'll get it. (And meanwhile the drum is beating for Ortiz in the AL.) Good ol' RBIs win out every time...

 

(Dave)

 

Great questions and points. Thanks. You're right that "pulling away" is overstating the case. Pujols now is one Win Share ahead of Lee, and they were tied a week ago. Not exactly "pulling away," is it.

 

But I have to say that I think Joe is being a little silly when he says that Lee definitely deserves the MVP over Pujols. Even I admit that the THT stats don't capture everything, and I don't think BPro's do, either. To me, the stats indicate that Pujols and Lee are pretty much tied and you could vote either way.

 

As for Win Shares, I think there are two things driving the difference between Pujols and Lee. First, as you noted, is a slight difference in the Pythagorean variances. Second, the Cardinals have scored relatively more runs, compared to their runs created total, than the Cubs have. As you may know, Win Shares are based on actual runs scored, not projected runs scored. So Pujols gets a pickup there.

 

Both of these factors would also explain some of the difference between WARP and Win Shares. One other thing: Wrigley and Busch may be relatively even this year, but Win Shares (and our Runs Created formulas) are based on multi-year park factors. And Busch has been primarily a pitcher's park over the last four-five years.

 

Take all that for what you will....

[cubbieinexile]

Heres the thing though. Win Shares is based on runs created but runs created is tied to actual runs. So if their is a discrepency then the runs created gets adjusted. So if the Cardinals have 900 runs created but only 850 actual runs then the runs created gets reduced by 50 runs and all players gets their RC reduced by the same %. So even if their is a difference it doesn't matter because it gets removed before win shares are assigned.

 

But again though it seems to me that Studes is looking at it from the eye of a predictor. He is saying things like scoring more runs then predicted so on and so on. So to me he is saying that Pujols is getting more runs then predicted. That isn't a boost or an unfair advantage it simply means that the system is not a good model for accurately describing what is happening on the field. Win Shares is not a predictor it is simply a device that tries to capture the value of what happened on the field. Its not a true talent metric. Pujols is worth 35 win shares (or whatever it is) to the Cardinals. That does not mean he would be worth 35 win shares to the Cubs or 35 win shares to the 1996 Red Sox.

[JGalt73]

Heres the thing though. Win Shares is based on runs created but runs created is tied to actual runs. So if their is a discrepency then the runs created gets adjusted. So if the Cardinals have 900 runs created but only 850 actual runs then the runs created gets reduced by 50 runs and all players gets their RC reduced by the same %. So even if their is a difference it doesn't matter because it gets removed before win shares are assigned.

 

But again though it seems to me that Studes is looking at it from the eye of a predictor. He is saying things like scoring more runs then predicted so on and so on. So to me he is saying that Pujols is getting more runs then predicted. That isn't a boost or an unfair advantage it simply means that the system is not a good model for accurately describing what is happening on the field. Win Shares is not a predictor it is simply a device that tries to capture the value of what happened on the field. Its not a true talent metric. Pujols is worth 35 win shares (or whatever it is) to the Cardinals. That does not mean he would be worth 35 win shares to the Cubs or 35 win shares to the 1996 Red Sox.

 

But the ability to compare players on different teams and different eras was the impetus for the creation of win shares. There are certainly times where these metrics fall down a bit, but as a whole they appear to do a reasonable job of assigning merit.

[cubbieinexile]

Comapre yes. Albert in 2002 was responsible for 35 win shares. Garth Iorg in 1978 was responsible for 18 win shares. But that does not mean we can transplan their number onto another team and say that Garth exact stats in 1978 would be worth 18 win shares to the Yankees in 1989.

 

You can't pick out a lineup of all star seasons add up their win shares and say that this team based on win shares would win 175 games in a season. You can't slip out a 10 win share first basemen and replace him with a 40 win share first basemen and say that it would improve the team by 10 wins. That 40 win share performance might only be worth 32 win shares for his new team.

[JGalt73]

And we have a new VORP leader - the 20 point lead has finally evaporated.

[Derwood]

If the MVP was given out by sabermetricians, all this talk of VORP and Win Shares and such would be fine. But it's not. It's given by people who likely either cast their ballot at the 11th hour in a rush, or give people awards based on the "sexy" numbers like HR and batting average.

 

I think Andruw Jones wins it simply because of his HR numbers and his hot finish to the season. I'm not saying he should, but that he will.

[1wizard]

I think Andruw Jones wins it simply because of his HR numbers and his hot finish to the season. I'm not saying he should, but that he will.

 

I agree. It helps that ESPN is treating his every at bat like that of Barry Bonds. Plus other media sources are really putting some stock in AJ. I just find it hard to believe that Albert or Lee do not win it. Jones has had far more RBI opportunities and his supporting cast is far better than that of the Albert's. Moreover, I do not see how you can give the MVP to a hitter that is batting around .275 when you have two guys batting .340ish with better OBP and Slg %.

 

Here are the number is comparison with the NL leaders:

OBP

1. Albert .434

4. Lee .423

31. Jones .358

 

Slg%

1. Lee .674

2. Albert .633

3. Jones .601

 

BA

1. Lee .343

2. Pujols .338

40. Jones .275

 

I could see how voters could reward D. Lee for a great season or Albert for being so consistant on the best team in MLB (record wise). Yet, to give it to Jones is just absurd.

[Derwood]

I think Andruw Jones wins it simply because of his HR numbers and his hot finish to the season. I'm not saying he should, but that he will.

 

I agree. It helps that ESPN is treating his every at bat like that of Barry Bonds. Plus other media sources are really putting some stock in AJ. I just find it hard to believe that Albert or Lee do not win it. Jones has had far more RBI opportunities and his supporting cast is far better than that of the Albert's. Moreover, I do not see how you can give the MVP to a hitter that is batting around .275 when you have two guys batting .340ish with better OBP and Slg %.

 

Here are the number is comparison with the NL leaders:

OBP

1. Albert .434

4. Lee .423

31. Jones .358

 

Slg%

1. Lee .674

2. Albert .633

3. Jones .601

 

BA

1. Lee .343

2. Pujols .338

40. Jones .275

 

I could see how voters could reward D. Lee for a great season or Albert for being so consistant on the best team in MLB (record wise). Yet, to give it to Jones is just absurd.

 

What are the numbers for runs, RBI and runs created?

[1wizard]

Runs

1. Albert 117

2. Lee 110

11. Jones 87

 

RBIs

1. Jones 119

2. Albert 107

7. Lee 99

 

Runs Created? If you know feel free to post them.

 

I personally think that the voters got it right when Sosa beat Big Mac. Mac had the homerun record but Sosa's numbers were just better. If Jones wins it because of HRs than it is a joke. I already know that ESPN's baseball cast are jokes.

[imb]

Runs

1. Albert 117

2. Lee 110

11. Jones 87

 

RBIs

1. Jones 119

2. Albert 107

7. Lee 99

 

Runs Created? If you know feel free to post them.

 

I personally think that the voters got it right when Sosa beat Big Mac. Mac had the homerun record but Sosa's numbers were just better. If Jones wins it because of HRs than it is a joke. I already know that ESPN's baseball cast are jokes.

 

Really?

 

Sosa-.308/.377/.647 66HR 158RBI

McGwire-.299/.470/.752 70HR 147RBI

 

McGwire got ROBBED.

[treebird]

Runs

1. Albert 117

2. Lee 110

11. Jones 87

 

RBIs

1. Jones 119

2. Albert 107

7. Lee 99

 

Runs Created? If you know feel free to post them.

 

I personally think that the voters got it right when Sosa beat Big Mac. Mac had the homerun record but Sosa's numbers were just better. If Jones wins it because of HRs than it is a joke. I already know that ESPN's baseball cast are jokes.

 

Really?

 

Sosa-.308/.377/.647 66HR 158RBI

McGwire-.299/.470/.752 70HR 147RBI

 

McGwire got ROBBED.

 

back then i was really dumb at numbers in baseball. i remember reading a rob neyer column at the end of the season about how mcgwire should win mvp going away, and one of the numbers he used was runs created. i looked up the formula and saw how crazy it was and i printed it out showed my dad how dumb it was to think that this insane formula should be used to determine the best player instead of stats like hr and rbi.

[Derwood]

Two more dingers by Andruw tonight. Another nail in Lee's MVP Coffin?

[K-Town]

At this point, I can live with Pujols or Lee winning the MVP, but I'm not sure I can stomach Andruw Jones winning it. That would be a crime. Unfortunately, I think it's his to lose, now.

[Derwood]

I think it's all about finishing hot, and being a crucial member of your team's success (unless you just have silly good numbers like Dawson or Bonds)

 

Lee started hot, cooling off:

 

APR: .419, 7, 28
MAY: .313, 9, 18
JUN: .407, 7, 19
JLY: .303, 9, 18
AUG: .284, 7, 11
SEP: .297, 2, 5

 

Jones, however:

 

APR: .239, 3, 12
MAY: .283, 9, 18
JUN: .317, 13, 26
JLY: .253, 7, 23
AUG: .272, 11, 29
SEP: .297, 6, 13

 

Bad batting average? Sure. But his RBI numbers have been awesome, especially since June.

[indifferent]

Funniest post I've seen in awhile from the ESPN MLB board:

 

I hearby dub the Andruw Jones for mvp argument, the 'Goldilocks' argument. it goes like this:

 

Derek Lee, team is too bad. Albert Pujols, team is too good. Andruw Jones, team is juuuuussssst right!

 

What a stupid argument.

[rynesrevenge0206]

Funniest post I've seen in awhile from the ESPN MLB board:

 

I hearby dub the Andruw Jones for mvp argument, the 'Goldilocks' argument. it goes like this:

 

Derek Lee, team is too bad. Albert Pujols, team is too good. Andruw Jones, team is juuuuussssst right!

 

What a stupid argument.

 

hahaha, I love it.

[rynesrevenge0206]

UPDATE:

 

This from Yahoo! Fantasy Sports (written this morning):

 

At this point in the season, writing about Lee is like the comic who has resorted to buying a joke book…there is simply nothing left to say. He's been amazing and it would be incredibly surprising if he didn't walk away with the MVP trophy.

 

??????? Now he's going to win???

[Chocolate Milk]

McGwire-.299/.470/.752 70HR 147RBI

 

:shock:

[CuseCubFan69]

Am I the only one that doesn't care about individual awards? I really could care less who wins the MVP or any other "voted" for award. I suppose this stuff is good for the Hall of Fame resume but it just seems way too varied in how people look at these awards. Clemens vs Carpenter/Willis and good player on bad team vs Good players on Good teams there is just way too much of a range on what the requirements are.

[sethuel1]

Am I the only one that doesn't care about individual awards? I really could care less who wins the MVP or any other "voted" for award. I suppose this stuff is good for the Hall of Fame resume but it just seems way too varied in how people look at these awards. Clemens vs Carpenter/Willis and good player on bad team vs Good players on Good teams there is just way too much of a range on what the requirements are.

 

I agree with you. I could really care less about anything thats voted on, other than the Hall of Fame.

 

Although it was nice to see Lee's All-star voting comeback this year as well.

 

But the Cy Young/Rolaids Reliever/MVP stuff? I've never really gotten into it.

[goonys evil twin]

Am I the only one that doesn't care about individual awards? I really could care less who wins the MVP or any other "voted" for award. I suppose this stuff is good for the Hall of Fame resume but it just seems way too varied in how people look at these awards. Clemens vs Carpenter/Willis and good player on bad team vs Good players on Good teams there is just way too much of a range on what the requirements are.

 

I agree with you. I could really care less about anything thats voted on, other than the Hall of Fame.

 

Although it was nice to see Lee's All-star voting comeback this year as well.

 

But the Cy Young/Rolaids Reliever/MVP stuff? I've never really gotten into it.

 

I care about the HOF even less. To me it's like the Oscars or Emmys, a bunch of insiders congratulating themselves on their greatness. Writers spend an inordinate amount of time writing about who they will or will not vote on because they get that vote for supposedly writing about baseball. Play the games and hand out the trophy at the end, the rest is BS.

[CuseCubFan69]

Am I the only one that doesn't care about individual awards? I really could care less who wins the MVP or any other "voted" for award. I suppose this stuff is good for the Hall of Fame resume but it just seems way too varied in how people look at these awards. Clemens vs Carpenter/Willis and good player on bad team vs Good players on Good teams there is just way too much of a range on what the requirements are.

 

I agree with you. I could really care less about anything thats voted on, other than the Hall of Fame.

 

Although it was nice to see Lee's All-star voting comeback this year as well.

 

But the Cy Young/Rolaids Reliever/MVP stuff? I've never really gotten into it.

 

I care about the HOF even less. To me it's like the Oscars or Emmys, a bunch of insiders congratulating themselves on their greatness. Writers spend an inordinate amount of time writing about who they will or will not vote on because they get that vote for supposedly writing about baseball. Play the games and hand out the trophy at the end, the rest is BS.

 

I agree. You put pitcher X on a good team and instead of a 500 win percentage he wins a lot more games thus getting more votes. He isn't any better just on a better team..

[sethuel1]

i suppose without the ongoing Ron Santo fiasco, along with Sandberg just being inducted, I probably wouldn't care about the hall nearly as much

[CuseCubFan69]

i suppose without the ongoing Ron Santo fiasco, along with Sandberg just being inducted, I probably wouldn't care about the hall nearly as much

 

It's fun to have a Cub inducted and pretty exciting for the fans and the player. I just hate the way they do it. I am also more of a team believer and not into individual awards. I never give away individual awards for my teams, and very rarely a game ball to a player.