End of season MVP Discussion

[K-Town]

I'd hate to see Questec and instant replay...

 

Voting for MVP or the Cy Young has little bearing on anything except discussions with fans and potential HOF voting as well as contract incentives.

 

Certain things should be left up to human error, calls during the game is one of them.

The computers have no right with interfering

 

I agree. I was being sarcastic.

[K-Town]

We're not giving out the MVT (Most Valueable Team) it's the MVP, because it focuses on the worth of the individual performance.

 

Actually I think that's the Player of the Year award.

The MVP should go to the best player that propelled their team to the playoffs imo.

That said, I'm taking nothing away from Lee. He should get the POY.

 

But who remembers who the "Player of the Year" was in any given year? That alone tells you the relative worth of that award. It pales in comparison to the MVP. Is that the treatment that the best player in the league in any given year should get? Essentially forgotten because a lesser performing player had a happier set of circumstances beyond his control and took the big one, the MVP?

 

That's the whole point. Nobody cares if you were the best player on a 4th place team. That's a shame for Lee, but it's true.

 

Not just the best player on a 4th placed team, but the best player in the entire league. In the entire league, the best player. In league entire, player best. Best league entire player. Best entire player league. Derrek Lee. 2005 (apparently he wasn't this good in 2004). Jeez, it not complicated, even me understand, me not even Yank. Best player in entire league.

 

What does the fact that the best player in the entire league played on a 4th placed team say? It says that the teammates of this best player must have been pretty rubbish. Beyond that it says absolutely nothing. Besides that he's the best player. In the entire league.

 

....... but not necessarily the most valuable.

 

In my opinion, of course (and many others).

 

I looked up "value", and one of the definitions talks about "importance". Which player was more important this year, Lee or Pujols? Maybe that's how you should look at it. Because being the best player on a team that finished 4th isn't that important to some people.

 

So have we established then that Derrek Lee was the best player in all of the National League in 2005?

 

By some measures. Not by Win Shares, for instance.

[indifferent]

I also want an MVP that's going to excel all year long. Who knows where the Cubs would be if Lee had put up the kind of numbers he did the first half of the season or even Pujols type numbers?

 

Post All Star break

 

Lee Pujols

.961 OPS 1.068 OPS

.581 SLG .629 SLG

.287 AVG .320 AVG

.380 OBP .439 OBP

[K-Town]

I also want an MVP that's going to excel all year long. Who knows where the Cubs would be if Lee had put up the kind of numbers he did the first half of the season or even Pujols type numbers?

 

Post All Star break

 

Lee Pujols

.961 OPS 1.068 OPS

.581 SLG .629 SLG

.287 AVG .320 AVG

.380 OBP .439 OBP

 

That's a reasonable point. Do you want a guy who helps you score 10 runs in May, but only 2 in August, or do you want a guy who helps you score about 5 runs, consistently?

[Diffusion]

We're not giving out the MVT (Most Valueable Team) it's the MVP, because it focuses on the worth of the individual performance.

 

Actually I think that's the Player of the Year award.

The MVP should go to the best player that propelled their team to the playoffs imo.

That said, I'm taking nothing away from Lee. He should get the POY.

 

But who remembers who the "Player of the Year" was in any given year? That alone tells you the relative worth of that award. It pales in comparison to the MVP. Is that the treatment that the best player in the league in any given year should get? Essentially forgotten because a lesser performing player had a happier set of circumstances beyond his control and took the big one, the MVP?

 

That's the whole point. Nobody cares if you were the best player on a 4th place team. That's a shame for Lee, but it's true.

 

Not just the best player on a 4th placed team, but the best player in the entire league. In the entire league, the best player. In league entire, player best. Best league entire player. Best entire player league. Derrek Lee. 2005 (apparently he wasn't this good in 2004). Jeez, it not complicated, even me understand, me not even Yank. Best player in entire league.

 

What does the fact that the best player in the entire league played on a 4th placed team say? It says that the teammates of this best player must have been pretty rubbish. Beyond that it says absolutely nothing. Besides that he's the best player. In the entire league.

 

....... but not necessarily the most valuable.

 

In my opinion, of course (and many others).

 

I looked up "value", and one of the definitions talks about "importance". Which player was more important this year, Lee or Pujols? Maybe that's how you should look at it. Because being the best player on a team that finished 4th isn't that important to some people.

 

So have we established then that Derrek Lee was the best player in all of the National League in 2005?

 

By some measures. Not by Win Shares, for instance.

 

Yes, but Win Shares is a pile of nonsense anyway. And even Bill James will tell you that. It's not a player independent statistic.

 

To quote Sons of Samian earlier in this thread...

 

Bill James noted that the difference of up to 3 Win Shares isn't all that significant, so 0.1 certainly isn't.

 

I'm still surprised the Pujols got more offensive Win Shares than Lee -- I actually queried Dave Studeman at Hardball Times about this, and he said it was mainly down to St. Louis being much more efficient in matching up their team's actual runs with the team's Runs Created.

Edited October 7, 2005 by Diffusion

[EastonBlues22]

MVP = the everyday player that contributes more to their team than any other everyday player contributes to any other team

 

Cy Young = the pitcher that contributes more to their team than any other pitcher contributes to any other team

 

Exactly.

 

Never has been true, and probably never will be. It's an arbitrary thing. That's why it's voted on, rather than just punching the numbers into a computer. Someday, that might change. It hasn't yet.

 

It should be done thru a computer and not some sportswriter who is voting on a team he either sees 6 times or 162 times a year as a beat writer. It makes it much easier for a sportswriter to look at the standings rather than looking deeper into the numbers.

 

That's why the voting system is crap and it would be wrong if they didn't give it to Lee.

As much as the idea of something completely unbiased "computing" the winners of various postseason awards appeals to me, I think the BCS has shown that it's a practical impossibility at this point. Like someone else said, "value" is a concept that has a lot of wriggle room. What's valuable to one person might not be quite so valuable to another. How important is a winning team? How important is a strong finish during the stretch run? How important are rate stats? At least with the system that is currently in place, the player who is the most valuable to the most people wins. It's not perfect, granted, but at least it represents a consensus. The BCS can't even consistently produce that...

 

Besides, who has the final say in how the statistical contributions of a player are weighted for the computations? Should OBP be given a higher weight that BA? If so, how much? What about SLG? Is an RBI worth more than a run scored? How much is a steal worth? Does steal percentage matter? How important is hitting with RISP? How important is staying healthy? Does leadership matter? Does their place in the batting order matter? What about fielding percentage? How do you account for better or worse teammates? It would be an absolute nightmare to even attempt to create a formula that people would be satisfied with.

[Diffusion]

I also want an MVP that's going to excel all year long. Who knows where the Cubs would be if Lee had put up the kind of numbers he did the first half of the season or even Pujols type numbers?

 

Post All Star break

 

Lee Pujols

.961 OPS 1.068 OPS

.581 SLG .629 SLG

.287 AVG .320 AVG

.380 OBP .439 OBP

 

That's a reasonable point. Do you want a guy who helps you score 10 runs in May, but only 2 in August, or do you want a guy who helps you score about 5 runs, consistently?

 

Or do you want a guy that wins you 1.6 more games over the course of the entire season?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Dayn Perry pimps Derrek Lee for the MVP.

 

All too often, MVP debates devolve into risible, semantic-driven discussions over the meaning of the word "valuable" and whether a player on a non-consequential team can ever truly be — wait for it — valuable. Yawn. Passing over a player in the MVP voting because he's not on a contending club means penalizing him because his teammates are lousy. The BBWAA voting instructions expressly say that players in non-contending teams are to be considered. The only impartial standard is to give to award to the best player. And in 2005, the NL's best player was Derrek Lee of the Cubs.

 

 

Excellently written and well-stated.

[MPrior]

I also want an MVP that's going to excel all year long. Who knows where the Cubs would be if Lee had put up the kind of numbers he did the first half of the season or even Pujols type numbers?

 

Post All Star break

 

Lee Pujols

.961 OPS 1.068 OPS

.581 SLG .629 SLG

.287 AVG .320 AVG

.380 OBP .439 OBP

 

That's a reasonable point. Do you want a guy who helps you score 10 runs in May, but only 2 in August, or do you want a guy who helps you score about 5 runs, consistently?

 

This is an extremely weak point, actually. The flipside of it is equally true - I'm too lazy to do it, but if you look up the pre-all star break stats, I'm sure it will favor Lee just as much (in fact, moreso) as these favor Pujols. So Lee was significantly outperforming Pujols for the first 3/5 of the season, and Pujols outperformed Lee for the last 2/5 of the season. What's the big deal?

[Andy]

I also want an MVP that's going to excel all year long. Who knows where the Cubs would be if Lee had put up the kind of numbers he did the first half of the season or even Pujols type numbers?

 

Post All Star break

 

Lee Pujols

.961 OPS 1.068 OPS

.581 SLG .629 SLG

.287 AVG .320 AVG

.380 OBP .439 OBP

 

That's a reasonable point. Do you want a guy who helps you score 10 runs in May, but only 2 in August, or do you want a guy who helps you score about 5 runs, consistently?

 

This is an extremely weak point, actually. The flipside of it is equally true - I'm too lazy to do it, but if you look up the pre-all star break stats, I'm sure it will favor Lee just as much (in fact, moreso) as these favor Pujols. So Lee was significantly outperforming Pujols for the first 3/5 of the season, and Pujols outperformed Lee for the last 2/5 of the season. What's the big deal?

Especially considering that for the Cardinals, the first 3/5 of the season is when they jump out to their annual 25-game lead in the division before coasting the rest of the way.

[K-Town]

I also want an MVP that's going to excel all year long. Who knows where the Cubs would be if Lee had put up the kind of numbers he did the first half of the season or even Pujols type numbers?

 

Post All Star break

 

Lee Pujols

.961 OPS 1.068 OPS

.581 SLG .629 SLG

.287 AVG .320 AVG

.380 OBP .439 OBP

 

That's a reasonable point. Do you want a guy who helps you score 10 runs in May, but only 2 in August, or do you want a guy who helps you score about 5 runs, consistently?

 

This is an extremely weak point, actually. The flipside of it is equally true - I'm too lazy to do it, but if you look up the pre-all star break stats, I'm sure it will favor Lee just as much (in fact, moreso) as these favor Pujols. So Lee was significantly outperforming Pujols for the first 3/5 of the season, and Pujols outperformed Lee for the last 2/5 of the season. What's the big deal?

 

 

Their Win Shares were equal (Pujols had slightly more). VORP was extremely close. Honestly, both players were outstanding, and it's difficult to assertain which one had the better year. Therefore, I'd give it to the guy who does it consistently (Pujols) or the guy who did it for a winning team (Pujols).

 

If Lee had greatly out-performed Pujols, then he'd have a case. As it stands, I don't think he has a shot to win.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Why does he have to "greatly" outperform...why isn't it who outperformed? While it is close, Lee had the better season. Pujols may have finished stronger, but his strong finish didn't completely overcome Lee's strong start.

 

Yes, the numbers are close, but when taken altogether, Lee still has the greater numbers. Give the award to the best player, in this case, Derrek Lee. If it's an individual award, the abilities of the players around him shouldn't come into factor.

[K-Town]

Why does he have to "greatly" outperform...why isn't it who outperformed? While it is close, Lee had the better season. Pujols may have finished stronger, but his strong finish didn't completely overcome Lee's strong start.

 

Yes, the numbers are close, but when taken altogether, Lee still has the greater numbers. Give the award to the best player, in this case, Derrek Lee. If it's an individual award, the abilities of the players around him shouldn't come into factor.

 

 

"Greater numbers" is an arbitrary thing. Pujols had more Win Shares, so give it to him. Not many more Win Shares..... granted, but I guess he shouldn't have to have "many more", by your logic.

 

Alas, the MVP Award doesn't necessarily go to the player with the highest OPS every year. It goes to the player that the sportswriters feel helped their team the most (and I assume that things like leadership and such were taken into consideration, and not just on-field performance).

 

Lee had a great year, but a player in his position winning the MVP Award is almost unprecedented. He may still win...... I wouldn't throw a fit if he did, but I doubt it.

[UK1679666180]

These awards have proven to be a crock so far, I'll assume, they'll cont. to be a crock. Wins determined that Colon deserved the Cy over Santana and Rivera finishing 2nd for saves?

 

Typical awards garbage.

 

Lee deserves the MVP, won't be upset if Pujols deserves but, doesn't take away the fact that Lee was the most productive and production=value.

 

I hate the awards in general but, Cox and Guillen deserved the MOYs though. As much as I like Shapiro, Williams deserved over him, if only for one year.

[indifferent]

I also want an MVP that's going to excel all year long. Who knows where the Cubs would be if Lee had put up the kind of numbers he did the first half of the season or even Pujols type numbers?

 

Post All Star break

 

Lee Pujols

.961 OPS 1.068 OPS

.581 SLG .629 SLG

.287 AVG .320 AVG

.380 OBP .439 OBP

 

That's a reasonable point. Do you want a guy who helps you score 10 runs in May, but only 2 in August, or do you want a guy who helps you score about 5 runs, consistently?

 

This is an extremely weak point, actually. The flipside of it is equally true - I'm too lazy to do it, but if you look up the pre-all star break stats, I'm sure it will favor Lee just as much (in fact, moreso) as these favor Pujols. So Lee was significantly outperforming Pujols for the first 3/5 of the season, and Pujols outperformed Lee for the last 2/5 of the season. What's the big deal?

 

It's only a weak point if Lee's numbers didn't come back to earth right when the Cubs needed the extra help (tight race for the Wild Card). The other point is that Pujols was more consistent throughout the season.

[gus_dog]

I also want an MVP that's going to excel all year long. Who knows where the Cubs would be if Lee had put up the kind of numbers he did the first half of the season or even Pujols type numbers?

 

Post All Star break

 

Lee Pujols

.961 OPS 1.068 OPS

.581 SLG .629 SLG

.287 AVG .320 AVG

.380 OBP .439 OBP

 

That's a reasonable point. Do you want a guy who helps you score 10 runs in May, but only 2 in August, or do you want a guy who helps you score about 5 runs, consistently?

 

This is an extremely weak point, actually. The flipside of it is equally true - I'm too lazy to do it, but if you look up the pre-all star break stats, I'm sure it will favor Lee just as much (in fact, moreso) as these favor Pujols. So Lee was significantly outperforming Pujols for the first 3/5 of the season, and Pujols outperformed Lee for the last 2/5 of the season. What's the big deal?

 

It's only a weak point if Lee's numbers didn't come back to earth right when the Cubs needed the extra help (tight race for the Wild Card). The other point is that Pujols was more consistent throughout the season.

 

I disagree. The voter should look at the whole season in aggregate. Looking at it piecemeal is not fair to anyone, period.

[cubbieinexile]

I may be a Cub Fan but I can see the writing on the wall. Sammy Sosa had a great season. Bonds had the greatest. I see no reason why a Cub fan can't accept that or even appreciate Sosa's season without having to knock another player to do so. First a few flaws on peoples argument for Sosa.

One: Sosa was not the main reason the Cubs had a winning record. If you look at the last 4 Cub seasons you will see that the Cubs only do well when there pitching is good. Pitching is the main reason the Cubs won games this year, and in 98, and in 99 before the pitching staff collapsed in the summer. Not Sosa. If Sosa was the main reason we won games then shouldn't we of had winning seasons in each of the last four seasons. Does anybody here actually think we would have had a winning record if we had last years pitching staff? For Crying out loud this year’s staff gave up 200 less runs!!! That's right 200 less runs!! While the offense added only 13 more runs. In fact this year's pitching staff was the best staff we had since the strike shortened 1995 season. And if you discount that season you have to go back to the less offensive era of 1992 in which we had Maddux and Morgan with ERA's of less than 3.00 and Castillo with a 3.46. Our pitching staff was why we improved by 23 games.

Two: Everybody likes to look at the other Cubs player’s numbers to point out the fact that he was the only one performing. The fact of the matter is that is not true. Only one other player on the Cubs team was allowed to get as many plate appearances as Sosa. And that player was Young everybody else got platooned or sat regularly. But if you look at their percentages you see that there player on our team that performed well. After all we did have the 7th best offense in the league and since Sosa only hit 64 home runs somebody else had to be on base for him to get his RBI's and somebody had to knock him in for him to get his runs. Matt Stairs and Ricky Gutierrez both performed their roles very well. McGriff, White, Mueller, and Deshields all did very well when they played. Sosa only knocked in 160 of the 777 runs the Cubs scored. To say he was the sole offense of the Cubs is ridiculous. Now then some of you might be saying that he sets the table that he provides everybody else with opportunities. By getting on base and being such a threat that pitchers don't pitch to him. Well guess what that is what happens to Bonds all the time for the last 6 years. Yet all of you guys deduct points from Bonds when people bring this up, but yet don't hesitate to award Sosa points on the very same issue. Bonds makes the players around him better, it is that plain and simple. If you can't see that then you really don't understand the basic principles of baseball.

Third: Sosa had way more opportunities to score or drive in runs than Bonds. If you look at each players percentages you see that Bonds projects similar totals to Sosa's RBI's and Run scored. BBonds is right, if you have ever watched more than one Giants game you will see that nobody pitched to him. Even when they didn't intentionally pitch to him they gave him nothing to hit. Was I the only Cub fan who watched a Giants game this year? It seems most of us chose not to see that most of the pitches thrown his way were unhittable. Two other reasons why Bonds numbers were low are Aurilia and Kent. Aurilia lowered Bonds number by not being your typical #2 hitter. Aurilia could have been the #3 hitter on most teams but because Bonds was there they put him second and cleared the basepaths more times than any other #2 guy. Most #2 guys when they get a hit it will be a single or a double thus giving #3 guy an extra run to drive in. In fact having Aurilia bat in front of him only produced 7 more runners reaching base from the #2 slot (Hits+BB-HR), and in fact the Cubs 1 and 2 hitters got on base more times for Sosa than the Giants hitters did for Bonds. That decreased Bonds RBI totals but Aurilia benefited from Bonds presence. Pitchers could not pitch around him because if they did they had to pitch to Bonds with runners on. Bonds only had 198 AB with runners on while Sosa had 272 AB. If you gave Bonds the same number of ABs he would have had 125 RBI's instead of the 91 we had and that would give him one more RBI than Sosa in the same situation. Bonds would have finished with 171 RBI's given the same opportunities.

Now then Bonds runs scored suffered because the supposedly great Kent could not drive him home. Bonds reached base 266 times (H+BB+HBP-HR-CS) and yet his team only managed to get him home 56 times for ratio of basically once out of every 5 opportunities. While Sosa reached base 245 times and his team managed to knock him in 82 times for a ratio of once every three times. Also note that Sosa never stole a base this year while Bonds stole 13, so Bonds actually helped his team increase his chances of scoring by moving into scoring position more often. If the Giants and their supposedly better offense knocked in Bonds at the same rate as Sosa’s team did for him he would have 162 runs scored!! So how anyone could say that Bonds supporting cast was better is beyond me. If Bonds had been the Cubs #3 hitter he would have had 162 runs and 171 RBI and who knows how many HR. While Sosa on the Giants would of had 120 runs and 126 RBI.

Runs and RBI's are team dependant to attach them to a lone player as if he was the main reason is foolish. The only time a player is solely responsible for Runs or RBI's is a home run and sometimes not even then. So you have to base your decisions on ratio. What a player did when given the chance. And Bonds in almost every case has a better ratio than Sosa. All he needed was the opportunity unfortunately his team and the opposing pitchers did not give him as many chances as they did for Sosa.

So that basically. . . .oh wait you mean this year! My bad sorry. Andruw Jones should win it. . . Just joking wanted to see if you got the end.

[gus_dog]

Pujols won.

[Mark_R]

None of the dopes at ESPN (all 17 who did their little mock vote) voted for Derrek Lee.

 

Shocking, I know.

 

I'm just shocked no one voted for Barry Bonds ;)

[erik316wttn]

The Cardinals still win the division without Albert Pujols.

 

The Cubs finish in AAA without DLee.

 

Just because I haven't typed it in a while... MVLEE!

[wolf stansson]

The Cardinals still win the division without Albert Pujols.

I don't know about that.